Is it ever ok to Lie?

[baver3]

Um....lying...thats a tough one.

I think there is a difference between what you did and 'bearing false witness'. Bearing false witness comes with it an intent to deceive with motive.

Seems to me you werent so much trying to decieve him as you were trying to protect from doing something harmful.

What a crazy situation. I wouldnt give too much thought about it. I think you did the right thing. Maybe you could have just NOT answered his question and just ask him if you want to call a cab or whatever. At least if he ends up driving away you would have delayed his driving and maybe he was able to sober up a little. I dont know.

[MarginOfError]

Did I just kill the metaphor?

I think slaughter would have been a better choice of words.

[Gwen]

i know of a teen that got mixed up in some drugs, nothing major but was headed that way and fast. she had run away from home and the mother not knowing how else to get her out of the situation waited till she knew the daughter had drugs on her and called the cops. the daughter was picked up and taken to court. the mom wanted the courts to send her to rehab. the judge pulled the mom aside and told her the amt of drugs wasn't enough on a first offense, there was nothing he could do. the mom said something along the lines of "then don't say anything and i'll take care of it". the judge agreed and then the mom comes out and tells the daughter, "i've been talking to the judge. it's rehab or jail. what will it be?". the daughter went to rehab under this "lie". it changed her entire life. she was able to get out of drugs and get clean, get her education, start her own business, etc. knowing her today you would not know where she was as a teen. the mother finally confessed the lie to her. of course there were no hard feelings it had been so many yrs and the daughter understood the wonderful things that came from it.

i can't believe that god would punish this mother for her lie. god doesn't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. my question would be are such "lies" sins? we are told not to get angry. christ is the perfect example and he got angry and threw the money changers out of the temple. it's not called a sin (because christ didn't sin) but a transgression, righteous anger. if he was our example then i would say keeping a drunk off the road while preserving your safety, a mom saving her teenage daughter from a life of misery, etc are not sins but transgressions. it's having a righteous anger toward a greater evil and doing what needs to be done to stop it, even if it means turning over a few tables in the temple.

[Elgama]

I entirely agree Gwen I believe when necessary preserving our own life if prompted or protecting our chldren is our duty. I know when more good would come out of it Abraham and Isaac were prompted to lie to Pharoah, Nephi to kill Laban. Sometimes Heavenly Father asks us to go contrary to what normally would be right, something I know a lot about right now, with both my neighbours situation and the one at Church have taught we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost for a reason, and as parents we have gut instincts that are for use with our children

If Ash felt threatened and it was her best way out of the situation then I would have no bother lying,. I have also said so in my Temple Recommend interview when asked am I honest in all my doings, I have said not always but I strive to do the right thing in every case. I have never been refused a recommend based on that response

[Traveler]

What about the Article faith that indicates we believe in being honest....true, and chased by an elephant? Just how dishonest can you be without falling out of favor with God who doesn't look upon sin without the least degree of allowance?

In strict terms you pose an interesting question. Is deliberately withholding information being truthful and honest? In Isaiah we learn that the L-rd gives out information - line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

It would also seem that as many that read the scriptures there are misleading and false interpretations. How honest is it that the L-rd does not correct all such misleading and false interpretations with direct clear precise clarifications?

We can also ask how honest it is that the L-rd allows Satan to purport his lies and beguile vast segments of the population. We can say we have our agency but what agency is there in a false and deceptive choice? If someone was to make a choice of something that from all appearances was honest only to find out that what they chose was not what they thought it was? How is that “honest” agency?

The Traveler

[Dravin]

I think slaughter would have been a better choice of words.

Or castrate.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Doesn't this just mean that God does not wish you to lie in his name or in his behalf?

I don't see any qualifying statements in that article of faith -- it appears to be a blanket statement that we should be honest, with no boundaries set on that honesty.

Taken with the "least degree of allowance" statement in the Book of Mormon, it sounds like, in the long-run, you've gotta be as straight-on honest in all situations as possible, or else we face condemnation from the Lord.

I like how Jesus handled one such situation -- when the lawyers or pharisees asked him where he got his Authority from, ANY answer would've caused Jesus hardship. So, rather than lie or make something up, He chose to put the disussion into an entirely different arena -- putting the question back on the perpetrators -- asking them where John got his authority from.

When they refused to answer the question, Jesus said "Then I'm not going to answer your question either". Rather than lie or make something up, he ejected himself from the condundrum entirely.

