Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary

The Bible predicts a dreadful fate for liars. For instance, while banished on the island of Patmos, the Apostle John saw that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). Similarly, the beloved disciple writes, liars are doomed to an eternity outside of God's presence (Revelation 22:15). Because Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), lying is extremely serious sin.

As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).

I can't remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I'll never forget.

1. We're Not Trying to Convert You

Of all my lies, this was the most frequent. I learned it well while in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was my first assignment. A standard door-to-door proselyting pitch began with, "We represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Interrupting, many people said they had their own religion. "Oh, we're not trying to convert you," I responded. "We're sharing a message for all faiths."

But Mormon missionaries have one overriding goal, and that's to bring converts into the church. Clearly, this was the purpose of my mission. I didn't trade the Southern California sunshine for the Dakota snow merely to build interfaith relations. My calling was to teach the church-approved missionary lessons and then baptize the people I taught.

2. The Bible is Insufficient

According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it's translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon's interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing "many plain and precious things," as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely.

And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it's the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

3. We're the Only True Christians

For decades, the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus. But Paul warned of deceivers who would lure Christians away from "the simplicity that is in Christ." These false teachers preached "another Jesus" and "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11: 3-4) and were accursed (see Galatians 1:8-9). How interesting that Paul also cautions against false apostles, such as those in the Mormon Church (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

So which Jesus and gospel do Mormons preach? While a missionary, I taught that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of the Father in a premortal life. (The remainder of humanity was born as spirits later in this "pre-existence.") But I didn't tell prospects this was a literal birth, the result of literal fathering, as Mormon prophets and apostles have claimed. If asked, I taught that the devil was born as one of God's noble spirit sons during the pre-existence, but had rebelled and started a war in heaven.

Consistent with Mormon doctrine, then, Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. But the Bible teaches that Christ is God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1), that He has always been God (Psalm 90:2), and that He always will be God (Hebrews 13:8). Born into mortality some 2,000 years ago, Jesus is "God... manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). He is far grander and holier than "our Elder Brother," as Mormons dub Him. Jesus and Satan aren't spirit brothers, and true Christians don't believe such blasphemy.

4. We're the Only True Church

I usually told this lie during the first of seven 30-minute missionary lessons, which presented the Joseph Smith story. According to our script, Smith prayed in 1820 about which church to join. He claimed the Father and Son appeared and told him that all Christian churches of the day were wrong. Smith said he was forbidden to join any of them, that their creeds were abominable and their professors all corrupt. "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," the Lord allegedly added. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Joseph Smith — History, verse 19). In subsequent lessons, I told prospects that Mormonism is the true church God restored through Smith.

But the Bible says such a restoration was unnecessary. Admittedly, there was partial apostasy after Christ's resurrection, but never a complete falling away. In fact, shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). During my mission, however, I argued that the gates of hell did prevail against Christ's church.

Shortly after renouncing Mormonism, I learned a scriptural death blow to notions of universal apostasy. Addressing Ephesian believers 30 years after the Ascension, the Apostle Paul writes, "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). God received glory in the Christian church from the time of Paul's writing to the present day, and He will receive such glory throughout all succeeding generations. Therefore, the church must exist from Paul's day throughout eternity. This annihilates Mormon claims of complete apostasy and makes restoration of Christ's church impossible.

5. We Have a Living Prophet

Whether in wintry Winnipeg or the balmy Black Hills of Rapid City, I criticized Christians because their church lacked a living prophet. Mormons claim the true church must have one. My favorite Bible proof text to back this claim was Amos 3:7, which reads, "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

When prospective converts remained skeptical of living prophets, I quoted Ephesians 4:11-14, which apparently requires living apostles and prophets until believers unify in the faith and understand Christ completely. However, writing in the past tense, Paul is actually referring to apostles and prophets of Jesus' day. Otherwise, verse 11 would read that the Lord "is giving" or "will give" apostles and prophets. Of course, God did reveal His will through Old Testament prophets, as Amos 3:7 affirms. But for the last 2,000 years, He has spoken to believers through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The truth about Mormonism's living prophets is further illuminated in Deuteronomy 18:22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord," the scripture reads, "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Isaiah 8:20 contains a similar warning: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

False prophets who led ancient Israel astray received the death penalty (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20), and all who profess to be living prophets should consider the consequences. Mormon prophets might appear grandfatherly and sincere, but they're not God's living oracles. Since the Mormon Church was founded in 1830, its prophets have uttered a striking number of false prophecies. (See chapter 14 of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's "The Changing World of Mormonism.")

