Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I haven't heard the whole interview yet, only about 10 minutes' worth on my way to Orem today. But I downloaded the show and plan to listen to the whole thing when I can in the next few days. Anyway, for those who may be interested...
http://radiorecast.com/ktalk/archive/Pa ... monism.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://radiorecast.com/ktalk/archive/Pa ... monism.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- captain of 50
- Posts: 71
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
This Rock Waterman guy is A-MAAAAZING! I think they should put him on the radio every single day! Everything he says is just incredib...Whoops! My mistake. I meant to use a sock puppet for this post.
(Never mind. go on about your business.)
(Never mind. go on about your business.)
- BMC
- captain of 100
- Posts: 458
- Location: The tent of my Fathers
- Contact:
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I can't access the link, its blocked... where else is this interview available to download or stream?
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8520
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I had no trouble accessing it. I listened to half of it while getting ready for work this morning.BMC wrote:I can't access the link, its blocked... where else is this interview available to download or stream?
BMC, are you in the COB?????
- BMC
- captain of 100
- Posts: 458
- Location: The tent of my Fathers
- Contact:
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
No, I am in DC and work for the Federal Gov't, I wanted to listen to this while I work. Some sites are blocked. I get poor cell reception and I cannot download the file to my iOS device or stream it.Lizzy60 wrote:I had no trouble accessing it. I listened to half of it while getting ready for work this morning.BMC wrote:I can't access the link, its blocked... where else is this interview available to download or stream?
BMC, are you in the COB?????
Not all sites are blocked, youtube isn't blocked, hint hint.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Rock, I think you'll find this interesting:Rock Waterman wrote:This Rock Waterman guy is A-MAAAAZING! I think they should put him on the radio every single day! Everything he says is just incredib...Whoops! My mistake. I meant to use a sock puppet for this post.
(Never mind. go on about your business.)
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/p ... ocumentary
It's a ways down, but here's what Boyd K. Packer stated 7 years ago in a PBS interview:
:-\First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple.
- shadow
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10542
- Location: St. George
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
It's quite simple my Lehite friend-Col. Flagg wrote:Rock, I think you'll find this interesting:Rock Waterman wrote:This Rock Waterman guy is A-MAAAAZING! I think they should put him on the radio every single day! Everything he says is just incredib...Whoops! My mistake. I meant to use a sock puppet for this post.
(Never mind. go on about your business.)
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/p ... ocumentary
It's a ways down, but here's what Boyd K. Packer stated 7 years ago in a PBS interview:
:-\First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple.
You can think what you want, have different attitudes about stuff, but when you ACT out, teach your crap and/or lead people contrary to what the real Prophets teach, then the church will dismiss you. I mean, if you've already separated yourself from the church then don't pretend to be shocked or offended once the church makes it official. One of the roles of the church is to take out the wolves. I'm surprised at how long it takes the church to do this at times.
Ok, you can return to pounding that square peg into a round hole.
- laronius
- captain of 100
- Posts: 644
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
- shadow
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10542
- Location: St. George
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Actually, they do.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1559
- Location: Arizona
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Well Shadow for once I agree with you. Some understand . good work.shadow wrote:Actually, they do.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
All I meant with that link and post was that President Packer, speaking for the church, once said that they don't discipline members for thinking what they want, but that is obviously not the case as we are witnessing right now with Snuff, Rock and others.shadow wrote:It's quite simple my Lehite friend-Col. Flagg wrote:Rock, I think you'll find this interesting:Rock Waterman wrote:This Rock Waterman guy is A-MAAAAZING! I think they should put him on the radio every single day! Everything he says is just incredib...Whoops! My mistake. I meant to use a sock puppet for this post.
(Never mind. go on about your business.)
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/p ... ocumentary
It's a ways down, but here's what Boyd K. Packer stated 7 years ago in a PBS interview:
:-\First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple.
