Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mercy and compassion are also important virtues. Remember the adulterer whom Christ forgave?

You may think it a quibble, but Christ did not "forgive" her. The words are "Neither do I condemn thee." There's a difference, and I believe it to be significant.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

You may think it a quibble, but Christ did not "forgive" her. The words are "Neither do I condemn thee." There's a difference, and I believe it to be significant.

Lehi

No quibble, but i think my point still stands. If Christ followed just the letter of the law, he would have handed her over to the judges for death. Instead He followed the spirt of the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Sorry everyone for the consecutive posts. My new internet service provider is giving me loads of joy right now. It's making me say many non-LDS approved words. Sort of like what happened when the Gators lost to FSU this year! 

:mad:  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be more a question of "By what criteria can I judge people for doing/not doing something because they are obviously obeying the law wrong?", than "How can I be sure I'm obeying as I should?". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may think it a quibble, but Christ did not "forgive" her. The words are "Neither do I condemn thee." There's a difference, and I believe it to be significant.

Lehi

 

Not to quibble.....but, what do you suppose HE meant. A quick search for talks using this story as an example yielded one from President Monson in which he begins the story with "One of the most touching examples of mercy and forgiveness is the well-remembered experience in the life of Jesus, when he “went unto the mount of Olives........

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking with my darling about the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. My question was: Is it just as serious to break the spirit of the law as it is the letter of the law? For example, while the Church has no official position regarding the consumption of caffeinated soft drinks as violating the WoW, several church leaders have stated either directly or by implication that it violates the spirit of the WoW. Additionally, there are many articles on the Church web site that condemn drinking them, yet members persist in justifying their drinking by saying “there's no official position.”

 

I think breaking the spirit of the law goes back to being commanded in all things.

 

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

(Doctrine and Covenants 58:26)

 

I find it interesting to see the different positions on the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. On my mission other missionaries liked to use the term spirit of the law to refer to a more lenient version of the law. For instance they would look at the curfew as a loose guideline with the intention to avoid getting into trouble, but as long as they weren't doing anything against the commandments they felt there was no reason to rush back "home" for the night. I always felt that simply staying out past curfew was in fact breaking a commandment specific to our situation and was therefore self evidently "getting into trouble" in a sense. 

 

Missionaries also have a rule about sleeping in the same room, but not the same bed. I generally feel that this rule is two-fold in spirit - A) it is a protection for missionaries for a variety of reasons - they can witness better as to the others whereabouts and it also makes sneaking out alone a bit more troublesome for those so inclined to do so. B) not sleeping in the same bed should essentially go without saying as to why it's in there, but the spirit of the law would seemingly dictate that it is to prevent unchaste encounters with your companion. I developed a tendency to bring this up when I had new companions explain to me that they were "spirit of the law missionaries"; I would refer to this particular rule and ask them if they would like to break the letter of the law by sleeping in the same bed, but uphold the spirit of the law by not fooling around. I got some weird looks, but they quickly caught on that I wasn't of the belief that the spirit of the law should be anything less than the letter of the law.

 

I do think any time we try to justify one way or the other using the rationale of the spirit of the law we are in potentially dangerous territory, because we might not understand what the spirit of the law is in its entirety. There is safety in obeying the law period.

 

Possible examples - 

Is the spirit of the law of tithing to remind us that everything we have comes from God? Or is it to teach us something about sacrifice or something else entirely? A combination of more things?

 

Is pornography breaking the higher law of chastity to look on a woman and lust after her in your heart? Can appropriately dressed women be pornographic? where is the line drawn?

 

Is it Sabbath breaking to do dishes on Sunday? You have six days to do your work and labour?

