In Defense of "Praise to the Man"

I was telling a friend of mine how I hear various complaints about the hymn "Praise to the Man" from people who feel it presents Joseph Smith as some kind of perfect Being - and how I personally really like the song.  She wrote back to me and shared the following perspective - and I agree with almost all of it.  (I have edited it only slightly, to add a little perspective of my own.) 

First I sense where and how the song can stick in someone's throat. When everyone else is singing it with all their gusto, some people picture a flawless man in a soft blue coat gazing majestically into the horizon. Once the picture becomes less polished - once someone sees the real, complex man and not just the caricature of an infallible prophet, it can make it harder for some people to shout, "Hallelujah."

If you don't mind though, I've come to think of it another way.

No matter how someone sees him - flawless or fallible, Joseph Smith died an untimely death by assassination. Often we mortals experience an intense response to that. Just look at Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy. At the time of both of their deaths, they were not beloved like they were afterward. It was rumored that Kennedy wouldn't win re-election. Many in America had lost faith in the man. But his death and the morbid events that caused it pushed him to a greatness he may have never achieved otherwise. The images burned painfully in our minds brought something unexpected to the forefront. Though no hymns were written for him, his works and images became land marks for everyone. His PT109 story was the stuff heroes are made of . His "Profiles in Courage" continues to be a go-to book for leadership. All this from a bullet. Lincoln's untimely death was very similar. The South still didn't love him, no matter how we would like to imagine it. The North had questions and concerns, as well. But that bullet shifted many people's feelings toward him and about his legacy.

In the American West this band of people experienced something similar. The hymn itself was written by a man who once hated Joseph Smith - and many people don't realize that. Of anyone who could have decided either to mourn or vilify Joseph, Brother Phelps was close to number one. In his grief he wrote a song, and that song is now an anthem. Why it didn't get lost in history, I don't know. Other songs written for the saints did.

I take a deep breath and try to remember what those left behind might have felt. They lived it. They lived with Joseph. How much they knew, we may never know, but like other leaders his death was a beacon for them. This song was their anthem of hope.

I have not decided what Joseph would think of it. Some of his final addresses would make it seem like he would be thrilled to have his own hymn. But other parts of him lead me to believe differently. For all the ego that we suppose he had, I have found it intriguing that he rarely preached from the book "he wrote". (Those quotation marks are important, since I'm not saying he didn't translate it.)  Many of his addresses were platforms from the bible - especially Paul. I don't read of meetings that began with, "As King Benjamin taught us . . . " or, "Like Nephi of old said . . ." From my vantage point, I would expect an egotistical soul to pulpit-pound his magnum opus. Yes, he never rejected it; he testified of its origin and his conviction of it. However, it wasn't his platform. Something else was.

So, for me, "Praise to the Man" is a hymn I hum or sing in remembrance of a man who inspired bands of people to cross oceans, deserts, and mountains in the hope of something deep that burned in their hearts - and in remembrance of those people whose hope burned so brightly. 

I also should add that Mormons use the word "praise" very differently than many other Christians do, and understanding that simple fact removes so much of the concern.

If We Divorce Our Actions from Our Beliefs, We Are Left with "Dead Works"

"Faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things NOT seen." 

In that light, our faith consists of those things for which we hope but for which we have no objective evidence that has been observed.  I have not seen the resurrected Lord, and I have not heard him tell me personally what he taught in the Bible (and, I believe, elsewhere), but I absolutely hope he was right and his words are true.  That is my hope - that he really will accept me and my sincere efforts to do what he has told me to do - that he will "find favor with me". 

At a deeper level, how we act (the things we do or our "works") is the manifestation of that faith - the "evidence" that we really do believe what we can't see but for which we hope.  That's why James said so simply, "Faith without works is dead, being alone." 

If we divorce our actions from our beliefs, we are left with "dead works" - since there is nothing that animates those beliefs and makes them "living" (which, interestingly, means "capable of growth and change").  "Repentance", at the root, means nothing more than "change" - and when we act without an intent to change, we become "dead" (or nothing more than "inanimate" objects). 