I thought that was brilliant.

Which leads me to my next position -- some professions put you in a position where you have to face honesty conundrums constantly. For some, your very success in the position requires you to sacrifice the truth for some business objective. I think that if you fall into the "honesty at all costs" camp, then you're better off choosing a profession where it's easier to be honest. That way you can still be successful, make a living, and not have these constant internal battles over honesty.

[HoosierGuy]

I recently was told - Men lie and women cry. It's what we do.

[Traveler]

I don't see any qualifying statements in that article of faith -- it appears to be a blanket statement that we should be honest, with no boundaries set on that honesty.

....

It does appear that the article of faith does make an exception to being honest by the phrase "doing good to all men". This is part of the discussion from the start. If someone intends to do harm or will do harm and by withholding information (little white lie) we can do good - how do we decide which is most important? Doing good to all men or under special circumstances telling a fib?

Life has a way of clarifying values. It is part of our trial. But one thing for sure we should understand - stretching the truth, even a little tiny bit, to cause harm even to our enemies is forbidden by G-d.

I like the Dr Laura statement, "Now go and do the 'right' thing".

The Traveler

[LocalFarms]

I think it is important to never lie unless instructed by the L_ord to do so (I started typing it that way because I read your article about why you do it Traveler)

[beefche]

I recently was told - Men lie and women cry. It's what we do.

What a bunch of bull. The men in my life are very honest, honorable, and virtuous. To paint all men as liars is a riduculous and childish summation.

[Gwen]

What a bunch of bull. The men in my life are very honest, honorable, and virtuous. To paint all men as liars is a riduculous and childish summation.

i notice you didn't counter the women cry part..... no issues with that? lol

[beefche]

i notice you didn't counter the women cry part..... no issues with that? lol

I know you are teasing me, but I would rather be called a crier than a liar.

[not_ashamed]

I think it is important to never lie unless instructed by the L_ord to do so (I started typing it that way because I read your article about why you do it Traveler)

See, I think it all gets very tricky and is left up to interpretation. In my case, there may very well have been a better way to handle the situation. However, this man is a regular and I live in a small town. So being diplomatic in how I handled the situation wasn't only important for my safety that night, but every night that I work.

another commandment that I think of is To honor thy mother and father. Meaning we are not to disobey, right? Now if I leave home and tell my kids Do not leave the house while I am gone for any reason and then my house catches on fire while I'm gone, Are my kids to disobey me and leave or honor what I have told them and endanger their lives. I know this seems like a silly comparison but I am making it because I think its important that we all understand and even question exactly what the commandments are telling us and weather it is okay to ever bend them.

[Moksha]

Which leads me to my next position -- some professions put you in a position where you have to face honesty conundrums constantly. For some, your very success in the position requires you to sacrifice the truth for some business objective. I think that if you fall into the "honesty at all costs" camp, then you're better off choosing a profession where it's easier to be honest. That way you can still be successful, make a living, and not have these constant internal battles over honesty.

Makes me wonder when is all said and done to justify dishonesty, if upon some future reflection, we will see that it was unnecessary for our survival and undesirable for our spirit. Lying for the Lord seems indefensible from the start.

That leaves us with lying to save Anne Frank and sparing husbands the displeasure of their wives when the wives invariably ask if their lime green stretch slacks make them look fat.

[bcguy]

Look at it this way,

If you jumped his car, and he drives off and kills a familly of four, you could become liable if you knew he was drunk and rendering assistance to get his car started. I would have just made it simple and called the police.

[HoosierGuy]

What a bunch of bull. The men in my life are very honest, honorable, and virtuous. To paint all men as liars is a riduculous and childish summation.

Not all. Probably, highly likely nearly all. Not a childish summation either, it's reality.

[Dr T]

First off you are not paying attention. I do not know why but you have left out the phrase "against thy neighbor". The commandment in Exodus 20:16 is as follows:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

There are many ways to lie and without a doubt bearing a false witness against your neighbor is one of them. However, it is this type of slander that G-d singled out as a grievous sin and pronounced as a commandment.

It is my personal opinion that the phrase you have ignored is important to the L-rd – otherwise I think he would have given the commandment as you have stated it. If this is something you are not really very clear about in your understanding – I would be most honored to discuss my opinion on this matter in much more detail.

The Traveler

Thank you Traveler,

It seems to me that you are nit picking in that distiction above. As you said, "There are many ways to lie and without a doubt bearing a false witness against your neighbor is one of them." which is exactly why I didn't think I needed to put that part on that because it is clear, it is one of them. I'd really love to hear more about why you made that distinction if you have time. Thank you.

[LocalFarms]

I work 3rd shift at a gas station and a few nights ago this guy comes in. It is obvious he is drunk, he even mentioned he was. So he goes outside and his car won't crank. The battery is dead. So he comes inside to ask if I have jumper cables. I'm left with three options.

1. Jump off his car

2. Tell him I don't have any

3. Tell him yes I have them but that he is too drunk to drive, And put myself in the position of arguing with a drunk while all alone at 3 am.

Without much thought, I chose to tell him I didn't have any. We teach our kids it's never okay to lie. But is it sometimes necessary?

To answer you about this I would say it's deffinately okay to lie about your jumper cables and I would deffinately also call the police on the guy.

[Onhech]

This is very interesting philosophical question. It reminds me of Kant's maxims: undeniable "no if's" moral ethical laws. Lying is not evil, killing people is not evil, it is not the actions of a man which determine morality. Nephi killed, it was not evil for him. This is why we can't judge but must leave it to Jesus, because he is the only one that really know WHY the person did what he did.

As for the topic of lying, it is heavily ingrained in the church history particularly embedded in polygamy. The problem with Kants moral maxims (absolute ethical values such as "Never tell a lie") is that there can be conflicting maxims. EXAMPLE

So you are a German harboring Jews in Nazi Germany. The Geheime Staatspolizei come knocking on your door and ask you if you are harboring Jews. You have three(or four) basic options.

1) Lie and tell them that you are not (Violating the Maxim "Never Tell A Lie")

2) Tell them the truth and have the Jew exposed and encamped or killed (Violating the Maxim of "preservation of innocent life" (as you presumably believe))

3) Do not respond, thus not lying or surrendering them explicitly. (This would ultimately lead to the Gestapo to strip your house and find the Jews, thus it is tantamount to affirmation and in violation of the maxim of "preservation of innocent life".)

4) Do not tell an explicit lie but mislead the Gestapo into belief that you are not harboring Jews (This is the same as option 1, just because you don't "say" it doesn't mean that you communicate it. This is contrary to the "never tell a lie" maxim)

The problem with Kant philosophy is that there is no acceptable action is such a situation, there is hierarchy of maxims and thus there is no correct answer to this question.

As we look back in history we can see that Joseph smith lied about his polygamous wives, that during the political persecution of polygamy in the church essentially every polygamous was misleading the authorizes in regards to their marital status. It could be a maxim to obey the (or that) law and turn yourself it, but it is also a maxim to support your families who would be economically devastated and uncared for if the. Another violated maxim would be to your religious beliefs, for them to practice polygamy is a God given commandment and thus a Maxim which would be violated if the first maxim were observed.

According to absolutes or maxims there is no correct action for this situation. We have to pick one of the absolutes, it is a moral dilemma. The responsibility of this lies in the individual in the dilemma, not in the society that it is harbored it. In the end the question rests on you, what you is your ultimate maxim? Is it more important not to lie, or not to kill, or something else?

[Guest mormonmusic]

responsibility of this lies in the individual in the dilemma, not in the society that it is harbored it. In the end the question rests on you, what you is your ultimate maxim? Is it more important not to lie, or not to kill, or something else?

I think you have to then adopt a utilitarian approach. As the philsopher John Mills said "the greatest good for the greatest number". That would be my maxim in this situation.

In the case of the Gestapo, lying, or convincing them you're legit preserves the lives of the Jews, and the lives of the citizens hiding those Jews. It causes no harm to the Nazis who simply move on. And if there was harm to them, it would be lesser harm because it would be lessening the forces of evil.

To cite a similar situation, as you do -- It was better for Nephi to kill Laban lest "an entire nation perishes in unbelief".

There was definite utilitarianism going on there. I think lying falls into the same camp when brute honesty can mean significant harm to a lot of people. And I think God and sometimes his Prophets are definitely utilitarian.

I could quote a couple Church policies that seem to adopt that route.

Edited June 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Jamie123]

Agreed. However, the Lord also says he doesn't like "he who loveth a lie". So, we shouldn't get to the point where we default to lying when there are other more intelligent ways out of it that allow us to achieve our objectives through honesty.

