Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[smac97]

 

Who's to say that they aren't still in the fold of God?

 

We shouldn't conflate membership in an organization with membership in the Kingdom. Being kicked out of a church does not mean your baptismal covenant is null and void.

 

Hallelujah!! Another one gets it!

 

No church is God nor is it in hypostatic union with God. Plain and simple.

 

 

Chalk me up as one of those who does not get your point.  

 

Regarding BookofMormonLuvr's comments, I think he (she?) is quite a bit off base.  Excommunication results in the the loss of one's membership in the Church and all that goes with that.  All priesthood ordinances and temple blessings previously received are suspended.  Excommunication can result in the eventual loss of salvation.  

 

Regarding your kinda weird comment that "no church is God" or "in hypostatic union with God," I'm not sure what to say to that.  The LDS Church has exclusivistic truth claims, one of the most important of which is the claim of exclusive priesthood authority ("exclusive" in that it does not exist in any other institution).  That priesthood authority includes authority to seal, but also the power to loose.  This is amply attested to in modern scriptures:

• D&C 127:7 - That in all your recordings it may be recorded in heaven; whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth, may be loosed in heaven.

• D&C 128:8 - Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the ordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead.

• D&C 132:7 - And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

You seem to be claiming that the LDS Church is utterly without authority as regarding the salvific destiny of God's children. You are, of course, free to believe as you like. But the Church claims such authority for itself. The Church claims it because God gave the Church such authority. That sounds bold, and I suppose it is. But we must proclaim it nonetheless:

 

It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?

 

D&C 128:9

Who, indeed?

 

Now, I concede that it is possible for priesthood leaders to err in the exercise of their duties, be it through through malice or insufficient knowledge or some other circumstance that would make the exercise of priesthood authority invalid.  I can't think of any historical examples offhand (except, perhaps for Helmuth Hübener and Avraham Gileadi).  In such instances, I believe that the Lord's justice and mercy will obviously supersede any action taken by the Church that is not in accordance with His will.

 

But your reasoning escapes me.  The foregoing concession seems rater limited.  That is, the Lord really has committed to His servants the power and authority to both bind and loose, to facilitate saving ordinances and cancel or suspend those ordinances.  And if you concede that the Church has power to both bind and loose, then the Church's exercise of the latter power would seem to be very consequential.

 

What do you mean when you say that the Church is not "in hypostatic union with God?"  Putting aside the weird impropriety of gauging LDS soteriology by importing a decidedly non-LDS concept (has any general authority ever used the term to describe LDS doctrine?), what you mean by it?  Are you claiming the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[SeattleGrunge]

It's been a few years since I posted here. Someone pointed this thread out to me and I only got 4 pages in before I lost the desire to read every post, sorry.  I'll clarify some questions/statements and followup on the rest of this thread as well as I can...

Yes, I have been public about my doubts/conclusions. No, I have not encouraged people to leave other than a couple instances over several years where it was too toxic and potentially life threatening (suicide/depression). My stake president agrees that I was trying to do good and even did some good, but because I actually left the church and was public about some of the doctrinal reasons why, all my efforts to help (I'll explain below) became nullified and were more of a reason for people to leave than stay so he felt he had to draw a line so members knew he didn't support my methods of alleviating suffering.

 

What did I do besides publicly state I don't believe? I didn't say you shouldn't believe, I think that's a small but important nuance. I intervened when the following situations occurred. Person A would have doubts and talk about them to person B. Person B would say person A was a bad person, or must be addicted to pornography to have doubts, etc. Also, person A would never speak with anyone, but would quietly suffer feeling either they must be a bad person for having doubts or they want to speak out but were afraid to deal with the social consequences from seeing other person B's demonizing people. All of this suffering hurt and moved me to show person A they weren't bad. I would show person B that the doubts person A had were legitimate and real and they should reach out in understanding not harsh judgment and isolation. This was the key. I did discuss difficult (always true) church history to accomplish this. I know as an apostate some of you will not believe what I'm saying, so if you don't and want the testimony of my Elder's Quorum president and High Priest group leader then check out the post on my blog about my three witnesses at my DC. They vouched for me as a good person doing the above and getting good results that they couldn't get themselves. I was not excommunicated for anything other than this and I am totally fine being excommunicated for that. I was doing what I felt was good and don't believe the church is God's church so who cares if they kick me out for helping others suffer less? I consider it a badge of honor.

[smac97]

Oh, to be clear, I DO believe the priesthood has the authority to unseal an eternal covenant.  Christ gave authority to bind AND to loose in heaven.

But just as sealing is a priesthood ordinance, in my opinion, so is loosing.  Just as blessing is a priesthood action, so is cursing.

Do you have information about the "ordinance" of "loosing?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

I think that depends on the transgression committed, but I definitely agree with this in general.

You make your covenants with God - the covenants have two participants - you and God.  Only one of the participants can break or end the covenant as long as both parties prove faithful to the terms.

 

This is my issue with the entire principle of excommunication.  We go through all this solemn ceremony to enter into covenants and with a stamp on a piece of paper we are supposed to believe Church administration has the authority to cancel an eternal covenant.  I don't believe that.  When I knelt across an altar with my wife and we covenanted before each other and God to do certain things and he would make our union eternal that meant something.  As long as we have kept those covenants God is bound to his side.  If the Church cannot show that those covenants have been broken then pronouncing the sealing null and void has no effect on the covenant and means nothing.  In my opinion.  (Now, if they can show I broke my marital covenants the sealing IS null and void but through my own action, not theirs.)

 

That being said, Church administration DOES have authority to judge under the auspices of the priesthood.  And when judgement is righteous, verdicts do have eternal consequence.

Best post in this thread, IMO.  Very well stated, JLHPROF.

[Nevo]

It's been a few years since I posted here. Someone pointed this thread out to me and I only got 4 pages in before I lost the desire to read every post, sorry.  I'll clarify some questions/statements and followup on the rest of this thread as well as I can...

 

Sorry to hear about your excommunication but thanks for sharing your side of things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This comment from Bro. Givens was from 2006:

Can you describe the transformation from polygamy as the central organizing family principle to monogamy?

Oh, I don't have anything to say on that subject. It is too vexed for me. … I can't make sense of it, because there is a fundamental contradiction between elevating the marriage to kind of the apotheosis of spiritual life and rendering sacred and eternal that bond between a man and a woman and the necessary diffusion of that relationship that certainly must occur in any kind of a polygamous relationship. So I certainly can't understand myself how one transitions in Mormon thought from one to the other.

I think there are many of us who can only understand polygamy in terms of the Abrahamic test. And the Abrahamic test, as I understand it, is not that you sacrifice a person or someone who is most dear to you, but is that you sacrifice a principle. In Abraham's case it was the principle of human life, and in polygamy it's that understanding of the sanctity of a monogamous bond between a man and his wife. For reasons known only to God, that was the test required of the Saints during that terribly difficult period. ...

 

This sounds like Givens viewed polygamy as a divinely-mandated, albeit very difficult, institution (that's pretty close to my view on the subject).  Has he modified his views since then?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

He's describing a framework for belief in polygamy as an Abrahamic test.  I think it's fair to read it as him saying that he believes it was divinely mandated but I don't read it that way given his comments in 2011.  (Think God *allowing* polygamy as a test vs. God *mandating* polygamy as an eternal principle.)

 

It's also certainly possible that he modified his views since then.

 

Here's a link to the podcast in which he made the remark should you care to listen.  It's long but fascinating:  http://mormonstories.org/terryl-givens-an-approach-to-thoughtful-honest-and-faithful-mormonism/

 

 

As you appear to be familiar with that podcast and many of us aren't, can you provide a transcription of the relevant portion for us?

 

Meanwhile, for the quote Smac gave, "For reasons known only to God, that was the test required of the Saints" (bold emphasis mine), I don't see how you can tease anything out of that remark contradicting the understanding that Givens does see it as divinely mandated, though he doesn't understand it and regards it as "terribly difficult."

 

 

Here is the quote from Givens: (About 48:30 in 2^nd hour.)

