Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Calm]

That is going is going to hurt.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is going is going to hurt.

What is going to hurt?

[DonBradley]

Just as an aside some may find interesting, sparked by the "free speech" discussion earlier, in his trial before the 12 in 1911, former apostle John W. Taylor appealed to certain constitutional principles as applying to his case, since the Constitution is an inspired document. (I'm not recalling offhand which--I'd have to check.)

 

Of course, the church isn't itself a government and runs differently than one, but I've always thought it was an interesting approach that Taylor took. While most aspects of the Constitution wouldn't apply to the church, because of the distinction between a political and an ecclesiastical entity, there may be areas of overlap, in which inspired constitutional principles could inform church governance.

 

In fact, I think we already have this to some extent--e.g., in how it's required in a high council trial that the accused be provided with an advocate to speak in his or her defense.

 

Food for thought.

 

Don

Edited May 23, 2015 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

If you compare what might be apples to apples, the constraint the US government imposes is about the same.

 

For example, if a soldier speaks critically of the Commander in Chief, he can be kicked out of the military.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0425/Marine-discharged-for-slamming-Obama-on-Facebook

 

I would certainly hope that a church that has common consent as one of the principles in its founding revelations and D&C 121 in its canon would not closely parallel the military in how it operates.

 

Don

[mormonnewb]

Wow..the Mormon Church keeps getting rid of the best in their religion.  There are many ways to grow..teaching other to think and to adjust to doctrine, culture and personal experiences that are challenging is a better way...Someday, I hope that an authority in LDS faith will say:  "If you have doubts,  that is okay..study and be who are..this community is for everyone".

 

There is someone who says that every other conference or so.  It just appears that he really doesn't mean it.

[Scott Lloyd]

A fact that can be used by people who want to believe that excommunications are always right to justify not believing the one side they do get.

 

If excommunications were always right, there wouldn't be an appeals process.

 

Don

It occurs to me that even if they were always right, an appeals process would still be necessary in theory just for the assurance factor.

It's similar to why people in government and judicial bodies recuse themselves when faced with a potential conflict of interest, even when they are certain in their own minds that they won't be unduly biased. The recusal obviates any cloud of suspicion.

[mfbukowski]

Just as an aside some may find interesting, sparked by the "free speech" discussion earlier, in his trial before the 12 in 1911, former apostle John W. Taylor appealed to certain constitutional principles as applying to his case, since the Constitution is an inspired document. (I'm not recalling offhand which--I'd have to check.)

 

Of course, the church isn't itself a government and runs differently than one, but I've always thought it was an interesting approach that Taylor took. While most aspects of the Constitution wouldn't apply to the church, because of the distinction between a political and an ecclesiastical entity, there may be areas of overlap, in which inspired constitutional principles could inform church governance.

 

In fact, I think we already have this to some extent--e.g., in how it's required in a high council trial that the accused be provided with an advocate to speak in his or her defense.

 

Food for thought.

 

Don

 

Arguably it's even more intense than that- in fact lots are drawn and half the HC makes sure that Church position is fairly stated and the other half is assigned to make sure that the position of the accused is fairly stated.

[why me]

 

 

 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.  

Unfortunately, such is life in the social media. How often have we seen critics cherry pick quotations by GAs both past and present to score a point against the church or the GA? Quite often. And this is why one needs to be careful in what one says on the internet. How many people have been fired because of the tweet or because of what was said on facebook? Many. And yet, these people could be outstanding citizens etc. But one sentence can be very damning or condemning. 

 

And how many people have left the church because critics paste a quotation that may not be too flattering to Joseph Smith or Brighmam Young? And have you been influenced by such cutting and pasting? It does happen.

[why me]

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.

 

 

Of course, if they make their attitudes public via the social media then they must expect a reaction and perhaps a harsh one from people. They could have gone quietly nand peacefully but they chose to make it public through social media in order to hurt the church. Of course members are going to react. It is human to protect that which one loves. And where have they been misrepresented? I think that Cal has called you out on this a few times on this thread. They seem very straightforward in attacking the lds church. How should a member handle their attack on the web? And are they not piling on the church?

[readstoomuch]

I first heard about them when they did a podcast about their open denunciation of section 132. They as well as many who were exed play their doubts out in public. It is distasteful, but I sympathize with their doubts. I would love a mechanism to talk about doubts. How about The Crucuble of Doubt by Givens for a textbook. That has to be the best LDS book I have read in 10 years and printed by Deseret Book. That as well the essays and Joseph Smith Papers speak volumes about a new openness.

We need people like the Calderwoods to stay and try to work out the details inside the Church. What we don't need and already have too much is people who appear to be trying to lead people away from the Church. The question comes down to how much dissent is allowable in public before it is too much? Apparently they crossed the line. I am sure that no Bishop or leader looks forward to a court that is played out by the other side in public. My guess is that they are constantly praying for inspiration about how to do the process properly and with love.

[why me]

Wow..the Mormon Church keeps getting rid of the best in their religion.  There are many ways to grow..teaching other to think and to adjust to doctrine, culture and personal experiences that are challenging is a better way...Someday, I hope that an authority in LDS faith will say:  "If you have doubts,  that is okay..study and be who are..this community is for everyone".

I don't know. I  would think that social media can be a dangerous place to post one's doubts in a way which may lead others out the faith. I don't think that this is the way to go. Back in the day before social media, one talked to people in person and attempted to answer doubts through contemplative prayer and dialogue. But now, we have social media where millions of people can read what is posted and have dialogue threads about it for maximum publicity.

 

Why post it on social media at all? What would be the point? No church can survive a community of disbelieving members.

[Calm]

What is going to hurt?

Nonhonourable discharge...no benefits and not looking good on a resume.

[DonBradley]

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.  

 

Without agreeing that this is what Smac has done in this case (I think it isn't), I think you are absolutely right, Hope for Things, that this kind of thing happens and is both unfair and sad. Such collections of the worst online statements from various people in Mormondom have been made in the past, and some of these collections have been as the basis for "review" essays purporting to critique the thought, faith, or scholarship of the person. Not only have MB posts been used for this purpose, so have Facebook comments and even Facebook "likes."

 

As you mention, people in online disagreement tend to be at their worst, and everybody has bad days, bad moments, statements that only make sense in the context of the larger thread or in the context of an ongoing relationship with another poster. A search of my online posts and comments could be used to support radically different perceptions of me, depending on which quotes were chosen. And I suspect the same is true of almost all of us.

 

Selectively gathering statements that make someone look bad is beneath common decency and unbecoming of Latter-day Saints.

 

Don 

[why me]

I first heard about them when they did a podcast about their open denunciation of section 132. They as well as many who were exed play their doubts out in public. It is distasteful, but I sympathize with their doubts. I would love a mechanism to talk about doubts. How about The Crucuble of Doubt by Givens for a textbook. That has to be the best LDS book I have read in 10 years and printed by Deseret Book. That as well the essays and Joseph Smith Papers speak volumes about a new openness.

We need people like the Calderwoods to stay and try to work out the details inside the Church. What we don't need and already have too much is people who appear to be trying to lead people away from the Church. The question comes down to how much dissent is allowable in public before it is too much? Apparently they crossed the line. I am sure that no Bishop or leader looks forward to a court that is played out by the other side in public. My guess is that they are constantly praying for inspiration about how to do the process properly and with love.

 

Once they did a podcast, they wanted to make their disbelief public in order to get a following and to lead others into disbelief also. Such is social media. No church can allow such dissenting members to stay in good faith. Also, we need to remember excommunication does not mean that they cannot attend church or meetings. Because they can. A church needs to be unified to survive and the social media can be a 'wonderful' vehicle for disunity if left unchecked.

Edited May 23, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I don't know. I  would think that social media can be a dangerous place to post one's doubts in a way which may lead others out the faith. I don't think that this is the way to go. Back in the day before social media, one talked to people in person and attempted to answer doubts through contemplative prayer and dialogue. But now, we have social media where millions of people can read what is posted and have dialogue threads about it for maximum publicity.

 

Why post it on social media at all? What would be the point? No church can survive a community of disbelieving members.

 

No church except well, all the other ones.  Show me where the Catholic Church has excommunicated a lay member for heresy in, say, oh the last two centuries.  Or the Baptists.  Or the Methodists.  Or pretty much any of the other 2 BILLION Christians on the planet.

[why me]

 

Selectively gathering statements that make someone look bad is beneath common decency and unbecoming of Latter-day Saints.

 

Don 

And ex latter-day saints. What I find amazing just how ex members can gather unflattering statements made by GAs and get away with it without someone telling them that they should be more christlike. So, the internet debate will always favor the critics. And as you know don, you have been on both sides of the coin. You were much more free to post aggressive statements against the church, paste unflattering quotations etc without people constantly calling you to be more christlike.

 

I find it amazing the lopsidedness of the debate.It would be much easier to be a critic and post unflattering statements made by BY and get away with it. But as a member, even as a wayward member, I would be called on it if I were aggressive in posting unflattering statements by the people who are the subject of this thread.

[why me]

No church except well, all the other ones.  Show me where the Catholic Church has excommunicated a lay member for heresy in, say, oh the last two centuries.  Or the Baptists.  Or the Methodists.  Or pretty much any of the other 2 BILLION Christians on the planet.

 

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/apart-from-abortion-are-there-other-sins-that-incur-automatic-excommunication

 

All churches have the practice. However, it is the mormon church that is constantly picked on. Why? Do these lds members who constantly bring this issue up within the lds church wish to destroy the church from within? Maybe. 

