Culture And The Church

[Stone holm]

I have grown increasingly interested in the effect which culture has on the Church. I have come to suspect that The Lord sometimes influences the Church in order to attempt to have an impact on popular culture, but also He influences culture in order to effect change in the Church. Because of Lehi's Iron Rod vision we tend to think of culture as either neutral or evil. However, culture sometimes seems to get ahead of the Church. This would of course be denied by many of us Mormons. Do you believe that culture ever influences the Church and if so how does it do so.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Culture absolutely influences the church. A very clear example of this is the evolution of the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlets. When the first one was published back in the 1960's it said things like young women should not wear pants to school, young men should only wear shorts while playing sports, etc. A lot has changed since then. Another example is Black members not receiving the Priesthood for many years (after very early in church history) until 1978 after the civil rights movement. Another example is the church backing away from warning against interracial marriage after it became more acceptable in society. Another example is the church backing away from condemning birth control after if became more acceptable in society. Many examples can be found in the recent 2013 scripture changes: Lamanites are now referred to in the BOM intro as "among" ancestors of the Native Americans rather than "principal" ancestors due to DNA evidence that suggests Native Americans are of Asian decent; Pearl of Great Price introduction changed to distance the Egyptian papyri from the text of the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith after the rediscovery of some of the papyri in the 1960's and subsequent analysis by Egyptologists that show it is a common funerary text and does not include the Book of Abraham.

Why does our religion change with the culture? One explanation may be that we do not have a doctrine that is set in stone. Because we believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles, we believe that things can (and do) change.

As a side note, I've always held a deep respect for religions such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and the Amish who show even outwardly in their dress than they are following the original teachings of their religions. I've often wondered what Mormonism would be like if we'd stuck with early 1830's standards for dress, morality, etc. It would certainly be a very different church.

[Stone holm]

Culture absolutely influences the church. A very clear example of this is the evolution of the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlets. When the first one was published back in the 1960's it said things like young women should not wear pants to school, young men should only wear shorts while playing sports, etc. A lot has changed since then. Another example is Black members not receiving the Priesthood for many years (after very early in church history) until 1978 after the civil rights movement. Another example is the church backing away from warning against interracial marriage after it became more acceptable in society. Another example is the church backing away from condemning birth control after if became more acceptable in society. Many examples can be found in the recent 2013 scripture changes: Lamanites are now referred to in the BOM intro as "among" ancestors of the Native Americans rather than "principal" ancestors due to DNA evidence that suggests Native Americans are of Asian decent; Pearl of Great Price introduction changed to distance the Egyptian papyri from the text of the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith after the rediscovery of some of the papyri in the 1960's and subsequent analysis by Egyptologists that show it is a common funerary text and does not include the Book of Abraham.

Why does our religion change with the culture? One explanation may be that we do not have a doctrine that is set in stone. Because we believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles, we believe that things can (and do) change.

As a side note, I've always held a deep respect for religions such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and the Amish who show even outwardly in their dress than they are following the original teachings of their religions. I've often wondered what Mormonism would be like if we'd stuck with early 1830's standards for dress, morality, etc. It would certainly be a very different church.

I too have a deep respect for the Amish having had a very conservative colony which lived next to my homestead in Indiana. I don't know enough about the other two groups modern behaviour to comment. There is a friend of mine who sometimes comments herein who individually has incorporated Masonry and a deep respect for the Amish into his Mormonism to create a Plain Mormon lifestyle back in rural Indiana which he discusses from time to time in a Facebook group called Plain Mormons. When I first joined the Church back in the '70s there seemed to be a greater emphasis on a lifestyle that involved producing as much of your own food and clothing and though the Church didn't necessarily push it, there were a lot of Mormons who connected the dots and tried to establish family businesses. You seem to see less and less of that anymore.

[Tacenda]

Culture absolutely influences the church. A very clear example of this is the evolution of the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlets. When the first one was published back in the 1960's it said things like young women should not wear pants to school, young men should only wear shorts while playing sports, etc. A lot has changed since then. Another example is Black members not receiving the Priesthood for many years (after very early in church history) until 1978 after the civil rights movement. Another example is the church backing away from warning against interracial marriage after it became more acceptable in society. Another example is the church backing away from condemning birth control after if became more acceptable in society. Many examples can be found in the recent 2013 scripture changes: Lamanites are now referred to in the BOM intro as "among" ancestors of the Native Americans rather than "principal" ancestors due to DNA evidence that suggests Native Americans are of Asian decent; Pearl of Great Price introduction changed to distance the Egyptian papyri from the text of the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith after the rediscovery of some of the papyri in the 1960's and subsequent analysis by Egyptologists that show it is a common funerary text and does not include the Book of Abraham.

Why does our religion change with the culture? One explanation may be that we do not have a doctrine that is set in stone. Because we believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles, we believe that things can (and do) change.

As a side note, I've always held a deep respect for religions such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and the Amish who show even outwardly in their dress than they are following the original teachings of their religions. I've often wondered what Mormonism would be like if we'd stuck with early 1830's standards for dress, morality, etc. It would certainly be a very different church.

Well, there is the FLDS church, they've not changed one bit from the 1830's LDS gospel. If JS were to come down to earth he wouldn't recognize the church he helped restore until he met the Mormon fundamentalist. When they broke off, they apparently didn't get the memo, or revelations anymore.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Well, there is the FLDS church, they've not changed one bit from the 1830's LDS gospel. If JS were to come down to earth he wouldn't recognize the church he helped restore until he met the Mormon fundamentalist. When they broke off, they apparently didn't get the memo, or revelations anymore.

Very true.

[CV75]

I have grown increasingly interested in the effect which culture has on the Church. I have come to suspect that The Lord sometimes influences the Church in order to attempt to have an impact on popular culture, but also He influences culture in order to effect change in the Church. Because of Lehi's Iron Rod vision we tend to think of culture as either neutral or evil. However, culture sometimes seems to get ahead of the Church. This would of course be denied by many of us Mormons. Do you believe that culture ever influences the Church and if so how does it do so.

I think there are certainly cultural norms and traditions of men that are consistent with and supportive of the Gospel and Gospel standards and reflect the divine nature inherent in God’s children and further cultivated by the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Church of course upholds the best in human culture wherever it is established (AoF 13).

The effect of culture on the Church depends on how one defines “Church.” On one hand, the effect of culture on the Church is through its members (where the Church is being defined the members), for better or worse (I was just reading a GC talk yesterday that touched on this with an example from Mozambique: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/its-a-miracle?lang=eng

On the other hand, God reveals the Zion culture from above through His anointed servants (where the Church is being defined as the keys being given into the hands of men). Inasmuch as He has entrusted the weak and simple vessels with these keys as He authorizes them to speak for Him unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers (D&C 1:23), He is evidently OK with whatever vestigial cultural remnants they might carry with them as they dedicate their all in His service and in nurturing the Zion culture by precept and example.

[Stone holm]

I think there are certainly cultural norms and traditions of men that are consistent with and supportive of the Gospel and Gospel standards and reflect the divine nature inherent in God’s children and further cultivated by the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Church of course upholds the best in human culture wherever it is established (AoF 13).

The effect of culture on the Church depends on how one defines “Church.” On one hand, the effect of culture on the Church is through its members (where the Church is being defined the members), for better or worse (I was just reading a GC talk yesterday that touched on this with an example from Mozambique: http://www.lds.org/g...iracle?lang=eng

On the other hand, God reveals the Zion culture from above through His anointed servants (where the Church is being defined as the keys being given into the hands of men). Inasmuch as He has entrusted the weak and simple vessels with these keys as He authorizes them to speak for Him unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers (D&C 1:23), He is evidently OK with whatever vestigial cultural remnants they might carry with them as they dedicate their all in His service and in nurturing the Zion culture by precept and example.

