Cultural "wiggle room"

[checkerboy]

Recently I read a thread discussing cultural traditions and the prevailing view was that the General Authorities had "wiggle room" when it came to enforcing gospel standards in cultures where they would appear abnormal. I found that to be very curious. So I did a little research. I remembered that Elder Oaks, an apostle no less, spoke about this subject. Here is the link to his talk. I believe this should put to rest any speculation that if you are raised with a certain cultural tradition that it is still ok to hang on to that tradition when you have received the gospel into your life.

Repentance and Change

Enjoy!

[Guest]

Recently I read a thread discussing cultural traditions and the prevailing view was that the General Authorities had "wiggle room" when it came to enforcing gospel standards in cultures where they would appear abnormal. I found that to be very curious. So I did a little research. I remembered that Elder Oaks, an apostle no less, spoke about this subject. Here is the link to his talk. I believe this should put to rest any speculation that if you are raised with a certain cultural tradition that it is still ok to hang on to that tradition when you have received the gospel into your life.

Repentance and Change

Enjoy!

Great talk...

But you missed the point of that thread. As was repeatedly mentioned, the "wiggle room" is not meant as a reason to defy commandments. The "wiggle room" is meant as a reason that GA's may adjust the policies if doing so do not go contrary to eternal laws.

The talk you posted support this with this statement:

Similarly, the present-day servants of the Lord do not attempt to make Filipinos or Asians or Africans into Americans.

So you could possibly see Filipinos administering the sacrament without ties. And yes, French and Italians will have to learn to serve their dinner without the wine.

Edited May 10, 2011 by anatess

[checkerboy]

But Elder Oaks doesn't give any indication that the leadership of the church feels that they can or should alter church doctrine to suit the needs of the culture. In fact he indicates quite the opposite, in stating that "Repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are contrary to the commandments of God."

I think I pretty well understood the nature of the thread I had read. Sometimes people have a hard time letting go of the traditions of their fathers. Happened all the time to me on my mission.

[Guest]

But Elder Oaks doesn't give any indication that the leadership of the church feels that they can or should alter church doctrine to suit the needs of the culture. In fact he indicates quite the opposite, in stating that "Repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are contrary to the commandments of God."

I think I pretty well understood the nature of the thread I had read. Sometimes people have a hard time letting go of the traditions of their fathers. Happened all the time to me on my mission.

Who said anything about altering church doctrine?

When the GA's changed the length of the garment sleeves from long to short, did that change doctrine?

[Bini]

Who said anything about altering church doctrine?

When the GA's changed the length of the garment sleeves from long to short, did that change doctrine?

Anatess, you're a quick cookie I mean that in a positive way. You make great points.

Off to work but I'll observe this thread from a nearby afar..

[checkerboy]

Maybe doctrine was the wrong word to use. But I clearly remember from the other thread that there were those that were arguing that it would be appropriate for policy to be changed for some based on the circumstances of the culture they found themselves in. Or maybe better put that the leaders of the church had the authority to change policy based on a culture's traditions.

Elder Oaks makes it very plain in this talk that that is not nor ever will be the case. He states that it is the tradition that needs to change not the policy.

I keep seeing the length of garments brought up as a proof of this. The thing about that is that only the Lord through the prophet can make a change like that and I seriously doubt that it was a change made because people were yammering about wanting to wear shorts and t-shirts.

Consider the revelation on blacks receiving the priesthood. If that revelation came about because of societal pressure and the changing of the times then by my estimate it should have happened in the 60's not the end of the 70's.

Now, of course, if the prophet did come out and say we are making a change to the cut of garments I would pray and receive my own confirmation that it was of the Lord. I would seriously doubt, though, that it was because more people wanted to show off their shoulders.

I guess I just wonder why so many people have to question the policies and doctrines of the church? If it is a legitimate "I was just curious about why we do it this way" type question that is one thing. But when you doubt and second-guess the Lord's anointed you are setting yourself up for a world of hurt.

I am not accusing anyone specifically of the latter type of questioning but I have seen it done on several occasions here.

[Dravin]

Maybe doctrine was the wrong word to use. But I clearly remember from the other thread that there were those that were arguing that it would be appropriate for policy to be changed for some based on the circumstances of the culture they found themselves in. Or maybe better put that the leaders of the church had the authority to change policy based on a culture's traditions.

Actually in many cases the policies take things such as culture into account. Such as lava-lavas, or poor areas with blue jeans. Actually in some areas the missionaries proselyte in blue jeans instead of suits (though still with white shirts and ties) and in some cases the default missionary schedule is adapted to the culture such as 'honoring' siestas and turning it into a study time. I suppose it could be debated if such are examples of accommodation for culture, while the policy contains 'wiggle' room to allow for it, it is up to leaders to make the call on the ground and not insist that Pacific Islands must always wear pants, missionaries must always proselyte in slacks or suits, or that Missionaries proselyte during siesta time all in contrast to more US centric expectations.

Edit: While some of our ideas (and I'm including myself in this) of God's culture is really God's culture, a fair amount of it (I'm talking of the membership in general) is just Mormon USA culture (or Mormon UK Culture, or Mormon Whatever Culture). Cultures, no matter their source contrary to the first need to give in to the first (speaking of members of the Church), there is no such need for them to give in to Mormon X Cultures. Generally on this board that means Mormon USA culture, and sometimes more specifically Mormon Jello Belt Culture.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Now, of course, if the prophet did come out and say we are making a change to the cut of garments I would pray and receive my own confirmation that it was of the Lord. I would seriously doubt, though, that it was because more people wanted to show off their shoulders.

The discussion on the garments on the previous thread came about because somebody said that we don't show the shoulders because it is immodest.

I disagreed. I said that we don't show the shoulders because we wear garments.

Because, in hot and humid Philippines showing the shoulders is completely not immodest - it's the norm. And this is where the talk you posted falls neatly into place - once we make our covenants, we shed our cultural norms to abide by it. Therefore, even if thin-strapped sundresses in the Philippines is not immodest, endowed saints don't wear them until the time comes that the GA's allow it.

Make sense now?

Edited May 10, 2011 by anatess

[Jennarator]

The discussion on the garments on the previous thread came about because somebody said that we don't show the shoulders because it is immodest.

I disagreed. I said that we don't show the shoulders because we wear garments.

Because, in hot and humid Philippines showing the shoulders is completely not immodest - it's the norm. And this is where the talk you posted falls neatly into place - once we make our covenants, we shed our cultural norms to abide by it. Therefore, even if thin-strapped sundresses in the Philippines is not immodest, endowed saints don't wear them until the time comes that the GA's allow it.

Make sense now?

Yet, the "for the strength of youth" pamphlet says shoulders should be covered. These pamphlets are appoved byt the First Presidency and are standards for the whole church and are not changed becasue it is hot. This pamphlet is written for people, not yet endowed.

I lived in San Diego most of my life and most people sport short shorts and no strap clothes, people don't consider that immodest,(I realize it's not as hot there, but I bring it up because it's a cultural norm there, too.) but the church does consider it imodest. Just because the people in a certian area don't consider somethig immodest, doesn't mean the church will agree with that. I think the talk made it very clear we don't change standards due to culture.

[Guest]

Yet, the "for the strength of youth" pamphlet says shoulders should be covered. These pamphlets are appoved byt the First Presidency and are standards for the whole church and are not changed becasue it is hot. This pamphlet is written for people, not yet endowed.

I lived in San Diego most of my life and most people sport short shorts and no strap clothes, people don't consider that immodest,(I realize it's not as hot there, but I bring it up because it's a cultural norm there, too.) but the church does consider it imodest. Just because the people in a certian area don't consider somethig immodest, doesn't mean the church will agree with that. I think the talk made it very clear we don't change standards due to culture.

The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet prepares our Youth for Endowments. If you notice, the Bishop doesn't withhold a youth's temple recommend to do baptisms because she wore a thin-strapped sundress.

And like I said, nobody asked to change church standards due to culture. The church leaders DO change standards in deference to culture if it does not run contrary with the laws of God.

A perfect example of this: People in the USA who are married civilly is required to wait 1 year before they can be sealed in the temple. People in the UK are always married civilly and then sealed at the temple as soon as immediately thereafter. I can name a gillion more of these types of differences.

Edited May 10, 2011 by anatess

[Jennarator]

I guess I don't beleive in argueing with the GAs. This particular item has been spelled out to us and is distrubuted thrughout the church. They have not made and execption to this.

I havee seen the GAs made those other exceptions and if they make that one, then fine. But they have not.

[JudoMinja]

Yet, the "for the strength of youth" pamphlet says shoulders should be covered. These pamphlets are appoved byt the First Presidency and are standards for the whole church and are not changed becasue it is hot. This pamphlet is written for people, not yet endowed.

I lived in San Diego most of my life and most people sport short shorts and no strap clothes, people don't consider that immodest,(I realize it's not as hot there, but I bring it up because it's a cultural norm there, too.) but the church does consider it imodest. Just because the people in a certian area don't consider somethig immodest, doesn't mean the church will agree with that. I think the talk made it very clear we don't change standards due to culture.

It seems to me that you are seeing a problem with the use of the word "immodest". No one disagrees with you that the church does not have the same view as other cultures. The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet points out what the Lord considers modest, but modesty is a relative term. It changes depending on the background. What is modest to one person may be immodest to another, and vice versa. What is considered "modest" changes with time, place, and culture.

But the Lord does not change. We all agree with you on that, and we are not saying that people should go against the standards of the Lord. However, there is evidence even in the scriptures that the Lord does offer "wiggle room" in that He does not give us more than we are prepared for or able to maintain. Hence, the ability to wear jeans in locations where a suit just isn't practical and other similar alterations to church policy. As long as these changes do not compromise His standard, the Lord will allow it so that His people are not held to something so rigid that it cannot be followed. With time, as we conform to what He has asked of us, He will offer more for us to follow.

[Guest]

I guess I don't beleive in argueing with the GAs. This particular item has been spelled out to us and is distrubuted thrughout the church. They have not made and execption to this.

I havee seen the GAs made those other exceptions and if they make that one, then fine. But they have not.

Jenna, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. NOBODY - not me, not Dravin, not Bini ever said anything about arguing with the GA's!!!

We NEVER said we are going to defy the GA's and start wearing strapless sundress because we are justified in doing so (that would look really cool on Dravin too). All we are saying is that we don't believe we cover our shoulders for modesty. We believe we cover our shoulders so we can wear garments!

The For The Strength of Youth manual DOES NOT set a guideline for men to cover their shoulders... YET, they have to, to wear garments!

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe...

On one thread I am trying to tell Rame that breaking immigration laws are never justified and here you are trying to tell me that I believe in defying the GA's.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon all! :)

It seems to me that distinct terms with distinct meanings are being used interchangably. I think Dravin's post addresses this distinction. I agree with Dravin. I quote checkerboy who quoted Elder Oaks with an added emphasis:

"Repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are contrary to the commandments of God."

The ultimate and only requirement is for us to conform to God's commandments. Not all "traditions of our fathers" are contrary to God's commandments. For instance, there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to keep their left hand behind their back when passing the sacrament. Likewise there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to say "...which we hold" after pronouncing the authority by which a blessing is occurring.

Clearly, Mormons in general, have traditions and customs that vary from location to location which aren't required by commandment or forbidden by them. God's Church can accomodate those things.

The short and the sweet of it is this: If a tradition isn't contrary to God's commandments, as Elder Oaks states, there is leeway in how it is handled.

The assumption that "the traditions of our fathers" are equal to "contrary to God's commandments" is a faulty assumption.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited May 10, 2011 by Finrock

[Backroads]

The ultimate and only requirement is for us to conform to God's commandments. Not all "traditions of our fathers" are contrary to God's commandments. For instance, there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to keep their left hand behind their back when passing the sacrament. Likewise there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to say "...which we hold" after pronouncing the authority by which a blessing is occurring.

Clearly, Mormons in general, have traditions and customs that vary from location to location which aren't required by commandment or forbidden by them. God's Church can accomodate those things.

The short and the sweet of it is this: If it a tradition isn't contrary to God's commandments, as Elder Oaks states, there is leeway in how it is handled.

The assumption that "the traditions of our fathers" are equal to "contrary to God's commandments" is a faulty assumption.

If this just didn't sum it all up... :)

Jennerator and checkerboy, I am under the impression that you are arguing that if it does not correspond with with USA Mormon culture, it's wrong and en evil "tradition of someone's fathers".

You seem to be suggesting that anyone at anytime during history who dressed different was consciously and willingly sinning.

Modesty is a relative term. It has changed countless times throughout history. It is NOT an eternal principal. If it were, the Church would give us a much more specific dresscode.

[Jennarator]

Jenna, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. NOBODY - not me, not Dravin, not Bini ever said anything about arguing with the GA's!!!

We NEVER said we are going to defy the GA's and start wearing strapless sundress because we are justified in doing so (that would look really cool on Dravin too). All we are saying is that we don't believe we cover our shoulders for modesty. We believe we cover our shoulders so we can wear garments!

The For The Strength of Youth manual DOES NOT set a guideline for men to cover their shoulders... YET, they have to, to wear garments!

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe...

On one thread I am trying to tell Rame that breaking immigration laws are never justified and here you are trying to tell me that I believe in defying the GA's.

The pamphlet does say that shoulders should be covered. It is written for Youth, NOT ENDOWED memebers. It is approved by the First Presidency. There for if you disagree with that, you disagree with the GAs.

I realize you see it differently. I don't.

[Backroads]

I guess I don't beleive in argueing with the GAs. This particular item has been spelled out to us and is distrubuted thrughout the church. They have not made and execption to this.

I havee seen the GAs made those other exceptions and if they make that one, then fine. But they have not.

Sure they have. The members of the church in various countries who still bare the shoulders (those who have not been endowed and therefore have no garments to cover) have not been excommunicated.

[Wingnut]

...start wearing strapless sundress because we are justified in doing so (that would look really cool on Dravin too).

For instance, there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to keep their left hand behind their back when passing the sacrament.

Ironically, the CHI specifically mentions this practice and discourages it and other superfluous traditions that don't actually have anything to do with the ordinance of the sacrament.

[Wingnut]

Modesty is a relative term. It has changed countless times throughout history. It is NOT an eternal principal. If it were, the Church would give us a much more specific dresscode.

I would argue that modesty, in and of itself, might be an eternal principle. How it is defined, however, is not.

[Guest]

The pamphlet does say that shoulders should be covered. It is written for Youth, NOT ENDOWED memebers. It is approved by the First Presidency. There for if you disagree with that, you disagree with the GAs.

I realize you see it differently. I don't.

Read the pamphlet again. The covered shoulders are only specified for young WOMEN.

Did I say I disagreed with it??? brick wall...

[pam]

We closed the other thread for a reason. This thread is now closed as well.