Inherenty Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?) vs. Situationally Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?)

[Daniel2]

In the thread titled "Circumcision," there's an interesting parallel discussion occurring about whether or not any given act is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

The original context was regarding the law of circumcision (as originally commanded by God in the Old Testament), which has now been done away with since Christ is said to have fulfilled the law.

This brought up the question of whether or not any given act (such as circumcision, polygamy, stoning by death, or even genocide) is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

Bluebell, Scott Lloyd, Rain, Calm, and Hamba have all been involved, and there's a number of posts that are worth noting, but I wanted to enlarge this tangential conversation into more generalized terms as those that have been alluded to in the other thread.  Bluebell's comments are a good starting point:

 

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 8:40 AM, bluebell said:

There is no false dichotomy once you take into account the definition of inherently. 

If something is ever (for any reason) acceptable to God, that means it cannot be inherently unethical. 

Something can be o.k. under some circumstances and not o.k. under others, but if that is the case that thing is not inherently unethical.

Polygamy and stoning, for example, are not inherently unethical (even though they are sometimes unethical) because the are sometimes condoned by God.

My desire here is to focus on this question:

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil?  Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In the thread titled "Circumcision," there's an interesting parallel discussion occurring about whether or not any given act is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

The original context was regarding the law of circumcision (as originally commanded by God in the Old Testament), which has now been done away with since Christ is said to have fulfilled the law.

This brought up the question of whether or not any given act (such as circumcision, polygamy, stoning by death, or even genocide) is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

Bluebell, Scott Lloyd, Rain, Calm, and Hamba have all been involved, and there's a number of posts that are worth noting, but I wanted to enlarge this tangential conversation into more generalized terms as those that have been alluded to in the other thread.  Bluebell's comments are a good starting point:

 

My desire here is to focus on this question:

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil?  Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

Speaking for myself, i'm not convinced that God has ever commanded the killing of innocents (I don't trust the biblical accounts that state He did).  If He has though, then I would agree with C, though I'm not sure I would say that denying the Holy Ghost is evil (it's the most serious sin, but is that because it's evil?  I don't know).

[clarkgoble]

How can we possibly answer the question without knowing (1) what makes something good or bad and (2) all possible contexts?

After all "inherently" just means true in all contexts, doesn't it?

[Darren10]

45 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In the thread titled "Circumcision," there's an interesting parallel discussion occurring about whether or not any given act is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

The original context was regarding the law of circumcision (as originally commanded by God in the Old Testament), which has now been done away with since Christ is said to have fulfilled the law.

This brought up the question of whether or not any given act (such as circumcision, polygamy, stoning by death, or even genocide) is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

Bluebell, Scott Lloyd, Rain, Calm, and Hamba have all been involved, and there's a number of posts that are worth noting, but I wanted to enlarge this tangential conversation into more generalized terms as those that have been alluded to in the other thread.  Bluebell's comments are a good starting point:

 

My desire here is to focus on this question:

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil?  Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

Insofar as God has never, to anyone's knowledge, neither commanded nor desired anyone ever to deny the Holy Ghost, "c" would be the best option for me. But even then it being "inherently" evil, completely depends on God maintaining His will that no one ever denies Him (the Holy Ghost). 

[thesometimesaint]

I'll leave what God does up to God. We mortals have been blaming God for our own injustices for a long time now.

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How can we possibly answer the question without knowing (1) what makes something good or bad and (2) all possible contexts?

After all "inherently" just means true in all contexts, doesn't it?

Yes, that's what it basically means.  Also permanent and essential (as in something is a permanent and/or essential characteristic of the thing).

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Speaking for myself, i'm not convinced that God has ever commanded the killing of innocents (I don't trust the biblical accounts that state He did).  If He has though, then I would agree with C, though I'm not sure I would say that denying the Holy Ghost is evil (it's the most serious sin, but is that because it's evil?  I don't know).

I'm reminded that in First Samuel Chapter 15, one of the verses required in LDS Seminary's Scripture Mastery program (in red, below) centers around this commandment by "the voice of the words of the LORD (Jehovah)," "the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts" to "utterly destroy" not only "both man, woman, infant and suckling," but even "all that they have, and spare them not," including their "ox and sheep, camel and ***":

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

4And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

10Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night. 12And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal. 13And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD. 14And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? 15And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed. 16Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.

17And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel? 18And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?

20And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

22And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

This isn't the only instance when it happens.

Additionally, Joseph Smith taught that this was a correct and true principle; that sometimes, God commands "to utterly destroy."

Are there any specific reasons/rationale as to why you doubt the accuracy of both the Biblical accounts and Joseph Smith's sustaining of them as God's command to kill all innocent life...?

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

How can we possibly answer the question without knowing (1) what makes something good or bad and (2) all possible contexts?

After all "inherently" just means true in all contexts, doesn't it?

It seems to me that, if one believes that God has authorized the atrocities outlined in Christian and LDS scriptures, then it's hard to justify that anything is "inherently" evil, since God has commanded all kinds of abominable actions, up to and including the most severe violence that anyone can inflict on someone else--the death of their entire families, including "infants and sucklings," as well as the animals of their households.

And if one can rationalize genocide as something that can be reconciled with God's will and therefore unsinful, then it seems to me that ultimately any behavior can be rationalized, as soon as one believes that God has come to authorize it, or sanctions it depending on any given situations' circumstances.

If all the above is true, it also seems challenging to explain to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm reminded that in First Samuel Chapter 15, one of the verses required in LDS Seminary's Scripture Mastery program (in red, below) centers around this commandment by "the voice of the words of the LORD (Jehovah)," "the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts" to "utterly destroy" not only "both man, woman, infant and suckling," but even "all that they have, and spare them not," including their "ox and sheep, camel and ***":

 

 

Yes, I remember that well, but I think that the verse in red can still be applicable (true) even if the story surrounding it isn't.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm reminded that in First Samuel Chapter 15, one of the verses required in LDS Seminary's Scripture Mastery program (in red, below) centers around this commandment by "the voice of the words of the LORD (Jehovah)," "the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts" to "utterly destroy" not only "both man, woman, infant and suckling," but even "all that they have, and spare them not," including their "ox and sheep, camel and ***":

 

 

God can do his own dirty work. But it is one of many things I intend to ask him about when I see him.

[Daniel2]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I remember that well, but I think that the verse in red can still be applicable (true) even if the story surrounding it isn't.

Joseph believed and taught that such Biblical accounts are accurate, insofar as God actually does command things that are otherwise considered abominations... Or do you believe that  Joseph didn't teach that?  Or do you believe Joseph was also wrong?  And if so, upon what you base your objections/doubts?

Edited November 28, 2017 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

There are very few physical acts that are always wrong. There are motives that are always wrong.

[Calm]

Daniel, if I understand your logic, you are saying if the second to worst thing people can do is not sinful in certain cases (God commanding), this implies nothing save the worst is inherently sinful.

If I have it correct, I don't see the last as following from the first.  Even though very bad things at time may be okay (killing is wrong for greed but okay to save lives), this doesn't automatically follow that all lesser actions judged at times bad also have times they are judged good.  For example, one could easily mark shoplifting a souvenir salt shaker as bad, sinful, even if perhaps relatively trivial in an isolated case, but it is highly unlikely there will ever be a reason this could be seen as good.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Joseph believed and taught that such Biblical accounts are accurate, insofar as God actually does command things that are otherwise considered abominations... Or do you believe that  Joseph didn't teach that?  Or do you believe Joseph was also wrong?  And if so, upon what you base your objections/doubts?

I'd have to see the quote you are referring to to speak about JS's perspective.  Mine is that, while it could be true, I have doubts that that part of the bible is accurate.

[Daniel2]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'd have to see the quote you are referring to to speak about JS's perspective.  Mine is that, while it could be true, I have doubts that that part of the bible is accurate.

It's from a passage commonly quoted in General Conference about happiness being the object and design of our existence. 

It's interesting that Smith's words directly reinforce the passage from Samuael, citing the need to follow every command of God, to the T, before being able and ready to receive more--that's ultimately the same lesson Samuel was attempting to teach Saul--while it may appear to be a good thing to spare some of the animals to sacrifice for God, it would have been better to obey exactly the words God commanded--which were to utterly destroy everything.  Incidentally, ironically, God's displeasure wasn't that Saul had killed all the infants and suckling children--according to Samual, God's displeasure was that Saul hadn't killed all the animals...  If that's a parable in a story of untrue consequences, not only is it out of place in a historical book of The Holy Bible, it sure is an odd way to teach parables--that killing babies was fine, but dang it--he really should have killed ALL the animals, too!).  But based on Smith's words, below, it sure seems to me that he was reinforcing the historical aspects of God's commanded genocide in certain circumstances.

Here's the reference:

Quote

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 may be considered abominable to all who do not 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 pleasures of the apple would have been received, 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 ’tis proper that we should enjoy his gifts and blessings whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon these same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the [p.159]end, and we should have to go 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, 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 laws 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 of 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 to-day, ’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 as 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 enquired of by his children—he says ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find; but if ye 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 laws 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.[/END of the QUOTE here.  Again, the 'quote' feature isn't cutting this off from my final comment, which follows].

My understanding of the reference to God giving things to Solomon which may normally be considered abominable is to God giving Solomon hundreds of concubines and wives.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

It's from a passage commonly quoted in General Conference about happiness being the object and design of our existence. 

It's interesting that Smith's words directly reinforce the passage from Samuael, citing the need to follow every command of God, to the T, before being able and ready to receive more--that's ultimately the same lesson Samuel was attempting to teach Saul--while it may appear to be a good thing to spare some of the animals to sacrifice for God, it would have been better to obey exactly the words God commanded--which were to utterly destroy everything.  Incidentally, ironically, God's displeasure wasn't that Saul had killed all the infants and suckling children--according to Samual, God's displeasure was that Saul hadn't killed all the animals...  If that's a parable in a story of untrue consequences, not only is it out of place in a historical book of The Holy Bible, it sure is an odd way to teach parables--that killing babies was fine, but dang it--he really should have killed ALL the animals, too!).  But based on Smith's words, below, it sure seems to me that he was reinforcing the historical aspects of God's commanded genocide in certain circumstances.

Here's the reference:

 

Oh, I thought you meant that JS had taught that where the bible teaches that God had children killed, it was true.  I've already said that I believe the principle taught in Samuel is true, I just don't yet believe that the story behind the principle is.

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Oh, I thought you meant that JS had taught that where the bible teaches that God had children killed, it was true.  I've already said that I believe the principle taught in Samuel is true, I just don't yet believe that the story behind the principle is.

So, you believe that when Joseph said, "God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy," he wasn't confirming that God actually said the, "thou shalt utterly destroy" part (since, in your view, it was just a principle taught in a potentially untrue, non-literal story), despite the fact that in the same sentence when Joseph Smith said that "God said thou shalt not kill," it was something God actually did say, legitimately...? 

That doesn't seem like mental gymnastics to you to try to resolve your apparent discomfort with the Old Testament account by intentionally distorting what Smith actually said?

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It's from a passage commonly quoted in General Conference about happiness being the object and design of our existence. 

It's interesting that Smith's words directly reinforce the passage from Samuael, citing the need to follow every command of God, to the T, before being able and ready to receive more--that's ultimately the same lesson Samuel was attempting to teach Saul--while it may appear to be a good thing to spare some of the animals to sacrifice for God, it would have been better to obey exactly the words God commanded--which were to utterly destroy everything.  Incidentally, ironically, God's displeasure wasn't that Saul had killed all the infants and suckling children--according to Samual, God's displeasure was that Saul hadn't killed all the animals...  If that's a parable in a story of untrue consequences, not only is it out of place in a historical book of The Holy Bible, it sure is an odd way to teach parables--that killing babies was fine, but dang it--he really should have killed ALL the animals, too!).  But based on Smith's words, below, it sure seems to me that he was reinforcing the historical aspects of God's commanded genocide in certain circumstances.

Here's the reference:

 

I can't in good conscious believe in this God Joseph speaks of. Nor what the bible speaks of. I can't believe it's taken 55 years to come to this conclusion. I guess it's called an ability to think for myself. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Tacenda

[Thinking]

On a lighter note, is getting a tattoo inherently bad?

Quote

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.”

Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2000 GC

Although I don't have a tattoo, I don't think there is anything wrong with having one.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Thinking

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can't in good conscious believe in this God Joseph speaks of. Nor what the bible speaks of. I can't believe it's taken 55 years to come to this conclusion. I guess it's called an ability to think for myself. 

Doubt it.

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

On a lighter note, is getting a tattoo inherently bad?

Although I don't have a tattoo, I don't think there is anything wrong with having one.

Probably not but I dislike them myself.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

On a lighter note, is getting a tattoo inherently bad?

Although I don't have a tattoo, I don't think there is anything wrong with having one.

Depends on if you get it on a part of the body that doesnt age well.  If still recognizable and you dont hate it in 40 years, tey are probably okay..  Though if tacky, I count them as inherently bad.

[Thinking]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Though if tacky, I count them as inherently bad.

One person's tacky is another person's art.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Speaking for myself, i'm not convinced that God has ever commanded the killing of innocents (I don't trust the biblical accounts that state He did).  If He has though, then I would agree with C, though I'm not sure I would say that denying the Holy Ghost is evil (it's the most serious sin, but is that because it's evil?  I don't know).

I tend to believe the same, and viewed such stories in the OT, inconsistent with a loving God. Then I read a comment by Bruce R McConkie that caused me to see it differently. He spoke of how there is no time with God, the [He] "God sees all things in one eternal round", and he went on pointing out that to God the is, "no dead or death". His point was that as God, he will give all the opportunity of salvation, as such he does not see as we see. I am sure I am raping this concept, hope enough of it got through. 

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My desire here is to focus on this question:

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil?  Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

It is inherently evil to knowingly rebel against God’s commands, and inherently good to knowingly keep them according to the agency we possess. This gets to the root of exercising our agency and upholding the agency of others according to God's will, which requires the power to move and to act, the possession of knowledge and faith, and having options.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In the thread titled "Circumcision," there's an interesting parallel discussion occurring about whether or not any given act is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical."

I didn't read that thread, but here are my thoughts:

I am not persuaded that any act, in and of itself, is "inherently" unethical.  Or good.  Or evil.  Or moral.  Rather, it may be that the morality of the act is determined by the motive behind it.

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

The law also has the concept of "Malum in Se," meaning "wrong or evil in itself."  From Wikipedia:

Quote

The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state. For example, law in the United States requires drivers to drive on the right side of the road. This is not because driving on the left side of a road is considered immoral, but because consistent rules promote safety and order on the roads.

Malum in Se is typically used principally to differentiate governmental regulations and laws that are merely Malum Prohibitum.  I think motive is pretty much baked into acts which are deemed to be Malum in Se.  Murder, for example, pre-supposes several things ("Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.").  Motive is tied up in with these presuppositions (particularly "malice aforethought").

Murder, then, is a label, a descriptor we give to the underlying act, which is the taking of a human life.  So Lee Harvey Oswald was a murderer.  And John Wayne Gacy.  And Jeffrey Dahmer.  And so on.  They took human lives unlawfully, without justification or valid excuse, and with malice aforethought.  They are murderers.

In contrast, if a police officer may draw his weapon and shoot deranged person with a gun who is on a shooting rampage, do we call that "murder?"  Nope.  No "unlawful"-ness about it.  Plenty of "justification or valid excuse."  No "malice."  The motive of the police officer is to save lives and protect public safety and order.  So he's not a murderer.  He's a hero.

Joseph Smith touched on this general subject:

Quote

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.

Interesting stuff.

Quote

My desire here is to focus on this question:

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

That's not a complete definition of murder.

Quote

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

CFR.

And "genocide" presumes malicious intent.

Quote

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil? 

I don't think "sin" and "action" are synonymous.  "Sin" is, I think, defined as disobedience to God.  God is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong."  Since He's omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly just and righteous, and since He too is bound by eternal laws, He is qualified for that job. 

In other words, he's a trustworthy arbiter.  As Joseph Smith said, "the government of heaven" is conducted "by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."  It is God doing to adapting.  It is God mandating conduct, disobedience to which is therefore "sin."

"Action," on the other hand, is any act we perform in life.  Actions are, I think, not inherently "sinful."  They are "sinful" when God says they are.

Quote

Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

"Denying of the Holy Ghost" has motive and intent baked into it.  Per Hebrews 6:6:

Quote

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

And per the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The gravest of all sins is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31-32; Jacob 7:19; Alma 39:6), and the consequences are inescapable. Such denial dooms the perpetrator to the hell of the second spiritual death (TPJS, p. 361). This extreme judgment comes because the person sins knowingly against the light, thereby severing himself from the redeeming grace of Christ. He is numbered with the sons of perdition (D&C 76:43).

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "No man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost" (TPJS, p. 357). To commit the unpardonable sin, a person "must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him…. he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened to him, and to deny the Plan of Salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it" (TPJS, p. 358; cf. Heb. 10:26-29).

If people have such knowledge and willfully turn altogether away, it is a sin against light, a sin against the Holy Ghost, and figuratively "they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" (Heb. 6:4-6; D&C 76:35). Such remain as though there were no Atonement, except that they shall be resurrected from the dead (Alma 11:41).

"One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable..."

"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" presumes the intent of the person doing the blaspheming.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2017 by smac97