Jesus made one very radical alteration in the Jewish culture of his day; he repositioned humanity as supreme and the law as created to change humanity (rather than humanity being created to serve the law).  He made the law all about "repentance" (progressive change that produces growth and literal transformation), instead of an end unto itself. 

That's the true focus of our "works" - a recognition that they are nothing more than our best attempt to create evidence that we really do believe that in which we say we hope.  That in which we hope is the heart of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that we really are "children of God" who can become "heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ" and, ultimately, "be one, even as we are one" - seeing Him as He is, because "we shall be like Him."

Balancing Obedience and Grace: Is It Objective in Any Way?

I can’t see the actual abilities of anyone, including myself to a degree, so I have no problem believing there are no “objective” measures of obedience. We believe there are people who are not accountable at all (for anything they do), but I think we fail to accept that each and every one of us is not accountable to some degree in some ways – and that the Atonement covers that degree completely. 

That might be the only objective measure of obedience in which I believe – that we are saved and redeemed from those things that are outside of our control, and that those things probably are far more extensive than most of us realize, so we are asked to do our best while holding onto hope and faith that our effort will be acceptable in the end. 

One of the reasons I believe in the most expansive view of “Judge not, that ye be not judged” is that I believe seeking objective standards of obedience denies the Atonement in a real way – by assuming we can see as God sees and make judgments God has reserved solely for Himself. 

I know some might say that we can be judged against our past - by how much we improve over time.  I agree with that, generally speaking, but I would add the caveat that we all might have personal “thorns of the flesh” that never leave us and "ceilings" beyond which we can't progress in mortality. We can’t become discouraged and give up in those situations because of how we measure up to our past - or our desired future.

I think that’s the heart of the message of 2 Nephi 4 – and if people like Paul and Nephi can struggle with something (whatever it was for each of them), I am prone to cut myself and others a little slack as long as we keep trying.

One of the reasons I admire my own wife so much is that she keeps struggling valiantly to improve in a couple of areas that are brutally hard for her – when it would be so easy to throw her hands in the air and just say, “This is who I am. God made me this way. I’m going to quit trying to change, since I know he loves me regardless.”

The following can be and has been abused throughout history with regard to some things, but I believe the idea that, in some cases, we don’t need to measure ourselves against either our past or our hopes and expectations for the future is a wonderful principle of the Gospel and aspect of the Atonement.

My own standard is, “trying to do the best I can to recognize what I should do and then trying the best I can to do it – knowing I’m not even sure what really is in my own control but trusting that the Lord has paid for my transgressions and will forgive me of my sins as I strive to overcome them”. That’s not objective at all, but it’s how I try to measure my own efforts.

Different People Need Different Messages Delivered in Different Ways

If there is one part of our Mormon "culture" I would smash to pieces in a heartbeat if I could, it is the idea that we have to be "perfect" (meaning mistake free) or constantly focused on our mistakes.  I believe in repentance deeply, but, as I've said elsewhere, there are two aspects of repentance: the redeeming one that covers our sins and the enabling one that covers our weaknesses and unconscious transgressions and so much that causes so many such grief. 

The idea that we really are good enough but simply need to try to do a little better as we go through life was one of Pres. Hinckley's central messages. Unfortunately, for those who naturally have a perfection complex (which is a fairly good-sized percent of all groups) - and for those who had a distorted version of perfection pounded into them (which includes many members of the Church) . . . it can be hard to believe the magnitude of what Christ has done for us already.

It really is a balance, however - and it's really easy for many people to overlook that. People collectively tend to gravitate to the extremes ("The Church is a soulless cult" vs. "All is well in Zion" - or "I am fine just the way I am, thank you, so quit telling me I need to try to be better" vs. "I'm a horrible person and never will be good enough" - etc.) - so teaching a message that works to motivate people at both extremes and everywhere in between them is really hard.

Frankly, I think that's one reason why different apostles and Prophets have different personalities and perspectives - so everyone can hear someone "speak to them personally". For example, in General Conference this weekend, there were multiple talks about obedience and keeping the commandments - but each person addressed that principle in different ways.  I really loved one of them, was somewhat ambivalent about another one and just didn't "feel" a third one much at all.  I know that bothers some people, but I appreciate it - even when I hear something that just doesn't move me in any real way or even grates to some degree.  There also were multiple statements in General Conference that stressed the importance of accepting others who are different than we are, and it was applied to people both inside and outside the LDS Church.  What moves us through "the spoken word" is part of that. 

