"Praise To The Man"

[cdowis]

I suspect that Rob finds many things with which he find offensive with the Mormons. Having responded to his other criticisms, he now finds it necessary to explore the depths of pettiness.

I praise the man who was called by Jehovah to restore the gospel, anointed and set apart by those having authority from Christ Himself to restore the priesthood and ordinances necessary for exaltation. I give praise to the man who restored ancient records, gave us modern revelation directly from Jehovah and gave us a better understanding of the Biblical record.

Restored temple ordinances so that my ancestors can enjoy the same gospel blessings that I enjoy.

Restored a knowledge of the Plan of Happiness, gave a modern witness that Jehovah appeared to him personally along with other witnesses.

The dogs will howl and bark, but the caravan moves forward.

Can I believe on Christ but reject Paul? can one accept Christ but reject those whom He has called as His messengers?

Edited July 18, 2011 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

I suspect that Rob finds many things with which he find offensive with the Mormons. Having responded to his other criticisms, he now finds it necessary to explore the depths of pettiness.

That is a rather slanted way of characterizing matters.

You wrote:

The dogs will howl and bark, but the caravan moves forward.

Would I be justified in taking offense at this statement?

You wrote:

Can I believe on Christ but reject Paul? can one accept Christ but reject those whom He has called as His messengers?

You answer this first. Can I accept Christ but reject Joseph Smith? Is it your position that I, as an evangelical Christian, do not really accept Christ because I do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

I can tell you this. Evangelicals would never accept the idea of a hymn praising Paul. Nor would we ever say something like "The apostle Paul has done more for the salvation of mankind than any other man who has ever lived on the earth, save Jesus Christ himself." We just don't do this. The idea of assigning Paul a number two slot in our religion, even as a distant number two, is anathema.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

Again, I submit — though he refuses to admit it — that it is really our doctrine of deification that is at the heart of Rob Bowman's indigestion over our singing "Praise to the Man." This should hardly be surprising, as he is an Evangelical.

You're free to hold whatever opinion about my thinking you like, but I am also free to think that I know better than you what is in my own mind.

You wrote:

Moreover, if Rob understands our doctrine, it should not be surprising to him, though he may not like it, that we as Latter-day Saints have no problem with affording honorific language to the Prophet, whom we believe fulfilled in every respect what Jehovah called him to do. Joseph does indeed mingle with gods and he will indeed be a joint-heir with Christ of all the Father has.

As has been noted, some Mormons actually do have a problem with the lyrics of that hymn. But when an evangelical questions it, you close ranks. I am suggesting that those Mormons who feel uneasy about the hymn do so because they retain some consciousness or awareness of the biblical roots of the hymn's language about Joseph.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're free to hold whatever opinion about my thinking you like, but I am also free to think that I know better than you what is in my own mind.

Do you or do you not deny the Mormon doctrine of deification?

As has been noted, some Mormons actually do have a problem with the lyrics of that hymn.

It's my impression that they are very much in the minority. And they are as much in error as outsiders who criticize it.

The fact of the matter is that the hymn is an accepted and official part of the liturgy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and railing against it will not change that fact.

But when an evangelical questions it, you close ranks.

Probably because you are trying to force a conservative-Protestant, sectarian paradigm on LDS theology. It won't work because you are starting from a faulty premise.

I am suggesting that those Mormons who feel uneasy about the hymn do so because they retain some consciousness or awareness of the biblical roots of the hymn's language about Joseph.

And I submit that they do so, perhaps, because they lack understanding. They neglect or ignore the fact that the hymn's text is written in the context of Joseph Smith receiving his divine commission from Jesus Christ, an integral part of our doctrine and that Christ underpins all we teach and believe in Mormonism.

Did you read my editorial?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[urroner]

You answer this first. Can I accept Christ but reject Joseph Smith? Is it your position that I, as an evangelical Christian, do not really accept Christ because I do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

I can tell you this. Evangelicals would never accept the idea of a hymn praising Paul. Nor would we ever say something like "The apostle Paul has done more for the salvation of mankind than any other man who has ever lived on the earth, save Jesus Christ himself." We just don't do this. The idea of assigning Paul a number two slot in our religion, even as a distant number two, is anathema.

