A Prophet Goes to the Movies
I love going to the show. These days I usually see two movies per week; one on Friday evening after work and a second one at a Saturday matinee. Two weeks ago I saw Little Children and Pan’s Labyrinth; last week, Notes on a Scandal and The Painted Veil; last night, Catch and Release (hey, cut me some slack, the timing worked for me, and Tommy Stinson of the Replacements wrote some of the music), and this afternoon I plan to see Letters from Iwo Jima.
One of the previews last night was for a movie entitled Amazing Grace, which opens nationally February 23rd. It tells the story of William Wilberforce, who spent two decades in the House of Commons working to end the practice of slavery in the British empire. The film takes its title from the stirring abolitionist hymn, “Amazing Grace,” written by John Newton, who was Wilberforce’s childhood pastor. For years, Newton (played by Albert Finney) worked for the East India Company, but abandoned the slave business after he converted to Christianity in 1764. I thought it looked pretty good, and I intend to see it when it comes out.
This morning I saw an article in the Salt Lake Tribune by Peggy (you can read it here; the above synopsis comes from her article), in which she reports that President Hinckley actually attended a special screening of this movie in the theater, which had been arranged by Larry Miller at one of his theaters for leaders of the Church.
I thought this was fascinating, and had the following thoughts about it:
1. I would hate not being able to go to the movies. It has been many years, probably decades, since GBH has set foot in a movie theater.
2. When he walked in, everyone stood up, per the usual protocol. He tried to wave them off and tell everyone to “sit down.” I wonder whether he ever gets tired of so much deference being paid to him all the time. I think that would grate on my nerves after a while.
3. I loved the detail that he didn’t indulge in the free popcorn and Coke products that had been made available in the lobby, although many others did.
4. I hadn’t been aware of the background to the hymn. I was unaware that it came from an abolitionist setting, which I found very interesting.
5. Peggy mentions that the hymn is not in the LDS hymnal. I know that there had been vigorous discussion about whether to include it or not (How Great Thou Art made the cut; Amazing Grace did not), and I know that at least one prominent member of the Church Music Committee regards the failure to include Amazing Grace as the biggest mistake they made in their work.
I had heard that the reason Amazing Grace wasn’t in the hymnal was because it required a huge royalty–anyone know if that is true or a rumor?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 27, 2007 @ 9:59 am
rumor. “Amazing Grace” is in the Public Domain.
Ever sing “Amazing Grace” to the tune of the “Mickey Mouse Club” theme???
Comment by Phouchg — January 27, 2007 @ 10:18 am
KB, there are a lot of ways to unpack this symbolic act. I choose to see it as part of the process mentioned in the Spencer Kimball and race thread recently. The prophet has chosen, whatever its artistic merits and political overtones, to make a special trip to the movie theater to view a film that self-consciously celebrates the end of slavery. For prophet-watchers, I think this means something. Racism is not good Mormon behavior. (I wonder whether the Evangelicals who signed up for the marketing campaign are also trying to move beyond a difficult past. If so, good for them. We all could use some healing.)
JMS, that’s the story I heard as well, though that doesn’t substantiate it. I wonder whether the problem comes from the performance royalty-model, which would require a sum to be given each time the item is performed from the published book. Just the tabulating would be awfully time consuming. But this is sheer speculation on my part.
KB, the Replacements may well be enough to get me to that movie.
Comment by Sam MB — January 27, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Sam, good point about the political implications of the viewing.
I believe Phouchg is correct, that it is in the public domain. I think the nature of the debate whether to include it was more along the lines of whether it was too Protestant or something.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 27, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Yeah, Newton’s story is a good one. At least one of his hymns, “The Wheat and the Tares,” was included in the first Mormon hymnal; we seem to have soured on him a little bit subsequently.
Kevin, what did you think of Pan’s Labyrinth? Taryn and I saw it recently and completely loved it.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — January 27, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Here are some interesting comments on the CoC hymnal, which does include Amazing Grace.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 27, 2007 @ 10:39 am
I might be wrong, but I think Amazing Grace was in the old hymn book (the little blue one). Another odd removal was Come Thou Font…
The detail about the popcon and Coke is funny, although I’m sure that at his age and with the intensity of his medical care food choices are fairly carefully made.
Comment by Norbert — January 27, 2007 @ 10:41 am
The Rumor on Come thou Font being removed was that some felt it was being over played. I wonder if the same can be said for Amazing Grace. I found it interesting the Peggy Stack brought this detail up. Is she trying to imply the Church has some sort of Vendetta against the song?
Comment by Matt W. — January 27, 2007 @ 10:54 am
I once wrote an arrangement of Abide with Me, ‘Tis Even Tide to the tune of Amazing Grace. It was fun to perform that in church. Agreed, not having the hymn in our hymnal was a failure…I had always heard that it was too Protestent/saved by gracy for the Authorities at the time.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 27, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Anonymous 4 has two different settings of Amazing Grace on their album, “American Angels” (which is fabulous, by the way). They have a very different feel than the more traditional arrangement–the song sounds much more like rejoicing than reverent contemplation.
re: #2–I’d be surprised if a man as down to earth as GBH didn’t become tired of the deference paid to him at some points.
Comment by kristine N — January 27, 2007 @ 11:02 am
I just called my friend Mike Hicks and asked him for some off the cuff comments on Amazing Grace and the hymnal. These are notes from that conversation.
He said the song actually appeared in an LDS hymnal once. It was in Emma’s 1841 hymnal. We think of the 1835 hymnal as being Emma’s, but W.W. Phelps was directed to “correct” it and that one really reflects Phelps more than Emma.
By 1841 Phelps was out of the Church and the apostles were in England. He doesn’t know whether Emma was just “feeling her oats” or specifically assigned by Joseph, but in that year she came out with a new hymnal, and this one was all Emma. It was very grace-oriented, lots of blood of Jesus type songs.
Redeemer of Israel is Phelps’ adaptation of a more personal hymn, Oh Thou in Whose Presence My Soul Takes Delight. Emma included not only the Phelps adaptation but also the original whence it came. Her choices were more personal, more I-thou. Possibly this reflects more of a feminine preference.
(BTW, Mike mentioned that whenever he performs Amazing Grace, he always points out that it is in an LDS hymnal so is approved for performans. I thought that was hilarious.)
Mike also made the fascinating observation that had Emma stayed in the Church, our hymnody would be much more like hers and would be descended from hers. Instead, our hymnody follow the model of the competing hymnals published by the apostles in Manchester. There were sort of competing hymnodies in the Church in the 1830s-1840s, and the Manchester model won out by default.
Brigham actually wrote Joseph and asked whether they were doing wrong in publishing their own hymnal. He recognized that this was Emma’s province (by revelation, no less). Apparently Joseph never responded specifically to Brigham’s question. He was not of a mind to criticize what the brethren were doing in England, especially as they were having such success. So he simply encouraged them in their work. (The tenor of Joseph’s response was “You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie…”)
Emma announced another edition for 1843, but that one never appeared.
Mike is pretty sure it was not in the old blue hymnal, but he is going to check and let me know. He has a database of all the songs that have appeared in all English LDS hymnals.
I thought I had gotten my comment about the Music Committee discussion from Mike, but he has no knowledge of that, so I must have gotten it from a different source or simply made it up. He has the notes on the discussions of the original music committee that started the new hymnal under HBL in the 70s, but not of the later committee that actually worked on this and brought it to fruition in the early 80s. He says if anyone is curious, Stan Szenk would be the one to ask (does anyone know him?).
He believes that Come, Thou Font of Every Blessing, which was removed from the hymnal probably for being too grace-oriented, will come back in when the Church does a new hymnal.
A footnote on the old blue hymnal (which is the one I grew up with). We refer to that as 1948, but really it is 1950. The 1948 edition was scrapped almost immediately due to many errors. Several songs, including Who’s on the Lord’s Side and Adam-Ondi-Ahman, had been removed, but the 1P insisted that they be put back in, so in 1959 an edition appeared with those songs stuck in at the back (so as not to upset the existing pagination). So if you go to a DI and look at the old blue hymnals, you can see quickly whether you are looking at a pre- or post-1959 hymnal by whether those hymns are stuck in the back.
He also mentioned that Adam-Ondi-Ahman, the Spirit of God and maybe one or two others are the only songs that have appeared in every English-language LDS hymnal.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 27, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Comment 7. I do not see Amazing Grace in the index of first line in my copy of the blue, 1948 hymnal.
