bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 He's never claimed any authority that his interpretation is binding on everyone. You've overstepped here. Is he teaching other people that his interpretation of that verse is the correct one and that the church is wrong in their teaching of how to be a member of Christ's church? 4
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Thus saith Rock... Does anybody else see the irony in his criticism? I don't think he's claiming to be getting revelation, so I don't see the irony.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 If authority is needed to interpret scripture, why bother reading them at all? Well you will need to take that up with Paul when he told us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation. 2
smac97 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 If authority is needed to interpret scripture, why bother reading them at all? First, I think this a false dichotomy (either we are free to interpret scripture any way we like, or else we are not free to do so, and hence have no need to read scripture at all). Second, see here and here. Thank you, -Smac
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 There seem to be common elements to publicized stories of disciplinary actions. Thanks, -SmacOn top of that every one of these, just about, Rockpond has started threads on them pretty much championing their over all positions and wondering what they need to repent of. 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 His primary criticism of the Church: lack of being guided by revelation. Do you agree with him?
ERayR Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The Church is the vehicle which establishes and maintains the order for the gospel to be practiced and taught. To be effective boundaries must be set and maintained. Crossing those boundaries leads to anarchy and disruption of the mission to spread the gospel. Hold whatever views you want personally but do not let them put you in the position of hampering the spread of the Gospel. 1
bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 If authority is needed to interpret scripture, why bother reading them at all? Authority is needed to publicly teach personal interpretation to others as the correct interpretation. No one can teach someone else without claiming some kind of authority to do so. 1
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Well you will need to take that up with Paul when he told us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation. Actually that verse, relating to prophesy, comes from 2 Peter. The author of which is unknown. And I suppose the author of 2 Peter will need to discuss the matter with Nephi, who said he likened all scriptures unto his own group. 1
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Is he teaching other people that his interpretation of that verse is the correct one and that the church is wrong in their teaching of how to be a member of Christ's church? No. He has shared his interpretation of a scripture. What any particular reader/listener believes is up to them.
bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I don't think he's claiming to be getting revelation, so I don't see the irony. So how does he know the church leaders are wrong and he's right? Sincere question because i don't understand how he could not believe he is getting revelation and be teaching other people what he's teaching them.
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Authority is needed to publicly teach personal interpretation to others as the correct interpretation. No one can teach someone else without claiming some kind of authority to do so. Under what authority do you interpret the doctrine in this way?
ERayR Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 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. He says don't follow me while beckoning for them to line up behind him. 1
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 He says don't follow me while beckoning for them to line up behind him. Huh? CFR.
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) So how does he know the church leaders are wrong and he's right? Sincere question because i don't understand how he could not believe he is getting revelation and be teaching other people what he's teaching them. I believe he's comparing the revelations we've already received in the scriptures with how things are practiced today. I suppose the issue is that although the church has constantly been in a state of flux, in the early days each change was accompanied with a specific, written revelation directing the change. At some point that stopped. As I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't really differentiate between canonized revelation and modern teachings, but from a literalist perspective they seem to be two different things. If you think that scripture is literally the voice of God, then you might find yourself disturbed at policies that violate previous scripture without a new revelation to justify it. Edited June 4, 2015 by Gray
stemelbow Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I don't think you are alone. I find that sad. I feel alone. But that's alright.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No. He has shared his interpretation of a scripture. What any particular reader/listener believes is up to them. Jesus spoke as one having the authority, and the Pharisee's condemned him for it
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 If nothing else, I think I have learned from the excommunications of recent date that more and more people will find it harder and harder to remain within the church. That will be due to disagreement and apostasy with the likes of Waterman and other outspoken critics, and many, many more who become increasingly embarrassed by what they see as backwards, outdated and incorrect practices. In other words, they will give heed to the mocking and finger point from the great and spacious building. 2
ERayR Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Huh? CFR. Publicly publishing (podcast, etc). Read your own posts.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Well you will need to take that up with Paul when he told us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation.Or more likely, "take it up with the author who pretended to be Paul". Can you cite the passage where this was said and we can probably determine pretty easily if Bible scholars actually believe that was one of the few passages Paul actually wrote. Interesting site to see if bible writings are from the stated author or a pseudopigraphra. http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/
Sleeper Cell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 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." Why would this not accurately describe many devout Catholics, Evangelicals, and other protestant Christians -- even many of those who lived before the restoration? For that matter, why would God need to restore His church, if His church had always existed? Unless, of course, one looked to other scriptures to understand what He meant by “repent” and “come unto me.”
Popular Post smac97 Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 No. He has shared his interpretation of a scripture. What any particular reader/listener believes is up to them. In his most recent post, he said: "One truth has come home to me with laser clarity: 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." That strikes me as something a lot more than sharing one's interpretation of scripture. And from the tone it appears that this is not his first rodeo in terms of badmouthing the Church. He also said: "The Brethren-ite religion has but one focus: replace the organic religion with the counterfeit one." "With the counterfeit one." Dwell on that. This is how he is describing the Church as let by prophets and apostles. As "counterfeit." He also said: "In a day or two I'll report on this perfidy in an interview for Mormon Stories Podcast." "Perfidy": "deliberate breach of faith or trust; faithlessness; treachery" or "an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery." Them's fightin' words, Clem! Thanks, -Smac 5
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Publicly publishing (podcast, etc). Read your own posts. He specifically encourages people not to follow him and to work through their own beliefs.
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Why would this not accurately describe many devout Catholics, Evangelicals, and other protestant Christians -- even many of those who lived before the restoration? For that matter, why would God need to restore His church, if His church had always existed? Unless, of course, one looked to other scriptures to understand what He meant by “repent” and “come unto me.” Are you asking me to explain why the restoration was necessary? Waterman doesn't question the need for a restoration. He firmly believes in it.
Recommended Posts