Riddle me this Rob, can I accept Christ and accept Joseph Smith as his prophet? Is it your position that I, as an LDS Christian, do not really accept Christ because I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

[zerinus]

As has been noted, some Mormons actually do have a problem with the lyrics of that hymn. But when an evangelical questions it, you close ranks. I am suggesting that those Mormons who feel uneasy about the hymn do so because they retain some consciousness or awareness of the biblical roots of the hymn's language about Joseph.

I have been an active Mormon most of my life, and I have never had any problems with the lyrics of that hymn, and I have never known any other Mormon who has had any problems with it. It is in fact a very popular hymn, and often sung in sacrament meetings. If it was something that even a small number of people felt uneasy about, do you think it would become so popular, and sung so often? In your desperation you are inventing things about Mormonism out of think air.

[zerinus]

Rob, I think you have read where some LDS are uncomfortable with this specific hymn. You have also read where many others are quite comfortable with it. You have also read that the Psalms uses some very similar language as in this hymn to praise other men. Is it therefore a unique way of praise? Obviously not. Nor can it be said that it is "wrong". I think the best you can say is that you fall among the other LDS that are uncomfortable with the hymn. Thankfully, you don't have to sing it. I also am thankful that there are a vast array of other hymns that are sung every Sunday.

You are beating a dead horse I am afraid. Your points have already been answered by me and others.

[Senator]

It is in fact a very popular hymn, and often sung in sacrament meetings. If it was something that even a small number of people felt uneasy about, do you think it would become so popular, and sung so often?

Now back up the Hummer here.

Earlier Deborah ensured us that the song is rarely ever sung. Now you're telling us it is sung often do to popularity.

Which is it?

[zerinus]

Now back up the Hummer here.

Earlier Deborah ensured us that the song is rarely ever sung. Now you're telling us it is sung often do to popularity.

Which is it?

That is true of my ward, and my previous wards as far as I can recall. Maybe Deborah's experience has been different, I wouldn't know.

[urroner]

As a former ward music chairman, Sacrament Meeting is held 48 times a year. Not including the sacramental hymn and music done by a choir or another musical number by a person/group and remembering that on Fast Sunday, there is only two hymns (not including sacramental hymn remember), my ward averaged about 118 hymns/year in Sacrament Meeting.

Even a really popular hymn will only be sung about five times a year. So would singing "Praise to the Man" three times a year be considered "often?" How about twice?

"Come, Come Ye Saints," is only sung about four or five times a year in Sacrament Meeting.

In Sacrament Meeting, over a year's time (48 meetings), including the sacramental hymn and musical numbers, about 180 hymns are sung each year. That typically means that a hymn is sung every 15 minutes or so, unless you were sitting next to somebody who sang like an ex-bishop of mine, then the hymn was just endured.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

If, as Schroeder says, Psalm 45 is unique in the Psalter, perhaps one should consider the possibility that the Messianic interpretation faithfully reflects the meaning of the Psalm in its larger context in the Psalter.

Again, the fact that Christians can effectively apply Psalm 45 to Jesus Christ does not change the fact that Psalm 45 is a song of praise written for a mortal Israelite king. This fact is universally recognized. Note the highly conservative evangelical commentary provided by Peter Craigie:

“There can be little doubt that this poetic composition originated in the wedding celebration for a particular king, composed for the occasion; subsequently, it would have been used frequently at royal weddings.” Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 338.

This fact illustrates that you really need to revise your claim that “there is no precedent in the Bible for a hymn of praise to any man other than the man who was God incarnate.” You’re simply mistaken.

The Hebrew superscription has the same form as many other superscriptions, such as Psalm 73, "a Psalm of Asaph," which is why most modern translations render it "of Solomon" in Psalm 72. In any case, Psalm 72 clearly functions messianically in the context of the biblical canon, which is the context of my statement. I am not bothered by exegesis that ignores the canonical contexts of the biblical texts under discussion. If you will go back and read my original post, you'll see that I cited Psalm 72 specifically; this citation doesn't in any way conflict with my original argument.

Rob, your effort to deny the fact that Psalm 72 is a royal enthronement psalm written as praise to a mortal human king rejects "universal" knowledge. Note the commentary provided by biblical scholar Marvin E. Tate in the highly conservative evangelical commentary:

“Ps 72 is universally considered to by a royal psalm… More specifically, Ps 72 is probably also an accession or coronation psalm, a prayer for the king at the beginning of his reign. It may have formed part of the coronation ceremony as well as less spectacular occasions when praying for the king’s welfare was required.” Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 222.

