"Praise To The Man"

[Vance]

Daniel 6:22. Was that directed to a future descendant of the king?

Vs 21?

[volgadon]

Vs 21?

That might be the KJV numbering, I didn't check.

[Vance]

That might be the KJV numbering, I didn't check.

Ok.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Daniel 6:22 [i.e., 6:21]. Was that directed to a future descendant of the king?

No. Daniel was directing his greeting to the human king Nebuchadnezzar. And I hope Old Neb does live forever. But this has nothing to do with the affirmations in the Hebrew Bible of the hope of God's promise of an eternal and universal kingdom ruled by a descendant of David.

[David Bokovoy]

Zerinus,

We've been down this road before and suffice it to say that contrary to your assumption, ancient Israelite authors did not exist in a historical vacuum. Hence, in the same way in which current General Conference addresses use words, examples, stories, and even presentation styles reflective of US cultural traditions, Israelite writings and revelations directly reflect the language and culture in which those authors existed. This is a fact of life and why studying the ancient Near Eastern context of the Old Testament assists in identifying original authorial intent and the manner in which an ancient Israelite audience would have understood these writings.

Your attempt to blend these two cultures together as though they were essentially one and the same, or different aspects of the same thing, may very well conform to the views of modern scholarship; but it has no place in the faith centered theology of Latter-day Saints, nor indeed in the traditional theology of orthodox Christianity—Catholic or Protestant. Mormonism is not entirely unorthodox. It shares many aspects of traditional or orthodox Christian theology. And from that point of view your method of presentation of your arguments creates problems regardless of which side of the theological divide one belongs to—LDS or Evangelical.

Reading the Bible in its ancient cultural context may run contrary to your personal view of orthodoxy, but such efforts in no way conflict with LDS orthodoxy. As the Lord explains in D&C 1: 24:

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these [revelations] are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

Old Testament revelations reflect the language, culture, and weaknesses of ancient Israel so that they, in their unique cultural environment could come to an understanding of religious truths.

[Mark Beesley]

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 (Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9-10). The Psalms contain scant references to Abraham (Ps. 47:9; 105:6, 89, 42) and Moses (Ps. 77:20; 90 title; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32), none of which in any way praise or honor them. The Psalms contain a few more references to David, not counting the many titles naming him as the author (Ps. 18:50; 78:70; 89:3, 20, 35, 49; 122:5; 132:10, 11, 17; 144:10). Again, they say nothing in praise of David or even speak of any of his accomplishments. 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). In this light, the unabashed praising of Joseph Smith using honorific language that the Bible normally and in most cases exclusively uses for Deity is quite shocking. This argument cannot be overturned by picking out a phrase or two and showing that they might be used in other contexts; it is the fact that such an abundance of biblical language for honoring God is brought together in this context of a hymn explicitly written in praise to Joseph that must be addressed.

My conclusion here is not that Mormons elevate Joseph above Jesus, or that they make Joseph equal to Jesus, or that they "worship" Joseph. I agree that the hymn clearly distinguishes between Joseph and God. My conclusion is that the glorification of Joseph Smith in Mormon religion as attested by this hymn infringes on the exclusive religious devotion due to God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) alone.

Since your argument seems to be that the language used in Priase to the Man is so similar to language used in the Bible to glorify God that it improperly infringes on the devotion due to God, I would like you to produce for us all original English renditions of the Bible that were written contemporaneously with the original Hebrew.

Oh! What? You mean the Hebrew scribes did not write words of devotion to God in English??? Hrummph. Maybe we need to invent some new English words to acknowledge the accomplishments of mere mortals so as not to trespass on the usage of English words that have been TRANSLATED from Hebrew.

Ron, it is not the words that are sung, spoken, or prayed that demonstrate devotion and/or worship, but rather the Spirit that underlies those words. Do you not notice a pronounced difference in your inner feelings when you recite a rote prayers, such as the The Lord's Prayer as opposed to uttering a heart-felt prayer of contrition when you pray without script?

Sadly, this may be the great stumbling block that prevents Evangelicals from understanding LDS religious practice. The Spirit of Worship is what is important, not the words of worship.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

First, I didn’t claim that Psalm 72 was not about any of the Israelite human kings.

Excellent, then by extension, you now recognize that your argument that “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” is in correct, for even though Christians believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic expectations, texts such as Psalm 72 were, as you acknowledge, originally written and performed as songs of praise for Israelite human kings.

Moreover, such texts even present that praise “in language that the Bible typically and in most cases exclusively reserves for God and Christ.”

I claimed that Psalm 72:8-11 expressed the hope that one of the royal descendants of David would enjoy unchallenged, worldwide rule over all the nations. That figure turns out to be Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate.

Psalm 72:8-11 expressed the hope that that specific Israelite king for whom the song was originally composed and performed (probably in the king’s coronation ceremony) would enjoy unchallenged, worldwide rule over the nations. So the biblical enthronement psalm is universally recognized as a hymn of praise to a man other than (or in addition to) the man who was God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

Second, if I don’t agree with your position, then it is not “universal” knowledge.

Indeed, you appear to be the one exception to the rule.

And I am by no means alone. Historically, both Jews and Christians have understood Psalm 72:8-11 and passages like it as messianic, and this understanding is far from dead.

Where I believe you’re presenting a problematic (and unique) argument, Rob, is in terms of your antithetical perspective that a “messianic” psalm must be either or. That in other words, Psalm 72 must be about Christ and not about the man for whom the text was originally composed and performed. This is simply not the way I see the world.

For Jewish and Christian scholars who approach Psalm 72 as “messianic,” the text is not interpreted as either about Christ or about a now deceased mortal king. The text is “universally” recognized as a composition for a now deceased Israelite human king, despite the fact that Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the expectations the psalm conveys and the passage can therefore appropriately apply to Jesus, even in a prophetic manner.

This interpretive process that you are arguing against is known as prophetic dualism. I’m curious, do you believe that since Christ fulfilled the messianic expectations featured in the book of Isaiah concerning Cyrus, the Persian king, that those statements were not originally written about Cyrus, or is it simply psalms of praise to mortal kings that you view this way, since the use of prophetic dualism in a song of praise written to a mortal man would destroy your criticism of the LDS hymn?

Third, while I agree that some of the language about the Davidic king in the Psalms could be understood in its original historical context as hyperbolic, there is no evidence that this is how anyone ever understood Psalm 72:8-11 until very, very recently.

I would love to see you try to prove this statement correct.

Fourth, the comments you quote from Mare contradict your interpretation of the passage as hyperbolic. In your own quotation from his article in ABD, Mare claims that the Davidic king “is promised universal dominion and the defeat of his enemies” in Psalm 72:8-11. But this is false—the Psalm is a prayer asking for this hope to be realized, not a promise that it will be realized in the present sitting Jerusalem king—and contrary to your description of the passage as merely hyperbolic.

I would suggest reading the entire quote, Rob, in order to avoid what you perceive as a "contradiction." How do you know, Rob, that the original author of the psalm did not compose his words as a promise that they would be realized in the present sitting Jerusalem king, especially when the king was apparently "promised universal dominion and the defeat of his enemies, i.e., the defeat and explusion of chaos" in hyperbolic language?

A recent academic study that supports the perspective I am defending here is Michael Rydelnik’s book The Messianic Hope: Is the Old Testament Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H, 2010). If I may say so, this book is a must-read for you, David.

Fair enough, but we clearly hold different views on what constitutes an academic study.

Fifth, your quotations from non-Israelite texts concerning ancient Near Eastern kings provide some interesting examples of hyperbole but are irrelevant to a text like Psalm 72:8-11.

I disagree. These examples are directly relevant in showing the types of texts that were written for mortal kings in the ancient Near East. They therefore illustrate why despite the fact that the promises were not literally fulfilled in terms of the Israelite monarch for whom they were originally written and performed, you cannot argue that a text such as Psalm 72 served as a song of praise written for only Jesus Christ and not an ancient Israelite king.

The examples I provided illustrate that such language and hyperbole actually typify the songs of praise written for mortal kings in the ancient Near East. They therefore directly support my position.

Finally, arguing that Psalm 72:8-11 is merely “hyperbole” undermines the whole point of your argument, which is to establish precedent for the LDS hymn “Praise to the Man.” Do you wish to argue that the hymn’s statements about Joseph Smith should be understood as merely hyperbolic or idealizations? Is this how Mormons understand the hymn

?

I’ll admit that I’m confused by this argument, Rob. In what way does the fact that a text such as Psalm 72 feature hyperbole in its celebration of the royal ideal, negate the fact that the Bible clearly features songs of praise to human beings other than God?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

I think we're losing value in this exchange. You wrote:

Excellent, then by extension, you now recognize that your argument that “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” is in correct, for even though Christians believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic expectations, texts such as Psalm 72 were, as you acknowledge, originally written and performed as songs of praise for Israelite human kings.

Such a comment simply ignores both the qualifications I made in my opening post and the precise position I articulated in my most recent post. You are attempting to refute my view by ignoring important nuances to it, i.e., you are attacking a straw man. See below.

You wrote:

Psalm 72:8-11 expressed the hope that that specific Israelite king for whom the song was originally composed and performed (probably in the king’s coronation ceremony) would enjoy unchallenged, worldwide rule over the nations.

If this is your view, then please tell us whether that hope was realized or not. Was the hope expressed in Psalm 72 fulfilled? If it was specific to the (unnamed) Jerusalem monarch ruling at the time the psalm was composed, must we not conclude that the hope expressed went unfulfilled? Would we not then have to conclude, on your view, that the psalm expressed a false, vain hope?

You wrote:

So the biblical enthronement psalm is universally recognized as a hymn of praise to a man other than (or in addition to) the man who was God incarnate, Jesus Christ.... Indeed, you appear to be the one exception to the rule.

I have already cited for you another contemporary scholar who is an exception to your "rule."

You wrote:

Where I believe you’re presenting a problematic (and unique) argument, Rob, is in terms of your antithetical perspective that a “messianic” psalm must be either or. That in other words, Psalm 72 must be about Christ and not about the man for whom the text was originally composed and performed. This is simply not the way I see the world.

This is at the heart of the straw-man position you are attacking. I have already stated repeatedly that the Psalm was about the ancient Davidic king but also included statements that expressed a hope that was not fulfilled in that mere man but is fulfilled only in Christ.

You wrote:

I’m curious, do you believe that since Christ fulfilled the messianic expectations featured in the book of Isaiah concerning Cyrus, the Persian king, that those statements were not originally written about Cyrus, or is it simply psalms of praise to mortal kings that you view this way, since the use of prophetic dualism in a song of praise written to a mortal man would destroy your criticism of the LDS hymn?

The principle has already been stated. Whatever Isaiah says in the context concerning Cyrus that Cyrus himself did not fulfill but that was or is fulfilled in Christ was not, per se, about Cyrus, but instead treated Cyrus as a type expressing the Messianic hope. But I would need you to be specific about what statements you have in mind for me to comment definitively.

I had written: "Third, while I agree that some of the language about the Davidic king in the Psalms could be understood in its original historical context as hyperbolic, there is no evidence that this is how anyone ever understood Psalm 72:8-11 until very, very recently." You replied:

I would love to see you try to prove this statement correct.

It's difficult to "prove" a negative. Can you provide an example of someone advocating a hyperbolic understanding of Psalm 72:8-11 prior, say, to 1900?

With regard to Rydelnick's book, you commented:

Fair enough, but we clearly hold different views on what constitutes an academic study.

No doubt. In your view, apparently, if a book advocates traditional (and especially evangelical) views it cannot be an academic study. How else did you come to make such a comment without even reading the book?

You wrote:

I’ll admit that I’m confused by this argument, Rob. In what way does the fact that a text such as Psalm 72 feature hyperbole in its celebration of the royal ideal, negate the fact that the Bible clearly features songs of praise to human beings other than God?

That isn't the issue here. Yes or No: Is the language about Joseph Smith in the LDS hymn "Praise to the Man" hyperbolic?

[Mark Beesley]

That isn't the issue here. Yes or No: Is the language about Joseph Smith in the LDS hymn "Praise to the Man" hyperbolic?

Some of it probably is. Is there any hyperbolic language used in your English rendition of the Bible? How about the last verse in John? There are other examples. Hyperbole is biblically sound.

[Vance]

If this is your view, then please tell us whether that hope was realized or not.

What does it being realized or not have to do with the fact that such language was used for a human?

Was the hope expressed in Psalm 72 fulfilled?

Does its non-fulfillment change the fact that is was a "hope expressed" for a human?

Bowman, your argument has been shown to be without merit. Your feeble attempts to salvage it are pathetic. But keep it up, I am enjoying the spectacle.

[David Bokovoy]

I think we're losing value in this exchange.

I’m sorry, Rob. I’m not trying to be offensive. I respect your desire to place emphasis upon Christ. I simply believe that in your critique of the LDS hymn “Praise to the Man” from a biblical perspective, you have presented an extremely problematic argument that can not sustain critical scrutiny.

Such a comment simply ignores both the qualifications I made in my opening post and the precise position I articulated in my most recent post. You are attempting to refute my view by ignoring important nuances to it, i.e., you are attacking a straw man.

Rob, here is the argument you presented in your original post:

"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 this has been shown to be incorrect. As I understand your position, based upon this refutation, you have now revised your argument to be that the Bible presents hymns of praise to human beings via the biblical psalms of enthronement, but that since these kings did not fulfill the messianic expectation expressed in the psalms, yet Jesus did, the psalms are in reality not about these human kings, but about Christ.

To be quite frank, I simply fail to see how this revised argument presents any challenge whatsoever to the LDS hymn from a biblical perspective, since you now acknowledge that the Bible presents hymns of praise to human beings via the psalms of enthronement with language that the Bible typically reserves for praising God.

Since this occurs, so what if Latter-day Saints have a hymn praising a prophet/king in Israel with language that the Bible typically reserves for praising God? This happens in the biblical psalms of enthronement (even if Christ is the true fulfillment of the messianic expectations professed in the songs). These texts were still, as you acknowledge, written about/for those ancient mortal kings.

I just don’t see how despite your revisions to the argument articulated in the original post, you have any sort of legitimate criticism here from a biblical perspective.

But maybe that’s just me.

Best,

--DB

[Mark Beesley]

I just don’t see how despite your revisions to the argument articulated in the original post, you have any sort of legitimate criticism here from a biblical perspective.

But maybe that’s just me.

It's not.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

Some of it probably is. Is there any hyperbolic language used in your English rendition of the Bible? How about the last verse in John? There are other examples. Hyperbole is biblically sound.

I have no objection to hyperbole. However, I don't think Mormons generally view any of the language of the hymn "Praise to the Man" as hyperbolic. Care to give a couple of examples of statements about Joseph Smith in that hymn that you view as hyperbole?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

I’m sorry, Rob. I’m not trying to be offensive.

I'm not worried about you offending me. I'm simply of the opinion that we are not getting anywhere.

You wrote:

Rob, here is the argument you presented in your original post:

"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."

No. That was not my "argument." That was a summary statement of my position, one that was carefully qualified in that opening post. You have consistently ignored that qualification in the interests of making it easier to respond to my position.

You wrote:

As I understand your position, based upon this refutation, you have now revised your argument to be that the Bible presents hymns of praise to human beings via the biblical psalms of enthronement, but that since these kings did not fulfill the messianic expectation expressed in the psalms, yet Jesus did, the psalms are in reality not about these human kings, but about Christ.

No, what I said was simply another way of stating what was there in my original post, which I quoted for you the first time you ignored it. And Psalms 45 and 72 are not hymns of praise to any mortal man. They contain laudatory statements regarding the psalmists' expectations with regard to the Davidic king, expectations that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ alone. You won't find any statement in the Psalms praising Solomon or David; nothing like "Praise to Solomon for his great works; praise him for the temple he has built for us," or the like. The statements that you culled from Psalm 72 don't say anything in the way of praise to any mortal Jerusalem monarch for anything he did. The summons at the end of Psalm 72 and also the end of Psalm 45 are best understood as anticipating the final, glorious Davidic King in whom God's covenant promise to David would finally be fulfilled.

I'm disappointed that you have now twice failed to answer my question about whether the language of "Praise to the Man" about Joseph Smith is also mere hyperbole.

Perhaps we're done.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

We've been down this road before . . .

I don’t recall that we did; but if so, it looks like some repetition might be in order.

. . . and suffice it to say that contrary to your assumption, ancient Israelite authors did not exist in a historical vacuum.

I don’t recall making any such assumptions either. On the contrary, I seem to be saying exactly the opposite.

Hence, in the same way in which current General Conference addresses use words, examples, stories, and even presentation styles reflective of US cultural traditions, Israelite writings and revelations directly reflect the language and culture in which those authors existed.

The two situations are not remotely alike. There is a vast difference between a modern General Authority quoting from C. S. Lewis at General Conference for example, and an Old Testament Prophet condemning Baal worship of ancient times.

This is a fact of life and why studying the ancient Near Eastern context of the Old Testament assists in identifying original authorial intent and the manner in which an ancient Israelite audience would have understood these writings.

I disagree with you. I believe that the context that the Bible itself provides is far superior to any study of the Near Eastern culture outside of the Bible in helping us to understand and correctly interpret the writings of the Old Testament prophets.

Reading the Bible in its ancient cultural context may run contrary to your personal view of orthodoxy, but such efforts in no way conflict with LDS orthodoxy. As the Lord explains in D&C 1: 24:

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is usually a sign of weakening grip on the argument.

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these [revelations] are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

Old Testament revelations reflect the language, culture, and weaknesses of ancient Israel so that they, in their unique cultural environment could come to an understanding of religious truths.

Yea, but there is a big difference between that, and speaking of Jehovah-worship and Baal-worship as though they were part of the same phenomenon.

Edited July 25, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

No. That was not my "argument." That was a summary statement of my position, one that was carefully qualified in that opening post.

So, that is your position, but not your argument?

Are you not arguing your position?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, that is your position, but not your argument?

Are you not arguing your position?

A person's "position" is the answer they give to a particular question. An "argument" is the reason or reasons they give for that answer. Hence, the sentence quoted from my opening post was a statement of my position (and only a brief summary at that), not the argument for that position. That came in the rest of the post.

Any questions?

[volgadon]

And Psalms 45 and 72 are not hymns of praise to any mortal man

Psalm 45 at least was interpreted as such in Jewish tradition. I'd have to check on Ps. 72 though.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

No. Daniel was directing his greeting to the human king Nebuchadnezzar.

That is precisely the point.

And I hope Old Neb does live forever. But this has nothing to do with the affirmations in the Hebrew Bible of the hope of God's promise of an eternal and universal kingdom ruled by a descendant of David.

Hyperbolic praises offered to mortal rulers have nothing to do with each other?

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked David. Are the laudatory statements about Joseph Smith in "Praise to the Man" hyperbole?

[webbles]

I've read through this entire thread and I'm totally a loss to what Rob's point is. I first thought it was because "Praise to the Man" appears to deify Joseph Smith, but that doesn't seem to be. Next, I thought it was because there is no other places in the bible where the same praise was given to a human, but that doesn't seem to be. So, what exactly is your point? Because I'm quite confused.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked David. Are the laudatory statements about Joseph Smith in "Praise to the Man" hyperbole?

Some are, such as "kings shall extol him, and nations revere" or "long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame" and "Earth must atone for the blood of that man. Wake up the world for the conflict of justice. Millions shall know "Brother Joseph" again."

[Daniel Peterson]

The notion that for something to be good or acceptable it has to have biblical precedent may be your unbiblical dogma, but it's not ours.

Amen.

I just noticed this thread. So far, after a cursory glance at it, I think it's silly.

[Mark Beesley]

I have no objection to hyperbole. However, I don't think Mormons generally view any of the language of the hymn "Praise to the Man" as hyperbolic.

How many Mormons have you asked?

Care to give a couple of examples of statements about Joseph Smith in that hymn that you view as hyperbole?

I agree with the examples already given.

However, I would prefer a response to my ealier post here.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

Regarding the use of hyperbole in "Praise to the Man," you wrote:

I agree with the examples already given.

Okay. Funny that no one suggested that the hymn used hyperbole when, in a thread started by a Mormon, several Mormons expressed misgivings about its content. Only when a non-Mormon questions the content and a Mormon with decidedly non-traditional views resorts to comparing the hymn to supposedly hyperbolic language in the Psalms do we find out that some other Mormons are comfortable characterizing "Praise to the Man" in this way.

You wrote:

However, I would prefer a response to my ealier post here.

I couldn't find any way to take that post seriously the first time I read it, and after re-reading it, I still can't. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I can't seem to think of a softer way to put it.