Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I'm teaching what the church teaches, so i do have the authority. Every member is authorized by the church to teach the doctrines of the church as they understand them. That's why they say 'every member a missionary.' Rock would say he's just teaching what the scriptures teach.
The Nehor Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Rock would say he's just teaching what the scriptures teach.He would be wrong which is why he got booted out the door.
smac97 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Rock would say he's just teaching what the scriptures teach. 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." He also said: "In a day or two I'll report on this perfidy in an interview for Mormon Stories Podcast." I suspect he has been saying a lot more than "just teaching what the scriptures teach," both before and since his excommunication. And I reject the idea that his accusations against the Church such as those described above can be fairly characterized as "just teaching what the scriptures teach." Thanks, -Smac Edited June 4, 2015 by smac97 2
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 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." He also said: "In a day or two I'll report on this perfidy in an interview for Mormon Stories Podcast." I suspect he has been saying a lot more than "just teaching what the scriptures teach," both before and since his excommunication. And I reject the idea that his accusations against the Church such as those described above can be fairly characterized as "just teaching what the scriptures teach." Thanks, -Smac You'd have to read his actual pre-excommunication blog posts. I haven't read one in quite some time. As I recall the conclusions he drew were by comparing a strict letter of the law view of scripture against actual church practice.
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I am sure I am annoying with this, but these constant conversations about when a person should or shouldn't be excommunicated for apostasy are also annoying. In my (repeated) opinion, every man, woman and child who loves the COJCOLDS and its doctrines and believes them to be true, with a desire to remain in full fellowship, needs to accept and come to terms with the the true principal that the Church is not and should not be a democracy where everyone is free to teach whatever doctrine they want without repercussion. The Church is not that, nor should it be. It is my distinct impression that if such concept is not accepted and embraced, it will lead a person out of the Church (and by extension the Celestial Kingdom) in time. Edited June 4, 2015 by lvjd66
stemelbow Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I am sure I am annoying with this, but these constant conversations about when a person should or shouldn't be excommunicated for apostasy are also annoying. In my (repeated) opinion, every man, woman and child who loves the COJCOLDS and its doctrines and believes them to be true, with a desire to remain in full fellowship, needs to accept and come to terms with the the true principal that the Church is not and should not be a democracy where everyone is free to teach whatever doctrine they want without repercussion. The Church is not that, nor should it be. It is my distinct impression that if such concept is not accepted and embraced, it will lead a person out of the Church (and by extension the Celestial Kingdom) in time. Ouchers! Well have fun in your eternal glory. I suppose I'll wallow somewhere underneath you. I'll probably be fine with that.
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Ouchers! Well have fun in your eternal glory. I suppose I'll wallow somewhere underneath you.I'll probably be fine with that. It was not meant as a slam (although it sounded like one). It was more of a lament, honestly. I just think don't people are justified (by truth or God) in trying to shape the Kingdom in their own image, because when they do it will lead great members out of the Church, 100 times out of 100, when it doesn't conform to how they think it should (hence why I am adamant about trusting God and His ordained). Edited June 4, 2015 by lvjd66
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 It was not meant as a slam (although it sounded like one). It was more of a lament, honestly. I just think don't people are justified (by truth or God) in trying to shape the Kingdom in their own image, because when they do it will lead great members out of the Church, 100 times out of 100, when it doesn't conform to how they think it should (hence why I am adamant about trusting God and His ordained). I understand your point, but please also consider that what you describe as "trying to shape the Kingdom in their own image" is, for many if not all of these folks, a sincere desire to follow the Spirit, do what's right, adhere to a strong sense of personal morality, etc. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I understand your point, but please also consider that what you describe as "trying to shape the Kingdom in their own image" is, for many if not all of these folks, a sincere desire to follow the Spirit, do what's right, adhere to a strong sense of personal morality, etc. Which will only make their leaving even more justified in the minds (but not by God).
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Which will only make their leaving even more justified in the minds (but not by God). You sure you want to claim to speak for God? On this thread even?
Mystery Meat Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 You sure you want to claim to speak for God? On this thread even? I don't think I am saying anything revolutionary (people aren't justified in separating themselves from God's Kingdom, the COJCOLDS). But we can agree that I don't speak for God.
cinepro Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) 15 "newsworthy" excommunications in 2015! I think with concerted effort we can reach or even exceed this goal but it will require the best efforts of every member. "Best efforts" aren't good enough. It requires exact obedience. If we are all exactly obedient to the principles of Chapel Mormonism, then I promise that we will get those excommunications this year. Edited June 4, 2015 by cinepro 3
The Nehor Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 "Best efforts" aren't good enough. It requires exact obedience. If we are all exactly obedient to the principles of Chapel Mormonism, then I promise that we will get those excommunications this year.Never mind then. I am too lazy to be bothered with this exact obedience garbage. 1
bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Well said. With the Great Commission comes commensurate authority to speak. That authority is conditioned, however on speaking in accordance with revealed light and knowledge, with the Spirit, and is subject to clarification and correction by those who are in higher authority. Thanks, -Smac Absolutely.
Duncan Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Never mind then. I am too lazy to be bothered with this exact obedience garbage. I would love to know the difference between obedience and exact obedience, just the plain old vanilla obedience and then the super duper swirly whirly obedience 3
The Nehor Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I would love to know the difference between obedience and exact obedience, just the plain old vanilla obedience and then the super duper swirly whirly obedienceIf my mission is any indication obedience is following the rules and commandments and exact obedience is being an obnoxious git. Your mileage may vary. 3
pogi Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Rock is a scriptural literalist. He goes by the letter of what is in the scriptures, and the church does not. I don't see the irony - it's just two different paradigms. He claims that if the brethren started putting out "capital R" revelations he would follow them. By which I think he means they would have to claim to have received a specific word for word revelation, and put out the revelation for the church to see. In other words he's waiting for them to produce revelation like Joseph Smith did. The capital R revelations in the epistles or the BOM are very few and far between, but their words are no less inspired, doctrinal and binding. The paradigm he proposes, as a scriptural literalist, does not even follow the prophetic paradigm as portrayed in the scriptures...literally There has got to be irony in there somewhere. Not even Jesus said "thus saith your Lord". The people had to rely on their spiritual ears rather than their physical ears to decipher true revelation and recognize their Lord. Very few prophets actually wrote or spoke in the first person voice of the Lord as Joseph did. Isaiah and maybe a couple others are rare examples. Rock will never know that he is wrong because he will never receive a Joseph style revelation delivered to him which says, "thus saith the Lord unto my servant Rock, repent and humble yourself before me..." His physical ears will never hear that, but hopefully his spiritual ears eventually will. Edited June 4, 2015 by pogi
Popular Post cinepro Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I don't think anyone has posted this, but this is from Waterman's follow up as linked in the OP: It doesn't matter how forcefully you bear testimony of Christ and His gospel; the Brethren-ite religion has but one focus: replace the organic religion with the counterfeit one, all the while convincing followers nothing has changed. Assuming the "Brethren-ite religion" is the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can someone explain to me how this isn't the textbook definition of "apostasy"? And can someone explain to me why anyone would complain about being kicked out of a "counterfeit" religion (or waiting to be kicked out instead of resigning)? The only thing I can think of is that the person thought they were going to be able to "save" the religion and get it back on track. But this would be the leaders of the counterfeit religion saying "no thanks", which is entirely in their prerogative. What am I missing? Edited June 4, 2015 by cinepro 7
bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I'm not aware of him disagreeing with that point. Are you? I based my question off of your recollection of what Waterman believes on the subject, which you related in post #49.
pogi Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 can someone explain to me how this isn't the textbook definition of "apostasy"? The textbook definition doesn't say "thus saith the Lord", so it doesn't apply to Rock.
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 I based my question off of your recollection of what Waterman believes on the subject, which you related in post #49. I didn't write post #49 and I don't see anything there on the subject of authority to baptize. But, to go back to your question, I assume that Waterman does believe in the restored priesthood being necessary for baptism. I don't recall ever reading anything from him to the contrary. And he's a firm believe in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration so I think he believes in what happened there on the banks of the Susquehanna.
CV75 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Agreed. And that CHI definition (bold added) seems to be the one that effectively convicts, for lack of a better word, Waterman as well as Carson Calderwood before him.I wouldn't know or even hazard a guess for those two individuals, but in principle, apostasy of that kind does generally justify excommunication.
bluebell Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I didn't write post #49 and I don't see anything there on the subject of authority to baptize. But, to go back to your question, I assume that Waterman does believe in the restored priesthood being necessary for baptism. I don't recall ever reading anything from him to the contrary. And he's a firm believe in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration so I think he believes in what happened there on the banks of the Susquehanna. Sorry, it was #43.
Senator Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I don't think anyone has posted this, but this is from Waterman's follow up as linked in the OP: Assuming the "Brethren-ite religion" is the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can someone explain to me how this isn't the textbook definition of "apostasy"? And can someone explain to me why anyone would complain about being kicked out of a "counterfeit" religion (or waiting to be kicked out instead of resigning)? The only thing I can think of is that the person thought they were going to be able to "save" the religion and get it back on track. But this would be the leaders of the counterfeit religion saying "no thanks", which is entirely in their prerogative. What am I missing? Rock and others are exercising the scriptural principle of "those whom you lovetheth, you chastisetheth" Edited June 4, 2015 by Senator
rockpond Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 Sorry, it was #43. Okay... well, it looks like I said kinda the same thing there that I said here. So does that answer your question? You had stated the following: "No they aren't. They are not all about how the doctrines of the church are right. For example, the church teaches, as doctrine, that you must be baptized by someone with authority to do so, in order to be a member of Christ's church. Do Waterman's writings teach that the church is right in that doctrine?" My answer... I've never anything to the contrary from him.
Recommended Posts