Gratitude & Happy Thanksgiving

[JVW]

Recently I found a quote on humility that I like a lot, I shared it in another thread but I'll share it again here for context

Quote

Brothers and Sisters, do you know that the devil is not afraid of our intellect, nor of our knowledge? He has more of both. He is not even afraid of our good deeds. He has more of those, too. There is only one virtue he does not have-and it is the one that kills him and saves us. Which virtue is that?

Once, having achieved something. I proudly went to my elder. The moment he saw me, he immediately perceived that I had slipped, and without waiting for me to say a word, he said: "Why are we so proud, my son? Of what works do we boast? That we fast, that we eat little? The devil fasts more than us-he never eats. That we keep vigil, that we sleep little? The devil keeps greater vigil-he never sleeps. That we practice restraint? That we preserve our virginity? The devil is more virgin than us: even if he wanted to fornicate, he could not-he has no body."

I could not believe my ears. Whatever virtues we may possess, the devil possesses them as well. Whatever virtues we might acquire, even those the devil once had as an archangel-we shall never attain them. And yet, all these virtues will be wasted. Why? Because he lacks one virtue. We must strive to acquire that one virtue in order to be saved. The devil does not tempt us only with sins. He tempts us with virtues even more than with sins. Sins we can see and avoid. But virtues-we strive to attain them.

One holy man once said: "Do you want to fast? The devil will help you. Do you want to give alms? The devil will help you. Do you want to build a church? The devil will help you. Why? Because he knows that if you succeed in all that, you will grow proud - and lose everything."

We must acquire the virtue he does not have. Be humble!

-Elder Nikon of the Holy Mountain - Excerpt from homily

I recently reread my favorite talk of all time about Gratitude (by President Monson) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/the-divine-gift-of-gratitude?lang=eng and in it I read this quote:

Quote

We can lift ourselves and others as well when we refuse to remain in the realm of negative thought and cultivate within our hearts an attitude of gratitude. If ingratitude be numbered among the serious sins, then gratitude takes its place among the noblest of virtues. Someone has said that “gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.” [Cicero]

I used to think that humility was the "parent" of all other virtues, and I believe that this sentiment is somewhat common. The inverse of this being that pride is the "parent" of all sins. But, in light of the above quote, it may be that gratitude is the "parent" of all virtue, and entitlement the "parent" of all sin. (As entitlement is the opposite of gratitude, focusing on what one lacks instead of what one has.)

For many years, whenever I've reflected on Alma 32 and the concept of "humbling myself" I was always left confused. How can I, as a proud and arrogant person, possible change my heart into a humble one? I used to believe that it was only possible to become humble only through God humbling me. But now I am wondering, "What if I can humble myself by focusing more on gratitude because it is the parent of all other virtues?"

I've also started to wonder if gratitude is more key to having a good relationship with God, and to the process of repentance, than I thought. I've actually never taught or thought about repentance being related to gratitude, but when I consider these quotes it gets me pondering:

Quote

[In Luke 17 Jesus heals 10 lepers and only 1 returns to say thank you.] 

Through divine intervention, those who were lepers were spared from a cruel, lingering death and given a new lease on life. The expressed gratitude by one merited the Master’s blessing; the ingratitude shown by the nine, His disappointment.

My brothers and sisters, do we remember to give thanks for the blessings we receive? Sincerely giving thanks not only helps us recognize our blessings, but it also unlocks the doors of heaven and helps us feel God’s love.

And Doctrine and Covenants 59:7,21

Quote

Gratitude is a divine principle. The Lord declared through a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“Thou shalt thank the Lord thy God in all things. …

“And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things.”

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! And thank you for being a wonderful community.

[bluebell]

I know that when I got a gratitude journal that required me to write three things down every day that I was thankful for, life seemed to get better even though nothing else changed.  You really do find what you are looking for and if you are looking for reasons to be cynical or to feel picked on or to doubt God's interest in your life, you'll find them.  When you become committed to looking for the opposite, the sun starts to come out.

 

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know that when I got a gratitude journal that required me to write three things down every day that I was thankful for, life seemed to get better even though nothing else changed.  You really do find what you are looking for and if you are looking for reasons to be cynical or to feel picked on or to doubt God's interest in your life, you'll find them.  When you become committed to looking for the opposite, the sun starts to come out.

I've never kept a gratitude journal but that advice to write three gratitude things daily was mentioned in my favorite TED talk of all time, so I may have to give it a try. I'm a happy person, but I'm also very cynical and hopeless so I could probably use a little bit more of it in my life. This is the TED talk 

 

[Calm]

I am not that comfortable describing the devil as possessing all virtues but one  as I think that assumes a lot we don’t know plus it’s phrased as present tense and not past, so I am wondering exactly what he means (maybe emphasizing that Lucifer, if he was one of the great ones, likely had done much good in the past and overall his attributes made him shine in the past, but his lack of humility caused him to lose all the good that he was).

However, I fully get behind focusing on developing humility (of the good kind, not the self degrading or obsequious kind) by cultivating true gratitude as that can lead to greater happiness or at least less despair for most.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not that comfortable describing the devil as possessing all virtues but one  as I think that assumes a lot we don’t know plus it’s phrased as present tense and not past, so I am wondering exactly what he means (maybe emphasizing that Lucifer, if he was one of the great ones, likely had done much good in the past and overall his attributes made him shine in the past, but his lack of humility caused him to lose all the good that he was).

However, I fully get behind focusing on developing humility (of the good kind, not the self degrading or obsequious kind) by cultivating true gratitude as that can lead to greater happiness or at least less despair for most.

I don't agree with the full quote either, but I like the sentiment. I do believe that the devil has done more Earthly good than I will ever be capable of doing. He hasn't directly saved any souls, but he's started and built many things that have had a huge impact for good on the world. As far as I'm concerned the only reasons I can view myself as better than the devil is because 1) I have a body and 2) I have at least one Godly desire in my cold heart somewhere while the devil has none. But other than that, which isn't much, the devil is by all accounts a better person than I am. I wouldn't have offered the fruit to Eve in the garden with the knowledge I currently possess, as an example.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, JVW said:

he's started and built many things that have had a huge impact for good on the world.

I don’t view the devil’s methods or accomplishments in this way.

But maybe what you mean is his tempting people with power and/or greed caused a lot of innovation that in the end resulted in the advancement of science and technology that was then adapted for good purposes, though my guess is it happened more in reverse as things intended for constructive purposes were adapted for weapons of war.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I have never noticed the devil’s help in helping me achieve things in order to make me proud. Hey Satan! Quit slacking off!

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

I've never kept a gratitude journal but that advice to write three gratitude things daily was mentioned in my favorite TED talk of all time, so I may have to give it a try. I'm a happy person, but I'm also very cynical and hopeless so I could probably use a little bit more of it in my life. This is the TED talk 

 

I'll watch it!

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not that comfortable describing the devil as possessing all virtues but one  as I think that assumes a lot we don’t know plus it’s phrased as present tense and not past, so I am wondering exactly what he means (maybe emphasizing that Lucifer, if he was one of the great ones, likely had done much good in the past and overall his attributes made him shine in the past, but his lack of humility caused him to lose all the good that he was).

However, I fully get behind focusing on developing humility (of the good kind, not the self degrading or obsequious kind) by cultivating true gratitude as that can lead to greater happiness or at least less despair for most.

I don't really get it either.  A virtue is a high moral standard.  It doesn't seem like the devil would possess any virtues, let alone all of them.  I'd love to ask the speaker what he meant by that phrase.

[Kenngo1969]

I thought of a couple of [perhaps, hopefully] related addresses when reading the other contributions to this thread:

President Ezra Taft Benson (May 1989) "Beware of Pride," Ensign:

Beware of Pride

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (June 7, 1992) "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," BYU Speeches: 

Humility: Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall - BYU Speeches BYU Speeches

If they're not related, or if this is too much of a tangent, feel free to ignore.  

 

Edited November 23, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

For what it's worth, here's what I asked our friend Google Gemini [font of all knowledge], and how Gemini responded (bold/emphasis Gemini's):

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, what are Satan's counterfeits to the many virtues listed in the scriptures? Can you give me a side-by-side list of Christ's virtues (or the virtues He asks us [or commands us] to cultivate) and Satan's counterfeits?

 

Based on a Latter-day Saint perspective, Satan is a master counterfeiter who seeks to replace the genuine virtues of the gospel of Jesus Christ with subtle, twisted imitations or outright opposites. His goal is to deceive and lead people away from the light of truth and the path to happiness.

The best defense against these counterfeits is to be deeply familiar with the true principles of the gospel, as President Joseph F. Smith taught: "The more deeply we know the truth, the easier it will be to spot the differences when Satan presents us with his counterfeits."

 

⚔️ Christ's Virtues and Satan's Counterfeits

 

Satan's counterfeits often appeal to the "natural man," feeding vanity, pride, and carnal desires, and they frequently involve the destruction of agency or the false promise of salvation without the need for repentance and obedience.

