Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[jwhitlock]

We are also not talking about KK or Dehlin. I didn't even know Carson was doing this and I am fairly up on heretical Mormonism and he was a prominent AP in my mission. They weren't making huge waves and leading people out of the church in droves. Basically, like was stated earlier- they crapped out on leadership roulette. 

 

So I gather that leading people out of the church in droves is bad, but leading just a few out should be ok.

[ERayR]

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.

 

 

Is anybody here know what their local activities were?

[Calm]

It is seeing the boots on the ground conversation from LDS folks that makes me realize that no matter how much as corporate may try to reach out and be sympathetic to doubters, the reality from the trenches is that local membership and leadership will not be as accommodating and will continue shunning and purging the perceived trouble-makers. Sad.

So you are going to take the online conversation of a hundred or so LDS of which maybe a dozen or so are the ones you appear to have a negative response to who have chosen to hang out at a particular message board and apply it worldwide to the millions of members?

 

This is not "on the ground" conversation.  You want that conversation, you can hear it as ward meetings across the world.

Edited May 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I haven't read what they've written, but nothing that I've seen quoted has them bearing testimony that Jesus is not the Christ or railing against God. If they have said such things, or anything like them, this would certainly be a violation of the covenant to stand as witnesses of God.

 

Don

He describes himself as an agnostic theist, his wife is Christian in belief.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So I gather that leading people out of the church in droves is bad, but leading just a few out should be ok.

Well, they haven't led anyone out really. They have just expressed their opinions on various topics. But I am willing to be wrong- has Carson said people should follow him?

[jwhitlock]

Well, they haven't led anyone out really. They have just expressed their opinions on various topics. But I am willing to be wrong- has Carson said people should follow him?

 

I rather doubt that anyone blogs or posts things that they have, hoping that no one will be influenced by it.

[ERayR]

Well, they haven't led anyone out really.

 

And you know this how.

[rockpond]

Will John Dehlin's piece do?

 

(excerpt)

After showing public support for Ordain Women, and after publicly expressing his doubts about several LDS church truth claims (e.g., polygamy, polyandry, Book of Mormon and Abraham historicity), Carson is now being charged with apostasy by the LDS Church, and by his Maple Valley, Washington stake president.  A disciplinary council for Carson is set to be scheduled within the next few days or weeks.

 

No, that's a statement by Dehlin.  Do you have a statement by Carson or Marisa in which they attack the church?  All this statement says is that they supported OW and expressed doubts.

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF,

 

I don't want to be in the position of defending the Calderwoods, since I don't know enough about their case to weigh in strongly on it in either direction. But I do want to respond to things you said that I find utterly puzzling.

 

I don't understand. To me, surmising that people must be breaking several temple covenants, even though you don't know that, seems exactly like judging. I'm not even sure what it would mean to say that you think they must be covenant breakers but are not judging them. If this is not judging them, what would constitute judging them?

 

 

So, if I'm understanding correctly, even if the Calderwoods weren't breaking temple covenants before, they are now, because, in excommunicating them, their stake president has made it impossible for them to keep some of those covenants, such as the covenant to legitimately wear one's garments...?

 

As I see it, being externally prevented from keeping covenants and breaking covenants are not actually the same thing. Do you also see a distinction there, or not?

 

Don

 

I'm sorry if you don't see a difference between expressing the possibility that people may be breaking/have already broken their covenants and directly assuming that they have done so without knowing all the details of their lives.  Seems a pretty obvious distinction to me.

 

As for garments, I know if I were excommunicated (and still believed it a valid covenant) I would continue to wear my garments (until they completely wore out if I had to).  I covenanted with God to wear them and nobody can break that covenant but me.  If I didn't believe I would still be breaking that covenant.

[carbon dioxide]

After showing public support for Ordain Women, and after publicly expressing his doubts about several LDS church truth claims (e.g., polygamy, polyandry, Book of Mormon and Abraham historicity),

To me that is pretty view for him to have contradictory.  Basically not believing essential doctrines of the Church so basically saying it is not true but then saying women should be ordained.  Ordained with what? If the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, ect are all false then there is reason to believe John the baptist, Peter, James, and John restored the priesthood to Joseph Smith.  Therefore there is nothing to ordain the women to. 

[Stone holm]

I hope that there was something more than the Internet article that he published as a basis for the action, if not we are going to be experiencing a lot of disciplinary councils in the near future .

[smac97]

No, that's a statement by Dehlin.  Do you have a statement by Carson or Marisa in which they attack the church?  All this statement says is that they supported OW and expressed doubts.

Well, here are some problematic statements.  They have publicly declared that the LDS Church "is not God’s one true church," that it "isn’t true," that it is "just plain wrong on so many issues," that it "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 its leaders have "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and that they (the Calderwoods) are not loyal to the Church, but are instead loyal to "truth and righteousness" (necessarily implying, then, that the Church is not characterizing as having "truth and righteousness").

I have been raked across the coals by a poster who appears to be defending the Calderwoods and who has taken serious exception to the dastardly exercise of . . . wait for it . . . quoting the Calderwoods. Your request for further statements by the Calderwoods "in which they attack the church" will risk the further wrath of that particular board nanny.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Well, here are some problematic statements. They have publicly declared that the LDS Church "is not God’s one true church," that it "isn’t true," that it is "just plain wrong on so many issues," that it "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 its leaders have "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and that they (the Calderwoods) are not loyal to the Church, but are instead loyal to "truth and righteousness" (necessarily implying, then, that the Church is not characterizing as having "truth and righteousness").

I have been raked across the coals by a poster who appears to be defending the Calderwoods and who has taken serious exception to the dastardly exercise of . . . wait for it . . . quoting the Calderwoods. Your request for further statements by the Calderwoods "in which they attack the church" will risk the further wrath of that particular board nanny.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, Smac, since it was just yesterday that you gave us snippets of Dehlin quotes and edited them in such a way that it changed their original meaning, I'm not inclined to trust the Calderwood snippets you've given here without the full quotes and context.

Why don't you choose a full quote from them that is a good example of them attacking the church and either include context or a link so we can read the context. Then we can take a look at what it means to attack the church.

[Senator]

Well of course it does. So does everybody. You have the right to protest the government, but don't expect to be welcomed back to your office at the tax office after participating in a protest against your boss. You are welcome to criticize Ford, but don't expect to keep your sales job at Joe's Ford Dealership after posting criticisms of the very cars you are paid to sell. How can you not get this very simple reality? You have the right to your free speech, and I have the right not to tolerate it. 

I'm confused, why are you questioning my understanding of a "very simple reality" that I initially espoused and which you are agreeing with?

[rockpond]

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."

Great point. In the case of the Calderwoods it seems to me, after listening to their story, that they weren't trying to say: "Maybe you might want to not believe it either." Rather they were saying something along the lines of: It's too hard for me to keep these questions and doubts in and not discuss them when I see others wrestling with the same things.

I suppose some would say that when Carson transitioned from doubt to disbelief he should have withdrawn from the public discussion. Continuing at that point put him on the path to excommunication. And I'd probably agree with that conclusion. But I imagine it's tough for the individual to realize when they've finally made the transition from doubt to disbelief as it seems like more of a process than an event.

[JLHPROF]

But I imagine it's tough for the individual to realize when they've finally made the transition from doubt to disbelief as it seems like more of a process than an event.

 

Well, conversion is a process too.  I imagine apostasy is a process.  It took centuries for the early Christians to apostatize.

Why wouldn't doubting/losing a testimony and leaving the Church be a process too?

[rockpond]

Well, conversion is a process too.  I imagine apostasy is a process.  It took centuries for the early Christians to apostatize.

Why wouldn't doubting/losing a testimony and leaving the Church be a process too?

 

Yep, I agree, likely a process.

 

Which is why I'm saying that it was probably tough for the Calderwoods to identify when their doubt changed to disbelief and when they should have pulled themselves out of public discussion if they wanted to avoid church discipline.  (This of course is on the presumption the publicly expressing disbelief if equivalent to publicly expressing opposition to the Church and thus grounds for the charge of apostasy.)

[hope_for_things]

Great point. In the case of the Calderwoods it seems to me, after listening to their story, that they weren't trying to say: "Maybe you might want to not believe it either." Rather they were saying something along the lines of: It's too hard for me to keep these questions and doubts in and not discuss them when I see others wrestling with the same things.

I suppose some would say that when Carson transitioned from doubt to disbelief he should have withdrawn from the public discussion. Continuing at that point put him on the path to excommunication. And I'd probably agree with that conclusion. But I imagine it's tough for the individual to realize when they've finally made the transition from doubt to disbelief as it seems like more of a process than an event.

I read Don Bradley's comments on this distinction and I appreciate both of you bringing this up as I see this as an important area to contemplate. How do we distinguish between doubt and disbelief? It seems to be shades of gray, and I'm not sure how to easily differentiate the two.

Here is a hypothetical synario that I think might help. First example is of a newly baptised member who just started reading the Book of Mormon and took the missionary challenge to pray about it and had a positive spiritual experience, nothing overwhelming, but felt peace and love from God. This new member now finds themselves wanting to follow the example of their community and is testifying to the truthfulness of the church and the Book of Mormon on Sunday. What level of belief does this new member have?

