I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
His words below would indicate that he was more of a moral relativist. It seems he would have thought exactly that.
“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.”
I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
His words below would indicate that he was more of a moral relativist. It seems he would have thought exactly that.
“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.”
(History of the Church 5:135; sermon in 1843)
Or possibly Joseph claiming: "Whatever I say that God said he requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may never see the reason thereof. As long as I can convince people that god has told me X Y & Z, I can select the X, Y, and the Z to be whatever pleases me.”
Last edited by malkie on Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
His words below would indicate that he was more of a moral relativist. It seems he would have thought exactly that.
“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.”
(History of the Church 5:135; sermon in 1843)
I guess it’s a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg. 1829-30…1843? One might ask whether Joseph’s own intellectual and theological understanding was a result of Book of Mormon translation and other revelations that came before 1843.
MG wrote:I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
Isn't Joseph Smith the same guy who wrote to Nancy Rigdon, who rejected his horn-dog advances, "what is right in one circumstance is not right in another"?
MG wrote:I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
Isn't Joseph Smith the same guy who wrote to Nancy Rigdon, who rejected his horn-dog advances, "what is right in one circumstance is not right in another"?
The authenticity of that letter is disputed. It was published by John C. Bennett in 1842. Joseph and other brethren at the time said he didn’t write it. Including Nancy’s father. There is no original copy of the letter. John C. Bennett, as you know, is suspect.
Interestingly, this comes out years after Book of Mormon publication with the story of Laban. It’s back to the chicken and the egg.
From “thou shalt not kill” to “whatever God requires is right” is not a moral compass, it’s convenience.
Convenience is right. It reminds me of a paper i read, i think by Rappleye, in the Interpreter. He stated several times he had definitive proof that joseph smith was intended by god to be a leader in the latterdays. Finally, he got to his evidence.
In a book written by Joseph Smith, God declared that Joseph Smith was his choice as a latterday prophet. Did i mention joseph smith wrote the book? And he wrote the words he said that god said? Rappleye presented this as proof. Solid. Proof.
I don’t think that Joseph Smith would have written the storyline with that particular twist. But that’s just me. I don’t think he would have even been thinking “it’s OK to kill if God tells you to”. It would have gone against his moral compass of “thou shall not kill.”
His words below would indicate that he was more of a moral relativist. It seems he would have thought exactly that.
“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.”
(History of the Church 5:135; sermon in 1843)
Wow. How MG didn't realize Joseph Smith said that is astonishing to me! That is what immediately came to my mind.... it's what makes Mormonism so spooky if deep down the leaders still harbor that kind of thinking, and we suspect they do.
His words below would indicate that he was more of a moral relativist. It seems he would have thought exactly that.
“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.”
(History of the Church 5:135; sermon in 1843)
Wow. How MG didn't realize Joseph Smith said that is astonishing to me! That is what immediately came to my mind.... it's what makes Mormonism so spooky if deep down the leaders still harbor that kind of thinking, and we suspect they do.
I am aware that he said that. Again, this quote comes years after the story of Laban in the Book of Mormon which I discussed earlier. Additionally, this quote demonstrates the view that even the early saints had of continuing revelation. I question why you would see this principle as “spooky”? Sure, it would be a principle that if handled/exercised by man without the inspiration/revelation of God, could potentially be detrimental and harmful. That’s for sure!
Unfortunately, for years now, many of the elite know it alls in society have poo poo’d the idea that online influences can have harmful effects on young people.
Are you saying that sarcastically? There are many "elite know it alls" in society that have warned about the dangers of being online, constant smartphone usage, etc.
Check out the following books that I can first-hand recommend as doing the opposite of what you wrote above:
Digital Madness
Digital Minimalism
The Anxious Generation
Glow Kids
The Coddling of the American Mind
