zil2

Because it's a hymn, it's a given that it must teach truth and thereby invite the Spirit. If it doesn't seem to do this, I may like it, but it doesn't make the top of my list. ("Scatter Sunshine" encourages good behavior, but it doesn't directly teach of (or even mention) Christ or His gospel. An atheist who believes in treating others kindly could sing this song without finding anything objectionable. Its presence in the hymn book kind of puzzles me.) The following are why I like a hymn - the more of these the hymn fits, the more and more likely I like it. These are not necessarily in order of importance (I'm not sure there is an order of importance as far as "like" goes). I didn't list it as a separate item, but if a hymn brings the Spirit so strongly that thinking about its meaning reduces me to tears, it's at the top of my list... 1. Directly teaches of Christ. (And even better if it includes restoration truths.) "I Stand All Amazed" is a good example here. I cannot both think about the meaning of the words and sing "I Stand All Amazed" - thinking about the meaning while the music is playing reduces me to tears (see also under #3 below).) It's hard for me to identify the difference between this and "I Believe in Christ"... Familiarity (see #5), music, emotion? ("I Stand All Amazed" is more internal and emotional, where "I Believe in Christ" is (to me at least) mostly a listing of factoids. And I can't seem to put myself in the position of "I", despite my testimony - I always experience this hymn as someone speaking to me, not as me speaking, and I have no idea why.) "Beautiful Savior" (children's songbook) is another I like (I seem to like lullaby music - here's MoTab, gently singing you to sleep) Nearly all the Sacrament, Christmas, and Easter hymns can go in here. 2. Tells a story or at least has a "character" in it. This might be the most important for me. I often have difficulty relating or feeling connected in real life, and yet I have no difficulty "moving in and living" a story, feeling deeply the emotions of the characters - indeed, it happens automatically and subconsciously with a well-told story. (#3 and #4 feed into this.) "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" is probably the best example, but a surprising number of hymns are story-like (it's a crime that we don't always sing all verses) "Nearer My God to Thee" took someone else pointing out that this is actually a story before I noticed it! "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing" - what a story! I like the original text. Interestingly, "Joseph Smith's First Prayer" tells a story, but I don't like it. It's too syrupy and past-tense and someone-else-y, not "this motivates me to do something-y" (see #4 and contrast with "Praise to the Man"). "Master, the Tempest Is Raging" "Be Still, My Soul" "How Gentle God's Commands" (also #3, #4, and lullaby-like) "Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd" "Onward, Christian Soldiers" (I also have a soft spot for marches - Rimsky-Korsakov does good marches) When you start looking, you find that a fair number of hymns at least have "characters" you can relate to, often a plot of sorts, and imagery which all work together to inspire faith in Christ. 3. Imagery, not just rhymes. To me, rhyming prose is not the same as poetry (even if technically it is poetry). If an image is worth a thousand words, a single poetic line paints a picture. "I Believe in Christ" is rhyming prose. (There are three, at most, images in it, but they're weak images, IMO.) "High on the Mountain Top" - good imagery, a sort of plot "How Firm a Foundation" - especially the 4 verses we don't usually sing - it's a crime that we don't sing all 7 verses every time (though I couldn't do it - I'd be weeping like a baby if I tried - the only way I can sing some hymns is if I can manage not to think about the meaning, but then, that seems to defeat the purpose (excuse me while I get a tissue - yes, literally, just got a tissue to wipe my eyes - can't even think about the full hymn without tears)); this might be my favorite hymn. "Beautiful Zion, Built Above" is one that includes beautiful and inspiring imagery. I also like the music. (And somehow it manages not to be syrupy.) "Rock of Ages" - we don't sing this enough "Angels from the Realms of Glory" (same author as "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief") is full of powerful imagery The first two verses of "If You Could High to Kolob" have good imagery 4. Ascending verses - rising, increasing, whatever you want to call it. (Verses that build on each other, as well as inspire to greater obedience, nobility, virtue, whatever.) While you could claim all or many hymns do this, some do it better than others. "Nearer My God to Thee" is the best example I can think of off the top of my head. (This one ticks pretty much all the boxes.) "Come Come, Ye Saints" fits, too "The Spirit of God" "O My Father" 5. I have to assume that to some degree, familiarity and "what I've liked since before conscious memory" plays a part, since I like some hymns that don't fit well into the above, and these seem to be the "old favorites" - things that I would have heard over and over, even before I was born (i.e. in the womb) because our congregations sing them so often. And I suppose we could stuff the actual tune into here - but I don't think there's any hymn I like only for the music, without the lyrics mattering... "Praise to the Man" probably fits here, with bits of #4 and #1's restoration aspect tossed in. Perhaps I should add a "Joseph Smith" category - I have a particularly strong testimony of him (but that doesn't overcome the syrup of "Joseph Smith's First Prayer"). (And it's entirely possible that it's the pipes and drums and my Scottish ancestry that push this hymn into my favorites.) For the record, "'Tis Sweet to Sing the Matchless Love" should only be sung to the music found in hymn #177. #176 (not worthy of being linked) is all wrong!! 6. OK, "If You Could High to Kolob" makes me think maybe I need a new category, one related to doctrinal curiosity or pondering, or something. I do like a hymn that makes me think or perceive in a way different from my usual. Sorry if my novella bored you. I enjoyed thinking about all the reasons I like hymns and hope your own pondering of what you like, and why, was beneficial for you. I've enjoyed reading your perceptions, and hope more folks choose to respond!

Yes, some of my likes are beyond my understandable "why"s. (I made them their own why - am in the process of writing my response.) Yes! Him and Eliza R. Snow (she's brutal, man - like Nibley - leaves you no excuses - apparently too brutal for the current hymnal: "Think Not When You Gather to Zion"; (but a little brutal is OK: "The Time Is Far Spent") - though really, I prefer "How Great the Wisdom and the Love") Love this version of "I Saw the Light" (Yes, I first heard it on the version of Columbo mentioned in the description! )

If you look up the lyrics, you'll see that we've limited our version to verses 1, 4, and 3 - in that order! (we left out 2, 5, and 6.) Anywho, I expect you're not alone in your feelings. But this doesn't tell me whether you've ever considered why you like what you do like.

I'm relistening to it now.

I'm the same way. There's a thread on the Fountain Pen Network with a title that starts "If you could..." and I always finish it with "hie to Kolob" - can't seem to stop myself! Hoping more folk will reply, hence my delay.

Forgot to mention - not only have I figured out the above, but I think I know why (second-level why) I prefer those elements - in other words, I could give my rendition of @Carborendum and @mikbone's answers and then add another level of why. It seems obvious after the fact, so I suppose I just never spent any time pondering it before... Smoke says I have to pay attention to him now...

Not bad. A little to stringy to be my favorites. I prefer my classical fast, loud, and full of brass and percussion. But there would be times I would enjoy listening to these.

Thank you! I'll reply in more detail later. For now, a generic reply to responses thus far: I am not trained in music in any way (beyond grade school flute lessons). I cannot sing to save my life (which is why the music in my car is at full volume - so I can sing along and not hear myself - I like singing along, but not hearing myself ). So for me, this is not a technical or analytical question, it is a question of simple reaction to hearing a hymn. Regarding "I Believe in Christ": I was not specifically asking about this hymn. I was not commenting on any technical value to the hymn, nor its truthfulness, nor on Elder McConkie. I can appreciate the message. I like what talks and other things I've read by E. McConkie, so it's not a question of his personality / style influencing my perception of the hymn. I just don't like it - not even when the Tabernacle Choir sing it (and I like the Choir). @mikbone caught the theme of my question, as did @Carborendum, with some obvious differences in how they approach things. Like Carb's response, I've identified certain common elements to the hymns I like best, and can rank the elements (to a degree) as to which are most likely to appeal to me, and which are least likely. Finally (for the moment), the only Vaughan I'm familiar with is Stevie Ray. (Not to get us off track, but I love this one...) I'll have to google this other Vaughan.

Not so many Sundays ago, our ward sang "I Believe in Christ" during Sacrament meeting, and I found myself wondering why I dislike it1. This set me to pondering why I like the hymns I like and dislike the few I dislike, and I reached some conclusions. (Maybe I'll tell you about them later.) And now I'm wondering if any of you have figured out what it is that causes you to like and / or dislike hymns. Please share (not just whether you've figured it out, but your whys). Or take this opportunity to ponder, and then share. 1Yes, I dislike it - strongly. Please don't stone me.

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Brayden.

FWIW, @Carborendum, there are folk out there who agree with you about there being a fountain (though I didn't see any saying it's the source of the river) and people who agree with me that the fountain is the river. And #13 in this document might interest you (it's a portion of a Nibley book). Anywho, a trip through google might entertain you, dunno.

If it is representation of the Love of God, full of living water, that's probably good. Sigh. I already addressed this. I disagree that this "fountain of living waters" is the same thing as the river or the head of the river or the head of the fountain referred to previously. On this, we will just have to disagree.

This is an assumption on your part. The text offers us no such judgement. "shouting distance" is close enough to give us an idea. He had to shout, but it's not so far that shouting can't be heard. The only way the rod can both lead to the tree and extend along the bank of the river while the river flows away from the tree is if the rod stops at shouting distance from the tree - that is, the rod has to stop at the head of the river. So one must travel "shouting distance" without the benefit of the rod or path. If that's how you want to imagine it, I reckon that's as valid as my version (which honestly, has a pretty short rod, it being only shouting distance long). Alternately, the rod continues past the head of the river and beyond the banks of the river (and the path also), and that was never mentioned. Please note that I consider all this unimportant. Though I thoroughly disagree that there is any reason whatsover to think that either the head of the river or the river itself was ever good. I see absolutely nothing in the text to suggest or even allow it - and to my mind, you haven't offered anything other than your own assumptions to support your assertion that it started out good and went bad. The idea makes for a good teaching tool: the gospel is pure when it comes from Christ and the farther it gets from Christ the more corrupt it becomes. I just don't see Lehi's vision trying to teach that.

This cannot be the least bit concerning or surprising to any member of the Church - our congregations are geographically defined. So of course the people living near each other are also going to have similar incomes. That's not the Church's intent, fault, or design - it's just a natural fact of life. Other religions allow people to decide for themselves where to attend. The can attend near where they live, or far. Thus, the attendees could be more economically diverse.

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Simon Daum!

He makes a pretty convincing argument that the Republicans and the Democrats are in the process of swapping their views on things like war, environmental protection, free speech, big corporations, etc. Me either. But it's interesting. And I'm all in favor of reducing the power of the various "industrial complexes" (not that I actually believe this will happen before the Second Coming, but I'm all in favor of it). This is America. Someone's always making a lot of money off it.

L+L = Laman and Lemuel S, N, S = Sariah, Nephi, Sam (both groups near the head of the river, L+L a little farther; distances and sizes may not be to scale ) Start at the lower left.

To me, you just said: "I agree. I disagree." I'm very confused. Apparently, I need to draw. I'll go find a piece of paper and a pencil. Might be a while.

It makes perfect sense to me. I have no trouble with the idea that "fountain" is poetic (for lack of a better word) for "river". I think they drowned in the river. In the gulf that separates the tree from the great and spacious building - aka, the river canyon.

I realize they didn't use commas. But the repeated use of "and" was used in ancient Hebrew as a sort of "separator" similar to our use of commas today. I see the commas and the ands and don't see why you think anything other than: there's a rod of iron that led to the tree the rod of iron extended along the bank of the river How can it do both of these unless the river goes toward the tree? I suppose you think it means that the river flows from the tree (how it does that when the head is not the tree, but shouting distance from the tree, I don't know). The picture in my head has the rod of iron going to the tree. On one side is the path, which also goes to the tree, but obviously both would stop just short of the tree. Parallel to both, but on the other side of the rod of iron is the river. It doesn't go to the tree, but flows past it. If it goes to the tree, what? Does is its whole length a shouting distance, and it goes from the head to the tree? Or from the head to the tree and under/around it? I think it flows past the tree. This is what the text describes. I don't believe it describes the river flowing away from the tree.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Fount ?? I fail to see the problem. Are you thinking that because the word "fountain" was used, that it must have been good water? It couldn't possibly have been a fountain of filthy water? Or.... I fail to understand why a filthy river isn't a good enough understanding of what the vision portrayed. Anyway, as I said before, I don't really see an issue with you choosing to present an alternate interpretation of the dream in order to teach some true doctrine. Knock yourself out.

I never said I thought there were two rivers. I think there was exactly one river. I acknowledged that if someone wanted to, they could believe that the head of the river let water split into multiple rivers, or let the river flow away from the head in two directions, but I personally don't believe that. I see absolutely none of this in the descriptive text. So the head of the river is shouting distance from the tree - that doesn't mean it "flows from the tree of life". This vision does not have to match up with other scriptural visions which depict that. There's no reason it can't stand on its own and serve its own purposes.

The path and the rod led to the tree... and ... also led by the head of the fountain. Thus the head of the fountain (the source of the river) was near the tree. This cannot mean that the river "flows toward the tree". It has to flow "away from the tree." Please re-read verse 19. How does it extend along the bank of the river, and lead to the tree, unless the river also heads toward the tree?

My ward has a ward mission leader. Per the handbook 23.6.3, the bishop and stake president decide whether to have the calling.

I'm not going to parse through Nephi's experience. I'm just going to make notes on what information his experience adds to the points already made in Lehi's: The tree 11:4-6+ immediately suggest that the tree is representative of Jesus Christ. adds that its beauty exceeds all other beauty it is "precious above all" v22 - "it is the love of God" 15:36 - "greatest of all the gifts of God" Rod of Iron v25: Word of God "which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life" (the "or" says Nephi considers these to be the same thing - two ways of saying: "which waters are a representation of the love of God" (just as the tree is in v22)) Great and spacious building v35: "the world and the wisdom thereof", those who gather to fight against the apostles v36: "the pride of the world"; it will fall to destruction 12:18 - "vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men" 12:18 - this building is separated from something unnamed (we'll assume the righteous and the tree). IMO, the "great and terrible gulf" is carved out by the river. (on to chapter 12) Mist of darkness v4: probably not the same as in Lehi's vision, as this refers to the darkness that covers the Americas at Christ's death. v17: those from Lehi's vision are temptations of the devil (mention is also made here that could equate to the forbidden paths and strange roads) The river v16: To me, this verse is clearly saying that the "fountain of filthy water" is "even the river of which [Lehi] spake". The depths of this river are hell See above under "Great and spacious building"; I personally don't think the river started out clean (e.g. at its head) and got filthy, I think it was always meant to represent the depths of hell, the gulf between the wicked and the righteous. Obviously, this is figurative and there's talk of the justice of God and such. There are a lot of things that this river / gulf could symbolize. (NOTE: I think this is gulf as in a wide separation, not like "the gulf of Mexico".) 15:27 - the water "was filthiness" and Lehi didn't notice it. 15:28 - the river is "an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life" 15:29 - the river represents hell 15:30 - Lehi saw that the justice of God divided the wicked from the righteous (on to chapter 13) Abominable Church Descriptors sound like that Great and spacious building. Bible, then BofM and restoration (on to chapter 14; nothing new to Lehi's vision; end of Nephi's time with the angel) (on to chapter 15 - Nephi explains his experience to the others; the vision in question isn't addressed until v21) Nothing to add other than the notes I inserted above. It is still clear to me that we simply have multiple terms used to describe the river which Lehi saw: river, fountain, gulf, depths of hell... The end.