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).

Dear delacoert,

“Huh. That sounds disturbingly similar to last ditch Mormon condemnation of effective critics.”

I understand your point, but I'm not sure that you get mine, which is, according to the Catholic Church, we have a pretty firm view of what is objective reality in the moral, religious and spiritual spheres.

Since I try to be a faithful Catholic, I submit to the teachings of the Church, and believe them as objectively-true.

Using your way of thinking, that those who reject objective reality and promote something different are lying - even if they believe what they say - I'd have to conclude, based on my own faith, that if one is in disagreement with what the Catholic Church teaches, then one is lying and is a liar.

Now, I don't actually believe that (I do believe that what the Catholic Church teaches infallibly is objectively true - but not that those who disagree with me are liars who are lying.). But from my perspective, you are in roughly the same position to the objective truth about God, etc., as the LDS are.

In that I have no wish to condemn as liars who are lying ordinary non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians walking around disagreeing with the Catholic Church, neither do I have a wish to condemn members of non-Christian religions for disagreeing with the Catholic Church, either.

“BTW, you except the ruling, ‘Once Catholic always Catholic, right?’”

Not the way you mean it, no.

“Strangely though you publicly communicate your acceptance of impunity for lost Mormons.”

I'm not sure what this means. Impunity for what?

Do you mean that I “accept impunity” (whatever that means in this context) because I don't think that folks are lying when they believe things that aren't true?

sitetest

In any case, the article suggests that these beliefs are generally lies, and specifically, generally lies of Mormon missionaries. Which means that the Mormon missionaries saying these things are generally liars. Meaning that they, like the author (presumably), don't believe the tenets of their religion, and thus act in bad faith.

...except for the part "these beliefs are generally lies"....which I would submit should be changed to "these beliefs are ~~generally~~ specifically lies".

It's interesting that someone who has spent a good portion of their life immersed in and living mormonism and then found it all a lie would be dismissed so cavalierly...but it happens to nearly everyone who leaves mormonism.....by mormons. By non-mormons...not so much.

I suggest some time be spent at this website before those of different faiths make such judgments.

I humbly direct you to your statement, "Are you a Catholic? In full communion with the Holy Catholic Church and her head on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church?

If not, I don't credit that you have anything worthwhile to say on the topic."

Just plug in "mormon" where you said "Catholic" while denigrating this author.

Signed, Greyfoxx...former mormon.

ALL: Now get this: An Alaska Lds branch president who has some oversight of Lds missionaries who sporadically come to his neck of the woods emphasized several weeks ago "that they have NO INTEREST in proselytizing to members of other churches in town." [BTW, the excerpt is cited below if you want to see source and a bit more context]

Any of you ex-Mormons or ex-Mormon missionaries want to weigh in on that? No interest? Zilch? Zippo?

Key Q: Without any of us being on the "inside" to actually judge whether this Lds branch prez is telling the truth -- like the ex-Missionary who wrote the article that was behind this thread -- Does this comment pass the straight-face test?

And of course, the context for all of this is that this thread is about an ex-Lds missionary who said one of the lies he told to prospects was "We're not trying to convert you".

And sitetest is defending these statements as not lies.

Fact: Most churches prefer to use words like evangelism, sharing the good news, witnessing, outreach, and the like. The Mormon church? Why they make no bones calling what they do with their 50,000+ missionaries as proselytization. Other churches might shy away from that term. Mormons don't.

It's then in that context we review this other article with the statement below by an Lds branch president:

"Don Clark is the branch president...And who are the missionaries and what do they do, exactly? They're often men or women in their early twenties who spend two years in the service of the church and travel to different communities. But they can also be older members of the Church. Clark says that their work primarily involves working the community's LDS church and emphasizes that they have NO INTEREST in proselytizing to members of other churches in town. He also says that community service is a major component of what they do." Source: KUCB, Unalaska, Alaska, Sept. 16, 2010 see Missionaries depart from Unalaska LDS church

Note for the uninitiated: Mr. Clark says that "community service is a major component of what they [lds missionaries] do."