A second person has been a member of the church for many years, return missionary, offered countless hours of service in multiple callings during their lifetime, and has born testimony many times. This person has recently learned information that challenged their paradigm, threw them into a faith crisis and now feels hurt and lied to by the church. This person now questions about what is real, what is false and in this process of questioning he/she says some things that denounce the earlier paradigm and simple correlated narrative that the church had taught him/her earlier in life.

How should we view these two people? They are both on different stages of a journey through life. How should fellow saints treat either of these people. Does God love either of them more or less? Should one be labeled faithful and other other a doubter, or even worse a disbeliever. What if person #1 later becomes person #2?

We are all on a journey. I recognize that sometimes people make choices that alienate them from a community. Someone earlier commented that if we make the tent too big that we become the great and spacious building. I find it ironic that much of the finger pointing at people who are excommunicated sounds erily similar.

These aren't easy topics, but I think we can do better, be kinder (myself included) and show more charity with one another.

[sethpayne]

Is anybody here know what their local activities were?

 

Yes.  Beyond speaking openly to those who were curious about their specific doubts and/or disbelief in this or that doctrine, to my knowledge, neither Carson nor his wife were "evangelizing" anyone out of the Church.  

[ERayR]

Yep, I agree, likely a process.

 

Which is why I'm saying that it was probably tough for the Calderwoods to identify when their doubt changed to disbelief and when they should have pulled themselves out of public discussion if they wanted to avoid church discipline.  (This of course is on the presumption the publicly expressing disbelief if equivalent to publicly expressing opposition to the Church and thus grounds for the charge of apostasy.)

 

I read Don Bradley's comments on this distinction and I appreciate both of you bringing this up as I see this as an important area to contemplate. How do we distinguish between doubt and disbelief? It seems to be shades of gray, and I'm not sure how to easily differentiate the two.

Here is a hypothetical synario that I think might help. First example is of a newly baptised member who just started reading the Book of Mormon and took the missionary challenge to pray about it and had a positive spiritual experience, nothing overwhelming, but felt peace and love from God. This new member now finds themselves wanting to follow the example of their community and is testifying to the truthfulness of the church and the Book of Mormon on Sunday. What level of belief does this new member have?

A second person has been a member of the church for many years, return missionary, offered countless hours of service in multiple callings during their lifetime, and has born testimony many times. This person has recently learned information that challenged their paradigm, threw them into a faith crisis and now feels hurt and lied to by the church. This person now questions about what is real, what is false and in this process of questioning he/she says some things that denounce the earlier paradigm and simple correlated narrative that the church had taught him/her earlier in life.

How should we view these two people? They are both on different stages of a journey through life. How should fellow saints treat either of these people. Does God love either of them more or less? Should one be labeled faithful and other other a doubter, or even worse a disbeliever. What if person #1 later becomes person #2?

We are all on a journey. I recognize that sometimes people make choices that alienate them from a community. Someone earlier commented that if we make the tent too big that we become the great and spacious building. I find it ironic that much of the finger pointing at people who are excommunicated sounds erily similar.

These aren't easy topics, but I think we can do better, be kinder (myself included) and show more charity with one another.

 

I can see it as a process but excommunication is not for beliefs but for actions. 

[hope_for_things]

I can see it as a process but excommunication is not for beliefs but for actions.

So you can believe anything you want as long as you don't talk about it? There has to be some freedom of speech. This is where the boundaries are unclear. Facebook, blogs, what constitutes crossing that line?

 

 

As an FYI about board rules: when you are asked for references which you were earlier--you are required to respond.

[JLHPROF]

I read Don Bradley's comments on this distinction and I appreciate both of you bringing this up as I see this as an important area to contemplate. How do we distinguish between doubt and disbelief? It seems to be shades of gray, and I'm not sure how to easily differentiate the two.

 

To my mind a doubt is a question.  A disbelief is a conversion against.

It's the agnostics vs the atheists, at least in a simplistic way.

[JLHPROF]

So you can believe anything you want as long as you don't talk about it? There has to be some freedom of speech. This is where the boundaries are unclear. Facebook, blogs, what constitutes crossing that line?

 

We've been over this.  There IS some freedom of speech, but there are limits to it and always will be.

[mormonnewb]

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.

Yes, heresy is on the books as an excommunicatible offense. I'm just having trouble finding an example of it actually happening to a non-priest or nun in, say, the last two centuries.

[ERayR]

So you can believe anything you want as long as you don't talk about it? There has to be some freedom of speech. This is where the boundaries are unclear. Facebook, blogs, what constitutes crossing that line?

 

Lets say you had a GM automobile dealership and one day you heard one of your sales staff tell a customer that your GM product was inferior and they should go over to the Ford dealer.  Would that be crossing the line?