Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[rockpond]

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So I think we probably agree that the apostasy definition (from the handbook) that most likely fits the Calderwood case is #1:  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."  Right?

 

So in these examples where they clearly stated their disbelief, is that acting in "clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders"?  I feel some could be taken that way.

[smac97]

So I think we probably agree that the apostasy definition (from the handbook) that most likely fits the Calderwood case is #1:  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."  Right?

I suppose.

So in these examples where they clearly stated their disbelief, is that acting in "clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders"?  I feel some could be taken that way.

I suspect the publication was not the sole grounds. I would think that the Calderwoods were given an opportunity to retract or take down their published statements and they refused to do so. But that's just my surmise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I suppose.

I suspect the publication was not the sole grounds. I would think that the Calderwoods were given an opportunity to retract or take down their published statements and they refused to do so. But that's just my surmise.

Thanks,

-Smac

They said something similar in their interview. At one point the SP called them back in and asked them a question. paraphrase- "Would you agree to be counseled by priesthood leaders before making any future statements about the church or your beliefs?" When asked to clarify the question it became clear that the leaders wanted to censor what they would be saying in the future if they allowed the Calderwoods to remain in the church. Calderwoods declined to accept censorship.

I find it very compelling that the Calderwoods supplied 3 active, worthy witnesses. 1 was the current EQ President, 1 was the HPGL, and one was the TBM husband of a woman who left the church. They each described the good the Calderwoods had done in the ward in offering support to those who struggled.

[Calm]

OTOH, the stake president may have had examples where they had contributed to people's difficulties.

 

I believe it was Dehlin's SP who pointed out when Dehlin kept bringing up statements that spoke about what he had done that was good that it wasn't about making sure things balanced out or that so many good experiences automatically canceled out so many bad, etc.

 

Perhaps the SP felt they could modify their behaviour so that they could still accomplish the good without having the negative fallout as well and when that point of view was rejected, felt that excommunication was appropriate.

 

Speculation of course and probably better not to engage in, but felt that it is important to recognize that just because there are good examples of people's behaviors, it does not remove the need to examine potentially negative impacts or the responsibility for those no matter the intention.

[smac97]

They said something similar in their interview. At one point the SP called them back in and asked them a question. paraphrase- "Would you agree to be counseled by priesthood leaders before making any future statements about the church or your beliefs?" When asked to clarify the question it became clear that the leaders wanted to censor what they would be saying in the future if they allowed the Calderwoods to remain in the church. Calderwoods declined to accept censorship.

That is certainly their right. Unfortunately, their comments were incompatible with continued membership in the Church, and they apparently valued the former more than the latter. That is saddening.

I find it very compelling that the Calderwoods supplied 3 active, worthy witnesses. 1 was the current EQ President, 1 was the HPGL, and one was the TBM husband of a woman who left the church. They each described the good the Calderwoods had done in the ward in offering support to those who struggled.

I am glad to hear that they have helped people. But your reasoning eludes me. If an LDS man was being disciplined for having an ongoing adulterous affair, could he present as a viable defense that he is a hard worker? That he volunteers at Deseret Industries? That he writes articles defending the Church and its teachings? That most of his marriage he has not committed adultery, and that those previous years of fidelity entitle him to a bit of infidelity now?

I don't think apostasy is a zero sum game, where good works over in Column A entitle a person to commit sins in Column B (and refuse to turn from them). Do you feel otherwise?

Thanks,

-Smac

[filovirus]

It is one thing that has bothered me for years.  The Church spends a lot of time and energy trying to find new people to convert but does not do a lot to keep those that it has who are having troubles.  Perhaps its a home teacher problem.  Perhaps to many home teachers rely on the monthly First Presidency message rather than actually working with members like this who are having problems.  For these members, the First Presidency message accomplishes little.  Perhaps a weekly stake meeting is offered to members who are struggling.  Members can come together and work issues out. 

