What makes someone an "Anti"?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He's not defending what he holds sacred. He's attacking what he considers profane. Big difference.

If you visit with a JW missionary, they will attack your beliefs and tell you why they are wrong.

If you talk to a Mormon missionary, they will tell you about JS and the BoM and ask you to pray about it.

Big difference.

There were soooooo many times on my mission that I had to fight the urge to respond in kind to the nasty, hurtful and often deeply sacriligious things that were said, but I did so because I tried to remember who I was representing.

I may not have been a very good missionary overall, but I did manage to successfully do that much.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Take a guy like Aaron Shaf, for example. The guy may be a nut job, and he may be a tool, but I still think he sincerely believes he is defending something that he holds sacred. I don't think he's evil, just severely deluded.

Under your analysis, everybody is simply innocently standing up for what they believe.

As Mike has pointed out, if you articulate a forward position advocating belief in something, that is advocacy.

If advocate a negative position, informing in what not to believe, I don't find that person useful, but just destructive.

[Indy Coug]

I think this scripture fits Aaron Shaf nicely:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/30/53#53

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Under your analysis, everybody is simply innocently standing up for what they believe.

As Mike has pointed out, if you articulate a forward position advocating belief in something, that is advocacy.

If advocate a negative position, informing in what not to believe, I don't find that person useful, but just destructive.

When a mormon missionary sets out to convert a Catholic, isn't he informing that person in what not to believe? Isn't the missionary basically telling that person that they shouldn't believe in Catholicism? Maybe it's just that mormon missionaries are more tactful in their approach than Aaron Shaf.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

When a mormon missionary sets out to convert a Catholic, isn't he informing that person in what not to believe? Isn't the missionary basically telling that person that they shouldn't believe in Catholicism? Maybe it's just that mormon missionaries are more tactful in their approach than Aaron Shaf.

If Mormonism is more attractive than their current religion, they will gravitate to it.

Look at the training Mormon missionaries receive. It is only about their own religion. Missionaries know very little about other religions.

It's very clear what the Mormon approach is. We have something special, try it, join us if you like.

Go back and read the allegory of the Tree of Life. And the fruit.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

When a mormon missionary sets out to convert a Catholic, isn't he informing that person in what not to believe? Isn't the missionary basically telling that person that they shouldn't believe in Catholicism? Maybe it's just that mormon missionaries are more tactful in their approach than Aaron Shaf.

LDS don't teach, at least now, "Hey, you Catholics sold permission for sin or indulgences"; we teach everybody must pay for their own sins lest they take advantage of the Atonment.

It is much different. Shaf doesn't preach in what a person should believe only in what one should not believe.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If Mormonism is more attractive than their current religion, they will gravitate to it.

Look at the training Mormon missionaries receive. It is only about their own religion. Missionaries know very little about other religions.

It's very clear what the Mormon approach is. We have something special, try it, join us if you like.

Go back and read the allegory of the Tree of Life. And the fruit.

But you're just talking about tactics. The approach used by mormon missionaries is, indeed, more tactful. More subtle. More friendly. But isn't the ultimate goal to change the way other people believe? A guy like Aaron Shaf reminds me Grapevine -- socially retarded, heavy-handed, confused, inarticulate, abrasive, but in the end still sincere.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

But you're just talking about tactics. The approach used by mormon missionaries is, indeed, more tactful. More subtle. More friendly. But isn't the ultimate goal to change the way other people believe? A guy like Aaron Shaf reminds me Grapevine -- socially retarded, heavy-handed, confused, inarticulate, abrasive, but in the end still sincere.

Given the heavy-handed and insulting tactics of Aaron Shaf, forgive me if I don't buy into your claim that his motivations are really that altruistic.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

LDS don't teach, at least now, "Hey, you Catholics sold permission for sin or indulgences"; we teach everybody must pay for their own sins lest they take advantage of the Atonment.

It is much different. Shaf doesn't preach in what a person should believe only in what one should not believe.

So Shaf is the BMW salesman who tells you not to buy the Mercedes, while the mormon missionary just tells you why the BMW is such a great car. It seems to me that the only difference is in the sales pitch.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So Shaf is the BMW salesman who tells you not to buy the Mercedes, while the mormon missionary just tells you why the BMW is such a great car. It seems to me that the only difference is in the sales pitch.

Well you are right that Mormons = BMW, most of the rest of the world = Yugo.

I'll hand it to you there.