Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[hope_for_things]

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?

This is a good question.   One way is by dismissing with black and white answers to questions.  Helping people to realize there are many different ways of looking at things in the church and they don’t need to feel like there is one correct answer to each question.  Also helping them not to feel alone.  That was one of the biggest things for me, I thought I was alone and going through these things made me feel like an outsider.

 

Many of the original paradigms I used to believe were true have changed significantly from my prior paradigm.  This has been an important area of growth for me personally.  Unfortunately because there is so much shame around the exploration of these things, many people go from one side of the equation (simplistic belief in the crafted narrative) to the other side (simplistic rejection of the crafted narrative).  I think that is why some people feel like they must leave the church when they find out the correlated history was false. 

 

I like to think there is always another way of viewing things.  Always a different perspective to have, and this isn’t a black and white gospel with easy answers to life’s questions.  

[JLHPROF]

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. 

 

I have no opinions of the Calderwoods specifically at all, nor am I addressing their personal situations.

But a faith crisis is NOT an excuse to publicly denounce the Church AND expect to remain a member.

Sometimes I think more liberally minded people today would find God too harsh in casting out Lucifer and those who "doubted" the plan of salvation they were taught in the premortal existence was the best course for the "Church of the Firstborn" to take.

 

I mean, all those rules of salvation - believing in Christ, coming to earth to be tempted, getting baptized, all so that they could live as eternally resurrected beings.  And don't even get us started on the requirements for exaltation.  I just don't see why I need to follow all those temple covenants.  Perhaps God should have included Lucifer and his followers in the Church of the Firstborn anyway and been more accepting of their desires for an alternate path to salvation.  /sarcasm

 

 

 

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. 

 

I agree with this, and have said so several times on this thread.

[JLHPROF]

So you're equating disbelief with opposition?

 

I would equate promoting disbelief with opposition.  (As I've equated with the premortal councils).

[rockpond]

I would equate promoting disbelief with opposition.  (As I've equated with the premortal councils).

 

Well, I tend to agree with that as a fair reason for excommunication.

[hope_for_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.

 

Sorry, the system is flawed.  If revelation to humans was a perfect process then we'd be fine, but it isn’t.   

 

Lots of church programs and procedures have evolved and been updated with time.  You don't need to feel compelled to defend the process as God inspired and therefore unworthy of any change.  We can improve these things, and only when someone is willing to consider that the old way of doing things isn't working, and look at things differently, can true inspiration come.  The existing system is archaic and needs to be improved.  Ongoing restoration and all.  Upward and onward! 

[bluebell]

This is a good question.   One way is by dismissing with black and white answers to questions.  

 

I can respect that, but when it comes to whether or not the church is 'true' (that it teaches the Gospel of Christ and has authority to act in God's name) is there anyway to dismiss black and white answers to that question?

 

If one person publicly teaches the answer is definitely 'no', can they help someone maintain a 'yes' answer when they are leaning towards 'no' as well?  I'm not seeing how that's possible.  It seems illogical.

[Calm]

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

If they are not what Carson Calderwood now believes, you should be able to provide quotes of his that reject those past disbeliefs.

Do you have evidence that he has changed his mind or that these were not his actual descriptions of his personal beliefs?

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[hope_for_things]

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

If SMAC wants to post the entire paragraphs and discussions from which he took those quotes out of context from, then please be my guest.  There is always much more to the story.  

 

Better yet, why don't you read a little more about the essays they wrote or listen to their podcast interviews.  You might learn something about why they said these things in the context of their experiences.  Then you won't be forced to judge them from a few selectively quoted statements.

 

It might be a fun exercise sometime, but I bet I could take a few selective quotes from Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling to make him look like an anti Mormon hater.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, the system is flawed.  If revelation to humans was a perfect process then we'd be fine, but it isn’t.   

 

Lots of church programs and procedures have evolved and been updated with time.  You don't need to feel compelled to defend the process as God inspired and therefore unworthy of any change.  We can improve these things, and only when someone is willing to consider that the old way of doing things isn't working, and look at things differently, can true inspiration come.  The existing system is archaic and needs to be improved.  Ongoing restoration and all.  Upward and onward! 