Edited May 23, 2015 by why me

[hagoth7]

I would certainly hope that a church that has common consent as one of the principles in its founding revelations and D&C 121 in its canon would not closely parallel the military in how it operates.

 

Don

Hi Don,

 

If you're thinking I want the church to be like the military, you've certainly misunderstood me.

[jwhitlock]

The author doesn't claim that Dehlin was bragging. That's your interpretation (and Smac's). Or your spin if you prefer that word.

You don't seem to have a problem with Smac's selective editing. But when I provide the quote without clipping key parts and explain that there is no evidence of bragging it is "spin"?

If you want to claim that Dehlin was bragging, provide some evidence. Otherwise it's just your interpretation of what he said. And that's fine - when Smac did it, I thought that readers should get more of the context than how it was misrepresented by Smac.

 

The evidence is clear from the full quote I provided that Dehlin is bragging. I didn't expect you to agree since you have a history of softpedaling what apostates do, as demonstrated by your OP.

[Avatar4321]

No church except well, all the other ones.  Show me where the Catholic Church has excommunicated a lay member for heresy in, say, oh the last two centuries.  Or the Baptists.  Or the Methodists.  Or pretty much any of the other 2 BILLION Christians on the planet.

So me where the other churches are true and why we should follow their example

[rockpond]

The evidence is clear from the full quote I provided that Dehlin is bragging. I didn't expect you to agree since you have a history of softpedaling what apostates do, as demonstrated by your OP.

There's no evidence that he's bragging. If there was, you'd have provided it. The quote you gave doesn't say he's bragging. It's simply your interpretation.

[Teancum]

With the potential reach of the Internet, it's difficult to see how expressing one's doubts thereby would fail to create such an environment.

 

These days any average person with a computer and ISP can have a reach that was unheard by those of us who remember well the days of ink on paper.

Is expressing doubts publicly teaching things that are not doctrine? Item 2 on the list specifies doctrine and seems more to mean teaching something like ww should pray to heavenly mother, that heavenly mother is then Holy Ghost or teaching Adam God as doctrine.

Is tralking about the multitude of problematic issues in Church histrory teaching doctrine? Maybe some is. Probably things like Book of Abraham issues or taking about the Book of Mormon as not historically accurate would be viewed as such. Exposing thngs like blood atonement or polyandry I am not sure. Certainly criticizing Church leaders in a public way is not welcome. Criticizing them for their current positions in public gets one in deep trouble quicker than anything. LDS leaders just don't like that at all.

So I guess I am answering my own question. Even if there is substance and likely an element of truth to some of them, openly discussing contender sail church issues if you are leaning towards doubt is not welcome and seems to approach getting one in trouble at least for rank and file members.

Odd that a defender can typically defend the controversial issues in just about any way they want while exposing many to the conterversial issues and not fly afoul of the Church. Yet I likely learned more about sticky church issues that at least for me clearly became indefensible from FARMs and FAIR when I was hobby apologist than any other source really.

[Teancum]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences from that speech.

 

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how being removed from an organization they do not believe in; is somehow removing their ability to continue their efforts on their blog or somehow limits their speech.

 

(edited)

Well in the USA you can pretty much say anything critical of the USA, write about it, speak in public about it and so on and they don't kick you out.

[CV75]

So you're equating disbelief with opposition?

It most certainly depends, and as I qualified these terms in the post you responded to in context of your description and the OP, yes. I think it woud be more productive for you to ask questions about what i actually wrote.

[jwhitlock]

There's no evidence that he's bragging. If there was, you'd have provided it. The quote you gave doesn't say he's bragging. It's simply your interpretation.

 

I can play the same game you're playing. The quote doesn't say he's not bragging; that's simply your interpretation.

 

There's no evidence that he's not bragging.

 

Of course, with all this, you're still tap dancing around the actual quote:

 

At one time Dehlin urged Mormons to stay in the Church, but in a discussion at ExMormon.org in 2010 he repudiated his former position: "This was my position for a time...but the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push...I now believe that people should follow their joy...period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work -- and I'm perfectly happy if they're happy."

 

Dehlin has openly repudiated core teachings of the Mormon faith, been instrumental (in his own estimation) in leading "many more people" to leave than to stay, and has garnered a reputation among the post- and ex-Mormon community for his deliberate work to do just that.

 

 

You've skirted whether the author was accurate or not. However, the last sentence above certainly gives us some insight into Dehlin's mindset as penned by the author of the article - and recognized by the ex-Mormon community. It certainly looks like bragging, though you dismiss it.

 

You've done this before, rockpond. You feel free to put your own soft-peddling spin on what people are doing (your phrasing it as just "doubt" was ludicrous in the OP, considering what the Calderwoods have actually written), but when it doesn't fit your agenda, you demand that an actual word (in this case "bragging") be used in the quote. If not, you tell us that there's no evidence of "bragging", even though the full quote can reasonably be construed as bragging on Dehlin's part.