Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[rockpond]

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.

 

To answer those questions would be speculating too much to be valuable (IMO).  You'll have to read his posts or listen to his interviews if you care to delve deeper.  Although, I would tend to agree with the responses that Gray has given in posts #49 and #50 above.

[smac97]

Okay... Two questions from that:

 

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

I think he was referring to this: "Church membership is dependent on one's acceptance of Christ and repentance, not on a centralized church."  This either/or dichotomy conflicts with the Church's teaching about priesthood authority, about keys being delegated to men, about the Church and its leaders having the power and authority to both "bind" on earth and in heaven (baptism) and to "loose" on earth and in heaven (excommunication).

 

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

There's not much point in speculating about such "what ifs."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

I notice you removed the "my will not thine" line when referring to disagreeing with the brethren. Of course that is problematic because it's lifting them into a Christlike status which they're not.

 

The "right and wrong channels and means for voicing concerns" strikes me as a bureaucratic God most concerned with process and policy. Frankly, there isn't really any kind of satisfying "right channel" to voice concern to the brethren. It doesn't exist unless you believe your concerns shared with the bishop will make it to the prophet. They don't. That leaves silence as the only viable option for a person with concerns. Otherwise they're stepping out of the line of the men in charge and therefore in apostacy from them/church.

[morgan.deane]

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 Podcawhen

 

Rock is a pretty humble guy.  What do you think he needs to repent of?

 

 

 

How about this from this announcement: "There are two religions operating side by side in the LDS church today, both vying for dominance. The first is the religion founded through Joseph Smith, which emphasizes dependence on Christ.  The other religion requires allegiance to Church leaders above all else.  If your devotion to Jesus is stronger than your fealty to the Church hierarchy, you are a threat to their system." 

 

He takes it upon himself to condemn the whole church, publicly teaches it, and gains followers (just look at his comments for example.)  I'm not in charge of conducting or determining excommunications, but what I've done is look at what people say when they are threatened with it. I've never seen a single person excommunicated who says something like, well I disagree with my leaders but I'm going to do what they suggest anyway because I trust the Lord and His servants, even when they are imperfect in my opinion.  That would actually be humble. (On top of that, in my brief interaction with him on his blog, he is incredibly rude, arrogant, and lets his even more rude sycophants carry the water for him.)  What I've seen is a great deal of, I'm still right and these guys are horrible, and they run to their platforms, blogs, sympathetic news outlets with their tendentious narrative about the events to garner even more support and a larger following. In my mind, that reaction is the biggest sign of apostasy. The church statement on this was entirely correct when they said that an apostasy just confirms whats already happened in the persons life, and I see that when individuals go through the excommunication process.    

 

 

  

Edited June 4, 2015 by morgan.deane

[rockpond]

I think he was referring to this: "Church membership is dependent on one's acceptance of Christ and repentance, not on a centralized church."  This either/or dichotomy conflicts with the Church's teaching about priesthood authority, about keys being delegated to men, about the Church and its leaders having the power and authority to both "bind" on earth and in heaven (baptism) and to "loose" on earth and in heaven (excommunication).

 

There's not much point in speculating about such "what ifs."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Here's the scripture he cites with respect to how one becomes (and stays) a member of the church:

Doctrine & Covenants 10:67:  "Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church."

[rockpond]

How about this from this announcement: "There are two religions operating side by side in the LDS church today, both vying for dominance. The first is the religion founded through Joseph Smith, which emphasizes dependence on Christ.  The other religion requires allegiance to Church leaders above all else.  If your devotion to Jesus is stronger than your fealty to the Church hierarchy, you are a threat to their system."

 

He takes it upon himself to condemn the whole church, publicly teaches it, and gains followers (just look at his comments for example.) 

 

He actually doesn't condemn the whole church - quite the opposite if you listen to him.  And he specifically tells people NOT to follow him.  (If you are going to insist on those two claims, I'd ask you to please provide a reference to support them.)

 

 

I've never seen a single person excommunicated who says something like, well I disagree with my leaders but I'm going to do what they suggest anyway because I trust the Lord and His servants, even when they are imperfect in my opinion.  That would actually be humble.  

 

I agree.

[smac97]

Here's the scripture he cites with respect to how one becomes (and stays) a member of the church:

Doctrine & Covenants 10:67:  "Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church."

 

Fair enough.  But note that this verse speaks of repentance.  I suspect Mr. Waterman's conduct was adjudicated by his local leaders as conduct requiring repentance, and that he declined to repent.  

 

The LDS paradigm, as established by scripture, requires both personal introspection as to whether repentance is required, and also submission to adjudication by priesthood leaders where serious misconduct is alleged.  I don't think anyone can seriously claim that LDS doctrine allocates to the individual all such discretionary judgments.  So if Mr. Waterman is claiming that he, and he alone, is the arbiter of his own conduct and whether it is in harmony with the laws and commandments of the Church, he sets himself at odds with the doctrines of the Church.

 

And we also have the scriptural mandates authorizing authority to both bind and loose, and also scriptural mandates requiring disciplinary action in some circumstances.  So Mr. Waterman cannot cite D&C 10:67 in isolation and as a prooftext to justify his position.  To do so would be ... not good.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2015 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

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?

"Not a Mormon perspective" is that church leaders do not have more authority than ordinary members.  THAT is church doctrine, and essential for the entire idea of priesthood authority itself.

 

Evangelicals believe that the priesthood is held by every member through being a believer alone.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_%28doctrine%29

 

We do not believe that.  We believe that local authorities do in fact have authority, and that is why we have "priesthood genealogies" and so forth.

 

The idea that the keys are "held but not being used" is actually nonsense.  How would an objective observer confirm or deny if the keys are "being used"?

 

Where is the "KEY-O-METER" to measure that??

 

If you believe they are not being used, then that is your belief.  The church teaches they ARE being used and there is no way to objectively measure who is right.

 

Your belief is therefore in opposition to the belief of the church, and therefore you are an "apostate".

 

He has a right to his opinion, maybe he is even "right" in some sense, in some universe etc etc.

 

But just logically- the teaching is that local leaders have authority.

 

He does not believe the local leaders have authority, therefore his position is opposed to the teachings of the church, and he has publicized and "taught" his opinion.

 

The conclusion is inescapable.  Doctrine is A.  He says "not A".  He opposes the doctrine, therefore he is an "apostate" by the church definition of "apostate".  Clear as a bell.

[mfbukowski]

Here's the scripture he cites with respect to how one becomes (and stays) a member of the church:

Doctrine & Covenants 10:67:  "Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church."

 

But he is not repentant.  He is still out there shouting that the church is wrong.

[bluebell]

Here's the scripture he cites with respect to how one becomes (and stays) a member of the church:

Doctrine & Covenants 10:67:  "Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church."

 

Christ also said that whether by His voice or the voice of His prophets, it's the same.  He also said that whosoever is not baptized is damned.  He also said that those who 'come unto Him' are those who do the will of the Father.  Etc. Etc.

 

Waterman has no authority to interpret this scripture the way that he is interpreting it. He definitely has no authority to teach that his interpretation is the correct one and the one that is binding on everyone.  

 

That he has taken the authority upon himself publicly is reasonably construed as apostasy.   

[mfbukowski]

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. 

Irrelevant.

 

Citing what he DOES believe that is doctrinal has nothing to do with what he believes is NOT doctrinal  The only issue here is the authority of local priesthood.  Period.

[smac97]

He actually doesn't condemn the whole church - quite the opposite if you listen to him.  And he specifically tells people NOT to follow him.  (If you are going to insist on those two claims, I'd ask you to please provide a reference to support them.)

 

 

 

I agree.

Snuffer said the same thing, and yet he ended up recruiting followers anyway. Dehlin said the same thing, with the same results. Kelly said the same thing, with the same results. And now Waterman.

I am reminded of this Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo" ("Your motive gives a name to your act").

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2015 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

Dang.

 

Strange day when I am in lockstep with Smac.

 

[pogi]

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. 

 

Thus saith Rock... Does anybody else see the irony in his criticism? 

[ERayR]

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

 

It is the recipe for anarchy in the Church community.  Can you see how anarchy is not a good thing.

[rockpond]

Fair enough.  But note that this verse speaks of repentance.  I suspect Mr. Waterman's conduct was adjudicated by his local leaders as conduct requiring repentance, and that he declined to repent.  

 

The LDS paradigm, as established by scripture, requires both personal introspection as to whether repentance is required, and also submission to adjudication by priesthood leaders where serious misconduct is alleged.  I don't think anyone can seriously claim that LDS doctrine allocates to the individual all such discretionary judgments.  So if Mr. Waterman is claiming that he, and he alone, is the arbiter of his own conduct and whether it is in harmony with the laws and commandments of the Church, he sets himself at odds with the doctrines of the Church.