These two royal psalms illustrate that contrary to your claim, biblical precedence does exist for praising a human being with the language featured in the LDS hymn “Praise to the Man.” The fact that Christians can apply these enthronement psalms to Jesus the king does not alter their original Sitz in Leben as "praise to the man."

So, Joseph Smith is a messianic figure? or a king of Israel? or what?

Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith inherited the promise given the faithful in Revelation 5:10: “And [Christ] hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

Hence, from a biblical perspective, it is only appropriate to offer such a figure the praise presented in the enthronement psalms such as Psalm 45 and 72.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

Again, I submit — though he refuses to admit it — that it is really our doctrine of deification that is at the heart of Rob Bowman's indigestion over our singing "Praise to the Man." This should hardly be surprising, as he is an Evangelical.

Moreover, if Rob understands our doctrine, it should not be surprising to him, though he may not like it, that we as Latter-day Saints have no problem with affording honorific language to the Prophet, whom we believe fulfilled in every respect what Jehovah called him to do. Joseph does indeed mingle with gods and he will indeed be a joint-heir with Christ of all the Father has.

I believe my friend Scott has in reality hit upon a very important observation.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

Do you or do you not deny the Mormon doctrine of deification?

I knew you would make this move. Yes, of course I do. But please explain its relevance in this context. First, are you claiming that Joseph Smith has been deified and is now a god? If so, please provide a reference showing the basis for this belief in official LDS doctrine. Second, I have had Mormons tell me dozens of times that their belief in deification does not mean that they worship anyone other than Heavenly Father (or the Father and the Son). If that is your position as well, then of what relevance would Joseph's deification be to his receiving honors similar to those that Heavenly Father receives?

You wrote:

Probably because you are trying to force a conservative-Protestant, sectarian paradigm on LDS theology. It won't work because you are starting from a faulty premise.

Of course, I am doing no such thing. If anything, I am highlighting evidence of the deep differences between my evangelical Protestant "paradigm" and LDS sectarian theology.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

Again, the fact that Christians can effectively apply Psalm 45 to Jesus Christ does not change the fact that Psalm 45 is a song of praise written for a mortal Israelite king. This fact is universally recognized. Note the highly conservative evangelical commentary provided by Peter Craigie:

“There can be little doubt that this poetic composition originated in the wedding celebration for a particular king, composed for the occasion; subsequently, it would have been used frequently at royal weddings.” Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 338.

This fact illustrates that you really need to revise your claim that “there is no precedent in the Bible for a hymn of praise to any man other than the man who was God incarnate.” You’re simply mistaken.

I don't think so. In my opening post, I offered the following qualification to my statement: "The Psalms do prophecy that God will exalt David or the descendant of David, who represents the Messiah, Jesus (e.g., Ps. 72:11; 89:24)." This qualification covers the evidence you present from both Psalm 45 and 72.

You wrote:

Rob, your effort to deny the fact that Psalm 72 is a royal enthronement psalm written as praise to a mortal human king rejects "universal" knowledge.

I did not make any such denial. You don't seem to be engaging my argument.

You wrote:

These two royal psalms illustrate that contrary to your claim, biblical precedence does exist for praising a human being with the language featured in the LDS hymn “Praise to the Man.” The fact that Christians can apply these enthronement psalms to Jesus the king does not alter their original Sitz in Leben as "praise to the man."

As I have explained, my original position included this information, so you have not presented anything not already part of the position taken in my opening post.

Can you cite for me any evidence in the Bible of anyone other than the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or someone who according to the NT typifies or foreshadows the Son, being the object of a hymn of praise? I don't think so.

You wrote:

Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith inherited the promise given the faithful in Revelation 5:10: “And [Christ] hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

Hence, from a biblical perspective, it is only appropriate to offer such a figure the praise presented in the enthronement psalms such as Psalm 45 and 72.

Really? Is Joseph Smith ruling on the earth now?

[HeatherAnn]

HeatherAnn,

Given your take on the idea that only hymns focused soley upon God and Christ should be sung during sacrament meeting, i'd love to hear your thoughts about the star spangled banner, america the beautiful, Love at Home, ring out wild bells, etc., being in the hymn book and being sung during sacrament meeting.

Are those, in your opinion, inappropriate as well?

Actually, I know non-American members who, understandably, find it annoying to have American patriotic songs in their LDS hymnbooks.

I love patriotic songs & I love America... but I don't think Sacrament meeting - a time of worship - is an appropriate time for praising our country.

