dsnell

Should "Praise to the Man" stay in the new hymnal?

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, dsnell said:

I don't think Joseph is mingling with Gods

It would not surprise me one bit if Joseph Smith were already resurrected (no, I don't think the world needs to know about it or see his grave disturbed, nor do I think it absolutely must wait until the Second Coming), nor if he were mingling with the three Gods of the Godhead, and others who have already received their exaltation - such as Abraham and Moses, regardless of whether he's resurrected or not.

I respect your right to be surprised if any of that is actually the case. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I kind of see it as a prophet of God, wouldn't he be mingling with gods after death?  Of course we see all 3 members of the Godhead as gods.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it is in the new hymnal.

That said, “mingling with Gods” isn’t the only lyric that might raise a question...I can see how the ”earth must atone for the blood of that man” might be perceived as having a retaliatory tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pam said:

I guess I kind of see it as a prophet of God, wouldn't he be mingling with gods after death?  Of course we see all 3 members of the Godhead as gods.  

I mean ... maybe? The implied assumption is that God the Father visited Joseph Smith in the Spirit World (which is unprecedented as far as I know) or that Joseph is resurrected and ... exalted? I dunno. I think the safest answer we have (IMO) is that Joseph Smith is in the Spirit World along with most everyone else, awaiting the resurrection. In the Spirit World I gueeeeeess he could be "mingling" with Christ and the Holy Ghost ... but that doesn't make a ton of sense to me, nor does it sound like what the lyric is trying to imply. That said, I really don't know what the lyric is trying to imply. Based on "Ascended to heaven" maybe William Phelps thought Joseph was exalted already. No idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alia said:

I personally don't like praising anyone at church besides the Godhead. So hopefully the hymn goes :) 

Would you then agree that these verses of scripture should be removed also, if they could from the Standard Works pertaining to women who fear the Lord:

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also,and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Or at least never be read in church? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need more verses commemorating more of the Prophets.

“Praise to the man who made Adam God,

Enforced the gospel with his mouth the rod.

Inhabitants of the moon and in the sun,

making investigators want to run!“

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dsnell said:

I guess I sort of look at this hymn in the same way I look at a lot of Church artwork. For example, below is a famous painting of Joseph Smith translating the plates ... but we know now that that's not really how he translated them. Most of the time the plates were covered, he used the seer stone in the hat, etc. It's a great work of art, but not totally accurate, you know what I mean? In the same sense, I don't think Joseph is mingling with Gods, nor, if we want to get really anal about doctrine, has he "ascended to heaven" (unless you're referring to the Spirit World).

But I agree that there needs to be some poetic license with hymns. And indeed the lyrics were first a poem before the music was added. And of course I don't think we need to amend the lyrics to include an enumeration of Joseph's flaws haha. 

Related image

ACTUALLY, the entire seerstone in a hat is something that MODERN historians are pushing.

Originally it was ONLY from enemies of the church (and at the time of their statements that actually included David Whitmer and Martin Harris in their statements which from the accounts I've heard were made in later years AFTER the church divided and they went their separate way into another sect [though Harris returned eventually], though theirs were MORE to bolster up their support for another individual that claimed to receive revelation through...drumroll....a seerstone) that I recall pushing this narrative.

WHY the church has bought into it, hook, line, and sinker, these days...I don't know.

Historians need to take both sides into account when writing history...but what we've done today to extent is to toss out the statements of those who remained faithful and stated how they saw it translated vs. the enemies of the church and how they tried to portray it being translated.  I do NOT know why this is today or why it is being promoted.

The picture still would seem inaccurate as per the descriptions of translation, as the plates were never seen by others (though their shape, outline, heft, weight, and feel were experienced by MANY, they did not actually SEE the plates), and thus having them in the broad open does not really fit with any description.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO RELIABLE witness of the Book of Mormon at the time when they were a faithful Member of the Church and following Joseph Smith stated that he used a Seer Stone in a Hat...though David Whitmer (who claimed FAR more intimate involvement, and from his descriptions and his sisters would conclude that he was the primary translator to a degree if we only went by his statements at those times) did later after apostasy and following after another sect of Mormonism.  Martin Harris also made the claim at the time, though was also chided by Joseph Smith if I recall for falling into apostasy.  Martin Harris also made other interesting claims during this period of time.

It is only in the past 25 years that the narrative of the LDS church has changed.  Once again, not sure why.

Originally

It wasn't actually defined specifically how it was done, though it was implied that much of it was done via the interpreters or the Urim and Thummim.  Martin Harris helped some until the 116 pages were lost.  Emma helped some, they spent some time in the Whitmer home (but whitmer was not seen as one of the people who helped translate) and Oliver Cowdery and his pen was considered the primary individual that helped Joseph Smith with the translation.  It was also his account that was normally referred to until the more recent years when detractors have tried to make the translation seem less miraculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

ACTUALLY, the entire seerstone in a hat is something that MODERN historians are pushing.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

President Nelson apparently wrote about it back in 1993. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

President Nelson apparently wrote about it back in 1993. 

As I stated above, last 25 years.

I have NO idea why he chose to speak about it then.

It was a break in the narrative...of course, he got slapped back (at least emotionally) by Hinckley for some of his ideas back then as well (such as the NO MORMON thing he has created today) that today he has made a full on course for the Church to go in. 

Times change.  He's in charge today, but no idea why we have chosen to go with the narrative picked by the enemies of the church in the past to be our narrative today.  But, it is what it is.

