Do We Worship Joseph Smith?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I know Dec. 23 is JS birthday but I wouldn't go to anyone's birthday party at church instead of participating in a christmas celebration.

 

Yeah, you're right. Go to church to celebrate a man's birthday in place of the Savior's. That makes sense. Apparently those who claim the church worships Joseph Smith is on to something. It sounds like many do, or at the very least don't have a problem elevating him to a position of admiration similar to the Savior's.

 

My youngest was born on Dec 7th. Our family celebrates his birthday not Pearl Harbor Day.

[HappyJackWagon]

My youngest was born on Dec 7th. Our family celebrates his birthday not Pearl Harbor Day.

This is absurd. If you can't see the difference between celebrating a man's birthday AT CHURCH at Christmas and celebrating your sons birthday instead of Pearl Harbor day, then you are hopeless. No amount of reasonable thought will penetrate that brain. Best of luck to you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Probably most meetings, if the truth be known.

 

And I don't buy it that there are sacrament meetings in which Jesus Christ is never mentioned. That is foreign to my experience.

That is a false hood that is perpetuated by critics and ex-mos. There are not "lots of sacrament meetings where Christ is only mentioned at the end of a talk". I hear things about the Savior in Sacrament all the time. In fact I can't think of a time where he is not the center of focus.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[HappyJackWagon]

That is a false hood that is perpetuated by critics and ex-mos. There are not "lots of sacrament meetings where Christ is only mentioned at the end of a talk". I hear things about the Savior in Sacrament all the time. In fact I can't think of a time where he is not the center of focus.

Maybe they're critics and ex-mos because their experience is vastly different than yours. I'm very glad to hear your Sac Meeting experiences are focused on the Savior. That's how it should be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I know Dec. 23 is JS birthday but I wouldn't go to anyone's birthday party at church instead of participating in a christmas celebration.

 

Yeah, you're right. Go to church to celebrate a man's birthday in place of the Savior's.

 

Instead???? OK dude. Am I just to take your word for it?

 

I certainly have never once experienced anything like this.

 

Every year there are at least 2 things we do in our ward (since I was a baby) that are in honor of the Savior. One is a Christmas party and the other is the annual Christmas program which is nothing but hymns of the Saviors life and His greatness. 

 

I can't ever recall were JS birthday replaced the celebration of Christs birth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe they're critics and ex-mos because their experience is vastly different than yours. I'm very glad to hear your Sac Meeting experiences are focused on the Savior. That's how it should be.

Maybe they are embellishing things just a bit? When I was on my mission, it was the same as when I was at home. Every ward I have been to weather it was in DC or Japan talked of the Savior. Somethings might be about JS but the focus was always the Savior even in the context of JS.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is absurd.

You are right it is. So why don't you give up your little narrative?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[HappyJackWagon]

Instead???? OK dude. Am I just to take your word for it?

 

I certainly have never once experienced anything like this.

 

Every year there are at least 2 things we do in our ward (since I was a baby) that are in honor of the Savior. One is a Christmas party and the other is the annual Christmas program which is nothing but hymns of the Saviors life and His greatness. 

 

I can't ever recall were JS birthday replaced the celebration of Christs birth.

We're talking about the sacrament meeting on Dec. 23rd that would normally be a Christmas/Christ centered program being instead focused on Joseph Smith's birth and mission.

[HappyJackWagon]

You are right it is. So why don't you give up your little narrative?

I shared an example of something I witnessed that could cause people to believe that Mormon's worship JS. If you don't want to accept it, you drop it. I'm not changing my experience just because you think it is uncomfortable to accept that the church did this. The only reason I am still engaging on this is because the experience is being challenged and I'm being told that I'm making it up OR because people are defending that it is ok to have a Christmas service focused on JS instead of Christ. Of course they are just making my point for me.

[Ahab]

We're talking about the sacrament meeting on Dec. 23rd that would normally be a Christmas/Christ centered program being instead focused on Joseph Smith's birth and mission.

December 23rd was on a Friday in 2005, with Christmas on Sunday, so I suspect your ward was having a ward party at the ward building on that Friday night to celebrate Joseph's birthday with the Sunday services still centered on Jesus Christ just as they usually are, even though some people may have mentioned Joseph and his birthday party the previous Friday night.

Nothing wrong with any of that. Don't be so nit picky.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Ahab

[HappyJackWagon]

December 23rd was on a Friday in 2005, with Christmas on Sunday, so I suspect your ward was having a ward party at the ward building on that Friday night to celebrate Joseph's birthday with the Sunday services still centered on Jesus Christ just as they usually are, even though some people may have mentioned Joseph and his birthday party the previous Friday night.

Nothing wrong with any of that. Don't be so nit picky.

I never said it was 2005. Someone else suggested it might have been connected with the JS 200 anniversary which seemed like a plausible explanation to me.

 

We were not having a ward party to celebrate JS's birthday, though that would have been weird too. I know the difference between a sacrament meeting and a ward party. The sunday service was not focused on Christ. It was focused on JS. THat's the point. It is not nitpicky to expect the Sunday before Christmas to be focused on Christ and Christmas instead of Joseph Smith. If you don't have a problem with that maybe you should be a little more nitpicky.

