- Chad Nielsen on Hymns and Tunes I Submitted for “Hymns—For Home and Church”: “Kent, that would be really neat to be able to have a database of all 18,000+ hymns that were submitted (along with all the submissions for the previous three iterations). I know Sam Bradshaw has been working on all of the ones published in periodicals and books by the Church at https://singpraises.net/, but there are so many that have been written that will likely never be published.” Feb 23, 13:27
- on The “Radical” 1948 Hymnal: How We Got Our Solemn Sound: “Seems to me that the new hymnbook represents Tracy Y. Cannon’s final victory over the notion that the one true church must be the source of the one true music (“the songs of Zion”). I’m all in favor of using the best music we can find (“best” defined in terms of accomplishing the purposes we assign to music) while also supporting our own composers, and so far so good. But it goes further by suggesting that there is no one true style of sacred music, or even genre, and I am curious what Cannon would think of that. A congregation could now sing “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” followed by “His Eye is On the Sparrow,” or “Our Savior’s Love” followed by “This Little Light of Mine.” Musically, that’s a lot to ask. And based on how “This Little Light of Mine” went in our stake conference yesterday, musically we’re not really up to it yet. I’m sure it will get better in time. But hymns can accomplish their purpose even if the congregation still sings everything with the same “solemn sound.”” Feb 23, 11:17
- on The “Radical” 1948 Hymnal: How We Got Our Solemn Sound: “My (very uninformed) guess is that the new hymnbook will reflect not so much a waning of the organ focus, but a continued effort to stay in contact with broader musical trends in Christianity and a widened international perspective. Some places are better served with guitar notation than organ music (but you can’t draw the boundaries just by looking at a map – you really do have to consult with people on the ground).” Feb 22, 17:50
- on What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday, 2/22?: “Here are a few of the things I thought about because of attending Church meetings yesterday (2/22): The speakers in sacrament meeting were asked to talk about studying the scriptures, and one speaker mentioned growing up with the old living scriptures set of illustrated Book of Mormon stories. I grew up with those stories also. Since these books were an adaptation of the Book of Mormon, I wondered to what degree they could be considered scripture. The stories were the same, and IIRC the words were very close to what was in the Book of Mormon (perhaps made simpler, I haven’t looked at them in a long time). But they left out large portions of the text, and they added images, which gave or implied certain interpretations of the Book of Mormon. If these books are not scripture, what changes made them not scripture? Is scripture in the words? In the stories? In the message? In our reactions to scripture? Or our reverence for them? When we use a different Bible translation, is it still scripture? If so, then what about a story that re-tells something from the Bible? Is that scripture? If not, then what change makes the difference? We sang “Lift Every Voice And Sing”, which is not in the hymnal or the new hymns provided on the app. But I was struck by how the language seemed to fit what we use in hymns. What is different in this hymn is its references to the African-American experience. But we have a lot of references in our hymns to the LDS experience, and many of the hymns we have borrowed from other traditions also have references to their experience, so why would the African-American references be a problem? Of course, like the musings above about what is scripture, we can ask a similar question about what is a hymn. Drawing on Elder Kearen’s recent conference talk, in our Elders Quorum lesson we discussed new beginnings (the concept, not the YW’s program). It occurred to me that the idea of a beginning is something contested in LDS thought. We believe in eternity, which s without beginning nor end, but we talk about new beginnings in things like baptism. In many ways our lives are full of beginnings, repeated points at which our lives change significantly. The idea of “repentance” is all about beginning again, isn’t it? So I think that it could be that eternity is actually a kind of infinite beginning, repeated change and new beginnings forever. So, in the eternities, will we need to accommodate ourselves to a new way of life, a new beginning? Or to the very process of change, of infinite new beginnings? I think we will have to find out when we get there. ” Feb 22, 12:39
- on Hymns and Tunes I Submitted for “Hymns—For Home and Church”: “I worry about the hymns not included. What will happen to them? I suppose if we are supposed to be creative — i.e., if we are to become creators like our Heavenly Parents — then we need to be ready and willing to throw out what doesn’t work, and leave some things we put a lot of work into behind. Every creator knows that they end up putting a lot of work into things that don’t end up being used ever. But I’m not sure that is best for us humans, here on the earth. We need encouragement. We need parents who put our lousy first efforts up on the fridge where they can be seen every day. But that’s not the only reason I worry about the hymns that are not included in the hymnal. I value what has been created — everything that was submitted. I want to see it available, so that someone 100 years from now can look through what was produced, and maybe find a neglected jewel, for that time. As a result of thinking this way, I have for decades been collecting LDS poetry from old LDS magazines, trying to make it more accessible, and bring out what is there. I estimate that as of 1970 there were already in excess of 50,000 LDS poems published. And, I think there’s a few jewels among them.” Feb 21, 22:01
- on Unbinding Isaac: Aaron Koller on the Trauma and Theology of Genesis 22: “I wanted to add: the sacrifice of Isaac was not only an ethical dilemma. It was also a matter of trusting that God would fulfill his promises to Abraham by some other means–which would have been beyond his understanding at the time. The Lord had made specific promises to Abraham that were to be fulfilled through the lineage of Isaac. But if Isaac were slain then the whole plan that Abraham had in mind to establish faith in the earth and in the eternities would come to not. That said, my purpose isn’t lessen the difficulty of losing Isaac. But if we consider everything that would’ve be lost by such a sacrifice–then it becomes a conundrum of cosmic proportions.” Feb 21, 18:12
- on Unbinding Isaac: Aaron Koller on the Trauma and Theology of Genesis 22: “The mystery of Godliness how great it is. King Benjamin enjoins us to: “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.” And with that basic understanding in place — that we cannot comprehend everything that the Lord comprehends — we must trust the Lord implicitly as he works with us through a process of growth and leaning that is calculated to make us fit for his Kingdom. Three nuggets of truth from Joseph Smith come to mind: 1) If we want to go where God is we must become like him. 2) It will be a great while after we’ve passed through the veil before we will have learned all the principles of exaltation. And 3) Those principles are not all to be comprehended in this life. And so we have a great deal of learning ahead of us–of many things that we do not comprehend at this time! Things that cannot be revealed to us at this time “lest [we] should look for that which [we] ought not and [we] should perish.” President Nelson said (in so many words) that in this life we are like acorns that barely sprout–and that it is in the next life that we grow into a mighty oak. But it is while we are here in the “sprouting” stage that we must learn to trust the Lord implicitly–IMO. Otherwise we cannot receive all that God is willing to give us as he leads us from one grace to another and then another–and on and on into realms of unimaginable understanding. If we allow our own ideas — our traditions, our ethics, our sociopolitical philosophies, even our religious sensibilities! — to get in the way of receiving greater light and knowledge then it will be there that we will block ourselves from further progression. And so, even though is not required that we learn all things at this time, it is imperative that we at least get a sense of what it means to trust the Lord implicitly so that we can learn all things over time. I agree with Hugh Nibley who said (in so many words) that each one of us will have an opportunity to show that we’d be willing to do what Abraham did in offering up his son. And my guess is that most folks here have gone through an ordeal or two that, while they may not have been as severe as Abraham’s ordeal, they were especially tailored to tug at our heartstrings. And though these little “tutorials” can be unpleasant for a time–they are the very means by which the Lord helps us to “put away [our] false traditions” as Joseph Smith said we must do in order to become a joint heir with the Savior.” Feb 21, 17:51
- on Unbinding Isaac: Aaron Koller on the Trauma and Theology of Genesis 22: “Yes, it was Abraham’s faith that justified him (counted as righteousness), not his deeds. God works in mysterious ways, and sees the end from the beginning. God had worked with Abraham for many years, but Abraham was still not perfect. Maybe the best answer would have been for Abraham to push back on God, as he had when the angels were on their way to Sodom — maybe Abraham should have known that human sacrifice was repugnant — but Abraham had faith in God and trusted God, and he set out. God intervened and provided an acceptable sacrifice, and we have used this story as hinting towards Jesus’ death, and thus God used this time to teach Abraham. But Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness, even though his deeds could be seen as mistaken. A covenant relationship does not mean mindless obedience, exact obedience — a covenant relationship means let’s engage, let’s talk. We read about not being a servant but being a son and an heir — a son and an heir can engage with his father, and can talk to his father. Abraham acted like a servant, but maybe should have acted like a son. Even so, Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness. I am troubled by calls for exact obedience, as I don’t think that is what God wants from us. God wants faith, and understanding, and purposeful obedience and the learning that occurs therewith. God wants a covenant relationship. God counts our faith (more than our deeds) as righteousness. Thus, might a man-made call for exact obedience to God be misplaced? And if so, might a call for exact obedience to a man (a prophet?) or an institution (a church?) also be misplaced? A covenant relationship includes engagement and talking, and maybe even occasional mild pushback, and the learning that occurs therewith.” Feb 21, 15:23
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “This is one of my favorite T&S posts ever. You actually make me want to go back and read the stories again. Thank you!” Feb 21, 06:24
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “Great piece! I ironically have had the inverse trajectory as you: all throughout my youth and mission and YSA and most uncritically believing years, I was still always low-key uncomfortable with the disturbing elements of the Old Testament, especially the story of Abraham. It’s only as I’ve gotten older that I’ve come to better appreciate and admire the OT, precisely in the ways you’ve outlined here, as an extended record of the *failures* of faithful men, of how none of us are truly righteous and all are without exception in dire need of repentance, as a massive compendium of what NOT to do.” Feb 21, 06:15
