Kenngo1969 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 If only people believed the same things I do. I suspect they don't because they're not as humble as me. Why the jab?
Kenngo1969 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 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.Why? Because he said he didn't? That may or may not be true. Why should we privilege his word over anyone else's, especially when all we have, and all we are likely to get, is his side of the story?
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Why? Because he said he didn't? That may or may not be true. Why should we privilege his word over anyone else's, especially when all we have, and all we are likely to get, is his side of the story?Am I privileging his word over any one elses? Who? Whom am I privileging Rock's story over? A previous post said specifically that Rock was given time to repent which indicates the mercy of the church. There is no such claim from anyone associated with the proceedings. So unless the other poster can back it up I am going to treat the statement as wishful fiction. We have no reason to believe anything other than Rock's version.
Mystery Meat Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Am I privileging his word over any one elses? Who? Whom am I privileging Rock's story over? A previous post said specifically that Rock was given time to repent which indicates the mercy of the church. There is no such claim from anyone associated with the proceedings. So unless the other poster can back it up I am going to treat the statement as wishful fiction. We have no reason to believe anything other than Rock's version. Correction: You have no reason to believe anything other than Rock's version. I have plenty. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Correction: You have no reason to believe anything other than Rock's version. I have plenty.So you've heard an alternate version of the story that you would privilege? Please share.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 I know it's already been posted but everyone who is still participating in this discussion should really go listen to Waterman's follow up interview on MormonStories.org (or watch it). Lots of insights there.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 Correction:You have no reason to believe anything other than Rock's version.I have plenty.I'm curious...Have you listened to any of his interviews in their entirety?Which of his blog posts have you read from start to finish (not just selected quotes)?
Senator Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I know it's already been posted but everyone who is still participating in this discussion should really go listen to Waterman's follow up interview on MormonStories.org (or watch it). Lots of insights there. I'm curious...Have you listened to any of his interviews in their entirety?Which of his blog posts have you read from start to finish (not just selected quotes)? Why? Who is Rock Waterman that I should garner some special interest in him? Because he's got a blog (bullhorn)? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Why? Who is Rock Waterman that I should garner some special interest in him? Because he's got a blog (bullhorn)?If one is going to comment about him it is helpful to know something about him. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I read his latest (at the time it was the latest) blog post. In it were some pretty telling things, including the fact that a group of people he was with, who possessed no priesthood keys or authority to do so, blessed and administered the sacrament. That is in blatant disrespect to how the sacred ordinances work. I don't find him credible in any way. His attitude is rude and condescending. He is arrogant and very self righteous, while simultaneously demeaning the Lord's chosen. By their fruits, ye shall know them and based on his attacks on the Lord's Church and His called and holy anointed I think I am on safe ground to be more than a bit skeptical of him. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Am I privileging his word over any one elses? Who? Whom am I privileging Rock's story over? ... You seriously don't know? I find that hard to believe. What's that old saying about how many sides there are to a story?
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 You seriously don't know? I find that hard to believe. What's that old saying about how many sides there are to a story?Have you heard another side? Seriously. I haven't.
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted June 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Have you heard another side? Seriously. I haven't.No. That's the whole point! We're not going to hear another side because those who would be in a position to provide us with it are bound by confidentiality! If you want to take the approach that, "Well, gee, Rock's side of the story is all we're gonna get, so we simply have no choice but to treat it as the single most objective appraisal of what actually happened," go right ahead. If you can't see the problems with that approach, I can't help you. You're operating on the assumption that there's no reason why the Stake President or someone else involved in deciding Mr. Waterman's fate vis-a-vis the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints couldn't provide us with the viewpoint of those who decided his fate. That's false. Barring the Stake President deciding to say more about the proceedings to correct what Mr. Waterman says on the record, Mr. Waterman's side of the story is all we're going to get. You can draw all of the conclusions you like from Mr. Waterman's one-sided account; don't expect most of those whose allegiances lie with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to join you. Edited June 6, 2015 by Kenngo1969 5
Duncan Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 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. His letter said "conduct unbecoming" and it said apostasy so he knew the charges. I suspect there were other letters or conversations. He like the others play the innocent victim, there they were just minding their own business when all of a sudden.... 3
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 Why?Who is Rock Waterman that I should garner some special interest in him?Because he's got a blog (bullhorn)?You'll notice that the first comment of mine that you quoted is directed toward anyone still here discussing his excommunication. It's helpful to hear what Waterman had to say about it. Especially if someone is here making conclusions about him. My second comment was in response to what lvjd was saying about him.
Mystery Meat Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Have you heard another side? Seriously. I haven't. We do not have to have heard another side in order to rightly distrust Rock. His actions and words are enough for that. 3
Popular Post Calm Posted June 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 6, 2015 He had a discussion with his bishop about needing to change his behaviour or face a council a year ago. How is that not being given time to change? 6
ERayR Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 He didn't even know what he was accused of until his DC. My experience makes this hard to believe. I think if he didn't he was either not paying attention or was ignoring.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 We do not have to have heard another side in order to rightly distrust Rock. His actions and words are enough for that.What actions and words of his cause you to distrust him?
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 My experience makes this hard to believe. I think if he didn't he was either not paying attention or was ignoring.Considering he knew what he needed to repent of I agree. Hard to laugh at actions you dont know about.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 He had a discussion with his bishop about needing to change his behaviour or face a council a year ago. How is that not being given time to change?He says that he wasn't told what he had done/written that was incorrect. Based on what he has said, it seems his leaders have not been willing to take the time to read his blog.
rockpond Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 Considering he knew what he needed to repent of I agree. Hard to laugh at actions you dont know about.CFR that waterman knew what he needed to repent of. I still don't think he knows.
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 What actions and words of his cause you to distrust him?How about the fact that he is using it to get publicity instead of reconciling with the Lord 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 CFR that waterman knew what he needed to repent of. I still don't think he knows.Have you not been reading the thread? Seriously you want me to reference points that have already been given? 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Btw my Cfr for what the brethren are wrong about is still not being answered.
Recommended Posts