 

 

Just like I haven’t made my peace with polygamy, I don’t, I believe in some sense that was an Abrahamic test, and to go back to your earlier reference to god – No, I don’t believe God has more than one wife. I don’t believe polygamy has any place in the eternal worlds <John Dehlin –“Oh wow”>.  I believe it was a temporary provocation that unfolded in this dispensation and has no future. But what was God testing by commanding or allowing that principle to prevail? I’m not sure, I don’t know.

He rejects polygamy as an eternal principle (which essentially rejects much of section 132). He says either God allowed it or commanded it for some unknown reason. 

 

I will note that this is much different in tone and context than what I saw from the Calderwoods.

Edited May 26, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

It's been a few years since I posted here. Someone pointed this thread out to me and I only got 4 pages in before I lost the desire to read every post, sorry.  I'll clarify some questions/statements and followup on the rest of this thread as well as I can...

Yes, I have been public about my doubts/conclusions. No, I have not encouraged people to leave other than a couple instances over several years where it was too toxic and potentially life threatening (suicide/depression). My stake president agrees that I was trying to do good and even did some good, but because I actually left the church and was public about some of the doctrinal reasons why, all my efforts to help (I'll explain below) became nullified and were more of a reason for people to leave than stay so he felt he had to draw a line so members knew he didn't support my methods of alleviating suffering.

 

What did I do besides publicly state I don't believe? I didn't say you shouldn't believe, I think that's a small but important nuance. I intervened when the following situations occurred. Person A would have doubts and talk about them to person B. Person B would say person A was a bad person, or must be addicted to pornography to have doubts, etc. Also, person A would never speak with anyone, but would quietly suffer feeling either they must be a bad person for having doubts or they want to speak out but were afraid to deal with the social consequences from seeing other person B's demonizing people. All of this suffering hurt and moved me to show person A they weren't bad. I would show person B that the doubts person A had were legitimate and real and they should reach out in understanding not harsh judgment and isolation. This was the key. I did discuss difficult (always true) church history to accomplish this. I know as an apostate some of you will not believe what I'm saying, so if you don't and want the testimony of my Elder's Quorum president and High Priest group leader then check out the post on my blog about my three witnesses at my DC. They vouched for me as a good person doing the above and getting good results that they couldn't get themselves. I was not excommunicated for anything other than this and I am totally fine being excommunicated for that. I was doing what I felt was good and don't believe the church is God's church so who cares if they kick me out for helping others suffer less? I consider it a badge of honor.

I second what Nevo said.

 

Thank you for coming here and clarifying some things.  

[ERayR]

that might have all happened if they hadn't got ex'ed. 

 

Whats to stop it from happening now?  What has being ex'ed have to do with it?  Repenting is a choice that is always available.

[smac97]

You make your covenants with God - the covenants have two participants - you and God.

Well, no. The baptismal covenant is indeed between the individual and God, but there are more participants that that. The ordinance may only be performed under the direction of a priesthood leader (the bishop) by a priesthood holder and two witnesses who also hold the priesthood, and it results in a record which is generated and retained by the Church. To suggest that the Church and the priesthood authority housed within it, by which authority baptism is performed, has nothing to do with the baptismal covenant, is rather absurd.

The same goes with every other ordinance. Conferral of the priesthood, baby blessings, and all temple ordinances all necessarily involve the Church. The Savior Himself gave to His Church the power to seal, and the power to loose.

 

Only one of the participants can break or end the covenant as long as both parties prove faithful to the terms.

First, this seems a bit nonsensical. The only way a covenant can be broken is if a person is not faithful to its terms.

Second, your claim seems decidedly at odds with the various scriptures which show the power to seal and the power to loose has been vested not in just everyone, but in those who are in authority in the Church.

Third, if the Church has authority to create the covenant (through an ordinance performed under priesthood authority), then it necessarily also has the authority to loose that covenant. So we cannot legitimately claim that the LDS Church is not a participant in the covenant-making process. It is a sine qua non participant.

I guess I'm not understanding your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[ERayR]

I think that depends on the transgression committed, but I definitely agree with this in general.

