Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Avatar4321]

No heresy excommunications but the Protestants still seem to be holding on by a "thread" (ie, 30 times our membership here in America). How do they do it?

And no, I don't have the temerity to suggest that we learn from others. I know that isn't quite "our thang."

Having a 300 year head start probably factors in that a bit. Doesn't change the fact that they are declining

Honestly I am not comfortable discussing this in detail other than to say it can be tough at times. I am not sure of your motives either. My bishop and SP know where I stand. Isn't that the preferred path to discuss concerns? Really the more I think about your post the more it bugs me. I can't win. Be vocal and get kicked out. Be quiet and do the best I can and be considered dishonest or a wolf in sheets clothing. No win here.

Sure there are days I want to just not go at all. There are days I want to take a stand and maybe even resign. But for me it is complex and many things to consider. And among them is still acknowledging that my current conclusions could be wrong.

Last of all I am a member in good standing, I may have issues with some of the core beliefs and historical claims. But I tithe and do all the other do's and don'ts quite well.

What do you think members like me should do? Would you prefer we pack up and leave?

Why do you treat it like you only have two options? It's not a choice between rebellion or being a wolf in sheep's clothing. You can also choose to be an honest seeker of truth. You can admit you are still seeking the spiritual witnesses the Holy Spirit provides and then continue to seek after them. Why paint yourself into a corner by telling yourself there are only two options when there isn't?

At some point you need to take a leap of faith and trust God enough to reveal Himself in His own timing. It's by His grace we receive a witness.

In my own experiences, I realized I needed to make a choice. I could believe or not. I didn't know everything. Still don't. I'm still learning a lot. And when the Spirit did testify to me that Joseph was a prophet, that Jesus is the Christ and the scriptures are true, He also told me I had a choice whether to live the gospel at that point.

Everyday I have to make a choice to study the scriptures. I have to make a choice to exercise faith. Particularly lately when things have been difficult. We are all going through trials. They may be different trials. But they are still trials where we have to look at what we have to deal with and say "Lord, I don't know how I will get through this, but I'm going to trust you to see it through"

Keep seeking Him and you will find Him. Studying the Book of Mormon is one of the best tools for this.

[DonBradley]

I think that it is very contagious. Mainly because with faith there is usually doubt. It may not take much to shake the faith of believers. How often have extremely faithful members left the church because of the interpretations from critics on the internet? No one has testimonies of steel. And this is why I believe that Paul warned the early church about discord.

 

A minority of disbelievers can cause epidemic or pandemic disbelief? This makes it sound like disbelief is more contagious than belief. Why would this be so, particularly if belief is accompanied by the Spirit and disbelief is not, and if belief is conveying truth, while disbelief is not?

 

I think you are mistaken that disbelief is so incredibly contagious.

 

Don

[mikegriffith1]

 

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?

 

 

If you are "publicly" trying to cause others to doubt "core" LDS doctrines, and if you are publicly supporting a group that is advocating the ordination of women, then you are absolutely liable to be excommunicated. Such conduct would clearly seem to qualify under actions #1 and #2 from the list above. They've been counseled to stop, and they have not, and they continue to try to cause others to stop believing in core LDS teachings and to support the ordination of women. That is clearly apostasy.

 

It seems a bit disingenuous for the Calderwoods to pretend to be victims of unfair church discipline, when their conduct is clearly apostate in nature. The fact that the Calderwoods have obviously gone running to anti-Mormon websites to publicize their story also indicates that they are in a state of apostasy.

Edited May 24, 2015 by mikegriffith1

[Bobbieaware]

You are doing good Teancum. Just keep trying,embrace the positive and the Lord will provide in His time.

Teancum is my new hero. He is a most remarkable individual.

[Teancum]

As I've already stated, I deeply sympathize with you plight. My motive is that I have an enquiring mind and I'm fascinated to learn and know about many things. And now, thanks to the candor of your post, I see you with new respect and even admiration. I think it's likely you have more residual faith and testimony than you realize. It could be that deep within your spirit, beyond the reach of your flesh and blood mind, the glowing embers of testimony still burn brightly. I have deep respect for your integrity and can only wish you the best in all things.

Thank you and I apologize if I was a bit defensive. I promise you I struggle mightily with how to navigate this. It is tough. Sometimes I think I should be open and leave . But as noted for many reasons I do not.

