12
13

Notable agitator Rock Waterman has been excommunicated. Here's what you need to know. (self.latterdaysaints)

kayejazz が 投稿

A few people have tried sharing a post from the blog of Rock Waterman, who has consistently made claims against the truthfulness of the church. Because of the nature of his website, his domain has long been on the blacklist at /r/latterdaysaints. Despite his excommunication being somewhat newsworthy in certain lds circles, there's no reason to change that policy, since this is not the place to give voice to antagonists of the church.

Of course, if you want to read his take on things, it's as easy as a google search, but we'll not be giving space to his website here on the sub, seeing as it is directly opposed to our purpose in supporting the church and a faithful belief.

全 122 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Gnolaum 30ポイント31ポイント  (62子コメント)

I'll be pedantic and point out that he's a completely different breed from the John Dehlin's of the world who debate the entire truth claims of the church; in that he only debates the current claims of the present day church, but is firm in his testimony of Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the early church.

If the prophet released a revelation from god that we were all supposed to do something new, I'd fully expect that Alan Rock Waterman would be doing it first and doing it best, whether he is in or out of the church.

His excommunication saddens me.

[–]mhoiland 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

Nicely said. Rock is perhaps the first excommunication in modern days of a fully-faithful member who believes all the fundamental truth claims and only works to bring people to Christ. Saddens me as well.

[–]Noppers 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's hardly the first. It's just that he has a large following and that's why we know who he is.

Excommunications happen all the time, but only a fraction of them are made public.

[–]My_Snarky_Alt 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

who believes all the fundamental truth claims

fundamental according to him

[–]mahershalahashtag 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

And what is different with you than him? You follow a different man for your interpretations?

[–]pierzstyxEnemy of the State [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Fundamental assumptions. The fundamental assumption here is that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God and this is Christ's true church. That is not Waterman's fundamental assumption- he believes the church has gone astray and it is his duty to reform it. There are even rumors he plans to found his own church. From an outsider's prospective they may not understand, form the insider's prospective that is apostasy.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]xColdmedx 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    and the early church

    Up until what point? When Joseph Smith passed away?

    [–]kayejazz[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Any excommunication should sadden us. We want everyone to be partakers of the goodness of the Gospel.

    [–]latter_daze 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I know this may come across as harsh, but bare with me: this excommunication - as well as any excommunication - doesn't sadden me. It doesn't make me happy, either. I'm indifferent to the excommunication itself.

    What does sadden me is seeing someone in a state of personal Apostasy, for exactly what you said - We want everyone to be partakers of the goodness of the Gospel. Too many members choke on the bitterness of their cynicism and criticism of the Church. What saddens me is that they already "left" the Church long before they were excommunicated.

    [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

    It saddens me to see any excommunication. I know the deliberation and prayer -- and sometimes acrimony -- that goes on as part of that process, as well as the many kinds of decisions, large and small, that can lead up to it.

    It also saddens me to see people like Waterman who somehow really don't understand -- or maybe don't want to understand -- the nature and purpose of excommunication. I never looked at his blog before, but his attitude in his brief post about being excommunicated tells me he is far from any real understanding of what this is about.

    [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]onewattBack to work, now , onewatt...[M] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Take it elsewhere, chum.

      [–]Thumpar -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      This comment will get deleted in 3...2...

      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]mysteriousPerson[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        Mod here. Here is what our sidebar says:

        No arguing claims of truthfulness, debating, or repeatedly criticizing or complaining about the LDS church.

        You're heading into ban territory. Stop.

        [–]dueterated -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

        He basically holds the opinion that the current LDS leadership has lost it's way and has traded the doctrines and scriptures of Joseph's day (granted as he understands them) for easing societal pressure and obedient conformity.

        His attitude toward the leadership, according to that leadership, is both his greatest sin and the reason he's somewhat flippant about his excommunication. He is a true follower of the book of mormon and Joseph Smith, for whatever that seems to be worth.

        [–]helix400 3ポイント4ポイント  (38子コメント)

        If the prophet released a revelation from god that we were all supposed to do something new, I'd fully expect that Alan Rock Waterman would be doing it first and doing it best, whether he is in or out of the church.

        If we use history as a guide, in the 1800s there were many of Waterman's style, believing the church was initially true but at some arbitrary point slid into apostasy. Dozens and dozens of these individuals then fell away from the church and/or were excommunicated. Many stayed connected with the idea of Mormonism and tried to reform or restart Mormonism in their own ways.

        By comparing on one side the track record of these individuals trying to restart or reform the "pure" church, and comparing them against the future actions from church leadership, we see almost zero correlation. I would put Waterman in the same group.

        [–]Darth_Unicorn07 2ポイント3ポイント  (37子コメント)

        It's also important to recognize that many of the "reforms" result in one of two things: Horrific human rights abuses (FLDS) or complete abandonment of scriptural truth (RLDS). Corruption of truth to suit the ideaology of man results in far greater evil that outright lies ever could, in my opinion.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 14ポイント15ポイント  (35子コメント)

        complete abandonment of scriptural truth (RLDS)

        You are quite uninformed on the Community of Christ, sir.

        [–]kayejazz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (29子コメント)

        I would guess that he is referring to the fact that the Community of Christ has stepped away from the Book of Mormon as divine scripture, instead framing it as a good book with valuable moral lessons.

        *edited to correct some spelling.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 10ポイント11ポイント  (12子コメント)

        That's an LDS mischaracterization. The Book of Mormon is still considered scripture and part of CoC canon, along with a Doctrine and Covenants that continues to be updated with new sections. The main difference is that the church doesn't require its members to take it as historical or literal.

        [–]mysteriousPerson 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I've talked to multiple CoC folks, and they generally are in line with what /u/kayejazz has stated.

        [–]kayejazz[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (10子コメント)

        I will only say that that was explained to me by a member of their congregation multiple times when I talked to them in Independence.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

        You didn't listen then, or you're putting one person's view as the view of all CoC. That person's view may be that it is not historical but still has good lessons, but that doesn't mean it isn't divine scripture to that person or the church she or he belonged to. Many believing Christians are the same way - they don't have to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when it is more likely he was born in Nazareth in order to still believe Matthew and Luke are divine scripture. I've met many such, even some in the LDS faith.

        [–]kayejazz[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

        That was on the tour in their temple. I took it as representative of the church, since it was part of their official presentation.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

        You're saying the presentation stated the Book of Mormon is not scripture?

        [–]mysteriousPerson 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

        Exactly. Although it is technically scripture, the CoC/RLDS generally doesn't regard the Book of Mormon as "true" in the same sense that their forebearers did.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

        It's a non-creedal church. Trying to talk about how the CoC (why do you keep calling it RLDS? no longer the name, hasn't been for years) regards the book doesn't make a lot of sense. Some believe it's a literal historical account, others view it as scripture though not historical. Certainly there will be other views as well, and there is no authority requiring a certain type of belief.

        What does technically scripture mean? It's treated as scripture. They may not see scripture exactly the same way you do, but it is still considered a holy text by the church and most CoC members.

        [–]mysteriousPerson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

        RLDS is technically the legal name of the CoC, and many people still know it as such. I used both acronyms.

        In regards to scripture, from the perspective of most LDS, you've essentially helped to make my point.

        Best wishes. There's certainly room for both points of view in the world.

        [–]amertune 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

        You're not technically wrong, you're just wrong.

        Just as we're not known as "The Church of Christ" (1830) or "The Church of the Latter-Day Saints" (1834), they are also not known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The name was changed in 2001.

        [–]kayejazz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Actually, for legal purposes, they did retain the RLDS, kind of like a DBA. I was there in Independence at the time of the name change. It was an interesting time.

        [–]mysteriousPerson 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

        Ameritune, you're not technically wrong, you're just wrong.

        After two hours of often emotional debate, delegates to the church's world conference on Friday overwhelmingly agreed to change the name by which they will be identified. The vote of 1,979 to 561 was well over the required two-thirds.The longer name, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will remain the legal name of the organization.

        http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_rlds.html

        [–]Darth_Unicorn07 -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

        No, I'm rather familiar with them. But here's the thing: You don't follow the fundamental teachings of the original church. There have been many changes in doctrine and practice throughout the RLDS (or CoC if you prefer) church history. I'm not necessarily claiming that you were incorrect to do so, or that your church isn't true. I don't believe that it is, but you are free to do so. But this is an LDS subreddit that takes an LDS point of view, and from an LDS point of view you have abandoned scriptural truth through your metaphorical interpretations and general divergences in doctrine.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

        I'm an ex-Mormon that's familiar with the Community of Christ, but I belong to no religion.