 

The point is to do what you believe the spirit of God dictates while keeping the letter of the law. I myself don't think that I fully understand the law of tithing - I just pay it based on gross income (you can pay on net income, and I won't judge - I think about switching from time to time) I don't know really what blessings I get from it, but I don't plan to stop paying in order to find out what I lose. As for porn - I think it is important to guard our thoughts always, but certainly important to avoid provocative images and content designed to create lustful thoughts whether the individuals involved are fully dressed or fully exposed or any where in between. Some may contend that nudity can be artistic, and maybe for some it can be - for me I think it should be avoided.

 

Sabbath breaking is such a wild area - my father-in-law seems to believe that home teaching is Sabbath breaking. I find it to be a perfectly uplifting Sabbath activity that keeps my focus on the Saviour.

 

Does anyone want to touch face cards? Several general authorities have condemned the use of "playing cards" and "face cards" as evil time wasting vices that can lead to problems with gambling and other unwholesome activities by familiarity with the tools of the craft. I don't know too many members who follow this counsel though. It seems to be all but forgotten.

 

As for the caffeine and the word of wisdom issue I find it intriguing. The word of wisdom was not enforced for something on the order of fifty years after the revelation was received "not by way of commandment" as a preparatory phase to when it would become mandatory for a temple recommend which is a requirement for important ordinances. I wonder if just as the early saints were given a long time to break into the idea of following the word of wisdom before it was later enforced strongly if the caffeinated beverages category could one day be a requirement, but is not at this time. I don't actually think it will ever be officially made policy, but having prophets and apostles say to avoid it is enough for me whether it is part of the word of wisdom or not.

 

Does the church have any official policy on ear rings? I remember Gordon B. Hinckley giving a talk and letting the brethren know that ear rings are not for men and that sisters should only where one pair of ear rings. I wouldn't want to with-hold temple blessings from a sister because she wheres two ear rings in one ear or drinks Pepsi, but when I was looking for a spouse these things would have struck me as red flags that this individual doesn't follow prophetic counsel the same way I plan to and therefore isn't who I'm looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to quibble.....but, what do you suppose HE meant.

 

I suppose he meant exactly what is recorded that he said: That he did not condemn the woman. Christ's purpose in mortality was not to condemn, but to save. That doesn't mean condemnation is never appropriate, only that it was not appropriate at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is confusion here between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. See my above distinction. The letter of the law can only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law. The letter of the law may try to define how we must act, but it cannot define every point.

Now you may say that some statement like, "always do good" is the letter of the law but such a statement is meaningless to one who only lives the letter of the law for they do not even know what "good" is.

How can - be ye therefore perfect - only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law? What about love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? Only a portion? Really?

Maybe think on this a bit more thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No quibble, but i think my point still stands. If Christ followed just the letter of the law, he would have handed her over to the judges for death. Instead He followed the spirt of the law.

You're confusing God's law and man's law. Christ always followed God's law to the letter. It was man's law he did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing God's law and man's law. Christ always followed God's law to the letter. It was man's law he did not.

 

Who's law is this?

 

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

 

Was this not the law in effect at the time Gator is speaking of? I'm fully in favour of supporting both the spirit and letter of the law, and I would tend to agree with what you have said about your feelings on it as well, but in this case I feel like Gator has a case. I'm not saying Christ broke the law in any way, but I am saying that on the surface it appears a contradiction that could be worth discussing. I mean the written word or "letter" of the law does seem to say that adulterers should be killed, yet in this case when asked for His thoughts on the matter He chose mercy instead of punishment, albeit without taking a stand one way or the other at first to avoid being trapped - on the one hand I suppose he would break the command "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand break "such should be stoned to death" so He opted for the impasse of he who is without sin let him first cast a stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quote from BYU.

 

 

“One of the ironies which is fostered, at times innocently, in the Church, is the feeling we have that the spirit of the law is superior to the letter of the law because for some reason it seems more permissive or less apt to offend others. The reverse is true. The spirit of the law is superior because it demands more of us than the letter of the law. The spirit of the law insists that we do more than merely comply superficially. It means, too, that we must give attention to the things that matter most and still not leave the others undone.”

