Lying

[canard78]

I never said you were.

No harm done, I'd not realised you were quoting The Traveller.

[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.

And how do we reconcile this with passages like the following?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor is the son of man, that he should repent. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill. (Numbers 23:19.)

Was it lying to tell the People of Nineveh that the city would be destroyed in forty days when God knew (that if given that message) they'd repent, and the city would be spared another hundred years?

Was it lying to tell the early latter day saints they would build a temple in Independence Mo, in their generation, when God knew they'd be hindered by their enemies, and he's release them from the obligation?

Was it lying to tell Hezekiah he wouldn't recover from his illness when God knew that because of some change in Hezekiah's attitude, He would add another fifteen years to his life?

I'm not suggesting that any of these things were lies, but I'm trying to understand why they weren't.

Here are two other examples.

And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria. And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, LORD, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel. (2 Kings 6:18-23.)

For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life. (2 Kings 7:6-7.)

Why were these apparent deceptions not lies, and if Balaam's words in Numbers 223:19 were inspired, how do they squar with them?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Jude2]

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

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?

All blessings are predicated upon obedience, right!

I know David Patten is a Mormon hero of sorts but;

“…the land of Zion shall not be obtained …. by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you..” D&C 63

He shouldn’t have been leading that militia into battle but trying to negotiate the release of his fellow Mormons without violence.

[inquiringmind]

All blessings are predicated upon obedience, right!

I know David Patten is a Mormon hero of sorts but;

“…the land of Zion shall not be obtained …. by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you..” D&C 63

He shouldn’t have been leading that militia into battle but trying to negotiate the release of his fellow Mormons without violence.

David Patten I have taken unto myself; behold, his priesthood no man taketh from him; but, verily I say unto you, another may be appointed unto the same calling. (D&C 124;30.)

[inquiringmind]

Any thoughts on this?

Lying About Polygamy During the Nauvoo Era

The “lying” about polygamy that occurred in the Nauvoo period is partly related to this same civil disobedience. A real-life example is helpful. Suppose a Church member is living in Holland in the 1940s. Established laws command the deportation of all Jews to a grisly fate. A Church member might (as many brave Dutch did) decide that such a law has no moral force–indeed, it would be immoral to obey it. The Church member might further decide that he is morally bound to hide a family of Jews in his attic. One day, an SS team arrives, knocks at the door, and demands to know if the Church member knows of the whereabouts of any Jews.

The member has several choices:

1. he can decide that “honesty” is the highest moral value, and reveal the location of his Jewish guests
   
2. he can refuse to answer the question, by remaining silent
   
3. he can declare that he is not willing to comply with the request, and will not answer the question
   
4. he can lie to the German SS, and may also have to lie to his friends and neighbors to keep them from revealing the secret
   

Which is the correct moral choice? It is difficult to see how honesty can trump the lives of the Jews–so, option (1) is out. The SS officer is unlikely to go meekly on his way should one remain silent or verbally refuse to answer, so choosing either (2) or (3) will simply result in the Jews being found and the Church member and his family suffering the consequences of their disobedience to civil law. It seems to me that the most moral option–fulfilling the member’s duty to his Jewish guests, his conscience, and his family–requires that the member lie to the SS.

Remember, someone who opts for civil disobedience must accept the risk of punishment. The Dutch who were caught harboring Jews suffered greatly for their integrity–but, they apparently considered the risk of that suffering to be worth retaining that integrity. One cannot complain if one’s deception of the civil authorities is found out and punished–that is the price of civil disobedience on moral grounds. But, one is not morally obligated to participate in the prosecution of oneself or others for breaking laws one considers immoral.

An analogy to modern Church practice may illustrate some of the difficulties. Let us presume that current members of the Church have made covenants in the temple–but, not only do they covenant not to disclose certain concepts, but they promise not to disclose even the existence of the temple endowment itself. What would a Church member do if confronted publicly by an apostate with questions about matters they have promised to keep secret? Silence or a decision to “plead the Fifth” will simply play into their enemies’ hands by effectively confirming the story that the member will not deny. They cannot remain true to their covenants if they answer in the affirmative; to deny what the apostate is saying is to be deceptive.

It was in exactly this position that some Nauvoo-era members of the Church were placed. They had no ideal choices, and so did their best to follow God despite circumstances beyond their control.

Didn’t Joseph Deceive Church Members?

Some are quick to point out that Joseph Smith didn’t just lie to the government or to non-members, but also deceived members of the Church. This objection ignores, of course, the point that to make the announcement publicly to the Church is the same as telling everyone.

The accusation also omits some vital information. Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph’s murder.

Wouldn’t it be better to simply keep quiet about polygamy if Joseph was just a libidinous leader? Joseph persisted, however, in trying to introduce others to “the Principle.” He did make some efforts to teach plural marriage publicly–he seemed willing to accept the risk from non-members if the Church would support him. Heber C. Kimball wrote, in 1882:

On a certain Sabbath morning, previous to the return of the Apostles from Europe, in 1841, [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.

A contemporary journal describes the reaction:

When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.”

Robinson feels that this reaction was not unexpected; yet, Joseph tried anyway. Note that Joseph does not come back in the afternoon and deny the doctrine; he merely withdraws it from public consideration. Upon the return of the Twelve, he would begin teaching it to them. Heber also recounted the negative reaction of Emma and others:

He spoke so plainly that his wife, Emma, as well as others were quite excited over it. Seeing the effect his sermon had upon them, he consoled them in the afternoon by saying that the time of which he had spoken might be further off than he anticipated.

George A. Smith alluded to the same or a similar episode based upon records of those present:

The Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preaching about everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it produced such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter. While he was thus preaching he turned to the men sitting in the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him up, for instance, to our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and father Cowles, and a number of other individuals about Nauvoo, for this occurred when the Twelve were in the Eastern portions of the United States, and said, “If I were to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to reveal to this people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these men would spill my blood.”

Joseph considered the doctrine essential for the Church,and it would seem that he offered the Church members at least one public opportunity to hear about plural marriage, but they refused it. So, Joseph continued to teach the doctrine, but in private. Are other more faithful members to be forbidden knowledge which some refused to receive?

In the last years of his life, Joseph repeatedly bemoaned the fact that all the members would not accept that which he wanted to teach. He warned, from Liberty Jail in 1839, “where is the man who is authorized to put his finger on the spot and say, thus far thou shalt go and no farther: there is no man. Therefore let us receive the whole, or none.”Wilford Woodruff quoted Joseph in 1841:

“Some say Joseph is a fallen Prophet because he does not bring forth more of the word of the Lord,” he acknowledged in a December 1841 meeting with the Twelve. “Why does he not?” he then asked. “Are we able to receive it? No (says he) not one in this room.”

Joseph noted in 1843 that “many seal up the door of heaven by saying so far God may reveal and I will believe but no further.”

These factors add a new moral wrinkle to the issue: what is a prophet to do if the majority of people are not yet ready to accept a teaching? Should he announce it publicly anyway, risking the wrath of violent opponents who will seek to prevent him from teaching anything at all? Should he teach nothing, and allow the less-faithful to decide that the more-faithful may not enjoy revelation from God? Or, should he opt for Joseph’s approach–keep the doctrine private, and introduce it as people will accept it?

Critics who refuse to believe in modern prophets will find such a question pointless. But, if we give Joseph the benefit of the doubt before condemning him, this is an issue which we must confront.

As George A. Smith indicated, it is a problem with no neat, pat solution. Of the Kirtland Temple period, which he then applied by analogy to apostate William Law and polygamy, Smith said:

If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle further than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it… He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey.

Secrecy, Polygamy, and Threats of Violence against the Saints

One prominent source on Mormon polygamy indicates that secrecy was the only feasible tactic for establishing polygamy in the nineteenth-century American west. Richard Van Wagoner notes both the illegality of polygamous marriage and the social opposition to it:

Polygamy, a criminal act under the 1833 Illinois Anti-bigamy Laws, was so unacceptable to monogamous nineteenth-century American society that Joseph could introduce it only in absolute secrecy.

The civil disobedience perspective is again important, but the extreme taboo of polygamy to Joseph’s contemporaries–understandable given the Victorian sensibilities of nineteenth-century America–points to another difficulty which we have not yet considered.

Emma Smith (no fan of polygamy) insisted that Joseph and Hyrum’s murder was due to polygamy.Even so, Emma’s assertion must be taken with a grain of salt–her opposition to polygamy later led her to deny that her husband had ever practiced it at all, which makes it difficult for plural marriage to have been the cause of his murder, as she initially claimed.Yet, there can be no doubt that Joseph knew that he risked his life–and lives of his followers–in preaching or practicing polygamy. Sarah M. Kimball recalled Joseph’s attitude in 1842:

“He [Joseph] said in teaching this [polygamy] he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with a blessing, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment as the Church could travel (progress) no farther without the introduction of this principle.”

Louisa Beaman likewise reported that Joseph said, “In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands, therefore do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies.”Jane Richards recalled that Joseph’s revelation on plural marriage “should [be]…without publicity at this time,” since “mob spirit was already quite excited.”

Polygamy certainly did not cause all the persecution which the Saints endured at Nauvoo. As Wilford Woodruff noted, they had suffered persecution before polygamy was an issue at all:

“Why,” says the world, “you profess to believe in polygamy, and that is why you are persecuted.” No, you are mistaken about that. The worst persecution this Church ever endured was before polygamy was revealed to the Church. We have had more prosperity since we carried out that law, and endeavored to fulfill it according to the command of God, than we ever had as a people before.

This was not mere wishful thinking on Wilford Woodruff’s part. In 1877, J.H. Beadle, participant in the publication of much anti-Mormon material during the Utah period,wrote:

the Mormons had more trouble with the world before they adopted polygamy than since…Polygamy will do for a scapegoat, but the trouble is far more radical than that.

Despite this, polygamy did certainly help set off the powder-keg that was Nauvoo. When Hyrum Smith read the revelation on plural marriage to the Nauvoo stake presidency and high council, William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Sobey refused to support it.William Law, his brother Wilson, and others used the Nauvoo Expositor issue of 7 June 1844 to detail Joseph’s polygamous practices, and to charge him with various crimes, labeling him a “blood thirsty and murderous…demon…in human shape”and “a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history… one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.”

The Nauvoo city council’s decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day,worsened a tense situation, and led directly to Joseph’s surrender, incarceration, and murder.Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been:

In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.

It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy–or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy–was simply not a feasible plan. There is a moral obligation to avoid death and suffering, and Joseph’s decision to hide polygamy from the public likely avoided precipitating violence that would have claimed some of his followers and the non-members in Illinois.

Lying and Biblical Prophets

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 Abrahamand Isaac,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.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.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. 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.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.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.

Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses’ life despite the plagues and signs.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. 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.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/smith-gregory/polygamy-prophets-and-prevarication#head08

I'm most interested in in the section on "Lying and Biblical Prophets" (and the whole "three days journey" thing.).

Is it fair to say that God told Moses to mislead Pharaoh about what they really wanted from him?

And if so, can this be reconciled with Numbers 23:19?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[wenglund]

How one choses to define a word, or rather what meaning one choses to assign to a word, may have a lot to do with one's intent behind using the word. If one's intent is to gain understanding and progress in faith, then one may assign one meaning, whereas if one's intent is cast aspersions and diminish faith, then one may assign another meaning. Language is fluid enough to accommodate a variety of intents and chosen meanings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[inquiringmind]

How one choses to define a word, or rather what meaning one choses to assign to a word, may have a lot to do with one's intent behind using the word. If one's intent is to gain understanding and progress in faith, then one may assign one meaning, whereas if one's intent is cast aspersions and diminish faith, then one may assign another meaning. Language is fluid enough to accommodate a variety of intents and chosen meanings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So is this (from and LDS web site) a fair commentary on the early chapters of Exodus (and does it say anything about how God defines a "lie")?

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 Abrahamand Isaac,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.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.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. 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.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.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.

Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses’ life despite the plagues and signs.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. 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.

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

Does this say anything about how God defines lying?

And how can this definition be reconciled with Numbers 23:19?

And is this (from the same article) at all relevant to how we should define lying?

Suppose a Church member is living in Holland in the 1940s. Established laws command the deportation of all Jews to a grisly fate. A Church member might (as many brave Dutch did) decide that such a law has no moral force–indeed, it would be immoral to obey it. The Church member might further decide that he is morally bound to hide a family of Jews in his attic. One day, an SS team arrives, knocks at the door, and demands to know if the Church member knows of the whereabouts of any Jews.

The member has several choices:

• he can decide that “honesty” is the highest moral value, and reveal the location of his Jewish guests
  
• he can refuse to answer the question, by remaining silent
  
• he can declare that he is not willing to comply with the request, and will not answer the question
  
• he can lie to the German SS, and may also have to lie to his friends and neighbors to keep them from revealing the secret
  

Which is the correct moral choice? It is difficult to see how honesty can trump the lives of the Jews–so, option (1) is out. The SS officer is unlikely to go meekly on his way should one remain silent or verbally refuse to answer, so choosing either (2) or (3) will simply result in the Jews being found and the Church member and his family suffering the consequences of their disobedience to civil law. It seems to me that the most moral option–fulfilling the member’s duty to his Jewish guests, his conscience, and his family–requires that the member lie to the SS.

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

Would misinforming the SS really be "lying"?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Jude2]

David Patten I have taken unto myself; behold, his priesthood no man taketh from him; but, verily I say unto you, another may be appointed unto the same calling. (D&C 124;30.)

Yes he was acting in defense of others and gave his life willingly, the Lord accepted his sacrifice.

On the other hand a person can receive a blessing that he will grow up to get married and have many children but if he acts foolishly and drives 100 miles per hour into a tree the blessing is null and void.

[inquiringmind]

Yes he was acting in defense of others and gave his life willingly, the Lord accepted his sacrifice.

On the other hand a person can receive a blessing that he will grow up to get married and have many children but if he acts foolishly and drives 100 miles per hour into a tree the blessing is null and void.

So could God have told him to pay off his debts, and get his affairs in order, because He knew he'd be killed that fall, even while suggesting it would free him to serve a mission the following spring (because the prospect of serving a mission wouldn't darken the time he had left with his family the way an announcement of his impending death might have), or would that have been lying?

And how do you understand Numbers 23:19?

[Damien the Leper]

I lie ALL the time. Usually when I'm at home and sleepy. I lie on my back, on my side, face down. Lying is fun and can be very comfortable.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 was raised that the other part of that scripture...(or the next) "we shall be known as we are known", meant that in heaven we will not know our families. Sad face is for those who misunderstand this...God's first "institution"; Marriage. His first command to the newly married couple...children, family. Too what...destroy it all at death!

[Ahab]

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

No, althought some people are very adept at twisting the truth to make it seem as if he does, or might.

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)?

No, there was no lie involved in any of that... assuming that is a correct account of history and God actually told Moses to ask Pharoah for that. If Pharoah had given his permission, then the Hebrew slaves would have already been out of town to make getting them free that much easier, probably without the people of Egypt having to go through a lot of the trouble they had to go through while God was in the process of setting is people free.

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)?

No, there was no lie involved in any of that, either. God knew what he had in mind as what he meant when he told Jonah to tell those people what he told him to say, and there was no lie in what he actually meant.

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)?

No, and he actually did go on a mission the following spring, somewhere, even if you don't know where he went to proclaim the gospel.

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

No, the same reasons. It's always a good idea to have your affairs in order, and I suggest you do the same now.

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

Different people define it in different ways, and yes it does make a difference in how we see things.

[inquiringmind]

Different people define it in different ways, and yes it does make a difference in how we see things.

And I'm trying to figure out how we should define it.

If you define a lie as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, how can you say the following?

No, there was no lie involved in any of that... assuming that is a correct account of history and God actually told Moses to ask Pharoah for that. If Pharoah had given his permission, then the Hebrew slaves would have already been out of town to make getting them free that much easier, probably without the people of Egypt having to go through a lot of the trouble they had to go through while God was in the process of setting is people free.

If the slaves were freed while out of town, they wouldn't be coming back, would they?

And if the purpose of getting out of town was to make it easier to free them, the purpose was never to go on a three day journey into the wilderness so they could have some kind of private religious celebration.

If you define lying as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, this whole thing would be a lie.

And if you define lying as the making of any statement that's known to be factually untrue, how can you say this?

No, there was no lie involved in any of that, either. God knew what he had in mind as what he meant when he told Jonah to tell those people what he told him to say, and there was no lie in what he actually meant.

It was factually untrue to say the city would be destroyed in 40 days when it would last another century.

And if you define lying as either as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, or as the making of any statement that's known to be factually untrue, both the God-fearing Egyptian midwives who told Pharaoh that the Hebrew women gave birth before the got there, and the Danes who sheltered Jews during the Nazi occupation lied.

How do you define lying?

Did you read and understand what the LDS apologists at FAIR said here?

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

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

Were you speaking of them when you said that some people were adept at twisting the truth to make it seem as though God does, or might lie?

I haven't said that God lies (and I don't think they did either.)

I've merely asked if we could define lying precisely enough to exclude the kinds of examples given above, and how we can reconcile any refined definition with passages like Numbers 23:19.

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

No, and he actually did go on a mission the following spring, somewhere, even if you don't know where he went to proclaim the gospel.

But in D&C 114 he was told to get his affairs in order so he could go on a mission to "the world" as one of the twelve, and (with someone chosen to replace him) the twelve did go on a mission to the world the following spring.

And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fulness thereof, and bear record of my name. Let them take leave of my saints in the city of Far West, on the 26th day of April next, on the building-spot of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 118:4-5.)

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Ahab]

And I'm trying to figure out how we should define it.

Okay. Good luck with that.

If you define a lie as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, how can you say the following?

Easily, and without saying anything which I consider to be telling a lie.

If the slaves were freed while out of town, they wouldn't be coming back, would they?

No, but the Pharoah's permission to take a 3 day trip out of town doesn't necessarily mean he was ready to let them go free, totally, and I'm guessing he would have probably had them under relatively close supervision while he allowed them to go out of town.

And if the purpose of getting out of town was to make it easier to free them, the purpose was never to go on a three day journey into the wilderness so they could have some kind of private religious celebration.

You're jumping from thought to thought as if you've got this all figured out, but you might like to consider the idea that you're not thinking about everything. And the point is to determine whether or not a lie was involved. What is a lie, to your mind? Would you mind if I didn't agree with your definition?

If you define lying as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, this whole thing would be a lie.

If. If I were you I'd focus on understanding what I actually mean, and then determining if what I mean is or isn't true.

At the foundation, I consider a lie to be when I mean to say something which is not true, and not necessarily something someone else might think I mean. If they didn't correctly understand me, it may be because I didn't make use the best words possible to convey my meaning as clear as I could have, but it could also be that I made my words as clear as I knew how to at that time and that person just misunderstood me. I don't consider it to be my fault if they think I deceived them, or misled them, by not correctly understanding what I meant.

And if you define lying as the making of any statement that's known to be factually untrue, how can you say this?

All that I say, I consider to be true. You may choose to call it a lie, but I won't, because it is what I consider to be true.

It was factually untrue to say the city would be destroyed in 40 days when it would last another century.

Read the full account of what actually happened, and then try to understand what our Lord had in mind when he told Jonah to say what Jonah said.... assuming for a moment that what Jonah wrote down in his book is a true account of history including what God told him to say.

And if you define lying as either as any kind of deception or misrepresentation, or as the making of any statement that's known to be factually untrue, both the God-fearing Egyptian midwives who told Pharaoh that the Hebrew women gave birth before the got there, and the Danes who sheltered Jews during the Nazi occupation lied.

I'm not sure about what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure none of that has anything to do with whether or not God told a lie.

]How do you define lying?

I've already answered this question.

Did you read and understand what the LDS apologists at FAIR said here?

"the" LDS aplogists at FAIR? As if that was what all of them said? Are you sure you understood them? Could you be wrong?

Were you speaking of them when you said that some people were adept at twisting the truth to make it seem as though God does, or might lie?

I was speaking generally without pointing my finger at anyone specifically.

I haven't said that God lies (and I don't think they did either.)

You seem to be presenting a case that he might, though. Are you going to pursue that, or are you instead going to help others to understand that God (our Eternal Father) would never say something which is not true.

I've merely asked if we could define lying precisely enough to exclude the kinds of examples given above, and how we can reconcile any refined definition with passages like Numbers 23:19.

I think I've said as much, but you can continue to wrestle with the words I've chosen to use if you really want to.

[Ahab]

But in D&C 114 he was told to get his affairs in order so he could go on a mission to "the world" as one of the twelve, and (with someone chosen to replace him) the twelve did go on a mission to the world the following spring.

And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fulness thereof, and bear record of my name. Let them take leave of my saints in the city of Far West, on the 26th day of April next, on the building-spot of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 118:4-5.)

He didn't say he would go, though. He said he should get ready so that at that point he could.

He was killed later, though, so at that point he no longer could. But I think he could have if he had not been killed.

[inquiringmind]

He didn't say he would go, though. He said he should get ready so that at that point he could.

He was killed later, though, so at that point he no longer could. But I think he could have if he had not been killed.

Ahh.

So even if it was a little misleading, telling him to get ready at that point so that he could serve a mission the following spring (when he'd be beyond serving that particular mission here on earth) wasn't lying.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Why wasn't it lying?

Was it only because God "didn't say he would go"?

I seem to recall Him saying that a temple would be built in a particular place in a particular generation, and then saying "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their ^adiligence, and their enemies come upon them and ^bhinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to ^crequire that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will ^avisit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth ^bgeneration, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a ^ahouse unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God." (D&C 124:49-51.)

And I seem to recall Him saying (thru Jonah) that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days.

Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preachunto it the preaching that I bid thee. So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city of three days’ journey..And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. (Jonah 3:2-4.)

You seem to be presenting a case that he might, though. Are you going to pursue that, or are you instead going to help others to understand that God (our Eternal Father) would never say something which is not true.

I believe He sent Isaiah to Hezekiah to tell him he wasn't going to recover from his illness, and then after Hezekiah prayed, He sent Isaiah back to tell him He would add fifteen years to his life.

I believe God knew He would do this when He sent Isaiah the first time, and that what He told Isaiah to say that first time was factually untrue, but I don't believe it was a lie, so there must be more to this.

I believe He told Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh that their city would be destroyed in forty days, and that that was factually untrue, so again there must be more to lying than making factually untrue statements.

I believe He sent Nathan to David to tell him about the lonely man who raised one little sheep as a pet, and loved it like a daughter, only to have it stolen and butchered by a rich neighbor to cheep to cater to his guests at his own expense when the whole story was factually untrue, and designed to lead David to the deeper truth of his own guilt.

So again, there has to be more to this than your over simplifications.

And I again ask you how you would define lying?

If you were living in Nazi occupied Europe, and you knew where Ann Frank and her family were hiding, is it inconceivable to you that God would prompt you to misinform the SS (and would you and He be lying if He did)?????

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Ahab]

Ahh.

So even if it was a little misleading, telling him to get ready at that point so that he could serve a mission the following spring (when he'd be beyond serving that particular mission here on earth) wasn't lying.

What he said was not misleading. That's the main point you need to understand here. What he said was true. If he did prepare himself, he could have gone, then, as someone who our Lord sent to go do that. What happened later didn't alter the truth of our Lord's statement.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

I've laid it out for you as clearly as I know how to.

Why wasn't it lying?

Because what he said, based on what he meant, was true.

Was it only because God "didn't say he would go"?

No, it's true because it's true that he could have gone if he had prepared himself to go, at which point our Lord would have then sent him.

I seem to recall Him saying that a temple would be built in a particular place in a particular generation, and then saying "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their ^adiligence, and their enemies come upon them and ^bhinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to ^crequire that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will ^avisit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth ^bgeneration, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a ^ahouse unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God." (D&C 124:49-51.

Yep, and that's just as true today as that ever was.

I believe He sent Isaiah to Hezekiah to tell him he wasn't going to recover from his illness, and then after Hezekiah prayed, He sent Isaiah back to tell him He would add fifteen years to his life.

Uh huh. So what's your point?

I believe God knew He would do this when He sent Isaiah the first time, and that what He told Isaiah to say that first time was factually untrue, but I don't believe it was a lie, so there must be more to this.

Yes, and what's missing is you not considering the sequence of events and what our Lord meant when he said what he said.

At the time our Lord sent Isaiah to tell Hezekiah he wasn't going to recover from his illness, which I think meant the illness wouldn't automatically go away after running its natural course, it was true that Hezekiah was going to die, in those circumstances. And then Hezekiah prayed for our Lord's help to be cured from that illness, and Isaiah went and told him that the illness would be taken away and he would then live another 15 years. Do you see what happened now? Do you see how nothing our Lord said was a lie? Why would you ever think the Lord could be telling a lie? That should be the first clue that you are way off there, buddy bro. Get a grip on reality and realize who is at fault here with his whacked out way of looking at things.

I believe He told Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh that their city would be destroyed in forty days, and that that was factually untrue, so again there must be more to lying than making factually untrue statements.

No, that's about it. You just need to be careful not to think something is untrue just because you can't see how it is true.

I again ask you how you define lying?

Try asking God for help next time, and in all cases in the future. I'm not always going to be around to bail you out of your false ideas.

[wenglund]

So is this (from and LDS web site) a fair commentary on the early chapters of Exodus (and does it say anything about how God defines a "lie")?

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

Does this say anything about how God defines lying?

And how can this definition be reconciled with Numbers 23:19?

And is this (from the same article) at all relevant to how we should define lying?

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

Would misinforming the SS really be "lying"?

I will let the articles speak for themselves. The intent of my post wasn't to involve myself in semantic debates, but to suggest that the way one defines a word, and what words one choses to use, may be a reflection of one's ulterior motives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[inquiringmind]

P.S. I know many LDS serve in the military and in law enforcement.

Do their religious convictions preclude them from participating in undercover operations?

[inquiringmind]

Do you see how nothing our Lord said was a lie? Why would you ever think the Lord could be telling a lie?

Go back through this entire thread.

I never once said the Lord lied.

I asked how we should define the word.

If we define it simply as the making of a statement one knows to be factually untrue, it would be a lie to tell a king David that a rich man with hundreds of sheep stole his neighbors pet and served to to his guests when no such thing happened.

The whole purpose of the story seems to have been to elicit an emotional response from David, and to cause him to pronounce judgment on himself.

If it wasn't a lie, it's because God's ultimate intention wasn't to deceive David, but to get him to see a truth about himself (and to repent.)

But if making any statement that one knows to be factually untrue is a lie, Nathan lied.

And if God told him to say what he said (and making any statement that one knows to be factually untrue is a lie) God lied.

It would also be a sin for any LDS in the military, or law enforcement to participate in undercover operations.

So how do you define lying?

As a tentative definition, I offer the following.

Any false statement knowingly made with the intent to harm or to ultimately and permanently deceive.

Do you disagree with that definition?

Can you offer a better one?

Can you explain how it conflicts, or doesn't conflict with Numbers 23:19?

[inquiringmind]

I will let the articles speak for themselves. The intent of my post wasn't to involve myself in semantic debates, but to suggest that the way one defines a word, and what words one choses to use, may be a reflection of one's ulterior motives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sometimes semantics are important.

The entire point of this thread is semantic.

The question is how we should rightly define the word lying.

As for letting the article speak for itself, here is what it said.

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.

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

So if the Lord was "advocating some degree of deception" when He told Moses and the Israelite leaders to request permission to go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice, and He doesn't lie, how should we define lying?

How does God define it?

Again, as a tentative definition, I offer the following.

Any false statement knowingly made with the intent to harm or to ultimately and permanently deceive.

Do you disagree with that definition?

Can you offer a better one?

Can anyone offer any thoughts on why it conflicts, or doesn't conflict with Numbers 23:19?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alvino]

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)?

I don't personally think the issue is that clear-cut for believers even including an intent to deceive or do harm there. That God's ways are not your ways may mean that what God considers harm and what humans consider harm may be different in relevant ways. Also, it often seems like God may be willing to do harm to bring about a greater good so, does that justify lesser harms?

[inquiringmind]

I don't personally think the issue is that clear-cut for believers even including an intent to deceive or do harm there. That God's ways are not your ways may mean that what God considers harm and what humans consider harm may be different in relevant ways. Also, it often seems like God may be willing to do harm to bring about a greater good so, does that justify lesser harms?

So how would you define a "lie," and how do you understand passages like Numbers 23:19?

What would you think of this definition?

Any false statement knowingly made with the intent to ultimately and permanently harm or deceive..

Given this definition, do you see any conflict between God's dealings with man (Ex. 3; 2 Kings 6;7;20; Jonah, etc.) and what's said of Him in Numbers 23:19?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Ahab]

Go back through this entire thread.

I never once said the Lord lied.

I asked how we should define the word.

If we define it simply as the making of a statement one knows to be factually untrue, it would be a lie to tell a king David that a rich man with hundreds of sheep stole his neighbors pet and served to to his guests when no such thing happened.

The whole purpose of the story seems to have been to elicit an emotional response from David, and to cause him to pronounce judgment on himself.

If it wasn't a lie, it's because God's ultimate intention wasn't to deceive David, but to get him to see a truth about himself (and to repent.)

But if making any statement that one knows to be factually untrue is a lie, Nathan lied.

And if God told him to say what he said (and making any statement that one knows to be factually untrue is a lie) God lied.

It would also be a sin for any LDS in the military, or law enforcement to participate in undercover operations.

Okay, yes, I can see what you're saying now, but I was trying to show you those examples you used didn't include any untrue statements. You could always come up with a way to define a lie as something God did, though, if you define what a lie is by an action God made. If you define a lie as anything said by a person who is called a name beginning with the letter g/G, then you could say that everything God has said was a lie, but God would still be telling the truth even though you had that idea of what a lie is.

So how do you define lying?

Sheesh. I thought I gave you a pretty good definition before and I don't want to take the time to go find it now.

As a tentative definition, I offer the following.

Any false statement knowingly made with the intent to harm or to ultimately and permanently deceive.

Do you disagree with that definition?

Well, yeah, but only because I think that is ovelry liberal.

Can you offer a better one?

Better than that one? Yes, I think so. How about: Any idea any person has which isn't true. I believe a person can lie to himself, or herself, even without realizing it.

Can you explain how it conflicts, or doesn't conflict with Numbers 23:19?

Which part? First you need to correctly understand the idea Moses had in his mind when he originally wrote what has been translated, considering how you may be wrong in what you think he meant. In English it reads "God is not a man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should repent..." In saying that Moses wasn't denying or ignorant of his masculine gender, or the fact that he (also) had a Father which made him a Son to that Father. What he meant was that he's not the type of man that lies or needs to repent from sin. You don't have to take my word for that, though. Just ask God to help you understand the scriptures, including how to see the scriptures are true. You sounds like you need a tutor but rather than me you would be better served by having God help you, which he will usually do with the assistance of our Lord and the Holy Spirit.