rockpond Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 Is that what Russell has done? I don't get that.No. No hidden meaning. I meant what I wrote.
rockpond Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 This man does not have an unwavering testimony of Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and the Book of Mormon. One only needs to spend a few minutes on his blog to see that he is rejects the Church and that he deserved to be excommunicated. If I were his bishop, I would have held a church court on him quite a while ago, given his comments on his blog. The same Spirit that tells you that Joseph was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true will also tell you that President Monson is a prophet and that the Church is guided by revelation today. Since you say that if you were his bishop you would have held a DC for him a while ago based on "his comments on his blog", which specific comments would you cite from the blog as reasons for his discipline?
rockpond Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 In his blog he is quite clear that he knows his position is different from the current church leadership position. That is the whole point of his blog, that he is pointing out where the Church currently differs from the "pure mormonism" of Joseph Smith as well as where past developments have steered the Church into inappropriate paths or where leaders have lied or otherwise erred. I don't understand why he refuses to put the two and two together that appears obvious to me or why anyone else is doing the same. He certainly did it in the NY Times article easily enough. Knowing that his position is different than that of the current church leadership does not mean he knows what he needs to repent of. Since he doesn't see anything wrong with disagreeing with the Brethren, he was looking for the DC to tell him what he has done that was wrong and requires repentance. As far as I can tell, he left the DC without that question being answered.
Mystery Meat Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Knowing that his position is different than that of the current church leadership does not mean he knows what he needs to repent of. Since he doesn't see anything wrong with disagreeing with the Brethren, he was looking for the DC to tell him what he has done that was wrong and requires repentance. As far as I can tell, he left the DC without that question being answered. We will likely never know the full story. I guess we are left to make our own conclusions or, better yet, not concern ourselves with something that is out of our control and stewardship. 1
rockpond Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 We will likely never know the full story. I guess we are left to make our own conclusions or, better yet, not concern ourselves with something that is out of our control and stewardship. I think with the recent publicized excommunications we can make a few reasonable conclusions.
rockpond Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 Have you not been reading the thread? Seriously you want me to reference points that have already been given? I'm aware that many on the thread believe they know what Waterman needed/needs to repent of but I'm not aware of anyone showing that HE knew (before the DC) or knows (now, after the DC) what he needs to repent of.
cinepro Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I was puzzled by his objection to it as well. I assumed he meant that it has taken on some modern-day connotation or other that makes it inappropriate for use in the context of Mormon doctrine. To which I would reply that I sometimes feel to resist the appropriation of perfectly serviceable terms as jargon by narrow interest groups. The "vessel" analogy conjures, to me, an image in which the leader is a relatively passive and unfiltered conduit between God and us. This notion seems to be outdated in light of modern (and especially apologetic) views that leaders receive portions of inspiration and then deliver them with a hearty injection of personal views and other stuff. They're less like "vessels" delivering pure water than pitchers each filled with their own personal flavor of Kool-aid powder, and God pours his pure water in and it comes out in a distinctly unusual flavor which we then have to determine which part was the "pure" part and which part was the added flavor. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) The "vessel" analogy conjures, to me, an image in which the leader is a relatively passive and unfiltered conduit between God and us. This notion seems to be outdated in light of modern (and especially apologetic) views that leaders receive portions of inspiration and then deliver them with a hearty injection of personal views and other stuff. They're less like "vessels" delivering pure water than pitchers each filled with their own personal flavor of Kool-aid powder, and God pours his pure water in and it comes out in a distinctly unusual flavor which we then have to determine which part was the "pure" part and which part was the added flavor.That the imagery is outdated is not self-evident to me. Moreover, I don't accept that today's apostles and prophets are any more inclined to "inject personal views and other stuff" than were Paul or any other New Testament figures to whom the term was applied originally. But regardless of the spin you are inclined to put on it, I feel quite comfortable with the imagery used by Jehovah Himself. I will continue to employ it and will stand by my use of it. Edited June 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Teancum Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 well, that's what I am saying IF two testimonies conflict then you need to examine both, if one isn't gained by a legit witness by the spirit and one is then i'd put more weight on the one that is oh? And how does one determine whose is by the spirit and whose is not? What if both are claimed to be by the spirit?
Teancum Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Does he have a spiritual witness? I thought someone said he wasn't claiming revelation. Uh yea he claims to have a spiritual witness as much as you do I am sure.
Teancum Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I have. But they always claim in a way that tells you they are mocking the very idea of revelation. Seems difficult to believe they have received a witness as they mock the Holy Spirit. So it is back to "My testimony or spiritual witness always trumps the others if they disagree with me."
