It's called a "red herring." Or a "Straw Man." It's what someone does when they cannot discuss an issue with integrity, and with honorable, fact-based debate.
It's what you just did. I never said that "...it is silly to recognize the real differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism," yet you accuse me of such with your opening salvo. That is a lie. A lie is a sin. If you go before God with that stain on your soul, un-confessed and un-repented, you will burn in Hell for eternity.
Is it worth it?
I pointed out differences between Mormonism and true Christianity. I only said that it was "silly" to pretend that Joseph Smith had called all Christianity "an abomination." He did not.
What you did is an abomination. Stop it. If you cannot debate the facts without lying and deceitful innuendo, you are much better off just not getting involved.
N'kay?
;-/
(P.S.) To The Central Scrutinizer: Thank you for your dutiful, knee-jerk review; it is being submitted for approval by an authority even bigger than yours... and better looking, and nicer smelling. N'yuk, n'yuk, n'yuk.
OK, bro, you’ve made some pretty serious allegations. Let’s see if they stand up to close scrutiny:
In Post #10, NoRedTape said the following:
....but Beck’s a mormon.
I cringe when he mentions God..........because Joe Smith called Christianity an “ABOMINATION”.
The mormons are nice folks......but they are not Christian. So that’s where it all gets very bizarre.
In post #71, you said the following:
That’s just silly. The Mormons use two religious texts; The Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible. They believe in the risen Christ just as much as do my Baptist church family. They just happen to believe that God revealed further prophecy through Joseph Smith (and, apparently, the “peep stones” used to decipher his coded writings... LMAO!).
I don’t believe in the authenticity The Book Of Mormon, and I even believe it to be blasphemy, but I’m pretty sure Joe Smith had nothing against biblical scripture other than that he perhaps felt it incomplete somehow. Like O’Bunga wanting to flesh out the inadequate Constitution via presidential fiat.
Then, in post #96, I responded with what you have designated a lie. I said:
No, it is not silly to recognize the real differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. Mormonism was not invented to fill in some gaps left by the Christian Scriptures. It was invented as a direct competitor to traditional Christian belief.
…
OK, so with that as the factual background, let’s see if your accusation stands up.
1) NoRedTape tries to make the very legitimate point that Mormon theology is in sharp conflict with traditional Christian theology, and he bases that on the teaching of Joe Smith, who, like Brigham Young, relegates all non-Mormon churches to hell. That’s a fact.
2) You respond by saying (and I quote) “That’s just silly.” Note that you end your sentence with a period, identifying no particular item in the previous post as the target of your claim. Thus, any reasonable reader might understand you to be referring to the antecedent point as a whole, that there is a severe conflict of theologies between the two religions, and therefore, by implication, its fair game to talk about and identify those differences.
I testify to you before God that that is precisely how I understood your comment, that you were making silliness of NoRedTape’s main point, that there are critical differences between the two religions that needed to be addressed. If you wished your readers, including me, to take your meaning to be exclusively about the “Joe Smith says all Christianity is an abomination,” then the burden was on you to provide textual clues to point to that specific idea. You did not. Or if you did, I promise you most sincerely, I could not, and still cannot, after multiple rereadings, find such clues.
I therefore demand that you retract your false accusation that I lied.
A lie requires both a falsehood and an intent to knowingly propagate that falsehood. Neither factor is present in this case.
First, as stated above, your ambiguity of reference made my interpretation perfectly legitimate, an honest reading of your text as you provided it.
Second, even if someone gets off track in a debate, it would take God-like omniscience to know with certainty whether the misdirection was intentional. So, because you are not God, let me help you with that. I had no intention of misdirection or conveying falsehood. That perception came entirely from your own hyperactive imagination.
Please understand, I always argue in good faith. The deliberate use of a false interpretation as an intentional misdirection is not in my style book. I don’t do it. I respect the spiritual risks of falsehood to which you refer, and I value the purity of my own soul (though I hope you recognize that the danger of sin as you describe it is precisely why we must live in grace and not under law, else no one could be saved; we would all fall short every day in every way, but God has mercy and leads us on despite ourselves).
But misunderstandings do happen. Nevertheless, if both parties are arguing in good faith, i.e., being honest with each other and themselves, there is no need to turn an innocent misunderstanding on its head and make it out to be a deliberate and cynical act of deception, as you have done, without proof. It only makes for unnecessary pain.
Please know that for my part, I am willing to let bygones be bygones.
However, one more thing needs to be said. NoRedTape is right. Joe Smith really did “abomanize” his contemporary Christian competitors. In contemplating which church he should join, he said:
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;(3) and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
~Joseph Smith History 1:19
Not exactly a question of incompleteness, is it.