The Higher Law

[laronius]

In Come Follow Me for this past week it quotes Pres Oaks: President Oaks explained that the Lord “permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law."

I have family members who have been blessed by this flexibility in the law. But my question pertains to the temple. Are we not covenanting in the temple to live the higher law? And we learn in the Book of Mormon that for blessings for obedience to exist there must be enforceable punishment for disobedience. Does the removal of this consequence mean that certain blessings are also being withheld from the sealing covenant?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

In Come Follow Me for this past week it quotes Pres Oaks: President Oaks explained that the Lord “permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law."

I have family members who have been blessed by this flexibility in the law. But my question pertains to the temple. Are we not covenanting in the temple to live the higher law? And we learn in the Book of Mormon that for blessings for obedience to exist there must be enforceable punishment for disobedience. Does the removal of this consequence mean that certain blessings are also being withheld from the sealing covenant?

I think repentance is such a basic tenet of the doctrine of Christ that the permission of divorce and the period of mortal probation that follows must be an extension of that.

People who suffer divorce, whether by their own fault or not, can start anew through the merits of Christ, and it is for Him to forgive and heal on His terms. They can. with proper repentance, obtain the blessings of the sealing covenant. Even the innocent party to a divorce may yet have many other areas in which to repent, sometimes more than the guilty party.

[Anddenex]

20 hours ago, laronius said:

In Come Follow Me for this past week it quotes Pres Oaks: President Oaks explained that the Lord “permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law."

I have family members who have been blessed by this flexibility in the law. But my question pertains to the temple. Are we not covenanting in the temple to live the higher law? And we learn in the Book of Mormon that for blessings for obedience to exist there must be enforceable punishment for disobedience. Does the removal of this consequence mean that certain blessings are also being withheld from the sealing covenant?

Yes, there is always blessings being missed when the Lord removes a portion of the higher law. Reminds me also of Brigham Young's quote of how we live far below our privileges.

I think to a degree we are covenanting to live the higher law through our own personal merits though, individually not collectively.

[zil2]

This thread has reminded me of a thought I had recently while studying Alma 37:

Quote

15 And now behold, I tell you by the spirit of prophecy, that if ye transgress the commandments of God, behold, these things which are sacred shall be taken away from you by the power of God, and ye shall be delivered up unto Satan, that he may sift you as chaff before the wind.

There are many scriptures that say something similar - about losing through disobedience a particular blessing or God's general influence in your life.  But as I read this, even though it's specific to Helaman, it struck me that this principle applies to societies as well, and the example that came to me is that our society has lost the blessings of the sabbath day because we refuse to even think about keeping it holy - even those who desire to keep it holy have, in some ways, lost its blessings because their employment may demand they work on Sunday.  We've also largely lost the blessings of the family because we do not honor parents or the institution of family or the law of chastity.  I'm sure we could go on, but these are what struck me as I was reading this. I expect divorce is a part of the attitudes which have gone into losing the blessings that come from strong nuclear families.  Even those who aren't involved in that divorce, even those who keep covenants, are still negatively impacted by the whole.

[Vort]

14 hours ago, zil2 said:

This thread has reminded me of a thought I had recently while studying Alma 37:

There are many scriptures that say something similar - about losing through disobedience a particular blessing or God's general influence in your life.  But as I read this, even though it's specific to Helaman, it struck me that this principle applies to societies as well, and the example that came to me is that our society has lost the blessings of the sabbath day because we refuse to even think about keeping it holy - even those who desire to keep it holy have, in some ways, lost its blessings because their employment may demand they work on Sunday.  We've also largely lost the blessings of the family because we do not honor parents or the institution of family or the law of chastity.  I'm sure we could go on, but these are what struck me as I was reading this. I expect divorce is a part of the attitudes which have gone into losing the blessings that come from strong nuclear families.  Even those who aren't involved in that divorce, even those who keep covenants, are still negatively impacted by the whole.

People generally seem to think that "blessings from God for obedience" means that God looks at your good works or effort or sincere mindset or something else and then grants you a special divine blessing based on what he has seen from you. I think this is usually wrong. The old saying is that "virtue is its own reward". I think that's true with the idea of divine blessings, too.

Example: When we observe the law of the fast, we gain the blessings of that law because we fast. If we don't fast, we don't get the blessings. Why not? Because fasting is what brings those blessings. I have heard countless people talk about how they're just simply unable to fast because sickness or headache or diabetes or blood sugar or terminal halitosis or whatever, but instead of fasting they do [insert some other thing that isn't fasting but that they think is a proxy for fasting], and God recognizes their sacrifice and blesses them just as if they had fasted. Um...nope.  I don't buy it. I admit I do not know the mind of God and am not qualified to say what God may or may not bless someone else with. But I disbelieve that God blesses someone who did not keep a commandment with the blessings of keeping that commandment because the guy did something else instead. Doctrine and Covenants 130 seems pretty darn clear about this principle.

Same is true with almost everything, including keeping the Sabbath day holy. Perhaps we have a perfectly valid reason that we have to do [insert non-Sabbath-appropriate activity here], but we still want God to bless us as if we had kept the Sabbath day holy. But he can't, because keeping the Sabbath day holy is the blessing of keeping the Sabbath day holy. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[mikbone]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

terminal halitosis

 

 

[zil2]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

The old saying is that "virtue is its own reward". I think that's true with the idea of divine blessings, too.

Go figure.  I do too.  I think Alma 41:13-14 is the perfect explanation for this.