Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Tell that to Edward Snowden.

[Teancum]

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".

Well President Uchtdorf did say this....sort of.....

Though I don't imagine he would like people doing it like Dehlin did. The Calderwoods? Not sure. They were not as vocal as Dehlin. But they did talk to members of their stake that had questions, claimed to help people work through them, stay in the church and help keep some marriages together. They claim their stake leaders said some members claimed theor doubts started with the Calderwoods which the Cadlerwoods at least claim was not so.

Below are a few quotes from a president Uchtdorf.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

There Is Room for You

To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.7

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.8 We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some might say, “I just don’t fit in with you people in the Church.”

If you could see into our hearts, you would probably find that you fit in better than you suppose. You might be surprised to find that we have yearnings and struggles and hopes similar to yours. Your background or upbringing might seem different from what you perceive in many Latter-day Saints, but that could be a blessing. Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church.

Some might say, “I don’t think I could live up to your standards.”

All the more reason to come! The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet.

Some might say, “I know a member of your Church who is a hypocrite. I could never join a church that had someone like him as a member.”

If you define hypocrite as someone who fails to live up perfectly to what he or she believes, then we are all hypocrites. None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be. But we earnestly desire to overcome our faults and the tendency to sin. With our heart and soul we yearn to become better with the help of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!

[Teancum]

Tell that to Edward Snowden.

I think using that extreme to refute my point is ridiculous. Well criticizing a president and their policy get you kicked out? Will calling him and idiot, liar, scumbag, adulterer, etc? Will revealing hidden things about what he did in his histrory?

I think you knew what my point was.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

The Church is not a nation, and the principle of "freedom of speech" has its limits within the kingdom of God.

[Teancum]

I don't understand this. All of God's children have worth, but what is it about the Calderwoods that make them "the best" Mormons?

I am not sure most faithful, observant Latter-day Saints would characterize the authors of the calumnies referenced here as being representative of "the best" that Mormonism has to offer.

 

With respect, might I recommend that you become more informed before making statements such as this. The Brethren have provided substantive counsel regarding working with/through doubts many, many times:

• Stay in the Boat and Hold On! (By Elder M. Russell Ballard October 2014 General Conference)
• Yes, Lord, I Will Follow Thee (By Elder Eduardo Gavarret October 2014 General Conference)
• Receiving a Testimony of Light and Truth (By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf October 2014 General Conference)
• A Priceless Heritage of Hope (Henry B. EyringApril 2014 General Conference)
• Come, Join with Us (Dieter F. Uchtdorf October 2013 General Conference)
• The Hope of God’s Light (Dieter F. Uchtdorf April 2013 General Conference)
• “Lord, I Believe” (Jeffrey R. Holland April 2013 General Conference)
• It’s a Miracle (Neil L. Andersen April 2013 General Conference)
• By Faith All Things Are Fulfilled (Marcus B. Nash October 2012 General Conference)
• One Step Closer to the Savior (Russell T. Osguthorpe October 2012 General Conference)
• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life (Richard G. Scott April 2012 General Conference)
• The Spirit of Revelation (David A. Bednar April 2011 General Conference)
• Testimony (Cecil O. Samuelson Jr. April 2011 General Conference)
• Faith—the Choice is Yours (Richard C. Edgley October 2010 General Conference)
• Joseph Smith—Prophet of the Restoration (Tad R. Callister October 2009 General Conference)
• Get On with Our Lives (Steven E. Snow April 2009 General Conference)
• Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Kevin W. Pearson April 2009 General Conference)
• May You Have Courage (Thomas S. Monson April 2009 General Conference)

And these are just general conference talks I could glean in about three minutes of searching.  Imagine what a concerted, sincere effort to search out the words of prophets and apostles (in addition to the Scriptures) would yield.

 

And yet you come to this board and try to suggest that the Brethren have yet to convey a message of encouragement regarding doubts and inclusiveness regarding those who have them?

 

Really?

 

-Smac

I agree with you that there is tons of encouragement for those who have doubts. But it is clear that such doubters needs to be circumspect and quiet about those doubts. Don't talk very openly about them at church. Don't talk openly about them to your church friends too much. Certainly don't write about them I any public forum. And resolve them in a way the conforms what what the church says and claims.

I honestly think the Calderwoods and others like them are foolish to think they can go public about the things they did and not suffer the repurcussions that they did. The LDS church just does not tolerate such things. They never have and did so less when they could control more of the damaging information. They may tolerate some openness about doubts and the issues that may cause them (see the recent essays on a number of sticky issues) but they still limit how far one can go openly. Also it still depends on local leasders and how much they will put up with which can vary. So why be surprised? They know what the church is.

See I know this. And because I still want to be a member of the LDS church for a variety of reasons I pretty much keep my mouth shut except for here. Here I can be a semi anonymous coward who is a filthy apostate. And I imagine there are some here who may be happy to see me tossed out. To others I say thanks for putting up with me. Having a place to vent some actually helps keep me in the church. Many some of the posters here who are strong beleivers do post things that may me think and reconsider my positions.

[Teancum]

The Church is not a nation, and the principle of "freedom of speech" has its limits within the kingdom of God.

Yes clearly. See my post above. I agree. Now whet here that is a good or bad thing can be debated.

[JLHPROF]

Yes clearly. See my post above. I agree. Now whet here that is a good or bad thing can be debated.

 

As I posted earlier, we know it's a good thing.  God himself allowed Lucifer freedom of speech for a while and then proceeded to kick him out of heaven when he expressed disagreement/opposition to his decisions.

[jwhitlock]

I think using that extreme to refute my point is ridiculous. Well criticizing a president and their policy get you kicked out? Will calling him and idiot, liar, scumbag, adulterer, etc? Will revealing hidden things about what he did in his histrory?

I think you knew what my point was.

 

Your quote:

 

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.

 

 

I gave you a very public and well known example. There are plenty of others. If you were trying to make the point that we have unfettered free speech when it comes to the government, that's simply not true.

[rockpond]

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:

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.

Yes, my conclusion that he is not bragging is also an interpretation but with no evidence that Dehlin IS bragging, it seems to be the safer interpretation.

The author's words are his own and cannot be construed to be Dehlin's bragging.

What you see as soft-pedaling is just me not convicting them without evidence. My OP was just a question, I didn't make any conclusions about the Calderwoods.

[Bobbieaware]

I agree with you that there is tons of encouragement for those who have doubts. But it is clear that such doubters needs to be circumspect and quiet about those doubts. Don't talk very openly about them at church. Don't talk openly about them to your church friends too much. Certainly don't write about them I any public forum. And resolve them in a way the conforms what what the church says and claims.

I honestly think the Calderwoods and others like them are foolish to think they can go public about the things they did and not suffer the repurcussions that they did. The LDS church just does not tolerate such things. They never have and did so less when they could control more of the damaging information. They may tolerate some openness about doubts and the issues that may cause them (see the recent essays on a number of sticky issues) but they still limit how far one can go openly. Also it still depends on local leasders and how much they will put up with which can vary. So why be surprised? They know what the church is.

See I know this. And because I still want to be a member of the LDS church for a variety of reasons I pretty much keep my mouth shut except for here. Here I can be a semi anonymous coward who is a filthy apostate. And I imagine there are some here who may be happy to see me tossed out. To others I say thanks for putting up with me. Having a place to vent some actually helps keep me in the church. Many some of the posters here who are strong beleivers do post things that may me think and reconsider my positions.

In all sincerity and humility, I ask the following questions with respect: Where and how does one in your position draw the line between being a member with quietly held doubts and being an apostate wolf in sheeps clothing? For example, in church situations do you sometimes find yourself having to put up a false front or be a little dishonest from time to time in order to remain "in the closet" with your doubts? If your covering up is successful enough to have most in your ward assume you're a believing member in good standing, does it make you feel uneasy having members think you're something you're not. I could go on, but I'll stop here.

Please do understand that though I don't know you personally I do care about your welfare as a fellow child of God. I deeply sympathize with you in your predicament. I'm sure you wish things could be otherwise.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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

 

Clearly there is a difference between a person sharing a doubt with a close friend and writing blogs attempting to teach their understanding as correct.

What people struggle with though is understanding where that line is. We hear things like "It's ok to express your doubts but not okay to sew the seeds of doubt in others." How is it possible to express a doubt in a way that doesn't sew it in others?

