Just visually, first glance stuff, AW:
*I'd lose the stems, all of 'em. Why?
*Dotted 8ths, out of the gate, are going to tailspin even an accomplished sight reader. Three word proof: Be Not Afraid. Plus with the beam on the first three will cause "syncopation apoplexy anxiety." So, some amount of the KISS rule seems needed, and I think losing the stems and will free up I think the rhythmic precision with freedom I think you want. I could be totally wrong.
*Lose all the quarter bar markings that are inserted (by your program? Lilypond I don't know; Finale you'd have to apply them) between words that ought not to have any indication of hesitancy. I suspect their presence is due to the software?
*If caesuras or dots and open notes don't convey the precision you want, you could always use a Bruce Ford approach and group (8th) pulses in tight formation.

Let me get more awake, AW. Had some Dantian early morning dreams. For a geezer, that's problematic. I did sing through it, and your Shaker ethos is well-realized, tessitura looks fine. Let me get another hour into the day. I'm on PST. (Time Zone, not Californian recreational drug.)

or how to interpret this notation.

I think that's my fault, not the Shakers (who had a whole other notation system).

Read it literally, with a bit of rubato. The problem here is actually that I was trying too hard to dictate the rhythm in standard notation. I'm going to redo it with stemless note heads and more freedom.

As for the style: primarily declamatory.
I will try to do a recording sometime.

I think the accent on "-pass" of "trespass" was not intentional. (Or, at least, sloppy.)

imeffsee:
I agree with you.
Actually- the more I sing it, the less I like the specific rhythmic decisions I made, and prefer that it was written as you describe.

FWIW- when I first started working on this Mass setting, I set the Sanctus using Gregorian Chant notation, for the sole reason that I thought it conveyed the rhythmic freedom I was looking for (there were other benefits- like relative keys and the liquescent). I was convinced to do otherwise. I wonder if that was a good idea or not.

cf:
http://shakermass.musicforsunday.com/sanctus

Write the dotted stuff at the beginning as dotted eighth, sixteenth, eighth, eighth, with a tie. Much clearer.

As composed, this semi-triplet figure has a particular feel to it, and I think the way I wrote it is a better way to express it.
That being said- it shouldn't have been composed that way, so the notation here is a moot point.

Are the triples at "-gainst" and "from" meant to be triplets (three in the time of two) or more pulses at the same speed?

Yes.

Okay, actually- my original intention was triplets, but again- upon reflection I think this is wrong.

The whole thing needs to be re-done to a more-or-less equalist rhythmic setting.

¿3:3:2? ¡No sabía que conoces el ritmo latino, Adam!

Sure.

I tried recording this myself yesterday, both as originally intended and then how I'm hearing it now. My conclusion after listening to the recording is that I should never sing in public again and that my whole life is a sham.

I will be blunt: for something like the Our Father, if you need to be this precise in notation, your idea is not yet fully ripened. The Our Father should be have the sensibility of the intuitive to it. After you get comments, put it away for a while and come back to it with a fresh critical eye.

On a more particular note, the breath/phrase markings might confound anyone who reads music and chant in particular but who is not familiar with the exigencies of notation software.

Adam

Indeed.

This may seem novel, but I would lengthen "us" rather than "and" in "And lead us not into temptation", and have that phrase move directly to the next "us". That illuminates the whole petition in a way that is lost when we recite it formulaically.

I am part of the minority who scans "Thy will be done on earth / as it is in heaven" (I understand the rationale against that approach, but I believe the intention of the petition is better grasped in the minority approach).

I would also consider putting more emphasis on THY Name, THY will.

The previous, metrical version, seemed to have slow steady swell in 2/2, which I think would keep a group together better. This way written, I don't see the swell, and am no longer sure you mean it to be there. So currently I like the first version more.

I would surmise that what Adam "hears" as a contextual ideal inspired by many Shaker attributes, and which Andrew also perceives is something that still escapes me, and I think we're all okay with that.
Rather than nitpik it online (there's still some slurs missing, small stuff, etc.) could you put the Finale file on your next post? I'm not ready for a GitHub experience.

Well still you have four ways to say "pause slightly here", namely dot, tied pair, episema, and hollow note. So it seems that there's still some strictness, even if no steady beat?

So it seems that there's still some strictness, even if no steady beat?

Yes.

The effect I'm trying to notate is something of an occasional beat- going in and out of strict 1-and-2-and.

I thought a lot about whether it was just pretentious to use dotted notes and tied notes and hollow notes and an episma... but each one feels very different, and I figure Gregorian chant finds a need for all of them, so they must not be completely redundant...

Liam: (I understand the rationale...

I didn't even know there was a rationale for "Thy will be done (on earth as it is in heaven)."

Adam,
Were you going to put OF in Finale attachment still?
Love,
Old F*rt.