The Prophet And Leadership Of The Church

[BenRaines]

I agree with CK and Outshined. One thing to remember in a lot of these other services where non LDS churches worship with all kinds of music and instruments are not, in most cases, sacrament or sacramental meetings.

Many churches only have a sacramental type service twice a year or once a quarter. A saving or converting service is quite different than a sacrament service. Please as you read this I am not saying all or most just many of the ones I have visited. Most often the music was cultural more than it was specifically a certain religion.

Ben Raines

[Serg]

Well, \i thought it wa srather unnecesary for me to actually point out the instruments being that is such a clear issue (ate least Ben got it).

Guitar, trumpet, drums, etc... most instrument enjoyed by fellow christians.

Now, adress each question in regard to this. But notice, dont merely say you dont care or have a different opinion, but give proof, argumentation, sound reason, not mere politics.

As for Crimson, when you say that the Church doesnt prohibit any sort of music outside of it, Dah! Is it even necessary to say it? Of course, I am at liberty to do that even if the Church would have decided not to. The issue here is WITHIN the Church, because, it is when it comes to teh Church's teachings of music other than anglo-victorian, when it deceives people into an etnocentrist view. There is no doubt as how the manuals of politics in stake and wards prohibit and diminish instruments such as guitars, drums, etc.... and apart form what i actually do not want to here here(that there is no ' conceivable' way in which the spirit can approve of that) I want to here reasons, not speculation.

regards,

[MaidservantX]

In my humble opinion, I think all of you need to trust that each one of you is sincerely learning the best they can about the meaning of life and of the gospel.

Some of you seem to feel threatened by what Serq has to say. I wouldn't. You don't think God can answer Serq's thoughts and questions coming from this angle as much as from any other angle? The Lord has Serq in his hand, loves him, knows him and will show him. The same as for all of us. In fact, maybe there is something in what Serq has to say that would enlighten us if we absorbed it. I don't agree wholesale with what I've heard you say, Serq, but I think I can see where you are coming from.

You know, if I hear Serq right, this isn't just about human perfections in leaders. We've all got stories about that. It's about some major ideas over the history of the church -- and in fact the age and history of the entire world -- that have taken some huge mutations over the years (centuries). To me, this does not seed doubt; this confirms my faith. I take this meaning God will take me (us, prophets included) from where we are at and stretch us a bit at a time until we get to where he is. In fact, we're always wrong in one sense, because there is always going to be more to learn. I think I vaguely remember some kind of Joseph Smith quote where he said if the people (or you people or my people) knew exactly what was celestial doctrine or society, then they (the members of the church) would martyr Joseph Smith themselves on the spot. In the Old Testament, God allows slaves. But if you read it very carefully, you can see two things happening. First, slavery was one way for the covenants of the time to seed themselves into other cultures, bloodlines, etc. ESPECIALLY, when it came time to free the slaves. Because the Israelites were supposed to free their slaves after 7 years, unless the slave didn't want to go (which he might not because if he had a wife and children they still belonged to the owner; couldn't be freed -- still upset about that particular one). But can you imagine some of the Israelites saying -- we have to free our slaves WHEN? But it was one step out of their comfort zone.

I remember when president Kimball's conference announcement for priesthood to the blacks came on the radio, because my mother was crying (for joy). I was six and wanted to know why she was crying. When she explained to me, even at six years old, it sounded very stupid to me that black people hadn't had the priesthood up til then. It upset me and, honestly, it still does. But it's a question I have and I expect the God that appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove of trees to explain it to me (I have had some answers); because to me that's the only God there is; and this IS the church he organized; and Joseph Smith thru Goron B. Hinckley are the prophets he's called.

Going back to Moses -- when Jesus Christ first gave Moses a dispensation when the Israelites were in the wilderness -- free from Egypt -- he gave them a Zion and he intended to reveal himself -- visually and in all ways to the priesthood and maybe even to all the people. But of course, we all know what happened -- the golden calf brouhaha; and as well, the seventy elders who Jesus intended to visit with personally said, "NO! Moses, tell God we DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM." Why? They were scared out of their minds!!! So when Moses went back to report to Jesus, we know how hurt and disgusted he was, at least to begin with, and so he said, "Fine, Moses, instead of the celestial kingdom template, I'm going to send you back with -- essentially -- a bunch of false doctrine AS IN THE LAW OF MOSES -- and let's see if they can make a little progress with that much." Of course, it's not false doctrine as soon as God gives it.

And, Serq, and everyone else, if we, in this day and age, don't have more celestial template revelations, it's probably because the real truth, the real God, would SCARE US OUT OF OUR MINDS. (It would be far beyond ANY ethnic culture found on the planet . . . .)

And, also, don't feel bad for me because I don't 'have' the priesthood (although I think I posted quite a bit in another thread, can't remember where, about women's priesthood). You should never wish for women to gain the priesthood, at least as far as church organization is concerned, because as soon as we do, we will TAKE OVER ALL OF IT. There won't be a man who could catch up with us.

I once had a scout leader that relied heavily on the women in the committee, and was very complimentary and humorous when he acknowledged them in a meeting once and said, "If you want to make sure and get something done, give it to a woman." Do you think that goes for creating earths and worlds, too???

Happy seeking and believing, all.

[Outshined]

Some of you seem to feel threatened by what Serq has to say. I wouldn't.

Not threatened in any way, but concerned that such rebellious ideas will eventually lead to his apostasy. And you are right, God will have to straighten him out; he isn't likely to listen to others here.

CK gave some wise counsel when he said;

You're entitled to think that women ought to have the priesthood, but to go around saying the leaders need to get with it and extend it to them is unwise. The Lord will extend the priesthood to the sisters, if it is his will, through the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

That's true of any complaint or desire for change in the Church.

You should never wish for women to gain the priesthood, at least as far as church organization is concerned, because as soon as we do, we will TAKE OVER ALL OF IT. There won't be a man who could catch up with us.

The greater danger is that most men would sit back and LET the women do it all...

[CrimsonKairos]

Some of you seem to feel threatened by what Serq has to say.

Don't know what led you to draw that conclusion. Disagreement is not the same as feeling threatened.

And, Serq, and everyone else, if we, in this day and age, don't have more celestial template revelations, it's probably because the real truth, the real God, would SCARE US OUT OF OUR MINDS. (It would be far beyond ANY ethnic culture found on the planet . . . .)

I don't see how this relates to what music is allowed in sacrament meeting. I hardly think a lead guitar, drum set and horn section is celestial moreso than a piano or organ. Not that they're evil, but there's a concept of "reverence" that accompanies ordinances in the Church, and I think it's unwise to revile against the Church for choosing to maintain reverence for three hours a week.

And, also, don't feel bad for me because I don't 'have' the priesthood (although I think I posted quite a bit in another thread, can't remember where, about women's priesthood).

Women already exercise the priesthood, de facto, in that they perform initiatory ordinances for women in the temple.

Well, i thought it was rather unnecesary for me to actually point out the instruments being that is such a clear issue

Oh, right, it's crystal clear, since you'd already explained it to me. I'm a disciple of Christ, Serg, not a mind reader.

Guitar, trumpet, drums, etc... most instrument enjoyed by fellow christians.

As Ben pointed out though, they don't usually have a "sacrament" meeting every week where they partake of an essential ordinance of salvation, an ordinance that recalls our mind to a bleeding Savior in a grove and on a cross. How do trumpets, drums, guitars and other instruments help impress the solemn sacredness of that ultimate sacrifice on our minds?

The issue here is WITHIN the Church, because, it is when it comes to teh Church's teachings of music other than anglo-victorian, when it deceives people into an etnocentrist view.

Whoa. So President Hinckley secretly wants all Christ's followers to be white, and by insisting we only have organ music, he's pushing his secret, bigoted agenda? This makes for good movie material, but Serg, that's not even close to the reality of the situation. It's not about being Anglo-Saxon, or Victorian, or white, or European, or Puerto Rican, or American...it's about inviting and preserving the Spirit during a sacred meeting once a week.

