Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure that we're conflating a variety of things. It never does good to use Paul to try and argue a contemporary point related to "the law" however. Paul was speaking, very plainly, to the Jews and about the law of Moses.

 

What's being confused here is that Paul, in speaking of the "deadness" of the law or the how the letter "killeth" is that he is speaking of Eternal law rather than the law of Moses.

 

If you are also speaking of the law of Moses then you are right. If you're translating it to our current law...the law given as a replacement for the law of Moses...the law given by Christ...then you are wrong. To live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of the law. It is one and the same, and that is, in fact, exactly the law the Christ brought and taught.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

I'll grant, in this case, I didn't look at "the law" before posting. I know that, for the most part, the laws Christ broke were laws invented by man and not eternal laws. I'll have to think on this.

 

Edit: I refer to JaG's reply above as my further thinking on the matter.

Edited December 28, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

 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".

 

By implication, the law, particularly this law (stone those who are adulterers), as given by God, was meant to be entirely ignored. By implication anyone who, therefore, followed that law, rather than the spirit of the law (what, exactly, is the "spirit" of the stone adulterer's law?) was drinking death to themselves. Which leads to the question -- what exactly was the point of giving that law in the first place?

 

What you and others seem to be saying is that the laws God gives us will lead us to damnation. That we are, somehow, apparently, supposed to ignore them in favor of some higher way. Same question then...what is the point of giving us laws if we're supposed to ignore them?

[Anddenex]

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

 

The irony of this statement causes me to chuckle a little bit.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

What you and others seem to be saying is that the laws God gives us will lead us to damnation. That we are, somehow, apparently, supposed to ignore them in favor of some higher way. Same question then...what is the point of giving us laws if we're supposed to ignore them?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry it came out that way.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.  

Following each one radically is truly dangerous. That's why a cold, self righteous judge who has no compassion towards others is just as bad as a free spirit who ignores the law-but the free spirit will be called out more. 

I freely admit I have a personal bias-I don't like authority or tradition, and I think the law is often times dogmatic,cold and uncaring. Oddly though, those who follow the law-no matter how draconic it might be, can't admit their bias. No, I'm not saying it's you FP-you know I have nothing but respect for you as a brother in Christ- just raising the point. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by MormonGator

[james12]

I'm pretty sure that we're conflating a variety of things. It never does good to use Paul to try and argue a contemporary point related to "the law" however. Paul was speaking, very plainly, to the Jews and about the law of Moses.

What's being confused here is that Paul, in speaking of the "deadness" of the law or the how the letter "killeth" is that he is speaking of Eternal law rather than the law of Moses.

If you are also speaking of the law of Moses then you are right. If you're translating it to our current law...the law given as a replacement for the law of Moses...the law given by Christ...then you are wrong. To live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of the law. It is one and the same, and that is, in fact, exactly the law the Christ brought and taught.

when talking about the letter and spirit of the law Paul is the authority on the subject so I disagree that we should push Paul into obsolescence. I also disagree with your narrow interpretation of Paul's words. Certainly he often referred to the law of Moses but his words are of much wider application. To not see this misses an important truth about how to live the gospel.

I could also point to Nephi and Mormon/Moroni who talk about living the spirit of the law. So again by definition the letter is in contrast to the spirit of the law and an important distinction is lost when the two are mistakenly defined as the same term.

[Anddenex]

when talking about the letter and spirit of the law Paul is the authority on the subject so I disagree that we should push Paul into obsolescence. I also disagree with your narrow interpretation of Paul's words. Certainly he often referred to the law of Moses but his words are of much wider application. To not see this misses an important truth about how to live the gospel.

I could also point to Nephi and Mormon/Moroni who talk about living the spirit of the law. So again by definition the letter is in contrast to the spirit of the law and an important distinction is lost when the two are mistakenly defined as the same term.

 

I thought the Spirit was the authority for the Spirit of the law

[james12]

...what exactly was the point of giving that law in the first place?

 

What you and others seem to be saying is that the laws God gives us will lead us to damnation. That we are, somehow, apparently, supposed to ignore them in favor of some higher way. Same question then...what is the point of giving us laws if we're supposed to ignore them?