Here is a side-by-side list comparing some Christ-centered virtues with their common Satanic counterfeits discussed in Latter-day Saint teachings and scriptures:

Christ's Virtue (Truth)	Satan's Counterfeit (Lie or Distortion)	Key Concepts
Humility  (Mosiah 4:11)	Pride (Alma 30:53-54; D&C 121:37)	Pride is enmity toward God and fellow men; seeking personal honor above all others. Humility recognizes reliance on God.
Love/Charity   (Moroni 7:47)	Lust (Alma 39:9); Selfishness (2 Tim. 3:2)	Lust is a selfish, sensual desire often falsely labeled as love. Charity is the pure love of Christ, seeking others' welfare.
Repentance/ Godly Sorrow   (Alma 42:29)	Perfectionism  (False Gospel); Guilt/ Shame  (Anti-Christ)	Perfectionism demands an impossible, immediate sinlessness. True repentance is a joyful process of turning to Christ for help.
Spiritual Gifts/True Revelation  (D&C 46:16)	False "Spirituality"/ Counterfeit Signs (JS—M 1:22; D&C 46:7)	False signs often appeal to the sensational or mystical, lack edification, or come through unauthorized channels.
Sincere Worship/ True Godliness (D&C 121:45)	Priestcraft (Alma 1:12); Flattery (2 Nephi 28:22)	Priestcraft is preaching or performing ordinances for money, power, or praise of men, rather than for the welfare of souls.
Obedience/ Covenants  (D&C 130:20-21)	A "Free Pass" to Sin (2 Nephi 28:8)	Satan teaches "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," convincing people God will justify a "little sin."
Agency/Accountability  (2 Nephi 2:27)	Coercion/No-Risk Salvation (Moses 4:1-4)	Satan's plan sought to destroy the agency of man by forcing righteousness, thus removing accountability and the opportunity for growth.
Divine Truth/Scripture (D&C 93:24)	Lies/Worldly Philosophy (Moses 4:4; 2 Nephi 28:20)	Satan is the father of all lies and twists God's word, or introduces "precepts of men mingled with scripture."
Confidence in Christ  (Hebrews 10:35)	Self-Esteem /Confidence in the "Arm of Flesh" (Jer. 17:5; 2 Nephi 4:34)	Relying solely on your own inherent worth or ability (self-esteem) without relying on Christ's grace is a counterfeit for true confidence through humility and discipleship.

 

---

These counterfeits are often described in the scriptures as "flattering words" that lead people away "carefully down to hell," making the path of destruction seem safe and appealing (2 Nephi 28:21-22).

"But, how is any of this related to the topic, Ken?"  Touché!  The more we rely on our own strength, wisdom, capacity, resources, and so on, the less prone we are to acknowledge God's hand in our lives and to be thankful for that with which He blesses us.

Consider King Benjamin's sermon in Mosiah 2:

Quote

 

14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

 

He continues in vss. 20-25, and Chapter 2 ends at v. 41:

Quote

 

20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you. ...

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

 

And continuing in Chapter 4:

Quote

 

6 I say unto you, if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God, and his matchless power, and his wisdom, and his patience, and his long-suffering towards the children of men; and also, the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life, I mean the life of the mortal body—

7 I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world. ...

11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.

12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.

13 And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to every man according to that which is his due. ...

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. ...

19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

Just "food" for thought.  Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.  

Edited November 23, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[MustardSeed]

I’m just here to share my experience, that gratitude journaling is very powerful and can change the brain. It changed mine. 

[sunstoned]

I reject the idea that there is a devil.  I do believe in good and evil, but these are creations of humanity.  There is no cosmic influence on this.  We, the people, control who we are and what we do. Carl Sagan wrote a book about this, and it saved me. More than anyone else, I credit what I learned from him for really giving me the foundation I need to be a good citizen. Maybe that’s crazy, but I grew up Mormon, and I was always trying to put pieces together that just didn’t fit. Sagan's ideas liberated me, made me more empathetic, and he taught me basic scientific ideas far better than any mythology. 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I reject the idea that there is a devil.  I do believe in good and evil, but these are creations of humanity.  There is no cosmic influence on this.  We, the people, control who we are and what we do. Carl Sagan wrote a book about this, and it saved me. More than anyone else, I credit what I learned from him for really giving me the foundation I need to be a good citizen. Maybe that’s crazy, but I grew up Mormon, and I was always trying to put pieces together that just didn’t fit. Sagan's ideas liberated me, made me more empathetic, and he taught me basic scientific ideas far better than any mythology. 

 

After learning how late the addition of Satan and hell are to Christianity and Judaism I don’t see how they are credible either.

[JVW]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I reject the idea that there is a devil.  I do believe in good and evil, but these are creations of humanity.  There is no cosmic influence on this.  We, the people, control who we are and what we do. Carl Sagan wrote a book about this, and it saved me. More than anyone else, I credit what I learned from him for really giving me the foundation I need to be a good citizen. Maybe that’s crazy, but I grew up Mormon, and I was always trying to put pieces together that just didn’t fit. Sagan's ideas liberated me, made me more empathetic, and he taught me basic scientific ideas far better than any mythology. 

