Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

I agree. Rockpond overstated it. While Givens rejects polygamy as an eternal principle, he believes that either God commanded it or allowed it. While leaves the possibility open that God did not inspire/require polygamy Givens is agnostic on the issue.

[rockpond]

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

Ahhh, Scott, I thought my recollection was pretty good.

I said that Givens expressed that he didn't believe it was divinely mandated. If he believed it was divinely mandated, would he have called it a "temporary provocation that God commanded OR *allowed*"? That's a clear doubt about it's divine origins. Further he believes God is not a polygamist and that polygamy has no place in the eternities. That's a denial of Section 132 (which is, I'm told the divine mandate for polygamy)... Wouldn't you agree?

Though I concur that his tone is clearly different from Carson Calderwood and also different from the Van Allens who were threatened with discipline but, ultimately, not disciplined.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

You do?

Then why is your excommunication such a big deal?

I don't wish to participate in, much less start, any sort of dog-pile on you, but I have this question: Since you proudly announce that you "don't believe the church is God's church," and have been actively preaching that, then why are you so adamant in insisting that you were excommunicated "for helping others suffer less?"

 

[smac97]

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.

 

I was not referring to "comments" Givens has made generally.  Rather, I was referring specifically to those quoted here.

 

I am certainly open to correction, but those quoted remarks seem pretty off-the-cuff to me.  And since they were mid-way through a multi-hour podcast interview (rather than in, say, a written article or book), and since he ends his comments by equivocating ("But what was God testing by commanding or allowing that principle to prevail? I’m not sure, I don’t know."), I'm sort of inclined to not give these comments a whole lot of consideration.  I will instead wait for Bro. Givens (for whom I have tremendous respect) to provide a more detailed and thoughtful exposition regarding his position on polygamy, should he choose to do so.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

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.

Thanks for posting this!

[rockpond]

I agree. Rockpond overstated it. While Givens rejects polygamy as an eternal principle, he believes that either God commanded it or allowed it. While leaves the possibility open that God did not inspire/require polygamy Givens is agnostic on the issue.

Isn't "agnostic" lacking belief? Which is what I said: Givens expressed that he doesn't believe it was divinely mandated. He may think it could have been, but that's different than believing that it was.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Carson-- 

 

Thank you for stopping by the thread and sharing more of your story.

 

Best wishes to you and your family!

[rockpond]

For those interested, here is a link to the blog post that Carson/SeattleGrunge referred to in his post:

 

http://conservativecakeliberalicing.blogspot.com/2015/05/three-wonderful-friends.html

 

It provides details about the witnesses on behalf of the Calderwoods and what they spoke about at the DC.

[Damien the Leper]

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

To cut to the chase...what I mean is the church's mind and will is not synonymous with that of God. The church works as a spiritual home by which people are able to identify with God in the same way as all other churches. The mind and will of God is mutually exclusive from that of churches as God cannot be given responsibility of manmade institutions. Plain and simple.

[Russell C McGregor]

To cut to the chase...what I mean is the church's mind and will is not synonymous with that of God. The church works as a spiritual home by which people are able to identify with God in the same way as all other churches. The mind and will of God is mutually exclusive from that of churches as God cannot be given responsibility of manmade institutions. Plain and simple.

Thank you for your expression of faith Val, but when the Lord cuts to the chase, he says something different:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

Incidentally, the one and only caveat the Lord offers, in verse 31, would seem to be a caution to those whose favourite criticism of the Church is that it's not "understanding" enough towards sinful behaviour.

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Thank you for your expression of faith Val, but when the Lord cuts to the chase, he says something different:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

Incidentally, the one and only caveat the Lord offers, in verse 31, would seem to be a caution to those whose favourite criticism of the Church is that it's not "understanding" enough towards sinful behaviour.

 

On April 6, 1830... April 7th it was downhill from there.

A church organization is merely a place where believers can work, worship, and fellowship together. The Priesthood can function outside of it, as amply demonstrated in the scriptures.

[ttribe]

To cut to the chase...what I mean is the church's mind and will is not synonymous with that of God. The church works as a spiritual home by which people are able to identify with God in the same way as all other churches. The mind and will of God is mutually exclusive from that of churches as God cannot be given responsibility of manmade institutions. Plain and simple.

 

 

Thank you for your expression of faith Val, but when the Lord cuts to the chase, he says something different:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

Incidentally, the one and only caveat the Lord offers, in verse 31, would seem to be a caution to those whose favourite criticism of the Church is that it's not "understanding" enough towards sinful behaviour.

 

 

 

On April 6, 1830... April 7th it was downhill from there.

A church organization is merely a place where believers can work, worship, and fellowship together. The Priesthood can function outside of it, as amply demonstrated in the scriptures.

 

I'm no mod, but this seems like a discussion to which a whole new thread could (should?) be devoted.

