We’ll what do you know! You’re a lawyer! Let me just say that despite all my lawyer jokes, I have the utmost respect for those that practice that profession according to the ethics of the profession (which I assume is the majority.)

I have to say that I feel that the concept of “making a case,” which is always a one sided affair, is an integral part of truth telling. Of course it depends on context, but in the case of the legal system, we could never have a hope of getting at the truth without having two lawyers both intentionally take the same set of facts and make their best “spun” case to reflect their client’s point of view. (Incidently, this is why I have absolutely no problem with apologists — on either side — even if that isn’t my prefered approach personally. So long as they don’t use deception to intentionally misrepresent their case.)

>>> I have to decide which comes first, which is most important and how to line them up.

I completely agree with this. A *huge* part of truth telling is keeping context. Those that don’t accept this are, in my opinion, not telling the truth at all. (Or at least they are living by a dual standard as they undoubtedly follow that approach for their own beliefs.)

It’s one thing to tell people that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers; a saying carefully formulated to imply that Mormons don’t believe Jesus was uniquely the only begotten and uniquely divine. It’s another thing to say that Mormons believe all of our spirits are children of God. While both of these statements are technically true, one of them is a deception due to the context in which it is stated. Context (and thus order) matter and they matter a lot as to whether someone is deceiving or telling the truth.

Likewise, if I go around telling people that Calvinists (the majority of right wing Christians) believe God doesn’t love everyone, I’m lying even though I believe some of their beliefs might amount to this. Context really does matter. Saying they don’t believe God is loving is a deception. Saying that their views of predestination are, in my opinion, a contradiction to God’s love is not a deception.

Update: Time to shut things down. Thanks, ya’ll.
Drat! I wanted to finish talking to Dude. Dude! Call me! Let’s talk. Oh wait… you can’t. Oh never mind.

Comeon. Get off it. Use common sense.

You got that right!

However, But frankly, when kids find out there is no Santa they tend to react badly but if they are taught about St. Nicholas, the dowries, the gold down the chimney and the chance to be like the Saint and to carry the tradition forward they learn a great deal.

Bruce Nielson pretty much covered the area, so I’ll leave it there. It is just that in my line of work I often have two or three things that rest on each other. I have to decide which comes first, which is most important and how to line them up. I don’t see that as deception (and if it is, it doesn’t survive given that there are other attorneys on the other side ready to point out any deception and a judge or judges reviewing it all). But I have to start somewhere, I have to have an ultimate goal, and I need to have points along the way.

I don’t believe that Christ commanded Peter to Lie… despite what Spencer W. Kimball said. Peter lied by choice… and he wept afterwards because he knew it was wrong.

If the Church is engaging in deception, it is wrong. It is not how the Spirit operates. The Catholic church engaged in deception to cover up the fact that Priests were molesting little children. Was that OK? Was that Lying for the Lord? They thought it was OK because they did it to further the cause of the Lord. Obviously the public disagreed. If we say this is ok we are on a slippery slope. Where will we draw the line? Who is to say when it is Ok to lie and when it isn’t? Call it retardation if you want. I call it a moral backbone.

We will just have to agree to disgaree.

Darrell

“But Millet is not working towards a full answer here. There isn’t a plan to follow up later with clarification. This answer looks bad and will harm the Church as it is currently stated. . . .”

“So Dude, what do you think of what I am saying? I just spent a lot of time trying to explain my non-black and white views on “truth” and why I agree with you in many of the examples you use. But did I successfully convince you that Millet’s answer was questionable?”

I think Millet is doing the best he can in a messy situation, and I think that nobody can successfully find fault with what he is doing, when he is doing the best he can. See, thats the thing. Every single one of these situations where these types of decisions have to be made are MESSY. That means that sometimes it works to a degree, but it will never work perfectly. It will always be something that people can come back and make accusations about I guess, when found out. But the risk of that is inherent in the nature of what it is. Like it or not, it is MESSY. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do. Would you say that Jacob should have not deceived and yield his right to the birthright to the wicked Esau, when Esau had previously sold it? Was it not Esau that drove Jacob to HAVE to deceive to preserve the birthright to go to its proper place? Is it not the angel that declared that Jacob would rule over Esau? Just because Esau later wanted to kill Jacob and he had to flee doesn’t mean that Jacob should have yielded. Is it not circumstances that are ugly that DRIVE and COMPEL the NECESSITY of having to resolve to a YUCKY means of securing the desired outcome? Is it better to not get the outcome at all and be perfectly.

I side with Millet and I declare that he is in the right, and he is perfectly justified.

