That will happen the day I get to play my tambourine!

“I think even the First Presidency are more liberal/open to this than some extremely conservative members of the Church.”

In the correct setting, you are probably right. I enjoy the Gladys Knight group very much in the proper venue. I don’t think you’d see them singing the intermediate hymn in a Sacrament Meeting or as the Temple Choir at the dedication of a Temple unless they sang it straight, so to speak, which we know they can.

“I’m asking whether or not current practice is the most effective means to reach other cultures and bring them closer to Christ.”

I wanted to make sure you knew that I do appreciate the posts and the discussion. We are taught that the spirit talks to us with a “still small voice” so I suspect our worship is intended to invite that communication between God and us. Certainly, He can communicate in any fashion He chooses including the roar of a lion, if necessary.

Here’s where I do draw a line. For me, I must always remember that the purpose of every aspect of our meetings (whether or not they’re successful is a whole different post) is to draw people to Christ. With that framework, the words in my opinion must be doctrinally correct. That being said, there is I think little text in the traditional liturgy that is really full blown incorrect. Even the Ave Maria might be ok (we all pray for sinners everywhere that they might see the Light of Christ and repent). While that might be pushing the envelope a bit, there is a difference between doctrinally undiscussed (Amazing Grace, e.g.) and actually wrong (maybe if someone set the Nicene Creed to music, e.g.).

Hope you’re feeling better soon. I suspect it might be politic if I, the non-Mormon author of this article, were the first to say I don’t think beauty should be had at the expense of doctrine. I just don’t see that as being consistent with who the LDS are. But surely some talented Saint could write a song that is both beautiful and theologically sound?

However, I can also see the other point of view in terms of drawing a line – where exactly does one draw the line and how much autonomy is one willing to give to local leaders?

A question: Is beautiful, but doctrinally incorrect music appropriate for sacrament meeting?

Thank you for your posts David, and commenters – a very engaging topic. Please forgive any unclearness / brevity to fatigue and medication.

clean cut:
Thank you!

I’m glad for your clarification. Respect, not agreement, is what is called for in discussions. I would add that my point is not to move towards revivalism, but to be more open to the Spirit in general and more open to the gifts God has put in non western cultures in particular–especially as these relate to the proclamation of the Gospel. I’m not asking anyone to change. I’m asking whether or not current practice is the most effective means to reach other cultures and bring them closer to Christ.

Jeff, I don’t think that was the point David was trying to make. Only that we can be more open to this kind of change. It might be more than staunch traditionalists might feel comfortable with, but the rest of us are completely happy and fine with with it, and perhaps feel that there could be more of it. (ie: Glady’s Knight and the Saints Unified Voices music.) I think even the First Presidency are more liberal/open to this than some extremely conservative members of the Church. (And I’m not refering to politics).

“Perhaps you have had a bad experience with Pentecostals and that has colored your position a bit. If so, I apologize on behalf of my Pentecostal friends and ask that you not judge the whole by the actions of some misguided few.”

No, I have very little experience with most Christian Churches. having grown up in a Jewish household, I can count on one hand the number of times I set foot in a Church prior to joining the LDS Church in 1982. My comment about “glibberish” only applied to the Speaking in Tongues that I have personally been exposed to. Not to the Pentecostal movement as a whole. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am respectful of others right to believe what they wish and practice their faith as they see fit.

This is not to say I understand it or can square it with what I learned as a boy and what I have learned since joining the LDS Church. The discussion that we are having is, I think, whether the LDS Church should move in that direction or stay as it is. My position is that I appreciate our services the way they are. Is their room for some improvement, of course, but I wouldn’t want to see our Sacrament meeting turned into a full scale revival meeting.

I just don’t think that it the way Heavenly Father intended us to worship him and His Son in public.

“In the primitive church worship was in Christian’s homes and consisted of a meal, not just the Eucharist. It wasn’t for many years that it evolved into what we see with clergy, liturgy, and music in some form.”

Not sure I would agree with this. Perhaps early Christians worshiped at home to avoid persecution, however, communal worship began after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. The rise of the synagogue came as a result needing to teach the Jews their religion. Up to that point, outside of worship at the Temple, it was done primarily in the home, led by the Patriarch of the family. I do accept the idea that that worship evolved, but the question to be asked is whether or not it evolved due to some divine direction or as part of the Apostasy. if it is the former, that is one thing, if it is the later, all the more reason why the restoration was necessary to root out false forms of worship.

“As far as Joseph Smith’s feelings about worship evolving, it’s just a fact that most churches become more conservative over time with the Pentecostal movement being a notable exception.”

I would totally disagree with is point. Churches, with the LDS Church being a notable exception but there are others, have liberalized their worship in many ways. the dress code, the type of music and instrumentation used, the movement away from liturgical form, etc. The Catholic church has done this as well, with so-called folk masses and the removal of most Latin masses.

Second, good Pentecostal teaching sees three basic “kinds” of glossalalia. The first, found on Pentecost is where someone speaks a language that he/she doesn’t know to people who do understand it in order to communicate some word from the Lord. This is rare, but I do know of one or two cases that seem reliable to me personally where this has happened.

The second kind is found in a worship service and here it might well be a language that is unknown on earth (the tongues of angels) or is just so obscure an earthly language that no one in the meeting recognizes it. In either case, interpretation is required and if no interpretation is forthcoming, the message is out of order and the speaker should desist.

The third type is for personal edification and needs no interpretation. As Paul put it, “I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my understanding.” Paul also made it clear that he spoke in tongues on a regular basis but that he saw the practice as one for private devotion not public worship. In Pentecostal circles there is often a time for praying together in this way in worship, but it is seen as a time of “corporate private” prayer, akin to having a moment of silence for people to add their own personal prayers. The latter could be challenged as to its strict scriptural adherence but I really don’t see it as being a direct disobedience and certainly not as a deliberate attempt to ignore the Bible.

My last thought has to do with an understanding of glossalalia that I have found helpful. I see it as the speech of the unconscious, not unlike dreams. It thus expresses some things that cannot be expressed otherwise and serves as an avenue of healing.

I hope this is helpful.

“I should think that if a church the size of the Roman Catholic communion and a movement as decentralized as Evangelicalism can keep their doctrinal commitments while allowing freedom for local expression, then surely the LDS with its off the charts organizational genius could do the same.”

I sincerely hope you are right–I’d like to see more of this myself. Thanks David.

Fwiw, this discussion fits the central point I made in the following post:

When Culture Is Seen As Command

“I guess I am of the opinion that in the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, all things must be restored including the correct forms of worship.”

What is it that you feel should be restored? And what is considered “correct?” In the primitive church worship was in Christian’s homes and consisted of a meal, not just the eucharist. It wasn’t for many years that it evolved into what we see with clergy, liturgy, and music in some form. If it’s to have things stay the way they are today, that’s a bit of a stretch from the 1830′s. As far as Joseph Smith’s feelings about worship evolving, it’s just a fact that most churches become more conservative over time with the Pentacostal movement being a notable exception.

That is much harder to do than you can possibly imagine, and you can use us as a cautionary tale.

When our baptisms peaked in the 1950s and we began to question how we would relate to non-Anglo cultures, we attempted to become more inclusive. But in trying to lower the barriers that kept people out, we actually lowered the barriers that kept people in. We changed who was in our church, but not how many. The data shows an undisturbed trend toward baptismal “extinction” that’s now more than 50 years old. AND we never penetrated any of the cultures we were supposedly making the changes to reach.

It turns out that “inclusiveness” is itself a cultural value much more valued by progressive Christians than conservative Christians. So denominations that value inclusiveness culturally evolve into progressive denominations. If you look at the Community of Christ website (cofchrist.org) you might be shocked at how different we have become from you or from what we were like a generation ago, and at how similar we look now to progressive protestant denominations.

Yet God’s love for all people is an essential, well-documented tenet of the gospel, as is special responsibility toward ministering to the marginalized. Separating inclusiveness as “cultural value” from inclusiveness as “gospel” gets fiendishly difficult (and I use the term “fiendish” intentionally). Then the temptation comes to do whatever seems to preserve the role and power of the church, irrespective of the needs of the people to know and accept Christ.

Having given this warning, translating worship into different musical forms seems no more threatening than translating the Book of Mormon into yet another language, and that I would encourage.

You’re operating with the assumption that holy roller stuff is for entertainment purposes only. Under that assumption, of course you’re right–it has nothing to do with the Savior, and is irreverent.

However, in the Kirtland Temple, it was absolutely not done for purposes of entertainment, and was seen as a wonderful manifestation of the spirit. Under those circumstances, it is a holy experience, and not only reverent, but godly.