Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I just find it weird that Dehlin, Waterman don't believe in the Church anymore but seem to be offended that they got called to a DC, I don't know what they expected the Church to do with them. Everyone wants to come out the winner

I don't put those two in the same category at all. Have you actually read puremormonism? Waterman is a die-hard believer in the Restoration and the LDS Church, he just believes it has gotten off track.

Edited May 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Duncan]

I don't put those two in the same category at all. Have you actually read puremormonism? Waterman is a die-hard believer in the Restoration and the LDS Church, he just believes it has gotten off track.

 

 

I have yes, he believes in the concept of a restoration but not what is being restored

[HappyJackWagon]

exactly, I had a buddy resign and not "fight the good fight" because he knew after his wife uncompromisingly kicked him out over the church everybody would assume adultery

 
SeattleGrunge- Thank you for sharing your story. You and Marisa are very well spoken and did a great job on your podcasts. I think it says a lot about both of you that you had active, faithful members (leaders) stand up for you at your council. You line of reason with each set of handouts was also a strong move in helping anyone who wants to understand have the tools to "get it".

Question- I wonder sometimes if the increase in high profile excommunications emboldens other leaders to also take a hard stand against perceived apostacy. So in one sense each side is emboldened yet only one has the power within the church. I wonder if we will continue to see a rise in excommunications for apostacy as leaders follow the example of their leader peers.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have yes, he believes in the concept of a restoration but not what is being restored

Maybe you are reading a different puremormonism?

[ALarson]

I don't put those two in the same category at all. Have you actually read puremormonism? Waterman is a die-hard believer in the Restoration and the LDS Church, he just believes it has gotten off track.

This is what I've seen from his blog (I've only read a few of his entries and it was quite awhile ago).

 

He also believes that Joseph Smith never did live polygamy and is a big fan of the Prices' book on that topic.

[Duncan]

Maybe you are reading a different puremormonism?

 

yeah, maybe it's the one the main stream of the Church reads? there's a lot of blogs out there!

[JLHPROF]

He also believes that Joseph Smith never did live polygamy and is a big fan of the Prices' book on that topic.

 

[toon]

HfT,

 

Now please show us how Smac took this out of context.

 

Well, SMAC characterized it as a declaration to the world that the Church was plain wrong on so many issues.  But it's rather a statement of their belief, as opposed to a declaration of fact.  Smac also consistently characterizes their statements as calumines, false and defamatory statements.  But how is a statement of personal belief to be considered a lie. Is Smac claiming that they actually believe, but are falsely stating that they feel otherwise

[carbon dioxide]

Its a badge of honor to not consider the church Christ's church anymore and then to get kicked out for doing what you feel is christlike.  I know you can't understand that since you probably can't fathom the thought of this not being Christ's church, but it really is a simple as that.

If one believes the LDS Church is not Christ church, that is fine.  It would make the LDS Church like other churches out there and whether one gets kicked out of those false churches really does not matter.   If the church is what it claims then getting kicked out means one is the ultimate loser and they are going to go down in flames at judgement.   For me, I have a testimony on a number of levels and thus i am very confident that I have placed my flag on the winning side.  If someone chooses to move their flag, it does not move my flag and it does not bother me.  We should not be bothered by the decisions of other people as their decisions do not affect our decision as we are judged by what we do and not what other people choose to do.

[SeattleGrunge]

not a clue but how many catholics attend church beyond the Christmas Mass and Easter and the funerals? Well, listen I know a thing or two about tents and you don't want to get caught up in the sideshow or menagerie tent and miss the Big Show in the main tent. I think the Church would have a bigger tent but we need more people!!!!! wish they would stay and help set it up!!!!

 

lolz, don't you see the irony?  I tried and got kicked out for doing it

[SeattleGrunge]

 

SeattleGrunge- Thank you for sharing your story. You and Marisa are very well spoken and did a great job on your podcasts. I think it says a lot about both of you that you had active, faithful members (leaders) stand up for you at your council. You line of reason with each set of handouts was also a strong move in helping anyone who wants to understand have the tools to "get it".

Question- I wonder sometimes if the increase in high profile excommunications emboldens other leaders to also take a hard stand against perceived apostacy. So in one sense each side is emboldened yet only one has the power within the church. I wonder if we will continue to see a rise in excommunications for apostacy as leaders follow the example of their leader peers.

 

Thanks!

I agree totally.  I think it is emboldening both sides and unfortunately widening the gap between liberal and literal.

[smac97]

Well, SMAC characterized it

If by "characterized" you mean "quoted the Calderwoods' published statements verbatim," then I agree with you.

 

as a declaration to the world that the Church was plain wrong on so many issues.

They published a declaration online (and, ergo, available "to the world") that the Church " is just plain wrong on so many issues."

 

Please explain how I have mischaracterized that.  I'm just not seeing it.

But it's rather a statement of their belief, as opposed to a declaration of fact.

I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. One can publish a statement that is both his/her "belief" and also his/her perception of "fact." I think that's what the Calderwoods did.

Smac also consistently characterizes their statements as calumines, false and defamatory statements.

Yes, I have. Their statements are certainly not laudatory, nor benign, nor indifferent. "Calumnies" seemed to fit the bill.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Yes, I have. Their statements are certainly not laudatory, nor benign, nor indifferent. "Calumnies" seemed to fit the bill.

 

A synonym of "calumnies" is "slander," which indicates knowingly lying about the facts to intentionally damage someone's reputation.  I see that their comments would not be construed as "laudatory," but I would think a genuine disagreement on doctrine and policy would not rise to the level of slander.  IOW, I understand that you don't like what they are saying, and certainly don't agree with it, but how is it false and slanderous?  That's a pretty serious assertion.

Edited May 27, 2015 by ttribe

[hope_for_things]

Because that's what my SP even agreed to.  Like I said in my first comment.  Even though I was helping people that suffered in the church, I was doing it by sharing difficult issues with person B and I had left.  It was too much for them, too much of an passive invitation to leave.

 

Would you be willing to share what you think was the tipping point that started your leaders down the path towards disciplinary action.  The lines of what constitutes public opposition are so gray, and I’m trying to better understand what the dividing lines are.  It’s apparent that different leaders manage things differently (leadership roulette).  I’m also wondering if reflecting back you see any particular points that your leaders weren’t willing to compromise on.  Are some of your statements more hot button issues, which ones seemed to make them unwilling to compromise?

 

Also, you mentioned in your Mormon Stories interview that they wanted to get you both to agree to censorship as a way to stay.  Did they mention any specifics that they wanted to censor you on?  Are some subjects more sensitive than others when it comes to proclamations you’ve made. 

 

Anything you can share would be appreciated for people like me who want to stay in the church and find it challenging at times to navigate these waters.  Thanks

[HappyJackWagon]

Thanks!

I agree totally.  I think it is emboldening both sides and unfortunately widening the gap between liberal and literal.

BTW- I'm curious about the DC and I didn't hear this referenced on the podcast with JD. Did the SP present any evidence of people who were negatively impacted by your efforts in reaching out to others who were struggling or your openness about your belief/disbelief? You certainly provided witnesses for your character and to represent the idea that you've helped people, but did they counteract that with all the dastardly works they surely must have attributed to you.

 

It must feel odd to have strangers talking about you but my wife and I were talking about you on our walk last night and it's extremely difficult to understand how/why the church would go after you. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have the same kind of following that a JD or KK have so the reach and impact are much smaller. This makes people like me with a very small reach worry even more since there is no line drawn to know what will land you in the hot water of a DC. So many people have speculated that there must be "more to the story" or that you must have actively pulled people out of the church. I guess it's human nature to sometimes assume the worst about people but I don't see it. Did the Stake provide evidence or did they just make assumptions?

[rockpond]

No that is not correct. An agnostic thinks that something is unknown or unknowable. The church is agnostic on the origins of the priesthood ban - "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." They don't take a positision one way or another on the issue. It would wrong to say that the church teaches the priesthood ban had revelatory origins, just as it would be wrong to say the church teaches that Brigham Young just made it up.

 

Stating that Given's expressed "that he does not believe polygamy was divinely mandated" seems to imply that he expressed disbelief vs just saying he didn't know if it was or not. 

 

I see the nuance you are getting at - and I agree that nuance is important, especially in the context of this thread.  For me, if someone says that they don't know that the priesthood ban was commanded or just allowed by God, that is an expression of a lack of belief that it came of revelation.

 

But you bring up an important point with the tone & nuance with which people approach these issues:  Givens apparently rejects Section 132 as defining polygamy to be an eternal principle.  The Kirk Van Allen wrote a blog post explaining why he rejected Section 132 as a revelation from God.  

 

I'm willing to be that the Givens interview was listened to many more times than Van Allen's blog post was read.  Van Allen was threatened with church discipline within just a couple weeks of his blog post.   Years have gone by since Givens public statement (and what could even be considered "public opposition" when it comes to polygamy) and Deseret Book is publishing his book.

 

Very different outcomes but also very different approaches, nuance, and tone.

[toon]

I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. One can publish a statement that is both his/her "belief" and also his/her perception of "fact." I think that's what the Calderwoods did

Yes, I have. Their statements are certainly not laudatory, nor benign, nor indifferent. "Calumnies" seemed to fit the bill.

 

 

When considering whether something is defamatory, statements made in good faith and based upon a reasonable belief are generally considered true statements, especially when phrased as a belief or a perception ("I feel . . . " or "I have come to see that . . .").  Yet you call those statements calumnies.

 

Where's your evidence that they were not made in good faith or based upon a reasonable belief.

[bluebell]

I see the nuance you are getting at - and I agree that nuance is important, especially in the context of this thread.  For me, if someone says that they don't know that the priesthood ban was commanded or just allowed by God, that is an expression of a lack of belief that it came of revelation.

 

 

 

This is interesting to me because this is my sentiment, yet your interpretation of what i mean by it is not what i would expect, nor is it accurate of what i would be trying to say.  

 

I'd be fine if someone said 'well, she lacks belief that it came of revelation just as much as she lacks belief that it didn't come of revelation.' To just suppose one half of that statement though would probably bug me.  

[Buckeye]

lolz, don't you see the irony?  I tried and got kicked out for doing it

 

First off, I also welcome you back to the board for how ever long you stay. I'm a good friend of DB Mormon (Bill Reel) who has sung your praises before.

 

Regarding excommunication of catholics, I live in a fairly catholic area and much of my wife's family is catholic, as are many neighbors. I hold them in high regard. In my experience, the Catholic Church does routinely excommunicate people, but it overwhelmingly tends to be clergy. I think that is the key difference to us. While we both have claims to absolute authority - and thereby reject each other's ordinances - the LDS Church has an added dimension in that all of its members are de facto clergy. Men hold the priesthood. And both men and women work through priesthood channels.

 

For me, the lack of professional clergy in the church is a two-edge sword. On one hand, it helps to give purpose and responsibility to everyone. I've seen many members grow through callings. On the other hand, though, it means that anyone who expresses some disbelief is viewed as a bigger threat than they would be to most other churches because. They are not just a "member" but a primary teacher, scoutmaster, or even a bishop.

 

Because all the sheep in our flock are also, to some degree, shepards, we end up killing a lot of sheep in our zeal to protect the flock.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

A synonym of "calumnies" is "slander," which indicates knowingly lying about the facts to intentionally damage someone's reputation.  I see that their comments would not be construed as "laudatory," but I would think a genuine disagreement on doctrine and policy would not rise to the level of slander.  IOW, I understand that you don't like what they are saying, and certainly don't agree with it, but how is it false and slanderous?  That's a pretty serious assertion.

"Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," seems to me to fit rather neatly into the category of calumny (or defamation, if you prefer).

 

Maybe my respect, admiration and love for the leaders of the Church has made me oversensitive.

[ALarson]

"Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," seems to me to fit rather neatly into the category of calumny (or defamation, if you prefer).

 

Are you saying that this ("Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth),") is what you believe the Calderwoods have done?

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you saying that this ("Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth),") is what you believe the Calderwoods have done?

No.

 

I picked that up from the OP as one of the things they have said (or written). See the OP for reference.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are you saying that this ("Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth),") is what you believe the Calderwoods have done?

That's a direct quote from Calderwood:

The way the truth has been twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about by church leaders since the beginning is disturbing! If it is the truth, it should have nothing to fear. Don’t we believe that the truth shall set you free (John 8:32)? Trying to cover it up shows a lack of faith if the church’s history is the work of God. When we offer suggestions on ways to help out the church we are often told we shouldn’t try to steady the ark. We think all the history whitewashing is a more severe form of steadying the ark.

[ALarson]

No.

 

I picked that up from the OP as one of the things they have said (or written). See the OP for reference.

Got it, thanks.  I'd missed that.

[ALarson]

That's a direct quote from Calderwood:

Thanks.