Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Bobbieaware]

The church is mature enough to handle doubt. It's also mature enough to deal with outright apostasy. This thread isn't about doubt; it's about apostasy being misrepresented as doubt.

 

Evidently the quotes from Carson (courtesy of Smac) need to be emphasized again, since there's been so much effort to brush them under the rug:

 

 

Yep. Just simple doubts all the way.

 

Not.

The above post should put an end to all the haggling that's gone on on this thread. But will it? I doubt it. The adversary won't be satisfied until ever member of the church is a doubter and the name of the church is officially changed to the "Church of Latter-day Doubters and Skeptics." But that's not going to happen.

[Jeanne]

You know..some people have doubts with or without Satan...

[Bobbieaware]

You know..some people have doubts with or without Satan...

Either way, he loves doubt and hates faith.

[carbon dioxide]

You know..some people have doubts with or without Satan...

Yes and either way, Satan wins on that.  He does not mind how one is lead down the wrong road, as long as they are going down the wrong road that is good enough for him

[smac97]

You know..some people have doubts with or without Satan...

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jean-Luc Picard]

You only get excommunicated if you live in the States (CHI).

[Scott Lloyd]

Either way, he loves doubt and hates faith.

In fact his M.O., according to the Book of Mormon is to deceive people that there is no such thing as Satan Edited May 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

You only get excommunicated if you live in the States (CHI).

Saith what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

You only get excommunicated if you live in the States (CHI).

In calmoriah's words, a whole book is not a reference; page number, please.

[Calm]

I am very quotable, aren't I?  

[SeattleGrunge]

But why would you want to help people to stay in such a church with such leaders as you have described?  And can someone be a voice for something they denigrate and deny as true?

 

This is confusing to me.

 

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a few days.  Because most can't leave, at least for a while, and the suffering sucks terribly when you doubt your world view.  I try to help those that suffer from that and let them choose to land where they want.  Suffering sux, choosing where to go in your life is not my decision.

[SeattleGrunge]

True, it is only one side but it is from a primary participant. Carson reports that an alleged negative impact on others was not brought up at the DC. I can't see why he would care to blatantly lie about this so I'm willing to take him at his word.

 

Also, there is the testimony of my three witnesses.  Take their (active members of my ward, EQ president, recent HPGL) word in addition to mine.  I don't care either way.

[SeattleGrunge]

I guess i've never come across any Jews or Catholics who thought the Jewish and Catholic religions and leaders were corrupt and didn't want to be a part of them anymore but at the same time wanted to change the religions to make them more palatable for more people so more people would stay Jewish and Catholic.  

 

Are these Jews and Catholics on the internet?  Where did you come across them and their movements?

 

well, we see almost every catholic we know differently then.  Most catholics I know are very, very, very different from Mormons in how they view their religion.

[SeattleGrunge]

You must mean everybody in your ward. No offense but I had never heard of you until this thread started.

 

yes, everybody in my ward, haha, why would you assume I was talking about Mormonism or anything outside of my family/friends/mormon neighbors, lolz

[SeattleGrunge]

Did Carson and his wife want to be able to proudly claim they were Mormon? Sincere question as I really don't know much about their goals where it came to the church.

 

We have proudly stated that we are Mormon and the church can't take that away from us, even if (now they have) they excommunicate us.  We love the people because they are our people.

[smac97]

We have proudly stated that we are Mormon and the church can't take that away from us, even if (now they have) they excommunicate us.  We love the people because they are our people.

I've been trying to sort out the "Mormonism as an ethnicity" thing for a while now. For example, I think I understand some parts of what a "secular Jew" is.  The broader question of "Who is a Jew?" has been explored quite a bit, so much so that there is a Wikipedia article about it, which states that "the question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions."  There is also an interesting Wikipedia article about "Jewish atheism."

 

Is there a corollary thing for former Latter-day Saints?  Is there such a thing as "atheistic Mormonism" or "secular Mormonism," such that lapsed/nonreligious Latter-day Saints (or former Latter-day Saints) can still describe themselves as being "Mormon" or "LDS" or "Latter-day Saints?" 

