- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There seems to be a lot of talk about symbolism right now. I think we (the LDS church) really goes out of it’s way to come up with meaning and symbolism, and sometimes it just irritates me because how it evolves our theology. Here is a true story that happened last week at church.
The HC came down and taught the youth sunday school. His entire lesson came from the primary manual, where the deacons would go in and explain about the symbolism and sacredness of the sacrament to the primary kids. At one point in the lesson, he asked the boys why we put a white sheet over the sacrament trays. Of course I was reading the lesson and what they wanted the kids to say, was something like, “because it represents purity and because the sacrament is so sacred etc etc.
Anyway, my kid raised his hand, and in VERY serious fashion, made the statement, “well, it’s to keep the flies off it.”
-silence-HC – “Ahh, no. Actually we do it because it represents purity and the sacred nature of the sacrament…..”
No, it is not. My boy is exactly right. That is exactly why they started doing that practice. It just makes logical sense —- church in log cabins, outhouse just 30 feet away in the backyard, horses and buggies parked outside, swamp land in Illinois…. We put the white sheet over the sacrament because that is the way it has always been done, and we have forgotten why we do it, so we start making stuff up to explain it….and then we put it in our manuals and eventually it becomes doctrine.
cwald, I agree completely with the main point you are making in this post, but . . . as the resident parser: 
Even if the covering used to be to prevent flies, now that the situation has changed and flies no longer are an issue, isn’t it completely fine to create a symbolic reason for the practice? We do it because we have done it for a long, long time (and it used to be about flies), but we also do it now for the symbolic reason mentioned in the lesson (and it now has nothing to do with flies).
Iow, while the original reason dealt with health and sanitation, that certainly isn’t why we do it now – so, the young man was correct, but so was the High Councilor.
Having said that,
I think the overall point you are making absolutely is valid and worth discussing. I would like to see what everyone has to say about practical actions becoming doctrine. i think the formal lds definition would be: doctrine is what the church actively teaches, as reflected the talks, manuals, and handbooks currently in use and approved by the prophets, seers, and revelators. i told my dw tonight that doctrine is institutionalized speculation of the unknown.
she thought i should not be saying that publicly at church…
Quote:i told my dw tonight that doctrine is institutionalized speculation of the unknown.
she thought i should not be saying that publicly at church…
I agree with you – and your intelligent wife.
I’ve said much the same thing in meetings of various types and not been challenged – but that’s because I haven’t said it like that.
I get the point you’re making, which is very much a Pres Uchtdorf teaching…however the example doesn’t fit for me. Covering the sacrament with a white cloth is not really a doctrine of the church, but more of a common practice that started for sanitary reasons and became common practice for symbolic reasons. But not doctrine. (by the way, pretty impressive of the kid’s answer, eh?) What’s another example of a doctrine that started as common practice?
It’s hard to say whether these were practices that became doctrines or practices that just became wide-spread practices. Other examples:
Passing the sacrament with the right hand – a practice that became a doctrine (or at least a very wide practice).
Wearing white shirts to pass the sacrament.
Having to read the Sac prayer exactly, word-for-word.
Women wearing dresses to church.
Women veiling faces in the temple . . . as mentioned elsewhere.
But there are also (interestingly) doctrines that suddenly were downgraded to practices when they fell out of fashion. Thank goodness! It is interesting to note the ascendance and descent of our various doctrines . . .
I would just ix-nay his comment and say to myself “it’s to keep the flies off it” quietly. I’ve seen this before where people invent reasons for why we do certain things. I’m reminded of the story about a woman (let’s call her Kathy for clarity) who learned to cook a ham from her grandmother. This woman taught her own kids that before you cook a ham, you should cut the ends of it just like her grandmother taughter to. When asked why, Kathy explained that it makes the ham taste and cook better. Kathy’s kids believed this and continued the tradition as they got older.
One day, they were sharing this end-cutting practice at the dinner table, and the mother of Kathy was present, and heard the purported reason for the practice. She piped up saying “Your grandmother didn’t cut off the ends of the ham because it makes it taste better, it was because the ham wouldn’t fit into her roasting pan”.
I took the sacrament with my left hand yesterday, and sustained a new member with my left hand as well — because my right hand was busy restraining my son…in the end, I don’t think it really matters which hand you use for such things.
Heber13 wrote:What’s another example of a doctrine that started as common practice?
Well hell, the obvious one is the WoW —- but don’t get me started.
😡 SilentDawning, I love your comments. Especially: Quote:I took the sacrament with my left hand yesterday, and sustained a new member with my left hand as well — because my right hand was busy restraining my son…in the end, I don’t think it really matters which hand you use for such things.
It made me smile. A great way to start the day.
Mike from Milton.
cwald wrote:he asked the boys why we put a white sheet over the sacrament trays.
In one ward that I lived in the sacrament passers were not to touch the white sheet, this was reserved for the sacrament blessers. Then I moved to another ward, far far away the sacrament table was constructed such that the sacrament blessers were boxed in and could not efficiently operate without the assistance of the sacrament passers lifting up the far end of the sheet an handing it to them.
In some areas of my mission the congregation would not take they tray to pass the sacrament along, it was thought that the priesthood holder had to administer the sacrament to each person individually by retaining a grip on the tray. This was very annoying for us as the missionaries because this meant that we (as sacrament passers) would need to weave through the chairs and step over everyone’s feet.
Does this happen on a church wide basis? Absolutely! I’m sure that things get into our common practice and then we invent symbolism to add meaning to them.
I’m not sure that this is always a bad thing. My institute teacher told me that everything in the temple was symbolic of the Savior. I spent a lot of thought in “discovering” how different fixtures (like chandeliers and floral arrangements) represented the Christ. I do not currently think that the designers necessarily inserted all these hidden meanings into the construction or décor (sometimes a chandelier is just a chandelier), but if it added meaning for me and my experience then my efforts were well spent.
Where I think this sometimes goes wrong is the expectation that a symbolic meaning dictates a certain practice. I would not want to see all temples restricted to only using the “symbolic chandelier”, or white sheets to be touched by the sacrament blessers only, or all sacrament passers tripping over people’s legs as they try to navigate down the rows. Symbolism is good, rigidity is not.
cwald wrote:Well hell, the obvious one is the WoW —- but don’t get me started.
😡
😆 Ya…OK, that’s the obvious one, and yes, that’s a whole other thread. So put that one aside.
What else is doctrine that started as a common practice?
I’m having a tough time thinking of things.
Maybe:
1) Segregating blacks may have started as a common/cultural/societal practice based on teachings of the “mark of Cain” (which Bushman noted was a teaching by some groups in the 1800s, if I remember right) that became a doctrine of withholding the priesthood and taught in the church, but later was researched and not really substantiated, and finally a prophet received revelation to correct the practice and doctrine.
2) Marriage as a common practice became celestial marriage doctrine required for exaltation (first become plural marriage doctrine, then changed to temple marriage).
Others?
Problem with these things are that people can get incredibly anal about them, to the point that it distracts from things that are really important such as being good towards one another. Brings to mind Packers talk ‘the unwritten law’
Personal opinion alert – not said as an admin in any way – just to make that clear:Fwiw, although I don’t agree with many of the examples Pres. Packer used in that talk (at BYU, not in General Conference, btw), I don’t have a problem at all with the basic message he gave – that it’s important to run organizations in an orderly manner, even if everything isn’t written down.
Also, as one of my own “unwritten order” things
Having said that, one of my favorite Stake Presidents signed all of his e-mails, “T” – since that was the first letter of his first name. When we were talking privately, he always called me “Ray” – and I called him “T__”. A Branch President addressed everyone as “Brother or Sister (First Name)” – and that was the name he used personally. I sign almost all of my e-mails with “Ray” – even many that are quite formal otherwise. I just try to respect how someone else wants to be addressed and avoid using something that s/he would find offensive.
– except when cwald asks to be called “Your Royal Highness”.
:shh: Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, although I don’t agree with many of the examples Pres. Packer used in that talk (at BYU, not in General Conference, btw), I don’t have a problem at all with the basic message he gave – that it’s important to run organizations in an orderly manner, even if everything isn’t written down.
Out of morbid curioisty I looked it up. It’s a classic and I recall reading it or hearing it before, but wanted to see what my current reaction would be. I agree thatifhis basic message were that organizations need to be run in an orderly manner, that would have been a reasonably useful thing to talk about. But it’s nothing more than a laundry list of stuff that bugs him, and he seemed to trying to use his authority in order to force people to cut it out. Let’s see now, which side is the second counselor supposed to sit on? Sheesh. Not that it matters, but my reaction just now ran the gamut from mild annoyance to complete outright rejection. I disagreed with him on every point. Particularly his discussion of the presentation of callings. Fortunately, some local leaders apparently disagree with him on that point as well. I classify it all as common practice transmuted into pseudo-doctrine. It could all go away and we’d be better off for it. Yeah, doug, I agree with you. Like I said, I don’t mind the basic need for unwritten rules (mostly since I like to minimize written rules
😈 ), but I don’t like almost all of his examples.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.