The Culture of the Gospel

From the viewpoint of Elder Oaks, it is impossible to be as righteous as you can be (and therefore, as happy as you can be), without absolute activity in the Church. From his viewpoint, there is no difference between the Church’s welfare, and the welfare of the entire human race. However, fitting into the unorthodox, “StayLDS” community, most of us have realized it’s not so cut and dry. The Church does not always bring us happiness, and the Church leadership does not always act in our best interest (even if that’s their intent).

The Church often teaches that there are three primary reasons why people “do good”:

1. Because they love God

2. Out of a sense of duty

3. Out of fear of punishment/want for rewards

Many have speculated that without religion, chaos ensues.

“In truth, there never was any remarkable lawgiver amongst any people who did not resort to divine authority, as otherwise his laws would not have been accepted by the people; for there are many good laws, the importance of which is known to be the sagacious lawgiver, but the reasons for which are not sufficiently evident to enable him to persuade others to submit to them; and therefore do wise men, for the purpose of removing this difficulty, resort to divine authority.”- Machiavelli

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”- Volaire

Being a mild agnostic, I have come to discover that there are many reasons for doing “good” that fall outside the scope of religion. Nietzsche didn’t drink because he considered it a narcotic which dulls the mind, and saps the will. I avoid debt like the plague because it causes undue stress and obligation. I stay away from pornography out of respect for my wife, to bridle my sexual tentencies, and because I disdain the exploitation of women. I believe that every commandment worth following is “good”, not because God declared it so, but because it is inherently good.

While reading that article, which I would not normally have read, I came up with the same question as Nibbler. What the heck is “gospel culture?” I’ve heard of (and witnessed and been a part of) church culture before, and I see that some (many) parts of that culture will not work everywhere and at the same time is a bit different depending on where you are. Gospel Culture? I have no idea what he’s talking about. There are commandments and theology and doctrine and there is “living the gospel” (all of which are open to some interpretation) but I don’t believe there is a gospel culture per se. Were there a gospel culture it would need to be shared among other churches as well.

This is laughable. There is no such thing as gospel culture – only church culture. And to assume that all other cultures should subsume to the church’s culture is offensive to those cultures. The reason he wants multi-generational families in leadership positions is because over generations in the church personal or ethnic culture gradually gets replaced with church culture. But we all know how problematic and how wrong church culture can be to the point of neglecting the core values of the real gospel.

This is why the church has a hard time growing in places where America is not seen as “saviors to the world” and an even harder time in places that are antagonistic towards the U.S. “You want to me to replace my culture with that? Ummm, no thanks”

specific practices as that are not in harmony with the gospel (such as paying a price for a bride that delays marriage and encourages sexual activity outside marriage).

…so…when Johnny Lingo paid 8 cows for Mahonna (rescuing her from a dad dad that yells…”Mahonna, you ugly! Come here!”)…would the church think that is more the true culture to pay for wives without having sex outside marriage????

It’s not about your church activity — it’s about the happiness of your life. This means your family life, your personal life, your leisure time, your mental health, your professional life, your comfort level when financial calamity strikes, etcetera. Why does it have to be about the church all the time?????? Happiness is the object and design of our whole EXISTENCE, not church activity as the epicenter of happiness.

I think these are pretty good questions, SD. I just can understand that many in the church see that following the prophet is the way to get that personal happiness, that through church activity, members grow to understand how to live gospel principles that help them find the happiness they are seeking, and that makes for financial, family, mental and all areas of life to be in balance. It is just how they see it.

They see the church as the vehicle to get them to that destination, and so they talk about it that way. They aren’t necessarily wrong.

But I have the same frustrations you seem to be expressing…it can seem to resort to “church activity” is all that matters…as in…church activity will translate to happiness, instead of living the gospel will translate to happiness.

All I know is…I was fully active in the church when hell broke lose in my life…so… do all those things about church really matter?

People can become too hyperfocused on the wrong things, and perspectives get out of whack, and they can promise too much out of church activity.

I share the frustration. Even while I cling to the idea that church can help families. Just in more toned down ways…not so hyperbolic.

Activity in mormon church doesn’t give guarantees, and they don’t have a monopoly on happiness. It just is one vehicle you can try to use.

And based on that lens, there are some cultural things that you might want to avoid, and we call them “traditions of our fathers”. You can do the same exact thing with traditions inside the church. And we should. We should shed all traditions that won’t help us. And cling to those that do.

And if people at church don’t agree with you that some things we preach in the church can be damaging to individuals…that is fine. That is about them. You are smart enough to see the value of some things in the world, and the problems of some things inside the church.

Nothing is perfect. You choose what to focus on and what to believe to be a happy person.

How does focusing on MGFs help the individual member? From an organizational standpoint the focus makes perfect sense, preserve the organization, but what value does it add to the individual member? MGFs can give people that peace of mind that their family will be saved in the CK, building MGFs can assuage a fear people have, but does that really feed people spiritually or only calm an anxiety?

I remember having this conversation here some time ago about an article someone had written about declining church attendance. IIRC the author wasn’t talking about the LDS church, just church in general. The bullet points in the article remind me of the bullet points in the talk cited ITT. The concern that is being communicated is, “won’t somebody please think of the church!” church meaning the organization. The article and the talk weren’t as concerned with ministering to people as they were with preserving the organization of the church itself… which probably contributes towards people leaving churches.

Having people that are a part of multi-generational families in leadership is probably viewed as having the added benefit of ensuring loyalty and consistency, where the thought is that a person that’s several generations deep in the church is less likely to bring along “traditions of their fathers” that go against church culture or people that aren’t as familiar with church doctrines and end up teaching the wrong things.

I think it’s church culture to believe that whether or not someone is active in the church is an indicator of whether they will be saved and it’s more gospel centered culture to believe that whether or not a person is loving and good is the indicator of whether or not they will be saved, regardless of church activity. Or maybe the gospel culture is bringing out the best in everyone and to lose interest in whether or not someone is saved.

Where I’m going with this is that I think church culture focuses entirely too much on church membership and activity so we get this focus on MGFs. Were Simon, Andrew, James, and John members of MGFs? Not of Christ’s church but they may have been “born of goodly parents.” But that’s beside the point. People are their own people. Good parents have Lucifers. Bad parents have Abrahams.

Going back to a point raised in the Europe consolidation article… to be honest I haven’t seen a disproportionate amount of local leadership be members of a MGF. I can think of at least five BPs of wards I’ve belonged to that were converts. For comparison’s sake I can think of four that were a part of MGFs. It depends on where you live and who else lives there.

I do see some parallels with other churches here, especially with the Catholic church.

The Catholic church for hundreds of years celebrated mass in Latin, regardless of the local language and whether or not anyone on the congregation understood Latin. While there were some renegade priests, the official change to doing mass in the local language did not come until 1965. Prior to that change I suppose it could be said the “gospel culture” of Catholicism was to do mass in Latin only. One of the reasons for the change was to encourage participation by the membership.

Relating to multi-generationalism (new word?), it was very common in my mission decades ago to hear “I am an Anglican (member of the Church of England), my father was an Anglican, and his father was an Anglican, and so on. I will always be an Anglican.” Catholics would say the same thing. My own family is Catholic and even though my grandparents only darkened the door of the church for weddings and funerals, they professed to be Catholic. I think there are a growing number of Mormons who are the same, except there is also a growing number who also eschew association with the church, even if it is in name only, because of the church’s stance on some subjects (e.g. gay marriage). From Oaks’ point of view (and Bednar has said similar things), they see this multi-generational connection as a glue holding people in the church. I think that can be – I do know many active Catholics who have always been Catholic handed down from generation to generation – but it’s not necessarily the end result. And frankly I’m not sure that’s what they (Oaks, et al) want considering that in other churches with this type of “gospel culture” there really is not a gospel culture. Many are members in name only, do not practice their brand of Christianity, and in some cases openly defy church teachings/doctrine.

DJ, I do think that is another example of culture for generations. I think one major difference for mormonism is the timing of coming to be during an era when people have more choices and options.

I think families and churches do the best they can with what they have. God can lead them along, but it is still mortals doing the best they can. Like our apostles and prophets today.

Nibbler, I wonder if tea is the tradition, that stays alive because the culture is obedience and faith in prophets. It is a talisman.