Amazing Grace
 

Since this came up quite a bit in the other threads I thought maybe it warranted its own. In my opinion, the fact that this song is considered inappropriate by so many members is symptomatic of the bigger problem we have with a major misunderstanding of grace amongst members of the church. I don't think there is anything in the lyrics of that song that is not in harmony with our doctrine and understanding of the atonement. But since so many LDS over-emphasize works, they consider a song that focuses on grace to be incorrect.

My wife sang this hymn at my Mom's funeral (in a Methodist church) and a member of our ward actually said she was "sorry you had to do that but I guess since it wasn't an LDS funeral it's okay" Wow.

That attitude would torque me to no end.

I like many of the classical masterpieces even if they don't square with our theology. The beautiful sounds can edify even if doctrinally they are not consistent with our beliefs.

Who enjoys a good rendition of Ave Maria? It can be quite illuminating.

my question is why isn't this in the hymnal? its one of my favorite spiritual song

I agree. There are a whole handful of well known protestant hymns that I think would be great to have. Maybe it's a function of taking the whole "peculiar people" thing too far.

Maybe it's just me, but I have no problem with Amazing Grace, other than I just don't like it.

it would be great if we could have some of the musically talented members, African Americans, Polynesians, Asians, Hispanics and others help compose or select music spiritual in nature that could be added.

Sometimes the foreign language hymns are in different keys or half additional verses. The German Hymnal had more verses for some of Luther's hymns and different keys for others.

While it kind of irks me that it has to be this way, maybe it would make sense to have a committee like that in SLC that published an "approved" list of music for Sacrament Meetings, etc. It would satisfy the "correlated or it's out" faction of the Church and would allow a lot of stuff in that's not in the current hymnal. I don't see the Church publishing a new hymnal anytime soon due to cost so this might be a middle groun. I supsect a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents who go with the "hymnal only" rule do it just to bypass having to make a judgment call. And I do feel for them. There are a lot of members who, if not given the hymnbook rule, would sing numbers from Saturday's Warrior in sacrament meeting. ;)

that's so messed up. i think the song is 100% doctrinally accurate.

This is an interesting suggestion, given the "we should not be commanded in all things" position taken by some in the other thread.

I'll add this to the growing list of things CGers think SLC should clarify. I find it fascinating that despite the heavy criticism the high church leaders take around here, those same folks keep clamoring for more rules.

I don't know why it wasn't included in 1985, but I'd make a gut wager that it had more to do with evolving tastes rather than doctrinal differences. Come Thou Fount was also eliminated, though it has since seen a revival since the Wilburg arrangement. I doubt it was removed for doctrinal problems.

Is that song really considered inappropriate by many members of the church?

That's the first I've ever heard of that.