Darrell #103:

Of course FARMS and FAIR are saying it isn’t happening, because they are engaging in the very practice, justifiably so.

You say, “I personally do not belive that is how Christ operates.” Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that commanded Abraham to LIE. Christ is the God that commanded Peter to LIE Three times. Yes, Spencer W. Kimball, the Prophet of the Lord, taught that Christ commanded PETER TO LIE THREE TIMES. It was out of character for Peter to have wimped out! And the only good explanation is that Christ commanded him to lie because it wasn’t his time to DIE! Come on people. USE SOME FREAKING COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m tired of this plain retardation and lack of good logic.

lying: telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; mendacious; false: a lying report.

So the answer to the rhetorical question is no.

I intentionally didn’t use term “lying”, I used the term “deception”. But frankly, when kids find out there is no Santa they tend to react badly.

What concerns me about your answer is that you are basically admitting that the Church engages in deception. However, you say that this deception is OK because it is done in order to further the mission of the church. This is spritaually arrogant and is a problem that many “Anti’s” have with the church. FARMS and FAIR try desperately to convince people this is NOT happening.

I believe that the Church should hold itself to the same standard it preaches. It is hypocritical to preach that a “Half-Truth” is a lie and then to say it is OK to do so if it is expedient to the Church’s mission. I personally do not belive that is how Christ operates. The Spirit is what converts people NOT fancy selling techniques or PR campaigns. You do not have to engage in a “PR Campaign” of telling half-truths to save souls. What you are saying is that you have to “reel people in” with “Half-Truths” otherwise they will run the other way. That is not how the Spirit operates.

It almost sound like a car salesman… “I won’t tell then about the wreck this car was in 1 year ago… they’ll find that out after they take it home to try it out for a night. By then they will be sold on the car and then the small fact that the car was in an accident won’t matter”. It all seems very deceptive to me.

If the Church is not willing to hold itself to the same standard it preaches then it definitely loses it’s credibility to a lot of people. This single thing is a large part of why so many people have left the church to begin with.

Darrell

I’d like to engage in some dialog with you on this. I believe I am really on your side, but I don’t agree with you in this instance. I do agree with you that some posters on this site take a very black and white view on many issues and that it is very concerning. The real world isn’t as black and white as the stance I see many take here. That being said, I think Millet was wrong to put things the way he did. Let me explain why:

You gave several examples from scripture of God justifying deception. I would agree that deception is not, in and of itself, morally incorrect in all circumstances. If I were hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and I was asked to disclose if I was hiding anyone, you better believe I’d lie about it like a dog and not feel the slightest twinge of guilt over it. Simply Clintonizing my answer (i.e. “I have no Jews for you to take.”) is not sufficient in this case. Stating “no comment” is not either. Lying is the morally correct thing to do. The examples you use from scripture may well be too. I’m certain God is well aware that deception, in rare circumstances, is morally correct.

But is Millet’s circumstance really one of those rare circumstances?

>>> It is all about timing.

I agree with you on this. If this were a 1st discussion and Millet gave this answer with intent to clarify in later discussions once a better framework for the answer was built, I think this answer would probably be valid. Part of “truth” is making sure it’s explained in the right context. This means sometimes you have to explain a lot of other things first before the person is ready for the full answer. God seems to use this approach with His “line upon line” view of revealing truth. Black and white thinkers will accuse God of lying.

But Millet is not working towards a full answer here. There isn’t a plan to follow up later with clarification. This answer looks bad and will harm the Church as it is currently stated.

>>> The importance of saving souls trumps the principle of telling the whole truth at times. It is all about giving them only enough truth at a certain amount of time that they can actually benefit from, not choke on.

Having the right context for something is part of telling the truth. A good example of this is my post about other Christians calling Mormons “non-Christians.” My objection to this isn’t that non-Mormons are labeling or excluding Mormons. This is their right and maybe even duty.

My objection to them calling Mormons “non-Christians” is that they doing it in a deceptive way by removing the context of their statement. What they mean is “Mormons aren’t Christian according to my refined private definition of ‘Christian.’” But what the people, that I used examples of, heard was “Mormons don’t believe in Jesus Christ at all.” This is a clear deception on the Evangelical Christian’s part. (Possibly not intentional.) The fact is… Mormons *aren’t* Christian according to the way some Christians currently define the term: as being only those that believe in the creedal interpretations of the Bible. If that is their private definition of “Christian” sign me (and Jesus for that matter) up as being “non-Christian.”

My sole concern here is that they are asserting their beliefs in a deceptive way. Sadly, some people even try to defend these deceptions, usually why accusing Mormons of deception on far less.

Also note: the Evangelical Christians could defend themselves using the same argument you are using: that salvation matters more than truth. I do not buy that this is a sufficient answer for them, so I don’t buy it’s sufficient for us. (I’ll grant an exception if God reveals it to me to be deceptive, in say, Nephi fashion.)

But I think the real reason I find Millet’s answer deceptive is because Oaks already showed that it was entirely possible to answer this question in a non-deceptive but still appropriate manner. See the link in my post above.

I guess I should add two more points. I do not find it deceptive to give answers that approximate the truth but, because of a lack of time or interest in a full nuanced answer, all the facts don’t come out. This is a practice that we all use at times because of necessity. I dislike dual standards on this point, however. If one use this tactic at times — and we all do — one need to allow others to use it without accusing them of deception. I find this approach only problematic if the “approximate” answer leads the person away from what the person really believe. I find Millet’s answer problematic because of that very reason.

We all know it’s okay to tell people that electrons orbit around the nucleus and then later tell them that they don’t once they are ready for the more advanced view. Approximations of truth are still truth if they help people understand or conceptualize a more complex truth. Millet’s answer fails in this regard because his answer doesn’t really approximate the truth of what we believe.

I don’t even find “spin” deceptive so long as the person stating it really believes in it. E.g. if a democrat politician wants to state that, say, doing away with affirmative action would be bad for minorities but ignores possible counter arguments he/she doesn’t believe in, I do not believe said theoretical person is outside the the demands of truth at all even though they aren’t being fully candid since they aren’t bring up possible counter arguments. If a person had to bring up all possible counter arguments, even ones they don’t believe are valid, to anything they stated, we would basically be unable to state much of anything.

A real life example of this: I once read an article written by Warren Buffet making a case to not reduce capital gains taxes as the Bush administration was doing. His argument was that his secretary pays less taxes than he does if you do away with capital gains tax. I’m sure many of you are familiar with this somewhat famous article. Buffet was not being entirely candid. He completely left out the fact that as a company owner, the company already pays taxes and thus (from this point of view) the Bush tax cut actually made things equal between him and his secretary. Was Buffet lying? Not on your life. He was making a case that he believed in. It was the truth as he understood it. The demands of truth do not require him to explain possible counter arguments he doesn’t believe in.

(On the other hand, “spin” is always deceptive if you are portraying yourself as an unbiased analysis rather than obviously “making a case” as Buffet was.)

I would be hard pressed to say that Millet was just doing “spin” in his answer that represented something he really believed. So I don’t see this as an out for him.

So Dude, what do you think of what I am saying? I just spent a lot of time trying to explain my non-black and white views on “truth” and why I agree with you in many of the examples you use. But did I successfully convince you that Millet’s answer was questionable? I have no disagreements on the abstract points you are making. I just don’t think they add up to any sort of defense for Millet’s statement.

Stephen, I don’t think teaching children is analogous to sharing the gospel with adults. If deception isn’t going to be problematic enough, treating them like children will only add to it.

“Another strength Satan can exploit is a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the gospel. How could that possibly work to our detriment? Experience teaches that if this desire is not disciplined, it can cause some to pursue their searchings beyond the fringes of orthodoxy, seeking answers to obscure mysteries rather than seeking a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel. Some seek answers to questions God has not chosen to answer. Others receive answers—or think they receive answers—in ways that are contrary to the order of the Church. For such searchers, Satan stands ready to mislead through sophistry or spurious revelation. Persons who hunger after a full understanding of all things must discipline their questions and their methods, or they can approach apostasy without even knowing it. It may be just as dangerous to exceed orthodoxy as it is to fall short of it. The safety and happiness we are promised lie in keeping the commandments, not in discounting or multiplying them.” (Dallin Oaks, October 1994, Ensign)

Now, arguably these leaders are twisting Oaks’ words. Oaks talks about being careful, yet I’ve sat in many meetings where LDS leaders on the ward and stake level have used Oaks’ words to say that delving beyond “basic” gospel principles is actually a dangerous thing to do.

Most rational people tend to react badly when they find out they have been deceived.

Let’s review a bit of history for a moment. Joseph Smith once sent an epistle to the newly formed Relief Society in Nauvoo and said in it: “there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skill’d in Masonry to keep a secret….Let this Epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and we shall learn whether you are good Masons.” How then, shall something be kept a private matter? By keeping a secret. And then of course, in the History of the Church, Joseph is quoted as saying “The secret of masonry is to keep a secret.” Now, if you remember, Joseph Smith’s practices of Plural Marriage were kept very secret. And do you think that this was just done by not saying anything about it? No. It was also vehemently denied that it was so. During the times of the New Plural Marriages from 1890-1904, the authorities of the Church were blatantly denying the practice to the government. They had every intention to continue the practice until it was finally snuffed out when they simply couldn’t get away with it anymore. Its because the importance of that principle at the time trumped both obedience to the laws of man, and it also trumped the principle of telling the whole truth. PERIOD.

Abraham was commanded of the Lord to lie to Pharoah. Nephi deceived Zoram by pretending to be Laban by talking in his voice. Missionaries in my era (1991-1993) would teach the first missionary discussion leaving out the part of the first vision about Joseph Smith being attacked by the Devil. Why? Because why in heavens name would you want to have to answer questions about the devil attacking Joseph Smith in the first discussion? Why was tithing and the law of chastity left until the 4th and 5th discussion. It is all about timing. The importance of saving souls trumps the principle of telling the whole truth at times. It is all about giving them only enough truth at a certain amount of time that they can actually benefit from, not choke on. There are all kinds of exceptions to the rule of telling the whole truth at certain times. I stand by my contention that this is the case. You already reject this, so again, this isn’t something I’m going to lose sleep over. But your absolutism and idealism on this idea that you have to tell the truth at all times and there are never any other principles more important than telling the whole truth is a naive and infantile and plain stupid lack of common sense. And I stand by my use of those words in my description of your lack of good reasoning on this issue.

http://www.article6blog.com/2008/02/01/article-vi-interviews-the-reverend-cecil-chip-murray/

You’re just trying to slip out of what you said and we have shown that it was not the case, at least as far as GA teaching over the pulpit and recorded in the Ensign, etc. obfuscate it all you want.

“As for offering “no proof” of LDS leaders telling members to avoid the “deep” doctrines and “mysteries,” At the very least, I’ve offered you first hand witness testimony, from a person who spent 26 years active in the LDS church, and who sat in counsel with bishoprics and stake presidencies on a frequent basis.”

So, you have said. It is the easy way out. You want me to call you a liar because that would make me the bad guy here and I will not do it. Could it be that you were just mistaken about what was said, simply because it goes against scripture?

I could never bring myself to read his book.

As for offering “no proof” of LDS leaders telling members to avoid the “deep” doctrines and “mysteries,” At the very least, I’ve offered you first hand witness testimony, from a person who spent 26 years active in the LDS church, and who sat in counsel with bishoprics and stake presidencies on a frequent basis. You can choose to call me a liar, I suppose, but you can’t say I haven’t given you evidence.

I still say that if you’ve seriously never encountered this in the LDS church, you’ve been very, very lucky.

Bruce, there are many who value Mormonism, who are critical of Hinckley’s comments (which, btw, involve more than one interview, more than one reporter, and more than one apologist-twisted quote). In fact, some would say that it’s Hinckley who was a “detractor of Mormonism,” having spent his entire career working to create a new “LDS-ism” that was more palatable to so-called mainstream christianity.

I am not trying to stick you in the eye for your statement but when you follow it up with this:

“The point is, I’ve heard countless times from bishops, stake presidents and general authorities that members of the church should avoid “mysteries” or so-called “deep doctrines,” and focus on the “simple truths” of the gospel.”

You are correct, the brethren at all levels stress that we should studying our scriptures, pray, do service to others, hold FHE, etc. They also stress that we should humble ourselves before God, repent and seek Christ. If these are the basics, why is that bad?

But, based on the examples I gave, the way to the mysteries and “deep doctrines” is through the basics. The fact is, we are probably much better off following that route then the route many on this blog and many of those who feel so disaffected have taken.

But, you offer no proof that we are told to stay away from deep doctrines.

In response to #18 and various other posts…

I did a quick search on LDS.org for Half-Truths. It is pretty clear that the brethren consider a half-truth to be a lie. I think it is obvious, and you have even stated, that Mr. Millett has told a half-truth.

I, for one, do not believe that the justification of “the ends justify the means” is a good one to use. It is a very slippery slope. It has been used throughout history to justify many atroxious acts (Hitler comes to mind). If you lie to somebody to get them to do what you want them to do, it is STILL wrong. No matter if you think what you are getting them to do is the right thing.

We are asked in our temple recommend interviews “Have you been honest in your dealings with your fellow men”. We are not asked “Have you been honest in your dealings with your fellow men… except in those cases were you told a half-truth in order to be less offending or to get them interested in the church”.

As we have been told from the brethren… half truths are lies… no matter why they are told.

Darrell