Comments on: Culture and Doctrine http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:37:50 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Lynnette http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2589 Lynnette Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:30:42 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2589 Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. Aaron B, it's good to know I'm not the only one to have droned on about this topic! Thanks for the link; I enjoyed your post. Idahospud and Jilopa, I also like that framework of layers. I'll have to think about that more. Dave, you've summed up my point quite well, though I might add something going the other direction, too (culture is shaped by doctrine). Stephen, I wonder whether most church members don't have some kind of central text they use as a kind of "this is what it's all about"; it would be interesting to hear what people see playing that role. Moroni 7 is a good one. Mark Butler, I agree that the Spirit is a good place to turn for the "who gets to decide" question. One more thought: George Lindbeck makes the case that doctrines should be understood as something akin to grammatical rules. They don't so much contribute content as lay out the structure for what can be said. Those fluent in a language might not be able to explicitly articulate such rules, but they nonetheless have a sense of what "sounds right." It's an interesting approach, and I'm wondering whether it might be useful in thinking about this. Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone.

Aaron B, it’s good to know I’m not the only one to have droned on about this topic! Thanks for the link; I enjoyed your post.

Idahospud and Jilopa, I also like that framework of layers. I’ll have to think about that more.

Dave, you’ve summed up my point quite well, though I might add something going the other direction, too (culture is shaped by doctrine).

Stephen, I wonder whether most church members don’t have some kind of central text they use as a kind of “this is what it’s all about”; it would be interesting to hear what people see playing that role. Moroni 7 is a good one.

Mark Butler, I agree that the Spirit is a good place to turn for the “who gets to decide” question.

One more thought: George Lindbeck makes the case that doctrines should be understood as something akin to grammatical rules. They don’t so much contribute content as lay out the structure for what can be said. Those fluent in a language might not be able to explicitly articulate such rules, but they nonetheless have a sense of what “sounds right.” It’s an interesting approach, and I’m wondering whether it might be useful in thinking about this.

]]> By: Aaron B http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2521 Aaron B Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:51:49 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2521 Good post; great points. I think you're absolutely right that the culture/doctrine distinction largely serves as a tool to help us disparage Mormon beliefs that we don't happen to like, without our having to scrutinize the source of those beliefs and risk seeing that certain "cultural" practices/beliefs actually meet, or come close to meeting, our preferred "doctrinal" tests a lot of the time (as you pointed out). And don't forget the categories of "policy" and "principle," which are also invoked to ostensibly make sense of the morass of beliefs and practices in Mormonism, but which fare no better in providing a coherent categorization scheme to classify Mormon teachings. Better to stop playing the labeling game, in my opinion, and just acknowledge that the World of Mormon Beliefs is not going to be adequately captured by our nifty little wordgames. (Of course, some sort of shorthand for talking about Mormon beliefs is inevitable, but we shouldn't fool ourselves in believing that our labels are any more useful than they really are). I've droned on and on about this before. See the following thread, for example: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/06/the-culture-cop-out/ Aaron B Good post; great points. I think you’re absolutely right that the culture/doctrine distinction largely serves as a tool to help us disparage Mormon beliefs that we don’t happen to like, without our having to scrutinize the source of those beliefs and risk seeing that certain “cultural” practices/beliefs actually meet, or come close to meeting, our preferred “doctrinal” tests a lot of the time (as you pointed out).

And don’t forget the categories of “policy” and “principle,” which are also invoked to ostensibly make sense of the morass of beliefs and practices in Mormonism, but which fare no better in providing a coherent categorization scheme to classify Mormon teachings.

Better to stop playing the labeling game, in my opinion, and just acknowledge that the World of Mormon Beliefs is not going to be adequately captured by our nifty little wordgames. (Of course, some sort of shorthand for talking about Mormon beliefs is inevitable, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves in believing that our labels are any more useful than they really are).

I’ve droned on and on about this before. See the following thread, for example:

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/06/the-culture-cop-out/

Aaron B

]]> By: jilopa http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2517 jilopa Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:20:17 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2517 Idahospud made a really good point. There seems to be layers. For example: What is modesty? This question can only be answered through a cultural biased lense. What was modest 100 years ago, is grossly different from what is modest today. However, the doctrine behind the rule remains stagnant: Our bodies are sacred and should be treated as such. Great post. Idahospud made a really good point. There seems to be layers. For example: What is modesty? This question can only be answered through a cultural biased lense. What was modest 100 years ago, is grossly different from what is modest today. However, the doctrine behind the rule remains stagnant: Our bodies are sacred and should be treated as such.
Great post.

]]> By: Mark Butler http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2515 Mark Butler Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:10:33 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2515 Who gets to decide? The Spirit does. Some laws are very strict, others not so much, others, not laws per se, are things that are pleasing unto the Lord. And who gets to authoritatively declare the voice of the Spirit? The Priesthood, notwithstanding His voice should be apparent to all those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The spirit of prophecy and of revelation is not restricted to anyone - Would to god that all could be prophets - But the authority to make a binding ruling is vested in the keys of presidency, as long as they are exercised in righteousness. Judge not, lest ye be judged. But judge righteous judgement. One last thing - the body of Christ has many members, which body we are (when we live up to the name). Who then is then body of the Holy Ghost? No tangible body has He. But a body He has. Who gets to decide? The Spirit does. Some laws are very strict, others not so much, others, not laws per se, are things that are pleasing unto the Lord.

And who gets to authoritatively declare the voice of the Spirit? The Priesthood, notwithstanding His voice should be apparent to all those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The spirit of prophecy and of revelation is not restricted to anyone – Would to god that all could be prophets – But the authority to make a binding ruling is vested in the keys of presidency, as long as they are exercised in righteousness. Judge not, lest ye be judged. But judge righteous judgement.

One last thing – the body of Christ has many members, which body we are (when we live up to the name). Who then is then body of the Holy Ghost? No tangible body has He. But a body He has.

]]> By: Stephen M (Ethesis) http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2514 Stephen M (Ethesis) Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:10:57 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2514 <blockquote>who gets to decide what is doctrine and what is culture?</blockquote> I always took Moroni 7 to be the gospel and the rest to be cultural.

who gets to decide what is doctrine and what is culture?

I always took Moroni 7 to be the gospel and the rest to be cultural.

]]> By: Mark Butler http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2512 Mark Butler Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:47:36 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2512 I would say that strictly speaking there is no hard distinction between doctrine and culture. Theology is a social science, and the ordinances and covenants are the mandatory aspects of our heavenly society. However they imply a wide variety of ancillary practices and conventins which are witnessed to various degrees by the Spirit, which testifies of all Truth. And the truth certainly includes all the aspects of the culture of heaven, and the associated reasons for those aspects, not just the absolutely critical ones. Can one really imagine the most sophisticated society in existence having a more primitive culture than the ones we are familiar with on earth? <blockquote> And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. (D&C 130:2) </blockquote> I would say that strictly speaking there is no hard distinction between doctrine and culture. Theology is a social science, and the ordinances and covenants are the mandatory aspects of our heavenly society. However they imply a wide variety of ancillary practices and conventins which are witnessed to various degrees by the Spirit, which testifies of all Truth.

And the truth certainly includes all the aspects of the culture of heaven, and the associated reasons for those aspects, not just the absolutely critical ones. Can one really imagine the most sophisticated society in existence having a more primitive culture than the ones we are familiar with on earth?

And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
(D&C 130:2)

]]> By: Idahospud http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2511 Idahospud Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:51:11 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2511 I've been thinking about this a lot lately--mostly how rules and policies (e.g. "no shorts at girls' camp") are expressions of doctrines (e.g. "the body is sacred"), which are expressions of principles (e.g. "chastity"), which are attempts at expressing some ultimate capital-T Truth (e.g. "I am a Child of God"). This linear model may not always work, but it does in many cases, and often along the way, a Rule gets mistaken for Truth. I think the cultural lens has a lot to do with that. Awesome post. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately–mostly how rules and policies (e.g. “no shorts at girls’ camp”) are expressions of doctrines (e.g. “the body is sacred”), which are expressions of principles (e.g. “chastity”), which are attempts at expressing some ultimate capital-T Truth (e.g. “I am a Child of God”). This linear model may not always work, but it does in many cases, and often along the way, a Rule gets mistaken for Truth. I think the cultural lens has a lot to do with that.

Awesome post.

]]> By: Dave http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2510 Dave Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:36:46 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2006/09/23/culture-and-doctrine/#comment-2510 Boiling this down to a single phrase: "All doctrine is perceived through a cultural lens." Interesting thought. Nice post. Boiling this down to a single phrase: “All doctrine is perceived through a cultural lens.” Interesting thought. Nice post.

]]>