Neal A. Maxwel

For the Power Is in Them, Pgs. 46-47

 

There is really no dichotomy between living the letter of the law and living the spirit of the law. One has to live the letter of the law in order to live the spirit of the law; one must live the spirit of the law in order to be able to live the letter of the law.

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Letter%20vs%20Spirit-Maxwell.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I like the quote by Elder Maxwell, as that is pretty much how I see it. To me, the Spirit of the law means trying to understand what the Lord's will is and doing it...not needing everything spelled out for you. I'm guessing we would all agree on that. Where we differ is in how what interpret the Spirit of the law.

For example, without being aware of it, I used to be very much a letter of the law person. When Passion of the Christ came out there was no way I was going to see it. It didn't matter that it was about Christ, it was rated R and that was that.

Now, I still choose not to see that movie, but I have no problem if others do. I think that it fits within the Spirit of the law which to me in this case is "avoid movies that will drive away the Spirit". I recently watched an R-rated movie, because I had read the book, which was very powerful and healing to me.

As far as the Word of Wisdom... I think anytime we eat something we know isn't good for us, or over eat that is violating the Spirit of the WoW. I'm horrible at the WoW. For temple attendance though, I think a strict interpretation is intended.

I think the most important thing though is that we use these guidelines to improve ourselves and not to judge others. We are all too vulnerable to pride... Pride makes us want to compare ourselves to others (and look for ways we can judge ourselves to be superior). That is something we really should be careful of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can - be ye therefore perfect - only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law? What about love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? Only a portion? Really?

Maybe think on this a bit more thoroughly.

Your post and a few others are confusing the definition of letter and spirit of the law. As defined by Paul the two take different paths. For example he said, "[God] who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor 3:6). The letter killeth. Why? Because it is about exact rules and regulations which have no heart in them. In the strict sense of the term, the letter of the law is about following specific commandments with unwavering exactness. So if Nephi followed the letter of the law he would never have killed Laban. If Abraham followed the letter of the law only he would never have taken his son Isaac up into the mountain to be sacrificed. If the Savior himself had followed the letter of the law he would never have allowed himself to knowingly be killed. 

 

Commandments like, "love the Lord your God with all your heart might mind and strength" do not even compute for one who follows the letter of the law only. Why? Because by definition a strict letter of the law person cannot even understand the spirit of love and its various nuances. A letter of the law person needs tangible acts to perform and specific rules to follow. Thus you may say something like, "nurse your neighbor to health when he is sick" but simply saying "love your neighbor" is way too vague.

 

Now of course, there are no people who entirely live the letter of the law, but let's not confuse the definition and say that to live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of it. No. The two lead to completely different results. One brings life, the other death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

You're confusing God's law and man's law. Christ always followed God's law to the letter. It was man's law he did not.

 Nope. Actually, the more I think about it the better the example is of the difference between the "spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law".

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quote from BYU.

 

“One of the ironies which is fostered, at times innocently, in the Church, is the feeling we have that the spirit of the law is superior to the letter of the law because for some reason it seems more permissive or less apt to offend others. The reverse is true. The spirit of the law is superior because it demands more of us than the letter of the law. The spirit of the law insists that we do more than merely comply superficially. It means, too, that we must give attention to the things that matter most and still not leave the others undone.”

Neal A. Maxwel

For the Power Is in Them, Pgs. 46-47

 

There is really no dichotomy between living the letter of the law and living the spirit of the law. One has to live the letter of the law in order to live the spirit of the law; one must live the spirit of the law in order to be able to live the letter of the law.

http://emp.byui.edu/...rit-Maxwell.pdf

 

I love the quote by Elder Maxwell and agree with it entirely. However, I'm not sure where the second statement came from and do not believe it follows what Elder Maxwell said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose he meant exactly what is recorded that he said: That he did not condemn the woman. Christ's purpose in mortality was not to condemn, but to save. That doesn't mean condemnation is never appropriate, only that it was not appropriate at that time.

 

Yes, but do you think as President Monson suggests, that Christ forgave her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's law is this?

 

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

 

Was this not the law in effect at the time Gator is speaking of? I'm fully in favour of supporting both the spirit and letter of the law, and I would tend to agree with what you have said about your feelings on it as well, but in this case I feel like Gator has a case. I'm not saying Christ broke the law in any way, but I am saying that on the surface it appears a contradiction that could be worth discussing. I mean the written word or "letter" of the law does seem to say that adulterers should be killed, yet in this case when asked for His thoughts on the matter He chose mercy instead of punishment, albeit without taking a stand one way or the other at first to avoid being trapped - on the one hand I suppose he would break the command "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand break "such should be stoned to death" so He opted for the impasse of he who is without sin let him first cast a stone.

 

The notion is already explain, I think you would agree (could be wrong), the letter pertaining to Christ is that he came to fulfill the law.  His compassion toward this woman was indeed following the letter of the law which was prophesied of him.  A returning to what was done previously before the law of Moses was in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the quote by Elder Maxwell and agree with it entirely. However, I'm not sure where the second statement came from and do not believe it follows what Elder Maxwell said.

 

I think the PDF file I got this from was a student handout created by a teacher.  The second paragraph was added after the quote but I don't think it was written by Elder Maxwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but do you think as President Monson suggests, that Christ forgave her?

 

Not in the way you are suggesting, no. But then, the fact that President Monson cited this event as an example of "forgiveness" does not mean either that (1) he (President Monson) meant to say that Jehovah granted forgiveness and cleansing to this woman of her filthy adulterous behaviors at that moment or (2) Jesus actually granted the adulteress such absolution. That Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee" at that time doesn't mean he meant "I fully forgive thee"; we are granted a space to repent, as both the Book of Mormon and common-sense observation teach.

 

Many times, I have heard leaders misuse teachings or historical events to illustrate a perfectly true principle -- such as the 180° misunderstanding of the Isaiah passages reading "his hand is stretched out still" as being some sort of confirmation of divine love and forgiveness for those who abandon their sins, or telling an oversimplification of the story of the apostasy of Thomas Marsh and his wife as being an example of allowing a small, insignificant thing (and our own pride) to drive us away from God. There is in fact divine love and forgiveness to all those who would turn away from their sins, even if that is not what the Isaiah passages actually mean. We can in fact allow insignificant minutiae couple with our own pride to drive us away from God, even if the Thomas Marsh history is significantly more nuanced than the simplified story would suggest. The book of Matthew is full of such misapprehensions and downright misstatements of Old Testament passages, attempting to show Christ's divinity (a true principle) through what can best be described as a wholesale slaughter of the literal meaning and context of many Old Testament passages.

 

If President Monson meant to suggest that Jesus eternally forgave the adulteress right there on the spot, then that might well be true. But I could also understand it as an attempt to explain a true and important gospel principle using an example that doesn't actually fit, as has often been done before. Whether or not President Monson meant to suggest such a thing, I am pretty confident that he did not mean to declare new revelatory doctrine that we should thenceforth teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No quibble, but i think my point still stands. If Christ followed just the letter of the law, he would have handed her over to the judges for death. Instead He followed the spirt of the law.

You're right, but it's a different thing to forgive something rather than to fail to condemn it.

First, it is possible that the "woman taken in adultery" was not committing adultery at all, that she was a plant the scribes, etc., planned to use to discredit Him.

Second, it is possible that, since the man was not also "taken in adultery", that the Law was not being obeyed in either the letter or the spirit.

Third, the woman's husband was the one who was harmed. (If she was a widow or divorced, it was not adultery.) Since he did not condemn her, Christ had no cause to do so.

The list could go on for many pages.

