"Praise To The Man"

[Calm]

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.

I shall have to ask my husband what happens in this ward for PH meetings. We have some very talented male pianists in the ward of all ages.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

Let's cut through the verbiage. Is Joseph Smith a type (typological figure) of Jesus Christ? If yes, please support that claim.

If Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, then he very much is by extension a type for Jesus Christ. From a biblical perspective, prophets were Messiahs, meaning “anointed ones,” or “christs” (see, for example, 1 Samuel 16:13). As the Messiah (or the Christ), Jesus is very much THE prophet of God. Note the ancient meaning of “Messiah/Christ” as demonstrated via the New Testament:

“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him. And others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” (Luke 22:64).

“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen among us” (Luke 7:16)

“But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet” (Matthew 21:46).

“Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33).

“But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4).

This specific nuance, by the way, appears perfectly captured in the Book of Mormon:

“Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews- even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world” (1 Nephi 10:4).

Hence, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, the Messiah is THE prophet of God of whom all other prophets, including Joseph Smith, serve as types. Therefore, if your argument is that only those who serve as types of Jesus Christ can appropriately be sung songs of praise, then from a Latter-day Saint perspective, Joseph Smith perfectly fits your "biblical" qualification.

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).

I’m afraid that this makes no sense to me at all, Rob. If the enthronement psalms offer songs of praise to men who typify Christ with language that biblical texts typically reserve for God (and you acknowledge they do), then if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and a king in Israel then of course, according to your own logic, there would exist biblical support for singing a song of praise to Joseph Smith.

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.

Ok.

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.

Ok.

Now here’s where I believe your logic breaks apart:

Psalms 45 and 72, though in their immediate context about the ancient Jewish king in Jerusalem…These statements simply don't apply to the ancient Jerusalem monarchs. They point beyond those men to the Messiah.

I invite you to reread your statement, Rob. Please explain how these biblical songs of praise, which according to your own view, “in their immediate context [were written] about the ancient Jewish king(s) in Jerusalem,” yet simultaneously “don’t apply to the ancient Jerusalem monarchs” about whom they were written?!!!

I’m afraid you’re running in circles here, Bro.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

[Senator]

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

You and I are not alike in this respect, Bro.

But I still love ya...!

[LeSellers]

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

It would keep a few more of us High Priests awake, if nothing else.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

Nor would I. It is one of my favorites.

Apart from the text, with which I fully concur, the melody, a variation of "Scotland the Brave," gets my heart pumping.

[KevinG]

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

One complete singing of Hie To Kolob with all of the verses could get you to eternity without repeating a thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

One complete singing of Hie To Kolob with all of the verses could get you to eternity without repeating a thing.

As a matter of fact, we sang that in sacrament meeting a few weeks ago. I was leading the singing, and we had a bit of time at the end of the meeting, so I exercised my prerogative and led the congregation through all the verses. It was fairly effective, I think. I saw some moist eyes in the congregation.

[zerinus]

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.

I have not counted them to be honest, neither can I vouch for your personal experience; but my experience is that there are around 30 hymns in the hymn book that are most popular and are sung most often, and the rest of the hymns are hardly ever looked at. “Praise to the Man” is definitely among those top 30 hymns, along with other popular hymns such as, “We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet,” “Come, Come Ye Saints,” “Abide with Me,” “As I have Loved You,” “Choose the Right,” “Behold the Great Redeemer Die,” “Families Can be Together Forever,” “High on the Mountain Top,” “Sweet Hour of Prayer,” “The Spirit of God,” “I Need Thee Every Hour,” “While of these Emblems we Partake,” “God Loved Us, So He Sent His Son,” “Called to Serve,” “Onward Christian Soldiers”. The Wikipedia article on LDS hymns lists its popularity on the same level as “Come, Come Ye Saints,” which is without doubt a very popular hymn:

In particular two of the most popular and iconic Mormon hymns, “Come, Come Ye Saints” and “Praise to the Man,” are set to quite different tunes than the originals.

Source

.

But even going by your personal experience, given that there are around 340 hymns in the hymn book, and only about a quarter of them could be sung in any given year if none were repeated, if a hymn is sung twice a year that would still make it a popular hymn. You can look at it still another way: pick any of the popular hymns such as the ones listed above, and tell me how often it is sung in your church in a typical year. If it is about the same as “Praise to the Man,” that would still make it a popular hymn.

Edited July 19, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

But even going by your personal experience, given that there are around 340 hymns in the hymn book, and only about a quarter of them could be sung in any given year if none were repeated, if a hymn is sung twice a year that would still make it a popular hymn. You can look at it another way: pick any of the popular hymns such as the ones listed above, and tell me how often it is sung in your church in a typical year. If it is about the same as “Praise to the Man,” that would still make it a popular hymn.

I have no problem with saying its a popular hymn. Most members I know love it. I was simply asking for a number to reconcile the supposed differences between yours and Deborah's posts as asked for by Senator ( ). At this point it seems that you both agree about the approximate amount that it is sung in Sacrament Meetings during the year, one of you just perceives that as "often" because you are comparing it to the frequency that other hymns are sung and the other as "not often" because her context is time frequency.

Edited July 19, 2011 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I have not counted them to be honest, neither can I vouch for your personal experience; but my experience is that there are around 30 hymns in the hymn book that are most popular and are sung most often, and the rest of the hymns are hardly ever looked at. “Praise to the Man” is definitely among those top 30 hymns, along with other popular hymns such as, “We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet,” “Come, Come Ye Saints,” “Abide with Me,” “As I have Loved You,” “Choose the Right,” “Behold the Great Redeemer Die,” “Families Can be Together Forever,” “High on the Mountain Top,” “Sweet Hour of Prayer,” “The Spirit of God,” “I Need Thee Every Hour,” “While of these Emblems we Partake,” “God Loved Us, So He Sent His Son,” “Called to Serve,” “Onward Christian Soldiers”. The Wikipedia article on LDS hymns lists its popularity on the same level as “Come, Come Ye Saints,” which is without doubt a very popular hymn:

In particular two of the most popular and iconic Mormon hymns, “Come, Come Ye Saints” and “Praise to the Man,” are set to quite different tunes than the originals.

Source

.

But even going by your personal experience, given that there are around 340 hymns in the hymn book, and only about a quarter of them could be sung in any given year if none were repeated, if a hymn is sung twice a year that would still make it a popular hymn. You can look at it still another way: pick any of the popular hymns such as the ones listed above, and tell me how often it is sung in your church in a typical year. If it is about the same as “Praise to the Man,” that would still make it a popular hymn.

If I were to guess offhand which are the most oft-sung hymns in Church, I would have to say the "sacrament hymns," or those typically sung before the sacrament is blessed and passed: "O God, the Eternal Father," "God Loved Us So He Sent His Son," "There Is a Green Hill Far Away," "'Tis Sweet to Sing the Matchless Love," "In Remembrance of Thy Suffering," "While of the Emblems We Partake," etc. I base this on the fact that these hymns serve a specific purpose that recurs every week, that being to prepare the congregation to receive the sacrament.

This being the case, it would tend to counter the charges of the critics who say we neglect Christ in our worship services, as these hymns pertain directly to Christ.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[urroner]

As a matter of fact, we sang that in sacrament meeting a few weeks ago. I was leading the singing, and we had a bit of time at the end of the meeting, so I exercised my prerogative and led the congregation through all the verses. It was fairly effective, I think. I saw some moist eyes in the congregation.

If I had moist eyes at the end of the Kolob song, it wouldn't be because I was moved with great joy in any way. In the middle of the "there is no end" part of the song, my oldest son, when he was like eight, blurted out, "There is no end to this song." The chorister even busted out laughing and we were sitting in the back. That boy must have got his sense of humor from his mum.

[Deborah]

This is so funny but we happened to sing this hymn a couple of Sundays ago and my 5 year old grandson was singing it the rest of the day, at least what he remembers. I think the kids like the tune.

[KevinG]

Hie to Kolob is based on a Vaughan Williams arrangement of an English folk tune. Acapella in 4 parts it is AWESOME!

[volgadon]

Nor would I. It is one of my favorites.

Apart from the text, with which I fully concur, the melody, a variation of "Scotland the Brave," gets my heart pumping.

Actually, Scotland the Brave was written after the melody was in existence.

[volgadon]

Hie to Kolob is based on a Vaughan Williams arrangement of an English folk tune. Acapella in 4 parts it is AWESOME!

Which is also used for Dives and Lazarus.

[volgadon]

Personally, I would have no problem if my Ward sang "Praise to the Man" every single Sunday from here to eternity.

In one of the cities on my mission we sang "Ye Elders of Israel" in Elder's Quorom every Sunday for 3 months. I remember how the quorom president one Sunday said 'why don't we sing something we haven't sung in a while.' My jubilation was shortlived as he selected "Ye Elders"...

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

If Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, then he very much is by extension a type for Jesus Christ. From a biblical perspective, prophets were Messiahs, meaning “anointed ones,” or “christs” (see, for example, 1 Samuel 16:13). As the Messiah (or the Christ), Jesus is very much THE prophet of God.

From the fact that Jesus was the Prophet par excellence, it does not follow that all prophets of God are types of Christ. A type is a prefigurement, an anticipatory example that foreshadows the Real Deal. Prophets who came before Jesus might have been types of the Messiah, but it doesn't make sense to claim that prophets who came after Jesus were also types of the Messiah. Joseph Smith was two millennia too late for that.

I know of no biblical precedent for the singing of hymns of praise to prophets, before or after the coming of Christ. Your only examples are two passages in the Psalms that speak of honors for the Davidic king. These don't support the practice of singing hymns of praise to a prophet, such as you believe Joseph Smith to be. To make this work you must add that Joseph is a king. He isn't, but even if he is, the Psalms don't support the practice. The honorific language employed in Psalms that in their original context were focused on mortal kings in the Davidic dynasty was there because those kings were anticipatory types picturing the Messiah who was to come. Once the substance has come, there is no more need for the shadows (cf. Col. 2:17).

You wrote:

I’m afraid that this makes no sense to me at all, Rob. If the enthronement psalms offer songs of praise to men who typify Christ with language that biblical texts typically reserve for God (and you acknowledge they do), then if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and a king in Israel then of course, according to your own logic, there would exist biblical support for singing a song of praise to Joseph Smith.

One problem: Joseph Smith was not a king in Israel.

I had written:

"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."

You agreed with the above statements. I applied the same reasoning to Psalms 45 and 72, however, and you didn't buy it:

I invite you to reread your statement, Rob. Please explain how these biblical songs of praise, which according to your own view, “in their immediate context [were written] about the ancient Jewish king(s) in Jerusalem,” yet simultaneously “don’t apply to the ancient Jerusalem monarchs” about whom they were written?!!!

I’m afraid you’re running in circles here, Bro.

Something seems to have slipped by you here. Let me set the argument out in this way:

• Psalm 16 is about David, but it includes statements that did not literally apply to him but do apply to Christ, of whom David was a type. (You agreed.)
• Psalms 45 and 72 are about the Davidic king, but they include statements that did not literally apply to him but do apply to Christ, of whom the Davidic king was a type.

If you can accept the first point, I don't know why you couldn't accept the second point.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

From the fact that Jesus was the Prophet par excellence, it does not follow that all prophets of God are types of Christ.

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. I maintain that from a biblical perspective, prophets were “messiahs/christs” and that a true prophet serves as a messenger and mediator for God. Hence, a true prophet typifies the role of THE Christ as THE messenger and THE mediator for all humanity. In this sense, all prophets are types of Christ.

A type is a prefigurement, an anticipatory example that foreshadows the Real Deal. Prophets who came before Jesus might have been types of the Messiah, but it doesn't make sense to claim that prophets who came after Jesus were also types of the Messiah. Joseph Smith was two millennia too late for that.

Only from your theological perspective. In reality, typology is not the same thing as “prefiguration.” The word typology, as per the dictionary definition, refers to “the study or systematic classification of types that have characteristics or traits in common.” Hence, if Joseph Smith is a true prophet, i.e. messenger and mediator for God, then Joseph would very much serve as a type for Christ in every sense of the word. Prefiguration is simply a specific form of typology, whereby from a Christian perspective, events and individuals in the Old Testament are seen as pre-figuring or representing Christ before his birth.

I know of no biblical precedent for the singing of hymns of praise to prophets, before or after the coming of Christ.

Rob, do you see how this discussion has progressed?

First you claimed that biblical texts never present hymns of praise to human beings. When this was shown to be an incorrect statement, you altered your argument to be that biblical texts never present hymns of praise to human beings other than those who serve as types for Christ.

When it was then shown that from a Latter-day Saint perspective, the prophet Joseph Smith serves as a type for Christ, you’ve now altered your argument to be that while biblical precedent exits for singing songs of praise to kings, there is no biblical precedent for singing songs of hymns to prophets.

As you’ve continued to “move the goal posts,” Rob, I don’t see how this new revised argument is any more correct than its previous forms. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, Joseph Smith is much more than simply a prophet. Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith is a king in Israel. Without going into inappropriate detail, Joseph was anointed a King and Priest in the Kingdom of God after the Melchizedek Order by religious rites associated with the fullness of the temple endowment, and was placed as a presiding authority over the Council of Fifty in the kingdom of God.

So even in this new revised argument, Rob, you’ve still failed to recognize how well the LDS hymn “Praise to the Man” ties into the biblical enthronement psalms praising human kings with literary motifs typically reserved for deity.

The honorific language employed in Psalms that in their original context were focused on mortal kings in the Davidic dynasty was there because those kings were anticipatory types picturing the Messiah who was to come. Once the substance has come, there is no more need for the shadows (cf. Col. 2:17).

This argument is simply a reflection of your own personal theological opinions, Rob, that cannot be substantiated textually or historically. Note that contrary to your suggestion, Colossians 2:16-17 does not state that once Christ came, “there would be no more need for the shadows”:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17)

Psalm 16 is about David, but it includes statements that did not literally apply to him but do apply to Christ, of whom David was a type. (You agreed.)

I actually don’t agree with your view that the author of Psalm 16 believed that his poem did not literally apply to an ancient Israelite king other than Christ. Nor do I believe that you can substantiate this claim historically and/or textually. It is certainly an opinion that runs contrary to scholarly consensus.

Psalms 45 and 72 are about the Davidic king, but they include statements that did not literally apply to him but do apply to Christ, of whom the Davidic king was a type.

If you can accept the first point, I don't know why you couldn't accept the second point.

See Ibid.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, Scotland the Brave was written after the melody was in existence.

Perhaps it would be correct to say, then, that the melody of both "Scotland the Brave" and "Praise to the Man" are derived from the same source. The similarity is unmistakable.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I'm fairly certain that non-English editions of the LDS hymnbook do not contain the American patriotic songs. I would be interested to see if you could cite even one such non-English edition of the hymnal that has American patriotic songs. If anything, they include patriotic songs from the respective nations in which they are distributed, consistent with the the article of faith that states we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates.

As for the English edition of the hymnbook, "God Save the King" is contained therein (#341). That should appeal to Church members in the British Isles, Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As for the English edition of the hymnbook, "God Save the King" is contained therein (#341). That should appeal to Church members in the British Isles, Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations.

We just sang that song last week. I enjoyed it very much. I even laughed a bit as everyone should know we don't have a king.

[Scott Lloyd]

We just sang that song last week. I enjoyed it very much. I even laughed a bit as everyone should know we don't have a king.

I would hope that LDS Britons -- as do other Britons -- would adapt it to "God Save the Queen."

[LeSellers]

We just sang that song last week. I enjoyed it very much. I even laughed a bit as everyone should know we don't have a king.

I'm no British/Commonwealth subject, but I was under the impression that the words get changed slightly (and automatically) when the "king" is a "queen".

"God save our gracious queen, long live our noble queen, ... Send her victorious ..."

My Jacquie tells me so, anyway: she grew up in Canada.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

This will give a bit of amusement or heartburn, depending on your approach...

You can sing "Praise to the Man" to the tune of "Hail to the Chief."

I kind of like it.

http://fakebook.fm/title/h/hail-to-the-chief/

Bernard