Traditions

I've been thinking a lot about the various traditions I encounter in the Church, especially the last few days. Anyone who's followed this blog knows I have written about this before, particularly understanding the difference between doctrine and tradition (and between doctrine and policy and between policy and tradition). The following are the ones that have been on my mind recently, though by no means is this the first time I have thought about them. Take my opinions of them at face value. In no way does my opinion affect my testimony and feelings about the doctrine itself.

Standing when an apostle enters a room
This was most obvious this past Friday when I was at a special meeting in Kirtland to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the dedication of the Historic Kirtland village. Elder M. Russell Ballard was in attendance, as he was also in town for the Kirtland Ohio Stake Conference the following two days. I was at this meeting as part of a choir made up of cast members from all different years of This is Kirtland! as we performed two of the songs from the show. I even had a solo in one of them!

The meeting started at 7:30 but I was in the building an hour early. Just before the meeting was about to begin, Elder Ballard entered the chapel and everyone stood up and the room went silent. I knew this would likely happen as this was hardly the first time I've been at meetings when an Apostle was present. Previously I'd been at sessions of General Conference in Salt Lake City, plus I attended two meetings where Apostle Richard G. Scott was present: one on my mission and then another about 2 years later here in Ohio when he attended our Stake Conference for the Akron Ohio Stake.

I personally don't understand the purpose behind the silent standing. From what I have heard it is somehow viewed as a sign of respect, but I don't personally see how that signifies respect. Yes, I believe Apostles are called of God and stand as special witnesses of Jesus Christ, but I still recognize that they are human beings. There is certainly no doctrinal basis for standing up as it's clearly a tradition. While I don't think it's bad, per se, I can easily see how it could be misinterpreted, especially in a meeting like I was at. And yes, I know that standing for many other things is for respect, like for the flag or the National Anthem, or even in a courtroom.

The meeting I attended was definitely an LDS meeting, complete with prayers and hymns, but it had several non-LDS dignitaries in attendance as it was just as much a community event as it was a church event. Seeing everyone stand and go silent until Elder Ballard got to his seat and sat just looked very bizarre, especially from a non-LDS perspective. If I were an apostle, I'd definitely ask people to NOT do that.

I saw it happen at a non-church event that was hosted in the LDS Conference Center in Salt Lake City. When I was a student at BYU-Idaho, I attended the regional American Choral Directors Association convention in Salt Lake. Part of the program was a concert by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the Conference Center that all the delegates were invited to and got to go on stage to sing Battle Hymn of the Republic with the choir. Right before the concert started, President Thomas S. Monson entered the room (he was first counselor at the time) and many people started to stand in silence as he walked to his seat. I remember some people behind me asking each other what was going on and then realizing it was one of the Mormon leaders. They didn't say anything rude or disrespectful (not surprising considering quite a few people around them were standing!), but they clearly thought it was bizarre. Is that what we want? To make people just think we're weird or mindless?

Clapping in the chapel
Anyone who's been to an LDS meeting knows we don't clap in our worship services, whether it be for a great talk or a musical number, we are pretty subdued. The church's official Handbook of Instructions specifies that "Applause is not always appropriate in the chapel." While that is clearly not doctrinal itself, it's based on the idea of reverence and keeping the chapel a reverent, peaceful place. What has happened, though, is that MANY in the church interpret "not always appropriate" to mean "never."

This only becomes an issue when the chapel (which many other churches would refer to as a sanctuary...the main meeting room) is used for events that are not sacrament meetings or other religious services. For instance, chapels can and are often used for recitals and concerts or for presentations. All events in the chapel have to meet certain standards (so no political rallies, rock concerts, etc.), but that does not mean applause is never allowed or even appropriate.

This was actually somewhat of an issue in that same meeting this past Friday. Near the beginning, one of the Lake County Commissioners presented the local church leaders with a proclamation commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Historic Kirtland village and highlighting the church's role in the county's history, present, and future. At the conclusion, it was met with the typical silence that pretty much every event in a Mormon meeting ends with. Thankfully, some of those around me and then I started clapping and others joined in. Because I was sitting on the stand, I could see the audience and I could clearly see people looking uncomfortable clapping in the chapel, like somehow they were sinning or something. It was just a simply applause to acknowledge the proclamation, not irreverent or loud. Applause was most certainly appropriate there, especially in light of the fact that not only were lots of people present who aren't LDS, but the commissioner isn't LDS either, so instead of seeing it as an expression of LDS culture, it instead just looks, again, bizarre.

The same was true when we did a multi-stake performance of Handel's Messiah. At one of the performances, audience members were specifically asked not to clap at all, even at the end of the performance. We sang the Hallelujah Chorus, everyone is standing, it ends, and just silence. Tons of non-LDS people in the audience, a natural reaction to want to clap, and nothing. It was so awkward. The leadership thought they were respecting the reverence of the chapel, but instead they were just making Mormons look weird, and for no reason at all since applause is not forbidden in the chapel, doctrinally or procedurally. Again, tradition trumped actual procedure because it was viewed as doctrinal, even though it clearly wasn't.

The Sabbath and money
Latter-day Saints, for the most part, take the Sabbath Day seriously as a day to attend church and rest. We are counseled to avoid working where possible and to avoid doing things like going shopping, going out to eat, entertainment, sports, etc. It is supposed to be a day of rest not only for you, but for everyone. Of course most people in the world don't adhere to that, so many of us do the best we can.

Like any counsel, there are Latter-day Saints who take the Sabbath to the extreme, like wearing their church clothes all day (I'm not talking about doing so just because they don't feel like changing, but doing so because they think it's more righteous), or completely avoiding television and/or the radio.

Now, I will say that overall, keeping the Sabbath is a very personal thing. Obviously there are some pretty clear cases of what to do or not to do, but for the most part, it's a personal matter. So, if someone feels like they need to stay in church clothes all day or completely avoid TV, that is certainly their right, though you certainly won't see me doing that! Where they cross the line is if/when they present their choice or preference as more righteous, like not doing that is somehow "breaking" the Sabbath.

This often comes up with the idea of spending money. Like I said, we are counseled to avoid going shopping, out to eat, etc. on the Sabbath (which is Sunday for LDS in most of the world), but I have noticed many people have interpreted that to mean we should avoid spending money on the Sabbath. We realize that many businesses are open on Sunday and stay open because they get a lot of traffic, so our abstinence from shopping on Sunday is simply a matter of principle. But with the arrival of machines and the Internet to do shopping, is spending money actually making people work? In my opinion it isn't, at least in most cases.

For instance, if I go to a website and order something, while there is a possibility the order may be taken right there, chances are it won't be. Sunday is not considered a "business day", so most times, any order made during the weekend is simply taken care of Monday morning (websites will often state something to that effect on the ordering page). Websites do not need to have constant supervision or someone manning the resgister. Obviously the same is true for anything bought from a machine, like pop (soda), snacks, or even a newspaper. No one has to work if you choose to buy something and there is certainly no doctrinal basis that spending money on the Sabbath is somehow sinful. Heck, even some gas stations can operate without anyone inside since many have card readers right at the pump that can function without anyone in the store (though, in all honesty, I avoid getting gas on Sunday unless I absolutely have to).

Now, like I said earlier, the Sabbath and "honoring it" or "keeping it holy" is mostly a personal matter. If people are uncomfortable buying things via a machine or online because somewhat might have to work as a result of their purchase, hey, no shame in waiting until Monday or doing it on Saturday. But don't tell me I'm "breaking" the Sabbath because I bought something online on Sunday or put a dollar bill into a vending machine.

In closing, I can understand being "peculiar" for things I know are doctrine, but for traditions? Um, let's examine them and make sure they have a rational purpose behind them and that in the process of standing for what we believe in, we aren't totally "weirding out" the world around us. That doesn't mean we get rid of traditions all together, but it does mean we don't mindlessly do them. I'm all for traditions and following procedure, but let's please make sure they have clear purposes and aren't confused with doctrine. Following doctrine is a must, following procedure is highly recommended (though "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law"), and just following tradition should be done with caution and understanding, as well as differentiating between the three.

Fair criticism?

To start off, as of yesterday (May 14), it's been one year since we left the house for the last time as we headed down to Maryland for Heather's graduation. I can't believe it's been that long already and had hoped I'd have a more permanent situation in place by now, but life is what it is. I certainly can't complain too much about my current situation, though. While I'm hardly living a life of luxury, I do have a nice place to live and my needs are met with people I love and care about. That said, I'm hoping a full-time job is on the horizon, even if it isn't a teaching job so I can move on to the next stage of my life. Of course I still think about the house and the whole situation with moving, but I find they are becoming fewer and further in between. Part of the problem is living with so many reminders. Much of our stuff is still in boxes in the basement, so every time I or Mom needs something that we haven't unpacked, we have to go searching down there or in other boxes. Every time I have to go searching through the boxes, it's just a reminder why so much of our stuff is in boxes.

Anyway, that was on my mind the last few days but that's all I have to say about that. Another thing I've been thinking about concerns a lot of criticism I've been seeing from friends and strangers about Ohio in general. It was troubling to see so much of it, so I started thinking about the criticisms I've laid out about Idaho and Utah on this blog and in my discussions with people. Was this a case of "what goes around comes around" and just getting a taste of my own medicine? I really thought about this and analyzed what people were criticizing about Ohio, how I felt about it and why, and what my criticisms of Utah were and why. What I came up with is that, no, this isn't a case of karma at all. Why? Well let me explain!

The biggest reason the majority of criticisms I see of Ohio bother me is because they are almost always about things that cannot be helped, most often the weather. No amount of moaning and groaning is going to change the climate, make it sunnier, warmer, less rainy, or less humid. The weather is what it is. Yeah, we all complain here and there, but some people it seems can't find anything else but bemoan a cloudy day (but are largely silent on sunny days...hmmmm). If you're going to put a lot of energy into criticizing something, at least make sure it's something that can actually be changed! When was on my mission in Arizona and New Mexico, I didn't enjoy the desert at first. Too dry for my taste, hardly any green, and to be honest, having the same weather virtually every day got boring! I definitely learned to appreciate cloudy days and RAIN! When it's cloudless for 2 months straight and it's 100 degrees, for someone like me it lacked variety and interest. I got used to the whole climate and desertscape of course, but in the end it made me appreciate the green here in Ohio and in the east in general. Even now, when we have rainy days here I say I enjoy them because that's how things grow. Sure is nice not having to worry about irrigation! That's not to day I didn't enjoy short-sleeve weather in January! :)

While Utah's desert climate is something I don't particularly care for, it is the least of my criticisms and is far more secondary than anything. In fact, I always enjoy the mountains, especially when they still have snow on them. As for the weather, it's really not a whole lot different than Ohio since, while it is still desert, it is around the same latitude so temperatures are similar. As I started thinking, no, my main criticisms at Utah are all culturally related. In other words, they are things that could potentially (and in my opinion should) be changed. Remember, having lived in even harsher desert climates than Utah, I hardly have the same criticisms for Arizona and New Mexico as I do for Utah. Why? Because Arizona and New Mexico largely had cultures that were close enough to what I was used to (though still different...there is definitely a difference between west and east in this country!). As I have explained many times, it's not all of Utah culture that bothers me, it's the parts that are so intertwined with LDS doctrine that too many inside and out cannot recognize the difference between cultural traditions and actual doctrine. Arizona had a smaller version of that with many of the Mexican immigrants and the Catholic faith. It was very hard for them to separate what was actual Catholic doctrine from culture as they have become so melded.

There are definitely things about the culture here in Ohio that people don't like. For some it's too conservative; for others it's too liberal. Some complain it's too slow, too boring, too political, etc. Most of these criticisms are valid (based on one's experience), though at the same time they are hardly unique to Ohio. With Utah, and Idaho to an extent, much of the cultural problems I have are because I am the same religion as so many out there, so I guess I expect certain--and higher--standards from members of the Church, particularly in how we treat each other. Indeed, it's much more of a Utah LDS cultural problem than just a Utah cultural problem (remember, I have many friends who are Utah residents and natives!). It's not so much a problem because of Utah, but more because of the high concentration of members and the history of isolation in the late 19th century which allowed many of these cultural meshes with doctrine to really develop and take strong root. In other words, it could've happened anywhere. I would imagine it would've happened in Illinois had the Saints not been forced out, though it would've obviously been different since the Nauvoo area in the late 19th century wasn't nearly as isolated as Utah was.

To close, let me reiterate: yes, too much criticism can be a bad thing, but if you're going to complain, at least make sure it's something that could actually be changed if the right person or people heard you or that you could change yourself. Nowhere is perfect; everywhere we go we're going to find things we don't like about certain places and certain groups of people. The key is understanding not only what we feel by more importantly why we feel that way. If we can't rationally understand and explain why, then perhaps we're just being overly critical. On the other end, in hearing criticism we need to understand the why and lend a listening and sympathetic ear. Maybe the person would benefit from some "local advice" on how we deal with this or that (which is why it doesn't bother us as much) or maybe it's something we've never even considered and now have an additional viewpoint! Critical thinking is key!!