6. The Book of Mormon is Scripture

Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book ("History of the Church," Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace "Book of Mormon" with "the Bible" and Smith would have told the truth.

When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it's a sacred record of Christ's activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book "borrows" heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it's fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.

7. You're Saved By Works

More than any other Mormon lie, this undermines Christ's atonement, which is the most sacred doctrine of the Bible. Mormons usually equate salvation with resurrection. Likewise, they refer to eternal life as "exaltation." I did both while teaching prospective converts. I relished the church's third Article of Faith, which claims, "through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Trying to bridge the doctrinal divide between Mormons and Christians, I emphasized that salvation is by grace "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). What classic Mormon double-talk. Unmistakably, the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 5:15; 6:23) to those who believe in Christ (John 6:47), call upon Him (Romans 10:13) and receive Him as Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Contrary to Mormon dogma, this gift cannot be awarded meritoriously.

Equally clear is that salvation results from God's grace through each believer's faith, not from obeying a checklist of laws and ordinances (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). All who confess Christ and believe in Him from the heart shall be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

Most Mormons know little about imputed righteousness — and neither did I during my mission. Essentially, as Christians know, the Lord credits believers with His perfect righteousness and charges their transgressions to His sinless spiritual "account." Paul explains this doctrine masterfully in Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

When teaching the Mormon gospel, though, I emphatically denied imputed righteousness, which is the essence of the atonement. I stressed that eternal life is earned by perfect obedience to all gospel laws and ordinances. Yet the Bible says that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). As the Psalmist writes: "They are all gone aside. They are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3; compare Romans 3:10-18).

How many Mormons perfectly obey all gospel laws? None. As the Bible asserts, even the church's current prophet can't keep God's laws thoroughly enough to merit heaven (1 John 1:8). And if he can't, how can anyone else?

8. People Can Become Gods

Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects.

"Our Father in heaven loves us so much," I often said, parroting our lesson script, "that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him." I didn't mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. "Is there a God beside me?" the passage reads. "Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23).

When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, "Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there's only one God to us." And if that failed, I lied further: "The Bible isn't clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods." Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God.

9. You're Born Again By Becoming a Mormon

One of my favorite missionary scriptures was John 3:5. "Verily, verily I say unto you," the Savior explains, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To Mormon missionaries everywhere, being born of water means baptism into the Mormon Church. Birth of the Spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, allegedly bestowed after baptism.

Unfortunately, during my mission, I didn't know what it means to be born again. I completely misinterpreted Paul's declaration that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Galatians 6:15). According to the Bible, believers in Christ are reborn spiritually as sons and daughters of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2). They experience a complete Christian conversion of mind and heart. Membership in a church organization might foster social activity and fellowship, but it's not spiritual rebirth.

10. Temple Marriage is Required for Eternal Life

I participated in well over 100 Mormon temple ceremonies from 1975 to 1982, including my own marriage in 1977. Based heavily on freemasonry, temple rites are the church's most carefully guarded secrets. And "celestial marriage," which supposedly weds men and women eternally, is probably the most important temple ordinance. While a missionary, I frequently told prospects they needed temple marriage to gain eternal life.

Yet the Lord says marriage between men and women is irrelevant to the hereafter. "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage," He declares. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage… for they are equal unto the angels...." (Luke 20:34-36.)

The Bible does teach eternal marriage, but not the Mormon version. The union is between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His collective body of believers, who are the bride (Matthew 25:1-13; John 3:29; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

False Testimony

I close with a few words about "testimony," which is a missionary's emergency cord. When I couldn't rebut an antagonistic statement scripturally, I fell back on my testimony. For instance, while proselyting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was once asked where the Bible mentions the secret undergarments Mormons wear. Caught off guard, I admitted that the Bible says nothing about them. I could merely testify that God revealed the need for these garments through living prophets. But my testimony wasn't based on scripture or other hard evidence. Rather, it was founded on personal revelation, which is extremely subjective. Essentially, my testimony was nothing more than a good feeling about the church and its teachings. In Mormon parlance, it was a "burning in the bosom." But burning or not, it wasn't from God.

If you're a Christian, I urge you to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). That faith, the pathway to heaven, is found only in the biblical Jesus (John 14:6). But if you're a Mormon, it's time to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs. Do you know you have everlasting life? No. Can you obey all the commandments perfectly and earn a place in heaven? You can't.

I regret the many lies I told during my Mormon mission. When I received Christ, though, I confessed them (and my other sins) and received His forgiveness (1 John 1:9; Colossians 1:13-14). "He that heareth my word," Christ assures us, "and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

If you wish to quote St. Augustine, it would be best to do so in proper context. The entire text of De Mendacio is available from New Advent, a truly wonderful site.

3. For which purpose we must see what a lie is. For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says. Now between believing and opining there is this difference, that sometimes he who believes feels that he does not know that which he believes, (although he may know himself to be ignorant of a thing, and yet have no doubt at all concerning it, if he most firmly believes it:) whereas he who opines, thinks he knows that which he does not know. Now whoever utters that which he holds in his mind either as belief or as opinion, even though it be false, he lies not. For this he owes to the faith of his utterance, that he thereby produce that which he holds in his mind, and has in that way in which he produces it. Not that he is without fault, although he lie not, if either he believes what he ought not to believe, or thinks he knows what he knows not, even though it should be true: for he accounts an unknown thing for a known.

Emphasis added. St Augustine does NOT support your assertion that "Every [falsehood I uttered is] a sin, whether of omission (ignorant or lazy) or commission, and ALL fairly characterized as lies." Quite the contrary. If you believed it in good faith, however wrong you may have been, you did not lie. Let us not burden ourselves with false guilt.

Having described what lying is NOT, St. Augustine goes on to describe what lying is:

Wherefore, that man lies, who has one thing in his mind and utters another in words, or by signs of whatever kind.

He makes it plain that lying involves not only the utterance of error, but also the intent to deceive.

There is more, of course, but this is enough to address the question of whether I may call "liar" one who proselytizes a religion which I consider false. By calling him "liar", I say not only that he utters falsehood, but that he does so knowingly, with intent to deceive.

Shall I call the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Lutheran apologist a liar? I think not, even though all of them necessarily promote falsehood. I believe that they do so in good faith; however wrong they are, I believe that they actually believe to be true the things that they preach.

You haven't actually made the case yet that anyone is lying. And, if it is lying for Mormons to sincerely believe their false beliefs and to relate them to others...

Well I made the case that lying is involved. Just look at least #1, #2, and #4 as I responded in post #77. Instead of five this time, I'll cover three...and I'll add to the last one something I didn't include before.

Proofs addressing points #1, #2, and #4 'making the case' that confirms what this ex-Lds missionary has said -- that the Mormon church and its missionaries openly lie:

#1
Premise: If, before I come to your house, sitetest, I have written to many others of my faith that I consider you a potential "proselyte" and I tell others I am going over to your house to "proselytize"...
Actual presentation... for me to then say to your face that "I am not trying to convert you"... Conclusion: = a lie.

Now even you recognized this to some degree in your initial comment on this thread. You said then "except for possibly #1" they weren't lying. Even your-out-of-whack falsehood radar picked that one up...you just apparently lacked candidness to go beyond the "possibly" hesitant expression.

So now your "radar" is waffling and defending #1 as pure truth? Really?

Reality: Mormon radio & TV ads have long presented the King James Bible as sufficient. It's been the ONE thing offered for free in those ads going back over 20 years. Therefore...

Choice A: ...either the Mormon church lied then, PR-wise if they presented it as "sufficient" yet in many other venues they conveyed it wasn't sufficient.
Or Choice B: Or, they've lied in presenting the MANY arguments they've made that it's insufficient.

I don't even have to quote you those quotes where Mormon leaders have torn down the trustworthiness of the Bible. Elsie certainly could post the Articles of Faith where Mormonism does that...but just knowing that Joseph Smith alone said that the KJV Bible needed to be "re-translated" from English to English due to "corrections" supposedly needed (he called it a "translation" not a paraphrase) is enough to tell you that Smith repeatedly conveyed that the KJV was inadequate as it was.

So...if you listened to the LDS PR people, the KJV was sufficient; if you listed to their general authorities, it was insufficient. Given the sheer hierarchical nature of the Mormon church, where you have a heavily controlled top-down structure, somebody wasn't telling the truth.

Skipping #3 let's move to #4:

Mormonism claims in its scriptures to be the only "true and living church on the face of the earth." (D&C 1:30) In order to substantiate this claim, they needed a simultaneous claim that the historic Christian church stopped existing legimately at a point approximately 1600-1700 years before the Mormon church was started, saying the church started by Jesus Christ fell into total apostasy.

It won't do any good for the Mormon church to allow for any other church to legitimately exist. (Otherwise, they are not necessary as a "restoration") So their claim hangs or falls ALL on the claims below lining up in perfect alignment in a tightrope I haven't seen beyond the Mormon church...

(a) The claim that Christian churches are 100% apostate...IOW, if they acknowledge even one true church that's been in existence between the alleged time of apostasy and their jumpstart, that alone proves two-faced deception...keep this one in mind for point (e) below;

(b) The claim that Jesus Christ either lied or was mistaken when Jesus claimed that the gates of Hades would not prevail or overcome His Church (Matt. 16:18)...meaning either Jesus was wrong -- or they were. Now you might say, "Well, saying Jesus was merely wrong isn't a lie." And yes, that is true. But Mormons go the extra step here and claim they are not calling Jesus either a liar or false prophet re: Matt. 16:18. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. They need to confess they are contradicting Jesus -- and if they are not they are hiding reality...

(c) The claim that the apostle Paul's prophesy of continuous glory given to God "in the church...in all generations forever and ever" was either a false prophesy -- or their contention that it stopped was...(Paul and the Mormon church cannot both be true in their claims)

(d) The Book of Mormon makes this claim in 2 Nephi 8:8, and it rings a bit similar to what was just covered in Eph. 3:21: For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool. But my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation. (2 Nephi 8:8)

Now, you need to know that Mormons claim 2 Nephi was written in B.C. times. So tell us, Mormon “restorationists”: If...
...Nephi prophesied that salvation would occur sequentially from generation to generation...was Nephi a false prophet about this? You mean, the "generation to generation" salvation stopped for 1700 years? Really?

Therefore, when Mormon missionaries who are aware of 2 Nephi 8:8 -- OR, certainly their leaders who know this verse -- talk about the "universal apostasy" all in the same breath as claiming salvation has historically occurred "generation to generation," one of those two truth commitments has "to give" in that tug-of-war for truth.

(e) Remember here the backdrop for this consideration is that the Mormon church claims that the church on earth was in apostasy for umpteen hundred years before 1830.

In this consideration, we simply need to review the Mormon "scriptural" presentation of authoritative continuity.

Joseph Smith prophesied Sept. 22-23, 1832 that the “priesthood continueth in the church of God in ALL GENERATIONS, and is WITHOUT BEGINNING OF DAYS OR END OF YEARS. And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS, WHICH PRIESTHOOD ALSO CONTINUETH FOREVER WITH THE PRIESTHOOD which is after the holiest order of God.” (D&C 84:17-18)

Therefore, if you take this coupled with Smith also prophesying in 1832 to 1832 Mormons that this “priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers” (D&C 86:8) — and since almost all of the “fathers” of these 1832 Mormons were either Christian or pagan or deceased or whatever — but certainly were NOT Mormons...

...Then tell, us dear Mormons: On what grounds do you exclude the Christian Church from your dear exclusive priesthood club?

On what grounds, dear Mormons: Do you exclude us from being the true church (according to D&C 1:30)?

On what grounds, dear Mormons: Do you call us “apostates” who triggered a needy “restoration” of the gospel and the true Church?

n what grounds, dear Mormons: Did you claim that the “light of the gospel leading to salvation” was lost for a long period of time on earth?

By labeling us all as such, you openly consign Nephi, the apostle Paul and Joseph Smith to the garbage bin of false prophets!

