A "lie" is usually regarded as intentional, but there is growing use of 'lie' as a synonym of or shorthand for misrepresentation. I suppose liz was using the word in this regard.
I know of no "growing use" of the word "lie" to mean simply some kind of unintentional misrepresentation.
Quite to the contrary, "Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language," defines "lie" as both (1) a verb and (2) a noun, in a very straightforward and limited context:
1. "to make a statement that one
knows is false"
2. "a false statement made
with intent to deceive"
To lie is to, ipso facto,
intend to deceive when making a false statement.
One, therefore, in common parlance, cannot unintentionally lie. A lie is a purposeful act of deception.
Quit cutting Monson undeserved breaks here.
Plain and simple, he lied by making claims that were patently false, that were not based on demonstrable factual foundations and that he had no reaonable basis for believing were literally true. If Monson believed they were true, then why did he not provide supporting, verifiable information to back them up? Because he did not have that information and therefore deliberately and knowingly invented (i.e., fabricated) false story elements in that narrative vacuum in order to dramatically juice up his tale.
That can be reasonably deduced from the fact that Monson's false statements in his original 1969 sermon--that Patton had died on 8 May 1942 aboard the U.S.S. Lexington in the Coral Sea--were redacted from his 2007 rewrite of events. Obviously, he (or his speechwriters) came upon information that Patton had not died in the 1942 Battle of Coral Sea, given that Patton was alive during 1942 and 1943. Perhaps Monson was made aware of that fact from the letter he cites from Mrs. Patton who tells him shortly after his errant 1969 sermon that her son Arthur had died on 5 July 1944. So, theoretically, Monson curiously waits for almost 40 years but then when he delivers the 2007 sermon he updates his tale by removing (without telling his audience) the false information about Arthur dying on the wrong ship in the wrong body of water in the wrong year in the wrong battle.
But then Monson goes on to insert claims in that same 2007 story about Arthur Patton supposedly dying ("quickly," no less) in combat with the enemy--being "lost at sea," Monson asserts, off Saipan in 1944. Such claims are seriously undermined, if not directly contradicted, by available U.S. naval crew tranfer logs from the U.S.S. White Plains itself, as well as by U.S. Navy WW II casuality compliations covering the duration of the war. Patton has never been officially declared by U.S. military documentation as having been killed in combat action during WW II or as having been lost at sea during WW II.
What is actually revealed by accessible U.S. military documents is that Patton was declared "missing" on 2 July 1944 due to his "own misconduct" while his ship was temporarily heading to port at an atoll outside the combat zone, after combat operations for that vesel had been recently completed. If Monson had access to that military data and did not mention it, Monson lied by making up elements of his story that did not comport with the known facts. If Monson did not have access to that information, he also lied by making up elements for his story that did not factually interface with that military data. (Or in the best of scenarios for Monson, he simply repeated unverified stories that were told to him by unnamed others).
The evidence strongly points to Monson inventing key parts of his Patton narrative.
Finally, Monson is not somehow exonerated if he purposely deceived with the rationalization secretly in his head that it is an acceptable practice to "lie for the Lord" in order to achieve the higher purpose of giving listeners the emotional tinglies.