Hicks- "How to make (and unmake) a Mormon Hymnbook"

The following are my paraphrased notes of Michael Hicks's 2010 Church History Symposium presentation, "How to make (and unmake) a Mormon Hymnbook." I checked them against a recording to ensure clarity. I also typed out some of the examples from his provided handout. Hicks's book Mormonism and Music: A History is one of the most fun Mormon history books I've ever read. Much of the information from this presentation can be found in chapter eight,"Modern Hymnody and the Church Music Committee." Hicks's handout can be downloaded here. Notes from other presentations are available at Juvenile Instructor. Notes for John Welch's are here.

The hymn book holds odd place in the Mormon canon. In some ways it's a standard work, containing the authorized sacred words and music used in virtually all church meetings throughout the the world. Unlike scripture, it can change massively from one generation to the next. Even the means by which it changes can vary over time, from the one man or woman hymnbook compilers of the early church, to the bureaucratic committees of our day. The only constant is that the making of a new book is always also the unmaking of its forerunner. In the case of our current book, it was the unmaking not only of the 1950 edition, but of an aborted 1970s edition, whose history reveals some chronic tensions among aesthetic, populist, and pragmatic ideals in a growing church.

For most of the 19th century, ambitious individuals or ad hoc committees produced hymnbooks for the general church. The best known of these was the British text-only pocketbook that went through 25 editions from 1840 to 1912.

In 1889, Wilford Woodruff authorized a committee of well-trained British musicians to publish the Latter-day Saint Psalmody. The first complete book of 4-part musical settings to every text in that small British hymnal.

Other less high-minded hymnbooks, if I can say that, with printed music soon competed with the Psalmody for Church use. Especially Songs of Zion, and the Deseret Sunday School Songbook, 1908, 1909.

In 1920, the First Presidency created a General Music Committee, a group that within seven years had produced a more modern hymnal to replace the Psalmody, Latter-day Saint Hymns.

In 1948 Hymns: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became the official hymnbook, which was revised in 1950. This is the old blue book, they look the same, they are quite different inside. That 1950 edition was the first to do away with all other adult hymnbooks in the church. And for the first time in church history it had a preface written by the First Presidency as a kind of imprimatur.

In Oct. 1972 new president Harold B. Lee called O. Leslie Stone as asst. to 12. In December made him managing director of huge new "Church Music Department." The dept. had nine specialized areas, one led by Merrill Bradshaw was 4 member composition committee, to solicit new music for use by auxiliaries (as approved by the new correlation department of course).

In December 1973, First Presidency told Stone to make guidelines and preparations for new hymnal. Bradshaw had definite ideas, he wanted them to review about 10,000 hymns, new and old, choose 500 to appeal to an international church, and have a new edition published by fall 1975.

Committee members brought up problems he hadn't thought of. For example: the racks on backs of pews were sized for books of 400 or fewer hymns, so it had to be shorter than 500. The timetable was questionable. They would have to coordinate with Deseret Book to make sure the current stock of hymn books depleted first. What to call it? Bradshaw favored "Hymnal." But should it be Hymn book? Hymnbook? One or two words? What about "Songs of Praise"? A title other denominations had adopted to allow for a wider spectrum of music.

Bradshaw gave the committee an ambitious flowchart of how the new book would progress. [Hicks provided a handout of the complex flowchart.] Three divisions: Policy Decisions, Product Preparations, Content Preparation. It listed who would need to approve the hymnal among General Authorities, etc. As they proceeded, momentum gathered, but 8 days later Pres. Lee died. Stone wrote to get project re-approved by President Kimball.

Meanwhile Church Music Executive Committee chairman, Harold Goodman, said their mission was to delete all present and past hymns and put back in only those which can be "justified." To be justified meant meeting one or more of six criteria: 1- Musical quality, 2- Doctrinal value and poetry of the text. 3- Appropriateness 4- Usefulness for services. 5- Traditional popularity among the Saints. 6- Insistence of GA that a hymn must be included.

With these criteria in mind, the "Hymnbook Task Committee" began a four-fold process: 1-Review all current hymns. 2- Review all hymns from earlier LDS hymnbooks. 3- Review selections from Protestant hymnbooks. 4- Solicit new hymns in the Ensign, Church News, and even direct mailings to solicit new texts and tunes from poets and composers. As process unfolded, the committee decided not only what to include, but also whether and how to revise the chosen hymns. Most common revision: lower the keys to foster the standard practice in Protestantism, that everyone sings the melody in unison.

Whatever urgency the committee felt was tempered by the viscosity of working within the larger system.  In April 1974, advisers Mark E. Peterson and Boyd K. Packer approved the committees fundamental document: "Specifications and Guidelines for the Preparation of a New Hymnbook," only after 5 drafts in as many months. The committee was meeting 3-4 hours every two weeks.

Hymn reviews were both thorough and severe. For example, out of the first 130 songs in the 1909 Deseret Sunday School book they thought only 7 were worth including, and all seven needed revision. They discussed questions of overall content. Would the book be an all-international book? They decided they should choose a core of hymns to be included in all hymnbooks and let regional committees chose local ones to add. What about patriotic songs like "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "America the Beautiful"? First Presidency said that all  American patriotic songs should be out. Questions of format. The separation of choral and congregational hymns into sections was out. Each hymn headed by title, instead of first lines. Hymns would be grouped in sections by theme like the first LDS hymnbook. The book would include more elaborate set of indices and cross references

After a year of reviewing, they realized fall 1975 would not be a good deadline. They voted to meet once a month now instead of twice. They voted to delete much of the 1950 hymnbook contents, including old Christian favorites like "Nearer My God to Thee," "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," "Jesus Lover of My Soul" and "Behold a Royal Army." Also LDS hymns like "Who's on Lord's Side, Who?", "Reverently and Meekly Now," "I Saw a Mighty Angel Fly," and "Let Us Sing With One Accord."

Ex. 2 on handout is an excerpt from a 1975 draft of "Proposed Disposition of the Materials in the Present Hymnbook." It is a chart with a list of hymns, whether to keep or delete them, and a comments section with explanations. Some are simple, saying "beloved," or "good hymn." For deleted items, more detailed comments are sometimes listed. For "Jesus Lover of My Soul," for instance, it says "Bad doctrine to hide from life's ills; Lover has taken on bad connotations now."

In Oct. 1975 the Twelve asked for a list of hymns the committee planned to delete. Bradshaw agreed, but insisted their list come with detailed explanation of their decisions. They gave fourteen criteria for deleting hymns [Handout, Ex. 3]:

1. Their texts were "unsuitable"
2. The hymns had a "Protestant flavor" or "revivalist style"
3. They were "dated"
4. They were national anthems, state songs, etc.
5. They were too difficult or awkward to sing
6. They were militaristic
7. They were little used
8. They had "excessive sentimentality"
9. They were "musically inappropriate," "incompetent," or in a "frivolous style"
10. The music or text had "uncomfortable associations" (e.g. with love songs)
11. Another setting of the same tune was better (e.g., "O My Father")
12. The hymn was guilty of "preachiness" or "moralizing flavor"
13. A better hymn with the same message was available
14. Words and text were poorly matched

Many of these likely seemed fair, but others must have seemed harsh or elitist to some church leaders.  The committee's internal reports were even more harsh, including adjectives like gloomy, pompous, choppy, racist, chauvinistic, pantheistic. But some of their reports to the Twelve were still quite blunt. More than one hymn was called “musically embarrassing to the church.” They called Who's on Lords Side, Who: “amateurish, jingoist, and self-congratulatory, with music that sounds like a cheap London dance hall tune.” But he committee suggested that some hymns thought to have historical value could be published in separate book to "tell things about our past."

With so many hymns out the committee hoped to put 175 new hymns in without increasing the length of the book. By mid-1975 they'd gathered more than 3,000 potential new hymns and 2,000 more new texts that could be set to music. These included Protestant favorites, especially Thanksgiving and Christmas songs, international and overtly ethnic hymns like the so-called Omaha Tribal Prayer, and newly written LDS texts and tunes, especially sacrament hymns, and others on LDS themes like Priesthood, prophets, fast day, tithing, genealogy and so on.

For months they discussed things even as some General Authorities made occasional requests, including Thomas S. Monson asking for "How Great Thou Art." Another year passed, summer of 1976 still not a first draft completed. New questions kept coming: Who would help translate the hymn texts? Could core hymns have the same numbers in all international printings? Elder Packer requested, but they said it wouldn't work if the book was divided into theme sections, including local additions.). Copyrights? Royalties? Proofing, editing? Typeface, fonts, paper thickness (a problem with the 1948 hymnal, which broke the bindings). What about color of cover, a big discussions! If they were going to lower keys, how low and on which? Revise texts, which lines and how? Should hymns be sung in first person singular or plural? Topical sections titles? Field test new hymns? How? How would they introduce it to the General Authorities for review, and then to the Church at large?

