Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 he came across to me as bitter and extremely judgemental of his leaders and the HC members. Having read a number of his blogs, it seems to me that he treats most of those he disagrees with in this way. 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The problem I have with the charges of apostacy is that he wasn't told the specific charges prior to the DC which means he had not previously been counseled about stopping a misbehavior. Assuming he is being honest about that, that issue alone should overturn the excommunication and move it into a regular counseling plan with his SP. After that is completed and Rock doesn't change THEN it would seem more appropriate to hold a DC.Reading his blog he seems well aware of what behaviour troubles his leadership, he just doesn't believe it should since he is right and they are wrong and they should be the ones changing their behavior. And given he posted almost a year ago about his bishop warning him of potential discipline, do you really think there has been no counsel between then and now? Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Reading his blog he seems well aware of what behaviour troubles his leadership, he just doesn't believe it should. And given he posted almost a year ago about his bishop warning him of potential discipline, do you really think there has been no counsel between then and now?Considering that the Bishop was conveying information but wasn't aware of Rock's blog at the time and didn't share any concerns when he was asked, I find it very possible the Bp didn't follow up on this. He didn't attend the DC either. The SP originally stated that he was also unaware of Rock's blog but it had been brought to his attention by a 70 (I think). So he really didn't have a vested interest either, beyond "addressing" an issue he felt he was supposed to address. Time passes. They're really not that concerned about it until...they are. I suppose it's reasonable to presume the SP thought he had already covered the general idea of apostacy and a DC even though he never supplied info.
DJBrown Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I don't like this stuff.I don't think Rock really sustains the leaders because they don't receive revelation, and in his view, don't claim to.I think he's fine with the individual leaders, sees them as giving good advice, but really wants revelation. Wants to see the Church out there, I guess. Ironically I think that's a great push to have inside the Church. I say ironically because some things the leaders seem to indicate are by revelation these days I don't get on board with very well--things like opposing SSM.Ah well, as it is, I only get closer to being outside the Church as these things come along. Not really because I'll be leaving, but because my views aren't really fitting in with the direction. There are many who share your feeling. But I always find myself wanting to ask- who is it that has or is changing? Has the church really changed in this regard (or any other- SSM, Gender issues)? I believe it is the individual that is changing over time, not the church.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There are many who share your feeling. But I always find myself wanting to ask- who is it that has or is changing? Has the church really changed in this regard (or any other- SSM, Gender issues)? I believe it is the individual that is changing over time, not the church.No. Sorry. Can't go with this. The church has changed dramatically over time. Sure, people and culture does too, but the church has changed in significant ways which have been chronicled ad nauseum.
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Has the church really changed in this regard (or any other- SSM, Gender issues)? YES
Sleeper Cell Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 And if I am reading him correctly, it would appear he believes the Brethen are attempting to destroy the true Church since they have only "one focus" to replace the true with the false while acting like nothing is happening according to him.Apparently it is OK for him to declare that the church leaders are apostates, but not OK for them to declare that he is an apostate. 3
Mystery Meat Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Apparently it is OK for him to declare that the church leaders are apostates, but not OK for them to declare that he is an apostate. Congratulations, you just won the thread. 1
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There are many who share your feeling. But I always find myself wanting to ask- who is it that has or is changing? Has the church really changed in this regard (or any other- SSM, Gender issues)? I believe it is the individual that is changing over time, not the church. Well, as to gender roles, here are some statements from President Benson in 1981: Beguiling voices in the world cry out for “alternative life-styles” for women. They maintain that some women are better suited for careers than for marriage and motherhood. These individuals spread their discontent by the propaganda that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than homemaking. Some even have been bold to suggest that the Church move away from the “Mormon woman stereotype” of homemaking and rearing children. They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment. ... It is a misguided idea that a woman should leave the home, where there is a husband and children, to prepare educationally and financially for an unforeseen eventuality. Too often, I fear, even women in the Church use the world as their standard for success and basis for self-worth. ... It is a fundamental truth that the responsibilities of motherhood cannot be successfully delegated. No, not to day-care centers, not to schools, not to nurseries, not to babysitters. We become enamored with men’s theories such as the idea of preschool training outside the home for young children. Not only does this put added pressure on the budget, but it places young children in an environment away from mother’s influence. ... How vital are mother’s influence and teaching in the home—and how apparent when neglected! I do not wish to wound any feelings, but all of us are aware of instances of active Latter-day Saint families who are experiencing difficulties with their children because mother is not where she ought to be—in the home. ... The seeds of divorce are often sown and the problems of children begin when mother works outside the home. You mothers should carefully count the cost before you decide to share breadwinning responsibilities with your husbands. It is a truism that children need more of mother than of money. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman?lang=eng And here are some recent articles on the Church's newspaper: As long as women continue to have children, they will be making the choice to stay home with their kids or to work outside of the home. What parents don't need in helping them make that choice is the polarizing one-sided manner that information addressing the pros and cons of either choice is often presented in the media, Kay Hymowitz wrote Wednesday on the blog of the Institute for Family Studies.http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4585/how-different-types-of-mothers-have-different-effects-on-their-kids.html Mothers have always had a list of their own best practices, but as blogs have flourished on the Internet so has the competition over which practices are best for children. But one group of mothers in Connecticut wants to end the online "mommy wars" and bring back the idea of sisterhood. In the latest campaign, Michelle Noehren, creator of the online community CT Working Moms, and many other women joined together to show that it is OK for mothers to do things differently by participating in a photo shoot highlighting their differences. Although the photo shoot was done several months ago, it has recently received attention on social media. "I'm not sure why there's so much competition between moms," Noehren wrote in an email to the Deseret News. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865594958/Connecticut-moms-hope-to-end-the-mommy-wars-photo-shoot-goes-viral-again.html?pg=all Nearly every woman the Deseret News interviewed for this story became emotional during the conversation — displaying the depth of feeling they have for their families and the worry they have about how their choices affect their loved ones.Because they all want to be good mothers. They all want to nurture their children. But many of them also want to work, and derive great satisfaction from their accomplishments outside the home. It's a difficult, and intensely personal decision, and no matter what women choose, they ask for understanding. They want to be seen as individuals, judged not by some theoretical standard, but evaluated and appreciated in the context of their own situation, needs and desires. "We're just people, just trying to do what we can to help our families survive," Abbott said. "Don't say you're sorry. Just treat me like I'm still the same as anyone else. My first priority is my kids, I'm just working so I can take care of them." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700147203/Blending-motherhood-and-working-Moms-work-by-choice-2-and-also-out-of-necessity.html?pg=all Another way to help working moms: paternity leavehttp://national.deseretnews.com/article/4407/Another-way-to-help-working-moms-paternity-leave.html#MGgkPU82IpplHQyx.99 How parents can help their daughters find a career in science http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629995/How-parents-can-help-their-daughters-find-a-career-in-science.html 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Apparently it is OK for him to declare that the church leaders are apostates, but not OK for them to declare that he is an apostate. Good point. The difference is that the church is calling him an apostate and claiming to nullify his eternal covenants and blessings. Rock is not claiming to do the same thing to the leaders.
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Considering that the Bishop was conveying information but wasn't aware of Rock's blog at the time and didn't share any concerns when he was asked, I find it very possible the Bp didn't follow up on this. He didn't attend the DC either. The SP originally stated that he was also unaware of Rock's blog but it had been brought to his attention by a 70 (I think). So he really didn't have a vested interest either, beyond "addressing" an issue he felt he was supposed to address. Time passes. They're really not that concerned about it until...they are. I suppose it's reasonable to presume the SP thought he had already covered the general idea of apostacy and a DC even though he never supplied info.This from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?_r=0 Last month, Mr. Waterman posted a combative challenge addressed to one of the Mormon Church’s top leaders: “Stop making up your own rules and try preaching the Gospel of Christ for a change.”Two days later, he said, he was summoned to a meeting with his bishop and told to either stop blogging or resign his church membership. If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy....as in Mr. Waterman’s case, protests that the church demands more in tithes than its doctrine requires.This was from last June. If the NY Times can figure out why he was being summoned by the bishop, I suspect Waterman could too. Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah 4
morgan.deane Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Having read a number of his blogs, it seems to me that he treats most of those he disagrees with in this way.From my personal experience I think this is true for him and his followers. I've seen it a great deal in his posts as well. I just listened to his most recent podcast while I worked. Immediately he called his leaders "insidious" and throughout the whole thing I got the impression he had little respect for them and they had no credibility in his eyes. (I thought it was hilarious when even John Dehlin had to reign him in and focus the interview. I have a gallows sense of humor; I know excommunication is serious but I'm one of those guys that will crack jokes on my death bed. And that was funny.) The saddest part for me was at the 45 minute mark where he said that his next step was to follow the counsel of his leaders and stop blogging. There was a pregnant pause and then he laughed derisively. That was sad for me because as I said on page three, somebody who is humble says something like "I will follow my leaders in this matter even if I believe they are wrong because I trust the Lord and His servants." I've never seen somebody who says that actually get excommunicated. In contrast, somebody who creates a tendentious narrative on his blog, platform, or news outlets in order to garner sympathy and more followers usually does get exed. The church statement says that excommunication simply confirms the apostasy thats already occurred. So as I said, for me its their reaction to the process that becomes the biggest sign of apostasy. Thus it was very plain to me that Rock knew exactly what the humble option was (to stop blogging), and he literally laughed at it and thinks the humble option is a joke. I don't think his attempts at defense are really helping him. I'm not in charge and there is a great deal I don't know, but he is sure reacting like somebody who simply had his apostasy confirmed through excommunication. Edited June 5, 2015 by morgan.deane 3
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 This from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?_r=0 This was from last June. If the NY Times can figure out why he was being summoned by the bishop, I suspect Waterman could too.Sure- Waterman can figure it out. That's not the point. He shouldn't have to "figure out" what he's accused of or make guess about what is or isn't appropriate in the mind of his leaders. They should be able to describe the problem to him and then ask him to make corrections. If they are unable or unwilling to do this they really have no business pulling him in to a DC 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Sure- Waterman can figure it out. That's not the point. He shouldn't have to "figure out" what he's accused of or make guess about what is or isn't appropriate in the mind of his leaders. They should be able to describe the problem to him and then ask him to make corrections. If they are unable or unwilling to do this they really have no business pulling him in to a DCAnd that is the issue... they cannot point to anything wrong he has "taught" doctrinally. A charge of "Disloyalty" seems to be their only option. Edited June 5, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I'm not really equipped to make Rock's arguments for him. I'm not a scriptural literalist in the first place. He came to the conclusions he did by being one. But you could always take a look at his posts on tithing and temple marriage.So you don't even know His arguments but he is right and the apostles are wrong?
