Friday, July 21, 2006

Confronting Confrontationalists

Confrontational Evangelism is the non-Biblical prideful justification for being a graceless goof.

You can see it in the street preachers fellowship, Rob Sivulka and many other people "with a burden to preach the Gospel" as rudely as possible.

Rob Sivulka, for example, has a video where he justifies his 'Gospel-free' technique of offending as many LDS people as possible. During the course of the video, he makes two particularly insightful comments which are totally lost on himself. He reads verses in Matthew and Mark about Christ attacking the Pharisees. It is completely lost on Rob that the Pharisees were in the Church of the day, the Jewish faith tradition. Christ attacked them for their hypocrisy in not caring to follow the teachings they taught.

Rob, on the other hand, attacks people he believes are not within the faith, and who sincerely believe and practise their faith. There is not a single example of Christ verbally assaulting anyone sincerely seeking to follow the truth. The woman at the well. Thomas. Zachias. He supped with sinners and tax collectors. Do you really think he sat there screaming? Even the gentile mother seeking help for her child he gently tried to turn away, and then granted her the request of her petition.

Paul and Peter likewise spoke lovingly, respectfully to sincere non-Christians and Jews. There was only sharpness for hypocritical Jews and Christians, who should have known better. The mayor of Ephesus notes that Paul never blasphemed their pagan gods (Acts 19:37), something Rob chooses to violate with virtually every breath and website, if in fact he believes Mormons worship false gods.

Lastly, Rob quotes Cecil B. DeMille, the famous director, who noted that panzy preachers did not emulate Jesus. Demille, quoted by Rob, notes Christ only attacked hypocrits "who made a travesty of his father's temple". That means false sheep entering the Lord's house and profiting from it.

Mormons and LDS missionaries and leaders are explicitly not to create an ecumenical relationship with other faiths. Mormons don't join councils of Churches where issues of faith are compromised. We never enter a non-LDS church building or congregation under any false pretense, as if we are not working to convert them.

It is enlightening to hear Rob's stories of people who have come out of Mormonism. I have corresponded with several of those people. They are largely ignorant or bitter for social reasons.

I hope Rob keeps up the confrontational method. It makes the difference so clear, that only the weak-minded and uneducated fall for his lies. I know of examples when ex-Mormons learn the Truth, they return to the faith. Wouldn't it be cool if he posted those messages.

Rob has a long history of avoiding actual intellectual exchanges where something more than an "everybody knows" suffices for documentation. I believe he demonstrates a pyschological need to feel like a victim. He loves feeling persecuted. He notes he revels in having people yell as they drive by "get a job" or "shame on you". Another typical example of Rob's bankrupt reasoning. People in cars who comment, while Rob is usually yelling at Mormon passers-by, probably will not be heard using their chapel voices, will they? Now they should probably not say anything, but considering Rob confronts several hundred thousand LDS people each year, why is it surprising that newcomers to the faith may feel a need to respond. At least they did not follow Peter's example and try to cut off his ear. I have spoken with Rob numerous times, and he literally collapses under the weight of his false sources and poorly researched and poorly reasoned positions. I fear this sounds boastful, but it is also true. Ask him why he says Mormons won't literally interpret Acts 7:55-56? I have a great picture of him SCREAMING at the top of his lungs, calling me a liar, when confronted with actual false statements from his own web site.

Most Mormons don't get a background in Bible history, linguistics, or comparative religion. Mormons don't attack other faiths, and Rob counts on that ignorance. He noted that he would not continue discussing the LDS faith with me because I would eventually resort (because I never had) to comfort in my testimony, rather than arguing the facts. This from a guy who never once quoted an entire verse of scripture and explained its context. IN fact, up to a few years ago, on his entire website I counted only two or three verses of scripture quoted. He normally says something like "the Bible teaches (verse whatever)", never actually quoting the verse. Scripture and scholarship is poison to anti-Mormons. Arguing from the scriptures, Mormonism never can lose. Arguing from "everyone knows" allows falsehood to reign supreme.

To some, this may seem confrontational. It is intended to be analytical. Sometimes it takes more than a slogan to actually address falsehood, so please understand the need to provide supporting examples.

2 comments:

Kolage said...

Bob you said:
"Mormons and LDS missionaries and leaders are explicitly not to create an ecumenical relationship with other faiths. Mormons don't join councils of Churches where issues of faith are compromised. We never enter a non-LDS church building or congregation under any false pretense, as if we are not working to convert them."

Thats simply not true....
Why did the LDS church allow a Catholic mass to be held in their Tabernacle?
Why did the local ward come to my church to learn about what Christianity offers?

I am telling you Bob...The mormon church is going through some radical changes right before your eyes. THe church istrying to mainstream themselves into a more traditional look and feel yet still hold on to fundemental doctrine.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Kolage,
You apparently lack historic perspective on the LDS actions. The LDS Church has always had an attitude of tolerance of other faiths, and when other faiths settled in Utah, the Church allowed denominations to use our meetinghouses for their religious services. While I am unaware of the specific Catholic Mass you are referencing, we do not feel such meetings desecrate our chapels or the Tabernacle. This is identical to what Brigham Young allowed in the 1850's. It's nothing new, just your lack of knowledge historic precedent and Church practise.

It's not that we are intolerant neighbors. We simply don't belong to organizations which require compromised statements of faith, such as the World Council of Churches.

Pres. Hinckley said in an interview:
"Now we work with people of other faiths on common causes, many of them across the world. We recognize theological differences. We believe that we can disagree theologically without being disagreeable, and we hope to do so. We have been rather careful about surrendering in any way our doctrinal standards, anything of that kind as part of an ecumenical effort, but we certainly have worked with people, and do work with people, and want to work with other groups in tackling common social problems, things of that kind which are so much in need of attention these days throughout the world” (interview with Lawrence Spicer, London News Service, 28 Aug. 1995).

Please provide me the date of the Catholic Mass.

Thanks,
Bob