Scott Lloyd Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) I think it's because the Church made a big deal out of the 200th anniversary of Joseph's birth in 2005. Since it was two days before Christmas...But doesn't it seem rather unremarkable that the Church would make "a big deal out of" a landmark anniversary such as a bicentennial regardless of when in the calendar year it occurred? What "big deal" has been made out of it in other years? Edited December 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 I find the above commentary rather curious.Do you intend the phrase "not-insignificant" as a weasel term for significant? If so, what credible evidence can you offer that the "official church" pays inordinate attention to the birthday of Joseph Smith, to the degree that a reasonable observer could conclude that said attention eclipses the Mormon observance of the birth of Christ?Still wondering what Sethbag has in mind when he refers to "the not-insignificant attention paid to Smith's birthday by the official church," so I'm topping this post. Despite having worked the past 26 years for the Church News, the official news publication of the Church, I have somehow missed all the hoopla the "official church" supposedly raises from year to year in observance of the Prophet's birthday.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 The usual suspects on FreeRepublic are doing several "Smithmas" stories per day this month. This guy is really obsessed with the notion, apparently.I suspect it was Californian on FreeRepublic who invented the whole "Merry Smithmas" nonsense.Funny thing: In December for a couple of years running, I wrote for the Church News a tribute to the Prophet Joseph Smith, mentioning that his birthday occurs during that month. My work, appearing on line, caught Californian's attention.This year, I didn't do a Joseph Smith piece, my time and energy occupied by other assignments and recovery from an Oct. 31 bike accident. Californian must really have been disappointed. I note he went back and dredged up the 2010 article for his annual "Smithmas" rants.The guy must have a real chip on his shoulder if he would bother to go back a year to find a target for his derision.
LeSellers Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 You mean, they're that linguistically versatile, yet they've never bothered to learn the Celestial Language?Technically, it's only our son-in-law who's the polyglot, and he does speak some Spanish. However, Xavier is not Spanish, it's Basque ("new house"), and the first person I know of who bore the name was Francis Xavier, of Navarre, founder of the Jesuit order. Since the name is a toponym, it's doubtful he was actually the original person to carry the name. He would have, in his native language, said "etxaberri".My friend, Miguel Arxxxxio, reminds me that, when one wants to talk to a man, he uses German. If he desires to speak to a woman, the language of choice is French. But when he prays to God, he speaks Spanish.Of course, Miguel is a Spaniard, and my be somewhat biased.Lehi
Sethbag Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I find the above commentary rather curious.Do you intend the phrase "not-insignificant" as a weasel term for significant?Yes, I intended "not-insignificant" as a weasel term for significant. I'm shocked that you saw through me so easily.If so, what credible evidence can you offer that the "official church" pays inordinate attention to the birthday of Joseph Smith, to the degree that a reasonable observer could conclude that said attention eclipses the Mormon observance of the birth of Christ?I never said that Mormon observance of Smith's birthday elipses observance of the birth of Christ. I even remarked that it's actually quite unlucky that Smith's birthday is as close to Dec. 25th as it is, because it makes it hard for them to pay much attention to it without this sort of thing coming up. Around the 2005/2006 time frame was when I really started to fade out of LDS church services, and it so happens that that was the year that Smith's bicentennial was celebrated, with the Ensign cover, the special service, and so forth. I'm willing to believe that my memory of this event, refreshed by articles or other references to it, leave me with an exaggerated impression of how much of a deal is made of this each December by the church.Still, we're talking about it in a thread on MD&D in 2011, so it's not just me, is it?Regardless, I think that IMHO an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Joseph Smith. He's been succeeded as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator what, fifteen times now? And yet Joseph Smith probably gets more airtime in LDS circles than all of his successors put together, probably by some large multiple. Whether Smithmas is real or not, the amount of attention paid to the founder of the religion sure is pretty freaking high.
Sethbag Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Oh, Smithmas is definitely an invention of our apostate critics, though they sometimes write as if it were actually a term used by believers. It's meant to insinuate that Latter-day Saints venerate Joseph Smith on a par with, or even more than, Jesus Christ. Which is, as we all know, a blatant and shameless falsehood.I can't speak for my apostate brethren, but I don't accuse, or even insinuate that LDS venerate Joseph Smith on a par with, or even more than Jesus. If LDS venerate Smith a step down from Jesus, or even two steps down, I think that's bad enough (for lack of a better term). Btw, I'm asking this because I don't know the answer, though I rather suspect it is zero, but are there any other LDS Prophets with hymns about them in the hymnal? I can think of at least two for Joseph Smith - "Praise to the Man" of course, and "Oh How Lovely Was the Morning", though I'll grant one could say this song was about the first vision more than Joseph personally.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Yes, I intended "not-insignificant" as a weasel term for significant. I'm shocked that you saw through me so easily.I try to avoid jumping to conclusions. Accordingly, I will occasionally ask for a clarification of meaning.I never said that Mormon observance of Smith's birthday elipses observance of the birth of Christ. I even remarked that it's actually quite unlucky that Smith's birthday is as close to Dec. 25th as it is, because it makes it hard for them to pay much attention to it without this sort of thing coming up. Around the 2005/2006 time frame was when I really started to fade out of LDS church services, and it so happens that that was the year that Smith's bicentennial was celebrated, with the Ensign cover, the special service, and so forth. I'm willing to believe that my memory of this event, refreshed by articles or other references to it, leave me with an exaggerated impression of how much of a deal is made of this each December by the church.That's pretty much as I suspected.Still, we're talking about it in a thread on MD&D in 2011, so it's not just me, is it?It is clear from discussion in this thread that the "Smithmas" notion is a fantasy invented from whole cloth by antagonists for polemical purposes. My impression is that Daniel Peterson wanted to make that point when he started this thread. Anti-Mormon sophistries are often identified and discussed on this board. Such identification and discussion does not automatically endow the sophistries with any greater credibility or validity merely from having been the subject of identifcation and discussion.Regardless, I think that IMHO an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Joseph Smith. He's been succeeded as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator what, fifteen times now? And yet Joseph Smith probably gets more airtime in LDS circles than all of his successors put together, probably by some large multiple. Whether Smithmas is real or not, the amount of attention paid to the founder of the religion sure is pretty freaking high.The special emphasis that I and other Latter-day Saints give to the Prophet Joseph Smith is to recognize the unique role he played in God's dealings with His covenant people -- a role foretold in ancient scripture -- and the greatness with which Joseph fulfilled that role. Jesus Christ chose him as the vessel through which priesthood authority and keys would be restored to the earth. Christ decreed that "this generation [meaning the people living in this gospel dispensation] shall have my word through" Joseph Smith (see Doctrine and Covenants 5:10). The ordinances of salvation, both for the living and the dead, were restored through Joseph Smith. He translated the Book of Mormon and other latter-day scripture, and almost all of the canonized, foundational revelations that govern the Church in the latter-days were given to Joseph Smith. His significance goes far beyond merely being one in a sucession of Church presidents.And I daresay his successors in the presidency of the Church would readily agree with that. Brigham Young said he felt like shouting "Halleluia!" all the time just to think he ever knew Joseph Smith. John Taylor penned the words of the tribute today canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 135, the one that says Joseph Smith "has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it." George Albert Smith's vision and business acumen led to the acquision for the Church of Joseph Smith's birthplace in Vermont, the Joseph Smith Sr. farm in Palmyra, N.Y., and the Hill Cumorah property to serve as monuments to Joseph's life and mission. Gordon B. HInckley directed the reconstruction of the Nauvoo Temple with an identical exerior to and placement on the precise footprint of the original in part as a monument to Joseph Smith's greatness. And President Hinckley timed the opening dedicatory session for the temple to coincide precisely with the date and hour in June when Joseph and Hyrum were martyred in nearby Carthage.But all of this is peripheral to the topic of this thread. I am content with your de facto -- albeit grudging -- admission that your insinuation that "the official church" pays too much attention at Christmas time to Joseph Smith's birthday is devoid of substance. Edited January 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
cinepro Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I've recently started teaching the 17yo Sunday School class, and it is offering me an enlightening, if somewhat harrowing, insight into the minds of modern LDS teenagers. This past week as we started discussing the Book of Mormon, I walked them through an overview of how we got the Book of Mormon, including, yes, a discussion of the "face-in-the-hat" translation method as discussed in the July 1993 Ensign by Elder Nelson. The reaction: blank stares and glassy eyes. But I digress...When I asked if any of them knew when the first vision was, only a few even guessed years in the first half of the 19th century. And when I asked "Joseph Smith was 14 years old for the FV, and when was he born?", not a single student knew. So no need to worry about an overemphasis on Joseph Smith's birthday among the youth . At least in my ward, it appears to have been totally forgotten.
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I've recently started teaching the 17yo Sunday School class, and it is offering me an enlightening, if somewhat harrowing, insight into the minds of modern LDS teenagers. This past week as we started discussing the Book of Mormon, I walked them through an overview of how we got the Book of Mormon, including, yes, a discussion of the "face-in-the-hat" translation method as discussed in the July 1993 Ensign by Elder Nelson. The reaction: blank stares and glassy eyes. But I digress...When I asked if any of them knew when the first vision was, only a few even guessed years in the first half of the 19th century. And when I asked "Joseph Smith was 14 years old for the FV, and when was he born?", not a single student knew. So no need to worry about an overemphasis on Joseph Smith's birthday among the youth . At least in my ward, it appears to have been totally forgotten.Reminds me of the time on my mission no teachers showed up for Aaronic Priesthood so I taught all the Aaronic Priesthood. About half of them knew they had the Priesthood.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I can't speak for my apostate brethren, but I don't accuse, or even insinuate that LDS venerate Joseph Smith on a par with, or even more than Jesus. If LDS venerate Smith a step down from Jesus, or even two steps down, I think that's bad enough (for lack of a better term). Btw, I'm asking this because I don't know the answer, though I rather suspect it is zero, but are there any other LDS Prophets with hymns about them in the hymnal? I can think of at least two for Joseph Smith - "Praise to the Man" of course, and "Oh How Lovely Was the Morning", though I'll grant one could say this song was about the first vision more than Joseph personally.The hymn "We Ever Pray for Thee (our prophet dear)," (Hymns, No. 23) was written expressly for the 90th birthday observance of President Wilford Woodruff, though relatively few people know that today. Like other "prophet" songs ("We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet," "Come Listen to a Prophet's Voice"), it has come to be associated in the minds of the Latter-day Saints with all the prophets of this dispensation in general and with the current Church president, whoever that happens to be, in particular.But that's beside the point. For reasons I have already mentioned in my prior post, Joseph Smith holds a special place in the doctrine and consciousness of the Latter-day Saints, and all the teeth-gnashing by detractors and critics from here to eternity is not going to change that.
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Btw, I'm asking this because I don't know the answer, though I rather suspect it is zero, but are there any other LDS Prophets with hymns about them in the hymnal? I can think of at least two for Joseph Smith - "Praise to the Man" of course, and "Oh How Lovely Was the Morning", though I'll grant one could say this song was about the first vision more than Joseph personally."Praise to the Man" is the only hymn really about Joseph as you said. "Oh how Lovely Was the Morning" is more about God answering a prayer. No other prophets have their own hymns but there are a few prophet hymns. "We thank thee O God for a Prophet" is the one most sung and is definitely used in reference to the current prophet.The only other mortals praised in song as a group that I can think of in the hymnal is the British Monarchy with "God Save the King/Queen" at the end of the hymnal.
LeSellers Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) "We thank thee O God for a Prophet" is the one most sung and is definitely used in reference to the current prophetThe problem with this is the the prophet is mentioned only once. The hymn is a prayer of thanksgiving and has little to do with the prophet, any prophet.Lehi Edited January 4, 2012 by LeSellers 1
LeSellers Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 The only other mortals praised in song as a group that I can think of in the hymnal is the British Monarchy with "God Save the King/Queen" at the end of the hymnal.All of the pioneer songs ("... blessed, honored pioneers") show their examples worthy of emulation. I'm not sure "In our Lovely Deseret" qualifies, but some might think so ("They are innocent and brave...").Lehi
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 All of the pioneer songs ("... blessed, honored pioneers") show their examples worthy of emulation. I'm not sure "In our Lovely Deseret" qualifies, but some might think so ("They are innocent and brave...").LehiThe words are "generous and brave."And it's not a tribute song. More an expression of an ideal -- what the children in "our lovely Deseret" should be like, Deseret being the early name for the Mormon settlement in Utah.
LeSellers Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 The words are "generous and brave."Oh, My! I've been singing it wrong for 60 years.Lehi
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 The hymn "We Ever Pray for Thee (our prophet dear)," (Hymns, No. 23) was written expressly for the 90th birthday observance of President Wilford Woodruff, though relatively few people know that today. I've been ward and Relief Society chorister numerous times and I can't even recall the song. I imagine most LDS people are not familiar with it.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I've been ward and Relief Society chorister numerous times and I can't even recall the song. I imagine most LDS people are not familiar with it.Depends on the ward, I suppose. It's fairly standard. I've seen it sung at general conference and other general meetings quite a number of times.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Oh, My! I've been singing it wrong for 60 years.LehiJust double checked my hymn book app (No. 307). Yup, it's "generous."
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Oh, My! I've been singing it wrong for 60 years.LehiSilly Lehi! (I won't tell anybody...)
LeSellers Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Silly Lehi! (I won't tell anybody...) 'Snot a problem. I sing good and loud. Well, loud, anyway.Lehi
Duncan Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Allright, Katherine The Great and Scott Lloyd Name this tune/hymn!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlY0ozAYk9YIt's driving me bonkers and I don't speak a lick of spanish! Edited January 5, 2012 by Duncan
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Allright, Katherine The Great and Scott Lloyd Name this tune/hymn!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlY0ozAYk9YIt's driving me bonkers and I don't speak a lick of spanish!Scatter Sunshine?
Duncan Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Scatter Sunshine?k, wait now, see if that is correct! haha! I have to turn off safey dance first
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I think that's right!!!! Thanks!I don't speak Spanish either, but it sure sounds like the same tune. 1
Recommended Posts