Most people that read this blog are probable baffled at how Mormon’s can support the MAGA movement and the person leading it. Mormons claim they are Christians, and follow Jesus who preached love, mercy and care for the oppressed. Yet they also support the current US administration that implements polices that punish immigrants, demonize LGBTQ people and glorify cruelty.
What gives?
The answer may lie in a concept called “vertical morality” What is vertical morality? For a full treatise on this subject, see the article here. I will give you a TLDR of the article in this post. First a couple of quotes:
“Vertical morality teaches that authority, power and a moral code of right and wrong, or acceptable and unacceptable, come from ‘above’ ― an external superior who designates rules, systems and tenets that must be obeyed by those beneath,”
Tia Levings, a former Christian fundamentalist and author of A Well Trained Wife
For religion, the superior is God. In politics, an authoritarian dictator. In a cult, it would be the controlling leader. The idea is that behaviors are only right or wrong based on what the superior says.
“Vertical morality in Christianity is the idea that our ethics and behaviors have a duty to please God alone. We get our morals from God and we must obey him, furthering the will of God no matter the cost,”
April Ajoy, author of “Star Spangled Jesus”
Horizontal Morality would be the opposite. “Horizontal morality prioritizes the well-being of our neighbors, communities and personal relationships,” Ajoy explained. “We act in ways that cause the least amount of harm to those around us, regardless of beliefs. Someone with vertical morality may help someone in need because they believe that’s what God wants them to do, versus someone with horizontal morality may help that same person for the benefit of the person that needs help.” Rather than unquestioning obedience and superficial optics, this approach focuses on genuine empathy, compassion and love toward others, recognizing the actual effects our actions have on people.
While both seem to be important, it does seem that most of the MAGA crowd are putting a priority on the vertical, and forgetting the horizontal morality.
Ajoy said “In Matthew 25, Jesus describes people who fed and clothed those in need, who welcomed the stranger, who took care of the sick and visited those in prison,” she noted. “He then says, ‘What you did for the least of these, you did for me.’ He equates loving our neighbors (horizontal morality) with loving Christ (vertical morality).”
“Evangelicals are taught that all morality comes from God and therefore true goodness can only be spread by obeying God, even if it harms people around us,” Ajoy said. “This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if pleasing God manifests by following the teachings of Jesus ― loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, promoting peace and taking care of the poor, the widow, the immigrant and standing up for the marginalized. It becomes dangerous when Christians weaponize this vertical morality for power, which is exactly what we’re seeing with the Christian nationalism in the Trump administration.”
She pointed to theonomy, the belief that Old Testament laws should be applied to modern society, as an influence on Christian nationalist politics.
The story of Abraham is a good example of vertical morality. He was commended for his willingness to obey God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac, despite the act’s inherent immorality. Under a horizontal system, he would say “I’m not going to murder someone, even if an authority figure tells me to”. Under vertical morality, it is a sin not to murder because you are disobeying God.
How do you think Mormons implement vertical and horizontal morality? Do you see vertical morality in the obedience to the leaders, and the Prophet? In the denying of a temple recommend to somebody who drinks green tea instead of a Red Bull? Do you see horizontal morality in the meals taken to the sick families in the ward, and help moving with the Elders quorum?
Has the push for strict obedience in LDS orthopraxy made it easier for MAGA Mormons to justify the current US administrations terrible treatments of immigrants and LGBTQ people?
Your thoughts?
(If this interests you, please read the full article here. I did not do it justice. )
Wheat & Tares 
Trumpism and Mormonism is the same organism
Bill,
Please explain what is MAGA? In recent months there has been growing schisms on the political right, punctuated this weekend with one of the most prolific “MAGA” politicians, Marjorie Taylor Greene, resigning from Congress and criticizing the “do nothing” Republican Majority leader and President Trump.
There has also been a public contention about the “groyper” faction with the Conservative establishment being increasingly critical of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes – and for good reason!
As for Trump, in the past month especially he has backtracked on just about every position he declared 6 months ago.
MAGA is melting down like an ice cream cone on a Phoenix driveway – those MAGA hats will become increasingly rare and become political collectibles like Pres Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” buttons from the 1970s.
The label you will find self declared Conservatives asserting is “American First”. Again, as with all labels, this one can mean anything, so one must dig deeper and identify the ideas and policy the persons using this label are actually communicating.
Related to that is the teaching that one side is inherently evil. And Mormons are taught that about Democrats and all those who are pro-choice and in favor of LGBTQ rights. So they brainlessly support anyone who opposed this boogeyman.
But yes, you hero-worship in one aspect, you’ll hero-worship in another aspect.
Is your morality based on your best effort to do what is right? Or is your morality based on your desire for an eternal reward?
I am not too baffled by it. The parable of the ten virgins always laid out the warning that half of the church will be caught off guard in being not invited to the wedding feast. I believe that MAGA supporters are the foolish half.
If you separate out the political implications, I find this paradox to be quite compelling. As I look back a couple of weeks and forward to next summer, it is at the center of some of the most controversial scriptural stories.
1) A couple of weeks ago, our Come Follow Me curriculum tackled polygamy. The church (then and now) tends to frame polygamy as some kind of “Abrahamic sacrifice.” The basic idea I see is that, when God through a prophet asks you to do something that violates your sense of right and wrong, the highest virtue is obedience. We lionize 19th century practioners of polygamy for being able to set aside their own sense that polygamy was “wicked” (Phoebe Woodruff) and do it anyway. In a couple of weeks, when we bump up against OD1, we will lionize those who were able to accept the command to cease practicing polygamy even though their moral compass told them that polygamy was the higher law never to be taken from the Earth.
2) In a couple weeks, we will bump up against the OD2 and the priesthood and temple ban, and we will wrestle with the question of whether or not God commanded racial segregation in the church and lionize people who stayed loyal to the church in spite of their discomfort with the practice. We might even cite Pres. Oaks’ comment in 2018 about choosing loyalty to the church and brethren over personal testimony.
3) At the center of this whole discussion is Abraham. Janey posted a month or so ago on the question of whether Abraham passed/failed his test when commanded to sacrifice Isaac, and Anna even commented on the connection to vertical/horizontal morality. Majority opinion is that Abraham did right for being willing to obey such a heinous commandment. Is it really?
4) Next summer we will come to the conquest of Canaan and all of the time that God commanded genocide. The climax will come in June when we come to Saul and Samuel and that Doctrinal Mastery scripture about obedience being better than sacrifice. The CFM manual doesn’t name the commandment that Saul disobeyed, but I find that naming the commandment completely changes the discussion. We will try to say that obedience is the highest virtue, but I can’t help but think that an even higher response to the command to kill your neighbors is that such killing is immoral and you won’t comply. Maybe I’m leaning too much into the horizontal morality, but the vertical morality in this case seems utterly and completely evil to me.
The standard LDS answer seems to be to strongly preference vertical morality over horizontal morality — especially when there is any hint of contradiction between the two. It seems to me that this is one way that we encourage a fragile faith, because many people I see in “faith crisis” end up wrestling with this question on a deeper level. When they cannot find any support for their wrestle from the church, they end up rejecting the church altogether. I feel like, if the church had somehow set me up for a more meaningful wrestle with this question, my faith would be more resilient.
No, Josh. The question is not is your morality based on best efforts or external reward. It is, is your morality based on what is good/harmful to others or is your morality based on what God/authority tells you is moral. You can put in your best efforts to do exactly what God says is right and you have vertical morality. You can be a slovenly half hearted Christian and only “follow the prophet” when you feel like it and you still have vertical morality. Or you can put in your best efforts not to harm others and do it for a “reward in Heaven” and that is Not vertical morality. It has nothing to do with internal/external reward, nothing to do with reward at all. It is also not based on doing your best or not. It is based on where your “right” comes from. Does what is “right” come from inside you based on what you see doing good or harm? Or does what is “right” come from someone else, outside you. Not reward coming from inside or outside. But definition of what is right and good. Are you being told that homosexuality is bad because Bible/God/parents said so? Are you seeing that homosexuality is good or bad based on if it hurts people or not? Go read the article.
I read the article a while back and have been thinking about the connection between Trump followers, and Mormons, and this whole idea of one’s sense of right and wrong coming from “higher authority” rather than harm to others. The old TV show “Laugh In” had a running joke about, “but nobody told me that I shouldn’t paint the kitty.” My family of course picked it up as a favorite accusation in cases of stupidity. It used things that any child with common sense would know was wrong, but because nobody with authority specifically made a rule about shaving the dog this child did it thinking it was no problem. They did not think about the pain and suffering of the dog or kitty. Example of vertical morality. If it is not specifically outlawed, then there is no problem. The fact that it causes pain and suffering is not enough to make it wrong to someone with vertical morality. They can’t think for themselves, but let others do their thinking for them. They do not care about and cannot empathize with the feelings of others, so they do not have causing hurt as a moral guide.
Another example of vertical thinking is how many centuries it took men to realize that raping their wife was wrong. Marriage made sex legal. The “law” being the authority the men were obeying said that sex was legal, so if sex is legal then there cannot be rape because any and all sex is legal. It did not matter what the woman involved said because she was not the higher authority. Her saying yes or no was irrelevant because there was a higher authority that said sex was legal. No problem if you beat your wife into giving in,
Because her feelings about the whole situation did not matter, because “the law” being the final authority said sex was legal. The cruelty, humiliation, and lack of respect didn’t make it immoral only the sex being legal or illegal. The law says that the man has permission to have sex, therefore the circumstances of cruelty are irrelevant, what she says is irrelevant. Maybe they think that the law about marriage comes from God, or the state, but it was the higher authority that made sex/rape permissible, not the female involved.
I don’t think people are going and reading the article.
Mr. Shorty gets it. It is, do you obey God, or do you obey your own conscience? Do you follow the prophet or do you follow your own principles? Abraham felt it was wrong to sacrifice his son. But he was “heroically” willing to do it because God told him to. People felt that polygamy was wrong, but because “the prophet” told them “God said so” they were willing to violate their own principles and do it anyway, because “God said so.” The Lafferty brothers knew that killing their sister in law was wrong, but they did it anyway, because “God said so.” Do you look up to know what is right or wrong, or do you look inside?
I wonder if this drives a lot of the confusing conversations about whether atheists/non-Christians can justify their morality?
For someone who believes in vertical morality, not having the vertical authority means you don’t have a source for morality.
Or if you have a vertical authority but you believe the wrong things about what that authority is or what they command, then you will be in moral error.
Whereas to me, it seems pretty straightforward that we exist in community with other people and can figure out morality with respect to the people and other beings we deal with here on the ground, without any need for a supernatural declaration of values from on high. But I guess that doesn’t resolve the question. It just means I’m a horizontal moralist.
I’m thinking about something Anna wrote:
I feel like this someone within a vertical morality would characterize it differently.
“What is good/harmful to others” is also under dispute.
What God says is moral is not intended to be arbitrary (even if it seems that way.) there’s always an attempt to explain that God knows best, so the apparent conflict between what helps/harms others and what God commands is minimized. E.g., within vertical morality, I think the argument might be that you can only judge what is good or harmful to others with respect to God, the “eternal perspective”, etc. Something that appears to harm someone in the short term will get a convenient explanation as to why it’s really beneficial for them when you consider God or “the eternal perspective.”
Which makes it extremely frustrating to try to discuss things like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., because the vertical morality can always just say that what is just/good for any person is also defined by God. It’s better for men and women to have separate (unequal roles), even if you don’t feel that way with your limited perspective. It’s better for LGBT people to be celibate or to engage in a mixed orientation marriage even if this produces harmful psychological and family effects in this life, because in the next life…
Killing Laban wasn’t wrong, because it is better that one person should perish than for a nation to dwindle in unbelief. To say “it was wrong but they did it anyway” is still privileging a horizontalist framing. The verticalist framing seems more extreme: your principles and feelings don’t matter and do not define anything. Only the authority’s thoughts and feelings matter, and they define the correct answer for everyone else.
For some reason, I’m crying while reading this discussion. This is really strange , as I am not a cryer. But right now I’m thinking that Abraham failed the test, and that the priest and the Levite ”passed by”. They were obediently following the law, but the first law of the Gospel is not obedience but “love on another, as I have loved you.”
“For the buyers and the sellers were no different fellers than what I profess to be
And it causes me pain to know I’m not the man that I should be.”
This is the beam in my eye.
Andrew, yes, what is harmful to others can be under dispute. And that may not have been the best way for me to try to explain the difference between hierarchal morality and horizontal morality. Horizontal morality doesn’t have the hard and fast rules, because it can answer the same question differently. For example, I might conclude something different from what you conclude, and that is OK with horizontal morality. Because horizontal morality is not based on one external authority, you and I may disagree and that is fine. I still feel moral because I follow my conscience and you may feel moral because you follow yours even when we act in opposite ways. If morality is based on God, then his is the only opinion that matters. So, in vertical morality, there is ONE correct answer. God’s. In horizontal morality, there can be different answers because we base our morality internally. So, I may look at homosexuality and say, let them live their own life. They are not hurting anyone. But Fred over there may say, but their homosexuality hurts themselves. They are social outcasts, they risk injury or disease with certain acts that I won’t mention on this PG13 blog. And Fred may strongly discourage his child from that lifestyle. So, we have two different opinions under horizontal morality. But that doesn’t mean there is a problem with horizontal morality, because we don’t know everything and life has gray areas. Vertical morality has one source of morality—-the authority. Horizontal morality has as many sources of morality as there are people who hold it. And that is OK for everyone except those who believe that God determines morality. So, people who have a vertical based morality will be terribly bothered by the things that are disputed. People who have a horizontal morality will shrug and say, yup we disagree. It just doesn’t bother me that Fred thinks homosexuality harms homosexuals. He might be right. But it DOES bother me that Donald thinks homosexuality is evil because God told him so, so he is going to see to it that homos are punished. That hurts people I love. Fred is worried about natural consequences. Donald is passing judgement and wanting to punish.