Yes...If we have carte blanche to lie whenever it's convenient to do so, how would we ever trust each other? This is common sense and nothing to do with any scriptural argument.

It's in taking this to the extreme and saying that it's always wrong to lie whatever the circumstance that problems arise. Anyone who's thought about this for more than 30 seconds will see that whatever your mother/nurse/kindergarton teacher might have told you when you were 4, there are circumstances in which telling a lie becomes a necessity.

Say this to some people and they'll immediately say "So telling the truth doesn't matter?" This is the never-questioned voice of their kindergarton teacher - truth good lies bad - a false dichotomy which their early childhood indoctrination has never allowed them to spot. Anyone who does think about it will come to the conclusion that yes, of course telling the truth matters. But it's not always our first, last and only obligation.

Having said that though, it probably is good to teach children that lying is bad, just as it's good to teach them that I comes before E except after C. Rules have to be learned first before exceptions.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jamie123

[Guest mormonmusic]

Yes...If we have carte blanche to lie whenever it's convenient to do so, how would we ever trust each other? This is common sense and nothing to do with any scriptural argument.

I might qualify my maxim by also saying "Never lie when an acceptable solution can be arrived at through honesty and intelligent thinking".

Perhaps you remember the movie LIar Liar with Jim Carey. He was defending a woman who was clearly caught in the act of adultery. She was on the verge of losing all rights to her ex-husband's wealth due to a pre-nup agreement that said if she cheated, she would get nothing.

His intent was to lie to get her out of her problem.

But fate left him in a position where he was physically incapable of lying.

So he realized he had a sound legal argument for getting out of the pre-nup terms. The woman had entered into the pre-nup agreement when she was very young, and not old enough to enter into a legal contract.

Therefore, the contract was not binding.

He discovered that he didn't have to lie -- there was a legal argument he could use to achieve his objective that was honest and consistent with the law.

I think this is a good example of how a bit of ingenuity and intelligence can help you achieve objectives without defaulting immediately to deception. Lying is easy and convenient, and shouldn't be our first resort.

I'm glad we're having this conversation -- this is one conversation "talk" you could not have over the pulpit or in a Sunday School class. At Church people tend to avoid the topic so they don't get accused of sending the wrong message the "lying is OK". It's better just to tow the line and say "always be honest" and then move on at Church...here you can explore the realities of honesty.

[MarginOfError]

I think this is a good example of how a bit of ingenuity and intelligence can help you achieve objectives without defaulting immediately to deception. Lying is easy and convenient, and shouldn't be our first resort.

I'm being nit picky again, but lying and deception aren't necessarily the same thing. You can very easily deceive a person without ever telling a lie. In fact, you can deceive a person using nothing but truth.

Example: Barack Obama was overwhelming favored as the presidential candidate in 2008. He carried 67.8% of the electoral college against John McCain's 32.2%.

Such a statement seems reasonable, but is deceptive, because in the popular vote, only 52.9% voted for Obama (against McCain's ~ 45%).

This actually opens up a new avenue of discussion though. If we do claim that lying is categorically wrong, what about deception? Is it always wrong to deceive another person? Part of my belief that it isn't always wrong to lie comes from my understanding that lying is just one of many tools that can be used to deceive. If we accept in the larger context that at times it is appropriate--maybe even necessary--to deceive another person, does it really matter what tool we use to accomplish that goal? To what extent does it matter?

[Gwen]

Perhaps you remember the movie LIar Liar with Jim Carey. He was defending a woman who was clearly caught in the act of adultery. She was on the verge of losing all rights to her ex-husband's wealth due to a pre-nup agreement that said if she cheated, she would get nothing.

His intent was to lie to get her out of her problem.

But fate left him in a position where he was physically incapable of lying.

So he realized he had a sound legal argument for getting out of the pre-nup terms. The woman had entered into the pre-nup agreement when she was very young, and not old enough to enter into a legal contract.

Therefore, the contract was not binding.

He discovered that he didn't have to lie -- there was a legal argument he could use to achieve his objective that was honest and consistent with the law.

ok so this example brings out another aspect of this question. he didn't "lie" but was he being honest? she signed a pre-nup. she promised to never cheat. if she did there were consequences. she broke the agreement but still wanted the reward. no accountability for her actions. doesn't sound honest to me. the whole problem with lying is it's dishonest. is being dishonest and lying the same sin? the same eternal judgment?