Nemo talks about how Mormon moral standards are about what you're authorized to do

Mormon Moral Authority vs. Moral Absolutes: What the Historical Record Reveals About LDS Ethics

When members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints face ethical questions, what determines right from wrong? Is it an objective moral standard, or authorization from church leadership? This question cuts to the heart of how Mormonism defines morality itself, and the answer matters for anyone seeking to understand LDS theology and practice. According to discussions on the Mormon Stories Podcast, the distinction between intrinsic morality and authorized conduct reveals a structural tension in how the Church teaches its members to think about ethics.

The core issue is straightforward: Mormon moral standards may not function as absolute ethical principles. Instead, they appear to operate as a system of authorization, where the rightness or wrongness of an action depends primarily on whether a church leader with proper authority has sanctioned it. This framework has profound implications for how members navigate doctrine, policy, and personal conscience.

Background: How Mormon Authority Structures Shape Doctrine

The LDS Church has always emphasized a hierarchical priesthood structure. Authority, not democratic consensus or individual revelation, sits at the center of institutional decision-making. This is by design. The official Church teaches that God works through designated leaders, and obedience to those leaders constitutes obedience to God.

This system created clarity in some respects. Members knew where to direct moral questions: to bishops, stake presidents, and Salt Lake City. But it also created a peculiar ethical framework where the same action could shift from sinful to righteous based on who performed it and whether they held the requisite authorization.