Does God REALLY Have Objective Moral Truths?

[rameumptom]

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?

The issue you are missing in this argument is this: does God make such changes (arbitrary or not) in his moral commands because he chooses to do so, or is it because a law is imposed upon him? If there is a Celestial Law, then God would also have to abide by it. "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral code for those of a lesser kingdom, which may not apply to a celestial being or his work.

The contradictions only seem apparent, because we do not fully understand all the laws of the celestial kingdom. Perhaps it is partially based upon Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill's concept of the greater good, or Utilitarianism. Which is more important: allowing agency to flow so freely that evil and entropy take over everything, or making decisions that bring about the greater good? Did God destroy Israel or people during the Flood because he just likes killing bad people, or was it for the greater good? That he cried before Enoch suggests God does not like slaying his own children, so it is suggestive to me that God does what is best. His explaining to Nephi that it is better for one man to die than a whole nation to suffer in ignorance also expresses the sentiment of the "greater good."

In such a scenario, God would not have rules embedded in concrete. They would have to allow exceptions for when the greater good would over rule those moral laws. "Thou shalt not kill" is the norm, but the greater good can over rule it, if God commands. As Jacob teaches in the BoM, monogamy is the norm, except when God commands polygamy for the greater good.

This is why I stated that there are only two laws in the celestial realm: loving God, and loving one's neighbors. I believe these are premised upon the concept of the Greater Good or Utilitarianism. We do things for others, not because we are commanded in all things, because only slothful servants are commanded in all things (thus the Law of Moses for the rebellious Israelites), but we do them because we want the best outcome for all.

Satan's plan would save all people. But in so doing, one loses all agency, growth, and the ability to be exalted. The greater good of God's plan, seeks to save as many as choose to be saved, and exalt as many as choose to be exalted. It is a near universal salvation for those who come to mortality.

So, within this concept, laws of morality are encompassed by a standard, which is based upon and can be over-ridden by the greater good.

[rameumptom]

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.

But that is the concept of utilitarianism. God gives the maximum amount of happiness a person is willing and able to receive. God does not give his full glory to all people, because for some that would not be happiness (see Mormon 9:4, Alma 12). They would be happier with less glory. IOW, there IS a gradation of happiness, because happiness is defined differently by each one of us. And so, God will give to each of us that level of glory that makes us most happy. Jeremy Bentham would have been pleased with such a concept.

[rameumptom]

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.

How about commanding Abraham to lie about his wife to Pharaoh? How about sending a prophet to another one, and have him lie to him in order to test him (as in Judges), where the prophet of God is deceived by another prophet, and finally slain by a lion for not obeying God's first command to him.

There are other examples, including modern ones, as well.

[Seminarysnoozer]

But that is the concept of utilitarianism. God gives the maximum amount of happiness a person is willing and able to receive. God does not give his full glory to all people, because for some that would not be happiness (see Mormon 9:4, Alma 12). They would be happier with less glory. IOW, there IS a gradation of happiness, because happiness is defined differently by each one of us. And so, God will give to each of us that level of glory that makes us most happy. Jeremy Bentham would have been pleased with such a concept.

Those scriptures support what I was saying. That God offers (not give) His full glory to all but the decision is made by the individual. Happiness is only defined differently by those that do not have faith in God. If I have a perfect faith in God, I will say that I will have and want whatever He has without having a specific definition of what that really means. I cannot comprehend what a fullness of happiness is right now. I really hope my final happiness is not determined by my current understanding of happiness. Faith is the only way to have more than what one currently understands.

In Mormon 9:4 and Alma 12, it explains that the reason those people don't get the full happiness is not because God will not give it to them, it is because the people turn away from it, they will not take it. I think there is a difference. Not taking it and not giving it are two different things. Saying it the correct way, which is that the people will not take it because of the hardening of their hearts or the pride in their own learning puts the variable component of this equation on the people not God. God does not vary it is the people that vary.

Alma 12: "10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

.. and the verse before this says that they would receive understanding based on their heed and diligence to that which was given to them, meaning if they obey and remain faithful they will receive more, not "if they seek more understanding".

If hardening of the heart is the variable then to understand and answer the opening question of this thread which is "Does God REALLY have Objective Moral Truths?" one would have to have the ability to read the hearts of men, in other words be able to judge all men. Which is why I am saying this is an impossible question for us to answer in our current condition. By asking for something that we are not supposed to receive here is the road to hardening of our own hearts as it is like asking for a sign or "proof" and not depending on faith. So, thanks for supporting my point with those scriptures.

[Backroads]

How about commanding Abraham to lie about his wife to Pharaoh? How about sending a prophet to another one, and have him lie to him in order to test him (as in Judges), where the prophet of God is deceived by another prophet, and finally slain by a lion for not obeying God's first command to him.

There are other examples, including modern ones, as well.

Which makes me wonder if honesty, while certainly a very good thing on this earth, is necessarily an ultimate morality--at least in the sense of truth vs lies.

[rameumptom]

We are taught that there are core doctrines and principles, and then there are practices and procedures.

Core doctrines and principles never change. Never. But how they are brought to pass can change.

[Backroads]

We are taught that there are core doctrines and principles, and then there are practices and procedures.

Core doctrines and principles never change. Never. But how they are brought to pass can change.

Always agreed. I'm going to rephrase my last post.

I think Truth is an ultimate and high morality and principal, but our view of honesty might exist mainly to help us on this earth.

(I do not mean to make it sound like I endorse lying).

[mrmarklin]

How about commanding Abraham to lie about his wife to Pharaoh? How about sending a prophet to another one, and have him lie to him in order to test him (as in Judges), where the prophet of God is deceived by another prophet, and finally slain by a lion for not obeying God's first command to him.

There are other examples, including modern ones, as well.

Secrets must always be surrounded by a bodyguard of Lies.

-Winston Churchill

[apollyon]

Do we all realize that logically, since we are analyzing the objective truths that God must follow, one cannot appeal to scripture, because God is the source of scripture? He can say whatever He wants in scripture, and if we're to analyze this skeptically, we can't accept that as the absolute truth. So, appeals to scripture won't work.

In response to the various comments, Backroads, don't back down just because you think Rameampton (sp?) might have a good point. You were headed in a good direction. People, we need some kind of evidence to support a belief in eternal OBJECTIVE truths. We have to remember, as stated above, most of our sources for allegedly "eternal" truths come from God, which means that we logically have to set those examples aside. We need to find something to demonstrate that God has objective moral truths that he has to follow. And we need to find out what those truths are. I don't think I'm treading on forbidden territory by wanting to know what rules God has to follow.

[Backroads]

Do we all realize that logically, since we are analyzing the objective truths that God must follow, one cannot appeal to scripture, because God is the source of scripture? He can say whatever He wants in scripture, and if we're to analyze this skeptically, we can't accept that as the absolute truth. So, appeals to scripture won't work.

In response to the various comments, Backroads, don't back down just because you think Rameampton (sp?) might have a good point. You were headed in a good direction. People, we need some kind of evidence to support a belief in eternal OBJECTIVE truths. We have to remember, as stated above, most of our sources for allegedly "eternal" truths come from God, which means that we logically have to set those examples aside. We need to find something to demonstrate that God has objective moral truths that he has to follow. And we need to find out what those truths are. I don't think I'm treading on forbidden territory by wanting to know what rules God has to follow.

Oh, I wasn't backing down. I felt he had said the same thing I did, only in a much better way and I wanted to point that out.

Rammy pointed out that there are principles and doctrines that are eternal. If I'm reading all of this correct, I think those are the very things you are trying to figure out, at least how they apply to God. I feel that Rammy and I both said how they apply in situations can differ. I believe that one can handle different situations very differently under the same morality without changing that morality in any way.

I don't think you're treading in forbidden territory, because clearly those are the sort of things I like to think about.

I just think under our current set of commandments and scripture, there's really no way we can get concrete proof of what rules God DOES follow as we only see what applies to us on our level. Therefore it's all a rather difficult thing to concretely set down. Let's be honest: it's beyond our understanding and will be for quite some time, and logic just isn't going to get us to that point. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy this discussion--I just don't think you are going to reach the eternal policies you seem to be digging for.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Backroads

[JohnnyRudick]

Do we all realize that logically, since we are analyzing the objective truths that God must follow, one cannot appeal to scripture, because God is the source of scripture? He can say whatever He wants in scripture, and if we're to analyze this skeptically, we can't accept that as the absolute truth. So, appeals to scripture won't work.

. . . People, we need some kind of evidence to support a belief in eternal OBJECTIVE truths. We have to remember, as stated above, most of our sources for allegedly "eternal" truths come from God, which means that we logically have to set those examples aside. We need to find something to demonstrate that God has objective moral truths that he has to follow. And we need to find out what those truths are. I don't think I'm treading on forbidden territory by wanting to know what rules God has to follow.

Yes, but I think that a direction you may be heading is

on very dangerous ground:mellow:

[apollyon]

Yes, but I think that a direction you may be heading is

on very dangerous ground:mellow:

How so?

[JohnnyRudick]

How so?

To immune the very source most of us measure and receive truth by and from?

Sound like the very first recorded tactic.

Or, wait. . .

The source of that account came from God, therefore. . .

how can we be certain it even occurred?

Right?

You call yourself apollyon?

How appropriate:cool:

[apollyon]

To immune the very source most of us measure and receive truth by and from?

Sound like the very first recorded tactic.

Or, wait. . .

The source of that account came from God, therefore. . .

how can we be certain it even occurred?

Right?

You call yourself apollyon?

How appropriate:cool:

Well, aside from the excessive use of emoticon things, I'm impressed that someone on here actually knew the reference. Well done.

Also, I feel like you're trying to sound all cryptic and wise, and it just comes off as confusing. If you've read the other posts, you would know that I'm not doing this because I doubt, but because I want to understand better. Just like St. Augustine, I believe that there can be a rational foundation for our faith. Maybe not for everything, but at least for some things. And even if there is no rational foundation for our faith, I believe the effort to understand what laws bind both us AND God will bring us closer to Him ans we understand more about Him.

[prophetofdoom]

My understanding of God leads me to believe that Heavenly Father is the perfect embodiment of love and understanding. His decisions are based on the higher laws of Love. He gives us basic commandments to lead us on the best possible course of happiness. We, as children, sometimes need to be commanded in things that are obvious to HF... "don't kill" "don't steal"..etc. BUT those are blanket commandments made for the most base people who need the basics to understand our HF.

My understanding leads me to believe that God makes decisions for us based on his love and the best possible growth for his children. Yes, there are circumstances where it is not wrong to kill someone... but, God doesn't spell all those out to us because he knows his less advanced children won't understand the intricacies of those commandments.

When the Lord commanded Nephi to kill Laban... it was based on the Lord's higher understanding of higher laws and truths that we may not understand. His command was based in love... First, the Love of the future Nephite nation having the scriptures to learn of him... Second, the Lord knew Laban would not change and decided that Laban's life was better to be ended so that he didn't mess it up further.

[Blackmarch]

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?

doesnt matter to me. Gods the only one that i know that has the final say in things.

[JohnnyRudick]

Well, aside from the excessive use of emoticon things, I'm impressed that someone on here actually knew the reference. Well done.

Also, I feel like you're trying to sound all cryptic and wise, and it just comes off as confusing. If you've read the other posts, you would know that I'm not doing this because I doubt, but because I want to understand better. Just like St. Augustine, I believe that there can be a rational foundation for our faith. Maybe not for everything, but at least for some things. And even if there is no rational foundation for our faith, I believe the effort to understand what laws bind both us AND God will bring us closer to Him ans we understand more about Him.

OK, I will ride along with you for a while:rolleyes:

We have seen this done so many times in the past as you must have also

as this tactic (if it is so) follows the few of the pretense of "I am only here to learn"

so as to try to keep from getting shut down.

Good luck with that:p

I like these "emoticon things" by the way:D

Very expressive

Edited February 6, 2011 by JohnnyRudick
Trying to mix my "emoticon thing" ;-)

[Dravin]

If we preclude scripture (using the term loosely as personal revelation would fall under this) we don't have anything to go on about the nature of God. How does one define constituent parts of an undefined?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

If we preclude scripture (using the term loosely as personal revelation would fall under this) we don't have anything to go on about the nature of God. How does one define constituent parts of an undefined?

Thank you.

I was just trying to say that my self:D

[Dravin]

Thank you.

I was just trying to say that my self:D

There is also the issue that one has to establish objective truth, sans scripture (or some other authority) you can't really do that. Which means one is left trying to decided if an undefined entity possesses something that hasn't been established to exist.

[rameumptom]

Apollyon,

I do believe that there are some absolute truths, that even God lives by. However, I do not believe they include the 10 Commandments, or many of the other commandments we have. Such are based upon lower laws (terrestrial, telestial), which are not necessarily absolute truths.

Love is an absolute truth. Faith is an absolute truth. Hope is an absolute truth. Without these, God would cease to be God, and choices would be capricious.

My point has always been that there is absolute truth. Yet, we often times mistake lesser truths for these absolute truths.

[prophetofdoom]

Apollyon,

I do believe that there are some absolute truths, that even God lives by. However, I do not believe they include the 10 Commandments, or many of the other commandments we have. Such are based upon lower laws (terrestrial, telestial), which are not necessarily absolute truths.

Love is an absolute truth. Faith is an absolute truth. Hope is an absolute truth. Without these, God would cease to be God, and choices would be capricious.

My point has always been that there is absolute truth. Yet, we often times mistake lesser truths for these absolute truths.

I agree with you. I tend to think that there are higher laws.. that we may know or not... that God lives by. If we look at what Jesus Christ taught, he taught the higher law and chastised the Pharisees and Sadducees of their worship of the lesser law. Everything hinges on the two great commandments 1) Love God 2) Love your neighbor.

I look at it this way. We teach kids how to add, subtract, divide, and multiply before we teach them trigonometry, algebra or calculus. I believe that is what the Lord is doing when he gives us commandments and instructions... he starts us at very basic laws and principles and then advances us to higher laws and principles.

[JohnnyRudick]

Apollyon,

I do believe that there are some absolute truths, that even God lives by. However, I do not believe they include the 10 Commandments, or many of the other commandments we have. Such are based upon lower laws (terrestrial, telestial), which are not necessarily absolute truths.

Love is an absolute truth. Faith is an absolute truth. Hope is an absolute truth. Without these, God would cease to be God, and choices would be capricious.

My point has always been that there is absolute truth. Yet, we often times mistake lesser truths for these absolute truths.

I feel that Apollyon would have us cut loose of God's "apron strings"

and decide for ourselves weather things are true or not without

His help (as He may be biased in His own favor).

[Backroads]

I don't see how it's logically possible to overrule God's logic with our own.

[Origen]

Apollyon, you ask a the same question that has come to my mind time and time again. Personally, I have not come to any certain answer to the question, but I have used it to learn a few things about myself and what I believe is right.

You want to know if there is some universal standard which we can all know and follow that would be valid through all time and in all situations. Well, first of all there may not be any universals in the sense of concrete thou shalts and thou shalt nots. What is right in one time and place may be wrong in another set of circumstances. Since we are limited beings with a very narrow view of things it really isn't possible for us to see all the repercussions of our actions in the same way that God supposedly can. Do you save the little boy from drowning? But what if he grows up to be a mass murderer? God understands our limitiations and so he has given us 'rules of thumb', if you will, that we can apply to all situations that we might encounter.

One of those rules is 'Do not kill'. Now would it be okay to kill if God commanded it? Possibly, but how could you know the commandment was coming from God? It might be a devil in disguise or perhaps a human being who only believes he can speak for God. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that God can get things done on his own. He doesn't need anyone to kill, steal, or lie for him. Yes, there is the story of the Exodus but remember this is a story. Does it have a historical basis? Probably, but then so does the Illiad. I believe there was a Trojan war, but I very much doubt that Aphrodite took sides with Agamemnon and Zeus with Hector. I'm sure there was an Exodus, but I don't believe for a moment that God needed the hebrews to carry out his work of genocide even if there was, in fact, a genocide (an assertion some achaeologists might take issue with).

I've given up trying to be a 'good' person. Due to my very limited human perspective I really don't know what 'good' is. So instead of being good, I endeavor to be kind. Is it 'good' to rescue a child from drowning? I don't know because I don't know what that child's life means in the great scheme of things. But is it a kind thing to do? Most certainly. If it turns out that he is an evil child then I must simply have faith that God will attend to it. I, as a human being, have no right to take the life of another person, because I do not have the vision or forsight to judge them or their value. I do not have the right to steal because if God wants me to live in poverty, then I must live in poverty. If he wants me to be rich, then I can be rich honestly. As for lying? Does my lie hurt anyone? Would the truth be too hard for the person to accept at this point? Again, I think it all comes down to treating others as you would like to be treated. I think this is the best human beings can do in the sphere of morality. It is what Jesus commanded.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Origen