Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

Romans922 · #1 (**permalink**) 12-08-2007, 10:37 PM

YouTube - Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

etexas · #2 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

YouTube - Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

Apt title for this thread my friend!!!! That Dude OWNED those Mormons from start to finish! OWNED! He would not take the Book of Mormon, he would not shake their hands! BURN!

:appla use:

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 06:01 AM

Very adept at handling the Scriptures but I think he was a bit too prideful at the end.

kvanlaan · #4 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 06:17 AM

Aside from the last ten seconds or so (seemed a bit cocky, maybe I'm just not reading him rightly), I thought this guy was HILARIOUS (and solid). And it blew a few of my stereotypes out of the water. I would normally cross the street rather than walk past this guy (dressed like a bit of a thug, in my sheltered eyes) but quotes scripture like a preacher of old - something to aspire to. (In that sort of situation, "I'll get back to you, what's your email address??" doesn't cut it.) This guy was good.

etexas · #5 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Very adept at handling the Scriptures but I think he was a bit too prideful at the end.

I am not sure it was pride Rich, just a little cocky, and he did run the Moor-Moons off!

Joshua · #6 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 10:39 AM

Although the Christian was technically "right," he was rude. The Mormons didn't raise their voice. They remained calm. Yet the Christian berated them by saying they were angry, etc. He even said, "We're having a discussion," but then followed it up by saying, "I don't have to stop and listen to you." And though they may have very well been frustrated, they were not acting rudely toward him.

Don't get me wrong, he did a good job of pointing out their inconsistency, but he did so with great arrogance, which is not to be confused with boldness. In my opinion, he got antagonistic a little too early. It would have been considerably different if he had had previous discussions with these guys and they were acting contempuoustly and mockingly. At such a point, there might very well ought to be a "don't cast your pearls before swine" sphere of thinking. But that wasn't the case. "Speak the truth in love."

Making statements like, "...until you figured out I knew the Scriptures," is neither helpful, nor speaking the truth in love. His arrogance particularly shown through at the end, when he acted like he had virtue in and of himself (apart from alien righteousness), then proclaiming about he and his boys "We're real." He seemed to have no real concern for these boys' souls. Instead he had more concern for "owning" them on camera and looking real smart. I don't think his intentions were to witness, but to boast.

etexas · #7 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Although the Christian was technically "right," he was rude. The Mormons didn't raise their voice. They remained calm. Yet the Christian berated them by saying they were angry, etc. He even said, "We're having a discussion," but then followed it up by saying, "I don't have to stop and listen to you." And though they may have very well been frustrated, they were not acting rudely toward him.

Don't get me wrong, he did a good job of pointing out their inconsistency, but he did so with great arrogance, which is not to be confused with boldness. In my opinion, he got antagonistic a little too early. It would have been considerably different if he had had previous discussions with these guys and they were acting contempuoustly and mockingly. At such a point, there might very well ought to be a "don't cast your pearls before swine" sphere of thinking. But that wasn't the case. "Speak the truth in love."

Making statements like, "...until you figured out I knew the Scriptures," is neither helpful, nor speaking the truth in love. His arrogance particularly shown through at the end, when he acted like he had virtue in and of himself (apart from alien righteousness), then proclaiming about he and his boys "We're real." He seemed to have no real concern for these boys' souls. Instead he had more concern for "owning" them on camera and looking real smart. I don't think his intentions were to witness, but to boast.

"Devil's Advocate" here, I think he felt that they were white, and he was black so they could dictate "truth" to him. The geeky More-moon in glasses was in point of fact interupting and getting rude! I have VERY little patience for cultist in any event, so more power to the "brother"!

Joshua · #8 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 11:15 AM

I never said neither of them were interrupting. That's a natural part of nearly all informal conversation. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what he thought concerning their respective "races," as it is not germane to the conversation. So, although there were interruptions on both parts, I didn't interpret rudeness, only arrogance from, as you called him, the "brother."

His whole presentation was about how he and his friends refuted these boys. Not the triumph of Christ's Gospel over false Gospels. He was so stuck on how well he did. Bleh.

Blue Tick · #9 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 11:24 AM

I would agree with Joshua about the preacher's attitude.

In my experience most of these "street witnessing" encounters don't produce alot of fruit. Living in Salt Lake we see alot of well meaning Christians fly into Salt Lake determined to convert Mormons and then only to leave the following day. While leaving the native Christians to deal with the swarming bees nest.

Obviously the guy slammed them. But the Mormon boys, especially the new guy is probably thinking "wow my teachers were right, we will be persecuted for the gospel". The issue with Mormons is God is not that holy and sin is not that bad, which brought to it's logical conclusion brews idoltary. Mormons are idolaters. How can the Mormon god be holy when he's an exalted man?

When talking with Mormons it's best to define terms. We (Christians) use the same terms but have different definitions. It's easy to bulldoze through Mormons intellectually, even more so if the encounter is on the street. However, it takes patients and gentleness to deal with them daily.

For the record I find it easier to talk to Mormons than to Evangelicals about the DoG.

Josiah · #10 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 11:39 AM

I saw this on a different website the other day. My impression was that his arguments could have been better a bit better and that he was relying more on dominating the conversation rather than puting forth valid arguments. I did like the courage he displayed in speaking to them of christ.

etexas · #11 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

I never said neither of them were interrupting. That's a natural part of nearly all informal conversation. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what he thought concerning their respective "races," as it is not germane to the conversation. So, although there were interruptions on both parts, I didn't interpret rudeness, only arrogance from, as you called him, the "brother."

His whole presentation was about how he and his friends refuted these boys. Not the triumph of Christ's Gospel over false Gospels. He was so stuck on how well he did. Bleh.

Josh my friend! he "trumped" the Mormons! That is all I care about! If he "strutted" a little after the fact, well so be it. My song for the Mormons,

Joshua · #12 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

I never said neither of them were interrupting. That's a natural part of nearly all informal conversation. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what he thought concerning their respective "races," as it is not germane to the conversation. So, although there were interruptions on both parts, I didn't interpret rudeness, only arrogance from, as you called him, the "brother."

His whole presentation was about how he and his friends refuted these boys. Not the triumph of Christ's Gospel over false Gospels. He was so stuck on how well he did. Bleh.

Josh my friend! he "trumped" the Mormons! That is all I care about! If he "strutted" a little after the fact, well so be it. My song for the Mormons,

MC, my friend, he didn't show a bit of care for their souls! They didn't approach him militantly. They weren't trying to "argue him down." His demeanor could have been different. Notice, I didn't say his *content*. For all you know, or this guy could have known, these Mormons may have never had heard a clear and articulate and positive proclamation of the Gospel. Instead of having a contemptuous

for the Mormons, this guy should have first sought to have a little more

compassion of the condition of their souls. What happens if we, as Christians, only have

, as our songs for non Christians? We were once, "children of wrath." I'm glad that those who shared the Gospel with me didn't have merely a

for me, but in stead

for me, and proclamied the Gospel in a sincere concern for my soul, as opposed to a pride-puffing performance of debunking my beliefs. His 'good riddens' approach toward two Mormons who had not even shown they were hostile toward Biblical Christianity was less than commendable.

etexas · #13 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

I never said neither of them were interrupting. That's a natural part of nearly all informal conversation. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what he thought concerning their respective "races," as it is not germane to the conversation. So, although there were interruptions on both parts, I didn't interpret rudeness, only arrogance from, as you called him, the "brother."

His whole presentation was about how he and his friends refuted these boys. Not the triumph of Christ's Gospel over false Gospels. He was so stuck on how well he did. Bleh.

Josh my friend! he "trumped" the Mormons! That is all I care about! If he "strutted" a little after the fact, well so be it. My song for the Mormons,

MC, my friend, he didn't show a bit of care for their souls! They didn't approach him militantly. They weren't trying to "argue him down." His demeanor could have been different. Notice, I didn't say his *content*. For all you know, or this guy could have known, these Mormons may have never had heard a clear and articulate and positive proclamation of the Gospel. Instead of having a contemptuous

for the Mormons, this guy should have first sought to have a little more

compassion of the condition of their souls. What happens if we, as Christians, only have

, as our songs for non Christians? We were once, "children of wrath." I'm glad that those who shared the Gospel with me didn't have merely a

for me, but in stead

for me, and proclamied the Gospel in a sincere concern for my soul, as opposed to a pride-puffing performance of debunking my beliefs. His 'good riddens' approach toward two Mormons who had not even shown they were hostile toward Biblical Christianity was less than commendable.

You are right Josh!

kvanlaan · #14 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 06:36 PM

The cockiness did destroy the spirit of the message, I guess - it was just so refereshing to see someone be able to handle these guys with regards to Scripture. It's not easy - most of them know the Bible inside out.

But yes, Josh is right - again (how annoying!

)

reformedcop · #15 (**permalink**) 12-09-2007, 11:34 PM

Maybe enough has been said on this, but I need to chime in with Josh on this one. I watched this video about a month ago and was actually somewhat saddened by it. If the Christian would have just taken his obvious knowledge and delivered it with a more apparent concern for their souls it would have better and more glorifying to God, in my humble opinion. I actually looked at it more from the standpoint of the fruit (or lack therof) that the Christian was bearing. Yes, he was biblically correct in his ability to refute the mormon, but where was the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control in that interaction? If it weren't for the grace of God, the Christian could very easlily be on the other side of the conversation. I think it is a very good, whether witnessing to mormons, JW's or anybody for that matter, to remember what we were before God plucked us out of the mire.

Barnpreacher · #16 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedcop

Maybe enough has been said on this, but I need to chime in with Josh on this one. I watched this video about a month ago and was actually somewhat saddened by it. If the Christian would have just taken his obvious knowledge and delivered it with a more apparent concern for their souls it would have better and more glorifying to God, in my humble opinion. I actually looked at it more from the standpoint of the fruit (or lack therof) that the Christian was bearing. Yes, he was biblically correct in his ability to refute the mormon, but where was the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control in that interaction? If it weren't for the grace of God, the Christian could very easlily be on the other side of the conversation. I think it is a very good, whether witnessing to mormons, JW's or anybody for that matter, to remember what we were before God plucked us out of the mire.

and another

I heard Tim Keller say just this afternoon in a message that Jonathan Edwards once said, "There is a concatenation of the graces of Christianity." That means real Spirit worked fruit go together. This Christian in the video showed a peace in what he was saying, but where was the love and gentleness and kindness? He showed joy in what he had accomplished, but where was the goodness and patience with these lost sinners?

I found that video disturbing.

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 01:10 AM

I was bothered by how sanctimonious he was about the fact that they were getting angry.

Part of the dominance of the conversation and the frustration they were experiencing was the fact that he would talk over them, they would get upset, and then he would say that the reason they were getting upset was the truth. Not really. I'd get annoyed and upset with that guy too if he accused me of talking over him when he never really takes a breath while he's speaking. That's not really an interchange of ideas.

In fact, did the Christian really offend for the Gospel? It was really, in the end, the others not having a good argument for why someone ought to believe their lame statement that Christianity had been corrupted and that the Book of Mormon was not the Scriptures.

But the demons know that the Book of Mormon is a lie and they still shudder knowing the authoritative Book.

How did he really bring out their hatred of the Gospel itself? It was more a "I know this stuff better than you session" but he didn't even bother to explain to them how the Scriptures point to Christ and His propitiation for Sin.

I wonder, in fact, what this guy really believes about the Gospel? For all we know he's a rank semi-Pelagian who only differs in breed from the Mormons rather than species. His conduct, as has been noted, did not express the love that God has for His enemies that ought to be evinced by those who have been born again. Our attitude toward the world ought to be one of gentleness and reverance not a "...just proof again that no white boy Mormon can beat me...."

He ought to be careful how much he boast that he can stand.

The title of the video says it all. We don't own anyone. The Gospel is not a power play.

Barnpreacher · #18 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

The title of the video says it all. We don't own anyone. The Gospel is not a power play.

Wonder if Calvin and Luther and the Apostle Paul or even the Lord Jesus Christ for that matter would have posted their "gospel ownings" on YouTube?

BobVigneault · #19 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 09:54 AM

What I don't understand in all these types of video clips is where did the camera come from. "Hey it's Saturday night, let's go stand on the corner... and bring your video camera and we'll just have it recording in case something interesting happens. Oh look, here comes some guys on bike's, maybe they won't notice that we are filming everything we do and say." I don't get it.