Anti's At Manti

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]He threw out a comment here and there, but he consistently refused to have an intelligent conversation [...]

There's a guy who posts here sometimes that's exactly the same way. I know your frustrations.

[captain-jack]

Granted the video didn't last 30 minutes, but it didn't show a beginning or ending to the entire speech. It could have lasted for 30 minutes at the same rate you were going at. But again, it may not have. Can't be proven or disproved by that video alone, but the content does give insight.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He went on like this for a half hour, so long as I stood there. As far as him engaging with other people, the method is described like this:

The shouter draws attention and a crowd. As a crowd gathers, other cohorts of Aaron try to peel people off to talk to them individually. The shouter does not make an attempt to engage in a dialogue while he is shouting; he is there to draw attention and make a spectacle. When I approached Mr. Aaron, I walked right up to him, though he ignored me. I tried to inturrupt to ask a question; he gave me no regard. His friend standing next to him asked me if I had a question; but my question was for Aaron. I asked Aaron, and at this point he stopped yelling, which was my object to begin with, and I showed them a few Bible verses.

So as far as Aaron saying they make an effort to dialogue with people, this is a half-truth. They take shifts, as soon as one is done yelling, another resumes in his place, and so on.

The shouter tries NOT to dialogue with people.

Again, I ask Aaron for a Biblical basis for the method and message of his shout-preaching.

[bjw]

I think someone asked what denomination I am. I'm an evangelical Protestant. One God (the Trinity), salvation by grace apart from works, merit, or personal worthiness, God designed everything ultimately for his own glory and for our happiness in giving him the glory, and the Bible is more reliable and authoritative than any living man on earth. The Christian folks at the pageant evangelizing were from all sorts of different churches. Our unity isn't ultimately in a denomination or organizational hierarchy, it's in the God we worship, the God who is God over all reality and not just a particular dominion.

After being protestant for 26 years and being "inside" three mainstream protestant ministries, I can say this is not always the truth. In MacArthur's organization I attended several churches that taught the "lordship salvation" theology, as assigned by the college. One church encouraged unworthy members not to take communion and even had a prayer of confession at the top of the service so members could try to confess sins to get themselves "worthy." Also, I was told I was lost for not going on a 2 week missions trip when I had to go home for a family emergency. I was also told I was lost for the music I liked. This ministry repeatedly attacked other protestants for teaching "non-lordship" theology, accused them of teaching "cheap grace." Also, their ultimate authority was not the Bible but was a series of books written by their Bible teachers. I had one friend in my Bible study group that left the church because of the excessive pressures. I kept in touch with him and he kept his faith in Christ and joined another Bible-believing church, yet everyone at the church was told he renounced Christ.

Aaron, on your MySpace page you recommend "Desiring God" by John Piper, and this book's annivarsary edition includes a recommend by MacArthur. I have just shown here that the lordship movement teaches salvation by works and has no unity with other protestants, so if Piper is Lordship and you agree with him can I also assume you are lordship?

Now that I am Mormon I take offense to people telling me I'm not saved and misrepresenting protestantism, I know how it is because I was in it for a long time. I can say beyond a shadow of the doubt that the LDS church has been far less legalistic than the lordship churches and everything is spelled out. In the lordship thought nothing was ever good enough, no matter what I did they were always one step ahead of me with things I wasn't doing, and if you weren't showing enough evidence constantly then there was doubt that you were saved. It was a very depressing and dark life. My father is in the other extreme, the free-grace movement, and he was worried I wasn't saved when I joined this church. So even the "free-grace/no-lordship" position practices conditional grace and is works based. Yet, these two attack each other. Protestant denominations are not united and cannot agree.

I went to Christian schools my whole life until I was 20 years old and in the Assembly of God elementary school they said the eternal security people probably weren't saved, then at the Reformed theology high school they made fun of the pentecostals. I noticed even as a child that none of them could ever agree, and to claim otherwise is just wishful thinking.

Particular dominion? I don't see how believing that we live in a universe and God is the God of our universe disqualifies us from salvation. In Romans it says the requirement is to "believe." I assume this means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to enter heaven, and while it doesn't mention the other three heavens I would assume all believers will be rewarded for their belief, not just Mormons or protestants or any other faction.

[humblest_guy_in_universe]

At the risk of saying something unpopular, I honestly admire Aaronshaf's for at least one thing, his callousness. You might say that in this area I have holy envy.

A countless number times, I have held back something that I believe or held back my testimony simply because I'm afraid that I might offend somebody or somebody may not like me after I try to share what I hold most precious.

I know I could be a better missionary if I could get some of that only-care-about-what-God-thinks-of-me kool-aid.

It reminds me of Lehi, Abinidi, and Nephi (in Helaman when he prays on his garden tower), and Samuel the Lamanite. All of these men actively placed himself in an a situation where they were not welcome, and said things that were very unpopular because they cared more about what God thinks then what other's think. I'm sure there are many more examples like these.

So, while I don't believe Aaronshaf is fully aware of the Gospel, at least he's willing to give up his personal comforts for what he believes God wants him to do.

If only I could be more like that...someday.

[LifeOnaPlate]

At the risk of saying something unpopular, I honestly admire Aaronshaf's for at least one thing, his callousness. You might say that in this area I have holy envy.

A countless number times, I have held back something that I believe or held back my testimony simply because I'm afraid that I might offend somebody or somebody may not like me after I try to share what I hold most precious.

I know I could be a better missionary if I could get some of that only-care-about-what-God-thinks-of-me kool-aid.

It reminds me of Lehi, Abinidi, and Nephi (in Helaman when he prays on his garden tower), and Samuel the Lamanite. All of these men actively placed himself in an a situation where they were not welcome, and said things that were very unpopular because they cared more about what God thinks then what other's think. I'm sure there are many more examples like these.

So, while I don't believe Aaronshaf is fully aware of the Gospel, at least he's willing to give up his personal comforts for what he believes God wants him to do.

If only I could be more like that...someday.

While bravery is a good point, his lack of tact and respect is not a quality I would seek in discipleship. Christ was brave, but he was also meek.

[aaronshaf]

bjw,

While I've heard of churches that teach one should not take the communion if they have any outstanding, flagrant, unrepentant sin in their life, I have not heard them use the language of "worthiness" in a Mormon way. In fact, we are encouraged to take the Lord's supper to remind us that, while we aren't morally worthy of it, Christ is our worthy substitute. That of course doesn't give us the license to profane it. I think it was Jesus who taught it was better to reconcile with a brother than to worship at the altar of God.

I have a reasonable social network of friends and acquaintances across the US and I am familiar with the most popular seminaries and ministries in the United States (and I work for one based out of Colorado Springs), and I would have to disagree that the Lordship position (specifically, the position that works are a necessary and inevitable evidence of the faith which alone justifies) is in the minority position. While "easy believism" is in practice implicitly taught at many mega churches, most every Christian will admit that if you are born again then you will bear the fruits of obedience testifying of the reality of your faith. The "Grace Evangelical Society" and the last academic bastion of non-Lordship Salvation, Dallas Theological Seminary, are hardly taken seriously anymore when it comes to their non-traditional claims concerning this issue. 1 John was written to counter the same type of claims 2000 years ago, and it is just as relevant and powerful today.

I do closely know some people in the DTS camp, even someone who wrote one of the main non-Lordship books. Even given the obvious disagreement over a huge issue, we are united over justification by faith alone and the fact that God's goodness and free forgiveness are primary obedience-motivators and heart-changers for Christians. Even though I wouldn't want their specific non-Lordship teaching in my church, I still recognize them as brothers and do some significant ministry work alongside them. Our unity isn't in a hierarchy, it's in Christ himself. I am sorry that you experienced Christian disunity, as I know it exists. I think the most important thing is to remember the most important things: the nature of God, the core of the gospel, and the reliability and authority of God's word over any living person on earth.

I don't see how believing that we live in a universe and God is the God of our universe disqualifies us from salvation.

If one pays attention to what I was saying, this wasn't simply my claim. My point is this: If you believe that God only has a particular dominion and not absolute dominion then you don't know the fundamental nature of God as the "Most High". There is no conceivable world in any universe that Christ did not himself create (John 1:3). Our worship of God isn't merely over how he relates to us and our world, but to the rest of reality. Our worship of God isn't merely for who he is, but also for who is was and will be. Mormons really settle for less when it comes to the glories of God that merit our worship.

In Romans it says the requirement is to "believe."

The New Testament doesn't encourage a blind faith with arbitrary content. I would encourage you to check out Romans 4:4-8, where Paul specifies the kind of faith he is talking about. Unless you trust him for the justification of the ungodly by faith apart from works, then you aren't justified and never will be unless you, according to 4:5, stop working to earn your dues from God.

Ironically, the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7). If you obstinately refuse the free gift of full and immediate forgiveness by faith apart from works, you are cutting yourself off from what God has designed to most empower you to love people and love God.

I would encourage you to study the "Future Grace" packet by John Piper for a better understanding of the Lordship position, which is I think is Biblical and is certainly consistent with justification by faith apart from works/worthiness/merit.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...7_Future_Grace/

I would also encourage you to read Spencer W. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness and then do a fresh reading of Romans.

LifeOnaPlate,

I'm not going to spend time here endlessly defending street evangelism. I suggest you start with Alma 32:1, then the OT minor prophets, and then the book of Acts and keep your eyes open for examples of public heralding. The consistently soft and identifiable tone that Mormon culture has come to associate with spirituality doesn't really work when you're speaking to 10 - 150 people on the street without a sound system, nor does it work to communicate much passion.

Heck, even Gordon B. Hinckley used to "street preach" to strangers. And of course such preaching should be mingled with compassion and kindness.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-,

Aaron

[captain-jack]

...

If one pays attention to what I was saying, this wasn't simply my claim. My point is this: If we believe that God only has a particular dominion and not absolute dominion then you don't know the fundamental nature of God as the "Most High". There is no conceivable world in any universe that Christ did not himself create (John 1:3). Our worship of God isn't merely over how he relates to us and our world, but to the rest of reality. Our worship of God isn't merely for who he is, but also for who is was and will. Mormons really settle for less when it comes to the glories of God that merit our worship.

I believe anything He does merit's all of my worship for Him, how do I settle for less?

The New Testament doesn't encourage a blind faith with arbitrary content. I would encourage you to check out Romans 4:4-8, where Paul specifies the kind of faith he is talking about. Unless you trust him for the justification of the ungodly by faith apart from works, then you aren't justified and never will be unless you, according to 4:5, stop working to earn your dues from God.

I don't work to earn my dues, I work to show my faith.

James 2:18 -

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Ironically, the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7). If you obstinately refuse the free gift of full and immediate forgiveness by faith apart from works, you are cutting yourself off from what God has designed to most empower you to love people and love God.

I believe that faith can completely cleanse me, but I couldn't find anything in the Bible saying that it required works or simply faith alone to completely repent. Though I may have overlooked something in my finite capacity.

I would encourage you to study the "Future Grace" packet by John Piper for a better understanding of the Lordship position, which is I think is Biblical and is certainly consistent with justification by faith apart from works/worthiness/merit.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...7_Future_Grace/

I would also encourage you to read Spencer W. Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness and then do a fresh reaching of Romans.

Please reference how it is consistent with Biblical citations on faith without works. I am currently reading Miracle of Forgiveness but I do have limited time now with my wedding coming up.

LifeOnaPlate,

I'm not going to spend time here endlessly defending street evangelism. I suggest you start with Alma 32:1, then the OT minor prophets, and then the book of Acts and keep your eyes open for examples of public heralding. The consistently soft and identifiable tone that Mormon culture has come to associate with spirituality doesn't really work when you're speaking to 10 - 150 people on the street without a sound system. Heck, even Gordon B. Hinckley used to "street preach" to strangers. And of course such preaching should be mingled with compassion and kindness.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-,

Aaron

Please cite when President Hinckley would "street preach", I'm don't ever know when he would stand on the corner or in a crowd yelling how everyone believed a false religion. The Alma verse says they preached, but not saying what they believed was wrong and stood in the middle of them yelling. It also states later that they gathered on a hill, what would Alma have done if those in the synagogues had come up yelling that they believe in false prophets?

There is a difference between stopping people and talking with them about what you believe and how you believe it is right, and those who yell at others directly attacking them, saying they are wrong.

[LifeOnaPlate]

bjw,

While I've heard of churches that teach one should not take the communion if they have any outstanding, flagrant, unrepentant sin in their life, I have not heard them use the language of "worthiness" in a Mormon way. In fact, we are encouraged to take the Lord's supper to remind us that, while we aren't morally worthy of it, Christ is our worthy substitute. That of course doesn't give us the license to profane it. I think it was Jesus who taught it was better to reconcile with a brother than to worship at the altar of God.

I find the concept of worthiness taught by Paul himself, whom you liberally quote. If you held up Paul to the same critique you hold up President Kimball, you might be surprised. Focusing on only a handful of scriptures gives a lop-sided view of the truth, as it is.

For a specific answer of "worthiness" as Mormons believe it, I refer you to Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lordâ??s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lordâ??s body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

From this reading we find the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You want to believe, or prove, that the LDS Church differs radically from everything you believe, including points of doctrine like this one; which we find in the Bible. [Parenthetically, I wonder what your take is on the people feeling "sickly" and those who sleep.] We are never truly morally worthy of partaking of the sacrament; that is a given. If we tried to wait until perfection, we'd never partake in this life, and this would defeat the purpose of the sacrament. We are taught, and so I also believe, that when we partake of the sacrament we take upon us the name of Christ; we renew the covenant we made with Him when we were baptised, that we may be forgiven, and that we may have His Spirit to be with us. It is a solemn and serious occasion, a time to think and reflect on the sacrifice of God's Son, and we seek to worship him. To partake of the sacrament unworthily is to partake of it while not being honest with ourselves and God; and we need to do that before we are worthy: a humble admission that we are, in fact, unworthy; and that we need his forgiveness.

LifeOnaPlate,

I'm not going to spend time here endlessly defending street evangelism. I suggest you start with Alma 32:1, then the OT minor prophets, and then the book of Acts and keep your eyes open for examples of public heralding. The consistently soft and identifiable tone that Mormon culture has come to associate with spirituality doesn't really work when you're speaking to 10 - 150 people on the street without a sound system, nor does it work to communicate much passion.

Heck, even Gordon B. Hinckley used to "street preach" to strangers. And of course such preaching should be mingled with compassion and kindness.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-,

Aaron

Nowhere do I find Paul screaming about why what other people believe is wrong, in explicit terms, and especially in ways that misrepresented actual beliefs of the people listening. I also don't see Paul trying to gather crowds of children about, to try to convince them that the religion of their fathers is incorrect. Also, in any of the accounts you listed I do not find any follower of Christ invading the religious gathering of any other group, and lastly, it wasn't only the shouting, but the mocking tone of the shouting, the disrespectful accusations, which receives my criticism and cannot be found in the Bible, Alma, or anywhere else in Christian literature I believe in. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Rather than throwing out a few random places, like "go check Acts," perhaps you can give me a specific instance which would demonstrate your point.

[pchan]

Aaron

Riker and LifeonaPlate I think covered it well. I will add that I contacted people on the street for two years in Japan and never once did I raise my voice, I avoided their places of worship when I was proselyting and was always respectful of their own religious beliefs. For every person that I met that I made friends with that did join the church, there were at least ten that did not. Why did they remain my friends even though they thought my beliefs were funny. They knew that I cared for them. When you mock others beliefs you do not show love and therefore are a poor example of Christian living.

I have no problem with what you believe only what you say and you do.

Let your light so shine does not mean throw moseltov cocktails of faith into the crowd.

[maklelan]

Gordon B. Hinckley also took their questions and answered them honestly without spounting ridiculous perversions of their religious beliefs. Big difference between that and the drooling and shouting person I saw on that video.

[captain-jack]

Gordon B. Hinckley also took their questions and answered them honestly without spounting ridiculous perversions of their religious beliefs. Big difference between that and the drooling and shouting person I saw on that video.

He also didn't hold up a sign leading to a site about how a specific other religion is wrong.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He also didn't hold up a sign leading to a site about how a specific other religion is wrong.

Ironically, Aaron preaches Joseph Smith more than he preaches Jesus whenever he holds up that sign. Certainly, those seeking a one-sided view to confirm prior predjudices may accept Aaron's misrepresentations as gospel truth; but conversely, people who may have doubts will ask a friend, a trusted believer, or someone who may have an answer. They may seek out God and ask him directly, and seek inspiration from the Holy Ghost to let them know the truth, whether it be of God, or whether Aaron speaks of himself only. aaron is hoping to plant seeds of doubt. Christ aims to plant seeds of faith; which when watered by the spirit, choke out the weeds of incorrect doctrine. Aaron seeks to instill fear in the hearts of Latter-day Saints, including children, by profaning their beliefs, especially by misrepresenting and using vulgar terms. But God has not given us the spirit of fear, rather, he has given us the spirit of love. He teaches truth, not what he perceives as error. Jesus and the apostles wrote and testified of truths. If they were contradicted or rejected they dusted their feet and moved to the next town. They didn't appear there every week during the locations worship services to mock them. Where in the New Testament are all the "anti-non-Christian" writings? Where in the scriptures did the writers single out a specific religion, and not only single it out, but pursue it, follow it around with signs and tumult? Why does the bible stick to preaching the gospel of Christ? Aren't these writers adding to the word of God by setting forth expose's on the Mormons as truth?

Rather than building up the body of Christ by persuasion, meekness, long-suffering, charity, and over all, preaching Christ and Him crucified, Aaron is looking past the mark, and preaching about Jospeh Smith, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[maklelan]

I have another question for Aaron. Now that you are acutely aware of the fact that Isaiah 44 doesn't at all say what you need it to say, will you continue to use it? My assumption is that you will figure most people don't know Hebrew and will therefore not be aware of the error in your preaching. Is that true or will you leave it out since you know now that it's not true?

[Mark Beesley]

I have another question for Aaron. Now that you are acutely aware of the fact that Isaiah 44 doesn't at all say what you need it to say, will you continue to use it? My assumption is that you will figure most people don't know Hebrew and will therefore not be aware of the error in your preaching. Is that true or will you leave it out since you know now that it's not true?

As indicated earlier, Aaron is not constrained by any sense of ethics.

[oats]

This approach to preaching appears to have been given through revelation.

[captain-jack]

It's reasonable to think that Aaron doesn't have the time to spend on the site all the time. I will patiently await his response to questions asked about his statements. Hopefully, he will be able to answer them soon as my curiosity grows.

[consiglieri]

As for the guy in the red shirt, he's the guy I elsewhere have identified as possibly demon possessed. Many tried, including myself, to have a dialog with him, but something wasn't right with him (he consistently showed up night after night acting as though he was drunk). He threw out a comment here and there, but he consistently refused to have an intelligent conversation (which I would have loved to have), so a lot of people just stopped trying to reason with him.

Is this the guy in the red shirt or the guy in the t-shirt with the backpack and the sign?

Does your Bible have the part where Jesus talks about throwing stones?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There's a guy who posts here sometimes that's exactly the same way. I know your frustrations.

Beat to the punch again, I see.

Curse you, Doctor Steuss!

[Hawkmoon]

I'm sorry to inform everyone participating in this thread that aaronshaf, due to the fact he is currently engaged in Screaching for the Lord... will not be able to "dialogue" with you. However, his cohorts with the pamphlets I am informed will be only too glad to “pray some of you have not been thoroughly brainwashed and will open your heart and hear the voice of the GOD of the BIBLE and turn from the LIES of Smith before YOU DIE AND END UP IN THE ETERNAL FLAMES OF HELL!!!!” Errr. I mean... I am sure they will gladly answer all your questions. Thank you.

In His love and service,

Your friend and brother in Christ,

Bill Keller

P.S. I don't debate theology with cult members so don’t waste your time emailing me because they will simply be deleted-- unread.

[Programmer]

For Aaron

I was spiritually born again as a young boy (raised in the LDS faith) when I was 13 years old. I started when I started in those days by reading the Bible and Book of Mormon. I found both books to contain marvelous spiritual insights into the Nature of God. To make a long story short, I accepted Christ into my life, and went past faith in my knowledge of the Lord. I really rejoiced back in those days in my conversion to Christ and in my faith in Jesus the Christ, and in the Father (And Holy Ghost). I can say without reservation that my conversion to Jesus was he greatest blessing I have ever recieved and ever will recieve: It opened up the door to my salvation. A fact of which I know that God knows, and God knows that I know. I know I have recieved the promise of Eternal Life from God, and no body can stand between God and I and tell me I haven`t experienced what I have experienced.

Aaron, (Nor anyone else) can tell me I have not experienced revelation directly from God concerning my own personal salvation. You just can`t do it. It is for God to judge the matter, not you.

I know in whose strength I have trusted, and it is God and his Son Jesus Christ.

[CQUIRK]

"This is a room shot of the Evangelical protesters being trained before a protest session in the Ephraim Church of the Bible. Standing room only...obviously the Evangelical antiMormon movement is bigger and more organized that some will admit to."

=It probably was a national conferance that had street preachers from all over America, and possibly other countries there.

=You also understand that being a 'mecca' of LDS and the 'Zion' of the Church- Utah is a BIG anti-mormon magnet. Just like how cops prefer to pull over flashy bright-colored rice-rockets for speeding.

You guys are going to get all sorts of things from the woodwork in your territory. DER!

[captain-jack]

"This is a room shot of the Evangelical protesters being trained before a protest session in the Ephraim Church of the Bible. Standing room only...obviously the Evangelical antiMormon movement is bigger and more organized that some will admit to."

=It probably was a national conferance that had street preachers from all over America, and possibly other countries there.

=You also understand that being a 'mecca' of LDS and the 'Zion' of the Church- Utah is a BIG anti-mormon magnet. Just like how cops prefer to pull over flashy bright-colored rice-rockets for speeding.

You guys are going to get all sorts of things from the woodwork in your territory. DER!

Please tell me how it is justified then. Just because there's a large amount of LDS in Utah, how is it right to be treated as such? Watch the video and tell me who deserves to have their religion mocked, told they are wrong, never have their questions answered by this person, all while at a celebration for that religion?

Do tell.

[selek]

Please tell me how it is justified then. Just because there's a large amount of LDS in Utah, how is it right to be treated as such? Watch the video and tell me who deserves to have their religion mocked, told they are wrong, never have their questions answered by this person, all while at a celebration for that religion?

Do tell.

That wasn't his point, Number One.

He was never justifying the behavior- merely accounting for its prevalence.

It's kinda like Dillinger's response when asked why he robbed banks.

"That's where the money is."

Or hyenas lying in wait near watering holes in Africa. That's where the targets are.

The Street Screachers, Confused Christians, and the remainder of their unwashed, drool-stained minions come here because they have declared Mormons to be their enemies- and the Mormons come together at Salt Lake.

It doesn't make it right- it just explains why they do it.

It might also explain the vast supply of throat lozenges, cough syrups, and tonsilitis medicines. Screaming like that can hurt the throat. A good cough drop can soothe the burning.

[captain-jack]

That wasn't his point, Number One.

He was never justifying the behavior- merely accounting for its prevalence.

It's kinda like Dillinger's response when asked why he robbed banks.

"That's where the money is."

Or hyenas lying in wait near watering holes in Africa. That's where the targets are.

The Street Screachers, Confused Christians, and the remainder of their unwashed, drool-stained minions come here because they have declared Mormons to be their enemies- and the Mormons come together at Salt Lake.

It doesn't make it right- it just explains why they do it.

It might also explain the vast supply of throat lozenges, cough syrups, and tonsilitis medicines. Screaming like that can hurt the throat. A good cough drop can soothe the burning.

True, I know it's the natural order of things. We'll be attacked because we are a perceived threat, though the 'DER' at the end suggests that this idea hasn't 'come to pass'. We know it, we just know it's not right. It's never right to outright target a single religion.

[selek]

True, I know it's the natural order of things. We'll be attacked because we are a perceived threat, though the 'DER' at the end suggests that this idea hasn't 'come to pass'. We know it, we just know it's not right. It's never right to outright target a single religion.

One minor quibble- it's never right to outright target a single religion using dishonest means and reasoning.

If we had a small religious outfit start up that advocated and practiced kidnapping small children for use as human sacrifices, we'd be perfectly justified in targetting them.

Making such an accusation falsely, and distorting their teachings to justify the lie, however, is never acceptable.

My problem with the Great Western Hairless Shaf and his cohorts at Confused Christians is not their opposition, or even thier smug rudeness- it's their knowing and willing dishonesty.

As a case in point:

Sometime ago, President Hinckley addressed a missionary class and joked that, "they weren't much- but they were all the Lord had." The missionaries and the media present all understood the joke and took it as such.

Shaf subsequently editted the footage and produced at least two (and I beleive as many as four) Internet (YouTube) diatribes berating the Prophet for insulting the missionaries and attempting to decieve people into beleiving that Hinckley really was deriding and condemning the missionaries.

This kind of willful deciept and distortion is not isolated, but is part and parcel of Shaf's "ministry", and a very good reason that (short of the unfathomable mercy of a loving God) his afterlife will be a warm one.