Comment 4. I think some Church members (and perhaps some leaders) still think Amazing Grace is too “protestant-y”. When a woman being baptized into our ward asked if it could be sung at her baptism, the pianist pointedly asked our bishop if that would not be inappropriate. Our bishop wisely said it was perfectly appropriate.
I did not know Amazing Grace had roots in British abolitionism. That is another reason it ought to be included in the hymnal next time around.
I would also hope that “Lift Every Voice” is also added (sometimes regarding as the “black national anthem,” written in 1900 by James Weldon Johnson). http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/liftvoice/index.html
Comment by DavidH — January 27, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Fascinating stuff, Kevin. Thanks for the report.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 27, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Kevin Barney, THE encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Comment by Mark IV — January 27, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
If we’re talking new hymnals here, I offer my plea to the hymnal gods to allow some national leeway in hymn-choice.
Comment by Ronan — January 27, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Isn’t the “problem” with Amazing Grace that it represents salvation as something finished (”that saved a wretch like me”) rather than as an ongoing process (”enduring to the end,” etc.)?
Comment by kuri — January 27, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
RT, a much admired British movie critic says PL is the year’s best movie. True? True enough?
Comment by Ronan — January 27, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
You can also sing Amazing Grace to the tune of The Animals’ House of the Rising Sun
Comment by Ben S. — January 27, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
No. 16. It depends on what we mean by “saved”. I can see it as an event (e.g., “God saved me from the catastrophic circumstance I was in”) and as a process (e.g., “God’s saving grace is extended to us one day at a time.”).
If using the the past tense “saved” troubles some, then it could be changed to “saves”, connoting an ongoing process.
Comment by DavidH — January 27, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Ronan, I personally think Children of Men is the 2006 movie to beat. But PL would be in my top five.
Comment by Matt Bowman — January 27, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
[I'm no movie expert, but I think that they've already engraved the Best Actress Oscar with Helen Mirren's name on it.]
Comment by queuno — January 27, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Any actress who could get you to believe that QE2 really would say “Bugger it” when her Land Rover gets stuck in the creek deserves a Best Actress Oscar.
Comment by Mark B. — January 27, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
I’m so bored with most movies at this point that just the thought of going to one makes me groan mentally.
I just watched a documentary about my favorite artist for the 3rd or 4th time, though—Andy Goldsworthy: Rivers and Tides.
Comment by Susan M — January 27, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
#17 and #20, I loved Children of Men, but Pan’s Labyrinth beat it six ways from Sunday for me. My read is that it doesn’t come across quite as well for people who are reading the subtitles — but I’d call Pan’s Labyrinth my favorite film of the last few years.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — January 27, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
#11 Kevin — Reminds me that I need to pick up the book “Mormonism and Music” mentioned in your recent post on Michael Hicks. I hope we reclaim “Amazing Grace” to balance militaristic, works-obsessed hymns like #225 “We are marching on to glory; we are working for our crown.” I enjoy my 1909 Deseret Sunday School Songbook with songs like “Utah, the Queen of the West” and “Don’t Kill the Birds.”
#15 Ronan — Yes. And I would be okay with dropping all patriotic songs from any country/language from LDS hymnals, whether “La Marseillaise” or “O Canada” or “The Star Spangled Banner.” I’m nervous about conflating patriotism (esp. U.S.) and Jesus in the official hymnal. For better or worse, in Canada, we would sing “O Canada” in church on July 1 from an LDS-produced hymnbook insert. (It’s paginated as hymn #342.) We also used to sing “America the Beautiful” but I think most of us had the entire western hemisphere in mind, if that’s any excuse…
Comment by Joanne — January 27, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
This post sent me to iTunes to download several different performances of Amazing Grace. (Thank heavens for earphones — I’m gonna like listening to the Dropkick Murphys version …)
On one level, I understand the distaste so many internet Mormons (as opposed to the ones I know in real life) have for patriotic songs in the hymnbook. Ditto for those which celebrate the geography of Deseret. On another level, though, I think it would be too bad to completely ban national songs and especially to drop those with a longstanding role in Mormon life, even when that earlier life was limited geographically. What’s so wrong with counting one’s national, ethnic, cultural, or other heritage as among life’s blessings? Does every hymn have to be universal? Not every blessing is universal.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 27, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
On the other hand, what’s so great about it? Since all you did to score the blessings of “heritage” is to be born, maybe you can talk the music committee into adding Happy Birthday to the canon?
Comment by Peter — January 27, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Um, have you read the words of “Oh, Beautiful for Spacious Skies”? That’s nothing if not a catalog of blessings for which the singer is grateful — a prayer, in other words.
And if you limit your gratitude to personal achievements rather than to what you have been given — including given by heritage — then, Peter, I fear your gratitude should be limited to a gift for sarcasm.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 27, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Dude, Peter, slow down there tex. It just so happens that Mormonism’s heritage is intertwined with its theology. History is very important.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 27, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
RT, I loved Pan’s Labyrinth. I don’t speak Spanish so I had to read the subtitles, but I’m used to that and it doesn’t bother me in the least. In fact, I just now returned from Letters from Iwo Jima, which is mostly subtitled; that is another good one.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 27, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Regarding your second point on deference. I find the deference truly offensive. It demeans a theology more deeply and complexly egalitarian than any I know. Oh, I know there are such thorns as the Second Anointings in that theology, but at its core Mormonism speaks of the brotherhood and equality of us all. Short story: I am far from inner circles and have rarely met or been in close contact with our leadership but not long ago I went to a small meeting that included a Seventy. I arrived late so I sat on the floor while the others had chairs. The Seventy repeatedly offered me his seat and I repeatedly refused, not because he was a Seventy because I didn’t know he was a Seventy at the time, but because I was just fine on the floor, he had on a suit destined for carpet fuzz on the floor and there is no reason an able-bodied woman should have a chair before an able-bodied man. When I got a good look at him later and realized who he was, I was most impressed that he offered, rather than demanded, a courtesy. I’m not sure whether general authorities invite the deference or we foist it upon them, but I think it distorts the healthy respect and appreciation we owe them into something imprisoning (not to be able to go to the movies, go to a local ward when traveling, etc.) and at odds with our core beliefs.
Comment by Molly Bennion — January 27, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold’s Ghost, has written a book, Bury the Chains, about the abolition movement in Britain. Originally he was interested in writing about Newton and Amazing Grace, but discovered that Newton didn’t get involved in the abolition movement until 30 years after his conversion. Bill Moyers did a documentary about Amazing Grace that links the hymn, Newton’s conversion, and abolition together, but alas, it seems it didn’t happen quite like that.
Comment by Kathleen Petty — January 27, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Molly,
I think we foist the deference upon general authorities. My father is friends with the son of one of the apostles. My dad has been impressed enough to mention how down to earth the apostle was in normal life talking about normal things. It reaffirmed to him that the general authorities are ordinary people with extraordinary callings.
Comment by KyleM — January 27, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Ardis, the Dropkick murphy’s version is one of my facorite songs of all time. You just made a friend for life.
Comment by Matt W. — January 27, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
I would say it’s no longer included because it’s just too difficult for your average person to sing. I love the sound of it and those swooping notes but there’s no way I can manage it myself.
And I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble but the guy who wrote it was a slave trader, did not quit his job after his “great deliverence” (his words) and did not criticize slavery until long after he had written the hymn. The man eventually became an abolitionist yes but the song itself has nothing to do with abolition.
There’s some information on it here and I’ve read the story in various history trivia books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — January 27, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Ardis,
You are too generous–the sarcasm in question wasn’t all that great.
Comment by Costanza — January 27, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Matt W., this merely cements an existing friendship! and Costanza, it’s only Christian to encourage the feeble talents of others, in hopes that they may eventually develop into something genuinely worth noting.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 27, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I so agree that PL and Children of Men are the best movies of the past year. But, I would say Children of Men wins, just slightly
(well, maybe its tied with Little Miss Sunshine).
Regarding the question of deference, I’ve always been very uncomfortable with the whole standing thing. Sure, for the prophet, at a meeting where he is presiding/speaking. But, at our stake conference our area representive when he came in (before the meeting while all were still milling about finding seats) everyone suddenly stopped and went silent and stood up and watched him sit down. I thought it very odd and didn’t stand, but DH got really embarressed and said eveyrone would think I was apostate if I didn’t. It must have been so uncomfortable for the guy, and for any investigators it must have seemed sort of weird.