You make your covenants with God - the covenants have two participants - you and God.  Only one of the participants can break or end the covenant as long as both parties prove faithful to the terms.

 

This is my issue with the entire principle of excommunication.  We go through all this solemn ceremony to enter into covenants and with a stamp on a piece of paper we are supposed to believe Church administration has the authority to cancel an eternal covenant.  I don't believe that.  When I knelt across an altar with my wife and we covenanted before each other and God to do certain things and he would make our union eternal that meant something.  As long as we have kept those covenants God is bound to his side.  If the Church cannot show that those covenants have been broken then pronouncing the sealing null and void has no effect on the covenant and means nothing.  In my opinion.  (Now, if they can show I broke my marital covenants the sealing IS null and void but through my own action, not theirs.)

 

That being said, Church administration DOES have authority to judge under the auspices of the priesthood.  And when judgement is righteous, verdicts do have eternal consequence.

 

Matt 16:19

 

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[ERayR]

 

 

Just as blessing is a priesthood action, so is cursing.

 

 

As is baptism, confirmation, ordinations and temple ordinances (blessings). All can be loosed through excommunication.

[ERayR]

Bingo,,,I agree.  There isn't any priesthood authority over God.

 

But there is priesthood authority delegated by God.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

 

 

As is baptism, confirmation, ordinations and temple ordinances (blessings). All can be loosed through excommunication.

 

... but not necessarily are.

[hope_for_things]

It's been a few years since I posted here. Someone pointed this thread out to me and I only got 4 pages in before I lost the desire to read every post, sorry.  I'll clarify some questions/statements and followup on the rest of this thread as well as I can...

Yes, I have been public about my doubts/conclusions. No, I have not encouraged people to leave other than a couple instances over several years where it was too toxic and potentially life threatening (suicide/depression). My stake president agrees that I was trying to do good and even did some good, but because I actually left the church and was public about some of the doctrinal reasons why, all my efforts to help (I'll explain below) became nullified and were more of a reason for people to leave than stay so he felt he had to draw a line so members knew he didn't support my methods of alleviating suffering.

 

What did I do besides publicly state I don't believe? I didn't say you shouldn't believe, I think that's a small but important nuance. I intervened when the following situations occurred. Person A would have doubts and talk about them to person B. Person B would say person A was a bad person, or must be addicted to pornography to have doubts, etc. Also, person A would never speak with anyone, but would quietly suffer feeling either they must be a bad person for having doubts or they want to speak out but were afraid to deal with the social consequences from seeing other person B's demonizing people. All of this suffering hurt and moved me to show person A they weren't bad. I would show person B that the doubts person A had were legitimate and real and they should reach out in understanding not harsh judgment and isolation. This was the key. I did discuss difficult (always true) church history to accomplish this. I know as an apostate some of you will not believe what I'm saying, so if you don't and want the testimony of my Elder's Quorum president and High Priest group leader then check out the post on my blog about my three witnesses at my DC. They vouched for me as a good person doing the above and getting good results that they couldn't get themselves. I was not excommunicated for anything other than this and I am totally fine being excommunicated for that. I was doing what I felt was good and don't believe the church is God's church so who cares if they kick me out for helping others suffer less? I consider it a badge of honor.

 

Thanks for sharing your story with the world, it takes a lot of courage to do that, and is very appreciated.  All the best to you and your family.  I hope we can all learn to be kinder and more empathetic to those that struggle within and without the church. 

[JLHPROF]

Well, no. The baptismal covenant is indeed between the individual and God, but there are more participants that that. The ordinance may only be performed under the direction of a priesthood leader (the bishop) by a priesthood holder, and it results in a record which is generated and retained by the Church. To suggest that the Church and the priesthood authority housed within it, by which authority baptism is performed, has nothing to do with the baptismal covenant, is rather absurd.

The same goes with every other ordinance. Conferral of the priesthood, baby blessings, and all temple ordinances all necessarily involve the Church. The Savior Himself gave to His Church the power to seal, and the power to loose.

 

I have already stated I firmly believe in the priesthood authority to loose, just as to bind.

