Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[rockpond]

It is unrealistic to presume that holding forth on the Internet with one's views is not publicly expressing them. The Internet is arguably the most public medium of expression the world has ever seen.

 

I agree that he has publicly expressed his views.  I'm just not sure how they fit the handbook definition of apostasy:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

[stemelbow]

The Calderwoods 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." And these are just from a very cursory skimming of their writings. And yet you came to this board and characterize the Calderwoods as merely "expressing doubt."

You (and Jeanne) are characterizing these published-to-the-world declarations as merely "explor(ing) feelings of doubt." I cannot accept this as an accurate or fair description of what the Calderwoods have done.

I think you seriously distort (heck, I think you might be entirely ignoring) just how much effort usually goes into avoiding disciplinary proceedings, into trying to help people like the Calderwoods address and work through doubts.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not really interested in addressing specifically the Calderwoods. But generally speaking, I realize many feel unwelcome, quite often, because of their doubts and their willingness and desire to explore those doubts. That's not distorting anything and not even meant to suggest anyone who actually explores their doubts in hopes to come out stronger on the other side are having to deal with disciplinary proceedings. I only said, many who go through explorations, as I've discussed with them, feel unwelcome and misplaced. I'm not sure the messages from the Church, generally, are helping their feelings, contributing to their feelings, or are the cause. But I do wonder if approached in a different way whether the outcome that we're seeing and dealing with would be different, and perhaps easier and better.

I don't like the defining of sides in all of this. I'd much rather have everyone be in this whole thing together.

[smac97]

I agree that he has publicly expressed his views.  I'm just not sure how they fit the handbook definition of apostasy:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

I'm spitballing here, but I suspect that their local leaders took exception to the published calumnies against the Church by members of the Church, that those calumnies amount to "clear, open and deliberate opposition to the Church," that the Calderwoods were given ample opportunity to retract or withdraw their calumnies opposing the Church, and that they refused to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I agree that he has publicly expressed his views.  I'm just not sure how they fit the handbook definition of apostasy:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

 

See Smac's post referenced here

[JLHPROF]

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

 

How about actual study groups, led by strong, studied, faithful members?  Study groups that don't refuse to discuss any challenging doctrine.  Groups where an evening can be spent with a guided study of issues like polyandry, race, women and the priesthood, etc.

Heck, once upon a time there were study groups for endowed members on temple ordinances.  They had discussions as part of regular prayer meetings.  That was a very long time ago.  Back in the 1800s when we used to talk about things.

 

Fear of them becoming contentious is a poor excuse.  The real challenge would be finding competent teachers with strong testimonies.  If we've proven anything in this era of blogs and social media it's that the ostrich approach no longer works.

The days where topics like these were taboo among members, ignored by leaders and faithful members, and not understood by many are long behind us.

Edited May 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

A few thoughts:

1. I think the recent publicized disciplinary actions involving Denver Snuffer, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and now the Calderwoods can be reasonably analyzed through the existing framework of what constitutes "apostasy." Specifically, the first and second definitions ("1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and "2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority").

2. I reject the suggestion that any of these people have been disciplined for merely "expressing doubt." In each instance there has been far, far more conduct alleged (and admitted) than merely "expressing doubt."

3. The third definition of apostasy ("Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority") would seem to create an axiomatic assumption that if following the teachings of an apostate sect is grounds for discipline, then so is creating an apostate sect.

4. I find your benign characterization of what the Calderwoods have done to be fairly suspect.  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."  And these are just from a very cursory skimming of their writings.  And yet you came to this board and characterize the Calderwoods as merely "expressing doubt."  The mind reels.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

But that is what they are doing... publicly expressing doubt.  Or possibly more accurate to say:  "publicly expressing disbelief".  But publicly expressing disbelief isn't part of the handbook definition of apostasy (see quote I provided).

 

Are we, as a church, now considering the public expression of disbelief to be apostasy?

[stemelbow]

Makes me wonder what you think the Church should be doing that it is not doing. Are you saying the Church should tolerate its members promoting and encouraging apostasy by others? Because that is where the Church has historically drawn the line, and it seems to me that stepping over that line is definitely a bridge too far.

It's true I don't have all the answers, nor any answer that really addresses everything. I do think the Church generally could and probably should tolerate more from it's members. and that's not to say the Church doesn't try to tolerate variation from it's members. Where the Church draws lines and where I'd theoretically draw a line probably aren't all that different from each other, but there is a difference. It's a matter of degree, I'm sure.