The first commandment is to *love* God–and that implies a relationship. As we come to know God our love for him increases. But here’s the catch: while the old aphorism “to love know him is to love” is true–it is also true that as we come to know God we become like him. Or perhaps even better said: it is only by becoming like God that we truly come to know him.
And so what we have in the First Great Commandment is a simple recipe for becoming transformed into Christlike beings. And one of the ways the Second Commandment is like unto the First is in learning how to love others in a truly Christlike manner because we’ve become (or are becoming) like him.
That said, becoming like the Savior is obviously a process–and a lifelong one at that. And that means we will sometimes have difficulty trying to get both Great Commandments to line up properly–in our own minds, that is. And so that’s why the Commandments are in their particular order. While living by the Golden Rule should be our default position parental guidance must always be prioritized. As children we may want to share a piece of candy with our sibling–but because she’s diabetic our loving parent will intervene and help us to share it in a way that won’t be harmful to her. Hence, one of the reasons for the command to become like little children.
I meant to say: to *know* him is to love him…
I truly tire of Mormon’s desires to justify cruelty to each other by simply saying they are loving God first and thereby justifying a dark heart. But alas I’m in the Victor Hugo camp “To love another person is to see the face of God.” These two commandments cannot be untangled.
I find that most of my friends and family always defer to me about what restaurant to try or which seats are best for a show or what time we should leave so we aren’t late or when’s the best time to visit Japan, etc. I used to think well I have opinions so there’s that. I now think it’s more than that. People are exhausted with all the choices we have to make each day. And so when it comes time to vote, or comes time to make a moral choice, it’s just so much easier to rely on someone else to figure it out for you. Whether it’s “follow the Prophet he knows the way” or its “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters” it’s basically the same thing: vertical morality.
The harder work is to make choices for yourself. Even if it’s overwhelming sometimes.
Anna
I still see it slightly differently. I get that vertical moralists want to say their morality is based on an authority, but I think everyone’s morality – whether horizontal or vertical, is internally based.
To me, the difference is what we reason it out with. The horizontalist is evaluating things “on the ground” (e.g. what affects people and other things here on earth.) I agree that there can be lots of disagreements.
But there can and absolutely are also disagreements on vertical morality, because people have very different views on what the external authority is and what it commands. This looks like different religions, schisms in religions, new and different revelations.
The main practical difference is that if I’m discussing with a horizontal moralist, I can try to appeal to consequences here in life. E.g., we can have a conversation about harms, risk tolerance, risk vs reward etc.
But with a vertical moralist, I basically would need them to have a revelation or conversion experience. Which does happen sometimes! For as much as people say God is the same today, yesterday, and forever, it feels like people are also clearly able to justify changes in God’s commands over time (“fulfillment”, “only temporary”, etc )
The Huff Post article is quite an example of psychological projection. The author imagines an extremely narrow view of Christians, imagines an extremely narrow view of “MAGA” and then unleashes a biased, prejudicial screed that is pure bunk.
Why does the author do this? Simple. To discredit “MAGA” and assert those political arguments and the people who might possibly assert them as inferior.
And, of course, those opposed to “MAGA” love it. This type of writing is pure candy for them. And, of course, the Right Wing has its version of narrow minded, stilted reasoning against Progressives that is candy for them.
Nothing is more pleasing to narrow-minded people than to characterize as inferior the intelligence and morality of those with whom they disagree.
Bill, the question of moral authority in the LDS church is one that deserves discussion. The participants on this forum could contribute healthy insights and perspectives. But this is hard to do when the question is raised in a horribly biased and politically prejudicial context.
Religious adherents to vertical morality would be doing the right thing if they actually were doing the will of an omniscient, loving God:
1. Abraham? Yes, we may not understand it, but if that’s what an omniscient, loving God really wanted, then Abraham was right in following through with God’s command to murder Isaac.
2. Nephi? Did the right thing by following God’s command to murder Laban in cold blood.
3. The Lafferty Brothers? Did the right thing in murdering their sister-in-law (and her young daughter) for “obstructing God’s work” after receiving the “removal revelation” from God.
4. The Israelites’ genocide of Canaan? They were doing the right thing because God really told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites.
Islamic terrorists? They claim that Allah told them to commit their acts of terror, so they are doing the right thing.
5. LDS temple/priesthood ban? Since God told His prophets, seers, and revelators that this is what He wanted, it was the right thing to do.
6. Excommunicating married, monogamous gay members? Since God told His prophets, seers, and revelators that this is what He wants, it is the right thing to do.
7. All women should be homemakers and submit to/be presided over by their husbands? Since God told His prophets, seers, and revelators that this is what He wants, it is the right thing to do.
I’m serious about this. I readily acknowledge my own personal lack of perspective and wisdom, so if an omniscient and loving God really, truly commanded these very troubling things (and many, many others), then the only choice for me would be to accept and follow them.
In reality, I don’t actually believe that any God commanded any of these things. Why? Simple: lack of evidence. Religious adherents of vertical morality are outsourcing their morality to some external source (scripture, religious leaders, etc.) that claims to speak for God without sufficient evidence that these external sources really do speak for God. If God really wants me to kill people, be a racist, a misogynist, or a bigot, then He needs to provide a heck of a lot more proof that this is what He really wants than He has so far.
I’ve spent a lot of time around thousands of Mormons. I’ve heard their testimonies, experiences, and expressions of belief. Even so, I have not met a single Mormon or had any personal experience that gave me credible reason to justify adhering to the vertical morality that is so heavily emphasized in the Church. I see the appeal. It would be incredibly comforting to believe in a system where God was continually revealing His will for you through prophets. I know many Church members who absolutely love this sense of comfort. Unfortunately, I don’t get to live that life, for if God wants me to believe He sanctions cold-blooded murder, genocide, racism, bigotry, misogyny, etc., then He’s going to need to provide a lot more proof that that is really what He wants/wanted.
Since vertical morality isn’t an option for me, my only viable choice is horizontal morality. Is it perfect? Not at all. I’m not omniscient, and my views on many things have changed over the years as I’ve gained more knowledge and experience. I do feel driven to help others and to make the world a better place for everyone, though. In fact, pretty much the only times that I’ve “felt the Spirit” in my life are times when I’ve been helping others or have changed my perspective to be more loving. I think that’s the best I can do.
I also think that that is pretty much the best anyone can do. I see very little evidence to suggest that God is revealing His will to LDS prophets. In fact, I see a lot of evidence to the contrary. LDS prophets, seers, and revelators aren’t the absolute worst source of morality in the world, but they also frequently aren’t a very good source of morality, either. My own personal horizontal morality is far from perfect, but I boldly claim that it is often superior to what LDS prophets, seers, and revelators have achieved. Therefore, I’m going to stick with my own judgment of what is good for myself and the rest of humanity rather than outsourcing my morality to the Q15.
I appreciate MrShorty’s comment as well as the conversation between Anna and Andrew. I agree most with this statement from Andrew:
“I think everyone’s morality – whether horizontal or vertical, is internally based.”
In LDS world, the leadership speaks for God. But only the faithful LDS believe this and not necessarily all the time. So while “the prophet speaks for God” is LDS creed, what most active LDS internalize is that the prophet defines the rules church members must follow to be a member in good standing.
Moral authority in the LDS context recognizes the vertical authority of the leadership but also affirms the responsibility of members to be “horizontal”. When push comes to shove the vertical authority is superior but we are unfair if we do not recognize the allowance, if not the directive, to serve others and apply the golden rule to our actions.
And observe that application of horizontal morality ultimately rests on a claim of a vertical authority – of a being or idea that guides what it means to be good.
The Covid pandemic and how people responded to it was very illustrative. For many active LDS the statements of church leaders had great significance. For others, the statements of government authorities had significance. Both these groups embraced a vertical morality and both actually agreed that SCIENCE (as declared by government approved persons) was the superior authority.
There was another group of people who desired a reassessment of Covid risks and a weighing of them against the costs of Covid preventive measures. This group also claimed a superior authority of Data and Evidence. This group asserted that the government view was not only wrong but that restrictive policies were immoral and cruel.
And thus you had a severe contention of two vertical moralities – one that claimed government approved expertise and one that claimed independent expertise.
For two years the government authority was stronger. And while this was the case those who supported the government view applied that morality horizontally and judged those who did not follow government advice as dangerous, immoral and uncaring.
Vertical morality framed the horizontal morality of both groups and both groups were convinced the other was cruel and immoral. And that is what I see happening across the spectrum of issues that challenge society. The ability for people to apply horizontal morality and to do good for each other is constrained by very powerful vertical hierarchies.
Is it possible to change this dynamic? Should we want a change? Can society function without there being an agreed vertical authority? What might society agree to be a superior moral authority to guide horizontal relationships?
Bill, I had not heard of this idea before. Disciple asserts it is false. It is clear there is a different understanding of morality in America to that in the rest of the free world. Trump would not be electable elsewhere, and this is an explanation. I was very disappointed that men who claimed to be prophets were not able to warn of the consequences of voting for trump. I could see them.
I do believe that a healthier society is made up of people who make their own moral judgements.
This feels conceptually like a rehash of something Jonathan Haidt posited in assessing the fundamental value differences between conservatives and liberals. He identified 5 moral values: Care/Harm, Fairness/Reciprocity, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation. Conservatives gave equal weight to all 5 of these, but liberals gave greater weight to the first two. This idea of vertical morality just means given supremacy to Authority, which to a liberal mind sounds a whole lot like what Nazi Germany did (an oversimplification, obviously).
Like most of church leaders’ worst ideas, a lot of these are from Evangelical churches. Specifically this nonsense that the “two great commandments” have to exist in a hierarchy or that being cruel to people on God’s supposed behalf is actually required to be a good Christian, rather than the flip side of that argument, that you show you love God because you also love your neighbor (who is, like you, created in God’s image, co-equal with you and the rest of humanity).
I’m actually getting a little confused about where Oaks sits on this one at this point because he has spouted this idea that love for the law > love for “sinners” and that love for God > love for one’s neighbor. But he seems to be a non-MAGA guy, someone who objects personally to Trump. Does he do so because Trump is so clearly immoral on just about every level? Maybe. Or is it because Mormons are more loyal to Trump than they are to church leaders? Possibly (which would mean that Oaks’ objection to Trump’s authoritarianism, which he does seem to disdain as a lover of the constitution, is partly because it’s infringing on his own authority / authoritarianism). He also says it’s wrong to criticize church leaders, even to yourself, and that if you get an answer that disagrees with their statements you’re wrong. But that’s a bit of a shift from when he has previously said that commandments are in a hierarchy based on your stewardship, but you might have revelation as an individual about you being an exception–your exception is only for yourself, though, and not for others (unless they are under your authority). I suspect he didn’t fully mean either of those things (that individuals can have exceptions–unless they are things he thinks are valid exceptions, in which case he’s still the arbiter of others’ choices) or that he’s always right (just that when he’s wrong, you have to shut your mouth about it out of a sense of loyalty and respect.)
I’m still mostly with Andrew S, though, that we think something is moral because of what we personally value, and we justify it according to what our own values are. I also think that at least in social settings with other Mormons, it’s become fully expected that whatever one wants to do must be justified through an appeal to authority, not on the moral grounds of the action. It’s fairly easy to cherry pick whatever statements support what we think is right; you can actually justify whatevver position you favor based on the expected appeal to authority, even if in reality that wasn’t your basis for believing that is what’s right.
Andrew, I like how you think. Really. I like that distinction you made about the difference being how we reason it out, because you are right that both kinds of morality start inside. Vertical morality starts inside of us when we pick which authority we are going to follow. And we cherry-pick what things we like of all that our favorite authority has said. There are “Christians” that want to violently deport immigrants and there are “Christians” who want to feed and shelter them. Those two very different kinds of Christians are supposedly following the same authority. But they pick what they believe and then find the quote that justifies it. Even Trump followers have vastly different things about him that they use to justify their chosen morality.
Wow, mind blown.
Horizontal morality uses authority to get ideas. I mean, Jesus is my favorite authority and pretty much I try to follow how he said to live. But I know that I don’t follow blindly and I sure don’t trust Joe Smoe or D. Oaks to tell me what Jesus wants me to do. But Jesus makes pretty good suggestions about how we should live. So, am I vertical morality or horizontal authority? I mean, I like Jacks idea that to know God is to love him. After all love is the first and greatest commandment and the second commandments just expands on it. So, when I “invent” my own rules about how to live, I am really just following a commandment. But long ago I went through the 10 commandments and asked “why?” And there were pretty good reasons and those reasons were mostly about not hurting people. So, that was how I started evaluating all the rules. Does this action hurt people? Or, If everybody did this, how would the world be better or worse? I look at authority for suggestions because the world has had a lot of smart people and many are smarter than I am. But those suggestions never cover all of the possibilities. For example, I was taught in primary to honor my parents. Nobody ever mentioned the possibility that my parents were not honor-able. The commandment says obey your father, but never mentions the possibility that father may demand the breaking of God’s commandments. So, ideas is all I can get from authority because no authority has ever figured out my life.
So, now I am back at the drawing board wondering if we don’t all start with what we believe and then use authority or real world examples to justify it? And if that is the case, what is the real difference?
Hawk posted while I was writing and it is good to see we are thinking some of the same things
I think it’s probably more likely that what the Democratic Liberals/Socialists/Communists are offering up – is so d*mn bad (meaning remarkably awful and damaging) one simply has to chose the (much) lesser of two evils. When you see the rot, decay, corruption and total lack of moral boundaries as represented in “blue cities”, it becomes easy to “pinch one’s nose” and vote the other way. It’s like I told Hawkgrrrl a few weeks back, it’s been the uber progressive nutjobs, that have driven me back to somewhat supporting the Church (which I never thought would happen) and ultimately embracing a more Conservative view. I’m really not a fan of societal decay and collapse; and will fight it until my last.
I believe what is so often missed in this discussion of vertical morality, and blind obedience, is that blind obedience, or obedience to something clearly wrong will NEVER produce the type of person God wants you to be. Life is tough and messy. Sometimes you can run away from the messy parts by claiming “This is what God wants”. Think of the POX and the SEC scandal and the Priesthood ban and LGBTQ actions by those “acting for God”. It is too easy to just accept and not question. God wants much more from us than to be blindly obedient, and non-thinking. He needs all of you – even the questioning part. Once on the other side, you are more of a whole person. That is what God wants.
This seems like a good spot for this quote by an atheist (and Nobel Prize winner:
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.”
Geoff,
If you read all that I wrote I commended Bill for introducing this topic. I criticized Bill for using the HuffPost article to introduce the topic. The HuffPost article is a narrow-minded prejudicial screed that only serves to promote the groupthink viewpoint that: “They are bad people and we are superior people”. The cheapness of this rhetoric is that any one group can use it to impugn another group. The rhetoric only serves to define group allegiance and does not promote understanding.
The comments and discussion on the topic of moral authority is insightful and it shows how people with very different philosophies can reach agreement. Anna and I seem to have completely opposing worldviews. And yet I love her comment posted at November 23, 2025 at 9:12 pm. She writes: “Horizontal morality uses authority to get ideas.” I agree! We all lean on a higher authority / law / philosophy to justify our reasons. We do this because we want to believe that our preferences are backed by more than just our selfish interests.
The moral philosopher Adam Smith asserts in his 18th century book “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” that: “Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely; or to be that thing which is the natural and proper object of love.” We desire to attach ourselves to ideas and ideologies that others will perceive as lovely. A reason politics is so personal and contentious is because the most powerful way to discredit an idea is to make the idea perceived as ugly and unlovable. This explains why the Left accuses the Right of being racist and hateful and the Right accuses the Left of being baby murderers and child mutilators. The rhetoric is ugly because there is political advantage at making one’s “enemy” ugly and unlovable.
Jesus denounced this rhetoric! In doing this Jesus did not say every idea is good. But he demanded there be a separation between the judgment of a person and the acts of the person. In this context, Jesus gives the parable of how the “unjust judge” is able to do good and answer the plea of the widow. In this context, Jesus asks who does good? The person who says he will give bread but gives stones or the person who actually gives bread? Jesus asks that we give more attention to what people actually do, teaching that: “by their fruits you shall know them.” Jesus especially asks that we judge ourselves with greater scrutiny than how we judge others, saying: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
Geoff, since you indicate an attachment to Australia, I am curious on your perspective on immigration. I understand Australia has very strict immigration laws. Do you believe those laws are immoral? Do you believe Australians are racist and hateful for wanting to protect their national sovereignty? Is it fair to single out Americans as racist and hateful when they desire to protect the sovereignty of their country all while Australia and other nations have immigration controls far stricter than what America has?
On matters of immigration and crime and personal autonomy, can we not agree that people can have different opinions without resorting to labeling as ugly and hateful the people who think different? Or is it simply going to be the case that we must impugn those we disagree with as ugly and deplorable and thereby avoid acknowledging there is merit in ideas we disagree with?
A fantastic insight on this topic comes from “Holly’s Substack” in an essay titled “Teacher of the Year” (you can google this). In this essay Holly discusses a viral video of an Alabama Christian woman beating her child. Holly dispassionately walks through Bible verses that justify the woman’s actions. She explains the moral authority for corporal punishment is in the literal Bible text embraced by Christians and used by Christians to claim moral authority on various social issues.
Holly then recognizes that many Christians are repulsed by and disapprove of what this mother did. This leads to Holly’s insight on people’s reaction to the horrific scene shown in the video and I quote from her:
“If you condemn what you saw – and you should – then your revulsion came not from Scripture, but from a moral sense outside Scripture.
Your conscience.
Your humanity.
A higher wisdom than the literal text told you: This is wrong.
And I applaud that. I just want people to admit it.”
Strict vertical morality is what the military requires and what many religions teach. There are justifications for vertical morality. But vertical morality is not the highest morality. Where “Vertical Morality” goes wrong is that it supposes something other than ourselves is accountable for the choices we make. Absolute Vertical Morality makes each of us subservient to the higher authority. And if obedience to the higher law makes us cruel and causes harm then we are justified.
The essence of Christianity is each individual stands accountable for his / her moral judgements. We may lean on a “Bible” text. We may lean on “Prophets” and parents. But to be a Christian Saint and to distinguish ourselves as followers of Christ means we ultimately stand accountable alone, before “God” for our moral choices. We must discern for ourselves what is good and what is evil and we must develop the faith and courage to act on that discernment.
In the realm of true Christian morality there are two easy paths of defection. One is to make the Christian Law subservient to the Mosaic Law. This is the way of most structured Christian churches, including LDS. They use the Mosaic Law to establish a framework of moral authority in the church and then give some limited space for actual Christianity. My personal epiphany of several years ago is the LDS church is what it is because its framework is built on the Levitical / Aaronic priesthood. And the latest policies make this obvious. The only “High Priests” in the lay church are the Stake leadership and Bishopric. Everyone else is of a lesser priesthood and worship is a pattern of scripted, outward rituals.
Tolerance of sin is the second path of defection from true Christian morality. Since it is so difficult as a group to agree on what is “righteous judgment” the group decides to avoid all judgment. All choices become acceptable choices. We know this path is deficient because it invariably requires participants to deny the existence of any moral authority. And without moral law there can be neither good or evil which means there can be no Christ – or that Christ has no purpose.
The high demand of true Christianity is that it asks us to not just learn God’s laws but to especially gain wisdom in the application of God’s laws in a fallen world. I believe True Christianity asks us to do the impossible but we must try to do it anyways. We each seek a spiritual sanctification and wrestle with how it is achieved. Permissiveness doesn’t deliver it. Orthodoxy doesn’t deliver it. The path is discipleship to the ways and teachings of Jesus Christ. Not as a single church or leader defines Christ. But as God’s spirit reveals the nature of Christ to us.
