Is Mormonism Morally Relative?

[_Runtu]

I've been thinking about this because I was called a moral relativist this afternoon. I've felt for quite some time that Mormonism in essence has only one moral truth: whatever God (and by extension the prophet) says is right. Joseph Smith, in his letter to Nancy Rigdon (which he wrote to convince her to enter into secret polygamy), wrote

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. ... 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.

So, as we all know, obedience, rather than morality, is paramount in Mormonism. Thus, in the Book of Mormon, Nephi is required to kill a defenseless man at the command of God because "it is better that one man perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). And it is obedience to the church leadership that is most important.

We are told that we are blessed in following the instructions of our church leaders, even when they are wrong. Marion G. Romney said, "I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

Similarly, we are not to criticize our leaders. Said Dallin Oaks: "It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

In short, then, I wonder if this is a form of moral relativism, in that all matters of morality and conscience take a back seat to the instructions of church leaders. What say ye?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Of course it's morally relative....what's continuing revelation except the ability for the leaders to change God's One True Church's One True Opinion on any matter.

[_The Nehor]

Speaking only for myself as a practicing LDS I go by what the Spirit says. If you're a strong critic you'd say I listen to my invisible friend so not sure if that would appear better or worse to you than following Church Leaders. I've listened to High Councilors talks and blown them off as irrelevant, usually because the person is trying to morph their personal path to salvation into a general rule.

I try to detect spirit of Prophecy when deciding whether to follow commands from leaders. Some of what they say is good advice but not inspired, some is eternal truth, some is neutral, and some I hear alarms going off.

While Elder Oaks may have said it stronger than I would I avoid criticizing Church Leaders. My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.

[_Runtu]

Speaking only for myself as a practicing LDS I go by what the Spirit says. If you're a strong critic you'd say I listen to my invisible friend so not sure if that would appear better or worse to you than following Church Leaders. I've listened to High Councilors talks and blown them off as irrelevant, usually because the person is trying to morph their personal path to salvation into a general rule.

I don't know that I'm a "strong critic," but I think that's not a bad way to go. My worry is that the church has moved in the direction of quashing all questioning and pushing an uncritical obedience not to God but to the leadership. Hence my sense that it's a morally relative religion. Of course, if you think about it, if the Spirit told you to do something that you believed was wrong, like Nephi was told, would you do it?

I try to detect spirit of Prophecy when deciding whether to follow commands from leaders. Some of what they say is good advice but not inspired, some is eternal truth, some is neutral, and some I hear alarms going off.

So, really, what you're saying is that you don't give up your conscience to the leadership. I'm glad to hear that.

While Elder Oaks may have said it stronger than I would I avoid criticizing Church Leaders. My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.

Of course, that begs the question whether these leaders are actually the Lord's anointed.

[_skippy the dead]

This brings up interesting issues for me, based in part on some lengthy discussions on the MAD board this week. I'm still trying to collect my own thoughts on this in some coherent fashion - so far I haven't done a very good job. But here goes a rough effort:

There seems to be two main schools of thought regarding obedience among today's LDS: (1) obedience to the church's leaders above all else; and (2) always seek personal confirmation from God about whatever the leaders say. The problem I have with those who support (2) is that (a) the assumption seems to be that personal confirmation will always support what has been pronounced by the leaders or (b) if personal confirmation is not forthcoming, there is something wrong with the one seeking the confirmation. And as a tangent, if personal confirmation is not received, and a member then disregards the counsel or instruction, then they are in the wrong.

For instance: say that the prophet announces that tithing will now be based solely on gross income. Nothing less will do. There are those that will simply follow. Then there are those that say, well, before it was a personal matter between me and God, so I'll go talk to him about it. So they talk to God, and fail to get confirmation of this new principle. So TR interview time comes around, and they are asked if they pay the correct tithe based on the new announcement. If the reply is that they are paying it based on their personal definition of "increase", then they don't get a TR. Which invalidates the whole "personal confirmation" thing. Okay, so maybe this isn't a great example, but it at least presents the problem of following the leaders based on receipt of personal confirmation. Seems to me that it can be a fairly binary process of full obedience or not.

To me, it simply becomes one confusing mess. If there is a God, I don't expect that he'd be quite so strict on such things. I'd rather think that a God (where one to exist) would be more interested in promoting harmony and good works, not quibbling over what one eats, drinks, wears or spends.

[OK - now that I've re-read this, it's not terribly clear what my point is. Unfortunately, it's because my point isn't terribly clear to me. I'm kinda throwing stuff up on the wall to see what sticks.]

[_Some Schmo]

My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.

Yeah... god can be a real dick sometimes. But you gotta give him credit for being able to turn a buck.

[_Runtu]

Yeah... god can be a real dick sometimes. But you gotta give him credit for being able to turn a buck.

Reminds me of what George Carlin said about religion:

When it comes to b***s***, big-time, major league b***s***, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. ... Religion easily has the greatest b***s*** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good b***s*** story. Holy S***!

[_The Nehor]

I don't know that I'm a "strong critic," but I think that's not a bad way to go. My worry is that the church has moved in the direction of quashing all questioning and pushing an uncritical obedience not to God but to the leadership. Hence my sense that it's a morally relative religion. Of course, if you think about it, if the Spirit told you to do something that you believed was wrong, like Nephi was told, would you do it?

Yes but I check the source (this has happened to me and he showed me the results of not obeying before I acceded) very carefully.

I'm reminded of what my Mission President said when he found out that Zone and District Leaders were giving Missionaries unreasonable commands to 'test' them (telling them not to use certain stamps, to switch their scripture reading, etc.): "God has the right to ask unreasonable things of us. YOU ARE NOT GOD!"

Of course, that begs the question whether these leaders are actually the Lord's anointed.

I believe they are. Some wear the mantle better than others though. Even if I can't respect the man or woman in the calling I try to respect the office. I'm reminded of when John in his Gospel records that John states that the High Priest (intent on getting rid of Jesus) was given the gift of Prophecy due to his office. I don't want to miss out on something key because the messenger ticks me off in some way.

[_grayskull]

Mormons are absolutists when it comes to judging the sins of the rest of the world and relativists while absolving their founders.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Mormons are absolutists when it comes to judging the sins of the rest of the world and relativists while absolving their founders.

This is right on.