29 May 2009

Exceptions

A friend posted a blog about exceptions, and how every rule seems to have one. He related a couple of the more salient ones. Back in Paul's day women in church were supposed to keep their heads under cover and their mouths shut; they don't now and there's nothing wrong with it. Murder is always wrong, unless you're Nephi and Laban has succumbed to his inebriation. My friend's focus was on other, more complicated questions, but he mentioned these things and got me tinkering. I'm thinking there's a lot to be learned from exceptions and some of the best scientists agree with me.

I know of very few immutable rules. When I find one I take special note and add it to my collection. So far the list looks like this:
  1. God is always right.
  2. There's no way to salvation except by baptism in the name of the Saviour by proper authority.
  3. Sin hurts.
And then I run out of cast iron laws. Even so, not all of the remaining laws are as flaky and arbitrary as they might look. Some exceptions - like the grisly episode in which Nephi decapitates Laban - are easier to mull over if you assume they haven't really broken laws but instead are obeying the unabridged law. You know:

In brief, thou shalt not kill.

But "thou" means people, not God. He can kill anyone at anytime and it's still a further manifestation of perfection instead of an embarrassing smudge on His record. So, assuming that God can decide someone needs to die at any time with ultimate impunity, it isn't wrong to kill them if you've been divinely commissioned to carry out the divine decision. It's just wrong to make the decision yourself. Because you, clearly, are people, and they're not allowed to rush about rubbing other people out. Except during wars . . . Oh dear, everything went murky again. But there it is: exceptions probably aren't cases outside the law. More likely they are hints at the expansive, panoramic, principle based law out beyond the brief rule of thumb we're responsible for.

It needs more thought, but there's something there. Exceptions aren't really exceptions. That's the neat thing about eternal laws: they are never defied, never 'broken', never suspended. So if someone behaving righteously appears to be stomping all the rules to crumbs, then likely there is an eternal law somewhere of which you are not yet aware or aren't incorporating. It just needs some thought and prayer, and you will find that the law was beautifully honoured, not sidestepped.

If all else fails, there's always 1 Nephi 11:17.

2 comments:

  1. Well... actually... if you die as an infant, apparently you don't need baptism to get into heaven. Not even for the ordinance sake... Couldn't quote the source, but yeah... Anyway, I like the thoughts. Very provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ummm . . . yes? Yes. Children who die before the age of accountability do not need to be baptized in this life, just as others their age should not be baptized. Mormon called the baptism of infants an abomination (Moroni 8). First of all, they are innocent and have no need of repentance. And also, the ordinance is a promise they are not yet capable of making with informed intent. But at some point in the next life they will be able to understand and make those promises, and the work will need to be done for them if they are to partake of salvation. In John 3:5 the Savior says,

    "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

    The Bible Dictionary comments,

    "Baptism is not optional if one wishes the fullness of salvation."

    I'd like to look into your source a little more, but I would say this rule is still of the cast iron variety.

    ReplyDelete