Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[Avatar4321]

To a point, I agree.  But I think it also bothers him that they believe they have the authority to excommunicate him.

They do.

[Mystery Meat]

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?

 

I thought I made that clear, but I am not the best communicator so that is on me.

 

I have lots of questions, a few disagreements and perhaps from time to time a doubt or two. But I don't have a blog, nor do I post on Facebook about how much I disagree on certain things. I think people who do those certain things are usually way over the line in terms of sustaining. That's not to say it can't be done, but I have yet to see it. I guess that is probably because the people who would be able to make appropriate posts like that are too busy sustaining, and when you sustain you implicitly and explicitly trust. So what is really the point?

 

I don't like the way the Church culture deals with porn users and those recovering. I think it is detrimental. And I think it, at the very least, starts from talks given at general conference. But I don't get on my soapbox and rail against church leaders. Again, why? Because I trust the Lord to either fix it through His inspired leaders and/or make up the difference in my (and others) life as I faithfully sustain his anointed (thank goodness for the Atonement). I have felt that compensation many times in my own life, so I have a personal testimony that it is possible.

[stemelbow]

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.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I don't think you are alone.

 

I find that sad.

[Rain]

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?

I keep hearing about drawing a line.  I really don't think that is a wise thing to do.  Lines make sense to me.  I think we need lines.   I was always big on lines.  Then I became a parent and have a child who doesn't like lines.  Now I still think we need lines, but where those lines are and moved back and forth with my children.  

 

For example, I made a line that when my children turned 18 and had graduated if they wanted to live in my home they either needed to be be preparing for a mission or school or going to school. Then we ended up with a child at home for the summer and not doing those things.  It drove me nuts and yet when I prayed Heavenly Father said to be patient.  Suddenly things turned upside down when DH lost his job and we moved out of state.  And my whole plan for my child and that line has been moved all around ever since.

 

I had that line set up for 3 children and it became pretty fluid.  A line for excommunication and apostasy for millions of children needs to be even more fluid. It needs to be based on each child and his or her knowledge, talents, experiences etc.  

 

But, I agree, and do feel because of all those individual experiences that we need to be careful of saying someone is prideful, or sinful, or not trusting etc.  On the other side of that, we need to be careful in giving the impression that  the leaders involved in the individual process were prideful, or coerced or unloving.

[strappinglad]

I watched how Hugh Nibley expressed his disagreement with the Church's direction. I will take a page from his book...books... multi-volume book set.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

The notion that any given religious establishment is corrupt or even satanic is a constant theme in history, and the great reformers of Protestantism used that as their main theme.  For the Kingdom of God on Earth, the issue has led to the "good guys" being sometimes on the outside, sometimes on the inside.  Jeremiah, for example, had to deal with opposition from his king, the temple priesthood, and a group of false prophets (Jer  23:9-40, 28:1-17).  For the Restoration led by Joseph Smith, the Whitmerites and Reorganites took their leave at a certain point, and consigned the main body of the Saints to Hell.  Naturally, one's definition of "apostasy" will vary from group to group, from individual to individual, but it would be suicidal for any religious organization to tolerate deliberate and public opposition to its formal doctrines and policies.

 

A religion fearful of doing "boundary maintenance" will soon be no religion at all.  That is why the "sloppy agape" mainstream churches are withering away, and that is why the Jews have several times been sent into Exile.  There is on the one hand the practical requirements of maintaining a coherent and effective organization, and on the other of obeying the will of God.  The LDS Church is supposedly trying to do both.  So, I don't understand why you find that sad, disheartening, and disappointing.

[Gray]

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.

 

While my approach is different than Rock's, I don't think that not sustaining the brethren should be an excommunicable offense. The church is supposed to be run by common consent, which means you should be free to sustain or not sustain without consequences. Otherwise it becomes "sustain us or get out." There is no common consent in that. 

[Gray]

The notion that any given religious establishment is corrupt or even satanic is a constant theme in history, and the great reformers of Protestantism used that as their main theme.  For the Kingdom of God on Earth, the issue has led to the "good guys" being sometimes on the outside, sometimes on the inside.  Jeremiah, for example, had to deal with opposition from his king, the temple priesthood, and a group of false prophets (Jer  23:9-40, 28:1-17).  For the Restoration led by Joseph Smith, the Whitmerites and Reorganites took their leave at a certain point, and consigned the main body of the Saints to Hell.  Naturally, one's definition of "apostasy" will vary from group to group, from individual to individual, but it would be suicidal for any religious organization to tolerate deliberate and public opposition to its formal doctrines and policies.

 

A religion fearful of doing "boundary maintenance" will soon be no religion at all.  That is why the "sloppy agape" mainstream churches are withering away, and that is why the Jews have several times been sent into Exile.  There is on the one hand the practical requirements of maintaining a coherent and effective organization, and on the other of obeying the will of God.  The LDS Church is supposedly trying to do both.  So, I don't understand why you find that sad, disheartening, and disappointing.

 

I'm not sure that's really the reason why liberal churches are shrinking in attendance (I think it's more that religiosity has been successfully rebranded as a right wing concern), but that's another topic. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by Gray

[Freedom]

Disagreeing with the brethren and saying so publicly. Apparently this is the worst imaginable sin in todays church.

All you have is one guy who wants to make a spectacle of the church, knowing full well that the bishop and stake presidents are not able to respond and provide the other side of the story. Having been involved in the church discipline process, I can tell you that very few have to do with apostasy. In fact I can recall only one in my experience. We have three people that we know of recently who have made public statements, and my experience has been that those who are disciplined for this reason are those who want to make it public because they have a need to justify themselves. They are vocal opponents to the church. So we have three so far this year that are public opponents to the church. I do not see this as a very large number. 

[mfbukowski]

Here is his short post with his announcement after the disciplinary council:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2015/06/yerrrrr-out.html?m=1

He 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.

His apostasy was all the attention he brought to his personal opinion.   Pretty clear to me.

 

 

"What sins am I guilty of?"

"Apostasy."

"No, apostasy is your judgment.  What sins have I committed that make up this apostasy?"

"Apostasy is the sin."

 

Pure idiocy.

 

Yes, it is up to the judge to "judge".  That is why he is called a "judge" in Israel. I mean look at the defiant art he chose for his blog.  Clearly the intent was to call the church out and for him to assert his opinion.

Edited June 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

The church seems to be on a roll with these excommunications lately.

A few thoughts:

First, I question whether there is "a roll" of excommunications. Snuffer, Dehlin, Kelly and now Waterman have unilaterally publicized their excommunications, so more people are aware of them. But I'm not sure that these reflect an increase in the number of excommunications overall.

Second, if there is "a roll," we could also characterize the situation this way: "Church members engaging in apostate behaviors seem to be on a roll lately."

Third, given the advent of the Internet, and its confluence with self-appointed, listen-to-me-and-not-the-Brethren types who want their 15 minutes of fame (Palmer, Snuffer, Dehlin, Kelly, and now Waterman), shouldn't we expect to see disciplinary actions being taken? An individual's ability to publish his opinion far and wide used to be restricted by finances, logistics, venues, etc. But now most of the Church, and indeed the world, has access to, and hence is susceptible to being influenced by, the likes of Mr. Waterman and his ilk.

Fourth, I am saddened at the "reality show" effect these publicized excommunications appear to have on the excommunicated persons. It seems that folks on reality shows, by putting themselves in the public eye, feel compelled to resort to one-upmanship, to say and do increasingly outlandish and unreasonable things in order to keep attention on themselves. It seems to warp their overall sense of reality, civility and decency. That is, having kicked up so much dust in a frenzied dance to gather attention to themselves, the dust then settles on the ground and obscures the lines of decorum and reasonableness, such that the dancer fails to recognize when he/she has crossed over them. Perhaps this explains why an otherwise sensible, intelligent person like Kate Kelly can simultaneously A) profane sacred convocations and sacred grounds by organizing a protest against her own faith, publicly belittle and defame her local leaders and general leadership of the church, encourage her followers to "raise hell" in the Church, call the Church to repentance, alienate huge swaths of decent and observant Latter-day Saints, etc., and also B) publicly declare, with a straight face, that "at every turn, our actions have been respectful and dignified and aimed at communicating with our Church leaders."

Finally, I hope all of these people reconsider their positions and return to the Church.

 

It's sad, sad, sad and more than a bit disheartening to see the church operating in this way.

Again, we could also characterize the situation this way: "It's sad, sad, sad and more than a bit disheartening to see individuals in the church apostatizing in this way."

The Church is generally adhering to its mandate regarding disciplinary action for apostasy.  To the extent that is "sad, sad, sad and more than a bit disheartening," perhaps we should also be a bit more circumspect and reasonable about this situation instead of characterizing this as the Church being entirely in error.  If we were speaking of the Church excommunicating unrepentant, out-and-proud, flipping-the-bird-at-the-Church-and-its-teachings adulterers, or perpetrators of some other such serious misconduct, I suspect we would not be having this conversation.  Apostasy is not privileged.

 

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.

Protecting a community that coheres around a core concept from attacks on that core concept is an entirely reasonable and appropriate thing to do.  We're having a discussion about it here: Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities.  Here's the key comment that got that thread going: "Look, I don't want them (the Calderwoods) to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."  

 

Plaudits to the fellow who so pithily summarized the concept!  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2015 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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. 

Rock provides plenty of scriptural reference for his views. Prior to his DC he wasn't told what teachings constituted apostacy. Hopefully he will have better detail to share. In other words, I hope the SP provided him examples of how/why his particular writings are apostate.

 

I really cringe at the idea that publicly disagreeing with a man/men (regardless of their calling) constitutes apostacy because one is stepping outside of their stewardship. It gives the impression that God is the master bureaucrat wanting everyone to be sure to fill out their forms correctly. If you don't, you're out.

 

I do agree with those who say sustaining your leaders is an issue of trust. The problem is there are many things that break that trust and I find myself really lacking trust in men. Hence I choose not to put my trust in the arm of the flesh but rather Christ himself. Since I don't believe God is just a glorified bureaucrat I think I'll be okay.

[rockpond]

I thought I made that clear, but I am not the best communicator so that is on me.

 

I have lots of questions, a few disagreements and perhaps from time to time a doubt or two. But I don't have a blog, nor do I post on Facebook about how much I disagree on certain things. I think people who do those certain things are usually way over the line in terms of sustaining. That's not to say it can't be done, but I have yet to see it. I guess that is probably because the people who would be able to make appropriate posts like that are too busy sustaining, and when you sustain you implicitly and explicitly trust. So what is really the point?

 

I don't like the way the Church culture deals with porn users and those recovering. I think it is detrimental. And I think it, at the very least, starts from talks given at general conference. But I don't get on my soapbox and rail against church leaders. Again, why? Because I trust the Lord to either fix it through His inspired leaders and/or make up the difference in my (and others) life as I faithfully sustain his anointed (thank goodness for the Atonement). I have felt that compensation many times in my own life, so I have a personal testimony that it is possible.

 

Good explanation.  I think I understand and I appreciate your point of view on this.  I may not completely agree but I think you have a good perspective on it.

[Sleeper Cell]

To a point, I agree.  But I think it also bothers him that they believe they have the authority to excommunicate him.

Does he believe the Church had the authority to baptize him (and admit him into church membership) in the first place?    

[rockpond]

I keep hearing about drawing a line.  I really don't think that is a wise thing to do.  Lines make sense to me.  I think we need lines.   I was always big on lines.  Then I became a parent and have a child who doesn't like lines.  Now I still think we need lines, but where those lines are and moved back and forth with my children.  

 

For example, I made a line that when my children turned 18 and had graduated if they wanted to live in my home they either needed to be be preparing for a mission or school or going to school. Then we ended up with a child at home for the summer and not doing those things.  It drove me nuts and yet when I prayed Heavenly Father said to be patient.  Suddenly things turned upside down when DH lost his job and we moved out of state.  And my whole plan for my child and that line has been moved all around ever since.

 

I had that line set up for 3 children and it became pretty fluid.  A line for excommunication and apostasy for millions of children needs to be even more fluid. It needs to be based on each child and his or her knowledge, talents, experiences etc.  

 

But, I agree, and do feel because of all those individual experiences that we need to be careful of saying someone is prideful, or sinful, or not trusting etc.  On the other side of that, we need to be careful in giving the impression that  the leaders involved in the individual process were prideful, or coerced or unloving.

 

Amen.  And rep point given.  Thank you for sharing that.