Other than my bishop and my SP, who is a good friend of mine ( as was my previous SP) I have only discussed some of this with a couple close church friends, my wife and a bit with my adult children I don't talk about this. Another reason is I have been I leadership and am pretty well known in my ward and stake. And I don't desire to cause anyone to stumble really. So that is another reason I am careful.

[jwhitlock]

This post exemplifies the damaging judgmentalism in our culture.

 

How so? We need to make judgments on a variety of things in our lives, including our interactions with others. All of us do it, and we determine our responses according to those judgments.

 

So making judgments is not wrong in and of itself; it's a necessity.

 

Rather than making blanket statements about "judgmentalism" being wrong - which it isn't - it's far more productive to discuss the wrong kinds of things that people actually do in making -->wrong<-- judgments.

 

The knee jerk reaction of some, that we're just being "judgmental" when we discuss situations like the Calderwoods', is simply a ploy to try to shut down such discussion and not to determine what actually went wrong.

[jwhitlock]

Personally, I think the church is free to do what it wants, but excommunicating people over expressing doubts or even criticizing church leaders just seems silly.

 

That's not what the real discussion is about, nor is it the situation with the Calderwoods.

 

Though some would like to characterize it as just "expressing doubts", that's not what the church does.

[Bobbieaware]

Thank you and I apologize if I was a bit defensive. I promise you I struggle mightily with how to navigate this. It is tough. Sometimes I think I should be open and leave . But as noted for many reasons I do not.

Other than my bishop and my SP, who is a good friend of mine ( as was my previous SP) I have only discussed some of this with a couple close church friends, my wife and a bit with my adult children I don't talk about this. Another reason is I have been I leadership and am pretty well known in my ward and stake. And I don't desire to cause anyone to stumble really. So that is another reason I am careful.

Don't worry. I assure you I'll never view you in the same way again. In your own way, you are a man of great faith. Consider the possibility that what you are going through is your own divinely-ordained test of faith -- something like Lehi's vision where he slogged through a dark and dreary wilderness for many hours before the tree of life came into view. There could be a great purpose in all of this! You might very well might emerge out of this spell with your faith and testimony stronger and more vibrant than ever. You could emerge out of this as a hero of faith who will inspire future generations. God needs people like Alma who experienced their own private hell before finding the light. There are many who need the counsel and help of a modern Alma. My very best to you. You'll not see me engage with you in a negative way again.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

If you are "publicly" trying to cause others to doubt "core" LDS doctrines, and if you are publicly supporting a group that is advocating the ordination of women, then you are absolutely liable to excommunicated. Such conduct would clearly seem to qualify under actions #1 and #2 from the list above. They've been counseled to stop, and they have not, and they continue to try to cause others to stop believing in core LDS teachings and to support the ordination of women. That is clearly apostasy.

It seems a bit disingenuous for the Calderwoods to pretend to be victims of unfair church discipline, when their conduct is clearly apostate in nature. The fact that the Calderwoods have obviously gone running to anti-Mormon websites to publicize their "story" also clearly indicates that they are in a state of apostasy.

Can you show that the Calderwoods were "trying" to get others to doubt and to support OW?

[mikegriffith1]

If someone is struggling over the definition of marriage and the ordination of women, I can't help but wonder about the depth of their testimony and conversion. If you believe the scriptures and have even a basic grasp of the plan of salvation, the issue of same-sex marriage should be a non-issue--it is simply contrary to the order of heaven and to nature. The non-ordination of women should be nearly as easy and uncontroversial--again, if you believe the scriptures and have a basic grasp of the plan of salvation: It is just a matter of roles and duties in mortality. Women play a vital role in local leadership. What's more, in the hereafter, worthy women will be "queens and priestesses, to rule forever and ever" alongside their husbands.

[mikegriffith1]

Can you show that the Calderwoods were "trying" to get others to doubt and to support OW?

 

One of the linked articles mentions that they have publicly supported the ordain women group. Also, when you choose to go public with your doubts, you have crossed the line between sincere inquiry and open opposition.

 

I once, for a very brief time, had doubts about the Book of Abraham, because I was misled by the writings of the Tanners and Dee Jay Brown. But I never, ever, ever even dreamed of "sharing" those doubts publicly. I made them a matter of personal prayer and study, and soon I resolved them to my complete satisfaction.

