Lying

[Calm]

I think the occasions where deception is necessary for the health and/or happiness of others is rare enough that discussing when it is appropriate is unnecessary for the majority of individuals. I can't think of one occasion in my over 50 years of life where I needed to seriously consider that I needed to lie to protect someone or even myself from harm.

[inquiringmind]

I think the occasions where deception is necessary for the health and/or happiness of others is rare enough that discussing when it is appropriate is unnecessary for the majority of individuals. I can't think of one occasion in my over 50 years of life where I needed to seriously consider that I needed to lie to protect someone or even myself from harm.

But then you didn't live in Nazi occupied Europe.

It wasn't that long ago that "the righteous Gentiles" commemorated in Israel's holocoust museum risked their lives by "lying" (?) to the Gestapo.

In fact, it wasn't that long ago that the entire population of Denmark sheltered the Jews by sewing yellow stars of David on their clothing (because the occupying authorities had odered Denmark's Jews to wear this symbol.)

This was a very couragious thing to do at the time, and it certainly made it difficult for the Nazis to carry out their policies in Denmark (with the entire Gentile population in effect screeming "we're Jews, take us too"), but was it "lying"?

In the history of the Church there were the Reed Smoot hearings, Joseph's public statements about having only one wife only months before he was murdered, and Church denials of polygamy (including the article on marriage that was found in all published editions of the D&C right up untill 1852.)

Some Mormon apologists I've read seem to say that God told the saints (at least in the begining) to keep the practice of polgamy secret, and this seems to have led to what it looks like most here would call "lying."

Some would even seem to be saying that Miep Gies and Jan Gies (who sheltered the Frank family some 70 years ago) were guilty of lying because they denied there were Jews living in their attic (and that would seem to be Kant's view.)

So I think my question ("how should we define lying") is legitimate.

I think it's a resonable question to ask, and I'm not sure I understand your answer.

Did the Hebrew midwives lie to Pharaoh?

Did God tell Moses to lie to Pharaoh when He sent him to ask for a three day pass?

Did Joseph lie when he said he could only find one wife?

And did Miep and Jan Gies lie to the Gestapo?

I still think Batgirlsmom had a good point here

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.

And I'm interested in the answer to her question here.

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.

Does anyone know what the word is, and what it's nuances are?

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

How many posters and readers on this board live in such conditions?

I just don't think until we are actually in that type of situation and comprehend through actual experience the demands, costs and benefits of our actions that any choice we make has any real meaning.

[inquiringmind]

How many posters and readers on this board live in such conditions?

I just don't think until we are actually in that type of situation and comprehend through actual experience the demands, costs and benefits of our actions that any choice we make has any real meaning.

I personally know a man who was in one of the camps, and still has the serial number on his arm.

Though I'm sure most of them have died, there were a lot of older people in Brooklyn (in my lifetime) who had those serial numbers on their arms.

Some of them might not have had them if more Gentiles had been willing to "lie" to the authorities (like the Hebrew midwives God blessed in Exodus, as mentioned in that FAIR article btw.)

This is recent history, and what happened once could happen again (in fact, people probably face the kind of choices we're talking about here right now, in places like The People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Iran), but that's beside the point.

The question is not whether it's excusable to "lie" in such extreem circumstances, the question is what we mean by "lying"?

Did the couragious Gentile Danes who sewed the yellow stars of David on their clothing (indicating they were Jews) "lie"?

Is the word meant to apply to what they did?

Does the proper definition of the word have anything to do with ones motive or intent?

I'd like to read more of your thoughts on that (and I'd really be interested in the answer to Batgirlsmom's question.)

Thank you.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

To quote FAIR.

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.

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...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

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

So was there some "ethical lapse" here (either on the part of Moses or God), or is there some differnce between what God did here (or told Moses to do), and what we should properly understand the word "lying" to mean?

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

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.

That'd be about right.

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)?

I have no idea if God lies. But if he does, he has good enough reasons for it.

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

Well, tbh, I don't think it matters too much. God will do what he will do, and ultimately, he has a reason for it. I think we can trust him on that... even if he doesn't tell things all the way, he must have a good enough reason, indeed... we just do not need to know it at this time =).

[inquiringmind]

That'd be about right.

Thank you TAO.

If any meaningful definition of lying includes the intent to do harm (as you seem to agree), then I think it's clear that neither God or Moses lied to Pharaoh.

The ultimate intent wasn't to harm Pharaoh or the Egyptians, but to deliver a people suffering under the yoke of their bondage.

I have no idea if God lies. But if he does, he has good enough reasons for it.

But if He has a good reason for it, His intent isn't to harm, and it's not "lying" (by the defintion you seem to agree is the only meaningful one.)

And since Miep and Jan Gies had a very good reason to deny they had Jews hiding in their attic, and (unlike the Nazis at their door) certainly intended to do no harm, we can safely conclude that they didn't lie either.

