Interplay Of Culture And Teachings Of The Church

[Stone holm]

I am interested in the discussion of the role which culture plays in molding the teachings of the Church. I am using the term "culture" in a broader sense the "pop culture" to mean the inclinations, taboos, and traditions of a society to which the majority tends to conform. I used the term "teachings" in order to avoid the interminable discussion of what constitutes "doctrine" , "official doctrine" and the like. It is my suspicion that culture plays a bigger role than we are willing to admit, and that after the initial burst of innovation that occurs when an organization is established (think the Church at the meridian of time) or restored (think Joseph Smith, Jr./Brigham Young) that churches tend toward conservatism meaning they tend to resist further change. It is also my belief that in the continual struggle between Satan and the Lord, that the Lord influences culture as much, if not more, than Satan and that such influence is not restricted to the influence of the Church and the Saints. PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THE COMMENTS FROM GOING OVERTLY POLITICAL --THANK YOU.

[CASteinman]

It is my suspicion that culture plays a bigger role than we are willing to admit

That would depend upon who is included in your "we".

It seems to me that it is at least implied by the nature of the restoration and continuing revelation that there are elements that are eternal, elements that are long lasting and elements that are temporary.

[Tacenda]

Your question goes without saying, standing back and looking back it shows the canvas of the church evolving according to culture. It will continually evolve, people will take it and mold it and ask until they get it just right. God is in charge but men aren't always listening, and maybe it takes a woman to nudge the men enough to change it too. Because they too get revelation (oops wrong thread). No, really this is a great question.

[wenglund]

I am willing to concede that cultural actions may somewhat focus the mind of the Church on certain social issues--a form of interplay.

I recall in my youth the cultural fad of mini skirts evoked discussion in the Church and, along with other things, precipitated strict dress standards that defied the cultural trends.

I would also concede that there are some members within the Church who are far more inclined than others to be influenced by culture in general and pop culture in particular, sometimes in ways more so than they are influenced by the Church. And, it isn't uncommon for these culture followers to try and get the Church to also follow along. This is their way of steadying the ark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2013 by wenglund

[Questing Beast]

Any church/religion is inseparably part of its cultural foundation. And I use the word "foundation" literally. Spiritually a religious people can never be more than their culture allows. To me they are the same thing. You will find powerful individuals who break away from their culture, and even form religions. But they then form their own culture, which as the OP shows, resists change.

The possible genius of the LDS faith is its adaptability to other cultures. We might witness the shortcomings more than the adaptability in the near future. I don't, for example, see how the LDS mainstream church can accept polygamy as it exists in many cultures....

[Stone holm]

That would depend upon who is included in your "we".

It seems to me that it is at least implied by the nature of the restoration and continuing revelation that there are elements that are eternal, elements that are long lasting and elements that are temporary.

Rhetorical flourish...

[Stone holm]

I am willing to concede that cultural actions may somewhat focus the mind of the Church on certain social issues--a form of interplay.

I recall in my youth the cultural fad of mini skirts evoked discussion in the Church and, along with other things, precipitated strict dress standards that defied the cultural trends.

I would also concede that there are some members within the Church who are far more inclined than others to be influenced by culture in general and pop culture in particular, sometimes in ways more so than they are influenced by the Church. And, it isn't uncommon for these culture followers to try and get the Church to also follow along. This is their way of steadying the ark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is clearly a reaction to culture. I think we saw that as well with the facial hair ban which had to do with the anti-establishment association with beards in the 60's and 70's. I don't think, however, that we can consider the suggestions for change in the Church in order to bring the Church practices more in line with cultural (rather than reactive to culture) as "steadying the ark". The GAs and Prophets should not be bubble wrapped to the extent that they never get a nudge from culture.

[Stone holm]

Any church/religion is inseparably part of its cultural foundation. And I use the word "foundation" literally. Spiritually a religious people can never be more than their culture allows. To me they are the same thing. You will find powerful individuals who break away from their culture, and even form religions. But they then form their own culture, which as the OP shows, resists change.

The possible genius of the LDS faith is its adaptability to other cultures. We might witness the shortcomings more than the adaptability in the near future. I don't, for example, see how the LDS mainstream church can accept polygamy as it exists in many cultures....

Do you think then that we have a tendency to Americanize other cultures, as say the Catholics had a tendency to Romanize other cultures?

[Stone holm]

Your question goes without saying, standing back and looking back it shows the canvas of the church evolving according to culture. It will continually evolve, people will take it and mold it and ask until they get it just right. God is in charge but men aren't always listening, and maybe it takes a woman to nudge the men enough to change it too. Because they too get revelation (oops wrong thread). No, really this is a great question.

Is it that men are not always listening, or that the timing is off. For example, from David O. McKay onward I think that the Prophets were certainly listening regarding the extension of the Priesthood (there may have been an exception in the case of Harold B. Lee who declared that the Negro would never get the Priesthood while he was alive -- which proved true), but apparently the Lord was waiting for some reason. I think that many spun the wrong reason, but that doesn't explain why David O. McKay wasn't getting the answer. American Culture was clearly in transition and that had an impact, the question is exactly how did that impact play out.

[Tacenda]

There is clearly a reaction to culture. I think we saw that as well with the facial hair ban which had to do with the anti-establishment association with beards in the 60's and 70's. I don't think, however, that we can consider the suggestions for change in the Church in order to bring the Church practices more in line with cultural (rather than reactive to culture) as "steadying the ark". The GAs and Prophets should not be bubble wrapped to the extent that they never get a nudge from culture.

This makes me think of the Amish, FLDS and other groups that wear the apparel of old or live accordingly. I guess the church would still be wearing or acting like it was stuck in that century if culture didn't play a part.

[thesometimesaint]

The pure genius of the Church is it ready adaptability to different cultures while retaining the essential gospel principles. I believe we'll see less and less US WASP specific cultural issues as we become more of a world wide church. Or as Sister Gladys Knight says. "pick up the beat".

[Stone holm]

This makes me think of the Amish, FLDS and other groups that wear the apparel of old or live accordingly. I guess the church would still be wearing or acting like it was stuck in that century if culture didn't play a part.

I don't know much about the FLDS, however, lived as a neighbor to very conservative Amish for an extended period in my life. Their eschewing certain clothing and technology is not from fossilization of an absorbed culture, but is very heavily tied to their concern over vanity and social competitiveness -- it is integral to their religious lifestyle. If they all dress plainly then they are not competing with each other regarding fashion, if they avoid technology then they are not competing with each other as to material culture. The ones that I lived near all had the same brown horses (usually retired racing thoroughbred or retired buggy racers). They even try to avoid competition in their ministry by drawing names out of a hat to select their Bishops, etc. They are a truly amazing people. A friend of mine has a facebook group entitled Plain Mormons where he is kind of connecting some of the Amish influences into his Mormonism -- I knew him as a kid many years ago and he is a very sharp intellect.

[Stone holm]

The pure genius of the Church is it ready adaptability to different cultures while retaining the essential gospel principles. I believe we'll see less and less US WASP specific cultural issues as we become more of a world wide church. Or as Sister Gladys Knight says. "pick up the beat".

You think that the impact will be from overseas, rather than America becoming increasingly less WASPish?

[thesometimesaint]

You think that the impact will be from overseas, rather than America becoming increasingly less WASPish?

Probably a bit of both.

[CASteinman]

Rhetorical flourish...

I don't know what you mean. It was an answer to your question.

[Stone holm]

I don't know what you mean. It was an answer to your question.

My use of the word "we" was a rhetorical flourish, not referring to your answer sorry about it being cryptic

[Stone holm]

Probably a bit of both.

Maybe I am a bit ethnocentric, but I think the heavier impact will be from America itself becoming less WASPish, but you may see an uptick in reactionary response to that, I haven't seen much of what I would detect as a non-American impact, then again the looming dedication of the São Paulo Brazil, Temple and the mixed race culture of Brazil clearly did have an impact.

