Letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law

[Vort]

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?

How about this scenario?

Man comes to Church, asks to speak to the bishop. When the bishop comes out, the man says he's a sinner and wants to repent. The bishop pulls out a shotgun and blows the man's head off. The Elder's quorum president works to clean up the scattered, bloody brain bits before the meeting starts. The Relief Society brings refreshments.

Of the two stories, which would you say is more likely to happen?

I agree. Neither of them.

[Maxel]

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.

EXACTLY- and the "spirit of the law" can fall under the same trap. It's nigh impossible for us to know the full intended purpose of the spirit of the law- because humans communicate in symbolic language, we have to write down what we mean to communicate but it is an imperfect communication, no matter how eloquently espressed.

I think MoE hit the nail on the head when he said that one has to know both and then make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. I think enjoying close communion with the Holy Ghost helps us to know which part of the law- the spirit or the letter- we ought to follow.

[Maxel]

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?

This scenario reminds me of a story from the life of Heber J. Grant's mother.

Grant's mother was a widow and crossed the plains by herself. She was very poor and had to support Heber by herself. Once a home teacher (or bishop, I forget which- someone) came by and said she didn't have to pay tithing if she didn't want to because she was so poor. She responded by asking if this elder would deny her the blessings that are associated with paying tithing- blessings that she would not receive if she didn't pay tithing, and blessings that were more than worth the money paid in tithing.

So, which is the more charitable course of action- encouraging them to pay tithing on faith and gain a testimony of it while receiving multitudinous blessings, or tell them they don't have to because they're poor?

[Guest Believer_1829]

EXACTLY- and the "spirit of the law" can fall under the same trap. It's nigh impossible for us to know the full intended purpose of the spirit of the law- because humans communicate in symbolic language, we have to write down what we mean to communicate but it is an imperfect communication, no matter how eloquently espressed.

I think MoE hit the nail on the head when he said that one has to know both and then make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. I think enjoying close communion with the Holy Ghost helps us to know which part of the law- the spirit or the letter- we ought to follow.

So the moral of the story...

Each of us should work out our OWN salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord.

[Guest Believer_1829]

This scenario reminds me of a story from the life of Heber J. Grant's mother.

Grant's mother was a widow and crossed the plains by herself. She was very poor and had to support Heber by herself. Once a home teacher (or bishop, I forget which- someone) came by and said she didn't have to pay tithing if she didn't want to because she was so poor. She responded by asking if this elder would deny her the blessings that are associated with paying tithing- blessings that she would not receive if she didn't pay tithing, and blessings that were more than worth the money paid in tithing.

So, which is the more charitable course of action- encouraging them to pay tithing on faith and gain a testimony of it while receiving multitudinous blessings, or tell them they don't have to because they're poor?

This story didn't seem right to me so I looked up HJG's biography...

Heber Jeddy Grant (November 22, 1856 – May 14, 1945) was the seventh president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He was ordained an apostle on October 16, 1882, on the same day as George Teasdale. Grant served as church president from November 23, 1918 to his death in 1945, which makes him the longest-serving church president during the twentieth century.

Grant was born in Salt Lake City, Utah Territory to Jedediah Morgan Grant and Rachel Ridgeway Ivins. Jedediah Grant had served as Brigham Young's counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church. However, Jedediah died nine days after Heber was born, and Rachel became the dominant influence in Heber's life. In business, Heber J. Grant helped develop the Avenues neighborhood of Salt Lake City. In 1884 he served a term as a representative to the Utah Territorial Legislature.

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else's mother... perhaps Hyrum's widow?

[Guest Believer_1829]

Here is the story...

One day Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, went to the tithing office in Salt Lake City to pay her tithing with a load of the best potatoes she had grown. One of the clerks at the tithing office scolded her, saying, “Widow Smith, it’s a shame that you should have to pay tithing.” Mary replied: “William, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Would you deny me a blessing? If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold his blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it. By keeping this and other laws, I expect to prosper, and to be able to provide for my family.”

Joseph F. Smith, Mary’s son, recorded that Mary did prosper by obeying God’s commandments. The family always had enough to eat, and they developed strong testimonies too. Joseph F. related: “When William Thompson told my mother that she ought not to pay tithing, I thought he was one of the finest fellows in the world. … I had to work to dig and toil myself. I had to help plow the ground, plant the potatoes, hoe the potatoes, dig the potatoes, and all like duties, and then to load up a big wagon-box full of the very best we had, leaving out the poor ones, and bringing the load to the tithing office. I thought in my childish way that it looked a little hard, [especially] when I saw certain of my playmates … playing round, riding horses and having good times, and who scarcely ever did a lick of work in their lives. … Well, after I received a few years of experience, I was converted, I found that my mother was right and that William Thompson was wrong. … [Paying tithing] is a blessing that I enjoy, and I do not propose that anybody shall deprive me of that pleasure” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 228–30)

[Maxel]

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else's mother... perhaps Hyrum's widow?

Yep. Had the wrong prophet in mind. Thanks for searching out the real story. You get a gold star.

[Moksha]

Man comes to Church, asks to speak to the bishop. When the bishop comes out, the man says he's a sinner and wants to repent. The bishop pulls out a shotgun and blows the man's head off. The Elder's quorum president works to clean up the scattered, bloody brain bits before the meeting starts. The Relief Society brings refreshments.

I thought this was going to be a mercy and forgiveness versus unyielding justice by Judge Roy Bean in Israel type of scenario.

[annamaureen]

A somewhat lighthearted story... in high school, I knew a girl whose sixteenth birthday was two days before prom. Her parents wouldn't allow her to go because "you can't date before you're sixteen!"

[Misshalfway]

A somewhat lighthearted story... in high school, I knew a girl whose sixteenth birthday was two days before prom. Her parents wouldn't allow her to go because "you can't date before you're sixteen!"

This one is interesting to me. One might think these parents have their panties in a knot. Others might see that they are teaching their daughter to be a person of principle....something that sometimes requires one to sacrifice. I was actually in this situation and my parents let me go to the dance as long as it was a group date. Either way a parent might choose to handle this situation, I think the parents succeed in teaching valuable lessons.

[Generally_Me]

Hang on...her birthday was two days BEFORE prom and they wouldn't let her go?

[Traveler]

The question of the spirit of the law verses the letter of the law are all created when one does not understand or take covenants seriously. It is the essence and heart of a lie we tell to our self – which BTW some come to love more than truth.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

Hang on...her birthday was two days BEFORE prom and they wouldn't let her go?

Having been a teen who liked to find my ways around good parental rules, and now being a parent with tweens, there is nothing about the parents decision that I wouldn't support.

Perhaps you think the parents are straining at a knat, when perhaps they are teaching their child to respect the exactness of the law. I see no stumbling on the actions of the parents, even if it disappoints their daughter in the moment. As is there won't be other dances......

[bytor2112]

Having been a teen who liked to find my ways around good parental rules, and now being a parent with tweens, there is nothing about the parents decision that I wouldn't support.

Perhaps you think the parents are straining at a knat, when perhaps they are teaching their child to respect the exactness of the law. I see no stumbling on the actions of the parents, even if it disappoints their daughter in the moment. As is there won't be other dances......

A rare moment of disagreement Misshalfway.....I think these parents are likely fertilizing the seeds of rebellion down the road. Two months is one thing, but two days......she would be going if she were my daughter. (provided all else was as should be:))

[bhcs]

This has been an interesting read.

I have always believed that we start out 'keeping the letter of the law' to help us learn and become 'converted' to true principles. Once that conversion takes place our hearts are changed and we are able to understand the principle more fully and, therefore, more fully put it into practice.

The Pharisees of old built a 'hedge around the law'. This seems like a good idea. The Lord told them to keep the Sabbath holy. So they limited the number of steps they took on the Sabbath and rigidly controlled their activities. And, sure enough, they didn't break the commandment. They also didn't learn the principle behind the commandment - nor did they progress towards a greater understanding or conversion.

We Latter-day Saints, like all followers of Christ, still need the law to help us come closer to Christ. And some us (maybe all of us, at times) can fall into the same trap as the Pharisees.