 

And we also have the scriptural mandates authorizing authority to both bind and loose, and also scriptural mandates requiring disciplinary action in some circumstances.  So Mr. Waterman cannot cite D&C 10:67 in isolation and as a prooftext to justify his position.  To do so would be ... not good.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Based on his interview - I think he was looking to them to indicate what he should repent of.  We'll have to see if they clarified that for him when he does his follow up interview.

[rockpond]

"Not a Mormon perspective" is that church leaders do not have more authority than ordinary members.  THAT is church doctrine, and essential for the entire idea of priesthood authority itself.

 

Evangelicals believe that the priesthood is held by every member through being a believer alone.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_%28doctrine%29

 

We do not believe that.  We believe that local authorities do in fact have authority, and that is why we have "priesthood genealogies" and so forth.

 

The idea that the keys are "held but not being used" is actually nonsense.  How would an objective observer confirm or deny if the keys are "being used"?

 

Where is the "KEY-O-METER" to measure that??

 

If you believe they are not being used, then that is your belief.  The church teaches they ARE being used and there is no way to objectively measure who is right.

 

Your belief is therefore in opposition to the belief of the church, and therefore you are an "apostate".

 

He has a right to his opinion, maybe he is even "right" in some sense, in some universe etc etc.

 

But just logically- the teaching is that local leaders have authority.

 

He does not believe the local leaders have authority, therefore his position is opposed to the teachings of the church, and he has publicized and "taught" his opinion.

 

The conclusion is inescapable.  Doctrine is A.  He says "not A".  He opposes the doctrine, therefore he is an "apostate" by the church definition of "apostate".  Clear as a bell.

 

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.

[rockpond]

But he is not repentant.  He is still out there shouting that the church is wrong.

 

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.

[rockpond]

Christ also said that whether by His voice or the voice of His prophets, it's the same.  He also said that whosoever is not baptized is damned.  He also said that those who 'come unto Him' are those who do the will of the Father.  Etc. Etc.

 

Waterman has no authority to interpret this scripture the way that he is interpreting it. He definitely has no authority to teach that his interpretation is the correct one and the one that is binding on everyone.  

 

That he has taken the authority upon himself publicly is reasonably construed as apostasy.   

 

He's never claimed any authority that his interpretation is binding on everyone.  You've overstepped here.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

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".

[rockpond]

Snuffer said the same thing, and yet he ended up recruiting followers anyway. Dehlin said the same thing, with the same results. Kelly said the same thing, with the same results. And now Waterman.

I am reminded of this Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo" ("Your motive gives a name to your act").

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Waterman specifically tells people not to follow him.  If he writes articles and readers agree with his POV, does that mean he is "recruiting followers"?  Snuffer doesn't want people to follow him either.

 

This is just a strawman to make it sound like these guys are somehow trying to start their own church/following.  They are just people expressing their ideas.  Feel free to disagree.

[rockpond]

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'll be the key thing I look for in the follow up interview.

[Gray]

Irrelevant.

 

Citing what he DOES believe that is doctrinal has nothing to do with what he believes is NOT doctrinal  The only issue here is the authority of local priesthood.  Period.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. 

[Gray]

Christ also said that whether by His voice or the voice of His prophets, it's the same.  He also said that whosoever is not baptized is damned.  He also said that those who 'come unto Him' are those who do the will of the Father.  Etc. Etc.

 

Waterman has no authority to interpret this scripture the way that he is interpreting it. He definitely has no authority to teach that his interpretation is the correct one and the one that is binding on everyone.  

 

That he has taken the authority upon himself publicly is reasonably construed as apostasy.   

 

If authority is needed to interpret scripture, why bother reading them at all? 

[smac97]

Based on his interview - I think he was looking to them to indicate what he should repent of.  We'll have to see if they clarified that for him when he does his follow up interview.

 

Yes, well, I'll admit to some skepticism to the idea that Mr. Waterman will provide a fully and fair summary of his dealings with his local leaders.  Snuffer didn't.  Kelly didn't (and how).  Dehlin didn't.  The "whole story" was not conducive with the overarching "I'm-a-victim-of-that-mean-ol'-LDS-Church" narrative these folks were trying to fabricate.

 

Snuffer likewise denied any need for repentance.  So did Kelly.  So did Dehlin.

 

Snuffer is now openly antagonistic toward the Church.  So is Kelly.  So is Dehlin.

 

There seem to be common elements to publicized stories of disciplinary actions.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac