463-464: Rock Waterman and Pure Mormonism

574876_10150814425937146_510220503_nToday we interview Rock Waterman – the founder of the blog Pure Mormonism.  Rock’s basic position is that he believes in the LDS restoration (e.g., Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, Book of Mormon is scripture), but he also believes that the current LDS church has gone astray.  In this two-part series, we discuss Rock’s views on several topics including:

  1. How we (as church members) are engaging in idolatry through leader worship.
  2. Why we (as church members) are paying much more tithing than the Lord requires, along with a guide for how to calculate your own tithing, based on direction to mission presidents.
  3. Why the City Creek Mall was/is a bad idea.
  4. How being pro-war and LDS don’t fit very well together.
  5. How LDS General Authorities are engaging in priestcraft.
  6. How corporatism has undermined and subverted the Church of Jesus Christ
  7. Why it is ok (as a Mormon) to drink beer.
  8. Why he believes that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.  (Here is the book reference mentioned in the podcast).
  9. Why the excommunication of Denver Snuffer was a bad move for the LDS church, and why Rock is not afraid to be excommunicated.
  10. Rock’s testimony.

Episode Transcript

Full text · 24,700 words · 15 chaptersHost: John Dehlin · Guest: Rock Waterman

This transcript is machine-generated and lightly edited for readability. The audio is authoritative. Please excuse occasional errors in names and spelling.

Introduction and Episode Overview

Part 1 of 2 · Ep. 463

Rock Waterman [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of

Rock Waterman [00:00:09] the Open Stories Foundation.

John Dehlin [00:00:11] All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org hello and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host John Dehlin and I'm very excited to be with you today and to share with you an interview a few hours with a man who is known as Rock Waterman or Alan Rock Waterman. He is the author and founder of the blog Pure Mormonism. You can find that@PureMormonism.blogspot.com and Rock, for those of you who are on the blogger Nako, you probably know who he is, but many won't. Probably most won't. And so I'll describe Rock a little bit. He's a bit of an enigma to me and what I love about Rock is he speaks his mind, he's very bold, where he has a very interesting angle. He sort of falls in a group that lately I kind of thought of this term, kind of a neo fundamentalist. And Rock, we'll get into that term and what it means. But what I mean when I say that is, you know, a fundamentalist Mormon in 2014, you know, you kind of think Warren Jeffs and that's not who, who I would describe Rock as being, but there is a class of Latter Day Saint who has a testimony of the restoration, of the founding of the restored gospel. I'll say, I won't say church because I know that's a term that Rock has strong feelings about. We'll talk about that. But they sort of believe in the underpinnings of the restoration, but they sort of believe that maybe the modern day church has kind of maybe at best isn't doing quite what it should be and at worst has either gone astray or apostatized. I would sort of loosely classify someone like Damon Smith or Denver Snuffer in the same sort of category, but when I do that, sometimes I get in trouble. So part of this podcast is going to be to have Rock share his story, to share his perspective. We're going to talk a lot about some of his major blog posts, things you know, about the Word of Wisdom and Tithing and the Book of Mormon and polygamy and Denver Snuffer. We're going to talk about Rock's recent interactions with his bishop. And I believe Stake president where he is potentially being threatened with disciplinary action. And then Rock's going to set me straight on what neo fundamentalism is or isn't or what he likes or doesn't like about that classification and how he would classify his work. Plus Damon Smith plus Denver Snuffer. So how's that for an introduction, Rock?

Rock Waterman [00:03:26] It sounds great. Listen, it's just an honor to be speaking with you, John Dehlin. You're one of my heroes on the Internet. So glad to be here.

John Dehlin [00:03:36] Oh, well, you're too kind, but it's fun. I've been wanting to do this for a while. So, Rock, let's start. Just, you know, we don't have to delve too deeply because I want to spend a lot of time talking about the issues. But why don't you just give us a few minute flavor of your upbringing in the church so we kind of know the context from which you come.

Rock Waterman's Early Life and Church Background

Rock Waterman [00:03:54] Okay. I was born in the church, raised in the Anaheim First Ward, and I watched that ward split while I was a teenager. We split about. Well, we split six times and then the stakes split. The church was really grow.

John Dehlin [00:04:07] And this is what time period?

Rock Waterman [00:04:08] Oh, this would be the 60s.

John Dehlin [00:04:10] Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:04:10] Okay. Yeah, I think I graduated school in 1970, so you can see I was a teenager in those days. And the church was at its height in growth. And we were hearing a lot about by their fruits ye shall know them, which we took to mean, you know, the fruits of our conversion rates and our growth and everything. I take a different view of what the fruits mean today.

John Dehlin [00:04:37] Right. You were devout.

Rock Waterman [00:04:41] Yeah, yeah. Well, actually, I wasn't even. I wasn't. I. I wasn't even typical Mormon. I was what I'd call subtypical. I. I was into it. You know, I like to go to the state dances and I participate in the road shows. And it was a cultural, you know, social thing for me. But I really, I knew nothing. Next to nothing. I knew what we learned in primary. Joseph Smith had the first vision. We learned the articles of faith and all that. But I was probably one of the worst students in seminary. I couldn't participate in the scripture chases because I didn't know my way around through the scriptures. So. You know, it's funny that people will often write to me and ask me questions as if I know something, but I don't know anything. You know, my blog is really just an attempt to sort of share some of the things that I've discovered that I was wrong about and that most of us are wrong about. Because growing up in the church, a whole lot of things we're taught, a whole lot of things that simply aren't doctrinal.

John Dehlin [00:05:45] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:05:46] Chief among them is that, that we're to follow the prophet. When Joseph Smith taught something exactly opposite that, what he said was, the people are darkened in their minds because they're depending too much on the prophet.

John Dehlin [00:05:59] So, so. So you. So you graduated from high school in Anaheim. Tell us real briefly how your life has continued just at a high level. So go to college, not go to college.

Rock Waterman [00:06:11] Yeah, I went to. I went to Cypress College, and I was. I was. I majored in musical theater. And I remember I was planning on going to byu, and I remember pouring over the BYU catalog for all the theater classes and such. I went to work at Disneyland and had intended to make that my career. And I quit. I quit over the length of my sideburns. So I was in the. In the character department. And those of us in that department saw no reason why we should worry so much about the clean cut image that Disney employees were supposed to have, since the public never saw us. But anyway.

John Dehlin [00:06:53] So you actually wore a suit?

Rock Waterman [00:06:56] Yeah, yeah. I was Goofy. I was the big bad wolf. Winnie the Pooh.

John Dehlin [00:07:00] Nice.

Rock Waterman [00:07:01] The taller characters. All right, so I quit that job, and I quit it cold. I was in the parades at the time. I think I was doing the American parade, which is the bicentennial parade. It ran for a full year. And, well, one of the head honchos came back in the entertainment department. He came back to where we were in what we called tent city, was the area behind Disneyland. And he lined up all the guys. He's going to check our sideburns. And so I just went in and I said to the secretary, martha, can you take a letter for me? And I dictated my resignation letter right there. And so then I was out on the street with no work. I found work for a little while with Pinkerton. Pinkerton Security. I was doing undercover work. My biggest job was to sit in my car, which was a 1969 Corona across the street from. From a. A tree nursery that had been been foreclosed on by the bank. And my job was to just watch that nursery all day, and if anybody came to, to make a notation of who they were and where they came from, wow. And that was it.

John Dehlin [00:08:21] Did you end up marrying the temple and having kids and all that stuff?

Rock Waterman [00:08:25] Yeah, yeah. We had a temple marriage, married the former Connie Bradfield. We have three children. They're now grown.

John Dehlin [00:08:34] Did you serve a mission?

Rock Waterman [00:08:36] Yes, yes. I went to Missouri Independence Mission.

John Dehlin [00:08:40] Oh, okay.

Rock Waterman [00:08:40] Yeah, I got to see most of the cool stuff. My big regret was that at one point I was standing across the river from Nauvoo and we. We weren't allowed to go, you know, to leave the mission area. I desperately wanted to go. None of I had been a. Become a real Nauvoo fan. Well, what happened was I had this is back in the days just after Saudi's Warrior had made such a big hit. And so our stake invested in another musical piece that was called you're no Stranger. It was about Nauvoo. And I played Porter Rockwell, and that's what got my interest in church history. Before that, I wasn't interested, but I was really interested in this Porter Rockwell character. I liked how John Carradine played him in the movie Brigham Young, and I played him like that. I became a real church history buff. So when I came back from my. When I went on my mission, I knew a lot more about the Missouri Nauvoo period than most of the other guys. And I really, you know, I wanted to see these places far west and went to the temple lot and Independence, stuff like that. Anyway, that. That started my interest in church history. And of course, the first book of Mormon I ever read was the 1830 replica edition. I. I had not been interested in seminary and reading the triple. Com version. Even on my mission, of course, I had a triple combination, but I preferred to read it in the narrative style that it was laid out originally. And that was much more interesting, I found, than reading it in the scriptures.

Developing a Different Perspective on the Church

John Dehlin [00:10:23] So when did you first start noticing that you had a different perspective than the average church member? Well, like, has it been a long time thing or.

Rock Waterman [00:10:34] The thing is, whenever I was in church, I always felt like everybody in the room in Sunday school was smarter than me and knew their scriptures and all that stuff because like I said, I never felt like. But over the years, you know, I had been reading, I read voraciously and over after a while, I began to realize that, you know, Sunday school class was just a series of. The teacher would. Would hand out slips and people would take turn reading the scriptures when it was their turn. And I noticed them skipping over some of the most interesting parts of the. Of the scriptures, you know, just to stay with the manual and that kind of thing I found kind of curious. But, you know, I think I really woke up about seven years ago when I experienced the baptism of fire, which surprised me because, you know, of course I thought I'd experienced the baptism, I'd Served a mission, for heaven's sake, you know, and, you know, bore testimony of things that I thought I knew, that I didn't really know, but that I believed. And I think we need to get. I think it would be. Serve us all better if we stopped saying, I know this, I know that, and start using the word believe more. Because it's okay to believe you can change your beliefs. But I think. I think this whole thing, by the way, pardon me for I'll be coughing now and then. I'm just recovering from pneumonia.

John Dehlin [00:12:06] No worries at all. What's baptism by fire for you?

Baptism by Fire and the Holy Ghost Experience

Rock Waterman [00:12:10] Well, here's the thing. Everything. What the church tended to teach about the baptism of fire and by turnout, to be more specific, Boyd Packer. He admitted that when he was called to be an apostle, he said he never received any super duper witness. That's my word, not his. But he taught that what he learned was that the Holy Ghost is the still, small voice, and that our testimonies grow over time and they accumulate little bit, little. And the still, small voice whispers things. But that's not what I was reading in the Scriptures every time. Everything I read about the baptism of fire was that, you know, you know it. When you get it, it hits you like, wham. So I decided I'm going to seek this baptism of fire. You know, I read Enos, and Enos struggled and struggled, and I thought, oh, you know what? You know, it seems like it was a day and a night. I think that he prayed desperately, but I didn't want to. You know, I certainly wasn't looking forward to that kind of struggle. I was just curious about it. So I was. I was at my son's home. Nobody was home at. In South Jordan, Utah.

John Dehlin [00:13:25] And you're how old at this time?

Rock Waterman [00:13:27] Oh, this was in 2007.

John Dehlin [00:13:30] How old would you have been at the time?

Rock Waterman [00:13:32] Well, I'm 61 now. I was in my mid-50s.

John Dehlin [00:13:34] Okay, mid-50s.

Rock Waterman [00:13:35] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:13:36] South Jordan.

Rock Waterman [00:13:37] Yeah. So I'm South Jordan. I stick a pillow on my head, I'm going to lay down, I'm going to think about this, and wham. It just. It just hit me. It just embraced me. I was enveloped and embraced, and I don't know how to describe it, but the love. And you know how when Enos learned that his sins were forgiven him and that's what I felt, I realized that none of that was important. The sins weren't important. And not only were my sins, it's not that my sins were forgiven me then, it's that sins are forgiven immediately. I mean, I was being told, in other words, that my sins have already been forgiven me. And Enos said. He said, lord, how is it done? And that's. That's. That's the first question. I said, wow, how do you do that? Because it's just amazing.

John Dehlin [00:14:30] Okay, what were you. Why were you praying? What were you even in need?

Rock Waterman [00:14:35] What was. I was curious. I wasn't even praying. Now, what I've learned since is that for some people, it's a real struggle to get that baptism of fire. Now, okay, first, let's back up and talk about what baptism of fire. We're not complete until we've had the baptism of fire. We get the baptism of water, and then sometime, and for most people, it's sometime later, we get the baptism of

John Dehlin [00:14:57] fire, which is different from the confirmation gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rock Waterman [00:15:03] You're saying, yes, that confirmation, when they're laying their hands on your head and they say, receive the Holy Ghost. I used to think that that, boom, I'm being sent the Holy Ghost, it's being conveyed into me. But no, that's not what that is. It's counsel. It's. I say unto you, receive the Holy Ghost. So in other words, you're being given an invitation to receive the Holy Ghost at some time. Now. It. I've since learned there's a. There's a blog called Just and True, and. And he. He spoke about that quite a bit. And a lot of other people have written in, myself included, about their baptism of fire. So this. This seems to be something that we Latter Day Saints have sort of skipped over and not given a lot of thought to. But now there is an awakening, and people are rece. Receiving this gift of the Holy Ghost. Now, here's the thing. Some people. For some people, it's a real struggle, like it was with Enos. And for some people, it just. It just comes unexpected, like it did with me.

John Dehlin [00:16:04] Okay. Seeking this. You weren't. No.

Rock Waterman [00:16:06] Well, I was curious about, so I was going to think about it. So I stuck. You know, I was going to lay on the floor on the carpet with this pillow under my head and think about it, and boom, it hit. It just washed all over me. And this is. It's just like in the scripture in Mosiah. You know, people desired this. And here's the thing. I really, really had no more desire to do evil, but I only had desire to do good continually. And it really did change me. This is the transformation that's spoken of. And this is the.

John Dehlin [00:16:37] Sounds like A born again experience.

Rock Waterman [00:16:39] Exactly, exactly. And this is the other. One of the other things that has struck me is that, you know, we deemphasize this idea of born again. You know, on my mission, we. We referred to these people derogatorily as gracers. And yet that's what the Book of Mormon teaches. And so here's the point. The whole thing about what I'm about is I notice the Book of Mormon will teach one thing and then we learn something else in church which sort of tempers what the Book of Mormon taught us or contradicts what. And so what do we go with? We go with what we learn in church when what we should be doing is focusing on what the Book of Mormon is teaching us and not what. Not. Not what's filtered through the manual.

John Dehlin [00:17:19] Okay, so let me ask you, is this different from the second comforter, this experience?

Rock Waterman [00:17:25] Yeah, the second comforter, I understand, is. This is the first comforter. The second comforter is when you see Christ. I have not experienced anything like that. I don't get revelations. I don't get anything. You know, there's nothing about me that. That you could point to and say, wow, I want to. I want to get that. All I can tell you is that when I finally, after all these years of being a member of the church and thinking I had a testimony of this and that, here comes this amazing spiritual experience that sort of made everything else irrelevant. And by everything, here's what I'm saying the interesting thing, and I didn't notice this until later thinking about it, it had nothing to do with the testimony of the church or testimony of. Of the restoration or even the Book of Mormon. What it was was the pure love of Christ. And I felt it and I experienced it, and it was. Well, it was indescribable. But so.

John Dehlin [00:18:28] So did any instruction come with it?

Rock Waterman [00:18:33] No.

John Dehlin [00:18:33] Like, you should do this or you need to. Nope, it's just a feeling.

Rock Waterman [00:18:38] No, you're right. It's. It's an experience. Yeah, feeling. Experience of love, of overwhelming love, of absolute. You know, you're okay. And so all of the. All of the things that the church teaches that we should be careful about tend tended not to be a problem. And, you know, as I learned more about what sin was in the Greek word for the sin is a Greek word which essentially means missing the mark. So as we go through life, we've got this aim, I guess the mark is we want to return to God. We want to become more Christ. Like whatever, whatever, however you might define it. But you know, we want to get through life and, and do right and do good. And occasionally we miss the mark. That's what a sin is. You know, a sin is not necessarily some horrible evil thing we've done. And this is why the, you know, the evangelicals, that when I used to object to them saying, I'm a sinner and you're a sinner, you know, well, of course we're all sinners because we all miss the mark, but it doesn't mean we're evil. That's what I thought that they were saying, oh, I'm so evil. I'm so evil. No, you know, and I was, I wanted to say, no, you're not evil. But they weren't saying that. They were saying, you know, I'm missing the mark. And so essentially, you know, it's just like stepping off the path. Well, this is why. This is why in Lehi's dream, it's so important to cling to the iron rod, because as long as you hold on to that rod, you're not going to slip onto the ditch and stuff. And if I can just say something about the iron rod, I always misinterpreted that, too. And a lot of people do. We seem to think that holding to the rod means remaining obedient to the church and its leaders and doing what you're told. No, the iron rod. Nephi tells us he got what the interpretation was. The interpretation is the word of God. So it's not the word of man. It's not the word of God filtered through men. It's just, you know, if you just cling to what God is teaching, which is why, you know, the words of Jesus are just so wonderful, because if you just sort of follow him and follow his example or do your best to follow his example, then you're clinging to the rod and you're on the right path. And your chances of slipping, you know, we're all going to let loose that rod now and then, but if we know to get back on that path. So once again, sin is essentially like, you just step off the curb. You step off the curb. Well, just step back up.

John Dehlin [00:21:09] Okay. Okay, so let's get into your paradigm then. So it sounds like the core gospel. And I'm going to read from your blog@PureMormonism.blogspot.com the subheading under pure Mormonism, it reads, free agency, Christ consciousness, unconditional love, and other forgotten teachings of the restoration. So strong emphasis on love. Strong emphasis is on you're okay, sins are forgiven. Etc. Now here's the big question, okay? Why was a restoration needed? Why not just. Why not just believe in Christ and read the New Testament and boom. Why do we need, you know, a restoration, especially a Latter Day Saint restoration?

The Restoration and the Book of Mormon

Rock Waterman [00:22:04] Well, now that I've been reading Damon Smith's books on the cultural history of the Book of Mormon, I'm realizing that the restoration as we see it has nothing to do with the restoration spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon speaks of the restoration of all things, but now when I speak of the restoration, I mean the restoration of truth. I don't believe we were intended to create a church pattern after the Old Testament church because what happened with that one, it was easily corrupted, easily diverted, just as I, I see our church diverting. If you, if you, if you start an organization where certain people are at the head and then those people can be easily influenced. You know, the idea that many members have that, that this, this church can't be led astray, that's false. That's a false teaching. There's no such teaching in the scriptures at all. Of course it can be led astray. It can be easily led astray because all you have to do is take those people at the top and divert them.

John Dehlin [00:23:17] Yeah, and the Church, the Doctrine and Covenants talks, and probably the Book of Mormon talks about the Church being under condemnation left and right, as I understand it.

Rock Waterman [00:23:27] Right, yeah, we seem to have forgotten that. We don't want to talk about that. President Benson brought it up and it was never supposed spoken of again, as far as I know.

John Dehlin [00:23:35] Okay, okay, but, but here's the, here's the thing I'm saying, like, so, you know, the typical LDS view is there's this plan of salvation. You know, we're sent to the earth to have this mortal experience that God set up, the pure true church that, you know, it started out with Judaism because, you know, mankind wasn't ready for the higher law. Then Christ came and, and established the higher law. But then within three weeks, the church fell into apostasy and mankind had to go another 1830 years until God's one true prophet could restore the one true church with exclusive authority to the earth. Okay, how much of that do you buy?

Rock Waterman [00:24:22] Well, I think we needed a clean slate, and I think the Book of Mormon provides that. I think because there wasn't apostasy precisely because the Church, the primitive church, was corrupted and diverted from its mission by its leaders who were. After 1800 years, where were we? We were floating without, of course, what Nephi tells us that the Bible has lots of things, and he calls it a stumbling block. So I think the Book of Mormon. Here's the thing. I've got this thinking that I don't follow myself. And that's once a year, a person should take a month off, maybe two months, and become a vegetarian. Cleanse their system, just start fresh. I think that we should take whatever time it takes to read the Book of Mormon and if it takes, stop attending church while you're doing that so your mind isn't clouded. I think that's probably a good idea because what we're getting from our manuals often is contradictory to the church. Look at what we're studying. Every year we'll have one of the presidents of the church, and our manual will be the teachings of John Taylor, the teachings of Lorenzo Snow, or what the heck do we care about what they say? Now, I know that may sound shocking to some people because a lot of the things they say, very good and wise counsel, they were not evil men, but they are not speaking from God. You can. You can search the Journal of Discourses till the cows come home looking for a revelation, and there isn't any. These guys, not once after the death of Joseph Smith, do we see anybody speaking for God, speaking the words God's put in his mouth the way Joseph Smith did. So, okay, so they may have led exemplary lives, but shouldn't we just focus on the words of Christ? Shouldn't that really be. I mean, look at what the other churches are doing. They're at least they're focusing primarily on what Jesus taught. We're talking about what Brigham Young taught and what John Taylor taught and what George Q. Cannon taught.

John Dehlin [00:26:51] Okay, let me ask this question in a slightly different way, and then I'll drop it because I don't want to belabor the point, but.

Rock Waterman [00:26:57] Well, clearly I'm not getting it. Go ahead.

John Dehlin [00:26:59] No, no, it's okay. No, I just that. Just that, you know, billions of people on the earth, billions and billions of people over the history of the earth, especially over the past 1800 years, I always struggle with this idea that there's one franchise, you know, like McDonald's or Walmart, and everybody's got to be a member of the one true franchise. And unfortunately, less than 1/2 of 1% of the world's population at any given moment has ever really had had reasonable access to the franchise. And everybody else is just wayward. That makes God appear to be completely inefficient, unproductive, and just bad at having his children do the main things that he wants them to do on this earth. And so I guess it goes back to your question about what is the church and what needed restoring. And are you telling me that for 1800 years that man, all of God's children walked without the good stuff? And it wasn't until the church was reorganized that the good stuff. Because the good stuff you're telling me is none of the layers that the LDS church added on. The good stuff is really simple. It's love your neighbor, it's you're not a bad person, it's be kind and it's, it's just do good unto others. And why do we even need a church? And are you down with this model of the franchise and the exclusive rights to the franchise business? And if not, why do we even need a restoration?

Rock Waterman [00:28:34] Yeah, okay, I see what you're saying. No, I don't agree that we need. See what? Every time you get a church, a denomination, it goes corrupt, right? Yeah. And not only that, but you get people at the top who think they own the brand.

John Dehlin [00:28:46] So right now, why believe in the restoration?

Rock Waterman [00:28:49] Well, I'm not talking about the restoration of the church. I'm talking about the restoration of truth, forgotten truths. Okay. And what the Book of Mormon, you'll notice in the Book of Mormon when it talks about the church, it's really referring to the community. But we tend to put our idea of. I wrote a piece called My Testimony of the Church and in there I explained that in the over 200 instances when the Book of Mormon refers to the church, they're not talking about an organization that had a top down management or anything like that. It was talking about the community of believers. So yeah, I think the reason we needed a restoration and the reason we blew the restoration was this. When the Book of Mormon came out, it was not really intended to have a church built up around it. John Whitmer, David Whitmer felt that officially organizing a church was a bad move. And in fact, if you look at the definition that Jesus gives of his church in DNC 1067, he says, all who repent and come unto me the same is my church. He doesn't say it's a group of, it's an organization with a flowchart.

John Dehlin [00:29:58] He says, not a corporation. It's not a corporation soul.

Rock Waterman [00:30:01] Exactly. So that would say to me that everybody, everybody in other denominations are all his church. Because what church means is a community, a congregation, a group of like minded

John Dehlin [00:30:20] individuals, in fact, trying to live like Christ. Right? Yeah. Okay. So, so would it make sense? And this is what would make sense to me. There isn't like one restoration where like, there's an apostasy and the world is in darkness, which is how we talk about it. And then all of a sudden, oh, light comes to humanity again and there's a restoration, one single restoration that happens in New York. It's more like Christ said, love everybod all blowing that. And we're all having these mini. You had a restoration when you were 55. That has nothing to do with what the church did or did the corporate legal thing that the LDS Church did. It's more like Christ said, love each other. And we're all, every day having hopefully these mini restorations where we're trying to get off the bad path and on the right path. And so this notion of a single restoration, it doesn't make any sense to me.

Rock Waterman [00:31:14] Yeah, well, I agree with you. My, my baptism of fire was completely independent of the church. And I actually wonder if I would have had experience had I been had I continued to be constantly going back every week to that.

John Dehlin [00:31:32] Yeah, maybe it was delayed by your church participation.

Rock Waterman [00:31:36] Exactly. And I believe it, and so does my wife. We both believe that our, our spiritual growth was stunted by our activity, activity in the church because. Go ahead.

John Dehlin [00:31:48] So there's not one restoration that's Mormon in theme. No, there's like a whole world of, of billions of people all trying to discover who Christ is and what it means. And every culture, maybe even Christian or not, are probably going to have these awakenings where they try and get back on course. True.

Rock Waterman [00:32:08] The, the biggest tragedy of the Book of Mormon is that it has become seen as proprietary to a specific church denomination. It should be out there like the I Ching, like Khalil Gibran, the Prophet. Any, any, any book that contains a lot of truth and, and, and validity that, that would be beneficial to people. That's what the Book of Mormon should be. But now people steer away from it because. Oh yeah, that's the Mormon Church's book.

John Dehlin [00:32:36] Right, right. Okay. Okay, got it. So the Church is not a corporate soul. It is not a 501C3. The church is a community of people trying to follow the spirit of what Christ taught.

Rock Waterman [00:32:51] The Church of Jesus Christ continued to exist even though the Catholic Church was running alongside, behind it, beside it, trying to take control. The Church of Jesus Christ continues to exist in the hearts of the members of the Church of the LDS Church, even though there is an organization at the top running beside it, trying to Take control of the brand. Trying to. Trying to give the impression that we're in charge. We are the supervisors. We're the gatekeepers. No, the Church of Jesus Christ is all who repent and come unto him. That's the church.

John Dehlin [00:33:24] Whether or not they're, you know, official members on the rolls.

Rock Waterman [00:33:28] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:33:29] Officially baptized or not.

Rock Waterman [00:33:31] That's right.

John Dehlin [00:33:31] Not important.

Rock Waterman [00:33:32] Yep.

John Dehlin [00:33:32] And you're saying the Book of Mormon supports this?

Rock Waterman [00:33:36] The Book of Mormon? Yeah, the Book of Mormon. The. The church. In the days of the Book of Mormon, there were no leaders there. There were priests. The priests would. Would speak to the people. And then he go back and he would work alongside. Alongside them. He wasn't the supervisor. He wasn't in charge of anybody. He didn't own the brand. He didn't. We're supposed to all be very egalitarian. In fact, you know, we're supposed to all have a role. Some are given different gifts. Some are given the gifts of prophecy. Others are given the gifts of this and that. But to. To. To claim an office of. As a prophet or an office as an apostle, just like Brett Bartel wrote in his recent guest post on my piece, the actual message of the Book of Mormon, he said. He said you can create an office of prophets and apostles, but that doesn't make you actually a prophet or an apostle.

John Dehlin [00:34:27] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:34:28] No prophet is going to have. Is going to show fruit of being a prophet. He's going to receive revelation. He's going to actually prophesy, you know, for some reason. And I don't know why it took me so long to realize this. And this is kind of the gist of my blog. And I sound like I'm coming down hard on leadership, and sometimes I do. But here's the thing. As adamant as I sound right now, I truly am filled with love. And I agree. I kind of take the position that Paul Toscano says about the leaders. You know, he was a editor of the Ensign magazine before they kicked him out of the church. And he knew a lot of these guys personally. He said, you know, all the. All of the apostles are really good men. The problem is when they get together, they act like a corporation. And this is.

John Dehlin [00:35:21] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:35:21] I forgot what point I was getting to now. But.

John Dehlin [00:35:23] No, no, let me. Let me seriously. So let's talk briefly about the Book of Mormon. Like, how is the Book of Mormon. How is what's taught in the Book of Mormon different from the way that we live our church experience today?

Rock Waterman [00:35:39] Well, I think. I think a couple of things that The Book of Mormon teaches is that it's simpler. What we've done is we've piled on all kinds of things and beliefs over the years that aren't in the Book of Mormon. And then we de. Emphasize the things that are in the Book of Mormon. For example, the doctrine of grace, which I would read in the Book of Mormon, you know, Mosiah teaching about grace. And then I'd go to church and learn that, you know, we didn't really believe the way that, you know, and we didn't believe in the baptism.

John Dehlin [00:36:15] We think grace. Tell us in a sentence what you think grace is about.

Rock Waterman [00:36:18] Grace is essentially what I experienced, this overwhelming love of Jesus, that it's okay, you know, he expects us to make mistakes. He expects us. This is what the whole purpose of our life is here on earth is to learn. And so when we slip up and we screw up and we make mistakes, it's just part of the learning process, and it's not the end of the world. You know, the. The church taught me to put on sackcloth and ashes. In fact, you know, President Kimball's book, the Miracle of Forgiveness. You know, when I was younger, I got about halfway through it. It was just so, so discouraging because it looked like it was just going to be such a fight and such a battle to get back in God's good graces. And in reality, we're always. I was already in God's good gracious graces. What I wasn't in good graces was maybe with my bishop or with the church or my idea of, you know, of what I had to do to be quote, unquote worthy. We're always worthy. We make mistakes, we screw up, we pick ourselves up, and we get back in the fight. And. And we realize that it's all part of life here on planet Earth and that.

John Dehlin [00:37:28] And that's how you read the Book of Mormon.

Rock Waterman [00:37:30] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:37:31] Now, okay. And any other major doctrines or.

Rock Waterman [00:37:36] Well, one of the things I appreciate about the Book of Mormon is that it does foretell that we will fall away here in our day. It's interesting that beginning with Brigham Young, the Utah pioneers began to refer to the outsiders as the Gentiles when the Book of Mormon was essentially, you know, every. Every time Mormon or Moroni spoke to the Gentiles, he was talking to the people who are reading the book. You know, not. Not just anybody. He was talking about you Gentiles. And. And Moroni laments. He says, why did you put pollute the Holy Church of God? He's Looking at us in our day and saying, you know, we had it and now we screwed it up again. And this is, you know, we're looking at a repeat of the great apostasy. And even in that day, there was a remnant of believers. You know, look, we've got to get away from this idea of having a testimony of the church or focusing on the church. And we need to look at the gospel of Christ, and we need to sort of, in some ways, divorce our. Ourselves from this allegiance we have to the church, because the church will not save us. And by the church, I'm talking about capital C Church. In my blog, I differentiate between the church, meaning headquarters, the corporation. Yeah, the corporation with a capital C, and the church as a community of believers with a small C. But we need to become just a community of equals. You know, what would serve us best is if words became more autonomous. After. After Brigham and about 10,000 of the saints moved to Utah, there were. There were thousands more that stayed behind. And they remained in their little branches, autonomous branches, and they continued to believe they didn't need leaders. Eventually, this, 15 years later, the church was reorganized there in Iowa. They were scattered. They were in Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin. So they reorganized and sort of put themselves under another head. But that church also incorporated, which is something I don't think a church needs to do. I think it's. When you incorporate, you're essentially trading your sovereign of Christ for a sovereign of the state, because a corporation exists at the whim of the state.

John Dehlin [00:39:54] Right, okay. And just real briefly, we've probably talked about this before a bit on Mormon stories at some point. But, you know, one thing that I. You know, one thing that's very clear to me is the Book of Mormon has a very trinitarian view that God and Jesus are one. But it seemed like Joseph evolved in that understanding. By 1838 or so, he very much viewed God and Jesus as separate. And this whole notion of theosis starts bubbling to the top by the time we get to Nauvoo. Where are you on that?

Rock Waterman [00:40:26] Yeah, that's a good question. I don't really know. I haven't studied enough about the attributes of God. I've got Blake Oster's books on it, and I mean to go into them, but I haven't read them. But it's very interesting. On the one hand, I see what Paul Toscano strongly believes, that Jesus, as the Book of Mormon tells us over and over, the Book of Mormon says that Jesus is the Eternal Father. So how that works, I don't know. But whether or not there is another Father or some supreme being or maybe the universe itself is the Father, I don't know. But it's pretty clear our scriptures are teaching us that Jesus is God. And I think we should start praying more to Jesus and not is praying to the Father through Jesus.

John Dehlin [00:41:13] And the only other thing I'll just say is that there are all sorts of revelations Joseph received in Nauvoo that don't appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon. From the endowment to baptisms for the dead to celestial marriage, polygamy. So many things just don't appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon. So drawing the line in the sand and saying, you know, it seems weird to me to draw a line in the sand and say if it's in the Book of Mormon, it's okay, but if it came later, well, then it's not kind of pure source. Do you understand why?

Rock Waterman [00:41:53] Yeah, I'm not saying that. I think if we had a prophet, it was Joseph Smith. Now, he's a very flawed man. He admits that we admit that God. He's the only prophet I know of who has published the instances where Jesus chewed him out for making mistakes. But. So I think what he taught subsequent to the Book of Mormon is viable. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon tells us that it contains the fullness of the gospel. So it's kind of a puzzle to me. I don't know everything. I don't know anything.

John Dehlin [00:42:36] Okay, okay, so. But, but, but you do. You do see Joseph Smith as a prophet. How do you make sense of the. The polyandry and the financial improprieties and the treasure digging and all that stuff that people think is kind of weird?

Rock Waterman [00:42:52] Well, I don't buy. I don't. I no longer buy the polyandry or polygamy. It simply didn't exist until. Well, it did exist. There was all not with him. He spoke about it dozens of times. He vigorously denounced those who were practicing what they called spiritual wifery. He actually sued Chauncey Higbee for claiming that he was part of it. And then John Bennett made sure that Joseph Smith couldn't make it to the hearing, so that case was dismissed.

John Dehlin [00:43:26] Are you saying Joseph wasn't a polygamist?

Rock Waterman [00:43:28] He was not. What. Yeah, the conventional wisdom is. So this is like the biggest. Now here's. Let me. Let me put it this way. I don't believe he was. I won't take a firm stand about anything that happened historically because we just don't know. But let me And I've gotten, I've been dragged into the craziest arguments with people on this. So let me just say this. If you want to know everything there is to know about whether or not Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, there's two sets of books I'd refer people to. One is Brian Hale's three volume, Joseph Smith's Polygamy. And he covers everything. But the interesting thing, and one of the things I like about him a lot is where other historians will say this and that happened. And then you look at the footnote, and the footnote says, according to John Taylor, in 1888, the Story of the angel with a flaming sword threatening to slay Joseph if he wouldn't practice polygamy, you know, we never heard that story until 1888. And then we, then we heard other people start repeating what they'd heard John Taylor say. And then they embellished the story further. So what Brian Hales does is he takes all this stuff and he traces it to what, what do we actually know? And when did the stories, you know, when did the story first surface about this or that? And we find that, you know, well, if I go into it, I'll talk forever.

Joseph Smith, Polygamy, and Church History

John Dehlin [00:45:07] No, I'll just say this. So the women who claim to have been married to Joseph were lying, you're saying?

Rock Waterman [00:45:12] Yeah, yeah, they were put up to, they were all now married. Here's what happened. I'm going to be as brief about this as I can, but first let me make sure I recommend the other set of books, and that's Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. Volume one is out in hardback. Volume two is about to come out. You can read them both online for free, but I prefer the hardcover books. And there will be a third volume. And when you read these, they take every accusation, they look at it and they investigate it and they, they, and they tell us where polygamy originated with Mormon polygamy, where, you know, they take all these stories. But let's, let's take a look at what happened was Brigham Young had always expected and he, he said, he said, I, I never claimed to be a prophet. Some of you have think I am, but I never claim to be a prophet. I'm only a place sitter. I paraphrasing him, he says I'm just a place sitter for when Joseph Smith's son comes of age and comes out here. Okay, so when that happened, Joseph Smith the third came of age. He and David came out on a speaking tour and they packed the churches because everybody Was, oh, this is wonderful. Joseph the Third is back. He's going to take over the church. And you know, just like everybody had always expected, the members never thought that Brigham Young had replaced Joseph Smith. Okay. They always understood, because it's a matter of record that Joseph Smith III was ordained. He was ordained with oil by Hyrum. And Joseph Smith laid his hands on his head. And Joseph announced it at a meeting in the grove that he had intended his son to take his place. So when this happened, these guys are packing the churches. Well, this is what, 15 years later. And now, you know, there's a little empire building and there's, there's money involved and, and all the apostles and you know, they got a little problem here because, because of the.

John Dehlin [00:47:19] They don't want to give up their power, you're saying.

Rock Waterman [00:47:21] Yeah, exactly. Okay, so let me just make this point. So. So, so their wives. Their wives all suddenly came out with these affidavits that they had been sealed to Joseph Smith. Well, they never said anything about this before. And we hear about the diary of Helen Martin Kimball when she was 14. No, she wrote that when she was middle aged. None of this stuff was in their diaries when they were young girls. It never happened. Or we never hear of it happening until suddenly there's an ulterior motive and there's something to lose.

John Dehlin [00:47:56] It was a way to keep Joseph Smith III and the reorganized. From taking over.

Rock Waterman [00:48:02] Yeah, from taking, you know, from taking the saints back.

John Dehlin [00:48:05] Okay, so William Law was lying.

Rock Waterman [00:48:09] William Law, from what I understand, he was. He was a usurper. He wanted. Oh, yeah, yeah. Here's the whole thing about. We look about, we look at this. The destruction of the printing presses as though Joseph Smith destroyed the press because the truth was getting out. He was just so sick and tired of the lies. And he didn't destroy the press. It was actually a lawful. Believe it or not, it was lawful to do that. It's iffy. But they got together as it was.

John Dehlin [00:48:40] Disturbance of the peace, you're saying?

Rock Waterman [00:48:41] Well, public nuisance.

John Dehlin [00:48:43] Yeah.

Rock Waterman [00:48:43] Okay. They got together in a meeting of the council of the city. City council.

John Dehlin [00:48:51] And then what about D&C? 132. I mean, that's a clear revelation. That's attributed to Joseph Smith.

Rock Waterman [00:48:56] Yeah, it's attributed to Joseph Smith. Boy, when you start looking at that, you start really having questions. Number one, it was never heard of. In fact, Emma herself said, I never heard about it until I read it in Seer. The Seer was the church paper Orson Pratt was publishing. I think in England. But Brigham Young has. Now, everybody knew in Pioneer, Utah that it was an open secret that plural marriage was being performed and was, was being practiced, but it wasn't official until 1852. Brigham has Orson Pratt announce it in conference. And then Brigham comes up and he explains, I have this letter. This revelation has been locked in my desk for all these years. And it's in the handwriting not of Joseph Smith, but it's in the handwriting of William Clayton, who was a scribe of Joseph Smith. So. Okay, that's okay. But now William Clayton is also a polygamist and it's just a little suspicious that any revelation. Two things. Joseph Smith vigorously denounced the practice throughout the last years of his life. At what point then was he going to suddenly come up and say, psych, really, it's really a true doctrine and we all have to practice it. At how was he possibly able to entice these so called wives at the same time he was telling them, look, if anybody comes to you telling you about this doctrine, whether he's a prophet, an alderman, a city councilman, a priest, anybody, then you'll know it's of the devil. Right. And so how was he going to marry these women who just heard him preach that this is the, the vilest of evils? Well, he was. It wasn't going to happen. So 132 is really, really, really iffy. Now it's possible that the first half of it was something from Joseph Smith because it doesn't discuss plural marriage at all. It discusses celestial marriage, but I have my doubts because why didn't he release it?

John Dehlin [00:51:04] Okay, so, yeah, and it is interesting. The 132 wasn't added until like 1876.

Rock Waterman [00:51:10] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:51:10] To the Doctrine of Covenants. Super late. Right.

Rock Waterman [00:51:13] And when that happened, they, they tossed out section 101 which said all churches and marriages in this church of Jesus Christ are to be, are to be between one man and one woman.

John Dehlin [00:51:26] Yeah. One woman, but one husband.

Rock Waterman [00:51:27] Yeah. And it even brought up that section. Even brought up owing to the accusations of polygamy.

John Dehlin [00:51:34] Right, right, right.

Rock Waterman [00:51:35] Really? Okay.

John Dehlin [00:51:37] So that, at least for you makes Joseph Smith no longer, you know, a liar in that sense or an adulterer or.

Rock Waterman [00:51:47] Right, right. You know, I would have to really. And here's what I've never seen anybody overcome. The information that's available in Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. People will say, well, how about this? How about that? Well, you know, everything that you do see, like the letter to Sarah Whitney is full of ellipses. This letter to Sarah Whitney, where he says, I sure like to see you. It was written to her par. He'd like to see them all come visit me. He was in hiding because, you know, okay, his enemies were after him. So. So all of this stuff that we learn about polygamy, and a lot of it was provided by the church in order to support. To support, you know, what they were doing. Okay. And I'll just say this. You know, we'd love to get this behind us. I mean, when President Hinckley was interviewed, I think by Larry King, he said, that's behind us. It's not doctrinal. We'd love to be able to say this never happened. But if they do, if they admit to polygamy being a lie, then they have to trace their authority through Brigham Young, and they have to admit that Brigham Young is a fraud. And they will do that. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:52:56] Okay. So I'll just say one last thing about it, and then I want to ask you about the Book of Mormon before we move on to kind of. Of, let's just say, contemporary issues. So it is weird that the Reorganized Church, the Community of Christ, the RLDS Church, formerly, they were the ones who staked their claim, their entire existence on the idea that polygamy never happened. It's interesting that they would be incentivized, of all people, to hold the position that you now do, that polygamy never happened. But they've changed, and now they accept that polygamy happened and lost a ton of members in the process. The only other thing I'll say is that the modern LDS church, again, would have a lot of an incentive to deny the polygamy happened. But I guess you're right. You answered that second part. Because if they denounce polygamy, they have to denounce Brigham Young through, I don't know, you know, George Albert Smith or something. And that's.

Rock Waterman [00:53:57] Yeah, they have to go through all of them. Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and all of them.

John Dehlin [00:54:02] But why would the Reorganized Church cave on something that they lose? They're such a disadvantage to sort of acknowledge.

Rock Waterman [00:54:12] Well, that was a statement by some leaders. It certainly didn't echo the sentiments of most of the members. And I think that, you know, when you look at all the histories, all we see is that, you know, it's presented as if it's a fact. And so this couple, Richard and Pamela Price, decided 30 years ago, they decided to just do deep digging and find out and what they. What they discovered. Once again, the only thing I'm going to do. I'm not going to argue with anybody about that. I'm not arguing with you, and you know that. We're not arguing, but people always want engagement arguments. I say, look, you read the book and then you make a judgment for yourself.

John Dehlin [00:54:52] Okay, and what's the name of the book again?

Rock Waterman [00:54:54] Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. Okay, all right, Google that online.

John Dehlin [00:54:57] If you want to send me a link, I'll add it to you.

Rock Waterman [00:54:59] Sure will.

Taking the Book of Mormon Seriously

John Dehlin [00:55:00] Okay, here's my last question before we jump into contemporary issues. You know, I have a very, very hard time taking the Book of Mormon seriously as a historical record. I think it screams fiction. It screams. I really think that it's a combination of, you know, it appears to be a combination of Joseph's stories, his own personal biography, a ton of Isaiah, a ton of other parts of the Bible, you know, New Testament kind of stuff. And then the position that a lot of the sermons that were given by people in the burned over district that those sermons were incorporated in as like, you know, let's just say King Benjamin's sermons or Mosiah's sermons or whoever, you know, plus just traditional, let's just say Campbellite doctrines. I mean, there's so many problems with the Book of Mormon, its historicity, the anachronisms, the DNA stuff. It's just problematic for anyone who's willing to be objective, it seems. Now, I'm not saying that's true, I'm just saying it seems that way. And one, you mentioned to me before the podcast that some people have been surprised to learn that you actually believe in the Book of Mormon. Talk about how you overcome all those problems.

Rock Waterman [00:56:21] Yeah, you know, I've looked at them all and I was persuaded at one time, you know, I thought, you know, this, the Crittle, the idea that Crittle put forth that Sidney Rignan and Oliver Cowdery may be the authors of the Mormon and so on and all the problem. Familiar with all the problems of the Book of Mormon. I've been studying these things for three decades. But, you know, here's the thing. When I read it, it rings true. And that's all I can tell you. But other than to say that the current blog post is a guest post by a fellow named Brett Bartel. You're familiar with him. He wrote the letter to you.

John Dehlin [00:56:56] Yep.

Rock Waterman [00:56:57] So I titled it the Actual Message of the Book of Mormon. And his. His letter to you has been reproduced here, Making the Case for Belief. And I know, and I realize that some people think I'm stupid, but I Believe it's an actual historical record. Now, as Brett says, it may be a loose translation. By the way, I have to differ with you. I don't think it has any Campbellite doctrine. I think the problem with the Campbellites that they was that they read in a lot of their doctrine of the restoration what we were talking about before. According to Damon Smith and I'm inclined to that view. We never were intended to be a church with prophets and apostles and leaders, top down leadership as the Campbellites were looking forward to. They were looking for miracles and they already had their beliefs. Sidney Rigdon and his congregation in particular. Parley Bratt.

John Dehlin [00:58:00] Well, I'll just say I have no idea about who Campbell stuff. I was just trying to remember, you know, what I've read in the past, but it's been a while.

Rock Waterman [00:58:09] So anyway, Brett says something that I agree with in this letter and he says this letter is response to the CES letter and he says there's nothing in the letter that disproves the Book of Mormon, but what it does is it shows that the church narrative is false. And I agree with that. The church has screwed things up because they've tried to. I think that there has been this idea among the leaders that they need to protect our testimonies. And so they fed us only what they wanted us to know. And I don't think they ever foresaw anything like the Internet. You know, they warned us away from what they called anti Mormon literature. And they were very successful in doing that with me because you know what? I didn't realize that most anti Mormon literature that I was warned away from was our own literature, our own true history. It wasn't people making things up, although there was a lot of that. But what's happening now on the Internet, people are finding out the true history, the true theology, and it doesn't jive with, I mean jibe with what the Church has been teaching. So this, the preferred narrative of the Church is falling apart as that unravels, sadly, you know, people's, people's belief in the teachings. Now here's a. So let me get back to answer your question. If you set aside everything, you know, how the Book of Mormon came forth, the problems and put aside everything and just look at what it teaches. I don't think you can find anything to differ with. I remember years ago, I'm a big Monty Python fan and I was reading an interview with the Pythons about they had intended to make an epic parody of the life of Christ. It was going to Be, you know, of course, it turned out to be life of Brian. But what they want to do is mock the life of Christ. So as research, they started reading the New Testament, reading the words of Jesus Christ as research, and then they came back together and said, you know what? I really don't have an argument with any of this, do you? They didn't have anything to argue about Jesus. We. You know what most people's problems with Christianity is? It's about what has grown up about Christianity, not the actual teachings of Jesus. And this is what I want to say about the Book of Mormon. There's nothing in the Book of Mormon that I find doctrinally teaching theologically to argue with. I think it's all.

John Dehlin [01:00:49] But in terms of the historicity of it, you're just saying you. You've kind of said, I don't care what science comes up with. It feels right to me. And that's how you've based your perspective on the Book of Mormon.

Rock Waterman [01:01:00] True, I have. I haven't seen science conflict with it. What we. What we have is, so far, what we know. Science is not. Not definitive. We haven't discovered everything. But my understanding is we have discovered evidence of horses in the New World. My understanding is that. Oh, and, and now we're learning the. That National Geographic has discovered that the DNA in a child's bones they found shows that at least 25% of the ancient Americans came from European and Middle Eastern origins. So what we thought just a few months ago was that everybody came from Japan. Well, that's not necessarily so. So we're still fine. We're always finding out. So I don't think. Like I said, nothing.

John Dehlin [01:01:57] Do you mean Siberia?

Rock Waterman [01:01:58] No, no, I'm talking about the Middle East.

John Dehlin [01:02:01] No, but Japan.

Rock Waterman [01:02:03] Yeah. I think that the DNA that Southerton wrote about.

John Dehlin [01:02:12] Not Mongolia or Siberia.

Rock Waterman [01:02:14] Well, maybe, maybe, but I think. Think Japanese was in there somewhere. Okay, okay, don't listen to me. I don't know.

John Dehlin [01:02:22] My understanding is they have not found horses in the timeframe that the Book of Mormon claims maybe tens of thousands of years prior. And I'm not at all an expert on these things.

Rock Waterman [01:02:34] Well, I'm aware that some people will say we'll look at it as a parable and a helpful parable. Okay. If you want to look at it that way, that's beneficial too. Even if Joseph Smith. Smith made it up, he certainly. He certainly pegged what would happen to his church in the later days. Sure, sure. And you know, because Mormon and Moroni are very critical of the people who claim to. Claim to be God's people and how they've polluted it. So.

John Dehlin [01:03:00] Right, okay. But the only other thing I'll say is that my understanding is if there's DNA that traces to places other than, I think it's Mongolia, it's DNA that comes 10, 20,000 years prior to when the Book of Mormon was supposedly taking place.

Rock Waterman [01:03:18] I haven't kept up with any of that stuff since I was in my 20s.

John Dehlin [01:03:21] No, no. Okay. So I'm just saying I want to just correct the record that I don't know of any science that supports the migration of a people around 6600 BC from the middle east to the New World that had horses and steel and. And, you know, all the different things that in the Michael Koh podcast, you can listen about.

Rock Waterman [01:03:44] Yeah, well, and what I'm saying here about the National Geographic discovery that there are Middle Eastern origins, that's not in the Book of Mormon timeframe either. They put it at 25,000 years earlier. But the point here is that we're still learning. We don't know because we. And what they're saying is we need more bones. We need to see more bones and check more DNA, because things they.

John Dehlin [01:04:07] They.

Rock Waterman [01:04:07] This caught them completely by surprise. Okay, okay, so.

John Dehlin [01:04:11] So last question for this episode, and then we'll move on to kind of contemporary issues, if that's okay. So to what extent does the falling away of the church sort of hang around Joseph Smith's neck in the sense that some people think in Nauvoo, he kind of went power crazy? Some people say that he was fine with personal revelation until others started having it. It, like with Orson Hyde. And he started getting uncomfortable around 1838 that people were challenging his authority. And so he kind of starts clamping down. He kind of invents this Melchizedek priesthood thing as a way to store his power up. And, you know, some could argue that the authoritative roots of the modern LDS Church sort of trace their roots ultimately to Joseph Smith's practices in the Nauvoo time frame. Are you saying it all went wrong after Joseph died, or are you willing to say that a lot of what's gone wrong is the legacy that Joseph left us with in his later life?

Rock Waterman [01:05:18] Well, I think one of the errors we make is assuming that or deifying Joseph Smith. You know, he's the one who said a prophet's only a prophet when he is acting. Speaking as a prophet, he made mistakes. I think one of his biggest flaws was, look, he was this humble, poor Dirt poor farm boy. And suddenly people like Sidney Rigdon and John C. Bennett wanted something to do with him. He was, you know, he made John Bennett the mayor. He, you know, put him in charge of all this stuff. Huge mistake. Because John Bennett was a huge imposter. And Sidney Rigdon, for all the good he was. Sidney Rigdon was known in his day as the walking Bible. He could spout scripture. And here was this, this, you know, well renowned preacher who wanted to, to attach himself to this poor farm boy. So I think Joseph Smith had this, he had this character flaw that he was impressed with, you know, shady characters. Yeah, yeah, well, he was impressed with men of letters, men who, who seem to have, you know, power and influence. And so my view of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith said, you know, trying to get something through the head of the, of the people, these people is like, like trying to chop a log with a corn dodger as a, as a wedge and a pumpkin as a beetle. Now, that doesn't make sense to a lot of people. The wedge, when you're chopping a log, you stick a little wedge in there and you hit your hammer. But underneath there, what was called a beetle was like the stump. So if you're trying to shove something through somebody's head using a piece of cornbread and a pumpkin, you're just not going to get anywhere. And he had a lot of frustration about that. So I think he was trying to. He wasn't trying to lord it over the members. In fact, he just, he kept his position was, look, I'm not in charge. He wasn't even in charge of Nauvoo. They excommunicated Pelatiah Brown without his knowledge. And afterwards he said, I don't think they should do that. You know, I don't think they should excommunicate somebody for his beliefs. Even though Pelatiah Brown had some really laughable ideas about what the Book of Revelations meant. But anyway, my point here is that the Nauvoo State Council was in charge of the church in Nauvoo. He wasn't. He saw himself as a messenger, you know, and not the head of the church. And I think he was easily taken advantage of that way because Rigdon kind of took charge in many respects. And so what happened was, I think what. I think the church under Joseph Smith was a very open, libertarian church. And when Brigham Young got a hold of it, he turned it into authoritarian, you know, you follow me? We're in charge. I think that's where, where things really went astray. I don't blame Joseph for, you know, for the way things are today. Come, come, ye saints. No toil nor labor fear, but with joy.

Part Two: Corporatism and Church Correlation

Part 2 of 2 · Ep. 464

Rock Waterman [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org. hello, and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host, John Dehlin, and here we are with part two of our interview with Alan Rockwaterman, founder of the blog Pure Mormonism. We spent an hour and eight minutes approximately with Rock talking about his views on Joseph Smith, on polygamy, on the Book of Mormon, on what the church means. And now we're going to. And I highly recommend it. Rock's a great guy. And now we're going to spend some time talking about contemporary issues as it relates to Rock's approach. And as you might have, if you listen to the first hour, you'll understand that Rock has a real solid sort of faith in Christ. He believes in the Book of Mormon. He has a lot of reverence for Joseph Smith. Use him as a prophet. But he feels like kind of everything that's been a lot that's been added since is either unnecessary or potentially distracting from the core messages of the Savior and of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith. Is that a fair characterization, Rock?

Rock Waterman [00:01:42] Yes. Yes, I'd say that's fair.

John Dehlin [00:01:44] All right, so now we're going to talk about several posts on Rock's blog just to get a flavor for his approach to Mormonism. And then we're going to talk about how maybe some of these posts have gotten him into trouble. And we're going to talk about where that all stands. So let's start with the blog post. And you don't have to, like, quote anything from the blog post. I'm just looking for basic ideas or arguments. Right, so. So let's start with the blog post, how corporatism has undermined and subverted the Church of Jesus Christ. What do you think you're trying to say there? Just in a nutshell?

Rock Waterman [00:02:23] Well, that's actually a review of Damon's book, the Book of Mammon, that he wrote two or three years ago. And essentially, the church. There's no reason for a church to incorporate. They say we need to incorporate for tax purposes. Well, churches are exempt from tax. They exist in a completely different sphere from the state. So the state does not have any means to cite the church. But if you're going to become something other than a church. Or if you're going to step outside the bounds of what a church supposed to do. I suppose incorporation is the thing. So if you're going to become a business, and let me just say this, the normal business of a church doesn't need incorporation. But if you're going to, you're saying

John Dehlin [00:03:09] a church can just be a 501C3? Is that what you're saying?

Rock Waterman [00:03:11] No, no, that's exactly the problem. 501 status. Applying for that is actually asking the government. It's actually making the government your God. By saying, can we have permission to not be taxed?

John Dehlin [00:03:25] Isn't that how the church. Okay, so they've done that, Is that right?

Rock Waterman [00:03:30] No, otherwise the church won't be taxed. But now you are in a taxable situation where you say, please make me exempt. It's crazy. The whole 501 thing was invented by Lyndon Baines Johnson as a way to get control of the church's. In Texas when he was a senator, he was, you know, these guys weren't doing him any favors, they were talking against him. So this enabled him to putting a. Once the church applies for 501 status, it agrees that it will lose that status if they speak against any political candidates.

John Dehlin [00:04:05] So let me see if I understand what you're saying correctly. You're saying that I could start a church tomorrow, I could get 100 or thousand or a million dollars of donations and not have to pay taxes without applying for 501 status. Yeah.

Rock Waterman [00:04:17] There are a lot of churches who have now gone. They've rescinded their 501 status. They've rescinded their incorporation. Small churches like this Laporte Church of Christ in Colorado is one example. A church is just outside the influence of government unless you're going to start investing in things that a church typically wouldn't, like real estate. Now I have no problem with the church putting money in ranches and orchards and canneries and other things that will help feed people. But when you start investing in shopping malls and condominiums in apartment buildings, then maybe you need incorporation to start protecting yourself.

John Dehlin [00:05:06] Okay, so you say you're saying the 501C3 is to protect an institution. It's not a requirement for a church

Rock Waterman [00:05:12] to be able to operate well, it changes the church. It's not even a church. When you're under 501c3. You are now a charitable organization. Okay, so you've even changed your status from church to charitable organization.

John Dehlin [00:05:24] Okay, so what else, how else is corporatism undermined and subverted the church.

Rock Waterman [00:05:29] Oh, gosh. It's been a long time since I've read that piece. Basically, well, look at what we do. We run it like a business. We were on the verge of bankruptcy in 1961 because of what? Henry Moyle. Henry Moyle was an interesting character. He was counselor to President David O. McKay. And he loved the church, but he really wasn't that familiar with doctrines or scriptures. He admitted to not really being much, but he loved the church. He loved the idea of the church. And so he felt that we can make this thing grow by building chapels. And then we'll get the missionaries to provide the converts to fill those chapels. And then as those chapels fill, those converts will pay tithing and to. To pay for, you know. But what happened was they kept building chapels and the missionaries were put under tremendous pressure to fill those chapels. And that's how we got the baseball baptisms, which I won't go into now. If some of your listeners are familiar with that, just Google baseball baptisms. So next thing you know, And I remember at this time, I remember being a teenager and hearing that the church was breaking ground on a chapel somewhere in the world every single day. Unfortunately, there wasn't anybody around to fill those chapels. So the church was out of money. And it didn't catch the attention of the 12 until they were told that payroll is probably going to be missed. That got them to perk up their ears because in spite of what we're taught, these guys do get paid, and they get paid quite well for being apostles and prophets and general authorities.

John Dehlin [00:07:19] So the church privatized its finances.

Rock Waterman [00:07:21] Right. So they called in N. Eldon Tanner, who was a wealthy Canadian industrialist, also like Henry Moyle. He even bragged. He said, I don't know anything about the Scriptures, but he did know how to make money. And he invested in oil companies, newspapers, banks, everything that you would. Everything that you would equate with Babylon. He invested and he got the church back on their feet. And it was at this point when the church decided that they would. The leaders decided they didn't need to obey Christ anymore. Jesus is very clear in two places in the Doctrine and Covenants that an accounting must be made of where the money goes, how much comes in, how much goes out. And until up until 1958, there was a very detailed account. It went on for pages and pages. You saw where the money went, how much was spent, how much came in. And they just stopped doing that. And they haven't done that since. I Wouldn't either. Because when you're. When you're spending money in ways that you shouldn't. And once again, the leadership. This is about the time the leadership began to see itself as the gatekeepers, as the owners of the brand. In fact, they do own the brand. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve, which is an arm of the corporate church. And this is also the time they began to launch what's called correlation, which was a way to coordinate all of the lesson plans and everything so that essentially members were taught what the leaders wanted them to be taught, and they were fed information, only that information that they wanted the members to learn. And so we move from that point very clearly from a church where the members. And by the way, the members are supposed to the money, and we're told that the tithing is the Lord's and it's not your business what happens to it. It's just your business to pay it. But that's not true. The Lord knows that if you don't hold those with the. With the money accountable, that, you know, the Lord Acton's aphorism that power corrupts applies in the church just as well as it does in the government. So Elton Tanner was leapfrogged into the first presidency. I mean, the man was not a theologian. He was. He's the unofficial CEO of the church. He wasn't general authority material, but he sure knew how to make money. And he made money, made the money back for the church. And ever since then, it's been a secret. The finances. Finances of the church are a secret. And by the way, what Elton Tanner did was he actually brought. He also brought others in who were also investors. This is when the church, you know, we used to have theologians. You know, we used to have people like Legrand Richards and even Markey Peters and others who really know, knew the Scriptures. And then we got a bunch of corporate attorneys and businessmen and insurance salesmen.

John Dehlin [00:10:36] Okay, okay. All right. So we're too much like a corporation from your perspective. And it. And it detracts through correlation and other things. It detracts from Christ's central message. True.

Rock Waterman [00:10:48] Yeah. Yeah. A lot of the things that. That I discuss in that piece are what Damon showed about how we thought. What we thought might were inspired programs of the church were really just attempts to unload. For example, we had. We had a warehouse full of books of Mormons that we needed to get rid of before they could publish the next book, next edition. And so the idea of the family to family program was launched was to

John Dehlin [00:11:18] get rid of all these books that

Rock Waterman [00:11:19] were in our world. Yes. What we did, the interesting thing was they got the members to pay their tithing to pay for the printing of these Book of Mormons. Then they got the members to buy the books back, put their pictures with a little message in there, and then send that away. And purportedly, supposedly those books went to missionaries, but a lot of them ended up just in the basements of the mission homes because the mission presidents wanted to wait for the new books to come out. So they're still rotten somewhere.

John Dehlin [00:11:47] Okay. All right. So you're not a big fan of the, of the mall. The City Creek Mall.

Rock Waterman [00:11:52] Oh, that's. There's another. There's another.

John Dehlin [00:11:54] Let's talk about that. City Creek Mall.

Rock Waterman [00:11:58] This woke up a lot of people. Something I should tell you about my blog is I'm really not originating anything, but people find me and they say, you know, these are just the same things that I've been thinking of that have been really troubling me. And they tell me that reading my things helps them to reconcile the fact. Because people who are raised to believe that the church is true and putting their focus on the church tend to when it starts to unravel, it really affects them. And yet we have people who, like me, believe in the Book of Mormon and believe in the words of Christ and they say, I just can't reconcile the two. And then when they're able to divorce what the church is doing wrong, the capital C Church, when they are able to divorce that from the gospel, then they say, oh, okay, right, okay. And they. And then they also see that the Book of Mormon prophesies of this and warns against this stuff. But the City Creek Mall is a prime example. And my understanding, by the way, let me just say this. I. The leaders are not in unison. You know, we have this idea that the. That all 12 apostles are in uniformity on all these issues, but they're not. And I have friends who work in the church office building. I have one who came through here and visited me. We went out for pizza together and he told me stories about specific apostles that would make your head spin. But there's a lot of waste and there's a lot of personal pet projects that different, certain apostles get involved in. And he told about one who blew through $20 and it, it was. It didn't work. So what the heck, you know, moved on to somebody else.

John Dehlin [00:13:45] They've $20.

Rock Waterman [00:13:46] 20,000. Did I say 20? $20,000. And then he put their own people in, into positions, you know, who will. Cronyism, basically a lot of cronyism. It's just like any corporation. And this is the problem. It's not a church, it's a corporation. And up at the top, you know, we see them speak at general conference twice a year and they seem very humble and very serious. But the rest of the time they're managing the monetary affairs of the church. And this has been true ever since Lorenzo Snow sent the Twelve Apostles back in 1880, 1891 I think it was. You know, the apostles are supposed to go out and be witnesses for Christ. Well, what he did was he sent them out to get investments, to gather money for investments into the sugar company on the railroad. So you know, this isn't a church, it's a corporation. And the corporate board of directors spends a lot of its time managing the financial affairs of the church. So back to the Pitie Creek Mall. So now we have a mall that, you know, the excuse given a couple of excuses. First off, well, we wanted to clean up the city because things were getting pretty seedy. Well, what they meant by that was there were beggars hanging around the temple. My understanding of the ancient temple was that's where the beggars are supposed to be when the, when the people go to the temple, they remember to be charitable. But what we want to do, we wanted to chase them away. So that was one reason to build a mall. Another reason to build a mall is it creates jobs. But these are all high end stores. And this is the point I was going to get to was so Hinckley. This was Hinckley's idea. This mall was Hinckley's baby. And a lot of people didn't care for it. And after Hinckley died, it was already well underway. So what are you going to do? Right, so my point is that not, not all the 12 approved of it. You know, there's some level headed people in there. But so we got, we've got high end boutiques and you know, I've lived in Utah, Utah doesn't have enough money to maintain a mall like that. But I suppose, you know, when you're the type of person who spends their money at high end malls, you don't see anything different. So anyway, a lot of members have written me and they've said that this was their last straw. You know, this, this mal. Because it's clear that, you know, the brethren are out of. What am I looking for? Not out of the loop. You know, they're just, you know, what a church should be doing. I remember Kimball saying, you know, he was interviewed on TV, there was a piece on Mormon's 60 Minutes or something when I was a teenager. And he was asked about how much money the church collects in tithing. And he said, well, I'll tell you this, the outgo keeps pace with the income. And basically what he was, the message, at least that I was getting was that, you know, it was going out to doing good and feeding the poor. But we know now that very little, like less than 1% of the money that's tithed ever goes to the needy. And well, we're just, I mean, this is, this is so open, so blatant. A hide and mall built by a church at a time when the whole country is in a depression. And make no mistake, this is a depression. What are we doing? What is this? Well, of course, when the idea first came to Hinckley, the economy wasn't on the downslide. But you got to ask, okay, we're told that Jesus Christ is the head of this church. Are we really, really, really to believe that Jesus Christ sat at the head of the blood bored and said, here's what I want to do, guys. I want, here's, here's the blueprints. I want to build this mall. And the beauty of it from the, from the point of view of the investment vestors. Now I've heard, now I haven't confirmed this, but Taubman, the guy who built the mall, the developer, he gets a guarantee. 70 million no matter what. 75 million no matter what. So even if the mall fails, the church will give him, he invests, I think 22 million and he gets 75 million over a five year period. So even if the Millet Mall crashes and burns, the church has guaranteed funds from church funds to reimburse him. I got this from somebody who works there at the mall, an attorney.

Church Finances, Tithing, and Property

John Dehlin [00:18:23] What do you make of the idea that no tithing was spent? That it's, you know.

Rock Waterman [00:18:28] Well, you know, ultimately it's tithing money. But what are they doing? Here's what they do. They park the money. They take in hundreds of billions in tithing. Hundreds of millions. And I think it's. Some estimates are 3 billion a year in tithing. That was before 2008 when everything went to hell. But in a typical year, they take in 3 billion in tithing. They park a bunch of that into investments for three years, and then they take the millions that came from those investments and they spend those on further investments. So this is what a church does today. This is what the church does. It takes the tithing which is intended to feed the poor and pay for the legitimate needs of a church. They take the money from the poor members, the poorest of the poor, and then they park it in investments and they build multi billion dollar malls. And now here's what's funny, John. I thought, okay, you know, they got caught. You know, there was such a backlash of members saying this isn't right. I thought, okay, you know, they knew they'd made a mistake, but then they go and they announce this high rise apartment complex in Philadelphia and then they buy another high rise on Main street in Salt Lake City. So obviously they are completely immune to criticism.

John Dehlin [00:19:58] And the, and the forest preserves in Florida, they now own 2% of the state of Florida.

Rock Waterman [00:20:02] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a big chunk of Florida.

John Dehlin [00:20:05] Yeah. They're the largest single landowner in the state of Florida.

Rock Waterman [00:20:09] Now what is this for? I mean, why? What is the church doing? Well, I'll tell you why. Because a corporation, and this is the problem with a corporation. And I discussed this in my piece on corporations. Corporations in the early years of this country had a legitimate function. The Erie Canal was built with a corporate. You can't, you can't put together a business that, that scale, you know, unless you build a corporate and make a corporation. So it was. But once the purpose was accomplished, the Erie Canal, the corporation was dissolved. Today, a corporation, if it wants anything, it wants to continue to live, to perpetuate itself. And so this is what the church is doing today. If there's anything that will ensure the corporation lives on, it's that it will have enough money to continue to live and continue to invest. But once again, they forget that this isn't their money. This money belongs to the people. It's held in fiduciary trust for the members, the members. But see now, and the fault is largely the members because many members think of themselves. They think of themselves. Well, we're just the members. Those guys are the church. No, no, we are all on the level playing field. And that money is just as much ours as it is theirs. And it's just not theirs to play with. That's the bottom line. If they need to do something with this money they should use. People would be much more willing to pay tithing now if they really realized that their tithing was being circulated among those who needed it instead of being fed these fat cats. And yeah, they're fat cats. They have unlimited credit cards. They don't have any. They have almost no oversight as to what, how they eat at the finest restaurants, they wear nice suits.

John Dehlin [00:22:01] The apostles, you're saying?

Rock Waterman [00:22:02] Yeah, the apostles, they live in nice homes, all paid for by people who can't afford. Well, I recommend the piece called bare how to calculate what you owe in tithing, which was also a guest post last month.

John Dehlin [00:22:22] Okay, let's talk about that. So there's a. There's a post that are we. Are we paying too much tithing?

Rock Waterman [00:22:26] Okay,

John Dehlin [00:22:29] and then there's the bare necessities. Just tell us about your. Your views on tithing. Talk about missionary president expenses and all those things that you think are super.

Rock Waterman [00:22:39] Are we paying Put too much Tithing was my piece. It was last year and it was basically, you know, I was motivated because I went to church and it was in November and both speakers spoke on tithing and spouted all this nonsense that just wasn't true. They were saying things like, we should pay tithing before we pay anything else. We should pay tithing on the gross of our paycheck. We get blessings when we pay tithing. None of this is in the law of tithing. We're not promised blessings for paying our tithing. Paying tithing is an obligation. But anyway, so here's the thing. So I broke down what tithing really was. And tithing is in. The law of tithing is encapsulated in seven verses in section 119. If it isn't in that section, it's not a part of the law. So we built all this kind of stuff on top of it. You know all this nonsense about. And what the Lord tells us is it's 10% of your increase annually. It's not 10% of your gross at the first of the month. It's annual at the end of the year. And the reason for that increases very little. Tithing was intended to be a very little so the church wouldn't go out of control. It was meant to. It was intended to for three purposes which are defined in that piece. And I won't spend any time going on it here. But anyway, it's a lengthy piece and very thorough, I think.

John Dehlin [00:24:07] And so what do you think they meant by tithing when that, when that section was given?

Rock Waterman [00:24:13] What they meant was, what they meant by it. Oh, is 10% increase.

John Dehlin [00:24:16] What is increase?

Rock Waterman [00:24:17] 10% of increase is what you have left over after your basic needs are met.

John Dehlin [00:24:22] So you earn, let's say you earn 50,000 in a year. You pay all your expenses, you pay

Rock Waterman [00:24:27] your mortgage, you Pay your groceries, you pay your telephone, you pay light, and then you have your disposable income.

John Dehlin [00:24:33] So let's say you got 5,000 left.

Rock Waterman [00:24:35] After all that, you pay 10% of that. So you're tithing a. Your tithing is 500.

John Dehlin [00:24:39] And you think that's how the early saints lived?

Rock Waterman [00:24:41] Oh, yeah, yeah. The first ones, there were two parts of that. The first, the existing saints were to pay, put in all of their surplus, and the surplus is the same thing as increase. It's essential. By the way, I go into a lot of detail about the definition of these words at the time of Joseph Smith. You get these from the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary. So there's very little question the meaning of income and increase and surplus. So the first saints were to give all of their surplus. So everything that you have that you didn't need. So, like, for example, if you got some chickens left over or some eggs left over, you give all of that. Okay. Then after that, tithing was 10% of your increase, slash surplus.

John Dehlin [00:25:28] Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:25:29] At the end of each year.

John Dehlin [00:25:30] Okay. And so that's what you think people should pay?

Rock Waterman [00:25:35] Well, I think that's what tithing is. That's what the law of tithing says. And I think, and it's interesting that the first presidency, the very latest doctrinal statement that we have on tithing, was made in 1970 by the First Presidency. And they said no one is justified in saying anything other than this. So you can't say that, you know, it should be paid, paid before you pay your rent, or even if you can't pay your rent, you pay your tithing. All of these myths that have risen up, the law of tithing is inclusive in the law of tithing. And if you go outside of that, then you're, you know, so what happens, you know, the church, instead of. Instead of encouraging the truth, they just allow people to say. And they give talks themselves. My gosh. Was it Jeffrey Holland? I think it was Jeffrey Holland. He quoted a talk by James Talmage that was. Talmadge gave like 1912. And Talmage, in this talk, he said. He said if. He said some. Sometimes you'll have good years, sometimes you'll have bad years. On those bad years, you're not expected to pay. And he's talking about the amount of increase. You know, he's all. He's also says that, you know, you're entitled. You're entitled to the necessities of life and certain luxuries before you pay your tithing. So Holland takes This talk, and he edits it down and he quotes pieces of it and then he adds his own word wording to, and he leaves out all the, all the necessary stuff. And he, you know, the impression is very, very, very much out there that, you know, pay it up front on everything. And there's Lorenzo Snow in the student manual, teaching manual on Lorenzo Snow, the teachings of the prophet Lorenzo Snow. He made a statement that every man, woman and child who has means should pay 10% of their income. Well, for some reason, they just left out those three words who have means.

John Dehlin [00:27:42] Oh, okay.

Rock Waterman [00:27:43] And by the way, the word income at the time that Joseph Smith lived and today, under legal contemplation, does not mean all that comes in. Income means that which you, it's equivalent income to a private person is equivalent to a profit from a business. First you pay your expenses. What you have left over is your income.

John Dehlin [00:28:04] Got it? Okay, so we're paying too much tithing. Talk about the bare necessities. And it looks like that was taken from some type of manual, right?

Rock Waterman [00:28:14] Yeah, it was the mission president's manual, the Appendix B in the mission president's manual. This is Jonathan Straight. Most of us have seen this. It was leaked onto the net a while back, but it took Joseph Streeter to point out that it's the tithing money that is paying for, for the, well, okay, the, the, the, the gist of this piece is a lot of people were still writing to me and asking me, okay, you know, I, I, I understand now that tithing is 10% after my basic living expenses are covered, but how do I, you know, I'm not sure about what I count as basic living expenses, you know, so, you know, of course that's up to you, but here, come here, along comes this thing that actually defines four mission presidents, what their basic living expenses are. And these basic living expenses, as it turns out, were being covered by the tithing money sent in by the saints. So among these things are modest gifts for the anniversary, birthdays, and Christmas. And Jonathan points out that he says, you know, sometimes on my birthday or Christmas, I didn't get a gift, but it's nice to know my tithing money goes to buy it to make sure that the mission president's children get a decent Christmas. So it's a really revealing piece. And I think that this is, I'm pretty sure this is what motivated my being called in by my bishop. So you want to get onto that.

Mission Presidents, Living Expenses, and Benefits

John Dehlin [00:29:45] Any other details about mission presidents and what, what they are and aren't supposed

Rock Waterman [00:29:51] to consider well, yeah, they're also entitled to having a cook and a babysitter for 20 hours a week. That's covered. That's reimbursed by tithing money. Of course, they don't have to pay all their living expenses. Gas and cars provided by the church, so they live pretty well. And in the meantime. Oh, oh, oh. And also, their children are given free tuition at byu. And this is the clincher, because for those of us who scraped and earned to pay for our own missions, if you're the son of a mission president, the church will pay for your mission. And all that comes out of the tithing money of the members. It doesn't come out of the investments that were made on the tithing. Because as we know, tithing goes directly towards. Part of what tithing goes toward is the missionary efforts of the church. So mission presidents, families up to age 25, all kinds of insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, essentially.

John Dehlin [00:30:52] So I have two questions. What does this have to do with our paying of tithing? And what's wrong with mission presidents and their families getting big discounts and reimbursements and benefits?

Rock Waterman [00:31:05] Okay, what this has to do with our paying tithing is it finally shows us what the church considers basic living expenses. So now you can take and you can look at that. You can say, okay, my life insurance, my medical insurance, all of these are basic living expenses that I take out before I pay my tithing.

John Dehlin [00:31:21] And that's what it tells them, to only count their tithing minus all these other expenses.

Rock Waterman [00:31:27] No, what it tells them about tithing is none of that money is to be tied. They don't pay tithing on anything that they. That they. That they receive. Okay, am I making myself clear enough? But what. What made this. What made this so devastating to so many people? They were just actually shocked to see this because this is an actual church document telling the mission presidents, look, you don't have to pay tithing on this. We will reimburse you for all of these things. But these are considered basic living expenses.

John Dehlin [00:31:57] I see. I see. So, so let me just restate. So, so they're getting income from. Well, first of all, mission presidents and their wives, they don't. Do they get a living expense? Do they get.

Rock Waterman [00:32:08] Look, I don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with them, you know, getting their housing and their car and their gas and all these things taken care of. All their groceries are. Especially if, you know. But see, here's the thing. Most of us were raised in the church thinking that mission presidents, they've come from careers where they were doing quite well and they paid for their own mission. So it was an eye opener for a lot of people to realize, wait a minute, they're actually doing all right. Whatever money that they have, it hasn't cost them a thing. And they're even getting their birthday and anniversary and Christmas presents covered by the tithing that you pay. So that was an eye opener for a lot of people. So there are two messages in this piece. Number one is, okay, this is what the church can say if you're having any questions about what are your basic living expenses. Your basic living expenses include extracurricular activities for your children, music lessons, horseback riding, things like that. So you can deduct all that before you pay your tithing.

John Dehlin [00:33:17] Okay? So, so the mission presidents and their wives are told, you're going to receive reimbursement for all this stuff. And before you pay your tithing on whatever money you bring in, you can first, you can first, you know, pay for your kids education, life insurance, health insurance.

Rock Waterman [00:33:35] Well, this isn't what they're no, this isn't what they're telling the mission presidents, they're telling the mission presidents is these are your basic living expenses and we are covering you. Okay. Right now what it's telling the other, what is telling the rest of us is, okay, so that's basic living expenses. So now I know I don't have to pay tithing before I pay my life insurance, before I pay my children's horseback riding lessons or whatever. So. But the other thing that it exposed was that people who are struggling to pay tithing are providing what some would call luxuries.

John Dehlin [00:34:08] Right, right. You know, through the mission gifts and other types of things.

Rock Waterman [00:34:12] Yeah, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:34:13] Private schooling, you're paying for the private schooling of mission presidents. You're paying Mr. President's children, you're paying for their babysitters, you're paying for their housekeeper and their cook.

Rock Waterman [00:34:23] Yeah. And so it's one thing to, it's one thing to cover the expenses of a mission, you know, the legitimate expense of mission, but this is basically all living expenses, all groceries, everything. There isn't anything that you can think of, or there are very few things you can think. I mean, if they want to buy an extra car for themselves, and that's on themselves, but, you know, basically for three years, their living expenses are covered tithing free. Excuse me.

John Dehlin [00:34:50] Yeah. Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:34:51] So that was, that was one message. Well, yeah, so that's the second Mess. The first message is okay to, to you rank and file, normal members. This is what is considered basic living expenses, almost everything. Number two, when you do pay your tithing, here's where it's going. Now if you think that that's something mission presence, you know, just imagine what the general authorities are receiving.

John Dehlin [00:35:17] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:35:18] These guys, I'm sorry, man, these guys are. They're living pretty well. They're living better than many of the people who are paying tithing to support them. And so that's the crime. So that's the crime.

John Dehlin [00:35:28] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:35:29] Because widows were never supposed to be tithed. And what we get now is we get bishops leaning on widows to pay 10% of their gross income to the church. And where does it go? It goes to support priestcraft. There's no other word for it. The Book of Mormon strongly condemns this. They are paying the living expenses and the luxury expenses of men who don't deserve it.

John Dehlin [00:35:56] Nice cars, first class travel, housekeepers, cooks.

Rock Waterman [00:36:00] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:36:01] You know, elite education.

Rock Waterman [00:36:02] Their children. Their children. Their children's missions are paid for. Their children's BYU tuition is paid for, everything. Total insurance, life insurance and health insurance and dental. So this is something that's cut a lot of people up short because when they look at this and they see that they've been struggling and the money goes to pay to make sure that the elite in the church don't have to struggle like they do.

John Dehlin [00:36:35] Right, right. Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say there. All right, so let's just, let's move a little bit now to. Let's talk briefly just about Damon Smith and Denver Snuffer and those types of folks. I mean, when I say neo fundamentalism, well, what's your reaction to that?

Maverick Mormons and the Denver Snuffer Movement

Rock Waterman [00:37:00] Yeah, I wish you could think of a better term. I can't. Maverick Mormon is one.

John Dehlin [00:37:08] But you understand fundamentalism. It's like saying, let's get back to the basics. We've gone astray.

Rock Waterman [00:37:12] Exactly. But yeah, the only unfortunate thing about it is, as you said earlier, most people equate fundamentalism with something that wasn't fundamental to Mormonism at all, which is polygamy. That, that, that was not fundamental to the Mormon message, in your view, right?

John Dehlin [00:37:28] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Rock Waterman [00:37:29] And by my studied view, yeah, yeah, sure.

John Dehlin [00:37:34] But what do you. So is it fair to say that you and Denver and Damon are all kind of apostles in a movement?

Rock Waterman [00:37:46] Well, that's a, that's a tough question because number one, we don't want followers. None of us. Yeah, you know, that's Weird to say

John Dehlin [00:37:54] with Denver because he's got a ton of them.

Rock Waterman [00:37:56] Well, he doesn't want followers. He has a message. And I will say this. Yes, I believe he's a prophet. And that's a sticky thing to say because the moment you call somebody a prophet, a lot of people in the church go, oh, have you met, have

John Dehlin [00:38:11] you met Denver Snuffer?

Rock Waterman [00:38:12] Never met him. Communicated with him a few times.

John Dehlin [00:38:15] Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:38:15] But I've listened to. And here's what a prophet does. Prophet. He got an assignment from the Lord to convey some information. And he's conveying that information. And the interesting thing is all he's teaching is the scriptures. He's not starting anything new. He's not introducing any new doctrines. He's basically saying, let's get back to looking what the scriptures say. And so he doesn't want followers. The last thing he wants. Embarrassing. In fact, he won't televise, not televise, videotape his talks because he doesn't want people looking at him and getting distracted by who he is. And Damon has performed an invaluable service in showing us that. Whoa. We've been off track from the beginning because when I saw that the Lord told Joseph Smith in 1833 that the church is under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon and following its precepts, I thought what I thought, maybe you can say that today. But in 1833, wasn't everybody reading it? Damon shows the. That nobody was reading it. What they were doing with the Rigdonites and Parley P. Pratt and others, they were thumbing through it and they'd come across things that seemed to them to support their previously held ideas and they would run with that. So from the beginning, the church, okay, there should never have been a formal organized church centered around the Book of Mormon. That's what John David Whitmer says, and I inclined to agree with them. Now, should there be a church? Yeah, a church. A community of like minded believers. But we've gotten away from that and now we are. We belong to a corporation that sees us the way employees do. You know, we don't want to get on the wrong side of the bosses of the executives upstairs. We sure don't want to get them mad at us, you know, we want to make sure we're doing everything they say. When they tell us to obey, we obey. We act like employees of a corporation. They don't own us. They don't even own the church. They don't even own the gospel. They don't own the Book of Mormon. But they act as if they do and we act as if they do. And that's what gives them power. We act as if they are in charge of us. There is no one in charge of you. Jesus Christ is your God, not the church and not the leaders. And he says there is no other gatekeeper. I'm the one. And yet we want to filter our gospel. We want to ask, what does the church say about this? What do the church think? What is the church's position? Meaning what do the leaders say? What do the leaders position? We got to get away from that.

John Dehlin [00:40:58] Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:40:59] I sound like a preacher, don't I?

John Dehlin [00:41:01] Yeah, yeah. So you're saying.

Rock Waterman [00:41:03] Okay, we were talking about Denver and Damon. I'm sorry, no.

John Dehlin [00:41:06] So you, Denver and Damon don't want followers. But you all, where do you all agree? You all agree that the church is in. Is corrupt, kind of under condemnation, that the brethren have led us astray. That's all where you're similar. Right?

Rock Waterman [00:41:19] Well, Denver is an interesting character because from what I have read, and I certainly haven't read everything he's done, but he seems to believe in sustaining the leaders while at the same time the reason he was excommunicated was he wrote a book on the history of church leadership. And that church leadership shows that there's some real gaps in the authority. And you know, as Wilford Woodruff said, he. He said, you know, at the time of Joseph Smith's death, we didn't know what the keys were or what keys we had or what they did. And of course we've, over time we have created a revisionist history where there was a smooth transition and all these guys have the keys. Let me recommend something to the listeners. I wrote a piece called Training Day in which it's kind of a horse. Laugh at the idea that these guys have all these keys that they're always bragging about. They never explain what they are. But we got the keys, keys, keys. They don't know what they're talking about. They honestly don't know what they're talking about. They think that they hold the priesthood. They actually define the priesthood as the right to control the authority to control God. You don't have the authority to control God. And there's no gifts. Let's. Well, here's what I'm looking at. Here's what motivates me. We live in a church or we're members of a church today that is so different from the church in Joseph Smith's day. We don't even recognize the Differences. There were gifts in those days, gifts of the spirit. People spoke in tongues. There were healings. Women were healing, giving blessings and healing. We saw miracles all the time. Now today we say we have prophets and apostles and we give blessings, but most of those blessings never take. Most people who give a blessing to a sick person, they don't see an instant healing, and they always qualify it with some term like conditional upon your faith or whatever. We're not seeing the gifts of the Spirit, and yet we seem to think that nothing's changed. Everything's changed. The church is not the same. Okay, so I forgot where we.

John Dehlin [00:43:41] No, so you. So you rock. I'm just. I'm trying to get a sense for whether that's. There's a movement afoot.

Rock Waterman [00:43:47] Oh, yeah, well, there is, but I'm. I'm. None of us are leaders of it. And I'll tell you why there's later if you look on my blog on the lower somewhere on the right hand sage, there's my blog role. You know, it's headed. There's a heading that says blogs, I think are worth a look. Quite a few of those are blogs from people who have awakened, just as I have. I didn't start a movement. Neither did Denver. Neither did. But there's. I think there's a way. I think the spirit moves throughout this church and is moving on a lot of people. And these are just the bloggers, you know, these are just people who've decided. Have been moved enough to start a blog. And when I started this thing, I didn't even know there was others out there. And then I started seeing there were, and then more camera, but they're not, you know, they're not springboarding off me. There is a. There is an awakening that something is not quite right in the church today, and yet an understanding that the fundamental cores, the core fundamentals of the gospel are true and valid and of great worth.

John Dehlin [00:44:53] What do these people call themselves if they don't like Neo, what do they call themselves? Well, I.

Rock Waterman [00:44:59] Like I said, I've referred to the rest of them as maverick Mormons. I don't even see myself as a maverick Mormon. You know, basically, look, I called my blog Pure Mormonism because I'm looking to see. I'm trying to find out what's pure about Mormonism. And here's where it comes down to very simple. We are a church. What do we say that differentiates us from all the other churches? Well, at least this is what I taught on my mission, that we are a church. That believes in continuing revelation. In other words, the Bible isn't the last word. God continues to speak to men. So, okay, so that's our mantra. And yet if you look around for revelation, you can't find one. So where are these revelations? There's something wrong with a church that boasts of continuing revelation and can't show one.

John Dehlin [00:45:50] Yeah, I was looking at all the sections on the Doctrine and Covenants other than. So if you go up to section 130. Where's 130? Wait, what's 137? Let me just look. Okay, that's incurred. So if you go 138 up to section 137 of the Doctrine of Covenants, they all happened before 1847. Seven. So you've got. You've got 137 sections of the Doctrine of Covenants occurring through section 1847. And then you've got one released in the 20th century, which is section 138, and that's it.

Rock Waterman [00:46:33] Yeah. And even that isn't a. That isn't a revelation. That's a vision.

John Dehlin [00:46:37] Right. And then you've got the two official declarations, which aren't really. They're not even called sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. And all they're really doing is undoing, you know, policies. But they're not having anything to do with. With Doctrine or Covenants, basically.

Rock Waterman [00:46:54] Yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, they're. They're like section 20. A lot of them are said. Said to be revelations, but they're not revelations. You know what Brigham Young said about revelation? He said, I receive revelation all the time. I get revelations from my wives, I get revelations from my friends, because every time somebody tells me something I didn't know before, that's a revelation. But he also, in other places, he said, I'm not a prophet, so he doesn't get revelation. I never claimed to be a prophet like Joseph or Daniel. He doesn't receive revelations from God. But he's right about what a revelation is. A revelation is something new that wasn't known before, and we're not getting that in the Church.

John Dehlin [00:47:30] Yeah, and it's weird that nobody pays attention to this.

Rock Waterman [00:47:36] Well, how come it took me so long to notice? This takes me back to my baptism of fire. I got a lot smarter after that. And I don't mean I'm more intelligent. I just started wisdom. And that's when I was motivated to start the blog. I was actually motivated to start the blog because I looked around and I saw this is at the time just after 9, 11, and everybody was gung ho about going to war and we're going to send our men to fight battles overseas. And I said, well, wait a minute, what about the lessons of the Book of Mormon? There's two lessons in the Book of Mormon about war. You can distill it all to two lines. One, we have a duty and a responsibility to repel an invasion from our own lands, to defend our homes and our children, our families and our lands. But the second part of that is we are absolutely forbidden to take the battle into another land. Another people's land is off limits. And D&C98 clarifies this, where the Lord says, says, You're not to go into battle against any nation, kindred tongue or people unless I, the Lord, command it. So now here we have all these members of the church going gung ho. Usa. Usa. Let's go get them. And I thought, wait a minute, these are Mormons. And then I listened to President Hinckley's talk where, you know, three weeks in the conference, three weeks after the bomb started falling in Iraq, and he was very unequivocal about it, and he was basically saying, now here's the prophet of God. Mind you, he's saying, you know, we really have to defer to the experts on this. You know what? The prophet of God is supposed to be the one. So we all tuned in to find out what he was going to say. And he just said, who knows? And basically he said, my personal opinion. Well, wait a minute, your personal opinion? I don't want your personal opinion. I want God's personal opinion. But he says, my personal opinion is that this will all be over with soon. Well, he was wrong, wasn't he?

John Dehlin [00:49:36] Anyway, okay, so you're not big on

Rock Waterman [00:49:38] war, so let me just say this. So. So that motivated my first piece, my first blog piece, which was entitled Toby Keith and the. And the Destruction of the Nephites. And then from there, you know, I just kept hitting different topics, like how we've. How we've completely turned the word of Wisdom on its head. And, you know, beer is. Beer is not restricted in the word of wisdom. Beer is something that, that I've learned now. I still can't stand the taste of it, so I don't drink it. But God put it on this earth because our bodies need it.

John Dehlin [00:50:10] Right.

Rock Waterman [00:50:12] So go ahead. Sorry.

John Dehlin [00:50:13] No, no, no. So you're. So, you think. You think that. That it's okay to drink beer, right? Yeah. Okay, you're.

Rock Waterman [00:50:20] Well, it's right there in verse 17 in the. In The. You know, that's what barley is for.

John Dehlin [00:50:25] Drinks of barley, right?

Rock Waterman [00:50:26] Yeah. There's a difference between strong drink and the. In the.

John Dehlin [00:50:28] The.

Rock Waterman [00:50:29] In the word of wisdom and mild drinks. But anyway, what I was getting at was that this was the purpose of my blog. Let's start looking at these things that we're believing that are off kiltron and that aren't true.

John Dehlin [00:50:43] Okay. So I'm gonna. I'm gonna. I want to get to your. Your interaction with your bishop or stake president. I want to close out a few quick issues, so I'm gonna ask you to be super brief. Okay.

Baptism, Priesthood, and Church Membership Today

Rock Waterman [00:50:51] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:50:52] So we were paying too much tithing. True. Okay. The brethren are kind of participating in priestcraft, in your view, in terms of the salaries and the compensation packages that they receive. True?

Rock Waterman [00:51:07] Well, yes, they get paid for preaching. That's priestcraft.

John Dehlin [00:51:10] Yeah. Okay. What about the requirement and short answers, please? The requirements of baptism by water in the Mormon Church by someone with authority to go to heaven. Is that your belief or not?

Rock Waterman [00:51:26] As quickly as I can. Baptism was never intended to put you into. Baptize you into a particular denomination. Baptism is required to enter the Kingdom of God. So baptism, whether or not authority is required now. I don't know anymore. I really don't know anymore. I've always believed that, but I'm not sure. I don't know. But baptism itself is a requirement. But it doesn't make you a Mormon. When you're baptized by Mormons, what makes you a Mormon is when you're confirmed a member of the church.

John Dehlin [00:51:54] Okay, so but you're saying baptism is required to go to hell.

Rock Waterman [00:51:57] Okay, I'm going to rephrase that. What makes you a Mormon is if you accept the Book of Mormon. That's why I'm a Mormon, whether I was baptized or not. But what makes you a member of the church is being confirmed member of the church. Baptism has nothing to do with putting you into this church or with joining the church.

John Dehlin [00:52:11] But is God keeping you out of heaven if you're not baptized by water?

Rock Waterman [00:52:17] I don't know. I don't think so.

John Dehlin [00:52:19] Okay.

Rock Waterman [00:52:20] The Kingdom of Heaven is something different from heaven. Kingdom of Heaven is going to be, I think, an organization. And Brigham Young said some people who will be leaders in the Kingdom of Heaven won't even be members of the church. So you don't even have to be a Mormon to be in the Kingdom of Heaven.

John Dehlin [00:52:35] Okay. All right. So ironic. And Melchizedek priesthood, as you know, exclusive authority to conduct God's ordinances and to lead the church. You buy it or not buy it.

Rock Waterman [00:52:50] I am absolutely confused now about priesthood authority because I've been learning so much more, so much about it that indicates we may not have it. Well, the gifts should follow, right?

John Dehlin [00:53:04] If there's true authority, there's gifts that follow. You're not seeing the gifts.

Rock Waterman [00:53:07] Right. And the true priesthood is given directly from God to man. To say a person is anointed of God, you have to be anointed from God, not anointed from another man. Joseph Smith Translation of Bible Genesis 14 explains what a person who actually has the priesthood should be able to do. Divide mountains, foot rivers off their course. All this stuff, we don't see that.

John Dehlin [00:53:32] Okay, what about eternal marriage and the endowment ceremony? Legitimate, non necessary.

Rock Waterman [00:53:41] I'll say this about marriage first. I believe in the ceilings. I don't know. Then this is the important thing that I want to stress here. I don't claim to know anything. I used to go up on the stand at testimony meeting, say I know this and I know that I don't know anymore. But I believe that a ceiling is important. But the important thing about marriage is you're supposed to be married in public first. That was the doctrine in DNC 101 before it was removed. It's supposed to be a public wedding and then you can get sealed today. If you get sealed publicly, then you have to wait a year.

John Dehlin [00:54:12] You don't like that?

Rock Waterman [00:54:13] No.

John Dehlin [00:54:14] Okay. Homosexuality and gay marriage. Thoughts?

Rock Waterman [00:54:19] Well, I don't care. And I wrote a piece called that. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care. Because the Lord hasn't said anything about it at all in any revelation or anywhere in the Book of Mormon. I'm baffled by homosexuality. I don't understand it. I don't understand it. As I said, I agree with the Dynasty guy. You know, vagina seems to me to be the preferable method. So I don't understand it. But I also am not going to take a stand against it since I've not been ordered to. There's nothing. This is a church thing. This is not a teaching of God. God has never said anything about homosexuality. And when it was spoken of it was in the Old Testament and we don't know how dependable that is.

John Dehlin [00:55:04] Okay, so what about the argument that modern day revelation that the brethren are allowed to change things because that's what it's about. It's like the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, that a modern day revelation always supersedes a previous revelation.

Rock Waterman [00:55:22] Well, a Revelation would. But that's not what we've gotten, has it?

John Dehlin [00:55:26] We've just gotten policy changes.

Rock Waterman [00:55:28] Yourself. Yeah, we get policy changes. And no general authority has the authority. Somebody once asked me, well, what would you, what would you do if the prophet told you not to drink beer? I said, well, first off, you know, I'd ask him to show me the revelation so that I can pray about it and get a witness of the Holy Ghost. But if he just told me, he doesn't have. He's not the Pope. He doesn't have the authority to say, you can't drink beer. That's against the rules. No, it isn't. You can't supersede God unless God has told you. And then we get to pray about it. We receive a witness, and then we all vote before the congregation about whether or not we're going to accept.

John Dehlin [00:56:05] So what's it called when we worship the prophets more than we worship God? What do you call that?

Rock Waterman [00:56:11] Idolatry.

John Dehlin [00:56:12] So you think the members of the church are guilty of idolatry, idolizing their leaders?

Rock Waterman [00:56:16] There's no question. Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith quoted Ezekiel 14 to that very, to that very end where he. And he then he turned to the, the people and said, in Ezekiel 14, God says, that man who goes to the prophet to learn about me, I'm not going to have anything to do with him paraphrasing God again. And Joseph turned to the congregation and said, the people are darkened. Oh, he says, I will darken his mind. You know, and this is the interesting thing about that scripture. Just let me say so Joseph Smith turned to the congregation, said, the people are darkened in their minds because they're depending too much on the prophet. And this is the interesting thing about this. The more I see the. That of TBMs who are focused on this worship, you know, focusing on the prophet, following the prophet, the more they are darkened in their minds. They simply cannot see. They cannot conceive of the church having any other meaning, that it is a. It is a follow the prophet type of thing. We have to look to the executives of this corporation. For all of, you know, look to Big brother.

John Dehlin [00:57:25] Okay. All right, let's go on to your interactions with your bishop and stake president. What happened? How did you get called in and who have you talked to and what's been the outcome?

Rock's Personal Situation and Excommunication

Rock Waterman [00:57:33] Well, first off, I should say I haven't attended church all of last year because. Because the timing. My wife's a semi invalid and she needs me here at home at certain times. But I used to pop in a couple of times a month. So I know this bishop, like him very much. But he called me and I haven't been there in a year. He called and I, you know, I had his. Had a secretary call. I came in and we made some small talk. And basically he told me he'd been getting some communications, wondering why I haven't. He hasn't done something about me. What, what are you talking about? Well, he says, do you, do you don't believe the prophets get revelations? I said, well, I haven't seen any. And he said, well, I see. I know they get revelations all the time. I said, well, then I'd love to see one. So we went around and around about

John Dehlin [00:58:26] that for Ensign, basically inside talks, you

Rock Waterman [00:58:29] know, he said, I've, I've sat in meetings with these men and I've seen them get revelation. Well, you know, so he has a different definition of word revelation is, than I do. My understanding of revelation is what the scriptures always taught, that they are revealing something. Deuteronomy 18 says that, that a prophet will speak the words God has put into his mouth. He's not going to just keep them to himself. So if he's getting a revelation. So I think he's mistaking inspiration for revelation. But anyway, he also told me the stake president will be wanting to meet with me and we'll have some questions. This is several weeks ago, more than a month, and I asked him. I also gave him the same invitation that all my readers know about that, you know, if you find something in one of my pieces that is undoctrinal or an error, please let me know. I'll correct it. So I said this to the bishop. He says, well, I don't read your blog. I said, why not? He says, I don't want to. So he's clearly coming from a position of having been given some orders from above. And so I recommended that before the stake president, I said, why don't you suggest the stake president read these two pieces? One of them is my testimony of the church and the other is who you call an apostate. And you can find those listeners can find those listed on the right hand side of my blog who you call an apostate and my testimony of the church. And also I would recommend now the actual message, the Book of Mormon. So if you want to know where I'm coming from, you know, that'll give you an idea. Because what I'm coming from is basically, look, I'm a firm believer. I consider myself more devout in the faith than Ever in my life. And so it is. It's interesting that there seems to be a move afoot to boot me out. But, you know, after the excommunicated September 6th back in 1994, there was a huge backlash. The church learned a lesson from that because most of the members looked at these. The people they kicked out of the church were believing Latter Day Saints. There was nothing apostate about them. And so that was a mistake. But now, 20 years later, they did it again with Denver Snuffer. I mean, here's. Here's a devoted member of the church who's faithful in everything in the gospel, and yet they kick him out. Well, why? Because they wanted him to take his book off the market. That's a crazy thing for a church to ask people to do. So it wouldn't surprise me, but it wouldn't change anything. I mean, if I was excommunicated from the church. This is a corporation. They can only take me away from the corporation. They can't kick me out of the Church of Jesus Christ. That's defined in dignity and 1067 as all who repent and come unto me. So I'm still in the church. I'll still be a Mormon because that's what you call somebody who believes in the Book of Mormon. I'll still have whatever priesthood I have. Nothing will change. I don't attend anyway. And by the way, on that topic, I think it's really interesting. Every time they excommunicate somebody from the church, one of the first things they do is they tell them, now you're encouraged to continue attending the meetings. You just can't speak out. You can't speak in church. But we sure want you to come. Well, wait a minute. Excommunication in Joseph Smith's day meant you're out. We don't want to associate with you. X means out. So what are they saying? Please make sure you're welcome to come. The other thing that I find interesting, they said, now you can't pay your tithing while you're excommunicated. But some members find it a good idea to put their tithing in a savings account, and then when they come back in the church, then they can pay that tithing. So I get a kick out of that. But anyway, the thing is, I think they expected Denver to come crawling back and repenting and saying, I'm sorry I offended you holy popes. You know, if that's what they expect from me, I'm not going to swap my testimony of Christ for a testimony of the church. I'm not going to do it. I have a firm testimony that Jesus Christ loves me and that whatever I do, I make mistakes all the time, but part of the learning process and he'll continue to love me. And you know, all these hoops that the church wants you to jump through to get back in their good graces. Who needs it? So basically, is there a movement? Yeah, there is a movement out there. And there's a lot of people. There's a lot of people who have left the church and there's a lot of people who quietly slipped away. They don't feel they need this organization to continue to worship Christ. Joseph Smith said something interesting. He said, I get more out of sitting under a tree for an hour of my scriptures than I do sitting in a church meeting. And I concur.

The Size and Future of Reform-Minded Mormonism

John Dehlin [01:03:13] If you had to estimate how many people sort of view things like you and Denver and Damon.

Rock Waterman [01:03:19] Well, I get letters, I get emails at the rate of about three a week. A lot of comments on my blog. I don't know. I don't know.

John Dehlin [01:03:28] You think it's 500? You think it's a thousand? You think it's 10,000?

Rock Waterman [01:03:32] You know what I think? Well, I get 64. I got 64,000 readers last month. So there's a. There's a good chunk of people who are. Who are reading these. I'm going to hit the million mark within a couple of weeks.

John Dehlin [01:03:44] Of hits. Your website. You mean of hits?

Rock Waterman [01:03:46] Yeah. That's not a million people. It's the Same people. Same 30 or 40 people coming back. But there's an awakening.

John Dehlin [01:03:53] You think it's in the thousands? Maybe, yeah. Thousands. Tens of thousands. Which one?

Rock Waterman [01:03:59] Tens of thousands.

John Dehlin [01:04:00] And where do they congregate? How do they communicate with each other? How do they. How do they. What's their social hub?

Rock Waterman [01:04:08] Well, your. Your Facebook page. What?

John Dehlin [01:04:12] What?

Rock Waterman [01:04:13] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:04:13] Where?

Rock Waterman [01:04:14] Yes, you see them there.

John Dehlin [01:04:16] Mormon stories.

Rock Waterman [01:04:17] Yeah, Mormons.

John Dehlin [01:04:18] But that's not central. Like, where is the place?

Rock Waterman [01:04:20] There's no central hub. This is the thing, and this is the thing that I think puzzles the church hierarchy today. They can't imagine that we might not want a leader. There's no leaders in the first century church. There were no real leaders. I mean, there were the traveling apostles who went out preaching, but the Christians met together in homes and worshiped and sang and ate together. Because there is an association here in Sacramento. We get together every few months. You know, it's a loose knit group. Those of us who live in the area. In fact, we're Associated through Mormon stories, Sacramento region that you started.

John Dehlin [01:05:05] Wow. I've laid railroad tracks for the Neo. It's like Neo fuzzies.

Rock Waterman [01:05:11] It's like a meetup. Okay. But see, the thing is, we don't. We go our separate way. We don't. We don't have leaders. We don't have anybody in charge. And I think that's what puzzles people. In fact, my bishop asked me, you know, we were talking about revelations. He says, okay, Rock, what's your idea? If you heard a revelation, what kind of revelation? What would you expect? And I said, I don't know. I said, that's what a revelation is. It's something new, revealed. And he says, you know, I'm really glad to hear you say that. And I didn't know what he meant until reflecting on it later, I realized he. I assumed that I was going. The next thing I was going to say was that I've received personal revelation that I should lead this movement. We don't need a movement. We don't need leaders. Is it a church? Yeah, it's a church in the sense that we are a community of believers. But we're on the Mormon Hub. We're on. Okay, that's another Facebook page exploring sainthood. There are people on the LDS Freedom Forum talking about New Order Mormonism. There's a place all the time. It's like church, church where we can learn from one another.

John Dehlin [01:06:14] I still want you guys to give yourselves a name, because if you don't feel fundamentalists, I want a better name.

Rock Waterman [01:06:19] All right. The Church of Rockwater.

John Dehlin [01:06:21] Oh, no. Okay, so if you're excommunicated, you don't care?

Rock Waterman [01:06:27] No, I don't. It won't change my life a little bit. I won't change my relationship with God at all.

John Dehlin [01:06:33] You're kind of hoping it happens, then.

Rock Waterman [01:06:35] No, I don't care. Because here's the thing. I'm not going to quit. You have to fire me. I think we should all be in this. I think we should remain in the church. And by the way, I don't mean capital C, church. We should remain. Congruence and fellow travelers, you know, fellow. How did Paul put it? Fellow. Something with the Saints. We should remain here. At some point, Christ has said he's going to send one mighty and strong to set his house in order. And I suppose I'd kind of like to be around when it happens.

John Dehlin [01:07:07] Is that not Denver? No. And it's not. And it's not Damon.

Rock Waterman [01:07:13] I don't think it's any of us. No. We have no idea who it is.

John Dehlin [01:07:16] Someone's still coming.

Rock Waterman [01:07:17] Somebody asked me if I thought I was the one mighty and strong. I said, I'm the one feeble and asthmatic. No, I think. I don't know how or when it'll happen, but.

John Dehlin [01:07:31] And that's in the doctrine.

Rock Waterman [01:07:32] Well, you know, I shouldn't say no about Denver, but I don't think so. Denver doesn't want fall down. Denver doesn't. Denver has an assignment to carry out. He's carrying out that assignment. He's not setting the church in order, but it will come from outside. And I think we're going to lose a lot more members before it happens. And this church will be. You know, it'll be home to a core group of very faithful and obedient idolaters.

What Rock Would Change About the Church

John Dehlin [01:07:57] Okay, so if the brethren came to you and said, rock, we've been doing it all wrong, where do we go from here? Help us right the ship, what would you have them do?

Rock Waterman [01:08:05] I was asked what I would do to change the church. I'd say stop wearing suits and white ties. That's it. That's all I got, because I'm not. This isn't my. This isn't my church. It's not my. This isn't my organization. It's not my job to write the ship. It's not my thing. You know, I'm just. I'm just a humble follower of Christ, you know, and that's all I want to do. I want to follow Christ. And if you want to have a. Have a church and you want to build. Build malls and things, well, I'm going to criticize you about it, whether I'm a member or not, because I don't think it's something that a church should be involved in. I don't think that this is. I don't think this. This is what the members thought that their money was going for. But I'm not going to. You know, I don't. You know, you put me in charge and say, here, you take it. I'll say, no, thanks. I walk away. It's not my deal.

John Dehlin [01:08:50] Yeah.

Rock Waterman [01:08:50] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:08:50] Yeah. Okay. All right. Rock. Well, this has been fascinating any. You know, I often give my. My interviewees a chance to kind of bear their testimony at the end. Any final thing you want to say or any final testimony you want to share with the listeners.

Rock Waterman [01:09:06] Yeah. You know, I really, really love the gospel. I love the fact that I'm seeing it with new eyes now. And, you know, once you can separate the church from the gospel, as Elder Pullman said in his talk, and he said, there's a distinct difference between the church and the gospel. And most of us haven't learned that the church is just the vehicle for getting the gospel to us, but we should be focusing on the gospel. I love the Book of Mormon. You know, this doesn't sound like the average can testimony, but, you know, I prefer reading the Book of Mormon in. Damon Smith has put together a version of it where it's in a more narrative flow and like, similar to the 1830 edition. 1830 edition is kind of hard to read because the type didn't all reproduce well. But I recommend reading a version like that where you can just read and the flow is there and you're not broken up by verses and you get a better feel for it. I feel like I've come to know Christ more than ever. I've never met him, never seen him, never. You know.

John Dehlin [01:10:22] Are you trying. Are you trying to get the visitation like Denver?

Rock Waterman [01:10:25] No, I'm not even trying yet. I haven't even read his book. I suppose one day I will. Connie is reading it right now. That's my wife.

John Dehlin [01:10:33] But you're not trying to get a visit from Jesus, like, well, here's the thing.

Rock Waterman [01:10:36] I don't really believe I'm entitled to one. And that's probably. And that's to put it bluntly. And if we all are, then I need to get past that and realize that we're all entitled to, you know, to become close to Christ. What I'm trying to do now is emulate him. You know, I'm trying to undo a lifetime worth of being stingy and selfish, and I give away more money than I should directly to those who need it. And sometimes we get a pinch because of it. And interesting enough, somebody always comes to my rescue. So I know that there's a God out there watching over us. I love God. Once again, this. This. This is. We got to get away from the church. We got to stop hanging on the words of the brethren, the General Conference, who don't teach us anything, and look to the. You know, it's amazing how much the Book of Mormon teaches us that we didn't know and how when we separate, when we stop thinking about it and stop filtering it through what the church teaches us, we start to get the message like that grace, you know, Jesus's grace is sufficient, that he is able to deliver. I guess that's all I have to say. It's a great ride and life is really interesting, and it's hard at times, but, you know, knowing God is there. And here's the, here's the cool thing. I also am aware of, of angels. I have four or five angels that are, I don't know, assigned to me. I haven't seen them or met them, but I'm aware of them. And I don't know how to. How to better put that. And they have helped me write this blog.

John Dehlin [01:12:22] Wow.

Rock Waterman [01:12:23] And they, they. Somebody, one of them must be a pretty, pretty good writer because sometimes I'll read, reread a piece and I'll say, wow, that's. That was pretty good. Did that come out of me? Because I, you know, I never knew how to write before this.

John Dehlin [01:12:41] Well, that's powerful stuff, Rock. Thanks for. Thanks for sharing with us your story and your perspective. I wish you well.

Rock Waterman [01:12:49] Thank you, John. It was a pleasure. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. And I hope I didn't come off too abrasive. I know I do sometimes, but. No, I'm enthusiastic.

John Dehlin [01:12:59] Please take good notes or record or whatever you need to do, your interactions with your stake president. If they happen, we'd love to have you back to tell us how that ends up.

Rock Waterman [01:13:07] Oh, yeah, that's a great idea. You know, I thought I'd write about it, but it might be easier to just talk about it.

John Dehlin [01:13:11] Yeah. All right, Rock, thanks so much for coming on Mormon Stories.

Rock Waterman [01:13:15] Thank you, John.

John Dehlin [01:13:16] The blog is pure Mormonism. This has been Alan Rock Waterman. So thanks again, Rock.

Rock Waterman [01:13:23] Thank you, John. Bye. Bye.

John Dehlin [01:13:24] Okay, bye.

Rock Waterman [01:13:45] Come, come, ye saints.

John Dehlin [01:13:48] No toil nor labor fear,

Rock Waterman [01:13:52] but with joy.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.

Download MP3

Download MP3

A supporter is worth a thousand followers

Your generous donations ensure we can continue to provide support for those transitioning. Help us keep these essential discussions alive and accessible to all by making a donation today.

similar episodes

146 Responses

  1. I used to have some respect for this guy.

    The only person on the planet that believes Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy and polyandry is Hales and now this guy.

    What absolute nonsense!

    1. Totally agree! Sad, very sad to see how they discount most of the FACTS! Of course they believe JS —– he would never lie just like the current GAs!

    2. Hales and the Prices have made solid analysis in their writing. For you to be so dismissive and call it nonsense begs certain questions to me: Have you read their writings? Do you have a rebuttal to their analysis other than to call it nonsense? Or perhaps you have an interest in saving face by following the popular consensus without further investigation. So if you can honestly reply and state you have read and examined the analysis of Hales and the Prices and point out where they are wrong, you’ll forgive me if I grant Rock a it of slack here. he’s definitely correct in many other areas.

    3. And quite a few snufferites on the LDS Freedom Forum.
      It’s all that they have left I fear, think?
      But credit where it’s due, Rock is one of the best and was key in helping me (not be afraid to dissent from the “Lords Anointed” by) opening my eyes and being honest about all the information and evidences I was suppressing.

      Our family of 5 got out a few months ago

      Never been happier

      1. Hey Aussie, you sound like a couple I know who recently moved to the United States. They had been branded as apostates here in Adelaide Australia, due to some very unChristlike actions taken by local leaders (who are TBM company men and ignorant of much in LDS history)

        1. Yeah I used to be her home teacher in while her evil mother was ……being evil.
          I’m good friends with her friends, and wow, they’re doing it tough right now.
          Wife and I, and 3 kids left last December mate.
          Never been happier
          Adam B is hanging onto the Denver route- “there’s something there”.
          And you?

          1. Yeah I’m sympathetic to brother Snuffer. I think he represents a new wave, kind of a pseudo Post correlation LDS renaissance, but he is being silenced, but you can’t silence an idea. What we see today in modern corporate LDS is a clinging to the vestigial remnants of original LDS thought, but reprocessed and repackaged for mass consumption. Adam and I correspond regularly. I miss Andrew and Eva (Renee). My wife and I have talked about what happened to them. My approach: The Scribes and Pharisees (the so called PSRs) sit in Moses (Joseph and Brigham’s) seat. All therefore that they bid you do and observe that do, but do not after their works.

          2. Reply to your 4:17.
            Yeah, I used to be like that too. But only because I had so much invested in it. Tithing, mission, no sex on fast Sundays, cleaned toilets. Once I stopped kidding myself, I could see that what I saw now, was much the same then. A ruse, a scam, a fraud. Maybe a benevolent fraud, but lies nonetheless.
            This is what I can understand about you, Adam, Rock, Denver. You can all see so clearly how it is a filthy, corrupted institution today, but won’t see how obvious the holes, errors, contradiction and lies were then? Too much invested, and misinterpreting some metaphysical experience(s) earlier in life as meaning the (LDS) church was a divine restoration. At_very_best that means Brigham and his successors were filthy liars and usurpers. I dont know how you/ they can participate in this church….how aren’t they members of the RLDS?

  2. You express many Christian views from the BoM because that is where JS got it —— from the Christian ministers of his day. To put your words in the true Christian perspective: Everyone MUST be born again (normally accomplished by requesting forgiveness of sins (past and future) and recognizing Jesus as your Lord and Savior and having Him come into your heart —- experience pure love, freedom, see this life and God’s other creations in a different perspective, and a strong desire to do good). Christians who have been Born Again are members of the “Body” (true believers from all churches that have been Born Again) first and attend bible study at various churches to “learn the Word” better but understand churches are not perfect but just help us learn the bible and help us interact with other believers. Unfortunately, I have NEVER met a Born Again Mormon that has not left the church very long after their Born Again experience (Shawn McCreany took quite a while though) —- such as myself even though more family problems occurred. I have met one Mormon who claimed he was Born Again —- after questioning him he just believed anyone that committed their lives to serve (he was a temple worker) were Born Again —– I didn’t have the guts to tell him he was soo wrong.

  3. Bob, I think you may be confused. Brian Hales does indeed believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and that it is a true principle, which is why I recommend his books to those who wish to be fully apprised of that position.

    I take the skeptical view, as provided in the volumes under the title “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.” I believe that a thorough knowledge of the controversy is essential before one asserts one point of view over another as definitive truth; and even then I am reluctant to confidently declare one view absolutely true when historical inquiry has raised so many doubts.

    Nevertheless, once you have acquired more knowledge on the subject, I would welcome your input so that I may understand precisely where it is you feel my position is in error.

  4. My great great grandmother Emily Partridge was sealed to Joseph Smith along with her sister. Sorry, but Joseph was a polygamist.

    1. Randal, a whole lot of women came forward circa 1878 claiming to have been sealed to Joseph Smith while they were younger and living in Nauvoo. The only evidence of such sealings took place decades later when Joseph Smith was represented by a proxy stand-in. If you have any solid contemporary evidence that Emily Partridge was sealed to Joseph Smith during his lifetime (a certificate of sealing, diary entry written in Nauvoo at the time of the alleged sealing, etc.), I would very much like to examine it, and I know several historians who would also be interested.

      1. Rock, what are your thoughts on William Clayton’s journals? To me, Clayton’s journals clearly show Joseph’s involvement in polygamy, particularly his desire to keep his involvement in it a secret matter (e.g., cryptic entries like “J to LW,” meaning “Joseph to Lucy Walker”). Are you saying that you think these entries are backdated or not credible in some way? Curious to hear your thoughts (P.S., I’ve read Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, and I find that they attack later recountings made by William Clayton from the 1870s, but conveniently fail to address the evidence of his journals from the 1840s).

        1. James, I agree with researcher Robert Fields who says he’d like to see the original diaries. There are conflicting accounts regarding number of volumes, pages, and length. All I have seen so far is published accounts of what is in them; never photocopies of the originals. Presumably the originals are in the Church archives, and unobtainable to the public.

          One of the things we learn from Daymon Smith is that much of what we have gleened from the early Saint’s diaries and journals were not contemporary accounts written as they happened, but often accounts written as much as a decade or more later. They would more accurately be considered “memoirs” rather than accounts entered into a journal dailty at the time the events are supposed to have taken place.

          1. So, I’m confuse. You do believe that William Clayton’s diaries were backdated or that there is some Church historian’s office cover-up to hide the originals from the public? I know Richard Bushman and Michael Quinn have both seen the originals. Are they also part of the cover-up?

    2. I am also a descendent of the Patridges but through Eliza. After Edward Partridge died some of his daughters including Emily, and his wife Lydia, were directed by Brigham Young to travel to Missouri and sell the Independence temple lot for $300 dollars. (Or something close to that amount.) They were told to tell no one the purpose of this trip and not to make record of it in their private journals. Eliza, who was the other sister who was also sealed to Joesph, had a journal before she left Nauvoo that was destroyed. I have always believed she was sealed to Joesph but there is evidence that Brigham Young asked these girls to lie about other things. So why not polygamy? I’m still not sure what I think about it. By the way this information comes from Edward Partridge’s history and from there they site the minutes of the church.
      -EH

  5. Having had the chance to listen to John’s interview with me, I wish to make a clarification about a thing or two I said.

    (I realize I was rushing and rambling all over the place in that interview, and often failed to finish my thoughts. Sometimes those thoughts were pointless and irrelevant, such as my description of working at Disneyland, quitting, and going to work elsewhere; and now having listened to those embarrassing ramblings -which gave my wife reasons to laugh at me when she heard me going on like that- I’m grateful to John for steering me back on topic. IN MY DEFENSE…I am recovering from pneumonia, and for a half hour prior to the interview I had just subjected myself to a treatment from a nebulizer machine that blew mists of adrenaline straight into my lungs, rendering me unusually hyper and scatterbrained. That doesn’t account for how hyper and scatter-brained I have been in previous interviews, but for now that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

    Anyway. What I want to mention now is that I may have given the impression in the interview that my baptism of fire arrived completely unbidden. Not so. I had in fact been pondering on this business for some time, having read accounts in scripture that differed substantially from what I had been taught in Church, i.e. that the baptism of fire is gradual, that it is nothing more than the still, small voice, and that the Mighty Change spoken of by the prophets of old arrives gradually as we hone and obtain our testimony.

    Everything I was reading in scripture indicated that it was much more powerful than that, and I had been pondering upon this for the umpteenth time when, as I was lying on the floor with a pillow under my head, the fire arrived, suddenly but unmistakably.

    So if I conveyed the impression that I had not been praying, that impression would be incorrect. I had indeed been praying and pondering prior to this moment, but nowhere near as fervently as Enos had. I had been curious about this thing called the baptism of fire, and as a result I had been seeking for it, and as I mentioned in the interview, I have since learned that for some people it comes as easy for them as it did for me, while others have to struggle mightily to get it.

    I shouldn’t say it came easy, because for heaven’s sake it was almost four decades after my mission before it arrived for me. But the reason it finally happened was because in the weeks leading up to that moment when I was lying on the floor, I had been SEEKING to have that experience. I doubt very much that it would have come unbidden if I had not had the desire to know what it was all about.

    So my point is, we do have to put some effort into obtaining that witness, and it certainly helps to have a good deal of faith. I had the faith. In fact, I felt that it was about time I allowed myself to REALLY receive the Holy Ghost. So just like that, it happened.

    Secondly, John asked if I had had the Second Comforter and I told him I had not, and that the reason I had not is that I really don’t think I’m entitled to it. Had I elaborated, I would have made it clear that I don’t think such an experience is impossible; I do indeed believe it is possible. I believe others who claim to have had the experience of seeing Christ. But for me AT THIS TIME, I lack sufficient faith for that to happen to me. Doubtless I have been conditioned through a lifetime of membership in the church that such things don’t happen to regular folks like me. Hence, it won’t happen until I develop the kind of faith needed.

    Hopefully in the future I’ll learn to develop that kind of faith, but right now I’m like a lot of people; the idea is so new and novel, I can’t fathom I could ever be “worthy” of the experience. That doesn’t mean I never intend to seek it.

    1. Rock you sounded great. Most people will appreciate that it is difficult when put on the spot to clearly articulate your thoughts and your enthusiasm comes out in abundance. If we could all be excited talking about this, with the freedom to speak our point of view without judgement, we would wouldn’t all be bored out of our minds in church.

      You are precisely the type of person we need in the dialogue of what to make of Mormonism–for better or worse.

      Your baptism of fire experience was wonderful and really the hightlight. Anyone who focuses on anything else you said really missed the most important pearl you shared.

  6. Joseph Smith was no polygamist.
    The majority of evidence suggests he was, but the weight of evidence suggests he wasn’t. This means the more reliable, closer to home, contemporay evidence certainly points to him not practicing plural marriage. In fact, he appears to have opposed it.
    I have studied this issue for years and used to believe the party line etc, but changed my view when I actually investigated the evidence myself rather than simply accept the views of “experts” who claim to have done the same. It appears Rock has done a similar thing, though he is not dogmatic on the subject and is open to new evidence either way. He has simply reviewed the evidence for what it is, rather than what people say it is, and has drawn the conclusion there is insufficient evidence to convict.
    I personally feel Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but that did not constitute marriage as we unerstand it. When we look at “sealing” through 21st century eyes we read “marriage”, but I don’t believe the Nauvoo saints saw it that way.

    Stormin, you seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes being born-again. You seem to be saying that you recognise Christ as your personal saviour, ask for forgiveness, and then study the Bible. What did those early Christians do before there was a Bible?
    Seems to me you’ve just exchanged one paradigm (LDS) for another paradigm (Evangelical). I don’t know why, but that strikes me as a little sad. You need to move on my friend. Still, whatever works for you…..

      1. James, for those who accept the conventional story of Fanny Alger, Brian Hales in “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” provides a more accurate and much less licentious account than the one most of us have heard.

        Forgive me for not re-typing or attempting to summarize Hale’s lengthy account here, but I don’t intend to get into any of this online; debating this topic eats at my time, and it is futile to discuss with persons who would prefer easy soundbite answers rather than dig deeply into the existing research themselves.

        I don’t say this as a dig to you personally, James, as your question appears sincere. But I have, in the past, wasted days attempting to get others to at least consider an alternative view to what they have already concluded is an undisputed historical fact.

        Since credible scholars have produced arguments both pro and con, and serious questions have been raised on both sides, I say buy their books; they deserve better than to have their research ignored while fools like me attempt to summarize their findings in a few paragraphs.

        Here are the links to what I consider the leading proponents of the controversy, both pro and con:

        Pro: “Joseph Smith’s polygamy,” Brian Hales, 3 volumes

        https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smiths-Polygamy-Volume-History/dp/158958189X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396465147&sr=8-2&keywords=joseph+smith%27s+polygamy+brian+hales

        Con: “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy,” Richard and Pamela Price, 2 Volumes, with a third volume anticipated

        https://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

        Anyone who really wants to understand this issue owes it to themselves to become familiar with what we know and what we do not know. Forensic history is a science, and thus always in flux.

  7. To use his own words against him, in relation to why we study latter day prophets – why would I care what Rock Waterman says? Sorry, this episode was a waste of my time and energy.

    1. I would imagine that Rock would agree with you.

      The point you are missing is that the IDENTITY of the speaker of an idea shouldn’t matter. The IDEA matters.

      Rock represents a different point of view that John’s audience doesn’t get a lot of. Some people will find it interesting, other’s will not.

      But we ought not to rely on people’s opinions (“latter-day prophet”) simply because of who said it. We ought to weigh the idea on whether or not it can stand as a reasonable point of view. If a former President of the Church spoke about something true, that resonates, and is helpful, we should talk about it, and teach it even. But it should be based on the merits of the idea, not because of the authority of the speaker.

      Some people will think Rock’s view reasonable. Others will not. I think all teachable people can listen to this and grow in some form or another.

      Right now there is wide gap in Mormonism. I appreciate Rock in trying to bridge that gap.

      1. Brett is right; I do agree with Ben. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to listen to what I have to say if anything I have to say doesn’t resonate with them.

        Most of my readers tell me that I’m writing about things they have already recognized as troubling to them, so I’m not telling anyone anything they haven’t already come up with on their own.

        I’m not a prophet, and I’m certainly no leader. I’m just a dumb schmuck who, like an increasing number of others, came to realize that for some years he had been getting some of it wrong. All I’m doing is sharing my discoveries, as part of the process of repenting for my errors. And since I expect to continue to make errors and flub things up countless more times, no one should assume I’m here to advise them on how to do it right. I haven’t got that nailed down yet myself.

  8. I think the reason why “Fundamentalist Mormon” or “Neo-fundamentalist Mormon” (forgetting the polygamy stuff) doesn’t really work, is because a fundamentalist presumes going back to the foundation.

    I think the paradigm here is that the foundation got off on the wrong foot to begin with. So going back to the foundation is simply going back to the first set of errors.

    I’m not sure what the benefit of pigeon holing this breed of Mormon is, since labels inherently create problems with unsupported assumptions.

    Really just a Mormon ought to suffice. This Mormon believes in the Book of Mormon and specifically what Nephi, Christ, Mormon, and Moroni had to say about the Latter-day Gentiles (as they’ve described them).

    1. If labels are truly necessary (though I suspect all the millions of us are, unknowingly, very different kinds of mormons…) perhaps “Foundational Mormon” is a more helpful distinction…

    2. The label I like best would be “Mormon Reformationists”. One thing we all seem to have in common is our perception that things have gone off course – in spite of, or even because of, our earthly leaders. There are many parallels here with the reformation of the corrupt Catholic church. Some might disagree with the label because our goal is not to establish any new church, but neither was that the goal of Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and other early protestant reformers. In fact, these individuals defied institutional authority and worshiped according to their own consciences.

      It may be necessary to call us “Modern Mormon Reformationists”, just to distinguish us from the “Mormon Reformation” of 1856 – 1857, led by Brigham Young, and which included a lot of preaching about blood atonement and encouraging polygamy. Yeah, that’s not the kind of reform we are looking for.

      1. Martin Harris Luther,
        Although I like your suggestion of Mormon Reformationists, that name will still grind on the nerves of mainstream Mormons for the simple reason that they will find the term “reformation” offensive. They see the protestant reformation as inferior to a Restoration, thus they’ll assume the Reformationists take issue with legitimate aspects of the gospel, and wish to reform what they already accept as truth.

        Plus, they may interpret Reformationists as wanting to take over the church and make our own changes.

        I’m not certain there is much we can do other than remain in the fold and wield what influence we have to persuade others to follow the will of God rather than the will of man. I don’t see much advantage in separating ourselves into an entity separate from the church (D&C 10:67 church, of course) rather than give ourselves a label that makes us appear to be outsiders.

        1. Good points Rock, though I still think Reformationists gives a good description if people really look into what the reformers original goal was: to stay in the church and encourage leaders to eliminate problems that had seeped in over time.

          Here’s another moniker for the general amusement of all. It seems that we have two groups of people who have been awakened to the problems in the church:

          Stay Awakes

          and

          Not Stay Awakes

          For now, I’m staying awake.

  9. I don’t believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy either, but whether he fell for it or not is not really that pertinent. He wouldn’t have been the 1st prophet to fall from grace by caving into polygamy.

    The greatest mind blower is that people would believe in or trust men to be ‘true’ & righteous’ prophets who ‘did’ live polygamy and abuse women and children in such horrific ways.

    Ways which men would never put up with if polygamy went the other way around and they had to remain faithful to 1 wife (who they rarely saw) who had many husbands.

    Christ, Joseph Smith & Book of Mormon prophets all clearly taught that polygamy was always adultery and never sanctioned by God ever in the history of the world.

    Yet just because a polygamist like Brigham Young (who clearly was a very controlling abusive vile man in so many respects and not just to women, but blacks and Indians and anyone else who would oppose him) says God has changed his mind and now polygamy is ok, and so many people just blindly believe him.

    While the scriptures teach that God never changes his mind, that he and his laws & teachings are always the same from Adam to today.

    I believe that only those who believe in the idea of polygamy fall for it because they secretly like the idea of taking advantage of and abusing women or if a woman then she doesn’t mind being controlled, disrespected & abused, as many women don’t seem to mind.

    But men who truly love their wives and respect women would never fall for or believe in polygamy, no matter how many men claiming to be prophets taught it or no matter how many angels with swords threatened them.

    The Golden Rule reveals the truth, men (especially men like Brigham Young) would not allow women to ‘rule over them’ nor would they faithfully sit home alone night & day all their life, taking care of all the children & chores waiting for the occasional or rare visit from a wife who is always off being pampered, loved or courted by numerous other men.

    Christ taught ‘exclusive true everlasting love’ between spouses was the requirement for Eternal Life and that even divorce and remarriage was not only ‘impossible’ in God’s eyes, but always ‘adultery’, no matter if manmade laws may allow it.

    Few people, especially in the LDS Church, are willing to live by Christ’s high teachings, they much prefer the vile teachings of men like Brigham Young and LDS leaders today, who teach control, abuse, adultery and abandonment of women and taking advantage of the widows & fatherless and poor, even requiring them to give their last dime to support such leaders in their high living and big & spacious buildings projects.

  10. I’ve read Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Brian Hales’ books, and In Sacred Loneliness and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how Rock can’t believe that Joseph practiced polygamy. Of course Joseph never admitted that he practiced polygamy because he wanted to practice it IN SECRET. I think the weight of circumstantial evidence for Joseph practicing polygamy is overwhelming, as it ultimately proved to be for even Joseph Smith III. I think Rock’s beliefs on this are unfortunate because many of his other thoughts on Mormonism are very sound, in my opinion. I think many people who listen to this interview will be turned off from Rock’s other thoughts on Mormonism given his obstinate view on Joseph Smith polygamy.

  11. Anyone who has read through all the source material on Joseph Smith polygamy and still buys into the Richard Price lies loses all credibility in my book. Can’t take Rock seriously. That nonsensical position alone invalidates anything else he has to say, for me unfortunately. He has his head in the sand. Quite stubbornly too.

    1. I read once that, “You are as much of a fool for ignoring everything a man says who once made an error as you are for accepting everything a man says because he once said something right.”

  12. I can’t say I agree about the polygamy issue, because I haven’t read his sources, but it’s interesting to see a different perspective, especially since history is often made to feel solid and inflexible. But I had a few questions about it. We are told that “by his works, ye shall know him”. How do you explain Isaac Hale’s feelings toward his son in law? And what about the law suits against JS for not paying his debts, in an attempt to build his theological empire? He just seemed dishonest and interested in being almost like a celebrity. Or is my history bad about these issues? Joseph is the type of person I wouldn’t trust. I get frustrated that we are asked to believe the story of one man, when his worst scream to me, not to trust him.
    Also, what are your feelings about the temple and temple garments? I wish you would have discussed this.
    Thanks!

    1. Maple Leaf,
      My opinion on the temple ceremony (at least for now; my opinons are always subject to change)is that some of it is valid, and some of it is hooey.

      Brigham Young claims he got the endowment ceremony word for word from Joseph Smith. I have my doubts, but to list the reasons why I don’t buy that would take too much time and besides, I’m reserving that for a future blog.

      Brigham was completely enamored of Masonry, and whatever proper symbolism the endowment is supposed to contain has been diluted through Brigham’s entwining it with Masonic ritual.

      As for garments, they appear to have been intended only for use during the ritual, but George A. Smith, distraught over the assassination of the prophet, proposed that they be worn at all times for protection.

      And that’s how we Mormons became known for a belief in magic underwear. No revelation from God. Just some wacky idea from an apostle that his underwear would protect him in his day to day life.

      1. Rock,

        Why and what parts of the temple do you believe might be valid? I have never seen evidence that Joseph had anything to do with the temple ceremony or script. I don’t believe anything Brigham or any of his supporters said. I believe they all had reason to lie about the temple just as much as polygamy.

        Do you have evidence of Joseph publishing opinions about sealings, washings, garments, etc.? And can you be sure he wasn’t just talking about the masonic rituals or thinking they might be of God? Don’t you think he may have been wrong in this, if he did get into masonry and take it too seriously?

        It appears that Joseph understood the eternal nature of marriage, just by reading D&C 101 that he published. So I believe he understood that all marriages & families were eternal and thus no need for something like ‘sealings’.

        Brigham of course would have wanted to make his marriages secret (for they were illegal & immoral) and try to add more ‘importance’ to his polygamous acts, by making it seem from God (thus all the sealing talk).

        But Christ was very clear about not wanting us to swear any oaths or have anything to do with secret things. Truth is to be set on a candlestick, not hidden under cover. It is the Devil that works in secret, telling people to not tell what goes on.

        There is nothing secret or even so sacred in the Gospel that it can’t be shouted from the roof tops. God doesn’t like us to cast sacred things before swine, but that is not because it’s sacred, but because it might only cause problems for the one who tells it, truth makes swine upset & doesn’t convert them anyway, thus it’s wiser to not talk about it at all, but certainly not a sin to talk about it.

        Again, I would be interested to understand better why you hold out any belief that Joseph believed in or had part in any part of the temple. Other than Baptism for the Dead, which he may be instigated before he died. But even in that I wonder if he interpreted the scriptures wrong and even that ordinance is unnecessary, for surely those righteous who die can and will easily return to earth with a body in the Millenium and could just be baptized themselves, if it was really needed at that point.

        It just seems that the more I look into all the doctrines of the Church the more they seem most all were just made up by Brigham and his crowd. Very few doctrines hold up as seeming to actually come from Christ, and thus why would we put any credence in them?

        I really enjoyed this interview with you, you have done more for the cause of awakening others to the real truth of Church history then probably anyone else I know of today. I wonder if you realize just what mission you have be set forth to do, for you are accomplishing a great work and changing thousands of lives for the better & helping free their minds & hearts from damning falsehoods. Thank you Rock!

        1. Thank you for those kind words, Lilli. You’re certainly not going to get any argument from me regarding your skepticism of the temple ceremony and Brigham’s role in it.

          If I gave the impression I “believe” in the temple ritual as handed down through Brigham Young, that was not the impression I intended to convey. If anything, I wonder about the legitimacy of most of it.

          Anthony Larson’s research at MormonProphecy.com has convinced me that Joseph knew and understood quite a bit about ancient symbology, and such symbols as the sun, moon, and stars (including especially Saturn) and their significance in the ancient world were reflected in the design of the architecture of the Nauvoo temple, though I suspect it all went over the heads of Brigham and his myrmidons in the hierarchy. Brigham even altered the construction of the temple from the plans Joseph had drawn up once Joseph was out of the way.

          (Interpretations of these symbols as understood by the ancients is presented at MormonProphecy.com, and discussions of what they meant to Joseph.)

          I can’t see any reason Brigham might have felt necessary to keep the temple endowment secret other than his use of the temple for illicit plural marriages. We only feed into the cultish impression others have of us by continuing to keep it all hush-hush. Okay, there is at least one reason to keep from speaking about what goes on in the temple: it all seems so silly and ridiculous. In one respect, we’ve been asking for the ridicule with our Masonic insistence that all this serious stuff must not be spoken of outside the temple walls.
          (try to get someone to explain it to you within the temple, for that matter.)

          The short answer to your questions is: I don’t know what I believe about the temple. All I do know is that the only temple that was completed in Joseph’s lifetime, the one in Kirtland, was not used for anything even remotely resembling what we put our modern temples to use for today.

  13. Scandalous unproven hearsay about Joseph is usually believed far more then his righteous proven testimony of innocence.

    Adulterous abusive false prophets are supported and believed in far more then righteous true prophets. For most people don’t want to live the high laws of Christ.

  14. Apparently Rock Waterman is not a Keynesian. In his criticism of the City Creak Mall, his position is that not only shouldn’t a church take part in investments such as this, but that doing so in times of a nationwide recession is reckless.

    Well, I think this would have been more of a true criticism if our economic malaise had anything to do with supply shocks, but it didn’t. It was a shock in demand. Too many individuals and businesses over-leveraged during the bubble and were trying to collectively dig there way out of debt all at the same time. This sudden reversal in spending drove the economy into what could have been a recession.

    The appropriate response, then, is for the federal government to borrow to offset the glut of savings at the local level. In addition, smart people who didn’t over-extend during the bubble, should be spending with the money that saved up during sunny days.

    In fact, I think spending and investing money during a downturn is exactly the right time to be doing so. This is somewhat analogous to what Joseph did in the Old Testament during the 7 years of famine and 7 years of plenty. During the time of plenty, he stored up the corn, only to flood the market with the corn during the famine. We weren’t experiencing a glut of corn in our recession, it was a glut of jobs – especially construction jobs (among others), injecting the economy with construction jobs seems like an appropriate response to me.

    I honestly don’t have a good opinion on whether or not it makes sense for a church to be building a mall. I’m not sure why building a mall is in itself a bad thing and I’m not sure why a church should be prohibited from doing it.

    But one thing I am sure of, Waterman is making an anti-Keynesian argument and I (very much a Keynesian sympathizer), simply have to disagree with it :-).

  15. One more quick comment I forgot to mention, the church never claimed that tithing went to the poor, check it out. That’s why we have fast offerings, check it out:

    https://www.mormon.org/faq/purpose-of-tithing

    Maybe you disagree with the purpose of tithing, but in the podcast, Mr. Waterman was critical that such a small percentage of tithing actually goes to help the poor. It seems like this is by design.

    1. Scott,

      The Church came up with ‘fast offerings’ so that it could use the cash cow ‘tithing’ on things other then the poor, which it all should be used on. Then the Church can still look like it’s helping the poor, even though it pockets most of the money coming in for themselves and their projects and to grow their corporation.

      Those who study and follow Christ know that righteous people and prophets would not use 1 penny of tithing on anything but the poor.

      Only after there are no more poor among us, would contributions be used to build churches or temples, etc.

      But contributions from members should never be used to financially support able bodied church leaders, for they are to serve for free and support themselves just like everyone else, just as the Book of Mormon prophets taught.

      Even a ‘righteous’ ‘needy’ male Church leader would never get in line in front of any woman or child, for it would be like a man taking up a seat in a life boat while there were still women & children on the Titanic.

      Today’s highest LDS Church leaders are like men who get into the life boats before women & children.

      1. Lilli, my primary point is that the church has been more than up front about the purpose of tithing and as I said, you can disagree with it.

        And even if you believe that 100% of church funds should be used to help those who are financially poor (something I personally don’t believe), there’s an enormous amount of disagreement about how exactly one should go about doing this.

        Should you just put all of the poor on the church’s payroll, sending them a income check each month? Should you try, as Bill Gates has done, to tackle the root causes of poverty and invest in charter schools in the US and malaria drugs in Africa?

        The idea of building churches and temples throughout the world is premised, I believe, on the idea that if you provide an infrastructure of community and spirituality, this community will find their own ways to help the poor in a way that makes sense to them.

        The side effect is that the church doesn’t exist just to lift people out of financial poverty, it exists to help all people, rich or poor, with their problems whatever that might be.

        Again, there’s a lot of disagreement on this and I’m not trying to convince anyone, just making the case that there’s a lot of different ways at looking at these kinds of issues.

        1. Scott,

          Actually, I believe most members assume the Church is helping the needy ‘far more’ then they really are. They assume the leaders are righteous and thus give them their money and then don’t worry about the poor, thinking they will be taken care of.

          Hardly anyone I know is aware just how little widows & single mothers are really helped, if they are helped at all, most usually being sorely neglected, to put it mildly.

          When I found out just how the Church uses it’s contributions I couldn’t believe I was so blind and duped to support such evil. I think most people would also feel betrayed if they knew.

          Since Joseph was right, that almost all men can’t be trusted to be righteous in leadership or with power, it is best to hand out help to especially singles mothers ourself and not trust leaders to do it. For we see that even in the Church, all highest leaders take money to support themselves before helping out widows & single mothers.

          Only when we help out our close family members and friends ourselves do we know for sure that it gets where it should. No single mother should have to work and leave her main role, just unrighteous leaders will never support women as they should.

    2. Scott, if you read my piece “Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?” you’ll see I agree that tithing is not meant to go to relief of the poor (at least not primarily, though an argument could be made from the Lord’s statement that it is to be used for the building up of Zion).

      I may not have made myself clear in the interview, but what I was attempting to put across was that the members are discovering that their money is not going for the purposes that they assumed it was, foremost among these purposes -in the mind of the average member- was that their tithes actually were intended to help those less fortunate.

      I apologize for not being clear about that.

      And I still maintain it is a crime for men who live upper-class existences to be taking some of their “allowance” from the mouths of widows and children while insisting that doing so is a test of faith for those widows.

      1. Rock & Scott,

        We have become so entangled with the philosphies of men (including the philosophies of Joseph Smith, who is only right either if he preaches & practices what Christ taught) about tithing and what it should be used for that we don’t put what Christ taught 1st & foremost.

        It is useless to listen to anyone else but Christ, unless someone is not going to call themselves Christian. So it doesn’t matter what ancient prophets or Joseph, Brigham or Monson teaches about tithing, for they could all be wrong, it only matter what ‘Christ’ taught about tithing (at least as long as we are going to call ourselves Christian)

        Christ never commanded anyone to build a chapel or temple or use tithing on church business or to expand it’s holdings. Christ commanded everyone, including apostles or leaders of the Church, to care for the poor and the fatherless. He also backed up this teaching with the Golden Rule. So if we were fatherless and had children to raise without a husband to support us, would we rather watch our children suffer while members instead give their money to build a chapel or temple or buy computers for the church or support able bodied leaders who could easily work to support themselves? No, we would hope people would value the well being of children over buildings or businesses.

        The scriptures teach that praying or church worship does no good and is all in vain if we don’t 1st take care of the poor. So to build a chapel, temple, church business or pay a church leader is all in vain and will condemn us as long as we still have poor among us.

        Who would think anyone is religious or Christlike if as they walk to church they pass by the widows & fatherless and ignor their suffering, choosing to give their money to build big and spacious buildings instead, that really have no need, for anyone can have church in their home or park or down by the river.

        So I don’t understand why anyone could or would justify or think that Christ would want tithing used 1st and foremost on the poor, before anything else. What come before the suffering of the fatherless? What is so vital in a church that children should suffer instead?

        If it was happening to you and your children would you still prefer to have a nice church to meet in instead of food to feed your children?

        Do unto others as you would have done to you & yours. Christ didn’t usually go into specifics but he gave us the Golden Rule that does.

  16. Mormon Socialism, Ayn Rand and Mormon Judeophilia,
    Mormon Objectivism runs off the rails: if it makes money it is good

    On Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Philo-Semitism.
    Mormon Judeophilia is inspired by the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Levitical Rites afforded the worthy. Assuming such an elevated status has its Moral Hazard countenanced by the Law of Witnesses.
    Tribe Levite: The Jewish (Melchizedek) priesthood was the only tribe in the Jewish Tradition to be rewarded with extra wives for sport and pleasure, The Levys counted the money too.
    Thus by the visitations of John the Baptist, Joseph Smith was compelled to adopt these precepts by John the Baptist.
    Confirmed by apostles Peter James and John these revelations are all part of the baggage of Mormonism.

    Mormon Philo-Semitism is taken to the level of Kitsch using Levitical Rites and Mormon Crowdsourcing. And so the Baggage is dragged into the light of most correct thinking. Playing fast and loose on “The Lawless Frontier” created Magic Realisms of all stripes, American Exceptionalism is Mormon Execptionalsm. This Religious Tradition carries on today.
    Like the Gentile, the chosen-poor get to cut bait too.

  17. We do have a leader, His name is Jesus Christ. Those who seek His voice and do His will are within the Church and without and they are preparing for His coming. Some are called to preach, some are not able or willing but the Spirit of the Lord is resting in those who seek His face.

    When we stop expecting the Church to show us the purpose of Christ and we take Christ as our head, He will show us the purpose of the Church.

  18. If I were still a believer I would like the Rockwell style mormonism. Great interview Rock! I really enjoyed it!

  19. Rock, I haven’t listened to the podcast yet but am really looking forward to it. I love your blog and find everything you say insightful and thought-provoking. Thank you for having the courage to establish an open and candid dialogue for those like me who are bored to tears at church each week and know things are terribly amiss with the Corporate Church but don’t know what to do about it.

    And to Brett Bartell: kudos to you for your incredible guest post on Rock’s blog. You nailed it. Grand slam. It was hard-hitting, spot-on and even quite funny at times. Simply put, your exposition was brilliant, captivating and left me wanting more. Keep up the good work you two!!

  20. We do have a leader and his name is Jesus. Denver is a prophet in the way scriptures portray them. Listening to what he has to say (or Rock or Daymon) does not mean they are our leaders. I suppose you could call us religious anarchists.

    Great interview, Rock.

  21. Great interview Rock! Thanks for sharing your insights with us; and as always thanks so much to John for giving us Mormon Stories.

    I think Rock’s tentative repudiation of JS’ polygamy is being overstated. Even if JS practiced polygamy it was not in any way the same as the form of polygamy as practiced once Brigham and Co. had led the Church to Utah; that is something that everyone can agree upon. If JS practiced polygamy the evidence indicates that it primarily had to do with the esoteric theurgy of the Nauvoo Temple and very little to do with sexual gratification or the begetting of a large number of offspring according to the evidence (if you accept it). So even if the circumstantial evidence of JS involvement in polygamy is correct Rock’s conclusions about the present day Church being wrong about Utah-era polygamy are still accurate.

    Moreover, Rock’s views on the Church’s corporate structure and the moral bankruptcy of our leaders is what is most poignant.

  22. On the polygamy issue, a couple of people have mentioned Richard and Pamela Price’s book “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy”. This is actually volume one of a three volume work. (By the way, Richard Price passed away on 1st January). Subsequent volumes were never printed but they are available online and are, to my mind, far more interesting, and convincing, than the first volume. I would suggest all the Price’s evidence is read before it is rejected.

    On the tithing issue, I don’t believe tithing is or ever was for the relief of the poor. Certainly D&C 119 – the law on tithing – doesn’t mention it.
    Regarding church welfare, I can confirm that in my ward the amount given out to single mothers etc, far outweighs the amount taken in in fast offerings; the ratio is currently nearly 30/1. In fact, when I was called to my current calling I asked about how careful I needed to be in distributing church welfare to those in need and was assured that I didn’t need to worry at all, and that for all intents and purposes it was a bottomless purse. I therefore always assume those who come to me with financial struggles are telling the truth and I react accordingly. I believe it is one way of establishing a little piece of Zion in the midst of a Babylonian system, for “there were no poor (meaning “destitute”) among them”.

    1. Robin,

      It sounds like you may be in a very rare ward or stake, where the needy and the fatherless are taken care of. Or then again, you may not be really taking care of them as well as you think you are. I do not know, for I don’t know how much actual support you are giving to the fatherless (single mothers). Are you financially supporting all of them in your ward so they don’t have to leave their children and home and go to work? Or are you just helping them with a little food, an occasional utility bill and some old DI clothes? Remember, Christ said we must treat the poor as equals, let them be able to shop where you shop.

      With the vast amounts of money the Church brings in in tithing, I believe it would financially support all the needs of the single mothers and truely needy among us and thus it would be an easy thing to eliminate all the poor among us. But the Church leaders seems to put other things before the poor, which only reveals their true natures and that they don’t have Charity and are not really interested in relieving the suffering of the poor or establishing Zion.

      All the wards I have been in during my adult life have grossly neglected the needy and fatherless. And ‘all’ the single LDS mothers I know of (and I know alot) and many widows are severely neglected by Church and their leaders and not being taken care of by them, despite their great sufferings and even their wonderful faithfulness and righteousness and that they paid tons of tithing all their life and then when the tables turn and they are in need it’s like pulling teeth to just get a little food from the Bishop’s storehouse, (thus most give up trying or asking for help) let alone ever being really completely financially taken care of by the Church as they should be.

      And not to mention that the Church totally supports their husbands who have abandoned their wives and children and their responsibility to them to completely support them the rest of their life, even despite a divorce or any meager decree the courts may have said he should pay. A righteous man goes by God’s laws not man’s and would always continue to completely support a wife and children the rest of their lives, even if she left him.

      And the Church allows such abandoning husbands to dump their wife and children and to even go on to date and remarry another woman, despite that Christ said remarriage is always adultery.

      So the Church not only doesn’t support and take care of the fatherless as it should, but it also supports the guilty and lets them go free and get away with the vilest of evils, such as continued adultery, abandonment and abuse.

      I don’t believe in any man, leader or church who ignores or supports such evils. Men prove they are righteous and true disciples of Christ by if they have true Charity or not, which shows in how they protect and completely provide for women and children so they don’t have to suffer when abandoned by the death or divorce of their husband.

      I hope you really do completely support all the single mothers in your midst as you claim so they don’t have to work and further hurt their already injured children, but you sadly would be a rare Bishop or ward if you did. Most of the Church and it’s leaders do not seem to so such.

      1. Lillie,
        Things are very different here in the UK. Single mother’s are reasonably well provided for by the government welfare system (and so they should be in my view), so they’re not destitute. However, I have been able to assist a number of them when things get tight. In addition to providing food (we don’t have a Bishop’s Storehouse, we just purchase it from the regular supermarkets) I have also authorised the payment of rent and mortgage payments, utilities, petrol, insurance, clothing etc. In fact, tomorrow I am going to the store to buy a new washing machine for a young mother.
        Don’t make the mistake of looking at the church through a Utah lense and then assume that’s how it is everywhere.

  23. Fascinating. I am not caught up in the argument over polygamy as fact or post-hoc fabrication, I think much of what Rock posites is interesting but because I have discarded more fundamental assumptions, (existence of God), I can’t follow his logic through to the same conclusion. That said, so much of what Rock says and expresses hits home as familiar and rational. It was fun to listen to this one. I can appreciate what Rock is going after, even if I can’t fully understand the foundation of where he is coming from.

  24. I found this episode very interesting. I have to agree with John when he said that Rock was a kind of enigma to him. It seems Rock has a testimony of the gospel and the foundations of the early church, but has lost faith in how it’s managed today. I personally believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, but it’s interesting to hear other opinions on the subject. In the end, I thought it was nice to know that there are plenty of people out there who question the church we have today and have a desire to change things. Thanks to both of you for your time and effort in this.

  25. Too many mental gymnastics for me. I am from the Benjamin F. Johnson line. BFJ wrote in his journal that he guarded the bedroom door for the prophet during a visit while Joseph and his sister….what….made beds? No, he didn’t see them have intercourse but you can sure make a lot of assumptions. This is one area where the church is starting to own the history.

    1. BF Johnson is my Great-Great-Great-Grandfather. He told his grandson Alma Dayer LeBaron (my Great Uncle) that Joseph Smith bestowed the “Right of the Firstborn” on him and foretold that the Saints would migrate to Mexico in order to continue polygamy. Alma acted on this by becoming a polygamist and settling in Mexico. Alma’s sons then proceeded to murder people in order to establish a unified polygamist sect. How reliable do you really think my Third Great Grandad was?

      1. AC,
        It appears we are related through this jumbled mess of polygamy. I don’t know what you mean by reliable. In terms as a human being? Was he reliable in acting upon his order from the person/s he reported to? Was he honest? I don’t know. I can only go off of what has been documented numerous times by those who wrote the biographies. I have read Compton….there is a point in reading those diaries where your heart is torn out for what they went through. I believe JS was a narcissist and loved power….his historical mosaic says as much.

      2. AC,

        I would also like to know where it is documented that JS bestowed upon BFJ the “Right of the Firstborn”. I missed that in the two biographies I have read on him. OT…have you looked at BFJ’s family line? You can read a lot into the screwed up psyche of some of our relatives…..just saying.

        1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, BF never said he didn’t confer the “Right of the Firstborn” on Dayer. Its Dayer’s word alone that his Grandfather secretly handed down to him some kind of authority, and since BF is not around to either confirm nor deny, we can’t for certain say that he didn’t. There is no way to definitely prove such a thing never happened.

          I strongly doubt that BF conferred anything whatsoever on Dayer LeBaron. Just like I have reasonable doubts concerning Joseph’s involvement in polygamy. Joseph publicly condemned polygamy, there used to be a section in the D&C forbidding polygamy and secret marriages. I am inclined take Joseph’s word over William Clayton’s or Wilford Woodruff’s Journals, over the affidavits of the wives of the leading Utah polygamists who claimed to have been sealed to him, and over the scholarly consensus which bases their assertions of certitude of Joseph’s origination of polygamy on recollections that are in many cases contradictory, in almost all cases separated from the occurrence of the events by some 40 plus years and when a clear ulterior motive is present. As you say of BF, Joseph as well was human and had his share of shortcomings.

          I too have read all the pertinent scholarly work on the subject. Nevertheless, I am not committed intellectually to the view that Joseph wasn’t involved to polygamy, but there is certainly no “smoking gun” evidence, and plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

          I agree the LeBaron polygamists are mixed up bunch. Fortunately none of my forebears got involved with polygamy.

          Even though we don’t see eye to eye, it’s nice to find a distant cousin here.

        2. Mike,

          Have you considered the possibility that Emma wasn’t lying and the Utah Church was? Do you also think Joseph taught Adam-God? Brigham Young said he did. No evidence at all for that. My point about BF Johnson is that he as well as the rest of the Utah Church leaders had clear motive to misrepresent what had occurred in Nauvoo regarding polygamy. Just like many Latter Day Saints in Utah enthusiastically claimed to have witnessed the transfiguration of Brigham Young in many cases when its provable said individuals were present when the alleged supernatural occurrence happened.

          Emma and Joseph III have a better track record than Brigham and Co. on accuracy regarding Joseph’s life. Even so I candidly accept the real possibility that in the context of the “for eternity” ordinances of the Nauvoo Temple Joseph engaged in sealings to women other than Emma and the equally real, and in one instance almost certain, evidence that Joseph may have had extramarital affairs that were in no way plural marriages (as is in all likelihood the case with Fanny Alger, Brian C. Hales pleas notwithstanding).

          1. pardon, its provable individuals were NOT present when the alleged supernatural occurrence happened.

          2. You’re right about the Brigham transfiguration accounts. Nobody, and I mean nobody, not one person, actually recorded anything at the time. No voice of Joseph, no mannerisms etc…….. nothing.
            An RLDS source I read even quoted Brigham himself rubbishing the claims (I’ll try to find the reference if anyones interested).
            Personally, I feel the absense of a supernatural occurance at that time gives greater credence to BY’s claim that the Twelve should lead the church, and the strength and persuasiveness of the argument amongst the saints.
            I don’t believe Joseph had an affair with Fanny Alger. The story goes she got pregnant by him and went away, never to return. However, it has now been demonstrated (DNA) that her child was not Joseph’s. There was a young man in the church disciplined for fornication with a young girl at the time Fanny left. Coincidence?

          3. AC,
            Is Joseph Smith on trial here? The preponderance of evidence, journals, testimony is not in his favor…as far as practicing plural marriage/polygamy. This interview brought up some interesting points. If pure Mormonism exists it sure doesn’t exist in the current structure. If you are trying to protect JS where does that leave you? With the Community of Christ?….or some other organ? For me plural marriage is just a piece of the puzzle that has come together over the past 13 years of study. I totally agreed with GBH when he said that story of JS is either a grand work or a complete and total fraud. Incidentally you do come from polygamy lines if you are related to BF Johnson. Which great grandson do you claim as relative?

          4. I know about BF’s polygamy and my descent therefore. I meant my family wasn’t involved in Dayer’s polygamous cult. My Great Great Grandfather was BF’s nephew and married BF’s daughter. I am not defending anyone. I am trying to be objective. My point is that the journal and affidavit evidence could be false. I will reserve judgement and acknowledge the possibility he was not until there is concrete evidence that he originated polygamy. There is plenty of room for doubt. I am not concerned with the truth claims of any Latter Day Saint group. I’m not an active member of any Latter Day Saint group.

          5. AC
            Hopefully I have not offended you (we are family after all). It’s interesting that even though you have indicated that you no long are active or affiliate with any Latter Day Saint group…and I am totally disaffected from the Mormon church….we find ourselves still listening to the oddities of the Mormon religion….posting on Mormon stories. My family went to Canada instead of Mexico…it seems that you know quite a bit of our genealogy and the zig-zagged lines. Back on topic and my point. IMO polygamy was wrong….it was instituted incorrectly, it was not inspired or divine, it has screwed up generations of people and gave us fundamentalism…..and for years we believed it was all blessed by the hand of god. Was JS responsible for initiating plural marriage….I believe so…not based just on a couple of journals…as mentioned there is a mountain of evidence that suggests other wise (IMO). I truly am glad we bumped into each other….glad there is another family member brave enough to question…..bless you cousin.

          1. And who would believe the testimony, writings or journal of any man or woman who supported or believed in the vile abuse of women by polygamy?

            Whether BF stood by a door for JS or not doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it appears BF would have done such a thing, and thus he and his testimony loses all credibility and trust. For no righteous respectable man or woman would believe what he said for he had every reason to lie if he would support such evil.

            Whether JS ever fell for polygamy or not doesn’t really matter, what matters is, if we do or not.

            For not matter what Joseph did or said, Christ condemned all polygamy, in any age of time, forward or backward, thus it’s easy to discern the righteous from the unrighteous, and false or fallen prophets from true prophets (who would never fall for polygamy).

  26. William Law was lying?

    Kidding??…the man was an apostate who hated Joseph. He lied from about everything regarding Smith like all apostates do.

    Thinking that W Law didn’t lye is as naive as believing that Joseph was never a polygamist.

  27. Getting back to Mormon Millennialism:
    by the unreliable narrator: So many visions, so little time
    Hyper-Neo-Mormon-Restorationism is Jihad.
    Submission (obedience) is what’s it’s all about –– and remember all the revisions to visions.
    Like in Mohammedanism, If Pure Mormonism could become Perfect Mormonism the work would be done and the planet could rest and we’d all enjoy Mormon Law just like Muslims enjoy Sharia Law and the Muftis would rule over perfection till the second coming of Christ. Mormons must sit on their hands and wait.
    There will be balance and harmony for all but gentiles who would still cut bait.

    You see, even in Prophecy it’s about the money, or is it about the premise? In Mormonism that has never been fleshed out, or, perhaps it was fleshed out to much, but it’s still about the premise of ephemeral prophecy; squishy and flabby conjecture.

    to Rock Waterman,
    Certified: “Institutionalization of Apostasy” and the Collective Subjective.
    So much for the Neo-Orthodox Correlated Curriculum.
    The Apostatized Vision: Pure Mormonism makes claim to see Obedient Idolators in the counting house (temple) to tally the piles of lucre. But I too, personally, prefer reading the original BOM (Book of Mormon) naked in bed by candlelight (worts and all), makes me curl my toes in religious revery while Angel’s wings flutter, fanning my countenance.

    I’d really like to see a grudge match between Robert Millet and Rock Waterman; A fight over the PLAN OF SALVATION to negotiate a more Humane Mormon Correlated Curriculum.
    Perhaps a solution can be found by consensus or just continue dissembling to the last digit or the end of time, whichever comes first.

    1. Oh Ephima, I have no desire to get into a grudge match with anybody, least of all Robert Millet, who I admire. I’m just waddling along looking for the facts. I like an intelligent argument, but I’m not looking to quarrel. Especially not over the plan of salvation, which I know very little about.

      1. “Robert Millet, who I admire.”
        Oh Rock, by your admission of ignorance of “The Plan of Salvation,” I can only conclude that your are descended from risen apes and not defended from Fallen Angels; on this we agree.
        As a “Facts Man” there is much to divine starting from our humble stirrings as tribals.
        Tribals keep their myths until it is unproductive for the individuals within the group to sustain the myths.
        This is the juncture at which the Mormon Tribes are facing.
        Being of the Earth and not in the earth is a convenient conceit, But, a conjecture of little veracity considering the current body knowledge available to both Mormons and The Natural Man and their descendants.
        It’s chastening revelation to realize one’s status is relegated to “being of the earth and being in the earth.”
        I do realize how compelling magic realism is, “being of the Earth and not in of the earth” makes for Mormon Exceptionalism spawned from Frontier Magic.
        I too had my boughts with magic-realism back when I was about the age of Joseph Smith’s visitations with divine spirits.
        I grew out of it.
        For the sake of “Planetary Awareness,” I hope Mormons can follow the path of Liberation Theology and forget about Prosperity Gospel –– Treasure Digging. Mormon Pharisees are like the Great American Sloths, they were dispatched by the rise of a new breed of opportunist. The the thinking individual is that opportunist.

        1. Ephima Morphew,
          I did not intend the impression that I know nothing about the plan of salvation; of course I do, but I don’t consider myself expert enough to expound upon it.

          I consider myself neither a fallen angel nor a risen ape. I see myself more as a Fallen Chimp (with Jupiter rising).

          1. Rock, I appreciate you honesty and zen-like outlook, “I see myself more as a Fallen Chimp,” although I’m not sure of the Jupiter rising. By his agency Robert Millet is the penultimate authority on the “Plan of Salvation” and the “Religion Making Business.” I’m thankful you are innocent of these claims.
            I’ve looked at graphs of the “Plan Of Salvation” and it appears there are many gatekeepers, ushers, shepherds and overseers, certificates to be stamped and tests of faith before being swallowed whole into The Mormon Afterlife –– which is a very material affair.
            Seem like there is much to know perhaps too much; the FYI in The Salvation Plan is not at all straight forward. I think I understand why you want to simplify the Bureaus of Mormonism. I see your Pure Mormonism is reformist. I see you want to cut out the middle men; the management heavy and very expensive opportunity costs of Mormonism. I wished your, breathy, interview with John had been paced to fewer topics. Apostate Rock, fare thee well on your path into the radiance for brighter day. Remember: Knuckle Walking remains the most efficient form of locomotion.

            Since we stooped to stand from a crawl . . .
            Is The Book of Mormon the answers?

  28. A marvelous interview, John. Rock is perhaps one of the most radical and refreshing folks to cross the path of your podcast and you’re known for conversations with some radical and refreshing folks. Your own faith journey and your interest in helping those who question are a great context for the questions you raise.

    As I listened to the podcast–and I listed to it twice–I thought of the landmark survey your foundation did about what motivates people to part ways with the Church. What if Rock, Brett Bartel, Damon Smith, and Denver Snuffer are on to something here? What if the messy details of the Church that your respondents cited as reasons for leaving are due in part to the Church being out of alignment with its true purposes and the author of those purposes?

    Rock, your joyful embrace of Jesus Christ and his way speaks to me. Over the years I’ve listened to and watched John’s interviews with hundreds of guests from all over the spectrum of Mormonism. I’ve become increasingly less troubled by the organic mess that is the Church and increasingly more devoted to Jesus Christ and the works of his servant, Joseph Smith. While I wouldn’t wish it on anyone starting with you, your experience helps me understand the role and reality of prophets in the scriptures. Good strength to you and your beloved Connie. First Denver’s and now your cheerful dismissal of excommunication is enlightening.

  29. I’m a regular reader of Rock’s blog.

    @Toni, I appreciated your comment about religious ‘anarchists’.

    @anyone who wants to read a random person’s ramblings–
    I think it would be hard for most people to understand Rock and others who believe the way he does–

    without understanding that some of us don’t identify ourselves as ‘either/or’–

    neither Republicans nor Democrats; neither liberals nor conservatives. Neither ‘in or out’ of the “Church”. Not all quite anarchists, but certainly independent of most of the ‘slots’.

    Someone pointed out that Rock is not a Keynsian. Many of the people who read his blog are not Keynsians.

    Many LDS, *I* believe, have an either/or attitude. You either accept science/popular LDS historians or you don’t. If you don’t you are backwards and cranky. Or close-minded. Historical truth isn’t easy to find, and it is a constant effort, often elusive, and it’s not always wrapped up neatly.

    There are so many other ways of looking at everything. Thinking independently is never easy, but it is possible.

  30. You had me at Kahlil Gibran… then lost me at Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. You’re telling me EVERYONE else was lying? *Scratching my head*

      1. Well, our people did have a penchant for embellishing things if they felt the outcome would be faith promoting. That happened to be a trait shared by virtually every official historian of the 18th and 19th centuries, who never let reality get in the way of a story that would stir the heart and instill pride of country. So Mormons weren’t all that different from anybody else. They lied so much they started to believe their own lies.

        Hell, the decendants of the pioneers even erected a statue to a seagull, of all creatures, even though there is little evidence that the so-called “miracle of the seagulls” ever occurred as it was reported years later. People will believe what they want to believe, and if it promotes the faith, well, who’s going to stand in the way?
        See my piece “Why Mormon History Is Not What They Say”:

        https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-mormon-history-is-not-what-they-say.html

        1. @rockwaterman1 is it possible that Joseph Smith was one of these types of people who you say embellish the story? First vision? Angels?

          1. That’s just my point, J. Unlike some folks, when I hear a seemingly outlandish story, rather than dismiss it without investigation, I examine it carefully.

            I have therefore concluded that I find it very likely that Joseph was visited by an angel. As for the seeming anomalies of the First Vision, I refer to Brett Bartell’s account in the current post on my blog “The Actual Message of the Book of Mormon.”

            Paul Toscano has pointed out, by the way, that our assumption that the first “personage” Joseph referred to is not necessarily our heavenly father. That personage is not identified, yet as a result of that assumption, we ignore everything in the Book of Mormon that identifies Jesus as the very father, and rather than pray to Christ as we should, we bypass him and pray to the father whom we know virtually nothing about.

            Former Mormon Sean MacCready, who is now an active evangelist preacher, points out that we Mormons think we know Jesus, but asks how can we know him if we never talk to him?

            I say he has a point.

  31. I find it interesting that the hardcore believers get exed but then people which don’t believe are embraced. Why is John left alone (well, he was bothered a bit but then left alone) but Snuffer is exed? Snuffer doesn’t want people to leave the church either, like John. It will be interesting to see what happens to Rock.

    Maybe because Snuffer pointed out the fallacies of modern day hierarchy where Dehlin only points out the sins of the past leaders.

    1. I believe it’s because the Church only wants ‘yes men’ who ‘doubt their doubts’ & who can be lulled to sleep by the line that ‘all is well’.

      So they ex those who ask questions, or who see & talk about errors & problems, (especially errors of leaders) and those who study out the real truth & think for themselves & don’t blindly play ‘follow the leader’.

      The Church can’t answer the questions (or the whole house of cards will come falling down around them), so they just ex those who ask or talk about all the problems (past & present), thus hoping those people won’t wake anyone else up as they’re being shown the door.

      The last thing the Church needs or wants are people who can & will see the problems and discern the truth and search out the facts about church history and then lift a light up to what the current leadership are doing and saying.

      You can only get obedience, service & money from blind dumb-downed members who are too scared, lazy or unrighteous to read, study, think or discern truth for themselves.

  32. i found this interview enlightening !

    i have been agonizing about where i go to pay respects to God. like Rock i love the gospel, but find problems with the (big C) Church. one thing i dislike is the lack of acceptance of the lgbt community, the extreme views on what constitutes the law of chastity, and the lack of financial and statistical transparency that top leaders give the general membership.

    if the Church is to change for the positive the top leaders have to listen to members for what they want. wouldn’t it be nice if conference was about leaders attending a meeting where members could pitch ways to make the church better ?

    i was quite taken back by the claim of Joseph Smith was never a polygamist but fought it. polygamy is totally opposite what the Book of Mormon preaches against (book of Jacob i think).

    i will have to buy the book “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” to read up on this claim by the Prices.

  33. i found the idea of Joseph Smith having never practiced polygamy but fought against it as “remarkable” because the history i have been taught is that he practiced it. he seemed to be fighting opposition since he had his first vision and honestly do consider that polygamy may have just been another lie that his enemies used to defame his character. i have got to read that book by the prices !

    days before discovering this new interview i had been agonizing over where i go as a believer of mormonism when i feel honestly something is wrong with the church (the gospel delivery system).

    thanks John and Rock for this interview. i am glad i am not alone in how i feel about the church.

  34. Since most topics were rushed over pretty quickly, I’d like to see him come back for another round sometime to get more in-depth.

    1. A great suggestion, Frank. Despite John’s interviewing skills, for those not family with Rock’s blog the interview may have had a stream-of-consciousness quality about it. I’ve read almost the entire Pure Mormonism blog and I’d personally love to have Rock back for a return engagement.

      1. Totally agree. This should have been a longer podcast. Too many topics covered. Love to see Rock come back.

        1. I wouldn’t mind the opportunity to take another crack at it myself, this time at a time when I’m calmer and more reflective. I’m the first to admit that I was all over the map on this interview, stammering my way through and rarely finishing a thought or a sentence.

          As discussed at the very end, John invited me back to discuss whatever happens with the Stake President interview, and I’d love to relate a blow by blow account of the Court of Love if any of this takes place.

          Right now I’m curious as to what I might possibly be charged with. Apostasy doesn’t seem likely, since I fully embrace the religion. Lacking proper deference to Church leaders is not a violation of any doctrine that I can find. Likewise, wondering why the prophet has not issued any revelations seems like a reasonable question, and hardly cause for getting the boot. That leaves the catch-all charge of “being out of harmony with the Church” which has no real meaning or definition, but has been used to justify expelling members of the September Six 20 years ago. So my money would be on that as the official justification.

          Anyway, we’ll see what, if anything, happens, and then I’ll report on it to John.

          1. Back when you were playing the tall characters for Disney parades and embracing everything the Church taught and thought, who would’ve imagined you’d end up a thorn in some pharisee’s side, Rock? More remarkably yet, a thorn not by design or guile or some perverse love of mischief, but an inclination to take Jesus Christ at his word. Here’s hoping it goes well for you and your poor stake president tasked with showing you the door if it plays out like that.

  35. Great interview, guys! I always enjoy hearing Rock’s perspective. Thinking about John’s question: why was the restoration necessary? If the gospel is really about Christ and unconditional love, what’s the need for the restoration? It really is a good, thought-provoking question. I think it boils down to the Book of Mormon, which is a guidebook for establishing Zion. The Bible provides the message of Christ; the Book of Mormon expounds on that message, and it gives us a guide as to how to establish Zion, a guide very prescient to our day. Its message of the love of riches, self-righteousness, and war leading to the downfall of a society (not failure to “keep the law” as modern Church culture would lead you to believe) couldn’t have been more appropriate for a post-1830 audience. Also, it gives a further witness that God lives, he speaks with us in these times, and that miracles can still happen.

  36. @rockwaterman1

    Rock,
    I agree with you about late recollections. I’m aware of the FRLDS criticism of 132 and the Nauvoo Clayton journals possibly being forged later, but what is the non-polygamous interpretation of these two contemporary records?

    The 1842 Whitney letter revealing JS’ polygamous sealing ceremony:
    https://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/viewer?pid=IE425462
    and
    https://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/viewer?pid=IE537711

    Also the Laws’ 1844 affidavit which appears to be talking about the 132 Revelation:
    https://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text#Affidavits

    1. JPV,
      Again, no concise answer I could offer would give justice to the questions you raise, which are more thoroughly covered in the books I refer to above. One would have to be familiar with a significant amount of background to the events, and I’m a firm believer in supporting the scholarship of those who have put years of effort into researching these questions, so I don’t find it my place to attempt to summarize.

      Support the authors. Buy their books. Or read JSFP for free online, and then buy the books. I’m not the guy you want to ask. Go to the source, then after reading everything available on the issue pro and con, you can draw your own conclusions. Or you may find there is no definite conclusion to be drawn.

      https://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

      1. Thanks, I have Brian’s 3 volumes, but not the Prices’.

        Let me know if there’s a specific reference you have. As in my view, these are the only contemporary documents that tie JS to the practice.

  37. Rock,

    You mentioned that you believe in ‘sealings’. I am curious as to why you do. Do you have any evidence where Joseph published teachings about sealings while he was alive? Or is all evidence hearsay, people saying Joseph taught about sealings but we really don’t have proof?

    Joseph counseled couples to keep their vows ‘forever’ in D&C 101, and I believe he understood the eternal nature of marriage, not just for LDS but for all couples who ever marry (at least 1st marriages). So why would you think he believed there would be a need for sealings?

    I have never seen any proof that he believed in sealings, just like I have never seen proof he believed in polygamy, so if you know of proof about his belief in sealings could you point me in the right direction so I can further study that? Thanks!

    1. Lilli,
      When I say I believe in something, it’s not the same as saying I “know.” For right now, I see no reason to disbelieve the sealing ordinance, though I realize I have need of further research before that belief can harden into something firmer.

      Brigham Young’s unwarranted claims do indeed throw a lot of this stuff into doubt. He attempted to portray himself as Joseph Smith’s best friend, but that seems a stretch to me. Hyrum was Joseph Smith’s best friend, Sidney Rigdon was second to Hyrum, and the person who was Joseph’s constant companion was James Whitehead, who, because he expressed disgust over Brigham’s blatant usurpation, has been completely written out of our histories. Very few of us have ever heard of Whitehead, yet it could be said that James Whitehead was closer to Joseph Smith in Joseph’s last three years than anyone other than his brother Hyrum. He was constantly at the side of Joseph.

      The quorum of the Twelve, of which Brigham was a member, did not manage the church at Nauvoo. They were away most of the time; unlike today when the Twelve take an active role in Church management, the Twelve Apostles in Joseph’s day were known as the Traveling Elders forever on missions far from home.

      Brigham’s claim that he got the endowment ceremony word for word from Joseph Smith is a claim I find dubious for at least three reasons. Anyone having gone through the endowment knows that it takes numerous times through to get even close where the ritual can be recited from memory. Secondly, just when was it that Joseph revealed all this to Brigham? When was Brigham in Nauvoo long enough to get this extensive education?

      Third, why was nothing remotely resembling what goes on in the temples today ever performed in the Kirtland temple, the one that was finished and utilized during Joseph’s lifetime?

      I “believe” in the sealing ordinance -for now- only because I like the idea of being connected to my wife forever. That desire to believe doesn’t make a thing true; it just says I want it to be true. Eventually I’ll look into all this stuff deeper and I may change my view. Who knows?

      The main thing is that I don’t claim certainty. I prefer to weigh all the evidence and then come to a tentative conclusion.

      1. Rock,

        Thank you so much for explaining all that, I now understand what you mean and I agree with you. I also want to believe and do believe that marriages are eternal, I just don’t believe it takes a ‘sealing’ ordinance to do so, I believe all 1st marriages are just naturally eternal.

        I don’t believe in Brigham Young and anything much he instigated. I believe he was about as evil as a person gets. So I would never believe his claims that sealings or endowments or garments or anything else pertaining to the temple came from Joseph or God, just like I don’t believe BY’s claims that polygamy came from Joseph or God either or that Joseph lived it.

        I believe Brigham created secret sealings and endowments, etc. to help make his illegal whoredoms seem more official and divine.

        But I believe Joseph knew that marriage was eternal and thus families are eternal also. I believe we will know, love and live among our spouse & family members through eternity. Though not all family members will become God’s.

        It is said that Joseph also said that divorce is ‘impossible’, even if one has an unrighteous spouse. Thus he must have understood how ‘eternal’ marriage was and that there was nothing that anyone could do about it.

        I believe Christ taught that marriages and families are forever when he also taught that it’s impossible to divorce & remarry someone else. He knew that remarriage was futile and is in fact adultery, for once a couple is married they are married forever, no matter what man may come to allow.

        One of the few things I agree with Elder Oaks on is his recent quote “Human laws cannot make ‘moral’ what God has declared ‘immoral’. Thus even if courts or churches allow divorce & remarriage because that’s what everyone wants, God still doesn’t.

        The only exception Christ gave for divorce was for ‘fornication’, which mean’t unfaithfulness by a fiancee during the engagement period (for he knew the laws of his day required a bill of divorcement if a fiancee was unfaithful), just like Joseph was about to give Mary, thinking she had been unfaithful. But once the marriage is consummated it’s a done deal forever and no divorce or remarriage is allowed by God.

        Even Christ’s Apostles (who were surely tutored by Christ on this subject) taught that people shouldn’t even remarry after the death of their spouse, for they surely understood that the person would eventually be reunited with their 1st spouse and that there is no such thing as polygamy in heaven, so marrying again would only bring unhappiness for the spouse who is waiting faithfully in heaven and eventual pain & remorse for the spouse who remarried.

        The apostles also taught that ‘righteous’ spouses can save ‘unrighteous’ spouses (1 Cor 7:14). Thus giving eternal reasoning & reward for difficult marriages.

        Christ certainly understood what a tall order he was giving when he declared there was no such thing as divorce or remarriage. He knew that meant many, if not most, people would get stuck in unhappy lonely marriages for the rest of their life, so he must have known that marriage is eternal no matter what, or he would have had compassion on people in abusive adulterous marriages, for surely he got asked about divorce all the time during his life by people in unhappy marriages, for most marriages experience abuse & adultery to some degree.

        Just like many today would ask him about divorce if he was walking around teaching his Gospel.

        Anyway, For these and other reasons I too believe in eternal marriage, I just don’t believe Brigham’s ‘sealings’ are needed or valid.

        Eternal marriage is just an eternal law that even God has to live by and did not invent, there is no way around it, and it’s impossible to get out of a 1st marriage even if we wanted to. Just like it’s impossible to divorce your natural parents or children, no matter what they are like, so it is with our spouse.

        Though that doesn’t mean we have to stay living with them if they are abusive, we can separate for safety reasons until they one day repent as everyone eventually will, in this life or the next.

        1. Frank,
          Whitehead’s testimony is the first in the Temple Lot Case, which you can find online, but the transcript of the entire case is quite long, so I recommend buying the whole thing in book form from RestorationBookstore.org

          Joe Geisner has made me aware of rumors put out by Orson Hyde some years after Whitehead “defected” from the Brighamites to the effect that Whitehead was a womanizer. I would imagine those accusations were the result of the Utah branch of the church taking such a drubbing in that case, but that’s just my uneducated guess. Others have said he exaggerated his importance to the prophet, as Joseph had several scribes during that period, which is correct. In his testimony James Whitehead does not claim to be the only one, and names others.

          (It’s interesting to note that a salient reason Joseph Smith made certain he had scribes and secretaries with him at all times was to squelch the rumors that he was secretly marrying women. Essentially, he made certain that there were witnesses with him at all times so that it could not be said he slipped away and engaged in the practice he was vigorously denouncing.)

          I haven’t yet followed the links Joe provided me regarding Whitehead, but you can find them on the Mormon Historians Facebook Group. Joe is careful to observe that just because Hyde said it, that doesn’t make it dependable,and I concur. So there is more stuff for me to learn about James Whitehead, and as I have learned about Mormon history, you can rarely get to the truth about what happened, especially during the period when the Brighamites and the Josephites were involved in so much bickering and finger pointing.

          It occurs to me that you might ask Restoration Bookstore if they have anything on James Whitehead. That would be one source.

  38. My how the waters have become muddy.
    Do you ever feel that the internet transmits static due to everyone talking at once?

  39. Rock, I loved this interview! Maybe you talked more about this on your blog or even the interview and I missed it, but what are your sources in knowing all the details of how tithing is spent?

    1. Iris, the reality is we don’t know how all the tithing is spent because our leaders, who are so keen on demanding our obedience to their supposed authority, have chosen, since 1959, to disobey the Lord’s clear commandment that expenditures must have the vote of approval of the membership in April conference.

      There have been attempts by some to estimate how much the Church brings in through tithes, and also where a lot of it goes, by extrapolating the public records available in some countries like the United Kingdom, which requires public transparency. A lot of member in Britain were quite upset to learn how much of their tithing money goes to supporting BYU, a school most of them will never attend, but which siphons off a good chunk of their tithing that they thought was going to more charitable uses. You should be able to do an internet search of “Mormon Church Finances” (I’m guessing here on the search terms; experiment with your own).

      Others have estimated the value of GAs homes, the cost of automobiles and chauffers, etc. Daymon Smith’s “The Book of Mammon” reveals a lot of the waste through credit card accounts, fancy dining, etc. There was a book published twenty years or so ago by a couple of reporters who attempted to estimate, but I don’t recall the name of it right off.

      The bottom line is we don’t really know how much they take in or how much they spend or what they spend it on because they ignore the commandments of God in the D&C and refuse to tell us.

      Check out this petition:

      bycommonconsent.org/

      1. My personal opinion is that the church has an embarrassment of riches right now, and that is the reason for withholding the financial information from the saints. That wasn’t the original reason though.

        I believe they suspect that times will become hard for many of the Saints in the future and that tithing income will reduce significantly. This is the reason for investing heavily in things such as the City Creek Mall and umpteen other major, and even more minor, investment projects. They are trying to position the church so that it can function without having to rely on contributions from the members; much like the Roman Catholic and even the Church of England operate today. Both of these churches continue to receive regular contributions, but that is the icing on the cake rather than their bread and butter.

        The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric are trying to position the church in a similar way in my view. I think this is laudible.

  40. Rock-
    Knowing what you know, having friends working in Church HQ, which are your favorite apostles (or High-15)?

    1. My favorite apostles are all dead. LeGrand Richards comes to mind as a favorite conference speaker in my lifetime. Before that, Stephen Richards, J. Golden Kimball.

      My quarrel with the modern apostles is their penchant for leading the Saint into believing they have seen the face of Christ (which is a requirement for apostleship), yet when asked a direct question about their experience, they become evasive.

  41. Waterman seems to want to have cake and eat it too. I won’t argue that he has a born-again testimony of Jesus. He seems sincere on that front. However, he seems quite naïve and opportunistically selective about what he counts as revelation.

    He also appears to have a very naïve and revisionist view of Joseph Smith. Just an uneducated simple farmboy with no ambitions to run a political, commercial or religious enterprise and no hint of polygamist scandal. Really!!?? To suggest Joseph’s polygamy was an invention of the Utah church as a way to defend their practice is kind of like saying that Republicans invented Bill Clinton’s infidelity because it supported their cause. You have to close your eyes to a mountain of Missouri and Nauvoo history to embrace that narrative. My sense is that Rock has invented for himself a version of Joseph that is absent of all of the human failings he wants to accuse every Mormon leader since Joseph.

    Like many aspects of the modern LDS church, I am bothered by the lack of financial transparency. However, I don’t see anyone in the LDS leadership getting rich off the church, like one sees in a Fortune 1000 corporation of similar size. I have known general authorities, people that work at church HQ, and I have done business with the church in the past. While some basic living expenses in some situations are reimbursed, I do not see anything egregious enough to be called “priestcraft.” That just seems me a gargantuan overstatement.

    Rock has developed his own fundamentalist definition of Joseph Smiths history, tithing, the Word of Wisdom, revelation, and wants to paint current church leadership as corporate robber baron idols. Like a classical fundamentalist, he has found that the current church does not meet his binary definition of purity so exaggerates its current deficiencies and invents a time, place and person that meets his impossible standard. Sadly, he and\or his adherents will eventually find that this perfect time, place, and person did not exist either and they will invent another.

    1. Mike Maxwell,
      If you got the impression I believe Polygamy was an invention of the Utah Church, I was not making myself clear. Plural marriage was already an open secret in Nauvoo, such that Joseph Smith denounced it vigorously on several occasions. He was aware that some closest to him were advocating it, and three weeks before his murder had vowed to stamp it out. He warned the sisters that if any man, even the prophet of the Lord, came to any of them advocating spiritual wifery, they would know that man was a demon of the fiery pit, and to shun him.

      Polygamy was not invented in Utah. It was imported there from Nauvoo by way of Saco, Maine.

      As for whether any members of the hierarchy are getting rich off their positions, there are those who have investigated the perks and come away with some astounding estimates based on value of homes, cars, carte blanche credit, etc. The stipends they receive don’t appear to qualify as “modest” by any measure. But we can’t really know what the dollar amount is that each gets as a salary because contrary to the commandments of God, they won’t let the members have a voice in where the money goes.

      1. Perhaps the lavish stipends are considered ‘modest’ because they are hidden… just as one can be ‘modestly dressed’.

      2. Rock,

        I just don’t find your taking a few statements by Joseph Smith condemning polygamy as viable evidence that he did not engage in the practice. The level of conspiracy you have to drum up to believe that a host of people for and against the church in Missouri and Nauvoo believed it and that the entire Utah church believed and many had observed it.

        My wife is a direct descendent of Orrin Porter Rockwell, one on Joseph’s closest confidants, and while Porter never personally practiced polygamy, he had very specific knowledge that Joseph did and told his children this was something that “Joseph and other men more righteous than him” did. There is a mountain of evidence from many other individuals who shared similar knowledge. I have not seen any credible peer review of the assertions of those who claim he did not practice polygamy and until this claim gets that level of scrutiny, it is just a conspiracy theory.

        I do share your concern for the lack of transparency into church finances. That is a scandal just waiting to happen and I have no problem with constructive criticism of that policy or of the church spending billions on profit-making ventures like City Creek.

        However, as for the “investigations” I have seen of the “perks” received by general authorities, they tend to point to ownership of a house plus a second home, valued at $500,000 to $1,000,000 (absent of any specifics as to whether the church contributed anything to pay for the residence). That level of personal wealth would be an embarrassing failure to any fortune 1000 senior executive running an organization anywhere near the size of the church. Most of these leaders come from private-sector jobs where those kinds of investments would be easily affordable, before they moved into full-time church service. The lack of church finances transparency leaves the potential for “unrighteous dominion” abuses but I just don’t see any evidence of that in current church leaders.

        Rock, I think people who agitate and challenge the status quo do important work but you need to make credible arguments. The outlandish and overstatement of some of your claims work against you.

    2. Mike,

      I agree with your excellent assessment of Rock. I have tried to hold his feet to the fire on numerous occasions to get him on the record about many of his “core” beliefs, but he either ignores me completely, or hides behind the nebulous comments made by his groupies.

      The biggest problem I have with Rock is that he wants to destabilize the church amid his tirades, yet he has no answers or solutions to the so-called problems that he has identified. Inotherwords, his arguments have nowhere to go. Does he want to start a new church? He says no. Does he want to reform the church? Good luck with that…he doesn’t have the authority so he can only take cheap shots from the sidelines. So we are left with a clueless Rock that knows something is wrong, but doesn’t know how to fix it. Did God tell him to speak out in this manner? He is like the multitude of complainers throughout church history that thinks that his version of the facts is the right version. In the end he has no authority, or blessing from god to create havoc.

      1. AW! You Found me again!

        Dang it, I was trying to hide from you. I’ll be having a word with my groupies about this, because they are charged with protecting me from your burning interrogations.

        Heads will roll, believe you me.

        1. My eyes are rolling already… I’ve never considered myself a ‘groupie’ before. Sheesh, what am I thinking? What AW hasn’t acknowledged, or fails to realize is that Rock is giving a voice, (albeit only his voice, to the concerns that are troubling or have troubled many, many members for a long, long time. His blog resonates strongly with those who care about the gospel message and the direction the institution is taking and has taken since correlation bestowed the title of prophet on the corporation sole. Yet precious little that can remotely be considered ‘prophecy’ is ever uttered by him. No new revelations, no new insightful seeing. Lots of good, sound grandfatherly wisdom and advice for sure, but there’s many sources saying much the same things elsewhere. So I consider Rock the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

        2. Rock,

          It’s just this type of childish response that leads me to believe your latest blog about getting along in a Christian sense is just a bunch of baloney. Lest you think I am stalking you, it was you that mentioned my name (In an unflattering way) on your blog.

      2. Groupies, AW? You must have the wrong Rock in your sights. Maybe you’re confusing Rock Waterman with Rock Hudson.

      3. Aw…. I do think it is healthy for our church to have agitators on the fringes. They create dialogue and challenge the status quo. Lester Bush was seen as an agitator when he wrote his 1973 “Negro Doctrine” article but the record shows that absolutely had an impact on church leaders motivation to ask for God’s revelation on the topic.

        I also believe that all people, including our church leaders, will be inclined towards “unrighteous authority” if left without any checks and balances on their activities. Our own D&C revelation tells us that is the case.

        However, I think it hurts the dialogue more than it helps when terms like “priestcraft” are used to describe leaders who in my personal experience, are honest, well-meaning, inspired, make some mistakes, but are definitely not making big personal financial gain off the church. That just feels like name-calling, to me.

        It also hurts the dialogue when conspiracy theories like “the Utah church invented Joseph Smiths polygamy to justify their own practice” are promoted from sources that have not been challenged against peer review or any other standard. It just is not credible.

        I agree the point you are making that there does not seem to be a productive objective in what Rock says. Does he want to improve the current church? Does he want current leaders to seek some new revelation? Does he want a new church? Or is this nothing more than a lot of self-indulgent complaining?

        1. Mike,

          A careful reading of Hosea Ch 2+3 reveals that the Lord has led his people into the wilderness and left them alone to see if they would remain faithful. I personally believe that the church is messed up, but it is a church that is/was ordained of God and no man should taketh it upon himself to undo what the Lord has started. The Lord tells us in the D+C that he will send one mighty and strong to set in order his house. So why do all these wanna-bes think they need to kick-start the process? Why does Rock think he knows the correct interpretation of what constitutes a correct tithing? Why does Rock think he knows the “true message of the Book of Mormon”.

          Satan uses well-meaning people to muddy the waters and throw confusion into the process. In the end, we have the scriptures and everyman should be capable of finding the truth for himself. When one sets out to interpret, expound, enlarge upon and orate, then one has crossed the line, and is actively trying to “show others the way”.

          Don’t take my word for it. Read the simple scriptures I have quoted and decide for yourself.

          1. Aw… You and I are of like minds on your views of the Lords people going to the wilderness. I think that is a great paradigm for both the church as well as our personal spiritual lives.

            That said,… Our scriptures a full of stories of prophets who get kick-starts. Emma initiating the Word of Wisdom revelation, Lester Bush accelerating people of African descent getting the priesthood, etc. Moses repeatedly went to the Lord to fulfill the requests of the Children of Israel and they were usually blessed, as a result.

            I sustain my church leaders not because I believe they will always make the right decision. I sustain them because they are called to consider the right options (“study it out in your mind”), including hearing the voice of the members (common consent), and seek inspiration to make the right decisions.

            For me, the kick-start question is a question of the motivation of the person initiating the kick-start. Are their actions the result of personal revelation, faithfully trying to improve things, or are they just displaying a self-indulgent temper tantrum. I get the feeling that Rock is more the latter.

        2. Mike Maxwell,

          I’m guessing the reason you’re having a difficult time understanding the motives of those of us who take notice of problems in the current Church structure, is that you assume we must therefore have plans for fixing it, or an expectation that if only we were in charge we would institute reforms.

          I realize that in the interview there was much that I wasn’t perfectly clear about, but I thought the one area with which I was crystal clear was that I have no inclination to fix or reform the current Church structure.

          No one has the right to take charge of the church. The church belongs to God (D&C 10:67) We can only reform ourselves; we have no business trying to control each other.

          I’m just a dumb schmuck running off at the mouth with a two-bit blog that happens to have gained a bit of attention lately. So What? Why would anyone insist I offer more? Last time I checked, a part of our creed was that We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.

          Of course, there is a solution to reliance on the Church, and that’s reliance upon Christ. But each of us has to do that individually, there can be no reformer step in and make them.

          Some of our members rely upon Church “leaders” as a key form of their worship, while others find those leaders to be irrelevant and unnecessary to their mode of worship. Maybe even a stumbling block. Okay, to each his own. So what’s the problem?

          My posts are nothing more than a series of discoveries noting where I feel I had been diverted from the path God desired for MY life. I don’t speak for others. What I do is point to the vain traditions I once embraced that I believed at the time to be doctrinal but which turned out not to be. If anyone reading my missives can benefit from my mistakes, fine. Others may feel I’m engaging in “a lot of self-indulgent complaining.” That’s fine too.

          My blog apparently has nothing to offer those people. But why then assume I have an obligation to do more than offer my views? Why assume I should seek reform of a corporate system that I don’t recognize as having any relevancy to me in my worship?

          I can only reform myself. The church is made up of individuals whose duty also is to reform themselves. They have no control over me, and I seek no control over them. Each of us is charged with working out our own salvation. I have no inclination to lead anyone else anywhere. Besides, anyone who followed me would be a damn fool. My life is a series of mistakes and false steps, and I expect it will continue to be. Someone wants to look to me for wise counsel and sage advice? Go ahead, and see where it takes you.

          On a parenthetical noet, readers here may wonder what all this flak is about our friend AW. He became the target of some good-natured ribbing from myself and other readers after displaying some bad manners. If you’re interested you can follow the brouhaha in the comment section of February’s post.

          He made some angry demands, and eventually became unnecessarily insulting. He what it came down to was this: AW demanded I devote an excessive amount of time responding to his inquiries, and when I suggested that other commenters had already expressed views that he could take as somewhat reflective of my own, he became even more demanding and increasingly insulting, insisting that I should be man enough to speak for myself.

          AW wanted me to provide him answers that I told him would require an entire blog post to address, and that some day when my thoughts on the matter were more fully formed, I might do so.

          Because I suggested he could be satisfied for now with the responses given by some of the other readers on that subject, he called me a fraud, a hypocrite, and a liar who “hides behind groupies” instead of speaking for myself. Some of these other readers found his rants somewhat entertaining, and their joshing remarks only fueled his ire.

          AW is always welcome to comment on my blog. I just ask that he be a bit more patient with me.

          1. Rock,

            You are a self-serving and opportunistic jerk. Lord knows why you decided in the middle of your response to Mike Maxwell to trash me. Are you currently in need of narcissistic supply?

          2. Replying to AW at 10:46.

            A jerk? Now now. Settle children. But seriously, pot black? I think we’re all messed up. The amount of time and energy spent in these circular threads where we are arguing over just how putrid the carcass is, or was.

            If someone needs to cling to something that is obviously nonsensical let them. It’s only a matter of time before they will abandon that too.

  42. Okay, I’m a little late to make this suggestion, but I believe a good way to categorize Rock Waterman’s beliefs would be Mormon Primitivism. It’s a “back-to-the-basics” version of Mormonism that emphasizes the original, or “primitive,” version of Mormonism — Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments, etc. over the later innovations in Nauvoo and especially from Brigham Young onwards. How does that sound? It’s better than neo-fundamentalist, I think.

    1. I like that better. Thanks to extremist you can’t say Neo without the connotation of that next word kicking in.
      How about Mormon Prodistant? Seems like Denver, Rock & Damien all have a bit of the Spirt of Martin Luther. Critical of the religious powers that be and going backwards looking for the pure religion.
      Great show John and Rock. My wife and I have been full tithe payers since your show whereas before it was so overwhelming it was hard to pay anything. Wonder how much more tithing would be offered if Rocks views on it became corrolated?

    2. I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, but the title of Daymon Smith’s blog, “Mormonism Uncorrelated” seems to be a fit description. So for myself at least, I think I’ll start referring to myself as an Uncorrelated Mormon.

      1. I like that, too, Rock. I still team teach the Gospel Doctrine class in my ward, go help clean the church every couple of months, help folks move in and out of the ward, joyfully partake of the sacrament and attend the temple–but I longer fawn over the topmost ranks of Church™ leaders as some infallible Magisterium. When you blurted out in the interview that they are ‘fat cats’ I almost fell off my chair to hear someone put a name to the elephant in the room. Having lived on the cusp of financial embarrassment most of my adult life I won’t lose a wink of sleep worrying about not having the wherewithall to share 10% of my gross income so the corporation can perpetuate itself and insure college educations for its directors.

  43. Rock,
    Moroni 6 states:
    1.After they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and a cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost.
    2.They were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God.
    3.To keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ. who was the author and the finisher of their faith.
    4.And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.

    You call yourself a follower of the Book of Mormon, but you deny Moroni’s words in that: You deny that the HG cleanses soon after baptism, you seem to be indifferent about being numbered by a church, you are not being nourished by the good word of Christ because you discount teachings from current members, and you don’t meet oft, in fact, you don’t meet at all.

    1. I think the question you should be asking when reading this scripture is why the Mormon’s “Baptism of Fire” is nothing like the powerful experience described in Acts. And also, reread 2 Nephi 31:14, in which the baptism of fire is discussed. It says that after the baptism of fire, if one should deny it would be better that one had never known Christ. In the footnotes to this scripture, it references the unpardonable sin. So, if what happens after an 8-year old gets baptized is really the baptism of fire, then that 8-year old is eligible to commit the unpardonable sin. Now, does that make any sense at all?

      No. The baptism of fire is something different than what happens after the dry clothes are put back on. And the fact that we as Mormons aren’t being taught this is frightening to me. Because the baptism of fire seems mighty important to me.

      Besides, you say the Holy Ghost cleanses, but aren’t we also taught that going into the water and coming back up makes us clean? Which is it?

      We have allowed too many fine traditions to creep into our doctrine regarding something as vital as the baptisms of water and fire.

      1. PJ,
        I don’t know how you got the idea that I’m indifferent about being numbered among the Saints, or that somehow I prefer not to meet oft with my fellow believers. I feel it’s extremely important for us to meet together oft and partake of the fellowship of fellow believers.

        I think I made mention that the reason I do not attend regularly is because my wife is an invalid who requires my attention at home, particularly in the mornings. I am however able to participate in ward social and service projects that take place in the evenings or afternoons, but last year’s ward Christmas party was the last time I made an appearance. My home teacher was reassigned and I am not always kept abreast of what’s going on. (I have made email requests to my bishop by to be assigned a new home teacher or to at least be kept informed about ward activities, but my requests have gone unanswered.)

        I treasure very much my membership in the Church of Christ (see D&C 10:67, as I referenced in the interview). What I don’t care about is whether or not my name is removed from the records of the corporate Church, which is the only power the institution has me as long as I remain faithful to the Master. They don’t have the power or authority to unbaptize me, nor can I be cut off from the presence of God unless I actually commit a sin. “Being out of harmony with the Church,” which appears to be the accusation of the day, is not the same as being out of harmony with Christ and His gospel. If I fall out of favor with the Lord, THEN I’ll be concerned.

        As for your reference to Moroni 6 that the Holy Ghost should follow baptism, I agree that is what SHOULD be happening in the church today, but for whatever reason, we don’t seem to be seeing that experience taking place immediately after baptism, but that is not because I reject the idea.

        I’ll have to concur with Jman’s assessment above that the baptism of fire is a different thing, because I just don’t have the answer as to why we don’t immediately see gifts of the spirit manifest these days after a candidate comes out of the water.

        1. Rock,

          Why would someone, if they were righteous, receive the Holy Ghost after an LDS baptism and not before?

          For I think you know as well as I do that the Church can’t have any Priesthood authority or keys to baptize or do anything else, for wicked men like all the leaders of the Church since Brigham Young on up to today can’t maintain or pass on true Priesthood authority or keys, etc. For just their support alone of such an evil church would not only cause them to lose their Priesthood but also the Holy Ghost if they ever had it.

          Thus the LDS today have as much true Priesthood power to baptize as the Catholics or Baptists or any other Christian Church does.

          So obviously the Holy Ghost does not have to wait for a fake baptism to be performed before he becomes a constant companion to a righteous person.

          In fact, I believe the Holy Ghost will be a far more constant companion to those who are ‘never’ baptized (deceived) by the LDS Church or who don’t attend or support it, then for those who are deceived to support the Church and be baptized by it.

          I believe all righteous people throughout the world have the Holy Ghost as soon as they are worthy of his companionship and it has nothing to do with baptism, at least not any baptism on the earth today, for no one has true authority to baptize anyone.

          Didn’t Joseph Smith at least claim to have God’s authority to baptize people? Whether he really did or not is another question, but it seems he at least stressed the importance of true authority. Or did Joseph Smith think that other Church’s baptisms would suffice and they didn’t have to be rebaptized when they joined Joseph’s Church?

          If Joseph taught that authority was vital, as the Book of Mormon seems to teach, then clearly we can understand why no one receives the Holy Ghost after an LDS baptism today, for it’s a false baptism done without true authority, not to mention done by a totally corrupt and evil Church that brings one under condemnation from God to even become a member of it or support or give money to it.

          For Joseph Smith warned us over and over about how we will be damned for supporting false prophets and false churches like the LDS Church is, which is about as far from the Church that Joseph started as any Church there is.

          So I don’t believe we get any brownie points for attending or being baptized by a Church just because they claim to be the same Church as the one Joseph or Christ started, especially when it is just the opposite.

          Are you also surprised why the Catholics or Baptists or FLDS don’t receive the Holy Ghost after their baptisms?

          Why do you think God would honor a false baptism done without authority? Yes the person is doing a good thing in wanting to show they want to follow Christ, but they are also showing they haven’t studied or followed Christ’s teachings and have allowed themselves to be deceived by false prophets, even to join a false church. Joseph Smith said such people are damned for doing so, so that means Joseph taught it was impossible for someone to receive the Holy Ghost by a false Church like the LDS Church, for he says they are damned. Last I checked a damned person can’t receive or maintain the Holy Ghost until they repent.

    2. PJ,

      The BoM is talking about a ‘true’ church of Christ, not about being numbered by just ‘any’ church. If the true Church of Christ goes into apostasy, like it did in Christ’s day and in Joseph’s day (assuming Joseph restored the true church, which is a big ‘if’ the closer you look at Joseph and what he did and said).

      Also, even in Christ’s day the people met in homes, and didn’t go to a church house, thus people can still be a member of Christ’s Church (which is not the current LDS Church), for it’s more a spiritual thing then an actual physical church, since the true church has so rarely been on the earth for more then a few years before going into apostasy and even when it existed so few even knew about it or lived close to true prophets.

      So anyone can be a member of Christ’s Church and numbered in his Church by unseen angels, and they can meet together oft in their own home with family and friends and be nourished by the good word of Christ, even alone we can do this.

      You seem to be assuming an awful lot, that Brigham Young was a righteous true prophet with true authority (which couldn’t be farther from the truth) and that the current ‘LDS Church’ is Christ’s Church, despite it preaching and practicing totally contrary to his Gospel and warnings.

      I believe that those are truly are part of Christ’s true Church would only be meeting in homes or small groups, with Christlike likeminded people, who truly believe in and live Christ’s true teachings, and not Joseph’s or Brigham’s or anyone elses who add to his teachings, or preach contrary to this teachings, for Christ warned us to beware of such false prophets.

  44. I really enjoy Alan Rock Waterman’s Blog. These moderated views on Mormonism allow me to remain a member of the church. One thing that I don’t understand with regard to Rock is how he will say that Brigham Young was never a prophet, but then ascribes value to his comments about what revelation is. Unless I am misunderstanding the context of these statements, I find that he will attribute value to LDS presidents comments, but then in other posts he will state that only JS was a prophet. I’d like to understand this damic better.

    I also like the Mormon stories podcast. Though some might feel that these blogs hurt the faithful, I’d argue that the people who end up here, are already wounded by feeling betrayed(lied to)about church history, theology, BofM anachinisms, etc……. If they excommunicate Rock and other “outside the box” thinkers, there are thousnds out there who will/can take their place(s). Anyone with a free WiFi connection and a used $200 computer can now compete in the marketplace of ideas. The LDS church is not the sole entity that can commment on its history, theogy and issues.

    One thing that I have said to my LDS friends is: If JS or Brigham Young were to be reincarnated, and spoke in conference and proceeded to teach various “eternal truths”, their microphone would be turned off, they’d escorted from the building and excommunicated for teaching falsehoods like, polygamy, praying to Jesus, women performing healings, drinking alcohol and using tobacco products, substantial and meaningful changes in the BofM, Blacks with regard to marriage/priesthood, etc, etc, etc …..

    You may be a member of the of the church of Jesus Christ, but all his assets are held by a 501(C)3 corporation, and you aint’ a member of that one!

    When lamenting these feelings of berayal that I feel to a friend, he said to me, “you were lied to, Buddy, that’s what religions do to their members, why do you think that your religion would behave any differently than anyone else’s religion. Get over it and grow up!” great words of wisdom from a believing Chrstian/Mormon.

    Great interview John Dehlin!

    1. David Fife,
      I have no problem quoting Brigham Young when he says something I agree with. That doesn’t make him a prophet anymore than if I were to quote Billy Graham or Mahatma Ghandi to bring home a particular point. My apologies if I wasn’t clear on that in the interview. (Was I really clear on ANYTHING in that interview?)

      Brigham Young has said “I’m not a prophet like Joseph or Daniel, but I am a Yankee Guesser.” Elsewhere he asserted that he understood his role to be that of a mere place-sitter until the time either Joseph III or David Smith came of age to claim their rightful place as leader of the church.

      Here is the statement Brigham Young made regarding revelation, which I hopelessly mangled during the interview in my attempt to paraphrase it:

      “ ‘Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?’ Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether[my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. ‘Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?’ I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you,
      and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.” (Journal of Discourses 3:209)

      So what I was trying to get at in the interview, David, was that Brigham Young understood the meaning of “revelation”; that is, a revelation is something revealed that was heretofore not known. When we use that word in the church, we properly presume it refers to something revealed from God, but Brigham was skirting the issue and defining it (also technically correct) that a revelation is information that one person “reveals” to another that the second person had not been previously aware of.

      You’ll note that Brigham is careful not to claim he himself had ever received a revelation from God. But he doesn’t seem to mind if some people take away that impression on their own. Even though our traditions have converted Brigham Young from simply President of the Quorum into a latter-day Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, you have to give Old Brother Brigham props for not stooping to making that unwarranted claim himself.

  45. Rock, on the baptism question, doesn’t Jesus in the BOM instruct that we should baptise saying “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ,” so — authority matters. Second, on the same point, the Kingdom of Heaven, according to the scriptures is Heaven, the Kingdom of God is what you were referring to, ie the Council of Fifty.

  46. Bro Waterman,

    Thank you for your kind and thorough response to my question.

    The charicterization that you gave to Brigham Young seems to me to be a bit on the manipulative side (referring to BY, not you!). More of a politician using purposfully ambiguous language to game or trick their believing members. I understand his use of the word “revelation” as used above. But I think that definition of revelation is very different than the definition attached to the word used by JS or the current church today. That definition makes “revelation” seem rather pedestrian in its occurance and does not make Thomas Monson higher up on the food chain than the rest of us. It begs the question “What does it mean to be a prophet, if everyone is a prophet?”

    It reminds me of when George Bush II decided that he needed to topple Iraq/Saddam Hussein. He had his minions in the press and talk radio associate a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein/Iraq. But when confronted on that specific question by the media, he would deny the connection. It got to the point where the vast majority of Americans thought that there was connection between 9/11 and Iraq. As a result, great evil happened due that purposful misdirection of public perception.

    The description of BY above makes him seem like a slimy politician taking advantage where he can get it, rather than a prophet of god.

    I read my post and it seems like I am coming off as argumentative. I’m not feeling that way if I am perceived that way. I do like your Blog tremendously. You were on a radio talk show in SLC last December. You were a hit!

    I think that your references of people leaving the church in droves might be understating things. I would also say that living in Salt Lake City, I am aware of quite a few people who are atheists/agnostics who are active in the church and serve in seminary, high council and bishoprics. I would guess this issue is wide spread. These people are not on the church records as casualties, but as active TBM’s.

    If you keep doing what you are doing, you are going to keep getting what you are getting. It appears that the church is on a trajectory to become just another watered-down, vanilla, protestant church.

    Thank you,

    David

    1. David,

      According to Christ, prophets are not suppose to receive revelation for anyone or to even lead people or a church, they are only supposed to be examples of keeping all the commandments, that’s how you know they are true prophets.

      Why would we follow or trust an imperfect person to be our leader ?

      Everyone is supposed to discern truth and error on their own, that’s the test of this life.

      Christ taught us not to trust or follow any mortal, even prophets, for even if they do keep all his commandments they will still often be wrong about things and thus always lead people astray, while thinking they are right.

      Christ taught us to follow our conscience and the Golden Rule, not prophets or leaders.

      Churches are a man made idea and not something Christ invented or wanted, for he knew there are no angels on earth to lead those churches and mortals would always just lead each other astray unknowingly, no matter how sincere.

      The Bible was not written by Christ or God but by very fallible men, most who didn’t even seem to follow Christ but just claimed to speak for God or Christ. But it’s common for most everyone to think one’s inspiration/revelation is from God and from not our own mind or a false spirit.

      A false prophet will say he speaks for and has revelation from God. A true prophet will not claim revelation (for he will know how fallible and wrong he might be) and thus will tell you to get your own revelation and just follow the Golden Rule.

  47. It was going ok until he started on Joe not being a polygamist, horses in ancient america during BoM time and Native Americans coming from Japan and had Mid Eastern DNA….

    Come on!…. This is so easy to research it is disappointing he was clueless on so many things

  48. Rock’s a good guy. I don’t agree with everything he says, nor most of what he says actually. But he does have some useful insights that make one question the received wisdom.
    On the Joseph Smith/polygamy issue; in my view Rock’s right on the money here. I came to the conclusion a number of years ago that Joseph was not a polygamist. I did this by examining the evidence, rather than allowing other people to interpret it for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *