There is no moral relativity in the gospel.

There is actually quite a bit of moral relativism going on in the Gospel. Despite the rhetoric of many general authorities who go on and on about the Church being an unchanging entity, the fact remains that the Church is changing all the time… even with moral issues. Moral stances on birth control, abortion, homosexuality, dress, lying, wealth, marriage, sex, the environment, the word of wisdom, slavery, war, and so on have been in a constance flow of change since Joseph Smith (Biblically, they vary even more). One could argue (as I often do) that such particularities are merely appendages to the Gospel and the essential moral aspects are those articulated and exemplified by Jesus in his mortal ministry. However, is such is the case, then the crying about moral relativism is hardly justified because there are very few moral relativists who disagree with the moral principles taught by Christ during his ministry.

Moral relativism (or in other words, letting the laws, standards, and permissible acts of society change with the whims and desires of the populace) leads to anarchy, chaos, and ultimately, nihilism.

This is a blatantly false slippery slope. There are few if any moral nihilists out there.

The fundamental moral foundations of the Gospel have not changed with time.

I agree if ‘moral foundations’ are limited to the broad aspect of charity.

Your arguements are flawed by your misconception that morality exists only within the context of a particular view of God’s relation to humankind. An atheist can be a very moral person, despite her rejection of God.

Furthermore, moral stances of the church have drastically changed. For example, contraceptions used to be highly frowned upon by the Church. That is not the case anymore. The standard by which the church considers clothing to be modest has drastically changed over the last century and a half. The same goes with all the other things I mentioned – including polygamy.

nihilism is defined as “the rejection of all religious and moral principles”.

That is a very narrow defintion.

My point was that moral relativity in one’s life will ultimately lead to nihilism, because the person will more than likely come to reject all moral absolutes as commanded by God.

That is a slipper slope fallacy. It is also fallacious because of your aforementioned misconception that morality is grounded in God’s commandments.

Are you saying that an athiest cannot be moral? I know plenty of athiests who are much more moral and Christlike than plenty of Christians and Mormons that I know (including myself).

Regarding your allegation that an atheist can be moral, I’d like to include a quote from George Washington,

I’d like to now quote my athiest friend John: “Killing another human is wrong.” He has plenty of reasons of why he makes this moral claim. None of them however appeal to God’s commandments. The whole notion that something is wrong or right solely because of God’s will is especially problematic for a Mormon cosmology where morality arguably pre-exists God, and where such a master-slave relationship goes against the importance of free-will, charity, and relationships as expressed by J. Smith and LDS scriptures.

Also, you should be careful when appealing to the founding fathers for religious purposes. The founding fathers were mostly deists.

Blame the Oxford Dictionary. I copied it verbatim.

You copied only part of the definition. Hence, it is a narrow definition.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out that i hastily misspelled ‘argument’ as I often do. I can see now that you are a fan of FARMS.

There is a difference between moral relativity and accomodating an unruly child because of his current maturity.

The church-god relationship is really very familial – and as such I think he adjusts his teaching methods as we progress.

Right now I forbid my 2 and 4 year old sons from driving and having sex. In 20 years, that opinion will likely reverse. That’s not moral relativism.

You might also try to apply “relativism” towards cultural shifts, etc. Same goes here – I think God is pretty sensitive and respectful to our cultural upbringing. Its probably not productive nor effective to try to reprogram people’s childhoods, so he modifies his messages to those he meets.

You can see examples of this when Jesus interacts with people in the New Testament. He interacts with people at their level and tries to bring them up, rather than demanding perfection from the get go.

Just my thoughts.

Of course an atheist can be moral. But his inclination to live morally is ultimately due to the light of Christ given him.

To be honest, the phrase “light of Christ” is too often thrown around as a wonderful saying that feels all warm and fuzzy, but is pretty meaningless in the end. This above use is one of those.

Concerning the definition of nihilism, because of philosophy background, I was thinking of a broader definition of nihilism and not just moral nihilism. Though I still say my argument holds. There just aren’t any real moral nihilists.