I don't think you understand how much effort does go into retaining those with doubts/concerns/etc. I am serving as our current ward mission leader and we put way more focus on people with concerns than we do on missionary work. And the whole ward council is on board as well. Most of the time in PEC/Ward Council is devoted to how to help specific people. We do visits, phone calls, service, discussions, and many other things to help retain members. We have two full time missionaries in our ward that do just as much reactivation as they do proselyting.

 

If you feel your ward is not doing enough to keep those who are having troubles I would suggest going out yourself to help them. Bring it up to your bishop. Your suggestion may make it a priority.

[ttribe]

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?

 

Use of the term "Stalinist" is probably an unfortunate choice of terms insomuch as it is clearly hyperbolic, and certainly rather inflammatory.  That being said, rather than getting excited about the word, perhaps you could see the point of the criticism; namely - the mere threat of excommunication for verbalizing doubts (which is at least the perception being created with this event) has a chilling effect on those trying to grapple with their doubts and still maintain important interpersonal relationships which are intertwined with the Church and its culture.  In short, people genuinely struggling with doubt will likely be driven further into hiding after seeing the Calderwoods' excommunication.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Since I make my living (to some extent) by quoting other people, and since taking statements out of context is a pet peeve of mine, I have made myself somewhat familiar with how people do it.

 

With that background, I can say with some confidence that quoting "short phrases," is not automatically an indication that the phrases have been taken out of context. It is quite possible to quote short phrases or to use paraphrases and still be true to the sense and meaning of what is being quoted. In fact, a skilled and reliable journalist, who is accustomed to writing concisely and dealing with space and time constraints, will do just that.

[Tacenda]

I don't think you understand how much effort does go into retaining those with doubts/concerns/etc. I am serving as our current ward mission leader and we put way more focus on people with concerns than we do on missionary work. And the whole ward council is on board as well. Most of the time in PEC/Ward Council is devoted to how to help specific people. We do visits, phone calls, service, discussions, and many other things to help retain members. We have two full time missionaries in our ward that do just as much reactivation as they do proselyting.

 

If you feel your ward is not doing enough to keep those who are having troubles I would suggest going out yourself to help them. Bring it up to your bishop. Your suggestion may make it a priority.

I know my ward as far as myself goes, haven't done any reaching out.  They know of my difficulties when I told the then Bishop and now SP my issues when turning down a teaching calling and ever since I've been treated like I have the plague.  Even the RS president has nothing to do with me.  I've served in a RS presidency and usually those women that aren't involved with the VT'g program (I finally had to give it up, sadly because I loved being a VT'r) were visited often, through a telephone call or what not, but not me.  No one has reached out.  Our HT is our Bishop!  But we rarely get visited, even with my husband's recent illness.  But most in our situation would welcome a hands off approach.  Why am I whining about no one reaching out, I should be glad.  It's just that I have this nagging feeling some gossip is being spread that is untrue.  Because on the books, we aren't current temple recommend holders.  But I've a wild imagination.  So not to make this about me, I just don't see this in my ward, far from it.    

[ERayR]

Use of the term "Stalinist" is probably an unfortunate choice of terms insomuch as it is clearly hyperbolic, and certainly rather inflammatory.  That being said, rather than getting excited about the word, perhaps you could see the point of the criticism; namely - the mere threat of excommunication for verbalizing doubts (which is at least the perception being created with this event) has a chilling effect on those trying to grapple with their doubts and still maintain important interpersonal relationships which are intertwined with the Church and its culture.  In short, people genuinely struggling with doubt will likely be driven further into hiding after seeing the Calderwoods' excommunication.

 

Of course that is the perception being created by the critics and on what is it based?  On claims by the excommunicated.  We do not have a copy of he excommunication charges.  The critics always moan that it was for simply expressing an opinion which is invariably refuted when the the letters are made public.  Note: such releases are made by the excommunicated person.  This (to my knowledge) has not been done in this case. 

