The history of the gospel is a history of higher and lesser laws. Moses goes up to the mountain … at the end the people get the lesser law.
Consecration, united orders and other revelations. Why do we have something besides the higher law? How do we rise to it?
- understanding
- holiness
- obedience
- binary states
The limits of our understanding comes from the weakness of our language, our knowledge and our context. We overcome the limits of our understanding (which otherwise blocks us from higher laws) by increasing our knowledge, wisdom and experience. Honesty is a core and important part of true understanding, as to have real understanding we must also escape self deception.
The limits of our [lack of] holiness are overcoming by growing in spirituality and charity. By serious devotion to gospel study, meditation, prayer and acts of patience and kindness and mercy, holiness is developed, and goes hand in hand with denying ourselves sin and honestly (there is honesty again) acknowledging where we have sinned and repenting of it. More, we release our resentments and anger, and turn towards peace.
The limits cause by [lack of] obedience is overcome by obedience. Christ words often included “this” and “leave not the other undone” rather than “you can get by with just this, skip the rest.” We obey in completeness, rather than act like King Saul whose obedience was limited by his knowledge of what he thought was best.
The issue of binary states is an interesting one. Sometimes light is a particle, sometimes a wave. It is not so much a “higher” law when dealing with light as an “appropriate” law. The same is true in other circumstances.
I’ve written about how to become a prophet (with a small p). To have a higher law you need people ready to receive it and prophets (small “p” prophets) ready to model and deliver it. If all you have is a people who are not holy and pundits who are not prophets, all you will have is a lower law.
Would God do that? Be serious, all the time. The Old Testament has laws for slavery for a people not yet ready to reject the institution. Not exactly an embrace of slavery [If any slave escapes to one of about 40 cities in an area smaller than LA County or the DFW metroplex, the rule was you could not force them to return or oppress them for being an escaped slave] but not a rejection either.
Over and over Christ would say “It was said of old times” (i.e. in the prior, lesser law) “but I say to you” (i.e. here is the higher law). In our time we have tithing instead of consecration. We have divorce.
Further, we have commandments that are temporary or conditional (e.g. Jacob’s comments on polygamy). The Word of Wisdom was first a higher law that was advice and then only a commandment later when the people were ready and able to live it. Even now we have people who would just as soon do without it, who insist that the Church should never embrace the higher law in that regard as a law. Or consider all the anger directed at books such as The Miracle of Forgiveness or other works that preach adherence to higher standards.
We have calls to abide, to live, to find, to seek and to understand higher laws. In the bloggernacle I oftne see speculation as to what higher laws would look like, which laws are merely lesser and transitory and why we need not obey or respect or believe the status quo.
Saul the king knew better than what Samuel told him. Saul of Tarsus was diligent and obedient to the law he was taught. One died in anger and shame. One saw Christ and was given a new name and a higher law.
Which are we? What are the higher laws and higher meaning you think we should be seeking and finding a way to? How? Why not? Why?
[footnotes and additional material at http://ethesis.blogspot.com/ ]
Wheat & Tares 
Hmm, http://ethesis.blogspot.com/ has a password malfunction going on. When that clears up I’ll post more, though some of the additional notes are currently posted there.
Next week I’ll be back on discussing the path to Zion (which was where the economics essays were all directed) — that post is already written, just needs to be typed in.
Excellent observations and nice overview I often wonder why we aren’t living the beatitudes.
Stephen:
Nice post. I think this is a difficult question in the Church because of a mingling of doctrine and opinion.
I think the vast majority of members of the Church are eager to follow all commandments from God. However, due to the nature of how things have evolved, it is hard to tell what these actually are in some cases.
Examples:
Commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Be honest with your fellowman. Love God with all your heart. Etc. These are at least straightforward in theory. They are found in canonized scriptures. It is obvious that they are commandments from God. Granted, there are always going to be questions about implementation – ie. Nephi deciding which is the “higher” commandment in a given situation – kill someone, steal their property and kidnap their servant vs not having the scriptures for an entire people. But at least the commandments are clear-cut and from God.
Non-canonized commandments: It gets more murky here. The WofW falls into this area, for example. According to canonized scripture, it is a suggestion that followed many health codes of the day in which it was given (much like your slavery example). Subsequent leaders have varied how binding it is on us, which parts we can over-interpret (ie. hot drinks = Coke), and which parts we can ignore (prohibition on meat). But this has grown somewhat organically with no clear “Thus saith the Lord…” pronouncement. There is nothing canonized about this.
Opinions taken as commandments: Perhaps the best example of this is earrings as I’ve talked about in a recent post on here. It was merely an opinion of one generation saying they don’t like earrings – that they weren’t “manly” on guys, and that multiple ones on women weren’t attractive. Over the past few years, this has been reinterpreted as a near-commandment in many areas of the Church.
So, the problem with “higher laws”, is that we don’t really have any. While we technically believe in an open canon, we haven’t added to our canon in decades. We have various opinions that change with the times.
Which leads to the question – which are true higher laws and which are merely opinions?
Stephen, nice thoughts.
For me the only way I can think about higher laws (as described in the sermon on the mount) are personally — am I personally rising to meet the higher law or not?
I cannot ask that question about my neighbor.
The limits of langugae you address are really interesting to me, and it makes me wonder about the influence of inspiriation and revelation in the living (and understanding) of higher laws. (And it makes me wonder about the endless parsing of various quotations from Latter-day church leaders so popular in some corners of the bloggernacle.)
Paul, I obviously think over parsing is foolish. We should be seeking the Spirit to guide us to the higher law rather than parsing and taking offense.
There are no higher or lower laws.
I recommend that LDS do away with this practice of separating the laws of God into higher and lower divisions. There is no scriptural basis for it and it gives added weight to arguments that are scripturally weak. Let us stress what the Lord stresses about His laws, namely that they are expedient, and be willing to live all His laws, no matter what they are, when it becomes expedient to live them.
The LDS focus on “laws” too much to begin with. We all think our “performance” based religion will earn us salvation, exaltation and the opening of the windows of heaven… we all think we can earn everything. We work hard, and with hard work and practice benefits and opportunities flow.
In the process, we deny mercy all along the way and insist on living “laws” while forgetting the lawgiver. We’d rather seek to be the businessman, while denying the beggar.
I think one higher law is surrender. Another would be faith in God’s mercy and goodness. Not that I do either very well.
It’s important to see the forest for the trees….
annegb — exactly. It is not faith vs. works. It is surrender and acceptance. Life times in learning, but core truths.
Damon, as to I recommend that LDS do away with this practice of separating the laws of God into higher and lower divisions. — read the scriptures I suggested.
One of the talks about that. 😉
Err, that should be “them” …
“There is no scriptural basis for it ”
D&C 88 claims that there are different laws governing different kingdoms of glory, starting at 22:
22For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
It interests me very much what is and is not a celestial law. My guess is that we don’t even know what they may be. I think we generally, in the church, are living somewhere around middle-telestial, high telestial, at best. I think the Sermon on the Mount suggests ways of living that may open us up to some awareness of celestial laws, but are probably something like high terrestrial themselves. Generally speaking, I think we lack the tools to come to awareness of these higher laws.
Thomas, nicely said.
BTW, for a blog by someone trying to find their way:
http://how-i-deal.blogspot.com/
Read that and then think about higher laws again.
Thomas—I used to think similarly. But the older I get, the more I see that the celestial laws are there in scripture, plainly and simply. We just have a hard time accepting or understanding them.
I think the highest law of all is charity.
I think higher laws allow us more freedom to make choices.
High law – Love one other
Low law – Don’t kill each other
High law – Serve one another
Low law – Don’t steal
High law – Give gifts of free will
Low law – Give 10 percent (of something, increase, income)
High law, your body is a temple treat it well
Low law, no alcohol, no smoking, no coffee…..
I agree higher and lower laws are important, but most of the current rules strike me as a rigid set of do’s and don’ts.
I also don’t see how make the WoW a commandment made it a higher law.
I liked a lot of what you said, Stephen, but I do take issue with a couple of points.
Firstly, I am not sure that you are on solid ground, arguing that the WoW is a higher law. The current interpretation of it isn’t supported in the text, and the text itself is problematic when viewed in a global context, foodwise. Rice isn’t mentioned, nor teff, nor a number of other grains. Of the ones that are, wheat for the man is rather problematic for those of us with celiac disease. That’s pretty nitpicky, I will admit, but I just don’t accept the WoW, or anything like it, as a higher law. (Matthew 15:17)
As far as the Miracle of Forgiveness goes, it has been a while since I read it, but again, I have issues with calling it a higher law. What I took away from it was less about forgiveness and more about judgement, and very little about forgiving. Again, perhaps my memories are off, but I don’t agree that all of what is said is a standard that should be accepted.
I guess what I am saying, in a long-winded and antagonistic way (apologies), is that higher laws are subject to interpretation, as much as lower laws – they are fundamentally weighted according to values. Different values lead to different prioritization.
In any case, my personal opinion is that there is only one real law – the law of love. Love God, love each other. This is the highest law, because living it strikes at the motive center of each of us, causing changes in values consistent with God’s character, which leads to correct action with no need for a letter of the law at all. Just my 2 cents. 🙂
prometheus, your final conclusions are good.
The other matters depend on how you read them and how you read related matters and comments (such as Kimballs on his intent).
I didn’t realize I was trying to find my way. But thanks for your concern, sincerely. And thanks for the reference to my blog. :).