- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Primary is using ‘Praise to the Man’ in the program this year (I’m sure a lot of us have opinions about that). The line in the chorus that really jumped out at me during rehearsal was, ‘Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren.’ What do we think that means? What Gods (and do we think it’s significant that the word is capitalized)? Just the Godhead, or someone(s) else? What kind of planning are we talking about? Can that be interpreted to mean that JS is involved with running the church from beyond the veil, or does JS’ planning only apply to the post mortal existence? (I tried asking my husband these questions and it… did not go over well. So I thought I’d ask a less orthodox group of people. Do you guys promise not to read heresy into any of my questions?
😆 )Don’t think it means anything. Just some words someone put in a song that sounded good at the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That was my father-in-law’s favorite hymn. My MIL used it as a congregation hymn at his funeral. Worst funeral song EVER.
I cannot hear it now without thinking about THAT. My life becomes focused on laugh suppression.
You have to look at it in context with the time. It was written shortly after the death of JS. Imagine the emotion of the time. Especially if you personally knew him.
Wikipedia said the following about WW Phelps, the author of this hymn.
Quote:Phelps, the hymn’s author, became involved in the Church of Christ, the original name of the Latter Day Saint church founded by Joseph Smith, during its time in Kirtland, Ohio, and subsequently served as a leader in Missouri before leaving the church due to unresolved financial issues and personal dissatisfaction. Declaring himself an enemy to the Mormon prophet, Phelps offered to testify against Smith in an intended Missouri trial for treason in which Smith would be the main defendant. However, the proceeding never took place, and in 1839 Smith and his associates were allowed to escape to the newly established Mormon haven of Nauvoo, Illinois.
Two years later, Phelps experienced a change of heart toward Smith, and wrote him a repentant letter asking for forgiveness and a chance to rejoin the Latter Day Saints in Illinois. Smith’s reply offered Phelps his full forgiveness and a return to the Latter Day Saints with no further consequences. Phelps was deeply touched by this development, and upon his return he became an enthusiastic and devoted disciple of Smith’s. Phelps was invited to speak at Smith’s funeral in June 1844. His poem, “Joseph Smith”, followed in August of that same year, and has since become a popular Mormon hymn.
I always took it to mean 1. The Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 3 Gods, but one in purpose.
Also
2. Men who have likewise become “one” with God. The principle of exaltation; man can become like God, much in the same way as Christ is like God. Whatever Joseph Smith said (and not of himself) it was the word of God.
The plan of the Church leaders and of Joseph Smith was also Gods plan. Because they were “one” with him, the same as Christ was “one” with the Father.
Funny that you should bring this up. Today in Primary, the kids were learning this song and the chorister was teaching them the meaning of the big words that most didn’t understand. (I thought it was a good exercise). She described “mingling” as “communicating” (not the literal meaning of the word of course). If you take it that way, it just means that he is now on the other side “hobnobbing” with the elite of heaven. I doubt it means much more than that. It simply puts Joseph Smith on the same level as, perhaps, the Godhead. I recognize some here would have problems with that idea. I’m not saying that its doctrinally sound but (as Minyan Man said), a reflection of the love and esteem that Phelps had for Joseph Smith. Will there be any munch and mingling with gods on the other side? I actually take them putting it in the primary program as an attempt to double-down. There are several other restoration-theme hymns in the first fifty pages of the hymnal, but they chose the one that deifies the prophet…like we’re NOT supposed to do? So spend their first decade of two of life imprinting kids with thinking like this, and then, when they hit high school and start questioning and pushing back, tell them they have all the wrong expectations of a prophet? It’s the only hymn I won’t sing anymore. I can’t find a single complete phrase that I feel is true.
I see it as the musical accompaniment to Section 135.
Are there any other instances, outside of this hymn, of using the word ‘Gods’ to mean ‘the Godhead’? I’m not aware of any, but perhaps it was more common in Phelps’ time. (I tried searching for the word ‘Gods’ in the Gospel Library app, but it assumes you mean the word ‘God,’ so I couldn’t find any useful results.) Hey, maybe the word ‘Gods’ means The Godhead + Heavenly Mother 
My ward’s Primary chorister has chosen to omit the second verse, which I think is wise. The second verse is the most offensively over-the-top (and didn’t the second verse used to say
Stain Illinoiswhile the earth lauds his fame???) I guess I can see why the church would want to teach Primary children this song – it indoctrinates them early on, and unlike most of the hymns, it’s actually fun to sing. On the other hand, I can’t believe how much deep doctrine is hinted at in this song. Plurality of gods; speculation about the afterlife; blood atonement (strongly hinted at in the fourth verse). All things that were openly speculated about in the early 19th century church; all things that have been correlated out of the modern church. I’m honestly surprised that the hymnbook committee has let this one stand.
Joni wrote:Are there any other instances, outside of this hymn, of using the word ‘Gods’ to mean ‘the Godhead’?
Check out Abraham chapters 4 and 5.
Many people like to point out how Elohim in the book of Genesis is the plural word for god. Other people point out verb conjugations to show that Elohim was meant to be singular. Hard to tell with all the translations that have happened over the years.
Yeah, the Book of Abraham kind of backs up my theory that this is one of those doctrines that was common in the early Church but mostly ignored today. Kind of like how we are not supposed to talk about getting our own planet when we die. 
nibbler wrote:Will there be any munch and mingling with gods on the other side?
Where else do you suppose that single deceased people gather to find potential eternal companions?
“If you could hie to Kolob, could you give me a ride? I do not want to be late for the “munch and Mingle” with the gods.”
Whenever I hear this song, I can only hear bagpipes. Which are obviously of the Devil. Ergo…. 😈 It is, essentially, a eulogy, written in the moment of extreme sorrow by a dear friend. I am fine with it in that light.
Joni wrote:The line in the chorus that really jumped out at me during rehearsal was, ‘Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren.’ What do we think that means?
My impression of the ideas from back then: Joseph would lead or preside over “the church” in heaven (the portion that he presided over on earth) the way it had been set up by him on earth. He was essentially the leader of the dispensation. When I read the old journals and communications I get the idea that some saw the priesthood structure as eternal, and could pass from this life into the next. This may add context to how bishops served for most of their lives back then. I have the impression that members believed if they built a relationship with Joseph then he could look out for them in the next life. My take on “Gods” in this verse allows room to mean other exalted beings in the next life, maybe not our Eternal Father type of “God” – although it could easily mean that too – but other children of God who are progressing toward exaltation and have achieved the distinction of that title. Maybe like the extended authority figures of the priesthood as it exists in heaven. Some Christians may think giving anyone else the title reduces the singular greatness of God, but at the time I’d bet they would have taken it as we refer to President Eyring or Uchtdorf as “President” – it in no way reduces the position of President Monson.
Don’t quote me, this is all simply my impression as I imagine the saints and their views at that time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.