"Praise To The Man"

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Don't break your arm.

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.

Well, that's one way to deal with an argument that you can't really address: denigrate it. Bravo.

Maybe you'll answer this question . . . or maybe you will find it silly also:

Do you find that the words of the Bible which praise God do Him justice? Or is our language, whether it be Hebrew, English, or Greek, entirely inadequate to render the worship to which God is entitled?

Edited July 26, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

Sigh.

If I couldn't answer the argument of your earlier post, it's because (as I said) I had difficulty seeing any serious argument in it. Look, I'll show you. You wrote:

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.

This criticism of the argument in my opening post is a complete diversion from the issue. If we translated "Praise to the Man" into Hebrew, would your objection even get started? No. My argument against the LDS hymn is not merely an argument about words, but about what those words say. It is about the substance of what the hymn says, not about the squiggles on the page.

If "Praise to the Man" affirmed that Joseph Smith died to save us from our sins and that he was our savior and lord, would this be fine with you because it's all just words? If it explicitly expressed worship of Joseph Smith, would you dismiss this fact as unimportant on the grounds that the word "worship" is an English word? Would your point about English versus Hebrew have any relevance whatsoever? Of course not.

You wrote:

Ron,...

It's Rob, actually.

...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.

Again, this is an absurd response to my argument because it is one that even you could not possibly take seriously. I will illustrate. "Mark, it is not the words that appeared in my opening post that demonstrate what is in my heart, but rather the Spirit that underlies those words. Sadly, this may be the greatest stumbling block that prevents you from understanding me. The Spirit in me is what is important, not the words." Such a line of reasoning, if we can even call it that, is absurd because the only access you have to what is in my heart is the words you hear me say. If you hear me praising Jesus Christ as my great God and Savior, that tells you something about what I believe. If you were to hear me praising Martin Luther as the man who did more to save the world that anyone other than Jesus Christ, that would tell you something about my loyalties.

Words matter. Jesus warned that we would be judged in part on the basis of our words (Matt. 12:37; Luke 19:22). The words in your hymnbook matter. For you to claim that they don't matter is simply too absurd to take seriously.

In your most recent post, you asked:

Do you find that the words of the Bible which praise God do Him justice? Or is our language, whether it be Hebrew, English, or Greek, entirely inadequate to render the worship to which God is entitled?

The answer is No. The words of the Bible are not "entirely inadequate." Merely repeating the words is not adequate worship, but the words adequately perform the service to which God himself puts them in inspiring them in the first place (compare Isaiah 55:10-11). That is, the words adequately express how we should view God, how we should relate and respond to him, how we should praise and worship him.

[volgadon]

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.

Honestly, I hardly glanced at the other thread. This one is more interesting. John Taylor's eulogy is also hyperbolic. I'm perfectly comfortable with that as a grew up in a society which frequently uses hyperbole in eulogies and otherwise.

[Nathair/|\]

Amen.

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

I do appreciate David Bokovoy's contributions.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

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?

No questions.

Your "argument" has been rendered silly, and your position without support.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott Lloyd had written:

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.

Dan Peterson commented:

Amen.

The issue is not merely the lack of any biblical precedent, as if the argument was an appeal to silence. The issue is the positive evidence of a consistent pattern in the Bible of reserving religious songs of praise for God (including songs in which praise to an unnamed Davidic king actually pointed forward to Christ).

Dan wrote:

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

You're entitled to your opinion.

[Vance]

The issue is the positive evidence of a consistent pattern in the Bible of reserving religious songs of praise for God

And this whole position has been proven inaccurate by your own admission with this.

(including songs in which praise to an unnamed Davidic king actually pointed forward to Christ).

Edited to add,

actually pointed forward to Christ

Is inaccurate as well. Actually those praises were LOOKED BACK to as also applying to Christ.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The issue is the positive evidence of a consistent pattern in the Bible of reserving religious songs of praise for God (including songs in which praise to an unnamed Davidic king actually pointed forward to Christ).

Rob finally has an argument that is accurate. The bible does not have a consistent pattern. No one claimed it did. It is important to note that we have one song in praise of a man, JS. I would hardly claim that the LDS have a consistent pattern of singing songs of praise, normally reserved for God, for a man.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Rob finally has an argument that is accurate. The bible does not have a consistent pattern. No one claimed it did. It is important to note that we have one song in praise of a man, JS. I would hardly claim that the LDS have a consistent pattern of singing songs of praise, normally reserved for God, for a man.

I'm going to have to use some blunt language here to make my point clear. This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "Mormons do not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only have one blasphemous hymn in our hymnbook." A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal.5:9).

[Vance]

This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "Mormons do not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only have one blasphemous hymn in our hymnbook." A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal.5:9).

This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "The Bible does not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only has a few blasphemous books in our Bible." A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Just to be consistent.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I'm going to have to use some blunt language here to make my point clear. This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "Mormons do not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only have one blasphemous hymn in our hymnbook." A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal.5:9).

Rob,

No worries. I don't think that is at all what I am saying. I really was only commenting on your changing argument. Which is fine. I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated, that there is indeed a biblical president that songs have been sung about mortal kings using language that is reserved for God.

I don't expect you to agree with it. Take care.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mark,

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

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.

For what it's worth, I don't agree that the phrasing in "Praise to the Man" is all that hyperbolic. As for the examples discussed, if they have not yet come to pass in the fullest sense, they surely will.

(I except the phrase, "stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame." That line was wisely changed in later renderings to "plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame." As I have written elsewhere, I believe the stain was removed from Illinois when the last bigoted, anti-Mormon mobocrat either died or left the state.)

[Bernard Gui]

(I except the phrase, "stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame." That line was wisely changed in later renderings to "plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame." As I have written elsewhere, I believe the stain was removed from Illinois when the last bigoted, anti-Mormon mobocrat either died or left the state.)

Um...I met some at an anti-Mormon meeting in a Lutheran Church in Rockford. They're still around.

Bernard

[Scott Lloyd]

Um...I met some at an anti-Mormon meeting in a Lutheran Church in Rockford. They're still around.

Bernard

You could probably find small-mindedness and pigheadedness anywhere. But I specified mobocrats.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mola,

You wrote:

I'm going to have to use some blunt language here to make my point clear. This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "Mormons do not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only have one blasphemous hymn in our hymnbook." A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal.5:9).

Of course, the comparison doesn't work because a typical Mormon would not concede that the phrasing in "Praise to the Man" is anything even remotely like idolatry or blasphemy. I thought Rob was clear on the fact that we don't worship Joseph.

But it's interesting how his resort to "blunt language," supposedly for the purpose of clarity, amounts to uglifying or horribleizing the positions of his opponents. Where I come from, we call that distortion.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[zerinus]

I'm going to have to use some blunt language here to make my point clear. This is a little like saying, from my perspective, "Mormons do not have a consistent pattern of idolatry" or "We only have one blasphemous hymn in our hymnbook." A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal.5:9).

We also have some blunt speaking to do if you want to go down that road. The blunt message is that the church you believe in is apostate. It is in fact the church of the devil. And that makes you, a self-proclaimed proponent of that religion, a minister of Satan. That is the blunt truth in case you wanted to know it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

We also have some blunt speaking to do if you want to go down that road. The blunt message is that the church you believe in is apostate. It is in fact the church of the devil. And that makes you, a self-proclaimed proponent of that religion, a minister of Satan. That is the blunt truth in case you wanted to know it.

I take no personal offense; in fact, I rather appreciate Mormonism "straight up" like this. But I am sad that you cut yourself off from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

Not "even remotely like" idolatry or blasphemy? We'll have to agree to disagree.

In saying that Mola's defense of the hymn was "a little like saying" that Mormons aren't consistently idolatrous or that they only have one blasphemous hymn in their hymnbook, I was careful not to say that the hymn meets some technical definition of idolatry or blasphemy. That was the point of the qualification "a little like."

Someone who embezzles just a small amount of money from his employer one time has still committed theft, even if it is a relatively minor case of it. There is a principle here I am trying to get across regarding Mola's defense ("we only have one hymn that does it"). Try to grasp the principle and don't get hung up on the particular description, about which I don't expect us to come to agreement.

Of course, the comparison doesn't work because a typical Mormon would not concede that the phrasing in "Praise to the Man" is anything even remotely like idolatry or blasphemy. I thought Rob was clear on the fact that we don't worship Joseph.

But it's interesting how his resort to "blunt language," supposedly for the purpose of clarity, amounts to uglifying or horribleizing the positions of his opponents. Where I come from, we call that distortion.

[Vance]

But I am sad that you cut yourself off from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Yes, for all, it was once delivered to the saints. And now, for all, it is once again delivered to the saints. Thank God!

Edited July 27, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

I take no personal offense; in fact, I rather appreciate Mormonism "straight up" like this. But I am sad that you cut yourself off from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

I think you are the ones who have done that. Apostasy stares us in the face in the New Testament as well as in the history of the early Christian church. That is why it had to be restored, as prophesied in the Bible.

You know the statute of the angel Moroni which sits atop the spire of every Mormon Temple? That is to commemorate that Restoration by the angel "flying in the midst of heaven" as prophesied of by John the Revelator, "having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth" (Revelation 14:6).

