I was over at the Schudde Shack a few weeks ago when Jeremy and I began discussing a book he had been reading called Men of Valor. In the middle of this discussion, I asked Jeremy, “What one thing do you think good men need to fight against?” Jeremy gave his answer, and just then his phone rang, so I had a few minutes to think about how I wanted to answer the same question: What one thing do I think good men to need to fight against?
My first impulse was to say pornography—a damning practice that destroys families. But then I thought fighting against abortions might be a stronger cause. I had a few other things run through my head—what about drugs? Or alcohol? Or promiscuity? What about standing up for women? Certainly the good men of the world need come to the defense of a womanhood because it is a sacred institution that Satan is unquestionably assaulting. I thought about all this things while Jeremy kept yakking away on his cell phone.
But as I thought about it, it dawned on me that there is one thing under which all these horrible practices fall. This one thing serves as an umbrella of evil. It’s not an action I wanted to fight against; it was a philosophy. A philosophy that says all of this—pornography, abortions, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, and the sexualizing of women—is acceptable. It’s a philosophy that has seeped into the conscience of many and drives the laissez faire approach to morality that Satan wants. The philosophy of which I speak is known as moral relativism.
So what is moral relativism? Let me define this by using an example offered by Elder Sterling W. Sill: “One young woman was recently asked by a reporter for Look magazine if she thought it was wrong to break the Ten Commandments. She said, ‘Who am I to say what is right or wrong?’” Did you catch that? Because this girl’s statement is a good definition of moral relativism—Who am I to say what is right or wrong? A more specific definition of moral relativism is this: It’s the belief that there is no absolute moral right or wrong; rather, all morals are situational and circumstantial. Of particular importance to the construct of moral relativism is 20th Century anthropologist Ruth Benedict who argued that morals don’t exist; only customs do; as such, it is wrong for people to make moral judgments.
In other words, you see moral relativism expressed as (1) there is no absolute moral standard, (2) all morals are situational and circumstantial and (3) “Who am I to say what is right or wrong?” Can you see how such a philosophy conflicts with God’s laws? All three prongs of moral relativism have direct rebukes from the True and Everlasting Gospel. For we know there is an absolute moral standard—and it’s God’s standard. Nor is there a situational morality, for we are called to be witnesses of Christ in all times and in all places. As for the attitude of who am I to say what is right or wrong, if you read the JST on Matthew 7:1, it reads, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.” It is okay to be judgmental, as long as you do it righteously. Because there is right and wrong in the world. And good men need to stand up for what’s right. After all, we have been told, time and again the quote by Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This past summer, I was again at the Schudde Shack—where else would I be?—and Jeremy and I were watching A Clear and Present Danger. In a particular scene in that movie, the lead character, Jack Ryan, played by Harrison Ford, confronts a man who he knows is behind an illegal military action. The man snarls at Agent Ryan and says to him, “Eveything is black and white to you.” I love Harrison Ford’s reply: “Not black and white; right and wrong.”
Moral relativism teaches just the opposite: There is no right or wrong; just shades of gray. Said Elder Richard B. Wirthlin, “Societies structured by situational ethics—the belief that all truths are relative—create a moral environment defined by undistinguished shades of gray.” Why is this important? Why is it necessary for us to take a stand? Why is necessary for us to classify things as right or wrong?
Let me answer that with this quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:
Recently I read an author who said: “Our leisure, even our play, is a matter of serious concern. [That is because] there is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan.” I believe that to be absolutely true, and no such claiming and counterclaiming anywhere is more crucial and conspicuous than that being waged for the minds and morals, the personal purity of the young.
If there is no neutral ground, as Elder Holland asserts, then is there really any gray? Is there any room for moral ambiguity? Is there any time to sit on our hands and watch the spreading evil capture another soul?
Now moral relativism is a relatively young philosophy—it has 18th Century roots but was popularized only recently. So you would think that since this is phenomenon that has occurred since the Book of Mormon was published that that sacred text would give us no guidelines for how to combat this new philosophy. But you would be wrong. As if to confirm to us that the Book of Mormon truly was written for our day, the Book contains an account of a moral relativist trying to lead the people astray. This man is Korihor, the antichrist and a moral relavist through and through.
I want to quote now from what one church scholar wrote about Korihor:
A third argument used by Korihor is that of relativism: “… and whatsoever a man did was no crime.” (Alma 30:17.) A fuller statement of this attack by Korihor is as follows: Since (he claims) there is no god and men do not live after death, and since (he claims) all so-called “laws” and “commandments” are but social conveniences to give power to priests, the only important thing in life is to do what you want to do—if you can get away with it. How modern Korihor sounds! But the argument is timeless, as old as sin itself.
There are, of course, many versions of relativism (one would hardly expect relativism to be absolute). One version encourages enjoyment of the Church social organization without getting uptight about theology or religious commandments.