ERayR Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 So it is back to "My testimony or spiritual witness always trumps the others if they disagree with me." For me it does. 2
Teancum Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 For me it does. Wonderful. Can you comprehend how utterly unreliable this method really is?
Mystery Meat Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 oh? And how does one determine whose is by the spirit and whose is not? What if both are claimed to be by the spirit? By the Spirit. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 So it is back to "My testimony or spiritual witness always trumps the others if they disagree with me." Yes. Absolutely. It has to. I can't rely on someone else's witness, only my own. 3
Mystery Meat Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Wonderful. Can you comprehend how utterly unreliable this method really is? No. The Spirit is the most reliable method for knowledge known to man. 2
Teancum Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) No. The Spirit is the most reliable method for knowledge known to man.If so why do so many people relying on the spirit get different answers?And by the way you are contradicting yourself in your few posts above. Edited June 8, 2015 by Teancum
Mystery Meat Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) If so why do so many people relying on the spirit get different answers?And by the way you are contradicting yourself in your few posts above. People get different answers for multiple reasons I suppose. Perhaps in some cases the answer is given because there is no one right answer (this would be limited to truths specific to that one person). In other cases, folks might get a different answer because one (or both) is not as trained in understanding and receiving the Spirit. The Spirit will never give two people a different to the same question, where the question is concerning eternal truth (is Jesus the Christ? Was Joseph Smith a prophet? etc.). Edit: I see where you think I am being inconsistent. When I said I can't rely on someone else's spiritual witness when it contradicts mine I should have inserted "supposed" or "claimed" before the phrase "spiritual witness". If I receive a spiritual witness it certainly trumps their imagined witness. Much like their actual witness would trump my imagined witness. It is up to each individual to determine the validity of their own witness. It is actually a very liberating and efficient model when used correctly. Edited June 8, 2015 by Mystery Meat 2
Avatar4321 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 So it is back to "My testimony or spiritual witness always trumps the others if they disagree with me."Direct evidence will always trump hearsay
Avatar4321 Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If so why do so many people relying on the spirit get different answers?And by the way you are contradicting yourself in your few posts above.They dont
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) We are talking about Rock Waterman's claimed testimony of Joseph Smith but his belief that the current leadership are not receiving and proclaiming revelation as well as leading the church astray.I have met many evangelical Christians who claim they prayed about the Book of Mornon and were told it was false.Polygamist grow claim a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Moromon and some of their self proclaimed prophet,Are all of these testimonies less valid than yours or Mikegriffith's ?I haven't met "many" Evangelicals who make this claim but I recall one who did on a message board long ago. It was clear from her attitude that whatever praying she had done in that regard -- if she had done any at all -- was not with "real intent," as it says in Moroni, but in a prideful effort to put Mormons in their place. God is not going to reveal sacred truth to one with that kind of attitude.But I doubt you have met "many" Evangelicals who make that claim. Those whom I've conversed with generally argue that feelings of the heart are not a reliable determination. They claim they have arrived at their conclusions solely by reading the Bible and reasoning therefrom. They are contemptuous of Mormons for saying that one can seek and receive a witness from the Holy Spirit. It is as though they disbelieve Christ's words when He said the Father would not give a stone to one who asked for bread or a serpent to one who asked for fish. So in addition to lacking real intent, they seem to lack another qualification in Moroni's promise, which is to have faith in Christ, or at least they lack faith in His words that those who ask will receive and that God will manifest the truth unto the seeker by the power of the Holy Ghost. Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
ERayR Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Wonderful. Can you comprehend how utterly unreliable this method really is? It is sad that you don't understand how well it works.
ERayR Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Since you say that if you were his bishop you would have held a DC for him a while ago based on "his comments on his blog", which specific comments would you cite from the blog as reasons for his discipline? I don't know what I would have done had I been his Stake President or his Bishop but, knowing how the process works, I am certainly not going to second guess or criticize their decisions.
ERayR Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Knowing that his position is different than that of the current church leadership does not mean he knows what he needs to repent of. Since he doesn't see anything wrong with disagreeing with the Brethren, he was looking for the DC to tell him what he has done that was wrong and requires repentance. As far as I can tell, he left the DC without that question being answered. Again, knowing the process I am sure there was more than one counseling session with both Bishop and SP before the action was taken.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2015 Author Posted June 9, 2015 Again, knowing the process I am sure there was more than one counseling session with both Bishop and SP before the action was taken. You mean the one where they told him that they had no interested in excommunicating him? Waterman says he was not told what he needed to repent of. If you have evidence suggesting that Waterman is lying, feel free to present it.
Recommended Posts