Knowing the Lds missionary rules, can I say that's a "lie"? Well, based on context, no. Mr. Clark has told the truth as it goes with "context" -- because Mr. Clark also said "they can be older members of the church" -- and frequently, all older member-missionaries of the church do is indeed community service projects.

But the younger missionaries? Are "community service" projects a "major part" of what they do?

The answer? No. Missionary rules limit them to four hours of community service per week. And it doesn't have to be four hours. It could be one hour.

Now we don't have an interview transcript...but we can raise the Q:

Based upon how Lds commonly uses its missionaries, is this branch president, although telling the truth in context about older member-missionaries, misleading people to think...
...that the younger missionaries have absolutely "NO interest" in proselytizing other members...
...that they are there to ONLY focus on the Lds church itself and offer a "major component" of 1-4 hours per week toward community service...
...knowing that Lds missionaries are not overly involved in overseeing any local church programs or initiatives?

I mean, c'mon. Say you're an Lds branch president. You've been told things by your "prophets" through the years that "every member is a missionary." And you are not only caught saying but actually emphasizing to a local journalist that they have NO INTEREST in proselytizing to members of other churches in town?

BTW, several reasons exist why Lds missionaries are not overtly involved in overseeing local lds activities/programs...I'll do a brief post on that 'cause somebody's bound to bring it up.

I fully acknowledge the truth of and the integrity behind this statement. Not offered with the motivation of correcting or persuading you (said in light of your previously expressed rejection of words coming from such a one as me - fine by me BTW). Instead, I offer this out of desire to openly express the meditations of my heart in response to your apparent condemnation.

I do not now nor have I `never offered rebuttal for such an interpretation or point of view expressed by Catholics in the Religion forum. I understand where it comes from and do not condemn it.

Do you mean that I “accept impunity” (whatever that means in this context) because I don't think that folks are lying when they believe things that aren't true?

No.` I chose a provocative phrase to counter what I perceive as a provocative position as you have chosen to express it.

ALL: Sitetest's arguments on this thread is that you have to know the intent of somebody in order to judge if they've acted in "bad faith" & therefore lied:

Sitetest to Delacoert: ...the article suggests that these beliefs are generally lies, and specifically, generally lies of Mormon missionaries. Which means that the Mormon missionaries saying these things are generally liars.

Your first statement doesn't apply to #1 statement in article ("We're not trying to convert you")...because most Lds missionaries don't believe that -- that they supposedly are "not there" to convert anybody. So, already you're trying to impose your universal categorization (that all 10 of these statements qualify as "Mormon beliefs") on all 10 and apply them...and oops, it just doesn't work.

As for your second statement above, if you are a member of the MSM (journalist) -- and if you interview a liberal Democrat who is telling falsehoods to you and then you report those falsehoods as if it was reality -- just because the falsehoods did not originate with you doesn't fully alleviate you as being part of the overall falsehood problem.

This author - ex-missionary -- is saying he told falsehoods that originated somewhere as lies. How much he knew each of these 10 things were "lies" at the time he told them probably veries. But your problem is that you think somebody needs to be consciously aware of information that was a "lie" for them to be part of what we might call "group lying."

The reality is that if YOU today passed on false information that was a lie originated by somebody else -- even if you passed on the falsehood with no intent to lie -- doesn't mean you didn't become a part of that liar's "web" of spreading false info.

Sitetest to Delacoert: Meaning that they, like the author (presumably), don't believe the tenets of their religion, and thus act in bad faith. Having met many LDS missionaries in my life, I can say from personal experience that that generalization - that LDS missionaries, when they share the tenets of their faith, are generally lying, is, itself, a falsehood.

Utterly horrific logic.

A lie originally told...doesn't suddenly become morally pristine...just because somebody may believe that lie with 100% of their heart, mind and soul!

Let's go back to the journalist illustration. Let's say we were discussing an article written by an ex-mass media journalist, an article entitled, "Ten Lies I told when I was a member of MSM." And let's say that many of the "lies" he mentions were industry falsehoods that began with certain media moguls. Now it may be true that this journalist believed some of those moguls' lies w/all their heart...and that he thought they were completely true. But for you to then come along and say that a person has to act in "bad faith" for it to qualify as passing on untruths/falsehoods/distortions -- a lie originally told by someone else -- would now mean that as long as people quote somebody else they trust, they are not guilty of passing on false lies...that's ludicrous.