It makes it hard for people to listen to someone preaching to "the others" - but, at least, the others do get to hear their message, as well. It's when someone is in the group that hears "the other message" more often than "my message" that it gets most difficult.

Recognizing that both messages are being taught, conflicting though they might be, helps.

Exercising Faith By Thinking Critically (In an Analytical Manner)

"Faith" is the substance of things "hoped for" - the evidence of things "not seen".  I believe it is absolutely vital, when discussing faith, to remember this basic definition and not conflate faith with anything else. 

When "faith" becomes "knowledge" it no longer is faith - at least in the mind and heart of the person who believes s/he "knows". Therefore, saying someone has no faith simply because they can't say they know something is, in my opinion, a misuse of the word "faith". In my opinion, someone who can't say they "know" but still holds to "belief" actually is exercising "faith" in the truest sense of the word - hoping in something based on unseen evidence.

So, if someone claims to have received revelation for what they are doing, I am left with three options:

1) Accept it "uncritically" (shallowly and casually), simply because they claim it. In other words, employ "blind faith" by hoping that person is correct but not examining their claims in any way - or only shallowly and casually. I don't do that, but not accepting it uncritically does not mean I have no faith. It just means my faith is not blind. 

2) Accept it critically. This means I think and ponder and read and pray about it and come to believe it. I have done that regarding some revelatory claims, including at least one in which I was involved directly.

3) Examine it critically and not accept it. Same explanation as #2, but with the opposite result. I have done that regarding some revelatory claims, as well.

 Joseph Smith had his experiences largely because he refused to accept things uncritically - because he was willing to examine things critically, not just shallowly and casually. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God," is a directive to be "critical" in the purest sense of the word and in the way I use it. So is, "Seek ye out of the best books . . ." and, "receive . . . read . . . ponder . . . pray . . ." and, "plant . . . the seed . . . and . . . (observe its growth)."

I only can be sure of those experiences that happen to me - or, to a degree, to others for whom I have felt a prompting to accept them as revelators. In an important way, those experiences have "happened to me" if I have gone through the critical process of accepting the revelator as a legitimate revelator. That doesn't mean I have to believe everything they say is revelation, but it does mean it's much easier to accept revelation from them.

The onus for that decision is on me - as an exercise of my faith - as something for which I am willing to hope with some degree of evidence in the absence of actual sight.

Charity Hopeth All Things

My New Year's Resolution this month is to "hope more things" - taken, like the rest of my monthly resolutions, from Paul's discourse on charity in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.  As I almost always do the first weekend of each month, I looked up and pondered the meaning (or possible meanings) of the aspect of charity that is the focus of my effort this month - in this case, "hope".

The following definitions are very similar, but I want to combine them into one comprehensive definition for the beginning of this month's contemplation:

–verb (used with object)

1.to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence.

2.to believe, desire, or trust. 

–verb (used without object)

3.to feel that something desired may happen. 

4.Archaic. to place trust; rely (usually fol. by in). 

The verse in question uses "hope" as a verb with an object ("all things"), so #1 and #2 are the most precise definitions for that verse - but I want to include #4, as well, specifically because the phrase / concept "hope in Christ" is so common to us.  Also, in the context of the overall passage, I think it is important to incorporate last month's resolution focus ("charity believeth all things"), which I am going to translate as it is listed later in the chapter as the "faith" that precedes hope.  Therefore, the definition I am proposing for my resolution this month translates the original phrase into:

Charity believes, desires and trusts, with reasonable confidence, all things - through its trust in and reliance on the promises of God (expressed as faith in Jesus, the Christ).  

I believe that distinction is critical for ME, personally, since my hope really is centered on what I believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ - the "Good News" he taught and lived as a replacement for the "Old News" prior to his life, ministry and death.  (I understand that such will not be the case for all people, but it is important for my own personal resolution.)  In my subsequent posts this month, I will focus on some of what I believe are the most important things for or in which I hope - but, as I did with the idea of "believing all things", I want to start by mentioning explicitly and directly that the idea of hoping ALL things is founded on the belief that we are open to a recognition and acceptance of all things.  It implies quite strongly that we must be open-minded enough to avoid NOT HOPING something out of hand, especially simply because we don't understand it or think it is impossible.  After all, there's no real power in hoping for the obvious or bland or mundane.  The "tricky" part of this definition is the part about "reasonable confidence" - since that is an individual, variable standard.

I also want to make one more observation that I believe is not as obvious upon first reading - but which I believe also is critical to the central concept of hoping all things: 

If we "hope" all things, of necessity we cannot "know" all things.  The entire orientation of believing and hoping all things rests irrevocably on the foundation of recognizing there are some things we simply don't know - both conceptually (believing) and practically (hoping).  It's easy to say we only believe and hope things until we know them, and I cannot and will not dispute that basic construct.  However, there is a strong thread throughout 1 Corinthians 13 of realizing that we do not now and never will understand "all things" fully - that, until the very end, when all is "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed), there will remain at least some things that we will "see through a glass, darkly".  There might be individual exceptions to this rule, but I believe I am not one of them - and, therefore, it is important for me to make that point up-front and at the beginning of the month.

Also, I believe we cannot "know" something in practical terms until we have experienced it.  Much of my "hope" is in things that I will not experience until after I die - and I have no expectation that I will one of the very few in our recorded history to have experiences that will enable me to say I know through my own experiences about those particular things.

Those Whose Mortal Struggles Overwhelm Them

I know someone who has some intense struggles.

He lived with friends for a while after he could no longer live at home, and, during that time, he had a couple of incredibly strong spiritual experiences - after first deciding to listen to the missionaries because both sister missionaries were "absolute babes". (What can I say; he was 18.)       He is highly intelligent, and he "got it" very quickly.  He and I had some long talks, and he really did have some awesome experiences and insights.   He was baptized while living with his friends, then left for college a few months later.

He had some negative experiences in his new ward that don't need to be detailed here.  As a result of those experiences and the subsequent lack of the type of support system he had when he joined the Church, he began to return to the life he had lived prior to coming to that.  His dysfunctional adolescence caused some very deep habits and inclinations, and, left on his own, they resurfaced.  I have prayed for him and hoped for him, but I have seen his actions take him away from activity in the Church.

He returned home once for the summer, and his father mocked his inactivity by saying something like, "I guess that Mormon thing isn't working out for you."  His response gave me hope in the midst of my concern. He said to his father, "I'm not living the way I should be living, but the Mormon Church is still the truest thing I've ever heard. I just have to get myself together before I can live it."

 

I hang onto faith that "when he is old, he will not depart from it". I KNOW his experiences and insights were real; he knows they were real. I have to trust that God's mercy truly will save him from the results of Adam's transgression in his life - and I see the issues that are keeping him from full activity directly as a result of what he inherited from his parents and what he had to "become" to cope without killing himself - and the experiences he had in a non-supportive environment when he first was on his own.

I believe the Atonement is MUCH more powerful than we often realize. Surely, God understands those whose struggles overwhelm them, and we someday will "stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers (them); confused at the grace that so fully he proffers (them)."

Malleable Faith and Shattered Knowledge

Often what gets called “faith” is not “faith”. “Faith” is not a certainty; it is “the substance of things hoped for” - and when we divorce “faith” from “hope”, I believe we get a bastardiszed version that can be very destructive.

Fwiw, one of the biggest theological mutations in the current Church that I think needs to be fixed is the over-emphasis on knowledge almost to the exclusion of faith. (I think that’s probably why the brethren seem to be emphasizing grace more and more recently - to return to faith in Him over confidence in self.) If you remove faith from the equation, you remove hope from your perspective - which means that when the black-and-white certainty of supposed knowledge shatters, there generally is no foundation of faith left on which to fall - since “hope” has been removed from the equation.

Malleable faith and hope can grow and be molded into ever-changing shapes as new perspectives are encountered and adapted; kiln-burned knowledge shatters when dropped.