Disciple, you are wrong about the military. They are taught that it is their duty to DISOBEY illegal orders. They swear allegiance to the constitution, NOT their commanding officer. So, if their commanding officer orders them to fire on civilians, it is their duty to say no. Just like the war criminals from Vietnam Nam who went to prison for mass slaughter of civilians. My husband spent 20 year active duty, so maybe you with zero military experience misunderstand. Don’t worry, our dear President also misunderstands that the military is duty bound to disobey any order that violates the constitution. Or, just like the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, who were only following orders, they can be tried as war criminals. There is a higher law for the military than “obey orders” and it is the US constitution, the Geneva code, and their own conscience- that is why the military rejects people whose religion says they may not kill even in war. It recognizes that one’s own conscience trumps “military orders”.
This point is important *because* our current president misunderstands it. There is a higher law for the military than following orders.
So, I don’t know where that leaves your point saying that there is a place for vertical morality. In the category of wrong? Even the military recognizes horizontal morality as the best thing to follow at times.
But, disobeying illegal orders is tough. It really puts soldiers in a bad bind. If the disobey and are wrong, they could be court marshaled. If they obey and are wrong, they could be court marshaled. Nasty bind. What they are supposed to do when in this bind is talk to their commanding officer. Put it on his shoulders. If he agrees, they both disobey the illegal order. Then at least they are together being court marshaled, I guess. See, horizontal morality takes more guts, guts many people don’t have. You need to know for yourself what is right and what is wrong. And they teach the military officers courses in ethics, along with teaching them what war crimes are, what the constitution says, what the Geneva Convention says. Do you know what the Geneva Convention is?
That is why lots of people like vertical morality. They can blame bad choices on somebody else. The soldier can say, “I was following orders when I used poisonous gas.” Nope, not going to cut it. Ultimately I think God, just like the military, will hold us accountable to the higher law, not following orders, but showing love.
In our world, it would be nearly impossible to not live a morality that is internally based – isn’t most of the challenge of this life to figure out how to get outside/beyond ourselves and let go of incorrect ideas/habits when we receive more enlightenment? If so, then how wonderful it is, or at least could be, that we can try to get beyond ourselves and truly learn how to live a life of horizontal morality that is true to vertical morality as well:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
This does not answer any of the nitty-gritty questions coming up in this discussion. But I do have hope that we can grow in learning the will of the Father in our own ways, in our own time, and from that vertical morality seek to emulate the kind of horizontal morality that I think many of us agree that Jesus exemplified (and which ran against so many traditions of the time…and of now!).
For me, that at least leads to trying to figure out how some teaching that is purported to be from God (e.g., any statement from the first presidency, apostles, etc.) can be squared with my imperfect understanding of horizontal morality. At the least, I try to ask myself: does this teaching, or policy, or what-have-you, cause me to treat another poorly? Does it have to be that way (e.g., am I misunderstanding the vertical morality statement)? I at least try, with my internally-based horizontal morality, to determine whether it would require me to treat another in a judgmental/objectively harmful way (can of worms: is it harmful if it is something that basically indicates another’s behavior or belief system is “incorrect”? Or is it like teaching my child to cook in a way that reduces their chance of burns, cuts, etc.?).
When the Savior visited the Nephites he told them that the Law of Moses had been fulfilled–and that they were now to look to him as the Law. And so what we have is the Savior as the embodiment of all Truth.
Someone mentioned (above) something about doing the hard work of making our own moral decisions. While I agree with this sentiment for the most part–I would add doing the hard work of becoming like the Savior to the recipe. And we begin that process by doing as he says: offering for a sacrifice a broken heart and a contrite spirit. It is then that we’re vulnerable enough to begin to draw near to him. And as we draw near to him we become transformed by his influence–over time–so that we become like him.
That said, it is in the process of learning to love God and become like him that the so called “vertical morality” and “horizontal morality” become one and the same. The Savior always defers to the Father–but in the same breath he reminds us that they are one.
And so the question (for me) is: how do we deal with the seeming dichotomy between the horizontal and the vertical while were in the process of being transformed? And the best answer I can come up with is to do what Jesus did–and that is 1) to strive to be one with the Father and 2) to always defer to the Father. IMO, if we try to do those two things then we will be on the road to learning how to love both the Lord and our neighbors as the Savior loves them.
Interesting discussion here. One problem is that for many devout Mormons, the distinction between vertical and horizontal morality can be blurry, since their understanding of horizontal morality is informed by what the institutional Church teaches and how it defines “love” (which twists it vertically). For example, some devout Mormons may interpret “loving” their trans neighbor as deadnaming them, excluding them, or assigning a bathroom monitor to keep an eye on them “for their own protection”, because that is how Mormons are instructed by their leaders to deal with trans people, whether explicity or implicitly (through policies or modeling). Also earlier examples of DHO and others citing Jesus’ two great commandments as being mutually exclusive terms (loving God > loving your neighbor) illustrate this point. For some Latter-Day Saints, it can become confusing to follow one’s conscience about how best to love one’s neighbor when they are under control of an institution that takes it upon itself to define what that love is and what it’s limits are, and furthermore claims to represent God’s final word on the matter.
As for the widespread adoption of MAGA politics and ideology among Mormons, I’m still bewildered by it. It’s easy to be angry about it, and direct that anger at the followers, but I try to be slow to judge, as I have a long list of family, friends and associates who went down that road to an apparent point of no return. As best as I can figure, a lifetime of LDS beliefs and practices can prime certain strains of people to enthusiastically join that movement, and I don’t necessarily believe it is always due to the preference for vertical morality constructs, though that does seem to be a factor. However, Mormons understand the cult of personality, as they practically worship their current living prophet (whomever it may be at the moment) to the point it eclipses Jesus himself at General Conference. They are also wilfully ignorant of the many well-documented morally repugnant acts of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and early Mormon leaders, and instead gush with praise and reverence for them. The fact that they can cognitively hold space for endorsing morally bankrupt leaders as the ones designated by God to bring forth a supposedly morally superior ideological movement (while feeling morally superior themselves) is telling. Certain devout Mormons also seem to lean on their persecution complex when it suits them, sprinkled with “righteous” revenge narratives, which also aligns with a MAGA approach.
With regard to Abraham/Nephi levels of murderous obedience to God, when I was earlier in my nuanced/PIMO journey, I reasoned that Abraham and Nephi failed their respective tests, especially Nephi (who actually went through with the decapitation), since they should have said “no” immediately when ordered to kill. With more time and nuance, I came to realize that there never was a “test”, and these episodes from scripture are just man-made fables or cautionary tales. I don’t believe in a God that forces his children to prove their loyalty, especially by demanding them to violate their core conscience by committing severe and irreversible acts. If you do, that probably says more about you than it does about God. Across the history of the earth, there has been far too much violence committed in the name of God, and it does not need to be celebrated. Devout Mormons are still cognitively twisting themselves into pretzels trying to paint Nephi’s killing of Laban as a righteous act. This couldn’t be further from Christ.
Lastly, as a military veteran, I will chime in to agree with Anna, that military members are obligated to obey only LAWFUL orders, something we are trained in extensively and repeatedly throughout one’s career. Potentially unlawful or unethical orders are expected to be questioned and challenged, regardless of the short-term consequence (i.e. potentially being disciplined for being insubordinate or disobedient). Furthermore, military leaders are taught to listen to the concerns of subordinates, who are often closer to the potential moral/ethical friction points and may have a perspective the leaders did not previously consider. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s a damn sight better than whatever systems of redress exist for rank-and-file members in the LDS Church.
Jack Hughes,
I’m pretty certain Trump is not the one pressing the trigger that launches the rockets that murder occupants of speedboats in Venezuelan waters. Someone is following orders to commit those murders. I don’t care if such orders are Constitutional. Do you think the action is morally right?
Similar situation occurred during the Obama administration when drone operators murdered suspected terrorists & family on the other side of the world. No trial. No appeal. Just someone following orders and killing people thousands of miles away with the press of a computer button because they can.
In these situations, the person pressing the button that performs these executions can claim unaccountability by asserting they were just following orders. Are such people really unaccountable?
“I was just following orders,” is not a defense. Also trying to think of one thing MAGAs have done that wasn’t motivated by bigotry, ignorance, or venality. As far as I can see, MAGA proves you don’t have to be poor to be trash. Anyone who voted for MAG-a-Lardo is either ignorant, evil, or both.
Military personnel are trained to obey only lawful orders, and most people can clearly discern acts that are so depraved that they are clearly and always unlawful. But what about orders where the recipient thinks, but does not know, that they are unlawful? May that soldier refuse an order because he chooses to believe that the order is unlawful? There are times in combat when one must obey and figure it out later. Maybe I am saying that solders have a duty to not obey orders that are clearly and manifestly unlawful, things such as intentionally targeting civilians (although we dropped a lot of bombs on civilians in Germany and Japan during WWII, but we won the war so we got to decide what was a crime), torturing prisoners, and falsifying records. We also executed some German snipers after they surrendered. I am not sure that soldiers have a duty to disobey orders that they simply think might be unlawful: the unlawfulness needs to be patently clear. I speak as a former solder, but I am not an attorney and I might be wrong. A soldier’s superiors are expected to act lawfully and their orders generally carry a presumption of being lawful. Obedience, and prompt obedience, to lawful military orders is the duty of every soldier. Some orders may be controversial, but their controversiality does not make those orders ipso facto unlawful. Our Constitution, to which our soldiers swear their oaths, also makes the President the Commander in Chief. The rules or warfare are, if we’re candid, made up as we go. It is not always black and white, with no gray.
I think that vertical and horizontal morality, as discussed here, play together. God may tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or Nephi to kill Laban, and God may accordingly hold Abraham and Nephi free from sin at the last judgement: that’s the vertical. The horizontal also applies, however. Had Abraham (had he committed the deed) or Nephi been brought to justice, and had I served on the jury, I would have voted to convict, even fully believing that God told them so. If a man follows God, he can only expect waiver of punishment from God. Following God is not a defense for violating man’s law, as Mr and Mrs Chad Daybell recently learned. I do not believe that God and the Church are interchangeable here. A church cannot speak as if it were God to command an adherent to commit an act against man’s law. Since God also instituted governments, we have to live with both God’s and man’s law.
We hear often about the early Christians who were martyred for their faith. Or did they have a death wish? I think that generally speaking, God wants his followers to live, and to testify as best as their circumstances permit. Take the story of Naaman. Everyone knows the first part of the story about his lepsory, his wife’s servant girl, bathing in the Jordan river, and being healed. Some people know about Naaman wanting to pay Elisha for the healing, and Elisha declined. But the rest of the story isn’t taught in our Sunday school classes. Naaman took some Israeli dirt back to Syria so that he could worship God on his own soil. We smile at what we consider naïveté. But Naaman also told the prophet that part of his job as the king of Syria’s captain of the host was to attend the king’s worship of a Syrian deity, and to bow down and worship that idol. Elisha could have told him that God would suffer no idol worship, but he did not. He told Naaman to “Go in peace.” It was more important to God that Naaman to worship the true God in his heart (and on his Israeli dirt). God understood that Naaman’s predicament, the conflict between God’s law and man’s law, and God said that man’s law could trump. Elisha knew of God’s gentleness when dealing with people in difficult moral and political straits. When there is a conflict between horizontal and vertical morality, maybe horizontal morality will usually trump, unless God makes it patently and manifestly clear that vertical trumps in a specific instance.
Georgis, I think you and I believe in different Gods. Because the God I worship would not ask me to violate my own morality. It would make him instantly not my God. So, any being telling me, or thoughts popping into my head, or whatever kind of communication, tells me to do something that I feel is just wrong, I would say no, do it yourself. Because God, being loving would not do something so unloving as to order me to go against my own conscience. Just not gonna happen. Just like I would never force my child to go against their conscience. And, if God did order me to do something that I just couldn’t do, like behead Laban, and I refused, then God being the perfect loving being that He is, would understand and accept my refusal. Not punish me for saying that I just can’t do something. So, again, I am just NOT worried that God would ever tell me to do something I find unthinkable. My horizontal morality is going to be just fine. I will never be asked by my God to kill in cold blood, or steal someone’s gold plates. Because God loves me enough not to give me the kind of guilty conscience that ate at Nephi. God loves me at least as much as I as a poor sinner of a mother love my children and if something needed to be done, oh say like putting their sick pet down, that they just couldn’t do, I would understand and not ask them. If I understand that it needs to be done, I would do it myself. Because I understand that they just can’t. And if such an imperfect mother wouldn’t ask that, how can I possibly believe a loving God is less loving of his children? God will not ask us to violate our conscience.
Oh, he might put us in a position where we are tempted. But then it is temptation- why Nephi screwed up. He was in the position where killing looked like what God might want. But Eve made a choice to get the knowledge of Good and Evil. It was necessary in order to progress to Godhood. My conscience is therefore God given. The whole idea of becoming like the Gods, that they kicked Adam and Even out of Eden was because that knowledge, plus immortality, (both fruits) makes us like the Gods but without the wisdom of experience. Of repentance and atonement. Of gaining the strength to follow our conscience. Someone above said that to become Gods ourselves we need to not just blindly obey, but be strong enough to follow that God given knowledge of good and evil. I think that inborn knowledge, or conscience, is horizontal morality. Our own conscience. So, a God who would order anyone to violate their own conscience is destroying our ability to make it to Godhood. I don’t know if I am explaining that well, but if it doesn’t make sense, ask.
Anna, thanks,but I think we might be fairly close. If God told me to kill my child, I know myself well enough to know that I would not do it, even if I would forfeit salvation. Not because I fear the secular authorities, but because I would recoil with horror at the thought. Peter recoiled with horror at being told to eat animals which the Jews considered unclean. There is a great gulf between killing a child and eating unclean meat, but some would say it is the same thing, something called obedience. Obedience is sometimes nuanced, which is why I mentioned Naaman. God condemns idolatry in pretty harsh terms in the OT, but Naaman got a pass. I think it is fair to ask why exact obedience did not apply to Naaman. I think we would all agree that killing a child is immoral, but Peter thought the same about eating unclean meat. Some members of the church think smoking or drinking are immoral acts. They are not. What we do matters less than what we believe in our heart, yet our church focuses so much on what we do with our hands and too little on what is in one’s heart. Yes, our beliefs will often shape our actions. When asked what they might do to do the will of God, Jesus told the people to believe. Right belief will get to right actions, but people can also do right actions with a corrupt purpose. I do not know what God told Chad and Lori D., but I think the state was right to try them, and the juries were right to convict them. God knows how to bring down jailhouse walls if he wants to rescue them. I do not understand the story or Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I am not sure that I accept it as written, literally. Maybe something is missing, or maybe the story is allegory. Those who say it teaches exact obedience might not be right. Naaman knew that he would soon bow the knee to Rimmon, and Elisha told him to go in peace. Even Jesus did not practice exact obedience. He told the Syro-phoenician woman that he could not share truth with her per his Father’s command, but then he did precisely that. Maybe the right lesson is for us to make the tough decisions based on faith and our conscience, taking both together, and not on obedience alone. If this is so, then person A and person B might do different things in the face of identical facts, because their faith and their consciences are at different places, and they both might be right in God’s eyes. Maybe we need to teach more about loving God and loving each other, and less about exact obedience. For the person who loves God, the right actions will be the fruit of right belief. Maybe good works are a fruit of right belief, and maybe obedience is less important than belief. Maybe. Blind obedience isn’t what I seek in my life. I want, for me, an obedience based on faith/belief. I don’t have enough faith to kill my own child. I don’t know that this makes me a weak Christian.
Lots of great discussion here. I have a much longer thought later, so I’ll add the shorter one for right now. In a recent Inside Out podcast episode, Greg Prince made an interesting observation that relates to this conversation. He noted that often church leaders changed significantly once they sat in the president’s chair. He gave quite a few examples. He shared one insight from Pres Kimball’s son–that is father was the best follower, that he would do anything he was told, but once he became president and burden fell on him to be an actual decision maker, he changed a lot. He also shared that Pres Nelson was part of the POX as an apostle, but after he became president, he reversed it. Greg pointed out that one of the underlying reasons behind this sudden change is that was no longer any structure to protect the individual when they were at the top. All the sudden, they were forced into thinking much more carefully because their decisions had so many more consequences. I just wonder sometimes if the concept of vertical morality isn’t carefully constructed protection system to insulate people from the consequences of their choices–a moral prophylaxis. If I can shift blame to God or other authorities for my actions, I’m off the hook and can behave however I see fit. I never have to learn to make choices that benefit everyone. Or I never have to look at my heart and see if I like what I find there. It’s really hard to own one’s own choices and it takes a real maturity to do so. I honestly have no idea how anyone could ever actually develop into a God under a vertical morality system, because it’s a system that cede’s authority (and thinking) to external things. More tongue and cheek, but maybe this is why the scriptures repeated say that God has given his authority to men here–maybe he doesn’t want to take responsibility for his actions either and we are in this vicious cycle with neither men nor God wanting to own it. Charlie Kirk was in a debate at Oxford a year or two ago and I remember this moment where the student debating him had stripped away all of Charlie’s ability to appeal to some external source (e.g. the bible) as a justification for his moral stances. It was beautiful because Charlie was left “naked” and unprotected and I could see the discomfort on his face when he was now face to face with himself, having to now take ownership of his own beliefs. I think he wasted that moment by digging his heals in. I think vertical morality often robs us of that valuable “naked” moment.
I’ve really enjoyed this discussion—sitting back and taking in so many thoughtful comments. 1 John 4:20–21 presents one of the starkest challenges to the tendency to separate vertical and horizontal morality:
20 If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And we have this commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.
The cross itself also tells a story about where “at-one-ment” occurs—at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal beams. Both dimensions converge there.
One of the most tiring and dangerous ideas I’ve encountered is the attempt to place the two great commandments in a hierarchy. When Jesus answers, He says: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart,” and “the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself.” That phrase “like unto it” most naturally means “the same as,” “equal to,” rather than lesser than. Jesus’ words—and John’s—seem designed to show that the vertical and horizontal are evidence of each other, inseparable rather than competing. John goes so far as to say that the second commandment is proof of the first; love of neighbor is not optional or independent.
Dave Brisbin captures this beautifully in The Fifth Way:
“If you find yourself wondering how you’re doing with God—about the quality of your relationship with Him—just take a look at the quality of your relationships with those closest to you, those whose toothbrushes hang next to yours.”
Vertical morality, then, is not merely paying homage to a sovereign heavenly being. It can also describe our relationship to the highest possible good—or even, as Andrew suggests, our relationship to the highest possible version of ourselves, the divinity within. And Jesus consistently shows that our highest possible being is realized within relationship—the horizontal moral ground that becomes the lived evidence of divine transformation.
I am learning from this discussion and it is making me think. Love it.
Tod Smithson, I like that idea that the cross shows the intersection of horizontal and vertical morality. It is a beautiful image and I might add it is high on that vertical line. It takes effort and time and lots of thought and probably a few years of obedience to get to the point where you know your own morality and can evaluate the reasons behind a “commandment” and know if it comes from a loving place. For example, the dietary restrictions for Jews, those rules were given by God or culture, or where ever they came from at a time when people didn’t know when seafood was safe and when it might kill you. They didn’t know that pork has to be cooked more throughly than beef because if you don’t, it can kill you. But science has taught us. Joseph Smith when he gave or God gave him the word of wisdom knew that some addictive things are bad. So, he more of less lumped addictive things together and said these things are not good for you. Now we know that mild wine, mild beer, which were not on Joseph’s original list are not terrible, but might be better to avoid, while science has shown that tea is actually good for you and coffee in moderation is good for you. So, now we can look closer at some commandments and know why God might have given them and decide if it is still a moral thing to do to not harm our bodies. We have the knowledge to apply horizontal morality instead of blind obedience. But that takes knowledge. It takes thinking. It is work to use horizontal morality. With knowledge we can study the Bible as to what was meant at the time and figure out that they were talking about abusing boys, not sleeping with adult men as one would a woman. It was talking about abuse in today’s English, not homosexuality. But vertical Morality people would rather hate on gays that do the work to figure out what the Bible was really talking about. They don’t want to learn to love, or are not ready to do it.
It is painful when you find out you can’t trust authority to act in your best interest. Those of us who have learned that our church authorities can be dead wrong know how painful and disillusioning this can be. I guess with my abusive parents, I learned extra young that obedience to authority can be really bad for you. So, I understand not wanting to start doubting authority. It hurts. When you stop believing the prophet has a bat phone to God, it hurts. Or maybe like Chris Robinson says above, when we suddenly have no one above us to tell us what is right as our leaders do when they become church president. But it is also a growth step. I just don’t think we can grow past obedient child without moving on to horizontal morality. But it is hard.