Group lying exists.

you were still wrong to post that I said what I said out of a lack of candor. You stated something that was objectively false. Was that a lie? Are you a liar to have posted that?

You are sooooo funny, sitetest. Here you argue to delacoert that a person has to be acting in "bad faith" to be guilty of passing on lies. But suddenly when it comes to failing miserably in evaluating statements made to you, it now doesn't matter to you whether somebody was acting in "bad faith" or not? If you think something was objectively false that was said about you, you ask, "Was that a lie? Are you a liar...?"

What I said about you before obviously wasn't objectively false. How do I know?

First, because in my last post to you, I essentially repeated what I said previously: I still say that apparently you initially seemed unreservedly straightforward...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.

If this was problematic, you would have jumped all over my case. (You didn't)

And secondly, go back to your original post #7: Because With the possible exception of No. 1, these really aren’t lies, but rather beliefs with which the author now differs.The author may no longer believe them, but apparently, he is no longer a member of the LDS.As a Catholic, I don’t believe the theology of the LDS church, and I believe that their beliefs, to the degree that they depart from Catholic faith, are objectively false.That doesn’t make them lies to those who believe them.

In these less-than-80 words, were you...
...wildly frank & forthright around explaining why #1 was a "possible exception" but it really wasn't an exception? (No, you weren't)
...boldly straightforward highlighting what it was about #1 that would override your initial reaction that it was a "possible exception"??? (No you didn't)
...unreserved in explaining why it was or wasn't a lie? (No)

Get off your high horse...you don't even know how to mount or dismount when it comes to you making faulty accusations.

Dear greyfoxx39,

“Now that's a stretch.”

Sorry, that's the meaning that came across to me, front and center, and to at least one or two other NON-LDS folks on this thread.

Generally, in terms of calling religious beliefs "lies," I know that in the heat of the battle, the rhetoric can get quite heavy. And in some sense, in that it is Satan who wishes to fill every human person with lies about God, and Satan certainly knows what is the truth and what is a lie, ALL religious untruths are lies.

Including every teaching that is counter to the infallible teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

And indeed, when we're getting our mojo going, sometimes Catholics will refer to the mistaken beliefs of others (especially the calvinists, whose religion was fashioned of near-whole cloth by Satan) as lies.

But they're Satan's lies, or Calvin's lies, or Luther's lies.

Not the lies of an individual follower of one of their sects.

To the degree that we Catholics call individual non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians liars for merely believing and saying what they believe, we do a disservice to them, to ourselves, and to God. The non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian may, indeed, be lying, by knowingly falsifying historical facts, or by other intentional deceit.

But just stating that they believe that Holy Communion is merely a symbol of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ doesn't make them liars. Merely very badly mistaken.

“I humbly direct you to your statement,...”

To a degree, I'm merely mirroring the view that when a Mormon speaks about his religious beliefs, he is lying. From the Catholic perspective, to the degree that they differ with Catholic teaching, non-Catholics/non-Orthodox are, by your way of thinking, liars. Why would I take instruction or correction from someone who is a “liar”?

However, I will say that, indeed, I DO believe what the Church teaches, and thus, am very hesitant to pay much mind to those who DON'T believe what I believe.

Would you take spiritual direction from a practicing Mormon?

sitetest

Dear Colofornian,

As a Catholic, I may have a different perception of this than you have.

For us, “proselytize” can be a pejorative term. In Russia, some time after the fall of communism, we established diocesan structures for our Church, and for this and other “offenses” we have been accused of “proselytization.” We admit that we're happy if someone comes to Catholic faith in Russia, and enters into our communion, but we don't think that what we're doing is nefarious, and as the connotation of “proselytization” is that it is nefarious, we reject the label out of hand.

Yet, there are Orthodox Christians, including perhaps folks here at FR who DO think that our actions are nefarious, and thus accuse us thusly.

Are we happy to gain converts and others who wish to come into full communion with our Church? Certainly. But we don't think that what we're doing is evil, we don't think that we're using evil means, and thus, we reject that label.

I kinda doubt that most Mormons think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their faith and bring others to it. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious.