[CV75]

I am interested in the discussion of the role which culture plays in molding the teachings of the Church. I am using the term "culture" in a broader sense the "pop culture" to mean the inclinations, taboos, and traditions of a society to which the majority tends to conform. I used the term "teachings" in order to avoid the interminable discussion of what constitutes "doctrine" , "official doctrine" and the like. It is my suspicion that culture plays a bigger role than we are willing to admit, and that after the initial burst of innovation that occurs when an organization is established (think the Church at the meridian of time) or restored (think Joseph Smith, Jr./Brigham Young) that churches tend toward conservatism meaning they tend to resist further change. It is also my belief that in the continual struggle between Satan and the Lord, that the Lord influences culture as much, if not more, than Satan and that such influence is not restricted to the influence of the Church and the Saints. PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THE COMMENTS FROM GOING OVERTLY POLITICAL --THANK YOU.

I think the dynamic between culture and Church teachings has to do with how the Lord best sees fit to express or compliment His teachings within the culture at hand. The New Testament parables (and the cultural norms expressed therein) show this, as also His choice of foodstuffs with which to feed the multitudes, His interactions with the woman at the well, publicans, etc., demonstrating a time to agree with, a time to counter, and a time to make a new statement within the prevailing culture.

[Stroopwafel]

One issue with this interplay is when cultural mores become entrenched in the religious practices to the point where they become "objective" standards for some. The difficulty for someone steeped in these standards is then to see these practices for what they are, i.e., culturaly defined norms that have no bearing beyond the confines of the relevant cultural background, and therefore should not be construed as standards bearing the seal of approval of the offical "teachings of the Church" (and what's more, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that some current "official" teachings may actually be the result of cultural influences).

[wenglund]

There is clearly a reaction to culture. I think we saw that as well with the facial hair ban which had to do with the anti-establishment association with beards in the 60's and 70's. I don't think, however, that we can consider the suggestions for change in the Church in order to bring the Church practices more in line with cultural (rather than reactive to culture) as "steadying the ark". The GAs and Prophets should not be bubble wrapped to the extent that they never get a nudge from culture.

From what I can tell, the extent to which one views the Church as following the lead of culture, is mostly dependent upon the extent to which one is partial to culture (at times more so than to the Church) and has determined to live in and of the culture.

However, one has to be in serious denial to not clearly see that the so-called cultural nudging of the Church, particularly in the form of member protests and other types of activism, isn't ark-steadying. It most definitely is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that some current "official" teachings may actually be the result of cultural influences).

I don't know about "official" teaching, but this is likely true for the teachings of cultural Mormons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

One cultural change I'd like to see is the church culture of men wearing ties and white shirts when not in the Temple.

[wenglund]

One cultural change I'd like to see is the church culture of men wearing ties and white shirts when not in the Temple.

Perhaps, in that regard, the Church will buckle to the "cultural nudging" from Naturism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I haven't seen much of what I would detect as a non-American impact

From the way it was described the recent revelation allowing for younger missionaries was in part triggered by the need of nonAmerican young men (and women?) to serve in their countries' military or meet certain educational requirements that make it very difficult to take two years off in the middle.

Pres. Monson stated that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had been discussing the change for several months. He announced the changes in terms of generalizing an a rule that already exists in some places in the world. In 48 countries, missionaries have been allowed to serve at age 18 due to educational or military requirements unique to that nation. The new worldwide age reductions make that policy universal.

Elder Nelson stated that they have had great success with 18-year-old missionaries and that mission presidents had even requested more be sent if possible. The success of these younger missionaries, in part, prompted the change.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=295&sid=22445486

[Questing Beast]

Do you think then that we have a tendency to Americanize other cultures, as say the Catholics had a tendency to Romanize other cultures?

Yes. One common reason for being attracted to the Church in foreign lands is admiration/envy of American lifestyle. I don't know of anyone willing to join the Church who has antipathetic feelings toward the USA....