bboy-mike,
I’ve heard this often and I am coming to believe that it ain’t so. I’ll post about it over at my site, though, as it is kind of a threadjack.

That is the reason to know the why behind the command, to understand the principle is the ability to then apply that principle in different and varying circumstances with certainty; it is nearly impossible to come up with a universal application when dealing with particular circumstances.

I reject the Divine Command Theory for the reason that if obedience were the only requirement for this life (which is an implicit understanding in church culture), we would remain as eternal children, never able to become mature adults of understanding and intelligence; we’d always have to ask our ‘bishop’ what to do in any difficult ethical circumstance, which is very unhealthy to one’s moral development.

“Do what is right, let the consequence follow” seems like a nice statement of the ideal most of us aspire to. So why do most Mormons try to talk themselves into this formulation: “Do what is right, and good consequences will follow.” I’m not sure we have any right to expect good consequences, although we can certainly be grateful when they do happen.

We can give God a hand with consequences. I like the story (which I might mangle) of Brigham Young, who once promised some guy that if he devoted himself to collecting rags around the territory, he would be blessed. (Rags were needed for making paper, I think.) Two years later, the guy comes up to Brigham at a conference, reminds him of Brigham’s promise, and points that he is still dirt poor in spite of doing as he was told. Brigham’s response was to pull out his checkbook and write the man a check, saying, “If God won’t make good on my promises, then I will.” Good for Brigham. We can’t fix all the world’s problems, but if we can put a thumb on the scales and create a few good consequences for our fellows, whether they deserve it or not, we have done a good thing.

I agree with you. Pres. Hinckley’s reasons didn’t seem very strong to me. After rereading it a few times, I decided Hinckley wasn’t really giving The Reasons why gambling is wrong. Rather, he was simply saying it’s wrong, and made a few supporting comments.

Joe,

I did not understand Hinckley ever to say that poker itself was wrong. Only gambling was spoken of in the GC talk.

Jeffrey,

I agree that God doesn’t want us to completely hand over our agency to him, because that is impossible. Agency is a fundamental property of our being, and cannot be given away or taken away. But are you saying that we shouldn’t use our agency to wholly submit to God’s will?