Culture Traditions verses Doctrine


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are there in the Scriptures? "Thou shall eat green jello" "Thou shall wear a white shirt" "Thou shall not grow a beard" "Thou shall have at least 5 children". That's basically how I see it and if in doubt, I research.

The scriptures do say that we must hunger and thirst after righteousness. I have been hungry enough to eat grasshoppers - they are horrible and if there was anything else I would not eat grasshoppers but if I get hungry enough I will eat them.

I have learned in life and within the church not to be that concerned when someone asks me to wear a white shirt and tie when representing the priesthood of G-d - but I have learned to be concerned when someone thinks that they have found for themself something they believe an insist to be better and more appropriate? Not that I dislike their beliefs - but I am careful not to give such opinions more respect than deserved.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to wonder find more important a piece of material hanging from the neck, or a chance to for a young man who maybe struggling to hold on to his testimony to have the chance to pass the sacrament?

At 15 mere weeks from 16, he is responsible for keeping track of his own clothing, if he can't find his tie or other articles he will go without until he finds them. I can and do suggest ways and methods to store and keep track of and store his belongings he is free to follow them or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this question just popped in my head and I found this thread to be a good place for it... a more appropriate one than the Wear Pants Protest one.

There are traditions and there are doctrines. But, we do acknowledge that deviating from tradition can be distracting in an environment where we need to concentrate on learning/applying the doctrines.

So, yes, wearing a tie is tradition, not doctrine. But we wear a tie because that's what everybody else does and we don't want to distract from the sacrament. It's like seeing a neon orange shirt in the middle of admiring the beauty of nature kinda distracts from that moment. Of course, there's nothing wrong with wearing a neon orange shirt...

In any case, who gets to decide what the tradition is? How is a tradition established? Isn't it just cultural norms? If so, then is it really such a big deal to follow cultural norms instead of actively working to deviate from it? Of course, I'm not talking about those who just do not have the resources to follow the cultural norm or they are dibilitatingly inconvenienced by it.

But, the cultural norm of the LDS Church in America is to wear a tie to pass the sacrament and for women to wear a dress. Therefore, as part of our preparation to attend church service, we prepare our ties and shake out that dress. This, to me, is part of Charity. Part of my service to the ward. That I take on some inconvenience (I have pants that are more comfortable than my dresses) to follow a cultural norm so as not to pose a distraction in Sacrament meeting.

And, if I were a deacon and I had to wear a tie and I can't find it - all it means is that I did not prepare good enough for Sunday service. A bishop then, can decide if that preparation is essential to passing the sacrament or not. It should not have any bearing to one's testimony. Note: should not, is an ideal reaction... when one's testimony is shaky, the should nots is out the window.

In any case, I don't find it of such consequence that I wear a dress to Church regardless of my comfort level. It's not dibilitating. And I can concentrate on the Spirit of the Meetings regardless of what I wear. So, a dress it is.

At work, it is very uncomfortable to have to wear a suit all day while running around the building. But we wear it, not because we like it, but because our customers expect it. I value the ward members way more than business customers.

Sometimes, we think too much of ourselves and a lot less of others.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was to agree with some of the opinions here, I would have to assume all who don't meet my expectations are unworthy and worth my scorn.

Hmmmmm - interesting that you see no other options but scorn?

If you were training someone for conflict (war) between good and evil; would you go easy or hard on them? Would you encourage them to conform with their leaders and obey or to murmur, criticize and rebel against things from their leaders that do not make sense to them?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting. We have Melchizedek priesthood holders pass the sacrament sometimes. We are mostly a college-connected ward and the place pretty much clears out over breaks and the summer. If the missionaries or the husbands (whom I assume hold the Melchizedek priesthood) didn't pass the sacrament, it wouldn't get passed.

I have also seen small children pass the tray along the pew. It seems that the parents want them to have the experience. I never heard anyone have a problem with it.

Finally, I never heard anything about the right hand. What about lefties? : )

Isn't it more important that people take the sacrament than the hand with which it is taken or the age of the person passing the tray (as long as they are old enough to be reverent with it)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting. We have Melchizedek priesthood holders pass the sacrament sometimes. We are mostly a college-connected ward and the place pretty much clears out over breaks and the summer. If the missionaries or the husbands (whom I assume hold the Melchizedek priesthood) didn't pass the sacrament, it wouldn't get passed.

I have also seen small children pass the tray along the pew. It seems that the parents want them to have the experience. I never heard anyone have a problem with it.

Finally, I never heard anything about the right hand. What about lefties? : )

Isn't it more important that people take the sacrament than the hand with which it is taken or the age of the person passing the tray (as long as they are old enough to be reverent with it)?

It appears that distributing the sacrament per se does not require any Priesthood authority at all; for example, any non-Priesthood holder or even non-member can pass the tray along the row. But since officiating in the sacrament is indeed a Priesthood ordinance requiring ordained Priesthood members, distributing the sacrament seems to have been given to the lesser offices in the Aaronic Priesthood as a way to give those young men a service to perform and let them begin learning how one accomplishes Priesthood service.

The longer I live, the more I marvel at how the Priesthood operates within the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to criticize but I wonder. If you and your son had known that Jesus would have been present that that your son would have been passing the sacrament to him - would you and your son have taken more care and preparation concerning a tie?

Oh for goodness sake - and don't you think Jesus would be less judgmental? Hmm?

My first mission president had a wonderful saying concerning priesthood service - "Your best is not good enough and good enough is not your best!"

Jeez. And people wonder why folks wind up in therapy. There are few things worse to tell a developing person (which is what 19 yr old elders are) than nothing they do is good enough. Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

distributing the sacrament seems to have been given to the lesser offices in the Aaronic Priesthood as a way to give those young men a service to perform and let them begin learning how one accomplishes Priesthood service.

The longer I live, the more I marvel at how the Priesthood operates within the Church.

I understand it is the service of the Aaronic priesthood, but apparently it's not a crime/sin for other priesthood holders to help out if there aren't enough of the Aaronic priesthood to do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it is the service of the Aaronic priesthood, but apparently it's not a crime/sin for other priesthood holders to help out if there aren't enough of the Aaronic priesthood to do the job.

Any Priesthood holder can officiate in the office of deacon. A man who holds a certain Priesthood office holds the authority of all "lesser" offices, as well. So any worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder can officiate in any Aaronic Priesthood office or duty. (Technically, the office of bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood office, so I suppose that would be an exception.)

My point was that distributing the sacrament seems to have been assigned to the Aaronic Priesthood, rather than being an inherent duty of the Aaronic Priesthood. But you could argue that, since officiating in the sacrament is itself the duty of the Aaronic Priesthood, all other elements of the sacrament are under the Aaronic Priesthood's purview as well. I am envisioning a situation where, for example, a disabled priest is the only Priesthood holder available. In such a case, you could still have a sacrament meeting, but since the priest (being disabled) could not distribute the sacrament after blessing it, it would be appropriate for non-Priesthood holders to assist him in preparing and distributing the emblems of the sacrament.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for goodness sake - and don't you think Jesus would be less judgmental? Hmm?

I believe that Jesus is very much about being judgmental. And that his judgments are just and true - but that really was not my point. My point concerns those that recognize and understand Jesus and intend to show him all the honor and respect that they are capable. Of course Jesus understands those that have little with which they can show honor and respect. But like in the effort in the 10 cured lepers - he is disappointed in a lack of effort and does indeed appreciate what ever effort we are willing to make.

Jeez. And people wonder why folks wind up in therapy. There are few things worse to tell a developing person (which is what 19 yr old elders are) than nothing they do is good enough. Man.

One of my favorite stories in the Book of Mormon concerns what we call the stripling warriors. From my research I estimate these young men to be at the oldest 13 or in essence the age of most deacons passing the sacrament. Which is kind of what is being talked about. Ever wonder what it was their mothers told those developing young men concerning the efforts they ought to make in serving G-d and their fellow men?

However, if you point is not to waddle in the mistakes of our past - I understand. It is not about where we have been - it is about where we are going and how we are going to get there. (see Alma 26:12 and 2Nephi 25:23)

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Priesthood holder can officiate in the office of deacon. A man who holds a certain Priesthood office holds the authority of all "lesser" offices, as well. So any worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder can officiate in any Aaronic Priesthood office or duty. (Technically, the office of bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood office, so I suppose that would be an exception.)

My point was that distributing the sacrament seems to have been assigned to the Aaronic Priesthood, rather than being an inherent duty of the Aaronic Priesthood. But you could argue that, since officiating in the sacrament is itself the duty of the Aaronic Priesthood, all other elements of the sacrament are under the Aaronic Priesthood's purview as well. I am envisioning a situation where, for example, a disabled priest is the only Priesthood holder available. In such a case, you could still have a sacrament meeting, but since the priest (being disabled) could not distribute the sacrament after blessing it, it would be appropriate for non-Priesthood holders to assist him in preparing and distributing the emblems of the sacrament.

One of the "things" I find so interesting about the "order" of the priesthood is that should an Apostle or member of the first presidency be visiting a ward and asked to assist the deacons in passing the sacrament is that the deacon's quorum president would "instruct" and direct that Apostle as to his place and that the great Apostle would receive guidance and direction by the lowly deacon.

I believe this was demonstrated even by Jesus when he went to John the Baptist to be baptized. I believe that John recognized Jesus and thought that because John was in reality representing Jesus to baptize he thought that Jesus should baptize him - him being "lower" than Jesus. Jesus corrected John and said that it is right that the one appointed should act in their office as G-d's proxy - even if they are serving G-d. As far as I know - the LDS is the only "church" that understand this order of the priesthood.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Joseph Fielding Smith talks about using the right hand in Answers to Gospel Questions. Vol1 pages 154 to 158.

