Third Hour

Unpopular Opinion: “Praise to the Man” Needs to Go (There, I Said It)

Recommended Posts

Opinion Before you charge at me with your torch and pitchforks, please just take a moment, read this article, and try to understand where this opinion about the popular hymn, "Praise to the Man" is coming from, even if you still disagree with it by the end. But before I get into my reasons, I want you to know that I love this hymn just as much as the next Latter-day Saint! It's undeniably powerful. I oftentimes feel the Spirit when I sing it (and maybe that's evidence enough that it's OK!). It's undoubtedly one of the more rousing hymns that are available to us during our Sunday worship. This is bound to be a polarizing opinion piece, but don't misunderstand, I'm not out picketing against "Praise to the Man" on the corner of Temple Square. In fact, I'm totally open to having my mind changed on this. But as of right now, I think the cost/benefit analysis is not in favor of "Praise to the Man." Seeing it go would...

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?  Doctrine is to be run through a Cost/Benefit analysis?

Psasst... 3H... you really really need to ponder the quality of your articles.  I don’t believe you are so desperate for articles as to just publish anything out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks who profess an interest in building “communities”—whether social progressives, or 3H officials—often have a surprising disregard for, and even contempt of, the little actions and traditions that actually forge communities and bind them together.  More’s the pity.  

You arent going to build the Restored Gospel by running away from your founding beliefs and trying to blend in with your contemporaries.  The ancient Israelites took fifteen hundred years to figure it out—but they finally did, and it’s a crying shame we can’t take some hints from them and figure out how to avoid the fleshpots of latter-day Babylon.

Sorry to be so prickly here, but I just spent the last two hours analyzing police reports, victim statements, medical examiner reports—the works—from a case where a ten-year old and an eight-year-old gang-raped a five-year old, including sodomizing her with a power impact driver.  The boys got the idea from their dads’ porn flicks.

Accommodate the sensitivities of this miserable, self-worshipping, sex-obsessed, prophet-killing, baby-aborting culture?  To Hades with that.  They can accommodate us for once in their execrable lives, thank God that He has not yet poured the fulness of His wrath out on them, and consider the possibility that they ought to repent and get out of the house of horrors they’ve constructed for themselves.  Has anyone considered that “Praise To The Man” is a giant and well-deserved middle finger, proudly and intentionally displayed to a modern wreck of westernized culture that refused and refuses to admit that the emperor has no clothes? 

If assimilation becomes our goal, we’re done.  And we’ll deserve to be done.  Politeness is all well and good, but in a big way we were sent to be offensive—not to hide in dark corners navel-gazing about why people don’t like us more. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The song is "Praise to the man" not "Worship the man";  I didn't even read the article, but I think that historically, the protestant Christian community has a poor concept of regard for spiritual leaders.  I would argue that this stems from their lack of ability to verify and validate a spiritual leader's credentials, which of course is because they lack truly valid credentials.  Although we disagree, the Catholic community has a much greater understanding of this concept as they practice the veneration of saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss for a worthy response, other than to post site rule #1, again, as a response to something published by the organization who gave us this site rule:

Quote

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

 

It's sort of a weird feeling, looking back on 20 years of arguing with church critics over this song, to hear the same arguments coming from believing members.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt like this was deja vu -didn't we have this discussion a few months ago...

 

There it is. I guess everyone has their hang-ups, but this one I can't begin to relate to. It's a great song and it's obviously not idol worship or deifying Brother Joseph.

Didn't the Jews consider it blasphemous for Christ to say he was the son of God? Should we get rid of I am a Child of God while we're at it because Babylon doesn't get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even before reading the article I suspected the content, then I read this:

3 hours ago, Third Hour said:

 

Opinion Before you charge at me with your torch and pitchforks, please just take a moment, read this article, and try to understand where this opinion about the popular hymn, "Praise to the Man" is coming from, even if you still disagree with it by the end

 

And thought maybe this was a new argument... well it wasn’t. Not a new opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I refrained commenting on the first thread because I didn't want to come across as anti-Snell, having so recently taken him to task over another article. But David has outdone himself with this one. I agree with every critical comment made in this thread, and think we could easily add dozens more.

Brother @dsnell, you are welcome to your opinions. Really, you are. I understand holding unpopular opinions; I myself have some opinions that are less than orthodox. But I don't write public columns about them to explain myself to others, hoping perhaps to persuade them to join me in my jihad. Might I counsel you to stop with the ark-steadying and the seeking for praise because of your superior perceptions. You're allowed to dislike a hymn, even a popular hymn. But when you publicly air your grievance, don't be surprised when people respond, not with pitchforks, but with personal distaste. You are soiling something sacred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores

Yep, you did say it.  Have you considered the real motivation behind this case you've made?  Have you considered just how it actually sounds to many faithful members of the Church who do not have a problem with the hymn?  Let me share that.

Summary of the article:

I love the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ so much that I'm in favor of hiding or denying any hint of something that the philosophies of men may find objectionable.  Yes, I read what are put forth as case studies and historical justification.  But I found it lacking.

... Another very young journalist trying to get a rise out of his readers.

What exactly is the relationship between the blog administrators and the forum administrators?

Edited by Mores

Share this post


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

What exactly is the relationship between the blog administrators and the forum administrators?

My understanding is that this forum was started by @Heather as LDS Chat back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and eventually LDS.net became a project of the More Good Foundation and its name was changed to MormonHub, and then Third Hour.  I believe the site rules are in the same form they were before the merger, though I wasn’t around then.  

MGF pretty much delegates the management of this forum to @pam, and for the most part she and us other mods have a pretty free hand in the management of the forum—except that I believe MGF has installed an algorithm so that when one of their columnists (which my auto-correct just tried to change to “communists”—tee, hee) publishes something, a new thread about that column automatically pops under here (courtesy of some sort of algorithm, I think).

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding is that this forum was started by @Heather as LDS Chat back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and eventually LDS.net became a project of the More Good Foundation and its name was changed to MormonHub, and then Third Hour.  I believe the site rules are in the same form they were before the merger, though I wasn’t around then.  

MGF pretty much delegates the management of this forum to @pam, and for the most part she and us other mods have a pretty free hand in the management of the forum—except that I believe MGF has installed an algorithm so that when one of their columnists (which my auto-correct just tried to change to “communists”—tee, hee) publishes something, a new thread about that column automatically pops under here (courtesy of some sort of algorithm, I think).

Slight correction.  It was LDStalk not LDS Chat.  LDS Chat was a completely different chatroom and forum.  

The articles are set up in the software to automatically post from the blog side of the ThirdHour site to the forums.  I manage the forums and have nothing to do with the article side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as far as my opinion on the song.  I love this song.  I have never thought that it idolized Joseph Smith.  It reminds of us how this church was restored and who restored it.  It's part of our history and I hope they never remove it.  I would be sorely upset if they did because I would think they did it due to pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
On 3/23/2019 at 10:19 PM, NightSG said:

More unpopular opinion: it's the Achy Breaky Heart of LDS music, and it's long past due for folks to notice that there are over 300 other hymns, many of which haven't seen the light of day in years.

As a backup pianists in my ward, I can testify that most of those unused hymns are because they are really difficult to play or sing.  They ought to be used by the choir. But most choirs expect to sing some other song -- not found in the hymnal.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little weird for a convert to hear at first. Once it's explained it's understood, but I can see why people who aren't LDS are a little confused by it. 

I didn't say it shouldn't be played, or that it is wrong, or that I agree with the OP. All I said was that it's a little weird for a convert to hear at first, and that I can understand why non members are confused by it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's a little weird for a convert to hear at first. Once it's explained it's understood, but I can see why people who aren't LDS are a little confused by it. 

I didn't say it shouldn't be played, or that it is wrong, or that I agree with the OP. All I said was that it's a little weird for a convert to hear at first, and that I can understand why non members are confused by it. 

I appreciate where you're coming from.  But we can look at it as Snell did as a prickly point, or we can look at it as a conversation starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mores said:

I appreciate where you're coming from.  

Thanks! 

 

2 hours ago, Mores said:

 But we can look at it as Snell did as a prickly point, or we can look at it as a conversation starter.

Right, and that's exactly I did. Raise a conversation, and  try to see where Snell was coming from. 

Edited by MormonGator

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