Mormon Pop Music 2.0?

[SouthernMo]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Poetic license is fine if it makes sense. 

And if you’ll recall, I never agreed with any of the “doctrinal challenges” to “Praise to the Man.”

Oh, Scott...

One day you’ll discover that admitting you’ve made a mistake is not as painful as you fear it to be. It’s liberating.

We can all laugh at ourselves and move on! 😊

[Traela]

Double post

Edited July 4, 2018 by Traela

[Traela]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church still embraces catchy pop music, you just have to be involved in YM and YW to really notice.  Every year the youth theme includes a religious pop song (this year's Peace in Christ and last year's Ask of God)

My teenaged daughter hates those!  They're written as solos but are inevitably performed in groups, which doesn't work well.  I dislike them because they all seem to sound the same.

 

 

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some of the stuff from that “heyday” is doctrinally sketchy. 

Take the song “I Heard Him Come.” One line in there says “Rivers crawl to find him.” What does that even mean? And where in the scriptures is there anything about rivers “crawl[ing] to find” Jesus?

What may be worse than the questionable doctrine in this genere is the hideous grammar:

I know that it's not easy

and I know that it won't last

'Cuz someone who loves you more than me

Is sending blessings fast!

Why does Jesus love you more than he loves me?

Edited July 4, 2018 by Analytics

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What may be worse than the questionable doctrine in this genere is the hideous grammar:

I know that it's not easy

and I know that it won't last

'Cuz someone who loves you more than me

Is sending blessings fast!

Why does Jesus love you more than he loves me?

Do you really want to analyze the grammar of pop songs? We’ll be here all week.😁

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Oh, Scott...

One day you’ll discover that admitting you’ve made a mistake is not as painful as you fear it to be. It’s liberating.

We can all laugh at ourselves and move on! 😊

If you can show me where I’ve made a mistake, I’ll consider it. You haven’t in this instance.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What may be worse than the questionable doctrine in this genere is the hideous grammar:

I know that it's not easy

and I know that it won't last

'Cuz someone who loves you more than me

Is sending blessings fast!

Why does Jesus love you more than he loves me?

You’re right, of course, about the bad grammar. 

There’s an even funnier example in the 1969 hit song by Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge, “The Worst That Could Happen”:

And baby, if he loves you more than me, 

Maybe it’s the best thing, maybe it’s the best thing for you,

But it’s the worst that could happen to me. 

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you can show me where I’ve made a mistake, I’ll consider it. You haven’t in this instance.

You admitted in another thread that it is not doctrinal that “Earth must atone for the blood of [Joseph Smith]” but that it was poetic, and had a different meaning.  You defend those lyrics.

But, you criticize the doctrine of Afterglow song “Rivers crawl to find Him” and do not allow them the poetic license you do in “Praise to the Man.”

Your logic or values are inconsistent. I think inconsistency is a mistake.  In LDS worship music, can we grant artists poetic license, or hold their lyrics to a strict doctrinal standard?  Pick one, not both. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You admitted in another thread that it is not doctrinal that “Earth must atone for the blood of [Joseph Smith]” but that it was poetic, and had a different meaning.  You defend those lyrics.

But, you criticize the doctrine of Afterglow song “Rivers crawl to find Him” and do not allow them the poetic license you do in “Praise to the Man.”

Your logic or values are inconsistent. I think inconsistency is a mistake.  In LDS worship music, can we grant artists poetic license, or hold their lyrics to a strict doctrinal standard?  Pick one, not both. 

I never admitted it is not doctrinal. I did the contrary in that thread.  I showed where it is consistent with scriptural passages about the blood of the prophets crying to heaven for vengeance. 

If you must put words in my mouth, don’t make them false words. 

By the way, there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal about rivers crawling to find Jesus. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never admitted it is not doctrinal. I did the contrary in that thread.  I showed where it is consistent with scriptural passages about the blood of the prophets crying to heaven for vengeance. 

If you must put words in my mouth, don’t make them false words. 

By the way, there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal about rivers crawling to find Jesus. 

I agree - there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal about rivers crawling to find Jesus.

Likewise - there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal (that I know of) that indicates that “the earth” will atone for Joseph Smith’s blood. The Savior is the only one who atones for man’s sins and misdeeds. Not “the earth” (as the hymn states).  Show me where this is doctrinal, and I will fully admit I am wrong, and I’ll renounce Christ as the only one who can atone for mankind.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

I agree - there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal about rivers crawling to find Jesus.

Likewise - there is nothing even remotely scriptural or doctrinal (that I know of) that indicates that “the earth” will atone for Joseph Smith’s blood. The Savior is the only one who atones for man’s sins and misdeeds. Not “the earth” (as the hymn states).  Show me where this is doctrinal, and I will fully admit I am wrong, and I’ll renounce Christ as the only one who can atone for mankind.

I already showed its scriptural consistency back in the thread to which you alluded. Why should I repeat myself if you’re just going to ignore me? 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already showed its scriptural consistency back in the thread to which you alluded. Why should I repeat myself if you’re just going to ignore me? 

Yes - please show me the scriptures you quoted. All I see is your post from:  6/18/2018 at 6:09 PM

That post did not show any scriptural consistency, but only underlined your point that flowery language (poetic license) is ok to use in LDS worship music.

Please indulge my apparent ignorance and inability to find your post on that threat where you cited scripture that “the earth” will atone for some sins.  I want to see the truth if I’m missing it.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Yes - please show me the scriptures you quoted. All I see is your post from:  6/18/2018 at 6:09 PM

That post did not show any scriptural consistency, but only underlined your point that flowery language (poetic license) is ok to use in LDS worship music.

Please indulge my apparent ignorance and inability to find your post on that threat where you cited scripture that “the earth” will atone for some sins.  I want to see the truth if I’m missing it.

If you’ve located the thread, you could help me out by linking to it. I could then scroll down (something you could do on your own, but I’ll indulge you) and find where I cited the scriptural passages. 

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you’ve located the thread, you could help me out by linking to it. I could then scroll down (something you could do on your own, but I’ll indulge you) and find where I cited the scriptural passages. 

Having technical difficulties. Getting a “403 forbidden” when I submit my reply with the link. Can you go through your feed to the date and time I shared with you, and retrace & reshare your scriptures you shared with me already?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Having technical difficulties. Getting a “403 forbidden” when I submit my reply with the link. Can you go through your feed to the date and time I shared with you, and retrace & reshare your scriptures you shared with me already?

You have to scroll down in that thread to a June 19 post I made on page 14. It was in a later conversation I had in that thread, not with you but with others who were claiming the line in the poem/hymn had to do with the so-called “oath of vengeance.” I argued that the line more likely pertains to the scriptural motif about God in the last days avenging the blood of the prophets (of whom Joseph Smith would be one). 

Since you seem to be having trouble locating it, I’ll copy and paste it here for you: 

“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 July 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have to scroll down in that thread to a June 19 post I made on page 14. 

Since you seem to be having trouble locating it, I’ll copy and paste it here for you: 

“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.’”

 

I think I understand your thinking. Please let me know if I’m off:

The hymn lyrics read “Earth must atone for the blood of [Joseph Smith].”  You agree that that statement isn’t true, but a poetic or flowery way of saying something else. Then, you back up that something else with scriptures.

Is that a fair summary of your thinking?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I understand your thinking. Please let me know if I’m off:

The hymn lyrics read “Earth must atone for the blood of [Joseph Smith].”  You agree that that statement isn’t true, but a poetic or flowery way of saying something else. Then, you back up that something else with scriptures.

Is that a fair summary of your thinking?

No, I do NOT concede it isn’t true. I see it as a poetic allusion to the scriptural motif about God avenging the blood of the prophets by pouring out destruction upon the wicked in the last days preparatory to the Second Coming of Christ. In that sense, the earth will atone for the blood of Joseph Smith and every other prophet that the wicked have slain. 

(I added a bit to clarify my post above, but you quoted it before I had time to post the revision.)

Edited July 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I do NOT concede it isn’t true. I see it as a poetic allusion to the scriptural motif about God avenging the blood of the prophets by pouring out destruction upon the wicked in the last days preparatory to the Second Coming of Christ. In that sense, the earth will atone for the blood of Joseph Smith and every other prophet that the wicked have slain. 

Got it. Your scriptures support the allusion, but not the statement made in the hymn.

Additionally, it is your position that it is not Christ and his acts in gethsemane and on the cross that will atone for the sins of people who kill prophets, but that their destruction at the second coming will?

Do you have scriptures to back up your belief in the limitation of Christ’s atonement and that it doesn’t apply to those who murdered Joseph Smith, or scriptures that support that ones death/slaughter/destruction will cleanse one from sin?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Got it. Your scriptures support the allusion, but not the statement made in the hymn.

Additionally, it is your position that it is not Christ and his acts in gethsemane and on the cross that will atone for the sins of people who kill prophets, but that their destruction at the second coming will?

Do you have scriptures to back up your belief in the limitation of Christ’s atonement and that it doesn’t apply to those who murdered Joseph Smith, or scriptures that support that ones death/slaughter/destruction will cleanse one from sin?

The scriptures support the line in the hymn if you properly understand it. 

There is more than one sense of meaning for the word “atone.” It could refer to Christ’s Atonement, or it could have a broader meaning such as to pay a penalty for something. As used in this poem/hymn, I see it as having a broader meaning. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The scriptures support the line in the hymn if you properly understand it. 