Changes in programs and procedures over time need not negate the assumption that revelation has been present throughout. In fact, it's my conviction that God inspires His servants to adapt, administer and create programs and procedures to meet needs as they come along. That does not mean the past policies were not likewise inspired.

[smac97]

Actually, I find this list of statements completely uncharitable.

And ignoring what the Calderwoods have written is delusional. Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

 

The local leaders of the Calderwoods have apparently excommunicated them for apostasy. I didn't. I just did a cursory review of the Calderwoods' published writings and found several statements which, by their own terms, are deeply problematic in terms of continuing in fellowship of the Church. I suspect the things I found were part of what the Calderwoods' local leaders found problematic.

On a related note, I find your accusation of me being "completely uncharitable" to be hugely ironic because . . . well, I'll let you figure that out.

 

I didn’t want to respond to the first person that took all of the negatives statements from the Calderwoods out of context,

I did not distort the context of the Calderwoods' statements. I did not take them out of context. So please either explain how I have done so or else stop bearing false witness against me.

 

and quoted them in a list to prove how justified the church was in excommunicating them,

Well, honestly, by all appearances it looks like the excommunication was justified. I am not happy about the excommunication, but that seems to be an honest and fair assessment (far more so than your laughable and wholly speculative countertheory).

 

I believe this is entirely unfair.

Quoting the Calderwoods' published calumnies against their Church is "entirely unfair?" How so?

 

How would you like it if someone trolled through all your internet comments over time

False Comparison #1. I did not do this. I searched for maybe five minutes. Tops.

 

and found the most outrageous statements

I concur that the Calderwoods' published statements against the Church, made while they were members of the Church, are "outrageous." I'm glad we can at least agree on that (really, no sarcasm here).

 

and put a list together to prove that you are something that you aren’t?

False Comparison #2: I have not characterized the Calderwoods as something that they "aren't." They really did say those things. And they really have been excommunicated.

 

This kind of behavior is when discussion boards like this are at their worst, exercising self righteous judgments with a piling on mentality.

Oh, the irony of you finding fault in others for "exercising self righteous judgments."

In any event, my assessment of the Calderwoods has been that A) they have been excommunicated, B) they have published calumnies against the LDS Church, and C) I hope they reconsider their actions and return to the Church. In retrospect, I feel just hunky dory about this assessment.

 

This doesn’t make me laugh, it makes me sad that our culture has produced such behavior.

What you said was hilariously strained. I wasn't laughing at the Calderwoods. I was laughing at the absurdity of characterizing their calumnies against the Church as them possibly trying to "help strengthen testimonies." And I laughed in an exasperated, tragicomic kind of way.

I recall hearing about a domestic dispute where a husband had physically assaulted his wife, and who proffered as a partial justification his strong love for his wife. That is, he beat his wife because he loved her so much. What are we, as a society, to make of such a claim? Well, we could accuse the husband of lying, and we might be right. Or we could believe the husband. Who knows? Maybe the guy's mental processes are so screwed up that he really does express love through physical violence. But you know what? We as a society would still need to punish the husband's inappropriate behavior, particularly if he has exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior and has refused to alter that behavior.

I'll leave to you the assessment of the metaphorical value of the foregoing paragraph to the topic of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

 

If SMAC wants to post the entire paragraphs and discussions from which he took those quotes out of context from, then please be my guest.  There is always much more to the story.  

 

 

Smac97 may do as he pleases. You are the one making the accusation that he took statements out of context; ergo, the burden of proof is on you.

 

Better yet, why don't you read a little more about the essays they wrote or listen to their podcast interviews.  You might learn something about why they said these things in the context of their experiences.  Then you won't be forced to judge them from a few selectively quoted statements.

 

I know Smac97, and I trust him not to have taken these statements out of context; ergo, I see no need to do as you suggest.

 

Again, you bear the burden of proof, having made the accusation that they were taken out of context; prove it.

