Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Scott Lloyd]

You are intentionally straining the limits here.

 

I disagree. I am being expansive in my definition, applying similar logic to that applied by those seeking to broaden the definition of Mormonism.

 

  I get why, but I don't think it serves your argument very well.

 

What, in your view, is my argument, and why am I not serving it very well?

 

Or why can't the logic work for me if it does for you? Why is what I'm doing "straining the limits" but it is not "straining the limits" for an ex-Mormon do declare himself a Mormon?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you stating that you cannot be a Jew unless you were raised in a Jewish home? 

 

You would be wrong.

 

Edited to add:  Quote function seems not to be working for me, I was responding to a specific post.

Must have been the one from Gray, who asked, "Were you raised Jewish."

 

You and I responded similarly:

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Except that most people equate “Mormon” to being a member of a specific church.  It is my understanding that even those Christians who believe Mormons are not Christians believe that one may still be a Christian without joining any church. 

 

With respect, for an ex-Mormon to call himself “Mormon” without making it clear that he is no longer a member of the church is misleading, if not outright disingenuous.  And if excluding people from categories on “technicality grounds” seems silly, what about unilaterally including oneself in categories on “technicality grounds” -- especially over the objections of the other category members? 

 

If an ex-member wants to self identify as one who loves his “Mormon heritage,” why doesn’t he simply call himself a “cultural Mormon” rather than hijack a term that means “member of the LDS Church” to most people?

 

Indeed.

 

Why not just say, "I'm a former/excommunicated/resigned Mormon who still loves his Mormon heritage" or "who still has an affinity for some aspects of the culture." It has precision without getting overly technical, but it doesn't mislead or confuse.

 

 

(I think the term "cultural Mormon" has problems of its own, but that perhaps is a topic for another thread.)

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Excluding people from groups that they themselves see themselves in is just ridiculous. This is exactly like the whole effort to say Mormons aren't Christian to me. Everyone is many things. No one is just a Mormon. Stuffing people in categories and holding them to those categories is one thing--to exclude them on technicality grounds, seems silly.

 

The good thing is that each individual can label themselves as they choose; of course, once we begin to use labels with our own, unique definitions and qualifications then language tends to lose its value and no one understands anyone else. 

 

It does seem silly to differentiate, but we discern every moment that we breathe.  Individuals strive to understand what others are saying and meaning.  It seems silly to pose as something we are not in order to maintain the use of a label that does not apply.  

 

You bring up a good example with Mormons and Christians and what definitions are being used.  In the Biblical sense - disciples, followers of Jesus, were eventually labeled as Christians.  In modern days, particularly among Evangelicals, the term took on additional definitions or qualifications.  For a Mormon and a Baptist to understand the meaning of Christian they must first define what it is they mean by the term.  

The term Mormon comes with standard definitions.  If someone wants to add qualifications, then they are free to do so, but they need to explain themselves or they will not be understood.  However, if people want to consistently to be misunderstood or have to qualify what they mean, then no one will gainsay them.  Have at it and do it with gusto.  Of course, it seems silly not to just state the facts.  For example, "I was raised Mormon, but I no longer attend Church"; "I stay home", "I don't believe in God", "I attend the community church on 5th Street, etc".  

Edited June 3, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Gray]

Well now, that depends on definitions, doesn't it?

 

I'd say that claiming Israelite lineage and believing the Hebrew Bible to be the word of God gives one a great deal of commonality with Judaism, more than you seem to acknowledge.

 

That's debatable, but I'm not inclined to get sidetracked into that just now.

 

Well, as I understand it, to be considered Jewish by the community, you either need a Jewish mother or you need to convert. But if you believe in Judaism, or have a Jewish cultural background I can see how you might reasonably consider yourself Jewish even if you failed those tests.

 

But the topic is Mormonism. And people who don't retain membership in the main branch of the LDS church but still consider themselves Mormon tend to have heavy ties to Mormonsim. It seems reasonable that they retain their mormonism even if they don't retain their membership

[Gray]

Indeed.

 

Why not just say, "I'm a former/excommunicated/resigned Mormon who still loves his Mormon heritage" or "who still has an affinity for some aspects of the culture." It has precision without getting overly technical, but it doesn't mislead or confuse.

 

 

(I think the term "cultural Mormon" has problems of its own, but that perhaps is a topic for another thread.)