Edited July 19, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[David Bokovoy]

As I have explained, my original position included this information, so you have not presented anything not already part of the position taken in my opening post.

Perhaps that’s true, Rob, but I have clearly illustrated the problematic nature of your criticisms. Note your argument:

There is no precedent in the Bible for a hymn of praise to any man other than the man who was God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

Yet I have shown that this statement is, to quote Marvin E. Tate’s term, “universally” recognized as incorrect. Contrary to your assertion, I have shown that the Bible does very much present hymns of praise to men other than God via the royal enthronement psalms. Now consider your other argument. In the context of your criticisms of the LDS hymn from a “biblical” perspective, you wrote:

This hymn does not simply praise Joseph Smith, though that is itself surprising. It praises Smith in language that the Bible typically and in most cases exclusively reserves for God and Christ.

And on this point, Rob, I have shown that those psalms which are “universally” recognized as hymns of praise written to mortal men actually use language that the Bible typically and in most cases exclusively reserves for God and Christ.

So while you’re free to express your opinion that the LDS hymn places inappropriate emphasis upon Joseph Smith, or that from your perspective, the song detracts from the reverence that should be given to Christ, by claiming that no biblical precedent exists for a hymn of praise written to any man other than God, and that “Praise to the Man” is not “biblically” sound on the grounds that the hymn praises a human being with literary motifs typically associated with deity, your criticisms are as demonstrated “universally” recognized as incorrect.

Can you cite for me any evidence in the Bible of anyone other than the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, or someone who according to the NT typifies or foreshadows the Son, being the object of a hymn of praise? I don't think so.

You do recognize that with this statement, Rob, you’ve just acknowledged that your claim that “there is no precedent in the Bible for a hymn of praise to any man other than God” is totally incorrect?!! You’ve just acknowledged that the Bible offers hymns of praise to human beings that can typify Christ.

Either the Bible does present praise to human beings or it does not. You simply can’t have it both ways. If, from you perspective, the Bible offers hymns of praise to men who typify Christ, then clearly the Bible presents hymns of praise to men!! And your criticism of “Praise to the Man” as being biblically problematic on the grounds that “there is no precedent in the Bible for a hymn of praise to any man other than God” is incorrect according to your own logic.

Really? Is Joseph Smith ruling on the earth now?

In response to your question of whether Joseph Smith is a “messiah,” i.e. an “anointed’ king or priest, I shared that Latter-day Saints believe that the Prophet inherited the promise given the faithful in Revelation 5:10.

Does one have to currently rule on earth in order to be an heir to this eschatological promise?

[bluebell]

Actually, I know non-American members who, understandably, find it annoying to have American patriotic songs in their LDS hymnbooks.

I love patriotic songs & I love America... but I don't think Sacrament meeting - a time of worship - is an appropriate time for praising our country.

What about the other songs i spoke of? Should songs only specifically about Christ be in our hymnbooks? Does that fit in with what God said hymns, or songs, are?

If "songs of the righteous" are, as God has declared, prayers unto Him, is it only acceptable to 'pray' about Christ or can we 'pray' about many different things through song? Do we only worship Christ when we sing about Him, or can we worship Christ by singing about blessings He has provided?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been an active Mormon most of my life, and I have never had any problems with the lyrics of that hymn, and I have never known any other Mormon who has had any problems with it. It is in fact a very popular hymn, and often sung in sacrament meetings. If it was something that even a small number of people felt uneasy about, do you think it would become so popular, and sung so often? In your desperation you are inventing things about Mormonism out of think air.

I agree

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Actually, I know non-American members who, understandably, find it annoying to have American patriotic songs in their LDS hymnbooks.

I love patriotic songs & I love America... but I don't think Sacrament meeting - a time of worship - is an appropriate time for praising our country.

But it was here and our Gov't (Freedom of religion) that allowed this gospel to be established. But certainly the Forth of July it is warranted her in America. I would give my life for the country and church.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

Let's cut through the verbiage. Is Joseph Smith a type (typological figure) of Jesus Christ? If yes, please support that claim. If no, I would simply reiterate that the Psalms function canonically to point beyond the men in the immediate context to the Man who would redeem the world, Jesus Christ, and therefore provide no precedent for such hymns of praise to Joseph Smith (even if he had been a true prophet of God).