I think there is quite a bit of truth in what you have said. However, we sometimes think that God works exclusively through the Church and therefore the flow of information and influence is for the most part from the Lord to the Church to the World -- however, is it possible that on occasion the flow is from the Lord to the World to the Church. I realize the term "Church" is a little vague -- when I think of the Church, I am primarily thinking in terms of the Church's GAs and official teachings or policies. I know CA Steinman sometimes questions the use of "official", so I would use that in a very liberal sense which would include common statements of GAs which may or may not actually be "official" -- I do that because most Mormons tend to take whatever a GA says as "gospel" which may or may not be true.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Stone holm

[CV75]

I think there is quite a bit of truth in what you have said. However, we sometimes think that God works exclusively through the Church and therefore the flow of information and influence is for the most part from the Lord to the Church to the World -- however, is it possible that on occasion the flow is from the Lord to the World to the Church. I realize the term "Church" is a little vague -- when I think of the Church, I am primarily thinking in terms of the Church's GAs and official teachings or policies. I know CA Steinman sometimes questions the use of "official", so I would use that in a very liberal sense which would include common statements of GAs which may or may not actually be "official" -- I do that because most Mormons tend to take whatever a GA says as "gospel" which may or may not be true.

I believe the flow of intelligence from the Lord to the World to the Church is the norm for developments in virtually every human discipline. None of these to my knowledge originated in the Restored Church. But the Church uses all the arts, sciences, traditions and other intellectual and societal achievements in its stewardship.

My first post addresses what happens when these disciplines converge into what we might call culture or tradition. Whatever He has done in the past to inspire the world's philosophers to discover truth, I believe that God now works exclusively through the Church in the area of establishing latter-day revealed religion to build up Zion and define or inspire its culture. The inhabitants of Zion will do and contribute to this culture "many things of their own free will... For the power is in them."

[thesometimesaint]

Well, there is the FLDS church, they've not changed one bit from the 1830's LDS gospel. If JS were to come down to earth he wouldn't recognize the church he helped restore until he met the Mormon fundamentalist. When they broke off, they apparently didn't get the memo, or revelations anymore.

I think if JS were to come back today he'd be well pleased. He was none too pleased with any break offs of his time.

[ERayR]

Well, there is the FLDS church, they've not changed one bit from the 1830's LDS gospel. If JS were to come down to earth he wouldn't recognize the church he helped restore until he met the Mormon fundamentalist. When they broke off, they apparently didn't get the memo, or revelations anymore.

The only thing he might recognize from the FLDS might be polygamy and I doubt that he would be familiar with the way they practice it. On the other hand I am confident he would be quite familiar with the core doctrines of the COJCOLDS.

[Stone holm]

I believe the flow of intelligence from the Lord to the World to the Church is the norm for developments in virtually every human discipline. None of these to my knowledge originated in the Restored Church. But the Church uses all the arts, sciences, traditions and other intellectual and societal achievements in its stewardship.

My first post addresses what happens when these disciplines converge into what we might call culture or tradition. Whatever He has done in the past to inspire the world's philosophers to discover truth, I believe that God now works exclusively through the Church in the area of establishing latter-day revealed religion to build up Zion and define or inspire its culture. The inhabitants of Zion will do and contribute to this culture "many things of their own free will... For the power is in them."

I agree regarding religious doctrine, I am a little uneasy with "revealed religion" as it gets very, very tricky trying to parse out what is tradition, what is culture, and what is religius doctrine at times. So what may appear to be doctrine now may in the future just be considered tradition or culture in the future. Unfortunately, the "trickiness" of separating out these things can result in serious dissension at times and in very harsh rhetoric during an adjustment phase where something that was considered doctrine is later determined to be one of the other and a change in policy is implemented to bring policy into better compatibility with current culture.

[Bernard Gui]

Why does our religion change with the culture? One explanation may be that we do not have a doctrine that is set in stone. Because we believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles, we believe that things can (and do) change.

Some standards are relaxed as the general culture moves away from the ideal, for example, the adaptations

made to the temple garments including length, materials, and non-white garments for military personnel. Some orthodox religions become insular because they cannot adjust. They remove themselves from society and cease to have any meaningful influence on it. Being somewhat flexible allows the LDS to remain "in the world, but not of the world." There are limits to that flexibility.

[CV75]

I agree regarding religious doctrine, I am a little uneasy with "revealed religion" as it gets very, very tricky trying to parse out what is tradition, what is culture, and what is religius doctrine at times. So what may appear to be doctrine now may in the future just be considered tradition or culture in the future. Unfortunately, the "trickiness" of separating out these things can result in serious dissension at times and in very harsh rhetoric during an adjustment phase where something that was considered doctrine is later determined to be one of the other and a change in policy is implemented to bring policy into better compatibility with current culture.

You make a distinction between religious doctrine and revealed religion. Fortunately, that is what revealed religious doctrine is for: those who apply it according to the light they possess do not knowingly promote dissension from God or engage in harsh rhetoric against Him. And whenever it is brought to their attention that they have been (knowingly or unknowingly) promoting such, they stop. Applied revealed religious doctrine fosters discernment, good will and unity through the Light of Christ and the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Extending that to the Church, applied revealed religious doctrine will not promote dissension from the Church or engage in harsh rhetoric against it. It does not foster the spirit of contention. In the Church, discernment, good will and unity are the responsibility of both “he that preacheth and he that receiveth” so that all may be edified.

[Ahab]

...we sometimes think that God works exclusively through the Church and therefore the flow of information and influence is for the most part from the Lord to the Church to the World -- however, is it possible that on occasion the flow is from the Lord to the World to the Church.

Yes, but the flow of information from Satan also works both ways so we need to be careful about whose ideas we put into practice.

[Tacenda]

I think if JS were to come back today he'd be well pleased. He was none too pleased with any break offs of his time.

Not that I believe it, but what if we were the ones that broke off of the church, since they are living the doctrine JS taught.

[Ahab]

Not that I believe it, but what if we were the ones that broke off of the church, since they are living the doctrine JS taught.

Not that I believe it, but what if we were the ones that broke off of the church and the Catholics and/or Protestants are right, since they think they are living the doctrine the Lord revealed through his prophets.

If you want to use your imagination, think bigger.

[thesometimesaint]

Not that I believe it, but what if we were the ones that broke off of the church, since they are living the doctrine JS taught.

If I were in a break off group I'd have to ignore a whole bunch of history to stay in that break off group. But such is my right, and as long as I don't violate the laws of where I live. It is between me and God.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have grown increasingly interested in the effect which culture has on the Church. I have come to suspect that The Lord sometimes influences the Church in order to attempt to have an impact on popular culture, but also He influences culture in order to effect change in the Church. Because of Lehi's Iron Rod vision we tend to think of culture as either neutral or evil. However, culture sometimes seems to get ahead of the Church. This would of course be denied by many of us Mormons. Do you believe that culture ever influences the Church and if so how does it do so.

Some who would dissent from authoritative Church teachings are too quick to blame the tension they feel on culture.

For example, the Brethren have definitively denounced tattoos and body piercings (except for one pair of ear piercings for women, on which the Church leadership takes no position).

I've noticed a propensity among some to blame this prohibition on the conservative mindset of the Brethren. I, on the other hand, regard it as inspired counsel, ignored at one's own spiritual peril.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Some who would dissent from authoritative Church teachings are too quick to blame the tension they feel on culture.

For example, the Brethren have definitively denounced tattoos and body piercings (except for one pair of ear piercings for women, on which the Church leadership takes no position).

I've noticed a propensity among some to blame this prohibition on the conservative mindset of the Brethren. I, on the other hand, regard it as inspired counsel, ignored at once's own spiritual peril.

Okay, this is a good example. Tatoos and body piercings could be supported as a person having respect for their body as a Temple, etc. It could, however, be argued that this is more like the anti-facial hair thing which was implemented to dissassociate the Church members from Communist Revolutionaries and anti-Establishment types during the Cold War and Viet Nam War eras and therefore was more of a cultural statement. The problem then becomes at some point there may be a challenge to the policy because either there is a large percentage of the Church members not following it -- I would say adult men not having a beard in our Ward is the exception not the rule, or because some other social factor arises making the policy reflect unfavorably on the Church. Personally, I can't think of why that would happen with tatoos and body piercings, but my parents never would have expected beards and longish hair to become so common either.

I don't know as I would blame anything that has become culturally anachronistic on the conservative mindset -- although, one would expect in a Church as large as ours which has become established to be somewhat conservative in its approach to change -- the reason for that is they want to make sure that they are not about to fix something that is not broken. Conservatism almost by definition is reluctant to embrace social and cultural change that serves a very good purpose as a brake on the possibility of ill-considered change (of course it can be overdone) -- but taking the metaphor a little too far, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether merely a brake is being applied, or a parking brake set. We know for example that between the administrations of Pres. McKay and Pres. Kimball at the highest level of the Church leadership they were worrying about under what circumstances they should change a policy that had been in place for over a century and which many considered to be doctrinal, but they had concluded was not. It appears that the answer to that question is that under those circumstances you treat the cultural artifact sort of like doctrine and you ask the Lord for some kind of revelation or burning feeling in your bosom that its okay to change it.

[Tacenda]

Some things I remember growing up in Utah I was counseled to do or not do, are:

1. Wearing your Sunday clothes all day long on Sunday, to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

2. No playing face cards, this was taught while I was really young.

3. No gambling.

4. No second piercings or tattoos (fairly recent).

5. No barefeet when the home teachers visit, this was probably localised.

6. No levi/jean skirts/dresses on Sunday, this from my RS president.

7. No Christus statues or figurines, this was from my sister in law's Stake President, when they wanted to order these from a local company and mount some of them on wood for a Homemaking meeting.

8. No BUNKO parties, too close to gambling, where women gather together and bring money and put into a pot. I went one time to sub for someone, and won the pot/prize.

These are probably very localised in good ole' Utah!

Edited May 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[TruthSeeker2013]

Some things I remember growing up in Utah I was counseled to do or not do, are:

1. Wearing your Sunday clothes all day long on Sunday, to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

2. No playing face cards, this was taught while I was really young.

3. No gambling.

4. No second piercings or tattoos (fairly recent).

5. No barefeet when the home teachers visit, this was probably localised.

6. No levi/jean skirts/dresses on Sunday, this from my RS president.

7. No Christus statues or figurines, this was from my sister in law's Stake President, when they wanted to order these from a local company and mount some of them on wood for a Homemaking meeting.

8. No BUNKO parties, too close to gambling, where women gather together and bring money and put into a pot. I went one time to sub for someone, and won the pot/prize.

These are probably very localised in good ole' Utah!

These are great! I especially love the "no barefeet when the home teachers visit," and "no Christus statues," what??! Lol.

[bluebell]

Some things I remember growing up in Utah I was counseled to do or not do, are:

1. Wearing your Sunday clothes all day long on Sunday, to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

2. No playing face cards, this was taught while I was really young.

3. No gambling.

4. No second piercings or tattoos (fairly recent).

5. No barefeet when the home teachers visit, this was probably localised.

6. No levi/jean skirts/dresses on Sunday, this from my RS president.

7. No Christus statues or figurines, this was from my sister in law's Stake President, when they wanted to order these from a local company and mount some of them on wood for a Homemaking meeting.

8. No BUNKO parties, too close to gambling, where women gather together and bring money and put into a pot. I went one time to sub for someone, and won the pot/prize.

These are probably very localised in good ole' Utah!

Some people get a little crazy with the 'hedges' they put up around the law.

[bluebell]

Well, there is the FLDS church, they've not changed one bit from the 1830's LDS gospel. If JS were to come down to earth he wouldn't recognize the church he helped restore until he met the Mormon fundamentalist. When they broke off, they apparently didn't get the memo, or revelations anymore.

Other than polygamy, i don't think the FLDS have much at all in common with the church in JS's day. Even how the FLDS practice polygamy would be foreign to the prophet though.

[Stone holm]

Some things I remember growing up in Utah I was counseled to do or not do, are:

1. Wearing your Sunday clothes all day long on Sunday, to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

2. No playing face cards, this was taught while I was really young.

3. No gambling.

4. No second piercings or tattoos (fairly recent).

5. No barefeet when the home teachers visit, this was probably localised.

6. No levi/jean skirts/dresses on Sunday, this from my RS president.

7. No Christus statues or figurines, this was from my sister in law's Stake President, when they wanted to order these from a local company and mount some of them on wood for a Homemaking meeting.

8. No BUNKO parties, too close to gambling, where women gather together and bring money and put into a pot. I went one time to sub for someone, and won the pot/prize.

These are probably very localised in good ole' Utah!

Some of that was not just Utah, they were the rules we kind of absorbed in our Ward when we came into the Church. Don't remember anything about the statues or bare feet though.

[mfbukowski]

... this was from my sister in law's Stake President, ...

Clearly someone with authority second only to the prophet himself!