[ttribe]

Of course that is the perception being created by the critics and on what is it based?  On claims by the excommunicated.  We do not have a copy of he excommunication charges.  The critics always moan that it was for simply expressing an opinion which is invariably refuted when the the letters are made public.  Note: such releases are made by the excommunicated person.  This (to my knowledge) has not been done in this case. 

 

Are you suggesting there are other, sin-based, reasons for their excommunication?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

That is certainly their right. Unfortunately, their comments were incompatible with continued membership in the Church, and they apparently valued the former more than the latter. That is saddening.

I am glad to hear that they have helped people. But your reasoning eludes me. If an LDS man was being disciplined for having an ongoing adulterous affair, could he present as a viable defense that he is a hard worker? That he volunteers at Deseret Industries? That he writes articles defending the Church and its teachings? That most of his marriage he has not committed adultery, and that those previous years of fidelity entitle him to a bit of infidelity now?

I don't think apostasy is a zero sum game, where good works over in Column A entitle a person to commit sins in Column B (and refuse to turn from them). Do you feel otherwise?

Thanks,

-Smac

This example made me smile because it is a REALLY bad example. Do I think apostacy is a zero/sum game? If by that question you mean, do I think someone must be either 100% or 0% apostate, my answer is no. There must be levels of apostacy, which is why having 3 active members/leaders explain how the Calderwoods have helped others by being open and honest about their beliefs and doubts, and sympathetic to others who are experiencing similar feelings, mitigates the negative impact they are being accused of having. They were accused of sharing their views publicly which had a negative impact on others. Clearly the impact wasn't all negative, as evidenced by the witness testimony.

[ERayR]

I know my ward as far as myself goes, haven't done any reaching out.  They know of my difficulties when I told the then Bishop and now SP my issues when turning down a teaching calling and ever since I've been treated like I have the plague.  Even the RS president has nothing to do with me.  I've served in a RS presidency and usually those women that aren't involved with the VT'g program (I finally had to give it up, sadly because I loved being a VT'r) were visited often, through a telephone call or what not, but not me.  No one has reached out.  Our HT is our Bishop!  But we rarely get visited, even with my husband's recent illness.  But most in our situation would welcome a hands off approach.  Why am I whining about no one reaching out, I should be glad.  It's just that I have this nagging feeling some gossip is being spread that is untrue.  Because on the books, we aren't current temple recommend holders.  But I've a wild imagination.  So not to make this about me, I just don't see this in my ward, far from it.    

 

How is your ward to win with you.  If they try to reach out they are accused of ulterior motives.  If they do not they are accused of  "shunning" you.  As for gossip,  I would guess that there is probably some.  There always is a few who will gossip but for the most part I would guess most are too busy with their own families and responsibilities to gossip.  Experience tells me that most mention of you in a church setting in the way of trying to figure out how they can help you.

[ERayR]

Are you suggesting there are other, sin-based, reasons for their excommunication?

 

The only thing I am suggesting is that the mantra of "they were excommunicated for only voicing their doubts" is simply unknowable with the information available.

 

Are you trying to bear false witness against me?

Edited May 26, 2015 by ERayR

[hope_for_things]

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.

Thank you for posting a link to the Calderwood’s essay, and you did capture my sentiment that they were misrepresented through selective quote taking.  I believe the quotes SMAC shared simplified and mischaracterized Calderwood’s opinions about the church.

 

Anyone who has read through their written statements in their entirety and listened to their interviews I believe would agree with me that the quotes shared were not an accurate representation of the complexity and overall picture of their faith journeys and the conclusions that they came to.   Even if each individual quote is technically accurate, by stitching them together in this manner you essentially create a straw man argument.

 

That’s the point I was making, and I believe that is what happened.  That being said, I think we should be debating whether their words and actions actually do qualify for apostasy as rockpond’s original OP asked.  

[ttribe]

The only thing I am suggesting is that the mantra of "they were excommunicated for only voicing their doubts" is simply unknowable with the information available.

 

Are you trying to bear false witness against me?

 

Settle down.  I was trying to get an understanding of where you were coming from.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you for posting a link to the Calderwood’s essay, and you did capture my sentiment that they were misrepresented through selective quote taking.  I believe the quotes SMAC shared simplified and mischaracterized Calderwood’s opinions about the church.

 

Anyone who has read through their written statements in their entirety and listened to their interviews I believe would agree with me that the quotes shared were not an accurate representation of the complexity and overall picture of their faith journeys and the conclusions that they came to.   Even if each individual quote is technically accurate, by stitching them together in this manner you essentially create a straw man argument.

 

That’s the point I was making, and I believe that is what happened.  That being said, I think we should be debating whether their words and actions actually do qualify for apostasy as rockpond’s original OP asked.  

You've made this general assertion over and over again, yet, to my knowledge, (and I haven't read through this thread exhaustively) you have yet to answer my challenge to take any or all of the quotations, one at a time, and show us specifically how Smac or anyone else has taken it out of context. Until that happens, I am disinclined to take seriously such blanket assertions as the above.

[ERayR]

Settle down.  I was trying to get an understanding of where you were coming from.

 

We're good then.

[smac97]

Thank you for posting a link to the Calderwood’s essay, and you did capture my sentiment that they were misrepresented through selective quote taking.  I believe the quotes SMAC shared simplified and mischaracterized Calderwood’s opinions about the church.

 

So you've said.  Several times.  And yet you've failed to explain your belief in any coherent way.  Several times.

 

Anyone who has read through their written statements in their entirety and listened to their interviews I believe would agree with me that the quotes shared were not an accurate representation of the complexity and overall picture of their faith journeys and the conclusions that they came to.

 

Oh, brother.  Anything short of a rote recitation of everything they've ever written is - by your reckoning - a mischaracterization.

 

The Calderwoods summarized their "faith journeys."  I just quoted that summary, particularly the most salient parts, such as where they declare that 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."  These are the "conclusions that they came to."

 

The Calderwoods were excommunicated for "apostasy," a charge that appears justified when one reads the above published declarations.

 

Even if each individual quote is technically accurate, by stitching them together in this manner you essentially create a straw man argument.

 

Utter bilge.

 

That’s the point I was making, and I believe that is what happened.  That being said, I think we should be debating whether their words and actions actually do qualify for apostasy as rockpond’s original OP asked.

 

I'm not interested in such a debate.  It is the province of the Calderwoods' local leaders to make that determination.  And they did.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

Since I make my living (to some extent) by quoting other people, and since taking statements out of context is a pet peeve of mine, I have made myself somewhat familiar with how people do it.

 

With that background, I can say with some confidence that quoting "short phrases," is not automatically an indication that the phrases have been taken out of context. It is quite possible to quote short phrases or to use paraphrases and still be true to the sense and meaning of what is being quoted. In fact, a skilled and reliable journalist, who is accustomed to writing concisely and dealing with space and time constraints, will do just that.

 

I agree that it is not an automatic indication of someone being taken out of context.  But I'm sure you're familiar of instances where it is.

[hope_for_things]

You've made this general assertion over and over again, yet, to my knowledge, (and I haven't read through this thread exhaustively) you have yet to answer my challenge to take any or all of the quotations, one at a time, and show us specifically how Smac or anyone else has taken it out of context. Until that happens, I am disinclined to take seriously such blanket assertions as the above.

 

 

The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.^[1]Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:

1. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
2. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.^[2]

In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.

 

This is the Wikipedia entry on taking things out of context.  Where those quotes got things wrong in my opinion is by compiling statements that simplify their positions and move them outside the entire context of their experiences.  Reading those quotes alone a person might think these individuals are anti Mormon and attempting to lead people out of the church.  It’s the distillation of the Calderwood’s into a caricature that is the distortion.

 

It’s like taking select quotes from Brigham Young to try and represent him as a cold hearted, blood thirsty tyrant.   People do this, and it just doesn’t accurately show what a complex person he was, and isn’t fair.  We see this in politics frequently as well.  I’m trying to be fair to the image of the Calderwoods.  Anyone who wants to learn more about their story, has the ability to do so, and you will see that those quotes don’t sum up their positions or character on this subject.

 

It’s easy to say that they should be considered apostate when you just look at those quotes alone.  It’s a much more complex story if you take the time to listen, sympathize and consider the situation.

[rockpond]

This is the Wikipedia entry on taking things out of context.  Where those quotes got things wrong in my opinion is by compiling statements that simplify their positions and move them outside the entire context of their experiences.  Reading those quotes alone a person might think these individuals are anti Mormon and attempting to lead people out of the church.  It’s the distillation of the Calderwood’s into a caricature that is the distortion.

 

It’s like taking select quotes from Brigham Young to try and represent him as a cold hearted, blood thirsty tyrant.   People do this, and it just doesn’t accurately show what a complex person he was, and isn’t fair.  We see this in politics frequently as well.  I’m trying to be fair to the image of the Calderwoods.  Anyone who wants to learn more about their story, has the ability to do so, and you will see that those quotes don’t sum up their positions or character on this subject.

 

It’s easy to say that they should be considered apostate when you just look at those quotes alone.  It’s a much more complex story if you take the time to listen, sympathize and consider the situation.

 

This is an important point.  Thank you.

Edited May 26, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

This is the Wikipedia entry on taking things out of context.  Where those quotes got things wrong in my opinion is by compiling statements that simplify their positions and move them outside the entire context of their experiences.  Reading those quotes alone a person might think these individuals are anti Mormon and attempting to lead people out of the church.  It’s the distillation of the Calderwood’s into a caricature that is the distortion.

 

It’s like taking select quotes from Brigham Young to try and represent him as a cold hearted, blood thirsty tyrant.   People do this, and it just doesn’t accurately show what a complex person he was, and isn’t fair.  We see this in politics frequently as well.  I’m trying to be fair to the image of the Calderwoods.  Anyone who wants to learn more about their story, has the ability to do so, and you will see that those quotes don’t sum up their positions or character on this subject.

 

It’s easy to say that they should be considered apostate when you just look at those quotes alone.  It’s a much more complex story if you take the time to listen, sympathize and consider the situation.

I don't need a lecture on or be shown a Wikipedia entry on what it means to take something out of context. As I told you, I'm well aware of it, and it is a pet peeve of mine when it happens. It's a pretty serious accusation, in my view, and it is an egregious one to make when you can't back it up.

 

You don't seem to get the message that I'm calling you on your accusation. Your saying someone has been taken out of context does not make it so. I'm challenging you to show, with specific substantiation, how Smac has taken the individuals in question out of context. Your continued failure to do so tempts me to conclude that you are unable to do it.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the Wikipedia entry on taking things out of context.  Where those quotes got things wrong in my opinion is by compiling statements that simplify their positions and move them outside the entire context of their experiences.  Reading those quotes alone a person might think these individuals are anti Mormon and attempting to lead people out of the church.  It’s the distillation of the Calderwood’s into a caricature that is the distortion.

 

It’s like taking select quotes from Brigham Young to try and represent him as a cold hearted, blood thirsty tyrant.   People do this, and it just doesn’t accurately show what a complex person he was, and isn’t fair.  We see this in politics frequently as well.  I’m trying to be fair to the image of the Calderwoods.  Anyone who wants to learn more about their story, has the ability to do so, and you will see that those quotes don’t sum up their positions or character on this subject.

 

It’s easy to say that they should be considered apostate when you just look at those quotes alone.  It’s a much more complex story if you take the time to listen, sympathize and consider the situation.

Great, you still have not provided evidence that that the "context" is going to change the meaning of what was quoted. Can you do that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is an important point.  Thank you.

And it totally misses the point. Which is at all not surprising.