Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Storm Rider]

This really speaks to the point of my OP... Is public expression of one's doubts the same as public opposition to the church (which is grounds for excommunication). Or does it need to be something beyond just expression of doubts? (I do agree, BTW, that the Calderwoods went beyond just publicly expressing doubts, I'm just responding to this point.)

 

What is the need to go public with anything?  What is the motivation to share personal issues with strangers?  This is the issue for me.  In this day and age of some people feeling as if they need to share everything with the entire world I can see how some, rather dim-witted individuals, might share their doubts, their misgivings, and their lack of faith with the world at large.  However, the Church may be seen as trying to teach the membership to shut the heck up; to have some degree of propriety when it comes to some spiritual things.  

 

The Great Commission given by Christ to his disciples is to bear witness; to share the Good News with every nation, kindred, and people.  Obviously, sharing the gospel is important.  What is the penalty for those that feel compelled to lead God's children away from him?  It is foolishness to assume there is no problem and we should feel free to do whatever we please.  Better to put a stone around your neck and jump in the ocean me thinks. 

[Monster]

“One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking.” - Hugh B. Brown

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Good ole Stalinism at work. Suppression of voice due to disagreement with discipline being the consequence is a form of fascism.

To be clear, I'm NOT calling the LDS church fascist but there are those who act in such a manner.

Of course you're not calling the Church "fascist."

You're calling it "Stalinist."

Unless, of course, your remark was addressed to someone else.

Who is it that you see doing some sort of "Suppression of voice due to disagreement with discipline," whatever that's supposed to mean?

[Russell C McGregor]

Carson wrote:  "Reading how women used to give blessings makes me want women to be ordained. Knowing that it only would allow them to give more love to the world makes me want women to be ordained. Seeing the gender inequality in the Church makes me want women to be ordained. Seeing how the Church used to lead on gender issues but now lags behind the world also makes me want women to be ordained. All of this together makes me unequivocally feel that I believe women should be ordained."

 

If that's the standard for excommunicating someone, we've got a lot of church discipline to get started.

And is that the reason why he was excommunicated, is it?

The sole reason?

Or might the rather more extensive quotes provided by Smac earlier possibly have some bearing on the question?

[Russell C McGregor]

This really speaks to the point of my OP... Is public expression of one's doubts the same as public opposition to the church (which is grounds for excommunication). Or does it need to be something beyond just expression of doubts? (I do agree, BTW, that the Calderwoods went beyond just publicly expressing doubts, I'm just responding to this point.)

Another question: is "public expression of one's doubts" really the matter at issue?

Or is it more like actively proselytizing for apostate positions?

[Avatar4321]

Good ole Stalinism at work. Suppression of voice due to disagreement with discipline being the consequence is a form of fascism.

To be clear, I'm NOT calling the LDS church fascist but there are those who act in such a manner.

Whose voice is being suppressed? Has their excommunication prevented them from speaking or shut down their blog?

Doesn't the voice actually have to be silenced before it can be suppressed?

How is saying "they are not members if they teach contrary our teachings" suppression in any way? Do we not have a first amendment right to associate with whom we choose or exercise our religion freely? How does our expression of our rights prevent them from exercising theirs?

If anyone is trying to suppress rights, it's the critics trying to tell us we aren't allowed to exercise ours rights here.

Those who have been excommunicated still have the right to say as they please. They also have the right to repent and return to us.

So who exactly is being Stalinist here?

[rockpond]

And is that the reason why he was excommunicated, is it?

The sole reason?

Or might the rather more extensive quotes provided by Smac earlier possibly have some bearing on the question?

 

I don't know what the reasons for his excommunication were.  Smac's out-of-context quotes are not helpful which is why I was asking for examples (Smac already showed his willingness to edit quotes in such a way as to change their meaning so I don't trust the way he clipped Calderwood's statements).

[rockpond]

Another question: is "public expression of one's doubts" really the matter at issue?

Or is it more like actively proselytizing for apostate positions?

 

Well, "public expression of doubts" is the reason that Carson gave for their excommunication.  I think most of us here doubt that it was that alone (myself included).

 

Actively proselytizing for apostate positions is likely a better fit with the handbook guidelines for excommunication.  I think that KK & OW crossed over into proselytizing when they created their discussions.

 

I don't see that the Calderwoods made that leap.  They shared doubts.  They shared questions.  Then they shared their disbelief.  But I don't see that it went as far as "proselytizing for apostate positions".

 

I think the most likely reason (indicated by someone earlier on this thread) may have been a refusal to remove a blog post after a request from a priesthood leader.  But that is entirely speculative.

[rockpond]

What is the need to go public with anything?  What is the motivation to share personal issues with strangers?  This is the issue for me.

 

For Carson, it was about two things:  first, searching for answers to his doubts, questions, and concerns.  Second, it was an effort to help people that he knew were also struggling.

[JLHPROF]

“One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking.” - Hugh B. Brown

 

Freedom of the mind does not equate with freedom of the mouth (or keyboard).

[Russell C McGregor]

I don't know what the reasons for his excommunication were.  Smac's out-of-context quotes are not helpful which is why I was asking for examples (Smac already showed his willingness to edit quotes in such a way as to change their meaning

By which you mean that he interpreted them in a way you didn't like.

But you failed to show that his citations changed the meaning of his source.

And the Calderwood citations provided, with or without context, provide pretty good prima facie evidence for apostasy.

Please note that determining faithfulness (or non-apostasy, if you prefer) is not an averaging exercise. We don't count up all their apostate and non-apostate statements and average them out. If someone robs only one bank, that fully qualifies them as a bank robber; all the other banks they didn't rob makes not a blind bit of difference.  And if someone preaches only one apostate position -- such as "The Church is not and never has been God's only true Church" (paraphrased from memory) then that fully qualifies them as apostate.  All the other possible apostate positions they don't preach are irrelevant.  It is difficult to see what difference "context" could make, unless it shows that they are quoting someone else, and not with approval.

 

so I don't trust the way he clipped Calderwood's statements).

Absolutely nobody has shown that his selections altered anything the Calderwoods said. Nobody has even tried to show that. Your accusation is unsupported.

 

(And is, please note, an example of the ad hominem fallacy.)

Just so you know: Smac is rather well regarded around here. The fact that you are trying to cast him as an unreliable reporter reflects more upon you than it does upon him.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Damien the Leper]

Of course you're not calling the Church "fascist."You're calling it "Stalinist."Unless, of course, your remark was addressed to someone else.Who is it that you see doing some sort of "Suppression of voice due to disagreement with discipline," whatever that's supposed to mean?

Please be a reasonably thinking being and don't assume anything about my post. Perhaps asking a question rather than hurling an accusation would be more appropriate. Your narcissism that stems from your paranoia and cynical and pessimistic attitude is exhausting. I'm done with you. You're like trying to reason with Catherine Aurelia over at CARM.

 

Name calling. Poster has been removed.

[Damien the Leper]

Whose voice is being suppressed? Has their excommunication prevented them from speaking or shut down their blog?

Doesn't the voice actually have to be silenced before it can be suppressed?

How is saying "they are not members if they teach contrary our teachings" suppression in any way? Do we not have a first amendment right to associate with whom we choose or exercise our religion freely? How does our expression of our rights prevent them from exercising theirs?

If anyone is trying to suppress rights, it's the critics trying to tell us we aren't allowed to exercise ours rights here.

Those who have been excommunicated still have the right to say as they please. They also have the right to repent and return to us.

So who exactly is being Stalinist here?

Excommunication because of disagreement is Stalinist. The Calderwood situation is different as they have openly demonstrated an apostate attitude. If their goal was to lead others out then I agree with the decision to excommunicate. Being vocal about disagreement is not a sin. Far from it. To threaten with excommunication because of such vocalization is Stalinist at worst and immature at the least.

 

Godwin's. Poster removed.

[rockpond]

By which you mean that he interpreted them in a way you didn't like.

But you failed to show that his citations changed the meaning of his source.

And the Calderwood citations provided, with or without context, provide pretty good prima facie evidence for apostasy.

Please note that determining faithfulness (or non-apostasy, if you prefer) is not an averaging exercise. We don't count up all their apostate and non-apostate statements and average them out. If someone robs only one bank, that fully qualifies them as a bank robber; all the other banks they didn't rob makes not a blind bit of difference.  And if someone preaches only one apostate position -- such as "The Church is not and never has been God's only true Church" (paraphrased from memory) then that fully qualifies them as apostate.  All the other possible apostate positions they don't preach are irrelevant.  It is difficult to see what difference "context" could make, unless it shows that they are quoting someone else, and not with approval.

 

Absolutely nobody has shown that his selections altered anything the Calderwoods said. Nobody has even tried to show that. Your accusation is unsupported.

 

(And is, please note, an example of the ad hominem fallacy.)

Just so you know: Smac is rather well regarded around here. The fact that you are trying to cast him as an unreliable reporter reflects more upon you than it does upon him.

 

 

I don't doubt that Smac is well regarded.  But I saw him, right here in this thread (as I pointed out) change the meaning of Dehlin's statement through selective clipping.

 

Smac (to my knowledge) has still not provided a reference for where he retrieved the Calderwood statements.  And I am not claiming that he did change their meaning, just that I don't trust his use of them because he only provided phrases (not even complete sentences), didn't cite where they were from, and has shown a willingness to change meaning through selective editing (the Dehlin example I provided).

 

If I was trying to prove a point by taking only short phrases with no context and using them as quotes to support my argument, I suspect you'd call me on it.  And you'd be right to do so.  The fact that you aren't doing that with Smac reflects on you.

[Damien the Leper]

I remember when I was in high school I had been suspended for wearing a shirt that said "UnAmerican". I had owned and worn the shirt since my sophomore year. I wore the shirt, absent-mindedly, a few days after 9/11 (my senior year). People took issue with the shirt for the first time and neglected to address what was also said on the shirt "An American Skateboarding Company". My US government teacher sent me to the principal's office. My parents were called. A big and juvenile fuss was made over a stupid shirt. My parents, of course, agreed with the administration and so I was suspended for vulagarity and insensitivity. Apparently political correctness won out in my situation.

It seems to be ok to publicly express an opinion, belief or disbelief so long as it panders to the faithful (or "patriotic") mob rule. This is a prime example of social fascism and should be exterminated. The thought police cranked up their oppressive regime and agenda and have been going strong since.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Valentinus

[sunstoned]

I don't doubt that Smac is well regarded.  But I saw him, right here in this thread (as I pointed out) change the meaning of Dehlin's statement through selective clipping.

 

Smac (to my knowledge) has still not provided a reference for where he retrieved the Calderwood statements.  And I am not claiming that he did change their meaning, just that I don't trust his use of them because he only provided phrases (not even complete sentences), didn't cite where they were from, and has shown a willingness to change meaning through selective editing (the Dehlin example I provided).

 

If I was trying to prove a point by taking only short phrases with no context and using them as quotes to support my argument, I suspect you'd call me on it.  And you'd be right to do so.  The fact that you aren't doing that with Smac reflects on you.

+1000

[Gray]

I doubt you're accurate about "thousands".  You're also inaccurate about it "leading" them out of the church.

 

Leading people out of the church is what apostates and anti-Mormons do by actively denigrating the church.

 

It's probably more accurate to say that Prop 8's effect was to separate the wheat from the tares.

 

I can't prove it of course, but given the number of active members I know who are disturbed by the church's anti-gay political activities, and the people I've encountered online who say they left due to prop 8, I think it's a reasonable assumption that thousands have left over it.

 

As far as your attempt to make a distinction between leading people out by saying bad things about the church or leading people out by sponsoring anti-gay legislation, that seems to be a distinction with no real difference. You could just as easliy say that anti-Mormons are just seperating wheat from the chaff (the chaff being people who disagree with us, of course - we're the wheat  )

Edited May 26, 2015 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

For Carson, it was about two things:  first, searching for answers to his doubts, questions, and concerns.  Second, it was an effort to help people that he knew were also struggling.

 

Rock, I am not familiar in any detail with Carson and his wife or their activity.  However, from what little I do understand they began in an effort to assist others, but then when changed their activity; their motivations seems to have evolved into something much darker and inappropriate.  

 

I don't have any problems with someone expressing their concerns, their doubts, or even their fears with others, but the moment you take that public trouble seems to follow.  I don't think it is healthy or advisable for humans to become walking emotional seppuku addicts.  It is healthy not to cast your pearls before swine; to be guarded with strangers.  

 

My emotions, my feelings are my own and I don't feel the need or have any desire to begin talking about my inner-most feelings with those I have no contact with.  I do recognize a line of hypocrisy in my position; I participate on this Board.  However, I do not set myself up as an advocate for others to follow.  I don't have "the" key for others.  I may be able to assist some, but for them it goes beyond these edits on threads where I participate.  

 

When we review the actions of those who have been excommunicated, it is evident that at some point they went from being a LDS to being an advocate against the Church and/or its leadership.   

[HappyJackWagon]

 

What is the need to go public with anything?  What is the motivation to share personal issues with strangers?  This is the issue for me.  In this day and age of some people feeling as if they need to share everything with the entire world I can see how some, rather dim-witted individuals, might share their doubts, their misgivings, and their lack of faith with the world at large.  However, the Church may be seen as trying to teach the membership to shut the heck up; to have some degree of propriety when it comes to some spiritual things.  

 

The Great Commission given by Christ to his disciples is to bear witness; to share the Good News with every nation, kindred, and people.  Obviously, sharing the gospel is important.  What is the penalty for those that feel compelled to lead God's children away from him?  It is foolishness to assume there is no problem and we should feel free to do whatever we please.  Better to put a stone around your neck and jump in the ocean me thinks.

 

I'd recommend listening to the Mormon Stories interview that released yesterday with the Calderwoods about their excommunication. I think it would be a massive stretch to call them "dim witted".

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

In a church that so values proseletyzing for the gospel, it's not difficult to understand why people would choose to share things they find to be valuable for others. If they perceive harm being do, why wouldn't they speak out? There are others out there who feel threatened by the church because of their beliefs, especially after a double excommunication like this. Sharing their story is helpful for many. That's why they share and that's why I'm glad they did.

Also, I think you misunderstand the Calderwoods. I don't see them as trying to "lead" anyone anywhere. But rather they are a resource for those who are struggling to feel like they are not crazy and not alone. I'd also point out that "apostacy" from the church is not the same thing as "Leading people away from Christ." I'm sure many people feel that Christ and the CoJCoLDS is exactly the same thing but I don't. One can lose confidence in the church yet still maintain faith in their relation ship with God/Christ.

[Damien the Leper]

I agree, Happy. There is no hypostatic union between Christ and the LDS church.

[rodheadlee]

Excommunication because of disagreement is Stalinist. The Calderwood situation is different as they have openly demonstrated an apostate attitude. IF their goal was to lead others out then I agree with the decision to excommunicate. Being vocal about disagreement is not a sin. Far from it. To threaten with excommunication because of such vocalization is Stalinist at worst and immature at the least.

That's a pretty big if to be tossing about accusations of Stalinism. People are trying to make judgments with only half of the story. for all we know the were ex-d for something completely unrelated.

[Calm]

I don't know what the reasons for his excommunication were. Smac's out-of-context quotes are not helpful which is why I was asking for examples (Smac already showed his willingness to edit quotes in such a way as to change their meaning so I don't trust the way he clipped Calderwood's statements).

I don't remember any demonstration that his selection changed the meaning when I provided the quotes in context with a link to the document published by Calderwood as well.

Edited May 26, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I don't doubt that Smac is well regarded.  But I saw him, right here in this thread (as I pointed out) change the meaning of Dehlin's statement through selective clipping.

I don't recall quoting Dehlin. However, it appears that I did neglect to provide a direct link to the source of the quotes from the Calderwoods. Here is a link to my first post in this thread, which includes a link to a post from Rockpond (that would be ... you, right?), which includes a link to Dehlin's website, which includes a link to a PDF file written by the Calderwoods which summarizes their position.  It is from this last document I that obtained the quotes from the Calderwoods.  And since you were the one to originally provide the link to that material, I figured you had read it and were at least minimally familiar with its comments.  Silly me!  (Edit: Also, Calmoriah provided this same link three days ago.)

 

So now that I have "provided a reference for where (I) retrieved the Calderwood statements" (a link which was provided . . . by you), feel free to now read the document you referenced and demonstrate how I took the Calderwoods' comments out of context.  Either that, or you can cease to bear false witness.  Take your pick.

 

Smac (to my knowledge) has still not provided a reference for where he retrieved the Calderwood statements.

For the love of pete! You provided the reference.  And Calmoriah posted a direct link to the Calderwoods' statement three days ago.

 

And I am not claiming that he did change their meaning, just that I don't trust his use of them because he only provided phrases (not even complete sentences), didn't cite where they were from, and has shown a willingness to change meaning through selective editing (the Dehlin example I provided).

Again, I don't recall quoting Dehlin in this thread. I do recall quoting Dehlin elsewhere about him being "happy" about having lead people out of the Church. I believe I provided a link to those, and I reject the accusation that I misrepresented his statement.  But that's another discussion for another thread.

 

If I was trying to prove a point by taking only short phrases with no context and using them as quotes to support my argument, I suspect you'd call me on it.  And you'd be right to do so.  The fact that you aren't doing that with Smac reflects on you.

Again, I obtained the quotes from the Calderwoods from a link you provided.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

And I posted the quotes in context with a link when hope for things first claimed you had misrepresented them by collecting the most outrageous comments given out overtime (I believe I have paraphrased him correctly, if not I will get the direct quote) as opposed to from one document intentionally published as a public position piece promoted a few months ago.

Edited May 26, 2015 by calmoriah

[Avatar4321]

Excommunication because of disagreement is Stalinist. The Calderwood situation is different as they have openly demonstrated an apostate attitude. If their goal was to lead others out then I agree with the decision to excommunicate. Being vocal about disagreement is not a sin. Far from it. To threaten with excommunication because of such vocalization is Stalinist at worst and immature at the least.

instead of addressing any of my points, you proceed to ignore them and restate your original argument. Not really that impressed.

how can any private organization exercising their right to associate by Stalinist? By definition only a government entity can be Stalinist.