DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:11 pm**

I was reviewing Joseph's Smith's famous letter to Nancy Rigdon:

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

"A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost."

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had."

Be wise today; 'tis madness to defer:
Next day the fatal precedent may plead.
Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time
Into eternity.

"Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy" (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136).

I've been told many times that my view of such things as polyandry is too rigid, too moralistic, whereas God is "more liberal in His views" than I am. But I'm wondering if by Mormon definitions, there are ever any moral absolutes, if indeed "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

The example Joseph gives is "thou shalt not kill," which God Has often ignored, ostensibly to fulfill his purposes. The Israelites slaughtered many of the inhabitants of their promised land, and Nephi killed Laban, both on God's orders. Jacob tells us in the Book of Mormon that polygamy is an abomination unless God orders it to raise up righteous seed. So what matters is obedience to what God tells us, not necessarily obedience to defined set of moral principles or commandments.

So, I'm wondering if you see any moral absolutes. I was thinking about abortion, but then the church allows for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. Lying? No, Abraham lied and wasn't chastised for it. Stealing? I honestly can't think of any moral absolutes that God as defined in Mormonism couldn't or wouldn't override. Can you?

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:33 pm**

I think Joseph Smith would fit in well with the so-called "liberal moral relativists" today, although they would object to him using flexible moral standards to convince women of polygamy. Of course the current crop of LDS leaders reject flexible morality, speak out against moral relativism, and fit in well with other religious groups that claim to believe in moral absolutes.

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:47 pm**

Everything is black and white, no exceptions (as you well know from my response in the MADB). Where people see shades of gray are really just areas in which there is not enough information to make a judgement or (and I did not mention this on the MADB) the question has not been broken down into it's lowest common denominator (sub questions).

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:57 pm**

bcspace wrote:Everything is black and white, no exceptions (as you well know from my response in the MADB). Where people see shades of gray are really just areas in which there is not enough information to make a judgement or (and I did not mention this on the MADB) the question has not been broken down into it's lowest common denominator (sub questions).

I didn't see your response on MAD. Is it black and white from your religious dogma? I don't know what morals we're talking about here. Murder? Is that a black and white?

How can one be an moral absolutist and say murder is wrong and then support capital punishment and wars? Not saying you do -- just what I've observed from others.

What about lying? What if lying actually saved someone from harm? Or the individual lied to save self from harm? I doubt there are many that are truly black and white thinkers when it comes to morality when faced with daily life.

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:01 pm**

bcspace wrote:Everything is black and white, no exceptions (as you well know from my response in the MADB). Where people see shades of gray are really just areas in which there is not enough information to make a judgement or (and I did not mention this on the MADB) the question has not been broken down into it's lowest common denominator (sub questions).

I assume that breaking things down to their lowest common denominator would mean that the only moral absolute is "do whatever God says"? But Runtu's question was about absolutes that transcend God: "moral absolutes that God as defined in Mormonism couldn't or wouldn't override."

Over on MADB you appear to be arguing that morality is absolutely ambiguous. I quote, "Absolutely (black and white) there are such cases where things are allowed whereas otherwise they wouldn't be." I hope you don't think you're fooling anyone with this sophistry.

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:05 pm**

Strange as it may seem to others, I consider this letter to Nancy Rigdon to be an important component of my religious belief. Of course, I’m not alone. Parts of this letter have been quoted from the general conference pulpit for many, many years.

And, it cannot be denied, the concepts articulated in this letter certainly support the conclusion that “morality” is absolutely relative – at least in the view of the God whom Joseph Smith has attempted to reveal to the world.

So what matters is obedience to what God tells us, not necessarily obedience to defined set of moral principles or commandments.

That’s how I understand it.

The trick, of course, is to be able to discern correctly, throughout one’s life, what it really is that God is telling us. I don’t believe anyone always “gets it right” when it comes to that challenge.

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:42 pm**

"So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

I get the impression that Joseph is putting himself on par with Solomon. Solomon had wives and concubines so why can't Joseph. This seems his justification for polygamy and for granting the "desire of his heart" and then he can blame it on God.

What about the desire of the hearts of his victims?

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:19 pm**

The only absolute moral axiom that I can think of which withstands scrutiny is that the same moral principles that we wish to apply to other people should equally be applied to ourselves. I.e. Nobody is "above the law", whatever that law might be.

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:27 pm**

Moniker wrote:
bcspace wrote:Everything is black and white, no exceptions (as you well know from my response in the MADB). Where people see shades of gray are really just areas in which there is not enough information to make a judgement or (and I did not mention this on the MADB) the question has not been broken down into it's lowest common denominator (sub questions).

I didn't see your response on MAD. Is it black and white from your religious dogma? I don't know what morals we're talking about here. Murder? Is that a black and white?

How can one be an moral absolutist and say murder is wrong and then support capital punishment and wars? Not saying you do -- just what I've observed from others.

What about lying? What if lying actually saved someone from harm? Or the individual lied to save self from harm? I doubt there are many that are truly black and white thinkers when it comes to morality when faced with daily life.

Moniker,

In this case in point, your questions are quite relevant. Without question the idea and perception of “lying” is relative. We may say meeting someone: How are you? In fact, we may not really care a whit how he/she is. Was the question itself a lie? It was, but part of what we call “civilization” is deception. That is, we do not always represent our absolutely accurate feelings.

When a wife of a previous collegue in our own profession dies, we go to the funeral home and express our condolences. Do we mean our expression? We may, but it’s relative. If it were our brother’s wife, we would express the same condolences. We don’t lose sleep over the first, but we may over the second.

The issue is “black and white.” It’s not black or white. Hence “lying” is relative. If we misrepresent ourselves, did we “lie”?

If we put on our best clothes for an occasion is that “lying”? Most would say no. Is make-up on women (or men for that matter) a “lie”? It’s relative.

Consider the women (and men of course) who appear regularly on national television. Is it a “lie” as a man wears a black suit and tie with French cuffed shirts? He would rather be dressed down in more comfortable clothing. Is he lying? Most would say “no.”

I would argue that in many social situations, “lying” is relative. We tend to conform to convention of the very finite cultural moment. In so doing, are we merely observing cultural norms which are very specific or are we lying? It is relative.

Moniker’s question: “What if lying actually saved someone from harm?” Clearly, we can present hypothetical examples of this. Perhaps we can cite a real example in which a lie was beneficial not only in the short term but in the long term as well.

Moniker state:
Or the individual lied to save self from harm? I doubt there are many that are truly black and white thinkers when it comes to morality when faced with daily life.

It was an excellent question as well as observation by her.

For a man, is wearing a suit and tie when that man would prefer much more comfortable clothing “a lie”? It’s relative. One could argue “no” on various grounds. One could also argue “yes” on different grounds.

JAK

Posted: **Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:28 pm**

See, I disagree that God makes immoral acts moral.

I believe that murder is murder. If God commands it, it is a sanctioned immoral act, but it is still immoral.

DiscussMormonism.com

Are there any moral absolutes?

Are there any moral absolutes?

What Constitutes "a lie"?