Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[Avatar4321]

But you also don't have authority from the church to teach what you just taught. Ditto for me and everyone else on this thread.

Except that was the doctrine of the Church and many of us in this thread do have the authority and more importantly the responsibility to preach the doctrines of Christ.

[Avatar4321]

You sure you want to claim to speak for God?  On this thread even?  

Why wouldn't He? Many of us are called to speak for God quite frequently. I have the responsibility every time I teach elders quorum

[Avatar4321]

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?

Good question.

Why does anyone get upset about being kicked out of what they consider a counterfeit religion?

[Avatar4321]

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've never met him but I don't understand your characterization there. He is a humble person but then you go on and describe the very essence of pride. And quite frankly if he took criticism well and makes changes, why didn't he repent?

A reminder for us all of what Pride is. We are all susceptible to it. It's my greatest weakness.

Most of us think of pride as self-centeredness, conceit, boastfulness, arrogance, or haughtiness. All of these are elements of the sin, but the heart, or core, is still missing.

The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us.

Pride is essentially competitive in nature. We pit our will against God’s. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of “my will and not thine be done.” As Paul said, they “seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.” (Philip. 2:21.)

Our will in competition to God’s will allows desires, appetites, and passions to go unbridled. (See Alma 38:12; 3 Ne. 12:30.)

The proud cannot accept the authority of God giving direction to their lives. (See Hel. 12:6.) They pit their perceptions of truth against God’s great knowledge, their abilities versus God’s priesthood power, their accomplishments against His mighty works.

Our enmity toward God takes on many labels, such as rebellion, hard-heartedness, stiff-neckedness, unrepentant, puffed up, easily offended, and sign seekers. The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s.

Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen. We are tempted daily to elevate ourselves above others and diminish them. (See Hel. 6:17; D&C 58:41.)

The proud make every man their adversary by pitting their intellects, opinions, works, wealth, talents, or any other worldly measuring device against others. In the words of C. S. Lewis: “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. … It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone.” (Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1952, pp. 109–10.) - president Ezra Taft Benson

[why me]

Good question.

Why does anyone get upset about being kicked out of what they consider a counterfeit religion?

Publicity. Social media is a great place to remain in the limelight. First start a blog. Get a following. Begin to take stances that seem popular with a certain crowd. And then, build on that fame. When it comes to the church, be critical, take stances against the church, be an 'active' member who is critical, preferably a former bishop or SP, get more of a following, wait for the consequences, be exed, communicate the discipline on the blog and the process itself, and continue with more followers. And have a thread on this board about it started by someone else etc.

 

It seems to work quite well.

[Maedros]

The leaders of the church are not always right as history shows and local leaders even less so; but I have learnt that we must trust the positions, have faith in the calling of Bishop or Stake President and not in the men who hold them. The problem I find with most ex-communicants is that they go to war (so to speak) with the men as natural men and ignore the spirituality in the calling of those men. They go to war with the doctrines of the church and how they are enforced by the men who lead it and ignore the spirituality required of them to trust the will of God that those positions which are held by our leaders are divinely inspired and that we should trust in that because all things are spiritual first. Also ex-communicants go on social media to get sympathy and so a negative view is portrayed of the church - I was thinking recently of how the doctrines of the church have changed over the years and how we (members) have had to follow the prophets even though we may have disagreed with their teachings and I wondered how the Lord allows this and then I thought of Sariah and Laman and Lemuel and Sam and Nephi and how even anciently the people had to follow prophets even when what the prophet said did not make sense to their understanding or was not popular at the time. The cross of being a believer is that we must follow the prophets and trust in the leadership of the priesthood even when we disagree and even when it doesn't make sense - the lesson is "to do all things whatsoever the Lord seeth fit to inflict" because His thoughts and ways are higher and most times even higher than the understanding of prophets and apostles. This guy's testimony is lacking faith - but if he's humble as you say then I'm sure that he will find his way back again. 

[Teancum]

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:?

I would want to see the context before opining.

