Talk:James J. Hamula

Timing of calling

This is a strange point. The person placed in the "called by" box in the G.A. template is usually the person who was president of the church when the person was sustained/ordained to the position. In this case, that was Thomas S. Monson. An anonymous editor's recent edit suggested that he was called by Henry B. Eyring on behalf of Gordon B. Hinckley, supposedly before Hinckley's death. This may well be true, in the sense that the calling may have been extended by Hinckley's representative prior to Hinckley's death. However, there are no sources that can support this—the calling was not announced to the church until April 2008, by which time Hinckley had died and Monson had become the president.

Without a reliable source that states Hinckley was the source of the calling some months prior to April 2008, I don't think we can do anything but say it was Monson, since he was president in April 2008. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right. Whether or not Hamula's call was under consideration or directed by President Hinckley prior to his death on January 27, 2008, the relevant point is that the actual call was issued and he was sustained among the first General Authorities called during Monson's tenure. That would be my thoughts on the subject. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal Reason Adultery/Pornography

I have it from several sources in the church that Hamula was released due to conduct related to extra-marital affairs and viewing pornography, but I can only locate unreliable sources which hint at it or discuss it. [1][2][3]. If anyone has reliable sources about this please post them here for review and inclusion in the article if this can be verified. My sources inside the church are very reliable but unfortunately they would be WP:OR and do not meet wikipedia's standard for inclusion in his bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be very much interested in how these individuals "in the Church" were authorized to release that information. The source you cited is a blatantly anti-LDS source that thrives on feeding rumors and arguments that are either not authorized, endorsed, verified, or confirmed by the Church. Until the Church or Hamula actually comes out and confirms that, it is at best speculation that cannot be taken as gospel or verified information. The Church has only officially stated on this point that it was not for teaching false doctrine or for disillusionment. In the cases of Richard R. Lyman and even George P. Lee, much more was made public. But the wording of the official release from the Church leaves the question of specifics ambiguous and highly speculative at best. I would not trust a site that is specifically geared towards anti-Mormon rhetoric and bashing of the Church and its members. In fact, it does not meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. So unless Hamula or the Church releases more information, it is speculation at best to assume or assert the reason for this. -Jgstokes (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The folks I know got it from the leaking sieve of gossip mongering that permeates the church, but sadly, I have found this rumor mongering mechanism inside the church to be highly accurate and reliable, it's folks I have known for 30+ years. Let' stay away from classifying any sources as "anti-mormon" since this is not a criteria or category listed in WP:RS. Lot's of these forums have dropped hints as to what's up here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not personally attempting to classify the cited source as being anti-Mormon. The website in question classified itself as such, and has been quite vituperative towards the Church and its leaders. And that is evidenced strongly by the description of that thread. I don't think you could convince anyone that this source meets Wikipedia's reliable source policies or a source that meets Wikipedia's policies about displaying a neutral point of view. I wouldn't trust the source cited above for two reasons. First, the only ones that know the true facts of this case are Hamula and those who carried out the disciplinary action. No one else was present when that happened. Therefore, until the Church or Hamula clarifies what actually went on during that meeting (which may not happen at all, as this is a very personal matter for all concerned, and as such disciplinary councils are always conducted in confidentiality), then no definitive answer will be found. There have been cases in the past (such as for the apostle Richard R. Lyman, who was excommunicated as a result of violating the Christian laws of chastity and fidelity) where the Church will release a brief statement on why that process was needed. In any other case, unless the transgressor or the Church leaders choose to make it known, it is something that is only known to the Church leaders and to Hamula himself. The news stories I read about this case said that more information would be subsequently provided as it becomes available, but nothing has been released in the way of clarification. For that reason, unless any other articles written on the subject include a statement to clarify (from either party), I don't think we can say point-blank that the source you cited is reliable and verifiable enough to be proven as true. Just wanted to note that as well, for what it's worth. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I already stated in the very first paragraph that I did not consider exmormon.org a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, and I stated that I was providing it for discussion if any other editors had any reliable sources for these claims on exmormon.org, which I summarized. And source three is not from exmormon.org, it is a reliable statement by his brother in law, who was in the know as to why he was disfellowshiped. The church will only make the information public if Hamula opens his mouth about it and forces the issue, which the church has done in the past to other folks who were excommunicated. Doesn't change the facts circulating through the mormon forums, but to be honest, this issue has died down in the press so I am not certain it will remain on the radar much longer. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)