 

I think that's an even bigger mouthful than going around saying, "I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

But most people who have some kind of non-standard Mormon identity will use some kind of modifier.

[Russell C McGregor]

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."

This boldly screams to me that you don't actually know what you are talking about, but you are trying to create your own imaginary community of shared victimhood.

As everyone who has ever visited less-active members knows -- everyone who's ever served a mission or been an active home teacher, in other words -- there's nothing easier than simply drifting away from the Gospel, and hence the Church. It requires no more effort than simply "going with the flow."

The fact that you don't know that, speaks volumes.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, as I understand it, to be considered Jewish by the community, you either need a Jewish mother or you need to convert.

 

Convert to what? Can't I consider myself Jewish to the extent that I already have beliefs that overlap with Judaism?

 

And what's this "considered by the community" stuff? Haven't we been told here in effect that a person should be free to create his own custom definition of Mormonism whether the Mormon "community" likes it or not? (ttribe asked me why that would be a problem.)

 

But if you believe in Judaism, or have a Jewish cultural background I can see how you might reasonably consider yourself Jewish even if you failed those tests.

 

How about if you embrace those aspects of Judaism that coincide with Mormon belief? Is that good enough? If not, why not?

 

But the topic is Mormonism. And people who don't retain membership in the main branch of the LDS church but still consider themselves Mormon tend to have heavy ties to Mormonsim. It seems reasonable that they retain their mormonism even if they don't retain their membership

 

 

Mormonism has similarities to Judaism in that both faiths include belief in a covenental lineage through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ergo, Mormons might be regarded as having ties to Judaism.

 

And since we are creating our own custom definitions here, couldn't there be a broad definition of Judaism that takes in Mormonism to the extent that the beliefs overlap?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's an even bigger mouthful than going around saying, "I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

But most people who have some kind of non-standard Mormon identity will use some kind of modifier.

Well, I'm confident an intelligent mind could come up with something concise that didn't mislead.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

This boldly screams to me that you don't actually know what you are talking about, but you are trying to create your own imaginary community of shared victimhood.

As everyone who has ever visited less-active members knows -- everyone who's ever served a mission or been an active home teacher, in other words -- there's nothing easier than simply drifting away from the Gospel, and hence the Church. It requires no more effort than simply "going with the flow."

The fact that you don't know that, speaks volumes.

 

Perhaps YOU would find it "easier" to lose your family, job, friends and family than to simply fake a testimony for an hour each week, but for me, I'd find it MUCH easier to just be a hypocrite and pretend to believe.  So for those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to pretend, I find it hard to say they are taking the "easy way out."

[rodheadlee]

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.

So what you are saying is that they don't have the courage to live their convictions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps YOU would find it "easier" to lose your family, job, friends and family than to simply fake a testimony for an hour each week, but for me, I'd find it MUCH easier to just be a hypocrite and pretend to believe.  So for those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to pretend, I find it hard to say they are taking the "easy way out."

In practice, I wonder how common it is for an apostate from Mormonism to lose his "family, job, friends and family." It's not consistent with anything taught in the Church that someone who forsakes the faith be made to lose his "family, job, friends and family."

 

That hasn't happened to anyone I know who left or drifted away from the Church except to the extent that the person himself wanted it to happen.

 

Anecdotal, I know. But so are assertions about people losing their "family job, friends and family."

 

But in concept, how sad to lose a job, friends and not just one but two families!

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

Perhaps YOU would find it "easier" to lose your family, job, friends and family than to simply fake a testimony for an hour each week, but for me, I'd find it MUCH easier to just be a hypocrite and pretend to believe.  So for those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to pretend, I find it hard to say they are taking the "easy way out."

At least you figured out the hypocrisy part. What does the Bible say about hypocrites? Are some of these hypocrites pretending to teach me, holding my TR interview, working in the House of the Lord ? Just how far will a hypocrite go to keep his or her job?

[ttribe]

So what you are saying is that they don't have the courage to live their convictions.

Wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the heartlessness of some judgments applied to those struggling through a loss of faith, but I am. I really am.

Edited June 3, 2015 by ttribe

[rodheadlee]

Wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the heartlessness of judgments applied to those struggling through a loss of faith, but I am. I really am.

