Happiness is… Moral relativism?

By Valerie

Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it…

Joseph Smith Jr., Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 1842

I can’t believe I just quoted Joseph Smith, or at least a letter attributed to Joseph Smith. I mean, it has been quoted so many times in General Conference by general authorities that I feel like the top brass of the church believe he wrote it. There is some question on the authenticity of this letter, and I’ll refer you to the Joseph Smith Papers Project for the background on that. But supposedly, this is how he started out his letter to Nancy Rigdon, in an attempt to lure her into plural marriage as his umpteenth wife.

If you haven’t read this letter, I encourage it with special attention to the context. Joseph Smith had already engaged in the practice of polygamy with more than ten women. She was 19 at the time. He was in his late 30s. It is the single greatest treatise on the virtues of moral relativism that I’ve read.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

He goes on to give justifications for murder, adultery, child abuse, and hoarding wealth, claiming that “whatever God commands is right.” So all we have to do is claim “God told me to” and we can do whatever the hell we want.

I was visiting a ward I used to belong to a couple of years ago, and in a Sunday School class we were discussing the genocide that the Israelites were “commanded” to commit on the societies that occupied the land “God” had promised them (Deuteronomy 20:16-17). A woman in the room raised her hand and made a comment about why God would command that “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”.

The gist of her comment was that from an eternal parent’s perspective, commanding that someone be killed is like “sending a child to their room when they misbehave.” Had I head correctly? She was saying that ending someone’s life is normal parental discipline? Good hell. This was very early in my deconstruction, shortly after my mother’s death, and I was still trying to make sense of the cognitive dissonance I was feeling in the faith of my birth.

This woman’s comment has stayed with me and gnawed at me for a long time. I started to see it everywhere–in comments and talks in church, in General Conference, even in the scriptures. I saw it in the story of Nephi beheading Laban and lying to Zoram to get the brass plates. I saw it in Judges 19-21 with the story of the dismembered concubine. And I especially see it in Joseph trying to justify polygamy.

Moral relativism. It’s not wrong when *I* do it, but it is wrong when *YOU* do it. Because *God* told *me* I could do it but *God* would never tell *you* to do it (i.e. Joseph Smith to John C. Bennett).

No wonder we have people like Chad and Lori Daybell. People who believe that *God* told them to brutally murder their children.

So this is where my cognitive dissonance hit an all-time high. And again, I am going to quote Joseph Smith, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible (JS-H 1:12).” Essentially, everyone understands God differently. So if Chad and Lori Daybell’s *God* told them to murder people, how could we possibly argue that? Apparently Joseph Smith’s *God* told him that if he didn’t marry multiple women that he would be destroyed. Maybe Joseph Smith’s *God* told him that Emma would be destroyed if she didn’t get on board and let him marry the women he already married before she found out. Maybe he was delusional, like Chad and Lori.

Or maybe he knew exactly what he was doing.

My belief is that any man who would write the words in D&C 132 is a massive manipulator. I mean, listen to these words as a parent and tell me if you think it comes from any god worth worshipping:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

D&C 132

“…and he desires to espouse another…”

“…they are given unto to him…”

“…he cannot commit adultery with THAT that belongeth unto him.”

“…they belong to him, and they are given unto him…”

“…she will be destroyed…”

“I will destroy her.”

*Pause*

Nothing says *love* like objectification. *Insert heavy eye-roll here. Seriously, if your daughter’s husband came to her and gave her this, would you believe in that man’s god? Would you say, “Well, God said it, so…”

Or would any part of you say, “OMG, run as far from this man as possible!”

If you needed a minute to think about that, then this next part is for you.

---

If the prophet, a human person capable of making mistakes at best and capable of being completely corrupted by power and position at worst, asks you to do something that makes every cell in your body scream in revolt, what do you do?

Would “following the prophet” or “the Spirit” in any of these scenarios bring you happiness, the object and design of our existence? Where does the moral relativism end? What is your line that you will not cross?

For me, murder, manipulation, greed, and harming my child are not lines I am willing to cross.

I will, however, thoroughly enjoy my coffee on the cozy coffee shop sofa as I write about happiness and moral relativism. And I’ll claim that *God* told me to.