Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[Calm]

He appears to see baptism as separate from membership:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/search?q=Baptism

Also: baptism has nothing to do with membership in this particular denomination

Between these two discussions, it would appear he doesn't see authority as part of baptism if I am reading his comments about Mehodists, etc. correctly.

Edited June 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Rock and others are exercising the scriptural principle of "those whom you lovetheth, you chastisetheth"

 

So is the church, it seems.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

He appears to see baptism as separate from membership:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/search?q=Baptism

I believe similarly, but that doesn't negate the need for restored Priesthood to administer the ordinance.

[smac97]

He appears to see baptism as separate from membership:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/search?q=Baptism

 

Well, technically it's the baptism and confirmation that facilitates membership in the Church.  See D&C 20:41 ("And to confirm those who are baptized into the church..."); here ("And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands"), here ("The ordinance of confirmation completes the ceremonial process of becoming a member of the Church, and as such, it is complementary to water baptism"), here ("Baptism of water without the bestowal of the Holy Ghost would be incomplete and would be but half a baptism (HC 5:499)") and here ("Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost").  And authority is required for both ordinances.

 

But aside from that, is he trying to differentiate baptism as an ordinance facilitating the remission of sins, but not entry into the membership of the Church?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2015 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

"Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”   George Orwell-1984

[Calm]

I believe similarly, but that doesn't negate the need for restored Priesthood to administer the ordinance.

But given what he says about baptism being performed by Methodists, etc. it seems for him it doesn't. I've tried to find a positive statement connecting our faith with baptism on his blog and I can't find any.

[Calm]

But aside from that, is he trying to differentiate baptism as an ordinance facilitating the remission of sins, but not entry into the membership of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is confusing. Best to read the blog itself.

This one has some info in it as well: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-is-changing-doctrine.html

Edited June 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

As long as members use social media to vent their disbeliefs about the church, there will be more excommunications. This is no different than someone using social media to vent about their work, vent about their employer or using langauge that the workplace may frown upon. The worker is usually fired. Why? For social harmony and workplace peace.

 

The church cannot allow someone to use social media to vent their disbeliefs and lead others astray. The church would fracture apart because there would be too many schisms inside the church. One must take the bull by the horns and if that means excommunication so be it. Does anyone  believe that a protestant church would allow a pastor to rail against its doctrine and yet, still remain a pastor? Or the catholic church would allow a priest to speak out against catholic dogma and still remain a priest? No.

[smac97]

It is confusing. Best to read the blog itself.

This one has some info in it as well: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-is-changing-doctrine.html

 

Ugh.  What a bleak, cynical, faithless morass of drudgery and darkness that website is.  It has generated in me a larger portion of sympathy for the man than I had before.  Even pity.

 

-Smac

[bluebell]

Ugh.  What a bleak, cynical, faithless morass of drudgery and darkness that website is.  It has generated in me a larger portion of sympathy for the man than I had before.  Even pity.

 

-Smac

 

It's kind of interesting that he didn't care about Kate Kelly (in that he had never heard of her-must not be much of a LDS blog reader) but now that they are comrade in arms he's quite the fan and takes the church to task over their treatment of her as well.

[Coreyb]

I just want to step in and defend Rock for a minute. He may be guilty of some pride but who isn't? I have "argued" with him online on several occasions and I can honestly say that he is very humble, at least in his online persona. He takes criticism well, will change his view with additional evidence, agree to disagree, take time to understand an opposing argument, and apologize when he feels he is wrong. He is more humble than myself and many of you my fellow board junkies. Many of his views I agree with and many I disagree with, but he is nothing if not sincere. I think his conflicts with church authority are primarily due to his personality. He is honest and candid and thus expects honesty and candor from everyone. I think he distrusts bureaucratic type answers, and is doggedly loyal to whatever he feels is the Truth. Having a personality like this does not always work well in a large bureaucratic and authoritarian organization like the church. I figured he would get exed sooner or later.

[Teancum]

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

.

It seems his major offense is not sustaining the current leaders and publicly criticizing the way they run many aspects of the Church. Follow the brethren seems paramount over most things and if you don't like what they do if you say it too loud out you go.

But remember this GAs are human and can make mistakes. Just don't point it out in regards to the living ones. Dead one sure. But not the living ones.

[Mystery Meat]

I just want to step in and defend Rock for a minute. He may be guilty of some pride but who isn't? I have "argued" with him online on several occasions and I can honestly say that he is very humble, at least in his online persona. He takes criticism well, will change his view with additional evidence, agree to disagree, take time to understand an opposing argument, and apologize when he feels he is wrong. He is more humble than myself and many of you my fellow board junkies. Many of his views I agree with and many I disagree with, but he is nothing if not sincere. I think his conflicts with church authority are primarily due to his personality. He is honest and candid and thus expects honesty and candor from everyone. I think he distrusts bureaucratic type answers, and is doggedly loyal to whatever he feels is the Truth. Having a personality like this does not always work well in a large bureaucratic and authoritarian organization like the church. I figured he would get exed sooner or later.

 

I have no doubt but that Brother Waterman thinks he is doing right and that he has many redeeming qualities. However, part of the test of humility in this life is obedience to God's chosen. Yes, I suppose its true, that certain personalities make that harder, just like certain personalities make living the law of chastity hard. Yet, no matter our in born personalities, we are all expected to over come and submit.

 

For the natural man is an enemy to god and will be until he becometh a saint through the Atonement of Christ, and becometh as a child, willing to submit to to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him.

 

And, for some of us, one of the things the Lord has found it fit to inflict upon us is mortal, fallible, and yet divinely called and appointed leaders.

[Calm]

I don't see it as evidence of humility that he is willing to attribute lying to others so easily, for example his portrayal of Ally Isom shows little effort imo to be understanding of someone he disagrees with.

[smac97]

I just want to step in and defend Rock for a minute. He may be guilty of some pride but who isn't?

I am reminded of the following dialog from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

 

Harry Potter: This connection between me and Voldemort... what if the reason for it is that I am becoming more like him? I just feel so angry, all the time. What if after everything that I've been through, something's gone wrong inside me? What if I'm becoming bad? 

 

Sirius Black: I want you to listen to me very carefully, Harry. You're not a bad person. You're a very good person, who bad things have happened to. Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.

 

You are entirely correct in observing that we are all flawed.  We are all sinners.  But we also have measures of goodness and light in us.  The key consideration "is the part we choose to act on."  Thus a man can be both an attentive and loving father (good) and an adulterer (bad).  A woman can be both a kind neighbor (good) and a shoplifter (bad).  A young man can be both kind to animals (good) and a bully in school (bad).  And on and on and on.

 

Notwithstanding this saint/sinner dichotomy that exists in all of us, we are still accountable for our misconduct.  I do not think God weighs sins against virtues and then ignores the former based on the latter.  "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (D&C 1:31).  And thus we see the paramount importance of repentance, and the disastrous consequences for those who fail to avail themselves of that amazing blessing.

 

I have no doubt that Mr. Waterman is a good man in many respects.  But he has been adjudged by those in authority and with stewardship over him as being guilty of apostasy.  This is a very, very serious thing.  It is not something that can be summarily waived away like some pesky mosquito.  There are reasons why apostasy is ranked alongside murder, adultery, incest, child abuse, and other serious sins.

 

I have "argued" with him online on several occasions and I can honestly say that he is very humble, at least in his online persona.

I have only read a handful of his blog entries. Unfortunately, the phrase "patently obvious" came to mind several times when I read through his blog looking for clues as to why he was excommunicated for apostasy.

 

He takes criticism well, will change his view with additional evidence, agree to disagree, take time to understand an opposing argument, and apologize when he feels he is wrong. He is more humble than myself and many of you my fellow board junkies.

Well, we are all sinners. I hope Mr. Waterman reconsiders his position and returns to the Church.

 

Many of his views I agree with and many I disagree with, but he is nothing if not sincere.

That may be, but that doesn't really help him. Sincerity in expressing apostate teachings is not really a virtue.

 

I think his conflicts with church authority are primarily due to his personality. He is honest and candid and thus expects honesty and candor from everyone.

Yes, we've heard this all before regarding Snuffer, then Kelly, then Dehlin, then the Calderwoods, and now Waterman. They all extol their own virtues (or have proxies who do it for them). And somehow they seem to do so at the expense of everyone around them. Kate Kelly publicly accused her bishop of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike," but as for her self-assessment, we got this: "At every turn, our actions have been respectful and dignified and aimed at communicating with our Church leaders."  Denver Snuffer put on pretty much the same schtick.  And now here you are, seemingly implying that Mr. Waterman was excommunicated because he "expects honesty and candor from everyone" and did not find these virtues in the Church (and, more specifically, his local leaders, whom he publicly accused of "perfidy" and of being part of a "counterfeit" church).

 

I reject the continuing theme we are seeing played out in these self-aggrandizing publicity stunts put on by Snuffer et al.  The Church has no interest in expelling from its ranks people for being just too good and too virtuous, or in willy-nilly tossing around the incredibly serious charge of "apostasy."  And in each one of these instances (Snuffer, Kelly, Dehlin, Calderwoods, and Waterman), their online postings and IRL conduct, when investigated, turn out to present fairly ample grounds for surmising that the brethren tasked with meting out discipline have been justified in their determinations that such statements and conduct constitute apostasy.  

 

I am repulsed by the behavior of those adjudicated as being in a state of apostasy and publicizing it for their own aggrandizement and to the detriment of the Church.  I am further repulsed by these folks publicly excoriating their local leaders, knowing all the while that those leaders are utterly unable to defend their injured reputations because they are bound by the Church's requirements for confidentiality.  I am further repulsed by not only the attacks on the character and reputation of these men, but by efforts to injure them in other ways. (Kate Kelly, for example, apparently tried to harm her bishop's career as an attorney by repeatedly publicizing his name, profession and employer.  I previously asked the OW group via their website to explain why she is publicizing this information, as I suspect she is attempting to engineer a Brendan Eich-type blowback on her bishop.  As punishment.  Retribution.  I did not receive an acknowledgment or response to my inquiry.)

 

I think he distrusts bureaucratic type answers, and is doggedly loyal to whatever he feels is the Truth.

So the implication here is what, that the LDS Church was out to get Mr. Waterman because he is honest?

 

Having a personality like this does not always work well in a large bureaucratic and authoritarian organization like the church. I figured he would get exed sooner or later.

There are oodles of Latter-day Saints who have the personality type you describe and yet remain faithful and observant Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 6, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

.

It seems his major offense is not sustaining the current leaders and publicly criticizing the way they run many aspects of the Church. Follow the brethren seems paramount over most things and if you don't like what they do if you say it too loud out you go.

But remember this GAs are human and can make mistakes. Just don't point it out in regards to the living ones. Dead one sure. But not the living ones.

You don't think describing the Church as run by the Brethren as a counterfeit version of the real thing is a bit more than "criticizing the way they run many aspects of the Church:?

[rockpond]

As long as members use social media to vent their disbeliefs about the church, there will be more excommunications. This is no different than someone using social media to vent about their work, vent about their employer or using langauge that the workplace may frown upon. The worker is usually fired. Why? For social harmony and workplace peace.

The church cannot allow someone to use social media to vent their disbeliefs and lead others astray. The church would fracture apart because there would be too many schisms inside the church. One must take the bull by the horns and if that means excommunication so be it. Does anyone believe that a protestant church would allow a pastor to rail against its doctrine and yet, still remain a pastor? Or the catholic church would allow a priest to speak out against catholic dogma and still remain a priest? No.

I guess we're in for a bumpy ride then... I see a trend toward less willingness to silently accept the messy issues of church doctrine and history. The September 6 excommunications may have muffled public dialogue for a decade or so but I don't see these excommunications having that same effect.

[smac97]

You don't think describing the Church as run by the Brethren as a counterfeit version of the real thing is a bit more than "criticizing the way they run many aspects of the Church:?

 

And let's not forget his accusation of "perfidy" against the Church in that same post.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 5, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

And let's not forget his accusation of "perfidy" against the Church in that same post.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

And if I am reading him correctly, it would appear he believes the Brethen are attempting to destroy the true Church since they have only "one focus" to replace the true with the false while acting like nothing is happening according to him.

 

​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.

 

Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

And if I am reading him correctly, it would appear he believes the Brethen are attempting to destroy the true Church since they have only "one focus" to replace the true with the false while acting like nothing is happening according to him.

 

Yep.  I'm not sure he could level a more serious charge against the Brethren.  Mr. Waterman's misconduct is not just a personality quirk.  It's not a whoopsy daisy.  He is speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.  He's not just calling them names.  He is accusing them of the most pernicious evils.  Publicly.  To the entire world.

 

And yet there are still some in the Church who defend his conduct.  The mind reels.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[why me]

I guess we're in for a bumpy ride then... I see a trend toward less willingness to silently accept the messy issues of church doctrine and history. The September 6 excommunications may have muffled public dialogue for a decade or so but I don't see these excommunications having that same effect.

I dont think that it is a question of accepting the 'messy' issues of church history that is the problem. One can debate church history inside and outside the church. Or discuss doctrine. I see no problem there either with the church. However, to come out publically against the church for whatever reason and attempting to spread contrary positions to the church can be a problem. As I said, no church can permit their pastors, priests, elders to challenge their churches' doctrine or dogma. There must be discipline or there could be chaos inside the church. I dont believe that members want a 'free range' church, regardless of the church that they are a member of.

[Avatar4321]

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.

The devil does that too

[Avatar4321]

I don't think he's claiming to be getting revelation, so I don't see the irony.

Maybe that's the problem. Every latter day saint should be receiving revelation. It's revelation from the holy spirit that unitesus and makes us one. Edited June 5, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

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.

Like what policies?

[Avatar4321]

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.

Let's just hope we aren't among them