Ensign (Feb. 2014): Moral Relativism And Korihor The Anti Christ

[BCSpace]

An excellent example of how the Book of Mormon was written for us today:
 

The Book of Mormon and Modern Moral Relativism

 

While describing our day, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah observed that people would “call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). One way we’ve seen this prophecy fulfilled is the growing acceptance of moral relativism—the idea that questions of right and wrong behavior are relative.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said: “The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as ‘value judgments.’ As the Lord describes it, ‘Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god’ (D&C 1:16).”1

Similarly, President Thomas S. Monson has cited a study involving youth and their moral and ethical perceptions in given situations. The common answer was that moral and ethical preferences were up to the individual, that there is no recognized standard.2

While society in general may believe that moral relativism is a sign of progress, the Book of Mormon contains examples and teachings that warn us of the dangers of replacing God’s commandments with our own relative moral standards.

 

Rights versus Responsibilities

Another important lesson is found in the story of the anti-Christ Korihor, whose teachings established a moral relativism that challenged the Nephites for years to come (see Alma 30).

His assertions, many of which may be familiar to a modern audience, contain the following:

    a. There is no God (see Alma 30:28, 37–38).
    b. Belief in Christ is “a foolish and a vain hope” (Alma 30:13).
    c. Those who believe in a remission of sins are under the effects of a frenzied or deranged mind (see Alma 30:16).
    d. Their derangement is caused by following the traditions of their fathers and the whims of corrupt leaders (see Alma 30:14, 23–28, 31).
    e. Man is a creature (see Alma 30:17).
    f. One “[fares] in this life according to the management of the creature; … and whatsoever a man [does is] no crime” (Alma 30:17).
    g. There is no sin and no need for a Savior (see Alma 30:17–18).
    h. Those who encourage people to keep God’s commandments are stripping away an individual’s “rights and privileges” (Alma 30:27).

This last point is particularly dangerous, for it elevates one’s rights while avoiding any discussion of one’s responsibilities. In purporting to be in favor of individual liberty, moral relativism actually threatens one’s privilege to exercise agency by ignoring the negative consequences of not being cognizant of one’s responsibilities to others.

From Cain to the Gadianton robbers, there have always been those who believe that their rights are more important than the rights of others. In fact, Korihor’s emphasis on “rights” is nothing more than a revised version of Satan’s premortal gambit to strip us of agency. By focusing on a perceived loss of rights, we do not hold ourselves accountable, particularly in our relationship with one another, and therefore lose agency, exactly as the adversary wishes.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has noted: “One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism … is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism.”

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/02/young-adults/the-book-of-mormon-and-modern-moral-relativism?lang=eng

 

 

 

[Stroopwafel]

For a background story:

 

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

 

As an aside, from a. to h., I would say the only thing the evil atheists would partly have an objection to is f.

[Rob Osborn]

I will agree with this. We especially see this with sexuality and dress standards. Its turning into one of those things of "oh this is not a sin, I should be able to freely excersize my desires and its actually you who are wrong to judge and because you do judge me then it is you who are in the wrong (as the politically correct applauses).

[cinepro]

Let me get this straight.  The Church whose founder says the following is coming out against "moral relativism"?

 

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.

 

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:135

[stemelbow]

Let me get this straight.  The Church whose founder says the following is coming out against "moral relativism"?

'

For some reason I had the exact same quote in mind as I began reading in this thread.  This is tough complicated stuff, much more than I was taught as a young boy going to Church.  I always resented the calling good evil and evil good thing because anyone, it seemed could apply it to anything.  Its as if I had to go to church and consult the outspoken grandpa down the street in order to know which side to pick. 

[strappinglad]

I guess that it depends on whose 'god' is being gored.

[Buckeye]

I knew Dan Belnap in grad school.  Very smart guy.  And a genuinely good person. 

[Vance]

How can "Whatever God requires is right" be described as "relative" in any way? Whatever God requires is whatever God requires! It isn't relative to anything about any individual or thing.

[jaxenro]

Moral relativism doesn't seek to define a new morality it seeks to circumvent morality.

But I do pose the question is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God? If so what is its source? And are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there?

I would start this as a new thread but I can't yet of someone else can and is do inclined feel free

[The Nehor]

Let me get this straight.  The Church whose founder says the following is coming out against "moral relativism"?

I think it is more that God gets decide when it is relative. I know God has told me to break general commandments before in special situations. It is when I start trying to decide that I tend to get into trouble.

[cinepro]

How can "Whatever God requires is right" be described as "relative" in any way? Whatever God requires is whatever God requires! It isn't relative to anything about any individual or thing.

 

If your code is "Whatever X requires is right", then it's moral relativism.  

 

The antithesis of the "moral relativism" in the OP isn't the better moral relativism of religion.  It's moral absolutism. 

 

I'm not saying that religious moral relativism is bad.  I'm just saying we shouldn't pretend it is something it isn't (and make fun of other moral relativists because their X isn't as good as ours).

Edited March 12, 2014 by cinepro

[Stroopwafel]

Here is a thought-provoking quote from Plato I like to bring up every once in a while.

 

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

 

 

Also, when we talk about moral absolutes, I'd like to know, what are we talking about exactly? What are they and who are these people that actually reject them?

 

What seems to be main concern addressed in the article in the OP is the sense of responsibility, or lack thereof, which supposedly follows those not holding moral absolutes. I hope nobody's going to be shocked by learning that we don't have to believe in God to have a sense of responsibility, or in other words, there can be other sources/explanation than God for a sense of responsibility.

[frank_jessop]

Speaking, solely, in regard to religion, each religions morality is governed by what the respective God says.

Just look at polygamy, whether is adultery, is relative to the time and circumstance.

[mfbukowski]

For a background story:

 

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

 

As an aside, from a. to h., I would say the only thing the evil atheists would partly have an objection to is f.

To me the Ensign article is too ambiguous to discuss.  I don't know what position he is arguing against.

[mfbukowski]

No one has ever argued that murder and rape and robbery are good. 

 

So where is the relativism? 

 

It is even considered wrong to offend people using certain words.  Everyone seems to want to be politically correct.  Sound pretty absolutist to me.

[mfbukowski]

I will agree with this. We especially see this with sexuality and dress standards. Its turning into one of those things of "oh this is not a sin, I should be able to freely excersize my desires and its actually you who are wrong to judge and because you do judge me then it is you who are in the wrong (as the politically correct applauses).

How is the fact that people disagree about morality show "relativism"?

They all seem to have very definite ideas about right and wrong

 

Moral pluralism and disagreement on standards, yes.  But who actually argues there IS no right or wrong?

 

Am I just being pedantic?

[BCSpace]

Let me get this straight.  The Church whose founder says the following is coming out against "moral relativism"?

 

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.

 

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:135

 

 

 

No conflict whatsoever and there is no 'religious moral relativism' here.  Every Gospel Law or principle is a moral absolute to God or man.  Man simply does not know all the moral absolutes, their details, or how they might sometimes work together and God does.  For example. God commands Nephi to slay Laban and gives the higher law that justifies it "Better that one man should perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief".

 

God has not given, for example, a higher law to justify homosexual relations so one can't merely assume such exists.

Edited March 13, 2014 by BCSpace

[Rob Osborn]

How is the fact that people disagree about morality show "relativism"?

They all seem to have very definite ideas about right and wrong

 

Moral pluralism and disagreement on standards, yes.  But who actually argues there IS no right or wrong?

 

Am I just being pedantic?

If I condemn the entertainment and clothing industry for the sexualizing and commercialization of the womens body I can guarentee it isn't long before the politically correct say I am being judgmental and in the wrong for the condemnation of women in not allowing them to express themselves.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If I condemn the entertainment and clothing industry for the sexualizing and commercialization of the womens body I can guarentee it isn't long before the politically correct say I am being judgmental and in the wrong for the condemnation of women in not allowing them to express themselves.

Actually I'm pretty sure this position is pretty mainstream.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/idUS150890172120111123

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/women-in-film-underrepresented-hypersexualized-report_n_3273398.html

http://time.com/22957/target-apologizes-for-anatomically-impossible-thigh-gap-photo/

[cinepro]

No one has ever argued that murder and rape and robbery are good. 

 

Well, God did tell the Hebrews to do this to the Egyptians...

 

22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/3?lang=eng

 

I'm sure it's "moral" because God told them to do it, but if anyone else had...

[Bikeemikey]

Well, God did tell the Hebrews to do this to the Egyptians...

I'm sure it's "moral" because God told them to do it, but if anyone else had...

Just another example of the OT being partially scripture partially racist history :-)

[Scott Lloyd]

An excellent example of how the Book of Mormon was written for us today:

 

I wrote a Church News editorial last week that touched on the decline of moral values that was prophesied to take place in the last days.

 

I took more of an optimistic note however, as it pertains to Latter-day Saint youth.

[mfbukowski]

Well, God did tell the Hebrews to do this to the Egyptians...

 

Ok so he's a moral relativist then by this definition

[Bikeemikey]

Ok so he's a moral relativist then by this definition

Great! Another thread resolved!

Moving on!

[strappinglad]

The Hebrews were slaves of the Egyptians. The borrowing of items was just recompense for past service. Remember , initially the Israelites were only supposed to go away for a few days( wink,wink ) .