- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Came across this essay question and couldn’t help comparing the Natural School of thought to my LDS upbringing. Quote:Question # 1: How do you view the legal system with regard to how your beliefs correspond to a particular school or jurisprudence? Which school do you feel that your beliefs most closely correspond to and why? Illustrate your answer with a specific example or examples.
Historically writing about religious themes has been hit or miss for me. I suspect that the teacher has biases that come into play – but I can’t help myself. I present my answer here for critique or springboard into discussion.Quote:Mormonism is more than just a religion. It forms a unique culture or subculture all its own. I believe that my Mormon heritage forms an interesting twist on the Natural School of Jurisprudential Thought. The natural law school holds that law should be a reflection of forever present divisions between good and evil that are discerned/discovered (not created) by man. In several key areas the Mormon theology takes the natural school of thought and then takes it a step further. I will attempt to describe three Mormon tenets that hold interesting implications for the natural school of thought.
1) The Natural Law School theorizes that our system of laws is based on immutable and naturally inherent standards of conduct. The Mormon movement is a “restorationist” movement. This means that there is a divine standard of laws that is maintained in the heavens. Humans may live this set of laws (or at least the approximation of divine laws found in earthly statutes) and prosper. Periodically society may drift too far from its natural law moorings and God may need to step in to “restore” a more pure reflection of divine governance. This is part of what is meant by a “restoration” movement.
2) One such divine intervention is the establishment of the founding documents of this nation. The wording of the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self evident”) reflects clear ideas from the natural school of law espoused by many of the framers. Mormons hold the U.S. Constitution in such high regard that it is actually enshrined in scripture. “I established the Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: Verse 80) It “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: Verse 77). The struggle and cause of our founding fathers was divinely directed.
3) Finally, according to Mormon theology, the divine laws are so constant and so immutable that God Himself did not create them nor can he change them. He is God because He fully understands these principles and forces and unfailingly walks the razor’s edge in perfect balance with them. Consistent with Mormon cosmology, God does not break natural laws to perform miracles. He performs miracles based upon his higher understanding and manipulation of natural laws in much the same way that a flashlight would seem miraculous to our ancient forefathers.
I do not pretend that religious beliefs have a place in the administration of our laws. The concept of a separation between church and state is a key (and wise) founding principle of our country. But religious beliefs do color our perspectives and frame our interactions with others. They also form a vehicle or system for transmitting values that are quite complementary to the law and order of our justice system.
Mormonism provides such influence in fairly significant amounts as a distinct subculture prevalent in the western United States. Regardless of Mormonism’s relative influence on various population centers, what is undeniable is the impact the worldview of Mormonism has had upon the formation of my personal position. The beliefs (and underlying values) of Mormon understanding left me with a slightly unorthodox slant of the Natural Law School of Jurisprudential Thought.
At least nobody can accuse me of plagarism.
Very cool thoughts. Do you have to answer the question “where do these natural laws come from?”.
Do they just always exist independent of intelligent beings knowing them, or do intelligent beings craft them from experience?
Heber13 wrote:Do you have to answer the question “where do these natural laws come from?”.
Do they just always exist independent of intelligent beings knowing them, or do intelligent beings craft them from experience?
There are different schools of thought as to the underpinnings and underlying thoughts behind communal laws:
The Natural School holds to the moral theory of law that some things are just inherently evil and other things are inherently good. If there were no humans to proclaim a certain act evil, it would still be evil.
The Historical School believes that law is an aggregate of social traditions and customs. Precedent is honored and used. At the same time laws under this school will slowly evolve as contemporary societal norms percolate into the law system.
The sociological school would use the legal system to shape societal behavior and attempt to reach societal goals. Precedent is meaningless unless it helps me to reach to goal we desire or suppress the behavior we dislike.
There are other schools, but the ones listed provide sufficient examples of contrast. The US Legal system is actually all of these things and none of them. Different people click or resonate with different aspects and will interact with the legal system based on that perspective. Sometimes persons with influence will attempt to mold the legal system to do more of what their school of thought thinks that a legal system should do.
For example the natural school says that law identifies the ever existing dividing line between good and evil.
The historical school believes that laws are time honored collections of rules passed down to us by our forefathers but that can be modified or added to by our current circumstances.
The sociological school will attempt to shape society and isn’t afraid to boldly go where no law has ever been before.
I for one see interesting parallels between this and the various schools of thought on how to view the church. The church itself is amoral, a collection of policies, buildings, and structure. It does not make claims about itself. It does not have opinions. Does the church have a culture or do the people inside the church have a culture… I would go with the latter. How much of that is part of the church and how much is distinct from the church itself but has grown up alongside and perhaps intertwined with the church. Many different ways to view an organization, its rights and privileges, its purposes and ideal methods.
So, Mormonism would fall more in the natural school, where God is abiding by natural laws or He ceases to be God, and Adam was taught and passed on these teachings down through generations, and when corrupted, prophets are called to correct the teachings of the natural law, right? When I think about my own family history, I find that in just a few generations the stories are about my own family have become corrupted too. When we have a family reunion or celebration, the cousins start to talk about our parents, grandparents, etc.
The stories are always different depending who’s telling the story. We always find something new or different. Then, is some cases, we try to correct each other. I think that is the natural law that Heber’s talking about.
Mike from Milton.
Heber13 wrote:So, Mormonism would fall more in the natural school, where God is abiding by natural laws or He ceases to be God, and Adam was taught and passed on these teachings down through generations, and when corrupted, prophets are called to correct the teachings of the natural law, right?
I would say that one does not need to be religious to belong to the school of natural law. One can be an athiest and believe in absolute moral law – some things are just evil.
Many Christian church’s believe in a sovereign god or a god who makes designates one thing to be good and another thing to be bad simply because he says so.
I believe that the LDS church theology is more consistent with the natural school of thought than most because we believe that even God and other exalted beings are/will be subject to absolute moral laws that seem to be self existent.
Mike wrote:When I think about my own family history, I find that in just a few generations the stories are about my own family have become corrupted too.
Yeah Mike, where I think this becomes sad is when there form rifts or divisions over family conflicts. Is it possible that two people can believe contradictory things and yet both be right (and wrong)? Is that a paradox? or just a call for love & forgiveness?
Roy wrote:Mike wrote:When I think about my own family history, I find that in just a few generations the stories are about my own family have become corrupted too.
Yeah Mike, where I think this becomes sad is when there form rifts or divisions over family conflicts. Is it possible that two people can believe contradictory things and yet both be right (and wrong)? Is that a paradox? or just a call for love & forgiveness?
I believe they can and at times I have seen it be true. Not all the time. Think of witnessing a event. You witness it from a 90 degree angle while a family member or someone else watches it at a 180 or 215 degree angle. Both can witness what happen at the same time yet see something different depending on the angle they saw something. Both could be part of what happened from that angle. Or both could be lead to see something that only appeared to be what they saw.
Time does funny things to our memories as well. As a side note we now posses the tools to record what really happens, I hope we use them for our future generations benefit instead of relying on journals and memery.
I think the paradox thing ignites when both parties realize they are both right about there own perspective they saw, yet wrong on the whole situation of it’s entirety. Each picturing a piece but doesn’t really understand what went on in the whole of it. If we could put our emotions aside and try to get at the viewpoints seen from each angle to come up with a more whole picture. Love and forgiveness, it’s not about who is right or wrong, it’s about trying to love and understand and accept each others experiences, in attempt to gain a whole picture of things for the betterment of the whole group, not one particular person or group of people.
We can never come to truth in judgement, only compassion and patience to hear the whole story of view points. Judgement makes us irrational and blinds us.
Roy wrote:
Quote:Yeah Mike, where I think this becomes sad is when there form rifts or divisions over family conflicts. Is it possible that two people can believe contradictory things and yet both be right (and wrong)? Is that a paradox? or just a call for love & forgiveness?
Our family doesn’t have any rifts or divisions over family conflicts. My grandparents, parents, aunts & uncles didn’t talk much.
And when they did, the details were different for reasons none of us (cousins) really understand.
Back to Heber’s statement:
Quote:Mormonism would fall more in the natural school, where God is abiding by natural laws or He ceases to be God, and Adam was taught and passed on these teachings down through generations, and when corrupted, prophets are called to correct the teachings of the natural law, right?
Over time, stories change. This is similar to the stories my family tells. It is all part of the natural law. Prophets are called to correct the teachings that have developed over the years.
Good point, Heber!
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.