In Acts 2, Peter quotes Psalm 16:8-11 and makes the point that even though the psalm was by and in its original context about David, what it said did not apply literally to David: his body did in fact undergo decay and suffered corruption. The psalm, then, pointed beyond David to the Greater David, the ultimate King of Kings, whose body would die but not suffer corruption or decay. I view this interpretation of Psalm 16 by Peter, in the very first Christian sermon, as a model or paradigm for understanding the Psalms.

Psalms 45 and 72, though in their immediate context about the ancient Jewish king in Jerusalem, included statements that did not literally apply to those mere men but pointed forward to the coming of the Son of David, the Messiah, who truly would be deserving of the honorific language used in those psalms. No mortal Davidic king was God or ruled forever and ever (Ps. 45:6). Neither Solomon nor any of his merely human descendants received worship and service from all kings and nations (Ps. 72:11). These statements simply don't apply to the ancient Jerusalem monarchs. They point beyond those men to the Messiah.

[Senator]

in Sacrament Meeting.

Even a really popular hymn will only be sung about five times a year. So would singing "Praise to the Man" three times a year be considered "often?" How about twice?

Oh, I could only wish that Sacrament meeting was the only time this hymn was sung.

In my 40+ years of church life, I would give a safe estimate of every third sunday that this hymn is sung in priesthood opening exercises. Ughhh! Enough is enough!

Yes, this song has been thoroughly abused.

[Calm]

That is true of my ward, and my previous wards as far as I can recall. Maybe Deborah's experience has been different, I wouldn't know.

Give a number to "often", please.

I would say the hymn has been sung in the wards I've lived in just a couple of times a year, at most.

[kolipoki09]

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. 1:20).

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people” (Rom. 15:11).

Try again Rob.

But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others.

Woe to you Pharisees! For you love to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces.

Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it.”

One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too.”

And he said, “Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed.

So you are witnesses and approve of the deeds of your ancestors; for they killed them, and you build their tombs.

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’

so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world.

from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. (Luke 11:42-51 NRSV)

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Rev. 6:9-11)

See also Genesis 4:10, 2 Nephi 26:3, Alma 1:13, and D&C 88:6

You fail to recognize the wording of the song's context, which originally read differently, and was strongly tied to the Law of Retribution which Latter-day Saint temple-goers covenanted to obey until it was removed from the endowment Feb. 15, 1927.

Edited July 19, 2011 by kolipoki09

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

You wrote:

I knew you would make this move. Yes, of course I do. But please explain its relevance in this context.

Much of what you object to in the text of "Praise to the Man" pertains to the glory and exaltation that Joseph will inherit, as will all the saints who remain true and faithful and allow the Atonement to be efficacious in their lives. In Joseph's case, he had a particularly weighty calling to fulfill. He did so with greatness, so we give him honor, admiration and (in my case, at least) love.

First, are you claiming that Joseph Smith has been deified and is now a god? If so, please provide a reference showing the basis for this belief in official LDS doctrine.

That has never been my claim. I don't believe Joseph has been resurrected yet, much less exalted, though he eventually will be. If you require Mormon scriptural authority for the assertion that he eventually will be, I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants 135:6, "[Joseph and Hyrum Smith] lived for glory; they died for glory; and glory is their eternal reward."

Second, I have had Mormons tell me dozens of times that their belief in deification does not mean that they worship anyone other than Heavenly Father (or the Father and the Son). If that is your position as well, then of what relevance would Joseph's deification be to his receiving honors similar to those that Heavenly Father receives?

See above. I hold with the apostle Paul, who said, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17). As I said, this applies to all who are true and faithful, and it applies to Joseph Smith in particular.

You wrote:

Of course, I am doing no such thing. If anything, I am highlighting evidence of the deep differences between my evangelical Protestant "paradigm" and LDS sectarian theology.

Perhaps I could put it another way: You are endeavoring to hold us accountable for a sectarian paradigm that we do not embrace, nor do we claim to.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I could only wish that Sacrament meeting was the only time this hymn was sung.

In my 40+ years of church life, I would give a safe estimate of every third sunday that this hymn is sung in priesthood opening exercises. Ughhh! Enough is enough!

Yes, this song has been thoroughly abused.

Senator appears to have a burr under his saddle.

In some priesthood meetings I have attended in the past, it has been difficult to find somebody who can play the piano well enough to accompany the congregational singing. So they tend to sing the same hymns over and over because those are the only ones the poor guy who has been roped into doing the accompanying knows how to play.

Perhaps that is the case in Senator's ward.