[Teancum]

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

I am. Not defending him. Simply observing that speaking out or criticizing the top LDS leaders seems to be one of the higher crimes in the LDS church these days. Elder Oaks has said it is never ok to criticize the brethren . Ever.

It is interesting to me that two apparently believing and practicing Catholics who are prominant political figures, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum can speak out publicly agains their pope at least about what they disagree with on statements he made with no fear of repurcussions . But then hey, the LDS church has Harry Reed who in deed and action seems to oppose issues the church supports and he gets into no trouble . Why is that?

[Gray]

Except that was the doctrine of the Church and many of us in this thread do have the authority and more importantly the responsibility to preach the doctrines of Christ.

 

Maybe Rock's trouble was assuming that the scriptures are the doctrines of the church (or more specifically, a literal reading of the scriptures).

Edited June 5, 2015 by Gray

[Avatar4321]

Maybe Rock's trouble was assuming that the scriptures are the doctrines of the church.

Maybe you could tel me where the scriptures tell us we should speak out against those called to hold keys over us.

Or maybe you could tell me what policies he was objecting to bad on the scriptures like i asked. Cause you keep mentioning them but never mentioning what they are. Why is that?

[Avatar4321]

Btw I couldn't sleep and did some research last night and found some things we should remember:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

"Joseph Smith taught the importance of sustaining our Church leaders: “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, . . . that man is in the high road to apostasy.”"

"Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”"

(Looks like Joseph taught brethrenite Mormonism)

Orson Hyde, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, reported: “Joseph the Prophet … said, ‘Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.’”16

William G. Nelson reported: “I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’ The history of the Church has proven this to be true.”

"Ezra T. Clark remembered: “I heard the Prophet Joseph say that he would give the Saints a key whereby they would never be led away or deceived, and that was: The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by imposters, nor would He allow the records of this Church to fall into the hands of the enemy."

And the last quote which I found particularly telling:

"The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’”

I read that and it makes me want to choose the Lord more. I've seen over and over the good fruits of the gospel. I don't want to ever be an enemy of it.

[Kenngo1969]

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. 

For what it's worth, I recently said this in addressing my ward on the subject of following living prophets:

 

God doesn’t care whether we think He’s racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or otherwise bigoted, or politically incorrect.  He is able to do his own work without us advising him. We need to decide whether we will be among the humble followers of Christ described in Lehi’s vision in the First book of Nephi, Chapter 8 in the Book of Mormon, who cling to the iron rod and follow the living prophets as they lead us through the mists of darkness to the tree of life, or whether we will be among those–and sadly, there will be those among them who are nominal Latter-day Saints–who are in the great and spacious building and who mock and point their fingers at those who are on the path. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Here's the link to his post-excommunication interview on Mormon Stories. http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-excommunication/

 

I've got to say, I wasn't impressed by him in this interview. Maybe it was just too soon after the X and he was still feeling a bit emotional  but he came across to me as bitter and extremely judgemental of his leaders and the HC members. I can understand why he wouldn't agree or why he wouldn't appreciate the process this trial took but setting yourself up as the righteous, Abinidi type victim while the SP and HC are King Noah is way over the top for me.

[drums12]

 

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.”   

 

I agree.  Doesn't coming unto Christ, at least fully, require covenants and ordinances?

[ALarson]

Here's the link to his post-excommunication interview on Mormon Stories. http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-excommunication/

 

I've got to say, I wasn't impressed by him in this interview. Maybe it was just too soon after the X and he was still feeling a bit emotional  but he came across to me as bitter and extremely judgemental of his leaders and the HC members. I can understand why he wouldn't agree or why he wouldn't appreciate the process this trial took but setting yourself up as the righteous, Abinidi type victim while the SP and HC are King Noah is way over the top for me.

That does sound pretty extreme.  Did he say if they were any more specific regarding the charges against him? 

[Gray]

Maybe you could tel me where the scriptures tell us we should speak out against those called to hold keys over us.

Or maybe you could tell me what policies he was objecting to bad on the scriptures like i asked. Cause you keep mentioning them but never mentioning what they are. Why is that?

 

I'm not really equipped to make Rock's arguments for him. I'm not a scriptural literalist in the first place. He came to the conclusions he did by being one.

 

But you could always take a look at his posts on tithing and temple marriage. 

Edited June 5, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

For what it's worth, I recently said this in addressing my ward on the subject of following living prophets:

 

If only people believed the same things I do. I suspect they don't because they're not as humble as me. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

That does sound pretty extreme.  Did he say if they were any more specific regarding the charges against him? 

Yes. They charged him with discouraging people from attending the temple, encouraging alcoholism (blog post about how the WoW doesn't require abstinence from beer), encouraging people not to pay tithing, and not sustaining his leaders. The sustaining of leaders issue seemed to be the biggest one. After the SP took 15 minutes to lay out the charges Rock then had 45 minutes to dispute and provide witnesses. The entire DC took about 2 hours (pretty short as far as these things usually go).

 

The problem I have with the charges of apostacy is that he wasn't told the specific charges prior to the DC which means he had not previously been counseled about stopping a misbehavior.  Assuming he is being honest about that, that issue alone should overturn the excommunication and move it into a regular counseling plan with his SP. After that is completed and Rock doesn't change THEN it would seem more appropriate to hold a DC.

[The Nehor]

Yes. They charged him with discouraging people from attending the temple, encouraging alcoholism (blog post about how the WoW doesn't require abstinence from beer), encouraging people not to pay tithing, and not sustaining his leaders. The sustaining of leaders issue seemed to be the biggest one. After the SP took 15 minutes to lay out the charges Rock then had 45 minutes to dispute and provide witnesses. The entire DC took about 2 hours (pretty short as far as these things usually go).

 

The problem I have with the charges of apostacy is that he wasn't told the specific charges prior to the DC which means he had not previously been counseled about stopping a misbehavior.  Assuming he is being honest about that, that issue alone should overturn the excommunication and move it into a regular counseling plan with his SP. After that is completed and Rock doesn't change THEN it would seem more appropriate to hold a DC.

If he was stupid enough not to know what changes were needed to prevent the DC then he should have tried the "mentally incompetent" defense.

[rockpond]

This guy's testimony is lacking faith - but if he's humble as you say then I'm sure that he will find his way back again. 

 

Have you read his writings?  If so, I'm curious how you'd arrive at the conclusion that he lacks faith.

[ALarson]

Yes. They charged him with discouraging people from attending the temple, encouraging alcoholism (blog post about how the WoW doesn't require abstinence from beer), encouraging people not to pay tithing, and not sustaining his leaders. The sustaining of leaders issue seemed to be the biggest one. After the SP took 15 minutes to lay out the charges Rock then had 45 minutes to dispute and provide witnesses. The entire DC took about 2 hours (pretty short as far as these things usually go).

 

The problem I have with the charges of apostacy is that he wasn't told the specific charges prior to the DC which means he had not previously been counseled about stopping a misbehavior.  Assuming he is being honest about that, that issue alone should overturn the excommunication and move it into a regular counseling plan with his SP. After that is completed and Rock doesn't change THEN it would seem more appropriate to hold a DC.

Thanks for the additional information.  Did Rock say whether or not he plans to appeal?

[rockpond]

For what it's worth, I recently said this in addressing my ward on the subject of following living prophets:

 

You might find Waterman's "Follow the Prophet" post interesting since it also refers to Lehi's dream, as you did in your message to your ward.

 

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/10/follow-prophet-true-or-false.html

 

Other follow the prophet related posts:

 

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-tell-if-you-are-idolater.html

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/preaching-false-doctrine-from-general.html

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes. He considers it his responsibility to hold his SP responsible and give leaders the opportunity to hold him accountable. He's not holding his breath on a change of verdict.

 

His wife also stated that she will be requesting a disciplinary council for herself since she believes the same things he writes about. She wants the leaders to be accountable to God for what they may choose to do.

 

Rock spoke about how the accusations against him were all straw man arguments and it was clear they hadn't deeply read his thoughts but stopped after reading his provocative titles. There were a number of bishops from the stake who also attended because they had been tasked with reading and reporting on the articles. So it's unclear how much personal knowledge the SP had of his writings.

[DragonLancer]

I think this post from another thread (although slightly edited for context) I wrote is a perfect fit here:

 

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. 

 

Part of trusting God is trusting HIM to not only call who He would have lead (even, GASP, Judas!) but that HE is capable of fixing any mistakes that NEED to be fixed through those He has called that have such authority. It is not going along with the mistake (moreover, I think the mistakes thrown at the feet of the brethren, 9/10, are perceived mistakes and are not actually so), its trusting the Lord to fix it (either Himself or through the PROPER order). For example, I am not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program. But I am not actively advocating for the Church's end to sponsorship. It's not my role. There are so many other things I would fix about the Church and its culture...but thankfully for members of the Church everywhere, I don't have the authority.

 

I think it is highly unfair to call this a "get in line and follow" approach. Implicit in that is a mindless body of members who have no capability to think for themselves. In fact, the more that I think about that, the more offensive such a label would be. This would be better labeled a "sustain" approach. We have leaders. God called them. He sustains them. We should too. If anyone can't see the difference between "get in line and follow" and sustaining they are in trouble. 

 

Again, the Lord is perfectly capable of keeping His Church in order. If He felt like Waterman, Dehlin, lvjd66 or anyone else could make the Church resemble how He wanted it to look, He would put said person in the position to make it happen. Until He does, our job and responsibility is to sustain, i.e. to trust the Lord, who He has called, and to trust HIM to fix any mistake that NEEDS to be fixed through the proper channels (priesthood keys and stewardship, not anyone and everyone with a blog, podcast or Facebook page).

 

Anything less than this is not sustaining and is dangerous spiritual ground. Disagreements and questions are fine. I have them. But I also trust the Lord, not only to call who He wills, but to fix problems he sees fit to fix (if they even need to be fixed). I think people in western culture need to realize that the Lord does not need them to steady the ark or EVEN want them to attempt to do so (no matter their righteous intention), unless that is their calling and stewardship. It conflicts with everything we have been culturally taught about getting involved and probably some of our natural instinct. But the Lord's way is different.

 

Thus, not sustaining and trusting is a sin of pride.

 

 

Christ is the husband and the wife is the Church.  Eve was commanded to hearken to Adam who was set in authority.  The Church is to hearken to the Husband.  The problem is, the dissenters like Waterman don't realize that the brethren are set above us in a Levirate marriage arrangement to the Church, where they are a proxy husband to the original Husband.  Ruth submitted to Boaz even though he was the proxy husband.  The Church has the duty to submit and sustain the proxy husband who is the brethren set to preside over us.

[toon]

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.

 

In many circumstances, in the United States at least, employees have a legal right to vent about their work, their job, and even use frowned upon language on social media.  Employers that fire or otherwise discipline employees for this can find themselves in trouble.

 

That said, I understand the motives for employers trying to reign in employees' off duty social media conduct -- they're trying to protect their brand.  If the Church wants to operate and been seen as just a corporation, then I can understand cracking down on member's online activity.  But I think the Church is more than that.

 

I also think the Church is strong enough to survive a few members here and there publicly voicing unorthodox opinions and beliefs.

 

And while the Catholic church and mainline Protestant churchs may not tolerate pastors and priets going to far astray, they generally don't excommunicate rank and file members for they type of apostasy the LDS Church seems to be cracking down on.  For a while, the Catholic church was cracking down on priests who taught liberation theology, some were censored, and I believe one was excommunicated.  However, I'm not aware of anylay member being disciplined for publicly supporting liberation theology.

 

Can we expect to see the Catholic Church excommunicate Rick Santorum now?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/rick-santorum-pope-climat_n_7498768.html

Edited June 5, 2015 by toon