Culture Traditions verses Doctrine


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Though I consider myself a convert to Jesus Christ and his restored kingdom of these Last days I was born under the covenant of goodly Parents and have never been rebellious. However, over the years of my covenants - it seems to me that many points that the saints think of as doctrine - is in reality culture traditions that are founded in culture traditions of the world more than divine doctrine of the saints.

I could give many examples but for sake of not offending so many - I will give a few examples of non-doctrinal traditions according to my understanding:

That the sacrament must be passed and received with one’s right hand. I would also ask as to what the role of deacons concerning the “passing” of the sacrament. Is it okay for a 5 year old to hold a sacrament tray while their parents or anyone else partakes? As a side note: I lived in a ward where once in a while the sacrament was passed by the Melchizedek Priesthood. I mentioned to the Bishopric that it is my understanding that the deacon’s quorum presidency (under the Bishop) hold the keys to passing the sacrament in the ward - and have the responsibility to plan and instruct those that would be passing the sacrament. That I believed that it was not proper (doctrine) for the Melchizedek Priesthood to plan and determine the “methods” and protocol to be used for passing the sacrament.

That it is necessary to wear a white shirt and tie when performing official duties of the Priesthood. This should be a no brainer but many believe it to be doctrine. However, I have not found any example where Jesus or an angel appeared wearing a white shirt and tie.

Therefore - I ask the question. How do individuals, how do you, distinguish between “culture traditions” and the doctrine of the church and kingdom? Is it even important to think about such things and ask such a question?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Therefore - I ask the question. How do individuals, how do you, distinguish between “culture traditions” and the doctrine of the church and kingdom? Is it even important to think about such things and ask such a question?

I think it is important to ask for two reasons:

1) So we don't internalize as a gospel principle something that is not a gospel principle. Now sometimes culture is underlain by the application of a gospel princple but sometimes it is just the way something is done. Take for instance the various rituals that get incorporated into passing the sacrament, in my experience each ward has their own way of doing it. They line up in a certain way, or may handle passing the sacrament amongst the passers differently. There is not gospel principle behind a particular way (assuming they are equally reverent), whether the deacons pass to each other first at the back of the chapel or if they partake standing at the front as they hand the trays to the priests. It's a cultural thing.

2) It is important to understand the distinction before we go about correcting someone for not adhering to culture as opposed to not adhering to gospel principles*. Your taking of the sacrament is a good example where this would be an issue. We may find symbolism or comfort in it but to correct others as being wrong for not partaking of the sacrament with the right hand would be in error.

As far as knowing the difference, I apply logic and counsel by leaders of the Church. The Church Handbook of instructions for instance states that the lack of a white shirt shouldn't prevent someone from passing the sacrament. The ultimate way to check though is through revelation.

P.S. I do not want to come across as saying because something is culture to buck the trend just for the heck of it. Part of being a group is having a shared culture, but it's important we don't condemn someone as not adhering to the gospel when the issue is culture. Particularly when we realize culture varies across the church.

*Now I'm not saying deacons in a ward shouldn't be on the same page for how they pass the sacrament, but if one ward does it one way and another does it a different way neither are in error, with the standard caveats. It's just ward culture.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Oh man, Traveler, I love that you brought this up. I think it is definately something worth thinking about and discussing. And yet I hesitate...oh...I'm so torn. Would it be bad if I just sent you a PM? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore - I ask the question. How do individuals, how do you, distinguish between “culture traditions” and the doctrine of the church and kingdom? Is it even important to think about such things and ask such a question?

I will begin with the latter of the two questions. Yes, it is very important that we think and act on such things as this question.

1. We become less judgmental when we act on doctrine verses personal opinions, or culture traditions. It is easier to be unified under doctrine.

2. Acting in doctrine allows individuals to govern themselves, and within the bounds of the doctrine.

3. I have liked John Taylor's words I read from his biography which said something to the nature of truth, and how LDS accept truth no matter where the source. If we recognize we are living a "culture tradition" then we should be quick to reject it, if we are teaching it as doctrine, as well as, if we are teaching something that we assume to be "culture tradition" which is actually doctrine, then we should be quick to correct our misunderstandings.

How do I currently decipher between the two (recognizing that my knowledge has changed over the past years, and what I consider now as deciphering tools may change and thus change my perspective):

1. What is in scripture.

2. Hard to judge our time in connection with times past. Judge today for today, and history for history. What may not have been doctrine in the past (history), actually may be doctrine today. What was doctrine in the past, may not be doctrine today.

Example: sacrifice of animals, and we don't sacrifice any animals today.

3. Follow the brethren. It is interesting you note that it isn't doctrine to not partake of the sacrament with your left hand, however I thought it was interesting when our Stake President spoke regarding the sacrament, he shared how all the brethren partook of the sacrament with their "right" hands, and passed the sacrament with their "right" hands.

I thought it was interesting also how when he was first called to one of these general assemblies, as an S.P., he mentioned how he tried to grab the tray from one of the Apostles, and then partake. The apostle would not allow our S.P. to take the tray until he had first partaken of the bread, and then he passed it. Why? Is this a doctrine he has come to understand, and I am oblivious to? Or is this a personal preference?

I am more inclined to follow the brethren, and recognize somethings do not need to be written in order for them to be doctrinal. Is it doctrine? Great question...it would appear all the brethren partake with their right hand...the question then is why do they partake with their right hand if not doctrine?

4. Question everything, and think for yourself, well rely on the spirit to teach the truth, and seek a personal witness from God yourself? On my mission two Seventies had differences of opinion regarding non-members partaking of the sacrament before baptism. One said, they shouldn't because they haven't themselves accepted the covenant. The other said, they should and are no different than a child partaking of the sacrament.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there is a lot of culture that isn't necessary. But I also think it's dangerous to get in a pattern of being so critical of culture that we begin to be antagonistic. I love so much of our church culture. I hate some of it, too, but I don't find it appropriate to go around complaining about things people (especially leaders) are doing, either. If it's in my power to say or do something different in a way that can make a difference, great. But to just gripe to whomever will listen about all the bad things about Mormonism isn't usually productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the sacrament must be passed and received with one’s right hand.

...

Therefore - I ask the question. How do individuals, how do you, distinguish between “culture traditions” and the doctrine of the church and kingdom?

Oh, that's easy. I distinguish between the two, by understanding what I believe and why I believe it. I didn't know the first until I was 26, I'm still working on the second, although I figure I reached around 80% within a few years.

Joseph Fielding Smith had things to say about the issue:

It is a very interesting study to discover how ordinances and doctrines became changed in the first centuries of the Christian era. These changes date back even to the days of the apostles. Paul frequently had to rebuke, warn and counsel with the members in the several branches which he was instrumental in organizing when on his missionary journeys. He severely rebuked the saints at Corinth for desecrating the holy ordinance of the Sacrament and turning it into a feast where the [page 104] Spirit of the Lord could not be present.

The first changes that came, evidently came innocently because some enterprising bishop or other officer endeavored to introduce into his meetings, or among his congregation something new—just a little different, in advancement of that which was practiced elsewhere. This tendency is very apparent in the wards and stakes of the Church today.

For example, let us consider the ordinance of the Sacrament. It became the custom in many wards throughout the church to have the young men who passed the Sacrament all dressed alike with dark coats, white shirts and uniform ties. This could in time lead to the established custom of dressing them in uniform, such as we see done in some sectarian and other churches. Then again as they passed the Sacrament they had to stand with their left hand plastered on their backs in a most awkward manner. The priests or elders who administered these holy emblems had to stand in a certain way as the one officiating in the prayer knelt at the table. In some instances the Bishop stood in the pulpit with raised hands in an attitude of benediction. Other customs among the quorums and in the services of the wards were introduced. Members of the Church were instructed that they must not touch the trays containing the bread and the water with their left hand, but must take it in their right hand after partaking as their neighbor held the tray in his or her right hand. In the Priesthood in the wards, we now have "supervisors" directing the activities of the deacons and the priests. How long will it take before these supervisors are considered as a regular part of the Priesthood and it will be necessary to set them apart or ordain them to this office? So we see that we, if we are not careful, will find ourselves traveling the road that brought the Church of Jesus Christ in the first centuries into disrepute and paved the way for the apostasy.

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 1, p.103
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore - I ask the question. How do individuals, how do you, distinguish between “culture traditions” and the doctrine of the church and kingdom? Is it even important to think about such things and ask such a question?

The Traveler

I think the comparison you might be after is more in terms of "cultural traditions" and principles, not doctrine.

Principles are the way the underlying doctrine is packaged for our current use and application. The way a group is taught a certain doctrine via the application of principles can vary according to God's word but it wouldn't change the underlying doctrine. A good example would be that of the law of sacrifice as was already given. How the law of sacrifice is carried out might vary in different eras. But the truths about the doctrine do not change.

Just like as they are doing this next year, changing the curriculum for the young women and men, that doesn't change the underlying doctrine.

If you are asking how to distinguish principle from doctrine; that I think is done by understanding the differences between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the sacrament must be passed and received with one’s right hand.

I think there is some very deep and important symbolism here, but while I try to take the sacrament with my right hand, I'm not 100% consistent, nor is my wife, and I don't think we should look askance at any who use the left hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is much to be learned through traditions and no doubt there is rich symbolism communicated in traditions. But my question has many dimensions. Again - some example thoughts. How much does our culture and traditions color our interpretations of scripture? How much did ancient cultures and traditions color the textual presentation of scripture that we do have. When a prophet speaks - how much is dependent on symbolism embedded in culture and traditions?

Sometimes it seems to me that there is a very fine line between certain culture (traditions) and doctrine necessary for salvation. Sometimes I think culture and traditions are over emphasized and sometimes I am inclined to think they are under emphasized. It does appear to me that 99% of disagreements - even between individuals of different religions are based in culture and traditions rather than doctrine. But then, on the other hand, it seems to me that culture and traditions are the biggest barrier to becoming a Saint of G-d - because we are so "addicted" (for lack of a better term) the worldly traditions.

