LDS and Legalism: Good, bad, or not even there?

[Jenamarie]

A "problem" I hear a lot of non-LDS-Christians say they have with the LDS faith (besides the whole Book of Mormon thing, and denial of the Trinity thing, etc. etc. ) is the "legalism" in the faith. I often hear the Word of Wisdom, the For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet, the Temple Recommend questions, and the BYU Honor Codes given as examples of non-gospel, superfluous, and relationship-with-Christ-crippling "additions" to the gospel that are unnecessary for true Salvation.

So what thinkest thou? Is "no dating til your 16 and no coffee" a hinderance to a relationship with Christ? Or just unnecessary? Should the church take a more "teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves" approach to how members live their lives?

OR, do you think these things are what the Lord really does want in His Church, that they're helpful in building a strong relationship with the Savior and a sure foundation in the gospel, and that they're not "legalism" at all, but rather Prophetic clarification of often-vague scriptural values?

OR, do you something completely different all together?

Please share!

[Last_Daze]

So what thinkest thou? Is "no dating til your 16 and no coffee" a hinderance to a relationship with Christ? Or just unnecessary? Should the church take a more "teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves" approach to how members live their lives?

Isn't that generally the idea? I guess I don't know how things always play out on the ground, but my understanding is that is pretty much how its supposed to work. There is no 'inquisition'. As for the temple interview, the way I've heard it explained, is that the temple is for those people who are willing to live by a higher standard. Ideally, everyone would be a recommend-holder, but that is not the case.

My position would be that if we really believe in prophetic authority and leadership, then what you mention is exactly what many of these counsels are: "helpful in building a strong relationship with the Savior and a sure foundation in the gospel, and [...] prophetic clarification of often-vague scriptural values[.]" The question is often about 'doctrines of men'; for the LDS, something like the Word of Wisdom is not a doctrine of man, but is from God, like the rest of the D&C.

Of course, the non-LDS do not accept the D&C as scripture, so the things therein are by definition doctrines of men, and more properly, just stuff Joseph Smith made up. So really it comes back to the questions about authority.

Edited December 12, 2010 by pam

[pam]

Those were my thoughts. Aren't we doing that already? Teaching correct principles and letting people use their agency?

[Jenamarie]

Those were my thoughts. Aren't we doing that already? Teaching correct principles and letting people use their agency?

I can see that deffinately applying with the things that are scripture to us (like the Word of Wisdom), and prophetic counsel (like the Strength of Youth). But what of the BYU Honor Code? Where does a clean shaven face and no shorts (if you're at BYU-I) come in as a "principle" of the gospel?

[sweetiepie]

Besides prophetic wisdom (which is what the entire Bible is about), isn't it for our bodily health and good? Purify our bodies to become closer to Christ? Abstain from addictions and temptations? It builds our strength against other evils.

And it is "governing" ourselves. It is up to us to control our bodies and our "urges" throughout life.

Isn't that what it means to become Christ-like?

As for BYU Honor Code, I am not familiar with it, but it seems that it is to somewhat keep standards up for personal respect. Teaching college age students to be proud of their appearance, not sloppy, and to start preparing for being temple worthy? Which is hopefully a soon-to reach goal in mind.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[Last_Daze]

Lots of universities, particularly private-sectarian ones, have dress codes; BYU's may be stricter than most, but it is hardly the only one. A few, of note:

-Ave Maria University (Roman Catholic) has a no-shorts policy.

-Liberty University (Baptist) has a relatively strict code, although they've loosened it considerably in the last 5 years or so

-Bob Jones Univ (Fundamentalist Protestant) has a short-hair/no facial hair policy for men, and a 'modest dress' policy for women

BYU's code is about attending the school more than about being LDS; as always, attending a church-run university is in many ways a privilege, and contingent upon certain things. It is worth noting also that BYU's code applies to all students, LDS or not.

[pam]

I can see that deffinately applying with the things that are scripture to us (like the Word of Wisdom), and prophetic counsel (like the Strength of Youth). But what of the BYU Honor Code? Where does a clean shaven face and no shorts (if you're at BYU-I) come in as a "principle" of the gospel?

Many places have dress codes and honor codes. We're not allowed to wear shorts where I work. Nor are we allowed to wear tennis shoes, jeans and sweats. The last place I worked couldn't have visible tattoos or piercings other than the one pair of earrings in the lobe.

Not sure why BYU would not be allowed the same privilege of stating what their dress code is.

[Dravin]

But what of the BYU Honor Code? Where does a clean shaven face and no shorts (if you're at BYU-I) come in as a "principle" of the gospel?

It doesn't? Consider why you put it in scare quotes and you may have your answer. The Honor Code may be based on Gospel Principles in places and in others be based on certain ideas about focus, propriety and purpose but I've never heard the BYU Honor Code taught as a principle of the Gospel nor do I recall being told to live it. It's kinda like asking how not watching movies or not staying out past 9:30pm are gospel principles (in reference to the Missionary rules), they aren't.

Both with BYU and with Mission rules they are about developing, focus, purpose, a certain culture, and in cases (but not all) reinforcing Gospel Principles (for instance rules against law of chastity violations).

Edit: For the record there is definitely a cultural legalism in the Church, and I'd have to think more on a doctrinal legalism* though I'm disinclined to say yes to that at the moment.

* You may need to define legalism because what comes to mind is that we aren't told if we are to tithe on the gross or net. If we can eat a red sauce with wine in it. Just what books we can read, or music we can listen to. We aren't given a delineated list of all the appropriate and inappropriate ways to spend the sabbath. And there is a move against such things as "No R-rated movies" and more "No unwholesome entertainment."

Edited December 12, 2010 by Dravin

[Jenamarie]

The idea of Legalism (which, from my understanding of the way my Christian friends explain it, would be like the "hedge laws" of Jesus' day, like saying how many steps a person can take before they're "breaking the sabbath") isn't something I believe the Church, as a religion or organization, falls into, but I do see some members falling into it in their own personal understanding of the Gospel. For example, those who would judge a person for eating chicken marsala because it has wine in it, or the neumerous threads and Sunday School questions I see/hear about "What is the church's stand on such-and-such?" or people questioning their qualifications for the Celestial Kingdom based on their ability or inability to keep certain commandments 100% faithfully even as they're still young in the Gospel. I see people looking for the church to spell things out and "command in all things", rather than them trying to figure it out for themselves by relying on the Holy Spirit. If the church has guidelines for dating, for who can and cannot enter the Temple, for what does and does not go into our bodies (ignoring, or perhaps not fully understanding, that many of these guidelines are from the Lord, and not "men"), I can see how some members can start focusing more on a "check-list" to gauge their level of righteousness, rather than focusing on their relationship with Christ, and relying on feedback from the church and other members to confirm for them that they're doing okay, Salvation-wise, rather than relying on the Holy Spirit.

Again, I don't believe it's something that, doctrine-wise, the Church is guilty of, but I can see it popping up in church culture, and I'm wondering if anyone else does.

[Jenamarie]

It doesn't? Consider why you put it in scare quotes and you may have your answer. The Honor Code may be based on Gospel Principles in places and in others be based on certain ideas about focus, propriety and purpose but I've never heard the BYU Honor Code taught as a principle of the Gospel nor do I recall being told to live it. It's kinda like asking how not watching movies or not staying out past 9:30pm are gospel principles (in reference to the Missionary rules), they aren't.

Both with BYU and with Mission rules they are about developing, focus, purpose, a certain culture, and in cases (but not all) reinforcing Gospel Principles (for instance rules against law of chastity violations).

Edit: For the record there is definitely a cultural legalism in the Church, and I'd have to think more on a doctrinal legalism* though I'm disinclined to say yes to that at the moment.

* You may need to define legalism because what comes to mind is that we aren't told if we are to tithe on the gross or net. If we can eat a red sauce with wine in it. Just what books we can read, or music we can listen to. We aren't given a delineated list of all the appropriate and inappropriate ways to spend the sabbath. And there is a move against such things as "No R-rated movies" and more "No unwholesome entertainment."

"scare quotes"??? I'm not meaning to be sarcastic or derogetory towards the church in my questions. I'm genuinly wondering if these honor codes could be considered to fall under the umbrella of legalism or not. I never attended BYU, so I only know bits and pieces of what's in the Honor Code, and what the consequences of breaking them are, but I hear it often brought up by non-LDS-Christians as an example of the church's "legalism" and I'm wondering if anyone else would agree with that assesment or not.

[Dravin]

"scare quotes"???

Scare quotes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't mean you were trying to scare people with the phrase. Just that you obviously don't think it should be read literally. Ergo you have reasons to not view the BYU Honor Code as a genuine or literal principle of the gospel.

Again, I don't believe it's something that, doctrine-wise, the Church is guilty of, but I can see it popping up in church culture, and I'm wondering if anyone else does.

Most definitely. Though the line between cultural reinforcement and legalism can be fuzzy.

I never attended BYU, so I only know bits and pieces of what's in the Honor Code, and what the consequences of breaking them are, but I hear it often brought up by non-LDS-Christians as an example of the church's "legalism" and I'm wondering if anyone else would agree with that assesment or not.

As mentioned plenty of schools have honor codes that extend beyond don't plagiarize and don't break the law. It wouldn't surprise me to find as a general rule religious schools have much stricter honor codes than public ones and I'm not sure they can be taken as an example of legalism in said religions.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . I hear it often brought up by non-LDS-Christians as an example of the church's "legalism" and I'm wondering if anyone else would agree with that assesment or not.

To me, "legalism" is primarily an issue of how we interpret and apply law. The fact that the law exists, is not legalism in and of itself. But when we use those laws for purposes other than their stated intent--as a BYUSA candidate did a couple of years ago (he--well, his supporters, but it was pretty obvious who had greenlighted the thing--dug up statements that his opponent had had a female in his apartment a couple of minutes after curfew, which resulted in the opponent's being disqualified from the election and a victory by default)--that's legalism.

[bytebear]

I am reminded of D&C 130

18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

But here's the kicker. I don't think the BYU Honor Code falls under the category of God's irrevocably decreed laws. There are temporal laws and spiritual laws, and we very often confuse the two or expand our own cultural definitions beyond what the true spiritual law is.

So, think of BYU's rules as a temporal law, and the blessings of obeying them are that you get to attend the university.

But then there are things like the temple interview questions, which lets you and your bishop determine if you are prepared to receive the blessings of the temple.

The Word of Wisdom has obvious physical blessings.

But what about blessings we don't know about. What about blessings that are harder to understand or may have ramifications in the next life, but not in this life?

So, do I believe in "legalism?" well, yes and no. I believe in cause and effect, but I don't have the spiritual insight to determine those effects without guidance from prophets, scriptures, the Holy Ghost and personal experience and I am continually learning and sometimes I can see the effect so I have more faith in some things than others, and that reminds me of another scripture.

"Prove all things, Hold fast that which is true" - 1 Thes 5:21

[hordak]

The idea of Legalism (which, from my understanding of the way my Christian friends explain it, would be like the "hedge laws" of Jesus' day, like saying how many steps a person can take before they're "breaking the sabbath") isn't something I believe the Church, as a religion or organization, falls into, but I do see some members falling into it in their own personal understanding of the Gospel. For example, those who would judge a person for eating chicken marsala because it has wine in it, or the neumerous threads and Sunday School questions I see/hear about "What is the church's stand on such-and-such?" or people questioning their qualifications for the Celestial Kingdom based on their ability or inability to keep certain commandments 100% faithfully even as they're still young in the Gospel. I see people looking for the church to spell things out and "command in all things", rather than them trying to figure it out for themselves by relying on the Holy Spirit. If the church has guidelines for dating, for who can and cannot enter the Temple, for what does and does not go into our bodies (ignoring, or perhaps not fully understanding, that many of these guidelines are from the Lord, and not "men"), I can see how some members can start focusing more on a "check-list" to gauge their level of righteousness, rather than focusing on their relationship with Christ, and relying on feedback from the church and other members to confirm for them that they're doing okay, Salvation-wise, rather than relying on the Holy Spirit.

Again, I don't believe it's something that, doctrine-wise, the Church is guilty of, but I can see it popping up in church culture, and I'm wondering if anyone else does.

Yes. I do think some members gauge themselves (and most unfortunately others) "worth" based on a "check list". if it's an official Priesthood business.

E.G. "Brother Jones, you don't keep the word of wisdom, i cannot let you pass sacrament." Then it makes sense. And i wouldn't consider it such.

If it's not, "Did you here, Sue is going to the home coming dance with Chuck, shes only 15"

"Doesn't she have any respect for herself and the Church"

Then it becomes legalism.

As far as the BYU dress code is concerned that has as much to do with salvation as the requirement to take English 101. I don't think they fall under legalism, but people can turn them into legalism,

[Last_Daze]

Legalism, at least in a non-theological sense, indicates a rigid insistence on the application of the letter of the law without regard to its purpose or intent.

One point that I think we would do well to remember is that, while we often talk about legalism in the sense that it creates applications of the law that are stricter than necessitated by the spirit of the law, there are many times when the 'spirit' of the law is far, far stricter than the letter of the law, especially as it relates to spiritual and theological matters.

Remember the things that the Savior taught: how the law said not to murder, but he told us not even to be angry with our brothers. And that the law said not to commit to adultery, but he said not even to look on a woman with lust. In these cases, and many others, the spirit of the law, or the true meaning of it, actually seemed much more restrictive than the 'black letter' application of the law.

To me, the point is that even if we are committed to the spirit rather than the letter of the law, there are times when such an an approach will produce results we do not like. And we cannot tailor our interpretation of things simply to produce the result which is most palatable or expedient to us at that particular moment.

[Traveler]

The whole problem with legalism is that those that are involved in such thinking will always draw the line between being a devoted saint and a heretic such that they can justify themselves and accuse others. I have yet to find a Christian that believes that they should not be in heaven and yet we all seem to have a clear idea of those that will not be included and that they love to criticize.

There will always be problems. For example if we are to suggest that tattoos will distract from spirituality then what is to do with those that had tattoos when they struggled with their spirituality and have repented as opposed to those that thinking they are spiritual in obtaining a tattoo?

Just for the record I was before BYU standards of three occasions for breaking the honor code while attending BYU. Once was mistaken identity but then there were several things of which I was not caught. None of my offences were what I thought of at the time were honor violations. Example – putting up a sign at the main crossing from Heritage Halls (female housing) to campus that said “Cattle Crossing”.

The Traveler

[Justice]

I think that most people outside the LDS faith, especially Christians, have a hard time seeing a "covenant relationship." They use the words, but since they don't actually enter into covenants with God its hard for them to understand our position. It really doesn't matter what you are asked to do or not to do (word of wisdom, not date until 16, etc.) if you enter into a covenant then you should feel bound.

The covenant part of the LDS faith is exactly what draws me to it. God's people have always been a covenant people... and that's even Biblical.

It seems most Christians feel distanced from covenants because it was so long ago, and things are just different today. They feel they needed them back then, but we don't need them today. The ironic part is that what makes covenants "real" for God's people is the presence of the God-given authortiy to make them binding. Without that God-given authority, it makes perfect sense why they have a hard time seeing this part of our faith.

[rameumptom]

I think those non-LDS who criticize do not fully understand the entire process.

We have a foundation of doctrine and principles that never change. These are few in number, and absolutely necessary for salvation.

Then, we have rules and guidelines that help us to live the doctrines and principles. The Word of Wisdom is not a principle nor doctrine. It can be removed or changed at any time. Its true purpose is to protect the saints, give us good health (physical and spiritual). Can a drunk person feel the Spirit? I've never known one who could. It is built upon the principle that our bodies are the temples of God, and those who destroy or make their bodies impure will be destroyed by God. The WoW is just one way in which we work to keep our bodies as pure vessels of the Lord.

"No dating until 16" is also a guideline. It is based upon the doctrines of chastity and virtue. It is meant to help protect young people who are filled with hormones, but who still are uncertain about how to be filled with the Holy Ghost.

The temple recommend interview is there to determine worthiness to enter the temple. It requires a person to at least be terrestrial in their lifestyle. All of the questions asked are doctrine/principle-based, with few being rules/guidelines (word of wisdom, tithing). Since we cannot easily determine a person's inner worthiness, things like WoW and tithing are behavior-based events that are measurable. I cannot tell what level of testimony a person has, but can tell if they are paying an honest tithe.

Still, most of the questions are focused on doctrine: Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?

I look at it this way: Christ gave two great commandments: love God and man. Yet, in order to accomplish this, it sometimes is useful for most people to have a list of rules to live to help them accomplish this. The Ten Commandments are a good set of rules one may follow that leads us to love God and mankind, and they are not as abstract. God can measure my heart, but even I have difficulty measuring it at times, though I can measure my own behaviors and thoughts.

Finally, pretty much every Christian faith has some rules and requirements. To be a traditional Christian you have to believe and accept the creeds. You have to accept the concept of the Trinity (Nicene Council) and dualism of Christ (Council of Chalcedon), among others. Are these not the same as our temple recommend requirement list? I think so.

Also, different Christian churches place other requirements on their fold. Some Baptists are not allowed to dance. Some must not speak in tongues. Others are highly political (conservative or liberal) in their theology.

So, I personally think that this is a strawman they are placing before us.

We believe in a near universal salvation. We believe that any and all good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and even atheists will be saved. You will be hard pressed to find any traditional Christian churches that will make the same claim. Most will at least demand faith in Christ, and if one never heard of Christ, then he will just burn in hell anyway. To me, that does not seem very Christ-like. We teach that those who are ignorant of the law will not be judged by the law. All, except the sons of perdition (those who refuse to follow Christ, and become his complete and outright enemies), will be saved.

They place requirements on mortals that the mortals cannot accomplish. How could one who was born in the Congo 3000 years ago, accept Christ? He could not, according to traditional Christian teachings. That is a much more onerous requirement than asking a teen to not date until 16!

[rameumptom]

BTW, I just looked quickly at Liberty University's honor code. Not much different than BYU's. Also, they expect online students to follow the same code!

Here is part of their code. They also have a dress standard, etc.

LU Online Honor Code | Liberty University School of Law

[HEthePrimate]

Given the number of lawyers in the Church, there's bound to be a certain amount of legalism! Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious there is legalism in the Church, but it also depends on the person. Some bishops are super-legalistic, while others think, and govern their wards, differently. And this doesn't just apply to leaders, but to "regular" members, too.

Explanations of the Atonement are often put in legalistic terms. This may have its uses, but I think it places unfortunate limits on our understanding of our religion's core doctrine. So, I think it behooves us to think outside the legalistic box.

[Just_A_Guy]

Given the number of lawyers in the Church, there's bound to be a certain amount of legalism!

It's a chicken-and-egg cycle, I think. Understanding LDS doctrine and history--even on a relatively superficial level, and especially if you're going to dabble in apologetics--requires some basic proficiency at research, textual interpretation, and an ability to identify and account for context, ambiguity, and nuance. Those are also the core skill sets of legal practice.

[HEthePrimate]

It's a chicken-and-egg cycle, I think. Understanding LDS doctrine and history--even on a relatively superficial level, and especially if you're going to dabble in apologetics--requires some basic proficiency at research, textual interpretation, and an ability to identify and account for context, ambiguity, and nuance. Those are also the core skill sets of legal practice.

True enough, but not only of legal practice. A liberal arts education should provide that. But wait... people don't believe in liberal arts education any more, they prefer strictly vocational training these days.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey, my undergrad was history. But I developed this nasty habit of "eating", and my history degree just wasn't supporting my habit.

It's a pity, but it's just the way the world works for the time being.

[Last_Daze]

Given the number of lawyers in the Church, there's bound to be a certain amount of legalism!

Straw-man. Whatever your problem is with lawyers, it has nothing to do with the church.

The 'legalistic view' of the Atonement is probably something akin to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is but one possible way of explaining of how the Atonement works. It is not the only one, nor even the dominant one in LDS theology, to my understanding.

Legalism is not embodied either in a strict application of laws or a concern for a clear explanation of what the law actually says. One can be strict as all get-out and not a legalist. I'd imagine Christ was rather strict, what with stuff like "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Sounds pretty strict to me, but he was far from a legalist.

[hyohko]

I think the problem many of us have with legalism comes in two parts:

1) The hedge we draw around our own laws

2) The reaction some Latter-day Saints have when they see others breaking those laws or even the hedges we put around them.

Let's consider a few examples:

Many (not ALL, but MANY) of the rules outlined in For the Strength of Youth are not doctrines explicitly given in the scripture or canonized revelation. Music choices, clothing choices, friend choices - all the counsel given is wise, and in my opinion, SHOULD be followed. However, absent the breaking of a more serious commandment, a teen who goes out and gets a Mormon-disapproved piercing is not a SINNER. Other examples abound, many of which are cultural in nature, things that are done because "that's the way we always do things" - (white shirts for the sacrament, caffeine consumption, etc....I could go on for pages). These hedges serve to keep us away from outright sin (a good thing) and they serve to reinforce, in the minds of some, the legalistic attitude of Phariseeism (a VERY BAD THING).

Remember that Christ minced no words in his denunciation of "whited selpuchres," those "who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," who "make a man an offender for a word."

And that gets me to my second point.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint 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." --Matthew 23:23

How often can we be so cruel in speaking ill of someone - often a person who is struggling in their faith, trying to escape Babylon - who doesn't speak quite like a Mormon, who doesn't quite dress like a Mormon, who has kid (or is a kid) dating as a fifteen year old or buying stock in Mountain Dew? "How could they do such-and-such a thing - don't they know better?" And then the looks of disdain, glances of pity, and friends ignore and leave the almost-lost soul to the demise of their own perhaps-not-yet-sinful choices.

Yes, we should judge righteously, but we also, like the clearly-imperfect Samaritan, must rush to the side of the struggling, bind their wounds, and speak of mercy, of joy, of faith and of healing.

I believe there is a time and a place for words of condemnation - especially in clear cases of devilish hypocrisy. Jacob chapter 2 demonstrates this admirably. But let us save those words for times when they are NEEDED, and not to satisfy our own pride, our own self-righteousness. To all else, we must be angels of healing.