[mfbukowski]

Disagreeing with the brethren and saying so publicly. Apparently this is the worst imaginable sin in todays church.

This is a local process.

 

The opinion of an SP and the HC in one stake hardly constitutes "today's church".  If he doesn't like the results, let him appeal.

[rockpond]

Does he believe the Church had the authority to baptize him (and admit him into church membership) in the first place?    

 

I don't know his answer to that but my speculation (after reading/listening to him) would be that he believes in the priesthood authority of those who baptized him and gave him the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Regarding church membership, I recommend listening to his perspective on that (podcast I linked in the OP).  Per Rock, church membership is dependent on one's acceptance of Christ and repentance, not on a centralized church (D&C ref in the podcast).  So I would say that he does not believe any church leader "admitted him" into the church.

Edited June 4, 2015 by rockpond

[Mystery Meat]

Good explanation.  I think I understand and I appreciate your point of view on this.  I may not completely agree but I think you have a good perspective on it.

 

I do too. 

[pogi]

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.

 

Surely there is more to it than that, otherwise there would be grounds to excommunicate President Uchtdorf for publicly admitting as much in general conference.  There is no notion that prophets and apostles are infallible.  There is however a notion that to publicly defame the brethren in enmity with them, is grounds for excommunication.  There are right and wrong channels and means for voicing concern.  The prophets and apostles do not require obedience in all things, but they will not tolerate rebellion by publicly influencing dissension in the church. 

 

Edit: Admittedly, I don't know much about this particular case, and am making assumptions that there is more to the story than is being portrayed here.

Edited June 4, 2015 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I don't know his answer to that but my speculation (after reading/listening to him) would be that he believes in the priesthood authority of those who baptized him and gave him the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Regarding church membership, I recommend listening to his perspective on that (podcast I linked in the OP).  Per Rock, church membership is dependent on one's acceptance of Christ and repentance, not on a centralized church (D&C ref in the podcast).  So I would say that he does not believe any church leader "admitted him" into the church.

Which is precisely what Evangelicals believe.

 

That is not a Mormon perspective. Either the church has the keys or it doesn't.  Either Peter (down the line) had the keys and they were restored or they were not.

 

Mormons believe there ARE keys and that local leaders have them.  There's the apostasy right there.  He is essentially an Evangelical who believes that Joseph was a prophet.  Good for him.  Let him start his own church, but he is not "LDS".

[rockpond]

Which is precisely what Evangelicals believe.

 

That is not a Mormon perspective. Either the church has the keys or it doesn't.  Either Peter (down the line) had the keys and they were restored or they were not.

 

Mormons believe there ARE keys and that local leaders have them.  There's the apostasy right there.  He is essentially an Evangelical who believes that Joseph was a prophet.  Good for him.  Let him start his own church, but he is not "LDS".

 

Okay... Two questions from that:

 

First, *what* is not a "Mormon perspective"?

 

Second, what if he believes that the keys are held by the current church leadership but just aren't being used?

[pogi]

Second, what if he believes that the keys are held by the current church leadership but just aren't being used?

 

Is that what he believes?

 

By what keys and authority do they act then?  Anything else would be apostasy.  Does he teach the church is in apostasy?  To hold them but act under a different authority is worse than not holding them at all.

[Gray]

Which is precisely what Evangelicals believe.

 

That is not a Mormon perspective. Either the church has the keys or it doesn't.  Either Peter (down the line) had the keys and they were restored or they were not.

 

Mormons believe there ARE keys and that local leaders have them.  There's the apostasy right there.  He is essentially an Evangelical who believes that Joseph was a prophet.  Good for him.  Let him start his own church, but he is not "LDS".

 

He seems to get most of his views from D&C and the BOM. He's definitely not evangelical, but he's something of a fundamentalist/scripture literalist. He thinks the LDS church is not following many rules as described in the D&C and BOM. 

[Gray]

Is that what he believes?

 

By what keys and authority do they act then?  Anything else would be apostasy.  Does he teach the church is in apostasy?  To hold them but act under a different authority is worse than not holding them at all.

 

I believe his perspective is that unless leaders speak in a "thus saith the Lord" manner, then they're just giving their opinion and acting as administrators rather than prophets. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by Gray