[Ahab]

I never said it was 2005. Someone else suggested it might have been connected with the JS 200 anniversary which seemed like a plausible explanation to me.

We were not having a ward party to celebrate JS's birthday, though that would have been weird too. I know the difference between a sacrament meeting and a ward party. The sunday service was not focused on Christ. It was focused on JS. THat's the point. It is not nitpicky to expect the Sunday before Christmas to be focused on Christ and Christmas instead of Joseph Smith. If you don't have a problem with that maybe you should be a little more nitpicky.

Okay let's say it happened just as you say it did. Do you know the difference between reporting a problem to the appropriate administrators and airing dirty laundry in public?

[Pahoran]

December 23rd was on a Friday in 2005, with Christmas on Sunday, so I suspect your ward was having a ward party at the ward building on that Friday night to celebrate Joseph's birthday with the Sunday services still centered on Jesus Christ just as they usually are, even though some people may have mentioned Joseph and his birthday party the previous Friday night.

Nothing wrong with any of that. Don't be so nit picky.

Oh, snap!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said it was 2005. Someone else suggested it might have been connected with the JS 200 anniversary which seemed like a plausible explanation to me.

 

We were not having a ward party to celebrate JS's birthday, though that would have been weird too. I know the difference between a sacrament meeting and a ward party. The sunday service was not focused on Christ. It was focused on JS. THat's the point. It is not nitpicky to expect the Sunday before Christmas to be focused on Christ and Christmas instead of Joseph Smith. If you don't have a problem with that maybe you should be a little more nitpicky.

Maybe, with Christmas falling on Sunday that year, the ward elected to have its traditional Christmas sacrament meeting program on Christmas Day, which would have left the prior Sunday free to have a program with a Joseph Smith theme. In fact, were I in a ward leadership position, I might have been inclined to do just that under the circumstances. Maybe you chose to skip sacrament meeting attendance on Christmas Day (some people go away from home to visit relatives), which would mean that what stands out in your memory from that year is not a Christmas sacrament meeting program but one pertaining to Joseph Smith.

 

It's a plausible scenario, and memory can be a tricky thing. You don't even know what year it was now, whereas before, it seemed likely to you that all this happened on the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's birth. I think that's most likely the case; wards typically don't have sacrament meetings with Joseph Smith as the theme at Christmas time, unless there's an eminent reason, such as a centennial or other landmark anniversary. I recall very clearly that there was a Church-wide focus on the Prophet the entire year, it being the bicentennial.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

I never said it was 2005. Someone else suggested it might have been connected with the JS 200 anniversary which seemed like a plausible explanation to me.

 

We were not having a ward party to celebrate JS's birthday, though that would have been weird too. I know the difference between a sacrament meeting and a ward party. The sunday service was not focused on Christ. It was focused on JS. THat's the point. It is not nitpicky to expect the Sunday before Christmas to be focused on Christ and Christmas instead of Joseph Smith. If you don't have a problem with that maybe you should be a little more nitpicky.

So when you were singing "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" and listening to the story about how a boy had a visitation from the Father and the Son your main gripe is too little Christ?

[why me]

We're talking about the sacrament meeting on Dec. 23rd that would normally be a Christmas/Christ centered program being instead focused on Joseph Smith's birth and mission.

Does it really matter and why would this be a church issue? It is a local ward issue. Let me put it this way, if the catholic church in my town did something stupid during mass, should I leave the catholic church or criticize the catholic church in general? I don't think so. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things what mistakes a local ward made years ago. So, your concern is over the top. You need to bring it down into a proper perspective.

[why me]

Okay let's say it happened just as you say it did. Do you know the difference between reporting a problem to the appropriate administrators and airing dirty laundry in public?

Or in finding an excuse to be critical of the lds church in general and not just with the local ward leadership who may have made the decision.

[HappyJackWagon]

Okay let's say it happened just as you say it did. Do you know the difference between reporting a problem to the appropriate administrators and airing dirty laundry in public?

Ahab, I'm clearly not as righteous or smart as you. It must be your big words that confuse me because I find it difficult to understand how sharing an example about something I witnessed personally in context of the OP is airing dirty laundry. (non correlated Church history must make your head explode)

 

So in effort not to offend your delicate sensibilities about dirty laundry perhaps I should pretend Christmas wasn't preempted by JS that year and act confused about why some people claim the church worships JS. Or I could be honest and say that there are many who mistakenly do just that because they think hero worship of JS is the same as worshipping Christ and justify themselves in it, all while passing judgment on others. Some day I hope I can be as righteous as you.

 

This has been an infuriating but fun thread for me. It is a microcosm for how apologists act when presented with uncomfortable truth.

 

1- Dismiss the claim as a lie. The church would never do anything like that so it must be made up to damage the church

2- Create an asinine argument to explain how "even if it did happen" it would make perfect sense. (Hero worship of JS is the same as worshiping Christ because JS helps Christ accomplish his mission)

3- Attack the messenger for lying or "airing dirty laundry"

4- Act righteous and judgemental

 

You guys are doing  a bang up job

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

1- Dismiss the claim as a lie. The church would never do anything like that so it must be made up to damage the church

2- Create an asinine argument to explain how "even if it did happen" it would make perfect sense. (Hero worship of JS is the same as worshiping Christ because JS helps Christ accomplish his mission)

3- Attack the messenger for lying or "airing dirty laundry"

4- Act righteous and judgemental

 

You guys are doing  a bang up job

1.Present a straw man

2. Continue beating up straw man

3.Reaffirm straw man.

4 Play the victim card.

 

You are doing a bang up job.

 

What I said, specifically, is that the church, I.e., done at a global level, replaced Christmas with Smithmas as you seemed to be claiming. You are trying to paint the whole of the church in a negative light. In all my years I have never once experienced what you claimed happen. And you want me to accept it at face value. Why? To what end?

Edited October 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JLHPROF]

This has been an infuriating but fun thread for me. It is a microcosm for how apologists act when presented with uncomfortable truth.

 

1- Dismiss the claim as a lie. The church would never do anything like that so it must be made up to damage the church

I have no issues believing the Church held a Joseph Smith focused meeting in your ward on what should have been Christmas meeting.

 

2- Create an asinine argument to explain how "even if it did happen" it would make perfect sense. (Hero worship of JS is the same as worshiping Christ because JS helps Christ accomplish his mission)

I have no issues celebrating Joseph Smith around Christmas.  Christmas is NOT part of the gospel, historically or doctrinally.  There is no commandment to celebrate Christ's birth, let alone to celebrate it to coincide with a pagan holiday.

 

3- Attack the messenger for lying or "airing dirty laundry"

No attack.  The only people who even consider this "dirty laundry" are evangelicals who worship and pray to Christ, instead of the Father as commanded.  And I don't care what they think of Mormonism.

 

4- Act righteous and judgemental

Who's acting?  Just kidding.  But really, I am sorry that a Joseph centered meeting bothered you on the meeting closest to Christmas.  But it really is just something that should be taken to the Bishop or whoever planned the meeting.  It's hardly a Church-wide problem.

 

You guys are doing  a bang up job

[thesometimesaint]

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are good it is a duck.

Edited October 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Ahab, I'm clearly not as righteous or smart as you. It must be your big words that confuse me because I find it difficult to understand how sharing an example about something I witnessed personally in context of the OP is airing dirty laundry. (non correlated Church history must make your head explode)

 

So in effort not to offend your delicate sensibilities about dirty laundry perhaps I should pretend Christmas wasn't preempted by JS that year and act confused about why some people claim the church worships JS. Or I could be honest and say that there are many who mistakenly do just that because they think hero worship of JS is the same as worshipping Christ and justify themselves in it, all while passing judgment on others. Some day I hope I can be as righteous as you.

 

This has been an infuriating but fun thread for me. It is a microcosm for how apologists act when presented with uncomfortable truth.

 

1- Dismiss the claim as a lie. The church would never do anything like that so it must be made up to damage the church

2- Create an asinine argument to explain how "even if it did happen" it would make perfect sense. (Hero worship of JS is the same as worshiping Christ because JS helps Christ accomplish his mission)

3- Attack the messenger for lying or "airing dirty laundry"

4- Act righteous and judgemental

 

You guys are doing  a bang up job

What Ahab is doing is called "Ad hominem", pretty big word huh.  Especially for me! 

[Calm]

To those who claim LDS lose sight of Christ at times, may I suggest a bit of reading Stephen Webb's book here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C6gdEqy6ICwC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=godbodied+mormon&source=bl&ots=fiQiENSSnj&sig=1hLf-jrJeOep8c4MTeI6itCbyBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8fA_VMvAC9GsyATEv4KIAQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=%22affirming%20the%20divinity%22&f=false

[cinepro]

Does it really matter and why would this be a church issue? It is a local ward issue. Let me put it this way, if the catholic church in my town did something stupid during mass, should I leave the catholic church or criticize the catholic church in general? I don't think so. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things what mistakes a local ward made years ago. So, your concern is over the top. You need to bring it down into a proper perspective.

 

Of course, the cover of the December 2005 Ensign didn't help...

 

 

The website doesn't show the covers before 2000, but of the 12 other December issues from 2001 - 2013, 9 of them are a Christmas/ Nativity theme, and three are "Temples in December".  The least "Christmasy" one is probably 2001, which appears to be "Nauvoo in the Winter"

 

 

I understand that 2005 was Joseph Smith's year, but I am still surprised that the editors thought it would be a good idea to have Joseph Smith on the December issue instead of Jesus (or another Christmas-themed illustration).  And just for the record, it looks like Joseph Smith got three covers that year, while Jesus got two.

Edited October 16, 2014 by cinepro

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What Ahab is doing is called "Ad hominem", pretty big word huh.  Especially for me! 

Uh no it isn't. You should probably research that term a bit.