Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law

[The Folk Prophet]

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

Next time I'm in gator country.

[Guest MormonGator]

Next time I'm in gator country.

Going to hold you to that my friend! 

I think it would be great for all of us to get together sometime. No matter how strongly we may disagree, it's never personal and we are all brothers/sisters in the end. 

Seriously, wouldn't it be amazing to see all of us in the temple at once?  

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[Anddenex]

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?

 

Alright, thank you, then it appears we are making an argument of semantics.  All things you have shared here I agree with, except this last paragraph.  I would agree the law is dead.  The spirit is life; however, how you are describing things appears to say -- the letter is pointless (dead). This doesn't appear correct, and that appears to be the confusion.  Although the law was dead, they still followed the law (letter) as they knew it pointed them to Christ (and because it was commanded of them to do so) who was the true reason for Salvation.  If we follow the law without understanding the purpose (the what and why as previously mentioned) then sure the law is dead. Elder Scott's definition appears to fit perfectly, "the spirit of the law is living the letter of the law in the right spirit." Nephi taught this same principle.  If we are not living the letter in the right spirit then there is "death," or a potential because we will like the pharisees look beyond the mark.

 

This last paragraph doesn't follow because these two great commandments were given long before the Law of Moses was in place.  The two great commandments were taught by all prophets, beginning with Adam and Eve.  Seth, Adam's son, would have taught the same.  So, in no way, would the law of Moses have done away with these commandments.  Aspects of sacrifice, have been done away unless of course you are performing sacrifices of animals still for the salvation of your sins?

 

Circumcision is another.  No longer by commandment do we circumcise our children, a law (letter) by which Moses almost lost his life; however, this law also was before the Law of Moses.  The notion, Christ came to fulfill the law, is most important.  

 

Thus, not even close to my logic, spirit.  

Edited December 29, 2015 by Anddenex

[Vort]

It strikes me that the plain answer is that "thou shalt not kill" is not the complete commandment.

 

Sometime, somewhere, someone told me (you don't get much more authoritative than that) that the commandment was originally "Thou shalt not murder", which of course is almost a tautology. Don't know if it's true; the NAS Exhaustive Concordance seems to back up the idea.

[Guest MormonGator]

Sometime, somewhere, someone told me (you don't get much more authoritative than that) that the commandment was originally "Thou shalt not murder", which of course is almost a tautology. Don't know if it's true; the NAS Exhaustive Concordance seems to back up the idea.

Murder and kill are completely different. A solider or a police officer must kill, but neither one is a murderer. The bible even says there is a time to kill. 

IE-if a police officer if being charged by a psychopath with a knife, yes, they might have to kill them. Or, if a solider is being attacked on the battlefield, he or she must take a life to defend themselves or others. 

It's not pleasant to talk about. I'm sure even police officers and soldiers don't like to use lethal force.

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

Sometime, somewhere, someone told me (you don't get much more authoritative than that) that the commandment was originally "Thou shalt not murder", which of course is almost a tautology.

"Murder" and "kill" are not synonyms, but the Hebrew does not differentiate as neatly as we might like.

Strong's number H7523 רצח râtsach (the verb in Ex 20:13) is:

1) to murder, slay, kill

1a) (Qal) to murder, slay

1a1) premeditated

1a2) accidental

1a3) as avenger

1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)

1b) (Niphal) to be slain

1c) (Piel)

1c1) to murder, assassinate

1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive)

1d) (Pual) to be killed

It appears 47 times, translated in the AV as:

slayer, 17

Num 35:11, 25-28 (4), Deu 4:42, 19:3-4 (2), 6, Jos 20:3, 5-6 (2), 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38

murderer, 13

Num 35:16-19 (7), 21 (2), 30-31 (2), 2Ki 6:32, Job 24:14

kill, 4

Exo 20:13, Num 35:27, Deu 4:42, 5:17

murder, 3

Psa 94:6, Hos 6:9 (2)

slain, 3

Jdg 20:4, Psa 62:3, Pro 22:13

manslayer, 2

Num 35:6, 12

death, 1

Num 35:30

killed, 1

1Ki 21:19

killing, 1

Hos 4:2

murderers, 1

Isa 1:21

slayeth, 1

Deu 22:26

However, in more than fifteen commentaries I've read, the near universal agreement is that, in the Ten Commandments, the phrase should be rendered "thou shalt do no murder." Those commenters who did not explicitly make such a statement, they were silent on the choice of words.

Reading the Old Testament, we find a myriad of references where God commanded "killing". Not least is the idea of retributive killing for relatives, for rape and adultery, for other covenant breaking. Clearly, killing is not immoral in some cases, but in others, it is the final affront to the humanity of others.

Lehi

Edited December 29, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I'm sure even police officers and soldiers don't like to use lethal force.

I cannot speak for others, but I know I did not like the idea of lethal force.

I was an infantryman before becoming an officer in the Signal Corps. Our training was to wound, not kill, when there was an option. It was not based on morality, it was based on strategy: it takes two or three others to care for a wounded soldier, but none at all when the man is dead.

One of my greatest fears was to have anyone in my company (I commanded an infantry company for four years) who liked killing. That man would be a serious problem for morale, for command, and for the potential for being a war criminal.

Lethal force, a monopoly only the state commands, is a dangerous thing for those who have the charge to exercise it. We see what happened to the Nephites in the IV when they learned to love the shedding of blood.

Lehi

Edited December 29, 2015 by LeSellers

[mirkwood]

I know many police officers who will pull the trigger.  I don't know any who want to.

 

I have met murderers.  I've met some cold blooded people.  None were police officers.  Some were ex military. though I am not making a damning statement about the military.

 

Being capable of violence is not the same as wanting to commit such acts.

[Guest MormonGator]

LeSellers-Thank you for your service to the country. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Being capable of violence is not the same as wanting to commit such acts.

In all my time training in marital arts, I've met a few freaks-but most feel the same. We're capable of defending ourselves, but it's not something to look forward too. It's nothing like a solider or a police officer. Ironically some of the nastiest people I've met are instructors! 

 

I've also met some scumbags as well. I worked for the public defenders (sorry Mirkwood, I know it's different sides, but it does truly take all types to make the world work) as an investigator and I know what you mean. I've seen nothing compared to you though. Totally different ballgame. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by MormonGator

[zil]

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.

 

TFP, first, please don't assume I agree with everything James12 wrote - I don't (though after reading the thread to this point, it may turn out to be another matter of semantics).

 

Next, you seem to be thinking of 100% of all currently-applicable gospel laws.  I was thinking more along the line of "any given law".

 

And, I think you and I agree, we're just saying things differently.

 

Finally, you throw the word "truly" in there, and you change the ballgame. :)  I believe you cannot "truly" obey the letter of any law without doing so in the right spirit (thus also obeying the spirit of the law).  But technically, I can obey the one law which says to pay one-tenth of my interest annually, without wanting to or without understanding or believing it.  Technically, I would be obeying that fraction of the law.  I would not be obeying 100% of all laws - part of which requires my own willingness (see the Moroni 7 verses I posted earlier) - obeying the law in this way "profiteth [me] nothing".

 

Further, I can willingly obey the law of tithing to the letter without ever considering why the law exists, how I might more-fully live it, etc.  In a certain sense, this is living the letter of the law of tithing, and a portion of its spirit.  For years and years (from childhood), I never really thought about tithing - it was something you did, so I did it - I didn't realize there was something more to consider.  I wasn't avoiding expanding my understanding of this particular law, I was just young and dumb, and thought I had that one down.  As I have gotten older, I understand that the spirit of this law goes beyond math and envelopes (and that understanding has come in stages, as I've aged).

 

As a friend and I were discussing this letter vs. spirit thing, she pointed out that we're all at varying points on the spectrum of obedience.  Barring hypocrisy (like the scribes and pharisees) or some willfully evil motive, it is better to obey (even unhappily) than not to (if you've never obeyed even when you didn't really want to, you're either perfect and don't belong here, or lying to yourself - I point you to Alma's "even if ye can no more than desire to believe").  The difference between the hypocrite and the unhappily-obedient is that the hypocrites are putting on a show to be seen of men (and probably stop obeying the minute they can't be seen of men), whereas the unhappily-obedient are obeying because they have some hope or intent of progress.  Perhaps their current begrudging obedience profiteth nothing, except there's a chance it will lead to belief and understanding.

 

Basically, because we're flawed, obedience to any given law (letter and/or spirit) is better measured by a percentage than by a simple "yes/no" measurement.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers-Thank you for your service to the country.

My motivation was not pure patriotism: I did it for my grandchildren, whose parents had not been born (for the most part).

I am grateful for the privilege of serving, but it was selfish to that extent.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

My motivation was not pure patriotism: I did it for my grandchildren, whose parents had not been born (for the most part).

I am grateful for the privilege of serving, but it was selfish to that extent.

Lehi

 Motives are irrelevant. It's the actions that matter. 

IE-I volunteer at a soup kitchen for a very selfish reason. It makes me feel better about myself. Do you think the people getting food care about why I'm doing it? No, they just want a hot meal and friendly face. 

Because you served, loudmouth jerks like me have the right to free speech. I can safely assume you weren't thinking about me when you signed up. But I still owe you. 

 

My mom was a nurse, and I told her once that a doctor should heal people out of compassion. She said "As long as heals people, who cares why?" She's right. I've met many arrogant and obnoxious doctors who happened to be amazing surgeons. 

 

Some do it as a test of skill, some do it for money. But in the end, as long as they heal people,who cares? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

I'm not sure why there is a controversy over the issue of spirit and letter. You all seem to be saying the same thing.  I view it as faith and works or soul and body.

 

I know I've said prayers that were without faith.  Not that I had no faith, but that I seemed to just be going through the motions.  Others I've heard of finding that meditation is "better" than prayer who feel they are fulfilling more of the spirit than one who prays by going through the motions.  Neither is complete.  (This echo's the Elder Maxwell quote from earlier).

 

How effective is a prayer by rote?  Not very.  Do we really come to have a closer relationship with the Lord if we simply meditate?  No.

 

A true prayer requires our hearts and minds to be present as well as our body.  I can say from experience that when it is difficult to get our hearts and minds in the game, simply going through the motions is at least a start.  And, yes, I do believe it is better than not praying at all.  That said, it is better still to say a prayer with our hearts and minds as well as our lips.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, first, please don't assume I agree with everything James12 wrote - I don't (though after reading the thread to this point, it may turn out to be another matter of semantics).

 

I didn't assume that, nor do I assume we disagree for the most part. I was simply responding to a phrase you had by way of discussion.