Peace on Earth

[notHagoth7]

Finally found a song I've been hunting for some time. My classmates and I were taught to sing this in the early 70's in a secular elementary school on the east coast.

Reminds me of Carthage, and Calvary. (Not necessarily in that order.) 

Was pleasantly surprised to realize it was recorded by a Canadian group. :0)

Thoughts? Impressions?

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Jeanne]

I know the song..love this!

[thesometimesaint]

Loved it.

[Tacenda]

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&hl=en-US&oe=utf-8&safe=images&q=put+your+hand+in+the+hand+of+the+man&source=browser-suggest&qsubts=1487960368058 My classmates in 5th grade were taught this song in the 70's. I remember it vividly, it was right before prayer was taken out of schools, I believe.

 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&hl=en-US&oe=utf-8&safe=images&q=put+your+hand+in+the+hand+of+the+man&source=browser-suggest&qsubts=1487960368058 My classmates in 5th grade were taught this song in the 70's. I remember it vividly, it was right before prayer was taken out of schools, I believe.

As long as there are Algebra tests in schools there will be prayers.

[Calm]

I have always hated the song.  Hate war.  Hate feeling my emotions are being manipulated.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Calm

[Ahab]

Been there. Sung it. Moved on.

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Finally found a song I've been hunting for some time. My classmates and I were taught to sing this in the early 70's in a secular elementary school on the east coast.

Reminds me of Carthage, and Calvary. (Not necessarily in that order.) 

Was pleasantly surprised to realize it was recorded by a Canadian group. :0)

Thoughts? Impressions?

I remember the song from The Legend of Billy Jack

The song was of course written as an anti-war song - revealing the ultimate greed, and bad reasons behind war.

However, that didn't really apply to the Vietnam War IMHO which was the backdrop of the times. At least not from the perspective of the United States which entered the war for defensive help. Perhaps that is what Calm is alluding to. I personally like the song. I find it thought provoking, and I like the melody. 

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have always hated the song.  Hate war.  Hate feeling my emotions are being manipulated.

Manipulated? Or appealed to?

Cicero taught that an appeal to emotion was a very effective *and valid* form of discourse.

....And his muse was Tiro...the Nephite.

So while I might understand your preference that emotions be removed from any discussion/exchange...it simply ain't possible.

We can pretend they aren't there. But emotions *are* part of who we are.  Along with our logic.

Heart, brain and spirit, such discussions are more well-rounded.

Heart, might, mind, and strength...as I recall...is the not-so-secret sauce.

Or should we amend latter-day revelation to make discourse more dry and logical?

Just as it was once supposedly improper to discuss politics and religion around the dinner table. (Talk about generations of dry-toast meals....).

Thoughts/impressions/emotions/rottentomatoes?

Edited February 25, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Been there. Sung it. Moved on.

What do you sing now?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said:

Manipulated? Or appealed to?

Cicero taught that an appeal to emotion was a very effective *and valid* form of discourse.

....And his muse was Tiro...the Nephite.

So while I might understand your preference that emotions be removed from any discussion/exchange...it simply ain't possible.

We can pretend they aren't there. But emotions *are* part of who we are.  Along with our logic.

Heart, brain and spirit, such discussions are more well-rounded.

Heart, might, mind, and strength...as I recall...is the not-so-secret sauce.

Or should we amend latter-day revelation to make discourse more dry and logical?

Just as it was once supposedly improper to discuss politics and religion around the dinner table. (Talk about generations of dry-toast meals....).

Thoughts/impressions/emotions/rottentomatoes?

For me, it feels manipulated.

I should say I think music is an intimate personal experience and I fault no one for having a different experience than my own.  I do not see myself as a music critic.

I just remember having a gut reaction to the slaughter of the peaceful people and felt like the punchline was one that rubbed one's nose In it so strongly as to stink.  I have always preferred more subtle messages, more realistic stories, less hitting over the head "you must feel..."

I love emotion.  It gives life its value.  I highly respect attempts to carefully craft emotional messages.  Music has a straight line access to emotions and so should be used carefully.  I dislike gross sentimentality or self righteousness and that is how the song impacts me.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Calm

[emeliza]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I have always hated the song.  Hate war.  Hate feeling my emotions are being manipulated.

I don't know this song, but agree with war songs.  We don't sing Battle Hymn of the Republic or Oneard Christian Soldiers at church when it is sung.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, emeliza said:

I don't know this song, but agree with war songs.  We don't sing Battle Hymn of the Republic or Oneard Christian Soldiers at church when it is sung.  

I don't understand.  "Onward, Christian Soldiers" is a "war song"?  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[notHagoth7]

4 hours ago, emeliza said:

I don't know this song, but agree with war songs.  We don't sing Battle Hymn of the Republic or Oneard Christian Soldiers at church when it is sung.  

Wow. Life cereal.Mikey likes it!!

If I may ask, what have you done during We Are All Enlisted? Sing? Refrain? Sing only the refrain?

[notHagoth7]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I have always hated the song.  Hate war.  Hate feeling my emotions are being manipulated.

You may be aware that courses on writing (nonfiction, fiction, playwriting, screenwriting), music composition, multimedia design, advertising, marketing and sales teach that if you fail to impact the audience's emotions, you have failed in your chosen vocation?

What of such who openly admit and confess that they are making an appeal to emotion (among other things)?

Are they being deceptive and manipulative?

Or honest, diligent, and forthright?

Judge wisely.

Edited February 25, 2017 by notHagoth7

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

What do you sing now?

 

[emeliza]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  "Onward, Christian Soldiers" is a "war song"?  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you read the words? I realize it is symbolic, but the words specifically talk of war and fighting.  

I am not upset that it is included in the hymn book, I just don't sing it. 

Currently in life there are a lot of the hymns that I don't sing when they are played, but instead sit respectfully.

[emeliza]

3 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Wow. Life cereal.Mikey likes it!!

If I may ask, what have you done during We Are All Enlisted? Sing? Refrain? Sing only the refrain?

That hasn't been sung in my ward in a long time.  I probably just wouldn't sing it.  

I love the rhythm to that song and Onward Christian Soldiers.  I used to like both of them quite a bit.

[thesometimesaint]

There are a few church songs I just don't sing anymore. I'm just tired of the death and destruction. I've seen it up close and personal, and want a day of rest from it. 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

You may be aware that courses on writing (nonfiction, fiction, playwriting, screenwriting), music composition, multimedia design, advertising, marketing and sales teach that if you fail to impact the audience's emotions, you have failed in your chosen vocation?

What of such who openly admit and confess that they are making an appeal to emotion (among other things)?

Are they being deceptive and manipulative?

Or honest, diligent, and forthright?

Judge wisely.

Ultimately, I believe that is music's most basic power - to touch us emotionally - it brings back memories, makes us cry, makes us happy, and inspires what is beautiful. It has always been a big part of my life.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, emeliza said:

Have you read the words?

Yes.  Many times:

Quote

1. Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See his banners go!

(Chorus)
Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.

2. At the sign of triumph
Satan's host doth flee;
On, then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory.
Hell's foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise.

3. Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the Saints have trod.
We are not divided;
All one body we:
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.

4. Onward, then, ye people;
Join our happy throng.
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song:
Glory, laud, and honor
Unto Christ, the King.
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.

And then there's Hebrews 4:12, where the Apostle Paul said: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

And in Ephesians 6 Paul spoke of putting on "the whole armour of God" (emphases added):

Quote

 10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.

And in 1 Timothy, Paul twice speaks of "fight{ing} the good fight."  In fact, in the second instance, where he states "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith," he immediately then describes what he believes will be the reward for his having so "fought": "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

And in Alma 43:43-47, we have a narrative by, I think, Mormon regarding the days of Alma when the Nephites were fighting the Zoramites (emphasis added):

Quote

 43 Now in this case the Lamanites did fight exceedingly; yea, never had the Lamanites been known to fight with such exceedingly great strength and courage, no, not even from the beginning.

 44 And they were inspired by the Zoramites and the Amalekites, who were their chief captains and leaders, and by Zerahemnah, who was their chief captain, or their chief leader and commander; yea, they did fight like dragons, and many of the Nephites were slain by their hands, yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger.

 45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

 46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

 47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

And then there is Captain Moroni, described in The Book of Mormon as one of the most righteous men to have ever lived.  See Alma 48:17 ("Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.").  Moroni spent most of his life fighting.  Killing.  Training and leading others to kill.  And yet he never became bloodthirsty.  See Alma 48:16 ("{A}nd this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity."); Alma 44:1 ("And Moroni said unto Zerahemnah: Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you.").  

A compatriot of Moroni, Pahoran, had this to day in Alma 61:10-14 (emphases added):

Quote

 10 And now, behold, we will resist wickedness even unto bloodshed. We would not shed the blood of the Lamanites if they would stay in their own land.

 11 We would not shed the blood of our brethren if they would not rise up in rebellion and take the sword against us.

 12 We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do.

 13 But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us.

 14 Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.

And then there is Matthew 10:34, where Jesus Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

In Moses 4:31, the Lord said: "So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

I guess my point here is this: There are dozens of scriptural references to figurative battles, fighting, weapons, etc. where such things are spoken of as metaphors for righteous conduct (fighting temptation and sin and injustice and so on).  There are also many references to literal battles, fighting, weapons, etc., and where such conduct is described as righteous and necessary (see Alma 48:16 and Alma 61:14 above).  So I don't understand the apparent wholesale objection on your part to "militaristic" imagery and metaphor.  The scriptures are replete with such things.

7 hours ago, emeliza said:

I realize it is symbolic, but the words specifically talk of war and fighting.  

Scriptures often speak of "war and fighting" as metaphor for resisting sin and the adversary.  And to the extent there are scriptural references to actual "ward and fighting," such things can be entirely appropriate and necessary (see Alma 61:14 above, and also D&C 98.  

I assume you are aware of the mandate in D&C 98:16, in which we are commanded to "renounce war and proclaim peace."  I assume you endorse and celebrate this commandment, yes?  (I sure do.)  Am I curious, then, how you reconcile it with the various instances we have in scripture of good and righteous men taking up the sword, and resorting to violence and bloodshed, and such conduct being accounted unto them for righteousness.  Any thoughts?

7 hours ago, emeliza said:

I am not upset that it is included in the hymn book, I just don't sing it. 

I can certainly respect that.  I just don't understand why.  Do you likewise skip over the war chapters in Alma?  And the various "militaristic" metaphorical language in the Pauline epistles?  And Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace, but a sword")?  And Moses 4:31 ("So I ... {placed} cherubim and a flaming sword...")?

There is a well-written article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism about "War and Peace."  I think it merits some attention.  Some excerpts:

Quote

LDS ideas about war and peace are complex. They synthesize a number of basic values. First are the ideals of finding peace in Christ (John 14:27), turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies (Matt. 5:39, 44), repeatedly forgiving one's enemies (D&C 64:10;98:23-27, 39-43), and renouncing war and proclaiming peace (D&C 98:16). Next are the goals of establishing a perfect community of righteous, harmonious people (see Zion) and of welcoming the millennial reign of Jesus for a thousand years of peace. Third is a fundamental aversion to any use of force or violence that denies personal agency (D&C 121:41-44). Next is the recognition that war was the tactic Satan used in the premortal existence (see War in Heaven) and that he continues to reign with violence on this earth (Moses 6:15). Then there is acknowledgment that it is appropriate and sometimes required to take up arms in defense of one's family, religion, and freedom (Alma 43:45-47;46:12). Next are the ethical and legal distinctions between deliberate murder and the killing of opposing soldiers in the line of combat duty. There is an obligation of all citizens to honor and obey the constitutional law of their land (see Civic Duties), together with the belief that all political leaders are accountable to God for their governmental administrations (D&C 134:1). 

...

The LDS response to the political realities of war is largely conditioned by the concept of the justification of defensive war provided in the Book of Mormon and in modern revelation. The main statements come from accounts of Moroni 1 (a Nephite commander, c. 72-56 B.C.), from the prophet Mormon (final commander of the Nephite armies, c. A.D. 326-385), and from guidance given to the Church in 1833, when persecutions were mounting in Missouri (see D&C 98).

Captain Moroni raised a banner on which he laid out the principal Nephite war aims: the defense of "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" (Alma 46:12). Legitimate warfare is described here in defensive terms. Moroni established a forward defense perimeter, constructed protective fortifications for some cities, and deployed his main armies as mobile striking forces to retake captured towns. His purpose was "that they might live unto the Lord their God" (Alma 48:10), giving no support for war as an instrument to expand territorial or political control (Morm. 4:4-5). He taught the Nephites to defend themselves but "never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land" (Alma 48:14-15). They sought the guidance of prophets before going to battle (Alma 16:5;43:23; 3 Ne. 3:19-20). Moroni "glor[ied]" in this position-"not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God" (Alma 48:16). Even in the conduct of war itself, indiscriminate slaughter, plunder, and reprisal were prohibited (see CWHN 8:328-79).

...

Even if the sword is taken up in self-defense, it is a fearful choice. It should be undertaken only if God commands (D&C 98:33) and after "a standard of peace" has been offered three times (98:34-38). Great rewards are promised to those who warn their enemies in the name of the Lord, who patiently bear three attacks against themselves or their families, and who repeatedly forgive their enemies (98:23-27, 39-43).

...

Echoing the concerns of the Book of Mormon for just war, the First Presidency warned people not to convert a legitimate war of self-defense into a bloody search for vengeance or the killing of innocent civilians. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., held that "to be justified in going to war in self-defense, a nation must be foreclosed from all other alternatives" (Firmage and Blakesley, p. 314).

...

In the April 2003 General Conference, President Hinckley explicitly took up the issue of war and peace. He stated the long-held position that “those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign,” a position as ancient as the New Testament church. At the same time, he reiterated the Lord’s command to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” He, however, argued that “self defense” is justified and may transcend responses to a direct attack: “…there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression” (General Conference Report, April 5-6, 2003, 81-85).

...

In both the October 2001 and April 2003 discourse, as in earlier statements by the First Presidency, in matters of war and peace, the theological foundations and the mandate to emulate the Master were clear, but the application of true principles to concrete circumstances entailed complex moral reasoning of the highest order.

In short, the reconciliation of violence with discipleship takes a lot of thought and analysis and introspection.  For example, consider the marvelous Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who utterly renounced violence, as described in Alma 27:

Quote

 27 And they were among the people of Nephi, and also numbered among the people who were of the church of God. And they were also distinguished for their zeal towards God, and also towards men; for they were perfectly honest and upright in all things; and they were firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end.

 28 And they did look upon shedding the blood of their brethren with the greatest abhorrence; and they never could be prevailed upon to take up arms against their brethren; and they never did look upon death with any degree of terror, for their hope and views of Christ and the resurrection; therefore, death was swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it.

 29 Therefore, they would suffer death in the most aggravating and distressing manner which could be inflicted by their brethren, before they would take the sword or cimeter to smite them.

 30 And thus they were a zealous and beloved people, a highly favored people of the Lord.

This sounds wonderful.  And yet in the very next chapter we read that their Nephite neighbors established a perimeter around them (and the Nephites) defended by the Nephite armies, that there followed a "tremendous battle" with the Lamanites, in which there was "a tremendous slaughter among the people of Nephi," who also killed "tens of thousands of Lamanites."  And several chapters later, we read of the Armies of Helaman, the two thousand "Stripling Warriors" who were the children of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who Helaman states "have taken their weapons of war, and would that I should be their leader; and we have come forth to defend our country," and that they did so specifically because they were living in a time of war, and they saw that their parents, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, "were about to break the covenant which they had made and take up their weapons of war."

So while the Anti-Nephi-Lehies renounced violence, they were nevertheless surrounded by it, and were protected and preserved by their Nephite neighbors and their sons, who used violence to do so (and, to this day, are praised for doing so).

I am glad we live in a time where people have the right to choose to refrain from violence.  But they only have that choice because there are others willing to use violence to defend that right.  Our Armed Forces.  Law Enforcement.  Even private citizens who defend others being preyed upon.  In the quasi-apocryphal words of George Orwell (or, perhaps Rudyard Kipling): "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

I grow tired of war. I'll let the smarter younger generation fight them. I will fight it no more forever.

[emeliza]

I have read the words Smac.  I choose not to sing them.  Thanks 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, emeliza said:

I have read the words Smac.  I choose not to sing them.  Thanks 

I did not intend to be nosy.  My apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

16 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

You may be aware that courses on writing (nonfiction, fiction, playwriting, screenwriting), music composition, multimedia design, advertising, marketing and sales teach that if you fail to impact the audience's emotions, you have failed in your chosen vocation?

What of such who openly admit and confess that they are making an appeal to emotion (among other things)?

Are they being deceptive and manipulative?

Or honest, diligent, and forthright?

Judge wisely.

You seem to me to be ignoring my point.  Of course they are looking to impact an audience's emotions,  I am not denying emotion is necessary.  I am denouncing those who misuse or overuse music to create emotion when it really isn't there.  Think of hearing spooky music sending shivers down your spine even though there is no actual suspense or thrill in what you are watching.  I am talking about writers and composers who take short cuts to make people feel, who simply just repeat formulaic themes or firehose plot points or use music to cover gaps rather than slowly building on quality work.  Can't you think of death scenes where you just didn't really care what happened to the character, but still got choked up because all the cheap and easy cues for sadness were played by the director?  Music is extremely powerful and can evoke emotion even when what is being seen or spoken has no nuance or interest to it.

It is manipulative to use tear jerking music to evoke a sense of sadness rather than work at giving the audience a character with depth who speaks intelligently and realistically or a story that makes you actually think.

Think of using patriotic music, flags, pictures of historic landmarks and famous, highly admired people to get people all enthused at a political rally...and then when one reads the speech the next day realizing all that was said was fluff, nothing of real substance, buzz words that had no real meaning, yet the audience is shouting and cheering as if they just heard the cure for cancer and world peace were both just announced.

Music, because of its high emotional impact, is very good at covering up naked emperors.  We should judge wisely and not assume that just because we feel a certain way, that feeling connects with what we are.  For example, good advertising with food often creates a sense of hunger, a need to eat when there is no real hunger there.  It is not wise to go eat when one does not need it.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Calm