Response: The Bible and Homosexuality

I read an article on CNN's "Belief Blog" today that was titled "My take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality" (link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/).  In his article, the author (Daniel A. Helminiak) argues that in no place does the Bible condemn acting upon homosexual feelings as a sin, but in fact - the author argues - the Bible is condones such action.

As I read the article I was extremely surprised at how the author contorted the Biblical text to fit his own view.  In a pompous tone he declares, "Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality".  Instantly he attempts to set himself up above his audience, because he has "read [the Bible] in the original languages", and thus claims to know a better interpretation of it.  Unfortunately, throughout his article, he routinely quotes scriptures out of context, thus depriving the readers of an opportunity for educated discussion.

Although I hope to not harbor any prejudices against homosexual persons and that this post is not taken to be an attack of those who are homosexual, the Bible is extremely clear in its language regarding homosexual conduct, and for one to argue that it is "ho-hum on homosexuality" is dishonest, misleading, uneducated - and even laughable.

One of the first scriptures the author quotes in order to support his argument is Romans 1:26-27.  The author argues that there is a translational issue with the word "unnatural", and that the Greek origin bears the meaning "atypical" or "unusual" - and thus is less condemnatory.  He then quotes Romans 11:24 which uses this same word, but in a different context, as an example of why it should not be thought of as a condemnatory adjective.

The author, however, failed to read the original passage in its context.  Regardless of whether the original Greek word should be translated as "unnatural", "atypical", or "unusual" the apostle Paul is still clear on the issue.

Paul begins his discourse in verse 18 of the same chapter (Romans 1), declaring that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Romans 1:18).  Paul then specifically targets (in verse 18 and 19) those people who have had the truth of the gospel revealed unto them, but yet refuse to follow its principles.  Starting in verse 22, he begins to to elencate things that these people have done that fall under the umbrella of "ungodliness and unrighteousness" which he referred to in verse 18.  Paul mentions that they "changed the glory of...God into an image" (23), "dishonoured their bodies between themselves" (24), "changed the truth of God into a lie" (25), and harbored many "vile affections" (26).  Among these vile affections, Paul insists, is that "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another" (26 - 27).  Paul clearly states that those who chose to engage in these homosexual acts would fall under the condemnation proclaimed in verse 18.  Paul finishes his discourse saying that those who have known the gospel, but yet still do these things "[know] the judgment of God" (32).

Clearly Mr. Helminiak, the author of the CNN article, manipulated the context of verses 26 and 27 to his own liking, completely forgetting the subject of Paul's entire discourse.  The author thinks that simply because one word in the aforesaid verses means something different in the context of Romans 11:24, that surely it cannot have any condemnatory connotation in Paul's discourse of Romans 1.  It is clear to most readers, however, that many words in any language can be used in a variety of contexts and with different connotations.  Simply because the word "unnatural" is used in one context in Romans 11:24, does not mean that it will hold the same context in all of Paul's writings - especially when Paul exciplicitly outlines the subject of his Romans 1 discourse several verses beforehand.

The author then attempts to make an outlandish argument using Matthew 5:28 to say that because "Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law", homosexual acts must be sanctioned by God.  He ignores the fact that Christ didn't lower the bar - he raised it.  Matthew 5:28 isn't about homosexuality specifically - but rather about sexual morality in general.  The Savior raises the bar by saying that simply looking upon a woman with lust is committing adultery in one's heart.  In no way would this cancel a law given in Leviticus 18:22 regarding homosexuality as the author attempts to argue, but rather it would raise the bar.

The author also fails to mention the other scriptures by the apostle Paul which make explicit mention of homosexuality.  In an epistle to the Corinthians, Paul states: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not decieved: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."  (1 Corinthians 6:9).  Later, in a letter to Timothy, Paul states that the purpose of the gospel law is to help those who are "lawless and disobedient".  He then goes on to explicitly point out "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Timothy 1:10) among other people.

The language of Paul cannot be more clear.  He himself glorified in the plainness of his speech, saying: "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech" (2 Corinthians 3:12).  Paul then follows that statement by saying, "[But we] have renounced hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully" (2 Corithinians 4:2).  Paul made every effort to preach the word of God clearly and honestly as he received it, and his writings are very clear on what the law of the gospel is.

The author of the article also made claim that the Bible in no way claims that the homosexual acts of the Sodomites were considered sin, but rather that the Bible focuses on their other acts (pride, greed, injustice, etc).  Although I have not focused my discussion on this topic, it is enough for the reader to be pointed to Deuteronomy 23:17 and Jude 1:7 to find verses that explicity relate to the sins of homosexual acts in Sodom.

Finally, it is clear the author of the CNN article has done the opposite of what Paul advised, and "[handled] the word of God deceitfully".  He has taken verses out of their proper context and distorted the clear meaning of Paul's epistles in an effort to deceive Christians into thinking that the Bible says something other than it actually says.

The doctrine of the Bible is clear.  The Lord established a law of chastity, and according to this law sexual relations are to be held within marriage.  Anything outside of this, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is against the said law.

"O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One.  Remember that his paths are righteous.  Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name." (2 Nephi 9:41)

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard

“The dispensation of the fullness of times will bring to light the things that have been revealed in all former dispensations; also other things that have not been before revealed. He shall send Elijah, the Prophet, etc., and restore all things in Christ.” - Joseph Smith.

There is a key phrase in the above quote that I would like to focus on in this blog post. That phrase is: "also other things that have not been before revealed." I think it is important to also consider the following segment of a verse found in the Doctrine & Covenants before I proceed with the topic at hand:

"And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times." (D&C 128:18)

I think we often overlook this verse in the D&C (and the quote by Joseph Smith). There's something very important here, but we aren't getting it. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I often hear (and participate in) talk about truth. We believe that in this dispensation we have all the truth necessary to perform the essential saving ordinances, but we also recognize that we do not have all truth (in its entirety), and we eagerly await more truth to be revealed unto us from Heavenly Father.

I think, however, that sometimes we mistake our current level of truth in the Church for being at the same level of truth as that of all previous dispensations combined. We take the quote by Joseph Smith, where he says, "The dispensation of the fullness of times will bring to light the things that have been revealed in all former dispensations", and we say to ourselves, "Great! All of that stuff has been revealed to us! We know everything about the gospel that any previous dispensation knew. Now let's wait for more!"

We fail to recognize, however, that (most likely) more has already come, and we have it already in our scriptural canon - and thus we currently have more truth than any previous dispensation of the gospel on this Earth.


Those who had less

My point in this post, however, is not to discuss how much truth we have in this dispensation. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The direction I would like to move in this post is to rather talk about how much truth has been missing in previous dispensations, and in particular I am most interested in the "dispensation of the meridian of time", the dispensation of the Church which included the life of our Savior Jesus Christ.

In The Book of Mormon we read:

"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; ...and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? ...Wherefore I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also...For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; ...and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it." (2 Nephi 29:7-8, 12)

We therefore know that several nations of the Earth have had some elements of the gospel revealed unto them throughout time. Obviously, some have had more than others. There are various factors that could determine why a certain nation has more gospel truth revealed unto it, but probably one of the primary factors is simply the faithfulness of the people of that nation at that time.

What we don't know is any details. We don't know if any of these groups who had gospel truths also had authority to go along with it. In addition to simple principles like love, did they also have knowledge of ordinances - even the most basic of them - and did they perform them with power and with authority? We simply don't know, and we don't speculate. But we do know that elements of the gospel have been found throughout the world in every age.

What does this mean for the Christian Church in the Meridian Era? Why would I focus my thoughts thus?

Define apostasy.

Most would understand apostasy as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christian truth." There is a difference between falling away from the truth and not having the truth.

The fact that the ancient Christian church fell into apostasy is unmistakeable. It happened. After having read multiple ancient Christian documents, however, I have often wondered "at what point?" Of course the apostasy was gradual. It didn't happen all at once. There is no "line", per se, that we can draw and say, "this is when the apostasy began".

I believe, however, that the ancient Christians of the first four centuries of the common era were more faithful than we normally give them credit for. Even in 200 AD, when it is often assumed that the apostasy was in full effect, love was a defining characteristic of the Christians by the Pagans. Said one Pagan, "See how they (the Christians) love one another...how they are ready even to die for one another" (Tertullian, a Christian author, quoting a Pagan who is describing Christians, Apologeticum, 39).

The pagan Roman emperor Julian (c. 360 AD) noted this as well:

"In his day Julian was finding it more difficult than he had expected to put new life into the traditional Roman religion. He wanted to set aside Christianity...but he saw clearly the drawing power of Christian love in practice: '[Christianity] has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers...[the] Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us (speaking of the Roman pagans) look in vain for the help that we should render them." (Church History in Plain Language, Shelley, 35-36)

If one of the defining characteristics of Christianity as late as almost four centuries after Christ was the love that they had for both other Christians and for Pagans, then surely the faith in that band of Christians must have been great.

Another telling detail that we can draw from ancient Christian authors is the frequency of miracles which occurred among them. Eusebius, citing Papias from 120 AD, says: "he reports that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm" (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Bercot, 453).

Eusebius also quoted Caius, an early Christian bishop in roughly 215 AD. Caius talks of a heretical Christian man named Natalius who fell away from the Church. Caius says, "[Natalius] was admonished by the Lord in visions on many occasions...But since he gave little heed to the visions, ...he was at last scourged by holy angels." (Bercot, 454)

Although this is an "anti-example" of sorts, surely if a man who was falling away from the Church had visions warning him to repent, then those things must also have still existed within the Church at the time.

Another example of miracles within the early Church is given by Tertullian (c. 212 AD): "When, indeed, have not droughts been put away by our kneelings and our fastings?" (Bercot, 454). According to Tertullian, the Christians of his day knelt in prayer and fasted for droughts to cease - a common thing done in the Church today as well - and he says that the Lord responded positively to the faith of the Saints.

Justin Martyr, a Christian apologetic who wrote in roughly 160 AD, commented on spiritual gifts in the Christian Church in his day: "Daily some are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, ...who are also receiving gifts...For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God." He also states, "The prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time" (Bercot, 299). Thus, roughly a hundred years after the deaths of Peter and Paul, spiritual gifts were still recognized in the Church.

Irenaeus, who lived at roughly the same time as Justin Martyr, spoke on the same subject:

"Those who are truly His disciples...perform [works] in His name, in order to promote the welfare of others, according to the gift that each one has received of Him. Some truly and certainly cast out devils...Others have foreknowledge of things to come. They see visions...Still others heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and the sick are made whole. What is more, as I have said, even the dead have been raised up and remained among us for many years. What more can I say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the church throughout the whole world has received from God" (Bercot 299).

Irenaeus not only mentions spiritual gifts, but he mentions healing of the sick by Priesthood administration. Whether or not any Priesthood was left on the Earth in the day of Irenaeus is up to debate - I cannot say conclusively and will not speculate (as all of the Apostles who had keys to lead the Priesthood and the Church had died a century previously) - but it is certainly possible that some amount of priesthood could have still be in existence. Why discount it or take it for naught?

The words of Origen are key to this discussion. Origen was a distinguished Christian author in the third century (c. 250 AD). He first discusses the existence of spiritual gifts in his day: "The name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, expel demons, and also take away diseases. Furthermore, it produces a marvelous meekness of spirit and a complete change of character." Origen also states, "Traces of those signs and wonders are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the teachings of the Gospel" (Bercot, 301).

Origen explains the existence of spiritual gifts, and even goes on to say he has witnessed them himself. There are some key indicators in Origen's words, however. Notice that he says "the name of Jesus can still remove" and also "traces of those signs and wonders are still preserved". It seems that by Origen's day these things had begun to fade, but they were not nonexistent. Like stated previously, the apostasy was a gradual process, not a solid line.

A final quote by Origen:

"The Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ's ministry. And after His ascension, He gave still more. But since that time, these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence." (Bercot, 302)

Here Origen gives us more clear evidence that the spiritual gifts that were in the Church up to his day are beginning to become less common, and are fading away.

Those who have more

I think we are quick to discount the early Church and say that the apostasy was quick and sudden. We often use quotes by early Christians saying things that we don't necessarily agree with doctrinally in order to prove this point, but I think this may be incorrect to do.

It is most definitely true that the early Christians had some views that differ with ours doctrinally. I could name several, but I will not at this time for the sake of keeping this post from going too long. The question is: did they have those different doctrinal views because of apostasy or because of that truth not yet being revealed unto them?

One would think that since the Savior was at the head of that dispensation, surely they had all the same truth that we have in this dispensation. We don't know all the things that the Savior revealed unto His apostles, or all the the things that the apostles revealed unto the general Christian body at that time. Certainly the Savior revealed as much truth unto them as they were able to take in - as much truth as they were able to live by - but as we have already discussed, Joseph Smith stated that in this dispensation the Savior has actually revealed more truth than has ever been revealed in any previous dispensation.

The answer to the above question, of course, is probably that both are true, but I think we always focus so much on the apostasy aspect when we see a doctrine we don't agree with, that we fail to take into account that the early Christians simply might not have had that doctrinal truth revealed unto them.

If we take this view, it is certainly easier to accept quotes by early Christians claiming that spiritual gifts, miracles, and even Priesthood power still existed among them a century or two (or three) after the deaths of the apostles. Certainly apostasy crept in among them. Priesthood keys were lost (I believe this is the primary cause of the apostasy more so than doctrinal incorrectness and unfaithfulness). But the process was gradual. A large body of Christians remained faithful to the principles that they knew to be true (even if they didn't have all the truth, but then again, what dispensation in the history of the world has had all truth?), and certainly some priesthood remained for at least a period of time after the apostles (and one reminder: priesthood is not a requirement for miracles to exist. Faith is the only requirement - see the Bible Dictionary under the topic of Faith).

Conclusions

It is now time to finish up this post. I hope it has been edifying and a good learning experience. I am an avid studier of early Christianity. It fascinates me. The more I study it, the more I am convinced that early Christians as a whole didn't necessarily apostatize as quickly as we believe. There is more to it than that. Some truths simply hadn't been revealed, and with the apostles gone there wasn't a guiding Priesthood body left to continue leading the Church and to receive revelation from Christ in order to reveal truths to the Christian body as a whole. Nonetheless, the Christians went along with what they had. They had spiritual gifts and miracles. Apostasy (a falling away from the truths they did have) certainly came, but it was piece by piece.

Decisions

Stay in Austin:
- Institute Choir
- Established friends base
- Job with good salary
- Personal trainer
- Excellent ward
- Good apartment and roommates, near other members
- Great coworkers
- Benefits: health insurance, dental insurance, stock plan, etc.
- I'm in Texas

- Less opportunity for longer vacations?
- Good job, but not 100% passionate about it. I definitely don't dread going to work every day, which is good. I also don't jump our of bed excited to go to work, but who does?

Go to Dallas:
- Continue my education
- Fulfill a desire to learn neuroscience
- Embark on a career path that could provide opportunities to help others more?
- Potential career path would provide me more family time and vacation time in the future? Also more control over how my time is spent?
- Opportunity to participate in UT Dallas intramurals?
- My school is paid for me and I get a monthly stipend
- Since my school is paid for me, I won't have to go in to debt! No student loans for me! :-)
- I'm in Texas

- Become poor for at least 5 years
- Move to a new place where I don't know anybody. Would have to re-establish friend base. This takes time to do.
- Benefits (health and dental insurance) would cost me roughly the same amount (or so it seems), but i'd have less pocket cash to be able to pay for things if disaster struck
- My "Europe Trip" savings fund would receive very little money (if any) - limiting travel options
- Pretty much if anything happens to me that costs a lot of money to fix (whether it has to do with health, or car, or anything) - sucks to be me
- Dallas isn't quite as much of a college town as Austin. Dating opportunities are currently unknown.
- Dallas BBQ < Austin BBQ

The Base Case

Going through life, I'm often presented with issues and questions that challenge my faith. I think this happens for everyone. It's typical to be presented with an issue, and then ask the question, "I wonder why it is that way?" and "Given the fact that this is true, how does it affect my faith in Christ and belief in the Book of Mormon?"

In Computer Science we often use the term "the base case". This term is not exclusive to Computer Science, of course, but is also used often in mathematics and engineering fields. It typically has to do with either a recursive function or a proof by induction. Let me give an example:

The Fibonacci Sequence is a recursive function with a base case:

fibonacci(0) = 0
fibonacci(1) = 1
fibonacci(2) = fibonacci(1) + fibonacci(0)
fibonacci(3) = fibonacci(2) + fibonacci(1)
. . .
fibonacci(n) = fibonacci(n - 1) + fibonacci(n - 2)

Essentially, you can find any fibonacci number by first calculating the fibonacci numbers that are below it, and this takes you all the way down to the base case: The first two fibonacci numbers are 0 and 1.

In life's spiritual questions that arise, I often simply go to the base case to get the answers to my questions, or to resolve spiritual conflicts. I'll ask myself a question (a rather difficult one), and then I'll drill down into the issue. As I drill down into it, I eventually arrive at the base case: spiritual experiences that I have had in my life that have given me an assurance that the gospel is all true - spiritual experiences that I can't deny because I've felt them in my bones.

In computer science, recursive functions that don't have some sort of base case typically execute forever - or crash your computer. This is rarely (if ever) what we as programmers want to happen. Typically if there is no base case to a recursive function, it's simply because we were careless and forgot to put one in there. When the base case is there, however, the function can execute safely and correctly.

This reminds me of the words of Helaman:

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5:12)

Helaman is simply encouraging us to make sure that we have that base case in our own lives. If we don't, then we won't have that "sure foundation...a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."

The apostle James in the New Testament also recognized the importance of the base case:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." (James 1:5-6)

Just like a recursive function with no base case will execute endlessly with seemingly no direction at all, if we allow ourselves to not have that base case in our lives, we could be as James warns: "he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." James suggests that a good start to forming that base case in our own lives is to simply "ask of God...and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith".

So, in your life as you are presented with difficult situations, questions, and thoughts, do you have a base case that you can drill down into that acts as a solid foundation?

Texas BBQ

Texas BBQ Locations: (Locations in bold are places I've been to)

Rudy's (Austin)
Ruby's (Austin)
Pok-e-Jo's (Austin)
Old School BBQ & Grill (Austin, school bus)
County Line (Austin)
Ironworks (Austin)
Sam's BBQ (Austin)
Louie Miller Barbecue (Austin)
Stubb's BBQ (Austin)
Artz Rib House (Austin)
Franklin BBQ (Austin)
House Park BBQ (Austin)

Salt Lick (Round Rock)
Salt Lick (Driftwood)

Hay's Co. BBQ / Woody's BBQ (San Marcos)

Southside Barbeque (Elgin)

Milt's Pit BBQ (Kyle)

Kreuz Market (Lockhart)
Black's (Lockhart)
Chisolm Trail BBQ (Lockhart)
Smitty's Market (Lockhart)

Coopers (Llano)

Wilhite's BBQ (Creedmoor)

Mill's County BBQ (Goldthwaite)

Sonny Bryan's (Dallas)
Smokey Joe's BBQ (Dallas)

C&C Trading Post (Corsicana)


This blog post will be updated from time to time with new locations when I find out about them, and I will change locations to be in bold once I have been to them.

Each life that touches ours for good

This past weekend I was in Houston, and so I attended church there. The Elders' Quorum lesson that day focused on "rescuing the lost". Overall it was a good lesson and touched many points that are very important to remember. We discussed the reasons that many people stop coming to church although they may still have a testimony of the truthfulness of it: a person might feel as if they don't have friends, or a person might have been offended by what another member of the church said or did.

We read the following scripture from The Book of Mormon during the class. This is from Lehi's dream:

"And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost." - 1 Nephi 8:26 - 28

The instructor of the class talked about how it is our task to go out and find those who are "lost" and bring them back unto Christ. The reason this is on my mind right now is because I felt like the lesson left out a vital aspect to the topic. It focused on reasons other people leave the church and what we can do to "save" them. This kind of language irked me a little bit. It felt like the lesson, although promoting a good thing (bringing others towards Christ), placed active members of the church on a pedestal above inactive members who have left because of offense. Although the instructor might not have an intended this, nevertheless it's something that I gleaned from the lesson.

The instructor focused on the fact that there are many who lose their testimonies because of outside influences scoffing at them, and we need to go in and save them and bring them back. I couldn't help but think, "Could it be that we are those who are scoffing?"

Most of the time we think of those who are in the "great and spacious building" as those who are of the world - not members of the Church. But oftentimes it very well could be that even active members of the church could find themselves in the great and spacious building at times, scoffing at those who are trying to partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

Although it is true that we must work to bring those who have fallen away from the Church back unto Christ, we must not put ourselves on a pedestal above them. Often times it might have been our fault that they left the Church in the first place. Are we friendly and do we show kindness to all? Do we form exclusive cliques or do we try to be inclusive and invite everyone? Do we gossip and talk about others behind their backs? I hope that we put ourselves in our own place and remember that we must always seek to be kind unto others, have charity, and not think of ourselves as better than those who might have grown weak in their testimony of Christ for one reason or another. We must recognize that although we are commanded to go out and bring them back, often times we were the initial problem because we have found ourselves in that "great and spacious building" and have been scoffing at those who are humbly trying to partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

Ward Choir

Being a member of the LDS faith, we are often asked to participate in "Ward Choir". If you are unfamiliar with what that is, a "ward" is a congregation in the LDS church. I've never really liked participating in ward choir. Personally, I'd like to say it in a stronger way than "never really liked", but I don't want to go as far as to say the word "hate" because that would be untrue. I just have a strong distaste for ward choir. Why?

I've always loved choir. I started singing in choir when I was in 6th grade, and I continued through my freshman year at BYU. In junior-high school I was first in the "6th grade choir", then the "boys choir", and then the "mixed choir". In high school (at Cypress Falls) I was in the "A Capella" choir all 4 years (the top mixed choir) and also the "Chamber Choir" all 4 years (a select group of about 24 singers that was completely extracurricular). I also auditioned for the Region Choir and the All-State Choir every year (I made the region choir every year and made the Area Choir (one level below All-State) one year).

When I went to BYU, I wanted to focus more on my degree, so I participated in the "University Chorale" my freshman year which is BYU's non-audition choir. After that, unfortunately, I did not participate in any more choir classes. Needless to say, however, I've always loved singing and being in a choir. Yet I hate (or strongly dislike) ward choir. Why is that?

I've noticed that although the LDS population is highly musically talented, very little of that musical talent ever shows up to ward choir. I would be willing to venture a guess that at least 50% of the active LDS population either sings or plays an instrument to some degree. Of course some are more proficient than others, but I'm not interested in differing proficiency levels here. The simple fact is that a large portion of LDS members are musically talented. Yet very little of this talent shows up to ward choir. Why is that?

I think the answer is that ward choir provides extremely little musical satisfaction. Herein lies the problem.

While in choir at my junior-high school, high school, or college, we were always collectively put with our peers who (a) had the same level of musical commitment as we did, (b) had at least a similar level of musical talent and musical appreciation as we did, and (c) were willing to be challenged at the same level as we were. Consequently, our teachers also challenged us to do some very difficult and musically intricate pieces - some pieces that are extremely beautiful to listen to.

I still listen to many of the recordings of the music we performed in choir quite often, and in fact, one song that we did in my high school choir (O Nata Lux by Morten Lauridsen) is to this day my favorite song (literally. my favorite song. all genres included).

Ward choir is a different ball game. In ward choir, anyone can come regardless of their musical commitment, musical appreciation, musical talent, or desire to be challenged. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, so don't get the wrong idea, but that is the way it is. The general openness of ward choir can be good because it allows those who may feel like they aren't very good singers to be included in a musical group. Essentially, the purpose of ward choir is to praise God through song, and none should be turned away from having the opportunity to praise God with song, correct?

Another aspect that makes ward choir different than other choir experiences is the music. The most common thing for a ward choir to sing is a hymn arrangement. The most common form of a hymn arrangement is to open up the hymn book, look at your choir, and divide up the verses among the different parts (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) however you think it might sound cool, having one or two verses where everyone comes back into unison, and slap a sticker on it and call it done. Now, I love the hymns of the church. Some of them are magnificent, and most all of them are at least good. The words of the hymns speak truth and the music often touches a chord in your soul. The problem, however, is that (a) we hear the hymns so often, that simple arrangements of splitting up verses among parts, etc. does little for musical satisfaction, (b) more complicated and difficult hymn arrangements are usually passed up by ward choirs because of the time commitment restrictions, talent levels, and overall number of people involved in the choir, (c) some songs are just flat out musically dry (read: EFY songs), and (d) the music selected does not provide a challenge to members of the choir at a uniform level.

Some of these problems seem unsolveable because they are present simply because of the facts discussed in the previous paragraph above (the paragraph beginning with "ward choir is a different ball game").

The person who succeeds at both honoring the goals of ward choir (creating a comfortable environment where all can come and praise the Lord through song) and creating an atmosphere of musical brilliance (challenging their singers, providing music to them that is both musically interesting and challenging, asking for a level of commitment that is reasonable for the purposes of ward choir but not too much as to drive people away) must be one of the top choir directors in the world. I'm still waiting to find out who that is.

Until then, I strongly dislike ward choir (yet I participate out of feelings of obligation).