That seems to make sense.

Well, tbh, I don't think it matters too much.

I think maybe it does matter (a little), if we're to think clearly on this subject.

God will do what he will do, and ultimately, he has a reason for it. I think we can trust him on that... even if he doesn't tell things all the way, he must have a good enough reason

And we can trust Him to have a good reason because He's good, and because His intentions are good--right?

So if lying has anything to do with evil intent, it would follow that God doesn't "lie" (in the true sense of the word.)--right?

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

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.

Anyone know anything about the nuances of the Greek?

[canard78]

This is recent history, and what happened once could happen again (in fact, people probably face the kind of choices we're talking about here right now, in places like The People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Iran), but that's beside the point.

I love the topic and will reply properly in a minute. But I'm curious to see you group China with NK and Iran. China's very, very much more liberall and open than the other two. Am curious to know what media influence grouped them?

[inquiringmind]

I love the topic and will reply properly in a minute. But I'm curious to see you group China with NK and Iran. China's very, very much more liberall and open than the other two. Am curious to know what media influence grouped them?

Is China liberal if you're a poor couple expecting your second or third child?

(I thougt they had compulsory abortion laws for such couples--one child per family, right?)

I can't remember the name of the religious group, but I believe some indigenous religous group that abstains from alcohol and tabbaco products (much like LDS do--the Falun Gong, i think) has been outlewed by the People's Republic of China, and that members of this sect are subject to arrest and execution (and have very clean organs should a party member need an organ transplant.)

Are the leaders of the People's Republic of China liberal toward the Falun Gong (or whatever this sect happens to be called)?

Am curious to know what media influence grouped them?

I'm not aware of grouping them because of any media influence (but I do usually prefer to watch Fox news over CNN, if that's what you want to know.)

I love the topic and will reply properly in a minute.

I'm glad you find the topic interesting, and I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

If any meaningful definition of lying includes the intent to do harm (as you seem to agree), then I think it's clear that neither God or Moses lied to Pharaoh.

Oh, well then I'll disagree there. Lying doesn't need the intent to do harm, nah.

The ultimate intent wasn't to harm Pharaoh or the Egyptians, but to deliver a people suffering under the yoke of their bondage.

But if He has a good reason for it, His intent isn't to harm, and it's not "lying" (by the defintion you seem to agree is the only meaningful one.)

And since Miep and Jan Gies had a very good reason to deny they had Jews hiding in their attic, and (unlike the Nazis at their door) certainly intended to do no harm, we can safely conclude that they didn't lie either.

Either they didn't lie, or, they didn't immorally lie =).

That seems to make sense.

And we can trust Him to have a good reason because He's good, and because His intentions are good--right?

I can trust him because he communicates with me through the Spirit and feels like a 'good person' in that way. Thus, just like with regular human being, I trust he is what he says. And for his intentions being good, I believe so for the same reason =). He feels like a good person.

It isn't that his actions and intentions are inherenty good. It's that through communication, I know he is good, so I trust his intentions to be good =).

So if lying has anything to do with evil intent, it would follow that God doesn't "lie" (in the true sense of the word.)--right?

Sure, if you want to set the definition that way. Then again, most people don't consider lying necessarily having evil intent, so just make that clear when talking to people, otherwise they might get confused =p.

Edited October 12, 2012 by TAO

[inquiringmind]

Oh, well then I'll disagree there. Lying doesn't need the intent to do harm, nah

Either they didn't lie, or, they didn't immorally lie =).

Sure, if you want to set the definition that way. Then again, most people don't consider lying necessarily having evil intent, so just make that clear when talking to people, otherwise they might get confused =p.

You mean like you're confusing me here?

If we assume that lying is inherently immoral, and that it involves some intentional deception that does actual harm, then could we agree that neither God or the Geis's "lied"?

(i.e. In other words, that misdirection isn't always "lying"?)

What's wrong with the following 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/

Unless there's some reason that the Greek word we tranlate as "lie" (in the places where the Bible says that God cannot lie) can't be understood this way, doesn't the above definition of "lying" greatly simplify this whole discussion (and isn't that alone reason to give it some serious consideration)?

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Can't anyone here tell us anything about the Greek word used in passages like Titus 1:2?

Is it close enough in meaning to the English to be given the same definition the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philosophy gives our word (i.e. 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)???

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

If we assume that lying is inherently immoral, and that it involves some intentional deception that does actual harm, then could we agree that neither God or the Geis's "lied"?

The difficulty is I don't assume that. Lying isn't inherently immoral... it's immoral because the Lord says it's immoral and because it's a bit mean to other people.

(i.e. In other words, that misdirection isn't always "lying"?)

I suppose.

What's wrong with the following definition?

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

There is nothing wrong or right with that definition. It's just one possible definition. =)

Unless there's some reason that the Greek word we tranlate as "lie" (in the places where the Bible says that God cannot lie) can't be understood this way, doesn't the above definition of "lying" greatly simplify this whole discussion (and isn't that alone reason to give it some serious consideration)?

I have no idea, hehe. I don't expect Greek to necessarily be right... I just trust the Spirit, really. Perhaps it could simplify the concept... or perhaps it might make it more complicated... I don't know =/.

As you can see, I have my disagreements with Kant, to a degree. I don't think lying is inherently bad... it just is most of the time, alot of the time even =p.

Edited October 12, 2012 by TAO

[inquiringmind]

The difficulty is I don't assume that. Lying isn't inherently immoral... it's immoral because the Lord says it's immoral and because it's a bit mean to other people.

So whatever "lying" is, it's wrong only because God says it is?

I thought that when God said something was wrong, He did so because it is wrong.

I thought Mormons believed in an objective right and wrong that even God couldn't change without ceasing to be God.

Was I wrong?

...and because it's a bit mean to other people.

Really?

Is it mean to other people because it does them some kind of harm?

It seems that the idea of doing harm is part of your own personal definition of lying (even if you don't realize it.)

Thank you.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[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.

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?

yes, that's what I was saying. Mind - its only my personal feeling, I've not done any research on the definition of lying or anything else! I'm open to persuasion one way or the other or for a more nuanced idea!

[inquiringmind]

yes, that's what I was saying. Mind - its only my personal feeling, I've not done any research on the definition of lying or anything else! I'm open to persuasion one way or the other or for a more nuanced idea!

Thank you.

[Batgirlsmom]

If we are bringing up Joseph Smith lying about bring married to more than one woman.... There is a pretty strong argument that he did so to protect himself - particularly to protect his life given the accusations and actions violent people had taken in the past.

Joseph Smith and Abraham lying to save their skins is a good debate with few solid answers as to the nobility of protecting themselves (see my first post in the thread).

[inquiringmind]

If we are bringing up Joseph Smith lying about bring married to more than one woman.... There is a pretty strong argument that he did so to protect himself - particularly to protect his life given the accusations and actions violent people had taken in the past.

Joseph Smith and Abraham lying to save their skins is a good debate with few solid answers as to the nobility of protecting themselves (see my first post in the thread).

If he really was a prophet, and if he was commanded to introduce the princiole of polygamy to those who were ready to receive it, he might have been trying to protect others (i.e. those who had received it like his borther Hyram and Brigham Young, and those for whom it would be a real stubling block), and trying to protect them might not have been lying (if the proper definition of lying has anything to do with an intent to defraud or do harm.)

Whatever the particulars in Joseph's case, I'm really more interested in what we mean by lying (and what God considers lying.)

Thank you.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Batgirlsmom]

Well, both prophets were brought up as inherent examples of lying prior to my post. They are tangible, valid examples of this debated subject.

[inquiringmind]

Well, both prophets were brought up as inherent examples of lying prior to my post. They are tangible, valid examples of this debated subject.

By "both prophets" I assume you mean Moses and Joseph, and I didn't bring them up as examples of lying.

I've been fishing for thoughts on the proper definition of lying (and I think you said, in an earlier post, that you thought it had something to do with one's motives.)

Thank you.

P.S. This is what you posted earlier in this thread.

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.

And I'd still be interested in any light anyone can shed on the Greek.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Batgirlsmom]

I have to say your post is confusing. I said that these prophets (yes, Moses and Joseph Smith) were brought up previously as example in this debate. I didn't say by whom they were mentioned. Do you disagree with specific example being brought up by myself and other posters?

[inquiringmind]

I have to say your post is confusing. I said that these prophets (yes, Moses and Joseph Smith) were brought up previously as example in this debate. I didn't say by whom they were mentioned. Do you disagree with specific example being brought up by myself and other posters?

I brought up Joseph, Moses, and Jonah in post #3

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

As you can see, I 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

You responded

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?

And my primary interest (as you can see) was in what we mean by "lying"?

What's the proper definition of the word, and what does scripture mean when it says that God doesn't lie?

To that you said

I think the definition of "lying" must take into account motive

I think you were right

I think at least one of the definitions offered by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the one that included the intent to do harm) is right (and it doesn't require me to call Joseph, or Moses, or Jonah or God a liar.)

What's confusing about that?

Are you trying to pick a fight with me now for some reason?

Do you want me to call someone a liar?

Do you want to call Joseph a liar?

I really don't understand what you find confusing, or what you're trying to say.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Batgirlsmom]

Lol

I was simply confused. You should take what I say at face value. And, please don't read emotion or accusation into my posts.

[inquiringmind]

I was simply confused.

And so was I.

I'm sorry.

And I do thank you for your thoughts here.

Edited October 12, 2012 by inquiringmind