Call it "prosecutorial discretion" if you will: He did not condemn her, so there was no punishment required. If you go to court and your accuser is not in the room, the judge will dismiss the case (usually "with prejudice" so no further action can arise).

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be more a question of "By what criteria can I judge people for doing/not doing something because they are obviously obeying the law wrong?", than "How can I be sure I'm obeying as I should?". 

That is exactly what it sounds like to me.  Our ex bishops daughter gave a talk about following the prophets several months ago. One thing she said stuck out and it was specifically about cola drinks. She stated that the prophet (Gorden Hinleky) said that we shouldn't drink them so she doesn't and if we followed the prophet we wouldn't drink them either.

 

I thought to myself that's pretty self-righteous, and I tuned out the rest of her talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's law is this?

 

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

 

Was this not the law in effect at the time Gator is speaking of? I'm fully in favour of supporting both the spirit and letter of the law, and I would tend to agree with what you have said about your feelings on it as well, but in this case I feel like Gator has a case. I'm not saying Christ broke the law in any way, but I am saying that on the surface it appears a contradiction that could be worth discussing. I mean the written word or "letter" of the law does seem to say that adulterers should be killed, yet in this case when asked for His thoughts on the matter He chose mercy instead of punishment, albeit without taking a stand one way or the other at first to avoid being trapped - on the one hand I suppose he would break the command "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand break "such should be stoned to death" so He opted for the impasse of he who is without sin let him first cast a stone.

 

"The law" here gets kind of a bad rap.  In practical terms it would be extremely difficult to impose the death penalty for adultery under Jewish law, because such executions were subject to meeting the following conditions: 

  1. There had to be two witnesses in capital crimes, not just one (Deut 17:6) (who's going to commit adultery in front of multiple witnesses?);
  2. The witnesses had to begin the act of execution (Deut 17:7); and
  3. Both parties to the adulterous act must suffer the same fate (Deut 20:10).

Executions under Jewish law were supposed to be rare, and Jesus simply reminded the Jewish leadership of that.  "Okay", He says, "if you want to apply the law, be sure you're applying the entire law, or else go home."  (Foreshadowing James 2:10, by the way). 

 

This created a double-dare for the prosecution:  First, to try to get a conviction under circumstances they knew to be impossible under Jewish law; and second, to try to impose capital punishment even though their Roman overlords had specifically denied them that prerogative. 

 

The "pricking in [the Pharisees'] conscience" wasn't some "well, golly gee willikers, I guess nobody's perfect!".  It was "Oh, crap--this Galilean hick called our bluff before the Romans, and schooled us in the Mosaic law!"  It was a humiliation twice over. 

 

And, more to the point of this discussion:  It was the Mosaic law--and Jesus' argument thereunder--that saved this woman's life.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts – it is man (including G-d) that is important and the love of others (G-d and man) on which the law is based. With that in mind, it is my understanding that the law is to help and assist us and that man (us) was not created for the law but that the law was created for us and our benefit. As we understand and love G-d and man (which love does not distinguish between the two) we will realize that in truth there is no difference between the spirit and letter of the law – anymore than that we should think in terms of the differences between G-d and man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

You're right, but it's a different thing to forgive something rather than to fail to condemn it.

First, it is possible that the "woman taken in adultery" was not committing adultery at all, that she was a plant the scribes, etc., planned to use to discredit Him.

Second, it is possible that, since the man was not also "taken in adultery", that the Law was not being obeyed in either the letter or the spirit.

Third, the woman's husband was the one who was harmed. (If she was a widow or divorced, it was not adultery.) Since he did not condemn her, Christ had no cause to do so.

The list could go on for many pages.

Call it "prosecutorial discretion" if you will: He did not condemn her, so there was no punishment required. If you go to court and your accuser is not in the room, the judge will dismiss the case (usually "with prejudice" so no further action can arise).

Lehi

 Good points. I don't 100% agree, but I don't really 100% disagree either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share