[Tacenda]

On April 6, 1830... April 7th it was downhill from there.

A church organization is merely a place where believers can work, worship, and fellowship together. The Priesthood can function outside of it, as amply demonstrated in the scriptures.

Just noticed your siggy line. I like your wife already.

[smac97]

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 wish you and your family well.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Speaking of the purge... Rock's date with destiny is June 3rd.

[Russell C McGregor]

Speaking of the purge... Rock's date with destiny is June 3rd.

What "purge" and which Rock?

[Teancum]

What "purge" and which Rock?

Alan Rock Waterman

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com

I guess he just got a letter inviting him to a DC for conduct unbecoming a member of the church, or apostasy.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Teancum

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What "purge" and which Rock?

 

The purging of the pesky heretical bloggers.

Alan "Rock" Waterman of puremormonism fame.

[Russell C McGregor]

The purging of the pesky heretical bloggers.

Alan "Rock" Waterman of puremormonism fame.

Never heard of him, sorry.

And don't expect me to cheer loudly when (or if) some form of Church discipline is carried out. That kind of "celebration" exists only in the spiteful imaginations of anti-Mormons.

But I am going to ask: why is he "going public" with this?

Why does anyone "go public" with one-sided details of a confidential procedure?

How egotistical does anyone have to be to expect large numbers of strangers to hang on the details of their personal lives?

Could it be that he's just another self-serving publicity-hound?

BTW: is it a coincidence that his name has "Rock" and "Water" in close proximity? I'm prepared to accept that it is, if someone who knows is prepared to vouch for it.

[Tacenda]

Never heard of him, sorry.

And don't expect me to cheer loudly when (or if) some form of Church discipline is carried out. That kind of "celebration" exists only in the spiteful imaginations of anti-Mormons.

But I am going to ask: why is he "going public" with this?

Why does anyone "go public" with one-sided details of a confidential procedure?

How egotistical does anyone have to be to expect large numbers of strangers to hang on the details of their personal lives?

Could it be that he's just another self-serving publicity-hound?

BTW: is it a coincidence that his name has "Rock" and "Water" in close proximity? I'm prepared to accept that it is, if someone who knows is prepared to vouch for it.

You really do have a life unlike me who knows all these guys. Gotta hand it to podcasts. But he has a blog if you want to read up and a few podcasts. Of course I've never really cared or followed him or Denver, meaning read their blogs.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Never heard of him, sorry.

And don't expect me to cheer loudly when (or if) some form of Church discipline is carried out. That kind of "celebration" exists only in the spiteful imaginations of anti-Mormons.

But I am going to ask: why is he "going public" with this?

Why does anyone "go public" with one-sided details of a confidential procedure?

How egotistical does anyone have to be to expect large numbers of strangers to hang on the details of their personal lives?

Could it be that he's just another self-serving publicity-hound?

BTW: is it a coincidence that his name has "Rock" and "Water" in close proximity? I'm prepared to accept that it is, if someone who knows is prepared to vouch for it.

Well, I can only conjecture, but perhaps it might have something to do with his popular blog being his musings on his journey in Mormonism, it's doctrines, practices, and history- and that he is sharing his upcoming discipline proceedings as part of his story.

But who am I to say?

[Russell C McGregor]

Well, I can only conjecture, but perhaps it might have something to do with his popular blog being his musings on his journey in Mormonism, it's doctrines, practices, and history- and that he is sharing his upcoming discipline proceedings as part of his story.

But who am I to say?

Or maybe he's jumping on the bandwagon.

If I was in the High Council hearing his case, I'd probably want to know how much respect he has for the Church's scripturally mandated procedures, given his publicizing of this one.

Honestly, how many of these 15-seconders actually hastened their own demise by thumbing their noses at those who are trying to help them?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Or maybe he's jumping on the bandwagon.

If I was in the High Council hearing his case, I'd probably want to know how much respect he has for the Church's scripturally mandated procedures, given his publicizing of this one.

Honestly, how many of these 15-seconders actually hastened their own demise by thumbing their noses at those who are trying to help them?

Uh, suuuure.

[Russell C McGregor]

Uh, suuuure.

About what?

The fact that Church discipline is designed to help people get back on the right track is a given. Those who are informed on the subject accept it as the starting point for all discussion thereof, although of course those who are uninformed might assume otherwise.

Or are you questioning the view that publicizing a confidential proceeding shows a lack of respect for the process?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

About what?

The fact that Church discipline is designed to help people get back on the right track is a given. Those who are informed on the subject accept it as the starting point for all discussion thereof, although of course those who are uninformed might assume otherwise.

Or are you questioning the view that publicizing a confidential proceeding shows a lack of respect for the process?

Perhaps, you should inform yourself of who he actually is and what he has written before commenting so assuredly?

As for the DC, you seem to forget that there are 2 parties involved, so he has every right to talk about what is happening to him.