- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This question is especially for believing members, but all are welcome to respond & add to the discussion: Is it okay to lie or deceive to promulgate the Gospel / build the Kingdom? If so, when & why is it okay? Examples?
I’m not looking to start any arguments, just wondering what the opinions are out there.
Thanks for clarifying you aren’t trying to start arguments, we don’t do that here. I don’t think ends justify the means. I think if it is clearly known to be deceit/lying…that is wrong and it won’t end up helping the gospel in the long run, because that is counter-intuitive.
If the gospel is true, it stands on its own, and does not need deceit or trickery.
When it is gray areas…and we’re not sure…well…then we do our best based on what we believe at the time and search for more light and knowledge as we go, admitting when we are wrong and correcting actions (and the Atonement becomes important to us).
‘lying’ is such a misunderstood term. I hear the word, all the time, from the lips of people who are freshly disaffected from the Church. But all too often, they mean “saying something that is not true”, which is not the definition of lying, and anyone who doesn’t understand the difference should spend some time thinking about it. Also, it’s not fair to be so black & white. As I walk home this coming Thursday from the gas station, if someone pulls a knife on me, I’m going to say, “Bud, you’re holdin’ up the wrong guy. I don’t have enough money to make it worth your while.” Even though, in reality, I will have 1.4Billion Washingtons in my shirt pocket. Why should I let him know that? Human beings are routinely less that 100% honest about everything we do. What might appear not-that-big-of-a-deal to one person might be a show-stopper to someone else.
I agree that there are times you have to be careful HOW you say things, but to outright lie, that is completely unacceptable, especially in a church that claims to have Christ at its head and has all truth. Completely unacceptable — especially in the context of spreading the gospel. And I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
Only if what’s good for the goose is okay for the gander. Are we okay with our enemies lying for the Lord? If we’re not, then we shouldn’t try to justify it in our own lives. I don’t know if this makes sense or not. Should we give an answer or make a definitive statement if we really don’t know what the truth is?
I believe we (as the church or individuals) make definitive statements to questions because we think we should.
Because this is the one true church or the church has all the answers even when the truth isn’t known.
We speculate with authority. In a way that appears as truthful. (I’m back in the 60’s)
For me it’s far too hard to pin a lie on someone. On Own Now wrote:‘lying’ is such a misunderstood term. I hear the word, all the time, from the lips of people who are freshly disaffected from the Church. But all too often, they mean “saying something that is not true”, which is not the definition
of lying, and anyone who doesn’t understand the difference should spend some time thinking about it.
I agree with this.
If someone states something that they believe in, is it a lie just because the belief isn’t correct? Now what if they use very definitive terms?
Remember that radio drama War of the Worlds? Lets say my mom calls in hysterics because her friend told her that the Martians were invading and that it was all over the news. I tune into the radio station and sure enough, Martians! Now I, having been warned, go to warn my neighbor. Eventually everyone finds out it was all a drama. All the people that I warned get mad at me, I get mad at my mom, my mom gets mad at her friend, and we’re all pretty steamed with Orson Welles. Did Welles intend to cause a little panic? Who knows? The program was announced ahead of time and they even told everyone it was a drama at different points of the broadcast. It really depended on when people tuned in. I think the public’s reaction to the broadcast is another one of those things that has built up over the years, I don’t believe it really caused mass hysteria but mass hysteria makes for a better story. People like stories. I could say more but this isn’t about War of the Worlds…
That’s an example what can happen when people start out with a
clearwork of fiction. What might happen when the origins of the story are further removed, much less clear, and have to do with a substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen? SilentDawning wrote:I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
No disagreement that the Church has done this. The most obvious example is that the Church OFFICIALLY denied the practice of polygamy prior to August, 1852 (163.5 years ago).But when antagonists (or questioners) use the term “lying for the Lord” far too often they include a broad brush of teachings that I don’t categorize as lying. For example, I’ve heard the term applied to the canonical version of the First Vision, to not including the seerstone in the hat as part of the BofM translation, to the number of wives that JS had, and to the Priesthood Ban being a doctrine, rather than just a policy. In each of those cases, the Church itself has learned over time through efforts of historians. And they have shared some of that information in guarded ways. I knew as a fully believing member of the Church decades ago that JS had multiple wives (though I didn’t realize the extent), that he used a seerstone (though I didn’t know about the hat), that there were other versions of the First Vision, and I knew how they differed.
In all these cases, IMO, the Church has published the information that they believed to be both accurate and relevant. The Ban is a great example. We know that debates raged about whether it was doctrine or policy, even among the top leadership of the Church. This cornered the Church itself into NEEDING a revelation to overturn it. When one was finally provided, even then, the Church continued to assert that it had been doctrine but now God had instituted a change. But more recently, the Church has worked to sort out the history, has learned that there is no record of a revelation, rather that teachings seemed to simply appear, and that in fact there were a lot of factors that likely drove it as a policy. The Church’s position now, upon its own reflection of its own history is that the Ban was a policy, instituted by men due largely to the environment of the times, rather than a doctrine. If we call that lying, then good luck getting the Church to do any more introspection. On the contrary, people like us need to stand up and shout “Thank You!”
In certain of the above cases, the Church hasn’t been forthcoming with ALL the information. But I believe in those cases that the Church saw the extra details as not contributing any great truth. In court, we know that ‘prejudicial’ information cannot be entered at trial. Here’s the legal explanation:
Quote:The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. -Federal Rules of Evidence FRE-403
In other words, if we ever have to go to court, we have protections against evidence being presented against us that has an unfair side-effect, even if the evidence itself is ‘relevant’. Interestingly, this is exactly what detractors of the Church do with the hat and exactly what the Church is trying to avoid when they generalize and stay out of details; as when they say that the BofM was translated “by the gift and power of God”, which is the exact phrase I used as a missionary all those years ago.
On the issue of polygamy, missionaries don’t volunteer the information. It would be asinine of the Church to say, “Let’s take a break from talking about how the Atonement can change your life and how Prayer can connect you with God, so that we can list the wives of JS in order.” I would love for the missionary discussions to say that we used to live in polygamy but that we don’t anymore. But from the Church’s perspective, it simply isn’t relevant. Not bringing it up is not the same as lying.
Thanks for all the responses so far. All good points and thought-provoking. On Own Now wrote:‘lying’ is such a misunderstood term. I hear the word, all the time, from the lips of people who are freshly disaffected from the Church. But all too often, they mean “saying something that is not true”, which is not the definition of lying, and anyone who doesn’t understand the difference should spend some time thinking about it.
I agree with this as well.SilentDawning wrote:And I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
This (as you can probably tell) is the main reason for my post; I have been feeling betrayed and trying to reconcile why this would happen in the True Church. It is helpful to hear the thoughts of people across the whole spectrum of believers and non-believers about this topic.On Own Now wrote:In all these cases, IMO, the Church has published the information that they believed to be both accurate and relevant. The Ban is a great example. We know that debates raged about whether it was doctrine or policy, even among the top leadership of the Church. This cornered the Church itself into NEEDING a revelation to overturn it. When one was finally provided, even then, the Church continued to assert that it had been doctrine but now God had instituted a change. But more recently, the Church has worked to sort out the history, has learned that there is no record of a revelation, rather that teachings seemed to simply appear, and that in fact there were a lot of factors that likely drove it as a policy. The Church’s position now, upon its own reflection of its own history is that the Ban was a policy, instituted by men due largely to the environment of the times, rather than a doctrine. If we call that lying, then good luck getting the Church to do any more introspection. On the contrary, people like us need to stand up and shout “Thank You!”
There was at least one high-level committee appointed prior to the 1978 revelation, to determine whether the ban was policy or doctrine. While I agree that the church has at times confused policy with doctrine, I have a hard time accepting that the brethren still thought in 1978 that the ban was actually doctrinal. I think if they were still claiming it at that time, then they must have been doing so for their own “protection”. Fair argument, or am I in left field? I’m only a novice in this history.On Own Now wrote:In certain of the above cases, the Church hasn’t been forthcoming with ALL the information. But I believe in those cases that the Church saw the extra details as not contributing any great truth.
How does one reconcile the church withholding certain truths in light of the following quote from chapter 31 of the current Gospel Essentials manual
found at LDS.org
Quote:There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.
The part that jumps out is “or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in a way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”How many times has the church only published part of the truth (translation of the Plates, First Vision, etc), thus only telling “part of the truth”, that “lead people in a way to believe something that is not true”. Our church history books are full of this. By the churches own definition they are not being honest.
I try to remember that the people who fudged, blurred, obscured, and flat-out lied were from a time when people didn’t tell kids they were adopted, or tell a family member that their cancer wasn’t curable. It doesn’t go all the way to fix my problem (I was about eight and hearing anti-Mormon “lies” about Joseph Smith, and decided I didn’t want anything to do with the church if they were true), but it helps.
And that’s the part that is really hard to take: how quick the church was to call the truth a lie. But it was expedient then.
Reality and charity make this a much more complex question than it appears on its face. I answered, “No” – but I agree with everyone who has said that it’s not that simple.
LIP wrote:SilentDawning wrote:And I hate to say it, our church has been guilty of it over the years on certain points, even on a church wide, official basis.
This (as you can probably tell) is the main reason for my post; I have been feeling betrayed and trying to reconcile why this would happen in the True Church. It is helpful to hear the thoughts of people across the whole spectrum of believers and non-believers about this topic.
I also agree that “lying” is overly used as that almost insinuates malice. There was much more ignorance involved once a few folks just went hush on some topics.But BOY do I get it on it FEELING like I was lied to. So don’t take the feedback of “it isn’t LYING exactly” as us telling you it doesn’t FEEL like that (at least at first). I have been able to feel much less of that over time and with some study. I am less bothered by the past attempts to tell people not to look at the guy behind the curtain than I am with it continuing right in front of me.
LIP wrote:On Own Now wrote:In all these cases, IMO, the Church has published the information that they believed to be both accurate and relevant. The Ban is a great example. We know that debates raged about whether it was doctrine or policy, even among the top leadership of the Church. This cornered the Church itself into NEEDING a revelation to overturn it. When one was finally provided, even then, the Church continued to assert that it had been doctrine but now God had instituted a change. But more recently, the Church has worked to sort out the history, has learned that there is no record of a revelation, rather that teachings seemed to simply appear, and that in fact there were a lot of factors that likely drove it as a policy. The Church’s position now, upon its own reflection of its own history is that the Ban was a policy, instituted by men due largely to the environment of the times, rather than a doctrine. If we call that lying, then good luck getting the Church to do any more introspection. On the contrary, people like us need to stand up and shout “Thank You!”
There was at least one high-level committee appointed prior to the 1978 revelation, to determine whether the ban was policy or doctrine. While I agree that the church has at times confused policy with doctrine, I have a hard time accepting that the brethren still thought in 1978 that the ban was actually doctrinal. I think if they were still claiming it at that time, then they must have been doing so for their own “protection”. Fair argument, or am I in left field? I’m only a novice in this history.
The more I have studied church history the more I just have to laugh. Did you know that David O. McKay believed it was a policy and not doctrine buthe didn’t tell anybody in leadership! So the next president of the church continued to think it was doctrine.Sheldon wrote:How many times has the church only published part of the truth (translation of the Plates, First Vision, etc), thus only telling “part of the truth”, that “lead people in a way to believe something that is not true”. Our church history books are full of this. By the churches own definition they are not being honest.
Missionaries tell investigators that JS “translated the contents of these plates by the power of God” (Preach my Gospel). How is not mentioning the hat, the seertsone, the breasplate, the Urim and Thummim, the sheet, the box, or the scribe leading people to believe something that is not true (from the perspective of the Church)?PMG also instructs missionaries to teach that God and Jesus appeared to JS and they use the PofGP version of the FV as the framework. But that is the version the Church believes is the most complete and the most accurate. It is literally the canonical version of the FV. How is not mentioning that in another version JS didn’t mention God or that Jesus told him his sins were forgiven leading people to believe something that is not true (from the perspective of the Church)?
On Own Now wrote:Also, it’s not fair to be so black & white. As I walk home this coming Thursday from the gas station, if someone pulls a knife on me, I’m going to say, “Bud, you’re holdin’ up the wrong guy. I don’t have enough money to make it worth your while.” Even though, in reality, I will have 1.4Billion Washingtons in my shirt pocket. Why should I let him know that? Human beings are routinely less that 100% honest about everything we do. What might appear not-that-big-of-a-deal to one person might be a show-stopper to someone else.
What OON said. There are lots of shades of gray between outright unfiltered full disclosure and lying. I personally am fairly comfortable with operating in the middle. In dealing with public relations I will sometimes write a sentence to give the receiver an impression that is not what I actually strictly said. In a way it gives me the benefit of lying without the possibility of being “caught in a lie.” Plausible deniability and all that.
As for using these practices in the benefit of the church – IMO that is just human nature. We can dress it up as “milk before meat” or any other way that we choose but in the end we are just people trying to put our best foot forward and advance our interests while not compromising our moral identities. (As OON said, how far an individual is willing to bend the truth before they feel uncomfortable varies from person to person and depends on multiple factors)
I do not know anyone that operates on full “the whole truth, nothing but the truth.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.