Mystery Meat Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 To bad he didn't follow the example of Jesus by giving proper obedience to his priesthood leaders even when he thought they were wrong...... Wait? You see the difference, right? 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 First, what exactly is amiss? No one seems to be able to explain that. I think Waterman goes into great detail on what is wrong with the current organization. Snuffer did the same thing. Whether or not you accept his explanation does not mean he doesn't offer one. 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Often, when one disagrees with another, they view the other as prideful- I believe that is what we have between you and Rock.There are plenty of people who I disagree with that I don't see as prideful. For example, at this point I don't see evidence of you as significantly prideful. But these are also generally not attacking others for lying, attempting to destroy the Church and other similar things. Nor do they treat the wrongdoing in their writing as some kind of joke with sarcasm and other forms of mocking. Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah
Avatar4321 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think Waterman goes into great detail on what is wrong with the current organization. Snuffer did the same thing. Whether or not you accept his explanation does not mean he doesn't offer one.How can anyone accept or reject explanations that aren't forthcoming?
Coreyb Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 You see the difference, right?Sure, one is Jesus and one is just some guy named Rock, but that's not my point. Somehow I just can't see Jesus endorsing the "respect your leaders or you are a prideful apostate" or "obedience to rules from leaders without any scriptural mandate or other evidence of divine origin is what true humility is all about" mentality that seems prevalent on this thread. Let's just admit that Rock was exed because he is a heretic. He is not a prideful sack, nor does he have ulterior motives, he just believes in the wrong things according to those with power to excommunicate and won't shut up about it. That's a textbook heretic. No need to pick him apart here like we do with every other well known ex communicant. 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Jesus submitted to the high priest who sentenced him to death. He submitted to Pilate. He submitted to all things in mortality. Are we better than He is?It was through humbly submitting that He overcame it all
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Jesus was innocent when he submitted. Why should we who are guilty not submit and trust in our God for our deliverance?
Calm Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 How can anyone accept or reject explanations that aren't forthcoming?I don't understand. Have you read his blog? Or are you talking about someone else besides Waterman?
Calm Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Somehow I just can't see Jesus endorsing the "respect your leaders or you are a prideful apostate" or "obedience to rules from leaders without any scriptural mandate or other evidence of divine origin is what true humility is all about" mentality that seems prevalent on this thread. Accusing church leaders of intending to destroy God's church is much, much more than not respecting one's leaders or not being obedient to instruction from them. 3
Coreyb Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Jesus submitted to the high priest who sentenced him to death. He submitted to Pilate. He submitted to all things in mortality. Are we better than He is?It was through humbly submitting that He overcame it all He was arrested and brought before the High Priest by an armed contingent after spending years calling the priests hypocrites, vipers, and whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones among other things. Submissive?
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I don't understand. Have you read his blog? Or are you talking about someone else besides Waterman?Bits and pieces. I'm looking for specifics on where the brethren are supposedly wrong according to him. No one seems to want to offer them up. All I get is dodging requests. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to tell me specifically what it is the brethren are wrong about if I'm going to be continually told that rock has been wronged and is just speaking out against the wrong leaders of the Church.
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 He was arrested and brought before the High Priest by an armed contingent after spending years calling the priests hypocrites, vipers, and whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones among other things. Submissive?So the Creator of the Universe was forced to endure a horrible execution because he couldn't escape an armed Roman contingent? That doesn't make much sense to me.Especially since it ignores the scriptures saying Christ submitted to all things and went as a lamb to the slaughter, it ignores him telling his disciples not to fight, etc.How did Christ not live a submissive life? Submitting and humility defined His mission. 3
Calm Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Bits and pieces. I'm looking for specifics on where the brethren are supposedly wrong according to him. No one seems to want to offer them up. All I get is dodging requests. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to tell me specifically what it is the brethren are wrong about if I'm going to be continually told that rock has been wronged and is just speaking out against the wrong leaders of the Church.Okay. I am not saying that Waterman has been wronged myself so won't feel the need to offer you evidence that he has provided extensive explanations.
Teancum Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 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.What a funny ironic post that has no basis in fact and truth this is.
Teancum Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 The Lord has asked us to sustain our leaders. How can you be loyal to Him and not do that?Look at David and Saul. Saul was tying to kill him and he was still loyal to the leader the Lord placed over him.Where in the canon of LDS Scripture does it ask us to sustain are leaders?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Where in the canon of LDS Scripture does it ask us to sustain are leaders?D&C 21. Consider the whole section. 2
mfbukowski Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Actually, he doesn't oppose the doctrine. He continually draws on scripture to support his positions. And he asks anyone reading to identify where he is wrong on the doctrine.Already did. Read my earlier posts. Quoting scripture is irrelevant. The issue is that he does not believe in local authority. That is the doctrine he does not support. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Shouting? He writes blog posts. Let's keep some perspective. To say that he needs to repent of what he has written, you'd need to identify something that is wrong.Look at the artwork he chose to head his post with. Yes, shouting. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 And I don't know enough about Rock's positions to know what parts are not doctrinal but I hope the SP spells out the apostate beliefs for him instead of just saying "you're apostate because you disagree with me and the brethren".That happens to be exactly the problem. 1
Tacenda Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=woWsb7Ika7cHere is a YouTube with Rock and his wife Connie, explaining what took place. They didn't feel very loved in this court of love. ETA: Oops, I see HJW beat me to it. Edited June 6, 2015 by Tacenda
why me Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 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 DCI know that life is quickly becoming a reality TV show. But I don't think that the bishop or SP will take to the airwaves and appear on youtube or TLC. What happens in church court is usually private and the people involved are usually mum about it, accept of course, the accused who wishes publicity. So, with social media, the process is unfair. At least Rock has some fame now. He is on youtube, in the media etc. But what about the bishop and SP? We have the same problem with John. His bishop and SP must be silent also. Should I go by kate's word? John's word? or Rock's word? As I said, it would be great to have a free range church. Instead of listening to people talk in sacrament, we can have debates about social issues and how the church should respond. We as members can take a vote about various social issues, feminism, same sex marriage, church policies, church doctrine. We can also debate church history and tell the leaders what they should do and say. We could stand at the podium and speak on what the leaders got wrong and why. Rock can teach from his blog when he teaches gospel doctrine etc. Why not? In a free range church all is possible. But the church would be a crazy place and very few people would go there on a sunday. Let me ask you an honest question: what kind of church do you want the lds church to be? A place where kate and her family sit there and say all the right things in the meetings and then take to her blog and moan and groan about this and that? Or rock with his family sitting in meetings and saying all the right things and then taking to his blog and be critical of this and that. Or john and his family sitting in sunday school and commenting on the NT and then doing MS podcasts speaking out against this or that. This would be hypocrisy. Lets have meetings inside sacrament, sunday school and RS and priesthood where john can give interviews in priesthood or kate can preach about women and the priesthood and why it should happen. Or Rock, preaching from his blog. Or members teaching whatever is on their minds. It certainly would be exciting. But I think that you would find me at the catholic mass where all is peaceful and holy. Edited June 6, 2015 by why me 1
why me Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=woWsb7Ika7cHere is a YouTube with Rock and his wife Connie, explaining what took place. They didn't feel very loved in this court of love. ETA: Oops, I see HJW beat me to it.Does he want to feel the love? Do we know what was said by the SP etc? It is ashame that the SP can not go public and tell us what he said to Rock. Maybe it went something like this: Rock, you are loved by us and by your heavenly father. But you are encouraging apostacy and harming other members' souls. Please stop and try to find peace in the gospel etc. Maybe the SP had tears in his eyes. Maybe he cried. Who knows. 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Where in the canon of LDS Scripture does it ask us to sustain are leaders?When we make covenants in the temple.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/04/the-keys-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng&query=kingdom+of+god+on+earth Edited June 6, 2015 by Bernard Gui 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Perhaps the problem is not the stake president offering love. Considering he was offered time to repent I think they is love.Maybe they should apply the golden rule. If they want to feel love they should give it.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Perhaps the problem is not the stake president offering love. Considering he was offered time to repent I think they is love.Maybe they should apply the golden rule. If they want to feel love they should give it.Was he given time to repent? When? He didn't even know what he was accused of until his DC. This is precisely my problem with the proceedings.
Recommended Posts