MormonInfo.org

December 6, 2003

Dear Family and Friends,

This will be a very short newsletter due to the fact that I am writing from the central library in Oxford, England. Time is very limited for using the computers and for seeing the sites. I am having a wonderful time here. I will be leaving on the 9th to travel to Serbia. My brother Greg has a full schedule of speaking for me over there, and I would appreciate your prayers in this regard.

A few things stand out from last month's ministry. First, a student from the University of Utah (Casey) interviewed me, and then a couple of blokes from Australia interviewed me. The former was for a communication class in which I was tape-recorded. Casey had to simply listen and not argue. He came downtown to find Lonnie Pursiful (an infamous street preacher), but instead he met me. Casey asked all the interesting questions concerning my ministry and the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I totally gave this LDS guy the gospel, and I could tell that he was challenged by it. He thanked me and told me that he was impressed by me being well thought out. The latter interviewers were going around the world to video various religions. They were quite interested in the Mormon wearing white shirts and black ties, but with black nametags that had "Darwinist" under their names!

The second thing that stands out from last month was talking to a guy named Chad about the gospel. He used to go to the same big mega-church I used to go to as a high schooler in Tempe, AZ. He told me that his uncle was one of the pastors of that church. Unfortunately, Chad became LDS and married an LDS girl. He told me that he grew up in poverty and in quite a dysfunctional home, and that his uncle was always aloof, never helping Chad's immediate family. That really was upsetting to me. Chad was quite amicable, and very willing to listen to my problems with Mormonism, but was still unrepentant at the end of our conversation. This whole situation made me reflect how Paul told Timothy to watch his life as well as his doctrine in order to save himself and those that hear him (1 Tim. 4:16).

The third item is that I spoke to a couple Sunday school classes at Corona, CA Evangelical Free Church right before I took off for Europe. The first class was an adult class, and I spoke on what God is doing up in Utah and how they could be praying for me. The second class was a college group, and I spoke on the Trinity in relation to modalism (oneness theology) and Mormonism. I think both classes went well, and were well received.

Thank you for every prayer said on my behalf, and for every check written on my behalf.

Cheers and Merry Christmas,

Rob
Rob@Mormon Info.org
Mormon Info

****PRAYER LIST****

1. For God to move more people to do street ministry downtown.
2. For Utah churches and individual Christians to support each other's various ministries.
3. For financial provision. I have about an $800 school bill due in January.
4. For the ability to get my rough draft comprehensive done soon.
5. For God to use my web site.
6. For God to use me as I teach in Europe.

****MAILBAG****

[In reference to an article posted at http://religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=628, I responded with the following:]

Pursifull said Johnson and the other clergy are "no better than the Mormons," calling them "sugarcoated preachers." That's just stupid and short-sighted for Lonnie to say that about a fellow brother who disagrees with his method. Greg's a good friend of mine, and though I disagree with what he did on publicly calling you street preachers to repent, that doesn't mean he's "no better than the Mormons". It's Stupid and unthoughtful remarks like these that cause division in the body of Christ, and for individuals to not take you guys seriously.

Think as well as preach,

Rob Sivulka

Hey Rob, Bro, it means a lot to me that you can offer a kind word on my behalf, even when you disagree with some of my efforts. I too speak well of you when others want to dismiss all street preachers.

Thanks, Greg

[One of the street preachers wrote me back to justify what Lonnie said, and I responded:]

You know I sympathize with you guys, but even if everything you've written concerning this issue is true, there's still no excuse for what Lonnie said. I think he should be the better man, and apologize to Greg for it. Even though these guys never came to you guys in private, it still doesn't justify calling a brother "no better than the Mormons". That was just a knee-jerk reaction, totally not thought out.

Now even if these guys were to go through the proper biblical hoops laid out in Mt. 18, even though I'd disagree with them, I could still understand where they are coming from. They love LDS and see them as lost as much as you do. These Evangelicals see you guys as simply not following the Lord's command to be respectful when you preach. They see you as the "disorderly brethren" who don't give a rip about LDS or the body of Christ here in UT that has a different way of reaching them than you do. They see you guys as totally closing off LDS to not want anything to do with Christianity. They see you guys as betraying God and not loving your enemies as we are commanded to. K, put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Just because they've been socialized to think this way doesn't mean that they are "no better than the Mormons".

Do you really think that you should never stand with your LDS bro (a bro in humanity of course) over against your bro in the Lord? Can't you think of a situation in which this might be required? How about if your bro in the Lord is having a bad day and steals from your LDS bro's grocery store? Obviously you should stand against your bro in the Lord in this case. And these Evangelical ministers are seeing you guys as sinning similarly, so of course they'll stand against you.

I'm not sure what you're doing with the 1 Cor. 6 passage. At first it sounded like you were using it as a reason why we should never side with LDS or ever be their friends. Then it sounded like you were using it as a reason why you shouldn't fellowship with the Evangelical ministers. Either way, they are both misunderstandings. If the former, then you are not considering the context of the prior chapter which tells us that we are to "keep company" with unbelievers and Jesus also did this and loved them, even siding with them when the disciples wanted to hail lightning on them. If the latter, then you're misunderstanding the passage talking about these Evangelical ministers when they disagree with you on something. The passage is talking about the unregenerate, not the Evangelical ministers who really do know the Lord. And every one of them that I know takes this passage seriously too.

As for Amos 3:3, I don't know of anyone that I totally agree with. Does that mean I can never walk with someone? You agree with someone when you put away differences and focus on that which you have in common (Jesus). Now if you think of these guys as so "disorderly" that you are willing to separate from them, then did you go to any of them in private to follow the biblical hoops as you wished they would have done with you guys? Did you go to your brothers in the wrong? Just because they didn't doesn't give you an excuse not to. Until you do this, you have no biblical right for regarding them as unbelievers.

I love you bro, but I think you as well as Lonnie need to loosen up a bit on this. "Put up with one another in the Lord", and "they'll know we are Christians by our love". Satan's laughing at the way both sides are regarding the other as unbelievers... and so are the LDS. Your bro,R

dude--I love that picture of the Taoist with the sign and you just smiling the Sivulka grin! Keep it up and maybe you should hold a pair of your Hanes up and just pretend its hol-ey... love you.

[I was asked by a buddy of mine to respond to a prominent LDS apologist's (Blake Ostler, hereafter "B") theology. B actually disagrees with the majority of LDS who think that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all had to become gods of this world.]

B's divine function of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost isn't eternal, since these members became those functions. They were simply (human) intelligences prior to becoming Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. B may say, "Ya, but they always had the same function as intelligences." "What *kind* of intelligences" is a prior question to their function as I've already mentioned [in a previous e-mail].

But then how did the Father become something other than an intelligence? B wouldn't claim the Father had a Father, right? If so, then there's nothing to prevent some other "Father" from mysteriously forming either... particularly since we're all made out of the same human intelligence stuff. This stuff grounds what we are. Is this God stuff?

If B says yes, then he must be committed to us being of the same stuff and us always being God by our nature. If he says that we are potentially becoming gods, then that implies what? That we lost our "stuff" (our kind)? That would be nonsense. B equivocates now to talk about us becoming something other than our kind. [But] [w]e are always "who" we are. So what are we becoming? Some stage of development or regaining some office or function, which most of us will never obtain. This is a hopeless equivocation. He's confusing a nature with a function. He's totally unclear. It's claiming that we are of the same stuff as God that Christians find so blasphemous!