 

So you believe in subjective morality?

I'm undecided on whether or not I believe in the devil. But I do believe in objective moral law given by God. I don't believe that the devil is a necessary element of God's plan or required to have existed in order for the Fall to happen or for anyone to be tempted to sin.

On 11/21/2025 at 10:40 PM, bluebell said:

I don't really get it either.  A virtue is a high moral standard.  It doesn't seem like the devil would possess any virtues, let alone all of them.  I'd love to ask the speaker what he meant by that phrase.

Well I can tell you at least one virtue that the devil has. He is an incredibly dedicated, passionate, hardworking, industrious, exceptional manager. If anyone baptized into the church was even 1% as dedicated to their cause as the devil is to his, our church would be miles ahead of where it currently is.

I haven't brought up specific examples of how the devil has moved in the world to do good because anything I say could be regarded as controversial, but let me try an example that may be somewhat generally agreed upon? Carnegie was one who definitely worshipped Mammon and did many evil things to gain his fortune. Yet he is the one to thank for many conveniences in our lives, and he funded the public library system. If Carnegie is too controversial then I could point to Rockefeller which I don't think anyone disagrees with as being an evil person, but he was instrumental in starting the modern pharmaceutical industry, which I think is generally viewed as a good thing now days? If the pharmaceutical industry is still viewed as bad consider Merck who cured an entire indigenous tribe of blindness in South America. Or consider the company Nestle, which makes food affordable globally and gives free formula to mothers in Africa until their milk dries up, then charges them for it after they don't have an alternative. Or maybe Thomas Edison is viewed as a bad guy, yet we have the lightbulb from him regardless of how that whole process played out.

The problem with these examples is that I don't think anyone, in general, really believes that anyone actually worships the devil or follows the devil. Yet at the same time there are people who believe that there are atheists or Bhuddists who follow the God of Israel without knowing that they are. I believe that people can follow and worship the devil without being aware of it. But I also believe there are many who worship the devil on purpose. One might point to Elon Musk wearing his 2022 halloween costume entitled "Devil's Champion" as a tongue-in-cheek joke, but viewing that as an intentional decision as part of his worship is also a valid view. You can't get much more direct in satanic imagery than that.

There is lots of good that come from evil people who, if the devil exists, are clearly influenced by the devil and implicitly worship him through their worship of money (you can't worship God and Mammon). They are all much more tenacious, sociable, friendly, presentable, generous, charitable (even if it's for a tax write off they donate more money in a day than I do in an entire lifetime), active, and hardworking than I will probably ever be. Even if it's a mask they wear because they are dead inside with an ice cold heart and anger seething beneath the skin, it doesn't change how much good they do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, JVW said:

So you believe in subjective morality?

What exactly do you mean by "subjective morality"?

These are complicated terms. The problem with your "objective moral law given by God" is that - at least according to scripture - can only be defined as "doing what God tells you to do". If God tells you not to kill, then it is moral not to kill. If, on the other hand, God tells you to kill, then it becomes moral to kill. And since God's commandments are from time to time completely arbitrary (which means, of course, subjective), then the only way you can claim to have an objective morality is by using God's command as a meta-morality. It isn't the specifics of the commandment that matters (because that can be arbitrary) rather it is whether or not God commanded it that matters.

Part of the broader problem with the religious in our society is that they tend to take a cafeteria type approach to the question of morality, and having chosen those things that they want to make a part of their moral code, they then pretend that this is the absolute morality that God wants.

This isn't to say that there isn't some semblance of a universal morality that we might look at as being objective. But even there, in the real world, such objective morality becomes flexible - and often governed by some larger principle (making the objective morality subjective). After all, if we really think that the killing of innocents is a bad thing, then why is there no furor over the tens of thousands of women and children Palestinians killed by Israel in the last two years? If we decide that there is some greater objective moral principle that allows for the killing of innocent children, then clearly, even a prohibition on the killing of children cannot be considered as part of that objective morality, can it ... and of course this is the reason why when philosopher's engage in the question we end up not with an objective moral law, but rather with something like Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Anyway, in the absence of some meta-morality, I am a firm believer in subjective morality. If polygamy could be morally wrong for the Nephites and right for the Mormons, then Mormonism holds to a subjective morality. If something is only immoral when God forbids it, and the same thing is moral when God allows it, then I question whether or not God has some objective moral law in the sense that you seem to be using it.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What exactly do you mean by "subjective morality"?

These are complicated terms. The problem with your "objective moral law given by God" is that - at least according to scripture - can only be defined as "doing what God tells you to do". If God tells you not to kill, then it is moral not to kill. If, on the other hand, God tells you to kill, then it becomes moral to kill. And since God's commandments are from time to time completely arbitrary (which means, of course, subjective), then the only way you can claim to have an objective morality is by using God's command as a meta-morality. It isn't the specifics of the commandment that matters (because that can be arbitrary) rather it is whether or not God commanded it that matters.

Part of the broader problem with the religious in our society is that they tend to take a cafeteria type approach to the question of morality, and having chosen those things that they want to make a part of their moral code, they then pretend that this is the absolute morality that God wants.

This isn't to say that there isn't some semblance of a universal morality that we might look at as being objective. But even there, in the real world, such objective morality becomes flexible - and often governed by some larger principle (making the objective morality subjective). After all, if we really think that the killing of innocents is a bad thing, then why is there no furor over the tens of thousands of women and children Palestinians killed by Israel in the last two years? If we decide that there is some greater objective moral principle that allows for the killing of innocent children, then clearly, even a prohibition on the killing of children cannot be considered as part of that objective morality, can it ... and of course this is the reason why when philosopher's engage in the question we end up not with an objective moral law, but rather with something like Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Anyway, in the absence of some meta-morality, I am a firm believer in subjective morality. If polygamy could be morally wrong for the Nephites and right for the Mormons, then Mormonism holds to a subjective morality. If something is only immoral when God forbids it, and the same thing is moral when God allows it, then I question whether or not God has some objective moral law in the sense that you seem to be using it.

We need @mfbukowski here if we are going to get into the classic philosophical discussion on whether or not something is moral because God says it is or if it’s moral because God is moral.

I’m not sure I’m following your argument on how if something is right under one circumstance but wrong or another then it is subjective though.  I thought subjective meant based on opinion and personal taste. But it sounds like you are using subjective to mean changeable?

[JVW]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What exactly do you mean by "subjective morality"?

By this I mean that morality is relative to the time period, culture, and society in which one finds themselves. So an Aztec performing human sacrifices and committing genocide against other tribes was not breaking a moral law, but Hitler killing Jews was because of the context in which the society functioned. Or, a more modern example, abortion was breaking a moral law in the 1940's, but wasn't in the 1980's because the society, culture, laws, and regulations were different. I do not believe this. I believe there are timeless moral laws that exist, regardless of time, place, culture, society, government, etc. And if they are broken there is a negative consequence, and if they are kept there is a positive consequence.

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

These are complicated terms. The problem with your "objective moral law given by God" is that - at least according to scripture - can only be defined as "doing what God tells you to do". If God tells you not to kill, then it is moral not to kill. If, on the other hand, God tells you to kill, then it becomes moral to kill. And since God's commandments are from time to time completely arbitrary (which means, of course, subjective), then the only way you can claim to have an objective morality is by using God's command as a meta-morality. It isn't the specifics of the commandment that matters (because that can be arbitrary) rather it is whether or not God commanded it that matters.

I see your point, and I see the danger in that. Claiming to do something on behalf of God is a slippery slope and very dangerous.

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Part of the broader problem with the religious in our society is that they tend to take a cafeteria type approach to the question of morality, and having chosen those things that they want to make a part of their moral code, they then pretend that this is the absolute morality that God wants.

This isn't to say that there isn't some semblance of a universal morality that we might look at as being objective. But even there, in the real world, such objective morality becomes flexible - and often governed by some larger principle (making the objective morality subjective). After all, if we really think that the killing of innocents is a bad thing, then why is there no furor over the tens of thousands of women and children Palestinians killed by Israel in the last two years? If we decide that there is some greater objective moral principle that allows for the killing of innocent children, then clearly, even a prohibition on the killing of children cannot be considered as part of that objective morality, can it ... and of course this is the reason why when philosopher's engage in the question we end up not with an objective moral law, but rather with something like Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Sounds like you have an issue with the human experience. Aren't we all hypocrites in our own way? Yeah, it sucks.

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Anyway, in the absence of some meta-morality, I am a firm believer in subjective morality. If polygamy could be morally wrong for the Nephites and right for the Mormons, then Mormonism holds to a subjective morality. If something is only immoral when God forbids it, and the same thing is moral when God allows it, then I question whether or not God has some objective moral law in the sense that you seem to be using it.

I think how attractive the idea of subjective morality is depends on how trusting and believing in the goodness of one's own society and culture is. If one believes that society is generally good and supports good things, then it will act as a sort of "second line of defense" against those who act against it yet claim they are acting for God. But if one believes that society is generally bad and supports bad things then subjective morality is very dangerous to follow. Those who believe in subjective morality would have easily been part of the Nazi movement as a German in the 30's because of believing that their society is good and following the rules of society is good.

So in either case, believing in an objective moral law vs a subjective moral law, careful thought and discernment is needed. Interestingly enough, many who believe in subjective morality in America today view the society, culture, laws, government, "the system" as evil and in need of reform yet use that same society as a yardstick to measure whether or not they are behaving in a moral manner. (As much as "ethics" can be regarded as "morals" as, in America, the term "morality" has kind of disappeared.)

From your post I get the impression that you care about morality more as it relates to society and the world at large. I personally care more about morality as it relates to the individual. The reason that I believe in objective moral law is because of 2 Nephi 2. The first time that I read it, I had just learned that God existed. Due to the way I was raised and the way I lived my life I was a very miserable person and was a nihilist atheist. I believed that morality was subjective and that the best way to live was "do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else" and "do whatever makes you feel good". I believed that people who were happy were delusional and foolish, but when I read in 2 Nephi 2 "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery." I knew that I was miserable, therefore happiness must be a real thing that is obtainable. So my goal became to learn what way I needed to live in order to be happy. That is basically my definition of objective moral law. If one follows all of the timeless moral rules then they will live a happy life.

Looking at society at large, people are on lots of drugs (legal and illegal), suicides are high, murders and theft are high, birth rates are low. Conflict, contention, and division are everywhere. Hypocrisy, mask wearing, cold-heartedness, pride and arrogance, materialism, war, etc. These are all basically at record high levels. Yet, relatively speaking, people who are living are following the rules of their respective societies. They are following the subjective moral laws. So if subjective morality is the reality then reality sucks because everyone is miserable and using drugs and porn to mask the pain.

[Benjamin McGuire]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not sure I’m following your argument on how if something is right under one circumstance but wrong or another then it is subjective though.  I thought subjective meant based on opinion and personal taste. But it sounds like you are using subjective to mean changeable?

This is the reason why I asked what they meant by "subjective morality".

The idea that it is personal opinions and personal tastes works - but probably not quite in the way that you might expect. And subjectivity and objectivity aren't usually terms that we throw around when we discuss morality. The reason behind this is that a more technical definition of subjectivity and objectivity is:

Quote

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.

Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true. For example, many people would regard "2 + 2 = 4" as an objective statement of mathematics.

The moment we introduce God into this picture we run into a problem because God has a mind - He is a sentient being. And so any morality that comes from God would be considered arbitrary and subjective. The only way to make it non-subjective would be to claim that there is a morality that is external to God and that this morality is both absolute and unchanging. Mormonism does in fact make such a claim. But the problem here is that most of what we consider to reflect morality runs into the variability or arbitrariness of our religious account of this moral law. Are the ten commandments a part of this absolute moral law? Does Nephi violate moral law when he kills Laban? If Nephi doesn't violate objective moral law, then the commandment to kill cannot be some sort of moral absolute. If these commands come from God, and they are based on specific situations (similarly with polygamy), then we can only understand them in terms of subjective morality - i.e. we follow the moral dictates of God (who may be playing by a different set of moral rules than we are). And this is where the idea of subjectivity kicks in. If the moral commandments we live by come from the mind of God, they are subjective. We can have subjective morality (coming from the mind of God) without denying the existence of an objective morality (external to God). But now we are involved in a completely different discussion. Which brings us back to the comments I responded to -

@sunstoned: I reject the idea that there is a devil.  I do believe in good and evil, but these are creations of humanity.  There is no cosmic influence on this.  We, the people, control who we are and what we do. Carl Sagan wrote a book about this, and it saved me. More than anyone else, I credit what I learned from him for really giving me the foundation I need to be a good citizen. Maybe that’s crazy, but I grew up Mormon, and I was always trying to put pieces together that just didn’t fit. Sagan's ideas liberated me, made me more empathetic, and he taught me basic scientific ideas far better than any mythology.

@JVW: So you believe in subjective morality?

Perhaps you can see how this works. Sunstoned is arguing that good and evil are largely constructs of humanity. I would tend to agree with that point of view. And in fact, Sunstoned (who I don't know) is probably quite open to the idea of an absolute morality or ethics - principles of morality and ethics which hold true in every situation and every circumstance. But these principles and ethics will often be generalized principles (like Kant's categorical imperative) that then have to be applied in a given situation to understand what is the morally or ethically right way to move forward. In the medical field where I work, I tend to encounter this idea specifically in my work in the area of disaster preparedness. When there is a mass injury (or even a mass casualty) event, and we have limited resources (medicine, hospital beds, decontamination facilities), how do we prioritize who gets access to those resources? Is it moral to give those resources to the youngest people first? It is in religion, where we have very specific commandments, often that are often set against contradictory commandments, where we can see a much more subjective morality or ethics. If it right when God tells me to do it and wrong when God doesn't (or when God forbids it) we have a much more subjective morality either built around the mind of God (and our understanding of that mind of God) or around our own beliefs projected on to God.

The other part is that in this response, JVW makes the comment as a sort of prod. It's like being called a moral relativist. It is language itself that is meant to be critical by using language that is supposed to be read as being critical - and thus avoid having to explain how Sunstoned's point of view reflects either that moral subjectivity or why that moral subjectivity is a particularly bad thing. I am trying to point out that such an effort is problematic even if it had been made with crystal clarity because of the implications of having an objective morality that rules God as much as it might rule us, and our own inability to access that objective morality.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, JVW said:

By this I mean that morality is relative to the time period, culture, and society in which one finds themselves. So an Aztec performing human sacrifices and committing genocide against other tribes was not breaking a moral law, but Hitler killing Jews was because of the context in which the society functioned. Or, a more modern example, abortion was breaking a moral law in the 1940's, but wasn't in the 1980's because the society, culture, laws, and regulations were different. I do not believe this. I believe there are timeless moral laws that exist, regardless of time, place, culture, society, government, etc. And if they are broken there is a negative consequence, and if they are kept there is a positive consequence.

And what are those timeless, moral laws? Are you suggesting, to go back to the example, that Nephi was morally wrong when he killed Laban? Are you suggesting that God was morally wrong when he caused the flood?

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

I see your point, and I see the danger in that. Claiming to do something on behalf of God is a slippery slope and very dangerous.

It's not just claiming to do something on behalf of God, it's claiming what God has done and understanding that as part of this moral or ethical code. By the way, I much prefer the term moral relativism to objective and subjective in terms of morality because it is much easier to discuss in context.

12 minutes ago, JVW said:

I think how attractive the idea of subjective morality is depends on how trusting and believing in the goodness of one's own society and culture is. If one believes that society is generally good and supports good things, then it will act as a sort of "second line of defense" against those who act against it yet claim they are acting for God. But if one believes that society is generally bad and supports bad things then subjective morality is very dangerous to follow. Those who believe in subjective morality would have easily been part of the Nazi movement as a German in the 30's because of believing that their society is good and following the rules of society is good.

Unpacking this would require its own thread. I am not going to condone what the Nazi's did. But at the same time, if we apply this sort of thinking to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict we only get an absolute mess.

I think that there are a few moral/ethical absolutes. One of those is freedom. But this is also a complex issue/

16 minutes ago, JVW said:

So in either case, believing in an objective moral law vs a subjective moral law, careful thought and discernment is needed. Interestingly enough, many who believe in subjective morality in America today view the society, culture, laws, government, "the system" as evil and in need of reform yet use that same society as a yardstick to measure whether or not they are behaving in a moral manner. (As much as "ethics" can be regarded as "morals" as, in America, the term "morality" has kind of disappeared.)

And I want you to realize that when you talk about careful thought and discernment, all you are saying is that the difference between believing in objective moral law and subjective moral law is nothing more than a subjective decision.

18 minutes ago, JVW said:

From your post I get the impression that you care about morality more as it relates to society and the world at large. I personally care more about morality as it relates to the individual. The reason that I believe in objective moral law is because of 2 Nephi 2. The first time that I read it, I had just learned that God existed. Due to the way I was raised and the way I lived my life I was a very miserable person and was a nihilist atheist. I believed that morality was subjective and that the best way to live was "do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else" and "do whatever makes you feel good". I believed that people who were happy were delusional and foolish, but when I read in 2 Nephi 2 "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery." I knew that I was miserable, therefore happiness must be a real thing that is obtainable. So my goal became to learn what way I needed to live in order to be happy. That is basically my definition of objective moral law. If one follows all of the timeless moral rules then they will live a happy life.

I believe that ethics and morality have to actually work. But it is the way that we see it play out in individuals and society which tells us a great deal about people's ethics and morality. The thing about 2 Nephi 2 is that it clearly says that God gives us the Law. And if God gives us the law, it arguably cannot be subjective - God can (and does) give different laws to different groups. And this is the definition of a subjective morality (one that is dependent on the mind of God - arbitrary in the sense that what God gives you may be quite different from what God gives someone else).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I believe there are timeless moral laws that exist, regardless of time, place, culture, society, government, etc. And if they are broken there is a negative consequence, and if they are kept there is a positive consequence.

Do you believe we can reliably identify them and if so, how?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Those who believe in subjective morality would have easily been part of the Nazi movement as a German in the 30's because of believing that their society is good and following the rules of society is good.

It’s not a given, imo, anymore than believing in an objective morality would have stopped them.  It all depends on who they believe is supposed to be the source of their morality.  If a German believed in objective morality based on what was best for humanity, but their view of morality justified killing those they saw as harming the human race, they could enthusiastically participate in killing the undesirables in society.  OTOH, a German who believed in subjective morality could still be repulsed by the Nazis.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

These are all basically at record high levels.

Do you mean in absolute number terms or percentage?  Absolute numbers, you are probably right because of the number of people on earth now is so much more that 500 years ago.

But percentage wise, how would you measure this?  Corruption has been around since before civilization I am guessing, civilized countries used to justify burning women just because they were different (witch claims), built their economy on slavery, allowed rape of wives and imprisonment of the mentally ill in the worst prisons.  I don’t see how one can look at the practices of the Atlantic slave trade and somehow think that society was more moral than today’s.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And if God gives us the law, it arguably cannot be subjective - God can (and does) give different laws to different groups.

Cannot be objective, I think you meant to say?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But the problem here is that most of what we consider to reflect morality runs into the variability or arbitrariness of our religious account of this moral law. Are the ten commandments a part of this absolute moral law? Does Nephi violate moral law when he kills Laban? If Nephi doesn't violate objective moral law, then the commandment to kill cannot be some sort of moral absolute. If these commands come from God, and they are based on specific situations (similarly with polygamy), then we can only understand them in terms of subjective morality - i.e. we follow the moral dictates of God (who may be playing by a different set of moral rules than we are). And this is where the idea of subjectivity kicks in. If the moral commandments we live by come from the mind of God, they are subjective. We can have subjective morality (coming from the mind of God) without denying the existence of an objective morality (external to God). But now we are involved in a completely different discussion. Which brings us back to the comments I responded to 

This was one of my least favorite philosophy classes so I don't remember a lot about the different arguments (other than that people have been making them for centuries and no answers have been agreed upon). 

I would answer your specific points by suggesting that morals are external to God and those morals are neither variable nor arbitrary, but can be applied differently depending on conditions.  For example, if sexual intercourse is a sin when not married but not a sin when married, then it is not the act that is either moral or immoral but the conditions under which the act occurs.  So what might appear arbitrary or variable isn't actually either, it's conditional.  I would also say that other contradictions or problems can be answered by taking into account understanding and interpretation.  Though the commandment says not to kill, is that what it actually means?  If murder is against the 10 commandments but ending a life is not always murder, then Nephi does not violate moral law and the 10 commandments can still be morally absolute, if Nephi did not did not unlawfully kill Laban.  Therefore a soldier can do his or her duty in war without breaking any moral laws.

However, saying all that I do recognize your bigger point.  Morality may be absolute but because we aren't capable of knowing it firsthand, it's also subjective.   It first has to trickle to us from outside influences--like God or culture or textbooks--and then it has to trickle through us as flawed and biased beings trying to understand and apply it.   The end result is a mixed bag of all sorts of stuff, some of which will look objective and some which will look subjective depending on who's doing the looking.

Quote

 

@sunstoned: I reject the idea that there is a devil.  I do believe in good and evil, but these are creations of humanity.  There is no cosmic influence on this.  We, the people, control who we are and what we do. Carl Sagan wrote a book about this, and it saved me. More than anyone else, I credit what I learned from him for really giving me the foundation I need to be a good citizen. Maybe that’s crazy, but I grew up Mormon, and I was always trying to put pieces together that just didn’t fit. Sagan's ideas liberated me, made me more empathetic, and he taught me basic scientific ideas far better than any mythology.

@JVW: So you believe in subjective morality?

Perhaps you can see how this works. Sunstoned is arguing that good and evil are largely constructs of humanity. I would tend to agree with that point of view. And in fact, Sunstoned (who I don't know) is probably quite open to the idea of an absolute morality or ethics - principles of morality and ethics which hold true in every situation and every circumstance. But these principles and ethics will often be generalized principles (like Kant's categorical imperative) that then have to be applied in a given situation to understand what is the morally or ethically right way to move forward. In the medical field where I work, I tend to encounter this idea specifically in my work in the area of disaster preparedness. When there is a mass injury (or even a mass casualty) event, and we have limited resources (medicine, hospital beds, decontamination facilities), how do we prioritize who gets access to those resources? Is it moral to give those resources to the youngest people first? It is in religion, where we have very specific commandments, often that are often set against contradictory commandments, where we can see a much more subjective morality or ethics. If it right when God tells me to do it and wrong when God doesn't (or when God forbids it) we have a much more subjective morality either built around the mind of God (and our understanding of that mind of God) or around our own beliefs projected on to God.

The other part is that in this response, JVW makes the comment as a sort of prod. It's like being called a moral relativist. It is language itself that is meant to be critical by using language that is supposed to be read as being critical - and thus avoid having to explain how Sunstoned's point of view reflects either that moral subjectivity or why that moral subjectivity is a particularly bad thing. I am trying to point out that such an effort is problematic even if it had been made with crystal clarity because of the implications of having an objective morality that rules God as much as it might rule us, and our own inability to access that objective morality.