For example, we still need Prophets to tell us to avoid R-rated movies. On one hand, if we were all truly converted (which I know I am not), I think we would be able to choose correctly for ourselves what sort of material is suitable and what is not. We wouldn't need the Prophet to tell us. On the other hand, many feel justified in watching PG-13 movies which glorify things wholly out of line with the teachings of Christ. To me this is a classic letter of the law/spirit of the law dilemma.

Personally, I think the same is true of things like Home Teaching. If we were converted we would actively seek out and help our neighbhors. We are not, so it needs to be a commandment.

I believe that the Lord's goal for us is to become truly converted or 'born again' as our evangelical friends like to say. That conversion happens individually to us every day in a small way as we strive to make progress. When it happens collectively to us as a group of believers, I believe we will need fewer commandments, not more, because we will be more like Christ. We will no longer desire to do evil, but good continually. See Mosiah 5:2

[pam]

A rare moment of disagreement Misshalfway.....I think these parents are likely fertilizing the seeds of rebellion down the road. Two months is one thing, but two days......she would be going if she were my daughter. (provided all else was as should be:))

I tend to agree with you on this one.

[Misshalfway]

A rare moment of disagreement Misshalfway.....I think these parents are likely fertilizing the seeds of rebellion down the road. Two months is one thing, but two days......she would be going if she were my daughter. (provided all else was as should be:))

For the record bytor.....Your post smacks of wisdom. I was trying to make a point with my last post. Not necessarily tell what I would do in the same situation. I would think each situation would have to be evaluated on a case to case basis. In general, I would prolly let the kid go as my parents did with me and I would do it for the same reasons.

If a parent decides that the birthday is when the gate can open and they stand by that, does this show that they are missing the spirit of the law? Maybe. Maybe not.

At the end of the day, we teach correct principles and we let people govern themselves. Well.....at least that is what we say. I think too often we make our best choices and then inflict them on everyone else.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Dravin]

Having been a teen who liked to find my ways around good parental rules, and now being a parent with tweens, there is nothing about the parents decision that I wouldn't support.

Perhaps you think the parents are straining at a knat, when perhaps they are teaching their child to respect the exactness of the law. I see no stumbling on the actions of the parents, even if it disappoints their daughter in the moment. As is there won't be other dances......

I think the point was that there is no violation of the whole not dating before you're sixteen if her birthday was before the prom, at the time of the date it wouldn't be against 'the law'. Is its supposed to be after the prom? That makes sense as she wouldn't be 16 at the time of the date and thus in violation of 'the law.'

But if it wasn't a mistake and it really was 2 days before then valid decision or not the way its described doesn't make it a spirit vs. letter of the law and as a lesson in exactness of the law not letting her go (based on not dating before 16) it kinda falls flat, as they aren't obeying the law with exactness by not letting her go, they're extending it beyond the original and 'exact' parameters. It's like accusing somebody for not obeying the law of tithing with exactness because they only pay 10% not 12%.

[Misshalfway]

You know what? I read that story wrong!! I thought the prom came 2 days before her birthday.

Oh goodness. Old age is setting in.

Well..... I hope someone got what I was trying to say.

[Traveler]

I find it most interesting how we communicate our values. My father was my greatest example in life. I learned from him that if I ever gave my word – I ether kept it or I broke it there is no middle ground or gray area. It is not what we expect from our children that creates values – but like our Father in Heaven it is what we expect of ourselves.

My children did not grow up always making what I thought was the correct decision – but they did know that their father like their grandfather could be trusted without question. It was the family tradition to live by the honor of your word. It appears that now there is another generation learning the meaning of trust and honor.

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

Some people are very fond of the phrase "they did what was right in their own eyes" (an oblique reference to Judges 21:25) as a condemnation of people who disregard a written rules in face of conflicting considerations. An interesting case was on a website posted by one of the "Anti-Harry Potter Brigade" who (doubtless hoping to reach people who didn't share her anti-witchcraft views) cited the fact that Harry and his friends sometimes tell lies and disobey their superiors. Yet anyone who has ever thought about it properly will freely admit there are circumstances where it is necessary to tell a white lie. (What, for instance would you have said had you lived in Nazi-occupied Europe and a Gestapo officer asked you if you knew where any Jews were hiding?) Obeying the law is important, but it does not necessarily come ahead of any other consideration.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

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.

I agree with you. Some people are fond of using the phrase "they did what was right in their own eyes" (a reference to Judges 21:25) to condemn people who have disregarded written rules in face of conflicting considerations. An interesting case was on a website posted by one of the "Anti-Harry Potter Brigade" who (doubtless hoping to reach people who didn't share her anti-witchcraft views) cited the fact that Harry and his friends sometimes tell lies and disobey their superiors. Yet anyone who has ever thought about it properly will freely admit there are circumstances where it is necessary to tell a white lie. What, for instance would you have said had you lived in Nazi-occupied Europe and a Gestapo officer asked you if you knew where any Jews were hiding?

Of course telling lies isn't usually against the law (except in a few cases such as when giving testimony in court) but it is an example of a something that is usually "against the rules" - it might for example be forbidden under a school honor code, which is essentially a system of laws in miniature. Returning to the actual law though, you often hear arguments of this type:

A: So you would disobey the law?

B: Under those circumstances, yes.

A: So what you're saying is that the law doesn't matter?

This is a false dichotomy, on a par with:

A: Would you like a cup of tea?

B: No thank you.

A: So what you're saying is you want to drink nitric acid?

Of course the law matters. We have a duty to obey it. But that doesn't mean that our duty to obey the law is our first, last and only duty, which comes ahead of every other consideration. (For an example of this kind of logic in action, look at some of Thunderf00t's YouTube condemnations of Ben Stein's movie Expelled.)

[Moksha]

Can we use the letter of the law as a detriment to others? I can think of examples. Some are right there in the Bible.

Can we use the spirit of the law for the benefit of others? Examples of that are also found in the Bible.

Knowing that, why should any of us insist on letting our inner Pharisee emphasize the Letter over the Spirit?

[Just_A_Guy]

Hang on...her birthday was two days BEFORE prom and they wouldn't let her go?

Nice catch. But let's assume, for a moment, that that's actually what the situation was.

Should the daughter be allowed to go merely because she's 16 and "that's the rule", even if her parents decide that (contrary to the presumption implied in the Church's guideline) said 16-year-old daughter still is not emotionally ready to handle dating?

This letter/spirit thing cuts both ways. We're quick to demand the right to live according to a "lower bar", if you will; so long as we can proclaim ourselves in conformance with the "spirit of the law". But are we willing to live according to a "higher bar" if the Spirit demands that we do so? Or will we simply brush off such calls by saying "well, there's no official Church doctrine that I should refrain from caffeinated drinks/abstain from R-rated movies/not use curse words/stay away from the Victoria's Secret catalog or SI Swimsuit Issue", ad infinitum?

Edited August 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maxel]

Can we use the letter of the law as a detriment to others? I can think of examples. Some are right there in the Bible.

Can we use the spirit of the law for the benefit of others? Examples of that are also found in the Bible.

Knowing that, why should any of us insist on letting our inner Pharisee emphasize the Letter over the Spirit?

Can God use the letter of the law as a teacher to His children? I can think of examples. Some are right there in the Bible (the Mosaic Law, for example). Can we then, using our Father's example, use the letter of the law to teach our own children? I think so.

Can we misconstrue the spirit of the law and use it as a detriment to others? I can think of examples- some are right there in the Book of Mormon (I'm thinking of the wicked Priests of Noah, for example).

Just offering counterpoints; I think the situation is very, very complex. I also agree with your assertions, Moksha.

Theoretically, if we could live according to the perfect, true spirit of God's law, then we would be living according to the eternal principles that guide human nature. However, it is man's fallen nature that gets in the way, I think- we are unable and/or unwilling to understand the full complexity and rigors of the eternal laws (or even the temporal laws given us by God). So, we need to grow in grace by following the letter of lesser laws until we progress to the perfect state of being that God enjoys.

I think some of the most gross misinterpretations of the letter of the law (like the Pharisees) come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the law's intended spirit and purpose.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification