 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
God being unknowable, I can't comment on His motives, but it would be
distressing if He allowed us to misunderstand Him through no fault of 
our own.  For sanity's sake we must assume, if we believe in Him at all,
that His message comes through somehow.  The question is whether it comes 
through immediately to every individual, or is contained in a complex 
canon that must be interpreted by experts in consultation with one another, 
or is transmitted directly through appointed representatives who are free
to interpret, extend and modify the canon.  If God's message is indeed
mediated, the further problem arises as to whether the individual under-
stands the mediated message fully and clearly.  Since the responsibility 
for understanding lies ultimately with the individual, we must assume that 
God in His benevolence guides each individual to the appropriate source 
for that individual, whereof the person may or may not drink. 
 
 
 
Your example is complicated in our age by the thin line between morality
and politeness.  You might have said "burp", for burping and swearing carry
about the same stigma today.  If you are talking about "taking the Lord's 
name in vain" as a serious transgression, then this example is more a case of 
hypocrisy than of varying moral codes.
 
If there is an absolute moral code, propositions or laws in that code apply
absolutely and universally, by definition.  Conceivably some moral codes
could be subsets of the universal code, as you say at the outset.  So, for
example, God's code could include, "Thou shalt not create Beings without
a hospitable planet to live on", but this law would be inapplicable to us.
Nevertheless, we would be entitled to suppose that all laws applicable
to us are also applicable to God.
 
But when you begin to ask what laws might appear in God's moral code, you have
a sense of the absurdity of the question.  Does God make laws for Himself to
follow?  Perhaps God is not the sort of being to which the category "morality"
can be sensibly applied.