 

 

First, this seems a bit nonsensical. The only way a covenant can be broken is if a person is not faithful to its terms.

Second, your claim seems decidedly at odds with the various scriptures which show the power to seal and the power to loose has been vested not in just everyone, but in those who are in authority in the Church.

 

If I covenant in the house of the Lord, and then am excommunicated for some stupid act on my part (ranting blog posts or the like), if no terms of the covenant are violated why would I NOT be considered faithful to my covenants?

 

 

Third, if the Church has authority to create the covenant (through an ordinance performed under priesthood authority), then it necessarily also has the authority to loose that covenant. So we cannot legitimately claim that the LDS Church is not a participant in the covenant-making process. It is a sine qua non participant.

I guess I'm not understanding your position.

 

My position is that there is a middle ground between an excommunicated person believing their covenants are still valid and the Church stating they aren't.  But I definitely believe the Church/Priesthood authority exists to declare an ordinance invalid or to loose a sealing.  I just believe that it takes a violation of a covenant by a participant for it to be called broken.

 

If I still believe in Christ and am doing my best to keep his commandments, my baptismal covenant is intact.

If I have been faithful to my wife and kept the covenants made over the altar my marriage covenant is intact.

If I have broken no temple covenant my temple covenants are intact.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is the quote from Givens: (About 48:30 in 2^nd hour.)

 

 

He rejects polygamy as an eternal principle (which essentially rejects much of section 132). He says either God allowed it or commanded it for some unknown reason. 

 

I will note that this is much different in tone and context than what I saw from the Calderwoods.

Moreover, it appears not to sustain the recollection of rockpond, who said in post #382:

 

 

For example, I've heard Terryl Givens express that he does not believe polygamy was divinely mandated (ref: his MS podcast with Dehlin) and yet I've not heard of any discipline for him.

 

[JLHPROF]

Matt 16:19

 

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

Never disagreed with this.  In fact, I think I referred to it first.

I am merely questioning the nature of administrative loosing vs priesthood sealing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is the quote from Givens: (About 48:30 in 2^nd hour.)

 

 

He rejects polygamy as an eternal principle (which essentially rejects much of section 132). He says either God allowed it or commanded it for some unknown reason. 

 

I will note that this is much different in tone and context than what I saw from the Calderwoods.

I wonder what Givens does with the fact the in many cases a man whose wife dies remarries and then is sealed to a new wife with the promise that he will have both through eternity.

 

Givens's comments reflect that he hasn't resolved this matter very well and that his conclusions raise more problems than they solve.

[ERayR]

... but not necessarily are.

 

What??

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

... but not necessarily are.

 Do you have any documentation that backs this up?

Edited May 26, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[smac97]

I wonder what Givens does with the fact the in many cases a man whose wife dies remarries and then is sealed to a new wife with the promise that he will have both through eternity.

 

Givens's comments reflect that he hasn't resolved this matter very well and that his conclusions raise more problems than they solve.

 

His comments also seem kind of off-the-cuff rather than considered, and/or based on emotion rather than scriptural exegesis, and/or based on a sociological/cultural "ick factor."

 

Don't get me wrong.  I am sort of in the same boat.  I find polygamy sociologically/culturally "icky."  But then, I also consider animal sacrifice "icky."  And yet based on the scriptures I must conclude that both were mandated by God, their "ickiness" notwithstanding.  I don't fully understand the need and purpose of these principles, but I'm not going to let that lack of understanding govern my acceptance or rejection of them.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Russell C McGregor]

This excommunication is being discussed in a number of places.

Gina Colvin, who still describes herself as "Kiwimormon," as if there's something startling about being both Kiwi and Mormon, and as if she really is Mormon, wrote:
 

Last night Marisa and Carson Calderwood were excommunicated at a Church Discipline held at their Maple Valley, Washington stake.

A what?
 

a Church Discipline

Yes, you read it right. That's what she said.

She continues:
 

Marisa and Carson are cradle Mormons who had done everything they were required to do;  missions, temple marriage, children, church service.

(Pedantic quibble here: it's a colon, not a semicolon, that is used to introduce a list. One would expect a journalist to know that, especially one who advertises her PhD right there on the front page of her blog. Oh well.)

I love that "cradle Mormon" thing. As if that somehow excuses them from keeping their covenants.
 

Their sin? They talked to people about their thought, their questions and their doubt.  For that they have been dubbed APOSTATE and expelled.

As has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, the Calderwoods' views go far beyond "questions" and "doubt." There is little "doubt" evident in their emphatic rejection of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.
 

This sort of stuff always sends up a cheer from the certain and the unquestioningly embedded.

Ooh! Ooh! Does it? If indeed it "always" does, then where is the cheer in this instance?

Oddly enough, I haven't heard one. I first heard about this from those who either directly support the Calderwoods, who who disapprove of Church discipline. Or both. And I keep hearing about it from them -- and no-one else. I haven't heard this mentioned by "the certain and the unquestioningly embedded" at all. Dr Colvin is making stuff up.

As she does.

I'm reminded of the aftermath of the Dehlin excommunication when various parties expressed their high-toned disgust for all the "celebrating" that was going on. Yet for all that "celebrating," somehow nobody ever invited me to any parties. Why is that?
 

As it might.  I've long realised that its  really their church and they simply don't want those with questions on their pews.

They don't?

Perhaps that explains why Latter-day Saints never do missionary work, or try to reactivate the less-active.
 

I accept that for many  I'm just a turn coat  and an interloper with cautions written all over my Sunday best but I had always hoped for something more from my faith community writ large. Even if it was a tiny bit more.  This morning I feel like it was a mistaken hope.  In truth there is little hope of a renaissance or reformation or an intellectual flowering.  There is little hope for inclusivity, diversity, and rigorous questioning, because -- let's face it -- that's not Mormonism.

Quoth she. And yet we cavil: where is the "inclusivity, diversity, and rigorous questioning" on her blog? Why is it that any "rigorous questioning" of her so sacred assumptions invariably leads, not merely to the expulsion of the questioner (which doesn't seem very "inclusive" to me) but also to the wholesale deletion of every comment they've ever made, leaving her comments section about as "diverse" as an echo chamber?  Does she really value "inclusivity, diversity, and rigorous questioning" or are they just convenient slogans?
 

Mormonism is patriarchal to its roots.

She says that like it's a bad thing.

Actually I'm sure she thinks it is a bad thing; to her brand of feminism, "patriarchy" is not just the root, but the very trunk, branch, leaf and flower of all evil. Never mind that the Gospel has a value for the original "rule of the fathers;" never mind that more enlightened -- and Gospel-centred -- thinkers find that patriarchy has something to offer the increasingly splintered families of our time. Every time the Gospel collides with Dr Colvin's key ideologies -- hard-line feminism, socialism and Maori entitlement -- it is always the Gospel that gives way.

Always.
 

Mormonism is an exclusivist, American imperialist, conservative, exceptionalist, millenialist, polygamist, militarist, corporatist,  extreme oligarchy.

But don't forget: Dr Colvin loves the Church. Just ask her; she'll tell you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I wonder what Givens does with the fact the in many cases a man whose wife dies remarries and then is sealed to a new wife with the promise that he will have both through eternity.

Givens's comments reflect that he hasn't resolved this matter very well and that his conclusions raise more problems than they solve.

Just the same as women who are sealed to more than one man, or children who are sealed to the first husband (who has long since passed on) of their Mom instead of their worthy bio Father who is not sealed since he came second. It seems that we must trust God to work out the details. Edited May 26, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

His comments also seem kind of off-the-cuff rather than considered, and/or based on emotion rather than scriptural exegesis, and/or based on a sociological/cultural "ick factor."

Don't get me wrong. I am sort of in the same boat. I find polygamy sociologically/culturally "icky." But then, I also consider animal sacrifice "icky." And yet based on the scriptures I must conclude that both were mandated by God, their "ickiness" notwithstanding. I don't fully understand the need and purpose of these principles, but I'm not going to let that lack of understanding govern my acceptance or rejection of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you listen to the podcasts and read a lot of Givens, you will find that the comments are in no way off the cuff or said without consideration.