While just a hypothetical question, I think there's a lot of merit to it.
Some so-called right and wrong standards under the Mosaic Law supposedly changed for those who served God, according to Christians and their take on things. More than mere food restrictions and keeping of days were altered; there were also calls for a more refined sense of morality. The marriage arrangement for Christians, for example, went from Judaism’s allowance of multiple wives and divorce on multiple grounds to one wife and no divorce (though this last part has changed for most just in the past century). So many “rights” did change to “wrongs” with the coming of Christ on the earthly scene.
While I don’t believe in the Witness “new scroll” scenario, I do think that further changes are bound to occur should this arrangement of Christianity prove to be true. In fact such moral changes are even now “rocking the morality boat,” so to speak with subjects like homosexuality and women in positions of leadership/priesthood.
However this is likely but a change from the perspective of human beings due to the reality that our foresight is limited. We also tend to think rather two-dimensionally with religious scenarios (i.e., “doing bad means being punished,” “since I am being chased I should run,” etc.). But there seems to be considerable differences between right and wrong and moral objectives of good and evil.
Right and wrong has to do with the subject of “sin.” I’ve noted that theologians tend to separate that from the objectives of good and evil. What might be right today may be wrong to do tomorrow because situations can cause an objective standard to have relative properties. Acts that are in direct conflict with the objective of good may be an evil in themselves, but the act may not be considered wrong or a sin. If the subject that sinned had little or no freedom and thus performed the act unwillingly, though the act is objectively evil, is this sin accounted to the sinner?
I’m not going to pretend to be the producer of such an answer, but that very line of reasoning can make such a possibility of what is “right” today being a relative paradigm through which objective morality can flow. So standards can change without violating or redeveloping objective realities, that is if such moral standards are truly axiomatic to begin with.
And if such is the case, I would have to adjust. I must admit that something like that on a smaller scale seems to happen to me all the time. These days it’s a lesson in humility. Can I accept that I cannot change certain things about myself and that reliance on God’s mercy is the only answer? Do I try hard enough in this scenario when it genuinely occurs or am I merely fooling myself and allowing myself the freedom to “get away with murder,” so to speak?
Trying to adjust would be difficult, a test unto its self. Do I really believe in this God I claim to? Could I accept that my current views would require even great adjustment than they have already undergone? Or am I all talk and no action? Only time would tell, I suppose.