Not exactly true, just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
Yes. But just because something isn't true doesn't make it a lie. It's only a lie if there's a deliberate intention to deceive. Say Alice walks into a room and spots a cardboard box on the table. It's got "M&Ms 12 pieces" printed on the sides, so Alice says "oh cool, it's candy!" When she opens the box, she finds packing material... and a couple of
Dresden Files paperbacks inside. Was she wrong? Yes. Did Alice lie?
No-- she had every reason to believe there were M&Ms inside the box. She didn't have enough information for it to be a lie.
Wrong does not always equal
lie.
Mab's got a lot of reasons to believe she can get what she wants from Harry, exactly as she wants it. She's a master manipulator, and she's had ample practice in bending others to her will. Because she believes there's no other road to what she wants, she's not lying when she offers Harry two options: "do as I say, or die."
But Mab is wrong. Harry's found a third option-- his stubborn method of cooperation-within-limits is still giving her the needed results while maintaining his own free will. Mab spoke from a very narrow viewpoint which didn't allow other possibilities, or a full understanding of Harry's determination. It's arrogant, short-sighted, and flat-out
wrong, but there was no deception involved, and therefore no lie.
Looking at what Uriel said, there is a difference between
Lies, Mab cannot change who you are.
and the actual text from the book:
Lies. Mab cannot change who you are.
The comma connects the two statements, making them part of the same concept. But Uriel's comment is
two separate sentences, making the relation between them more ambiguous. "Lies" on its own tells us
somebody's lying, but it doesn't say
who, largely because Uriel had no words to spare. But since the narrative
specifically places these seven words as a balance and counterargument to Lasciel's seven words, it's not out-of-line to view them as a direct reference to
Lasciel's speech, not Mab's.
If he didn't mean Mab, he wouldn't have said, Mab.
And if he wanted to say
Mab was lying, he could have said, "Mab lies about changing who you are." It would have nicely fit the seven-word pattern. But he didn't. He simply said, "Mab cannot change who you are." That in and of itself only implies that Mab's claims were wrong, not true... but again,
wrong does not necessarily equal
lie. And while one can argue that as the White God's spymaster, Uriel might not just come out and say what he thinks directly... I can't believe he didn't deliberately craft his statement for maximum effect. Harry (and the readers) are meant to consider Uriel's words
very carefully.
Unfortunately, it's still ambiguous enough for readers to see different things in those words. I see it as Lasciel lying, you see it as Mab lying. We'll probably get a more clear answer eventually, since we haven't seen the last of Uriel, Lasciel or Mab yet, but until then, I'm thinking it's YMMV.