Having traveled and experienced many cultures - it does seem to me that we tend to over appreciate our own culture and under appreciate the different culture of others.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - some example thoughts. How much does our culture and traditions color our interpretations of scripture? How much did ancient cultures and traditions color the textual presentation of scripture that we do have. When a prophet speaks - how much is dependent on symbolism embedded in culture and traditions?

Well it depends on just what the prophet says, one can use more or less cultural symbolism. I can say, "Coming back from heavy sin and addiction to follow Christ can seem Sisyphean." which requires more cultural understanding than does, "Coming back from heavy sin and addiction to follow Christ can seem to be never ending, as soon as we make headway we seem dragged back to where we started only to start again." Though while one can tie cultural understanding into one's speach/writings to a greater or lesser degree I don't think one can completely avoid it, if nothing else language is culture, neither of those statements make sense if you don't read English. As far as how much context culture plays in the scriptures, Nephi thought that it played a significant role in understanding Jewish scripture:

5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in what you think that might be?

-RM

Part of it is the symbolic separation between light and darkness; truth and lie; holy and profane; clean and unclean; pure and impure. Look at what side the sheep are on, and what side the goats. Also look at where Christ stands in Stephen's vision. The right hand in the ancient world has held symbolic meaning, it is the hand used in holy functions (such as reading from scripture) and neither Jews nor Arabs would have used it for cleaning up after defecating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of it is the symbolic separation between light and darkness; truth and lie; holy and profane; clean and unclean; pure and impure. Look at what side the sheep are on, and what side the goats. Also look at where Christ stands in Stephen's vision. The right hand in the ancient world has held symbolic meaning, it is the hand used in holy functions (such as reading from scripture) and neither Jews nor Arabs would have used it for cleaning up after defecating.

So did the Jew and Arabs use the left had for defecation because the right hand was holy, or did they choose to associate the right hand with holiness because the left hand was used for defecation?

I think this is probably a case where the Lord chose to use established cultural norms to teach eternal principles. That's quite a bit different than using eternal principles to establish cultural norms.

Is that not the epitome of culture as opposed to doctrine though volgadon?

-RM

Yes, it is. Which is why when people make a stink about taking the sacrament with the right hand I like to say something like, "You're right. We should definitely insist on taking the sacrament with our right hands because 4,000 years ago, people used to wipe their butts with their left hands.*"

* That isn't directed at you volgadon. I'm fine with people like yourself who understand that it isn't something to lose sleep over. Such comments I reserve for those who aggressively take the stance that it must be with the right hand lest we offend God.

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did the Jew and Arabs use the left had for defecation because the right hand was holy, or did they choose to associate the right hand with holiness because the left hand was used for defecation?

A little hard to tell, but there is interesting evidence (such as the Babylonian Talmud Berachot 62a) that it was the former of your prepositions.

* That isn't directed at you volgadon. I'm fine with people like yourself who understand that it isn't something to lose sleep over. Such comments I reserve for those who aggressively take the stance that it must be with the right hand lest we offend God.

This the act of taking upon us the name of Christ and always remembering Him is a far more important symbol than what hand is used. Anything more should be up to the individual's discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. Which is why when people make a stink about taking the sacrament with the right hand I like to say something like, "You're right. We should definitely insist on taking the sacrament with our right hands because 4,000 years ago, people used to wipe their butts with their left hands.*"

I doubt there was ever a culture on earth that commonly wiped their anus post-defecation with their hand, right or left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is much to be learned through traditions and no doubt there is rich symbolism communicated in traditions. But my question has many dimensions.

I don't believe I have experienced any of your questions that do not have multiple dimensions. :)

How much does our culture and traditions color our interpretations of scripture?

In my personal opinion I would assume our cultures are part of the reason why the scriptures are interpreted so many different ways. If we liken the scriptures unto ourselves then scripture will be interpreted by the culture we grew up in.

I think however you have said this before, this is why we need to read the scriptures and interpret the scriptures, not from our standpoint or vantage point, but from the vantage point of the writer. We must understand their culture and traditions to fully comprehend what they were meaning.

How much did ancient cultures and traditions color the textual presentation of scripture that we do have. When a prophet speaks - how much is dependent on symbolism embedded in culture and traditions?

I would assume as much as it does in our personal writings and journals. Dravin provided and excellent scripture from Nephi to give basis to this question.

Having traveled and experienced many cultures - it does seem to me that we tend to over appreciate our own culture and under appreciate the different culture of others.

I would agree with this sentiment, however my experience with different cultures extends only to three places: United States, Texas, and Utah. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt there was ever a culture on earth that commonly wiped their anus post-defecation with their hand, right or left.

:D They still do this in some parts of the Philippines until today... of course, you don't ever do it without the use of water...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share