Letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law

[Misshalfway]

K. I need a little rant moment here.

I am getting sick of the two extremes. The perspectives that are all about the letter and the adherance to the letter meaning focus on performance and practice and to do lists and all the evaluation of that as it is used to decide if someone is "good". And then the subsequent judgments that get thrown across the chapel at others and how they aren't righteous...etc.

And then there is the spirit of the law champions who sometimes disregard the law in favor of their own needs. As if strictness of the law is somehow distasteful or lesser. It feels rather ( i can't think of the right word) prideful to bend the law or lay it aside as one justifies themselves in a little sin or indulgence or freedom and at the same time sees themselves as obedient. And then there are the judgments that come flying out of this camp that make the the law observers all characterized as pharasees!

Frankly, I can't understand the two camps. Seems both are missing the point. Since when does understanding the spirit of the law and living a principle oriented life mean that we abandon the law? Or think we know better than the brethren? Since when did obedience mean that we sort of follow the law or that we only follow it with our individual spins?

And since when does following the law automatically mean that we are blind to the spirit of the law? BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am reminded of this scripture.

Matthew 23: 23

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrits! for ye pay tithe of mine and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

In my mind, obedience is about both.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Misshalfway

[beefche]

I'm guessing here, but perhaps it is the whole teach correct principles and let people govern themselves bit. Each of us understands the principles differently and governing ourselves suddenly becomes the law to which all should be governed.

[NeuroTypical]

Good topic.

I've only seen someone tremble with rage once in my life. It was a guy who had moved out of the small, struggling ward I lived in. He was a good guy, and while he was in the ward, he did the work of basically four or five callings. When he returned for a visit, he was shocked to discover the new Ward Clerk had stopped running a certain quarterly report. The report was only useful when everyone used it, and nobody had used it for a long time, so the clerk didn't bother running it.

The guy trembled with rage. Seriously, I thought he was going to become violent. In a cracking, barely-controlled voice, the guy let the new ward clerk know that the general handbook specifically talked about that report, and said it should be produced quarterly. He told the clerk that his stewardship was running the report, and that it was none of the clerk's business if it contained data or not, or even if the Bishop ever looked at it. It Was His Job To Print The Report And Hand It To The Bishop. Case closed, end of story.

I personally am very much a spirit of the law guy. I do struggle with the behavior MissHalfway describes. The sarcastic comments I need to control, often revolve around people doing what they're supposed to without (in my unrighteous mind) sufficient understanding of why they're doing them. (The recent thread on R-rated movies edited for TV is a good example)

I hope I'm not as bad as the rage filled guy was.

LM

[sixpacktr]

MHW,

Thank you. Both are important. Sometimes we humans like the familiarity of certain customs/traditions because it feels right, and so we obviously focus on that to the exclusion of the intent. That is very true. But I also believe that in order to feel and understand the spirit of the law we have to obey the letter, having the letter of the law point us to the freedom of the spirit. Too often we (all of us) want to take the shortcut without the work that comes from exact obedience, so that we can be filled with the spirit.

As I said, you are right. Too much emphasis on the letter makes us pharasiacal, and too much emphasis on the spirit makes us disobedient (because we feel we aren't subject to the 'stricture' of all of those darn rules).

Now, before you all jump on my last statement, we should go by the spirit. But the letter points the way to that spirit. When we are living by the spirit of the law, the letter is not a problem for us because we understand the need for it in training us.

[beefche]

What an interesting story, LM.

I've been "taught" by a lot of people. I had a friend who was so focused on keeping her garments clean and unspotted that she had a drawer in which she folded and gently placed her dirty garments. When it was time to wash them, she remove them from this drawer. Frankly, that was too extreme for me. It obviously works for her, but not so much for me.

And that's what I do with some of the information I get. I assess it, see if it feels right for me and either embrace it or discard it. Sometimes, I find that later in life, things I've discarded, I now embrace. And vice versa.

Here's what is amazing to me--I can offer an opinion or even something that I really believe and people immediately think I'm judging them. I've gone over my discussion to determine if it was my tone or facial expression or whatever, but I honestly didn't see anything. Here's the deal, I don't care if people's actions are different than mine. I can have my own opinion and it can be radically different than yours and I can still think of you as a "good" Mormon or Christian or whatever.

[Misshalfway]

Matt 23 goes on a bit as it teaches what is really important.

vs. 24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a knat, and swallow a camel."

vs. 25 "....for ye make clean the outside of the cup and platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."

vs. 26 "Thou blind pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

Seems the whole goal of the law anyway is to clean our insides and change us so that the outside with show the fruit.....the fruit is just as important considering the scripture "you shall know them by their fruits."

I wonder sometimes about the importance of outer behaviors and practices because as the BofM says some can stumble because they watch the poor behavior of the church.

I feel bad, LM, for the man who was "straining at a knat". Must be simply where he was in his journey.

Sometimes I think we need the letter of the law until our insides can catch up to the spirit of it. Adam clearly obeyed only because the Lord told him too. There must be something ok about this circumstance as it is part of our spiritual growth. I mean, isn't this the very essense of faith?

Edited August 18, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Justice]

I don't think Christ ever meant to imply living the letter of the law was a bad thing. As has been mentioned, only if that law is not understood, or when you expect others to live a law you do not.

I believe the spirit of the law should be applied when you want to go beyond the letter, not do less.

Yes, I hold myself to this standard. And, yes, I fail.

[Misshalfway]

i believe the spirit of the law should be applied when you want to go beyond the letter, not do less.

yes!

[Guest Believer_1829]

The problem with the "letter of the law" is it's interpretation is often wrong and subject to the beliefs and whims of the mortal attempting to enforce it.

[threepercent]

I have stated this before on here, and it is a concept that some find difficult to understand but it is quite beautiful once you grasp it.

there is a huge difference between a law and a commandment, but we often get them confused.

a law does not have a "spirit" attached to it. it just is. the outcome is tied to the action in a unbreakable bond except through the atonement.

a law is like an if/then statement. IF you do this THEN such and such will happen.

a commandment has the "spirit of the law" attached to it. to put it in secular terms, its like saying "what is the law trying to accomplish". for example, lets take speeding, the purpose of speed limit laws is to preserve life, so, it would make sense that you could break the speed limit to save a life. spirit vrs letter.

A commandment IS NOT law. again, and example would be appropriate here. in this example I will use a simplified parenting technique for a child learning to use the stove.

the law is: touch the stove, you burn your hand. again, no spirit, it just is

the chain of commandments:

at age 2 = stay out of the kitchen when dad is cooking

at age 4 = you can help stir the mac and cheese with direct supervision

at age 7 = you can stir the mac and cheese without supervision, but dad is in the kitchen

at age 12 = you can make mac and cheese

at age 18 = you can make whatever you want, you know and understand the law, and are responsible for the outcomes of your own actions.

we receive far more commandments in this life than laws. one mistake people make is they ignore the LAW of obedience when they think they understand some other law more than its associated commandments.

still, we are here to learn the law, not the commandments, the commandments are tools to help us learn the law. knowing the law is to become as gods, knowing good from evil.

I hope that helps you with your personal understanding of the spirit vrs the letter of the law, it will not help you to judge others.

I can expound if this raises questions.

[Misshalfway]

OK. So what about "practices" or guidelines that the church uses and promotes as church "standards". I am referring to things like the For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet, for example. Or maybe the guidelines with regards to Sabbath observance. I am sure I could keep going here.

I think it gets muddy here. Don't you? Especially when the Lord says things like "whether it is my own voice or that of my servants, it is the same."

[threepercent]

no, its not muddy when you understand the law of obedience, nor is it when you undertake the task of taking the name of the savior upon yourself.

now again, you cannot judge others with this understanding, only yourself.

here are three very nice passages:

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and call things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

you see the natural man is the enemy to god. we are self serving, also known as the "will of the flesh"

when you ask yourself the deep quesitons about your motivation or your choices, you can really ask am I doing so because I so deeply love my Father and want to please him.

your choices will then become much clearer. the law of obedience is simple in that you may do wrong things, or even useless things, and you will get the benefit of having chosen liberty and eternal life. this is simplified, of course, but it is true that agency consists of two paths, and you may take a path that needs to be corrected by the atonement, and if you have chosen that path out of obedience, you are eligible for mercy.

[NeuroTypical]

at age 2 = stay out of the kitchen when dad is cooking

at age 4 = you can help stir the mac and cheese with direct supervision

at age 7 = you can stir the mac and cheese without supervision, but dad is in the kitchen

at age 12 = you can make mac and cheese

at age 18 = you can make whatever you want, you know and understand the law, and are responsible for the outcomes of your own actions.

We do something like this, as daddy is parking the cars after coming home. "You can get out if you want, but don't let me run you over."

[Guest missingsomething]

We do something like this, as daddy is parking the cars after coming home. "You can get out if you want, but don't let me run you over."

LOL where is the laugh button here!

[Gatorman]

Well, it can carry over into many things. When does the letter of the 'law' to learn more higher education exceed the teachings to follow the prophets, etc? When does questioning stop being a growth thing and become a hinderance and dam?

[Moksha]

Misshalfway, how about this:

Man enters Church, stopped at front door because he is wearing a robe, sandals and has a scruffy beard. The man says, "I am here to worship the Father". Someone in the Bishopric is called out and tells the man, "Come back when you have changed into Sunday dress clothes".

How would you handle this situation regarding the law and the spirit?

[beefche]

Moksha, I think your little story is quite amusing. If you hadn't tacked on the scruffy beard part, I would have answered "give him a dollar, take the offered flower, and wish him well."

I'm really, really curious. Please show me with any thread, post, or person on this board who has said that they advocate refusing people to worship at an LDS chapel in whatever type of clothing or facial hair the visitor chooses. I'll take just one--with the caveat that it's not a banned individual.

[MarginOfError]

As I understand it, we're supposed to understand both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Only then do we know when either is the more correct course of action. Sometimes you just can't satisfy both, and you have to make a judgment on which to follow. Anyone who believes that they should always fall back on one or the other is fooling themselves. These judgments happen on a case-by-case basis.

[MarginOfError]

Good topic.

I've only seen someone tremble with rage once in my life. It was a guy who had moved out of the small, struggling ward I lived in. He was a good guy, and while he was in the ward, he did the work of basically four or five callings. When he returned for a visit, he was shocked to discover the new Ward Clerk had stopped running a certain quarterly report. The report was only useful when everyone used it, and nobody had used it for a long time, so the clerk didn't bother running it.

The guy trembled with rage. Seriously, I thought he was going to become violent. In a cracking, barely-controlled voice, the guy let the new ward clerk know that the general handbook specifically talked about that report, and said it should be produced quarterly. He told the clerk that his stewardship was running the report, and that it was none of the clerk's business if it contained data or not, or even if the Bishop ever looked at it. It Was His Job To Print The Report And Hand It To The Bishop. Case closed, end of story.

I personally am very much a spirit of the law guy. I do struggle with the behavior MissHalfway describes. The sarcastic comments I need to control, often revolve around people doing what they're supposed to without (in my unrighteous mind) sufficient understanding of why they're doing them. (The recent thread on R-rated movies edited for TV is a good example)

I hope I'm not as bad as the rage filled guy was.

LM

I assume he was talking about the Quarterly Membership Progress Report. It is required by the Church every quarter. Now that it is mostly automated by the computers, they follow up and are very serious about this being turned in. My ward didn't get it in one quarter last year (we still don't know quite what went wrong) and the Church told us that if it happened again, they wouldn't dispense our budget allotment. In other words, if we made a habit of not submitting the Quarterly Report, we would have no budget for activities, curriculum materials, or copier supplies. So yeah, that's a case in which the letter of the law seems to be the minimum requirement.

[Moksha]

Beefche, that was a story problem to see how Misshalfway would put her ideas from

the opening post into action. It in no way implies an actual or imagined post by

anyone on this board. All characters are fictional and are not intended to represent

actual events or occurances. Do not try this at home as injuries may result. If you do,

please see your doctor in case any example stays with you for more than four hours.

[Guest missingsomething]

Moksha, I think your little story is quite amusing. If you hadn't tacked on the scruffy beard part, I would have answered "give him a dollar, take the offered flower, and wish him well."

I'm really, really curious. Please show me with any thread, post, or person on this board who has said that they advocate refusing people to worship at an LDS chapel in whatever type of clothing or facial hair the visitor chooses. I'll take just one--with the caveat that it's not a banned individual.

Actually I think this goes to the "letter vs spirit" because I dont think Moksha ever said... to those of you who have said... but you took it that way.... Moksha was throwing out a hypothetical to address how you deal with the letter vs spirit of the law. I didnt see any accusations....

**Edit**** I missed Mokshas last post... lol

[Misshalfway]

Misshalfway, how about this:

Man enters Church, stopped at front door because he is wearing a robe, sandals and has a scruffy beard. The man says, "I am here to worship the Father". Someone in the Bishopric is called out and tells the man, "Come back when you have changed into Sunday dress clothes".

How would you handle this situation regarding the law and the spirit?

This wouldn't be a set up question now would it mok?

I would answer this as Moe did. It would be a case by case basis based on the Spirit IF there was in fact a law to grapple with. Hopefully, as I think your point makes, we are applying love to all of our choices and when the law becomes more important that love, then Houston we have a problem.

In your example, what reason would I have for not inviting the man in? But my influence wouldn't stop there. I would continue to teach the man and lead him, if he would be led, and perhaps someday you would see him enter the building in suit...not because he conformed to some dictate, but because he respected the spirit of worship.

On the other hand, if you were to visit my MTC class where a cocky Elder insisted on coming to my class in gangster sunglasses and bowling shoes and his pants hanging below his suit coat, then you might understand why I sent the boy back to his dorm to "reconsider" his clothing choices with a hand on my hip and a look of "move it brother!" The goal would be the same.....gaining respect about the spirit of commited service.

[Misshalfway]

Let me throw another scenerio your way, Moksha.

Cute humble convert family loses their job. Do you invite them to pay tithing, or tell them they don't have to? Which, in your opinion, would be more loving?

[NeuroTypical]

Man enters Church, stopped at front door because he is wearing a robe, sandals and has a scruffy beard. The man says, "I am here to worship the Father". Someone in the Bishopric is called out and tells the man, "Come back when you have changed into Sunday dress clothes".

[Moksha]

Let me throw another scenerio your way, Moksha.

Cute humble convert family loses their job. Do you invite them to pay tithing, or tell them they don't have to? Which, in your opinion, would be more loving?

Good scenario, since in with the unemployment rate climbing, it is also very timely.

I would tell them that they may pay tithing if they wish, but in the meantime is there any assistance they may need. Spirit and law satified in one fell swoop with the plus that my conscience is clear.

You ask good questions Misshalfway.

:)