Comment by Veritas — January 27, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Hmmm, I’ve never seen this done for anyone other than the Prophet. That’s very strange.
The Twelve have all sorts of protocols; that are extremely hierarchical and rigid. Everything from going through the door to who gets to pick the chocolates out of the box first as it is passed around is done in strict hierarchical order. It must be a generational thing; they think it’s cool, but it seems pretty weird to me. Maybe you have to have been old enough to have been in an Elks Lodge or something to appreciate these little rituals.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 27, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Whatever his true thinking, Joseph Smith did include some words of praise for the hymnal in his December 1840 letter to the Twelve: “I have been favored by receiving a Hymn Book from you and as far as I have examined it I highly approve of it and think it to be a very valuable collection.”
Comment by Justin — January 27, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
The popcorn note is interesting to me too. I had the opportunity to assist with a luncheon GBH attended at our stake about 10 years ago and of course everyone was interested in what he ate. Very simply and moderately. I think he took a piece of cake to be polite to the lady who made it (it was one of those way overdone things- including edible gold plates I think!).
Regarding deference, one lady kept his water glass to keep forever… gag.
Comment by claire — January 27, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
#18 Ben S.
I heard/watched The Blind Boys of Alabama sing Amazing Grace to the tune of The Animals’ House of the Rising Sun at the Austin City Limits festival a few years ago. It sent a tingle up the spine that lasted through sacrament meeting the next day.
Comment by Greg B. — January 27, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Re: #18. “Amazing Grace” can also be sung to the tune of “O for a Thousand Tongues To Sing,” a Charles Wesley hymn that ought to be in the hymbook as well (and, which like “Amazing Grace,” has been been performed by MoTab).
Comment by Copedi — January 27, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
I too have seen the deferential and hierarchical rigidities extend to much lower levels–like a SP who wants the HC to sit in order of seniority like the Twelve.
Like Kevin, I see a lot of films. Ronan, hope you are proud that we film buffs would be much the poorer absent the fine work of your countrymen. Glad they have been getting lots of work here and at home. Notes on a Scandal is an actor’s workshop. Can’t wait to see Venus this week!
Comment by Molly Bennion — January 27, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Thanks, Molly. I have to tell you, though, that there was a real stink over Renee Zellweger playing Beatrix Potter. The thought was that such a British role should go to a Brit. And there are plenty of fine British actresses. Of course, we never complain when a Brit plays a Yank.
Comment by Ronan — January 28, 2007 @ 5:54 am
As for deference, I think it is a generation thing with the church hierarchy. I don’t have a copy of the past playbooks, but it seems to me that some generations were more concerned with authority protocal than others. It was really evident from Joseph Fielding Smith through Ezra Taft Benson. The Heber J. Grant through David O’McKay years seemed less formal.
I think that Pres. Hinkley is trying to change the Apostolic culture to reflect a less formal attitude. His ministry has been filled with chances to humanize the leading officers and familiarize them with the world wide church membership. Even people who I consider apostate have been given much more breathing room since his administration. Once he leaves it will be interesting to see if his approach remains.
Comment by Jettboy — January 28, 2007 @ 8:18 am
RE standing for the prophet, I was part of a BYU devotional audience that got lectured by Gordon B. Hinckley for standing for him…
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — January 28, 2007 @ 9:59 am
I love everything about Amazing Grace, except for the “wretch like me” phrase and his salvation being past tense. I understand its roots, but I can’t imagine a congregation of Sunday-dressed Mormons singing those with any sincerity, right after “I Am a Child of God.” Children of God are not wretches.
So, let’s include the song, but in an LDS version. Other hymns have been edited.
Amazing Grace, LDS version
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saves [saved] a Saint [wretch] like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious does [did] that grace appear
Now that I believe. [The hour I first believed.]
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
His [’Tis] grace hath brought me safe thus far,
His [And] grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me,
His Word my hope secures;
He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as I [life] endure[s].
Yet [Yea,] when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I may [shall] possess, beyond [within] the veil,
Eternal life [A life of joy] and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, Who sent [called] me here below,
Shall be forever mine.
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
And know we’ve just [Than when we’d first] begun.