As a Historian, it is all completely historically accurate, perhaps the most accurate the LDS church has ever been in regards to history. Historians are more of a worldly approach then religious.  Rather than say one source is absolutely believable, we take ALL sources of ALL sides to determine what the story may actually be.  As far as history goes, the church is far more accurate in it's narrative today then it has ever been.  (of course, by history, Joseph Smith was not an actual Prophet either...but history is non-religious in it's approach).  It still has a great ways to go it if wants to be completely historically accurate though.

In regards to the past church records, it is a VERY interesting time to say the least.  People may not realize just how drastic the changes since the 1980s have been, but in many ways we are a complete 180 degrees opposite of some of the things we had as doctrine and belief back then. 

Interesting times.

I, personally, dislike the entire hat trick or stone in a hat that people push today.  Personal taste and all I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Perhaps he wanted to tell the truth? 

Except, it is possible (I'd have to re-read his talk again where he spoke about it) he then calls everyone from Joseph Smith until Joseph Fielding Smith a Liar?

Not sure that's what he meant to do though. 

So...no idea.

Perhaps he got so involved with historical technique (Despite him not being a historian himself) that he thought he was talking about history?  Thats all I can come up with.  Though a REAL historian also looks at motivations, and at the time Whitmer and Harris were pushing this there was another individual who ALSO claimed to be able to translate via a seerstone (and doing what they claimed Joseph did...as that bolstered up their claims that he was the actual prophet people should be following, it is interesting how we accept their word at the time regarding the translation of the stone in the Hat but NOT the ensuing support from that and because of that, that this also proves that their sect of Mormonism was the correct sect and the Brighamites were the WRONG sect).  These are not a problem for a historian as History does not favor religion.  In the Historian's eyes, NEITHER was true and thus it doesn't matter what their claims are.

That's all I can even imagine is that he had done a little historical research and thought that he now knew "history" correctly and used it as such.

But overall...NO idea.  You'd have to ask him why he chose to?

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

But overall...NO idea.  You'd have to ask him why he chose to?

His motive is irrelevant, I guess. You (generic) can't take away the fact that he did write about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

His motive is irrelevant, I guess. You (generic) can't take away the fact that he did write about it. 

Oh, I don't.  It was why I mentioned about the 25 years ago. 

Didn't discount his statement or call it false, just that the NARRATIVE has changed (which it has...on a LOT of things in truth, most of which people don't notice or observe...or maybe I'm just too old and been around for far too long which is why I notice it.  They say as you get older you get more set in your ways).

Totally admit that this is something the Modern Church is now using as it's narrative...

The IRONY is that I, as an actual historian, don't actually think the narrative the church is pushing today is actually RELIABLY correct from a believer's viewpoint (even as it is more reliable from a Historian's viewpoint) as, historically, the motivations of those who pushed the story are EXTREMELY questionable (though no more questionable I suppose than the narratives and ideas that came from Brigham Young and John Taylor from the perspective of a HISTORIAN...though those two were considered more reliable by MORMONS in the past than those who left the church for other sects).

Personal opinion and all.

Completely agree (and mentioned in my post) that this is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to be pushing as the official narrative today.

Though...WHY...

As I also mention...I have NO idea why.  It's a total change from when I joined the church (at that time, saying such things would have been considered apostasy, and if one continued to push it and promote it...excommunication...so...yes...a very 180 degree change in some ways).

Why it changed...

No idea.

But, it's not my place to question why, just my place to follow the prophet and have faith to the end.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see you outside the MormonHub Third Hour Article Discussion subforum. Think we'll see you around here more in the future?

4 hours ago, dsnell said:

And of course I don't think we need to amend the lyrics to include an enumeration of Joseph's flaws haha.

That would make for an interesting hymn, probably raising more questions. "Could you explain this flaw? And this one? And why does a church sing a listing of an individual's sins as a hymn?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is only in the past 25 years that the narrative of the LDS church has changed.

Without much effort you can find Church publications that go back at least 44 years...

1. Friend 1974 - A Peaceful Heart

Quote

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.

2. Ensign 1977 - By the Gift and Power of God

Quote

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. And in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing.

@MormonGator enjoy! 😉
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Without much effort you can find Church publications that go back at least 44 years...

1. Friend 1974 - A Peaceful Heart

2. Ensign 1977 - By the Gift and Power of God

@MormonGator enjoy! 😉
 

 

Thanks bud! 

As a convert (admitingly a stupid one) , I don't understand many things about LDS culture. Why some people have a problem admitting that Smith Jr used a seer stone is beyond my meager intellectual abilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

So again, remember-I'm a stupid convert-did previous prophets deny that a Seer Stone was used or something? Asking out of ignorance, nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So again, remember-I'm a stupid convert-did previous prophets deny that a Seer Stone was used or something? Asking out of ignorance, nothing more. 

Not that I'm aware of. I've known Joseph used a seer stone most of my life and I'm a convert. Now granted I'm not that old (yet😃) but it was never hidden. Heck, the church kept the seer stone in it's archives, and I can think of numerous articles discussing or mentioning it like the ones presented by @NeuroTypical. It's the truth so why wouldn't they? I've never understood why people would struggle with the concept of God, who can create whole universes if he wills it, using a simple stone to help his mortal prophet. Oh and FYI, definitely keep Praise to the Man, one of my favorites☺.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now