Comments on: The “Culture” Cop-Out

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Aaron,

Your suggestion is that differentiating between doctrine and culture is a purely subjective activity. But it doesnâ€™t have to be. There is in fact a difference between church doctrine and culture, and it can be outlined with research.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Aaron, while agreeing that we sometimes push LDS practices we don’t like into a “culture” compartment, I believe there is some basis for a culture/doctrine distinction, especially for a global church. When leaders are faced with writing a set of LDS policies and procedures for LDS congregations is mainland China or India, the distinction between which LDS practices are doctrinal and which practices are simply cultural becomes critical. No doubt the challenge of coordinating overseas congregations has already been a source of reflection along this line.

I think there’s a parallel in the Jerusalem Conference recounted in Acts, where early apostles and other leaders grappled with the question of which beliefs and practices were essential to developing Christianity and which were simply carryovers from Jewish culture. The rather bold decision was that many practices that had appeared to be Christian were in fact simply discardable Jewish cultural practices.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Aaron, my impression from reading your post is you are not saying there is not any cultural aspect to Mormonism, but you are saying we too often push things into this category of “mormon culture” that shouldnt be there as a convenient means of dealing with things we find irritating. If its “mormon culture” and not “mormon doctrine” then we can more easily disagree without being anathema. No?

By: Logan

Logan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks a lot, Aaron.

I need to be able to keep that distinction to preserve my sanity. Don’t start undermining it!

Now I’ll have to come up with a more thoughtful, robust explanation for believing things that are different than almost every member I meet at Church.

By: Dallas Robbins

Dallas Robbins — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Your comments make me think. I have dealt w/ members that drive me crazy – but they used to. I came to realize everyone is different, all on different paths, with different understandings. It now gives me comfort to see all the differences among members; we not all the same as we sometimes fear, but are more diverse than we sometimes are able to appreciate. I know see those moments w/ “crazy” members as ways to practice pure religion.

In terms of culture vs. doctrine, I no longer see a dictonomy. As an undergraduate in Anthrop. I come to see most everything in terms of culture – but that is because I am defining the word “culture” far differently than what your post suggests. (I don’t want to go into details, ’cause I’m late for work, and it would take to long at this moment.) But that’s just another different opinion.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’ve struggled with this issue so much. Some of our doctrine is so loosey-goosey, that I think we try to make up for a lack of clarity by forcing everyone into a lock step cookie-cutter understanding of the gospel. And this tendency spills over into expectations about appearances and personalities as well. Sure, there is room for everyone in the church, but unless your family looks and acts like the Brady Bunch, you’re going to be held up as a less than ideal example of how things should be, and treated like cousin Oliver.

By: danithew

danithew — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Culture has its basis in shared historical traditions and experiences … and as the Church grows, its membership naturally comes to encompass a broader set of historical traditions and experiences. The distinction becomes vivid to me when I hear a speaker make generalizations about “our pioneer heritage” — a nod to ancestral heritage that is no longer shared by a majority of LDS members.

Utah’s unique brand of political conservatism is a culturally distinct characteristic. The need to distinguish between Utah LDS political culture and the LDS religion is needed because some assume that political conservatism is more than merely acceptable to the gospel — that it is representative of the gospel.

By: annegb

annegb — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

You guys, forgive me if I’ve missed the point entirely, I don’t understand a lot of these terms. But I live in southern Utah, and I believe that there is a culture entirely unrelated to the commandments or the doctrines of the gospel. I’ve argued with friends that there is a social hierarchy based upon religion that has little to do with precepts.

People are revered based upon their callings and we love it (not openly) when the mighty are fallen, when they get excommunicated for cheating on their spouses or the like. The gospel is lost on a lot of us, including me, as we compare based upon our conformity.

A psychology professor once said in class here, “there is power in conforming to the norms and mores of the society in which we live.”
He was absolutely right.

I resent that. I’ve also found that the more I allow myself to be who I am, at the same time trying to be the best Christian I can, others are more relaxed around me and we are better friends. And I feel closer to God.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Aaron: As you guessed, I basically agree with you completely. It seems to me that the only way of making the culture/doctrine distinction meaningful is to either come up with some theory that allows you to identify church doctrine independent of your personal predilictions, or alternatively, giving up completely on the authority of the Church, and viewing Mormonism as simply another spiritual buffet from which one can create one’s preferred entree. Obviously, I think that the first solution is infinitely better than the second one, but it is intellectually much more difficult.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

But Nate, I seem to remember having a conversation with you about how very little of our doctrine is actually concrete, and how that is a strength of the church. (If I’m putting words in your mouth, then I’m feeling a strange, heady sensation of power, but really should apologize.)

I think that an alternative to viewing the gospel as a buffet is to recognize and hold fast to clearly explicated scriptural doctrine, and study, but not get too attached to, other more ancillary topics. I think there is something to be said of holding on to saving principles and using your head and the guidance of the spirit on other things.