There is more than one sense of meaning for the word “atone.” It could refer to Christ’s Atonement, or it could have a broader meaning such as to pay a penalty for. As used in this poem/hymn, I see it as having a broader meaning. 

This is hard for me. The broader we define something, the less meaning it has.  Taken to an extreme, we could say that ‘atone means anything you want it to’

I think that as we use the word atone(ment) more broadly, we take away from its central meaning. 

But - that is a subject for linguistics PhDs to debate. 

[SouthernMo]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I do NOT concede it isn’t true. I see it as a poetic allusion to the scriptural motif about God avenging the blood of the prophets by pouring out destruction upon the wicked in the last days preparatory to the Second Coming of Christ. In that sense, the earth will atone for the blood of Joseph Smith and every other prophet that the wicked have slain. 

(I added a bit to clarify my post above, but you quoted it before I had time to post the revision.)

Oh, and back to the point that got us talking: Perhaps “The rivers crawl to find him” is an allusion to the doctrine that Christ is the master of this earth.  With this understanding, can you see how I initially made the comparison between your defense of the poetic license of one song with the probably poetic license of another?

I doubt the LDS lyricist truly believes that rivers all follow Christ and change direction when He walks.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is hard for me. The broader we define something, the less meaning it has.  Taken to an extreme, we could say that ‘atone means anything you want it to’

I think that as we use the word atone(ment) more broadly, we take away from its central meaning. 

But - that is a subject for linguistics PhDs to debate. 

It is common — practically universal — for a single word or expression to have varying meanings or shades of meaning. That’s what makes the language rich. 

To rigidly insist that a word can have one and only one definition or connotation is to hamstring one’s communicative ability. 

To take another example, the scriptural phrase “saviors on Mount Zion”  (see Obadiah 1:21) is widely understood in LDS teaching to refer to those of us in the latter days who help provide ordinances of salvation for our kindred dead. If you insist that the word “savior” should only apply to Jesus Christ, what do you do with this scriptural phrase which Joseph Smith applied to latter-day work for the dead? 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Oh, and back to the point that got us talking: Perhaps “The rivers crawl to find him” is an allusion to the doctrine that Christ is the master of this earth.  With this understanding, can you see how I initially made the comparison between your defense of the poetic license of one song with the probably poetic license of another?

I doubt the LDS lyricist truly believes that rivers all follow Christ and change direction when He walks.

I get your thinking, but the lyrics to “I Heard Him Come” still strike me as contrived, annoyingly so. I repeat: I don’t see anything remotely scriptural about rivers crawling to find Christ, even in a figurative sense. Seems to me like unbridled flight of fancy. 

It’s a matter of aesthetics, I suppose. 

Edited to add: 

I just read up a bit on the origen of “I Heard Him Come.” It seems the author/composer wrote it one night as a high school senior rushing to come up with a song for a seminary devotional the night before it was due. The seminary class and teacher liked  it, and it caught on from there. 

I’m afraid the writer might have been as much or more concerned with penning impressive sounding phrases that rhyme as with expressing doctrinal truth. And how many of us as seniors in high school are especially knowledgeable about doctrinal truth anyway?

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 7/3/2018 at 11:28 AM, jkwilliams said:

Pretty grim stuff, indeed. The first is notable for stealing the piano intro from Elton John's "Your Song." The second seems to have borrowed the initial visuals from Bob Dylan.

 

No way.

No Allen Ginsberg dressed as a rabbi anywhere.

[SouthernMo]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I get your thinking, but the lyrics to “I Heard Him Come” still strike me as contrived, annoyingly so. I repeat: I don’t see anything remotely scriptural about rivers crawling to find Christ, even in a figurative sense. Seems to me like unbridled flight of fancy. 

It’s a matter of aesthetics, I suppose. 

Edited to add: 

I just read up a bit on the origen of “I Heard Him Come.” It seems the author/composer wrote it one night as a high school senior rushing to come up with a song for a seminary devotional the night before it was due. The seminary class and teacher liked  it, and it caught on from there. 

I’m afraid the writer might have been as much or more concerned with penning impressive sounding phrases that rhyme as with expressing doctrinal truth. And how many of us as seniors in high school are especially knowledgeable about doctrinal truth anyway?

 

I get your point, and agree with the idea that lyricists put in varying levels of thought into their writings.

However - let me give you some advice:

As a believing Mormon, avoid arguments that rely on ad hominem bases - especially those based on age and levels of education. You open the door WIDE open to the lack of credibility of a 14 year old in upstate New York with far less education than a modern 17 year old.

Let’s keep our arguments & positions based on the merits of the message.