Lying

[inquiringmind]

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

And if I trust you so much that I say "yes," and give you the money without ever asking you when you'll pay me back, and you walk away laughing about it (with no intention of ever paying me back), it's not a lie?

You didn't imply you'd pay me back when you used the word "loan"?

What if you said "can you loan me fifty dollars until I get paid in three days?" (and you had no intention of paying me back)?

That's still a question, isn't it?

If I trusted you and gave you the money, and you never paid me back, would you still say "That's a question. It's not a lie"?

You seem fixated on regarding the nazis knocking at my door. You feel that I must open the door

They didn't need any search warrants or probable cause.

If they saw a curtain move in a window, saw a light on, or heard any noise inside, and you didn't answer the door, they would break it down.

For all practical intents and purposes, you would have to answer the door.

and you feel I must answer there questions

If you didn't answer their questions, they'd push you aside and search the whole house, so (if you didn't want to give you guests away) you would have to answer their questions.

..you presuppose that I would have done nothing to preclude the situation in the first place.

I don't hold the Danes (who sheltered Jews in Nazi occupied Denmark, and who had to give false and misleading information to the authorities at times) responsible for the Nazi occupation of their country, do you?

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

Then you would consider it "evil" to give Nazi authorities false or misleading information?

I don't know if you've ever heard of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, but did you know he once convinced Himmler that they could recruit German Jews from the concentration camps and drop them into England as spies?

Though they never heard from them again, Canaris actually succeeded in saving some Jewish lives by selling that plan to the SS chief.

Was that evil?

Was it a sin?

Was it "lying"?

Canaris was a Christian, and unlike Rommel and the Staffenburg conspirators, he was troubled by Nazi policy toward the Jews from the beginning, and was working against Hitler from the mid 1930's.

Unfortunately, his diary was discovered after the Staffenburg assassination attempt, and he was strangled with piano wire.

Do you think he committed a sin when he deceived Himmler?

Was that evil?

How about when he accepted a mission to go to Spain, and convince Franco to enter the war on Germany's side, and actually convinced his old friend (whom he knew from pre-war anti-communist intelligence operations in Spain) that it would be disastrous for Spain to enter the war.

Was it evil for him to deceive Hitler that way?

Edited February 27, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Once again, I would like any thoughts on this article from the "FAIR" LDS site.

It's a long article, but here are some relevant quotes.

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 Abraham and 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...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: 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: 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.

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

According to this article on Catholic Moral Theology, Augustine is largely responsible for the view that all untruths (given to anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason) are lies.

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...

Another mode of verbal misleading is equivocation or a play upon words; and it is defended on the theory that to lie is to use words in a sense which they will not bear. But an equivocator uses them in a received sense, though there is another received sense, and therefore, according to this definition, he does not lie.

Others say that all equivocations are, after all, a kind of lying,—faint lies or awkward lies, but still lies; and some of these disputants infer, that therefore we must not equivocate, and others that equivocation is but a half-measure, and that it is better to say at once that in certain cases untruths are not lies...

To these must be added the unscientific way of dealing with lies,—viz. that on a great or cruel occasion a man cannot help telling a lie, and he would not be a man, did he not tell it, but still it is very wrong, and he ought not to do it, and he must trust that the sin will be forgiven him, though he goes about to commit it ever so deliberately, and is sure to commit it again under similar circumstances. It is a necessary frailty, and had better not be thought about before it is incurred, and not thought of again, after it is well over. This view cannot for a moment be defended, but, I suppose, it is very common.

I think the historical course of thought upon the matter has been this: the Greek Fathers thought that, when there was a justa causa, an untruth need not be a lie. St. Augustine took another view, though with great misgiving; and, whether he is rightly interpreted or not, is the doctor of the great and common view that all untruths are lies, and that there can be no just cause of untruth. In these later times, this doctrine has been found difficult to work, and it has been largely taught that, though all untruths are lies, yet that certain equivocations, when there is a just cause, are not untruths.

Further, there have been and all along through these later ages, other schools, running parallel with the above mentioned, one of which says that equivocations, &c. after all are lies, and another which says that there are untruths which are not lies.

And now as to the “just cause,” which is the condition, sine quâ non. The Greek Fathers make it such as these, self-defence, charity, zeal for God’s honour, and the like.

St. Augustine seems to deal with the same “just causes” as the Greek Fathers, even though he does not allow of their availableness as depriving untruths, spoken on such occasions, of their sinfulness. He mentions defence of life and of honour, and the safe custody of a secret. Also the great Anglican writers, who have followed the Greek Fathers, in defending untruths when there is the “just cause,” consider that “just cause” to be such as the preservation of life and property, defence of law, the good of others. Moreover, their moral rights, e.g. defence against the inquisitive, &c.

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

To kenporay: I take it you agree with Augustine?

Anyone else?

Edited February 27, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

Q. Why is the sky blue?

A. LIAR!

[Avatar4321]

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.

Absolutely not. Patten did go on a mission the following spring.

[inquiringmind]

Absolutely not. Patten did go on a mission the following spring.

Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. (D&C 141:1.)

Notes and commentary from LDS.org

Notes and Commentary

D&C 114:1. What Mission Was Assigned to the Twelve?

The Twelve were to leave Far West on 26 April 1839 for England. However, Elder David W. Patten was killed in the battle of Crooked River on 25 October 1838 (see D&C 118; History of the Church, 3:170–71, 336–39).

https://www.lds.org/...dc/114?lang=eng

D&C 118

Verily, thus saith the Lord: Let a conference be held immediately; let the Twelve be organized; and let men be appointed to supply the place of those who are fallen...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 twenty-sixth day of April next, on the building-spot of my house, saith the Lord. (verses 1, 4-5.)

David Patten may have served a mission in the spirit world the following spring, but it was not the mission unto all the world he would have naturally thought of when the revelation recorded in D&C 114 was given.

The way the revelation was worded, he would have naturally thought he was getting his affairs in order because he was going to cross the Atlantic with Brigham and the others, and they were going to be traveling from country to country preaching the restored Gospel.

As things turned out (and as I think we can safely presume God knew they would turn out) it was good he got his affairs in order, but not for that reason.

So if God knew it would be good for Patten to get his affairs in order because he would be dead the following spring, and told him to in such a way that he expected to be alive and going on that trip with Brigham (and in such a way that he and his family could enjoy the time they had left together here on this mortal plane without a cloud hanging over it), would that be lying?

Put another way, was Augustine right, and is all deception lying?

Edited March 1, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

If you think auggie was right then that's cool. Are you trying to convince everyone else or are you really unsure of what a lie is? If you think auggie was wrong then thats cool too.

[inquiringmind]

If you think auggie was right then that's cool. Are you trying to convince everyone else or are you really unsure of what a lie is? If you think auggie was wrong then thats cool too.

I'm interested in what others think.

You seem to think auggie was right (and any deception is a lie), TAO and mfbukoswski (and some others, I think) seem to think he was wrong.

Now let me ask you some questions.

Did Solomon deceive these women into thinking he was gonna kill an innocent child here?

Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead; and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it; she is the mother thereof. And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king; for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment.(1 Kings 3:23-28.)

If auggie was right, and all deception is lying, did Solomon lie here?

(He certainly had the two women thinking he was about to have the child killed.)

After this it says the people "feared the king; for they saw the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment."

Is it wise to lie?

Did God lead Solomon to lie, or could you and auggie be wrong?

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

To kenporay:

Do you believe that when scripture says that God cannot lie, it means He couldn't do the same kind of thing that Solomon did in 1 Kings 3:23-28?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal the true mother by acting like He was gonna kill the child?

Do you believe He couldn't reveal Abraham's faith in the resurrection, the atonement, and the promises He'd given him (about his seed being called thru Isaac, and all nations being blessed thru him) by commanding him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering on some mountain (when He really didn't want that, and had no intention of letting Abraham do it)?

And do you believe He couldn't lead Heber Kimball to think that a prophet might have a legitimate claim on his wife, and that he might have to give her to him?

If God could do these things, doesn't it follow that auggie was wrong?

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

If you seek to know what others think, then i hope by now you have an understanding of my postion...I take note of your philosophical labor to define 'lie' and contrast it against definitions in math, science and medicine...specific meanings for base terms so that one can move on to the advanced.

Having re-read the biblical accounts mentioned, I find nothing that leads me to believe solomn lied, nor that god lied in the sac of abe's son.

In the former, I can point to times when i told my children "pick up your toys or I'm throwing them in the garbage." It took one time of following through for my children to understand that i mean what I say...contrasted with their mother who rarely followed through and was never believed. And the maxim: the threat is stronger than the execution.

In the sac of isaac, abraham learned a great deal about himself. We see that isaace continued a good relationship with his pop and his god. Maybe we're reading toi much into it ti say god was lying. He told abe to do something and then changed his mind. I see that happen all the time in modern life without anyone lying.

I have no documentation on the third account so willrefain from commenting.

When i start to limit god in any way I always come back to the man who said 'not even god can make a triangle with more than 180 degrees.' And i think of steinitz (sp?) 2)who said 'not even god can give me knights odds and win.'

Enjoy your hunt. May you someday be ready for big game.

[inquiringmind]

Having re-read the biblical accounts mentioned, I find nothing that leads me to believe solomn lied, nor that god lied in the sac of abe's son.

So you believe all deliberate deception is lying, but you don't think Solomon lied?

In the former

You mean where Solomin ordered the infant cut in two with a sword, right?

]I can point to times when i told my children "pick up your toys or I'm throwing them in the garbage." It took one time of following through for my children to understand that i mean what I say

So you think the wisdom of God in Solomon led him to order the child hacked in two, and that he fully intended to follow thru if the biological mother hadn't been willing to give the child up?

You don't see this as a stratagem to reveal the real mother, but as something wise king Solomon really intended to do?

It took one time of following through for my children to understand that i mean what I say

And I guess everyone would have known Solomon meant what he said if he followed through and had the baby hacked in two, but wouldn't he have been shedding innocent blood?

How would justice have been served?

And what wisdom would there have been in it?

(I guess all bickering mothers would have learned something if he followed through that one time, huh?)

In the sac of isaac, abraham learned a great deal about himself. We see that isaace continued a good relationship with his pop and his god. Maybe we're reading to much into it to say god was lying.

I wouldn't say that (given my definition), but how can you and auggie avoid saying it (given your definition)?

You seem oblivious to the fact that your contradicting yourself (and aggie) here.

You trying to defend the position that all deliberate deception is lying, but you're saying that God (who cannot lie) told Abraham to kill his son and burn the body to teach him something about himself (and not because He wanted him to kill his son and burn the body.)

That supports my position (that not all deception is lying), not yours!

He told abe to do something and then changed his mind.

Then you believe God really wanted Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering when He told him to (before He changed His mind)?

I see that happen all the time in modern life without anyone lying.

You mean you see people who don't know the future, and who fully mean to do what they say they're gonna do when they say it, change their minds when the unexpected happens?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about here?

Enjoy your hunt. May you someday be ready for big game.

It's not my fault you keep making nonsensical statements while trying to defend auggie's position on lying, and I see no reason for the sarcasm.

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

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

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

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

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

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

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

"Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

Thank you.

I find this an interesting definition.

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

Edited March 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[kenporay]

So you believe all deliberate deception is lying, but you don't think Solomon lied?

You mean where Solomin ordered the infant cut in two with a sword, right?

So you think the wisdom of God in Solomon led him to order the child hacked in two, and that he fully intended to follow thru if the biological mother hadn't been willing to give the child up?

You don't see this as a stratagem to reveal the real mother, but as something wise king Solomon really intended to do?

And I guess everyone would have known Solomon meant what he said if he followed through and had the baby hacked in two, but wouldn't he have been shedding innocent blood?

How would justice have been served?

And what wisdom would there have been in it?

(I guess all bickering mothers would have learned something if he followed through that one time, huh?)

I wouldn't say that (given my definition), but how can you and auggie avoid saying it (given your definition)?

You seem oblivious to the fact that your contradicting yourself (and aggie) here.

You trying to defend the position that all deliberate deception is lying, but you're saying that God (who cannot lie) told Abraham to kill his son and burn the body to teach him something about himself (and not because He wanted him to kill his son and burn the body.)

That supports my position (that not all deception is lying), not yours!

Then you believe God really wanted Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering when He told him to (before He changed His mind)?

You mean you see people who don't know the future, and who fully mean to do what they say they're gonna do when they say it, change their minds when the unexpected happens?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about here?

It's not my fault you keep making nonsensical statements while trying to defend auggie's position on lying, and I see no reason for the sarcasm.

I'll drop out of the conversation. With your last comment I see we agree on the silly position that the other takes.