You can think what you want, have different attitudes about stuff, but when you ACT out, teach your crap and/or lead people contrary to what the real Prophets teach, then the church will dismiss you. I mean, if you've already separated yourself from the church then don't pretend to be shocked or offended once the church makes it official. One of the roles of the church is to take out the wolves. I'm surprised at how long it takes the church to do this at times.
Ok, you can return to pounding that square peg into a round hole.
- Hyrcanus
- captain of 100
- Posts: 716
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I posted this on another thread, but it might be useful here. What is at issue, at least presumably isn't what they believe, but what they are teaching. You can be an atheist and remain a member of the LDS Church as long as you don't start teaching your atheism to others. IIRC Denver was quite clear that his excommunication was the result of him refusing to stop publishing/lecturing.Col. Flagg wrote: All I meant with that link and post was that President Packer, speaking for the church, once said that they don't discipline members for thinking what they want, but that is obviously not the case as we are witnessing right now with Snuff, Rock and others.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Hyrcanus wrote:I posted this on another thread, but it might be useful here. What is at issue, at least presumably isn't what they believe, but what they are teaching.Col. Flagg wrote: All I meant with that link and post was that President Packer, speaking for the church, once said that they don't discipline members for thinking what they want, but that is obviously not the case as we are witnessing right now with Snuff, Rock and others.
You beat me to it - I was going to amend the post and include that aspect of it. But in Rock's case... and like he has asked... show him where he is teaching or writing false doctrine and he'll stop/correct it. No one has done that, not even anyone in the hierarchy of the church, which is why his threat of discipline is so worrying. He isn't teaching new doctrine, he isn't fighting against the church and he isn't challenging the truthfulness of the gospel... he's just pursuing and attempting to spread the truth as it pertains to certain gospel teachings while asking questions about why we've strayed from what Joseph taught/restored.
You can be an atheist and remain a member of the LDS Church as long as you don't start teaching your atheism to others. IIRC Denver was quite clear that his excommunication was the result of him refusing to stop publishing/lecturing.
You are correct and I am well aware that if the church/brethren ask you to stop what you are doing but you persist, action can and will be taken, regardless of whether you are right or not. I guess that's what bothers me the most... the church attempting to silence someone even if they have legitimate questions or are teaching a lost, forgotten or corrupted principle or contrary to what Joseph taught.
- Hyrcanus
- captain of 100
- Posts: 716
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I don't want to turn this into an argument about Rock Waterman, I don't think that would be useful. As far as where he is wrong, I think he is demonstrably wrong on lots of things. One example is his position on polygamy and Joseph Smith, which relies on the poorly researched book by Richard Price and his wife.Col. Flagg wrote:Hyrcanus wrote:I posted this on another thread, but it might be useful here. What is at issue, at least presumably isn't what they believe, but what they are teaching.Col. Flagg wrote: All I meant with that link and post was that President Packer, speaking for the church, once said that they don't discipline members for thinking what they want, but that is obviously not the case as we are witnessing right now with Snuff, Rock and others.
You beat me to it - I was going to amend the post and include that aspect of it. But in Rock's case... and like he has asked... show him where he is teaching or writing false doctrine and he'll stop/correct it. No one has done that, not even anyone in the hierarchy of the church, which is why his threat of discipline is so worrying. He isn't teaching new doctrine, he isn't fighting against the church and he isn't challenging the truthfulness of the gospel... he's just pursuing and attempting to spread the truth as it pertains to certain gospel teachings while asking questions about why we've strayed from what Joseph taught/restored.
You can be an atheist and remain a member of the LDS Church as long as you don't start teaching your atheism to others. IIRC Denver was quite clear that his excommunication was the result of him refusing to stop publishing/lecturing.
You are correct and I am well aware that if the church/brethren ask you to stop what you are doing but you persist, action can and will be taken, regardless of whether you are right or not. I guess that's what bothers me the most... the church attempting to silence someone even if they have legitimate questions or are teaching a lost, forgotten or corrupted principle or contrary to what Joseph taught.
In any case, I agree that if the Church is going to discipline someone they need to be clear about what they find objectionable and what needs to change. I can't speak to whether that has happened in these cases.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 339
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Local authorities take care of discipline when dealing with typical issues like moral sin, adultery, etc. It is appropriate that the General Authorities should be coming down on bloggers and authors who affect larger swaths of members. If you're leading astray whole groups, top down discipline is appropriate and welcome.
- Hyrcanus
- captain of 100
- Posts: 716
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I agree that makes sense, at least in theory. It seems to me though the Church has tried to obfuscate the role that the GA's have in disciplining these members in hopes that it would all seem perfectly organic.SamFisher wrote:Local authorities take care of discipline when dealing with typical issues like moral sin, adultery, etc. It is appropriate that the General Authorities should be coming down on bloggers and authors who affect larger swaths of members. If you're leading astray whole groups, top down discipline is appropriate and welcome.
- laronius
- captain of 100
- Posts: 644
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Actually, they do not.shadow wrote:Actually, they do.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
All keys delegated to man are invested in the prophet. He then delegates the authority of some of these keys on down through the ranks, but he himself never relinquishes them. He retains stewardship over the entire church including the use of those keys. In general brethren allow the workings on the local level to proceed without their direct influence in such matters, but when they deem it necessary they have every right by virtue of their keys to interject themselves.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I've always wondered how the Lord could condone a practice that makes property out of women, indignifies them and renders them objects in a love-less relationship. The Lord delights in the chastity of his daughters, does he not? I think it would be extremely naive to dismiss 20 years of research by the Prices simply because they are RLDS... I have a hard time believing that they would spend 20 years looking for the truth about what took place in Nauvoo only to then write a book of fiction since it destroys what we've been taught about polygamy and the early church. I personally loathe polygamy and so I guess it's easier for me to accept much of the Price's research. You might be surprised to know/learn that the Price's had newspaper articles from the Times and Seasons, court affidavits/notes from court proceedings, public records, personal journals, etc. as a big part of their research. That's not exactly 'twisting the facts' in their favor.Hyrcanus wrote:I don't want to turn this into an argument about Rock Waterman, I don't think that would be useful. As far as where he is wrong, I think he is demonstrably wrong on lots of things. One example is his position on polygamy and Joseph Smith, which relies on the poorly researched book by Richard Price and his wife.
- Hyrcanus
- captain of 100
- Posts: 716
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
A couple thoughts here. I have zero affection for Polygamy personally. Despite my feelings on it, many women at the time (and some that practice it today) find it a desirable arrangement. They didn't find it loveless, or as any sort of indignity. It certainly seems like it would be from a monogamous cultural point of view, but I can see how faithful and committed people might find it otherwise.Col. Flagg wrote:I've always wondered how the Lord could condone a practice that makes property out of women, indignifies them and renders them objects in a love-less relationship. The Lord delights in the chastity of his daughters, does he not? I think it would be extremely naive to dismiss 20 years of research by the Prices simply because they are RLDS... I have a hard time believing that they would spend 20 years looking for the truth about what took place in Nauvoo only to then write a book of fiction since it destroys what we've been taught about polygamy and the early church. I personally loathe polygamy and so I guess it's easier for me to accept much of the Price's research. You might be surprised to know/learn that the Price's had newspaper articles from the Times and Seasons, court affidavits/notes from court proceedings, public records, personal journals, etc. as a big part of their research. That's not exactly 'twisting the facts' in their favor.Hyrcanus wrote:I don't want to turn this into an argument about Rock Waterman, I don't think that would be useful. As far as where he is wrong, I think he is demonstrably wrong on lots of things. One example is his position on polygamy and Joseph Smith, which relies on the poorly researched book by Richard Price and his wife.
Regarding the Price's I'm not dismissing anything. I've read Joseph Fought Polygamy a couple times and have been through most of the source material more frequently as I read Brian Hales, Todd Compton and Grant Palmer's various books on the topics (along with others). The Price's certainly aren't the only ones that have devoted substantial time to the topic, so that factor alone doesn't add weight to their position. I don't find their view compelling from an evidentiary standpoint either, I think they avoid some of the hardest historical pieces to deal with (Whitney Letter as an example) and they are extremely guilty of cherry picking their sources.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4622
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
I think this is what Rock was talking about. People making up their own doctrine instead of referring to the revealed word of God on the matter.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
The prophet can be excommunicated by a common counsel of the church. (What? I thought he was infallible.)82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.
The local high councils are equal in authority with the twelve and first presidency. The prophet actually is not given any power to govern the church by himself. Any power he has is vested in the first presidency which is equal in authority to the high councils.
- jbalm
- The Third Comforter
- Posts: 5348
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
If it is appropriate, then why can't they at least be honest about it?SamFisher wrote:Local authorities take care of discipline when dealing with typical issues like moral sin, adultery, etc. It is appropriate that the General Authorities should be coming down on bloggers and authors who affect larger swaths of members. If you're leading astray whole groups, top down discipline is appropriate and welcome.
If the big guys think they are right, there is no excuse for the blatant obfuscation. That's the biggest problem with this latest round of purging. Clearly, the church is their own club to do with what they will. But the dishonesty is truly sickening.
- DPeterson
- captain of 100
- Posts: 575
- Location: Boise, ID
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Actually they do. (I just wanted to play too. I actually agree with Shadow for once also...weird.)laronius wrote:Actually, they do not.shadow wrote:Actually, they do.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
All keys delegated to man are invested in the prophet. He then delegates the authority of some of these keys on down through the ranks, but he himself never relinquishes them. He retains stewardship over the entire church including the use of those keys. In general brethren allow the workings on the local level to proceed without their direct influence in such matters, but when they deem it necessary they have every right by virtue of their keys to interject themselves.
Just because that's how we teach it and go about it now doesn't mean that's what the scriptures say about the matter. But since Shadow started it, I'll let him clarify/explain if he wants to. Honestly I'm not interested enough at the moment.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Who says -- besides Rock Waterman or others -- that they have been dishonest about it? Who says these were ordered from the top? You don't have to be the prophet to see the apostasy here with these people.
The assumption that the Twelve or the First Presidency is behind this is just that -- an assumption. Now we have people calling them dishonest.
The assumption that the Twelve or the First Presidency is behind this is just that -- an assumption. Now we have people calling them dishonest.
- jbalm
- The Third Comforter
- Posts: 5348
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
Those that have eyes to see and ears to hear...
- laronius
- captain of 100
- Posts: 644
Re: Rock Waterman interviewed on AM 630 in Salt Lake today
This topic has nothing to do with the infallibility of anyone, this has to do with authority. Yes, any man can be tried before a council. But this scripture has nothing to do with those who hold keys higher up in the church not interjecting themselves in such proceedings. If a prophet were ever removed from office for whatever reason the keys become activated in the twelve and so you always have a man or council of men who hold all of the active keys.Thomas wrote:I think this is what Rock was talking about. People making up their own doctrine instead of referring to the revealed word of God on the matter.laronius wrote:Rock's assertion that the "brethren" should not have any say in the matter of disciplinary councils is completely incorrect. Sure, the councils take place on the ward/stake level. But the first presidency has ultimate authority in all church matters. To say otherwise is to assert that bishops and stake presidents hold keys that the prophet does not or that they hold keys independent of the prophet, which of course they do not.
The prophet can be excommunicated by a common counsel of the church. (What? I thought he was infallible.)82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.
The local high councils are equal in authority with the twelve and first presidency. The prophet actually is not given any power to govern the church by himself. Any power he has is vested in the first presidency which is equal in authority to the high councils.
This is very straightforward. If someone who holds keys delegates the authority of some of those keys, this does not mean he relinquishes that authority himself. And yet it is being asserted in this thread that contrary to how the church functions today that local leaders stand independent of everone else, yet no one can show where it says so. Where is the order in thousands of individuals across the earth, in the form of bishops and stake presidents, who can do what they want without being accountable to anyone?