Therefore, either Mormons are internally lying/covering up that they believe Smith is a false prophet, or more likely, they believe Smith was telling the truth in D&C 84:17-18; 86:8...which means they believe that the priesthood was rec'd via "the lineage of their fathers" (86:8) and this was a continuous priesthood passed down "throughout all generations" (84:17-18).

But if this was passed down to them by a faulty generational apostate priesthood, how are they legit? If they believe these D&C passages, therefore, then they are forced to conclude the Christian church was NOT "apostate" after all pre 1830 -- and their claims that we are apostates as the Christian church is a lie!

Dear Colofornian,

“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

If you wish to quote St. Augustine, it would be best to do so in proper context. The entire text of De Mendacio is available from New Advent, a truly wonderful site.

3. For which purpose we must see what a lie is. For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says. Now between believing and opining there is this difference, that sometimes he who believes feels that he does not know that which he believes, (although he may know himself to be ignorant of a thing, and yet have no doubt at all concerning it, if he most firmly believes it:) whereas he who opines, thinks he knows that which he does not know. Now whoever utters that which he holds in his mind either as belief or as opinion, even though it be false, he lies not. For this he owes to the faith of his utterance, that he thereby produce that which he holds in his mind, and has in that way in which he produces it. Not that he is without fault, although he lie not, if either he believes what he ought not to believe, or thinks he knows what he knows not, even though it should be true: for he accounts an unknown thing for a known.

At this point, I believe you have only found the low hanging fruit with hasty perusal of internet sources, and probably do not fully know of which you speak, but I will spend time in the works of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinus, Immanuel Kant and others once again.

Also from De Mendacio:

42. It clearly appears then, all being discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none other meaning than that we must never at all tell a lie: seeing that not any examples of lies, worthy of imitation, are found in the manners and actions of the Saints, as regards those Scriptures which are referred to no figurative signification, such as is the history in the Acts of the Apostles. For all those sayings of our Lord in the Gospel, which to more ignorant minds seem lies, are figurative significations. And as to what the Apostle says: I am made all things to all men, that I might gain all; the right understanding is, that he did this not by lying, but by sympathy; so that he dealt with them in liberating them with so great charity, as if he were himself in that evil from which he wished to make them whole. There must therefore be no lying in the doctrine of piety: it is a heinous wickedness, and the first sort of detestable lie. There must be no lying of the second sort; because no man must have a wrong done to him. There must be no lying of the third sort; because we are not to consult any man's good to the injury of another. There must be no lying of the fourth sort, that is, for the lust of lying, which of itself is vicious. There must be no lying of the fifth sort, because not even the truth itself is to be uttered with the aim of men-pleasing, how much less a lie, which of itself, as a lie, is a foul thing? There must be no lying of the sixth sort; for it is not right that even the truth of testimony be corrupted for any man's temporal convenience and safety. But unto eternal salvation none is to be led by aid of a lie. For not by the ill manners of them that convert him is he to be converted to good manners: because if it is meet to be done towards him, himself also ought when converted to do it toward others; and so is he converted not to good, but to ill manners, seeing that is held out to be imitated by him when converted, which was done unto him in converting him. Neither in the seventh sort must there be any lying; for it is meet that not any man's commodity or temporal welfare be preferred to the perfecting of faith. Not even if any man is so ill moved by our right deeds as to become worse in his mind, and far more remote from piety, are right deeds therefore to be foregone: since what we are chiefly to hold is that whereunto we ought to call and invite them whom as our own selves we love; and with most courageous mind we must drink in that apostolic sentence: To some we are a savor of life unto life, to others a savor of death unto death; and who is sufficient for these things? Nor in the eighth sort must there be lying: because both among good things chastity of mind is greater than pudicity of body; and among evil things, that which ourselves do, than that which we suffer to be done. In these eight kinds, however, a man sins less when he tells a lie, in proportion as he emerges to the eighth: more, in proportion as he diverges to the first. But whoso shall think there is any sort of lie that is not sin, will deceive himself foully, while he deems himself honest as a deceiver of other men.

When you get call a bigot because you choose to belong to an organization with a 180 year history of racism in the tenets, written doctrines, and practice, does your head explode in a offended way or just regular ???

Their heads don't explode: they just swell.

That's why JS had to LOOK in his hat - his head was too big to fit IN it any more.

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.