Edited July 27, 2011 by zerinus

[cdowis]

"But I am sad that you cut yourself off from the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

Don't be sad.

Rejoice with us that that very faith has been restored to the earth once more by our Saviour and Redeemer. Where the historic church had replaced the prophets and apostles with scholars and theologians, Christ restored His church with prophets, apostles and the priesthood to bless us and all mankind.

Don't be sad, but sing along with us, "Praise to the Man" called by Jehovah to guide us in these latter days filled with darkness and tribulation.

Let's hear an amen.

Edited July 27, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

"But I am sad that you cut yourself off from the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

Don't be sad.

Rejoice with us that that very faith has been restored to the earth once more by our Saviour and Redeemer. Where the historic church had replaced the prophets and apostles with scholars and theologians, Christ restored His church with prophets, apostles and the priesthood to bless us and all mankind.

Don't be sad, but sing along with us, "Praise to the Man" called by Jehovah to guide us in these latter days filled with darkness and tribulation.

Let's hear an amen.

[Mark Beesley]

This criticism of the argument in my opening post is a complete diversion from the issue.

The opening post argument is an argument that the words used in Praise to the Man are words that are reserved in the Bible to praise God. My criticism goes directly to the core of the argument, the words themselves, and their genesis. It may be an argument that is too subtle for you. Thus, the fact that you are unable to see that and consider the relevance of the argument is . . . well, I guess it is to be expected. The remainder of your responsive post suffers from that inability to comprehend the relevance of the argument that I posited. I am not inclined to explain further. Your examples and hypotheticals clearly reveal your mindset, and it is not conducive to reconciliation.

Again, this is an absurd response to my argument because it is one that even you could not possibly take seriously. I will illustrate. "Mark, it is not the words that appeared in my opening post that demonstrate what is in my heart, but rather the Spirit that underlies those words. Sadly, this may be the greatest stumbling block that prevents you from understanding me. The Spirit in me is what is important, not the words." Such a line of reasoning, if we can even call it that, is absurd because the only access you have to what is in my heart is the words you hear me say. If you hear me praising Jesus Christ as my great God and Savior, that tells you something about what I believe. If you were to hear me praising Martin Luther as the man who did more to save the world that anyone other than Jesus Christ, that would tell you something about my loyalties.

If you or I were God and could read one another's heart, or if men praise God in order to be seen of other men, you might have a point. You aren't and I don't, so you have no point.

Words matter. Jesus warned that we would be judged in part on the basis of our words (Matt. 12:37; Luke 19:22). The words in your hymnbook matter. For you to claim that they don't matter is simply too absurd to take seriously.

And for you to try and distill my argument down to an assertion that words don't matter is absurd. My argument is that the Spirit of Worship is more important that the words of worship. But I guess I can't really expect you to understand that.

The answer is No. The words of the Bible are not "entirely inadequate." Merely repeating the words is not adequate worship, but the words adequately perform the service to which God himself puts them in inspiring them in the first place (compare Isaiah 55:10-11). That is, the words adequately express how we should view God, how we should relate and respond to him, how we should praise and worship him.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24

Chew on that. I'm done.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

Not "even remotely like" idolatry or blasphemy? We'll have to agree to disagree.

In saying that Mola's defense of the hymn was "a little like saying" that Mormons aren't consistently idolatrous or that they only have one blasphemous hymn in their hymnbook, I was careful not to say that the hymn meets some technical definition of idolatry or blasphemy. That was the point of the qualification "a little like."

Someone who embezzles just a small amount of money from his employer one time has still committed theft, even if it is a relatively minor case of it. There is a principle here I am trying to get across regarding Mola's defense ("we only have one hymn that does it"). Try to grasp the principle and don't get hung up on the particular description, about which I don't expect us to come to agreement.

The comparison still doesn't work. It presupposes that we admit there is anything at all wrong or inappropriate in our use of the hymn "Praise to the Man" -- which, of course, we don't.

[David T]

The blunt message is that the church you believe in is apostate. It is in fact the church of the devil. And that makes you, a self-proclaimed proponent of that religion, a minister of Satan. That is the blunt truth in case you wanted to know it.

Not going to be a surprise, but I HIGHLY disagree with this assessment. And I'd also guess a great number of General Authorities - if not all of them - would also disagree with this.

If being a lot less likely to happily assign those who come to different conclusions than me (or zerinus) to h e l l is a sign of soft-peddling apostasy and being a conniving servant of Satan, then whatever. I'll take the label. Zerinus probably already believes me to be an apostate minister of Satan, anyway.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow