urroner Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I am simply saying that his tactics are less invasive since than that of the missionaries.Are you saying that for you, tactics like those employed by Aaron are less invasive that those of the missionaries or are you saying that for the population in general tactics like Aaron's are less invasive?Also, what about the tactics that used to be employed by the protesters when they could interfere with weddings where they called the brides "Whores of Babylon" and the grooms they called the "Ba$tard Children of Satan" when the wedding party was trying to take pictures in and around the grounds of the temple. Is that more, the same, or less invasive?
Dan Vogel Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I agree it can be annoying to have missionaries knock your door, but I feel a 30 second door step encounter is less invasive than someone shouting hate speech as you are attempting to learn about or worship God as you understand Him. I guess it depends on what you feel is more disrespectful. PS- Vogel- is your JS book ever going to hit paperback?Yes ... I don't know when ... but some day, I'm sure.
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Yes ... I don't know when ... but some day, I'm sure.There's no way I'm throwing down that much for your book, Dan! Paperback for me. RSR went to paperback.
MJNSW Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Are you saying that for you, tactics like those employed by Aaron are less invasive that those of the missionaries or are you saying that for the population in general tactics like Aaron's are less invasive?Also, what about the tactics that used to be employed by the protesters when they could interfere with weddings where they called the brides "Whores of Babylon" and the grooms they called the "Ba$tard Children of Satan" when the wedding party was trying to take pictures in and around the grounds of the temple. Is that more, the same, or less invasive?I was saying that for me tactics like those are less invasive than someone knocking at my door. I can't speak for everyone. However, I am aware of many other people who find it invasive - having people knock at their door to solicit their beliefs.I know of many LDS who are offended by it (especially if it is of another religion requesting an audience.)Now the tactics of yelling at a private party such as a wedding.... singling them out and just being plain belligerent is wrong... regardless of the reason for doing it.
MJNSW Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Call for references as to my "tactics" and my "backlashing." There is your original statement. It seems pretty straightforward and unqualified to me.Oh, really? Where?Ok... maybe I should ask what you want me to be qualifying and what do you expect to see for qualification?If you want reference I can produce... I just need to know specifics in what you want. I am not a mind reader and do not understand your request. Please Clarify so I can produce.
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 It's easy to see the diff between missionaries and Shafavoloff.
MJNSW Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 People who are more than mildly annoyed by someone knocking on their door should remember there are worse things to worry about than a 30 second encounter with religionists.And that also goes for people who are annoyed by people hollering their thoughts out in the road. Why is it so difficult to move on and let them blow their trumpets into the wind?
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 And that also goes for people who are annoyed by people hollering their thoughts out in the road. Why is it so difficult to move on and let them blow their trumpets into the wind?I retracted before you quoted. I see your point. I still believe the inconsistency in Shafavoloff's approach and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't say the same for missionaries.
MJNSW Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 It's easy to see the diff between missionaries and Shafavoloff.Is it? What about the people who are not of the LDS religion... who do not live in Utah. Many people do not like anyone coming to their door unless they know they are coming in advance... or have been invited. In fact they will not open the door. To those who do not know the gospel - many find it very invasive. However, if they see a crazy person yelling in the road or a group - they will ignore them and move on with their life and the crazy one yelling in the road is left blowing into the wind - no one ever having ever listened to them. If it gets too obnoxious a cop might be called in and whisk the disrupting party off for disturbing the peace or whatever. But then life goes on. That is how things happen in the real world outside of happy valley.
charity Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Is it? What about the people who are not of the LDS religion... who do not live in Utah. Many people do not like anyone coming to their door unless they know they are coming in advance... or have been invited. In fact they will not open the door. To those who do not know the gospel - many find it very invasive. However, if they see a crazy person yelling in the road or a group - they will ignore them and move on with their life and the crazy one yelling in the road is left blowing into the wind - no one ever having ever listened to them. If it gets too obnoxious a cop might be called in and whisk the disrupting party off for disturbing the peace or whatever. But then life goes on. That is how things happen in the real world outside of happy valley.No one has to open a door if they don't want to. But you have no choice but to listen to some idiot with a megaphone or a super loud voice yell at you as you pass by. That is the worst kind of air pollution.
Pahoran Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 It's easy to see the diff between missionaries and Shafavoloff.Is it?Why yes, to anyone with enough sandwiches for a full picnic, it is.What about the people who are not of the LDS religion... who do not live in Utah. Many people do not like anyone coming to their door unless they know they are coming in advance... or have been invited. In fact they will not open the door. To those who do not know the gospel - many find it very invasive.Perhaps they do.But if they are playing with a full deck, then they can tell the difference between our missionaries and the likes of Shafavoloff.However, if they see a crazy person yelling in the road or a group - they will ignore them and move on with their life and the crazy one yelling in the road is left blowing into the wind - no one ever having ever listened to them.Perhaps so. But in so doing, if they have enough bricks to make a full load, then they can tell the difference between our missionaries and the likes of Shafavoloff.If it gets too obnoxious a cop might be called in and whisk the disrupting party off for disturbing the peace or whatever. But then life goes on. That is how things happen in the real world outside of happy valley.Just FYI, I happen to live in what you so condescendingly and sneeringly call "the real world outside of happy valley." In fact, I'm not certain that you can get very much farther from "happy valley" than I am and still remain on the surface of the earth.And if some scumbag were to place himself athwart the entrance to our temple in order to waylay my wife and me on our way in, I would certainly be able to tell the difference between such a low-life and our missionaries, who are at all times above such disgustingly unChristian behaviour.And, to be perfectly frank, as obnoxious as his perversion of "Christianity"[TM] is, I would find the drawn-out hassle of reporting him to the police, with its attendant disruption to our special time together, to be infinitely more disruptive and invasive than merely having to take half a minute to say "no thank you" to a couple of polite young men at the front door.Regards,Pahoran
urroner Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 How often does a single house, statistically speaking, get accosted by pack of marauding and obnoxious Mormon missionaries?How often does Aaron or people like him plant themselves in front of Mormon temples and harass people coming to or leaving the temple?Which of these two groups of people pride themselves and brag openly about bringing conflict to other people's marriages?
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I know on my mission I always boasted when leaving a Christian household in discord.
urroner Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I know on my mission I always boasted when leaving a Christian household in discord. I did one time and I felt so guilty afterwards that I promised myself and God that I would never do that again and I have kept that promise. Maybe, if Aaron is the Christ-like example he claims to be, then I must be doing something terribly wrong.
Bernard Gui Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 That's pretty awesome.BTW....that was from Aaron's diatribe on the aforementioned video.Bernard
Hammer Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I just thought everyone would like to know that our good brothers and sisters out to save our souls have not abandoned their noble cause after the door campaign and short spurts elsewhere. Indeed, last night my wife and I went to the Assembly Hall on Temple square to watch One Clear Voice (LDS Womens singing group). When we got out and swung the car around the North side of the block, just outside the temple, they had a nice group of about fifteen people standing in the path of the way in and out of the Temple from the Conference center parking (main temple parking for those who don't know). Waving their white sign talking to everyone they could. Very tasteful you know, especially the location. Because, of course, you want to grab people at the end of Friday night after they've finally manage to unwind by going to the temple. *sigh*I wanted to stop and talk to them, but... my wife didn't seem to want to do that.lol;-)Anyway, fear not! We still have people around to save our souls, placed outside the temple even for our own convenience!It never ceases to amaze me how these people have so much time on their hands. Aren't they making a living for their families?Aren't they taking time to worship the Lord in their own new found spiritual lives?Where do they get all this time?
Kenngo1969 Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Ok... maybe I should ask what you want me to be qualifying and what do you expect to see for qualification?This is what you didnâ??t qualify, and what I just took at face-value: It is more invasive in the respect that they are knocking on your door... wanting to come into your home. I am sorry, but opening the door to complete "male" strangers... or even female... or anyone - is indeed invasive to me!You were the one who said you had qualified this statement, and that I would have known that if I had read the thread:I qualified that statement... you simply did not read through the threads.Again â?¦ you said, â??I am sorry, but opening the door to complete strangers â?¦ anyone â?¦ is indeed invasive to meâ? (emphasis mine).In response, I told you that this statement, the one immediately above, seems pretty straightforward and unqualified to me.You said: As for attacking you... no not you but your tactics. I have seen them one to many times and experienced your backlashing. It still sounds like yadda, yadda, yadda to me.To which I responded:Call for references as to my "tactics" and my "backlashing."
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Would you rather the missionaries stand outside your house, say, at the sidewalk, or perhaps stand in the way of your workplace holding signs and shouting when you leave or come home? Would that be less or more evasive than a pair of polite young men knocking on your door, and you being free to not even answer? Say they show up at a birthday party you are having with your family in the park. The missionaries stand about 20 feet away from the party shouting and screaming at you all, holding large placards saying that you are whores, that you will all burn in eternal hell. The problem is, they would do this everytime you had a birthday party. Would that be preferable to current invasive tactics?
maklelan Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 First, if you're going to associate me with the normal General Conference "screechers" (as James White calls them), and if you're going to hang onto the silly foam-at-the-mouth imagery, then you're operating off a caricature that you apparently think you need to make a point that you otherwise couldn't make.Well, Aaron, you were kinda drooling in that video you posted of yourself spewing your litany without letting anyone actually discuss any issues with you. I'd say you did a good job of associating yourself with those idiots.
Neighbor Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Maybe we should start a "Jesus Not Paul," "Jesus, Not Your Preacher", or a "Jesus Not Nobody Else Including Those People Who Wrote The Books In the Bible, Especially That Isaiah Dude Because He Wrote Such A Frickin' Long Book And That John The Revelator Guy Because Nobody Can Understand That Last Book In The Bible, What Was He Smoking At The Time" campaign and stand next to their group in their protestations and make their loads so much lighter.Maybe you should Urroner:-) But shouldn't we find it odd that both sides are saying the same thing? They look at you and say you should follow Jesus, not Joseph; you look at them and say they should follow Jesus, not Paul. Both sides realize at some level that the other needs to follow Jesus. So both claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and accuse the other of following someone else.Maybe each side should look to their faith to as a whole, make an accounting of the things they believe, then look to the teachings of Jesus Christ that show what they believe is in those words of life He gave to us via the original disciples and do the same for the other party from our perspective. Then perhaps we could be just in our view? or at least objective? and have some real dialog with meaning instead of empty accusations of 'you are of Paul, you are of Appolos' stuff.Why aren't we all just saying how we are of Jesus? Jesus said HE is to be our TEACHER.
LifeOnaPlate Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Maybe you should Urroner:-) But shouldn't we find it odd that both sides are saying the same thing? They look at you and say you should follow Jesus, not Joseph; you look at them and say they should follow Jesus, not Paul. Both sides realize at some level that the other needs to follow Jesus. So both claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and accuse the other of following someone else.Maybe each side should look to their faith to as a whole, make an accounting of the things they believe, then look to the teachings of Jesus Christ that show what they believe is in those words of life He gave to us via the original disciples and do the same for the other party from our perspective. Then perhaps we could be just in our view? or at least objective? and have some real dialog with meaning instead of empty accusations of 'you are of Paul, you are of Appolos' stuff.Why aren't we all just saying how we are of Jesus? Jesus said HE is to be our TEACHER.I guess the humor was lost on you, neighbor. It was more an attempt to point out an inconsistency in approach than anything else, if I read the post correctly.
Neighbor Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I see the humor, but to me it is serious because of Jesus prayer in the gospel of John. Because it is somewhat serious to me that is why the idea was put out.Surely the Lord is not pleased if His children bite and devour each other. Surely the judgment still stands that He hates brothers who stir contention. It's one of the main things God has declared He hates. If He hates it, what should we do about it? what is our part? I realized this a while back and hence the change of my tune from earlier times posting as Nepheye or Seeryou. I realized that in many things LDS believe and do things that Jesus distinctly taught and that others were holding those things against LDS (such as Jesus commandment to baptise disciples or that we are to be about doing good works as led by God and prepared by God for us to do). So I see we all have growing to do and we can't do that properly except as keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ as you faithfully declare every Sunday in your Sacrament prayer.
Bsix Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Wow...ask aaronshaf what antiMormon groups he associates with, where and how they get their funding, and their relationship as it pretains to Evangelicalism and mainstream Christianity...and he disappears every time.Regards,Six
auteur55 Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Wow...ask aaronshaf what antiMormon groups he associates with, where and how they get their funding, and their relationship as it pretains to Evangelicalism and mainstream Christianity...and he disappears every time.Yeah, he starts to sweat, deny and get uncomfortable just like that poor man he confronted outside of the temple. I can only imagine what dark secrets he's protecting.
MJNSW Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 QUOTE(MJNSW)Ok... maybe I should ask what you want me to be qualifying and what do you expect to see for qualification?This is what you didnâ??t qualify, and what I just took at face-value:QUOTE(MJNSW)It is more invasive in the respect that they are knocking on your door... wanting to come into your home. I am sorry, but opening the door to complete "male" strangers... or even female... or anyone - is indeed invasive to me!You were the one who said you had qualified this statement, and that I would have known that if I had read the thread: I said if you read THROUGH the threads... there was a following thread explaining myself. In fact I reposted it but you again avoided reading through it for one reason or anotherQUOTE(MJNSW)I qualified that statement... you simply did not read through the threads.Again â?¦ you said, â??I am sorry, but opening the door to complete strangers â?¦ anyone â?¦ is indeed invasive to meâ? (emphasis mine).In response, I told you that this statement, the one immediately above, seems pretty straightforward and unqualified to me. What do you think ... was for? to separate enough for you to see that it was indeed invasive to me. It separates it from the rest of the sentence. I also think that this would qualify in seeing some of your tactics. Tearing things apart and nit picking where there was nothing to nitpick to prove your point. However, you have not succeeded. You simply are just becoming irritating. When you have something substantial to complain about then I might bother in the future again.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.