Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[rockpond]

Last night, Carson & Marisa Calderwood were excommunicated (in the words of Carson) "Because we publicly share our doubts over core doctrines and that can cause others to doubt as well, we are apostates and have to be excommunicated."

 

Here are the articles that Carson published:  http://rationalfaiths.com/author/carcalderwood/

 

And this is his MS interview in which he shares his story:  http://mormonstories.org/carson-calderwood-more-lds-apostasy-disciplinary-councils-in-2015/

 

As I've stated before, I think the Church is struggling with figuring out exactly what constitutes apostasy requiring disciplinary action.  The handbook says the following in the section titled "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory" (6.7.3):
 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy.

 

Thoughts?

Edited May 22, 2015 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

 

Last night, Carson & Marisa Calderwood were excommunicated (in the words of Carson) "Because we publicly share our doubts over core doctrines and that can cause others to doubt as well, we are apostates and have to be excommunicated."

 

Here are the articles that Carson published:  http://rationalfaiths.com/author/carcalderwood/

 

And this is his MS interview in which he shares his story:  http://mormonstories.org/carson-calderwood-more-lds-apostasy-disciplinary-councils-in-2015/

 

As I've stated before, I think the Church is struggling with figuring out exactly what constitutes apostasy requiring disciplinary action.  The handbook says the following in the section titled "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory" (6.7.3):

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

They clearly fall under #1 and #2.

[rockpond]

They clearly fall under #1 and #2.

 

Can you provide any evidence of that or just opinion?

[gclayjr]

Physician Heal thy self!

 

"After experiencing significant questions and doubts a few years go, Carson realized how many local LDS church members were struggling over matters of faith, and began trying to help local members of his ward and stake find joy and healing amidst their LDS faith crises.

"

 

As we know the Church and Church Leaders are forbidden to discuss the details of any excommunication, so we only get one side. However, It looks to me like he is locating people struggling with doctrinal issues, then encouraging them to be comfortable with apostasy.

 

 

 Regards,

 

George Clay

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Last night, Carson & Marisa Calderwood were excommunicated (in the words of Carson) "Because we publicly share our doubts over core doctrines and that can cause others to doubt as well, we are apostates and have to be excommunicated."

 

Here are the articles that Carson published:  http://rationalfaiths.com/author/carcalderwood/

 

And this is his MS interview in which he shares his story:  http://mormonstories.org/carson-calderwood-more-lds-apostasy-disciplinary-councils-in-2015/

 

As I've stated before, I think the Church is struggling with figuring out exactly what constitutes apostasy requiring disciplinary action.  The handbook says the following in the section titled "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory" (6.7.3):

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy.

 

Thoughts?

 

It is unrealistic to presume that holding forth on the Internet with one's views is not publicly expressing them. The Internet is arguably the most public medium of expression the world has ever seen.

[CV75]

Thoughts?

Never heard of them until now, and their blog has the appeal of hobo-flavored mouthwash! "Thanks" for "sharing"!

[Calm]

Scott, there does not seem a denial of publicizing, but rather they don't see the level of expressing doubt as being in opposition.

I think there can be a lot of overlap, IMO.

I believe it was Dehlin's leader who made it clear the problem was when expressing doubts includes creating an environment that fosters doubts in others and continues to do this knowing the result.

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Wait... what?! I hadn't heard his name bantered about! There was a AP in my mission with that name... I wonder... How many can there be?

Edited May 22, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yep, that's him alright. Small world.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, there does not seem a denial of publicizing, but rather they don't see the level of expressing doubt as being in opposition.

I think there can be a lot of overlap, IMO.

I believe it was Dehlin's leader who made it clear the problem was when expressing doubts includes creating an environment that fosters doubts in others and continues to do this knowing the result.

With the potential reach of the Internet, it's difficult to see how expressing one's doubts thereby would fail to create such an environment.

 

These days any average person with a computer and ISP can have a reach that was unheard by those of us who remember well the days of ink on paper.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Another one bites the dust.

 

When are members of the church going to learn, that the same freedom of speech rights that they may enjoy(and abuse) within the confines of the USA, are not extended by the CofJCofLDS.

[smac97]

Last night, Carson & Marisa Calderwood were excommunicated (in the words of Carson) "Because we publicly share our doubts over core doctrines and that can cause others to doubt as well, we are apostates and have to be excommunicated."

 

Here are the articles that Carson published:  http://rationalfaiths.com/author/carcalderwood/

 

And this is his MS interview in which he shares his story:  http://mormonstories.org/carson-calderwood-more-lds-apostasy-disciplinary-councils-in-2015/

 

As I've stated before, I think the Church is struggling with figuring out exactly what constitutes apostasy requiring disciplinary action.  The handbook says the following in the section titled "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory" (6.7.3):

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy.

 

Thoughts?

 

A few thoughts:

1. I think the recent publicized disciplinary actions involving Denver Snuffer, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and now the Calderwoods can be reasonably analyzed through the existing framework of what constitutes "apostasy." Specifically, the first and second definitions ("1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and "2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority").

2. I reject the suggestion that any of these people have been disciplined for merely "expressing doubt." In each instance there has been far, far more conduct alleged (and admitted) than merely "expressing doubt."

3. The third definition of apostasy ("Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority") would seem to create an axiomatic assumption that if following the teachings of an apostate sect is grounds for discipline, then so is creating an apostate sect.

4. I find your benign characterization of what the Calderwoods have done to be fairly suspect.  They have published declarations to the world that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states," that Carson has "became thoroughly convinced that the church isn’t true," that the Church " is just plain wrong on so many issues," that the LDS Church " is not, and never has been, God’s one and only true church on the earth," that it teaches "too much philosophy of men to truly be from God," that church leaders have  "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and that their (the Calderwoods') "loyalty is not to the church but truth and righteousness."  And these are just from a very cursory skimming of their writings.  And yet you came to this board and characterize the Calderwoods as merely "expressing doubt."  The mind reels.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Another one bites the dust.

 

When are members of the church going to learn, that the same freedom of speech rights that they may enjoy(and abuse) within the confines of the USA, are not extended by the CofJCofLDS.

 

I don't understand your point.  Are you accusing the LDS Church of inhibiting constitutional rights?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ELF1024]

Another one bites the dust.

 

When are members of the church going to learn, that the same freedom of speech rights that they may enjoy(and abuse) within the confines of the USA, are not extended by the CofJCofLDS.

 

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences from that speech.

 

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how being removed from an organization they do not believe in; is somehow removing their ability to continue their efforts on their blog or somehow limits their speech.

 

(edited)

Edited May 22, 2015 by ELF1024

[Calm]

 

I don't understand your point.  Are you accusing the LDS Church of inhibiting constitutional rights?

 

My impression was he was pointing out that sometimes people seem to mix up the Church with the government.

 

Kate Kelly's appeal, iirc, read more like it was using arguments for appealing a criminal/civil trial rather than a church council.

[Senator]

I don't understand your point.  Are you accusing the LDS Church of inhibiting constitutional rights?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

No

 

Freedom of speech as a member of the church, in regards to the church, is not the same as that of a citizen of USA in regards to the USA.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another one bites the dust.

 

This remark distorts the fact that, if anything, the Church errs on the side of leniency in administering discipline for infractions.

 

When are members of the church going to learn, that the same freedom of speech rights that they may enjoy(and abuse) within the confines of the USA, are not extended by the CofJCofLDS.

 

When are you going to learn that freedom of speech is a concept that pertains to the relationship between a government and its constituency and that, in a free and democratic state, private organizations have every right to establish and enforce certain standards of behavior -- including speech -- as a condition for membership in said organizations.

[smac97]

My impression was he was pointing out that sometimes people seem to mix up the Church with the government.

 

Kate Kelly's appeal, iirc, read more like it was using arguments for appealing a criminal/civil trial rather than a church council.

 

Yes, I recall that.  And it was all the more hokey since Kate Kelly is an attorney and knows better.  I suspect that she was not writing to priesthood leaders, and that she was instead pandering to her followers (either that or she's just a really, really bad lawyer).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

My impression was he was pointing out that sometimes people seem to mix up the Church with the government.

While it's true that such a thing happens occasionally, I don't read in his post that his intent was merely to point this out.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

He has published declarations to the world that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states," that Carson has "became thoroughly convinced that the church isn’t true," that the Church " is just plain wrong on so many issues," that the LDS Church " is not, and never has been, God’s one and only true church on the earth," that it teaches "too much philosophy of men to truly be from God," that church leaders have  "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and that their "loyalty is not to the church but truth and righteousness."

 

These would seem to be essential points in any discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I recall that.  And it was all the more hokey since Kate Kelly is an attorney and knows better.  I suspect that she was not writing to priesthood leaders, and that she was instead pandering to her followers (either that or she's just a really, really bad lawyer).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

You mean the ones from whom she raised funds to buy her last computer?

[Senator]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences from that speech.

I did not say that. In fact I'm pointing out that the consequences of their speech can be greater than that of the same type of speech leveled at the US government.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how being removed from an organization they do not believe in; is somehow removing their ability to continue their efforts on their blog or somehow limits their speech.

 

(edited)

Read carefully. I never suggest such.

[Senator]

While it's true that such a thing happens occasionally, I don't read in his post that his intent was merely to point this out.

Then you read me wrong.

[smac97]

You mean the ones from whom she raised funds to buy her last computer?

 

No, she did not do that.  Remember all that hullabaloo about how she could not afford to travel from Virginia to Utah to attend her disciplinary council, and how it would have been inappropriate for her to prevail upon her followers to raise travel funds for her?  How much more inappropriate, then, would it be for her to hold out her hand have have her followers raise funds so she can buy a top-of-the-line laptop?

 

No, she did not do that.

 

 

-Smac

[Senator]

When are you going to learn that freedom of speech is a concept that pertains to the relationship between a government and its constituency and that, in a free and democratic state, private organizations have every right to establish and enforce certain standards of behavior -- including speech -- as a condition for membership in said organizations.

I'm not arguing against that.

In fact I'm trying to establish that. (obviously not very well)