Can We Mormons Get Our Groove On?

[pogi]

I don't think the leaders chose piano/organ because of their magical properties, or their own cultural preferences, but to create a common opportunity to transcend our dependence on individual and personal music tastes for the sake of singing according to the Spirit in our worship meetings (I mean, in the larger scope of things, most people have to develop a taste for listening to the piano and organ, and so most people don't). Of course this takes a measure of discipline, self-mastery, patience, and persepctive, and lazy singers should take as much heed as more expressive singers.

 

I don't believe that the purpose of hymnal music and piano/organ use is to "transcend" our personal musical tastes, or to learn "discipline, self-mastery, and patience."  On the contrary, the hymns are to edify and beautify and uplift through pleasant sound and are to be enjoyed.  Discipline, self-mastery, patience, and transcendence would best be accomplished through the singing of single-note chants. You must really hate the hymns on piano to think that .    

 

The fact that they allow some instruments and not others in musical numbers suggest cultural bias.  Why else would they allow violin, cello, harp, flute, etc. and not allow for brass?  I personally believe it is because someone, somewhere thought that the timbre of brass instruments are too abrasive for hymns in sacrament meeting.  It was simply a personal preference, and one that I personally disagree with.  

 

Having said that, hearing someone struggle through a violin solo in church would be much more bearable than hearing someone struggle through a trumpet solo.  Yikes!

[mormonnewb]

I don't believe that the purpose of hymnal music and piano/organ use is to "transcend" our personal musical tastes, or to learn "discipline, self-mastery, and patience."  On the contrary, the hymns are to edify and beautify and uplift through pleasant sound and are to be enjoyed.  Discipline, self-mastery, patience, and transcendence would best be accomplished through the singing of single-note chants. You must really hate the hymns on piano to think that .    

 

The fact that they allow some instruments and not others in musical numbers suggest cultural bias.  Why else would they allow violin, cello, harp, flute, etc. and not allow for brass?  I personally believe it is because someone, somewhere thought that the timbre of brass instruments are too abrasive for hymns in sacrament meeting.  It was simply a personal preference, and one that I personally disagree with.  

 

Having said that, hearing someone struggle through a violin solo in church would be much more bearable than hearing someone struggle through a trumpet solo.  Yikes!

 

I also would chalk it up to cultural bias, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  For instance, I am not in favor of having the hymns accompanied by the didgeridoo.  And it's not because I believe that it offends Heavenly Father in any way.  It's just that when it comes to that instrument, my preference is to didgeridon't.

 

However, if a meeting house is located in a place where didgeridoos are the preferred instrument (and partial deafness is prevalent), then why not allow them to worship in the ways that feel right to them?  Isn't that why we publish the BofM in so many different languages?  We don't have to do that.  For instance, as recently as 40 years ago, the Catholic Church held its masses in Latin all over the world, despite the fact that NO ONE in the world speaks Latin anymore.

 

Interestingly, I read just recently about someone lamenting the loss of the "traditional mass."  Sure, no one understood what the priest was saying, but it conveyed a "reverent spirit."  Apparently, that author must be a frequent visitor to this board.  

 

Seriously, I'm not suggesting that we upset the apple cart for most members, but we probably also shouldn't impose a cultural preference as a matter of propriety with regards to our fellow saints in congregations that might want to get their didgeridoo on.

 

P.S.  I realize that the didgeridoo might actually be allowable under our rules, I'm just using it as a funny example.  Um-kay?

Edited December 31, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Bernard Gui]

I'm excited about the 2014 later start time for our three-hour block. It will allow me to sneak back to black church before sacrament to get my groove on. Specifically, I'm looking forward to clapping my hands and stomping my feet to some good old gospel music.

Now, don't get me wrong. Over the last few years, I've gotten used to my ward family mumbling through the hymns. I even mumble along myself sometimes.

Seriously, I understand how the hymns can be beautiful, but my question is whether anyone thinks there is room for other beautiful music as well? Would it be possible for us to move beyond just hymns or would that bring about the second great apostasy?

Sacrament meeting is not the appropriate venue. Have a ward talent show.

[CV75]

I don't believe that the purpose of hymnal music and piano/organ use is to "transcend" our personal musical tastes, or to learn "discipline, self-mastery, and patience."  On the contrary, the hymns are to edify and beautify and uplift through pleasant sound and are to be enjoyed.  Discipline, self-mastery, patience, and transcendence would best be accomplished through the singing of single-note chants. You must really hate the hymns on piano to think that .    

 

The fact that they allow some instruments and not others in musical numbers suggest cultural bias.  Why else would they allow violin, cello, harp, flute, etc. and not allow for brass?  I personally believe it is because someone, somewhere thought that the timbre of brass instruments are too abrasive for hymns in sacrament meeting.  It was simply a personal preference, and one that I personally disagree with.  

 

Having said that, hearing someone struggle through a violin solo in church would be much more bearable than hearing someone struggle through a trumpet solo.  Yikes!

Well, there’s no accounting for belief any more than taste, is there?!?!.

 

Of course other instruments are used in sacrament meeting worship. Being so ubiquitous and universally familiar for accompaniment in today’s world, the piano/organ is the least distracting/detracting—the voice being the most universal musical instrument of all, and the voice of the Spirit even more so.

 

Am I seeing a “Bring your bulungudyong to Church day” in the making? I think it only fair to rotate with the umuduri, the gum-leaf, the koudounia, and so forth—so many instruments, so little time! I think this calls for a Church production -- let’s call it “Babel: The Musical!” – for an annual sacrament meeting presentation, replete with pageants of competing music from the world’s cultures and genres, might cover all bases.

 

Isn’t this thread is more about spiritual gusto facilitated by cultural norms? The enthusiasm comes from the unison of our spirit and the Spirit and with each other. An over-dependence on cultural priorities and the physiological influence of music certainly detract from that. Acknowledging that the piano/organ provides a happy medium helps us put that matter to rest.

 

At any rate, the musical format for our worship meetings (including the guidance in the Handbook) are “conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost…” (Moroni 6:9).

 

Come to think of it, it is interesting (to me) that the Restoration by design took place in a certain culture, at once viewed as the blandest and yet most invasive of all time! The weak and simple and so forth...

[CV75]

Seriously, I'm not suggesting that we upset the apple cart for most members, but we probably also shouldn't impose a cultural preference as a matter of propriety with regards to our fellow saints in congregations that might want to get their didgeridoo on.

 

 

I don’t think the piano/organ is an imposed cultural preference, but the most commonly accepted form of accompaniment out there (across the globe!). It would seem that intentionally disregarding that would be the imposition,

Edited December 31, 2013 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

Finally, a hard-liner!  I was beginning to think that I was on the wrong board.  Welcome to the party!

So I am a hard liner because I prefer classical music and Gregorian chant for religious services instead of gospel?

 

I love gospel music- but my religious cultural tradition says it is "not for church".  Yours does.

 

So are you a "hard-liner" for having a different preference than me?

[mfbukowski]

Why take any chances at all with an emotional reaction and just do away with the music altogether?  After all, the hymns can't be so bad that they fail to create emotion in anyone.  By eliminating all music whatsoever, we'll know that if "something hits," it will be external.

That might actually be a solution.

 

We all have cultural preferences, and I suppose if the church catches on in, say India, they will want sitars and tablas.

[mfbukowski]

An emotional reaction?

 

Like that room silencing stillness after a faith promoting rumor is told?  Or the automatic eye moistening that follows yet another story about God's magpie-like interest in lost car keys? IMO, we confuse emotion with the Spirit already. No music required. 

 

Also in my experience, the Spirit moves us to emote. Christ felt compassion. Ammon praised to the point of sounding boastful. Moses spoke with power and Nephi was literally shocking. Yet we seem to have this cultural notion that tears and a quivering voice equal the Spirit and that reverence means silence rather than awe. I'd love to see joy replace some of the morose-looking worship I've endured in the church.

Yep! emotion is emotion.  We gotta face that.  There is no criteria we can share with others to define what is the "spirit" vs what is "emotion".

 

And guess what?  It's ok to be emotional.  That's what motivates humans.  God made us that way.

 

There is no definable difference.

[mfbukowski]

I think there's things that go a little overboard. I'm not big at thinking of church as a rock concert per se. But music is meant to move. It's a prayer unto God and the best prayers aren't rote, but deep profound expressions of our whole souls. That's one of the cool things about Gospel music, is this sense of deep expression. When the scriptures talk of making a joyful noise, a loud noise, I think it's ok to expect a joyful, loud noise from time to time. IMO, powerful music goes along with the verse that states "Let us glory, yea we will glory in the Lord; yea we will rejoice, for our joy is full; Yea we will praise our god forever. Behold who can glory too much in the Lord? Yea who can say too much of  his great power, and of his mercy, and of his long-suffering towards the children of men? Behold I say unto you, I cannot say the smallest part which I feel."

 

If the song isn't emotive in some way, something is really wrong with that song.

 

With luv,

BD

So do you like Bach, with its mathematical precision?

 

God gave us mathematics, and some find it beautiful and inspiring.

Edited December 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I did not say the hymns were bad. I just think we should encourage the kind of worship we do to be genuine spiritual praise and not emotional pablum. We cannot of course guarantee it but I think it is a wise step.

I agree we confuse emotion with the spirit already in other ways. I dislike it in those contexts too. I refuse to teach warm fuzzies and wish others would join me. If you cannot teach principles and doctrine it is usually wise not to teach.

I agree that there is a culture of confusing emotion and the spirit. I think the Brethren restrict music to avoid further errors in that direction. The spirit is heavily tied to emotions and they often accompany the Spirit but they are not the meat of the Spirit. I know the Brethren are concerned about emotional outpourings being confused with the Spirit. I understand their caution.

And how, precisely, do we define the difference between emotion and the spirit so that others know what they feel is "genuine"?

Good luck with that one!

[mfbukowski]

That's what is really nice about hand clapping. It allows those of us who can't sing to "make a joyful noise" by clapping in time to the music.

So noise in church is "good"? What about reverent awe in standing before your creator? How about gospel music in the endowment? Would that help?

[mfbukowski]

That night, in honor of our guests, the Baptist choir, we were allowed to clap in the chapel.  I'll never forget it, it was so surreal to see my stake presidency up on the stand actually swaying and clapping, or like the OP says, getting their groove on.  Maybe that style of worshipping through music would eventually get old, but maybe not.

We have a multi-cultural song fest every year, and have gospel music, Samoan choirs, Mexican numbers, etc and it's great.

But culturally I don't find it "sacred".

I think we need to become a world-wide church, and see this as actually a potential problem that it seems others are not seeing here.

Is it right to adopt to cultures other than "Utah Mormon" culture- or because others will find that offensive perhaps should we eliminate all music?

After all, eliminating it all would be the most "politically correct" wouldn't it?

After all we can't ever offend anyone, including atheists and who knows what else, can we?

[The Nehor]

Yep! emotion is emotion.  We gotta face that.  There is no criteria we can share with others to define what is the "spirit" vs what is "emotion".

 

And guess what?  It's ok to be emotional.  That's what motivates humans.  God made us that way.

 

There is no definable difference.

I do not care if the difference is definable. Emotions often accompany the spirit but they are not the Spirit and we want the Spirit.

It is okay to be emotional but not all emotions are appropriate. I would argue that the kind of emotions produced by gospel music are not bad but they are inappropriate for church meetings but appropriate in other settings.

[BlueDreams]

So do you like Bach, with its mathematical precision?

 

God gave us mathematics, and some find it beautiful and inspiring.

 

Yes actually, I do like bach. Yo-Yo Ma's Bach cello suites are a favorite of mine to listen to on a Sunday while painting details in my paintings. It is indeed beautiful and calming. It inspires me. I also enjoy the quiet of the temple and love when the poly ward sings the hymns in their native tongue (usually Samoan, I think) during my shift there in the meeting rooms. There is and should be place for the still and quiet. But there should also be space to see the reverence and Christ-like joy in other forms that are more buoyant and roof raising. I've seen it done in sacrament rooms and it was indeed filled with sacred moments that brought people smiles and greater closeness to each other/God. It's a beautiful thing. I'm not proposing the hymns be done away with. I like many of them. O Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief is one of the few songs that has made me ever cry. What I would like to see is more fervency in whatever is sung. So that it truly is a prayer, truly is a means of worship... than rather something done in rote fashion just because it is.

 

And I'd like to remove the assumption that other forms of worship music are inferior or wrong because they don't fit what is normally found in sacrament meeting. And, where appropriate, integrate them into our worship. It doesn't have to be in the endowment session, but it would be nice for a special number in church that incorporate the great spiritual traditions of other groups into local regions. After all a large percentage of our songs in the hymn book were protestant hymns first. They are deep and profound and there are plenty of deep and profound songs and words that should be kept from other traditions  as well. We're a faith the believes in keeping the good and growing on it, after all. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 31, 2013 by BlueDreams

[why me]

That is a funny thought and contrast to imagine.  Hopefully the worshipful music would inspire more worshipful talks.  I also see no problem with allowing the music to be the spiritual climax.

Hillsong has a very charismatic pastor. Most telepastors are good, very good. They are not just a pastor but motivational speakers. So, with music that favors the emotional, the pastor would also speak to the emotion. We see this in joyce meyers, creflo dollar, joel osteen, bayless conley etc.

 

Brother jones the plumber or sister davis, the teacher may not have the 'gift'. These days people wish to be entertained. People need to be motivated and people have no time for an average talk.

Edited December 31, 2013 by why me

[The Nehor]

And how, precisely, do we define the difference between emotion and the spirit so that others know what they feel is "genuine"?

Good luck with that one!

 

We don't. We get them to experience the difference so they learn it and can tell. Doesn't always work. I have met lifelong members that can't seem to tell the difference. I have no idea why.

[Calm]

That might actually be a solution.

We all have cultural preferences, and I suppose if the church catches on in, say India, they will want sitars and tablas.

I think it would be nice to allow for reverent instrumental prior to the meeting itself of any type. For places where they don't have another ward using the chapel beforehand, they could even have a weekly recital for a half an hour or so where those interested and helped by such things could come and enjoy it and those who aren't could simply come right on time. This would even allow children to feel more involved in reverence if they were up to participating as well as help provide opportunities and desire to develop skills and confidence, something beneficial to them and the Church.

Then they shift to the usual way during the meeting itself so it isn't distracting for those it would be.

Doesn't solve the too slow hymn singing, part of that by the way may be because the accompanist makes less errors at a slower pace so feels more comfortable....that would be me if I ever got to the point of being able to play with someone singing along...a very slow and deliberate pace...won't ever happen so no one needs to fear moving into my ward.

Edited December 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[blooit]

I am going to be the fuddy duddy and say I see why music is so restricted. Much of the more "gospel" music promotes (in most people) a pleasant emotional reaction. This is easy to confuse with the Spirit. There is a place for it but it is not the kind of worship we want to emphasize in our block meetings. There we want to open a conduit to revelation. We want something external to hit the congregation.

 

You're no fuddy duddy!  

 

I understand the concept, and we do have to be careful that emotion doesn't replace the spirit.  On the other hand, I don't see the church removing emotion from their films or ads to avoid confusion.  I think emotion and the spirit can work hand in hand.  Just MHO.

[mfbukowski]

Yes actually, I do like bach. Yo-Yo Ma's Bach cello suites are a favorite of mine to listen to on a Sunday while painting details in my paintings. It is indeed beautiful and calming. It inspires me. I also enjoy the quiet of the temple and love when the poly ward sings the hymns in their native tongue (usually Samoan, I think) during my shift there in the meeting rooms. There is and should be place for the still and quiet. But there should also be space to see the reverence and Christ-like joy in other forms that are more buoyant and roof raising. I've seen it done in sacrament rooms and it was indeed filled with sacred moments that brought people smiles and greater closeness to each other/God. It's a beautiful thing. I'm not proposing the hymns be done away with. I like many of them. O Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief is one of the few songs that has made me ever cry. What I would like to see is more fervency in whatever is sung. So that it truly is a prayer, truly is a means of worship... than rather something done in rote fashion just because it is.

 

And I'd like to remove the assumption that other forms of worship music are inferior or wrong because they don't fit what is normally found in sacrament meeting. And, where appropriate, integrate them into our worship. It doesn't have to be in the endowment session, but it would be nice for a special number in church that incorporate the great spiritual traditions of other groups into local regions. After all a large percentage of our songs in the hymn book were protestant hymns first. They are deep and profound and there are plenty of deep and profound songs and words that should be kept from other traditions  as well. We're a faith the believes in keeping the good and growing on it, after all. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

For the record, we agree.  Special occasional numbers in sacrament meetings might be the answer.

[mormonnewb]

So I am a hard liner because I prefer classical music and Gregorian chant for religious services instead of gospel?

I love gospel music- but my religious cultural tradition says it is "not for church". Yours does.

So are you a "hard-liner" for having a different preference than me?

No, the difference between us is that I recognize your PREFERRED style of music as being acceptable in church as well as my own. However, for you, "it's my way or the highway!" For a hard-liner, the ONLY form of music acceptable for sacrament meeting are the revised drinking songs from which our hymns are derived.

[pogi]

 

Well, there’s no accounting for belief any more than taste, is there?!?!.

 

Of course other instruments are used in sacrament meeting worship. Being so ubiquitous and universally familiar for accompaniment in today’s world, the piano/organ is the least distracting/detracting—the voice being the most universal musical instrument of all, and the voice of the Spirit even more so.

 

Am I seeing a “Bring your bulungudyong to Church day” in the making? I think it only fair to rotate with the umuduri, the gum-leaf, the koudounia, and so forth—so many instruments, so little time! I think this calls for a Church production -- let’s call it “Babel: The Musical!” – for an annual sacrament meeting presentation, replete with pageants of competing music from the world’s cultures and genres, might cover all bases.

 

Isn’t this thread is more about spiritual gusto facilitated by cultural norms? The enthusiasm comes from the unison of our spirit and the Spirit and with each other. An over-dependence on cultural priorities and the physiological influence of music certainly detract from that. Acknowledging that the piano/organ provides a happy medium helps us put that matter to rest.

 

At any rate, the musical format for our worship meetings (including the guidance in the Handbook) are “conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost…” (Moroni 6:9).

 

Come to think of it, it is interesting (to me) that the Restoration by design took place in a certain culture, at once viewed as the blandest and yet most invasive of all time! The weak and simple and so forth...

 

 

Cultural music and art can be a beautiful expression and symbol of the workings of the Spirit.  There is no "detraction" from the Spirit in allowing for local cultural expression in worship music.  It is not an "over-dependence on cultural priorities", it is simply an allowance and sensitivity towards people who want to worship in ways that are meaningful to them and that they identify with.  The Spirit is expressed in many different ways through art and music in every culture, and every expression is worthy.  No one expression should be preferred over another, because the diversity of cultural expression gives a much more comprehensive and beautifully complex understanding of the workings of the Spirit, with all of its multiple shades and textures of sound and art.  

 

I believe that we should unite through diversity rather than promote a unity of culture.  The only unity that should be promoted is in doctrine and love.  I think that the decision of what instrumentation is appropriate for a congregation should be left up to the local leaders who know their people and cultural appropriateness.  The piano is a great choice for the practical reasons of volume without amplification, and because it can play each choral harmony and melody with only one musician, allowing for the congregation to find their parts.  It is a great choice for hymnal singing for those reasons, but no musical instrument should be discriminated against when performing musical numbers.  Let the local leaders decide what is appropriate.

Edited January 1, 2014 by pogi

[cinepro]

My ward's choir in Los Angeles sang this every year:

 

 

But they didn't sing it like that.

[Bernard Gui]

As a professional musician who has played in non-LDS services, I prefer our system of church-approved hymns.

Perhaps the saddest experience was in a Korean Presbyterian church. We were to perform a Mozart Mass. The

"Praise Band" provided the music before the service. During their loud praising, the older members of the congregation

stared silently at the floor while the younger members rocked out with the rockers. The contrast between schlocky

Christian pop/praise/rock and Mozart was stark, but I'm not sure the Mozart was "sacred" either. I've come to the conclusion

that music in the church is purely emotional. It is the text that contains the Spirit, not the accompaniment.

 

Finding a hymn that excels in both text and music is rare, but we have some fine examples in our hymn book, most of them in the sacrament

song section. While of These Emblems We Partake #174 is one I would hold up as exemplary. #184 Upon the Cross of Calvary

is in the best tradition of chant-like hymns, reverent, simply, beautifully written, with an equally-yoked text.

 

Not all of our hymns meet the criteria of good text/good music, IMO. For example, #163 Lord Dismiss Us with Thy Blessing set to a

version of Frere Jacques, and the painfully embarrassing music of In Our Lovely Deseret, #307. Notice how much more frequently

we sing If You Could Hie to Kolob once it was reset to the gorgeous music of Ralph Vaughan-Williams (who was an atheist.)

 

A former BYU viola instructor used to tour around the area with his opera-trained wife presenting a fireside addressing this

topic. They started with her singing a rather sultry love song and asking if that was appropriate for sacrament meeting.

Of course, not. Then she said, "We will now perform the song as it was written..." The text was a poem about Joseph Smith's

first vision. While the text was appropriate, the music was not, yet this was a popular song for church services at the time.

 

Of course, someone is going to say, "How dare you! That's my favorite hymn!" Which is my point exactly...

Personal preferences in music are so bound up in individual taste and emotions that insisting yours is the best is a sign

you are itching for a fight.

 

Few members are discerning enough or care enough to mark the difference, so maybe it is best just to have a set of approved hymns.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

Music is such a personal thing, i don't think there is anyway to please everyone, even most of the time.

 

We had a beautiful musical number in one of my old wards where a sister sang "Amazing Grace".  It was not approved, and she kind of snuck it in, but it was wonderful and i thought it really added to the meeting.

 

My bishop though, a wonderful man who is very accepting, was not happy after the meeting and kept talking (to my hubby, who was a ward clerk) about how the spirit instantly left when she sung that song and how hard it was for the speakers to get it back.

 

It was a reminder to me that our own personal beliefs towards things can really influence whether or not we are able to feel the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

No, the difference between us is that I recognize your PREFERRED style of music as being acceptable in church as well as my own. However, for you, "it's my way or the highway!" For a hard-liner, the ONLY form of music acceptable for sacrament meeting are the revised drinking songs from which our hymns are derived.

Nope.

I never said that, or anything like it.  If you actually read my posts instead of being prejudiced against me, you will see that what I said was that we need to become a world wide church and integrate all forms of music.

 

What I did imply perhaps was that I don't find gospel music reverent and appropriate for sacrament meeting.  That is my personal preference.  I never once said that my preference should rule what is actually done in church.

 

I said I preferred classical music and Gregorian chant, but that doesn't mean I want to force a change and actually make people listen to my preference, as others have suggested.  You have to watch jumping to conclusions about people- listen to what they actually say.