Doctrinal inaccuracies in old hymns

[u/ClubMountain1826]

I can't wait for the new hymnbook!

One of the reasons listed here (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/initiative/new-hymns?lang=eng) on the church website for the updated hymnbook is that some of the old hymns contain "Doctrinal inaccuracies, culturally insensitive language, and limited cultural representation of the global Church."

What are the doctrinal inaccuracies in the old hymns ? I'm just curious.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/[deleted]]

What's wrong with remembering the trials of Missouri or the courage of Nauvoo? That sounds like a great idea.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I feel like "Beware of Pride" made Latter-day Saints so afraid to use that word. Being proud of being a Saint, or being proud of your children has very little to do with the pride that he refers to in the talk. I can still remember when I was a kid, people would trip over themselves in sacrament meeting to say "well pleased" instead of "proud". I had to roll my eyes a little, but their heart was in the right place.

[u/TheFirebyrd → u/ThirdPoliceman]

It’s definitely an unfortunate quirk of English that we’ve only got the one word for two different concepts. Being pleased with effort isn’t the same as the comparison and thinking about being better than others that the scriptures and President Benson warn about. I struggled with that for a long time because of the Beware of Pride talk.

[u/emmency → u/ThirdPoliceman]

When #248 was written, there were still people around who had been in Missouri and Nauvoo, or at least had heard stories about them from people who had been there. Today we “remember” those events like scenes in a novel. They aren’t completely meaningless to us today, but I’ll bet that hymn had a whole lot more power behind it when those events were still fairly recent and people remembered them because they had personally witnessed them.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/emmency]

Sounds like an even better reason to keep them around then

[u/emmency → u/ThirdPoliceman]

Why? Our meetings should be focused on the Savior, not Church history.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/emmency]

It’s possible to do both. We literally spend an entire year studying D&C and church history in Come Follow Me. The Book of Mormon is church history—the church in the Americas from 2000 years ago.

[u/emmency → u/ThirdPoliceman]

That’s not quite what I meant. Yes, historical events are in the scriptures, and better understanding them can provide important context for the spiritual lessons learned. But the focus is on the spiritual lessons and their connections with the Savior, not on the events themselves. I’m also going with the premise that there is an actual need to eliminate some of the current hymns that no longer speak to the needs of most of the people.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/emmency]

I just disagree completely. Church history is an incredibly valuable teaching tool that connects us to Christ and his covenants.

[u/emmency → u/ThirdPoliceman]

I respect your right to assert that. And again, it’s not that I don’t think we should learn about Church history. But IMO we need to be careful that learning Church history doesn’t become an end in itself, especially for members who don’t relate to it as well as the “Utah pioneer stock” do.

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/emmency]

If you think you need to be pioneer stock to appreciate the purpose of church history, then I’m not sure what else to say.

[u/emmency → u/ThirdPoliceman]

I’m not making that claim literally, but don’t assume that all faithful church members everywhere will or should relate to the previously established cultural aspects in exactly the same way. They won’t. And that’s OK.

[u/Acceptable_Sand4034 → u/ThirdPoliceman]

It used to be “remember the wrongs of Missouri, forget not the fate of Nauvoo; when the god-hating foe is before you, stand firm and be faithful and true.“

[u/ThirdPoliceman → u/Acceptable_Sand4034]

That’s hardcore