It's not heartless and I'm judging actions not people. Do you have a problem with me showing up at your house pretending to be an electrician? Hey I'm in construction, close enough. When I ask for a blessing I expect the person giving it to believe in what he is doing as a representative of the Priesthood, exercising the authority given to that person by Jesus Christ. As soon as that person exercises unrighteous dominion, amen to that Priesthood. Doesn't pretending to be a true member of the Church of Jesus Christ essentially make that person a liar?  

[jwhitlock]

I'm trying to get my head around some statements Carson is making that seem to be rather inconsistent.

 

I am proud to be part of a hard working, kind people.

 

 

and

 

Not the organization, the heritage and people

 

 

Those seem to be innocuous enough in and of themselves. However, when you compare them to what he's said elsewhere (again, thanks to Smac):

 

They have published declarations to the world 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." 

 

 

there are some questions that arise.

 

Mormon heritage and its people have historically been closely tied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We, as Latter-day Saints, identify ourselves above all as tied to the church, and our lives, culture, and heritage have been heavily influenced by that identity with the organization. Of course, there are things that are quirky about Mormon culture because people are involved, but ultimately what we are as Mormons is what the church and its teachings have made us.

 

So, if we are kind and hard working, the church has nurtured those traits in its members.

 

If we are proud of our heritage and of the people who are members of the church, it is because the church has been intertwined in our history and our lives. It is shown in the dedication that many, many, many members show to both the Church of Jesus Christ and to the Savior Himself.

 

So the question becomes, how can such fruits be the product of a church that Carson has described? How can he be proud of a people and a heritage that is the fruit of a church that never has been the church of Jesus Christ (although that is its foundational claim), that has taught so much of the philosophy of men that it cannot be from God, and that its leaders are so corrupt, according to his description, that they cannot be trusted?

 

And since the Calderwoods have left the church because their loyalty is to truth and righteousness (which infers that the church does not teach things that are true and righteous), then how can Carson be "proud" to associate with a heritage and people that are the product of such a church? How can "kind" people come out of such an insidious organization?

 

Quite confusing.

[sethpayne]

 

there are some questions that arise.

 

Mormon heritage and its people have historically been closely tied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We, as Latter-day Saints, identify ourselves above all as tied to the church, and our lives, culture, and heritage have been heavily influenced by that identity with the organization. Of course, there are things that are quirky about Mormon culture because people are involved, but ultimately what we are as Mormons is what the church and its teachings have made us.

 

So, if we are kind and hard working, the church has nurtured those traits in its members.

 

If we are proud of our heritage and of the people who are members of the church, it is because the church has been intertwined in our history and our lives. It is shown in the dedication that many, many, many members show to both the Church of Jesus Christ and to the Savior Himself.

 

So the question becomes, how can such fruits be the product of a church that Carson has described? How can he be proud of a people and a heritage that is the fruit of a church that never has been the church of Jesus Christ (although that is its foundational claim), that has taught so much of the philosophy of men that it cannot be from God, and that its leaders are so corrupt, according to his description, that they cannot be trusted?

 

 

I see what you are getting at and I think it is a fair question to ask.  However, if I look at my own family history, I see a  very tight connection to location/community (in my case, the Mormon colonies) in addition to the the influence of the Church institution.  Perhaps in some cases community held even more sway when Saints were far far removed from SLC.  Who knows.  

 

But in any case, I don't think we can attribute the totality of what it means to be Mormon to the influence of the LDS Church.  Nor can we ignore it.  

Edited June 3, 2015 by sethpayne

[jwhitlock]

I see what you are getting at and I think it is a fair question to ask.  However, if I look at my own family history, I see a  very tight connection to location/community (in my case, the Mormon colonies) in addition to the the influence of the Church institution.  Perhaps in some cases community held even more sway when Saints were far far removed from SLC.  Who knows.  

 

But in any case, I don't think we can attribute the totality of what it means to be Mormon to the influence of the LDS Church.  Nor can we ignore it.

 

Absolutely.  Mormonism has its foundation in the church and the church is a significant ongoing part of influencing "Mormonism". However, as an organization ages, certain cultural aspects take on a life of their own apart from the intent of the original organization. The interrelations between church and people are complex, but you're correct in that the church does not exert total control over Mormon culture and life, nor is it absent.  It's there and its influence must be considered and acknowledged, along with other influences that have evolved over time.

