I definitely think that we need to be more honest, by not deceiving people for petty, selfish reasons. But I also think that honesty is not the same thing as doing whatever any government or powerful organization tells you to do. There has been recent controversy regarding the returns policy at the BYU Bookstore, which doesn’t allow you to return a book if you are replacing it from another source. “Honesty”, to me, means not returning the book if you already knew that you had a cheaper copy available and wanted one in the meantime. It’s understandable not to waste their time and effort in buying a temporary copy while you wait for one in the mail.

However, I don’t believe that businesses have the right to set additional terms beyond setting a price. They’re willing to refuse any trade but it isn’t dishonest to try to get your cash back even if you violate a store policy that you never agreed to in the first place.

Our modern concept of “intellectual property” also creates some interesting situations where one’s opinion on artist’s rights influences their viewpoint on the moral basis of other issues.

Still, I’m interested in the concept of being “truth-loving” and “truth-living” – such an admonition holds us responsible to examine our beliefs on a regular basis – continuing to believe in our false “gods”, so to speak, for our own egos or because we are inflexible may not be dishonest in the traditionally-believed sense (well, at least not intellectually-dishonest) but fails to hold us up to the high standards our Father and our nature demand.

I don’t think that proactively proclaiming truth necessitates talking 24/7 or being a loud mouth about every personal item that people don’t need to know. Rather, I interpret it as counsel for applicable situations and instances where it is important and beneficial for the people around you to hear what you have to say. Whether this is “opening your mouth” in missionary work, coming forward as a witness to a crime, or taking a bold stand in defending some moral issue, I think that the lesson to be learned is not that we must openly share every detail, but be willing to share those details when it would be important or necessary.

On the same token, gossiping is a form of truth-telling (given the gossip is true) that we’ve been told not to engage in. Can you share your thoughts regarding the line between appropriate and inappropriate honesty in this context?

To your earlier point about the “need to know” basis, I think that gossiping has two forms. As an example of the first, I was notified yesterday by somebody in our stake leadership that an individual I’ve been working with (in the capacity of my calling) is moving. I was informed as to the reasons behind this event, and its future implications. While this might be loosely interpreted as gossiping (after all, we were discussing personal details of another individual without his immediate knowledge), I don’t think it applies since it was important that I know (so I can be prepared for the change and make needed adjustments), and nothing negative was said; the individual would have had no problem sharing the same details had the person we were talking about been standing right there. The second form is the negative, back-biting kind of gossiping we’re all familiar with. In that vein, I don’t think it’s appropriate to be “truth telling”, unless it is something that you would have no problem saying were the person standing right there beside you.

Is this [lying in certain circumstances, such as polygamy in the early days of the Church] a special exception, or is this not an example of situational ethics? I would like you get your take on that.

I think that you answered your own question (at least, to my satisfaction) with this sentence. Special exceptions abound in life, such as the Nephi being commanded to slay Laban despite the firm “Thou shalt not kill” mandate he was taught to live by. The very God who has given us these commandments (including being honest) has the full moral authority to rescind them in certain situations should He decide to do so. Just as Nephi was told that in this specific example it was better to kill Laban than what the alternative would inevitably be, so too are there plenty of other situations in which such a “special exception” might be justified.

On the page you linked to (which I enjoyed reading, thanks for passing that along), there is an example given that demonstrates the predicament created through situations that include other heavy factors (such as a threat to somebody’s life, or the covenants one has made with God).

In all things, it’s important to follow the Spirit. If an exception is to be granted to the commandment God has given us to be honest, then it will come from Him. Short of that, I think we should try our best to abide by the (difficult, but worthy) standard the Lord has imposed.

I find it interesting to note people’s attitudes seem to ask the value of the money rather than the value of the integrity. But I’m having a hard time believing this is wrong.

The following are not just hypothetical situations. They actually happened to me, and probably most everyone.

I find a dollar bill just lying in the street, I’ll pick it up and think,”Hey my lucky day”.

I found a money bag outside a Wal-Mart with what appeared to be about $1000. I took it into the store and gave it to the manager.

To me, I tend to ask two questions:
1) How much effort will it take for me to return it?
2) How much are they going to miss it?

I don’t really ask how much my integrity is worth. I doubt I would sell it at any price. But you never know until you’re there.

First, regarding the point of “proactive and voluntary initiative of proclaiming truth,” or the idea of being honest not just by abstaining from lies, but in forwarding truth as well. How does privacy and right-to-know work in conjunction with honesty? If a nosy person asks me of my whereabouts at a given time in the past, and they have no valid need to know, am I sinning by declining to respond or intentionally obfuscating the truth? On the same token, gossiping is a form of truth-telling (given the gossip is true) that we’ve been told not to engage in. Can you share your thoughts regarding the line between appropriate and inappropriate honesty in this context?

Second, regarding “situational ethics.” The message you seem to present is that there are no circumstances in which deception, half-truths, secrecy, or cover-ups are appropriate. While I believe these are worthy ideals, I have a hard time taking the stand that this is “unwavering and absolute.” The example that comes to mind is the early Church’s public relay of information regarding polygamy. I know this is a controversial and frankly worn-out subject, but FAIR has provided some very legitimate and satisfactory arguments defending the actions of the leaders of the Church at this time (see http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html) Is this a special exception, or is this not an example of situational ethics? I would like you get your take on that.