[Teancum]

Don't worry. I assure you I'll never view you in the same way again. In your own way, you are a man of great faith. Consider the possibility that what you are going through is your own divinely-ordained test of faith -- something like Lehi's vision where he slogged through a dark and dreary wilderness for many hours before the tree of life came into view. There could be a great purpose in all of this! You might very well might emerge out of this spell with your faith and testimony stronger and more vibrant than ever. You could emerge out of this as a hero of faith who will inspire future generations. God needs people like Alma who experienced their own private hell before finding the light. There are many who need the counsel and help of a modern Alma. My very best to you. You'll not see me engage with you in a negative way again.

Again thank you for your kind words. But I know at times here I can be strident as others can be as well. There are a few that seem almost always kind and patient who post here and I admire that.

I don't mind challenging posts. Yours are full of faith and knowledge of the scriptures. My faith and testimony has been like that in the past. Whether it will return to that is yet to be seen. But well thought out posts from all positions make me think and ponder and want to search.

I do feel like Mother Theresa who talks about a long period of spiritual darkness in her journey whether she felt the heavens were closed to her. Eventually she journeyed through that. What it will be for me personally I do not know.

Now, sorry for getting more personal as this thread is not about me!

[Teancum]

One of the linked articles mentions that they have publicly supported the ordain women group. Also, when you choose to go public with your doubts, you have crossed the line between sincere inquiry and open opposition.

 

I once, for a very brief time, had doubts about the Book of Abraham, because I was misled by the writings of the Tanners and Dee Jay Brown. But I never, ever, ever even dreamed of "sharing" those doubts publicly. I made them a matter of personal prayer and study, and soon I resolved them to my complete satisfaction.

Everyone chooses how they deal with things differently. Your way is preferred by the church leadership and indeed the culture as well. Open discussions with active church members about tough issues are just typically not welcome. At times for many even deep philosophical discussions such as the topic of pain and evil and suffering and whet here the "prove them now herewith" position and that of life being a grand "test" is a satisfying answer are tough to have with most in at least my circle.

But as I noted, if one is very open and public about their unbelief or doubts they should not be surprised about the results given that they have to know how the church operates.

[Jeanne]

The whole world would be stunted of growth if we were all not to reveal our thoughts.  Some of those thoughts are for the good..ideas..inventions, and avoiding spiritual apathy among a few.  Why would anyone want to have their thoughts controlled?  Exchange of ideas puts perspectives in balance with traditions and cultures.

[Jeanne]

Well, conversion is a process too.  I imagine apostasy is a process.  It took centuries for the early Christians to apostatize.

Why wouldn't doubting/losing a testimony and leaving the Church be a process too?

Born in an LDS home for an 8 year old though..isn't even a process.  Should people leave the church it is their decision..not Dehlins, KK, or Calderwoods..but choice to become a member is automatic..Choose the right..8 years have no voice or understand the implications of what they believe.

[JLHPROF]

Born in an LDS home for an 8 year old though..isn't even a process.  Should people leave the church it is their decision..not Dehlins, KK, or Calderwoods..but choice to become a member is automatic..Choose the right..8 years have no voice or understand the implications of what they believe.

 

I agree with this.  However, I also believe that the gospel is both something you are converted to AND something you live.

If we are converted (believe the gospel is the best/only choice) there is no fault in raising our children to live as correctly as our knowledge as parents will allow.  Isn't that what all parents do?  Don't Muslim parents raise their children as Muslims?  Don't Jewish parents raise their children as Jews?  Don't humanist/atheist parents raise their children with a focus on science/reason etc?  We all raise our children according to the best knowledge we have since children cannot be raised in a vacuum.

 

Religion is both a choice to convert to and a way of life to follow as a family.

[JLHPROF]

Can you show that the Calderwoods were "trying" to get others to doubt and to support OW?

 

Does this count?  http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-carson/

[CV75]

I thought I was asking a question about what you actually wrote...  I think you raise an interesting and possibly critical point:  The Calderwoods (presumably) felt that they were publicly expressing their disbelief.  You, others here, and their leaders (presumably) feel that the Calderwoods have publicly expressed their opposition.

I don’t know if they did or didn’t—my post was to describe a principle: “I think it appropriate to consider repeated and persistent, clear, open and deliberate public “expression” (your word) or “sharing” (their word) of “doubt” (their word) or “disbelief” (your word) to be public opposition to the certitude and trust the leaders are expressing and sharing.”

 

For example, there are also points where some of the seven deadly sins (wrath, greed, pride, lust, and envy for example) drive private behaviors that can become repeated and persistent, clear, open and deliberate, and sometimes public. It wouldn’t be unusual for a disciplined person to say as a result, “Because I publicly (once it became known) “shared” / “expressed” my “lust” / “ardor” that can cause others to “lust” / “want love” as well, I was excommunicated,” without getting into the admission or the details of seducing another’s spouse into a sexual relationship, instigating the respective spouses to seek revenge comfort in like manner, and enabling their children to rationalize immoral behavior.

 

People are sometimes more comfortable describing behavior in terms of motive, intent or emotion. "I loved too much"--LOL

[SmileyMcGee]

That's not what the real discussion is about, nor is it the situation with the Calderwoods.

Though some would like to characterize it as just "expressing doubts", that's not what the church does.

What do you think the discussion is about?

[SmileyMcGee]

One of the linked articles mentions that they have publicly supported the ordain women group. Also, when you choose to go public with your doubts, you have crossed the line between sincere inquiry and open opposition.

I once, for a very brief time, had doubts about the Book of Abraham, because I was misled by the writings of the Tanners and Dee Jay Brown. But I never, ever, ever even dreamed of "sharing" those doubts publicly. I made them a matter of personal prayer and study, and soon I resolved them to my complete satisfaction.

what an awful way of thinking. Open doubt and criticism are not necessarily attacks.

[why me]

A minority of disbelievers can cause epidemic or pandemic disbelief? This makes it sound like disbelief is more contagious than belief. Why would this be so, particularly if belief is accompanied by the Spirit and disbelief is not, and if belief is conveying truth, while disbelief is not?

 

I think you are mistaken that disbelief is so incredibly contagious.

 

Don

I think that this current article in the april ensign addresses the problem. Just how to keep faith in a secular society because doubt can become contagious.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/04/faith-and-works-in-a-secular-society?lang=eng

 

Education in secular subjects contributes much to the betterment of our world. Secular learning of the highest level blossoms in an atmosphere of virtue, moral responsibility, spiritual truth, and faith.

Much is touted today about secular societies. People and nations pride themselves on being secular and on focusing on “worldly things or [on] things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.”¹

Religious expression in some parts of the world today is discouraged in public forums, civil rights are dependent on courts and legislative processes, and men and women readily seek solutions and redress through litigious means. In the extreme, society’s secularism overlooks the concept of eternal life, places all things in the context of the natural world, and consequently is prone to works without faith.

It requires watchfulness and great effort to be men and women of faith in a secular world. It is the nature of people, when inundated by worldliness, to “first endure, then pity, then embrace.”² Secularism is inundating people today with such results.

 

We need to understand the secular world better and just what it is attempting to do to christians and how mormons can also be affected by secularism and its values.

[jwhitlock]

What do you think the discussion is about?

 

At least part of the discussion is about making it clear that the Calderwoods weren't excommunicated for just expressing doubt. They expressed public opposition to the church in a very negative way.

[why me]

Born in an LDS home for an 8 year old though..isn't even a process.  Should people leave the church it is their decision..not Dehlins, KK, or Calderwoods..but choice to become a member is automatic..Choose the right..8 years have no voice or understand the implications of what they believe.

Many churches baptize babies. Not much choice for the child there either. But then, why should there be choice in this matter? Should not parents have some control over their faith? And do not the parents want what is best for their child? So, it is no surprise that religious parents baptize their children when they are 8 or at birth.

 

And within mormonism a 11 year old boy can become a deacon. No baptism, no deacon. How would the boy feel about this? And as a teenager should the boy or girl follow their parents values if they are not members?

 

Mormon boy: mommy why cant I have the priesthood?

 

Mommy: well son, we are leaving the decision of baptism up to you when you turn 18. This way you can make your own choice.

 

Mormonboy: But mommy, I want to be baptized now so I can hold the priesthood!

 

Mommy: sorry son, but you are not old enough to make such a decision.

 

All this just doesnt sound good.

Edited May 24, 2015 by why me

[SmileyMcGee]

At least part of the discussion is about making it clear that the Calderwoods weren't excommunicated for just expressing doubt. They expressed public opposition to the church in a very negative way.

Are you talking about their blog posts?

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/marisa-and-carson-calderwood-discuss-their-excommunication/

 

Just saw this, they're talking about what happened at their excommunication. 

Edited May 24, 2015 by Tacenda