Lying

[inquiringmind]

Lying is a charged word, and Philosophers find it hard to define.

I've read convincing arguments to the effect that any meaningful definition must include the intent to deceive and/or do harm.

By that definition I think we could all agree that God doesn't lie, but what if we use the word more loosely (the way most of us do)?

If we define "lying" as the knowing statement of some untruth, does God ever lie?

Was it lying when He told Moses to ask Pharaoh permission to take his Hebrew slaves on a three day field trip so they could have a religious ceremony in the wilderness (after telling Moses that He was sending him to deliver them from slavery, bring them out of Egypt, and give them an inheritence of their own in the land of Canaan)?

Was it lying when He told Jonnah to tell the Ninivites that their city would be destroyed in 40 days (if He knew they'd repent, and it would be over a hundred years before the city fell)?

Was it lying when He told David W. Patten to get his afairs in order so he would be free to go on a mission the following spring (if He knew he'd be killed a few months latter)?

In the case of Patten, getting his "affairs in order" does seem like good advice, but for reasons other than those given.

So how do we define "lying," and does it make a difference when looking at things like this?

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

We see through a glass darkly. So if our best knowledge falls short of being a perfect oracle of the future then no we are not lying.

Holding prophets to a false standard of perfection then accusing them of lying is a deceitful practice.

[inquiringmind]

We see through a glass darkly. So if our best knowledge falls short of being a perfect oracle of the future then no we are not lying.

Holding prophets to a false standard of perfection then accusing them of lying is a deceitful practice.

I wasn't asking about prophets, I was asking about God

If we define "lying" as the knowing statement of some untruth, does God ever lie?

Was it lying when He told Moses to ask Pharaoh permission to take his Hebrew slaves on a three day field trip so they could have a religious ceremony in the wilderness (after telling Moses that He was sending him to deliver them from slavery, bring them out of Egypt, and give them an inheritence of their own in the land of Canaan)?

Was it lying when He told Jonnah to tell the Ninivites that their city would be destroyed in 40 days (if He knew they'd repent, and it would be over a hundred years before the city fell)?

Was it lying when He told David W. Patten to get his afairs in order so he would be free to go on a mission the following spring (if He knew he'd be killed a few months latter)?

In the case of Patten, getting his "affairs in order" does seem like good advice, but for reasons other than those given.

So how do we define "lying," and does it make a difference when looking at things like this?

As you can see, captitolized the 'H" in "He" because I was refering to God.

If He was speaking through Moses, and Jonnah, and Joseph, wouldn't He have already known that he was gonna bring the Israelites all the way to a new home in Canaan (as He already told Moses He would), that Ninevah would repent, and that David W. Patten would die before the following spring?

My questions is

..how do we define "lying," and does it make a difference when looking at things like this?

You responded

We see through a glass darkly. So if our best knowledge falls short of being a perfect oracle of the future then no we are not lying.

That may be (when we're speaking of prophets), but are you suggesting that God's best knowledge falls short of being a perfect oracle?

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

God leaves us our agency. I suggest since he doesn't force us to do the right thing we don't always get the promised blessings or outcomes. Even when others sin it can cost us a blessing (murder, cheating) but we are assured in the eternities justice will be done and our accounts balanced.

[Bikeemikey]

Why not just make the obvious choice and state that e intentional expression of mistruths is a lie and not all lying is bad?

Seems easy to me.

[inquiringmind]

God leaves us our agency. I suggest since he doesn't force us to do the right thing we don't always get the promised blessings or outcomes. Even when others sin it can cost us a blessing (murder, cheating) but we are assured in the eternities justice will be done and our accounts balanced.

That may be, but how does that apply to the question I asked?

Take the example of what God is reported to have said to Moses.

It doesn't say that Moses (using his agency) added the part about a "three days journey," it says that God told Moses He was gonna deliver his people from their bondage in Egypt, bring them to Canaan, and give them a home there---and the said "Now go to Pharoah, and say 'let us go a three days journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to our God."

If the plan was to be gone more than three days (and, in fact not to come back at all), was this a lie (and does it make any difference how we define lying)?

Why not just make the obvious choice and state that e intentional expression of mistruths is a lie and not all lying is bad?

Seems easy to me.

It doesn't seem quite that easy to me, and I really think how we define lying might be important here (if only because both the Bible and the Book of Mormon seem to say that God doesn't lie.)

So how do we define lying, and (if God spoke through Moses, Jonnah, and Joseph) why were the examples given in the OP not lies?

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[blackstrap]

I don't see the statement about 3 days journey being a lie.Perhaps if Pharoah had allowed the trip, the Isaelites might have returned and then tried for more days the next time. If I say to you " I need 30 dollars to go to the show", you may assume that I will pay you back. There was nothing in my statement that indicated that I would.

[Law22]

God does not lie. ( Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2) But God, and Jesus, are certainly deceptive. (God - 1 Samuel 16:1-13, Jesus - 5:14, 8:56, 9:21)

I think the answer is to not include deception in your definition of a lie.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Law22

[inquiringmind]

God does not lie. ( Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2) But God, and Jesus, are certainly deceptive. (God - 1 Samuel 16:1-13, Jesus - 5:14, 8:56, 9:21)

5:14;8:56;9:21?

What book?

I think the answer is to not include deception in your definition of a lie.

That's interesting.

But then how do you define lying?

[Law22]

5:14;8:56;9:21?

What book?

That's interesting.

But then how do you define lying?

Oops. Luke.

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

But how should we define lying?

[Avatar4321]

David W Patten did serve a mission that spring. It was just on the other side of the veil.

[Law22]

Thank you.

But how should we define lying?

Maybe the best way is to look to the 9th Commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

To lie is most certainly to bear false witness. But it is only a violation of the commandment if we bear false witness "against thy neighbor." I believe this language was purposeful. Classic examples would be telling a murderous husband that his wife is not hiding in your house, or telling the Gestapo there are no Jews hiding in your house. You are certainly lying to them, but they are certainly not neighbors.

[SamIam]

I've read convincing arguments to the effect that any meaningful definition must include the intent to deceive and/or do harm.

By that definition I think we could all agree that God doesn't lie, but what if we use the word more loosely (the way most of us do)?

If we define "lying" as the knowing statement of some untruth, does God ever lie?

I try to ignore the ignorant questions that sometimes get asked in these forums. However, this one simply is inappropriate and manifests a great deal of...of...of...of... I can't even find a word that adequately defines how inappropriate this is to me. Somehow we think that we can validate discussion on any topic when we hide behind the idea of its a "philosophical" discussion.

I suppose if we want to redefine any word according to the philosophical "what if" of our choice we can lasso God as an offender on any concept we wish. Still, no matter what the choice of what ifs they would all be equally ridiculous and merit only condemnation for the absurdity of the thought. It is not in the least edifying or worthy of a moments consideration. You could have built the question a dozen different ways that left God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ out of the accused position. On that principle I hope this thread is closed and deleted.

Nonetheless, the final non-philosophical, precise and exact response is this one:

Ether 3:11-12

11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for

thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

There is no need to conjure up any other perspective than the truth of a matter. Anything else makes one the liar he attempts to discover in his philosophical wanderings.

Edited October 11, 2012 by SamIam

[inquiringmind]

Opps, sorry for the double post here.

Deleted.

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

I try to ignore the ignorant questions that sometimes get asked in these forums. However, this one simply is inappropriate and manifests a great deal of...of...of...of... I can't even find a word that adequately defines how inappropriate this is to me. Somehow we think that we can validate discussion on any topic when we hide behind the idea of its a "philosophical" discussion.

I suppose if we want to redefine any word according to the philosophical "what if" of our choice we can lasso God as an offender on any concept we wish. Still, no matter what the choice of what ifs they would all be equally ridiculous and merit only condemnation for the absurdity of the thought. It is not in the least edifying or worthy of a moments consideration. You could have built the question a dozen different ways that left God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ out of the accused position. On that principle I hope this thread is closed and deleted.

Nonetheless, the final non-philosophical, precise and exact response is this one:

There is no need to conjure up any other perspective than the truth of a matter. Anything else makes one the liar he attempts to discover in his philosophical wanderings.

I don't understand your reaction here.

I thought Mormons believed that there is a moral code that even God has to obey, or He would cease to be God?

I didn't suggest God lied (in the true sense of the word), but I asked what we mean by the word (and why the examples I gave don't fit any real, meanigful defenition), and it was a Mormon web site that started me thinking about this.

In any discussion of polygamy during the Nauvoo period–particularly as it relates to the secrecy and purported lies that surround its introduction–questions inevitably turn toward the biblical record. Critics often indicate that biblical prophets were never called upon to engage in lying or to make public statements at odds with private behavior.

LDS authors often cite the examples of Abraham⁶⁹ and Isaac,⁷⁰ both of whom deceived others about their marital status for their own protection, as biblical precedent for polygamy and its deceptions. There are, however, examples recorded in Exodus that are more on-point to the situation in Nauvoo.

The first is an example of civil disobedience sanctioned by God. It involves Pharaoh’s murderous instructions to the Egyptian midwives:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.⁷¹

The midwives are confronted with a command from the head of state which offends their personal/professional morality. They decline to participate, and actively deceive the Pharaoh–they even lie to him or his officers so that the deception may continue, as well as to (one assumes) spare themselves his punishment. The subsequent verses indicate God’s approval of their action–honesty is not the primary moral value: obedience to the will of God is.

The second example comes from the prophetic call of Moses. The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.⁷²

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh–what the “public story” should be, if you will:

18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.⁷³

The “public stance” of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days’ journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:

22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.⁷⁴

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to “borrow” valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to “spoil” (i.e. “loot”) the Egyptians.⁷⁵

Pharaoh is, of course, nobody’s fool. He seems to strongly suspect that there is more to the story than Moses is publicly admitting. He offers all sorts of compromise positions, seemingly designed to assure that the slaves will return after fulfilling their duties.⁷⁶

Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses’ life despite the plagues and signs.⁷⁷ The people are finally freed, but once they have left Pharaoh and his councilors decide to resort to violence and slaughter:

5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?

6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:

7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.

8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.⁷⁸

We are not told why the Lord instructed Moses to deal with the Egyptians in the way that he did. It is significant that Moses did not take such an approach on his own; only a direct command motivates his less-than-forthright behavior.

One can speculate, however–it is certainly reasonable to think that the Egyptians would have murderous intent toward their slaves who presumed to leave. They are willing to act on such inclinations, despite the plagues, when it becomes indisputable that Israel has left for good. If Moses had announced that Israel was leaving, what would the reaction of Pharaoh’s court have been? Moses’ failure to tell the whole story may well have saved Egyptian life, as well as Israelite. To be sure, God could have used another way. But, in this instance, deception was the specific tactic which He commanded.

Anti-Moses authors could doubtless exploit this situation to great rhetorical effect–they could mock Moses’ “ethical lapse” here, and insist that he did it all for monetary gain. They could contrast his behavior here with the “thou shalt not covet,” “thou shalt not bear false witness,” and “thou shalt not steal” commands given later at Sinai, and point out that “borrowing” when you don’t ever intend to come back looks a lot like “stealing.”

http://www.fairlds.o...rication#head08

So my question was (and is) "how should we define lying"?

And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers one definition that might be relevant.

To lie =to make a believed-false statement to another person, with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true, violating that person's right of liberty of judgment, with the intention to harm that other person

http://plato.stanfor...ing-definition/

That definition (kinda, sorta) makes sense to me, but is it possible to define the Hebrew, and Greek (and Reformed Egyptian) words we translate with words like "lying," "lie," "lied" in such a way (or is that stretching it)?

Is that a stupid question?

May I ask you guys what you think here?

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Maybe the best way is to look to the 9th Commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

To lie is most certainly to bear false witness. But it is only a violation of the commandment if we bear false witness "against thy neighbor." I believe this language was purposeful. Classic examples would be telling a murderous husband that his wife is not hiding in your house, or telling the Gestapo there are no Jews hiding in your house. You are certainly lying to them, but they are certainly not neighbors.

On behalf of Ann Frank and her family (and the Hebrew midwives mentioned in the "FAIR" article), I thank you.

So you would define lying as bearing false witness against someone (and actually doing someone some harm)?

That kinda ties in with the broader definition I've been thinking of.

But I do think the definition of lying would have to be a little broader, because you could (I think) intentionally mislead someone in a way that harmed them (and that you intended to harm them) without actually bearing false witness against them (and I think that would still be lying.)

What do you think of the Stanford Encyclopedia definition?

To lie =to make a believed-false statement to another person, with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true, violating that person's right of liberty of judgment, with the intention to harm that other person

http://plato.stanfor...ing-definition/

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

Lying is a charged word, and Philosophers find it hard to define.

I've read convincing arguments to the effect that any meaningful definition must include the intent to deceive and/or do harm.

By that definition I think we could all agree that God doesn't lie, but what if we use the word more loosely (the way most of us do)?

If we define "lying" as the knowing statement of some untruth, does God ever lie?

Was it lying when He told Moses to ask Pharaoh permission to take his Hebrew slaves on a three day field trip so they could have a religious ceremony in the wilderness (after telling Moses that He was sending him to deliver them from slavery, bring them out of Egypt, and give them an inheritence of their own in the land of Canaan)?

Was it lying when He told Jonnah to tell the Ninivites that their city would be destroyed in 40 days (if He knew they'd repent, and it would be over a hundred years before the city fell)?

Was it lying when He told David W. Patten to get his afairs in order so he would be free to go on a mission the following spring (if He knew he'd be killed a few months latter)?

In the case of Patten, getting his "affairs in order" does seem like good advice, but for reasons other than those given.

So how do we define "lying," and does it make a difference when looking at things like this?

Honey does this dress make me look fat?

If Pharaoh had given his consent. That would have saved a whole lot of misery. Which one do you support?

We have no indications that God was lying. It very well could have been Jonah forgetting to add in "if they didn't repent".

We ALL need to get, and keep, our affairs in order whether God knows whether we will die next year, next month, tomorrow, or even in the next 5 minutes. Moreover Bro. Patten's mission didn't stop with his death, but continues in the next life.

Was it wrong to hide Jews from the NAZIS?

[Batgirlsmom]

I think the definition of "lying" must take into account motive. Are you lying for your own benefit? Or are you lying to protect the innocent? The former would usually be viewed as negative while the latter is often seen as noble.

In the Bible - what us the actual Greek word used for "lie" when God is referred to as unable to lie? Often the same English word can be used for more highly nuanced Greek.

[sheilauk]

Lying is saying something false. It conveys within it the sense that the action is deliberate. If someone thinks what they say is true, even if its not, I wouldn't say they were lying, but mistaken. There are good (used to call them white) lies - which are positive and do not hurt anyone (the answer to do i look fat?) and there are bad lies. And then there is misdirections, omissions and misleading by not telling the whole truth - as in asking "we want to go into the desert for a three day religious festival, please" and omitting to add "and we won't be returning!" I don't think God lies, but sometimes he has asked his followers/Prophets to omit or misdirect.

[lithpblithh]

Hi inquiringmind,

I agree with Kant's views on lying and would recommend you familiarize

yourself with them if you haven't already. See "Groundwork of Metaphysic

of Morals" for an overview of his moral theory and application to lying

and see "On the Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives" to

see his response to Benjamin Constant's "Murder at the Door" scenario

that's replicated in the above FAIR article and the view above by

Batgirlsmom.

I don't believe the scriptures to be inerrant and I adopt it as my

working hypothesis that the scriptures claiming God lied or commanded to

lie are wrong.

I don't believe some of the scriptures you reference count as lying, but

simply the result of free agency and limited foreknowledge by God. See

Blake Ostler on Omniscience.

I do agree with Kant on the "Murderer at the Door" scenario. I find his

arguments to be persuasive. Read them if you haven't, I'm not going to

regurgitate them here.

I agree with Law22 that the examples in Luke might be deceptive, but

Jesus isn't commanding the people to deceive, only to be silent, and I

find his actions in those verses entirely consistent with Kant's views.

Any possible deception is the result of the other people drawing faulty

inferences through no action of the healed.

I haven't searched all less-errant scripture/life of Joseph Smith for

examples of God commanding someone to lie.

[Batgirlsmom]

What do our Sunday School manuals define lying as? Is it inclusive of lying by omission (omitting pertinent or reality altering facts)? Is it inclusive of coercion in order to achieve a goal? What are we taught in church about lying and what it includes? I seem to recall the concept that Satan is the "Father of All Lies". Do we, as LDS, believe this?

Now, the real question here is not "What is lying?" The true, underlying question is: "Is God beholden to the same rules as Man?" If not what is the complicated definition of lying for God?

We cannot lie to God as He is all seeing and all knowing. However, He could lie to us theoretically since we are not all seeing nor all knowing. But, how does that affect trust?

[lithpblithh]

Opps, forgot four things, two of which I was reminded of by sheilauk's

post, one by Batgirlsmom.

Just as I don't believe the scriptures to be inerrant, I don't believe

Sunday School manuals or members who write the Church's curriculum or

the Apostles who approve it to be inerrant.

To anyone who might object to Kant's silence option by comparing

it to "The Extra Penny from the Grocer" scenario often talked

about by modern prophets, I would say honesty includes more than

lying and and "being silent after unduly receiving something" may be

dishonest while "being quiet after being asked a question" is

not in itself.

I think Kant's views apply to "white lies" and I try not to tell them. I

let people close to me know that so they don't ask me how they look if

they don't want the truth. I often decline to answer if I don't

think the truth is helpful. I don't have kids so I haven't had to deal

with the "Santa Claus" scenario.

To anyone who hasn't seen "The Invention of Lying", while I don't

recommend the movie I do recommend this clip:

By referencing Kant I'm not putting my trust in philosophers but rather

seeking truth wherever I can find it. I don't believe he nor I am

inerrant on this topic. If God commands me to lie or a modern prophet

does and I feel the Spirit testify to me that I should then I'll do

that. That hasn't been my experience with General Conference.

[CV75]

And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers one definition that might be relevant.

To lie = to [contrary to God’s will] make a believed-false statement to another person, with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true, violating that person's right of liberty of judgment, with the intention to harm that other person.

The “right of liberty of judgment” does not exist for God’s enemies, hence there is no violation and no unjustified harm.

[inquiringmind]

Lying is saying something false. It conveys within it the sense that the action is deliberate. If someone thinks what they say is true, even if its not, I wouldn't say they were lying, but mistaken. There are good (used to call them white) lies - which are positive and do not hurt anyone (the answer to do i look fat?) and there are bad lies. And then there is misdirections, omissions and misleading by not telling the whole truth - as in asking "we want to go into the desert for a three day religious festival, please" and omitting to add "and we won't be returning!" I don't think God lies, but sometimes he has asked his followers/Prophets to omit or misdirect.

When God asks His followers/Prophets to do something, aren't they acting as His instruments if they do it?

I think you're saying that there's a difference between lying and misdirection, and that while God doesn't lie, He does sometimes misdirect.

Do I understand you?

I think the definition of "lying" must take into account motive. Are you lying for your own benefit? Or are you lying to protect the innocent? The former would usually be viewed as negative while the latter is often seen as noble.

I think you might have something there.

In the Bible - what is the actual Greek word used for "lie" when God is referred to as unable to lie? Often the same English word can be used for more highly nuanced Greek.

I think that's a good question, but I don't have the answer.

Is anyone here familiar with the Greek word and it's nuances?

Edited October 11, 2012 by inquiringmind