4pages is too much for me to copy Especially since I am a 2 fingered typist.

But here is the last paragraph

The right hand or side is called the dexter, and the left the sinister Dexter connotes something favorable; sinister, something unfavorable or unfortunate. It is a well established practice in the Church to partake of the Sacrament with the right hand and also to anoint with the right hand, according to the custom which the scriptures indicate is, and always was, approved by divine injunction.

I was always taught to take the Sacrament with the right hand, and after reading chapter 39 Vol.1 in Answers To Gospel Questions. I am even more resolved to use my right hand.

I was confused when it was announced that it was OK to use the left hand. But I thank maybe, what they mean is all those who are unable to or have a hard time taking the Sacrament with the right hand can use the left hand, and the Sacrament will count for them just as much as for the people who use their right hand.

I don't think it means to just use any hand any time. I thank we are supposed to use our Right hands if we are able to use our right hand. If not then it is OK to use our left hand

Here's another quick reason for using the left hand. In Church I sit by a elderly lady, who is very frail. She has a hard time holding the trays out (especially the water)for me to use my right hand. So with my left hand I take the tray from her, take the bread or water

with my right hand.

OOPS! looks like I hijacked your thread. Didn't mean too. I just got carried away. I guess because I believe so strongly in using the right hand whenever you are able to use the right hand

I apologize for the lengthiness of this post. Brother Ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting quote:

It is a very interesting study to discover how ordinances and doctrines became changed in the first centuries of the Christian era...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. These changes and innovations are innocently adopted, but in course of time there is the danger that they will become fixed customs and considered as necessary to the welfare of the Church. For example, let us consider the ordinance of the Sacrament...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. (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Church History and Modern Revelation, vol. 1. Deseret Book Co.: Salt Lake City, 1946, pp. 103-104.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen MP bless and pass the sacrament, they are usually YM leaders, or new to the priesthood.

There is nothing wrong with MP blessing and passing the sacrament. I don't get the white shirt thing.

You really can't have it both ways...if a MP has to wear a white shirt so that he can perform the ordinance of the sacrament, but they are not supposed to do the sacrament, then why would it matter what color shirt they are wearing to church anyway?

I don't really get LDS culture. It mystifies me. One VT I had when I first joined the church had her youngest child in her van when she was giving me a ride to a Dr. apppointment. She said she had that child to 'do her duty to the church'. Now this is clearly a cultural idea...I was judged by many sisters very very harshly because I could not have any more children...but what really disturbed me is that her child heard her say that.

That ward had a lot of cultural teachings that had veered them way off of the path...one was that nonmembers should be avoided and were the 'wicked' spoken of in scripture and that CONverts (how they said it while teaching in RS) were very fortunate if they were allowed to join 'OUR' church. Me being only one of the two adult converts in the room at the time. Another was that if your husband to whom you are sealed goes to hll you have to go with him b/c of the sealing ordinance.

Lots of wacky ones in that ward, but if I spoke up they just thought I was crazy. Luckily, it was fixed very shortly after I joined. It is the Lord's church and He is very aware when things are going astray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello dahlia! :)

Jeez. And people wonder why folks wind up in therapy. There are few things worse to tell a developing person (which is what 19 yr old elders are) than nothing they do is good enough. Man.

Within a gospel context the statement in question is absolutely true. Regardless of our best efforts we will fall short of the glory of God. Our best is not good enough, we need the atonement. However, because our best isn't good enough for us to be saved, that does not then mean that we should just be complacent with only doing "good enough". In short, what I understood that quote to mean is embodied in the following scripture:

"23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23).

Regards,

Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, another meaning for the quote is to make a distinction between doing "our best" and doing "good enough". The quote could be intended to help the Elder to do some personal inventory. The quote might force the Elder to ask themselves: Am I doing the actual best that I can or am I just doing "good enough"?

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can think of one thing regarding the sacrament that I was taught as Doctrine, but is actually specifically false, and there is specific scriptural statement to prove its falsehood. I was taught that it is a requirement to use white bread in preparing the sacrament. Given D&C 27, I would say the teaching is wrong. Once when wheat bread was brought, several ward members were rather upset, being of the opinion that unless it was white bread, it didn't count somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I think the Sacrament has been around a lot longer than refined flour. If they were being really purist and wanted to use what Jesus did, it would have to be unleavened bread, anyway.

I believe that the sacrament (which points to Christ) goes back in time to long before the (last Supper) but back to the passover and deliverance of Israel from Egypt (which is where the last supper came from) - but then I believe that - the passover goes back even farther to the covenant of Abraham. It is a covenant that point to Christ and when he will return coronation as king and to what is sometimes called the wedding feast.

The Traveler

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