Anti's At Manti

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

It's funny that he uses what he perceives as dishonesty or mistakes of LDS Church leaders to prove they are uninspired, as though they were supposed to be perfect; yet by showing his own misperceptions he openly admits he is not inspired of God by his own standards.

[selek]

It's funny that he uses what he perceives as dishonesty or mistakes of LDS Church leaders to prove they are uninspired, as though they were supposed to be perfect; yet by showing his own imperceptions he openly admits he is not inspired of God by his own standards.

Consistency and logic have never been the hallmarks of the anti-Mormon fanatic.

I think that's why we make the distinction between counter-Mo's (a number of whom- especially on these boards- are both articulate and gifted) and anti's.

[CQUIRK]

(That wasn't his point, Number One.)

=Exactely. Heck if I had my way, I would've showed up there with baseball bat in hand.

But in reality, you cannot take these people seriously. You're right we shouldn't be mocked or harrassed, but you have to understand that a lot of these people have so far-out views that they 'think' they're doing God's work. Some are even mentally unstable.

As I said, they think that by going into the heartland of our faith, they can have an enormous effect on our Church. But these people are a bunch of wackos and nut-jobs that only cause contention and hate and the True Church keeps on growing and building more Temples then ever despite them.

Though if all of you want to start boycotting these meetings and conferences, then go for it!

[CQUIRK]

Another thing-

This Lonnie guy being discussed here is Lonnie Pursifull, or however you spell his last name.

He seemed somewhat well-behaved at Manti. Since he usually wears temple garmets around his neck and does all sorts of disrespectfull things to them at General Conferences. He very much likes the confrontational approch to street preaching and tries to piss off Church goers.

I have some Deseret News links on him if anybody's interested.

[rhinomelon]

I think it was LifeonaPlate that was asking for a biblical basis for the street preaching method, and I was wondering how he/she would react to the kinds of preaching the apostles used in Acts. Paul started out going specifically to Jewis synagogues to preach. Peter preached to the crowds at Pentecost and other places. I think one could make a good case that these men were pretty bold and confrontational at times. Heck, Stephen got stoned for his preaching! Paul was kicked out of the synagogues eventually, and then took the gospel to the Gentiles.

Not to mention the OT prophets. Many of them did very confrontational stuff, including ripping people's clothes of them, preaching publicly in the streets and in the Temple courtyard.

While I think the streetpreaching method is not the best in certain circumstances, I fail to see how one could say the method itself is patently unbiblical. That's how the Christian faith spread across the Roman Empire! The Bible gives different examples of ways to preach the gospel, from one-on-one (Jesus and Nicodemus, Philip and the Ethiopian) to more rational discussion and debate (Paul and the Greeks at the Areopagus--my personal favorite method of sharing the gospel), to loud preaching in the public arena (the apostles in Acts, the OT prophets, etc). No method should be abandoned completely in the interests of avoiding hurt feelings or angry people. Some people will always get offended by someone telling them they're wrong, no matter how you do it! We should never seek to cause unnecessary offense, but Paul also refers to the gospel as "offensive" to those who have not believed it, so offense is really unavoidable, I think.

Take care, everyone

[Doctor Steuss]

rhinomelon,

Are you equating Aaron and Lonnie to Prophets and Apostles of G-d?

[bluebell]

I may be misunderstanding-but i think the question LOOP asked pertained to a certain type of street preaching (as demonstrated by aaron etc.) and where it was supported in the bible-

not whether or not street preaching in general is supported.

[Mark Beesley]

I think it was LifeonaPlate that was asking for a biblical basis for the street preaching method, and I was wondering how he/she would react to the kinds of preaching the apostles used in Acts. Paul started out going specifically to Jewis synagogues to preach. Peter preached to the crowds at Pentecost and other places. I think one could make a good case that these men were pretty bold and confrontational at times.

The case can be made that the apostles were bold, but not overbearing. The simple fact that they were cast out of synagogues or stoned does not indicate they were confrontational. It only shows that the people they were preaching to were very intolerant. I know that I experienced violent reactions from people while I was on my mission when I was decidedly non-confrontational. They just don't like the message.

A good example of the proper way to preach to non-believers is given by Paul when he preached to the Athenians. The Athenians were a very superstitious lot, and erected monuments and altars to various Gods on the road to Mars hill. As Paul preached to the Athenians, he did not disparage their monuments to false gods, but rather said, "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts 17:22-23.

Basically, Paul said, "Look, you guys are worshiping all of these different Gods, and even worship one who you don't know. Let me tell you about that one." Paul took the faith of the Athenians and tried to give them additional light.

Bold, but not overbearing.

Aaron and his ilk could take a lesson from Paul.

[rhinomelon]

rhinomelon,

Are you equating Aaron and Lonnie to Prophets and Apostles of G-d?

Not in terms of position or influence (and I think they would agree with that). But in terms of method, I'm saying that streetpreaching (even if it seen as offensive by some) is a legitimate method of preaching the gospel, according to the biblical testimony.

The case can be made that the apostles were bold, but not overbearing. The simple fact that they were cast out of synagogues or stoned does not indicate they were confrontational. It only shows that the people they were preaching to were very intolerant. I know that I experienced violent reactions from people while I was on my mission when I was decidedly non-confrontational. They just don't like the message.

Perhaps. I think the truth lies in the middle somewhere. I think it is almost undeniable that the apostles were confrontational at times. Heck, the language Paul uses in reference to the Judaizers would be quite offensive to them, no doubt, whether they were intolerant or not. But my point is (and I think you'd agree) is that we do find this kind of confrontation in the Bible to a certain extent. I would also point out that the line between boldness and confrontation seems to blur depending on whether you agree with the message or not.

A good example of the proper way to preach to non-believers is given by Paul when he preached to the Athenians. The Athenians were a very superstitious lot, and erected monuments and altars to various Gods on the road to Mars hill. As Paul preached to the Athenians, he did not disparage their monuments to false gods, but rather said, "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts 17:22-23.

I agree that this is one way the preaching the gospel is done in Scripture. I believe I said as much in my last post. However, I disagree that this is the proper way to do it. There is simply too much diversity in the biblical witness to say that this is the one way.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it was LifeonaPlate that was asking for a biblical basis for the street preaching method, and I was wondering how he/she would react to the kinds of preaching the apostles used in Acts. Paul started out going specifically to Jewis synagogues to preach. Peter preached to the crowds at Pentecost and other places. I think one could make a good case that these men were pretty bold and confrontational at times. Heck, Stephen got stoned for his preaching! Paul was kicked out of the synagogues eventually, and then took the gospel to the Gentiles.

Not to mention the OT prophets. Many of them did very confrontational stuff, including ripping people's clothes of them, preaching publicly in the streets and in the Temple courtyard.

While I think the street preaching method is not the best in certain circumstances, I fail to see how one could say the method itself is patently unbiblical. That's how the Christian faith spread across the Roman Empire! The Bible gives different examples of ways to preach the gospel, from one-on-one (Jesus and Nicodemus, Philip and the Ethiopian) to more rational discussion and debate (Paul and the Greeks at the Areopagus--my personal favorite method of sharing the gospel), to loud preaching in the public arena (the apostles in Acts, the OT prophets, etc). No method should be abandoned completely in the interests of avoiding hurt feelings or angry people. Some people will always get offended by someone telling them they're wrong, no matter how you do it! We should never seek to cause unnecessary offense, but Paul also refers to the gospel as "offensive" to those who have not believed it, so offense is really unavoidable, I think.

Take care, everyone

You have failed to take into account the cultural cricumstances in which the apostles preached. They did not actively seek out opposition; they did not actively seek to rile up the opposition with inflammatory misrepresentations of what the other people believed. When they preached in synagogues, it was not because they barged in and imposed upon congregations, or gathered outside to mock. It was not uncommon for guests to have the floor, to be given time to preach, it was common for this dialogue to occur under the proper circumstances; same with preaching at Athens.

They did not impose; their preaching was culturally acceptabel until they offended people, and at that point THEY LEFT.

Again, nowhere in Acts do we find an example of imposing upon the religious meeting of any party. And we certainly don't find the apostles engaging in demonstratably false accusations.

I never claimed street preaching could not be found in the bible; my argument deals with the method, time and place. Of which Aaron and his sad ilk terribly abuse.

[Mark Beesley]

Heck, the language Paul uses in reference to the Judaizers would be quite offensive to them, no doubt, whether they were intolerant or not.

What language in particular are you talking about? Could you perhaps provide a reference? Thanks.

[bluebell]

While I think the streetpreaching method is not the best in certain circumstances, I fail to see how one could say the method itself is patently unbiblical. That's how the Christian faith spread across the Roman Empire! The Bible gives different examples of ways to preach the gospel, from one-on-one (Jesus and Nicodemus, Philip and the Ethiopian) to more rational discussion and debate (Paul and the Greeks at the Areopagus--my personal favorite method of sharing the gospel), to loud preaching in the public arena (the apostles in Acts, the OT prophets, etc). No method should be abandoned completely in the interests of avoiding hurt feelings or angry people. Some people will always get offended by someone telling them they're wrong, no matter how you do it! We should never seek to cause unnecessary offense, but Paul also refers to the gospel as "offensive" to those who have not believed it, so offense is really unavoidable, I think.

Take care, everyone

Rhino, do you believe that there is any kind of street preaching that God would condemn?

Is there a way that someone may attempt to teach of Christ that Christ Himself would be ashamed of? If yes, what type of street preaching would that be?

From this post it appears that the answer is 'no' but i'm asking so that i may understand whether or not what i understand you saying in this post is actually what you meant.

[rhinomelon]

What language in particular are you talking about? Could you perhaps provide a reference? Thanks.

I believe it is in Galatians primarily, although other references can be found. Statements like, "I wish those Judaizers would go all the way and emasculate themselves" or calling them names. I'm away from my bible at home, but I'm sure I could find some specifics if you'd like.

They did not impose; their preaching was culturally acceptabel until they offended people, and at that point THEY LEFT.

I don't see any evidence that getting people offended was ever the reason for their leaving. Sometimes they were thrown out by force, other times they left because the people would not listen (not because they were offended). But I also think your point about the different culture is a good one. This is why I believe that street preaching is not the best way to preach the gospel to LDS; the culture has an almost automatic aversion to that kind of presentation. Other cultures, however, do not, which is why I believe street preaching definitely has its place. In India, for example, street-preaching is probably the best way to reach people, since the culture doesn't really find it offensive. The people there find it more interesting, even entertaining to some degree.

Rhino, do you believe that there is any kind of street preaching that God would condemn?

Is there a way that someone may attempt to teach of Christ that Christ Himself would be ashamed of? If yes, what type of street preaching would that be?

I definitely believe that there are examples of preaching that God would not approve of, yes. Although, to echo Paul, some people preach in ways that drive me nuts, perhaps from false motivations, but I must still praise God because Christ is still being preached in some way (even if it's not the best way).

But the point remains that street preaching (or any preaching) that relies on lies or misrepresentations or mockery, I have a very difficult time seeing as approved by God. Many of the protestors that gather around the Conference center twice a year would fall under that type, in my opinion. I haven't seen Aaron or his group preach, so I can't say anything about them. I simply have a hard time figuring out if LDS are offended by Aaron because of what he says, or if they are offended because he's even preaching at all (no matter what he says).

I think it is clear that preaching the gospel will always offend some people. My concern is making sure all of the offense comes from the gospel itself, and not from the way it is presented. Preaching the cross will tick off enough people without us adding unneccesary offense on top of it.

EDIT: Bluebell, I would also add that any kind of method could be condemned by God, not just streetpreaching. For example, Paul's talking with the Athenians would have been condemned if Paul never got around to proclaiming the truth of the gospel, preferring instead to simply talk without any concern for the truth of the matter. I strongly believe that there must be a balance between grace and truth in any presentation of the Christian faith. Some of the street preachers may have the truth, but little grace. This makes them unfruitful, in my opinion. Likewise, someone (like me to a certain degree) may be interested in dialogue, but avoids being too dogmatic about vital truths in the interests of avoiding offense. This, too, is unfruitful. The balance must be there.

Take care, everyone

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

In India, for example, street-preaching is probably the best way to reach people, since the culture doesn't really find it offensive. The people there find it more interesting, even entertaining to some degree.

That makes sense.

I'm half-Indian. And I find it hilarious.

[Mark Beesley]

I believe it is in Galatians primarily, although other references can be found. Statements like, "I wish those Judaizers would go all the way and emasculate themselves" or calling them names. I'm away from my bible at home, but I'm sure I could find some specifics if you'd like.

Hopefully, you can see the reason for the differences between what Paul said to the Galatians (believers) and what he said to the Athenians (non-believers). It's all about audience. The "confrontational" language that you seem to think was used by the apostles was used in their discourses to believers, not to people they were trying to convert.

The anti-Mormon street preachers haven't seemed to be able to learn this really basic lesson. They justify the use of harsh language against us (non-believers in their eyes) because the apostles used it in preaching to the early saints. I guess we should be thankful. If they really approched with the love they profess to have, we might be caught off-guard . . . . (might being the operative word).

[bluebell]

EDIT: Bluebell, I would also add that any kind of method could be condemned by God, not just streetpreaching. For example, Paul's talking with the Athenians would have been condemned if Paul never got around to proclaiming the truth of the gospel, preferring instead to simply talk without any concern for the truth of the matter. I strongly believe that there must be a balance between grace and truth in any presentation of the Christian faith. Some of the street preachers may have the truth, but little grace. This makes them unfruitful, in my opinion. Likewise, someone (like me to a certain degree) may be interested in dialogue, but avoids being too dogmatic about vital truths in the interests of avoiding offense. This, too, is unfruitful. The balance must be there.

Take care, everyone

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree that there are lots of ways to preach and that very few are inherintly correct or incorrect-or pleasing and displeasing to God.

Although, to echo Paul, some people preach in ways that drive me nuts, perhaps from false motivations, but I must still praise God because Christ is still being preached in some way (even if it's not the best way).

I disagree that as long as Christ is being preached, regardless of how, it is reason to be glad. I believe that there are many who preach Christ in such a way as to move people further from His love and truth rather than closer to Him, and i see no reason to praise that.

I have a dear friend who is agnostic but pretty convinced that there is no God-her reasoning? Religion-mainly protestant and Catholic since those are the two she has any experience with (she was raised Catholic and has a best friend who is Born again and a hubby who was raised Lutheran with a FIL who is a pastor).

Now, i'm not saying that she (or any of us) can pass off our choices in belief and blame them on others-as grown ups we all know that people are very capable of being bad examples of what is ultimately true. I'm saying though that Christians can do a lot of harm in the name of Christ and so not all should be hailed as 'doing good' just because they preach His name.

[rhinomelon]

That makes sense.

I'm half-Indian. And I find it hilarious.

My wife is full Indian. She just finds it annoying.

But having been to India, I can tell you that street preaching is a pretty common way of getting a message out, not just for the religious types.

Hopefully, you can see the reason for the differences between what Paul said to the Galatians (believers) and what he said to the Athenians (non-believers). It's all about audience. The "confrontational" language that you seem to think was used by the apostles was used in their discourses to believers, not to people they were trying to convert.

I realize that audience matters, but I think one can still make a pretty good case that Paul and the apostles were not as concerned about offending people as they were about preaching the gospel.

And if audience matters so much, are you comfortable with Baptists (or whoever) talking about LDS beliefs and practices in their own house? I wouldn't think so, because that language gets repeated outside. I think Paul's language would have been repeated the same way.

Do you have any references suggesting that the apostles did indeed try to avoid offense in their preaching? I find just the opposite happening. They did not preach in order to offend, but their preaching did offend some (many?) people. While they weren't over-the-top offensive (like some modern day street-preachers), they did offend people and they did not apologize for it. Stephen's speech early on in Acts, for example, really ticked the people off. But he did not apologize for preaching what he believed to be the truth, even though the crowd was absolutely infuriated by it.

If they really approched with the love they profess to have, we might be caught off-guard . . . . (might being the operative word).

Hence the balance between grace and truth. I agree with you on your last paragraph!

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

I disagree that as long as Christ is being preached, regardless of how, it is reason to be glad. I believe that there are many who preach Christ in such a way as to move people further from His love and truth rather than closer to Him, and i see no reason to praise that.

I wouldn't praise the people that do it, but I've been around enough to know that God works in crazy ways whenever or however His word is preached. I would not praise the people that preach the gospel from impure motives, or in a sinful manner. But I also will not ignore the fact that God works through all sorts of people (sometimes in spite of themselves) to bring about His plans.

I'm saying though that Christians can do a lot of harm in the name of Christ and so not all should be hailed as 'doing good' just because they preach His name.

I wouldn't say that they are doing good, but I will say that God can bring good out of it. Paul talked about people preaching the gospel for dishonest gain and for impure reasons. He praised God that the word was still getting out, but there is no doubt that he condemned the motives and actions of those that preached the gospel in a bad way.

Take care, everyone

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

My wife is full Indian.

Very cool

She just finds it annoying.

Sensible woman.

But having been to India, I can tell you that street preaching is a pretty common way of getting a message out, not just for the religious types.

Still haven't been yet. I'm hoping to go in the next couple of years or so...

But from what I know of Indians, I can well beleive you. In my experience, they can be offended just as easiely as anybody else - but not usually in the ways you'd expect...!

[Mark Beesley]

But from what I know of Indians, I can well beleive you. In my experience, they can be offended just as easiely as anybody else - but not usually in the ways you'd expect...!

Yeah, just ask Richard Gere . . .

[Hawkmoon]

That makes sense.

I'm half-Indian. And I find it hilarious.

Ah! So, perhaps it would be better if during the Manti pageant an announcer suddenly stopped the show, and in the best Monty Python sort of way, said:

"And now for something totally ridiculous"

*Spotlight on protestor's... uh, I mean street preachers... cue circus music*

Yes! By golly, I, for one, would actually go just to see that.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yeah, just ask Richard Gere . . .

Haha - yeah. They seemed to go just as nuts for that kiss as they did for all the racist stuff in Big Brother.

Sorry - I'll stop derailing now...

[cdowis]

Once again I ask the question:

If a Mormon confesses Christ, is he saved?

[rhinomelon]

Sensible woman.

Very. Except for that momentary lapse in sanity, during which she married me...

Still haven't been yet. I'm hoping to go in the next couple of years or so...

But from what I know of Indians, I can well beleive you. In my experience, they can be offended just as easiely as anybody else - but not usually in the ways you'd expect...!

I went around five years ago, and my wife is going back in a month. It will be her first time back since she was adopted from Bangalore at age seven. But as far as offending, I agree Indians can get offended like anyone else. They just get offended more at the gospel itself (the whole "Jesus is the way, truth, life" thing trips them up a bit) than the method of preaching it. And unlike America, religion and politics are the two most popular topics of conversation. You are rude if you avoid discussion either of them. It was not uncommon for me to be asked about my feelings about President Bush, or whether I was a Christian or not, by people I had barely met (even the rickshaw drivers that would never see me again!). It was actually quite fun, since religion and politics are just about my two favorite topics of conversation!

Once again I ask the question:

If a Mormon confesses Christ, is he saved?

What do you mean by "confesses Christ"? On the face of it, it doesn't matter whether one is Mormon or Hindu or Baptist. But people can have radically different meanings behind phrases like the one above. Just my thinking.

Take care, everyone

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yes! By golly, I, for one, would actually go just to see that

Haha! Yeap, I'd pay good money to see that.

Have a clown juggling just in front of them too - just for that added touch...!

Very. Except for that momentary lapse in sanity, during which she married me...

Yeah - apart from that of course

As far as Indians discussing subjects that can considered 'taboo' - my Dad is famous for it.

I'd go into all the details, but much of it wouldn't be sutiable for this board!

Sounds like you enjoyed your stay...