Russell M Nelson had this to say:

Pianos, organs, or their electronic equivalents are the standard for use in Church meetings. If other instruments are used, their use should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting. Instruments with a loud or less worshipful sound, such as most brass and percussion, are not appropriate for sacrament meeting. If a piano, organ, or accompanist is not available, appropriate recordings may be used for accompaniment.

How do we deal with a statement like that?

The Church Handbook does not prohibit the use of guitars.

Unwritten order, anyone?

In my ward we have recently seen….

Guitar, violin, Flute, clarinet, sax, harp etc.

I guess it depends on the ward.

My Stake President plays the violin and several others in the high council play the clarinet, piano, and cello. They weekly open their Stake High Council meetings with a hymn accompanied by the Stake High Council Ansemble. Very wonderful and reverent sounding.

Brook White is also LDS.

Danithew, David Archuleta is in my aunt’s ward in Utah.

I think in a discussion like this, we have to distinguish whether we’re talking about what’s appropriate in the chapel or what’s appropriate in Sacrament Meeting, because they are two different topics. I think there is much more leeway when it’s a fireside, particularly a fireside designed to showcase a specific music group or style of music.

I had to read the Russell M. Nelson quote (which is essentially what is printed in the Music portion of the Church Handbook) twice because when I read the words “Church meetings”, I heard “Sacrament meeting”. To me, firesides are a different thing. The handbook clarifies with regards to sacrament meeting specifically by saying that “some religiously oriented music in a popular style is not appropriate for sacrement meetings.” It goes on to make the same statement about concert and recital-type music.

I think there has to be a line drawn, especially when it comes to sacrament meeting. I say this even though the line honestly does not reflect my own personal taste in music. I’m a classically trained organist (with a master’s in music). I personally am glad to not hear any more “pop” style music and would probably not even go to a fireside to hear it. I definitely don’t want to hear it in sacrament meeting. But I don’t get to hear my kind of music in church either. I rarely am moved by the music in my church meetings. It does little for me. One of the most profound spiritual experiences I ever had musically was singing “Praise to the Lord the Almighty” with choir, organ, and brass. It was absolutely breathtaking and exactly how I’d imagine music in heaven. But I will never get that kind of experience in sacrament meeting.

However, I still think the “line” is good. I think it is better for church music not to be subject to people’s personal whims in music. For one thing, nothing would please everyone. The magnificent Bach prelude and fugue that would move me to tears would bore most listeners. And the Mormon pop stuff feels trite and superficial to me. So simple hymns and simple, basic instruments are a common ground. People push the edges of that ground as far as they can, but since the ground is there and the line is firm, there is safety, and things don’t go too far. I appreciate this, even if it means giving up a little bit.

In many other churches right now the traditional types of worship are giving way to praise bands and rock music. I am grateful we don’t have to worry about that in the LDS church.

In regards to the Russell M. Nelson quote in comment #1, I think we should follow it. The local leadership (bishopbric or branch presidency) is responsible to guide what happens to church meetings and I imagine if there are special occasions or exceptions, it would be up to them to decide on a case by case basis. Comments #4 and #12 seem to point to possible opportunities that were worthwhile – to be able to listen to excellent musicianship or special arrangements (with wind instruments and the like).

I linked to a shorter YouTube video of David Archuleta singing Imagine – but it was interesting to see a longer one where Randy asked David A. why he did not choose to sing the first verse of Imagine. David responded that he liked the message of the third verse. I think Randy might have known David’s background and was perhaps seeing if he could coax a response that would speak specifically to the “no religion” portion of the song. If that was what was going on – good for David for avoiding the potential controversy.

We have many musicians in our ward but few who play polite instruments. Our rule is, If you’re playing with the Spirit, you can play it in our meetings. We’ve had guitar, brass, accordion and bassoon. It has enriched our meetings and the people spiritually involved with them.

I’m late to the discussion, and I think I’m a dissenting voice here. I think our music – in sacrament meetings, at least – needs to have the objective of inviting revelation, and I don’t think that’s possible when the atmosphere is too energetic or emotive. I think there is room for more variety at firesides, but if I were attending a ward where the sacrament meeting music were more emotive than spiritual, I would probably look for a different ward. I think it’s a good idea to avoid music that is sappy, loud, or draws too much attention to the performer.

Kyle M, #14:

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_lennon/imagine.html

If you read Revelation carefully, there are a lot of parallels to “Imagine”. In the Celestial Kingdom, there is no heaven above you. And there is no hell, since hell ends at the end of the millennium when death and hell give up their dead. There is no indication that there will be any national boundaries (countries) within the 3 kingdoms of glory, and it’s possible that national boundaries will dissolve at the 2nd coming, or at some point in the millennium. There will be nothing to kill or die for in any of the 3 kingdoms of glory. There will be no “religion” (as we currently think of it here and now) in the Celestial Kingdom, as Revelation (and maybe Isaiah) say that no man will have to teach his neighbor about God.

Having no possessions, at least nothing carried over from mortal earth life, is another parallel between scriptural account of the Celestial Kingdom and Imagine’s lyrics.

There may be some slight conceptual or vocabulary differences, but Imagine can be very easily nuanced to be compatible with either the LDS view of the Millennium or of the Celestial Kingdom.

If you want to call “Imagine” communism, then you could apply the same measure to the United Order and call it communism. But communism is the devil’s substitute for God’s order of things.

The ideas expressed in Imagine are in essence Celestial. The point of major disagreement is how to achieve that state, man’s way, or God’s way.

I enjoyed that guitar playing “Come, Come, Ye Saints,” then those guys started singing and that was the bad part.

I would buy a recording of David singing “Imagine” today. That’s the best I’ve heard anybody sing that song since the original recording.

My cousin, who is almost 70, plays the saxophone (ten times better than Bill Clinton) and she played “Amazing Grace” at a funeral. Brought the house down, figuratively speaking.

#4 Steven, you have a point. I agonized through every single piano and voice recital I attended. The only one I liked to listen to was my child.

Bbell, where in the heck do you live? I’m coming to your church.

:) Colleen, I’m going to remember that one for when we have this discussion in SS.

You know what, Naomi, I completely agree with you. There’s a fine line. But our meetings stay too far to the right of the line. They bore us right out of our spirituality sometimes. A nice quiet guitar would hit just the right note in my heart, I think.

Boy, that saxophone of my cousin’s, it’s reverent, how she plays. It’s sort of funny, this little gray haired grandma getting up in her nice dress and pulling out the sax.

We had a controversial musical number a few weeks ago. In my opinion the main problem was that the volume on the speaker system was turned up way too high to the point where the loud parts of the performance were completely clipped and ruined. In fact, it would have worked much better without any amplification. When the bishopric discussed the performance I suggested that this was the real problem with the performance. Everyone else disagreed with me. Perhaps this was because turning down the volume was something they had control of and failed to do. They claimed that the style of the performance was out of bounds. I agreed that it could have used some tweaking, but even the most appropriate number can be ruined by bad amplification.

Quint Randle lives in my mom’s ward, where we lived for a few years. I attended an Enrichment Night where he and his bandmate played. They were fabulously entertaining, and very gifted musicians. The songs they sang that night (in a member’s home) were fun, uplifting, and upbeat. None of those would have been appropriate in a Sacrament Meeting, IMHO. However, I also can’t imagine Bro. Randle playing those songs in the chapel. Cultural Hall? Bring it.

And I promise, this is my last post regarding LDS musicians in my mom’s ward! =)

I’m apparently in the minority here, not having grown up LDS, but I would welcome different instruments and styles of music as part of worship. This idea is limiting ourselves primarily to hymns and musical styles that were present in the 19th century seems awfully limited to me. There’s lot of contemporary Christian music these days that I find quite good and, to me, perfectly appropriate for worship.

That said, I must say I was quite disappointed the last time I visited a non-LDS church with a praise band. They had an obviously talented group, and what did they do with it? They sang songs that I could have written on the back of a napkin in two minutes, and then repeated the same lines over and over again. That I wouldn’t welcome.