 

There seem to be some fairly large differences between the two situations ("secular" Jews v. "secular" Mormons).  Mormonism is predominantly (perhaps even exclusively) a description of membership in a specific, discrete and insular organization, which membership requires an affirmative act (baptism).  On the other hand, "being" Jewish is something one is born into, with religious observance being immaterial to the question (or optional, sorta - see the "Who is a Jew?" article referenced above), so there does not seem to be any discernible or coherent "gatekeeping function" by which society can readily determine who is, or is not, a "Jew."  It's just too amorphous a word, and encompasses much more than religiosity and religious observance.

 

But can we say the same of who is, or is not, a "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint?"  What do we say of a person who claims to be a part of a group when that group has a gatekeeping function?  (My thought: Society generally understands that a person who says "I am a Mormon" is saying he/she is a member of the LDS Church, and hence subject to the LDS Church's "gatekeeping" (which can include excommunication from the Church, and hence from "being" a Latter-day Saint or a Mormon).  This is distinct from society's understanding when a person says "I am a Jew," which is a claim of membership in a much more nebulous group, in which there is no "gatekeeping function.")

 

A person who claims to be "an American citizen" but lacks actual citizenship is not being accurate.  But what about a person who lacks citizenship and simply claims to be "an American?"  Is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "an American citizen" and being "an American?" (My thought: The phrase "I am an American" strongly/necessarily implies American citizenship.)

 

Likewise, is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "Mormon" (as in a member of the LDS Church) and "Mormon" (as in "having some ancestral/customary/cultural link to the LDS Church and/or its members")?

 

If an American citizen is stripped of his citizenship, can he still accurately say he is "an American?"  

 

If a Latter-day Saint is stripped of his membership in the LDS Church, can he still accurately say he is a "Latter-day Saint" or a "Mormon?"

 

What about a person who identifies himself as a medical doctor, but who has been stripped of his license to practice medicine?  Is he still a "doctor," and can/should he continue to identify himself as such to others?  Or does such an identification carry too much risk for misunderstanding?

 

What about a person who identifies himself as an employee of Microsoft, but who was fired from Microsoft six months ago?  Can he still describe himself as "an employee of Microsoft?"

 

I'm still sorting these things out, so any thoughts would be appreciated.  My personal thought is that "being" a Latter-day Saint is a fairly regimented thing.  The LDS Church is a visible, organized entity with actual membership records (unlike, say, Judaism or Buddhism or Islam, etc., all of which are religious groups which lack any authoritative "gatekeeping function").  For me, a person who says "I am a Mormon" or "I am a Latter-day Saint" is claiming membership in that entity.  To reduce these terms to some squishy cultural thing independent of the LDS Church and its authority and ordinances is to rob them of their primary meaning and significance.

 

I have previously said this: "To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic."

 

I have also previously said this (the third bullet point is the most germane portion):

 

My thought is that it is absurd to demand a definition of a term that has a readily accessible definition. "Latter-day Saint" is a reference to a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  "Faithful" is an adjective modifying "Latter-day Saint" and is defined as "strict or thorough in the performance of duty," "true to one's word, promises, vows, etc.," "steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant," and "reliable, trusted, or believed."  The meaning of "faithful Latter-day Saint" is discernible from the dictionary and from common sense.

 

The problem isn't with the definition of the term.  Rather, I think the problem may arise in some of the following circumstances:

• Latter-day Saints who, knowing they have not been "faithful" is some material way, seek to evade the obligation to repent by re-defining the term "faithful," as doing so may, in their eyes, justify their misconduct by excluding it from the normative definition of the word.

• Latter-day Saints who claim devotion to God, but who do not sustain God's Church and His servants in some material way, and in so doing want to lay claim to being "faithful" to the former (God), but at the same time to be at liberty to not be faithful to the latter (God's Church and His servants).

• Latter-day Saints who attempt to diminish or challenge or undermine the Church and its role in this dispensation by reducing and re-defining one's status as a "Latter-day Saint" to some squishy cultural thing independent of the Church and its authority and ordinances.  Kate Kelly has provided a few examples of this (“I don’t feel like Mormonism is something that washes off,” she said. “I will always be Mormon and that identity is something they cannot take away from me.”).

I think that a Latter-day Saint's devotion / fealty / allegiance / "faithfulness" to the Lord's Church and His servants is (or should be) derivative of and an inherent part of having devotion / fealty / allegiance / "faithfulness" to God Himself.  God has told us: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.).

 

 

So far this remains my line of thought.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been trying to sort out the "Mormonism as an ethnicity" thing for a while now. For example, I think I understand some parts of what a "secular Jew" is.  The broader question of "Who is a Jew?" has been explored quite a bit, so much so that there is a Wikipedia article about it, which states that "the question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions."  There is also an interesting Wikipedia article about "Jewish atheism."

 

Is there a corollary thing for former Latter-day Saints?  Is there such a thing as "atheistic Mormonism" or "secular Mormonism," such that lapsed/nonreligious Latter-day Saints (or former Latter-day Saints) can still describe themselves as being "Mormon" or "LDS" or "Latter-day Saints?"  There seem to be some fairly large differences between the two situations.  Mormonism is predominantly (perhaps even exclusively) a description of membership in a specific, discrete and insular organization, which membership requires an affirmative act (baptism).  

 

On the other hand, "being" Jewish is something one is born into, with religious observance being immaterial to the question (or optional, sorta - see the "Who is a Jew?" article referenced above), so there does not seem to be any discernible or coherent "gatekeeping function" by which society can readily determine who is, or is not, a "Jew."  It's just too amorphous a word, and encompasses much more than religiosity and religious observance.

 

But can we say the same of who is, or is not, a "Mormon" or "Latter-day Saint?"  What do we say of a person who claims to be a part of a group when that group has a gatekeeping function?  (My thought: Society generally understands that a person who says "I am a Mormon" is saying he/she is a member of the LDS Church, and hence subject to the LDS Church's "gatekeeping" (which can include excommunication from the Church, and hence from "being" a Latter-day Saint or a Mormon).  This is distinct from society's understanding when a person says "I am a Jew," which is a claim of membership in a much more nebulous group, in which there is no "gatekeeping function.")

 

A person who claims to be "an American citizen" but lacks actual citizenship is not being accurate.  But what about a person who lacks citizenship and simply claims to be "an American?"  Is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "an American citizen" and being "an American?" (My thought: The phrase "I am an American" strongly/necessarily implies American citizenship.)

 

Likewise, is there a feasible and discernible distinction between being "Mormon" (as in a member of the LDS Church) and "Mormon" (as in "having some ancestral/customary/cultural link to the LDS Church and/or its members")?

 

If an American citizen is stripped of his citizenship, can he still accurately say he is "an American?"  

 

If a Latter-day Saint is stripped of his membership in the LDS Church, can he still accurately say he is a "Latter-day Saint" or a "Mormon?"

 

What about a person who identifies himself as a medical doctor, but who has been stripped of his license to practice medicine.  Is he still a "doctor," and can/should he continue to identify himself as such to others?  Or does such an identification carry too much risk for misunderstanding?

 

What about a person who identifies himself as an employee of Microsoft, but who was fired from Microsoft six months ago?  Can he still describe himself as "an employee of Microsoft?"

 

I'm still sorting these things out, so any thoughts would be appreciated.  My personal thought is that "being" a Latter-day Saint is a fairly regimented thing.  The LDS Church is a visible, organized entity with actual membership records (unlike, say, Judaism or Buddhism or Islam, etc., all of which are religious groups which lack any authoritative "gatekeeping function").  For me, a person who says "I am a Mormon" or "I am a Latter-day Saint" is claiming membership in that entity.  To reduce these terms to some squishy cultural thing independent of the LDS Church and its authority and ordinances is to rob them of their primary meaning and significance.

 

I have previously said this: "To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic."

 

I have also previously said this (the third bullet point is the most germane portion):

 

 

So far this remains my line of thought.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I think you've pretty much nailed it with the discussion about the presence or lack thereof of a gate-keeping function. To me, it's pretty clear.

 

As one who values precision in language, I find it unacceptably confusing for an excommunicated member of the Church to be declared a Mormon unless it includes some sort of accurate qualifier such as former or excommunicated.

 

Furthermore, there is no identifiable ethnic exclusivity to being a member of the Church, as membership is open to each and every person who qualifies for baptism. There may be something of a culture that is more-or-less distinct, but even that is fluid, as exemplified by the "Meet the Mormons" movie.

 

Much of that culture involves acceptance of the Church's historical narrative -- the Restoration of the gospel through divine visions and visitations received by Joseph Smith, translation of the Book of Mormon, restoration of priesthood keys and authority, the mandate to carry the gospel to all nations, etc. There is a distinct legacy component to that historical narrative. Much, if not all, of that historical narrative is rejected by many of those who find themselves on the outside looking in, notwithstanding their insistence on styling themselves as Mormons.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

You know..some people have doubts with or without Satan...

CFR

[Russell C McGregor]

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a few days.  Because most can't leave, at least for a while,

Eh?

In what universe?

[Russell C McGregor]

We have proudly stated that we are Mormon and the church can't take that away from us, even if (now they have) they excommunicate us.  We love the people because they are our people.

So you "proudly" claim to be part of an organisation you despise, whose truth claims you reject, and against which you actively proselyte.

Got it.

[ttribe]

Eh?

In what universe?

 

Perhaps, in an unusual moment, you could look at it from the perspective of someone who's experienced a collapse of his/her faith.  That person is now faced with telling loved ones of this turn of events and dealing with the fallout.  I don't think Carson is suggesting there's some barrier which physically restrains the person from "leaving," but there are certainly cultural, family, and perhaps even employment, issues associated with such a development in someone's life.

[Storm Rider]

We have proudly stated that we are Mormon and the church can't take that away from us, even if (now they have) they excommunicate us.  We love the people because they are our people.

 

You use the term proudly, which causes confusion. Are you proud in the sense of being grateful or in the sense of being appreciative of Mormon culture?  Or are you using it in another way?  Can you explain exactly what you mean?  

 

I guess from this point forward you will have to qualify what state of being Mormon you mean.  But, then again, you seem to have taken that position for some time now given your lack of belief or faith in the teachings of the Church.  I can appreciate your appreciation of Mormon people and Mormon culture, but you have chosen to separate from those people.  Granted, the Church formalized that separation, but you have long since made that choice to begin with, right?

 

Not an easy choice or an easy position to find oneself.  Best wishes for a difficult path....for all of us regardless of what path we are on in this life. 

[SeattleGrunge]

Eh?

In what universe?

 

This boldy screams to me that you have never sat down with someone that has doubts.  For most, it is the most difficult thing of their lives.  It was for me and I literally know thousands of others that say the same thing.  Not everybody, but most of the people I know.  You can disagree, but I'm just letting you know that this is my experience.  There is phrase commonly stated in forums of people that are transitioning out or want to stay for variou reasons though they don't believe anymore, "It's hard to stay, its harder to leave."

[SeattleGrunge]

So you "proudly" claim to be part of an organisation you despise, whose truth claims you reject, and against which you actively proselyte.

Got it.

 

Not the organization, the heritage and people

[rockpond]

I think you've pretty much nailed it with the discussion about the presence or lack thereof of a gate-keeping function. To me, it's pretty clear.

 

As one who values precision in language, I find it unacceptably confusing for an excommunicated member of the Church to be declared a Mormon unless it includes some sort of accurate qualifier such as former or excommunicated.

 

Furthermore, there is no identifiable ethnic exclusivity to being a member of the Church, as membership is open to each and every person who qualifies for baptism. There may be something of a culture that is more-or-less distinct, but even that is fluid, as exemplified by the "Meet the Mormons" movie.

 

Much of that culture involves acceptance of the Church's historical narrative -- the Restoration of the gospel through divine visions and visitations received by Joseph Smith, translation of the Book of Mormon, restoration of priesthood keys and authority, the mandate to carry the gospel to all nations, etc. There is a distinct legacy component to that historical narrative. Much, if not all, of that historical narrative is rejected by many of those who find themselves on the outside looking in, notwithstanding their insistence on styling themselves as Mormons.

 

I think those who resign or are excommunicated and still call themselves Mormon are simply rejecting the LDS Church's exclusive claim on the definition of the term.  I think they feel that there is enough "Mormon" about themselves (through family, community, remaining beliefs, how they were raised, etc) that it is still an accurate description.