Kierkegaard's Mormons

As a general rule I try not to criticize the writings of those individuals who, at least in my estimation, are markedly smarter than me (especially when their writings appear in the LDS Church’s official magazine), but in this instance I couldn’t help myself. In his recent article entitled, “The Book of Mormon and Modern Moral Relativism” Daniel L. Belnap, assistant professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University, posits that the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ and other volumes of holy scripture serves as a defense against modern moral relativism. However, when properly understood one discovers that if anything the Book of Mormon and other canonized works are proponents of shedding conventional moral theories and coming to an understanding that God expects us to leave our preconceived notions behind and develop a relationship with Him – most closely aligning with the religious philosophy developed by Søren Kierkegaard (the Knight of Faith), which many would argue is a close cousin to moral relativism.

Belnap asserts in his article, through the use of quotes and scripture, that God does not condone, nor support moral relativism and that God is a God of absolute moral values – what Belnap calls, “the way things really are.” Belnap quotes Elder Dallin H. Oaks in saying, “One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism … is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism.” But this causes one to wonder, what happens when God issues commands that are contrary to these “moral absolutes” that He Himself has outlined? Elder Oaks may be understood to mean that whatever God decrees is absolute moral truth (one possible answer to Euthyphro’s question). But it seems that this is not the point, nor interpretation, that Belnap is attempting to draw from Elder Oaks’ quote. Rather it seems he is attempting to show that God operates under an absolutist moral theory, one that wouldn’t allow for any deviation from the established moral absolutes.