You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious.

Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.

I will say that my own experience with LDS missionaries is that they've always been:

- polite;
- upfront;
- willing to stand and own their own beliefs when I name them.

As well, without exception, I've never worked or done business with a Mormon who hasn't been:

- hardworking;
- scrupulously honest in all work and business dealings;
- fair;
- reliable.

The experience of others may differ, but there it is.

So, having experienced real decency in my own personal dealings with members of the LDS religion, it's a tough sell to me to say that they're all liars when it comes to religion.

They all believe a REALLY WHACKY RELIGION that has always made me laugh (I visited my first LDS stakehouse when I was perhaps around 10 years old, with my father. We laughed all the way home. I've actually been to Salt Lake City, looked at the presentations the Mormons make of themselves to us non-Mormons. I used to actually know a fair bit about the religion.). I don't take seriously the claims of Joseph Smith. I don't actually believe that he had special specs to read gold plates or tablets or whatever. I don't actually believe that Jesus was in North America, or that there were ancient Hebrew tribes here in North America, or that God was once a man like us and through dint of hard work & superior efforts got to be God, I don't believe that the LDS religion is even monotheistic, no less Christian, I don't believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, etc., etc., etc.

But heck, I don't believe in the Lord Krishna, either, but I've known, met, and loved any number of Hindus. And I don't call them liars because they actually DO believe in the Lord Krishna.

sitetest

Dear delacoert,

“I do not now nor have I `never offered rebuttal for such an interpretation or point of view expressed by Catholics in the Religion forum. I understand where it comes from and do not condemn it.”

Yeah, but the problem is, delacoert, I don't think that any Catholic I know, nor any in this forum, think that ANYONE is “lying” because he disagrees with Catholic teaching.

We think you're in ERROR. We think you're MISGUIDED. We think that you're IN DANGER OF GOING TO HELL.

But just for the offense of saying something that doesn't agree with Catholic teaching, we don't think you're lying.

We may say it's a lie if someone misrepresents what we believe, even after having been corrected numerous times.

But it's not a lie if you don't believe in Transubstantiation. Or the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Or the Trinity, for that matter (there are posters here on FR who consider themselves Christians who do not believe in the Trinity).

We think you're WRONG if you don't believe these things.

But not a liar telling lies.

“No.` I chose a provocative phrase to counter what I perceive as a provocative position as you have chosen to express it.”

I'm trying to show you the mirror of your view about the LDS as we Catholics might express it toward YOU, if we were to adopt a parallel view. In doing this, I'm not saying that we Catholics should think that non-Catholics/non-Orthodox are liars because they don't accept all our teachings or believe things that contradict our teachings. In fact, what I'm trying to do is to point out the ILLEGITIMACY of such a perspective.

No non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian is telling LIES (except, if one qualifies those lies as lies of Satan, or Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or some other figure who further split off from the Church and from the sects that split off from the Church), nor is he a liar merely for professing his religious belief.

sitetest

Dear Colofornian,

“You are sooooo funny, sitetest. Here you argue to delacoert that a person has to be acting in ‘bad faith’ to be guilty of passing on lies. But suddenly when it comes to failing miserably in evaluating statements made to you, it now doesn't matter to you whether somebody was acting in ‘bad faith’ or not? If you think something was objectively false that was said about you, you ask, ‘Was that a lie? Are you a liar...?’”

Ahh... I hate to break it to you, Colofornian... If you haven't already figured it out...

... I was trying to use delacoert’s absurd definition and way of thinking about lying to demonstrate that applied to him and his words, it would lead to an unsupportable conclusion.

However, it appears that delacoert is nothing if not consistent, and I think he actually accepts the judgment of his own logic on his own words. I strongly disagree with what I think is his conclusion - I do NOT believe that delacoert lied or is a liar because he misread what I said and posted something false about me as a result - but I gotta give him lots of points for consistency and a certain personal integrity. Even if it seems kinda whacky to me.

As to my responses related to the first “lie” cited by the author of this article - asked and answered under the heading of “Differences between Affirmations of Propositional Beliefs and Expressions about One’s Own Interior Thoughts.”

sitetest

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.