Another kind of relativism says that the commandments are great but open to broad private interpretation. A third acknowledges that there are commandments, but allows indulgence in sin since “nobody’s perfect.” A fourth version says that the commandments were okay when they were given, but they have become superfluous in our enlightened age. A fifth kind of relativism, that used by Korihor, says that the commandments were bad from the first; they are inhibitions on the soul of man that actually prevent him from ever achieving happiness. A sixth type, also used by Korihor, says that since one act is indifferent from another, it doesn’t matter what we do.
The great power of all relativistic approaches is that they allow the individual to judge his own actions. This is why almost any of the approaches strikes a responsive, sympathetic chord in all other relativists. Korihor found many who were pleased with his relativism, even though they may have rejected much else of what he said. “And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness.” (Alma 30:18.)
Let me interrupt because I think there’s a key phrase in that verse from Alma 30. It’s the one that tells us Korihor’s preachings on moral relativism caused the people “to lift up their heads in wickedness” (Alma 30:18). Isn’t that the whole point of relativism? To get people to say there is no harm in what I am doing? To get people to rationalize their sins? To get people to act under the false guise that there is no consequence to their action? Too many people are searching for ways to justify what they want to do, and not enough are searching for what God wants them to do. I really like what Jeremy said when we were first discussing this a few weeks, when he said: “If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.” I think fall is the operative word because if you are not committed to Christ, if you are not committed to align your ways to his, then the natural man will reign you—and you will fall off the gospel course. There is no such thing a consequence-less action. Said Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin: “Each choice has a consequence. Each consequence, a destination.”
Think of it this way: Let’s say someone who doesn’t know anything about you decided to observe you for a day; by watching you live an average day in your life, could that person conclude you are LDS? The allure of moral relativism is the false belief that if there is no right or wrong, then there can be consequences to our decisions; resultantly, subscribers to this false philosophy embrace their wickedness or “lift up their heads in wickedness.” They believe there are no consequences to their actions. They are like Cain, when after killing Abel, he said, “I am free.” But he would soon find that freeing act had instead condemned him to an eternal punishment.
Sometimes, when we get caught up in rationalizing our decisions, we forget the consequences—the pain our actions can bring to ourselves and to others, the poor sermon we are teaching by our example. And we are, to paraphrase Brother Solomon, giving up what we want most for what we want right now.
Let’s return to our scholar’s account of moral relativism:
In stark contrast to the virtually infinite number of personal choices available in the broad way of relativism is the way of the Savior. That strait and narrow way is to do as he did: not to seek our own will, but to do the will of Him who sent us. It is to obey him in all things, obeying his word, which is his law, as it is freshly written in our hearts from revelation to revelation. It is to rely solely upon his merits, counting him as the only fountain of righteousness. It is being willing to die for his sake, crucifying the old person with worldly wants and desires in order to be born again “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19.)
Thus the gospel teaches a way that is absolute—absolute in that the formula for righteousness is always the same for every person and for every time and circumstance: take the name of Christ, always remember him, keep all of the commandments that he gives unto us. There is no other way to righteousness, for whatsoever is not of faith in Christ is sin.
But there is one thing relativism can never do, even within the Church. One who subscribes to any of the versions of relativism just listed will never (unless he repents) be brought to those sacrifices that will prepare his soul to spend an eternity in blessing others. Relativism can never purify heart and mind, or transform body and countenance into the image of the Savior.
— Chauncey C. Riddle
It should be noted that near the end of Korihor’s attempt to pervert Nephite culture, he is confronted by the prophet Alma.
And Alma uses these strong words to condemn Korihor, saying: “Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God” (Alma 30:42). To be a relativist, Korihor had to, first, lie to himself by shutting out the Spirit and erasing the memory of his testimony. Then, when he was fully in the devil’s power, he used the devil’s devices. Perhaps the most seductive and devilish device Korihior had in his arsenal was the concept of relativism. We are told frequently that “by their fruits, ye shall know them.” These are Korihor’s fruit: “And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms.” He had rotten fruit because he was rotten. Only misery will come from the belief that moral are relative.
Conversely, happines comes from following the commandments. At the last General Conference, Elder Larry W. Gibbons said: “In this day of moral relativism we must be prepared to take a stand and say, “This is right, and this is wrong.” We cannot follow the crowd! Now, I am not suggesting, of course, that we move to the wilderness and lock our doors. We can be in the world, go to school, go to work, join worthwhile community organizations, and so forth. But we must hold to the Lord’s standards.”
Really, I can boil what I am trying to say today down to this: Morals matter. The commandments matter. Our ability to live the commandments shape our character. Our ability to be men of character will shape the world.
We live in a world of right or wrong. In a world where so many are lost and stumbling, we, the priesthood of God, must act. We must stand firmly rooted in the principles of the Gospel. We are called to stand between evil and the children of men and direct the children of men to Christ. If we don’t, then who will? “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” We are called to be the good men who work to ensure that right prevails and evil fails. I pray that we will rise to this task. In that spirit, I end by quoting Lehi: “Arise from the dust … and be men, and be determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity” (2 Nephi 1:21).