Slow pace of the committee also resulted from knots in the administrative process. These led the committee to compose a list of six questions regarding "Authority and Protocol." [Ex. 4 on handout]:

The Hymnbook Task Committee's list of questions about authority and protocol, 12 September 1976:

1. What kind of direct communication should exist between this committee and Elder Stone, managing director of the Church Music Department? Does Elder Stone understand our rationale and all of our activities?

2. On a specialized project such as the hymnbook, should the 'expert,' who has been selected because of his expertise with hymns and music, be allowed to sit and communicate with those higher up in the administration?

3. Exactly what authority does this committee have in relation to decisions made on the new hymnbook? What responsibility?

4. What is the role of this committee in the new hymnbook project? Will the committee be able to defend their work and rationale to those in decision-making positions.

5. What is the role of this committee in relation to Correlation and the new hymnbook? Deseret Press and the new hymnbook? Editing Department and the new hymnbook?

6. Concerning our role with Correlation, how will they react to our suggested Protestant hymns being included in the new hymnbook?

Perhaps predictably, some GA's as well as the Correlation Committee wanted to overturn some of the decisions.  For instance, Ezra Taft Benson lobbied hard to get the patriotic songs back in. In Oct. 1976, the committee learned that 11 hymns they voted to delete were back in and 3 they voted to keep were deleted. They developed three designated ways to respond: 1. Acquiesce, let the rulings stand without argument. 2- Fuss, let the brethren know why they disagreed but eventually acquiesce if compromises could be made. 3- Fight, strongly disagree and be prepared to back up the disagreement with specific reasons and rationale. Acquiesce on 4, fuss on 4 and fight on 6.

As 1977 opened the committee met a new obstacle. In Feb. the First Presidency divided the Church General Melchezidek Priesthood Executive Committee into two smaller committees, one of which, the Priesthood Executive Committee, was headed by Gordon B. Hinckley. It had three subcommittees. One was headed by Dean L. Larsen to oversee church publications including music. Elder Hinckley directed Larsen to find out the current status of the hymnbook development. Michael Moody prepared a ten point memo "Why a New Hymnbook?" They included charts showing old hymns to discard, and ones to revise, as well as new hymns. The project was scrapped in April 1977 for an "entirely different direction."

The project lay fallow for a year and a half, then the 12 reauthorized and reactivated the task committee. They were to provide an answer to 31 questions from the 12. For example, Number of verses for each hymn? No more than four. Chord symbols with the hymns? No, encourages people to get by without adequate musical training. Color? Several would be best to allow wards and stakes to adapt to color schemes in buildings. Larger issues, such as what values should rule in hymn selection? The reply was emphatic: "Every compromise with excellence will return to haunt us a thousand times." Within weeks the committee returned with the same recommendations as before, received no written reply, and were all released.

For the next five years nothing happened with a new hymnbook. The Church publication committee focused on new LDS editions of scriptures. The new LDS edition of the Bible in 1979, triple combination in 1982. In 1983, scriptures now done, the First Presidency told Moody to revive the hymnbook project and complete something of a revision of the 1950 edition. He was not to work with the previous committee members, only the current advisers in Church Music Department. Nevertheless, he held to some of the values of the previous committee, as seen in the 1985 edition. Field-testing hymns became the dominant decider. Singability and popularity trumped artistic or academic standards. Many hymns the earlier committee cut came back. The patriotic songs, for instance. The international breadth fell far short of the earlier committee's ideals. They had even suggested including some international parts in different languages in the English edition to highlight the global Church, but this did not occur.

The new hymnbook came off the presses in 1985, the sesquicentennial of the first LDS hymnbook. This began a period of adjustment as many lamented losses, and found fresh gems. The Ensign had a cover article [see here]. Perhaps the most telling statement came from the committee's GA adviser, Hugh Pinnock, which bespoke its populism: "I told the committee that they had only one disability: they knew too much about music."

Behind the scenes, Moody wrote a letter of thanks and consolation to Merrill Bradshaw. Moody said he had never been told why the earlier version was scrapped, but that the timing of this version was right. "Too many factors fell into place." Bradshaw replied to praise Moody’s success and said "Knowing a little of the pressures, politics and emotions involved in getting such a project approved and published, I consider the final product to be little short of a miracle."

Pressures, politics and emotions; all are necessary but not sufficient to complete a new hymnbook. To dismantle a standard work, even a hymnbook, and construct new one in its place, requires the wrenching of a whole culture of worship. And to attempt that, is to confront fundamental questions of human experience: what to salvage and what to throw away. Those questions can cut especially deep where the demands of religion and the pleasures of music are concerned.

The chairman of the Church Music Committee in the 1930s, explaining the choices that shaped the 1948 hymnbook, wrote that to be criticized for their choices "goes without saying." "It is a long way, I fear, from the dignity of the great English hymns to the triviality of some of the music we sing. And it may be that our people will never as a whole find the same appeal in them that we musicians do."

So their task in unmaking an old hymnbook and making a new one was to "step forward without being altogether too drastic, because we cannot make transitions to a higher plane of expression very fast in a democratic body of people.” But even a slow transition to a higher plane of expression is a miracle worth its share of acquiescing, fussing, and even a little fighting.

Q: When did the Church move away from the text-only hymnals?

A: We had the text-only hymnals up until 1889, though there were some individually made hymnals that had them that way. But then we had the Psalmody, which was made for choirs, and that's where we began to really get the notion of singing the parts. The choir book became the congregational book, and the other books since then have been the same. Other churches had the same sort of situation with independent then codified books.

Q: Any sense of discouragement for singing in parts now? You said they lowered keys so we sing the melody, is that the intention?

A: That was the intention for doing that, some people thought it was to simplify the keys, but in some cases it actually made them more difficult. For example, "I Stand All Amazed" went from b flat to a flat, which is not easier for the accompanist. That was the intention. A brief anecdote from Robert Cundik[?] who has a lot of experience and influence in Church music, really made a push a few years ago to have the First Presidency or at least the Twelve say they'd like the hymns to be sung in unison. Now this is coming from an organist, of course, organists like to play around with the chords. But eventually a field test was done here in BYU stakes several years ago. He hoped they would say this is much better. Well, they love to sing in parts. This would be the worst group to try and have sing in unison, young students which includes music majors, they want to sing in parts. They have tunnel sings and so forth. The polling was very negative and gave the thumbs down to this. I don't think it will ever happen in an official way but that was the original concept.

Q: When they decided on hymns that were "not sung often," how did they work that out, it wasn't an international committee?

A: It seems to have been purely anecdotal. I had an experience with "If You Could Hie to Kolob," which the 1985 committee viewed as an artistic success because they got rid of the old setting for the current one. But the BYU student wards and stakes love it. But we sang it in my home stake a little while ago and the former bishop said "I've never heard that before." Wasn't exactly true, but he was saying how rare it was. So he would say "Oh, they never sing that," but the students would say "we sing it all the time." They said this all the time, by the way, about Come Thou Fount. Come Thou Fount will be back in the hymnbook, I bet you. You may not even be aware it's not in there, but that was really the one that I noticed first being absent in the 1985 hymnbook, I love it and it wasn't there. And one of the reasons was they said it was rarely sung. And I don't know whether that was true in their experience, and we didn't sing it too much but it will be back because of Mack Wilberg's arrangement, as you know. I predict it will be back, I probably won't have a say in it, but...

Q: When will a new hymnbook come, it's quite outdated.

A: haha, well there was this notion that we've got to have new hymnbooks to respond to the needs of the growing church and the advancing church over time. And that seems to be gone, that idea now is really...First of all, David Warner says as of a couple years ago, he's the head of the Church Music Department now, or Division I think it's called, he says "Oh, we have no plans at all, in that. We're just trying to still get the translations done of the 1985 hymnbook, that's not done for all the languages." And this process of creating full hymnbooks as opposed to the short ones that just have selected hymns in various languages, that's still going on so that's what they see as their task. The 1970s to 80s really signaled a change because they said we need to bring this up to date, new things, and create new things. There are a lot of great new hymns in the 1985 book, that were written sometimes for that book. That sort of creative mandate I don't see right now. But like I say they're still trying to deal with the dissemination of the one that we got 25 years ago. So no plans they say, but I get asked this semi-monthly, as if I'd know.