Abraham Lied

[Brenda]

Well put.

Abraham's story means more to me when I see him as going from faltering in faith and groping for answers while trying to do the right thing, leading him to his triumphant obedience to the most difficult and inscrutible command of God to sacrifice his son.

If Abraham is perfect from the beginning and all the way through, the meaning for me is diminished if not obliterated.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Whoever said Abraham was perfect? No prophet was perfect. We all know that.

[Brenda]

Sometimes I have a really hard time with Mormons . . .

Sometimes I have a hard time with people who immediately believe a negative comment based on half a story. With all due respect.

[volgadon]

Sorry, but I find this hard to believe.

can't force you to believe, but it did happen.

[William Schryver]

con:

Care to expound, since you are so obviously in the know?

I believe what I've already said on this question has been sufficient to make my position perfectly clear.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about, Will.

I know. That is also perfectly clear.

[Cold Steel]

I can't believe this question would generate so many responses. Even in my protestant life I never had the slightest problem with the story. True, the LDS scriptures put the "lie" right in the mouth of God, which should indicate that nothing was morally or ethically amiss, at least to Latter-day Saints. I think it's an example of misguided moral compasses on the parts of many.

Abraham in Egypt: A Collation of Evidence for the Case of the Missing Wife

by Thomas W. Mackay

Commentators have always been bothered by the morality of Abraham

[volgadon]

Speiser actually was wrong on that account.

[Cold Steel]

Speiser actually was wrong on that account.

Most likely because he was trying to justify the Lord's actions. The point is that God doesn't need to justify His actions. He revealed one part of the truth through His servant Abraham ("whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same"), and the rest of the truth through a dream to Pharaoh. Thus, Pharaoh received the whole truth from God, and no one lied.

That part settled, it is no sin to lie to protect life. Joseph Smith sent spies in to keep track of his enemies, and though they were free to prevaricate, his only warning to them was "that you make no covenants nor enter into any obligation whatever with that party. Be strictly reserve, and make no promise either to conspire against me or any portion of the community. Be silent and do not take any part in their deliberations."

.

[Calm]

Most likely because he was trying to justify the Lord's actions. The point is that God doesn't need to justify His actions. He revealed one part of the truth through His servant Abraham ("whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same"), and the rest of the truth through a dream to Pharaoh. Thus, Pharaoh received the whole truth from God, and no one lied.

And it is quite possible that Pharaoh could have received the whole truth from either Abraham or Sarah except he chose to remain satisfied with just the answer to the question he asked---he heard what he wanted to hear--- and did not ask for additional information (such as is there any reason why I shouldn't take this woman to wife), but just took her. One has to wonder to what Pharaoh would have done with the truth if he had found out originally. If he had attempted to kill Abraham, that would have been a greater sin then what occurred while the way he learned allowed for a situation where everyone came out okay more or less, though undoubtedly with considerable discomfort, fear (if they didn't fully trust in the Lord that is), and bruised pride, but at least their lives were intact and the Pharaoh was now in a position to learn from Abraham rather than having to suffer for killing of him.

Considering the hardheartedness of the Pharaoh in Moses' story, I wonder if the Lord chose this way because it was the best way to reach this man's and it taught Abraham and Sarah quite a few things as well if you think about it.

Most people look at it from the point of view of Abraham and what it meant to him and Sarah, but it seems to me the focus of that part of the story (why it had to be a lie and not something else) really should be the Pharaoh. The Lord had a purpose in having Abraham's community move to Egypt at that time, he could have provided for Abraham himself if he wanted him to stay safe and protected without having to take the risk of putting Abraham under the eye of the Pharaoh or requiring Abraham to lie. And it seems to me the outcome the Lord desired is most likely the outcome that occurred, the Pharaoh was taught by Abraham (which may have been just for his sake or possibly to set things up in the future for Joseph's arrival or other future interactions with Abraham and his family.) When one speculates on other ways this could have turned out, this result doesn't look so bad. If Abraham had told the truth, the Pharaoh would have tried to kill him, the Lord would have had to step in which would at minimum had resulted in the public humiliation of the Pharaoh and we've seen with Moses that such things do not lead to good long term relationships. Instead, doing things this way---privately...between the Lord and Pharaoh---allowed the man to save face and be able to approach Abraham without feeling threatened, at least by any political fallout. It's unsatisfactory for us, but is there any other way where someone like Abraham could have approached and been accepted as an equal in that culture? The only other workable option it seems to me is the Lord appearing to Pharaoh prior to the encounter with Abraham, but we don't know if Pharaoh would have reacted in a negative way, refusing to take a risk and just send Abraham on his way, perhaps with provisions but still away from the court. As it was, perhaps the Pharaoh learned a little self-control and in the future, asked a few more questions and showed a bit more respect to others.

[Calm]

One other comment about the first part of the story which involved Abraham and the Lord.

Abraham learns prior to going down to Egypt that his life will be threatened. If it bothered him, if he was afraid enough that he chose to lie while putting Sarah at extreme risk, then why didn't he ask the Lord to take care of things as the Lord had done in the past. Considering that Abraham had already almost died because he stood on his principles, why would he choose to compromise them now...except that he was ordered to do so by the Lord. Abraham had his life saved by the Lord at least once already by the direct intervention of an angel appearing among the high and powerful of his homeland. Why would he fear this lion's den any more than the first one he endured, especially with the memory of the Lord rescuing him.

So we have two things to deal with that add some nuances not usually addressed in my experience and that is Abraham's prior lifesaving experience giving him confidence plus his prior knowledge of what would happen before he came to Egypt, which means he could have chosen another way (left Sarah behind with some of his men to begin with, sent for supplies like Jacob did rather than all moved down, etc.) but still chose to do something that appears to us less than honourable.

For me, when I consider these things, I start looking for what the Lord was looking to accomplish and looking for this in what actually happened (assuming that things happened the way he wanted them to). I see what I mentioned above as one purpose for the Pharaoh, perhaps Sarah needed to have her experience of being saved even while on the altar so she could understand and have the level of faith her husband possessed, and perhaps Abraham needed to sacrifice his personal pride.

I say the last because I see some people who claim they will never do a particular action or group of actions because of their personal sense of honour or integrity (this story and other 'iffy' biblical stories often bring up this kind of response). IOW, they are saying they won't do something bad because they are too good and that would betray themselves as opposed to choosing not to do something simply on the basis it is wrong. I'm not saying it very well, but I'm talking about priorities and if one's priority is to preserve one's personal integrity over doing something right (even if it amounts to doing the exact same thing), there is imo something wrong because that priority may end up betraying us in the long run if we invest false pride or rely on it to direct us instead of doing what the Lord desires us to do. Perhaps Abraham needed to learn to live less by a 'code of honour' and more by the Spirit of the Lord and this experience was in part to help him do so.

Speculation of course, but if one is making a judgment about the honour and righteousness of anyone, I think one should be cautious about assuming the worst and generous with assuming the best of people.

[consiglieri]

Whoever said Abraham was perfect? No prophet was perfect. We all know that.

Then why is so much energy invested in trying to make a Genesis story that says he lied into a Genesis story that says he did not?

That is really what is at the heart of this thread, I think.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

Then why is so much energy invested in trying to make a Genesis story that says he lied into a Genesis story that says he did not?

That is really what is at the heart of this thread, I think.

Funny ... I thought "what is at the heart of this thread" was a another in a long line of transparent attempts to demonstrate how "out of touch" most Latter-day Saints are with "what really matters" when it comes to "gospel scholarship."

As for whether or not Abraham was truthful in this affair, I believe the question lends itself quite well to a syllogistic exercise:

Sarah was Abraham's sister, the daughter of his father.

Abraham told Sarah to say she was his sister.

Therefore, in claiming to be Abraham's sister, Sarah told the truth. In leading people to believe Sarah was his sister, Abraham also told the truth.

It's not a complex equation at all.

Now, granted, this story from the book of Genesis underscores an extremely important concept of the economy of godliness: the wise employment and prudent distribution of knowledge. But that's another discussion altogether ...

[volgadon]

It's not a complex equation at all.

They deliberately did not tell Pharaoh the whole truth, in order to give him a false impression, that is lying. Was it necessarily wrong in that case? No.

[William Schryver]

They deliberately did not tell Pharaoh the whole truth, in order to give him a false impression, that is lying. Was it necessarily wrong in that case? No.

I categorically reject the notion that "not telling the whole truth" is equal to "lying."

[volgadon]

Rather depends on how and why. In this case, it was lying.

[William Schryver]

Rather depends on how and why. In this case, it was lying.

As I said, I categorically reject that interpretation, which I regard as, frankly, almost microscopically narrow.

Nevertheless, I am content to agree to disagree on the point.

Fair enough?

[volgadon]

And I categorically reject that trite saying, agree to disagree. =)

[Zakuska]

Whoever said Abraham was perfect? No prophet was perfect. We all know that.

I think the problem comes because of the fundamentalist critics ideas, they say:

1) Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet because of X, he did Y and Z failed.

They demand perfection in LDS prophets but then turn a blind eye when prophets in the Bible are less than perfect.

For some gal dern reason people have in the back of their head, that because the Bible is the word of God that anything that is said is Truth and nothing but truth. and there is no way a prophet could ever make a mistake by the very nature of being inspired by God. It leads to the idea that God rips the top of their head off, climbs inside their skull and posses them and they are never able to do anything but perfection ever again.

[Jaybear]

I categorically reject the notion that "not telling the whole truth" is equal to "lying."

No one has asserted that not telling the whole truth = lying.

The assertion that is made is that not telling the whole truth = lying in certain circumstances.

Are you saying, that in your opinion, there are no circumstance in which not telling the whole truth = lying?

If so, then you are simply wrong. Many fraud cases are built on "omisions" of material facts, rather than misstatement of material facts.

[William Schryver]

Jaybear:

Are you saying, that in your opinion, there are no circumstance in which not telling the whole truth = lying?

No.

I am saying:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

[volgadon]

The assertion that is made is that not telling the whole truth = lying in certain circumstances.

Exactly.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I am saying: That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

I don't believe that anyone disagree with that assertion.

[William Schryver]

I don't believe that anyone disagree with that assertion.

If so, then I'm pleased to see that everyone came around to my point of view on the question.

[volgadon]

No, because you assert that if it is right it isn't a lie.

[consiglieri]

I categorically reject the notion that "not telling the whole truth" is equal to "lying."

So how can we trust you to be telling the whole truth in this assertion, Will?

[William Schryver]

So how can we trust you to be telling the whole truth in this assertion, Will?

I never tell the whole truth.

"... if I were to tell you all I know ... you would rise up and kill me."