A simple question, right? I love the lyric in *A Puzzlement* from the very popular play and movie, The King and I. I can’t remember it exactly but I am sure you can look it up. In it the king of Siam says, there are times I am not certain of what I absolutely know.

I have heard very few quote it or even talk about it. Yet, I am sure we all come to points in our lives we question what we were taught, read, or simply heard…and we determine it must absolutely be true, and then we found out maybe it’s not true. Sometimes we find out it is a totally fabricated lie.

To be sure it has happened to me. Frequently, it has revealed a lot about the person or organization that fabricated it. Sometimes, truthfully it was by mistake. However, sometimes I must admit to myself that the one doing the lying must be a liar, especially when these fabrications are frequent.

In the case of The King and I, the poor king was lied to by his parents, perhaps because of their ignorance. It seems that the error is that Siam is not only the largest country in the world, but bigger than all the other nations combined.

And so it is he found out that what knew to be so, was not so. What a horrible thing; to be confronted by the truth when he discovered he had believed something so basic. Once confronted, the king immediately realized his error and made the appropriate changes in his life.

The movie was based on the stage play, which I never saw. The stage play was based on a book, “Anna and the King of Siam,” which I did not read. My expertise on the history is very small Let us hope that if it is factual that the king really did see his error and he changed his outlook to the truth. I would also hope that those who read this, when confronted with a truth will not hold onto their former belief.

When I was in seventh grade, I took a course in deception and earned an A+. I’m actually employing a bit of that same deception right now. The class’s official name was art—drawing, painting, and similar disciplines. You might wonder what art has to do with deception.

One afternoon, I strolled down Beale Street in downtown Memphis and spotted a striking mural on a red brick building. It depicted a bottle of Coca-Cola being poured into a glass. I paused to study it carefully. With my background in understanding deception, I found myself captivated by its realism—yet I was certain it was painted. After all, if that bottle were genuine, it would contain enough soda to satisfy an enormous thirst.

That is what artists do—they deceive people. The really good ones can use paint to depict people so realistically that when we first look at them, we expect them to move. Sometimes, we can even become somewhat unsettled when they don’t. I saw a painting once in a museum in Los Angeles of a man in partial armor. So much so, I wish I could have mastered the art of deception as that artist did.

Over the past fifteen years or so, I’ve pursued another form of deception. I haven’t excelled at it, but I have written over thirty-five books—mostly fantasy works created simply because I wanted to write them. While earning a few million dollars from them would have been wonderful, having readers connect with my stories would have meant far more. I would have cherished the chance to invite a few people into my imagination for a while. Unfortunately, it seems that won’t happen.

Let me return to the deception I practiced with pastels and brushes. I want to address a particular form of deception: perspective. My art teacher spent several weeks teaching perspective, alternating between instruction and hands-on projects. She would teach a concept, then assign projects to reinforce it, repeating this cycle throughout the unit.

Perspective is a nuanced art form that fundamentally reshapes how we perceive space and depth. Consider a railroad track rendered in one-point perspective: converging lines create the illusion of distance as they appear to converge at the horizon. Skilled artists expertly transform two-dimensional surfaces into rich, multidimensional landscapes that captivate the eye and engage the imagination. True mastery demands more than technical precision—it requires the ability to infuse life and depth into what would otherwise be a static image.

I have taken a roundabout path to introduce the most problematic deceivers on earth. They employ various methods to do so.

Perhaps their most successful is using something resembling the truth to get people to believe the lie. After all, if you want to produce successful counterfeit something of value, you will want it to resemble the real thing. If it looks fake, you’re not apt to deceive anyone.

Curiously, another method is to lie outright about it—to call evil good and good evil. Surprisingly, this approach is quite effective. In part, it works because people want to believe the lie. Additionally, when the lie is bold enough, people often assume that no one would state something so fundamentally false.

The third method is repetition, particularly when the message comes from multiple sources. A well-organized campaign to spread misinformation can prove highly effective when repeated with citations to reputable origins, even after the original source retracts it. People tend to assume something must be true when it originates from a news outlet known for reliable reporting.

Most of all, I’ve found it’s much like that seventh-grade art class—it’s fundamentally a matter of perspective. Does the person distributing the information have a reason to deceive?

Indeed, it pays to follow the adage: don’t believe everything you hear and only half of what you read. Keep in mind that some people actively seek to deceive. That advertiser wants you to believe every word. The politician wants you to think he never lies. And of course, that lawyer would never lead you to question the truth of what he’s telling you.

In Matthew 7:15, Jesus delivers a profound caution about false prophets who masquerade as harmless sheep while harboring predatory intentions. When such a warning comes from divine wisdom, it demands our utmost attention. Yet, too often, we merely skim such teachings, acknowledging their depth momentarily before allowing them to fade from our consciousness. We must resist this tendency and instead internalize these words, allowing their significance to genuinely transform our understanding and perception.

Throughout my observations, I’ve discerned two primary categories of problematic religious figures. The first group consists of deliberate deceivers—individuals who masquerade as Christian teachers while intentionally spreading misinformation. The second category comprises well-intentioned but misguided believers who sincerely yet erroneously propagate their misunderstandings, potentially causing more harm precisely because of their genuine conviction in their flawed teachings.

How do you tell the wolves from the sheep? By what they teach. If they teach lies, they are false prophets. This is essentially true when they say something sounds like the truth but is really a twisted truth. For instance, one of the most frequent lies is that you must be good to go to heaven. Please read it for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. If their teaching is contrary to Scripture, they are false prophets.

Another way to tell is by the way they live. If they like to point at themselves instead of pointing to Jesus, that’s a real easy one. if they continue to say or do evil in their ways, they are at least suspect.

I feel compelled to bring this up because of someone running for office while pretending to be a Christian leader who is neither a good leader nor a Christian. Indeed, he is an example of one of those ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing. To be sure, his disguise is quite poor. Still, he could do significant damage if given the opportunity.

Most people haven’t a clue. Most people will quickly quote the sixth commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” It is a misinterpretation of the original manuscript. It is a tragic misinterpretation. Instead of “kill,” it should be “murder.”

Most scholars nowadays will quickly confirm what I have written here. Moreover, if you actually take the time to read the Bible, you will see that the rest of the Bible is in agreement with the word “murder.” Much of the Biblical law goes through great efforts to differentiate between killing by design or by accident. Nowhere does the Bible condemn killing a man in war. On the contrary, God told the Israelites to kill, specifically David and Joshua during wars. King Saul was punished because he was ordered to kill and didn’t.

On the other hand, God does not want one man to murder an innocent man without reason by design. He especially does not approve of mass killing without a just reason. Finally, He does not like it when someone kills Israelis or Christians by design.

I’m talking about Nazi leaders. I’m talking about communists leaders. I’m referring to Islam leaders. Such have murdered thousands. Some have murdered millions. Some have murdered tens of millions. It was by design. It was their purpose. It was what they wanted. The lives meant nothing to get them. It was all about the power.

To be sure, we do have our modern day power seekers. Many call themselves Democrats. They kill under the guise of Democracy. The way Obama withdrew from Iraq resulted in the death of millions of lives. Many who died called themselves Christians. For many, that is why they were killed. Ask Obama today if he feels bad about it. Ask if he lost any sleep, he’d have to say no. Indeed if he were required to tell the truth, he would have to admit that it was by design. It was his purpose for pulling out the way he did. By the way, the same is true for the way Old Joe pulled out of Afghanistan. The same is true about the reason he opened the border to criminals and drugs. He made sure there was no screening of gang members or Islam terrorists. If we could ask him and he had to answer truthfully, he’d admit it. In the name of Democracy, he was seeking power. It was by design.

Today, they continue their methods, those who call themselves Democrats. They no longer control any of the three branches of government. However, they still control most of the media. They still control those who riot and call it demonstrations. And they still murder by design, all to gain power. All while saying they are protecting democracy, all the while trampling over our rights and Constitution.

Murder, theft, and fraud, the riots—it’s all by design for power.

The lies are only bad to them if they fail to work.

Many years ago, I was, shall we say, encouraged to give to United Way. Well, let’s come out and say it: There was some serious arm-twisting going on, and I did suspect I might lose my job over it. The reason given to me was that someone in the company hierarchy decided they wanted 100% participation, and I wasn’t participating.

Quite some time before that, as a private in the Marines, I was told, if I didn’t participate on the United Way drive, I would go on mess duty, washing pots and pans. I didn’t like that idea. So I went along to get along.

I do not like the United Way. I do not like many of the organizations they support, but that is a different subject. It is a subject I could write on extensively. That, however, is not the subject I wish to dwell on. My complaint is the strong-arm tactics used to gain participation.

In the era preceding personal computing, I carefully composed a handwritten letter addressed to the senior executive overseeing the Memphis regional office.

I had no hope whatsoever that anyone would read it. To my surprise, I received a phone call. Well, I must give them credit for that, though I am sure there are a few things they did not think through completely.

Right off the bat, he offered me a simple solution: I give in to the demands, and they would return it to me by check right away. The company gets full participation, and I get to keep my money.

Think about it. What’s the problem? Who does it hurt? I hope you are more intelligent than the vice chairman who made that suggestion.

Essentially, what he suggested was dishonest. He was asking me to lie to the corporation for which I worked. He was asking me to lie to my colleagues. He was asking me to take part in the larger lie to the community that the company had 100% participation. Moreover, he was asking me to put my stamp of approval on the United Way, and that could not be farther from the truth.

They pressured me to validate organizations that, in my assessment, did not align with my moral standards or ethical principles. In essence they wanted me to call evil good.

The most significant challenge I faced was confronting the intimidating tactics employed against me, initially during my military service and subsequently in my corporate career. Such coercive methods represent a profound violation of professional and ethical standards, and must be unequivocally condemned.

Years later, the consequences of that pivotal moment remain unclear. Did my choice silently derail potential career advancement, subtly diminishing my professional trajectory? The uncertainty lingers—whether my principled stance resulted in overlooked promotions or unnoticed salary reductions, despite an expectation of recognition for integrity.

During a pivotal moment, my perspective shifted. In a conversation with the Vice Chairman that evening, an unexpected comment caught my attention. Though the catalyst remains unclear, he candidly stated that the Church’s fundamental purpose was to offer assistance to those in need, effectively reducing its role to that of another charitable organization.

As followers of Christ, we are called to embody both compassion and evangelism. While charitable acts are a vital expression of our faith, our ultimate purpose is to share the transformative message of salvation through Jesus, guiding others toward a deeper understanding of God’s love and redemption.

Our mission transcends mere financial assistance. As the scripture reminds us, true transformation goes beyond monetary gifts—it’s about sharing the profound message of spiritual redemption and eternal hope that can fundamentally change a person’s life trajectory.

Charity serves a vital purpose in addressing immediate physical needs, yet true compassion extends far beyond material support. While alleviating physical suffering is crucial, the far more important transformation of human potential and spirit represents an even more profound form of care and connection.

The United States hosts nearly one million charitable organizations, each with its own mission and approach. However, not all nonprofits are created equal. Some operate with questionable ethics or misaligned priorities, potentially undermining the very causes they claim to support. Donors must exercise due diligence, understanding that financial contributions can inadvertently validate an organization’s methods and messaging.

Personal philanthropy should reflect individual values and comfort levels. When donating, it’s crucial to research organizations thoroughly and feel confident about their mission and financial transparency. Workplace giving campaigns can create uncomfortable dynamics, and employees should always feel empowered to make charitable contributions voluntarily, without feeling coerced or pressured.

Please permit me a story, which I was told to be true. A preacher was attending a a Christmas party where there was a lot of drinking. The host realized it was making the guests uncomfortable for the preacher to mingle without a drink.

At the social gathering, the host discreetly walked over to the preacher and offered a beverage. “Please take this,” he suggested kindly, “The other guests seem a bit uneasy seeing you without a drink. You don’t need to consume it—just holding a glass will help you blend in more comfortably.”

The preacher responded with conviction, “I cannot compromise my integrity by acting contrary to my teachings. Doing so would undermine my credibility and diminish the power of my message.”

Would it be right to preach against The United Way while, apparently giving to it. It would matter not as a witness that the United Way is returning the money to me. Indeed, it would make me appear worse if I was found out.

Better that we call the good, good; and evil, evil.