rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Here is his short post with his announcement after the disciplinary council:http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/06/yerrrrr-out.html?m=1He did a short interview prior to the disciplinary council:http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-pre-disciplinary-council/This one is interesting because he had an unwavering testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and the Book of Mormon. His primary criticism of the Church: lack of being guided by revelation. It still seems unclear what constitutes his apostasy. He indicates that he'll provide more detail in a follow up interview on the MS Podcast.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The church seems to be on a roll with these excommunications lately. It's sad, sad, sad and more than a bit disheartening to see the church operating in this way. It's a philosophical form of protectionism that damages those who are excommunicated, their loved ones, and others who may struggle in similar ways. Very disappointing yet not surprising. 4
Popular Post rpn Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) That was the point. He has an unwavering testimony of what he believes Joseph Smith believed and taught, teaches that he knows better what Christ wants than do the leaders that Christ has actually called to run the church, which leaves him happy to discuss with all about how unlike Joseph Smith or Christ that the current church is (see "pure mormonism" blog title). If one does this publicly and continues after being counseling to quit by leaders, that is the definition of apostasy. Edited June 4, 2015 by rpn 16
Popular Post LoudmouthMormon Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 The church seems to be on a roll with these excommunications lately. I'm thinking it's more like current fringe and exmormon cultural trends are on a roll with publicizing every excommunication lately. Making your church discipline public, is the new black. I'm seriously doubting the number or type of excommunications have changed much over the last decade. 20
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 HappyJackWagon, I agree this is sad to see. However, based on what I know, I don't think his local leaders had much choice, and therefore I defer to their stewardship. Hope Rock can humble himself (something everybody, especially me, could do a better job of), repent and find his way back.
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 That was the point. He has an unwavering testimony of what he believes Joseph Smith believed and taught, teaches that he knows better what Christ wants than do the leaders that Christ has actually called to run the church, which leaves him happy to discuss with all about how unlike Joseph Smith or Christ that the current church is (see "pure mormonism" blog title). If one does this publicly and continues after being counseling to quit by leaders, that is the definition of apostasy. So it doesn't matter if what he has written is correct or incorrect. All that matters is that his leaders don't want him to write it? 2
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 HappyJackWagon, I agree this is sad to see. However, based on what I know, I don't think his local leaders had much choice, and therefore I defer to their stewardship. Hope Rock can humble himself (something everybody, especially me, could do a better job of), repent and find his way back. Rock is a pretty humble guy. What do you think he needs to repent of?
HappyJackWagon Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 That was the point. He has an unwavering testimony of what he believes Joseph Smith believed and taught, teaches that he knows better what Christ wants than do the leaders that Christ has actually called to run the church, which leaves him happy to discuss with all about how unlike Joseph Smith or Christ that the current church is (see "pure mormonism" blog title). If one does this publicly and continues after being counseling to quit by leaders, that is the definition of apostasy. Ironically, though it may be the definition of apostacy from the church it may not be apostacy from the gospel of Christ. We have to accept the idea that church leaders are either perfect or that God wants us to obey them even when they aren't, to accept the notion that apostacy from the church is identical to apostacy from the gospel of Christ. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Rock is a pretty humble guy. What do you think he needs to repent of?Disagreeing with the brethren and saying so publicly. Apparently this is the worst imaginable sin in todays church. 3
Popular Post Senator Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 Disagreeing with the brethren and saying so publicly. Apparently this is the worst imaginable sin in todays church. Whenever someone publicly proclaims that the church is in apostacy, that's an almost sure ticket to excommunication land. 6
Popular Post strappinglad Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 There are a couple of things about the Church I would change. There are a couple of things about ME I should change. Changing the Church is so much easier. 7
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Disagreeing with the brethren and saying so publicly. Apparently this is the worst imaginable sin in todays church. Yes disagreeing with the Truth Claims of the Church by members is the worst imaginable sin in today's church. Kinda like someone saying I love my mommy but hate my spouse.
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Rock is a pretty humble guy. What do you think he needs to repent of? Pride. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Yes disagreeing with the Truth Claims of the Church by members is the worst imaginable sin in today's church. Kinda like someone saying I love my mommy but hate my spouse.Rock doesn't disagree with the truth claims. He fully believes in the first vision, priesthood restoration, BoM translation/historicity, etc. What he rejects is the non-doctrinal notion that prophets and apostles are infallible and therefore should be obeyed whether they are right or wrong. 1
Popular Post Alan Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 I have dipped into Rock Waterman's blog from time to time over the past 18 months or so. I have read all of his articles.Some are pretty good, some are not.Is he guilty of apostasy based on the content of his blog? Yes I think he is. But the big question now is how he will deal with his church discipline. Will he follow the Denver Snuffer example and publish his SP's letters, details of the disciplinary council etc and generally vent in public? Or will he follow the Avraham Gileadi model? You may remember Gileadi was one of the September Six, but he refused to go vociferously public with his thoughts like the other five did. Instead he kept quiet and plodded on. He was later re-admitted to the church and the church apologized for excommunicating him and expunged any record of his discipline from their records. In effect, the church admitted they got it wrong and put it right. Snuffer or Gileadi? I think I know which model Rock Waterman will follow. 5
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 That was the point. He has an unwavering testimony of what he believes Joseph Smith believed and taught, teaches that he knows better what Christ wants than do the leaders that Christ has actually called to run the church, which leaves him happy to discuss with all about how unlike Joseph Smith or Christ that the current church is (see "pure mormonism" blog title). If one does this publicly and continues after being counseling to quit by leaders, that is the definition of apostasy. Sounds like a one way ticket to fundamentalism or Snufferite to me (comparing the fundamentalists against the Snufferites is a fascinating thing). 1
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 I have dipped into Rock Waterman's blog from time to time over the past 18 months or so. I have read all of his articles.Some are pretty good, some are not.Is he guilty of apostasy based on the content of his blog? Yes I think he is. But the big question now is how he will deal with his church discipline. Will he follow the Denver Snuffer example and publish his SP's letters, details of the disciplinary council etc and generally vent in public? Or will he follow the Avraham Gileadi model? You may remember Gileadi was one of the September Six, but he refused to go vociferously public with his thoughts like the other five did. Instead he kept quiet and plodded on. He was later re-admitted to the church and the church apologized for excommunicating him and expunged any record of his discipline from their records. In effect, the church admitted they got it wrong and put it right. Snuffer or Gileadi? I think I know which model Rock Waterman will follow. Since he already published the SP letter inviting him to a DC. And since he did a pre-DC interview and has already announced his post-DC interview, it'll require a quick change of heart for him to follow the Gileadi model. Would you care to give an example or two of what you feel constitutes apostasy from his blog? 1
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Rock doesn't disagree with the truth claims. He fully believes in the first vision, priesthood restoration, BoM translation/historicity, etc. What he rejects is the non-doctrinal notion that prophets and apostles are infallible and therefore should be obeyed whether they are right or wrong. I think this post from another thread (although slightly edited for context) I wrote is a perfect fit here: I am not sure how anyone can think that the Lord thinks its okay for people to overstep their ecclesiastical stewardship, no matter their righteous intention, given scriptural precedent. Part of trusting God is trusting HIM to not only call who He would have lead (even, GASP, Judas!) but that HE is capable of fixing any mistakes that NEED to be fixed through those He has called that have such authority. It is not going along with the mistake (moreover, I think the mistakes thrown at the feet of the brethren, 9/10, are perceived mistakes and are not actually so), its trusting the Lord to fix it (either Himself or through the PROPER order). For example, I am not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program. But I am not actively advocating for the Church's end to sponsorship. It's not my role. There are so many other things I would fix about the Church and its culture...but thankfully for members of the Church everywhere, I don't have the authority. I think it is highly unfair to call this a "get in line and follow" approach. Implicit in that is a mindless body of members who have no capability to think for themselves. In fact, the more that I think about that, the more offensive such a label would be. This would be better labeled a "sustain" approach. We have leaders. God called them. He sustains them. We should too. If anyone can't see the difference between "get in line and follow" and sustaining they are in trouble. Again, the Lord is perfectly capable of keeping His Church in order. If He felt like Waterman, Dehlin, lvjd66 or anyone else could make the Church resemble how He wanted it to look, He would put said person in the position to make it happen. Until He does, our job and responsibility is to sustain, i.e. to trust the Lord, who He has called, and to trust HIM to fix any mistake that NEEDS to be fixed through the proper channels (priesthood keys and stewardship, not anyone and everyone with a blog, podcast or Facebook page). Anything less than this is not sustaining and is dangerous spiritual ground. Disagreements and questions are fine. I have them. But I also trust the Lord, not only to call who He wills, but to fix problems he sees fit to fix (if they even need to be fixed). I think people in western culture need to realize that the Lord does not need them to steady the ark or EVEN want them to attempt to do so (no matter their righteous intention), unless that is their calling and stewardship. It conflicts with everything we have been culturally taught about getting involved and probably some of our natural instinct. But the Lord's way is different. Thus, not sustaining and trusting is a sin of pride. Edited June 4, 2015 by lvjd66 6
Senator Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) You would think by the way Rock talks, that he would be relieved to now be free from such a false church. Edited June 4, 2015 by Senator 3
Jeanne Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 HappyJackWagon, I agree this is sad to see. However, based on what I know, I don't think his local leaders had much choice, and therefore I defer to their stewardship. Hope Rock can humble himself (something everybody, especially me, could do a better job of), repent and find his way back. Find his way back to what? Humily is a wonderful thing but I don't see him ostracizing others.
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Thus, not sustaining and trusting is a sin of pride. Fair enough. But is there a place where we can draw a line between fair doubts & questions without being accused of a prideful lack of sustaining/trust? Or, are you saying that we just need to accept what they say and not question it?
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 You would think by the way Rock talks, that he would be relieved to now be free from such a false church. To a point, I agree. But I think it also bothers him that they believe they have the authority to excommunicate him.
Buckeye Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I have dipped into Rock Waterman's blog from time to time over the past 18 months or so. I have read all of his articles.Some are pretty good, some are not.Is he guilty of apostasy based on the content of his blog? Yes I think he is. But the big question now is how he will deal with his church discipline. Will he follow the Denver Snuffer example and publish his SP's letters, details of the disciplinary council etc and generally vent in public? Or will he follow the Avraham Gileadi model? You may remember Gileadi was one of the September Six, but he refused to go vociferously public with his thoughts like the other five did. Instead he kept quiet and plodded on. He was later re-admitted to the church and the church apologized for excommunicating him and expunged any record of his discipline from their records. In effect, the church admitted they got it wrong and put it right. Snuffer or Gileadi? I think I know which model Rock Waterman will follow. There's also the Maxine Hanks route. Persist in the rightness of your beliefs, but also get along with people and continue to serve in the church in any fashion allowed. Continue to do that for 20 years while waiting for local leaders who don't feel threatened by your views and invite you to join again. 3
Recommended Posts