Season for hymns

Earlier today I came across an interesting post on the Mormon Artists Group blog:

What will the hymnal of 2043 be like?

If the evolution of our hymnbook is any indicator, the 2043 book will have many new voices….

Hymnals are a reflection of the church’s population. They contain the creative ideas of average church members elevated through the arts of music and literature but made sacred by their prominent use in our worship….

With that trajectory, won’t the 2043 hymnal include melodies from Argentina, Samoa, Russia, and Nigeria too? Won’t the Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Sibelius, and Vaughn Williams scores be joined by the world’s greatest modern composers? Will Stravinsky, Copland, Britten, Bernstein, and Messiaen appear? The pattern of our history says yes.

I, for one, welcome the idea that my children (who will be merely my age in 2043) will sing the testimonies of people whose landscapes were starkly different from Mormon pioneers of the American West. I want them to sing the hymns of African, South American, and Asian LDS songwriters. I fully expect them to sing harmonies and rhythms that would have sounded completely wrong to my grandparents. We call that inclusion. It is the anthem of progress.

A very good question. Down in the comments, Dan Carter (who has typeset hymns for the Church for the last twenty years, and yes, I want his job ;)) has a good counterbalance explaining why such a hymnbook is unlikely.

Thoughts?

Speaking of hymns, by the way, the annual Church music submissions are due March 31, so if you’re itching to send something in, now’s the time to get on that. The last time (er, the only time :)) I submitted something was in 2005. But this year, I’m definitely going to write something, so help me. Both in the general music category and in the hymn text category, in fact.

(On the same note, the Daily Universe ran a story about the Church music festival not too long ago, along with a piece on two BYU students who write hymns.)

Anyway, let the hymnwriting begin…

Forgive me if this is an ignorant comment, but in my experience with foreign hymnbooks, I’ve noticed that they already have many hymns we don’t have. One reason for this could be that, at least in European countries, they try to take well-established hymns of the local culture, just like we originally did for the English-language hymnbook. So will they adopt these hymns from other countries and languages into the English-language hymnbook? I don’t know.

Interesting. I have a Protestant hymnal in Thai–it’s got loads of great hymns the LDS Thai hymnal doesn’t. Granted that probably doesn’t meet the “well-established” criterion, but I wish they’d add more hymns from that or wherever.

I think the Church is still far too Americo-/Anglo-centric to do that (perhaps to its detriment), but it’s surely a nifty idea. Wait until we have a non-Caucasian apostle or prophet, when multiculturalism will become more of a natural thing than something we strive for.

Anyone thinking they’ll buck the senior-apostle convention and call some African farmboy or someone to be the next prophet?

Haley: Here’s what Dan Carter wrote.

The structure for publishing hymnbooks as as follows:

1. Emerging, new languages get a collection of 35 hymns and 10 children’s songs, a predetermined set of titles with a predetermined layout.

2. When a language area is large enough to have a stake, they qualify for (among other publications) a full hymnbook of 200 hymns. Our English version has 341 hymns, but the international version is 200. (Imagine the surprise to some languages who used to have over 400 hymns in their hymnbooks have been reduced to 200.)

3. There are about 100 “standard hymns” which are included in every full hymnbook. There are about 50 additional “recommended hymns” of which nearly all are included. The last 50 or so hymns can be indigenous hymns from the language area, but with the stipulation of approval from the area presidency. There are some marvelous indigenous hymns in the LDS Swedish, Dutch, and Finnish hymnbooks, as well as others. If there isn’t a strong hymn tradition in a language area, most of the remaining 50 are chosen from the English hymnbook. In actuality, the majority of the remaining 50 hymns are selected from the English hymnbook, not indigenous hymns from the language area.

It doesn’t sound like there’ll be foreign-language hymns in our standard hymnbook anytime soon, but it would be nice if they added a supplemental hymnal that did. Best of both worlds. (Well, other than being more work. :))

rikker: By “they” do you mean God? :) Here’s what the LDS Newsroom has to say about succession in the First Presidency:

6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church. The new president chooses two counselors and the three of them become the new First Presidency. Throughout the history of the Church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the Church when the First Presidency has been reorganized.

So it doesn’t have to be the longest-serving apostle. Interesting. Considering the needs of an international, 13-million-member-strong church, I don’t really see an African farmboy taking the helm anytime soon :), but I’d be fine with that if God was fine with it.

As for the LDS Thai hymnal, I think the only actual Thai “hymns” are the two anthems at the end — all the rest are English.

By “they” I meant the body of 14 apostles remaining after the prophet dies.

In my mind, God is less involved in Church affairs than perhaps the popular conception holds. That is to say, I don’t believe that decisions are made without discussion and debate. I guess I’m pragmatic. I tend to think that God puts the Church in the hands of capable men, then lets them make the decisions. Sometimes he reveals. Sometimes he inspires. Other times he confirms their ideas. Other times they make mistakes and he doesn’t intervene. And he intervenes if necessary. Everything I’ve learned about the workings of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve–particularly accounts of those who’ve worked closely with them–supports this notion in my mind. Which isnt’ to say God can’t do with it as he pleases. But I don’t think God takes appearing to any man lightly, nor can a man even see him without being transfigured. And so I don’t think a prophet has seen God face to face any time recently. He inspires and reveals. But I think he doesn’t sit at the head of the table in meetings.

Again, that isn’t to say it can’t be like that. I just don’t think it is. I believe there is a far greater amount of approved policy than revealed policy. The Church as it exists on earth–the LDS Church–is the product of its society and times, just like any of us is. It’s always been that way. Our light is always limited. And for the most part we’re accountable for obeying things in our current setting (there are always exceptions).

Anyhow, because of that, I won’t be surprised to learn that little of what we associate with the Church is actually eternal. What you find in the NT/BoM probably sums most of it up. Most of the rest is facilitative. We must admit that even temple ordinances are facilitative. There’s certainly no need for baptism for the dead eternally. I think most of what we know as the LDS Church is created out of necessity, as we go and grow along.

So the same goes for hymnal standards. If we can ever get out of the Western-centric box the LDS Church “grew up” in, we may see interesting things happen to it. I think it’d be cool, but I’m not banking on it either way.

I look forward to seeing what new policies come out of the new administration. Most immediately, though, I’m hoping the suggestion to reduce the meeting block to two hours will finally get ratified… did I say that? *raises eyebrows and whistles*

LOL, I can’t say I’d particularly mind a two-hour block, either. While I think you’re right that God leaves more up to our agency than we might imagine, I do think that the prophets see Christ face-to-face at least once during their time as president of the Church. But if you mean God the Father, then yes, I agree with you. :)

I do think that the prophets see Christ face-to-face at least once during their time as president of the Church.

That’s a nice idea, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s just speculation, which can’t be based on testimony or evidence (meaning, a pattern of at-least-once-per-prophet), so it remains an article of your faith. Just don’t try to preach it.

If you count a visionary manifestation (i.e. not a physical presence), the odds might increase. John Taylor explicitly claimed to have seen the Savior (I only know of this claim through a conference talk given by Spencer W. Kimball). Kimball quoted him as having said, “I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives, for I have seen him.”

Apart from that, there are plenty of ambigous statements that can be taken as implication, however. I’ve heard it myself from the mouths of apostles.

I was interested today to read a letter from Heber J. Grant to a member of the church, held in the U of Utah archives:

Dear Sister:

(signed) Heber J. Grant

This brings up questions about what “appear” means and what “see” means, etc. etc.

If you read Ether 3:15, Christ says “And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast.” In one sense, this is refuted by scriptural accounts (see D&C 107:48-49), so clearly one or more party is playing fancy semantics.

I base my opinion on the lack of evidence, but I don’t claim that my position is “correct” or “true”. I’m open to further evidence. But lacking both scriptural and anecdotal evidence for a pattern of regular appearances, I don’t believe it at the moment. Mostly I find it unessential to my beliefs to speculate about who’s seen Christ and who hasn’t.

A good point. Granted, if they have seen Christ, they obviously haven’t talked about it (and that applies to not just the prophets, of course). Which either means it’s too sacred or that visitations aren’t that common.

Prefacing my statement with “I do think” doesn’t count as preaching, Rikker — it marks my words as an opinion and a speculation, not as gospel truth. :P

As for it being unessential, I don’t know about that. The Lord does promise in the scriptures that the righteous shall see his face. It’s easy to just say that means in the next life, but what if he does mean this life? Then it’s quite pertinent. Don’t be too quick to discount it. :)

That was a sort of general hypothetical warning against preaching opinions, not an accusation of your trying to do so. Anyhow, I stand by my statement that I think it’s inessential, “it” meaning speculation about whether modern apostles have seen Christ or not. To me it’s part of the mystification of the prophets as something more than they are, which at its most basic is good men who serve God, and in more detail is good men who lead God’s church and spread his gospel through inspiration and revelation, among other definitions. The larger the church gets, the harder it is to avoid the celebrity effect–people idolizing them, members gossiping about them (in both positive and negative ways–did you know so-and-so drinks Coke?–did you know so-and-so has weekly PPIs with Jesus?)

I’m not claiming that inessential (I think that’s the more common form than unessential, whoops) means the same thing as useless or without benefit or merit. I’m only claiming what the word says. None of my readings of the scriptures have led me to believe that there is any reason I should expect to see God/Christ in this life, let alone need to imagine whether others have. It’s not a big point of contention or anything, it’s just where I stand on the issue.

But in pondering and reading about all of this was led back to Elder Packer’s October 2007 conference talk:

For a long time, something else puzzled me. Forty-six years ago I was a 37-year-old seminary supervisor. My Church calling was as an assistant teacher in a class in the Lindon Ward.

To my great surprise, I was called to meet with President David O. McKay. He took both of my hands in his and called me to be one of the General Authorities, an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

A few days later, I came to Salt Lake City to meet with the First Presidency to be set apart as one of the General Authorities of the Church. This was the first time I had met with the First Presidency—President David O. McKay and his counselors, President Hugh B. Brown and President Henry D. Moyle.

President McKay explained that one of the responsibilities of an Assistant to the Twelve was to stand with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a special witness and to bear testimony that Jesus is the Christ. What he said next overwhelmed me: “Before we proceed to set you apart, I ask you to bear your testimony to us. We want to know if you have that witness.”

I did the best I could. I bore my testimony the same as I might have in a fast and testimony meeting in my ward. To my surprise, the Brethren of the Presidency seemed pleased and proceeded to confer the office upon me.

That puzzled me greatly, for I had supposed that someone called to such an office would have an unusual, different, and greatly enlarged testimony and spiritual power.

It puzzled me for a long time until finally I could see that I already had what was required: an abiding testimony in my heart of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have a Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. I may not have known all about it, but I did have a testimony, and I was willing to learn.

That resonates with me. I like it. I think one of the “classic” powerful testimonies (if we did highlight reels of past General Conferences like the Oscars do, this would surely be on the list) that I think most of us have seen/read is Elder McConkie’s final testimony just days before he died. He said:

And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

In my discussions with people, I think some (many?) take this to mean he’s basically saying he’s already seen Christ, or something like that. For me, the testimony is much stronger if he hasn’t, though. His faith is so great that actually seeing will not significantly affect his testimony–he already knows. That’s my take. Anyway, I’m enjoying the discussion.

On second thought, you’ve hit the nail on the head, particularly with this line: “To me it’s part of the mystification of the prophets as something more than they are, which at its most basic is good men who serve God, and in more detail is good men who lead God’s church and spread his gospel through inspiration and revelation, among other definitions.” We really do practically deify our prophets — understandably in a way — and yet they are still men like all of us. It’s good to remember that.

I mean, yes, we absolutely need to continue respecting the office of prophet (and apostle and so on), and we do need to keep a healthy level of confidence in our leaders (since they do wear the mantle, and they can’t do God’s work if we don’t trust them). But we’ve got to get rid of the expectation of infallibility.