Announcement Re: Revisions to Hymnbook and Children's Songbook

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You have a great imagination, and I do not recommend you take up a career in online psychoanalysis.

I know religions and know the cult of personality when I see it. I recommend some study of paradigms other than your own way of seeing the world.

I never even heard any doctrines of this tiny and , to the world, inconsequential church, much less the infinitesimally smaller population of those who care enough to oppose it, before God whacked me over the head with Moroni 10:5, which parallels precisely the philosophy of William James, of whom I was a devoted student .

If James had founded a church, this is it.

I read very quickly and before I was done with the 7 weeks of missionary lessons which I sought out on my own, I had read the BOM and D&C and much more about church history, and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

What was remarkable to me was that I expected to find a cult of personality around Joseph and could find none

If there was a flaw, that would be it.

And then I heard the song

If the intent or effect of the hymn were to promote a “cult of personality,” wouldn’t it be remarkable that you found none, given the frequency with which it is sung and performed? 

Maybe it’s time you endeavored to understand the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. 

Here is an account of how the hymn impacted a 12-year-old boy and future prophet named Gordon B. Hinckley. I’m hard-pressed to think of anyone less likely to be vulnerable to a “cult of personality” than he. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/08/praise-to-the-man?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the intent or effect of the hymn were to promote a “cult of personality,” wouldn’t it be remarkable that you found none, given the frequency with which it is sung and performed? 

Maybe it’s time you endeavored to understand the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. 

I never subscribe to crowd-think.

That's the precise problem here, stated perfectly. That is the pattern that creates the problem- accepting "the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. " without thought or rationality.

Why would you give up your agency to that way of thinking? I find that horrifying. Deutschland uber alles.

And that is PRECISELY what separates us.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, I don’t think very many people at all associate that line with blood atonement or the “oath of vengeance,” assuming there was an intended association, which has not been definitively established. 

If those doctrines (or oath) were being taught and believed, why wouldn’t it be normal to write about them (or sing about them)?  Why do you feel that’s anti-Mormon to consider that meaning for those words?  

Edited June 20, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do the same thing

In grad school I would skip pages and infer what I had missed in the middle, and reconstruct the argument of what steps it would take to get to B from A.

Rarely, I missed a detail or two

 

I took a speed reading course and was able to get an A after the first evaluation test due to my speed being A level and 100% comprehension (turned it into a study period instead so I never got to where I could read a textbook in less than an hour, but I found I enjoyed reading too much to want to do that anyway).  Those days are gone, but habits still remain.

It is why I like posts broken into paragraphs.

[Glenn101]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never subscribe to crowd-think.

That's the precise problem here, stated perfectly. That is the pattern that creates the problem- accepting "the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. " without thought or rationality.

Why would you give up your agency to that way of thinking? I find that horrifying. Deutschland uber alles.

And that is PRECISELY what separates us.

 

Are you a nob-conformist type of thinker or does your thoughts occasionally coincide with established "group-think."

I personally do not believe that the way millions of members over many generations have accepted the words of the song is a result of group think, but are in response to the truths that are highlighted. Of course, we will have to wait for a bit until we can know Brother Joseph again or even the first time post the pre-existence.

Glenn

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If those doctrines (or oath) was being taught and believed, why wouldn’t it be normal to write about them (or sing about them)?

That would be like saying something like Families Can Be Together Forever may not be about sealing of families, a very popular doctrine when it was written, imo (an extreme case, but it makes sense that doctrine would be shared in songs...which is why O My Father is used to support HM teachings).  Music is listed under Scriptures and Study on LDS.org.  They added scriptures to the hymns in the last upgrade, iirc.  Hymns are meant to be teaching doctrine (and contradicting doctrine will be excluded).

It makes sense to look at what doctrine (in the sense of teachings, not absolute truths of the Gospel) was being taught at the time the hymn was written to understand what the author meant to teach even if later members view it differently because teachings have changed.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never subscribe to crowd-think.

That's the precise problem here, stated perfectly. That is the pattern that creates the problem- accepting "the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. " without thought or rationality.

Why would you give up your agency to that way of thinking? I find that horrifying. Deutschland uber alles.

And that is PRECISELY what separates us.

 

I don’t concede that it’s “crowd-think” or irrational not to buy into your uber-negative, hostile construction of the words to the hymn. 

One could as easily contend that it is “crowd-think” to purvey the traditional Protestant notion that praise should not be given to anything or anyone but Deity (see the dictionary definition I quoted). 

[Calm]

All this talk about Hymn history....I finally ordered this book:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/our-latter-day-hymns-stories-and-messages

...along with an older book on the same topic just so I can compare approaches.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

If those doctrines (or oath) were being taught and believed, why wouldn’t it be normal to write about them (or sing about them)?  Why do you feel that’s anti-Mormon to consider that meaning for those words?  

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That would be like saying something like Families Can Be Together Forever may not be about sealing of families, a very popular doctrine when it was written, imo (an extreme case, but it makes sense that doctrine would be shared in songs...which is why O My Father is used to support HM teachings).  Music is listed under Scriptures and Study on LDS.org.  They added scriptures to the hymns in the last upgrade, iirc.  Hymns are meant to be teaching doctrine (and contradicting doctrine will be excluded).

It makes sense to look at what doctrine (in the sense of teachings, not absolute truths of the Gospel) was being taught at the time the hymn was written to understand what the author meant to teach even if later members view it differently because teachings have changed.

Perhaps I’m missing something here. 

Has it been definitively established that the line in “Praise to the Man” pertains to the “oath of vengeance” or is it merely a matter of surmising a theory and then running with it?

I’m seeing a bit of the post hoc fallacy here. 

Edited to add: 

From 3 Nephi:

“5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.” 

Could not the line as easily allude to this scriptural passage?

Perhaps it’s an allusion to the last days when the wicked will be destroyed preparatory to the Second Coming. “Blood of the prophets” seems to be a phrase laden with meaning in that context. It is repeated five times in Chapter 5 of 3 Nephi, each time in the context of Christ announcing the destruction that has come upon the Nephite cities. 

Edited further to add:

Here it is again in Matthew 23, in the context of Christ pronouncing woe upon the wicked who slay the prophets:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.”

To connect this with the latter days, see this Doctrine and Covenants passage from Section 87.

“6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
“7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
“8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.”

Edited June 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Perhaps I’m missing something here. 

Has it been definitively established that the line in “Praise to the Man” pertains to the “oath of vengeance” or is it merely a matter of surmising a theory and then running with it?

I’m seeing a bit of the post hoc fallacy here. 

If you read what’s been posted here about its history and other similar writings at that time, it becomes pretty obvious, in my opinion.  I think it explains those words.  Similar (very close) words were in other writings after the murder of the Prophet. Then the oath of vengeance was made a part of the endowment and the doctrine of blood atonement teachings also had similar words.

i guess it could be a coincidence.  But it’s not negative or anti.  Those were taught and believed.

Edited June 20, 2018 by JulieM

[Michael Sudworth]

22 hours ago, Paiute said:

D&C 135:7 D&C 42:18 - Murder isn't covered by the Atonement; reason why King David will inherit the Telestial Kingdom, therefore the earth or the inhabitants responsible will atone for that sin as mentioned in the hymn.

The Book of Mormon has more examples: Gideon, the Prophet Abinadi...Alma 25:7-9 seed of Amulon hunted even in the days of the Prophet Mormon.

False doctrine, brother. 

The Atonement covers all sin.  

[John Pack Lambert]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

exactley!!! I live on the Canadian Prairies, ain't no mountain near here!!!! My Mom wants to discard that song about a "wintry day" or something, she's like do people in Africa sing about Winter? that's torture!!!!

The actual problem with "The Wintry Day Descending to a Close" is that it lacks much of doctrine in any way.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you read what’s been posted here about its history and other similar writings at that time, it becomes pretty obvious, in my opinion.  I think it explains those words.  Similar (very close) words were in other writings after the murder of the Prophet. Then the oath of vengeance was made a part of the endowment and the doctrine of blood atonement teachings also had similar words.

i guess it could be a coincidence.  But it’s not negative or anti.  Those were taught and believed.

Operative phrase being “in [your] opinion.”

It’s every bit as obvious to me that the line in the hymn alludes to the doctrine in those scriptural passages I just quoted pertaining to the destruction of the wicked attendant to the coming of Christ. Did you take time to read them in context?  

Edited June 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never subscribe to crowd-think.

That's the precise problem here, stated perfectly. That is the pattern that creates the problem- accepting "the words in the way millions of Church members have over many generations. " without thought or rationality.

Why would you give up your agency to that way of thinking? I find that horrifying. Deutschland uber alles.

And that is PRECISELY what separates us.

 

Hey Mark, Id like to know your take on the possible doctrinal relationship of “earth must atone for the blood of that man” to the scriptural passages I just quoted from 3 Nephi, Matthew and the Doctrine and Covenants pertaining to the destruction of the wicked attendant to the coming of Christ. 

Still think this is false or non-canonical doctrine?

Edited June 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

14 pages of arguing prompted by changes to the hymnbook...this place never disappoints. 🤣

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Operative phrase being “in [your] opinion.”

It’s every bit as obvious to me that the line in the hymn alludes to the doctrine in those scriptural passages I just quoted pertaining to the destruction of the wicked attendant to the coming of Christ. Did you take time to read them in context?  

I saw your initial statement of what you thought the words meant:

“No, that doesn't bother me. I just see it as a flowery, poetic way of saying worldly, unrighteous individuals will be held accountable for murdering the prophet of the Restoration. That rings true to me, in fact.”

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by JulieM

[John Pack Lambert]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

" the Earth must atone for the blood of that man"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement

And this is the reason Utah was the only state that had firing squads- AND as a relic of these times still have that possibility as a option in case where a lethal injection does not work.

The murderer's blood must be spilled on the ground to atone for his sins.  Hanging was not good enough- blood had to be spilled.  This is a really bizarre belief that really has no basis in scripture.

So we really want to re-affirm this doctrine by keeping this hymn?

Re-word it at least!

Utah is not the only state to have had firing squads. It is time to stop treating one off rhetoric as more than it was.

[John Pack Lambert]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who would even care if you weren’t singing? Busybodies....

President Oaks gave a very good talk about the importance of singing hymns as part of worship service.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I saw your initial statement of what you thought the words meant:

“No, that doesn't bother me. I just see it as a flowery, poetic way of saying worldly, unrighteous individuals will be held accountable for murdering the prophet of the Restoration. That rings true to me, in fact.”

 

This is not inconsistent with what I learned just now while searching the scriptures. 

Have you yet read and pondered those passages I just quoted and their possible doctrinal relationship to the line in the hymn? 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, John Pack Lambert said:

President Oaks gave a very good talk about the importance of singing hymns as part of worship service.

Indeed. It was a very memorable talk. 

Here is a link:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/worship-through-music?lang=eng

Edited June 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

14 pages of arguing prompted by changes to the hymnbook...this place never disappoints. 🤣

It is the best distraction, beats video games big time.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Some observations....

 

I see that you were ahead of me in highlighting the scriptural and doctrinal significance of “blood of the prophets” as it relates to the line in “Praise to the Man,” Bernard. I hadn’t seen your post until now. 

I hope I appropriately augmented your point just now with the passages I posted. 

[John Pack Lambert]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which is the huge hurdle the new hymnal faces. For example, despite sharing a common language, Latin American countries have distinctive cultures of which they are very proud. Even regions within those countries have starkly different cultures including musical styles, unique accents, dialects, and lingo, etc. So, including a Mexican or Chilean song as representative of Latino culture would not only ignore those differences, but could be offensive to some who weren't included or dislike those countries. If we include Russian, German, or Swedish hymns, then I want Polish hymns, too. After all, those countries have inflicted great damage on Poland. Why should they get to represent Europe? In all fairness, though, perhaps these issues won’t be part of the considerations for the new hymnal creation. Who knows? Good luck to the committees.

 

From having looked at how the submissions are done, at least with the newly created hymns will not have even the name of the writer easy to see. I think there will be an attemot to avoid seeing this as representing nations. 

 

On the other hand I have to say I love the idea of one hymnbook across all languages. From reading the explanation though, I think they will go for mainly hymns focusing on doctrine, and have the hymnbook if anything shorter than the current one. The idea seems to be to relegate hymns with mere cultral instead of strong doctrinal claims to use to online resources but not in the hymnbook. This may of course be reading too much into the early report, and it is also possible that the committees will come to a different conclusion in the end. We will know at some point, but probably not any time soon.

[Calm]

Mormon Channel has a program on "Praise to the Man", includes history though I don't know how detailed they get.  Episode 4

[kllindley]

Don't forget D&C 135:7

Quote

They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.

I think it is as likely that the addition of the Oath to the endowment was based on the song and section 135 than that the song references the Oath. The song was published only oneonth after the martyrdom.