Victorian England also had harps, flutes, horns, drums, tamborines, etc... and those aren't allowed in sacrament meeting, so don't play the "ethnocentrist" card. That's rubbish. It's not about culture. It's about reverence, it's about an attitude of contemplation, it's about attuning our hearts and minds to the Spirit...I've never heard anything quite as ridiculous as the claim that the Church is trying to anglicize every member worldwide. That's just...beyond me. I'm speechless. I agree with alot of your posts, but this is...wow.

There is no doubt as how the manuals of politics in stake and wards prohibit and diminish instruments such as guitars, drums, etc...

So you really feel that having a Christian rock band even playing mellow stuff with guitars and drums would help invite the Spirit into sacrament meeting? Seriously, I'm asking, I'm not setting a trap.

[Serg]

Why is it so difficult to communicate something?

Is it language? Time? Resources?

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps, the nature of miscomunication is not rooted in the media(transmission phenomena) but in the willingness of the receptor.

We are all, receptors, at some extent.

I posited an issue, Sacramental Music, and gave 5 questions that ought to be anwered if to defend it the way it is. No answer has been given, but the predictable ' be serious, the Spirit dislikes it' .

Let me remind you, in all 'humility' , the following:

1) Reverence, is an attitude of awe and respect for the sacred.

2) Not All Reverence has consisted in equal ways of expresion throughout history or God's people.

3) These different concepts of reverence, respond, thus, to the local time and place which surrounds this chosen people.

4) Further, God has apporved of the different Reverence concepts(worship conduct) in each age.

5) We Do , have a particular concept of Reverence.

6) This concept is rooted in a time and place(culture)

7) When the Reverence concept of this population reaches other population in different place and time meets another Reverence concept

8) We are saying, that our Reverence concept is the only plausible(and worthy)

9) Our reasons are....that we just say it. It has worked for US and hence should work for ALL.

10) While saying this, we do not acknowledge the other population's sense of reverence and worship, thus, we exclude them.

11) This whole attitude goes hence against all history of God's dealings with men, and social concern.

12) This is wrong.

13) This needs change.

14) He who is in power to make that change iand does not make it, is culpable of th epresent situation;

15) either by ignorance he is convinced that He is ultimately right, or willingly he wants to make other populations subject.

16) Either could be Hinckley's situation.

There are no reasons to support an anglo-victorian way of worship as The Way of worship. But there are good reasons to support many others As Well.

First of all; Crimson, you say that ' most' of these evangelical churches only celebrate Sacrament Meetings few times, in contrast to us, and thus, we are truly required to continuosly retain a particular way of worship. This is a fatal mistake. Evangelicals(at least, for mormons who believe the world revolves around them , and have never participated of such) celebrate sacramental Meetings(the few they may have, although a lot others are carismatics who actually have one or two each month), with the SAME music as non-sacramental ones! And even if some didnt that makes no case against our true concern!

Scripture supports a use of many instruments left to the conscience of EACH congregation

Social Concern supports equality of cultural manifestation among each congregation

Logical necessity aside of voluntarist and groundless attitude, supports an aperture and equal weight of meaning to different spiritual experiences

Individual experience supports which way of worship TRULY helps him in an experience of Reverence for teh Divine

' Objectively' speaking, there is no more spiritual music than other, music and what it inspires is a social construct. The sound of drums, that to a mormon(nonrelated to such) may cause awarness of distraction and uncomfort, to an african-american, an evangelical or a latin, that have been raise to accept this and feel GOOD and recognize more of a spiritual reverence, often raises him to a true experience of the Sacred.

Our present condition:

What do we expect of an attitude that feels superior(and thus with the ' burden' of enlighting others?

1) That It's way of worship is the best for the actual means of revering the sacred(comunion with God)

2) That others should be abandoned

3) That these abandoned should be viewed as defficient(because they actually fail to attract God)

4) Thus those who persist(as Serg!) in these ways are not tolerable or acceptable unto God

5)Plainly, either others accept Our way, or, the highway.

6) 'Our' such way of worship IS anglo-victorian(it was shaped by that time and place)

7) This anglo-victorian Way is that One which is licit

8) Others must out of true necessity accept it, or fail to attract Reverence for teh sacred

9) If it followed that others dont enjoy this one way and must accept it, and failing to attract God and revere him 'properly' utterly menas to have no relationship with Him

10) Others must be ' anglicized' in some extent as to enjoy this.

Is this not bigotry? It may be covered by nice ' progressive' thought and makeup, global perspective and communal security, but is grounbdless, offensive and wrong.

I am sorry to make ' much' a storm of a 'glass of water' but I cant stand Teh Attitude of this so Right way of worship.

Its not that is wrong the anglo-victorian way, but that none are wrong, and it's supositions of superiority, being rooted only in localized culture phenomena, ought to give amplitude to others as well who ALSO conform the Body of Christ.

Now, do I make myself clear?

In fact this is what a member of the forum(lds)said in strawbery's thread concerning Bigotry in the Church:

""I agree that followers of Christ should actively work toward eradicating bigotry from their lives. Problem is, many don't even recognize it (thanks for pointing mine out) and further, most people are overwhelmed with all the things they need to improve or work on to become more like Christ, so it's baby steps the whole way - most people don't change overnight and most are already working as hard as they can at other areas of their lives that need changing.

I don't really see a way to prevent these tendencies, ecxept that children raised in accepting, tolerant homes will model that behavior. But to get to that point, you have to fix all the adults before they have kids.""

This is a fair view, i am concerned with changing Us, adults, who actually hold power to make improvement, not rely in any abstraction of a supposed leader that is accepted to be capable of mistakes but unsearchable for such!!!

is it not true that this concern is justified?

Rather, why dont you respond to the questions I raised concerning the example of the Priesthood ban(those who opposed it before the lifting), and to the arguments i gave to give allowance and not judgement to these?!

[Outshined]

As Ben pointed out though, they don't usually have a "sacrament" meeting every week where they partake of an essential ordinance of salvation, an ordinance that recalls our mind to a bleeding Savior in a grove and on a cross. How do trumpets, drums, guitars and other instruments help impress the solemn sacredness of that ultimate sacrifice on our minds?

Exactly. I have attended services in a number of different churches, from Baptist to Pentecostal to Catholic, and all had low-key, reverent music for worship services without instruments such as guitars or drums. More energetic music was reserved for more celebrational services at other times.

[CrimsonKairos]

Serg, you're just going to have to write a letter to Pres. Hinckley, informing him of the Church's cultural insensitivity.

I'm done talking about it. We disagree. Fine. Thank heavens you aren't pushing for there to be guitars and drums in the temple ceremony, which is even more sacred and deserving of reverence than the sacrament meeting. But then again, that's my sickly, bigoted, anglo-victorian bias shining through. Ooops, how embarassing.

You want reasoning where none is needed. I can't "prove" to you that drums distract from the Spirit. It's my opinion. It may not be yours. Write to Pres. Hinckley, tell him what yours is, and ask him why the Church doesn't embrace such global views about music.

[Serg]

At least you accept that such a view of music is groundless, aside of your own opinion.

I already wrote a letter, starting to my Stake President, we had a meeting because he though 'nice' my concern, then again, after saying just this(that change was needless because all thought the same), he told me that alluding to the seventy was useless , moreover reaching the Presidency was a lack of respect to his local authoritative ' guidance' .

Whatever, and they say is not bigotry.

Regards,

[church girl]

This question reminds me of some covenant I made some were, hint. On top of that Joseph Smith taught that you will never be lead astray by following the council of the either the first presidency or the majority of the twelve. Im curious now, ....Serg?

Where did Joseph say that?

[Adomini22]

Guys, really. Why waste time when no one will yield to the other? The only two cents is that if you feel comfortable playing drums, guitars, etc. in Jesus's presence, or better yet, witnessing his suffering... then that is entirely up to you. Music inspires, even music with drums, guitars, etc. Some music, however, is meant for reflection and revelation, not inspiration in the adrenaline sense. I have been to other churches sacraments and watched even their modern day christian concerts. Some were actually very, very good. But, I do prefer our sacremental hymns because the majority talk of sacred things and set the tone for such. I wish you all the best of luck. Adomini