Monday, April 04, 2005

Rob Sivulka Called Me A Liar: False Witness and a Liar is He

I had the chance on Sunday to try to visit with Rob Sivulka, of the paid anti-Mormon ministry Mormoninfo.org, (technically he gets paid through his donation channel at Utah Partnerships for Christ, another anti-Mormon ministry) to confront him about some of the lies he promotes on his web site. He refused to speak with me because he was too busy yelling at the Mormon faithful going to General Conference. So I couldn’t resist helping the public to understand Rob a little better.

I started to explain to the crowd that Rob teaches that Mormons are afraid to interpret Acts 7:55-56 too literally because it would mean Jesus was standing on Gods hand, possibly causing stretch marks. About this time a couple of people came out from lunch in time to hear Rob call me a liar, and catch it on film. I am hoping I can get a copy of it, and maybe submit it to Guiness, because I did not think it was possible a guy could scream, turn red and have a vein sticking so far out from his neck in a name calling fit, and still remain conscious. Here is what Rob’s official website says which I was relating to the crowd:

"Finally, why did Luke state that Jesus was "standing on the right hand of God" (King James Version, which is what LDS use)? LDS want to interpret this literally (i.e., God has a right hand as well as a left), but only to a point. They too must treat this figuratively in some sense otherwise Jesus would actually be standing on the Father's right hand, and then we'd wonder if Jesus left stretch marks on the Father's hand by doing this. LDS certainly don't go this far. "

This is a LIE!

I have researched in two separate LDS reference software programs, the official LDS.Org website, and just plugged the scripture into a Google search. No one of LDS beliefs seems to find the remotest possibility of this indicating God is having Christ stand upon his hand. In fact, in an earlier posting, I noted that Rob’s suggestion of Jesus standing upon the right hand of God is not supported by the Greek text nor the King James Version Bible language. It is and was a perfectly acceptable manner of speaking to say a person is standing on someone’s right hand, meaning directionally to the right. Rob may not know how to read Greek or King James English, but enough Mormons evidently do that they have never written on this absurdity.

Here are just a few LDS works which specifically quote or cite Acts 7:55-56 in the context of the literal standing next to God by Christ:

Bruce R. McConkie: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol 2; The Messiah series, several texts.
Joseph Smith: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
John Taylor: The Mediation and Atonement.
Joseph Fielding McConkie: Gospel Symbolism.
Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr.: Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia; entry Right Hand.
James Talmage: Jesus the Christ.
Sidney B. Sperry: Paul’s Life and Letters.
FARMS Review of Books: Review of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Lowell Bennion, Sunday School Manual: An Introduction to the Gospel.
Rulon T. Burton: We Believe.
LDS.Org: Dozens of citations of the reference, some sites including color pictures of Jesus standing next to (not upon) God.
The examples could be greatly multiplied, but where, Rob Sivulka, do you find any believing LDS author expressing a reluctance to cite Acts 7:55-56 because too literal of a reading would lead to questions about such things as stretch marks on God’s right hand from Jesus standing there?

This is simply a STRAWMAN. An argument which exists only in Rob’s mind and in no LDS circle. Rob presents the argument so he does not have to deal with the real issue of the illogic of the situation. Jesus is standing next to God. Not the Father. If the inspired author of Acts understood the meaning of the words he used, then I don’t care if God can appear as a bunny, (as Rob claims is possible as well), He is not next to himself. The language is crystal clear. But even if Rob’s opinion is that God can stand next to himself, or is a bunny or is too big to fit in a Temple, it is still not LDS doctrine or LDS fears that the verse could have a literal meaning of God is potentially getting his hand stretched. It has never been a fear or argument within the LDS Church the verses have reference to standing upon God’s hand if really pressed to the literal meaning of the words.

By lying about the dangers of the LDS position, Rob is trying to minimize the need to deal with the fact the LDS position is more Biblical and textually supported than the apostate Trinitarian position he supports.

In any event, it is a lie, a distortion and an utter mis-statement of LDS beliefs about the verses. Moreover, Rob has compounded the lie by publicly bearing false witness and slandering me by calling me a liar. Engaging in lies and distortion is always a slippery slope, and can lead to not knowing how to tell the truth. This weekend re-affirms what I said when I first encountered anti-Mormons:

IF the truth about the Mormons is so terrible, why lie?
Rob Sivulka, you are a liar, and a bearer of false witness. A Christian would admit it, try to make it right, and ask forgiveness. Not many people read my silly little blog, or even know who I am. But those who do will be watching to see the measure of the man you are.
Either way Rob, I can honestly say: I love you, I just hate the lies you tell about me and my faith. And unless you repent and get the Spirit in your life, you only have this to look forward to as the end of your lies:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part
in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8

No one is saved who is an intentional, hurtful liar.

Please Rob, change before it is too late.
Peace

14 comments:

X said...

Thought you might be interested in joining the internet's only blogging topsite list: Blogs.TomsTopSites.com. cheers.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

To anyone who happens to read this note, I want to say that despite the obvious difference of opinions held by myself and Aaron S., he has demonstrated that he also believes in conforming his actions with his beliefs. I must say I am impressed with the man's actions, even though I don't agree with his theological perspective in too many ways.
Way to go. I wish everyone would be as frank and soul searching with themselves and others as Aaron has been.
Peace

LeadMeGuideMe said...

I don't know how I ended up on your blog, but I wanted to compliment you on how well done it is. I'll certainly come back.
A while back I ended up in some long instant message chats with Aaron Shaf, (I think I connected with him through youtube videos, I have some under the tag Leadmeguideme) at first he seemed to be the type of Born-Again that I could actually talk to without alot of mean sprited attacks happening, but then in my last converstation with him almost a year ago he went on a vicious rant where he mocked my prophet and refered to my savior as a "mickey mouse God" over and over again. Maybe he was just having a bad day, but I didn't feel like any Christian should talk like that to anyone. Anyway, keep it up!

LeadMeGuideMe said...

I don't know how I ended up on your blog, but I wanted to compliment you on how well done it is. I'll certainly come back.
A while back I ended up in some long instant message chats with Aaron Shaf, (I think I connected with him through youtube videos, I have some under the tag Leadmeguideme) at first he seemed to be the type of Born-Again that I could actually talk to without alot of mean sprited attacks happening, but then in my last converstation with him almost a year ago he went on a vicious rant where he mocked my prophet and refered to my savior as a "mickey mouse God" over and over again. Maybe he was just having a bad day, but I didn't feel like any Christian should talk like that to anyone. Anyway, keep it up!

R. M. Sivulka said...

For anyone who wants the correct URL and to see how Bob the anti-anti doesn't understand the argument I was making: http://www.mormoninfo.org/news-info/faqs/bible-passages/god-flesh-and-bones-acts-7-55-56

Aaron Shafovaloff said...

Thou shalt not speak lowly of the Mormon God or any Mormon prophets, or the punishment is being branded as an "anti-Mormon" and "vicious" talker.

Pa-lease. I'm glad I have other Mormon friends who actually have the maturity to talk religion without whining so much about religious criticism.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Rob,
I have let your comment stand alone for nearly a year. So let's see if my comprehension has improved:
You point is that "standing on the right hand" should correctly be interpreted as meaning Jesus takes the authority position, not a literal right hand.

Biggest problem: This is a vision. Stephen isn't talking about a rhetorical "right hand man", he is looking steadfastly into heaven and SEES Jesus standing to the right side of God. So while your argument could have some value if we were talking in the abstract, it is an absurd position when examined in the context of the statements by Stephen which Luke has included.

Jesus isn't JUST God's right hand man. Jesus is standing next to God, who has a visible, actual location and Jesus is directionally to the side of that location. The very scripture you cite for support of your position is clearly allegorical and poetic in its application (Isaiah 41:10). We are not talking about the proverbial "right hand", we are talking about a physical report.

Also, though it is taxing to do some research, take a look at the underlying Greek. Any question melts if you understand the statement. This is a case where not understanding scripture is exactly the same as having a bad translation.

Observe, too, that your sole motivation here is theological. If God has a location, and Jesus can stand next to that location, then there is in fact more than one God, and he has a shape which defines him. The Mormons would be right, and that is unacceptable. If theology drives your interpretation, why bother having scriptures at all? What does it matter if you have scriptures if you ignore their plain meaning when they disagree with you?

Rob, your logic and interpretive skills have not improved with aging.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Aaron,
Mocking someone by calling their sacred held beliefs a "Mickey Mouse God" is hardly "maturity" or valid "religious criticism". We have discussed how inappropriate, and unscriptural, such attacks are. This is why you are "anti-Mormon", since you are indifferent to offending people who don't hold your beliefs. You are commanded in the Bible to give offense to none. I don't know which would be worse, to be non-Christian by the anti-Mormon definition of my faith, or un-Christian by the Biblical definition of one's conduct. Everyone makes mistakes. That implies accidental or momentary lapses in judgment followed by a sincere desire to make it right. Your comment illustrates the "false brethren" who call themselves Christian, but whose INTENT is not to conduct themselves in a Christian manner.

"15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" Romans 6:15-16, NIV.

The idea of "offering yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves" means you intentionally allow yourself to travel the course, and regardless of being under grace, you go to hell if that is your attitude. Something everyone should keep in mind as they seek for others to act maturely.

Anonymous said...

How will you ever get psst the facts that Joseph Smith married women alresdy married to other living men, and even married his 16-year old adopted step-daughter.

Anonymous said...

I can only manage the reams of good documentation Rob has put together the author of this post had to go through to pick out something he had an issue with. Unbelievable. Joseph certainly lied his head off that much is a fact.

Unknown said...

I like how Rob will delete Facebook posts where he gets schooled.

What's wrong, Rob? Are you afraid your "friends" will lose confidence in you and you'll lose your paycheck???

Anonymous said...

I've examined what Rob has to say and he is right on. You should listen to him.

Anonymous said...

Pa-lease as Asron Shaf Rob's buddy, both never-Mo's would say. LOL Rob's CCU's blog is filled with attacks from mindless liars who have run to aid him in his attack on another so called Christian ministry. It's a circus on his Facebook page and his CCU's blog as he tries to protect his income, yes his income living off other people's money. Ha! Don't think it's happening? Go look and have a laugh. Then head over to the Mormon Home Evening blog for more laughs. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Anonymous said...

LOL ... Listen to what Rob has to say? Is that like trying to find all the comments, he has deleted or edited? Why is he doing what he was doing once to you, now to the Hulses'? He craves attention and he needs dumb people to send their money to support him and his lies. Go look at the circus Rob created attacking another so-called Christian ministry.

http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/