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

[HEthePrimate]

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

No need to be defensive. I actually have no problem at all with lawyers. Just saying (jokingly) that people's occupations are likely to affect their thinking. Pres. Uchtdorf likes to talk about piloting in his GC talks. Elder Nelson likes to talk about heart surgery and the human body in his talks. Same for lawyers.

Scripturally, the Atonement is often (though not always) talked about in terms of a courtroom scenario. The Devil (Diabolos) is quite literally the Prosecuting Attorney, opposed by the Parakletos defending us.

Legalism is quite common in the Church, but that doesn't mean the Church is untrue, nor does it mean that it's the only way of thinking found among Church members. Heck, the same person may switch between modes of thinking at different times, or about different subjects.

[Last_Daze]

Legalism is quite common in the Church, but that doesn't mean the Church is untrue, nor does it mean that it's the only way of thinking found among Church members. Heck, the same person may switch between modes of thinking at different times, or about different subjects.

Where is the legalism? I see no legalism; I see insistence on a high standard of conduct.

Legalism and strictness are not the same thing, regardless of context. Having strict rules or laws or regulations or whatever does not imply legalism.

[HEthePrimate]

Where is the legalism? I see no legalism; I see insistence on a high standard of conduct.

Legalism and strictness are not the same thing, regardless of context. Having strict rules or laws or regulations or whatever does not imply legalism.

Really? Take a look at the dictionary definitions of 'legalism':

legalism

–noun

1.

strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

2.

Theology .

a.

the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.

b.

the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

3.

( initial capital letter ) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.

Definition #3 can be discarded, as we're not talking about Chinese philosophy. But legalism according to the other definitions can be found in abundance in LDS culture. Again, as I said before, not everybody in the LDS Church thinks in legalistic terms, but to deny that it exists at all in our midst would be a mistake.

[Just_A_Guy]

But legalism according to the other definitions can be found in abundance in LDS culture. Again, as I said before, not everybody in the LDS Church thinks in legalistic terms, but to deny that it exists at all in our midst would be a mistake.

Sure; though it's probably worth noting "legalism" cuts both ways. For example: you'll see Mormons who justify their decision to watch some pretty nasty stuff by saying "well, the proscription on R-rated movies only turns up in For the Strength of Youth, and that pamphlet wasn't addressed to adults."

[Last_Daze]

PRIMATE:

I think you miss the letter vs. spirit distinction I alluded to earlier. Having strict standards and rules is not legalism; insisting on rigid and unthinking application of the letter of the law at the ignorance of the spirit is legalism. If your position is that this sort of thing is rampant in the LDS church, that is fine; my observations disagree, but that's okay. But I do wish that you would stop insisting that having rules, laws, etc. at all is legalism. It is not. Again: simply having laws is not legalism.

If teaching high standards for behavior, and insisting on teaching that God's laws exist to be followed, then I suppose I will have to admit that legalism abounds in the LDS church.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Last_Daze
x-ed with JAG

[HEthePrimate]

Sure; though it's probably worth noting "legalism" cuts both ways. For example: you'll see Mormons who justify their decision to watch some pretty nasty stuff by saying "well, the proscription on R-rated movies only turns up in For the Strength of Youth, and that pamphlet wasn't addressed to adults."

That's true. That's one of the problems with legalism. And as you note, it does happen among the LDS.

[MarginOfError]

Sure; though it's probably worth noting "legalism" cuts both ways. For example: you'll see Mormons who justify their decision to watch some pretty nasty stuff by saying "well, the proscription on R-rated movies only turns up in For the Strength of Youth, and that pamphlet wasn't addressed to adults."

This gets even more complicated by the fact that the R-rated movie thing was scrubbed from For the Strength of Youth in 2002.

[HEthePrimate]

PRIMATE:

I think you miss the letter vs. spirit distinction I alluded to earlier. Having strict standards and rules is not legalism; insisting on rigid and unthinking application of the letter of the law at the ignorance of the spirit is legalism.

No offense, but just because you define legalism differently than the dictionary does, doesn't mean you're right.

If your position is that this sort of thing is rampant in the LDS church, that is fine; my observations disagree, but that's okay. But I do wish that you would stop insisting that having rules, laws, etc. at all is legalism. It is not. Again: simply having laws is not legalism.

If teaching high standards for behavior, and insisting on teaching that God's laws exist to be followed, then I suppose I will have to admit that legalism abounds in the LDS church.

It would be fair to argue that legalism is not always a bad thing. For example, one definition of legalism is "strict adherence... to law or prescription." Well, strict adherence to the laws of God is clearly a good thing, is it not? And yet, it can be described as legalism.

Another kind of legalism is the type you allude to, adhering strictly to the letter of the law while missing its spirit. I think we can agree that that is not so good.

Some LDS teach that we earn salvation through good works. That is a form of legalism. Other LDS say (and I believe this is the 'official' LDS doctrine) that while good works are necessary, they are not sufficient unto salvation--God's grace is also necessary.

When we interview for a temple recommend, our conduct is judged in terms of adherence to precise laws. If we don't conform, we don't get a recommend. That is legalism, but it could be argued that this is a good type of legalism.

If you have not encountered legalism in the Church, then all I can say is that your experience has been different than mine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you think I am criticizing the Church because of the existence of legalism. No so. Legalism is a common human tendency, and its existence in the Church only tells me that Church members are human. Is that in question?

[Dravin]

Cue the definitional battle.

[HEthePrimate]

Cue the definitional battle.

:lol:

[Last_Daze]

No offense, but just because you define legalism differently than the dictionary does, doesn't mean you're right.

No offense, but did you even read the definition you quoted to me? It is right there: "adherence [...] to the letter of the law rather than the spirit."

I suppose we will have to disagree that the simple having of laws and insisting that they be followed constitutes legalism. By that definition, an absolute commitment to the spirit of the law could also, paradoxically, be legalism, especially when adherence to the spirit of the law creates a harsher result than the black letter of the law.

I suppose too that you can say that legalism is a good thing, if you want. But you'll have a hard time talking to those who use legalism as a slur, which was of course the whole point of the OP.

[prisonchaplain]

@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.

[zil2]

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Stacy Riddle!    I look forward to reading more from you.

[Carborendum]

Whatever Stacy wrote must have been pretty bad to have been deleted within the hour in a thread that is already pretty critical of Church practices.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Whatever Stacy wrote must have been pretty bad to have been deleted within the hour in a thread that is already pretty critical of Church practices.

The post had the letter "s" in it.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, zil2 said:

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Whatever Stacy wrote must have been pretty bad to have been deleted within the hour in a thread that is already pretty critical of Church practices.

The post had the letter "s" in it.

Which is to say, the post consisted solely of the letter 's', thusly:

s

[Carborendum]

On 10/29/2023 at 9:15 AM, zil2 said:

The post had the letter "s" in it.

19 hours ago, Vort said:

Which is to say, the post consisted solely of the letter 's', thusly:

s

then what prompted PC's response?

 

[zil2]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

then what prompted PC's response?

I assumed he was responding to the text she quoted - she quoted something and then wrote "s" - at least, that's what was there when I arrived in this thread.

[prisonchaplain]

I was responding to the text she quoted--the Original Post. @zil2 is correct. 

[Carborendum]

What the heck?  Just come onto the site to quote a post and leave?  Does that happen often?