Dead Laws
Over at New Cool Thang, Geoff posted recently on commandments as Dumbo feathers. I’d like to offer another way of looking at this idea. When I learn the principle behind a law, perhaps that law becomes a dead law–but still one we should keep.
In Second Nephi 25:24-25, Nephi writes:
24 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.
25 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.
For Nephi, Christ was the important thing, and the Law was simply a temporary thing the lord had asked of him. It didn’t have eternal value. It was dead to him, something he was doing because he knew that he needed to show obedience–perhaps it was something that would help others. And yet he obeyed the law despite it’s deadness to him.
For example, I may begin by keeping the word of wisdom because I think that alcohol is unconditionally bad. After further study, I may decide that such is not the case. I may find (can you guess my take on this) that there are trace amounts of alcohol in the bread I eat. I may see that in the Old testament wine is not prohibited, though drunkenness is, and I may see that the Word of Wisdom is given “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of designing men in the last days.” I may say, hey alcohol isn’t bad.
Before you all think I’ve gone apostate, let me tell you that all this means is that the law is dead to me. I have been given a commandment by way of the lord’s servants, and though I may feel that that commandment does not represent an eternal principle, I am still bound to obey that law, since it is what the Lord has asked of me. I may not understand why. It may be helpful to me in some way I do or do not understand, or to others, but it is what the Lord has asked, and in following a law, even a dead one, I show my faith that God is better able to determine what laws it is best that I obey for the moment.
Hmm, I blogged on this topic too, though from a completely diffeent angle, at http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-often-i-read-someone-urging-someone.html
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 6/11/2005 @ 4:38 am
I agree with you, S. Hancock. I think the difficult part becomes deciding what the law is in the first place. No?
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/11/2005 @ 3:23 pm
Stephen,
Quite a good string of links–both yours and the essay you link to.
J,
Sometimes. Very often. In fact, I think that keeping that as our goal is the optimum attitude–finding out the will of the Lord–delighting in his law. This is why I think your posts, such as the one on annointing are good. They ask, what does the Lord really want me to do now, when I annoint, or when I whatever?
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/11/2005 @ 5:28 pm
So, in heaven, we might get to take a hit/shot/swag/toke?
Comment by Daylan Darby — 6/11/2005 @ 7:53 pm
Daylan,
In heaven, I think we will understand perfectly the principle of caring for a perfected body, and we will do whatever it takes to prefectly care for that body. I’m not sure what that will entail. Personally, I doubt that will include serous concisousness altering, if such a thing is possible with a ressurected body at all. If it includes drinking alcohol, I’m not going to stand up and walk out, though I’m not particularly disposed either way.
Comment by Steve H — 6/12/2005 @ 2:16 am
I’d note that most of the time there is a “dead law” that people think they understand, there may be other things going on as well.
my thoughts on a related subject
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 6/12/2005 @ 2:16 pm
Actually Stephen M,
You are a step ahead of me again. Today in Sunday School, we had the word of wisodom lesson, and I said, hey, there is a lot of this that we are told is “not for the body.” It sounds pretty straightforward to me–though I see some small line between wine and strong drinks. So maybe most of the Word of Wisdom isn’t just for us now. The point, though, is that it is hard to ever come to an understanding of any law that could be called complete, so could any law actually ever be called a dead law? Did Nephi still have to learn how important the Law of Moses was in leading him to Christ in new ways? Or is a law dead as soon as we learn that the law may not be what is important? May be worth a follow-up post, though this post hasn’t even hit the regular week yet.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/12/2005 @ 7:28 pm
When does a law become dead? In the example that Nephi states, basically, there is a higher law to follow (when Christ comes he “fulfils” the law and commands us to have a “broken heart and contrite spirit”) that he knows about and therefore says that it is dead because it will be dead as soon as Christ comes. But until it is fulfilled, he said he will follow it. But where do you/we decide that the WoW is dead a dead law? Or any other law for that matter?
Curious.
Comment by N Miller — 6/13/2005 @ 4:13 pm
How we decide these things is quite a question. Since I’ve posted this, I’ve decided that I don’t understand the WoW as much as I thought I did. Also, it may be that it is more permanent in many of its tenets than I’m giving it credit for here. I may post on how we just don’t understand the wording of the WoW well enough to really understand it without extensive research into 19th century cultural practice and lexography.
However, perhaps there is a wayin which laws are always dead if we understand that they are local manifestations of eternal principles, given at the most for this world. They will end at some point. We may still do many of the same things becuse we understand the principles, but not in following these same laws. We will, rather, obey a celestial law.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/14/2005 @ 1:58 am
I agree, as we perfect ourselves, these laws start to become dead to us. I wonder which commandments will die, and which ones will continue? They are kind of like rules based off of doctrine.
My wife and I were talking last night about rules in our home and there relation to doctrine in that most rules are based off of doctrine. We have a four year old who went to my parents home a few weeks ago. Normally, we don’t let him play computer games on Sunday. However, when he came home, he told us (rather excitedly) that he got to play on the computer on Sunday. My wife was a little flustered in that our son sounded like he was gloating over breaking our “rule” (not so much that he broke it, but that he was gloating). As we discussed it further, the rule was no computer games, but the docrine is keeping the sabbath day holy. We want our children to learn how to keep the sabbath day holy so we enact rules to help them. (Kind of pharisiacal, I know, but read on). As they become older, we teach more doctrine and have less rules, hoping that they understand what we were teaching them while they were young. Therefore, the rule becomes dead to them because they understand the spirit of it and know of the doctrine that they need to follow, rather than the rules. However, as Nephi said, perhaps they still need to follow the rules even if it is dead to them.
I wonder how close this is to how God works with us?
Comment by N Miller — 6/14/2005 @ 12:27 pm