If I can express a doubt to a friend or family members, can I express it to all my friends (Facebook)? There is no clear line which creates a culture of fear and distrust. If I post the link to what I think is a thoughtful essay and my friends and ward members see it, am I actively trying to sew doubt or am I sharing an additional perspective that may hold some value.

We are told we can have doubts but we can never speak them publicly. Is there another way to speak? Every thing we say impacts somebody. What's the limit? It will be different for every ward and stake. It is stifling and anxiety producing to say "you may have your doubts but you may never speak about them."

It's this feeling and not knowing where that line is that produces so much fear and angst.

[rodheadlee]

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.

You have choice to be in the Church or not. Most people born in the USA don't seek to be or have the resources to be expats so they really don't have a choice but it is possible to chose to not be an American. Regardless of which choice you make there are rules to follow for each choice.

[hope_for_things]

I'm not going to respond to each individual message, but try to explain my perspective and why I was critical of people taking statements made out of context.

I do think this goes both ways, and I see it with critics and defenders and I've likely been guilty of this myself as well. Since I had listened to the Calderwoods interviews, read their blog posts and generally been following their story already, it can be frustrating to read what I believe are mischaracterizations about them especially in the context of individuals implying that they deserved what they got or justifying the excommunication. I have to acknowledge that this is human nature, however unfortunate.

I don't think selective quote taking to prove a point about someone will ever tell us much about that person. This is why truly valuable history telling takes time and tries to be sympathetic to the perspectives of the person. Unfortunately this can't be done in a short internet blog. But I do think we can be more charitable towards individuals and try to contextualize their statements better.

I don't know the Calderwoods personally and have never interacted with them, but perhaps I see a little bit of their story in my own. I too try to help those that struggle with doubts and I too don't have very orthodox beliefs. Apparently their stake president felt that they had crossed a line with their behavior, but I personally don't agree and think we need to be more open and accepting of others and their doubts within the church.

Going back to the original OP I think the central church could do a better job of defining what is constituted as apostate behavior. I hope that they would be more open to people expressing their disbeliefs without fear of discipline. This statement that "the church is true", seems to be a hot button item, but it doesn't need to be. That isn't a question in the temple recommend interview or baptismal interview and I know plenty of people who interpret the idea on a large spectrum very differently. I'm perfectly comfortable with someone declaring honestly that they don't believe the church is the one and only exclusively true church, and I don't think our focus within the church should be on this issue, it should be focused back on the savior and how we live the gospel through feeding Christ's sheep. Members, less actives, non-members, all are God's children and chosen people in my eyes.

[Calm]

We are told we can have doubts but we can never speak them publicly. Is there another way to speak?

 

I would say "publicly" is where you have intentionally have little or no control over who is listening or reading, such as an unlocked blog on the internet and instead the desire is to spread the word as far and as wide as possible in hopes of finding interested readers/listeners and supporters.

 

Talking in a small group of well known friends or sending an email to some also well known friends and intending it to stay with them (even if they happen to share it) is what imo would be viewed as being private and not speaking publicly.

 

In essence, I think if one is concerned about the impact of one's own doubts on others, that one does not want to cause others to have doubts, but is looking for answers to one's own questions (and not just exploring the experience of doubt itself), then one tends to be careful to share with people that you have ongoing contact and background with so they will be able to understand you better and who you care about and are careful to pay attention to their reaction so you don't cause hurt.

 

Throwing it all out there for total strangers who you will never even be aware of what kind of impact you will have on them in most cases is a significantly different circumstances.

 

We have a family member who has long doubted, sometimes to the point of full disbelief in God.  Lots of family members have discussed things with him in many contexts over the years, we have held family home evenings together to talk about issues and he has been very open with his family about it.  On occasion his frustration with something comes out in Church but he feels sorry when that happens because he knows by now he has to find the answers for himself and when he speaks out like that, it is emotion driving him, not a desire to learn.  And no one gets mad at him because he apologizes and no one even considers he needs to be looked at for apostasy as while he is quite open about his doubts in appropriate venues with family and friends and church members who ask, he does not promote that attitude in others intentionally and he regrets when he has done it unintentionally.

 

Not everyone has a life where there is a safe private group or person to discuss things with.  Hopefully this will change as more and more people become experienced and successfull in resolving their own faith reevaluations in positive ways and learning from seeing others around them doing it as well and as the Church puts out the technology to be able to access the resources in more effective ways (an ongoing effort to both keep up with and not get overwhelmed by new tech but to use it the best way possible), there should be more opportunities to bring up a topic to help a family or group of friends move towards being able to be supportive of each other's faith experiences.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I thought I was asking a question about what you actually wrote...  I think you raise an interesting and possibly critical point:  The Calderwoods (presumably) felt that they were publicly expressing their disbelief.  You, others here, and their leaders (presumably) feel that the Calderwoods have publicly expressed their opposition.

 

I wonder if that difference in perception is at the heart of the divide we're seeing.

[rockpond]

I would say "publicly" is where you have intentionally have little or no control over who is listening or reading, such as an unlocked blog on the internet and instead the desire is to spread the word as far and as wide as possible in hopes of finding interested readers/listeners and supporters.

 

Talking in a small group of well known friends or sending an email to some also well known friends and intending it to stay with them (even if they happen to share it) is what imo would be viewed as being private and not speaking publicly.

 

In essence, I think if one is concerned about the impact of one's own doubts on others, that one does not want to cause others to have doubts, but is looking for answers to one's own questions (and not just exploring the experience of doubt itself), then one tends to be careful to share with people that you have ongoing contact and background with so they will be able to understand you better and who you care about and are careful to pay attention to their reaction so you don't cause hurt.

 

Throwing it all out there for total strangers who you will never even be aware of what kind of impact you will have on them in most cases is a significantly different circumstances.

 

We have a family member who has long doubted, sometimes to the point of full disbelief in God.  Lots of family members have discussed things with him in many contexts over the years, we have held family home evenings together to talk about issues and he has been very open with his family about it.  On occasion his frustration with something comes out in Church but he feels sorry when that happens because he knows by now he has to find the answers for himself and when he speaks out like that, it is emotion driving him, not a desire to learn.  And no one gets mad at him because he apologizes and no one even considers he needs to be looked at for apostasy as while he is quite open about his doubts in appropriate venues with family and friends and church members who ask, he does not promote that attitude in others intentionally and he regrets when he has done it unintentionally.

 

Not everyone has a life where there is a safe private group or person to discuss things with.  Hopefully this will change as more and more people become experienced and successfull in resolving their own faith reevaluations in positive ways and learning from seeing others around them doing it as well and as the Church puts out the technology to be able to access the resources in more effective ways (an ongoing effort to both keep up with and not get overwhelmed by new tech but to use it the best way possible), there should be more opportunities to bring up a topic to help a family or group of friends move towards being able to be supportive of each other's faith experiences.

 

Great post, Cal.  I'd encourage you to listen to the Calderwoods MS interview.  Carson's discussions with people in his stake who were struggling seems to be part of what got him into trouble.  But you post here gives good insight into the challenge facing us, as a church.  Somehow we need to create safe spaces for people to work through issues without it creating more faith crises.  It's tough - I think the Brethren are trying but haven't quite figured out how to lead us there, yet.

[JLHPROF]

I thought I was asking a question about what you actually wrote...  I think you raise an interesting and possibly critical point:  The Calderwoods (presumably) felt that they were publicly expressing their disbelief.  You, others here, and their leaders (presumably) feel that the Calderwoods have publicly expressed their opposition.

 

I wonder if that difference in perception is at the heart of the divide we're seeing.

 

I would agree that perception is a big part.  But I also think there is an in-between on the spectrum from disbelief to opposition.

I would call it promoting in any way a shared disbelief.

 

Publicly expressing disbelief wouldn't be an issue.  There are many who come and go from Churches every day.  Tons of inactive with weak testimonies that never are disciplined in any way.  Some leave, some return, some stay inactive.

 

Publicly opposing the Church would be a big issue.  Seeking to "expose" the falsehood of the Church as they see it.

 

But what of those who through their disbelief claim they seek not to bring down or fight the church but by their actions seek to lead others to agree with their disbelief.

These are those who are "Look what I've discovered/decided about the religion you follow!  Maybe you might want to not believe it either anymore when I reveal my disbelief to you."

 

Is that direct opposition (a la Kate Kelly) or is it just sowing doubts?  Both can be very dangerous to faith.

[cinepro]

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.

If someone made claims similar to LDS leaders regarding the importance of being obedient to them and following their teachings, then I think it would be fair to hold them to a similar standard. The reason LDS leaders' words are held to a higher standard is because we are told they should be.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Everything is an interpretation.  That is the human condition, as Mark Bukowski has pointed out to us many times on this board.  Moreover, you are free to disagree with anyone else's interpretation.

 

There are no facts.  Only interpretations.

[cinepro]

I would also point out that like Dehlin, the Calderwood's appear to have stopped attending Church well before their excommunication.  As they explain in the PDF:
 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10727706/Stepping%20away%20from%20traditional%20Mormonism.pdf
 
 

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

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 in volvement with the church and its faith based practices.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Three reasons why we want to leave: <snip>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Letting go of the “Church leaders know best” approach that our culture often takes has enabled us to get answers that we otherwise would not have been able to find

We want to be an advocate for and create a space for Mormons like us.

That whole essay is a very clear, well written explanation on how the Calderwood's no longer believe in the Church and "want to leave", but also want to keep their names on the records for cultural purposes, as well as "be an advocate for and create a space for Mormons like us."

 

So the Church said "No thanks" and simply helped them "leave", which was what they had said they had wanted to do.

 

As with Dehlin (who had also stopped attending and proclaimed his disbelief), I'm not sure why this is a big deal.  I understand the social and cultural ramifications, and it will no doubt be a difficult transition for the Calderwoods and their families and friends, but beyond that I can't see why anyone is surprised.

Edited May 23, 2015 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................... 

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.

A number of scholars who have written on the subject have agreed that the true legacy of anti-Mormons Jerald & Sandra Tanner was to strengthen the LDS Church by their work.  That was, of course, not their intention.  However, by publishing early LDS documents and through wide-ranging fault-finding, they helped many faithful LDS Church members and scholars see the power and genuine nature of early Mormonism.  It was as though the Lord had raised them up in order to stimulate the Restoration to move forward with energy and grace.

 

Naturally, along the way there have been casualties, but it has been worth the challenge and effort.  The same applies to FARMS and FAIR.  It can sometimes be difficult to confront new information, new paradigms, but they are essential to growth.

[ERayR]

  "If you have doubts,  that is okay..study and be who are..this community is for everyone".

 

One little error.  This community is not for everyone.  It is for those who are willing to become God's covenant people and keep those covenants.

[DonBradley]

I'm not aware that anyone has been disciplined for expressing doubt, as such. They've been excommunicated, in part, for expressing open disbelief that, as rockpond has noted, is perceived as opposition.

 

I think the church itself has much more tolerance for the public expression of doubt, and even disagreement, than many of its members may think. For instance, Elder Christofferson has indicated that members are completely free to post to social media regarding their support for gay marriage. And I know church members, including members who participate in this board, who have very openly critiqued the actions of past leaders and present policies without any degree of church discipline. So, I really do think the institution affords more room for such doubt, disagreement, and even critique than we tend to think.

 

However, we, as an LDS culture, tend to have little tolerance for the expression of doubt, disagreement, and critique. Since we (collectively) don't well tolerate such expression, we assume the church doesn't. As a culture, we have a lot of maturing to do.

 

Don

[ERayR]

Wow..the Mormon Church keeps getting rid of the best in their religion

 

I will have to disagree.  The best would be those that keep their covenants.

[DonBradley]

As I read the comments, it really appears that many people think they we are forbidden from publicly expressing doubt. What, exactly, is this view based on?

 

So far as I can tell, it appears to be based on the idea that open expressions of "doubt" have been cited in the apostasy charges against John Dehlin and the Calderwoods, and the fact that John Dehlin's stake president said his example is leading people away from the church. Are there other sources of this view, or are those it?

 

In the cases mentioned above, what was expressed was (as Smac and others have pointed out) much more than "doubt": it was the flat rejection of certain church beliefs, accompanied with criticisms of the church. While these did in John Dehlin's case, arguably, affect his listeners, I cannot see him having been disciplined if he had merely expressed his doubts about various doctrines and claims, and even if he had given his reasons for those doubts.

 

Am I offbase here? What are the indications that the mere expression of doubt leads to church discipline?

 

Don