I'm not really comfortable with the specific examples before us (Calderwoods, Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc), but, sans disciplining, I've known many people who doubt, and explore doubt, but feel very unwelcome, isolated, alone--those types of things. It may be a necessary part of exploring doubt and perhaps may, in the end, be exactly what one needs to come out the other side in a better place. But it also may be exactly what is driving people to the fringe and exiting.

[rockpond]

I'm spitballing here, but I suspect that their local leaders took exception to the published calumnies against the Church by members of the Church, that those calumnies amount to "clear, open and deliberate opposition to the Church," that the Calderwoods were given ample opportunity to retract or withdraw their calumnies opposing the Church, and that they refused to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think that's a fair hypothesis.

[hope_for_things]

But that is what they are doing... publicly expressing doubt.  Or possibly more accurate to say:  "publicly expressing disbelief".  But publicly expressing disbelief isn't part of the handbook definition of apostasy (see quote I provided).

 

Are we, as a church, now considering the public expression of disbelief to be apostasy?

You can summarize what happened in one statement

 

* Leadership roulette

 

I believe the church needs to follow the come join with us sentiment of a big tent church that Uchtdorf articulated, but others think it’s important to root out the doubters who dare to publically express themselves.  That’s why you have some people like the Calderwoods getting excommunicated and others who don’t get disciplined.  

[smac97]

But that is what they are doing... publicly expressing doubt.

As a verb, "to doubt" is defined as "to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe," and doubt as a noun is defined as "a feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something."

 

They have published declarations to the world that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states."  Can you point to any portion of this that evinces "uncertain(ty)?"  A person struggling with "doubt" could reasonably say "I am uncertain about whether the LDS Church is God's one true church."  But a person who proceeds beyond that and affirmately declares that the LDS Church is not "God's one true church" has moved beyond belief, beyond doubt, and into disbelief.  And when that person publishes that disbelief to the world as a declaratory statement, and when that person does so while a member of the Church, then that person has done something well beyond "publicly expressing doubt."

 

The Calderwoods have also published to the world 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," and 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."

 

I think it is flagrantly incorrect to characterize such statements as merely "publicly expressing doubt."

 

Moreover, I question whether "publicly expressing doubt" is a necessary or helpful component of working through doubts.  I also can't help but think that, more often than note, such public airings are not intended to resolve doubts, but to spread them far and wide and invite others to join in finding fault with the Restored Gospel.  

 

Or possibly more accurate to say:  "publicly expressing disbelief".  But publicly expressing disbelief isn't part of the handbook definition of apostasy (see quote I provided).

Oh, come on. Publishing calumnies against the Church like those listed above and refusing to retract or withdraw them is not "act(ing) in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders?" How pharisaical is this discussion going to get?

 

Are we, as a church, now considering the public expression of disbelief to be apostasy?

If this was a question I thought was asked in good faith, I would respond in kind. But it's not, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

How about actual study groups, led by strong, studied, faithful members?  Study groups that don't refuse to discuss any challenging doctrine.  Groups where an evening can be spent with a guided study of issues like polyandry, race, women and the priesthood, etc.

Heck, once upon a time there were study groups for endowed members on temple ordinances.  They had discussions as part of regular prayer meetings.  That was a very long time ago.  Back in the 1800s when we used to talk about things.

 

Fear of them becoming contentious is a poor excuse.  The real challenge would be finding competent teachers with strong testimonies.  If we've proven anything in this era of blogs and social media it's that the ostrich approach no longer works.

The days where topics like these were taboo among members, ignored by leaders and faithful members, and not understood by many are long behind us.

 

I submit for your consideration the quoted remarks of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland at an event I covered last week, the BYU Religious Studies Center's 40th Anniversary Celebration:

 

 

Speaking to a gathering of current and past center directors, authors, donors, student assistants, and others, Elder Holland said the Church will triumph in the world, “but to get the final victory in that very last hour in this dispensation will require the God-given talent of persuasive, orthodox people like you.”

He said the present day is not unlike other times in gospel history in which good and evil have been at war. “It’s just that today, the pace is steadily quickening, and the technology of the 21st century is making communication and counter-communication so immediate and so persuasive.”

Such communication capability is “at our fingertips,” he said, “but in our case, our fingertips are on a host of keyboards ranging from desktop computers to handheld tablets to smartphones.

“We’ve always been at war with the adversary in our efforts to win the hearts of men and women. But now, more and more, partly because of technological access, we must be vigilant in the battle for the minds of the human family. Fortunately, what you do at the RSC is focused on both the mind and the heart, which is the divine formula.”

 

 

 

An indication, perhaps, that the Brethren, as exemplified here by Elder Holland, are aware of the need you describe and are taking steps to fill it, including enlisting and encouraging the talents and efforts of the best and the brightest among the Church's orthodox scholars.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

You can summarize what happened in one statement

 

* Leadership roulette

 

I believe the church needs to follow the come join with us sentiment of a big tent church that Uchtdorf articulated, but others think it’s important to root out the doubters who dare to publically express themselves.  That’s why you have some people like the Calderwoods getting excommunicated and others who don’t get disciplined.  

 

There's a huge difference between helping the doubters strengthen their testimonies and allowing ourselves to take doubting beliefs as acceptable.

Those that question should be told to "come join with us" and included in the "big tent" but that doesn't mean all beliefs held are acceptable.

That's why I keep my mouth shut so much on my personal beliefs.  I have more respect for the Church than to preach contrary doctrines at Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can summarize what happened in one statement

 

* Leadership roulette

 

I believe the church needs to follow the come join with us sentiment of a big tent church that Uchtdorf articulated, but others think it’s important to root out the doubters who dare to publically express themselves.  That’s why you have some people like the Calderwoods getting excommunicated and others who don’t get disciplined.  

Because the Church leadership collectively is cautious in administering discipline and errs on the side of leniency and mercy, you accuse it of "leadership roulette."

 

That strikes me as eminently  unfair, hope_for_things.

[JLHPROF]

 

I submit for your consideration the quoted remarks of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland at an event I covered last week, the BYU Religious Studies Center's 40th Anniversary Celebration:

 

An indication, perhaps, that the Brethren, as exemplified here by Elder Holland, are aware of the need you describe and are taking steps to fill it, including enlisting and encouraging the talents and efforts of the best and the brightest among the Church's orthodox scholars.

 

 

Oh, that would be wonderful.  We can only hope (and pray).

[CV75]

But that is what they are doing... publicly expressing doubt.  Or possibly more accurate to say:  "publicly expressing disbelief".  But publicly expressing disbelief isn't part of the handbook definition of apostasy (see quote I provided).

I think it appropriate to consider repeated and persistent, clear, open and deliberate public “expression” (your word) or “sharing” (their word) of “doubt” (their word) or “disbelief” (your word) to be public opposition to the certitude and trust the leaders are expressing and sharing.

[hope_for_things]

There's a huge difference between helping the doubters strengthen their testimonies and allowing ourselves to take doubting beliefs as acceptable.

Those that question should be told to "come join with us" and included in the "big tent" but that doesn't mean all beliefs held are acceptable.

That's why I keep my mouth shut so much on my personal beliefs.  I have more respect for the Church than to preach contrary doctrines at Church.

How do you know the Calderwoods were not trying to help strengthen testimonies in their own way?  When someone is having a crisis of faith, going through serious doubts about old paradigms is a very difficult process. 

 

Besides, it’s not like the church has any mechanisms for helping doubting members at the local level.  The programs of the church, i.e. the topics essays and books by historians are it.  Unless you get lucky enough to have local members who can support you, then it feels awfully lonely going through this.   

[hope_for_things]

Because the Church leadership collectively is cautious in administering discipline and errs on the side of leniency and mercy, you accuse it of "leadership roulette."

 

That strikes me as eminently  unfair, hope_for_things.

Leadership roulette is just the reality of the present church organization.  Things could be improved if they clarified policies like apostasy, or implemented review boards that consider cases, but you’d still have differing interpretations as widely varying as court cases vary.  

 

At least in the USA you can appeal decisions to a higher court, and you also have court judges appointed by a processes that aims for fairness and has checks and balances built in.  That helps level the playing field somewhat, but we still have a history of unjust court decisions as humans are flawed and the system is an imperfect one.  The church is not exempt from these kinds of things.  

[smac97]

How do you know the Calderwoods were not trying to help strengthen testimonies in their own way?

Congratulations! I am a fairly reserved person, but I actually laughed out loud, a good, hearty guffaw, when I read your question.

 

The Calderwoods have asserted that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have declared that Carson has "became thoroughly convinced that the church isn’t true," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have stated that the Church "is just plain wrong on so many issues," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have accused the Brethren of having "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have publicly stated that their "loyalty is not to the church but truth and righteousness," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

 

Really, this was a very amusing, tragicomic thing to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[bluebell]

How do you know the Calderwoods were not trying to help strengthen testimonies in their own way?

 

Why would they want to strengthen testimonies of things they were convinced were both false and harmful to believe?  And how can someone strengthen another's testimony in something while at the same time telling that person that they know it's not true?

 

Wouldn't that be like a teacher trying to teach someone that red and blue make purple, while at the same time telling them that they know that red and blue don't make purple?

[hope_for_things]

Congratulations! I am a fairly reserved person, but I actually laughed out loud, a good, hearty guffaw, when I read your question. The Calderwoods have asserted that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have declared that Carson has "became thoroughly convinced that the church isn’t true," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have stated that the Church "is just plain wrong on so many issues," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have accused the Brethren of having "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

The Calderwoods have publicly stated that their "loyalty is not to the church but truth and righteousness," and yet you propose that they might be trying to "help strengthen testimonies."

Really, this was a very amusing, tragicomic thing to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, I find this list of statements completely uncharitable.  I didn’t want to respond to the first person that took all of the negatives statements from the Calderwoods out of context, and quoted them in a list to prove how justified the church was in excommunicating them, because I was feeling such a negative reaction that I didn’t want to respond out of anger.  But here you’ve gotten me to respond.    

 

I believe this is entirely unfair.  How would you like it if someone trolled through all your internet comments over time and found the most outrageous statements and put a list together to prove that you are something that you aren’t?  This kind of behavior is when discussion boards like this are at their worst, exercising self righteous judgments with a piling on mentality.   This doesn’t make me laugh, it makes me sad that our culture has produced such behavior.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Leadership roulette is just the reality of the present church organization.  Things could be improved if they clarified policies like apostasy, or implemented review boards that consider cases, but you’d still have differing interpretations as widely varying as court cases vary.  

 

At least in the USA you can appeal decisions to a higher court, and you also have court judges appointed by a processes that aims for fairness and has checks and balances built in.  That helps level the playing field somewhat, but we still have a history of unjust court decisions as humans are flawed and the system is an imperfect one.  The church is not exempt from these kinds of things.  

There is a procedure in place for appealing Church disciplinary action as well. Kate Kelly availed herself of that procedure, and John Dehlin is in the process of doing so.

 

It seems you are not very well acquainted with disciplinary procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited to add:

 

In the Church of Jesus Christ, the check on human flaws is God Himself, whose revelation the leaders seek and receive, if not in the initial stages of the disciplinary case, then in the appeal process that ultimately involves the First Presidency.

 

If one who doesn't accept that such revelation is forthcoming to Church leaders, then ultimately the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is probably not a good fit for that person in any case.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

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

 

 

I think there is truth in that, we need to rely on the spirit, study so you can help yourself and others around you. We had stake conference a couple weeks back and I thought it was kinda boring but so did the stake presidency! hahhahahhaha! the Saturday evening session all of the speakers talked about effective ward councils, that's a great subject but that doesn't feed the soul, people investigating the Church wouldn't want to to hear that or people not on ward councils, heck I am on a ward council and didn't want to hear it. Sunday was a bit better but anyways/ A few years ago the Mission Pres. here gave us some stats about how many people take the lessons and then of those how many come to church and then how many are baptized and it was like an inverted pyramid, but all the people in the meeting talked about what how can the missionaries do better and I was thinking how can we get people who actually come to church to enjoy their experience? or get something out of it so that they'll want to join? I wouldn't want to go some boring thing for 3 hours, life is too short to sit in meetings that suck the will to live

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I find this list of statements completely uncharitable.  I didn’t want to respond to the first person that took all of the negatives statements from the Calderwoods out of context, and quoted them in a list to prove how justified the church was in excommunicating them, because I was feeling such a negative reaction that I didn’t want to respond out of anger.  But here you’ve gotten me to respond.    

 

I believe this is entirely unfair.  How would you like it if someone trolled through all your internet comments over time and found the most outrageous statements and put a list together to prove that you are something that you aren’t?  This kind of behavior is when discussion boards like this are at their worst, exercising self righteous judgments with a piling on mentality.   This doesn’t make me laugh, it makes me sad that our culture has produced such behavior.  

Please take Smac's examples and show us, one at a time with specific documentation, how he took their statements out of context.

[rockpond]

If this was a question I thought was asked in good faith, I would respond in kind. But it's not, so I won't.

 

Actually, it was asked in good faith.

[rockpond]

I think it appropriate to consider repeated and persistent, clear, open and deliberate public “expression” (your word) or “sharing” (their word) of “doubt” (their word) or “disbelief” (your word) to be public opposition to the certitude and trust the leaders are expressing and sharing.

 

So you're equating disbelief with opposition?