Paul, who I urge you to consider again in the wider sense of which I discussed, addressed this very point. He says, "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7 NRSV). Before we are experts in the spirit, the law teaches us about right and wrong (Paul would say it is our school master to bring us to Christ). It gives us guidelines on our behavior so we can start to feel the spirit and distinguish good from evil. However, once we can recognize the spirit in all it's forms we do not need the specifics. This is not ignoring the law, rather it is fulfilling the law in every way shape and form. And it is not, living in a more lax fashion but in a more exact one as Elder Maxwell stated. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Has anyone else noticed that disagreement on this forum is much more polite and decent than disagreement anywhere else on the internet? 

I'm so happy I found this forum. 

[bytor2112]

Vort, I really appreciate the time you gave to your response to my question. I have never really thought of it that way and have always just assumed that she was forgiven...at least for the moment unless/until she transgressed again. 

[Anddenex]

I could also point to Nephi and Mormon/Moroni who talk about living the spirit of the law. So again by definition the letter is in contrast to the spirit of the law and an important distinction is lost when the two are mistakenly defined as the same term.

 

Highlighted portion:

 

In Jesus the Christ, "The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for she habitually accompanied her husband to the annual gathering at Jerusalem."

 

How does an individual follow both the letter and the spirit of rules/laws if they contrast each other?  It appears you are saying you obey one or the other, not both.

 

The spirit of the law compliments the letter, and often when acting on the spirit of the law (for minor laws) they are acting upon a different letter of the law.  You mention Nephi, what letter of the law was Nephi obeying when he killed Laban?  

 

The contrast is when traditions of the letter of the law were lived upon while ignoring the spirit, or truth, of the letter of the law given, Or as Elder Maxwell presents, "'Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?' Jesus counter-challenge.  Can we not keep the spirit of the law without leaving other things undone?  Without such spiritual balance, staying on the strait and narrow path will be a great trial for us."

 

The contrast is the tradition lived with regard to the letter of the law the Jews were living.  Wait you can't heal a person on the Sabbath?  A tradition which truly contrast the spirit.  The letter of the law given to Moses never included it is not lawful to do good.  This was the tradition taught and lived upon the letter, which were inaccurate.  Paul speaks out against the same traditions, which contrast not only the spirit of the law, as well as the letter (the actual letter) provided.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Anddenex

[zil]

As has been said, Paul must be taken in context - he was combating the influence of Judaizers. (IMO, all scripture must, and the context starts in Genesis and ends in the Articles of Faith.)  Yes, what he teaches can be applied outside the exact context, but only correctly when we understand what he was saying in context.

 

From the Institute New Testament Student Manual for 2 Corinthians 3:6:

 

 

Paul declared to the Corinthian Saints that he was a minister of the “new testament,” meaning the new covenant of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He referred to the old covenant, which was the law of Moses, as the “letter” and the new covenant as “the spirit.”

 

And since I can't find the source (have spent a couple hours and now decided to give up), you're welcome to ignore this, but in some church manual, I read that the reason the law kills (or leads to death) is because the punishment for violating even the smallest part of the law is spiritual death.  Given our fallen nature, none of us will be free from sin, thus, the law punishes us with spiritual death.  The only escape is through the Atonement, which answers the ends of the law, so that we can be freed from this punishment.  (IMO, Romans 7 teaches this concept.)

 

NOTE: Everyone I talked to about this (3 good members, 1 bishop/seminary teacher, 1 stake president/seminary teacher) all started with the idea of obeying the letter without understanding the spirit (that this leads to being like the scribes and pharisees), just like this quote from above manual:

 

 

Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles applied Paul’s words to our need to understand the “spirit” or “why” of God’s commandments:

“Doctrine usually answers the question ‘why?’ Principles usually answer the question ‘what?’ Whenever we emphasize how to do something without reference to why we do it or what we do, we risk looking beyond the mark. At the very least, we fall into the trap Paul described to the Corinthians: ‘For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life’ (2 Corinthians 3:6).

..."

 

And every one of them explained that when we follow the spirit of the law, we obey the letter of the law as well (the reverse doesn't have to be true).  (In other words, obeying the "spirit of the law" cannot excuse one from "letter of the law".)  They also found my memory of what I'd read in some manual to be a sound interpretation.

 

IMO, in too many posts herein we're understanding "spirit of the law" and "letter of the law" the way the world does in dealing with worldly laws.  That interpretation may be fine for worldly laws, but not for God's laws.

 

Edit: (oops, forgot to add to my list of consultees: 1 brother, 1 father)

Edited December 29, 2015 by zil

[james12]

Highlighted portion:

 

In Jesus the Christ, "The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for she habitually accompanied her husband to the annual gathering at Jerusalem."

 

How does an individual follow both the letter and the spirit of rules/laws if they contrast each other?  It appears you are saying you obey one or the other, not both.

 

The spirit of the law compliments the letter, and often when acting on the spirit of the law (for minor laws) they are acting upon a different letter of the law.  You mention Nephi, what letter of the law was Nephi obeying when he killed Laban?  

 

The contrast is when traditions of the letter of the law were lived upon while ignoring the spirit, or truth, of the letter of the law given, Or as Elder Maxwell presents, "'Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?' Jesus counter-challenge.  Can we not keep the spirit of the law without leaving other things undone?  Without such spiritual balance, staying on the strait and narrow path will be a great trial for us."

 

The contrast is the tradition lived with regard to the letter of the law the Jews were living.  Wait you can't heal a person on the Sabbath?  A tradition which truly contrast the spirit.  The letter of the law given to Moses never included it is not lawful to do good.  This was the tradition taught and lived upon the letter, which were inaccurate.  Paul speaks out against the same traditions, which contrast not only the spirit of the law, as well as the letter (the actual letter) provided.

Hi Anddenex,

I think contrast is not the ideal word. They are not polar opposites. Generally one can follow both the letter and spirit of the law, in fact this should be the normal situation should it not? After all the letter is meant to lead us to the spirit of the law, so I have nothing against the letter. But if were not careful we may lose the spirit of the law and simply follow the letter of it. So at some point we must come to the spirit of the law and then it will not mater about the letter of the law for the spirit of the law encompasses it. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point about Nephi, maybe you can further explain. However, I would say that the letter of the law is designed to compliment the spirit of the law, not the other way around. 

[SpiritDragon]

"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.

 

You're one smart fellow JaG. Where did you learn all this? Color me impressed.

[The Folk Prophet]

James12,

 

Which particular action, thought, choice, behavior, etc., falls under the spirit of the law but is not covered by the letter? If you're going to stand by the idea that the letter of the law is insufficient then you must be able to answer this question plainly. You cannot, of course, without narrowly defining "the law". Well what "law" are we talking about here? Once again, sure, if we narrow it to mean the law of Moses or the like, then we might be able to view the letter and the spirit of the law differently. But if we mean, as we clearly do in our time, the law of God as given by His prophets and apostles and by Christ himself, then there is no principle of good that can rightly be ascribed to outside the law. If you know of something, please...share.

Edited December 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

...when we follow the spirit of the law, we obey the letter of the law as well (the reverse doesn't have to be true).

 

As per my question to James12 above, wherein is this not true in reverse? I challenge you to define a situation where one is truly following the full letter of the law and yet failing to follow the spirit. You cannot, because the letter of the law, as taught by Christ and the scriptures, includes every portion of the so-called spirit of the law.

 

Any example given fails. Paying tithing with a sour heart...then the letter of the law is not being followed because we have been commanded, again and again, to not pay tithing begrudgingly. Going to church but not listening or engaging? Once again, the letter of the law's got it covered. Not listening in church, etc., is disobedient.

 

Humility. Kindness. Love. Patience. Long-suffering. All covered by the law of Christ. In full!

 

We cannot separate obedience from right and I don't know why so many seem to want to. Obedience is sufficient, and it is all that has been asked of us. Nothing more. If we are obedient -- fully obedient -- then we are justified. If we are not obedient -- in any regard, even in attitude -- then we are not faithful to the law.

Edited December 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

Hi Anddenex,

I think contrast is not the ideal word. They are not polar opposites. Generally one can follow both the letter and spirit of the law, in fact this should be the normal situation should it not? After all the letter is meant to lead us to the spirit of the law, so I have nothing against the letter. But if were not careful we may lose the spirit of the law and simply follow the letter of it. So at some point we must come to the spirit of the law and then it will not mater about the letter of the law for the spirit of the law encompasses it. 

 

The confusion, I assume, I am experiencing is the notion that the "letter" becomes antiquated (obsolete). Would you expound, clarify, the teachings that you feel highlight this point?  

 

My understanding of the spirit and letter is that they are both complimentary.  The letter and law exist much like the physical and spiritual exist, and compliment each other (Spiritual being higher than (Supreme than) the physical as the spirit is higher than the letter). 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point about Nephi, maybe you can further explain. However, I would say that the letter of the law is designed to compliment the spirit of the law, not the other way around. 

 

Nephi is a common exemplum used to illustrate difference between the spirit and letter of the law.  In many cases, people will use Nephi as a reason to break the letter, or to ignore the letter.  I find the exact opposite in this experience of Nephi. The letter and spirit are both adhered to.

 

We have been given two great commandments (laws). 1) Love the Lord thy God with all they heart... 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.  These are both letters, and the spirit of each commandment is given as well.  These two laws/commandments engulf all other laws, letter and spirit.  

 

When Nephi killed Laban he was honoring the spirit and letter of the first great and second great commandments (laws).  He also honored other letter of laws, 1) Keep the commandments and you will be blessed.  2) Laban sought his life, and under the letter of the law of Moses Nephi had every right to kill Laban. 3) Laban had stolen their property 4) The Lord hath delivered...  Nephi was informed, and remembered all of these things and then this letter entered his mind, "Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, thy shall prosper in the land of promise."  The letter, and the spirit of each law, complimented Nephi such that he knew taking Laban's life honored the first great commandment, and right before he kills Laban he then honors also the second, "Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments..." (emphasis on "they")

 

The spirit and letter were obeyed; although, if not for the Spirit telling him to kill (the first great commandment) he would not have done so.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Anddenex

[mirkwood]

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)

 

You know they serve caffeneited drinks in the temple don't you?

[Guest MormonGator]

You know they serve caffeneited drinks in the temple don't you?

 They do? The three times I've been to the temple I haven't been to the cafeteria part-only done the sealing, baptisms for the dead and endowment. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[james12]

James12,

 

Which particular action, thought, choice, behavior, etc., falls under the spirit of the law but is not covered by the letter? If you're going to stand by the idea that the letter of the law is insufficient then you must be able to answer this question plainly. You cannot, of course, without narrowly defining "the law". Well what "law" are we talking about here? Once again, sure, if we narrow it to mean the law of Moses or the like, then we might be able to view the letter and the spirit of the law differently. But if we mean, as we clearly do in our time, the law of God as given by His prophets and apostles and by Christ himself, then there is no principle of good that can rightly be ascribed to outside the law. If you know of something, please...share.

Any action which is not done willingly, with real intent, and according to the spirit of the Lord follows the letter of the law. It does not matter if the commandment can be written in words.

 

If you will consider what you have said you will see that even the Law of Moses does not follow your definition of letter of the law. But let me comment more to Anddenex on this matter since his question is more to this point.

[The Folk Prophet]

Any action which is not done willingly, with real intent, and according to the spirit of the Lord follows the letter of the law. 

 

Well I don't know about you, but I've been commanded to obey willingly with real intent and according to the spirit of the Lord. I'm not sure which law you're following, but the one I've been given tells me to do these things.

[Guest MormonGator]

Well I don't know about you, but I've been commanded to obey willingly with real intent and according to the spirit of the Lord. I'm not sure which law you're following, but the one I've been given tells me to do these things.

 FP-In a show of unity, I'd like to attend temple with you. Dead serious. I think it'd be great! 

If you are ever in gator country, look me up! 

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

Really, it seems to come down to one of two positions:

 

1. We must obey the commandments, but this is insufficient -- we must also become like Christ.

 

2. Becoming like Christ is a commandment.

 

The correct position is obvious to the point that I'm not sure why the debate really needs to occur.

[james12]

The confusion, I assume, I am experiencing is the notion that the "letter" becomes antiquated (obsolete). Would you expound, clarify, the teachings that you feel highlight this point?

Sure I'll give a few. Nephi says, "And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given: wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith: yet we keep the law because of the commandments" (2 Ne 25:24-25). Now typically we take this statement by Nephi and say Christ came to give us better rules and rituals and the old rules/rituals (ie Law of Moses) are done away. But we do not take Nephi's words far enough for all we have done is replaced old rules with new rules which we claim are better. But ultimately the very rules themselves must become dead unto us so that the spirit of the Lord may live in us. Or as Paul put it, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal 5:18)

 

Nephi continues, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). Let us not harden our hearts because we find that at some point the letter of the law must be done away in us.

 

Please understand, this is not an argument to forget all the commandments, stop striving, or to do less than our duty. It is an acknowledgement that rules bind but the spirit gives life. It is a recognition that Christ is the culmination of the law and following his spirit will lead us right. 

 

My understanding of the spirit and letter is that they are both complimentary.  The letter and law exist much like the physical and spiritual exist, and compliment each other (Spiritual being higher than (Supreme than) the physical as the spirit is higher than the letter). 

 

Nephi is a common exemplum used to illustrate difference between the spirit and letter of the law.  In many cases, people will use Nephi as a reason to break the letter, or to ignore the letter.  I find the exact opposite in this experience of Nephi. The letter and spirit are both adhered to.

 

We have been given two great commandments (laws). 1) Love the Lord thy God with all they heart... 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.  These are both letters, and the spirit of each commandment is given as well.  These two laws/commandments engulf all other laws, letter and spirit.  

 

When Nephi killed Laban he was honoring the spirit and letter of the first great and second great commandments (laws).  He also honored other letter of laws, 1) Keep the commandments and you will be blessed.  2) Laban sought his life, and under the letter of the law of Moses Nephi had every right to kill Laban. 3) Laban had stolen their property 4) The Lord hath delivered...  Nephi was informed, and remembered all of these things and then this letter entered his mind, "Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, thy shall prosper in the land of promise."  The letter, and the spirit of each law, complimented Nephi such that he knew taking Laban's life honored the first great commandment, and right before he kills Laban he then honors also the second, "Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments..." (emphasis on "they")

 

The spirit and letter were obeyed; although, if not for the Spirit telling him to kill (the first great commandment) he would not have done so.

Let me again point to definition. If by letter you simply mean all the words and commandments ever given then sure at any one time we will find ourselves obeying some written commandments while breaking some others. As Joseph Smith said, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed" (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith p. 507-509). So, Nephi can kill Laban and follow some commandments and so we could say that he was following the letter of the law. But this is not the sense in which Paul talks about the letter/spirit of the law and in this conversation we would do well not to confuse written commandments with the letter of the law as defined by Paul.

 

To further this point consider this, if the Law of Moses contains the two commandments upon which all others are based as you have noted; then according to your logic the Law of Moses cannot be done away. For it contains within it these supreme laws. If this is the case how then does what Nephi says, and what Paul says about doing away with the law make any sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure I'll give a few. Nephi says, "And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given: wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith: yet we keep the law because of the commandments" (2 Ne 25:24-25). Now typically we take this statement by Nephi and say Christ came to give us better rules and rituals and the old rules/rituals (ie Law of Moses) are done away. But we do not take Nephi's words far enough for all we have done is replaced old rules with new rules which we claim are better.

 

Christ didn't replace old rules with new ones. He expanded upon commandments so that we could know that the letter of the law included the spirit of the law. The letter given was don't commit adultery. Christ did not replace this. He didn't say that once we live the higher law of not looking to lust that adultery was then okay...as long as we don't look to lust. He didn't say that once we live the higher law of not being angry that then it was okay to murder...just as long as we aren't angry about it.

 

"The law", meaning the law of Moses was of two part...there were commandments and there were ritualistic rules. The ritualistic rules, for the most part, were fulfilled in Christ. The commandments were and are still commandments.

 

But ultimately the very rules themselves must become dead unto us so that the spirit of the Lord may live in us. 

 

The reason the rules must become dead is because they are insufficient to save. The law, in and of itself, cannot give life eternal. In Christ is life.

 

However, we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel through Christ's atonement. Without the first, the latter has no effect.

 

Please understand, this is not an argument to forget all the commandments, stop striving, or to do less than our duty. It is an acknowledgement that rules bind but the spirit gives life. It is a recognition that Christ is the culmination of the law and following his spirit will lead us right. 

 

But following His Spirit is a commandment.

 

As Joseph Smith said, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed" (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith p. 507-509). So, Nephi can kill Laban and follow some commandments and so we could say that he was following the letter of the law. But this is not the sense in which Paul talks about the letter/spirit of the law and in this conversation we would do well not to confuse written commandments with the letter of the law as defined by Paul.

 

It strikes me that the plain answer is that "thou shalt not kill" is not the complete commandment. When one kills by command of the Lord one is not breaking the commandments because the complete commandment, as we know by revelation and the teachings of prophets and apostles through the ages, is "thou shalt not kill unless commanded or otherwise justified by other principles such as defense of the family, etc."

Edited December 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet