I am currently a Primary teacher, and was marveling at the talent of the music leader a few weeks ago as she engaged the attention of kids age 3 to 11 with a variety of games, songs, and physical activity. Particularly when the singing was coupled with physical activity, the kids were fully interested and getting out their “wiggles.” There was a game looking for clues, and then punctuated with lively songs.
One of those songs was familiar to me from my own childhood Primary days:
Book of Mormon stories that my teacher tells to me
https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/pipedream/book-of-mormon-stories-09
Are about the Lamanites in ancient history.
Long ago their fathers came from far across the sea,
Giv’n the land if they lived righteously.
Lamanites met others who were seeking liberty,
And the land soon welcomed all who wanted to be free.
Book of Mormon stories say that we must brothers be,
Giv’n the land if we live righteously.
This was sung with gusto by the room full of white children and teachers, including accompanying gestures designed to mimic generic Native American cultures: two fingers behind the head as if they were feathers, crossing the arms in front and nodding, and so forth. I’m not sure if my memory is accurate, but as I recall from my own days in Primary, the gestures were even worse with fake tomohawk chopping motions, war whoops, and perhaps raising one hand as if to say “How!” I’m shaking my head just thinking about those days, back in the 1970s. But this particular sharing time was in 2021, over 40 years later. I haven’t been in Primary in decades, probably since the 90s, so this came as a particular shock to me.
- Is Book of Mormon stories racist? Does your answer depend on the hand motions?
- Are there other problematic Primary songs?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Oh yes, the hand gestures. How could I forget. So awful.
The lyrics are problematic as well. On several levels. First of all, if we treat the Book of Mormon as actual history, the Nephites always seemed to be generally more righteous than the Lamanites, and at the end of the day, the less righteous Lamanites overtook them and wiped them out by 400CE thus dominating the Americas until the arrival of the Europeans in the 1500s. 1100 years of dominance most certainly seems like being “giv’n” the land in spite of completely rejecting all forms of Judeo-Christianity.
Now of course the message of the Book of Mormon is: you remaining Native Americans (Lamanites) perverted the ways of God and lost the true religion, so that’s why God allowed the Europeans, who maintained the true religion (sort of, at least they still believed in Jesus), to come over here and dominate you. That’s why God allowed the Europeans the development of massive technological advantages over you. But if you convert to Christianity, there is a chance you’ll flourish again, but until that day comes, Christian Europeans are justified in having this land.
Another problem is that the song (not to mention traditional Mormon thinking about Native Americans) considers only US Native Americans. For if you go south of the border, Native Americans have left a very widespread DNA imprint on the populations, and in many cases have maintained their culture and languages intact (at least much more than in the US, the Aztecs had developed into a massive empire when the Spaniards arrived), which suggests that they haven’t been dominated by Europeans as much as traditional “Lamanites” discourse (out of which this song is clearly crafted) in the US often portrays them. My adopted son’s birth parents are Guatemalan and he clearly has considerable Mayan DNA in him. I shudder at the thought of him singing this song, let alone making the hand gestures. But alas, we attend the Spanish ward (although I don’t know fully what goes on in primary), where members are far more thoughtful and considerate about matters pertaining to race, especially Native Americans since so many have high percentages of Native American DNA. So I trust that my son’s in good hands.
It would be nice if Pres. Nelson extended his changing things in Church to include updating Primary. New female converts serving in Primary cringe at some of the stuff.
I just remember doing a drumming morion with our fists as kids, none of this fake sign language stuff.
At least the song recognizes that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
I don’t think this is true “if we treat the Book of Mormon as actual history, the Nephites always seemed to be generally more righteous than the Lamanites”. Instead, that appearance seems to be in the eye of the beholders (perhaps most of us) who do not read the whole book, let alone read it as an object lesson on the failure of Nephite civilization, or who read it through, and red into it, a white US cowboys & Indians culture..
Jacob 3:5 “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren … are more righteous than you;..”
4 Nephi 1:17 “…neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”
Then we have a report of massive apostasy without reference to any ethnic or racial of genealogical divisions, followed by
4 Nephi 1:37 explaining that those old genealogical divisions then came to be used as references to religious division and not ethnic or tribal divisions: “Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, … were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.”
I presume, but don’t know, that that use of the terms persisted through Mormon 1:8 (And it came to pass in this year there began to be a war between the Nephites, who consisted of the Nephites and the Jacobites and the Josephites and the Zoramites; and this war was between the Nephites, and the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites.). But, if so, it shortly came to have a new tribalistic meaning since “13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land [including those then referred to as “Nephites”], insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people. 14 And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.”
I suspect Jacob 3:5 may be largely ignored by the Brighamite LDS culture because of its condemnation of polygamy. I don’t know any reason for ignoring 4 Nephi 1:17 which seems to some to be at the heart of the book’s religious message.
I think I’d fault our long-standing cultural, tribalistic reading and tradition more than the book for the impression that the Nephites always seemed to be generally more righteous than the Lamanites.
But, yes, that Primary song, like some others, is horrible. It’s unfortunate for childhood education that we use catchy, march-like tunes and activities to teach things like” Book of Mormon [selective and distorted] Stories” and “Follow the Prophet” but apparently think we must use more gentle tunes and pious demeanor (folding arms, etc.) if we teach through song about following Jesus, the primary message of the Book of Mormon.
JLM – I would bet a dollar the “other people who were seeking liberty” is speaking of the Pilgrims and explorers. I would be shocked if it were speaking of the other multiple migrations of people from Asia that had been pouring in periodically for the previous 15,000 years.
Yes this song is awful and so is calling anyone with slightly dark skin a Lamanite.
Zach, I suspect you’re interpretation of the author’s intent is correct, but that was never how I saw it as a kid. As a primary aged child I thought the “others’ referred to the Mulekites. The song spoke of ancient history, and even as a 2nd grader I understood that US history wasn’t anciemt.
A primary song that always makes me cringe is: Follow the Prophet. When the chorus is sung it literally sounds cultish.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way.
Hawk girl is absolutely correct that this song and it’s hand gestures are unabashedly racist. That is really beyond dispute. It is an unfortunate example of what comes when people reduce primary songs to an effort to entertain young people, rather than using the songs to teach doctrine. The attempt to entertain went haywire, and created a mess.
This is one of those rare moments in which I find myself in agreement with JCS. The song is racist, for sure. I grew up in white suburbia, where we learned the song and all the hand gestures in primary, but was completely oblivious to the Native American references and potential for causing offense. The music is supported by a left-hand rhythm that mimics a stereotypical “Indian” drumbeat, like the kind you would hear in an old western film (also a common source of offensive Native American portrayals in mainstream American culture). We would do well to get rid of the song completely (and throw out “Follow the Prophet” while we’re at it) because it does nothing to honor, respect or elevate Indigenous cultures; rather, it seeks to conflate those cultures with the main civilizations of the Book of Mormon, which are less and less likely to have actually existed.
Moreover, relying on broad-stroke Native American stereotypes to represent Book of Mormon peoples is potentially alienating to Polynesian and South American members, many of whom also claim ancestry from the supposed ancient Lehite diaspora. Just about everyone I know who served missions in Brazil used that very claim (“this book is all about YOUR ancestors!”) to entice investigators. The ones who agreed to get baptized were usually the ones who fully bought into that narrative. I wonder if primary children in Brazil or other countries are taught the Book of Mormon Stories song, and what hand gestures (if any) they use.
Can someone please clarify something for me? Are we discussing the “primary” ancestors to the American Indian or are we talking about people who were “among” their ancestors?
Native Americans are derived of Siberian Asiatics who crossed the Bering Straits between 14 & 40K years ago. So far as I am aware, no trace of Semitic DNA has ever been found.
“ Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true,…nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon… is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.”
– Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp42-46
Racism is primarily caused by people not knowing who they are — a beloved son or daughter of God. One of the major crises of our time is an identity crisis. People don’t know who they are, who they REALLY are. For the most part, people who know that they are a son or daughter of God don’t care what others say about them, they “heed them not” (1 Ne. 8:33). People who know that they are a son or daughter of God also know that everyone else is as well, and do their best to not do or say things that may be offensive to others.
The solution to racism is to teach people that they are sons and daughters of God, to help them come to know who they are. This knowledge will nearly eradicate the giving and taking of offense.
As with everything, there are exceptions but they are few and far between.
bwbarnett is completely wrong! The solution to racism is not to convince the victims that they should just accept their lot in life. The solution is to teach all people that racism is wrong and it will not be tolerated. Shame on you for using scripture in an attempt to gloss over the evils of racism.
I assume that bwbarnett is a member of the church. When I read comments like hers/his, it makes me ashamed to also be a member.
Church leaders falsely used scripture for well over 100 years in an attempt to justify their own racist feelings. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
How would bwbarnett like it if she/he was the victim of a serious crime and someone told her/him that the solution was to simply accept the harm while society did nothing to stop the cause?
I’m reading good intent in bwbarnett’s comment—that the Child of God descriptor in our belief system implies equality across racial boundaries and that we should respect the dignity of every human soul. I also see where Caroline is coming from in that teaching the child of God thing to people isn’t going to do much to heal the racism in our society.
Because here’s the thing: the song in question perfectly demonstrates how one group of people—white Mormons—can look at another group of people—native Americans—and see them as children of God, descended from scriptural heroes, potential heirs to glorious blessings, and still write offensive songs about them, reduce them to stereotypes, exterminate their communities, and assimilate their children.
Our genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Mountain West is the greatest sin we, as a religion, have committed. And we did it while believing they were children of God. We don’t talk about it enough. And things like the song in question are ugly reminders of our failure to repent of it.
Isn’t bwbarnett simply making the same argument that Bednar was when he said there are no gay or lesbian members of the church, only children of god? The error is the same in their shared perspectives, namely that you don’t get to say we are all children of god worthy of respect but then treat certain of god’s children differently because they are different. If they should be respected as children of god, then assume god sent them here as they are and offer them respect, not condescension and second-class status.
I assume no good intent on the part of bw barnett. He clearly looks down on other races such as the one I belong to. Telling me to shut up, read the scriptures, and accept the consequences of racism like a good little girl is offensive.
Wondering, I don’t doubt that you could produce a highly nuanced view of the Book of Mormon that shows the Nephites at times being supposedly more “wicked” than the Lamanites. But the common narrative among believing members has been that the Native Americans today are the remnants of the Lamanites (and not the Nephites who died out) and that Christianity had ceased to exist among them circa 400 CE because they collectively rejected the scriptures and the prophets, and that the last prophet who knew the true religion was Moroni, who buried plates for Joseph Smith to find. Effectively the common discourse places greater burden on the Nephites to be righteous than the Lamanites, who in spite of not fully accepting Christianity or remaining Christian, were the ones to dominate the land, thus rendering the idea that those who are wicked shall perish nonsensical. And in a larger real view, the idea that political dominance stems from righteousness is untenable considering the fact that the political dominance has often come from killing and in many cases killing in the name of God, the dominant groups tending to justify their murderous actions as fulfillment of God’s will.
bwbarnett, in your comment you write, “For the most part, people who know that they are a son or daughter of God don’t care what others say about them” which suggests that racism is caused by oversensitive people overreacting and unjustifiably playing the race card. This suggests that racism could end in part if blacks and Native Americans just stopped caring about mean things that people say about them and do towards them or caring about the fact that it is harder for them to collectively lead lives equal to white people in the US because of subconscious biases of whites that put them at an overall disadvantage. This seems reflective of the old “just stop talking about it and it will go away” fallacy.
“The solution to racism is to teach people that they are sons and daughters of God, to help them come to know who they are.” This seems to be a repackaging of the white man’s burden narrative which held that it was added responsibility of the white man to educate and civilize “those people” so that they would assimilate to “white culture” and just stop thinking about their ethnic and racial identities. After a couple of generations, Europeans who migrated to the US stopped emphasizing their Danishness, Irishness, and Germanness, why can’t “those people” just act more “white” and stop talking about it so much?
“This knowledge will nearly eradicate the giving and taking of offense.” To bwbarnett’s credit, he does mention “giving” offense, but then adds “taking” offense as if to say, “yes, there are real hateful racists out there, but the taking of ‘unnecessary’ offense is just as bad and is perpetuating racism.” At this juncture I might invite bwbarnett to reflect on the fact that he belongs to a minority religious group that heavily heavily overemphasizes its historical victimhood. Were Mormons historically the victims of religious persecution? Yes, absolutely. They were unjustly driven out of Missouri, with some (21 died as a result of the 1838 Missouri War) even being killed by anti-Mormon criminal mobs. Were they victims on the scale of Jews? Not even close. On the scale of Muslims? Again, not even close. On the scale of practitioners of Native American religions. Nowhere near that. In fact, it appears that the number of people that the Mormons have victimized if you take into consideration the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is larger than the number of Mormons who have been killed because of religious persecution. So if his aim is to cast the mote out of the eyes of historically victimized ethnic, racial, and religious groups for overhyping a victimhood narrative, I would invite him to cast the beam out of his and the LDS church’s own eye.
bwbarnett: George Floyd wasn’t murdered because he didn’t know he was a child of God. He was murdered because some cops didn’t see him as a human being like they see themselves, and as a society, we’ve become hardened to all the black lives the police have killed over minor infractions. His belief about himself wouldn’t have prevented his murder. Being forced to live in redlined areas is also not somethng that you can “believe” your way out of. Racism has real effects on real lives, and rather than blaming the victims of systemic multi-generational racism, it’s time we start having real conversations and making policy changes that will create the equality that is long overdue.
It requires no “nuance” at all to read Jacob 3:5 “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren … are more righteous than you;..” By itself that verse refutes “always”. As I noted the book is not necessarily responsible for misreadings of the book or for misleading summaries, however, common they may be.
@Angela C: George Floyd’s killers obviously didn’t know that they themselves are beloved sons of God. If they had known this, they would not have killed him. Real conversations and policy changes should include teachings of Christ. Rather than implement rules upon rules upon rules about what can and can’t be said, or what can and can’t be done by cops in an attempt to cover every conceivable situation, teach them Christ’s teachings and help them know who they are.
I’m sure the evangelical right would agree with BWB. Too bad we can’t force Christianity on all citizens and make its teachings the law of the land. Racism is a human problem. Maybe we leave the solution to human hands rather than the very institutions that established the current reign of racism.
@BeenThere: Satan established racism. The solution to all bad things established by Satan is Christ. HE is the solution. HIS teachings are the solution. Humanity cannot fix racism or any other bad thing without Christ. The day is soon coming where Christianity won’t be forced upon all but it will be accepted by all and the world will finally have peace.
BWB, You are trying to spread the republican lie on racism; that America is not racist, there is no systemic racism, just a few bad apples. And for the christians a dose of christianity would cure them of that. Because there is no systemic racism, those who see it must be racist, and to mention it is unamerican. To actually try and change the systems to remove the racism is to attack America.
Hopefully more than half the voters can see how ridiculous this is, and that garbage logic like this will keep the republicans out of government until they repent.
This logic can be applied to almost anything; climate change, inequality, healthcare, democracy. Whatever democrats believe is important is an attack on true American values. There will be a lot of unhappy republicans for as long as they are not in power, when they can again defend/make great again America. The America they believe in. The lie.
bwbarnett: In the Mormon church, Brigham Young did much to establish racism, and he was supposedly a prophet of God. How do you reconcile the racist history of what is supposedly a church led by Christ himself? Shouldn’t Christ have been able to keep racism out of the church he sits at the head of?
“Are there other problematic Primary songs?”
I know “I Am a Child of God” is trying to teach just that – that we are children of God. But I’m so sad to think of all the kids without “parents, kind and dear.” There are not just a few children who have emotionally or physically abusive parents. Or neglectful, controlling, mentally unstable parents.
It’s a song we sing *all the time,* so maybe they could change the lyrics again. (They made another change that I can’t quite bring to memory right now.)
I know this might seem overly sensitive. It’s been on my mind lately after learning more about some horribly dysfunctional parenting in my extended family.
Wondering, were there times when the Nephites went astray? Yes. But to which group did all the Book of Mormon prophets belong? The Nephites. I’ve never heard anyone make the argument in my 40 years in church that we are to derive from the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites are to be considered the more righteous group. Lamanites are mostly portrayed as the more wicked group. I guess you could arguably say that the Nephites were destroyed because they went astray. Ok. Well then why not the Lamanites, who, if we are to accept that their posterity were the Native Americans or a portion of them, prospered for 1100 years after the extinction of the Nephites?
It is easy and doesn’t require a lot to condemn racism today, but I don’t see much courage in condemning racism in 2021. Especially, when every major corporation and modern institution agrees that racists and white supremacy is bad and evil. If you want to impress me, then show me where you have stood up against a mob for the marginalized? Knowing that you will probably lose a job, or other financial support. My grandparents moved into a small town in the 1950s they were approached and offered membership to the KKK. Thankfully, they declined membership, but it probably cost them business and some amount of prosperity. It take courage to stand against the mob.
Getting back to the point of the original post, the primary song Book of Mormon stories is no more racist than any other piece of culture from a similar time. I don’t judge people in the past using modern measuring sticks.
BW Barrett’s comments, and those supporting him, are the perfect example of why so many young people are leaving the church. Young people are fed up with those who claim the racism and bigotry are supported by scripture. BW and those who support his comments should be ashamed of themselves. But of course they won’t–they’ll just feel superior to anyone who doesn’t understand scriptures “the right way.”
JW, I’ve neither heard nor made any such argument. Nor did I make any argument that the Nephites were destroyed because they went astray. I have pointed out that it is not even clear in the BoM whether the Nephites who were destroyed were all descendants of the first Nephi and his buddies, rather than being the group that had once adopted that name on religious and not ethnic or genealogical grounds. It is a major error to suppose that one should or could generalize about the relative righteousness of Nephites (whoever they were) and Lamanites (whoever they were) through the entire “history” presented in the BoM. The book and its use of those names is vastly more complicated than that.
BTW, No, all the prophets of the BoM were not Nephites whichever definition of that tribal name is used. There was at least Samuel the Lamanite. I think there may have been others as to which genealogy at least is unclear.
If you can stomach “chloroform in print”, you might try reading the book for what is not consistent with your preconceived notions instead of generalizing from what you remember of your childhood cowboys & Indians/cops and robbers cartoon version.
@jaredsbrother: Christ sits at the head of a church entirely made up of sinners, from the prophets on down. Every sort of sin exists within its membership, including the sin of racism. Through His Atonement, He offers a way out via repentance. I don’t try to reconcile things for which all the information is not available. For things like this, I just trust in Jesus.
@geoff-aus: You are trying to spread a lie about me trying to spread a “republican lie” on racism. You falsely accuse me of “spreading a lie” yet you do the same thing? Hypocrisy: The practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.
“…teach them Christ’s teachings and help them know who they are.”
How does this work in a practical sense? For example, how does any person/group influence the ________ (fill in biased or racist subset of society) so that they recognize their own true nature and thus stop bullying (or worse) others? Is there evidence this kind of influence exists/changes the nature of offenders in society? Why would we expect the offenders to care/listen?
Not surprising that most of the commenters here are upper middle class, well-educated, white liberals. You’ve clearly been studying your modern-day prophets of Kendi and DiAngelo. (Did y’all get her new book, Nice Racism? Her description of her awkward, backwards and racist self is a pretty good description of white liberals in general).
All y’all’s views reflect those of naive, sheltered, white liberals who have never had a black friend, neighbor, or even teacher. Nice job at soothing your guilt.
Wondering, you’re simply cherry-picking verses to suggest what seemed at first to be saying that the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites. Now what you are trying to say in your most recent comment is unclear. Furthermore, you seem to want to extrapolate from the text about other possible realities and unknowns about tribal identity or whatever.
Look, I only care about the internal evidence in the Book of Mormon itself, and so do most believers in my experience. The fact of the matter is that the BOM clearly lays out that Ammaron, the person who passed the sacred writings of the Nephites to Mormon was a direct descendant of Alma the Elder, who was directly descended of the original Nephi. The direct descendants of Nephi kept the sacred records and were overwhelmingly the ones who were the prophets and spiritual leaders whose words and experiences were recorded. Regardless of what the actual Nephite people believed and adhered to, no matter how genealogically connected to the original Nephi the text has us understand them to be, the fact remains that the major prophets (Jacob, Alma, Nephi, Lehi) were direct descendants of Nephi. Samuel the Lamanite, in fact, is the only Lamanite I can think of who is revered as a non-Nephite spiritual leader.
The BOM repeatedly talks about how wicked people are for rejecting Jesus, the Lamanites are included repeatedly in these condemnations. But the warning that people will perish in the land of they are wicked seems only to apply to the Nephites.
“generalizing from what you remember of your childhood cowboys & Indians/cops and robbers cartoon version”
What the hell does that even mean? Your view of the Book of Mormon is simply incoherent and adds gratuitous complexity to its historicity to avoid admitting that it is in many ways an extremely simplistic text, not to mention extremely improbable historically, with a very clear and unfortunate message about race that justifies European dominance of Native Americans. So you’ve worked yourself into some serious cognitive dissonance to avoid accepting these very ugly messages in the Book of Mormon. And then you call me some sort of cartoonish black and white thinker? I’m just calling a spade a spade. Time to admit the obvious and spare us ridiculous mental contortionism.
How about scrapping all the kids’ songs with the topic of Obedience or Restoration?
FWIW Deseret Industries in Idaho Falls recently (June 19th) had a banned Dr. Seuss book in their display/collectibles case…
Well, the internal evidence is that the terms Nephites and Lamanites are not always used to refer to ethnic or genealogical groups and that neither ethnic/genealogical group was always more righteous as a group than the other and that there was a time when the Nephites were the righteous group (of mixed ethnic/genealogical origin) and that it is unclear whether the terms continued to be used that way thereafter. If you can’t see that, but prefer generalizations spanning the entire “history,” that’s too bad. i can’t teach you how to read.
Hello. It’s not the song that’s racist. It’s the book.
@Ruth, I am a Child of God is, unfortunately, super problematic from my perspective. Basically teaches kids they need to earn their way to heaven and if they don’t do all the right things, their Heavenly Parents don’t want them back. One of our moved beloved and sung primary songs that actually teaches an extremely harmful message.
I have been a primary pianist off and on for 30+ years. I’ve been more off than on in the past few years, but nevertheless it is part of my history. Kids say/do/sing the darndest things!
Book of Mormon Stories has been problematic for a long time. The biggest reason, of course, involves the actions:
“Book of Mormon Stories that my teacher gave to me”: Action: hold out right hand flat palmed and with the left hand in a fist, hit your open palm three times (boom, boom, boom).
“Are about the Laminates in ancient history”: Action: Use two fingers behind the head to indicate feathers.
“Long ago their fathers came from far across the sea”: Action: Use your hand/arm in a rolling motion to indicate traveling up and down rolling hills.
“Given this land, if we live, righteously”: Fold arms and then lift folded arms up and down to the word “right-ous-ly”. Nod head the same.
Almost always, in primary, if the children were asked to pick a song to sing, BOM Stories would be one of the choices. The reason? Kind of a catchy tune and plenty of actions, which children love. Another favorite pick: “Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree”. Again, catchy with actions. Nothing controversial about that one. Kids love the “Popcorn” song even if it’s snowing outside.
About 5 years ago, I asked if the “actions” to BOM Stories could be eliminated. I was met with a blank stare. Nothing changed.
And while I’m on a roll, on or before Christmas, I brought in my Reader’s Digest book full of fun Christmas songs. Again, when the children were asked to pick a favorite Christmas song, do you think it was “Away in a Manager”? Nope. Rudolph was the choice, hands down. It’s a few days before Christmas. The children are jumping out of their chairs with excitement. Singing Silent Night, Away in a Manager, and a few others were good, great, wonderful. But was it really inappropriate if a child wanted to sing “Rudolph” as part of the repertoire of songs? In our primary, absolutely not allowed. Just venting.
Sometimes it’s so hard to let kids just be kids.
@lehcarjt:
“And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.” (Helaman 6:37)
“And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.” (Alma 31:5)
“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29)
“And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:7)
bwbarnett:
With all due respect, relying on the teachings of Jesus will only get us so far.
Firstly, Jesus did not extend the gospel to anyone outside his sphere of influence. He wouldn’t speak to the Romans. He barely spoke to the Samaritans. Couldn’t Christians weaponize this to show that Jesus plays favorites? That God doesn’t like people of color as much as he does white people? Oh wait, that weaponization is already systemic. Jerks for Jesus.
Secondly, Jesus didn’t address a great many topics. How should we treat the LGBTQ+ community if Jesus never told us what to do? Follow the Old Testament? Follow the November 2015 policy that was reversed in April 2019?
Thirdly, most of the world isn’t interested in the teachings of Jesus. Are you going to conquer and colonize them in order for them to accept the teachings of Jesus as the law of the land?
Lastly, I don’t understand all this talk about discarding our personalities at the expense of being children of God. Can’t we celebrate both? Why are they mutually exclusive in your mind? Elder Holland talked about all the voices that make a choir great. If all the voices are just children of God, that is not a choir, that’s just a solo.
Please do better.
@Chadwick
“Jesus did not extend the gospel to anyone outside his sphere of influence” — He does now.
“How should we treat the LGBTQ+ community if Jesus never told us what to do?” — Principle-based behavior as opposed to rule-based: Love thy neighbor.
“Are you going to conquer and colonize them in order for them to accept the teachings of Jesus as the law of the land?” — No
“I don’t understand all this talk about discarding our personalities at the expense of being children of God. Can’t we celebrate both? Why are they mutually exclusive in your mind?” — People may have put words in my mouth in other comments above to make you think that I think this way. This is an unfortunate pattern I’ve seen here at W&T. I did not say anything about discarding personalities at the expense of being children of God. Yes we can celebrate both. They are not mutually exclusive in my mind.
“Please do better” — Trying to each day 😉
Okay. You gave some scriptures about people living thousands of years ago that are all super vague and non-specific on what actually happened. Don’t get me wrong, I want it to happen. But where are the modern equivalents? (last 200 years…?) Where are the modern, practical applications where missionary work solves severe social problems? Even Utah has a racism problem.
Wondering, read 2 Nephi 1:10-11: “behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.”
Church leaders have long maintained that the ancient American believers in Jesus Christ died off in the 400s CE and that the Native Americans are among the descendants of the Lamanites and that these Lamanites didn’t believe in Jesus Christ from at least 400 CE until the arrival of the Europeans, and didn’t believe in Jesus Christ throughout much of the period 600BCE-400CE. The church leaders’ beliefs about the Lamanites don’t uphold 2 Nephi 1:10-11 and many other verses in the BOM that claim that those who reject Jesus will perish in the Americas. And yet the descendants of Lamanites, the non-believers in Jesus Christ, are the ones who flourish throughout the Book of Mormon period and up until the arrival of the Europeans.
As far as I can tell (if we are to believe BOM historicity), believing in Jesus Christ did not really help people flourish in the pre-Columbian Americas. Maybe for brief periods in small areas, but in the long run (up to the 1500s) the non-believers in Jesus Christ won out, and for quite a long period of time (at least 1100 years). What exactly am I getting wrong here?
Just musing..help me out. Seems like my childhood memories had me singing from I AM A CHILD OF GOD….teach me all that I MUST KNOW….then….teach me all that i must. DO??? A word here a word there?
Ally, From the Church website:
“Sister Naomi W. Randall wrote the text to the song in 1957, when Elder Spencer W. Kimball was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. At that time, the song’s chorus concluded with the words ‘Teach me all that I must know to live with him someday.’
While visiting a stake conference, Elder Kimball listened to a group of Primary children sing ‘I Am a Child of God..’ Soon after that, he commented on the song in a conversation with a member of the Primary General Board. ‘I love the children’s song,’ he said, ‘but there is one word that bothers me. Would Sister Randall mind if the word know were changed to the word do?'”
Others, including but not limited to John Tanner, BYU Hawaii president, have preferred “teach me all that I must be…”
@lehcarjt:
I wish I were more of a historian and could provide some modern examples for you. Although I don’t think that the lack of modern examples should deter us from trying the experiment. Perhaps the modern equivalents of Christianity solving severe social problems are yet to be made. Do you have to have modern proof before you would be willing to try it out? Someone has to be the first, right? Why not us?
Having said that, I do believe there are numberless examples of true Christianity solving, or preventing, severe social problems, but they are all individually on a smaller scale. They are within families, extended families, and maybe small communities.
I 100% agree that on a small scale within family and other relationships, you are right. I’ve seen and been the recipient of such charity and charitable teaching.
But I feel like my experience as a missionary was attempting to do exactly what you describe. As a church, it’s what we try to do. On an individual level we occasionally succeed. On a societal level, not so much. My mission (for me and ask the other missionaries) in terms of converts or changing hearts or impacting society was a failure.
To convince me this is the way we should go as a country, I need something more concrete than hopeful words. Where I am finding this something more concrete being tried (failing and succeeding) is in organized, financed, social programs and laws. There’s some real problems with that too of course.
The BofM and this song are both nonsense and should be placed in the dustbin of history. Am I going to get all lathered up about the inherent (maybe unintentional) racism contained in them…Nope.
Our primary does a bow and arrow gesture where the kids draw the string back on the bow and then release it instead of the gross feathers.
“Are there other problematic Primary songs?”
The children’s song, “The Family is of God,” which was included in the primary curriculum and sung at the April 2015 women’s conference session has lyrics which are based on the family proclamation.
Verse 2.
A father’s place is to preside, provide,
to love and teach the gospel to his children.
A father leads in family prayer, to share
their love for Father in Heaven.
Verse 3.
A mother’s purpose is to care, prepare,
to nurture and to strengthen all her children.
She teaches children to obey, to pray,
to love and serve in the family.
These words continue to emphasize a division of labor within families that, while seemingly benign, can undermine our goals as families. Many mothers provide for their families, and I would hope fathers would see nurturing and strengthening their children as among their primary duties.
For those unfamiliar with the history of the creation of the family proclamation, it is worth looking up.
Agree with those who find that the song, actions, and book are racist.
The Family is of God has an appealing tune and beat. Even more so when my ward’s primary sang it than on the video the church produced for GC.
It is reminiscent of the cute camp song, Anne Marie, she loved Pierre.
I hadn’t noticed the lyrics, which I too, find concerning. I was dismayed a few years ago when a former bishop’s wife (but young, 40-45?) dragged out ETB’s admonition for mothers to not work outside the home. We have a working class ward, and mothers working is vital to meeting their day to day needs, let alone the possibility of owning a home and acquiring enough savings to ever be able to retire. The relative cost of housing has increased substantially since then.
It’s interesting to observe which teachings have legs, and which are quietly discarded.
I hope our church leaders return to the teachings of Jesus.
I’ve served as Primary Music Leader a number of times. There are Facebook groups for PMLs that are very active, and common controversies in those groups are: Book of Mormon Stories (music, lyrics, and actions), The Wise Man and the Foolish Man (actions), Families Can Be Together Forever (lyrics- not every kid has a loving family they want to be with forever), I am a Child of God (similar reasons), When I am Baptized (lyrics and doctrinal accuracy- does a child who just turned 8 need their sins “washed away”?), mother’s day and father’s day songs (because those are difficult days for lots of reasons), and The Family is of God (lyrics- sexist gender roles).
The city of Cleveland just changed the mascot for its pro baseball team – I’m just sayin’…
What ridiculous question. It is just a song. Stop thinking with current, liberal, everything is offensive mentality and just sing the song. I know in our watd we rarely sing the song because heaven for bid you would put your two fingers behind your head representing feathers. Enjoy your debate, I’m sure the Lord would want you to focus on other thing pertaining to the gospel than wasting time discussing such a ridiculous question. IMHO
I had a dream last night about this song where dark skinned members (adults and children) danced around while the white primary leader beat a drum-beat on the pulpit. Most of the dark skinned members were dressed up in beads and feathers, reminiscent of pow-wow regelia. The dark skinned members were not Indigenous in my dream, but just happened to be dark skinned.
As for my reaction, I was shocked and appalled that this song would be used. I went spoke to the primary teacher explaining my position on why this song is so distasteful. Even without hand jestures, the music is intended to mimic the beat of a sacred drum used in many North American Indigenous communities and their songs. I called it cultural appropriation, although recognized that my interpretation of the song might best be verified with local Indigenous persons to see how they feel about the song.
Is this song racist? I’m not sure the lyrics and music itself is racist perse, but I do think the connotation of the lyrics that (all) Indigenous persons are descendants of Laminites is problematic (and inconsistent with their own stories from their own elders).
The music is cultural appropriation, in my opinion. For which I made my case above.
All-in-all, I’m not sure if it’s racist but it’s certainly problematic and I would personally feel very uncomfortable if it was used in a primary class I was attending, especially given the problematic historical relationship between Christianity and Indigenous peoples.
But you know the most important thing I learned from this dream (which brought me to this site)? That information and opinions online about the church can be wildly inaccurate (or atleast very different than my own).