Lying

[kenporay]

When the gestapo knocks on your door you have gone past the point at which you should have spoken, and past the point that you shoyld have acted. If all you feel you can do at that point is to passively answer a question, then perhaps it is time to go the way of the earth.

[inquiringmind]

Having reread some portions of exodus I see that you have drawn conclusions (more likely quoted someones else conclusions) which are not wholly supportable. I dont see where there was a plan to run away after a three day journey...my own conclusion, based upon the same evidence is that the request for time to journey and sacrifice was more likely a deminstration to help lower the ratings of egypt in the slaves.

Execution when performed by society for crime, is certainly not murder. One of my favorite examples of leadership is how geo washington handled a mutiny.

You quote bunches, though.

I'll quote Exodus 3 if you like.

And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites...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. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt; 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. (Exodus 3:3-8,16-18, Joseph Smith Translation.)

Here's what the apologists at FAIR said about these verses.

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.

You say

Having reread some portions of exodus I see that you have drawn conclusions (more likely quoted someones else conclusions) which are not wholly supportable.

Please substantiate that statement.

Show me how and why these conclusions are unsupportable!

When the gestapo knocks on your door you have gone past the point at which you should have spoken, and past the point that you shoyld have acted. If all you feel you can do at that point is to passively answer a question, then perhaps it is time to go the way of the earth.

Really?

Would that be you appraisal of Miep Gies, her husband, and the three other Danes who helped hide the Frank's in Nazi occupied Denmark?

(Should they have single handedly kept the Nazis from invading their country?)

Is that what you think of all those other Gentiles who misinformed and misdirected Nazi authorities when they came knocking at their doors in Nazi occupied Europe, and who are now memorialized in the hall of righteous gentiles in the Holocaust museum in Tel Avive?

Edited February 23, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Once again, since the FAIR article says this (Regarding Exodus 3:17-18)

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

And that clain is fully substantiated by the test in Exudos

And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites...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. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt; 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

Joseph Smith translation.

And i presume we'd all agree that God doesn't lie, is it safe to say that not all deception is lying?

Is it even possible that there might be some value in these observations?

ALMOST all authors, Catholic and Protestant, admit, that when a just cause is present, there is some kind or other of verbal misleading, which is not sin. Even silence is in certain cases virtually such a misleading, according to the Proverb, “Silence gives consent.” Again, silence is absolutely forbidden to a Catholic, as a mortal sin, under certain circumstances, e.g. to keep silence, when it is a duty to make a profession of faith.

Another mode of verbal misleading, and the most direct, is actually saying the thing that is not; and it is defended on the principle that such words are not a lie, when there is a “justa causa,” as killing is not murder in the case of an executioner.

Another ground of certain authors for saying that an untruth is not a lie where there is a just cause, is, that veracity is a kind of justice, and therefore, when we have no duty of justice to tell truth to another, it is no sin not to do so. Hence we may say the thing that is not, to children, to madmen, to men who ask impertinent questions, to those whom we hope to benefit by misleading.

http://the-american-...ion/#more-28580

Edited February 23, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

"Go ask the pharoh for permission to travel and makes sacrifices" and "tell the people i will free them" are two different statments that you have chosen to interrelate inro your conclusion that they form a deception.

I interrelate them to mean: 1) go ask pharoh for time off. And not necessarily connected to that follows: 2) go tell the people that I (God) shall free them.

Just as i could say " my brother had asthma. He died a few years ago." Both are true but are not related as cause & effect.

[inquiringmind]

"Go ask the pharoh for permission to travel and makes sacrifices" and "tell the people i will free them" are two different statments that you have chosen to interrelate inro your conclusion that they form a deception.

I interrelate them to mean: 1) go ask pharoh for time off. And not necessarily connected to that follows: 2) go tell the people that I (God) shall free them.

Just as i could say " my brother had asthma. He died a few years ago." Both are true but are not related as cause & effect.

So are you saying that God, or Moses, or Aaraon, or the Elders really wanted time off for Israel?

Do you think the game plan was a little time off first, and then go back and be slaves for awhile, and the I'll deliver you?

Is that really how you read Exodus?

[Jude2]

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?

I got this interpretation from Hopkins’ How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God

Hopkins says the passage assumes God is a man and it should read something like this;

‘God is not a mortal man, that lies; neither the son of Adam, that he needs to repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God promised Moses he would lead them to the promised land but Israel rebelled so he let them wander in the wilderness for 40 years, then he followed through with his promise.

Br. Maxwell said

"God knows the end from the beginning and all the possibilities in between"

We have agency and the freedom to choose which way we will go. If Patten and others had not made the bad decision to return violence with violence but let God fight their battles they would have found peace and Zion would have been built. As it is we have to wait until the Church or the bride of Christ prepares herself for her Groom.

[inquiringmind]

I got this interpretation from Hopkins’ How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God

Hopkins says the passage assumes God is a man and it should read something like this;

‘God is not a mortal man, that lies; neither the son of Adam, that he needs to repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God promised Moses he would lead them to the promised land but Israel rebelled so he let them wander in the wilderness for 40 years, then he followed through with his promise.

Br. Maxwell said

"God knows the end from the beginning and all the possibilities in between"

We have agency and the freedom to choose which way we will go. If Patten and others had not made the bad decision to return violence with violence but let God fight their battles they would have found peace and Zion would have been built. As it is we have to wait until the Church or the bride of Christ prepares herself for her Groom.

Interesting.

Thank you.

[kenporay]

I take it as "as for time to travel and perform sacrifices." Especially in light God's foreknowledge that egypt would decline the request and the opinion of egypt in the slaves minds would be even lower than it was.

Meanwhile, god promises to free them. And goes to great lengths to do so.

Two very distinct things.

So are you saying that God, or Moses, or Aaraon, or the Elders really wanted time off for Israel?

Do you think the game plan was a little time off first, and then go back and be slaves for awhile, and the I'll deliver you?

Is that really how you read Exodus?

[Alvino]

To knowingly state something that's factually untrue, with the ultimate purpose of deceiving (and/or doing harm.)

Example.

When Satan lies, his ultimate purpose is to deceive and do harm.

When God presumably altered the visual input into the brains of the horsemen and charioteers in 2 Kings 6, so Elisha could lead them into Samaria without their knowing where they were going, His ultimate purpose was to open their eyes, protect the prophet they were sent to arrest, prevent a war, give them a good meal, and send them back to their king with a story that would further the cause of true religion.

There was no malicious intent (and ultimately no intent to deceive.)

When David was led to believe that some rich man in his realm had stolen the pet lamb his poor neighbor loved, and served it to his guests to save himself the expense of serving one of his own lambs, the purpose was to get David to see the truth about himself.

The story was presumably an invention, factually untrue, but the ultimate intent wasn't to deceive, but to illuminate.

I find your definition improper because someone could state things they know are false about anything, like

telling your spouse you are not cheating on them if you know you are, just as long as you have the intention to tell them the truth at some point in the future and that wouldn't be a lie. That seems clearly off.

[inquiringmind]

I find your definition improper because someone could state things they know are false about anything, like

telling your spouse you are not cheating on them if you know you are, just as long as you have the intention to tell them the truth at some point in the future and that wouldn't be a lie. That seems clearly off.

And if you knew your spouse had a loaded gun in the house, and would be inclined to use it on herself or you if you told her (right now, tonite, while she's asking you) that you had cheated on her, would it seem :"clearly off" to deny any infidelity until you got the gun out of the house, and she was in a better frame of mind?

If lying is, by definition, a sin.

If it is, by definition, morally wrong.

Would you consider it lying to temporarily deceive your spouse about your infidelity (in order to prevent her from harming herself, or taking a human life)?

For those of us who believe in scripture, lying is, by definition, a sin (i.e. morally wrong.)

That's why "God cannot lie."

That's why God commands His children not to lie.

Yet He seems to approve of some of His children making false statements sometimes.

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 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. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 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? 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. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. (Exodus 1:15-21.)

And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof. And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate...Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall. And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way. .(Joshua 2:3-7, 15-16.)

...was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (James 2:25.)

And God Himself instructs Moses to ask Pharaoh to give the Hebrew slaves permission to go three days journey into the wilderness to do sacrifice, after telling Him He's to be the instrument of delivering these slaves from bondage and bringing them to a land it would take them over a month to get to (if they hadn't had to wander for forty years.)

And this had led some to say

So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception.

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

And even if all this data is irrelevant to you (because you don't believe in God or scripture), most moralists consider lying wrong, and yet would not consider it wrong to make false or misleading statements to the Gestapo about the whereabouts of Jews in hiding.

So can you offer some definition of lying that would exclude making false statements about your fidelity to a spouse who was in immediate danger of harming herself, making false statements to a dictator who demanded you assist in the murder of innocent children, making false statements to military or police officials in search of spies (or Jews in hiding), and asking for permission to do something when what you really wanted was something else entirely?

My tentative definition of lying is: To knowingly make false statements with the primary and ultimate intent to deceive and/or harm.

By that definition, I think we could say that lying is always wrong, and that all of the examples above are excluded.

Can you offer a better definition?

Edited February 24, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

I take it as "as for time to travel and perform sacrifices." Especially in light God's foreknowledge that egypt would decline the request and the opinion of egypt in the slaves minds would be even lower than it was.

Meanwhile, god promises to free them. And goes to great lengths to do so.

Two very distinct things.

Especially in light of God's foreknowledge that Egypt would decline the request, and His stated purpose of delivering the slaves and leading them to a homeland of their own over a month's journey from Egypt, there could have been no real intention of gaining permission to travel only three days to do sacrifice.

And if the purpose of the request was to lower the slave's opinion of Egypt or it's king, the purpose of the request wasn't to gain the permission asked for.

The purpose of the request was other than what was stated.

In fact (by your own assessment) the purpose of the request was for it to be denied, so "the opinion of egypt in the slaves minds would be even lower than it was," while God went "to great length" to permanently free Israel from slavery.

So, as the apologists at FAIR 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

I fail to see how you can claim that that conclusion is unsupported by the text in Exodus.

Edited February 24, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

Questions are not statments therefore they cannot be lies as they solicit information not supply it. Ergo your analysis of the hebrews asking for vacation time is faulty.

When you pose hypothetical questions constructed for the sole purpose of creating conditions where a lie might sound like a good thing, you then reinforce the probability of an affirmitive answer by asking whether it would be beneficial to lie or not. You purposely ignore the underlyingg conditions which cause the real anwer to be action, not words. Therefore I have to classify your examples as "logical illusions." They are wholly fit for a young persons philo 101 class but not sufficient to guide an old man's real life actions.

[Alvino]

And if you knew your spouse had a loaded gun in the house, and would be inclined to use it on herself or you if you told her (right now, tonite, while she's asking you) that you had cheated on her, would it seem :"clearly off" to deny any infidelity until you got the gun out of the house, and she was in a better frame of mind?

What I did say was "clearly off" was your definition. If we change the scenario what we should do might change but my objection is still on the table. According to your definition, it appears that if I cheat on my wife and tell her I'm not when I know I am so that I can deceive her, as long as I have the intent to tell her at some point in the future (note I don't even need to get to tell her, I just have to intend to tell her), then I'm not lying. That is what is clearly off and it shows to me your definition is flawed.

If lying is, by definition, a sin.

If it is, by definition, morally wrong.

Would you consider it lying to temporarily deceive your spouse about your infidelity (in order to prevent her from harming herself, or taking a human life)?

No, but that it is a sin or morally wrong is not in your definition, nor does this answer the question that I raised.

And even if all this data is irrelevant to you (because you don't believe in God or scripture), most moralists consider lying wrong, and yet would not consider it wrong to make false or misleading statements to the Gestapo about the whereabouts of Jews in hiding.

Right, because my tentative definition is not that of "moralists" and neither is yours.

I'm not sure if you are really doing this but it seems you are saying that, since God is perfectly moral and to lie is immoral, God doesn't lie. That would be the biggest case of question begging if I ever saw one.

My tentative definition of lying is: To knowingly make false statements with the primary and ultimate intent to deceive and/or harm.

By that definition, I think we could say that lying is always wrong, and that all of the examples above are excluded.

You could define something so that whatever is denoted by it will be actually immoral, but that doesn't show to me what you defined was lying.

Again, under your definition I could tell my wife I'm not cheating on her when I know I am so that I can deceive her into thinking that I am not, and that wouldn't count as lying as long as I intend to tell her the truth about it at some point in the future. That doing this isn't covered as a lie in your (still unclear) definition is a clear problem and shows me that definition is incorrect.

Can you offer a better definition?

Not at the moment. Still, I would appreciate if you would actually address my criticism of your definition.

[inquiringmind]

Questions are not statments therefore they cannot be lies as they solicit information not supply it. Ergo your analysis of the hebrews asking for vacation time is faulty...

I'm still not clear on how you define lying, but if it requires positive statements, it can't include all deception.

Wouldn't it be deceptive if you came to me and asked "could you loan me a hundred dollars?," and I said "yes" and gave you the money, and you walked away with no intent of ever paying me back?

But if, as you say

Questions are not statements therefore they cannot be lies

You wouldn't be lying.

Maybe you're right (maybe it would just be some other sin), but than it is possible to be deceptive without lying, and I still don't know how you define lying.

My own, tentative definition was any false statement, knowingly made, with the primary and ultimate intent of deceiving and/or doing harm.

Maybe it would be better defined as any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself.

Under that definition God could send Nathan to temporarily deceive David into thinking one of his subjects had heartlessly slain his neighbor's pet to provide food for some unexpected guests, thereby tricking him into condemning himself (before the whole thing was revealed to be a parable, and he was declared the guilty party) without lying.

The Egyptian midwives could tell Pharaoh's officials they were doing the best they could to murder all the Hebrew children at birth, but the Hebrew women were just so strong that they kept giving birth without their help, without lying.

Rahab could tell the king's officials the Hebrew spies had already left, when she had them hidden on the roof, without lying.

Danes could hide Jews in Nazi occupied Denmark, and lie to Nazi officials about knowing their whereabouts without lying.

And God could so confuse the senses of the army sent to arrest Elisha, that he could go out to meet them, tell them they were headed the wrong way, and have them follow him until they were surrounded by the enemy's army, without having any idea where they were going, without lying.

But you would be guilty of lying (under this definition) if you asked a ward member, a neighbor, or anyone to loan you a hundred dollars you had no intention of repaying (unless you were maybe asking some known thief, who had stolen that hundred dollars from someone you know, and your intent was to repay it.)

And Alvino would be guilty of lying if he knew he had cheated on his wife, and told her he hadn't when she asked (even if he intended to tell her the truth later, unless of course he knew it would be in his wife's best interest for him not to admit to adultery until after he had removed all the sharp objects from the house.)

If lying is defined as I defied it above (any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself), "lying" would always be wrong, but not all deception would be lying, and there would clearly be circumstances where making a factually untrue statement wasn't lying.

Edited February 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Not at the moment. Still, I would appreciate if you would actually address my criticism of your definition.

See above.

[inquiringmind]

Elsewhere on this thread I mentioned the complications my father had from his back surgery in 2008.

I mentioned that for awhile, before they found out he had hydrocephilitis and put a shunt in his head (to drain the excess spinal fluid) and he regained his memory, he thought I was his brother.

i mentioned that he asked me how their mother (who had died twenty years before) was doing, and how I (rightly or wrongly) told him the unvarnished truth.

I mentioned that I saw him cry like a baby that day, but I didn't mention that we were never really close until then.

My dad and I bonded for the first time that day.

I mentioned the whole thing (including that last part) to our Gospel principles teacher yesterday (the same guy who received a personal revelation to "prepare for life at BYU" that he believes was meant to prepare him for marriage, since he never went to BYU), and he seemed to think that it was all of God.

To me, that means that God caused (or allowed) my father to think that I was his brother (when I'm not his brother, I'm his son) to bring us closer together.

I thank Him for that, and I wouldn't call it lying, but one of the things I'm trying to understand is how and why such temporary deceptions (some of which seem recorded in scripture) aren't lies.

Scripture says that God cannot lie, so I accept that He doesn't, but I'm trying to understand He defies lying, how we should define it, and why some of the things we've discussed in this thread (and that some of us have experienced in our personal lives) aren't lies.

Does anyone have anything useful to say?

Edited February 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alvino]

And Alvino would be guilty of lying if he knew he had cheated on his wife, and told her he hadn't when she asked (even if he intended to tell her the truth later,

I agree I would be lying and it would be immoral, but the problem is I wouldn't be lying under your definition even if it is still immoral. Even if all the things your definition covers are immoral, pointing to something immoral doesn't tell you it was under your definition.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Alvino

[inquiringmind]

I agree I would be lying and it would be immoral, but the problem is I wouldn't be lying under your definition even if it is still immoral. Even if all the things your definition covers are immoral, pointing to something immoral doesn't tell you it was under your definition.

But unless your wife were mentally unbalanced, and would be in immediate danger of harming herself, you, or your children if you didn't delay telling her the truth, you would be as guilty of lying if you told her you hadn't cheated on her (while knowing you had) under the definition I offered as under any other.

Here's my definition again.

Any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself.

If you deceived your wife about your infidelity because you wanted to continue the affair, or because you wanted to spare yourself embarrassment, or because you wanted her to think you loved her when you really married her for her money, you'd be as guilty of lying under that definition as any other.

Edited February 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alvino]

But unless your wife were mentally unbalanced, and would be in immediate danger of harming herself, you, or your children if you didn't delay telling her the truth, you would be lying if you told her you hadn't cheated on her (while knowing you had.)

and that wasn't the scenario I presented, which you continue to ignore over and over again.

Here's my definition again.

Any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself.

That wasn't the definition you provided to me several times. You now add more things to it and continue to not clarify the ones I asked you to.

If you deceived your wife about your infidelity because you wanted to continue the affair, or because you wanted to spare yourself embarrassment, or because you wanted her to think you loved her when you really married her for her money, you'd be as guilty of lying under that definition as any other.

You can give me as many example that you think fit your definition as much as you want but, if what you look for is understanding, you can't keep ignoring the problematic ones.

I guess I won't be responding to you on this anymore given the level of discussion you seem used to have.

[inquiringmind]

and that wasn't the scenario I presented, which you continue to ignore over and over again.

The scenario you presented was that you lie to your wife about cheating on her while you intend to tell her the truth at some other time, but you neglected to say why you put off telling her.

What you fail to understand is that (given some definitions of lying) your motives could make a difference.

That wasn't the definition you provided to me several times.

The whole point of this thread is to define lying, and I said my earlier definition was tentative.

You now add more things to it

I filled in some motives you might have for not telling your wife the truth when she asked, and I suggested that you'd be lying given one set of motives, and not lying given another.

and continue to not clarify the ones I asked you to.

You can give me as many example that you think fit your definition as much as you want but, if what you look for is understanding, you can't keep ignoring the problematic ones.

I don't understand what it is you find problematic about the words "primary," or "ultimate."

If you go to the home of someone you hate with a gun in your hand, and you kill him with malice of forethought, without anything to gain, your primary motive was revenge, and your ultimate intent was to kill him.

If you shoot and kill an intruder who breaks into your house, your primary motive would hopefully be to protect your family, and your ultimate intent would hopefully be to prevent the assault, rape, murder, or robbery.

(i.e. Even if he shoots to kill, the killing of the intruder is not the home defenders primary motive or ultimate intent.)

Getting back to your scenario.

If you you tell your wife you didn't cheat on her last week, when you know you did, because you don't want her to get suspicious and interfere with your affair, your primary motive and ultimate intent is to deceive your wife (even if you intend to tell her you've been cheating on her after you and your new friend find an apartment and are ready to move in together.)

That's lying by any definition.

If you tell your wife you didn't cheat on her when you were on that prolonged business trip to Vegas last year (when you know you did) because you just returned from her father's funeral, she's on anti-depressants, and you really don't think it's the best time, your motives are as different as the revenge killer's motives are from the man who kills in defense of his home and family.

You seem to want to say that all deliberate deception is lying, but are you as willing to say that all deliberate killing is murder?

Edited February 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

I'm still not clear on how you define lying, but if it requires positive statements, it can't include all deception.

Wouldn't it be deceptive if you came to me and asked "could you loan me a hundred dollars?," and I said "yes" and gave you the money, and you walked away with no intent of ever paying me back?

But if, as you say

You wouldn't be lying.

Maybe you're right (maybe it would just be some other sin), but than it is possible to be deceptive without lying, and I still don't know how you define lying.

I bow to your superior ability to 'not give up' the debate. A lie is a purposely unfactual statment.

A request for a loan that then made is a contract. If the borrows intent were to not live up to the conditions then it would be dishonesty, or a lie

Do you feel that every person must answer every question in every circumstance? Or do you believe there are sometimes better things to do? I know someone who is compelled to touch pole he passes.

My own, tentative definition was any false statement, knowingly made, with the primary and ultimate intent of deceiving and/or doing harm.

Maybe it would be better defined as any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself.

Under that definition God could send Nathan to temporarily deceive David into thinking one of his subjects had heartlessly slain his neighbor's pet to provide food for some unexpected guests, thereby tricking him into condemning himself (before the whole thing was revealed to be a parable, and he was declared the guilty party) without lying.

The Egyptian midwives could tell Pharaoh's officials they were doing the best they could to murder all the Hebrew children at birth, but the Hebrew women were just so strong that they kept giving birth without their help, without lying.

Rahab could tell the king's officials the Hebrew spies had already left, when she had them hidden on the roof, without lying.

Danes could hide Jews in Nazi occupied Denmark, and lie to Nazi officials about knowing their whereabouts without lying.

And God could so confuse the senses of the army sent to arrest Elisha, that he could go out to meet them, tell them they were headed the wrong way, and have them follow him until they were surrounded by the enemy's army, without having any idea where they were going, without lying.

But you would be guilty of lying (under this definition) if you asked a ward member, a neighbor, or anyone to loan you a hundred dollars you had no intention of repaying (unless you were maybe asking some known thief, who had stolen that hundred dollars from someone you know, and your intent was to repay it.)

And Alvino would be guilty of lying if he knew he had cheated on his wife, and told her he hadn't when she asked (even if he intended to tell her the truth later, unless of course he knew it would be in his wife's best interest for him not to admit to adultery until after he had removed all the sharp objects from the house.)

If lying is defined as I defied it above (any intentional deception done with the ultimate and primary intent of deceiving, doing harm, or benefiting no one but yourself), "lying" would always be wrong, but not all deception would be lying, and there would clearly be circumstances where making a factually untrue statement wasn't lying.

[kenporay]

Oh fetch. My reply is embedded in the quote. I'm still mastering my nook. Heres the main point: do you feel compelled to answer every question put to you?

[inquiringmind]

Oh fetch. My reply is embedded in the quote. I'm still mastering my nook. Heres the main point: do you feel compelled to answer every question put to you?

There are times when you're compelled to answer questions, and when silence is taken as an answer.

That would certainly be the case when the Nazis were going door to door looking for Jews in Nazi occupied Denmark.

Anyone who didn't answer, and just kept their mouth shut when asked if they knew the whereabouts of any Jews, would have been pushed aside while they searched the whole house.

If they found any Jews inside they'd have been arrested with them, and if they didn't, they would probably have been taken to headquarters and tortured until they said something (or died under torture.)

And I think it fairly certain the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were in a similar situation.

In such a situation, would you consider "no, I don't know where any Jews are hiding," "the Hebrew women are so strong they give birth before we get there," or "the men went thataway" lies (i.e. sins that have to be repented of, that have to be covered by the atonement, and that The Father required Jesus to die for)?

Edited February 26, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

A request for a loan that then made is a contract. If the borrows intent were to not live up to the conditions then it would be dishonesty, or a lie

But you said

Questions are not statements therefore they cannot be lies as they solicit information not supply it.

You also say

A lie is a purposely unfactual statement.

If that's the true definition of a lie, than you couldn't be lying when you asked me if I could loan you a hundred dollars (even if you had no intention of paying it back) because "questions are not statements therefore they cannot be lies as they solicit information not supply it."

Now let's get back to why you find this statement (from the Mormon apologists at FAIR) unsupportable?

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.org/authors/smith-gregory/polygamy-prophets-and-prevarication#head08

Edited February 26, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

Will you loan $600 to me? That's a question. It's not a lie.

Yes, I will loan you $600...when will pay me back. That could be a lie if the person has no intention of making a loan. If the person has something that arises that prevents the loah then it's not a lie.

I will pay you on tuesday. Could be a lie, might not be...depends on intent

––––––––––––––––––

You have have demonstrated that when asked a question you feel compelled to answer.

---------------------

You seem fixated on regarding the nazis knocking at my door. You feel that I must open the door, and you feel I must answer there questions...you presuppose that I would have done nothing to preclude the situation in the first place. To answer your question: if the only tool you have then every problem looks like a nail.

---------

When choosing betwwen two evils, I pick the one I havent tried before.