Modern-day Laws of Moses

Last week, I wrote about the Law of Moses and how it relates to the Higher Law that was later introduced by Jesus. As a follow-up, this week I'd like to analyze a modern-day "Law of Moses," which lends itself to great discussion.

As I mentioned before, sometimes "lower" laws are necessary when the people are not yet ready to accept higher ones. So, you may notice several of these today. What I share is specific to my church, but you are likely to see examples of it in your own church. And why is that? Because we people are imperfect. The religious leaders of Jesus' time felt the need to add to what was in the Law of Moses and make it more strict. Likewise today, you're likely to notice certain rules in your church that are not mentioned in the Bible -- such as no dancing, no drinking, celibacy, and so on. Some of these rules may be warranted, and others -- maybe not so much. In some cases, the causes for these rules may have long passed, and by tradition the strict rules remain in place.

In my church -- for as long as I could remember, trumpets were not allowed in our sacrament meetings (our normal Sunday worship services). As a trumpet player, myself, it was a source of sadness. I was unable to share my music through trumpet playing. The rule back then encompassed all brass and percussion, though I hear that occasionally French horns were allowed.

I believe the story is that a prominent leader was listening to music in sacrament meeting and the brass instruments were out of hand, so he had all brass banned throughout the entire Church. The idea -- as with all Laws of Moses -- was to protect us. It is definitely true that a poorly-played trumpet can chase away the Spirit much faster than a poorly-played piano.

But similar to what I described before, this decision disallowed a LOT of good music. It took away a portion of the Spirit that can only be brought by praiseful instruments such as trumpets and trombones.

What's ironic is that the very strict Law of Moses, itself, demanded the use of trumpets. Two silver trumpets were to be constructed (as pictured above), and were to have very solemn and sacred use.

And here is a Church-sponsored rendition of "He is Risen" for Easter in Temple Square a couple of years ago. I always found it ironic that the Church could have their own Spirit-filled concert, but we couldn't have the same in our own Sunday worship. (And believe me -- I know some wards that could pull off a smaller but just-as-effective rendition.)

I understand the desire of protecting us in our sacrament meetings: so we don't chase the Spirit away. But chasing away a large amount of good music has a big drawback as well. Several people I know have stopped going to my church in lieu of attending other denominations, simply because they felt MORE of the Spirit in the music of those other churches. In one of these cases, a lady was forbidden to perform in our church by a prominent leader, and a week later when she heard the Spirit in another church, she switched.

But then this past November -- I think it was November -- our church updated the music rules, and they removed ALL the instrument restrictions. It no longer mentions brass, percussion, etc. It only says that the instruments must play in a manner that invites the Spirit. By December, I was seeing several reports and even some pictures of brass instruments performing in sacrament meetings.

I can't even begin to describe the joy I felt. The Lower Law was replaced by a Higher Law, opening the floodgates to a whole segment of good music able to bring in higher levels of the Spirit.

I do know from one of the committee participants that "Law of Moses" and "Higher Law" were themes highly discussed. Also, the quote by Joseph Smith: "teach them correct principles and [let them] govern themselves." I like to think that I (and others) helped encourage and inspire some of these committee members in social media interactions. (Hee hee.)

There still remain what I believe to be needlessly strict rules governing our music, but this is one BIG step in the right direction. I'll take whatever joy I can. I must remember to start practicing and find a good piece to play with the Spirit for our sacrament meeting (it still remains a challenge).

I invite you to look at your own church and see if you can identify similar Laws of Moses. Is there a good reason for continuing to following those laws? Or is it time to bring in the Higher Law? You might just be able to help bring it to pass.

The Law Of Moses vs. the Higher Law

Today's spiritual thought is an important one. Currently, our Old Testament reading is concentrating on the Law of Moses itself, and my church teaches an interesting concept.

When Moses went up to Mount Sinai the first time, he brought down inscriptions on tablets. However, when he saw the people were worshipping the Golden Calf, he threw down the tablets, and they broke. Then Moses went up a second time and received more inscriptions. However, as my church teaches, the second set was a Lower Law, as the people proved they were not ready for a Higher Law. It wasn't until Jesus would come a couple of millennia later that we'd receive the Higher Law.

If you compare the two, the Law of Moses is long and VERY specific. It also has severe punishments. For example, Exodus 35:2 reports: "... the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."

The Higher Law spelled out by Jesus has none of the death penalties, nor a list of punishments. But rather, a set of guidelines to follow, and the rewards and punishments are more spiritual in nature, rather than physical.

In this way, my church suggests that the Lord first attempted to provide Higher Law to the people of Moses, but then when they proved themselves to be unworthy, he then provided the Lower Law, which would then prepare their descendants to one day accept the Higher Law.

If you've raised children, or entrusted something to a friend, only to see them mess up miserably, then you'd probably understand why the Lower Law was necessary. When your child or friend messed up, you probably experienced disappointment, but then you also probably didn't give up on them. You probably saw a wise way to save the situation -- thinking that the original instructions were too vague, you would probably provide much more SPECIFIC instructions going forward, perhaps not even explaining WHY, but "just do it." Then everyone learns and grows.

And what of our current environment? Perhaps we can do a little analysis, borrowing a little from math and statistics.

Every day we perform several actions. We can consider each action to fall somewhere on a spectrum between Holiness and Sin. Holiness denotes the intention to do Good and help others. And Sin denotes mal-intent, or desiring to harm others.

We can also consider each action to fall on another spectrum going from Safe to Risky. Safe acts are either benign or end up helping others. Risky acts are more likely to harm others. 

We can set up a graph with these two axes:

Suppose that we can plot each action somewhere in this framework. Holier actions appear toward the left. Sinning acts are more toward the right. Safe acts are near the bottom, and Risky acts are toward the top. It should make sense that the Safer an act is, the more likely it is to be a Good Act. And on the flip side, Risky acts are more likely to result in Bad Acts. As we study where these land in this graph, we start to see a pattern -- something like this:

A "Line of Sin" appears. Everything to the right and above this line is a Bad Act, and everything to the left and below this line is a Good Act. Ultimately, we want to help everyone stay in the Good Act zone.

Here's an example ... killing someone is clearly a Risky act. It would show up near the top. If our intent is to kill someone because we're angry, it going to be in the upper-right corner -- deep in the Bad Acts zone.

Let's say instead, our friend asks us to kill his neighbor so he can take the land and increase his own benefit. We may not harbor any ill will toward that neighbor, but we may have good intentions -- we want to help our friend. Such a killing might fall more to the upper right, but still in the Bad Acts zone.

And finally, let's say we desire to protect ourselves and our friends and family from a dangerous person. It would be better to end the one person's life in self-defense. This falls in the upper right, now in the Good Acts area (which is pretty small for the act of killing).

On the flip-side, if we're helping someone move their stuff (a pretty Safe act), we could have the worst intentions and land in the lower-right side, but still be in the Good Acts zone. Though, I've had some movers break some of our stuff -- so there's a small area to the right where these good intentions can become Bad Acts.

(Note: I realize this is grossly simplified, but stay with me) ...

Then comes the Law of Moses, which is very specific -- not much room for thinking. You do exactly what you're told. This ends up being a very Safe law. The intent is to get rid of Risky acts entirely, because ... well ... the people are just rotten, and have to be told everything down to the letter, because they just can't take care of themselves.

So, it looks like this:

The Law of Moses allows all acts below the dotted line. Thou shalt be Safe! If you go above the line, you'll be punished.

Pros: Most of the allowed acts will end up being Good (below both the Law of Moses line and the Line of Sin). And look to the right above the Law of Moses and the Line of Sin. There are a large number of Bad Acts that are AVOIDED. This is the goal of most punitive laws. Protecting people from themselves.

Cons: There is also a section to the lower right, above the Line of Sin but under the Law of Moses line. These are acts that because of bad intentions, may actually cause harm, but are still allowed under the restrictions of the Law of Moses. But this area is very small, because the Law of Moses is so Safe. Some people may call this area a Type I error -- a term used in science and statistics. 

But -- sadness -- check out all of the Good Acts above the Law of Moses and under the Line of Sin. These are wasted Good Acts, lost opportunities to help others. Life isn't as great as it could be, because no one is ALLOWED to do these acts. Some people may call this a Type II error. (Or this might be Type I and the other one is Type II, depending on how you define each type.)

The Law of Moses implies that is worth giving up these wasted Good Acts to keep the Type I error low (at the expense of Type II errors).

Around the time of Jesus, leaders of the Sadducees and Pharisees added more interpretations and punishments, which effectively lowered the line even further, making the Law Safer, while increasing Type II error.

Jesus demonstrated the drawbacks of this when he healed the sick on the Sabbath. In the new Law, healing was considered to be working, and so these acts of Jesus were forbidden. He was signaling intentionally that there existed some Type II Good Acts that were forbidden that should be allowed.

So, what would happen if we were to draw the horizontal line higher? Could that help us out? It would give us a Higher Law, like this ...

Note that this isn't THE Higher Law given by Jesus, but rather some other hypothetical law that's more permissive and fewer punishments. The line is just drawn higher.

Pros: It gives us access to most of the formerly wasted Good Acts. This means higher potential for us to do well and benefit our society. Look at how much larger the lower-left section is. Also, in the upper-right section, we are still somewhat protected from some of the riskier sins.

Cons: There is still a small section of wasted Good Acts in the upper-left corner. And -- wow -- that opportunity to sin in the lower-right is pretty large -- and with no punishments?

This Higher Law provides more AGENCY, which allows for more sin. It implies that it's better to allow us to have more opportunities to do Good -- reducing Type II error (at the expense of Type I).

Now -- try this experiment. Can you find a better place to draw the horizontal line? Perhaps in the very middle? Then Type I and Type II errors would be the same. Is Type I or Type II better to allow than the other?

If only there were some way to eliminate Type I and Type II errors entirely. Turns out, there's a simple solution:

Don't draw ANY horizontal lines. Instead, draw that line diagonally -- right on top of the Line of Sin. And this is the Higher Law given to us by Jesus. No more punishments. Maximum free will. We are in charge of our own actions and consequences. And no more Type I and Type II errors.

The only drawback ... it's a much more difficult concept to explain. We must all individually learn where that diagonal line is. We must learn the correct principles so we can discern for ourselves whether a particular act is Good or Bad.

This was too difficult a concept for the people of Moses. So, they got the Lower Law. Hundreds of pages of cans and cannots -- everything spelled out.

So what do you think? Is it better for us to have a Law of Moses? Or the Higher Law? Do we need to be protected from our sins? Or is it better to have full free will? What have I messed up in this analysis? Comments are welcome.

Would You Be Found Guilty of Being a Christian?

As I vacationed across the states, I attended a ward in St. George, Utah, and enjoyed a very interesting priesthood meeting session. The main gist of their message stemmed from this popular quote:

If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

The comments that ensued were definitely enlightening -- a lively discussion. Some good ideas were floated around, but in my own opinion, they had failed to hone in to the one evidence of Christianity that trumps everything else.

Though, I think the teacher had started the discussion well and came closest to the answer -- talking about our life stories. In fact, at first, I had thought the lesson was on writing in our journals or writing our own "story" for family history purposes. But then halfway through the lesson came the grab-me-gotcha.

The teacher said: if it were our funeral, and the people were examining us, would they find evidence that we had been Christian? He then asked: what are some of these evidences they would find?

The discussion then seemed to center around some kind of forensic evidence -- as if there were a chalk drawing on the floor of the deceased's house, and investigators were combing through all the belongings. What would they find?

One person answered: There's got to be a Bible (or Standard Works, which includes the Book of Mormon). That got some praise.

Another person answered: Yeah, but does that Bible look brand new? Or does it look like a well-used book? Even more oohs and aahs.

I must admit, my set of Standard Works, gifted to me when I was a child, is falling apart. It's all marked up, and I must turn the pages carefully. It's survived my mission, and many study sessions after that. A few years ago I had lost the set at church, which caused sadness for the space of a month, until we found it in the Lost and Found. After that, I decided to use the phone scripture app and leave my fragile set at home.

So, is a like-new Bible really evidence of not being a Christian? What if a person prefers reading online?

But then again ... is Bible knowledge evidence enough? The priests and religious leaders at the time of Jesus had outstanding knowledge of scripture, but they still misunderstood Jesus' message. They had become hardened by their own knowledge, unable to accept the very Messiah they had been seeking.

Also, certain evil spirits who had possessed a person had perfect knowledge of who Jesus was, but that knowledge by itself didn't save them from their fallen state.

Another person in class spoke up: what about an active temple recommend? Lots of oohs and aahs on that one! In order to receive such a recommend, one must be able to answer a set of worthiness questions -- typical evidence of living a Christian life. But, having a recommend doesn't mean someone is actually using it. And how easy it is to answer: Yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes -- and possibly even one or two "I'm working really hard on that"s.

One may even bring up the existence of a cross. But it's still the same issue. One can have a cross, but not believe in it.

So what's the answer? What is the ultimate evidence of being a Christian? The Bible tells us clearly what the answer is ...

OUR ACTIONS.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12) 

See -- it comes back to our stories. How did we treat other people? Did we actually follow the teachings of Jesus? Or did we simply believe and do nothing? (Faith without works is dead.)

And yeah -- it seems like I went a roundabout way of coming to this answer in this post. But I think it's important to point out all these items because ... (here comes my own grab-me-gotcha) ...

In my own recent observations, I have witnessed the well-intentioned propagation of Christianity and its principles fall flat on the general public. I, like most other Christians, would be delighted if everyone were to join us and help make this world a better place. But more often than not, I see my fellow Christians relying too much on EXPLAINING what it means to be Christian and what the evidences would be, rather than SHOWING what it means through our own ACTIONS.

The reaction from the general public seems to be more and more negative. To them, we are PUSHING our religion. We're trying to install a Christian Law upon the land (at least here in the states). Some see this as an attempt to establish a state religion -- an affront to religious freedoms, the First Amendment, and even my church's eleventh article of faith.

And the worst part, they see many of us who profess to be Christian who then perform ACTIONS not in harmony of basic Christian principles. In other words, others see us as hypocrites. They see our exclusion of certain people and other religions, even though Christ invites us to welcome ALL. They see how we treat our children who don't agree with us, even though Christ teaches that what we do unto one, we do unto Christ. They see our zero tolerance of opposing viewpoints, when Christ invites us to eschew conflict. And as a result, others ironically find us GUILTY of being CHRISTIAN -- as if it were some evil scourge among the land that needs eradication.

I get it. Satan is stirring up the hearts of men to fight Christ's Church on earth. It's prophesied that this will happen in the last days. But many of us are unfortunately giving Satan the evidence he needs to turn the hearts of the people against us.

The solution? Simple -- start ACTING the religion instead of PUSHING it. Most people convert when they see good examples to emulate.

Do we TELL our friends how the world should be; or do we SHOW them? Do we have civil discussions with those whom we disagree; or do we instead tell them they're going to hell? Do we unite with others to help the vulnerable during times of crisis; or do we resist under the guise of "freedom"? Do we welcome others who are different from us; or do we expect them to change in order to be our friends and associates?

Or in other words: are we "GUILTY of being CHRISTIAN" in the way that we're torturing others? Or are we rather showing enough evidence in our ACTIONS to show that we're LIVING Christian lives and enticing others to join through our EXAMPLES?

I invite to consider these things and decide for yourself. Are we going down the right path? Are we LIVING the religion? Will our ACTIONS lead to a desirable judgement? Are we helping others WANT to join the Church?

It's ultimately up to each of us to decide how to proceed, and I wish you all well.