Jesus Not Joseph

[urroner]

There is a huge difference between the Jesus NOT Joseph verses the message "Jesus Not (evangelical etreet peacher)".

For Example----

Joseph Smith pointed to himself and claimed to hold keys of authority from God that had to be channelled exclusively through himself.

--------verses-----------

Evangelical street preachers simply point externally to the Bible as a source of authority.

--------------

Evangelical outreaches primarily are geared toward gaining the attention of people and directing that gained attention toward documents that ordinary people can verify for themselves.

Hmmm, so the Bible grants authority to act in God's name and God doesn't. Never thought of it that way, but that makes sense....NOT!!!!!

[Doctor Steuss]

Evangelical outreaches primarily are geared toward gaining the attention of people and directing that gained attention toward documents that ordinary people can verify for themselves.

LDS outreaches primarily are geared toward gaining the attention of people and directing that gained attention toward G-d and Christ and ordinary people can verify for themselves through the Holy Ghost.

Tah-dah!

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is a huge difference between the Jesus NOT Joseph verses the message "Jesus Not (evangelical etreet peacher)".

For Example----

Joseph Smith pointed to himself and claimed to hold keys of authority from God that had to be channelled exclusively through himself.

--------verses-----------

Evangelical street preachers simply point externally to the Bible as a source of authority.

--------------

I'm glad you see the distinction: One speaking with authority is different from one speaking "as the scribes," who have no authority.

Being called of God "as was Aaron" (again, not Aaron Shafavoloff,) involved no bible from which to garner authority. The Bible itself makes no claim to contain divine authority in which to bestow.

Aaron Shafavoloff and others have heaped unto themselves teachers, having itching ears. They have taken upon themselves an authority they were never given.

And as my good Doctor has said:

LDS outreaches primarily are geared toward gaining the attention of people and directing that gained attention toward G-d and Christ and ordinary people can verify for themselves through the Holy Ghost.

[Hick Preacher]

LifeOnaPlate

So not "all other churches are wrong," but "the ones my evangelical belief dictates are wrong."

Same basic idea: "others are wrong."

Hick says:

What you are describing seems to be a fable and misconception about Evangelicalism--- I would suggest that you learn some basics â?? I recommend---- http://www.crossroad.to/charts/cultural-Christianity.html

LifeOnaPlate

I don't see the same tactics employed. I also see this preaching done with authority by men who were directly called by God as was Aaron (NOT Aaron Shafavoloff, mind you). These were men who had conversed with God directly. They had authority. They also didn't employ dishonest, wrangling practices. They preached Christ and Him crucified; not a detailed explanation of false doctrine of other faiths.

Hick says:

I would urge you take a look Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

Irenaeus expounds on the relevant doctrinal specifics of the heretics, and was effective in his efforts.

Indeed St. Paul was specific in certain instances--

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

As I recallâ??one I consider an apostleâ??such as Aaron S. --was preaching a warning of certain LDS founders who took the wives of other menâ?¦ very much like the apostle Paulâ??s warning in the above scripture.

Likewise the Savior â?? (the genuine â??Christâ?? that is ) Himself gave warnings very similar to the Evangelical outreach to LDS peopleâ??a message about the genuine Christ verses the false Christ----and false prophets, and false marvelous works and wondersâ?¦

Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mr 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

LifeOnaPlate

I think it more or less shows more of an attribute of rural isolated communities, where ever they may be, moreso than an LDS way of thinking. I experienced similar response, if I understand your description, on my mission in Wisconsin.

Hick says:--

Of of these in Wisconsin did they ALL belong to the same One same Church that overtly claimed to be of â??the one true Churchâ?? Or was there a mix?

LifeOnaPlate

â?¦ especially given your abrasive methods.

Hick:

So you are now saying the Young LDS Elders in their door-to-door contacts are â??abrasiveâ?? I was referring to door-to-door invitationsâ??not Bible bashing.

LifeOnaPlate

I found several problems on the website given by Aaron Shafavoloff. Misrepresentations, half-truths and quote mining galore.

Hick asks--

Please post a few -

And---and as I have recently posted on this boardâ??

Evangelical outreaches point to things that others are to check-out for themselves.

LifeOnaPlate

Don't work harder, work smarter, right? Converting to Christ the easy way.

It is vital that a person understands the identity of the genuine â??Christâ?. Is it NOT?

LifeOnaPlate

It isn't?

Few, you qualified it. Your goal is, in fact, to tear down someone else's faith.

Hick wonders--

You mean like: Joseph Smith History 1:19 ?

LifeOnaPlate

I realize you disagree with LDS theology. I take exception to the vulgar manner in which it is blasphemed by the screamers.

Hick comments-

And in my view the LDS message blasphemes the Biblical message - on a regular consistent manner.

LifeOnaPlate

So all the people who have fallen away from the LDS Church are going to the Temple on Friday night now?.

and--

There is a huge difference in methodology. If you can't see that difference I don't know what else to say about it.

Also --One speaking with authority is different from one speaking "as the scribes," who have no authority.

Hick reckons--

It seems that the genuine

Christ used a different methodology and authority also-- as it is written:

Luke 20:1

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?

6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

[Tsuzuki]

I want a t-shirt that says, "Hey, I DO know that we teach that!"

http://www.cafepress.com/knowmyreligion

[thesometimesaint]

Tsuzuki;

I LIKE IT.

[Doctor Steuss]

Tsuzuki;

I LIKE IT.

There was talk of having all the MA&Dites wear matching T-shirts to the next FAIR Conference. I believe Tsuzuki just found the shirts.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hick says:

What you are describing seems to be a fable and misconception about Evangelicalism--- I would suggest that you learn some basics â?? I recommend---- http://www.crossroad.to/charts/cultural-Christianity.html

Either you believe one must be saved through Christ only, or you don't. In any case, you doctrinally exclude others, such as the LDS faith, from knowing the "true God" as you understand it.

Hick says:

I would urge you take a look Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

Irenaeus expounds on the relevant doctrinal specifics of the heretics, and was effective in his efforts.

Indeed St. Paul was specific in certain instances--

I don't see an apostle of Jesus Christ- Paul included- who employs smokescreens, yells and shouts at people, or protesting at the location of any other religious institution without invitation.

As I recallâ??one I consider an apostleâ??such as Aaron S. --was preaching a warning of certain LDS founders who took the wives of other menâ?¦ very much like the apostle Paulâ??s warning in the above scripture.

Aaronm Shafavoloff is an apostle?

Likewise the Savior â?? (the genuine â??Christâ?? that is ) Himself gave warnings very similar to the Evangelical outreach to LDS peopleâ??a message about the genuine Christ verses the false Christ----and false prophets, and false marvelous works and wondersâ?¦

Indeed He did. Again, I don't see him misleading people with partial quotes taken out of context, or being contentious as a matter of rule or procedure. Also: Jesus had authority, and it didn't stem from the Bible. I notice you sidestep the authority issue.

Hick says:--

Of of these in Wisconsin did they ALL belong to the same One same Church that overtly claimed to be of â??the one true Churchâ?? Or was there a mix?

One specific area I served in was definately composed of Lutherans, and practically nothing else.

Hick asks--

Please post a few -

And---and as I have recently posted on this boardâ??

Evangelical outreaches point to things that others are to check-out for themselves.

I wasn't kidding about "Jesus Not Aaron." It's in the works.

It is vital that a person understands the identity of the genuine â??Christâ?. Is it NOT?

Yes, but this question has nothing to do with my statement to which you responded.

Hick wonders--

You mean like: Joseph Smith History 1:19 ?

First, I'm not going to call God into question. Second, Are there any other scriptures or statements in LDS History that give a balanced view of that particular verse? Does that verse call any honest Christians to the carpet, or does it condemn false creeds and corrupt teachers?

Hick comments-

And in my view the LDS message blasphemes the Biblical message - on a regular consistent manner.

That's your personal belief, and you're welcome to it. Luckily we don't gather around your places of worship and literally scream at you about why you are wrong about that opinion. There is a positive and a negative way to discuss beliefs. I believe yours would be the negative way. You have the right to it, though.

Hick reckons--

It seems that the genuine

Christ used a different methodology and authority also-- as it is written:

Luke 20:1

But here we have a story of Christ in His temple; not some pagan temple. Why don't we have a Biblical account of Christ going after the "pagans" around Jerusalem or Rome? Where is he going in or around what other people- even those he would consider "pagan"- and shouting about? And when He did it at Jerusalem, he did it with authority. Not specifying His authority when asked for it does not amount to Him not having authority, or Him saying authority is unneccessary.

[consiglieri]

Because this thread is getting oh-so-long, I started a new thread on the kernel that interested me--which is on the issue of whether Jesus became God or has always been God--you know, the issue that got that Mormon gentleman all sweaty and everything.

Given that we disagree about this issue, is it really something God is going to roast somebody over for eternity?

I mean, what kind of God is this we are talking about here?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

LOAP said of Hick Preacher,

Either you believe one must be saved through Christ only, or you don't. In any case, you doctrinally exclude others, such as the LDS faith, from knowing the "true God" as you understand it.

Hick is also preaching a different Gospel than what the Apostle Peter taught.

Acts 10

34

[William the Conqueror]

Yes you are mistaken... what is repudiated is the miscontruing theories known as the Adam Go theory. The miscaraciturizations of what BY said.

Well if Brigham didn't teach the Adam-God view, at least Life on a Plate believes it. Is it standard LDS doctrine? Life on a Plate says we were all Gods before the world was created and also part of the Council of Gods (see his earlier post), and then that would have to include Adam. Is that just Life on a Plate's view which doesn't square with LDS official doctrine? (I realize this Discussion Board has officially stated that the LDS church doesn't have a Systematic Theology.)

[Pahoran]

On top of all of this Mormonism is considered internally aberrant, but externally having an appealing and attractive appearance. This internal aberrant aspect leads certain people to feel it is their duty to warn the general public about the internal aberrant aspects.

Now, Hick. You've just let the cat out of the bag, and CKSalmon and Rhinomelon will be mad at you. (Although based upon past experience, they will probably take it out on me. That's okay, though. I can take it.)

The mythology of an "outreach to Mormons" is that it is ostensibly just that--an attempt to evangelize the benighted Mormon masses, and bring them to the Real Jesus[tm] of the Real Bible[tm]. However, among those who study the phenomenon, we know that it is really all about Protestant boundary maintenance. What you are really trying to do is to deceive those EV's less-informed about Mormonism than you are--all five of them--into believing that The Church of Jesus Christ is not a Christian Church.

Thank you for being so candid as to admit this fact.

Previous Interaction

LDS people consistently objected to the idea of a non-LDS Church being operated in the local community. They often rudely voiced their objections toward non-LDS churches.

I'm sorry Hick, but I find that claim quite extraordinarily difficult to believe.

Hick explains:

I would point out that this door-to-door was in rural Mormon dominated territory. Not Ogden, Not SLC, Not Provo, Not Boise ID, nor a modern metro area. Rather, in a backward provincial closed community

So is this non-representative of "Mormonism?" Apparently not:

- yet it does show a cultural attribute of LDS thinking.

So, IOW, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. These guys were just country bumpkins--but they still reacted the way they did only because they were Mormons.

But here's the thing, Hick: it didn't happen that way at all. You wouldn't actually know anything about LDS life and teaching, but we do not "object to the idea of a non-LDS Church being operated in the local community." Unlike EV Protestants, religious tolerance is one of the founding principles of our faith. Indeed, there is a set of thirteen brief statements called The Articles of Faith. My eleven-year-old twins are memorising them right now. One of these articles reads:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So you see, it is really entirely contrary to our most basic beliefs to oppose the operations of other churches.

Such resistance gives rise to social activism â?? including delivering socially relevant messages by street preaching.

So you are blaming the victims of your harrassment for your unChristian behaviour. Got it.

However, given your willingness to malign Latter-day Saints who are unable to respond, and given the care you have exercised in ensuring we don't even know where they are, let alone who they are, thus making it impossible for us to check up on your claims, and given your loyal and warm support for someone who has an established track record for lying about the Latter-day Saints, you will forgive me for feeling at liberty to draw my own conclusions about this alleged incident.

Of course the good folks of this unnamed rural community had no "objections toward non-LDS churches." It did not happen that way. However, it is entirely plausible that they had objections toward your obnoxious anti-Mormon tactics. They, and they alone, were the sole cause of any "objections" you received.

Hick adds:

What I would say is that in small town Utah/ Idaho, a Christian Missionary can go door-to-door for long extended periods of time and consistently get a â??NOâ? and refusal to listen by adherents of the local/rural LDS church culture ( that may be unique to that area).

Actually it's not.

As a Christian missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--a group which all honest, informed Christians accept is a Christian Church--in Australia, I often found that I could "go door-to-door for long extended periods of time and consistently get a "NO" and refusal to listen by adherents of the local/rural" or urban NON-LDS culture.

But I never lowered myself to the kind of unChristian attack strategy that is your default method of operation. In fact, it never even occurred to me to do so. It was just too obviously unChristian.

This results in hundreds of hours of labor without an opportunity to explain Biblical Christianity to an interested party. However, when a Christian Missionary street preaches at a large LDS event, in only a few hours He/She will be able to gain the attention of several dozen individuals.

Yes, that happens sometimes. Car wrecks, bar fights and obnoxious abusers do attract attention. [Godwin's Law violation removed. Please abstain.]

But just to set the record straight: the only Christian missionaries street preaching at LDS events are the ones who wear black name tags and work in pairs. The street screechers are pseudo Christians at best.

And just FYI, "missionary" is a common noun and does not get capitalised in ordinary sentences.

After the individualâ??s attention is gainedâ??some other Christian is standing by to engage in conversation. Often a URL with more information is given to the interested individual. So in the Mormon dominated territories street preaching is viewed as more efficient and effective than door-to-door contacts. This of course all depends on what the end goal is about in these territories.--- Another related topic.

And as you've admitted above, the real "end goal" is to deceive your fellow Protestants into believing that they should shun the Latter-day Saints.

However, at this time I should note that the goal of Christian Missionaries is not to tear down someone else's faith to leave people void and in despair.

That's right. That is not the goal of any actual Christian missionaries, although it may well be a goal of the street demagogues.

The objective is to give insights to individuals the identity of the Savior. The objective is NOT to convert LDS individuals into some specific Church organization.

That's right. As anti-Mormon fanatics, you don't actually care where people go or what they believe, as long as they aren't Mormons.

Another objective is to send the message that LDS people who no longer wish to be LDS have a viable alternative. From some perspective it appears that LDS keep referring to "tearing down'. Yet if one looks at the Bible the call to reject one's former religion and convert could also be falsely labeled as 'tearing down'.

Yes, and my neighbour's pit bull could be falsely labelled as a beagle. Just because a label is false if applied wrongly doesn't mean it cannot be true if applied correctly. Paul and Peter--and Jesus--did indeed criticise the wicked of their day: the Pharisees and self-interested teachers, whose successors you are your ilk are. But their message, like ours and unlike yours, was an overwhelmingly positive and affirmative one.

They did not tear down. We do not tear down.

But you do.

Your attempts to deny this fact merely sink your credibility even further.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well if Brigham didn't teach the Adam-God view, at least Life on a Plate believes it. Is it standard LDS doctrine? Life on a Plate says we were all Gods before the world was created and also part of the Council of Gods (see his earlier post), and then that would have to include Adam. Is that just Life on a Plate's view which doesn't square with LDS official doctrine? (I realize this Discussion Board has officially stated that the LDS church doesn't have a Systematic Theology.)

I said we were all gods, even the sons of God. The distinction is between Adam and God the Father of our spirits, whom we refer to as Elohim; who are not the same individual being. I do think the confusion you experience in my statements may be illustrative of the confusion people had over some of Pres. Young's statements.

[Dan Vogel]

There's no way I'm throwing down that much for your book, Dan! Paperback for me.

RSR went to paperback.

I don't think my book is that expensive. The missionaries will give you a BOM for free, but it might cost you 10% of your income for life. At least there are no hidden costs here. Try getting a used book from Amazon, or checking one out from a library.

[Almost edited to add a winky-face after the word "life." Dan, you meant one right? ~mods]

[MJNSW]

I don't think my book is that expensive. The missionaries will give you a BOM for free, but it might cost you 10% of your income for life. At least there are no hidden costs here. Try getting a used book from Amazon, or checking one out from a library.

I am sorry but that was a very funny!

[Zakuska]

I don't think my book is that expensive. The missionaries will give you a BOM for free, but it might cost you 10% of your income for life. At least there are no hidden costs here. Try getting a used book from Amazon, or checking one out from a library.

Dans "funny" implies that tithing is a hidden cost... everyone knows Mormons require 10% so where is the cost Hidden?

[Pahoran]

I don't think my book is that expensive. The missionaries will give you a BOM for free, but it might cost you 10% of your income for life.

No. It won't.

At least there are no hidden costs here.

Nor are there with The Book of Mormon.

There may be hidden costs to turning your nose up at it, though.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

I wonder if Structurecop ever got his project "ezekial-lied.com" off the ground. People need to be warned, gal-dernit!

[grego]

There may be hidden costs to turning your nose up at it, though.

Now THAT was funny.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think my book is that expensive. The missionaries will give you a BOM for free, but it might cost you 10% of your income for life. At least there are no hidden costs here. Try getting a used book from Amazon, or checking one out from a library.

Used? No one's gonna get rid of that gem, Dan!

Library? Then I couldn't mark it all up!

Nicely done, Pahoran,

[Momus]

A few years ago in Germany, people used to put on brown shirts and stand on street corners abusing Jews. That attracted attention, too.

Thread closed due to a Godwin's Law violation. There are better ways to get your point across then resorting to references of Nazi atrocities .

Momus