 

I, as most others, know a fair number of people who are not active or who have left the church. There are very few who are antagonistic about, from my experience. Where the church is not predominant, it is much easier to find whatever balance or influence of Mormon heritage, culture and people you want should you decide to disassociate yourself with the church. You can stay closely associated with people, or you can leave it altogether. That doesn't mean that there are never conflicts, but I suspect that here in the East where I live, it's not as difficult as it is in Utah where you just can't get away from the church's influence in society.

 

That tends to lead to conflict if those leaving and those remaining are not careful. In my opinion, Carson has taken a hard-line stand with what he has stated that can only lead to conflict. The inferred meanings of what he wrote are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with remaining a part of the overall Mormon community in which the church has such a heavy influence.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way. Then again, we have a situation in our extended family involving children who have turned against their parents and siblings and have made some absolutely ugly statements in justifying what they are doing. Relationships have been severed. That makes it fairly clear, to me, that care must be taken in what we say and do in situations where we are taking a different path from family, or church, or community, or whatever.

 

That may be why there has been so much discussion on this thread about what being called a "Mormon" really means. There is difficulty understanding how someone can say the things Carson has about the church and its leaders, and still remain part of a Mormon cultural heritage that has been and continues to be heavily (but not totally, as you said) influenced by the church and its leaders.

 

People often get into the most trouble when they try to rationalize to others why they're doing something. That tends to burn bridges and cause conflict. I feel that if there's a real desire to retain relationships when distancing oneself from the church, then absolutist statements that draw clear lines between sides probably should be avoided. Certainly the ones Carson has made demonstrate an inconsistency with his stated desire to still identify as a Mormon of some sort.

[sethpayne]

Absolutely.  Mormonism has its foundation in the church and the church is a significant ongoing part of influencing "Mormonism". However, as an organization ages, certain cultural aspects take on a life of their own apart from the intent of the original organization. The interrelations between church and people are complex, but you're correct in that the church does not exert total control over Mormon culture and life, nor is it absent.  It's there and its influence must be considered and acknowledged, along with other influences that have evolved over time.

 

I, as most others, know a fair number of people who are not active or who have left the church. There are very few who are antagonistic about, from my experience. Where the church is not predominant, it is much easier to find whatever balance or influence of Mormon heritage, culture and people you want should you decide to disassociate yourself with the church. You can stay closely associated with people, or you can leave it altogether. That doesn't mean that there are never conflicts, but I suspect that here in the East where I live, it's not as difficult as it is in Utah where you just can't get away from the church's influence in society.

 

That tends to lead to conflict if those leaving and those remaining are not careful. In my opinion, Carson has taken a hard-line stand with what he has stated that can only lead to conflict. The inferred meanings of what he wrote are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with remaining a part of the overall Mormon community in which the church has such a heavy influence.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way. Then again, we have a situation in our extended family involving children who have turned against their parents and siblings and have made some absolutely ugly statements in justifying what they are doing. Relationships have been severed. That makes it fairly clear, to me, that care must be taken in what we say and do in situations where we are taking a different path from family, or church, or community, or whatever.

 

That may be why there has been so much discussion on this thread about what being called a "Mormon" really means. There is difficulty understanding how someone can say the things Carson has about the church and its leaders, and still remain part of a Mormon cultural heritage that has been and continues to be heavily (but not totally, as you said) influenced by the church and its leaders.

 

People often get into the most trouble when they try to rationalize to others why they're doing something. That tends to burn bridges and cause conflict. I feel that if there's a real desire to retain relationships when distancing oneself from the church, then absolutist statements that draw clear lines between sides probably should be avoided. Certainly the ones Carson has made demonstrate an inconsistency with his stated desire to still identify as a Mormon of some sort.

 

Very interesting views, jwhitlock. I may quibble with you about "rationalization" but I think we share a similar outlook.

 

Put simply, I think all Mormons -- believers, non-believers, liberals, cultural-, NOM-, [fill-in-the-blank-] -- just need to remember to be polite and considerate.  If one wants to be part of a community, one will find the most "success" (if that's the right term) by showing respect for that community.  Even in the face of significant disagreement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Very interesting views, jwhitlock. I may quibble with you about "rationalization" but I think we share a similar outlook.

