Re: [TruthTalk] I found it Blaine...but you lost it

[Blaine R Borrowman]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:23:44 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Blaine wrote: > > The Mormon missionaries are far from being like > > you street preachers. They wear suits, > > Some street preachers do that, just not Ruben.  He is always in > shorts.   **BlainerB  And a T shirt with a big slogan on it. (:>) > Sometimes I wear a suit and tie, but not always. > > Blaine wrote: > > look clean and neat, > > Yeah, some street preachers do that too...   *BlaineRB:  Dignity should be a part of anyone who thinks to represent the Lord--I think he was a man of great dignity and presence. > > Blaine wrote: > > travel in pairs (the testimony of two witnesses > > is biblical), > > Well, Ruben usually has an entourage of about 24 men with him these > days, but when he splits them up for the work, he makes sure they > are at > least in pairs.  :-) > > Blaine wrote: > > are called by those in authority,  > > Yup... this would be true of virtually all street preachers.    Bl;BlaineRB:  Having discussed this before, I know what you are thinking  (:>)  But LDS concept of authority is different.  For instance, I can trace my own line of authority as  a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood back to the Saviour himself--through Joseph Smith, who received it of Peter, James and John, who received it from the Saviour.  All Mormon missionaries can do the same.  Can any street preachers do that?    > > Blaine wrote: > > only teach those whose permission they have obtained, > > Ooops... no, street preachers sometime obey God rather than man.   **BlaineRB:  In the teaching profession, they have a concept known as "Imposition."  It is not just a concept but is considered a legitimate technique for getting information, concepts or whatever the goals of the teacher may be, across to students.  It assumes that since the law says the students must be in school, it is OK to impose upon them in teaching them --it also assumes that the goals of the teacher are of higher priority than any goals the students might have.  This is a basic concept in all schools that I know of, and in my opinion, is also the basis for spawning a lot of rebellious attitudes in students.  I am to this day a little undecided if it is really a moral thing to do--I have used it  a great deal in teaching, so if it is immoral, I am guilty.  I suppose the law of the land, which requires students to be in school, and therefore also subjects them to being unwilling (or willing) recipients of the lessons being imposed upon them, is the final justification for using this technique.  Students become essentially a "captured audience" as a result, however.  Except under conditions as described above, I feel imposition has no place in teaching/preaching the gospel.  If people attend church of their own free will and choice, whatever they get is what they get, and they should have no complaints.  But when they go walking down the street, and have bullhorns blaring, whistles, or whatever, it seems this is crossing the line into imposition.  They do not usually go out walking expecting or wanting to encounter this.  This has been especially a problem with regards to the street preachers who descend on the Plaza in SLCity.  Many people, Mormons and non-Mormons, complain, but so far the street preachers have vowed to continue.  This seems to be imposition of the worst kind, to me, what do you think?  BYTHEWAY, Mormon missionaries are REQUIRED to get permission/cooperation with any person they teach.  If some do not, they are doing so as a result of their own zealousness.  I know of no instances of them not doing so, however.   Some may be a little too pushy in trying to get permission or cooperation, but that is a different question, I think.  The key difference, however, is if you say "NO" loud and clear, they will back off.  Street preachers do not back off.  They just get more stubborn and insistent.  Even a used car salesman has nothing on them.    > > Blaine wrote: > > do not yell, scream > > Got us there.  Street preachers sometimes yell, scream, blow > whistles, > use truth horns, etc.    **BlaineRB:  (:>)  True. > > Blaine wrote: > > or otherwise show disrespect for others or > > their religions-- > > Right again.  Street preachers generally speaking will respect > others, > but they rarely ever respect the religion of others.   **BlaineRB:  I can't help but think this would alienate more than it will attract. Maybe they need to reevaluate their tactics?   Maybe SHOWING respect might get them more open doors.  I think you have hit on an interesting idea here--actually, I do sometimes wonder if I truly respect the religions of others--I think I do to the extent that they teach many truthful concepts.  Its just that I feel they too often mix errors with the truth, and I see this as one of Satan's best techniques.  Just one thing--you can command attention and respect, but you can't demand it--and I feel thats what the street preachers in SLCity do. > > Blaine wrote: > > there are probaly more differences, all > > in favor of the missionaries.  .  . > > One BIG difference is that the Mormon missionaries are always kids > who > wear big name tags that say ELDER.  Why is that?  I never get that.  > Try > telling one of these kids to take off the tag, and he won't do it. > > I remember one who came into my home.  I told him that I was almost > old > enough to be his father.  Why did he demand that I call him ELDER?  > I > said he should show me more respect than that.  I said, "you are > just a > kid!"  He would NOT tell me his first name no matter how politely I > asked for it.  I told him my first name but I never could get him to > tell me why he would not tell me his first name.  I told him that I > would like to have a respectful conversation with him, but I was > not > going to address him with the title ELDER because it was unbiblical. >  I > told him he was ignorant of the Bible, but it wasn't his fault > because > he was so young and was following a church which had deceived him.  > Then > I asked him if he would like for me to teach him what an Elder was > from > the Bible.  Normally, I'm not so tough on these young Mormon kids, > but > for some reason, I pressed the matter just a little bit with him > that > day.    *BlaineRB:  I have not heard that particular criticism before--thought I'd heard them all--guess not.  (:>)  They are called ELDERS because that is an office in the Melchizedek priesthood, which they are ordained to hold and exercise.  It has little to do with age.  A male can be ordained to that PH office at the age of   .  .   either 18 or 19--can't recall which.  I know your belief that ELDER should mean a person of riper age than that, but that is not how it works.  However, most of these "kids" have been through at least three years of seminary in conjunction with their regular HS education classes, which includes one year each of Old Testament and New Testament.  Most have also had innumerable religious experiences and scriptural exposure as they attend church each Sunday. Before going out to actually preach/teach the gospel, they are given a period of intensive missionary training, plus language training if they are called to a foreign mission, so they are not totally ignorant in terms of background.  Shame on you, you should have been nicer to them, they might have taught you something.  Most of them are superior people.  I know, I have gone out on splits with them...they really have a spiritual aura about them, which is more obvious as you get to know them.  And, most of them are more mature than you would expect a person of that age to be. (:>) > > Blaine, can you tell me why the Mormon church violates the > Scriptural > meaning of the word "elder" by sending out these unmarried kids, > forcing > them to make the people they talk with to address them by the title > of > Elder?   **BlainRB:   As indicated above, it is an office, not just an indication of age and/or experience.  They should have gotten past being defensive about their title, but sounds like maybe you were making them defend themselves, huh?  I think if they had thought about it, they might have allowed you some slack there.  > > You claim that the Mormon missionaries don't show disrespect toward > others, but I think that depends on perspective.  Ask Dean if he > thinks > you are respectful of people here on TruthTalk.  I think you can > imagine > his answer to that.  :-)    **BlaineRB:  Yes, I do know the answer to that.  I need to be nicer to Dean. (:>)  Do you suppose he will forgive me for tearing into him?     I think I remember Glenn talking about > some > guys who would not get off his driveway or leave his home or > something > like that.  My memory is a little foggy on that, but I think Glenn > might > disagree with you too.   David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.   BlaineRB:  I had about  forgotten about Glenn, but yeah, I also recall him complaining about something along that line.  Seems like he was ripping into them, and maybe they got defensive--a human reaction, I guess.  No missionary is perfect. I know Glenn had some pretty strong beliefs about Mormons--(:>) > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > >