Does God REALLY Have Objective Moral Truths?

[apollyon]

For the record, right now I'm in the opinion that he does not. We have countless examples of God contradicting and overruling His own commandments. Essentially what I'm proposing, for those of you who know what I'm talking about, is the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good because God likes it or does God like it because it is good? Is there objective (meaning absolute, or immune to individual perception) moral truth outside of God, or is it "moral" and "true" because God says it is?

We have countless scriptural examples of times when God says this commandment in this chapter, and a matter of chapters later He appears to change his mind. Classic examples include God giving Moses the 10 commandments which includes "thou shalt not kill" and a few chapters later the commandment "Thou shalt utterly destroy." We have Nephi killing Laban (which needs another thread in itself); we have "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and then God commanding Abraham to lie about Sarah being his wife; we have the whole polygamy issue, which at certain times is okay and other times it's not. In short, the whole concept of us needing modern revelation assumes the fact that God's laws change, because why would we need to be constantly apprised of them if they didn't ever change? (ignoring, of course, that we need the modern interpretation of said commandments. I think even the "modern interpretation argument presupposes change.)

What do you guys think?

[NeuroTypical]

Right now I don't let my kids have unfiltered internet access. They don't get to take my guns out and shoot them - heck - they don't even get to touch my guns at all - unless I am standing there telling them what to do. They're not to touch stuff in certain drawers of the house, and they're to stay away from the power saw. If I catch them doing stuff they shouldn't, it'll be very much like OT times.

In a few years, they can get into the drawers. Eventually, I'll be handing them stuff to go saw. If they mature enough, they can even go get the guns and meet me at the range. In some cases, stuf they couldn't do before, is now their job and duty, and expected of them.

Do I have no Objective Moral Truths? As my kids grow in maturity and ability, am I contradicting and overruling my own rules?

LM

[rameumptom]

Personally, I hope LM's kids NEVER get into his drawers. There are laws against that sort of stuff.

I do believe there are some absolute truths. However, I think, as I do with the actual doctrines of the gospel, there are fewer than we think. "God is God" is absolute. "Jesus is the Messiah" is another absolute.

That said, D&C 88 teaches there are laws attached to each kingdom, and we receive a kingdom by abiding by the law of that kingdom. So, God can essentially give us commands, based upon the level we are ready to receive them.

Killing, or the giving/taking of life, is a power of God. God allows people to die every single day of natural causes. He equally can establish such a law as "Thou shalt not kill" and then give exceptions to it. Why? Because he is dealing with various people on a variety of levels, not just a celestial. For Nephi, God can command him to take Laban's life. But God did not give the same commandment to Laman and Lemuel, who were disobedient, and therefore required to keep the main commandment.

I think that when we arrive (hopefully) to the Celestial Kingdom, we'll find that the laws are absolute. However, there will only be two laws: love God, and love thy neighbor. Celestial beings can abide those laws and be guided by the Spirit and Light of Christ to perform them perfectly.

Lesser levels will require more and more laws that seem absolute, except when God gives exception. And God must give exception, because he governs not only by law, but also by wisdom, compassion, mercy and justice.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For the record, right now I'm in the opinion that he does not. We have countless examples of God contradicting and overruling His own commandments. Essentially what I'm proposing, for those of you who know what I'm talking about, is the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good because God likes it or does God like it because it is good? Is there objective (meaning absolute, or immune to individual perception) moral truth outside of God, or is it "moral" and "true" because God says it is?

We have countless scriptural examples of times when God says this commandment in this chapter, and a matter of chapters later He appears to change his mind. Classic examples include God giving Moses the 10 commandments which includes "thou shalt not kill" and a few chapters later the commandment "Thou shalt utterly destroy." We have Nephi killing Laban (which needs another thread in itself); we have "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and then God commanding Abraham to lie about Sarah being his wife; we have the whole polygamy issue, which at certain times is okay and other times it's not. In short, the whole concept of us needing modern revelation assumes the fact that God's laws change, because why would we need to be constantly apprised of them if they didn't ever change? (ignoring, of course, that we need the modern interpretation of said commandments. I think even the "modern interpretation argument presupposes change.)

What do you guys think?

God's laws for us change for sure. The lesser law changing to the higher law in what happened between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ is a good example.

As we develop and are more capable as a whole our laws change similar to when we are 8 we are not allowed to drive a car but when we are 16 we can. His laws, I think, are based on objective truths that we have no measure of, such as the ability of the people as a whole to live up to those set of laws.

