Lying

[Batgirlsmom]

[TAO]

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 don't know about the handbook but I know certain of the prophets, like Spencer W Kimball, have talked about how lies of omission are still lies. In either case, we should try and avoid them =).

[TAO]

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

Well, when it gets down to the basics, that's my opinion on the issue. Of course, I could be totally wrong.

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

Many others view it that way, yes. It's not one I personally believe in.

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

Mmmm... I use objective differently, I guess. I think objective means that it will effect you... in the judgement day. It isn't that the morality is unquestionable... people can disagree with it... it's just you are going to be judged by it no matter whether you agree with it or not.

Then again, I know alot of Mormons which would heavily disagree with this statement.

In any case, it doesn't really have to do with God changing. What you are talkign about is the verse which says that if God didn't keep the rules he wouldn't be God... and I think the reason that would be would be because we wouldn't trust him. But I'm not quite sure on the issue... better to ask God yourself.

Was I wrong?

Probably not for most Mormons. For me, perhaps.

Really?

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

Harm isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just oftentimes is.

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.

It is, but it isn't unquestioanbly wrong =). Harm isn't always a bad thing.

[CV75]

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

Some do, and some don't--for me, anything that comes to us from God is ultimately His subjectively-experienced will, whether experienced on His part or ours.

Adjusting the definition you provided:

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.

God does not lie because whatever He says or instructs is for His subjective purposes (He is Truth), infringes on no one's right of liberty of judgement, and results in no unjustified harm.

From an eternal standpoint, in oder for each innumberable point of right and wrong to be objective, there would have to be equally innumerable considerations (including any subjectivity involved) in the definition and application of the pertinent laws. This renders objectivity and subjectivity identical concepts as far as eternal application goes. But where God is a Personal Man, I call all judgment subjective.

[Batgirlsmom]

If God cannot lie (a statement I support) can he require a human being to lie?

How do we reconcile that with the idea that Satan is the Father of All Lies?

Edited October 13, 2012 by Batgirlsmom

[Batgirlsmom]

Woohoo! Misspelled a word and got to edit it. Where's a happy dance emoticon when you need one?

Edited October 13, 2012 by Batgirlsmom

[inquiringmind]

If God cannot lie (a statement I support) can he require a human being to lie?

How do we reconcile that with the idea that Satan is the Father of All Lies?

This is from the Joseph Smith Translsation (which agrees with all other translations here.)

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee? And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king's son; And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you. (1 Kings 20:19-28.)

So unless the proper definition of lying involves motive, and unless God's motive here had more to do with teaching someone something true (perhaps even for their good) than deceiving someone to their hurt, it would seem that God can require a third party to lie ("go forth and do so.")

Also, unless the definition of lying is as you suggested elsewhere (and this wasn't really an instance of lying) it would be very hard to maintain that Satan is always the father of all lies.

This was an evil spirit here, but it was God (not Satan) who said "go forth and do so."

So what do you think?

P.S. If the intent to do harm is part of lying, it would explain how the spirit (who imay have ntended to do harm) could be called a "lying spirit" while God (who said "go fort and do so," but with higher motives) doesn't lie.

Edited October 13, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Batgirlsmom]

I believe that men (and women) can lie and very easily say, "God made me do it." I believe if a person lies for whatever reason then that person alone is entirely responsible for the ensuing actions. With my children I call it taking ownership.

Having said that, it is possible that "lying" in the sense of God's use concerns being misleading of eternal truths. In that way Satan can be considered the Father of All Lies - as he misleads God's mortal children on the matter of eternal truths. That was the primary reason I was interested in the word(s) from which the term "lie" is translated.

Clear as mud?

[inquiringmind]

I believe that men (and women) can lie and very easily say, "God made me do it." I believe if a person lies for whatever reason then that person alone is entirely responsible for the ensuing actions. With my children I call it taking ownership.

Having said that, it is possible that "lying" in the sense of God's use concerns being misleading of eternal truths. In that way Satan can be considered the Father of All Lies - as he misleads God's mortal children on the matter of eternal truths. That was the primary reason I was interested in the word(s) from which the term "lie" is translated.

Clear as mud?

No (not "clear as mud.")

I actually think that makes sense (and I too would be interested in any light anyone can shed on the words from which the term "lie" is translated.)

Thank you.

P.S. There's also the fact that Hezekiah (who was not God's enemy) was told (in the name of the Lord) that he would die of an ilness he recovered from (and was told he'd recover from, in the name of the Lord, after the anouncement of his immenent death illicited a certain emotional response.) If God has any real foreknowledge (i.e. if time really is "one eternal round" to Him) He must have known how Hezekiah would respond to the news, and that He would subsequently extend Hezekiah's life another fifteen years. So if God doesn't lie (and I'm not suggesting He does) it would seem that the proper definition of "lie" must be more than the intentional misstatement of some facts (or the charecter of who God or His prophet is talking to.)

Edited October 13, 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.

Since no one else has offered any indights on the Greek, I'll share what little I've found.

The Greek word is Pseudomai, it doesn't seem to be any more nuanced than our English word, and the question of what it means seems to go back as far as Socrates.

Do you not know, I said, that the true lie, if such an expression may be allowed, is hated of gods and men?

What do you mean? he said.

I mean that no one is willingly deceived in that which is the truest and highest part of himself, or about the truest and highest matters; there, above all, he is most afraid of a lie having possession of him....

And, as I was just now remarking, this ignorance in the soul of him who is deceived may be called the true lie; for the lie in words is only a kind of imitation and shadowy image of a previous affection of the soul, not pure unadulterated falsehood. Am I not right?

Perfectly right.

The true lie is hated not only by the gods, but also by men?

Yes.

Whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful; in dealing with enemies--that would be an instance; or again, when those whom we call our friends in a fit of madness or illusion are going to do some harm, then it is useful and is a sort of medicine or preventive; also in the tales of mythology, of which we were just now speaking--because we do not know the truth about ancient times, we make falsehood as much like truth as we can, and so turn it to account.

Very true, he said.

http://www.sacred-te...rep/rep0207.htm

Perhaps more to the point, John Chrysostom (a patristic era Greek speaking Church father)

...defends Jacob on the ground that his deceiving his father was not done for the sake of temporal gain, but in order to fulfil the providential purpose of God ; and he says, that, as Abraham was not a murderer, though he was minded to kill his son, so an untruth need not be a lie. And he adds, that often such a deceit is the greatest possible benefit to the man who is deceived, and therefore allowable.

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

Edited October 13, 2012 by inquiringmind

[canard78]

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'm not saying China's some easy living, free country, but it's not a fair comparison to group them with the other two.

I was surprised when I got here to find that it's not as clean cut as we in the west see and hear. There is a one child policy, but the days of enforced (aborted) compliance are long gone. I have neighbours and colleagues who either have 2-3 children or have siblings. It's still the norm to have one child, but that's as much a social pressure and desire to give your one child the best possible start in life as the government policy.

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)?

It is indeed Falun Gong, and no, they're not liberal towards them. I agree the political leaders are no saints and I'm not trying to defend them. Having said that, Falun Gong was originally encouraged by China, but once it got political and threatened insurrection it was squashed. As a Mormon, I can attend church. I also saw a mosque the other day. People can practice many types of religion and they won't be imprisoned for that, but if they start making it political, or a 'movement' then they're likely to get a reaction.

To try to bring this all a bit back on topic... I wonder what I'd do if I were in a country where I couldn't worship openly. In Saudi Arabia, mormon expats have to meet in secret. A friend spent 6 months working there. They meet in a different location every week. You attend in casual clothes, in small groups, you can't take your own 'quad' with you or anything that would identify you as a Mormon. If you're asked where you're going you can't say 'to church.' If asked during the week what you did or will do on Sunday, you have to make something up. They are, effectively, committing a crime. These people are deceiving the authorities and, occasionally not being fully honest about their behaviour. Is that lying? What are the alternatives? Not practice your religion to be all square with the law? Or 'lie' about your behaviour to continue worshipping. What would the people of Alma do? They also prayed in secret to avoid death (Mosiah 24:12). Is this dishonesty?

Being called a 'liar' is a hot word and is often used as an insult. So to call God, or a Prophet a Liar is always going to get pushback. Webster dictionary gives two definitions:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2: to create a false or misleading impression

Here's what I believe... There are times when God, via his prophets, will present certain pieces of information as fact, when they are actually not facts. I think that in presenting them as facts, they get better reaction and prominence within the gospel, and as a result have a stronger impact. So God isn't misleading people or deceiving them, because ultimately the behaviour He's seeking is more likely to happen by presenting something as fact that isn't actually a fact. On that basis, you could say He and his prophets are not lying (they are not trying to deceive or mislead). But it could be argued that they are not giving the complete, correct information and sometimes it is technically incorrect.

It's odd that some people in this thread have said they won't speculate on lying like Danish Jews because they won't be in that situation. We're taught to decide our moral principles before we're presented with the situation. I decided as a teenager that I'd say no to drugs, without having been offered any. I've never been offered any and based on the circles I move in, may never be offered any. I'm still going to say no though, having considered the hypothetical situation.

[thesometimesaint]

FYI regarding Saudi Arabia and the Church.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/1684-lds-church-saudi-arabia.html

There is some question about the LDS religion being legal in Saudi Arabia. I contacted a friend still in Saudi Arabia and the following is what I was told about the current status as of today.

The legal status of the LDS church is some what “under the table”. Although the LDS church is a legal religion in Saudi Arabia it does not enjoy the same status as the Moslem faith. As pointed out by Curvette that to convert from the Moslem faith one can be punished by death. Following are some of the things the LDS faith is able to do:

1. Hold public meeting without supervision. 12 years ago the maximum number allowed at a meeting was 35, currently the number is unlimited.

2. Teach members of your own household or relatives that are not LDS and convert them to the LDS faith. This is assuming that they are not Moslem. This has also been relaxed recently and LDS are allowed to teach and convert foreign visitors that are not Moslem.

3. Collect tithing and other offerings and export the money from Saudi Arabia

4. Bring LDS leaders to Saudi Arabia for the sole purpose of meeting with other LDS members - for events like stake conference.

5. Perform Baptisms to those that request to be LDS (but are not Moslem)

6. Build an official stake center (building for only that purpose) on the east cost on property within the RAMCO (joint USA Saudi oil corporation) compound. There are 5 wards in Saudi Arabia. One in Juddah, one in Riyad and 3 on the east cost. In addition there are several branches - all on the east cost.

7. Give blessings to LDS members in Saudi hospitals.

LDS are not allowed to do the following:

1. Pass out LDS publications or other printed material to Moslems

2. Answer questions that an Moslem ask about the LDS faith. This has been relaxed and LDS are allowed to answer questions that can be answered with a “Yes” or “No”. The standard answer is to say “I did not come to Saudi Arabia to answer any questions about my religion.” I do know from my Arabic friends that it is not uncommon for them to visit LDS web sites to get information but they are very scared about posting anything themselves. Also it is a violation of their faith to copy anything where G-d is spelled out - which is one reason I don’t.

3. Build any religious buildings on Saudi soil - the exception is the Stake Center on REMCO property.

Some other points of interest: There is also a Stake in the United Arab Emirates with 12 unites (stakes and branches). These are listed in the global locator at the official LDS web site. UAE is much more liberal with the LDS legal status than Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s are very aware and curious about the LDS in particular that we do not use any statues, pictures or crosses as part of our worship services or displayed to identify where we worship (one reason that the LDS faith is legal). Our welfare and relief programs. That for our number of members we will have over 60,000 missionaries most of which are 19 years old. That we do not feel connected to the Catholic or Protestant Churches and that we believe in a living prophet.

The LDS church leadership has agreed not to make active efforts to convert any Moslems world wide. The agreement is that if a Moslem request membership while then are not in a Moslem country (like Saudi Arabia) we can baptize them.

Because the legal status is sort of under the table I cannot prove any of the above information but before you call me as a liar and condemn me to Hell based on your over active imagination and desire to shake thing up; I suggest you talk to an active LDS member that has been to Saudi Arabia within the last 10 years.

The Traveler

Edited October 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[DavidB]

I am curious why someone would use Jonah as a possible example of God lying. How can a "If, then" statement even remotely be considered a lie when the conditions of the statement are met by both parties?

As for lying, it would seem that always in telling the truth there is an intent to deceive. Some might claim there are good lies, I question that, but I understand why people would deceiving another is ok.

[inquiringmind]

I am curious why someone would use Jonah as a possible example of God lying. How can a "If, then" statement even remotely be considered a lie when the conditions of the statement are met by both parties?

If you've read Jonah (in either the Authorized Version or the JST), you'd see there is no "if then" statement in Jonah's "thus saith the Lord" regarding the citie's destruction within forty days, but there was a "maybe, who knows, worth a try" statement in the king's edict that the people fast, put on sackcloth, and repent.

As for lying, it would seem that always in telling the truth there is an intent to deceive.

???

I don't understand that statement at all.

Here's what I believe... There are times when God, via his prophets, will present certain pieces of information as fact, when they are actually not facts. I think that in presenting them as facts, they get better reaction and prominence within the gospel, and as a result have a stronger impact. So God isn't misleading people or deceiving them, because ultimately the behaviour He's seeking is more likely to happen by presenting something as fact that isn't actually a fact. On that basis, you could say He and his prophets are not lying (they are not trying to deceive or mislead). But it could be argued that they are not giving the complete, correct information and sometimes it is technically incorrect.

That statement I understand, and I think it makes sense.

Thank you.

Being called a 'liar' is a hot word and is often used as an insult. So to call God, or a Prophet a Liar is always going to get pushback. Webster dictionary gives two definitions:

I didn't call God, or any prophet a liar.

...before you call me as a liar and condemn me to Hell based on your over active imagination and desire to shake thing up

I don't think annyone here called anyone a liar, or posted anything just to "stir things up."

The questions I ask here are questions I've asked myself.

Someone in our ward believes he received a prompting to "Prepair for life at BYU," and though he believes he did all he could to prepair, he ended up going to another college.

He believes the prompting "Prepair for life at BYU" actually prepaired him for mariage though, and that that was it's intent all along.

From what you've said (when you were actually sharing your thoughts on the question), that would seem possible, and I'm still interested in what other LDS think.

P.S. Regarding Saudi Arabia, isn't proselytizing Muslims punishable by death?

Couldn't LDS, JW's, Evangelical Christians, and Catholic and Orthodox Christians be executed if convicted of trying to convert Muslims?

Couldn't anyone who was born to Muslim parents be executed if they converted?

Couldn't any woman be flogged if she was reported seen driving an automoble?

Is there no conceivable situation in which the topic we're discussing here might be as relevant to a modern Saudi (or resident of mainland China, Noerth Korea, Iran, etc., etc.) as it was to Jan and Meip Geis about 70 years ago?

Edited October 14, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

I don't think annyone here called anyone a liar, or posted anything just to "stir things up."

That was in the material TSS was quoting. I would suggest that TSS go back and edit his post to indicate that he is quoting "The Traveler" from the website he linked to. Edited October 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It's odd that some people in this thread have said they won't speculate on lying like Danish Jews because they won't be in that situation. We're taught to decide our moral principles before we're presented with the situation. I decided as a teenager that I'd say no to drugs, without having been offered any. I've never been offered any and based on the circles I move in, may never be offered any. I'm still going to say no though, having considered the hypothetical situation.

One can certainly decide ahead of time how one is going to react, but does one know for certain that one will react that way? Peter assured Christ he would never deny him and yet in the moment, his weakness overcame him and he did it three times....and who had better warning he would confront such a situation than he had?

[canard78]

FYI regarding Saudi Arabia and the Church.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/1684-lds-church-saudi-arabia.html

There is some question about the LDS religion being legal in Saudi Arabia. I contacted a friend still in Saudi Arabia and the following is what I was told about the current status as of today.

The legal status of the LDS church is some what “under the table”. Although the LDS church is a legal religion in Saudi Arabia it does not enjoy the same status as the Moslem faith. As pointed out by Curvette that to convert from the Moslem faith one can be punished by death. Following are some of the things the LDS faith is able to do:

1. Hold public meeting without supervision. 12 years ago the maximum number allowed at a meeting was 35, currently the number is unlimited.

2. Teach members of your own household or relatives that are not LDS and convert them to the LDS faith. This is assuming that they are not Moslem. This has also been relaxed recently and LDS are allowed to teach and convert foreign visitors that are not Moslem.

3. Collect tithing and other offerings and export the money from Saudi Arabia

4. Bring LDS leaders to Saudi Arabia for the sole purpose of meeting with other LDS members - for events like stake conference.

5. Perform Baptisms to those that request to be LDS (but are not Moslem)

6. Build an official stake center (building for only that purpose) on the east cost on property within the RAMCO (joint USA Saudi oil corporation) compound. There are 5 wards in Saudi Arabia. One in Juddah, one in Riyad and 3 on the east cost. In addition there are several branches - all on the east cost.

7. Give blessings to LDS members in Saudi hospitals.

LDS are not allowed to do the following:

1. Pass out LDS publications or other printed material to Moslems

2. Answer questions that an Moslem ask about the LDS faith. This has been relaxed and LDS are allowed to answer questions that can be answered with a “Yes” or “No”. The standard answer is to say “I did not come to Saudi Arabia to answer any questions about my religion.” I do know from my Arabic friends that it is not uncommon for them to visit LDS web sites to get information but they are very scared about posting anything themselves. Also it is a violation of their faith to copy anything where G-d is spelled out - which is one reason I don’t.

3. Build any religious buildings on Saudi soil - the exception is the Stake Center on REMCO property.

Some other points of interest: There is also a Stake in the United Arab Emirates with 12 unites (stakes and branches). These are listed in the global locator at the official LDS web site. UAE is much more liberal with the LDS legal status than Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s are very aware and curious about the LDS in particular that we do not use any statues, pictures or crosses as part of our worship services or displayed to identify where we worship (one reason that the LDS faith is legal). Our welfare and relief programs. That for our number of members we will have over 60,000 missionaries most of which are 19 years old. That we do not feel connected to the Catholic or Protestant Churches and that we believe in a living prophet.

The LDS church leadership has agreed not to make active efforts to convert any Moslems world wide. The agreement is that if a Moslem request membership while then are not in a Moslem country (like Saudi Arabia) we can baptize them.

Because the legal status is sort of under the table I cannot prove any of the above information but before you call me as a liar and condemn me to Hell based on your over active imagination and desire to shake thing up; I suggest you talk to an active LDS member that has been to Saudi Arabia within the last 10 years.

The Traveler

I wasn't about to call anyone a liar. The friend was there last year and is active. Maybe I got the wrong impression about legality, but they certainly had to keep inconspicuous, I think also for safety. I agree that the parralells between Islam and Mormonism are pretty interesting.

There are similar no active/passive proselyting rules in China, but we don't have to be as secretive about what we do.

For the sake of the discussion... If you were in a country where worship were illegal, would you worship in secret anyway and lie about it if needed?

[canard78]

That was in the material TSS was quoting. I would suggest that TSS go back and edit his post to indicate that he is quoting "The Traveler" from the website he linked to.

Ahah, thanks for clarifying, I had wondered

[treeface]

I don't have a good definition of "lying" to propose, but here is something that might be worth taking into account:

Apparently God uses somewhat misleading wording at times in order to produce a desired effect. We see evidence of this in the 19th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, where God says that he uses the words "endless" and "eternal" when describing punishments essentially for the strong effect that such wording produces, but then we find out that the truth of the matter is a bit different from what we'd naturally conclude from that wording.

The first five verses are God talking about the punishments that will befall the wicked. We pick up the narrative in verse 6:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

"Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

"Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

[canard78]

I don't have a good definition of "lying" to propose, but here is something that might be worth taking into account:

Apparently God uses somewhat misleading wording at times in order to produce a desired effect. We see evidence of this in the 19th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, where God says that he uses the words "endless" and "eternal" when describing punishments essentially for the strong effect that such wording produces, but then we find out that the truth of the matter is a bit different from what we'd naturally conclude from that wording.

The first five verses are God talking about the punishments that will befall the wicked. We pick up the narrative in verse 6:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

"Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

"Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

I love this example. This is exactly my perpective. God will sometimes use this as a device to trigger the desired outcome.

I don't call this 'lying' as I don't think anyone has mislead... In fact they have been very well lead.

[canard78]

I don't have a good definition of "lying" to propose, but here is something that might be worth taking into account:

Apparently God uses somewhat misleading wording at times in order to produce a desired effect. We see evidence of this in the 19th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, where God says that he uses the words "endless" and "eternal" when describing punishments essentially for the strong effect that such wording produces, but then we find out that the truth of the matter is a bit different from what we'd naturally conclude from that wording.

The first five verses are God talking about the punishments that will befall the wicked. We pick up the narrative in verse 6:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

"Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

"Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

I love this example. This is exactly my perpective. God will sometimes use this as a device to trigger the desired outcome.

I don't call this 'lying' as I don't think anyone has mislead... In fact they have been very well lead.

[inquiringmind]

I love this example. This is exactly my perpective. God will sometimes use this as a device to trigger the desired outcome.

I don't call this 'lying' as I don't think anyone has mislead... In fact they have been very well lead.

Thank you.

Edited October 14, 2012 by inquiringmind

[treeface]

I don't call this 'lying' as I don't think anyone has mislead... In fact they have been very well lead.

Well said!

[thesometimesaint]

That was in the material TSS was quoting. I would suggest that TSS go back and edit his post to indicate that he is quoting "The Traveler" from the website he linked to.

It's already here at the bottom of the page.

I wasn't about to call anyone a liar. The friend was there last year and is active. Maybe I got the wrong impression about legality, but they certainly had to keep inconspicuous, I think also for safety. I agree that the parralells between Islam and Mormonism are pretty interesting.

There are similar no active/passive proselyting rules in China, but we don't have to be as secretive about what we do.

For the sake of the discussion... If you were in a country where worship were illegal, would you worship in secret anyway and lie about it if needed?

I never said you were.

[thesometimesaint]

That was in the material TSS was quoting. I would suggest that TSS go back and edit his post to indicate that he is quoting "The Traveler" from the website he linked to.

The quote is attributed to the Traveler at the bottom of the page.

Edited October 14, 2012 by thesometimesaint