Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Never heard of him, sorry. He has some novel constructions and interpretations of scripture -- and he's not quiet about them. I think Rock is where Bill Reel got his screwy ideas about only having to pay tithing on what's left over after one has paid for everything one needs or wants -- which for most people would amount to paying 10 percent of nothing. I know that Bill did a podcast interview with Rock. Edited May 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Or maybe he's jumping on the bandwagon.If I was in the High Council hearing his case, I'd probably want to know how much respect he has for the Church's scripturally mandated procedures, given his publicizing of this one.Honestly, how many of these 15-seconders actually hastened their own demise by thumbing their noses at those who are trying to help them?Not a 15-seconder... He's had a popular blog for over 6 years. He actually writes very thoughtful, well-referenced, detailed articles. Puremormonism.blogspot.com
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Not a 15-seconder... He's had a popular blog for over 6 years. He actually writes very thoughtful, well-referenced, detailed articles.Puremormonism.blogspot.com15 seconds relatively speaking. And by the way, isn't there some kind of board rule against linking to apostate blogs? I know there's one that prohibits links to anti-Mormon sites; it seems to me that they're essentially the same thing. He actually writes very thoughtful, well-referenced, detailed articles. Well, I suppose it takes a certain type and degree of talent to wrest the scriptures to the point where you can rationalize paying 10 percent of nothing as your tithing. Edited to add: I just reviewed the board guidelines. There's a rule in there against linking to sites with temple content, but nothing in there about linking to anti-Mormon or apostate content per se, So I guess you are free to link away to your hearts content. Edited May 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 15 seconds relatively speaking.And by the way, isn't there some kind of board rule against linking to apostate blogs? I know there's one that prohibits links to anti-Mormon sites; it seems to me that they're essentially the same thing.Well, I suppose it takes a certain type and degree of talent to wrest the scriptures to the point where you can rationalize paying 10 percent of nothing as your tithing.Feel free to read his post on tithing and start a thread to discuss what you think he got wrong. Your misrepresentation of his post with this statement isn't worth responding to. Rock's Pure Mormonism blog is neither apostate, nor anti-Mormon. But again, you are welcome to engage his ideas on another thread. 3
Yirgacheffe Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) It is unrealistic to presume that holding forth on the Internet with one's views is not publicly expressing them. The Internet is arguably the most public medium of expression the world has ever seen.In another thread the OP stated quite firmly that the LDS church does not excommunicate people for their blogs and other forms of internet posting. This threadhttp://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65403-apostasy-boundary-maintenance-and-strong-communities/ Edited May 27, 2015 by Yirgacheffe
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 My bro. is the stake clerk and he said they had a DC for someone for something, don't know who or what but NOT A WORD!!!! I don't get these people's egos, why flaunt your dirty laundry all over the place as if it's a badge of honour or something. Wouldn't you want it as private as possible? 2
Avatar4321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I suppose in the great and spacious building being disciples is a badge of honor. 1
Senator Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I wish you and your family well. Thanks, -Smac I appreciate this response. You could have responded differently, but didn't. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 My bro. is the stake clerk and he said they had a DC for someone for something, don't know who or what but NOT A WORD!!!! I don't get these people's egos, why flaunt your dirty laundry all over the place as if it's a badge of honour or something. Wouldn't you want it as private as possible? Why so much angst about someone sharing their story? I don't understand this. It would be wrong for your clerk brother to share confidential information about another person but it's not the same thing for a person to share their own story. So many on this board malign others for simply sharing a story that others find helpful. Why? What are you afraid of? Can you not understand that people recognize that their story has value for others? Would you feel better if the individual also released his leader from the requirements of confidentiality so we could get both sides of the story. What's the gripe here? Help me understand. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Isn't "agnostic" lacking belief? Which is what I said: Givens expressed that he doesn't believe it was divinely mandated. He may think it could have been, but that's different than believing that it was.No that is not correct. An agnostic thinks that something is unknown or unknowable. The church is agnostic on the origins of the priesthood ban - "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." They don't take a positision one way or another on the issue. It would wrong to say that the church teaches the priesthood ban had revelatory origins, just as it would be wrong to say the church teaches that Brigham Young just made it up. Stating that Given's expressed "that he does not believe polygamy was divinely mandated" seems to imply that he expressed disbelief vs just saying he didn't know if it was or not. 2
Tacenda Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) My bro. is the stake clerk and he said they had a DC for someone for something, don't know who or what but NOT A WORD!!!! I don't get these people's egos, why flaunt your dirty laundry all over the place as if it's a badge of honour or something. Wouldn't you want it as private as possible?The reason some are public is to state the reason for their excommunication. So many just assume it's for adultery or something else. I know if I were ex'd I wouldn't want people remembering me for doing something I never did or would ever come close to. This isn't entirely the so called apostates fault, I partially blame the church or one or two leaders that wanted things tight lipped about particular church history. And btw, Carson was just that for many years about his disbelief. He just kept trying to believe and make it work. Then he made the mistake of helping too much, or going public in inappropriate ways in the church. It wasn't done with authority from the church. Edited May 27, 2015 by Tacenda
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I was not referring to "comments" Givens has made generally. Rather, I was referring specifically to those quoted here. I am certainly open to correction, but those quoted remarks seem pretty off-the-cuff to me. And since they were mid-way through a multi-hour podcast interview (rather than in, say, a written article or book), and since he ends his comments by equivocating ("But what was God testing by commanding or allowing that principle to prevail? I’m not sure, I don’t know."), I'm sort of inclined to not give these comments a whole lot of consideration. I will instead wait for Bro. Givens (for whom I have tremendous respect) to provide a more detailed and thoughtful exposition regarding his position on polygamy, should he choose to do so. Thanks, -SmacYou can certainly do whatever you want. I will note that John Dehlin was not pressing Givens on this issue or really asking any questions at all. John Dehlin expressed that he really didn't like Abrhamic tests. Givens then took a tangent to polygamy with no prompting or pressing from his interviewer. Givens is very emphatic on the issue of God having only one wife, and polygamy having no place in the eternal world. Obviously Given's opinion on why polygamy happened is still unsettled. I think it is obvious from the interview that Given just doesn't know why God commanded or allowed polygamy.
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Why so much angst about someone sharing their story? I don't understand this. It would be wrong for your clerk brother to share confidential information about another person but it's not the same thing for a person to share their own story. So many on this board malign others for simply sharing a story that others find helpful. Why?What are you afraid of? Can you not understand that people recognize that their story has value for others? Would you feel better if the individual also released his leader from the requirements of confidentiality so we could get both sides of the story. What's the gripe here? Help me understand. I just find it weird that Dehlin, Waterman don't believe in the Church anymore but seem to be offended that they got called to a DC, I don't know what they expected the Church to do with them. Everyone wants to come out the winner
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You do?Then why is your excommunication such a big deal?I don't wish to participate in, much less start, any sort of dog-pile on you, but I have this question: Since you proudly announce that you "don't believe the church is God's church," and have been actively preaching that, then why are you so adamant in insisting that you were excommunicated "for helping others suffer less?" Because that's what my SP even agreed to. Like I said in my first comment. Even though I was helping people that suffered in the church, I was doing it by sharing difficult issues with person B and I had left. It was too much for them, too much of an passive invitation to leave.
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 My bro. is the stake clerk and he said they had a DC for someone for something, don't know who or what but NOT A WORD!!!! I don't get these people's egos, why flaunt your dirty laundry all over the place as if it's a badge of honour or something. Wouldn't you want it as private as possible? Are you talking about me or Rock?
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I suppose in the great and spacious building being disciples is a badge of honor. Its a badge of honor to not consider the church Christ's church anymore and then to get kicked out for doing what you feel is christlike. I know you can't understand that since you probably can't fathom the thought of this not being Christ's church, but it really is a simple as that. 1
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I appreciate this response. You could have responded differently, but didn't. Likewise!
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The reason some are public is to state the reason for their excommunication. So many just assume it's for adultery or something else. I know if I were ex'd I wouldn't want people remembering me for doing something I never did or would ever come close to. This isn't entirely the so called apostates fault, I partially blame the church or one or two leaders that wanted things tight lipped about particular church history. And btw, Carson was just that for many years about his disbelief. He just kept trying to believe and make it work. Then he made the mistake of helping too much, or going public in inappropriate ways in the church. It wasn't done with authority from the church. exactly, I had a buddy resign and not "fight the good fight" because he knew after his wife uncompromisingly kicked him out over the church everybody would assume adultery
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Are you talking about me or Rock? unless you live here then nope! hahahaha!
SeattleGrunge Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I just find it weird that Dehlin, Waterman don't believe in the Church anymore but seem to be offended that they got called to a DC, I don't know what they expected the Church to do with them. Everyone wants to come out the winnerits easy, be more of a big tent and less boundry maintenance. How many catholics get kicked out for not believing?
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The reason some are public is to state the reason for their excommunication. So many just assume it's for adultery or something else. I know if I were ex'd I wouldn't want people remembering me for doing something I never did or would ever come close to. This isn't entirely the so called apostates fault, I partially blame the church or one or two leaders that wanted things tight lipped about particular church history. And btw, Carson was just that for many years about his disbelief. He just kept trying to believe and make it work. Then he made the mistake of helping too much, or going public in inappropriate ways in the church. It wasn't done with authority from the church. in my experience if someone cheated on their spouse, word gets around PDQ. The Church is the least of their concerns
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) its easy, be more of a big tent and less boundry maintenance. How many catholics get kicked out for not believing? not a clue but how many catholics attend church beyond the Christmas Mass and Easter and the funerals? Well, listen I know a thing or two about tents and you don't want to get caught up in the sideshow or menagerie tent and miss the Big Show in the main tent. I think the Church would have a bigger tent but we need more people!!!!! wish they would stay and help set it up!!!! Edited May 27, 2015 by Duncan 1
stemelbow Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Because that's what my SP even agreed to. Like I said in my first comment. Even though I was helping people that suffered in the church, I was doing it by sharing difficult issues with person B and I had left. It was too much for them, too much of an passive invitation to leave. Russell's question is interesting. Everyone has, at least to some extent, the goal of helping others suffer less. In our individual minds we each contribute to lessening the suffering. Even LDS members try their best to help, which probably surprises some. It'd be beyond weird if your SP excommunicated you for trying to keep others from suffering. It seems like you see it as getting ex'd just for helping, while he might suggest you were ex'd because you do not believe and had influenced others not to believe. I'm not thinking he was right for doing so, necessarily. But trying to see it like he does, at least helps me understand how it happened. It seems to me some people are just better off not believing, as we like to put it. I would like to see people feel welcome to express that, whether they go to Church or not. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 In another thread the OP stated quite firmly that the LDS church does not excommunicate people for their blogs and other forms of internet posting. This threadhttp://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65403-apostasy-boundary-maintenance-and-strong-communities/I went to the link and read the opening post twice. It says nothing about Internet posting.
Recommended Posts