“Even your-out-of-whack falsehood radar picked that one up...you just apparently lacked candidness to go beyond the ‘possibly’ hesitant expression.”
Now you have spoken falsely. Have you lied?
It isn't any lack of candor on my part that I said what I said. Rather, it is a lack of knowledge on my part on what motivates folks to say what they say, especially when what they say is sorta vague.
Straightforwardly, if I were to be the proximate cause of someone’s coming to the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and they were to say, “You converted me!”, I'd recoil in horror. I DID NO SUCH THING! If someone is converted, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. If I was somehow involved, that makes me happy, but I want no credit for such a thing.
That doesn't mean that there aren't folks that I think are likely candidates for conversion to the true faith.
Thus, knowing how I think about conversion, I can credit that someone else might think in ways about conversion where they could simultaneously see someone as a candidate for conversion, hope for that person's conversion, yet honestly say that they aren't trying to convert the person.
But perhaps in the case of this author, pride got the better of him, and he actually thought that he was doing the converting, in which case, he may well have been lying on point one.
In any case, your statement that I "just apparently lacked candidness to go beyond the 'possibly' hesitant expression," is false. You posted a falsehood. Are you now a liar?
As to the rest of your post, ho hum. You're making arguments why their theology is false. I already agree with you that their theology is false, at least where it differs with the objective truth of Catholic faith.
Perhaps you're trying to say that the falsity of LDS teaching is so apparent that it can't be sincerely believed.
Well, I feel the same way about non-Catholics/non-Orthodox who don't believe that the Eucharist is literally the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, that it is no longer bread and wine, but the Lord, Himself. It's pretty plain what the Bible says, and the Bible doesn't need hundreds of words to say it.
Nonetheless, no matter how obvious the truth is (and it is quite obvious), I believe that most non-Catholics/non-Orthodox, in fact, the overwhelming majority who refuse to believe this objective truth are, nonetheless, folks of good will and good faith, and genuinely believe their false beliefs. Sincerely.
I don't call them liars for believing what is false, and I don't say that their false beliefs are lies.
Even though the evidence against their false beliefs is overwhelming and irrefutable (so says I), and even though any devout, believing Catholic would agree with me.
Just ask ArrogantBustard whether he agrees with me that it is plainly true that in the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass (and Orthodox Divine Liturgy), Jesus is made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, on the altar, and that what appears like bread and wine is no longer at all bread and wine.
sitetest
As I read through the first half of it, I thought to myself, "Surely sitetest is an intelligent fellow...surely he knows the distinctions between connotative aspects of communication (associations, overtones, concepts linked to certain terms)...
...vs. denotative -- the explicit definition of a word.
IOW, your response flunks miserably in making this proper distinction: On the one hand...
...you gave a very excellent denotative definition of the words and explanation of "conversion" from a solid theological perspective when you said:
Straightforwardly, if I were to be the proximate cause of someone’s coming to the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and they were to say, “You converted me!”, I'd recoil in horror. I DID NO SUCH THING! If someone is converted, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. If I was somehow involved, that makes me happy, but I want no credit for such a thing. That doesn't mean that there aren't folks that I think are likely candidates for conversion to the true faith.
But then you lambasted the author for being guilty of "pride" simply because he spoke using the word "convert" in a manner that was obviously "connotative":
But perhaps in the case of this author, pride got the better of him, and he actually thought that he was doing the converting, in which case, he may well have been lying on point one.
Come now...you don't really mean to try to convince us that when somebody says to a potential proselyte, "I am not trying to convert you," what he really means is not...
...a connotative expression geared for the listener in terms he understands, but rather...
...he's providing an explicitly theological techically correct definition that really means: "Hey, I am not trying to convert you because only-God-can-convert-you-through-the-power-of-the-Holy-Spirit-based-upon-1-Corinthians-12-3-and-so-I-don't-have-that-ability." [deep breath]
Come on, sitetest...you're really starting to insult our intelligence. A missionary who tells you they are "not trying to convert you" is not giving a quick end-of-commercial denotative caveat spoken so fast you can't understand most of the words...just to "cover himself" and not mislead the person so that the person knows who really does the converting. No, it's a statement made to put the person at ease...a statement GEARED FOR the listener!!!
This author's statement is obviously connotative -- not denotative -- so please, if this is the rabbit trail you're trying to pursue, let's just focus whatever other convos we have on what follows...sheesh.
Thus, knowing how I think about conversion, I can credit that someone else might think in ways about conversion where they could simultaneously see someone as a candidate for conversion, hope for that person's conversion, yet honestly say that they aren't trying to convert the person.
Well, in some cases in the world at-large I agree with you where "I am not trying to convert you" is a truthful expression...Some patient people exist in the world...but for the Mormon missionary...no...sorry...you're exhausting credulity...but perhaps that's because you don't know how Mormon missionaries are trained.
It isn't any lack of candor on my part that I said what I said...In any case, your statement that I "just apparently lacked candidness to go beyond the 'possibly' hesitant expression," is false. You posted a falsehood. Are you now a liar?
I never said you lacked "candor". Not all writers or dictionaries make a distinction between "candor" and "candid," but I do. When I said you "apparently" [Note: you do know don't you that word is linked to the word "appearance"] lacked "candidness," I meant that as a perceived lack of unreserved straightforwardness. That's it. Nothing more. There are LOTS of reasons to NOT be unreservedly straightforward on these threads (not the least of which is time investment)...so commenting upon your hesitancy did not have a moral trailer hitched to it!
And then you accuse me of lying? (When it's not true, that's worse that pointing out somebody's hesitancy & lack of forthrightness). Come on, now. Go back to that initial thread post of yours. What was it? Two lines? And NONE of those words backed up what you meant by the word "possibly?" ???
Do you mean to tell us in that post that you were...
...wildly frank & forthright??
...boldly straightforward???
...unreserved in explaining why it wasn't a lie?
Sorry...I still say that apparently you initially seemed unreservedly straightforward...since I seem to have to dot my "i"s and "t"s w/you, all "apparently" means is by mere "appearance"...and we all know appearances aren't always 1:1 correlation with reality...so I never claimed to have a detailed "scan" of either your "candid rating" OR a "candor rating" or whatever moral assessment you thought I was making about you.
As to the rest of your post...You're making arguments why their theology is false.
With #2, that was only half the case...If you claim one thing PR-wise, and another thing theologically...that is being two-faced...you don't need theological expertise to discern two-faced approaches to something, do you?
I already agree with you that their theology is false, at least where it differs with the objective truth of Catholic faith. Perhaps you're trying to say that the falsity of LDS teaching is so apparent that it can't be sincerely believed. Well, I feel the same way about non-Catholics/non-Orthodox who don't believe that the Eucharist is literally the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, that it is no longer bread and wine, but the Lord, Himself. It's pretty plain what the Bible says, and the Bible doesn't need hundreds of words to say it. Nonetheless, no matter how obvious the truth is (and it is quite obvious), I believe that most non-Catholics/non-Orthodox, in fact, the overwhelming majority who refuse to believe this objective truth are, nonetheless, folks of good will and good faith, and genuinely believe their false beliefs. Sincerely. I don't call them liars for believing what is false, and I don't say that their false beliefs are lies.
I wasn't simply saying "the falsity of LDS teaching is so apparent that it can't be sincerely believed" on these specific points.
I know indeed Mormon theology is "ho hum," but if I had to summarize their approach to "we're the only true church," it's this:
They know to claim this they need to simultaneously believe contradictory things about what Jesus Christ + the apostle Paul has said vs. what Joseph Smith has said. And sometimes it's even Joseph Smith vs. Joseph Smith (they have to embrace one aspect of what he claims & then somehow keep his contradictory teachings at arm's length).
Do you know what that's called? There's a sense of cognitive dissonance there...a failure to react to what should be provocative where they keep part of what their prophet(s) have said at arm's length...not embracing that part, but not publicly rejecting it, either.
You see if Lds just came clean and said, "Hey, we know Joseph Smith taught this. We know it's at direct odds with several things Jesus and Paul said in the Bible. We just choose to believe Smith over the Bible," then that would all be on the up and up. That would match what you've described.
BUT...if you're trying to nab the Christian brand and apply it to yourself...doesn't look good to confess that Joseph Smith trumps Jesus (Matt. 16:18) and the apostle Paul (eph. 3:21). And so, you take contradictory statements that you know are contradictory and claim they are both true.
And then what can they do when Smith contradicts Smith? When that happens, they are forced into a corner to cover up part of what he has said, and they wind up falsely claiming that Smith doesn't contradict Smith. Sorry, but that's a lie.
I suggest you study up on where some religions try to eat their cake and have it, too...where they try to appear "Christian-like" and yet deny key components of Christianity and then pretend like it's all hunky-dory.