Higher and Lower Laws of Moral Systems: Objective and Relative

Through the last century there has been a huge rise of what is called "Moral Relativism." This method of thinking simply states that right and wrong are not absolute and true for everyone at every time, as moral objectivism dictates. Upon hours of research and pondering on the concept of morals, philosophers determined that the difference between the two modes of thinking comes down to the question of where morals come from.

If morals come from God, than they are true to everyone at all times. They are objective. In contrast, there is the idea that God either doesn't exist, or doesn't give us an absolute right or wrong moral code. The argument would then be made, that people must receive their morals from somewhere, and if they don't come from God, where would they come from? The scientist would point out that the animal kingdom is full of examples of animals who work together well and treat each other well, without having any objective moral code. Those who believe in that system would attribute our moral code to cultural conditioning. This is a very interesting idea, and one well worth contemplation.

But what about religion? If moral relativism is in fact true, what happens to the Law of Moses for Jews, the teachings of Christ during the sermon on the mount, or the Islamic Wajib and Haran (the pillars of Islam for actions that are right, and those that are wrong)? Many would claim that if morals are relative, the traditional concept of God cannot exist. I disagree. Rather I believe that they both exist simultaneously.

Doctrine and Covenants section 58 verses 26 and 27 read:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

 We learn from other scripture that there are things which are simply wrong to do. Objective. But we find something interesting here. We see a statement that; we aren't all supposed to be commanded in everything. But that in order to grow and become like Christ, we have to determine and act on some things for ourselves. And I think that it is up to each person to decide that for themselves. If we didn't decide for ourselves, wouldn't that still be being commanded in all things?

The last question now arises. Where is that line drawn? I believe that it is drawn between the things which are essential for salvation, and those things which are only temporal. I don't have a clear cut list, but I find it interesting to ponder.