        You don't follow the fundamental teachings of the original church.

        The same could be said of the LDS. CoC more closely follows the teachings of the Kirtland era, LDS of the late Nauvoo era.

        There have been many changes in doctrine and practice throughout the RLDS (or CoC if you prefer) church history.

        Again, the same is true in LDS. And they do prefer CoC, since that's been the name of the church since 2001. Do you know your own history? Major shifts have occurred throughout the early history with Joseph Smith, then through Brigham Young, again through Wilford Woodruff, again through Heber Grant, again through David McKay/Harold Lee, again through Spencer Kimball, and again through Gordon Hinkley. Religions change and evolve pretty rapidly, especially when relatively young like all restorationist churches.

        from an LDS point of view you have abandoned scriptural truth through your metaphorical interpretations and general divergences in doctrine.

        Having a different view isn't "complete abandonment of scriptural truth." You're mostly, again, accusing them of having divergent beliefs from your own, but couching it as "complete abandonment" of scripture and "corruption of truth." Hardly respectful of differences.

        [–]mysteriousPerson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        CoC more closely follows the teachings of the Kirtland era

        C'mon. Let's be honest. The CoC more closely resembles a modern, progressive protestant Church than Kirtland in the 1830s.

        Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

        [–]Darth_Unicorn07 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Yes, I am very familiar with our history. Familiar enough to know how the CoC came about, and what their original teachings were, as well as the teachings of Joseph Smith. And this is an LDS subreddit. Hence, beliefs that are "divergent from [our] own," ARE an abandonment of scriptural truth. Differences are fine, but if you wish to argue differences between religions, you need to go to one of the other subreddits.

        [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        I'm arguing that you are mischaracterizing others' beliefs. You do not have rules to shield that. I'm not challenging your beliefs, unless you're trying to say your belief is that you get to tell others what they believe.

        [–]pine_clad 18ポイント19ポイント  (21子コメント)

        This post has convinced me I'm done with this sub. I've never really contributed anything worthwhile as a NOM/Jackmo anyways, so it probably doesn't matter. As someone who agreed wholeheartedly with lots of Rock Waterman's blog (especially the tithing and temple marriage posts), I'm just another antagonist and "agitator."

        [–]mysteriousPerson[M] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

        This sub is definitely not the place to espouse Mr. Waterman's views, since it is intended as a place for members who are in accord with the present-day Church and its teachings.

        To the extent you can align your participation with the above, you're welcome to come. There is probably some value for you in associating with orthodox believers online.

        [–]kayejazz[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (19子コメント)

        The problem with Rock is that he consistently teaches that the modern church is in apostasy.

        [–]Gnolaum 8ポイント9ポイント  (17子コメント)

        I always like to entertain that notion; how could I find all truth if I believe I already have it?

        [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Who says we have "all the truth"? We have the saving ordinances and the authority to get what additional truth we need as we need it. But we also fully acknowledged there is truth to be found in many religions -- just not additional/competing truth about saving ordinances.

        [–]sentinelgreg 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

        I agree with you, gnolaum. But I think that is a far cry from believing that the church is in apostasy.

        Restoration never meant that we have "all truth". Just that we have the priesthood + a prophet. Apostasy implies a lack of both.

        [–]mazel-t0v -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        If you read the first vision account, God is clearly more concerned with truth/what is being taught, rather than special priesthood/lack of a prophet.

        [–]sentinelgreg 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

        First vision ≠ restoration

        Also, isn't teaching truth and maintaining doctrinal correctness a HUGE part of why we even have prophets and apostles?

        [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]MTjonesFull Time Weirdo, Indie Author, and Losing my Mind!!!! [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Amusing.

          [–]mazel-t0v [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          I totally agree. Here is another amusing thought:

          What if having "authority" came from truth? Rather than truth coming from "authority"?

          The way I see the typical LDS mindset, we should seek after an authority to teach truth. What if you simply sought for truth and those that teach it are "authorities"? Because maybe AUTHOR-ity is as simple as whether or not God is the AUTHOR.

          To use the frequent scriptural analogy: Think of a tree and its fruit. Is the tree authority, and its fruit truth? Or is the tree truth, and its fruit authority? Which one is dependent on the other?

          What authority did Christ come with? Who knows, he actually refused to answer that question. Apparently, it wasn't as important to him as it is to us. But he taught truths, of which God was the author.

          Maybe I am too unorthodox for this forum. My heart and soul, I devote to God and the gospel, but it is never good enough for the church.

          [–]MTjonesFull Time Weirdo, Indie Author, and Losing my Mind!!!! [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          seek after an authority to teach truth. What if you simply sought for truth and those that teach it are "authorities"? Because maybe AUTHOR-ity is as simple as whether or not God is the AUTHOR.

          Thou hast said

          What authority did Christ come with?

          No, that isn't right. He did answer that question, many times.

          Apparently, it wasn't as important to him as it is to us.

          He who hath ears, let him hear. More than just a 2,000 year old snarky comeback. An invitation to listen to the Spirit.

          My heart and soul, I devote to God and the gospel.

          And yet, here you are.

          [–]kayejazz[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          how could I find all truth if I believe I already have it?

          That's the thing about the church. We do have the 9th Article of Faith that says God will yet reveal great things. But, He has a system for that. Believing the church is in apostasy removes the system.

          [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I just have to say:
          Rock Waterman?
          Denver Snuffer?
          Even back to Bo Gritz...

          I feel almost like we're being trolled...

          [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Having waded through this topic far too much, I think what I at least "need to know" is that this is the kind of topic that draws many of those who wish only discontent on members of the Church and who have their own ax to grind.

          Once again, I'm sorry I jumped in. We had a brief run of uplifting posts ... judging by many of the comments this, IMO, isn't one of them.

          [–]kayejazz[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          There were multiple submissions of the blog post in question, so i felt like it needed to be addressed, but I agree. Not an uplifting thread.

          [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          And why is it not uplifting? Exploring ideas and other views is not uplifting? It confuses me that your definition of the word seems to be closer to "hear the same message again" than "hear a new message that lifts your mind to new places." I would say the latter would be uplifting to me.

          [–]ASigIAm213Reformed Gnostic 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

          I like Rock, and I agree with him on a whole lot. I'm not ashamed to say that.

          Rock espoused the supremacy of another church. There are very few churches on earth who would allow you to remain a member if you did that.

          [–]tatonnementI had my Jesus piece since '94 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

          There are very few churches on earth who would allow you to remain a member if you did that.

          Plenty of churches allow you to do that

          [–]cuddlesnuggler 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Which says a lot about human beings and their churches. That kind of behavior smacks of insecurity.

          Where did Rock espouse the supremacy of another church?

          edit: I intended this to be a response to u/ASigIAm213 's comment, not yours. I agree, plenty of churches allow that. God bless them for it.

          [–]ASigIAm213Reformed Gnostic 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Rock openly suggested that the Unity Church was more in line with the spirit of Joseph Smith's church than ours.

          [–]cuddlesnuggler 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Thanks for being more specific. Are you thinking of this post?. I don't read anywhere where he claims the Church of Unity is supreme. From his post, it sounds like there are aspects of the worship he experienced there that are, in fact, closer to the spirit of worship in Joseph Smith's Mormonism. The same is true of many different Churches and religions. Stating a historical fact doesn't make a person apostate.

          [–]Annie_Falger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          "I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled." (Essential Joseph Smith, chapter 37, p. 176 [April 8, 1843])

          [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 11ポイント12ポイント  (22子コメント)

          who has consistently made claims against the truthfulness of the church

          Source? From everything I've read of Rock, this is untrue. Please give some support before labeling a believer you don't agree with as an antagonist who consistently makes claims against the LDS church.

          [–]kayejazz[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (20子コメント)

          In his blog post, announcing the excommunication, he basically asserts that the modern church is in apostasy. He's said that in other places, as well. He may be a staunch believer in many of the doctrines of the church, but you can't say that the brethren have no authority and not be at least a little heretical, if not an ouright apostate.

          [–]Gnolaum 12ポイント13ポイント  (19子コメント)

          I think his stance is a little more nuanced than that.

          It isn't that the current brethren have no authority. If they delivered a revelation he would be first in line to follow it.

          It's that they aren't delivering new revelations, and baring that they must be bound by previous revelations.

          Revelation can replace revelation; but inspiration can't replace revelation.

          [–]sentinelgreg 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Hmm. Interesting.

          I don't think I quite understand the logic... I mean, if no new revelation has been received, of course we (the church) will be bound by the old one.

          Is he saying that the modern system of revelation is more akin inspiration, and not what it used to look like?

          I'll look him up to see if I can understand better.

          [–]ASigIAm213Reformed Gnostic 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

          He thinks the Brethren have either encouraged or failed to adequately quash an authoritarian streak in the Church, which given their understandable humanity has slowly led the Church astray since they're no longer subject to criticism. I'm with him on that train, just not to the end of the line.

          [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Here's a hard lesson: even if he and you are right -- that this is true at least in part -- it makes no difference. If some leaders exercise unrighteous dominion, that's on them (and it's a heavy thing to bear). What the rest of us have to decide is how we react to it. One way is to call these leaders out, refuse to follow them, and set yourself up as your own authority. The other is to recognize that sometimes things, even in a church staffed by fallible humans, won't be right or fair.

          One of those ways is about pride. The other is about humility. I'm coming to the conclusion that in our society today, humility is just about the toughest thing there is for us to learn. We kick against it -- even the suggestion of it -- at every mention. Or we say we're willing to be humble, just so long as, you know, things are fair and we aren't put in any discomfort.

          That's not how this works.

          [–]bjacks12Give me funeral potatoes or give me death! 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          You win this thread, Brother /u/Testudoaubreii.

          [–]mysteriousPerson -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          A very good answer.

          [–]sentinelgreg 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Oh, thanks for clarifying. That's an interesting topic, and somewhat complicated.

          [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          You might want to study this excellent talk.

          [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

            So you're saying that an Apostle can't give a talk by his own revelation? That the "gospel" is closed and they must adhere to only things taught in the past?

            That's not exactly consistent with the truth claims of the LDS Church.

            [–]kayejazz[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

            I think we have different definitions for revelation.

            [–]Gnolaum 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

            We might; but don't judge my views by my representations of anothers views ;).

            [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

            But your accusation is that he makes claims against the truthfulness of the church. On the contrary, he disagrees with some practices and believes if there is revelation it should be made clear, rather than simply issuing new manuals or programs. You seem not to find him perfectly obedient to every statement that comes out of the mouths of church leaders, but that isn't stating the church is untrue. The church itself admits, at least through the Race and the Priesthood essay, that not every word stated by a church leader is revelation. How can you fault him for recognizing that mistakes might be made?

            [–]latter_daze 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            if there is revelation it should be made clear

            So abandon faith? What u/kayejazz said is spot on - it's not that they aren't receiving revelation anymore, it's that they aren't delivering it in the way that Waternam, and others, want or expect it to be delivered. And since things seemingly conflict with their personal beliefs, then they must not be receiving revelation. What a terrible fallacy!

            Nearing the end of Jesus' ministry he began to speak in parables more often. Why? "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." His teachings weren't plain anymore. That way the cynics and critics would simply hear a bunch of jibberish they can continue to scrutinize, and the true followers would receive more knowledge and revelation from Him. But, there has to be a spirit of faith approaching it to learn anything.

            Yes, our definitions of revelation must be different. Because I find it everywhere, especially in this Church. Maybe it's because I'm naive and I simply find it because I'm looking for it, whether it's true revelation or not - but maybe that's the only way revelation can even be found.

            [–]kayejazz[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

            How can you fault him for recognizing that mistakes might be made?

            I don't. But I don't believe that you can actively say that the prophets don't uplift or edify, that they don't teach Jesus, etc. Years ago, he said that listening to President Monson would be some kind of cruel punishment by God, because all he can say are "inane and pointless stories."

            He doesn't believe that the leaders of the church are anything more than charlatans, and he's been saying that for years. If they are charlatans, they have no authority and either the church is in apostasy or he is.

            [–]dkswaggerIt's a trap! -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

            Well, it is a fact that they don't really talk about Jesus much in General Conference, and they are more likely to quote another current or past general authority than the gospels. Many talks only mention Jesus in the closing phrase. And saying that their talks are boring is not saying they aren't prophets and apostles. If that makes one apostate, I'd guess the LDS church is full of apostates given how many fall asleep during General Conference and other meetings.

            He doesn't believe that the leaders of the church are anything more than charlatans

            Again, where has he ever said this? You keep trying to put Rock into a certain box so you can dismiss him out of hand, but he does not take the positions you claim.

            [–]testudoaubreii(you can call me Jack) 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

            it is a fact that they don't really talk about Jesus much in General Conference

            Uh no. It's the opposite of that. Want easy proof? As an example, have a look at this wordle for the April 2014 General Conference, where words are bigger based on their frequency of being in talks (and a mention in a closing phrase won't yield that kind of prominence).

            they are more likely to quote another current or past general authority than the gospels

            Also not remotely true, as a quick perusal of just about any General Conference talk will show you.

            You appear to be dealing in prejudices, not actual facts.

            [–]onewattBack to work, now , onewatt... 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Well, it is a fact that they don't really talk about Jesus much in General Conference

            Wat? https://latterdaysaint.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/word-cloud-of-october-2013-general-conference/

            he does not take the positions you claim.

            "Wilford Woodruff not [only] tended to gild the lily now and then, but... he is the single individual responsible for... the biggest lie in Mormonism"

            "We Latter-day Saints have become so accustomed these days to having false doctrine preached at us in church that we barely even blink anymore when we hear it."

            "the role of the prophet of God today is to encourage us to grab our wallets and purses and head over to Macy's for some silks and scarlets and fine-twined linen."

            "If one of the jobs of a prophet is to act as a watchman on the wall, Thomas Spencer Monson had fallen asleep at the parapet."

            "maybe it's time to rethink who should have more influence in your day-to-day life: Holy Ghost, or Corporate Office Holder?"

            "if Maurik hadn’t shown up, it would have been a catastrophe. Monson would have had to fill another hour himself, subjecting those poor German saints to his inane and pointless stories. God can sometimes seem cruel, but he's never that cruel."

            "the modern LDS Church (TM), as I've harped about repeatedly on this site, has in recent years been taking a series of gradual steps backward from the pure doctrines of the restoration in favor of a more Pharisaical surrogate religion."

            "I delve into more detail concerning Packer’s deception here, but suffice it to say that any objections the children of light may have had to this illegal and immoral undertaking were stilled that day by a conference speaker whose agenda ran contrary to all of God's previous revelations on the subject. "

            "If you are accusing me of being dismissive of Boyd K. Packer, you are correct"

            "LDS General Conference has devolved into a dull, boring, stodgy waste of my time."

            And that was just from 10 minutes of looking at the site. yeah, I put him in a box. It's a box that has total disregard for the prophets and church.

            [–]bjacks12Give me funeral potatoes or give me death! 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            If you pull up the LDS Gospel Library app and search the April 15 conference for 'Jesus' or 'Savior', you'll get plenty of results.

            [–]mysteriousPerson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Good grief. Just go read his blog. He's pretty clearly set himself in opposition to the modern Church.

            [–]Annie_Falger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Good luck Rock.

            [–]bjacks12Give me funeral potatoes or give me death! 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

            That's the way she goes.

            [–]Noppers 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

            Who's she?

            [–]ThuseldIn the end, it is just rocks 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Obviously the Cat's Mother.

            [–]bjacks12Give me funeral potatoes or give me death! 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

            I'd quote the original source of my comment, but it's from Trailer Park Boys and hardly appropriate for this sub, lol.

            Basically, you stand up against God and his servants, you get excommunicated. It's basic math.

            [–]MTjonesFull Time Weirdo, Indie Author, and Losing my Mind!!!! [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            I'd quote the original source of my comment, but it's from Trailer Park Boys

            You, I like you.

            [–]bjacks12Give me funeral potatoes or give me death! [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            I definitely have a problem with consuming content that does not fit the 13th article of faith.

            I just watched all 9 seasons of TPB over the last 2 or 3 weeks.