What makes someone an "Anti"?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The claims are based on these, and you can search for yourself.

First, he calls his wife his "servant" or similar language in this Religion Section.

Second, the abuse related to child is as follows. He leaves his sanctum of evangelicals, goes to Utah County, builds a website solely designed to attack LDS beliefs filled with the typical bs one reads from evangelicals, and now lives amongst the LDS with his child to bear the brunt of being the child of the anti-Mormon in the neighborhood. What parent would deliberately set a child up for social failure? Will any parent allow their children to play with his child? Not likely.

Third, there have a few persons who were invited by Aaron in Utah County to visit his home where he snookers them in, having the LDS believe they will have a friendly discussion wherein Aaron hits them with preprepared anti-Mormon tracts and terminology. Others here can verify. I choose to not do the research on somebody as a low life as Aaron. His is a simple dickweed with no redeeming virtues or value. He is on par with the infamous Tanners of Salt Lake and Lighthouse Ministeries, equally as virulent and clueless.

Look dammit, if you are going to steal my intellectual property don't dress it up in your fancy pants lawyer talk mumbo jumbo.

Aaron's son can get on stage jangling his jewels like he is gettin' some but he is gonna be one lonely fellow in high school. No NCMO, no dry hump, no stealing second base or getting nailed leading off second with the Bishop's daughter. It is one thing to run into the Orem High Thigh clamp on prom night cuz your date is the Orem 53rd ward laurel class president, but yet another cuz your old man is perceived as the village idiot.

That said, I believe Aaron is of worth..yea of infinite worth. I just hope he runs into one of our lovable Danite brethren.

HUAH!

[aaronshaf]

The amusing thing is he views his wife as his personal slave, and has a child who he seeks to have ridiculed and ignored. He is truly an abomination of a human being.

I'm not sure how to even take this seriously.

Third, there have a few persons who were invited by Aaron in Utah County to visit his home where he snookers them in, having the LDS believe they will have a friendly discussion wherein Aaron hits them with preprepared anti-Mormon tracts and terminology. Others here can verify.

I've never had someone from this board visit me. I've never even given someone a tract in my house. Unless a neighbor, I usually would meet someone I meet in a public restaurant so they feel more comfortable. I'd be interested to see what you can have "verified".

I choose to not do the research on somebody as a low life as Aaron. His is a simple dickweed with no redeeming virtues or value. He is on par with the infamous Tanners of Salt Lake and Lighthouse Ministeries, equally as virulent and clueless.

As I read this I honestly wonder about the anger and contention issues of the person writing it.

By analogy, what I see Aaron doing, is walking into Harlem, "yelling N...." every day, and then sending his kid to school after he hurled hateful invectives toward everyone else in the neighborhood.

Hurled hateful invectives? Any examples of such a thing? That seems to be precisely what I am receiving, not sending, on this board.

My offer to take anyone out here to lunch still stands. I don't bite, but I'll buy you some grub to bite.

So what happens if someone claims they have accepted Christ as their personal savior, yet afterwards they show no obedience, no works, no repentance for their sins and live in a manner that contradicts anything and everything Christ ever said or did?

Great question. The classic evangelical answer to this has been that they were never truly repentant or justified or "saved" to begin with. "Faith saves alone, but saving faith is never alone." Externalized works of obedience (aka "fruits") necessarily follow repentance and faith, but are not to be considered a part of repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are inward heart conditions that immediately bring full forgiveness. A section of an article I've on this subject might be helpful: http://mormonwiki.org/Repentance#Com...l_Christianity

In Biblical Christianity repentance is a godly sorrow, confession to God, resolve to abandon sin, and an empty-handed desperation of faith toward God for forgiveness. The fruits of repentance (obedience, restitution to man, etc) necessarily follow genuine repentance (as Jesus said, "Bear fruits in keeping with repentance" [Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8]), but they are not to be mistaken with repentance itself. For the person who genuinely wants to be right with God, the LDS process of repentance adds an extra yoke and bondage that was never meant to be. In the Biblical model, one can repent in one setting, and receive immediate forgiveness, security, and absolution from God on the basis of the purity of Christ, being assured that God will work to "cleanse him from all unrighteousness" and produce in him the fruits of repentance. Even if one's repentance is not completely pure, when it is genuine God still forgives and gives a solid hope for a solid future. This puts the focus off one's own supposed worthiness and gives credit and praise to the purity of Christ and his sacrifice and his mediating work as an intercessor.

To forgive means to absolve one of the what restitution they owe. For Mormonism to require restitution as a prerequisite for forgiveness misses the entire point and meaning of free forgiveness.

You know you could be having this exact converation with some more conservative Christians. And Indy could be having this same debate with more grace-leaning Mormons like myself. But you know that, too.

I aware of the diversity on both sides (especially today), but I think the fundamental differences are still there and worth engaging over. When someone of my own "side" doesn't understand the relationship between grace, faith, and works, I think they should nonetheless be engaged.

Douglas Davis writes in The Mormon Culture of Salvation:

"What may be happening in these affirmations of grace by authors such as Mangum, Yorgason, Millett, and Robinson is a twofold development in turn of the century and millennium LDS life. The one answers the needs of devoted Saints, labouring under apparently impossible goals of achievement, the other displays the preparedness of a Church that now need not fear its distinct identity to accept wider Christians theological terms. It is as though modern Mormonism feels free to draw on the discourse of grace... Amongst ['the currents running within the current Mormon culture of salvation'] we find various checks and balances underlying undue movements in doctrine, with one example relating to a debate between Millett and some Baptist theologians on the issue of grace. This led to Boyd K. Packer, one of the most senior of the Twelve Apostles, addressing himself to the topic in a major satellite broadcast to church members in February 1998. Amongst other doctrines, he emphasized Latter-day Saints 'belief in the saving power of works in conjunction with Christ's sacrifice, rather than salvation by grace alone'." (Reported in Sunstone, June 1998, 21:2(110), 78)" - Davies, Douglas. The Mormon Culture of Salvation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000. p. 58

Given the whole integrated system of Mormon theology, I think it and the various "checks and balances" (in authoritative sources as well as customs like temple recommend interviews) will bring Mormons back to an orientation toward merit and personal worthiness. That's something to be concerned over until the whole system is abandoned.

What's the point of all this bickering if both sides already know the other's views?

It would be an overstatement to assume both sides significantly comprehend the other's view of soteriology.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I'm not sure how to even take this seriously.



I've never had someone from this board visit me. I've never even given someone a tract in my house. Unless a neighbor, I usually would meet someone I meet in a public restaurant so they feel more comfortable. I'd be interested to see what you can have "verified".



As I read this I honestly wonder about the anger and contention issues of the person writing it.



Hurled hateful invectives? Any examples of such a thing? That seems to be precisely what I am receiving, not sending, on this board.

My offer to take anyone out here to lunch still stands. I don't bite, but I'll buy you some grub to bite.



Great question. The classic evangelical answer to this has been that they were never truly repentant or justified or "saved" to begin with. "Faith saves alone, but saving faith is never alone." Externalized works of obedience (aka "fruits") necessarily follow repentance and faith, but are not to be considered a part of repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are inward heart conditions that immediately bring full forgiveness. A section of an article I've on this subject might be helpful: http://mormonwiki.org/Repentance#Com...l_Christianity





I aware of the diversity on both sides (especially today), but I think the fundamental differences are still there and worth engaging over. When someone of my own "side" doesn't understand the relationship between grace, faith, and works, I think they should nonetheless be engaged.

Douglas Davis writes in The Mormon Culture of Salvation:



Given the whole integrated system of Mormon theology, I think it and the various "checks and balances" (in authoritative sources as well as customs like temple recommend interviews) will bring Mormons back to an orientation toward merit and personal worthiness. That's something to be concerned over until the whole system is abandoned.



It would be an overstatement to assume both sides significantly comprehend the other's view of soteriology.

I won't take you seriously because all you can do is cut and paste. It would be interesting to see you do something other than to copy somebody else's ideas.

First, telling other people what they believe is assinine.

Second, you have limited understanding of what we believe, and just cutting out of context is useless.

Third, you have no education, knowledge or dialectical skills which can entertain this group. If anything, you are ripe for mocking, complete with the word list your mommy provided you.

Fourth, what do you have of merit for us? Education? We have Phd., librarians with Masters, JDs, MD and more. You have nothing for us. Humor? No, you are humor challenged. Insight? Hell, we could get more insight from a third grader. The perspectives of unaligned scholars of Christology interest us, textual critics and archeaologists alike. We study gnosticism, adoptionism, anti-adoptionism and other fascinating philosophies.

We do not adopt the Nicean creed of 381 C.E. It was the result of a former atheistic emperor of Rome's convocation. So what. The only autograph of the Greek texts justifying "trinitariansim", was the Basel text of Erasmus, a very bad and faulty one at that. You should know this.

Follow the admonition of Lessing, if you know it, or if you have heard of him. Have a nice day. I don't take lunch from strangers, I pay my own way.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I won't take you seriously because all you can do is cut and paste. It would be interesting to see you do something other than to copy somebody else's ideas.

First, telling other people what they believe is assinine.

Second, you have limited understanding of what we believe, and just cutting out of context is useless.

Third, you have no education, knowledge or dialectical skills which can entertain this group. If anything, you are ripe for mocking, complete with the word list your mommy provided you.

Fourth, what do you have of merit for us? Education? We have Phd., librarians with Masters, JDs, MD and more. You have nothing for us. Humor? No, you are humor challenged. Insight? Hell, we could get more insight from a third grader. The perspectives of unaligned scholars of Christology interest us, textual critics and archeaologists alike. We study gnosticism, adoptionism, anti-adoptionism and other fascinating philosophies.

We do not adopt the Nicean creed of 381 C.E. It was the result of a former atheistic emperor of Rome's convocation. So what. The only autograph of the Greek texts justifying "trinitariansim", was the Basel text of Erasmus, a very bad and faulty one at that. You should know this.

Follow the admonition of Lessing, if you know it, or if you have heard of him. Have a nice day. I don't take lunch from strangers, I pay my own way.

I get the feeling Archaea doesn't really like this Aaron Shaff fellar. Beware Archaea, Aaron might just save your soul one day...then again Sir, one of us might not...
----The great American Philosophers Drill SFC "Big Toe" Hulka and Bill Murray.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I get the feeling Archaea doesn't really like this Aaron Shaff fellar. Beware Archaea, Aaron might just save your soul one day...then again Sir, one of us might not...
----The great American Philosophers Drill SFC "Big Toe" Hulka and Bill Murray.

Thanks, Goat for lightening the load. I know others want to play with him, but his type is not entertaining.

Try to find any effort by him where he actually thinks. I'm certain Jerry Springer is just dying to interview Aaron.