 

 

It might be a fun exercise sometime, but I bet I could take a few selective quotes from Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling to make him look like an anti Mormon hater. 

 

As a journalist, I'm well aware that things get taken out of context. In fact, anti-Mormons do it all the time.

 

I just don't believe it has happened in this instance.

 

But if you say it has, go ahead and make your case. I'm willing to consider whatever you have to offer.

[hope_for_things]

I can respect that, but when it comes to whether or not the church is 'true' (that it teaches the Gospel of Christ and has authority to act in God's name) is there anyway to dismiss black and white answers to that question?

 

If one person publicly teaches the answer is definitely 'no', can they help someone maintain a 'yes' answer when they are leaning towards 'no' as well?  I'm not seeing how that's possible.  It seems illogical.

It’s another one of those things that isn’t black and white in my mind.  There aren’t any questions in the temple recommend interview that ask if the person believes the “church is true”.  If there were, I’d have to think hard about how to answer it. 

 

I can understand why a person who’s hurting and having a faith crisis would feel that the church isn’t true especially when so much emphasis is put on this during conference talks and testimony meetings.  It’s a hard one, I don’t like the language, I think we have work to do on this topic as a culture.  

[rockpond]

For those who care... some insight into Carson & Marisa's mental state going into their DC including the handouts he was planning to give to those men in the council:

 

http://conservativecakeliberalicing.blogspot.com/2015/05/apostasy-disciplinary-council.html

[Calm]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10727706/Stepping%20away%20from%20traditional%20Mormonism.pdf

 

Summary: short explanation of what we are doing

 Despite being Mormon our entire lives we now want to partially separate ourselves from it.

•   We feel the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states.

•   We feel there are some systemic (pervasive in and ubiquitous to the organization, not

  always easily seen or noticed like systemic racism) problems that inhibit members from being as good and emotionally developed as they otherwise could be. We now see how parts of Mormonism (both its culture and doctrine) have been slowly poisoning our souls and making us unhappy.

•   Those two personal conclusions make us feel that we don’t want to or need to continue being Mormon in the traditional sense. We will allow our kids to attend as much as they want, but we will greatly limit our involvement with the church and its faith based practices. 

 

•  

Now please explain how Smac took that out of context

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Since we have wonderful proof-texters running about, perhaps you could shown us where Carson says that his readers should believe just as he does?

The little that I have now seen just seems to be their own musings on things, not some effort to drag people away into the ever-burning pits of apostate outer darkness.

[Calm]

I finally started to see that the church is just plain wrong on so many issues, is culturally biased, and has changed its doctrine many times due to political and social pressures as this faithful BYU professor explains here. I realized that it wasn't God who thought of me as second-class, it was the Patriarchy of the church - and they aren't one and the same! I decided that I needed to “own” my Mormonism, to see the ways it influences me that I may not be aware of, and to find out how it had gotten so off-track to include the problems that I now could see more clearly. If I sought for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with a faithful perspective and pure intent, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ would hold up to scrutiny. 

 

HfT,

 

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

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[hope_for_things]

Changes in programs and procedures over time need not negate the assumption that revelation has been present throughout. In fact, it's my conviction that God inspires His servants to adapt, administer and create programs and procedures to meet needs as they come along. That does not mean the past policies were not likewise inspired.

 

It’s important to acknowledge that people are entitled to revelation, sure.  It’s also obvious when looking at our history that much of what we do has changed and that many things are flawed and need to be changed.  There is nothing offensive about this acknowledgement this in my opinion.  Just because they were entitled to revelation, doesn’t mean they received any.  

 

Too much of a Potemkin Village mentality in the church, we need to listen to Uchtdorf more.  

[Calm]

• 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. 

  same here

   

[hope_for_things]

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10727706/Stepping%20away%20from%20traditional%20Mormonism.pdf

 

•  

Now please explain how Smac took that out of context

 

I understand that the Calderwood’s don’t believe in the church’s exclusivity.  But do you understand why and do you comprehend how they reached that conclusion and what the reasoning is behind it.  That’s the context that was missing from the selective quote taking. 

 

Also, I don’t like how this was presented, its self righteous condemnation of people that have gone through an extremely difficult, heart wrenching, and life altering experience.  There is no point to the pilling on and condemning of these folks by misrepresenting them.  And this selective quote taking is misrepresenting.

 

I repeat that I could also comb through your quotes in these forums and find statements that would misrepresent you and your positions, but may technically be accurate.  That is what was done with this out of context misrepresentation, and I don’t like it.  

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Carson was, as he states, a VERY dedicated missionary. He is not just blowing smoke. Maybe that falls under a previous discussion about ultra-dedication setting you up for major disappointment?

 I wonder what happened in that Temple visit on his so way home that made everything flip so dramatically?

[Scott Lloyd]

This was on one of the above links:

 

Many people have asked why we don't resign instead of going through the disciplinary council for what seems to be a sure conviction of apostasy.  The main reason is that we know a lot of people that don't believe anymore, want to discuss their doubts and problems in public, but don't for fear of apostasy or shaming from family, friends and people at work.  Because we are in a position that we've already been through that by coming out about our disbelief publicly we feel that we can be a voice for them to hopefully create that middle ground in Mormonism that Carson worked for so many years to create from the inside.

 

It's clear from this that they expected to be excommunicated but were going through the motions in order to make a public scene and try to force change in the Church.

 

Sorry, but I have a hard time viewing them as oppressed and persecuted doubters.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It’s important to acknowledge that people are entitled to revelation, sure.  It’s also obvious when looking at our history that much of what we do has changed and that many things are flawed and need to be changed.  There is nothing offensive about this acknowledgement this in my opinion.  Just because they were entitled to revelation, doesn’t mean they received any.  

 

Too much of a Potemkin Village mentality in the church, we need to listen to Uchtdorf more.  

Again, just because something that was done in the past has been changed does not mean that it wasn't inspired for its time.

 

As far as "listening to [President] Uchtdorf more," he is a member of the First Presidency. If change is needed, it occurs to me that he is in a very highly placed position to effect such change.

 

Or are you saying we, with our "Potemkin Village mentality," dictate to the First Presidency what it does?

 

You're not being coherent here, hft,

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand that the Calderwood’s don’t believe in the church’s exclusivity.  But do you understand why and do you comprehend how they reached that conclusion and what the reasoning is behind it.  That’s the context that was missing from the selective quote taking. 

 

Also, I don’t like how this was presented, its self righteous condemnation of people that have gone through an extremely difficult, heart wrenching, and life altering experience.  There is no point to the pilling on and condemning of these folks by misrepresenting them.  And this selective quote taking is misrepresenting.

 

I repeat that I could also comb through your quotes in these forums and find statements that would misrepresent you and your positions, but may technically be accurate.  That is what was done with this out of context misrepresentation, and I don’t like it.  

You did not respond to calmoriah's challenge? Why?

[Calm]

But do you understand why and do you comprehend how they reached that conclusion and what the reasoning is behind it.  That’s the context that was missing from the selective quote taking.

 

I don't understand how the context of how someone got to their disbelief would change the fundamental meaning of that disbelief.

 

Please explain how saying that Carson Calderwood does not believe the Church is the one true church is misrepresenting him.

 

Someone may have very good reason to disbelieve the Church is the one true church, but does having that reason change his belief into it being the one true church...obviously not.

 

I know a number of people who I understand why they have become disbelievers and even have chosen to preach against the Church.  Just because I understand why and accept that it is a reasonable position for them to hold doesn't change the fact that they have become disbelievers/apostates (I am using both in case anyone feels the need to define apostate as someone who is antimormon as well as has lost faith in the Church).  And most that I know in this condition have no problem defining themselves in this way as well.

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[Jeanne]

???????????????

You don't know that they are NOT the best..they just have thoughts of their own.  No one is right or wrong or good or bad if they are thinking and learning.  I probably should have not said best..because I don't know.  He has been where you are and has walked in my shoes a bit too and I think you and I are great!