Comment by Clair — January 28, 2007 @ 11:47 am
I dunno, Claire. We admire Nephi, and he called himself a wretched man.
Comment by Mark IV — January 28, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
re: 48
That re-write pretty much reverses the essence of the original version, especially the 4th-to-last verse (”as long as life endures”) where God’s grace now becomes something which is conditional and can be withdrawn. The anti-mo types would have a hay day if that version were put into the hymnal.
Why not just replace “wretch” with the more neutral “soul” in the first verse, if wretch is unpalatable? I agree with Mark IV, though, there are plenty of instances where Children of God find themselves in a wretched state and require the Lord’s gracious intervention. Isn’t that where we would all be were it not for the Atonement?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — January 28, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with #48. I hate “Amazing Grace,” for its distinctly anti-Mormon doctrinal basis. Mankind are not “wretches” in Mormonism. Mankind is the spiritual and physical offsrping of deity. I’ve told family members that I’d come back and haunt them if they allowed that cursed song to play at my funeral.
That said, watch it show up in the next LDS hymnbook, along with the entire PR campaign of the church to appear more and more like other christian denominations. One more example of ditching doctrine for popularity.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 28, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Nick, if it shows up in the next hymnal, it might have 2 Nephi 4:17 at the bottom of the page.
Comment by Costanza — January 28, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Well, King Benjamin was pretty much on the humans are wretches side of the argument. The problem is that Mormons mean it very differently. It is thought of as “how” we are rather than “what” we are as a group.
Comment by Jettboy — January 28, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
I wonder if the anti-Grace faction have really looked at even the current hymn book. I’m frequently amazed at the grace which so fully he offers me, while I marvel that He would descend from his throne divine to rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine.
Grace abounds in the current humnal, and I view the omission of Amazing Grace as an instance of that deference we thrust upon certain GAs. Period.
Comment by Ebenezer Robinson — January 28, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
It’s not the grace that’s the problem. It’s the tense of save. Most mormon’s believe fully in grace.
I don’t give a rip if it’s in the hymnal or not.
Comment by KyleM — January 28, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Good hell. Mormons talk about being “sealed” in the past tense, even though those blessings are also conditional.
Comment by The Silent Observer — January 28, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
I love #48’s version. I would also leave the “wretch” in - there’s plenty of BoM support for it.
Comment by Katie P. — January 29, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Couple of things.
I have no issue with Amazing Grace whatsoever. We are saved by grace after all in the end. I like the song and we used to sing it in church on my mission in Protestant South Africa.
I witnessed Pres Hinckley enter the United Center in Chicago with 20,000 or so people in attendance. Kevin was this 1998-1999 maybe?
The crowd rose to its feet as soon as he walked out onto the stage. It was awesome. One of the spiritual highlights of my life was captured in that one moment when Pres and Sister H. walked out.
Comment by bbell — January 29, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Hey Kevin,
I just saw your #39. I have read in numerous places that the Supreme Court has similar little rituals as well.
Comment by bbell — January 29, 2007 @ 11:39 am
A cousin of mine in SLC swears she saw a member of the 3rd quorum of the 70 at Brokeback Mountain. AND he had a diet coke. I take this as the Bretheren’s seal of approval on r-rated movies, Heath Ledger, and gay cowboys.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 29, 2007 @ 11:42 am
……….and I’ll just apologize right now for that one.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 29, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Steve, I believe everything about that story except for the one, obvious, glaring lie: nobody, except maybe a family member, would recognize a member of the 3rd Qof70.
Comment by Costanza — January 29, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
bbell, I think the United Center thing was late 90s.
And you’re right about the Supreme Court.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 29, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
I heard/watched The Blind Boys of Alabama sing Amazing Grace to the tune of The Animals’ House of the Rising Sun at the Austin City Limits festival a few years ago.
For those who want to check out the Blind Boys’ version (highly recommended) go to their Spirit of the Century CD, not their Amazing Grace CD.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
For what it’s worth, you can also sing Amazing Grace to the Gilligan’s Island theme-song tune, but I think that’s blasphemous.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — January 29, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
PL doesn’t open until this weekend here in SLC. I’m thoroughlly excited.
Children of Men was the best film I’ve seen in years and probably on my ten best all time list.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 30, 2007 @ 10:21 pm