BTW, the author of the piece is giving a perspective from after being born again outside of Mormonism, looking back at what was done to support —as the author perceives them in retrospect— the lies of satanic origin which prop up Mormonism. In a spirit of ecumenism we can see why you would not want such things discussed openly.
“In a spirit of ecumenism we can see why you would not want such things discussed openly.”
LOL. In the spirit of ecumenism, why would I care?
I'm Catholic. I don't even think that the LDS religion is MONOTHEISTIC, no less Christian.
We don't even recognize the validity of LDS baptisms.
There is no ecumenism (properly understood) between Catholicism and the LDS religion.
Nonetheless, someone who affirms the tenets of his religion, the things that he actually believes, is not lying, no matter how mistaken he might be.
sitetest
I posted some associated comments to this angle @ 190, when I said:
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 varies. But your problem [to sitetest] 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.
Some of Mormon lies originated with the forces of darkness; others with Smith & his fellow leaders. There IS such a thing as a group lie...something that grows & grows like a bubble...and if the truth-gatherers within reach of that bubble don't pop/deflate it before it airlifts, it'll take off & land upon others with whatever accompanying truth damage that brings.
Sitetest has seemingly failed to consider a basic journalistic/author/publishing principle:
Even if the author or journalist didn't originate a lie--or even consciously knew the info they were/are passing on at the time was/is a lie...
...even if all they are doing is passing on what others have said...
...without verifying its accuracy...
...then they have simply been playing handmaid to whoever originated that lie and are active participants in the ripple effect of the original lie!
Sitetest...are you aware of the Berean Principle of Nobility as found in Acts 17:11?
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, (Acts 17:11a)
Why were the Bereans more noble than the Thessalonians?
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11b)
The Bereans were noble because they engaged in firsthand verification from an authoritative source (the Old Testament).
They didn't take new revelations -- even if true -- at face value. They checked...DAILY. They just didn't accept what their missionary leader (Paul) told them without double-checking.
In this same way, one of the ways Lds missionaries contribute to the entire nefarious Lds enterprise is because they utterly fail and flunk at this principle of nobility.
If they BECAME lies after he looked BACK upon them; they must have BEEN lies when he told them; or else some kind of MAGIC is involved with the passing of time and reflecting upon the past.