 

Put simply, I think all Mormons -- believers, non-believers, liberals, cultural-, NOM-, [fill-in-the-blank-] -- just need to remember to be polite and considerate.  If one wants to be part of a community, one will find the most "success" (if that's the right term) by showing respect for that community.  Even in the face of significant disagreement.

Be polite. That's a good fallback position. Most people can manage that, even under bad circumstances. If you never move beyond that, well, at least you haven't made things worse.

[Russell C McGregor]

Perhaps YOU would find it "easier" to lose your family, job, friends and family than to simply fake a testimony for an hour each week, but for me, I'd find it MUCH easier to just be a hypocrite and pretend to believe.  So for those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to pretend, I find it hard to say they are taking the "easy way out."

I really, truly believe that leaving the Church can cause someone to "lose your family, job, friends and family."

Okay, I lied. I don't believe it for a moment.

And neither does anyone else who actually knows anything.

That claim is nothing but vicious anti-Mormon propaganda. It is false. No doubt there are places where it flies; this is not one of them.

I can imagine a few awkward moments for a newly-minted apostate living in, say, Spanish Fork, Utah, when they first "come out" (so to speak) to their families.

But not likely very many other places.

They won't lose their jobs. If they choose to alienate their friends and families by being obnoxious about it, that is entirely up to them.

I'm reminded of the notorious anti-Mormon Richard Baer, who left the Church, started preaching anti-Mormon propaganda, and collaborated with Ed Decker. When his father died, he was asked to be a pall-bearer at the funeral; he responded by saying that he couldn't be a pall-bearer at the funeral of someone who was burning in hell. That's how innocent little apostate "victims" lose their Mormon families. It doesn't happen otherwise.

Just so you know.

 

[DonBradley]

I was reading more on the thread just now, and I had some sobering thoughts. I was seeing, clearly, how quick we all are to speak in defense of how we see things and how slow we are genuinely listen, with the intent to learn and understand.

 

How much of what we all (on any "side" or angle of the discussion) say is about getting to feel personally "right" or affirming the rightness of our group, and thereby congratulating ourselves on belonging to the right team? In other words, how much is really motivated by pride, either in our own righteousness/intelligence/enlightenment, or in the socially, intellectually, or religiously select status of our group?

 

What do we gain by focusing so much on affirming our superior rightness? What do we lose?

 

If we spent half the time trying to understand others' perspectives that we spend in rebutting theirs and confirming ours, what could happen? Would the Truth suddenly and fatally collapse under the absence of our wise polemics? Or might we really gain some pure knowledge that would greatly expand our souls, become better neighbors--even to the 'Samaritans' in our midst, and grow to be more like Christ, who took upon him not only the sins but all the experiences of his fellowmen, and thereby knew how to succor them?

 

I can't ask these questions from a posture of innocence. I'm guilty. But as I pause right now and think about all the discussions in which I/we focus so much on how right we are, I have to wonder why...and what would happen if we really, actively, practically cared more about understanding others than about vindicating ourselves.

 

Don

[DonBradley]

...while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men....

- Joseph Smith

 

 

Human beings are naturally tribal. Each group tells itself why it's so great, and consequently each bickers with the others. But there was quite enough of that on the earth before 1830. I don't think the Lord founded his church to add yet another tribe into the war of words and tumult of opinions. I think we're supposed to think less like the bickering children and more like the Father who watches over them, to grow past the narrow, contracted feelings and into the kind of perspective God has. The Gospel doesn't call us to win the highest-status-human-group competition. It calls us to leave that false game behind and become divine instead.

 

It's a tall order, to be sure. But how else could God possibly want us to be than like Him, and how else could we possibly want to be?

[Tacenda]

This sort of mentality is going on right now with the Bruce Jenner fiasco. One side thinks he's courageous for being authentic, and the other side can't believe anyone would think it was courageous for what he's done.

[DonBradley]

This sort of mentality is going on right now with the Bruce Jenner fiasco. One side thinks he's courageous for being authentic, and the other side can't believe anyone would think it was courageous for what he's done.

 

And is that really because (the other) half of the human race has the intelligence of a termite? Or is it because people are far more interested in expressing how incomprehensible the stupid/depraved others are than they are in putting forth any genuine effort to understand? If liberals and conservatives put a fraction of the time they spend on mutual criticism on mutual understanding, they might find enough common ground to get some useful things done, or at least the good will to stop hating each other.