Are These Contradictions?

[inquiringmind]

There are passages in the Old and New Testaments (and the BOM) that say that God cannot lie, and one of them is here.

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

This passage also seems to say that God doesn't change His mind (and there are passages in Latter Day scripture, like Abraham 2:8 and D&C 3:2, that seem to say He has absolute foreknowledge), but the following passages seem to imply either that He does change His mind, or that He sometimes says that He's going to do things only to achieve a desired effect.

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer. 18:7-10.)

In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying, I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, F114 that the word of the LORD came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake. (2 Kings 20:1-6.)

And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto 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 exceeding 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. So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:1-10.)

If God didn't know that Nineveh would repent, and if He didn't foresee Hezekiah's prayer, doesn't that contradict the part of Num. 23:19 that says He doesn't change?

And if He did know that things would turn out the way they did for Hezekiah and Nineveh BECAUSE He sent Isaiah and Jonah, doesn't that contradict the part that implies He never speaks without fulfilling His word?

Didn't He say He would take Hezekiah's life from the illness he was suffering when Isaiah told him to get his affairs in order (because he would not recover), knowing He'd add fifteen years to his mortal after he prayed?

And didn't He say He'd destroy Nineveh in forty days knowing He'd spare the city for another century after they repented?

In latter day Revelation you have God telling David W. Patten to get his affairs in order so he could serve a mission "in company with others, even twelve including himself...unto all the world" the following spring, when He presumably knew he'd be fatally shot that fall.

And you have the prophecy of a temple being built in Jackson County Mo. (or the commandment to build a Temple in Jackson County Mo.) in that generation (and the idea that "generation" doesn't mean what we normally take it to mean here because it doesn't always mean that in the Bible doesn't really fit with JS Matthew 1:34, or with The Lord releasing that generation from the obligation of building a Temple in Jackson County because they had been hindered by their enemies.)

And in my ward, there's someone who received a personal revelation to "prepare for life at BYU," did so, but never went to college there.

He now believes that preparing for life at BYU is what qualified him to have the fine wife and family he has, but at the time, he thought that that's where he was meant to pursue his college career.

Anyway, is there a contradiction here between these passages, and can it be resolved?

And is the following passage an example of what some of the Church Fathers would call a Pedagogical Deception?

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.)

Every Commentary I've consulted seems to agree that this was no ordinary blindness (or else they could not have followed Elisha), but a supernatural blindness that caused their sight to be "so altered, that they knew not the objects they saw," couldn't recognize their surroundings, and allowed Elisha to lead them straight into Samaria.

This army returned to Syria, no one was harmed, and the war came to an end, but was this an act of divine pedagogical deception? (and how do we reconcile that with the passages that say that God cannot lie (or is there something wrong with our definition of lying)?

Can anyone help me here?

Edited February 18, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

To me, the evidence suggests that God can be negotiated with. I am please about this as I have found that I could negotiate with my mortal father, and my children negotiate with me. It is a normal part of a father child relationship.

I believe in the God who said "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:16)

[inquiringmind]

To me, the evidence suggests that God can be negotiated with. I am please about this as I have found that I could negotiate with my mortal father, and my children negotiate with me. It is a normal part of a father child relationship.

I believe in the God who said "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:16)

Thank you, but that only gets to part of the question.

Since you're a father, and you mentioned negotiating with your children, I'm trying to think of an example here.

Might you encourage an eleven or twelve year old son to start saving up his allowance for a car, when you when you know he might want to send the money he saves on a nice bicycle first?

And if you did (and that's really what you wanted) would you be lying to him when you told him to save for the car?.

Let's take the case of David W. Patton.

As it turned out, it really was a good time for him to get his affairs in order when he was told to, but not because he was going on a mission to preach the restored Gospel to all the world with eleven companions the following spring.

It was a good idea because he only had a few months to live.

God could have told him that, but maybe it wouldn't have been good for him or his family.

Maybe it would have really disturbed some of them, and robed them of enjoying the time they had left together.

So could the "get your things in order so you can go on a mission next spring" be a pedagogical deception?

But if it was, how can that idea be reconciled with passages like Numbers 23:19 (and others in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon)?