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Yes. He considers it his responsibility to hold his SP responsible and give leaders the opportunity to hold him accountable. He's not holding his breath on a change of verdict. His wife also stated that she will be requesting a disciplinary council for herself since she believes the same things he writes about. She wants the leaders to be accountable to God for what they may choose to do. Rock spoke about how the accusations against him were all straw man arguments and it was clear they hadn't deeply read his thoughts but stopped after reading his provocative titles. There were a number of bishops from the stake who also attended because they had been tasked with reading and reporting on the articles. So it's unclear how much personal knowledge the SP had of his writings.None of that sounds very humble or contrite.What exactly makes them think their leaders need to excommunicated them in order for God to hold the leaders accountable? Pretty sure He already does that.Problem is He also holds them accountable.
The Nehor Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Good point. The difference is that the church is calling him an apostate and claiming to nullify his eternal covenants and blessings. Rock is not claiming to do the same thing to the leaders.True, the church is merciful. He probably does not deserve having his eternal covenants voided so that he can stop multiplying his damnation by continually breaking them but we try to emulate the mercy of our Master even when people do not deserve it. 2
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Sure- Waterman can figure it out. That's not the point. He shouldn't have to "figure out" what he's accused of or make guess about what is or isn't appropriate in the mind of his leaders. They should be able to describe the problem to him and then ask him to make corrections. If they are unable or unwilling to do this they really have no business pulling him in to a DCHaving read his descriptions of various discussions and topics I do know something about, I don't trust the accuracy of his reporting of his personal experiences. He tends to leave out some essential points that undermine his claims and overstates negative claims. For example, in his blog discussing the Heartland theory he uses Wayne May as one of his main sources, ignoring the fact that May promotes 'relics' that have been identified as forgeries until someone points it out in the comments, which he just dismisses as they are controversial, not proven forgeries. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 True, the church is merciful. He probably does not deserve having his eternal covenants voided so that he can stop multiplying his damnation by continually breaking them but we try to emulate the mercy of our Master even when people do not deserve it.I was unaware that defending mortal church leaders at any and all cost and upholding ever single thing they implement or teach was a covenant church members make. Where to they do that at? Because it is the best keep secret covenant of all time, if there is such a thing. 1
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 None of that sounds very humble or contrite.What exactly makes them think their leaders need to excommunicated them in order for God to hold the leaders accountable? Pretty sure He already does that.Problem is He also holds them accountable. Maybe things like this: 10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. 11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.
The Nehor Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I was unaware that defending mortal church leaders at any and all cost and upholding ever single thing they implement or teach was a covenant church members make. Where to they do that at? Because it is the best keep secret covenant of all time, if there is such a thing.You can smash that strawman you are hitting to pieces if you want but it will probably be easier to light it on fire. In any case if I am your target you are hitting the wrong target. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Having read his descriptions of various discussions and topics I do know something about, I don't trust the accuracy of his reporting of his personal experiences. He tends to leave out some essential points that undermine his claims and overstates negative claims. For example, in his blog discussing the Heartland theory he uses Wayne May as one of his main sources, ignoring the fact that May promotes 'relics' that have been identified as forgeries until someone points it out in the comments, which he just dismisses as they are controversial, not proven forgeries.So we can't trust anything he says, because he likes a different location setting theory for the BofM than you do?Kind of a streeeetch...
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 You can smash that strawman you are hitting to pieces if you want but it will probably be easier to light it on fire. In any case if I am your target you are hitting the wrong target.What covenant is he "continually breaking" than?
The Nehor Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 What covenant is he "continually breaking" than?It is a super duper secret temple one about speaking evil about certain people. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 It is a super duper secret temple one about speaking evil about certain people.If he is fully supporting what Joseph taught and questioning what modern leaders teach on the same subject, is he speaking evil of the Lord's annointed, or is he defending the Lord's anointed?Is it evil speaking to say, "Hey, I don't think you are doing that quite right." ?If the watchmen begin to slumber, should we let them sleep or try to arise and awaken their faculties?
Recommended Posts