posted
I'm reading my assignment for Sunday School tomorrow - this year's curriculum is the New Testament and tomorrow's lesson is on the Sermon on the Mount.
I want to talk about it with someone, but maybe not just Mormons. And maybe not just Christians. Anyone.
Right now's specific train of thought is on the following passage, though I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on all of Matthew 5.
quote: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I guess I never paid this passage much notice before. I've spent a lot of time recently thinking about Pharisees. On my mission I was extremely frustrated with pharisiacal (I made that word up) attitudes toward mission rules. There were some people who were so focused on being "obedient" that they'd be rude, inconsiderate and sometimes careless with their health and well-being to do so. I was satisfied that the New Testament validated my attitude and the rules I broke in order to be polite, considerate and healthy from time to time. But I don't know if I was more righteous than the Pharisees.
Any thoughts? How does the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and the "fulfilled" law play out in your personal experience?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Mormon, but perhaps not a proper one, so maybe my thoughts will be useful. I consider strict obedience to be a lower form of faithfulness than understanding why the law is there, and following the reason for the law. This, I think, comes from my science and engineering outlook on things. There are rules of thumb that engineers follow, and they all have reasons. If you don't have time or can't spend the effort right now to understand the deep reasons behind everything, then you'll be safe just sticking to the rule of thumb. That's what they're for.
But when you truly know the situation (and there are millions of subspecialties ... no engineer could possibly understand them all in perfect detail) then you have a higher connection to these things than just the rule of thumb. Then you're able to completely engage and possibly some rules of thumb are broken along the way, but not really, because you are following an understanding that's more true than the rule of thumb.
So the law is prescriptive to a point, but then there's a higher law that's also prescriptive, but in a more detailed and thorough way. The lower law is to keep us out of trouble, keep us from causing irreversible damage, while we gain the understanding we have to have in order to be able to apply the higher law.
So basically, I agree with your approach to mission rules.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I wanted to comment more specifically on the passage. When you do this, it means you're being *more* righteous, more observant, more committed to doing things right, not less. That's what I think he means by saying that the law is still true, still matters, and won't pass away. It's got to not be a dodge, like Will B said. It's a real understanding of the underlying situation, and a committment to fulfilling the reason the law exists.
And yeah, Will B, there's not any time that any of us can say we're doing enough. It's a process of continual growth and improvement. Each precept we learn and make our own serves as the foundation for something higher.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the Wikipedia article on the Sermon on the Mount and was surprised what an academic standard there was for various religions' adherance to the "rules" the savior sets forth.
I guess I had never thought of it from that viewpoint - whether or not humans should be expected to live up to New Testament standards. I have always been taught that yes, we're supposed to do what the Savior teaches us and that when we fail to we're supposed to repent. It is by grace we are saved after all we can do.
I found this interesting:
quote: Thus some early copyists changed Matthew 5:22 from "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" to the watered-down "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
quote:• In Matthew 5:21, what ancient law did Jesus refer to? (Write "Thou shalt not kill" below "Ye have heard that it was said.") What higher law did Jesus give concerning this commandment? (See Matthew 5:22. Write "Do not get angry" below "But I say unto you." Note that the phrase “without a cause” does not appear in the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22 or in 3 Nephi 12:22.)
posted
I think a very important part of our moral education is just thinking about things like this, about how they apply in our lives, and whether we're really doing the right thing by doing the "right thing". The process of groping our way through the muddle, of striving with ourselves to become better people, and trying to decide what it means to be a better person, is crucially important, almost a sacred process in itself. It's how we flex our spiritual muscles so that they can develop strength and skill. The process is, in many ways, much more important than where he happen to be at the moment. Where we're heading matters more than where we are.
By strictly following a rule and not thinking about it past simple compliance, in a way we have dropped that ball. We've ceded our agency over to someone else, and when we do that, our own spiritual muscles don't grow. What I think is that the rules are there to engage us actively and creatively in our own spiritual training. They challenge us to step beyond our own viewpoint, to continue to ponder and pray, to try and fail, to stretch us further than we can go on our own. That creates the ideal situation for growth. When we blindly follow, not because we understand why, but just because the rules are the rules, then we cease to gain the benefits of a more active and personal connection to the commandments.
posted
I have to admit that I find this a little curious, since Scripture never fails to reward the blindly obedient. I prefer this worldview, but I'm not sure there's scriptural evidence for it.
posted
I, a non-Mormon (Catholic), am basically in agreement with Tatiana. When we move beyond the "rules", we take "adult" responsibility for our choices at our peril -and the peril of others-, but we are always in the embrace of our loving Father.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I could argue that Adam and Eve were obedient in the "higher law" sense of the term, now that I think about it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Offhand, the first thing that comes to mind that suggests you needn't always blindly accept the first thing God tells you is the parable of the unjust judge.
However, I would agree that there are still rewards for those who DID blindly obey the first time around. They're certainly not going to be punished for their dilligence.
But whoso needs to be commanded in all things, the same is a wicked and not a wise servant.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I learned while studying the teachings of Jesus Christ is how misinterpreted his words were in the whole "Spirit" vs. "Letter" discussion. Many people take the idea of following the Spirit rather than Letter to be an easier way. Even worse, the many who use it as an excuse to NOT follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You have to see those verses as setting up a context to the rest of his sermon. Notice that he doesn't relax the "rules" as much as actually makes them harder. This isn't because he adds anything new or sets stricter limits. Rather, he internalizes them to put the emphasis less on doing than on being better. It is the same idea as Pres. Ezra T. Benson who said, to paraphrase, you can't take people out of the getto until you take the getto out of the people (if anyone knows the exact words, please tell me as this is a sloppy quote). Jesus wants a transformation of the individual's personality and not just behavior.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