Edited February 18, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

Well, he did go in a mission. Just not the one he thought he was going on.

Am I right in thinking he was killed by anti-mormons? If so, those people exercised their free-agency which interfered with the Lord's plans. I believe that can happen, otherwise free-agency would be a farce.

[inquiringmind]

Well, he did go in a mission...

The mission spoken of in the revelation given on April 17th, 1838 (recorded in D&C 114), to take place in the spring of 1839, was to bear the Lord's name and good tidings "to all the world."

I don't think you can say he went on that mission.

Am I right in thinking he was killed by anti-mormons? If so, those people exercised their free-agency which interfered with the Lord's plans. I believe that can happen, otherwise free-agency would be a farce.

Yes.

But could those people exercising their free agency interfere with the Lord's plans without His foreseeing it?

Wouldn't He have known in April of 1838 that they'd Kill brother Patton on October of 1838, and that he wouldn't be in this world to go on a mission in the spring of 1839?

So when He told him to get his affairs in order, was it really to be prepared go on this mission (to all the world, here, in the spring of 1839), or was it so as not to leave loose ends for his family when he went on his otherworldly mission in October of 1839?

Was God simply sparing him and his family the jarring news that he'd be dead in six months?

And if He was, does this contradict what's said in Num. 23:19 (and elsewhere in scripture)?

Edited February 18, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

The mission spoken of in the revelation given on April 17th, 1838 (recorded in D&C 114), to take place in the spring of 1839, was to bear the Lord's name and good tidings "to all the world."

I don't think you can say he went on that mission.

Yes.

But could those people exercising their free agency interfere with the Lord's plans without His foreseeing it?

In my view, yes.

[cdowis]

I think that this demonstrates that the Lord separates his will from his foreknowledge. It was his will, his declaration, that Patton was to go on a mission, but he knew of his imminent death. This allows our free agency to be exercised even when he already knows the results.

The antimormons were given freedom to choose, and will be completely responsible for the results of their actions. He does not step in front of our agency using his foreknowledge.

Edited February 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Alan]

I have often thought that, although he can see into our future, he chooses not to.

A bit like when I do a quiz. I know the answers are at the back of the book, but I choose not to look.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Alan

[Questing Beast]

There are passages in the Old and New Testaments (and the BOM) that say that God cannot lie, and one of them is here.

...

This army returned to Syria, no one was harmed, and the war came to an end, but was this an act of divine pedagogical deception? (and how do we reconcile that with the passages that say that God cannot lie (or is there something wrong with our definition of lying)?

Can anyone help me here?

I've always explained these away by remembering that they are written by mortal men not God. So the outcome shows the preview and it is written with 20/20 hindsight. Later the account may need to be "brought up to speed" by developments. Mortals mess with the story, not God.

"God" does not lie. The very idea of "God" not knowing what anyone was going to do is ridiculous, since "God" Exists outside of our space-time and sees all Existence as NOW, i.e. the end and the beginning, down to the most infinitesimally small detail....

[thesometimesaint]

He must have a Heisenberg Compensator.

[volgadon]

I think you've asked much the same question about Patten once before.

[blackstrap]

Had Bro Patten gone on a mission to England,would we have said that he went to " all the world " ? No. The only way to go to 'all the world' is the way he went.

[Mudcat]

I don't answer from an LDS paradigm, but as a non-LDS Christian I don't mind saying that I have had some struggle over how those statments of God repenting and the passage regarding his unchangable nature, in Numbers are consistent rather than contradictory.

My thought is that though God has a perfect foreknowledge of what will transpire, God does not judge us based on His foreknowledge but rather by our actions. If He did judge us by His foreknowledge, then it could be rightly said that free will doesn't exist and is simply a perceptive illusion. If that were the case, we would be currently guilty of things we haven't done yet, which would seem a little absurd to me or at the least logically incoherent.

In all three passages, the general message of them is fairly apparent, in that it seems clear that God forgives those who truly repent. This message seems very consistent with his nature and is echoed all throughout the Bible. If God forgives because we repent, then our forgiveness by God is conditional on what we do rather than what He knows we will do.

Perceptively this may seem like God is changing His mind, but if God always shows mercy rather than judgment on the repentant, then this "repenting" His own judgement based upon our repentance towards Him isn't anything that is actually demonstrating God changing, rather these are good examples that point towards his unchanging nature that forgives the repentant.

..........................................

On the passage in 2 Kings, I think if there were any deception it was on the part of Elisha statement, but I am uncertain to how deceptive that actually was. These Syrians were blinded as they came against Israel, if they were seeking a man.. what man would they have sought rather than the nations King?

[Maidservant]

If I had a deep question of this nature, this is how I would approach this:

1. Begin with prayer and ask my Father in heaven to lead me to understanding and to show me what he wants me know about Himself (which I don't necessarily take to mean located in any written word).

2. Find out what the most original language of that passage is and see if that sheds any light on the situation. I can generally count on that the English is going to be a barrier to understanding and knowledge rather than leading to understanding and knowledge.

3. Take a study of those books that have the passages that interest or trouble me; and when I say study of the books, I don't mean read the books. I mean, come to understand the transmission of those books. Where did they come from? Who wrote them? Can we even know? If we can know, what was their worldview and their understanding of God? etc etc etc. Now, this is a big kind of study and who has time for that? Right? that's more of a lifetime thing that can underpin my entire study. So in the meantime, I suspend a lot of things that might otherwise trouble me by saying, "I haven't studied it all. I don't understand Hebrew storytelling, history, religious paradigm; so until I do, I will not be able to completely comprehend this; but it's all right, I'll understand as much as I can, but I'll leave the conclusion open ended until I can do all that work."

4. Read the entire surrounding story, context, book; sometimes that changes the situation. What I don't do is cross-match small sentence out of one sacred text with a small sentence out of one sacred text. I mean, sometimes I do that, too, and I think that can yield interesting stuff; but in the end, there's a whole story there and the entire story makes a difference as to why something may have been said. WHO is saying those things, when, to whom?

5. I do understand that God has ways of imparting knowledge that have to do with milk before meat; and that YES, this often feels like being lied to. (I think it does anyway.) So I'm not always sure what to do with that, myself, but I do try make myself accountable and responsible for what I know; and I expect God to be forthcoming as well, and when I go through the process I'm explaining here, he generally is. Always he is, really, even if he has to tell me, you CAN'T understand that now, but I'll give you elements as fast as I can/you can.

6. I try to remember that the knowledge of God is dimensional, that's how I think about it, I'm not sure how else to express it. It's coded--"hidden" in life, in symbols, in experiences, in spirit, in pieces here and pieces there, that come to a whole; in line by line, precept by precept. You will NEVER find God or knowledge of God in a sentence or a paragraph; at the most it's only a piece.

7. I also really appreciate the perspective of our modern leaders i.e. what I'm hearing in General Conferences (my touchstone). I take whatever passage that troubles or interests me and especially if I don't have time to do the work of #3, then I just ask myself--is this what is being taught now? yes? no? if yes, exactly how? And if I heard something different in Gen. Conf. than Joshua got told by God (or his God), then I am completely at peace with the God of the present and the prophet of the present. How did we get here? Did God have to learn? Did mankind have to learn? Both of us? I don't know . . . I'm just glad we got here!

Okay, those are some general things that might help you but I will post next on this specific idea--God changing and God lying.

[RobertAC]

This question hits upon an issue being discussed in the current "Apostasy" thread. It seems to me that if God creates and destroys, gives life and death, creates good and evil, and has dominion over angels and demons, then God can also call the shots over what is true and what is false. If God is not bound by the consequences of good and evil, then lying in order to reach an objective is not only possible, but "okay."

Applied to the issue of apostasy, it seems logical that one can believe that God created a false history, as reflected in religious writings, if the false history conveys a larger truth.

[Maidservant]

I am going to posit a God who is a Person and who has a body, since that is what I have been taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I am convinced at present that such a thing is the truth.

There are passages in the Old and New Testaments (and the BOM) that say that God cannot lie, and one of them is here.

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

This passage also seems to say that God doesn't change His mind (and there are passages in Latter Day scripture, like Abraham 2:8 and D&C 3:2, that seem to say He has absolute foreknowledge), but the following passages seem to imply either that He does change His mind, or that He sometimes says that He's going to do things only to achieve a desired effect.

I LOVE my God who does not lie. I love this and this is one of my foundational keys in my relationship with my Father. It is the God who is not weary to help me (as said in Isaiah), the God who doesn't upbraid if we have a question (as said in James), and so on.

However, you took the word "change" and turned it into "change his mind". Are you sure you should have done that? Or should we read it just as it is. DOES. NOT. CHANGE.

Does this mean that he will never cut his hair? Never cross and then un-cross his legs? Never change his mind in response to his children? Never change the parameters of the organization he wants to officially represent him on earth? Never give one set of information to some of his children (Buddhism) and another set to another (Joseph Smith)? (By the way, I am not committed to a omniscient, completely future-predicting God, but I think for what I have to say, it doesn't matter either way.)

I'm pretty sure he's done all of these things and the other kinds of things you've listed as examples in your OP. So, yes, what does this MEAN?

Maybe a clue is in Moses 1:39--that this is what never changes?

Now, I do know what you mean. I am honestly offended by what I consider some unnecessary deceptions or milk/meat situations or the 'I know something but would cause problems if I told them now' v. full disclosure. And I simply have told God that I am offended by this and I don't appreciate it at all. Whether I will learn more of what he means or by what I can't yet see, or if God will simply think twice before dealing this way with me--I don't know; we'll see.

I think it's important that you read and ponder on the entire passage of Number 23. There's a whole story there. There's a whole wrestle with God there of two men (Balak and Balaam). Or maybe God's wrestle with two men he'd much rather like to thump on the head? When God says what he says in verse 19, what led up to it? Is it a universal thing? Or is it a response to this specific situation and these two men? I don't know, you'll have to figure that on your own, but I'm just saying there's a lot there. So if you take this story and compare it to some place else (Book of Mormon; Bro. Patton), is it really the same thing at all? OR maybe you will see that there is a commonality, of a God who is acting and communicating consistently, but maybe it's not exactly in the way you once thought?

] At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer. 18:7-10.)

I don't think anyone needs to overly worry about the use of the word 'repent'; this is an artifact of the English translation and it is generally not helpful (or as I think). But here in Jeremiah we see God explaining just what he always does--blessing obedience and righteousness; and the consequences of wickedness. I think he saying here, if you think my "promises" are just gift-prizes and tokens like from some idol, that if you've appeased me and I said, now I'm on your side, and then you can do whatever you want; think again, this is real life, and you get the consequences of what you do, there's no candy promises. So I don't see how this is about God changing, this is pretty much God as he always is.

] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying, I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, F114 that the word of the LORD came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake. (2 Kings 20:1-6.)

And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto 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 exceeding 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. So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:1-10.)

Again--God responding to obedience and repentence. This is not a changing God, this is the unchanging God, the one that always responds to repentence. How is that a change from who he is? He is always that God!

If God didn't know that Nineveh would repent, and if He didn't foresee Hezekiah's prayer, doesn't that contradict the part of Num. 23:19 that says He doesn't change?

And if He did know that things would turn out the way they did for Hezekiah and Nineveh BECAUSE He sent Isaiah and Jonah, doesn't that contradict the part that implies He never speaks without fulfilling His word?

Didn't He say He would take Hezekiah's life from the illness he was suffering when Isaiah told him to get his affairs in order (because he would not recover), knowing He'd add fifteen years to his mortal after he prayed?

And didn't He say He'd destroy Nineveh in forty days knowing He'd spare the city for another century after they repented?

In latter day Revelation you have God telling David W. Patten to get his affairs in order so he could serve a mission "in company with others, even twelve including himself...unto all the world" the following spring, when He presumably knew he'd be fatally shot that fall.

Here I think you are mixing to issues--God's ability to predict the future; and his unchangingness. And I think those are two completely separate issues; but that's just me. Unchangingness has nothing to do with seeing the past or the future. It has to do with WHO IS HE AND WHAT HE WILL DO ACCORDING TO GODLY LAWS and according to his thoughts toward us as his children.

The degree to which the future is determined by God's knowing it, that is a different question. And you could take this to the extreme--if God knows if I'm not going to "make it" to the celestial kingdom, why not just tell me now, because if the answer is no, I've got a lot of Friends Dvds to watch instead of--well, doing anything else, lol.

And in my ward, there's someone who received a personal revelation to "prepare for life at BYU," did so, but never went to college there.

He now believes that preparing for life at BYU is what qualified him to have the fine wife and family he has, but at the time, he thought that that's where he was meant to pursue his college career.

Things like this happen to me all the time. I think God is in the present, not the future, and he helps us to do the same when he gives us guidance.

I always remember the story when a gentleman was helping to build the temple and Joseph Smith walked by and gave the man a whip and said, You will need this for your horse. The man was deeply offended as he never whipped his horse and he could never imagine a God and a prophet who would justify whipping a horse. But as it happened, the horse was pulling a cart with the big rocks for the temple, and the cart became unbalanced and was being dragged backwards back into the quarry. At that moment, the man took up the whip and whipped the horse once, which caused it to have a burst of energy and spring forward and change the balance and get out of the quarry, saving the man's and the horse's life. This story is very significant to me, and I accept that God may give me whips for my horse that cannot be justified at other times. We can't just read a back passage necessarily and have it be about us, or about now. We can, but only if it is confirmed to us for the present. God's guidance for our lives is personal and tailored to the moment; we have tools--the prophets, the scriptures, etc--but in the end, we have to know God's will for us. That is an unchanging God! The God who will tailor his guidance to us even with the necessary changes!

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.)

I find this story very significant and symbolic, and as you know, there is a lot in the gospel that talks about being blind and having our eyes opened; so perhaps it would be better to study this passage with those, instead of thinking about it in terms of deception. In any case--is this a story of being made blind? or a story of having their eyes opened and being fed and forgiven by their enemies? Which story is it? Which story will you read?

Having said all this, I will say I often am troubled by what I consider God lying or deception, so I am in the process of myself learning about this. But I just try to remember--I can only be honest with God, and that I don't know everything. So we'll see what I come to know .

Edited February 19, 2013 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

This question hits upon an issue being discussed in the current "Apostasy" thread. It seems to me that if God creates and destroys, gives life and death, creates good and evil, and has dominion over angels and demons, then God can also call the shots over what is true and what is false. If God is not bound by the consequences of good and evil, then lying in order to reach an objective is not only possible, but "okay."

Applied to the issue of apostasy, it seems logical that one can believe that God created a false history, as reflected in religious writings, if the false history conveys a larger truth.

But the scriptures teach that God is bound by such consequences-they explicitly teach that God cannot lie. If the issue is making scripture make sense when read with other scriptures, then proposing that God 'lied' would seem to defeat the purpose as it just causes another contradiction.

Unless i'm completely misunderstanding what you are saying, which could totally be the case.

[Alan]

This question hits upon an issue being discussed in the current "Apostasy" thread. It seems to me that if God creates and destroys, gives life and death, creates good and evil, and has dominion over angels and demons, then God can also call the shots over what is true and what is false. If God is not bound by the consequences of good and evil, then lying in order to reach an objective is not only possible, but "okay."

Applied to the issue of apostasy, it seems logical that one can believe that God created a false history, as reflected in religious writings, if the false history conveys a larger truth.

Unfortunately, the scriptures do not support this idea. They say that God cannot lie. If he did he would cease to be God.

However, perhaps he can be economical with the truth.

[inquiringmind]

Unfortunately, the scriptures do not support this idea. They say that God cannot lie. If he did he would cease to be God.

However, perhaps he can be economical with the truth.

But is all deception lying?

What about this?

When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. (John 6:5-6.)

Or this.

And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat,and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Sam. 12:7-8.)

In the first instance Jesus asked Philip who would buy bread for all these thousands only to try his faith, and in the second Nathan made up the whole story to get David to look at things from God's point of view (and David didn't take it as a parable when he unwittingly pronounced sentence on himself.)

Were either of them lying?

And what about D&C 19:6-12?

Nevertheless, it is ^anot written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written ^bendless ^ctorment. Again, it is written ^aeternal 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 ^amystery, 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 ^arest. For, behold, the ^amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am ^bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless ^cpunishment, for ^dEndless is my name. Wherefor^e.Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

God seems to be saying that most Christians have misunderstood something here He wanted them to misunderstand (for their own good.)

See verses 22-23.

And I command you that you ^apreach naught but repentance, and show ^bnot these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot ^abear meat now, but ^bmilk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

So does God engage in what some of the early Church Fathers called pedagogical deceptions, is that lying, and how do we understand Numbers 23:19 (and similar passages)?

Edited February 19, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

Put it this way.

What do you suppose would have happened if when Jesus asked Philip "where shall we buy bread for these people", Philip had replied "I saw a large bakery just down the road. They've got a 2 for 1 offer on right now, and we have loads of cash in the bag. The local economy could do with the business"

I believe Jesus would have told Philip to go and organise it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Alan

[inquiringmind]

Put it this way.

What do you suppose would have happened if when Jesus asked Philip "where shall we buy bread for these people", Philip had replied "I saw a large bakery just down the road. They've got a 2 for 1 offer on right now, and we have loads of cash in the bag. The local economy could do with the business"

I believe Jesus would have told Philip to go and organise it.

But verse 6 says "He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do."

Let me ask you a question.

If you knew Ann Frank and her family were in the attic, and the Gestapo were at the door asking you if you had any Jews inside, would you consider it a sin to say "no, there are no Jews here"?

Would that be lying?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't, and I thought I had this figured out, and then I read Numbers 23:19.

That's the passage I'm really having trouble understanding right now.

Edited February 19, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

But verse 6 says "He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do."

Let me ask you a question.

If you knew Ann Frank and her family were in the attic, and the Gestapo were at the door asking you if you had any Jews inside, would you consider it a sin to say "no, there are no Jews here"?

Would that be lying?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't, and I thought I had this figured out, and then I read Numbers 23:19.

That's the passage I'm really having trouble understanding right now.

Who says he already had it in mind what he was going to do? Did jesus say that, or did the writer of the gospel simply assume that? We don't know. But I am always wary of these things.

I take your point regarding Ann Frank.

Would it be a sin to lie in order to cover up the fact you were concealing Jews? Yes.

What was your motivation? To preserve life. Will that sin of lying be dealt with by the atonement? Yes. Do you need to repent of it? Not sure but I don't think so.

[RobertAC]

Unfortunately, the scriptures do not support this idea. They say that God cannot lie. If he did he would cease to be God.

However, perhaps he can be economical with the truth.

Economical with the truth? I could see that. I recall that Paul said made a statement in one of his letters that God cannot lie, but I'm not sure if Paul intended to make a broad, absolute statement about the nature of God. In context, lying implies selfish purposes. Without a selfish purpose, is it still lying? For example, if an assassin asks you which way to his victim, are you lying when you deceive the assassin to go in an opposite direction? If one is lying in such a situation, it would seem that the moral culpability is very low.

I can see God providing infomation in a way that is understandable to humans, but which might not be the literal truth.

[inquiringmind]

I was just reading this.

“During the summer of 1841, shortly after Heber's return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test-a sacrifice which shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God. On the evening of the third day, some kind of assurance came, and Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph's store on Water Street. The Prophet wept at this act of faith, devotion, and obedience. Joseph had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test."

- Biography of Heber C. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball, Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer." By Stanley B. Kimball, page 93.

Wasn't part of this test being led to believe that he'd have to leave his wife in Joseph's arms?

And if Joseph never really intended to take her, wasn't this an illusion?

Who put Heber thru this test?

Was it all Joseph's idea, or was God involved?

Edited February 21, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Tacenda]

I was just reading this.

“During the summer of 1841, shortly after Heber's return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test-a sacrifice which shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God. On the evening of the third day, some kind of assurance came, and Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph's store on Water Street. The Prophet wept at this act of faith, devotion, and obedience. Joseph had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test."

- Biography of Heber C. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball, Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer." By Stanley B. Kimball, page 93.

Wasn't part of this test being led to believe that he'd have to leave his wife in Joseph's arms?

And if Joseph never really intended to take her, wasn't this an illusion?

Who put Heber thru this test?

Was it all Joseph's idea, or was God involved?

God or Joseph, this was a cruel test. Edited February 21, 2013 by Tacenda