Our laws and commandments as you are making reference to are for a world where we are torn between carnal and spiritual desires. Our life with God, and as God is right now are not the same circumstances we find ourselves in now. I don't think one can compare the two in all things, possible in some things, but good luck knowing for sure which ones those are.

[apollyon]

Personally, I hope LM's kids NEVER get into his drawers. There are laws against that sort of stuff.

I do believe there are some absolute truths. However, I think, as I do with the actual doctrines of the gospel, there are fewer than we think. "God is God" is absolute. "Jesus is the Messiah" is another absolute.

Ha.

And I fear that I may be misunderstood. I'm talking about moral truth, not doctrinal laws. Such as, is it always wrong to kill? Is it always wrong to lie? Is it always wrong to commit adultery? Etc. I think that based on the number of times that God has given exceptions to these apparent truths, they are not objectively true. They're true because God said they are. Following that reasoning, it would be equally true and "moral" to go and kill all the small children if God said to.

I understand the "various levels of understanding argument," which would mean that there is a truth in which all these apparent "exceptions" coincide. But if that's the case, what is this supreme truth which can allow for apparent contradictions of itself?

[Justice]

Joseph Smith has many quotes stating "whatever God commands [or requires] is right."

His commands may seem to contradict at times. Through our limited understanding we get tunnel vision and try to bring God down to our level.

[apollyon]

Joseph Smith has many quotes stating "whatever God commands [or requires] is right."

His commands may seem to contradict at times. Through our limited understanding we get tunnel vision and try to bring God down to our level.

Are you implying that we shouldn't try to understand God?

[mrmarklin]

Yes of course there are objective moral truths. We are taught that God cannot lie, or He would cease to be God. You are far too literal and simplistic in interpreting the 10 commandments.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" is generally interpreted to mean murder or the shedding of innocent blood.

There are clearly many examples of righteous "killing". For example: self defense.

Edited February 3, 2011 by mrmarklin

[apollyon]

Yes of course there are objective moral truths. We are taught that God cannot lie, or He would cease to be God. You are far too literal and simplistic in interpreting the 10 commandments.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" is generally interpreted to mean murder or the shedding of innocent blood.

There are clearly many examples of righteous "killing". For example: self defense.

I don't think I'm being simplistic at all. I think that we should be able to interpret it literally. And we can if we make a definition of kill as "taking the life of another." That's the most basic definition. Your definition is terribly subjective, which automatically rules out that it can lead to an objective truth.

And depending on your definition of "lie," God has lied before. If we want to say that not telling the truth is lying, or rather that by omitting the truth one lies, God has lied countless times. Just like we don't necessarily tell the whole truth sometimes, so God has done.

I'm still waiting for an objective moral truth.

Oh, and what we're taught is ALWAYS true.

Edited February 3, 2011 by apollyon
clarification

[MarginOfError]

Yes of course there are objective moral truths. We are taught that God cannot lie, or He would cease to be God. You are far too literal and simplistic in interpreting the 10 commandments.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" is generally interpreted to mean murder or the shedding of innocent blood.

There are clearly many examples of righteous "killing". For example: self defense.

I think you're being a little harsh. The whole point of the question is to look beyond simplicity.

In my opinion, God's actions are generally based on a cost-benefit analysis of sorts. He does what will bring about the greatest good for the most people.

The problem I see with "objective moral truths" is that it is entirely a one dimensional view of the world. Very rarely is this realistic or even practical. I find most issues we face in life require at least three dimensions of thought, but are better served on 6 or 7. Unfortunately, a lot of people have trouble reasoning beyond two dimensions of thought.

[Dravin]

I don't think I'm being simplistic at all. I think that we should be able to interpret it literally. And we can if we make a definition of kill as "taking the life of another." That's the most basic definition.

Actually the most basic definition would be taking life. Which means commanding animal sacrifice was a contradiction. I mean if you want to go pendant go for broke.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I understand the "various levels of understanding argument," which would mean that there is a truth in which all these apparent "exceptions" coincide. But if that's the case, what is this supreme truth which can allow for apparent contradictions of itself?

You can't know that without having access to the variables which relate to the purposes of God, what is in a person's heart, that person's or group's mission on earth, what they were given to work with in this life and the circumstances of this life. If one could somehow know what is in everyone's heart, what they had learned in the pre-mortal life, what test is needed for that individual or that group of people, and what is step is needed at that specific moment or for that group of people or how it might affect future groups of people, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man (the bigger picture) then maybe there is a defined supreme truth to which all of these rules could fit into. We don't have the source code.

What you are wanting is something we will learn about after this life is over. Here we are supposed to live by faith. I am always amazed at efforts to take faith out of the formula. This is our chance to learn to live by faith. If the answer to that question was known to a certain degree it would destroy opportunity to live by faith and to have our faith tested. Satan wants us to think that there was no need for this experience, still. He tries to convince us of that in many ways. We are not ready for that knowledge yet, like the teenager who thinks she is ready to live on her own at the age of 15 because she thinks she is above the "rules and restrictions" placed on her. When in reality the rules are for her growth and are not restrictive. Faith based living is the fastest way to learn about the "supreme truth".

[apollyon]

I think you're being a little harsh. The whole point of the question is to look beyond simplicity.

In my opinion, God's actions are generally based on a cost-benefit analysis of sorts. He does what will bring about the greatest good for the most people.

The problem I see with "objective moral truths" is that it is entirely a one dimensional view of the world. Very rarely is this realistic or even practical. I find most issues we face in life require at least three dimensions of thought, but are better served on 6 or 7. Unfortunately, a lot of people have trouble reasoning beyond two dimensions of thought.

True enough. But we're aiming for one-dimensional. Clearly things are better served from various angles, but if something is true, it will be true from even just one angle.

And you're proposing that God is utilitarian, which is the theory that I personally subscribe to. However, this automatically means that God has no objective moral truths, or any objective truths at all for that matter, because value, and therefore truth, is based on utility and serving the greatest number of people with the greatest possible good.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Ha.

And I fear that I may be misunderstood. I'm talking about moral truth, not doctrinal laws. Such as, is it always wrong to kill? Is it always wrong to lie? Is it always wrong to commit adultery? Etc. I think that based on the number of times that God has given exceptions to these apparent truths, they are not objectively true. They're true because God said they are. Following that reasoning, it would be equally true and "moral" to go and kill all the small children if God said to.

I understand the "various levels of understanding argument," which would mean that there is a truth in which all these apparent "exceptions" coincide. But if that's the case, what is this supreme truth which can allow for apparent contradictions of itself?

I think the confusion on killing comes from the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is not translated from the Hebrew very well (as I have been told). The word translated as kill, implies that the victim is innocent so the best translation is not kill but murder.

This is why self defense is not a sin, since one is not killing the innocent but killing on that seeks to cause harm to you or your family.

Also God orders the destruction of the wicked to preserve the righteousness of Israel (in the end, they never do what is commanded of them and become very wicked anyway). Once again those who sin are not innocent, they are ripe for destruction for there sins if God so wishes to cast judgement on them.

As for the saying something and then "changing his mind". Of course God changes his mind, when we are wicked his wrath is upon us, there are many times when God sends his Prophets to tell the wicked they will be destroyed.

Several times people or peoples repent when they are informed of there transgressions and God decides to no longer destroy them.

God changes his mind because we change ours, if we are wicked he is angry, when we repent he forgives.

If he calls us, we can choose to ignore him, and then the calling has to be removed.

It isn't God changing, his is constant and eternal. We are the one's changing and God adapts to us, not vice versa.

[Seminarysnoozer]

True enough. But we're aiming for one-dimensional. Clearly things are better served from various angles, but if something is true, it will be true from even just one angle.

And you're proposing that God is utilitarian, which is the theory that I personally subscribe to. However, this automatically means that God has no objective moral truths, or any objective truths at all for that matter, because value, and therefore truth, is based on utility and serving the greatest number of people with the greatest possible good.

You are using terms to describe features of a system that has limited resources. What limited resource do you think God has? ...then that would maybe help answer your question.

[apollyon]

You can't know that without having access to the variables which relate to the purposes of God, what is in a person's heart, that person's or group's mission on earth, what they were given to work with in this life and the circumstances of this life. If one could somehow know what is in everyone's heart, what they had learned in the pre-mortal life, what test is needed for that individual or that group of people, and what is step is needed at that specific moment or for that group of people or how it might affect future groups of people, to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man (the bigger picture) then maybe there is a defined supreme truth to which all of these rules could fit into. We don't have the source code.

What you are wanting is something we will learn about after this life is over. Here we are supposed to live by faith. I am always amazed at efforts to take faith out of the formula. This is our chance to learn to live by faith. If the answer to that question was known to a certain degree it would destroy opportunity to live by faith and to have our faith tested. Satan wants us to think that there was no need for this experience, still. He tries to convince us of that in many ways. We are not ready for that knowledge yet, like the teenager who thinks she is ready to live on her own at the age of 15 because she thinks she is above the "rules and restrictions" placed on her. When in reality the rules are for her growth and are not restrictive. Faith based living is the fastest way to learn about the "supreme truth".

I understand what you're saying, and I think it is true to an extent. But I don't agree that this life is ONLY to live by faith. I think we need to live by faith and strive for understanding. I don't accept that God wants us to live by blind faith. Our faith is strengthened by our understanding. I knew this one guy on my mission that subscribed to this view, and he walked around constantly quoting "for faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things," and would say that if we understood things, we didn't have faith, and essentially followed your same argument. But you forget about the verses that come after this scripture, which tells us that our faith progresses to hope and then charity, as our understanding increases. According to the doctrine of the gospel, which teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God, we are expected to increase in understanding. Why shouldn't that apply to God's truths?

[apollyon]

I think the confusion on killing comes from the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is not translated from the Hebrew very well (as I have been told). The word translated as kill, implies that the victim is innocent so the best translation is not kill but murder.

This is why self defense is not a sin, since one is not killing the innocent but killing on that seeks to cause harm to you or your family.

Also God orders the destruction of the wicked to preserve the righteousness of Israel (in the end, they never do what is commanded of them and become very wicked anyway). Once again those who sin are not innocent, they are ripe for destruction for there sins if God so wishes to cast judgement on them.

As for the saying something and then "changing his mind". Of course God changes his mind, when we are wicked his wrath is upon us, there are many times when God sends his Prophets to tell the wicked they will be destroyed.

...

God changes his mind because we change ours, if we are wicked he is angry, when we repent he forgives.

I speak hebrew, and I haven't necessarily found that to be the case. It is a possible interpretation, but by no means the only one.

If God is truly omniscient, then He would have known that people would have changed his mind and wouldn't have needed to. At any rate, if He changes His mind, He changes. See the problem in your argument?

You are using terms to describe features of a system that has limited resources. What limited resource do you think God has? ...then that would maybe help answer your question.

No offense, but do you know what we're talking about? I'm referring to utilitarian in the philosophical definition. In such a definition, there are no "limited resources." It quickly becomes political science if we begin talking about specific resources. For utilitarians, the allocation of resources (should we choose to talk about resources) is based on doing the most good for the most people. In reference to truths, utilitarian is all about happiness (not to the extent of hedonism), and what is to be done to give the most happiness to the most people.

[Justice]

Are you implying that we shouldn't try to understand God?

No.

I'm saying too often people tie God down to their own understanding of things, which can make it look as if God is contradicting Himself or making a mistake, or in some cases commanding people to do evil things.

I'm saying the way we understand something may not be the way God understands it. We need to realize that we may just be wrong and be willing to change our views to match God's.

[Backroads]

I remember studying someone who designed levels of morality.

The highest level of morality was described as having very few specific rules; the morality at this level was broad and varying, sticking to a few basic but very encompassing morals.

In that sense of morality, no, I do not think God lacks Objective Moral Truths. His ways of putting into action those moral truths vary from situation to situation.

For example, any court in the land will tell you that there are times where it is perfectly acceptable to kill (as in self defense) so we can't say taking a life is an absolute moral horror. If life is something that extends beyond physical death, there really can't be anything truly terrible about death.

[Backroads]

If God is truly omniscient, then He would have known that people would have changed his mind and wouldn't have needed to. At any rate, if He changes His mind, He changes. See the problem in your argument?

Would that not defeat the purpose of free agency and will? Punishments and rewards/blessings can be considered merely a form of discipline. I don't see what is so changing about that.

[Seminarysnoozer]

No offense, but do you know what we're talking about? I'm referring to utilitarian in the philosophical definition. In such a definition, there are no "limited resources." It quickly becomes political science if we begin talking about specific resources. For utilitarians, the allocation of resources (should we choose to talk about resources) is based on doing the most good for the most people. In reference to truths, utilitarian is all about happiness (not to the extent of hedonism), and what is to be done to give the most happiness to the most people.

No, I guess I don't ....

But the happiness He gives is unlimited to all that want it. By using the word "most" that means there is a gradation of the amount of happiness He could offer which isn't the case. What He offers is all happiness, always. What decides how much happiness is given is whether we take Him up on that offer and to what degree. So, He would not be utilitarian in His decision either, because He always gives the most possible to anyone who merits that amount. He would in no way limit a persons happiness by way of a decision.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

I understand what you're saying, and I think it is true to an extent. But I don't agree that this life is ONLY to live by faith. I think we need to live by faith and strive for understanding. I don't accept that God wants us to live by blind faith. Our faith is strengthened by our understanding. I knew this one guy on my mission that subscribed to this view, and he walked around constantly quoting "for faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things," and would say that if we understood things, we didn't have faith, and essentially followed your same argument. But you forget about the verses that come after this scripture, which tells us that our faith progresses to hope and then charity, as our understanding increases. According to the doctrine of the gospel, which teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God, we are expected to increase in understanding. Why shouldn't that apply to God's truths?

I think the opposite direction is more common in our society. We live in a "prove it" society. The danger in leaning on one's own intelligence is that the spirit guided promptings become more and more faint as the "love of knowledge" becomes similar to the "love of money". Just like money in and of itself is not bad, knowledge also in not bad. The love of knowledge though leads down a risky road of pride. Like Justice said above, it ties people down in disbelief. It essentially is the opposite of faith. When Satan wanted Jesus to through himself down from the pillar he would have proven to all the people there that He was the Savior. And He said, thou shalt not tempt the Lord, the God.

"Tempt' is to try to get someone to do wrong by promise of a reward. The danger is the thought that there is a reward of additional knowledge gained by the wrong of depending on one's own logic and "figuring it out" on your own. This happens over time as one starts to think they can figure it out based on studies of ancient languages and historical texts etc. and not by way of revelation. If one believes that they can figure it out based on their own intellectual prowess by finding that missing link or the "supreme truth" by way of cognitive process then they start to push away the possibility of the spirit revealing limited truths to the contrite heart. The power of discernment lessens as we depend on our own thinking. We are told that we cannot understand all of God's works in this life. No man knows. As far as this type of knowledge goes, it can be similar to asking for a sign. ... I am just saying, if it seems that God doesn't want us to know right now, then we probably shouldn't spend time looking for it, like looking for an open book under the desk while taking a test.

Some of the most important truths we have were revealed to the unlearned in this dispensation. And he became learned through inspiration and living righteously.

[mrmarklin]

I don't think I'm being simplistic at all. I think that we should be able to interpret it literally. And we can if we make a definition of kill as "taking the life of another." That's the most basic definition. Your definition is terribly subjective, which automatically rules out that it can lead to an objective truth.

And depending on your definition of "lie," God has lied before. If we want to say that not telling the truth is lying, or rather that by omitting the truth one lies, God has lied countless times. Just like we don't necessarily tell the whole truth sometimes, so God has done.

I'm still waiting for an objective moral truth.

Oh, and what we're taught is ALWAYS true.

What lie has God ever told????

Inquisitive minds await.........................

An omission of the truth, strictly speaking, (and you're very strict) is not a lie. God gives us truth as we can handle it. Just like one would not feed meat to a new born baby. I don't consider that even an omission of the truth.

Edited February 4, 2011 by mrmarklin

[HEthePrimate]

For the record, right now I'm in the opinion that he does not. We have countless examples of God contradicting and overruling His own commandments.

Or maybe we have numerous examples of people claiming that God told them to do things that contradict his commandments...

Essentially what I'm proposing, for those of you who know what I'm talking about, is the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good because God likes it or does God like it because it is good?

My opinion is that God likes that which is good. The other option makes God sound arbitrary, and I don't accept that.

[apollyon]

Guys, I think you're missing the original question. If there are truths outside of God, what are they? Even if God doesn't arbitrarily make His laws, the laws must exist outside of Him and I want to know what those, are, especially since it would appear that He has contradicted more than a few of His own commandments.

Seminarysnoozer, I get what you're saying, and at the risk of sounding prideful, I think I'm okay. I am well aware that I can't trust my own understanding. But I am quite firm in the belief that we have to do our own footwork before we can receive greater knowledge from God. Is he going to explain to you the mysteries of heaven because you sat on your couch with faith, or because you contemplated them, studied and analyzed them, and then critiqued your ideas? He'll only help you after you've gone as far as you can go. That's where I'm headed. And, to be honest, this endeavor has only served to remind me how necessary faith is, because I've almost got nothing left. I have my testimony, and I have to trust in that.

And MrMarklin, you're right enough. I don't have a fantastic example of when God has lied to us. I doubt that there even is an example. However, I will still say that he omitted the truth on numerous occasions. I think Nephi could have handled the truth, but God lead him to Laban under the pretenses that he would be able to obtain the plates through some means that didn't involve breaking a commandment. And if we sin by omitting the truth, how does that not apply to God?

And Hetheprimate, no, we have scriptural examples. Unless you somehow think that those aren't true. The only non-prophetic book that I've heard of in the Bible is Songs of Solomon, so...

And it was my intent to demonstrate that God's decisions could be completely arbitrary. The only evidence we have to the contrary is scripture which God himself gave us.

Please understand people, I'm not trying to paint a picture of God as some malicious deceiver, but rather as a God that has no laws placed upon him and still he chooses to make everything toward our salvation. I think this is something worth understanding, don't you?