Do We Worship Joseph Smith?

[Tacenda]

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

He's not attacking the individual?

 

Ahab:  "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:  Don't be so nit picky.

 

ad hominem     adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

 

Where am I wrong on this Mola?

 

Edited October 16, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

But is he using that attack to dismiss the argument?  as in "you don't know the difference between a and b so why should we listen to you about either a or b?

[Tacenda]

But is he using that attack to dismiss the argument?  as in "you don't know the difference between a and b so why should we listen to you about either a or b?

I wouldn't say attack in a horrible way, but he is using the Ad Hominem in a slight way. 

[Ahab]

I wouldn't say attack in a horrible way, but he is using the Ad Hominem in a slight way.

I know you are but what am I?

No you are.

No you are.

I know you are but what am I?

But seriously now, what I was doing was asking the Happy guy if he knew the difference between reporting a problem... or I should have said what a person perceives to be a problem... to the appropriate administrators and airing dirty laundry in public, because to me it seemed that he was acting like he didn't know, or maybe he just didn't care and was doing the latter because he felt like it. And if he had told me he didn't know I would have explained it to him so he would at least be aware of what he was doing.

[HappyJackWagon]

But is he using that attack to dismiss the argument?  as in "you don't know the difference between a and b so why should we listen to you about either a or b?

yes. He is.

 

What he is saying is "You don't know what you're talking about. Stop bringing this stuff up."

 

Sounds pretty dismissive.

 

He is questioning intelligence. I agree with Tacenda that it is very slight and I don't take offense to it but it is a typical tactic.

[HappyJackWagon]

I know you are but what am I?

No you are.

No you are.

I know you are but what am I?

But seriously now, what I was doing was asking the Happy guy if he knew the difference between reporting a problem... or I should have said what a person perceives to be a problem... to the appropriate administrators and airing dirty laundry in public, because to me it seemed that he was acting like he didn't know, or maybe he just didn't care and was doing the latter because he felt like it. And if he had told me he didn't know I would have explained it to him so he would at least be aware of what he was doing.

You must not have read the thread conversation very closely but that's okay.

 

I do know the difference. It is difficult to approach the Stake President to question his directive but I did that at the time. He put me in my place quite quickly and the Sacrament Meetings throughout the Stake went forward as he directed.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

What an outrage in the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth. (Lack of an explanation mark there is intentional.)

 

Good thing this sort of thing only happens every hundred years or so. You won't be around for it to bug you next time.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

It's a microcosm of how those bearing the proverbial chip on the shoulder can be set off by the most trivial of pretexts.

 

By the way, even if this is a "truth," it is not an uncomfortable one, not for me.  I'm not discomfited one iota by the idea that a local ward or stake might devote a sacrament meeting in December to honoring the Prophet of the Restoration, this in what was likely the bicentennial year of his birth.

[HappyJackWagon]

What an outrage in the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth.

 

Good thing this sort of thing only happens every hundred years or so. You won't be around for it to bug you next time.

Scott Lloyd,

 

I understand this isn't the end of the world, but I'm surprised that anyone would condone a greater focus on Joseph Smith than the Savior, even in a bicentennial year. Even if it's just the Ensign cover or one Christmas time Sacrament meeting. I think the church would do well to be sensitive to this or we will continue to have people claiming the church worships JS and use this kind of thing as evidence. Mistakes happen but when people then condone the mistakes it makes me wonder if there is an unhealthy level of hero worship.

 

Cinepro- Thanks for looking into those covers. That's interesting. Perhaps there has been a course correction since 2005.

[Thinking]

Officially the LDS Church does not worship Joseph Smith, but the reverence shown to him borders on worship.

[Pahoran]

That's just foolish, Pahoran. If something doesn't fit your expectations it must be a lie. More anti-mormon propoganda. It's convenient to dismiss uncomfortable truths. Apologists are really good at it and it looks like you're trying to follow in those footsteps of denial. That's okay.

 

I admit that I'm amused so many on this board have a hard time admitting that something so blatantly wrong could have happened. Then we have another bunch who doesn't see that it's a big deal at all.

 

The Stake Presidency didn't say "cancel Christmas." What they said was Dec. 23rd should be focused on Joseph Smith in celebration of his birthday. We sang songs and had talks about JS. THere was no focus on Christmas...except for maybe a christmas song as the closing hymn.

 

Refusing to admit reality doesn't change it.

So if they didn't say "cancel Christmas," it necessarily follows that they absolutely did not "tell us to celebrate JS birthday instead of Christmas," did they?

Because you do know what "instead of" means, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd,

 

I understand this isn't the end of the world, ...

One wouldn't know that by your obsession with it.

 

... but I'm surprised that anyone would condone a greater focus on Joseph Smith than the Savior, even in a bicentennial year.

 

It hasn't been established there was a greater such focus, just that this is your oversensitive perception.

 

 

Even if it's just the Ensign cover or one Christmas time Sacrament meeting. I think the church would do well to be sensitive to this or we will continue to have people claiming the church worships JS and use this kind of thing as evidence.

 

 

They're going to claim this no matter what the Church does and seize on everything they think they can forge into a weapon against the Church. As I said earlier, we need not -- nor should we -- let our behavior as a church and a people be governed by their enmity.

 

Mistakes happen but when people then condone the mistakes it makes me wonder if there is an unhealthy level of hero worship.

 

I see not mistake in giving extra focus to honoring the Prophet during the bicentennial year of his birth, not even when it means devoting a special sacrament meeting to it in December. And I note that you've ignored my suggestion of a plausible scenario: Having the traditional Christmas sacrament meeting program on Christmas Day, as it fell on Sunday in 2005 and having a Joseph Smith-themed meeting on the prior Sunday.

 

 

 

Cinepro- Thanks for looking into those covers. That's interesting.

 

Nothing new here. He does this everytime this topic comes up. And it wasn't any the more impressive this time than the last time he did it. Though, I think last time he neglected to mention the reason for the extra focus in magazine covers: It was the bicentennial year of the birth of the Prophet.

 

Perhaps there has been a course correction since 2005.

 

No need for a course correction. I would expect -- and support -- this sort of thing in the tricentennial year of his birth. But, like Cinepro, you won't be around for it to bug you.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Officially the LDS Church does not worship Joseph Smith, but the reverence shown to him borders on worship.

Utter bilgewater. This is the sort of absurd accusation that typically comes from people who for whatever reason detest Joseph Smith and don't want to see him honored at all, much less worshiped.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

He's not attacking the individual?

 

Ahab:  "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:  Don't be so nit picky.

 

ad hominem     adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

 

Where am I wrong on this Mola?

 

 

That is not an ad hom what he is doing. If he said, "You don't know what you are talking about you are an anti mormon" you would have a point.

 

Ahab simply asked if he knew the difference between 2 things. IF that is an ad hom we are all in trouble. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Utter bilgewater. This is the sort of absurd accusation that typically comes from people who for whatever reason detest Joseph Smith and don't want to see him honored at all, much less worshiped.

Scott, why are you so threatened by another point of view that differs from your own?  You must be one of those "dogmatic" Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

So if they didn't say "cancel Christmas," it necessarily follows that they absolutely did not "tell us to celebrate JS birthday instead of Christmas," did they?

Because you do know what "instead of" means, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

I think what is behind this whole "worshiping Joseph Smith" nonsense is a deep-seated antipathy for Joseph Smith. Thus, what gives them heartburn is not that Joseph receives more emphasis than Christ, it's that he is honored at all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Scott Lloyd,

 

I understand this isn't the end of the world, but I'm surprised that anyone would condone a greater focus on Joseph Smith than the Savior, even in a bicentennial year. Even if it's just the Ensign cover or one Christmas time Sacrament meeting. I think the church would do well to be sensitive to this or we will continue to have people claiming the church worships JS and use this kind of thing as evidence. Mistakes happen but when people then condone the mistakes it makes me wonder if there is an unhealthy level of hero worship.

 

Cinepro- Thanks for looking into those covers. That's interesting. Perhaps there has been a course correction since 2005.

You have not even made that case that "anyone would condone a greater focus on Joseph Smith than the Savior". I know what you are trying to do with your narrative. It just lacks substance. There is no credible evidence for this. I think you are making it a bigger deal than it is.

 

Why does that threaten you so much?

 

See 2 can play this game.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, why are you so threatened by another point of view that differs from your own?  You must be one of those "dogmatic" Mormons.

I perceive tongue planted firmly in cheek on this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think what is behind this whole "worshiping Joseph Smith" nonsense is a deep-seated antipathy for Joseph Smith. Thus, what gives them heartburn is not that Joseph receives more emphasis than Christ, it's that he is honored at all.

That seems to be the real issue. JS is not honored more than Jesus. He never has been. yet that is the narrative that some are touting.

[HappyJackWagon]

One wouldn't know that by your obsession with it.

This is funny. This all stems from an experience I shared WAY back on this thread and then dealing with the attacks ever since. My only obsession is in not being misrepresented.

 

It hasn't been established there was a greater such focus, just that this is your oversensitive perception.

I'm interpreting the substitution of a Christmas program the Sunday immediately preceding Christmas for a Sacrament service focused on Joseph Smith and the claims by those on this board that this is okay. Further evidence that Cinepro shared with Joseph Smith appearing on more Ensign covers than Christ that year shows JS is also getting a greater focus in that arena.

 

 

 

They're going to claim this no matter what the Church does and seize on everything they think they can forge into a weapon against the Church. As I said earlier, we need not -- nor should we -- let our behavior as a church and a people be governed by their enmity.

Claiming that I and others like me are governed by our enmity is in itself prideful and as we know, Pride is enmity toward man and God.

 

I see not mistake in giving extra focus to honoring the Prophet during the bicentennial year of his birth, not even when it means devoting a special sacrament meeting to it in December.

I don't mind JS getting some special attention during the bicentennial of his birth but Christmas is the wrong time to do it.

And I note that you've ignored my suggestion of a plausible scenario: Having the traditional Christmas sacrament meeting program on Christmas Day, as it fell on Sunday in 2005 and having a Joseph Smith-themed meeting on the prior Sunday.

I haven't ignored this. It just doesn't make sense. This is in the past. It's over so offering an alternative is moot. Whatever year this happened, The Sacrament Meeting focused on Joseph Smith was the Sunday immediately preceding Christmas. You haven't read the thread carefully enough or this would be clear. I wouldn't have had any problem at all if the previous Sunday had been JS focused.

 

 

 

Nothing new here. He does this everytime this topic comes up. And it wasn't any the more impressive this time than the last time he did it.

I hadn't seen it before so I appreciate it whether you do or not but it's big of you to criticize me thanking someone else.

 

 

I think what is behind this whole "worshiping Joseph Smith" nonsense is a deep-seated antipathy for Joseph Smith. Thus, what gives them heartburn is not that Joseph receives more emphasis than Christ, it's that he is honored at all.

 

Nope. Wrong again.

[Scott Lloyd]

One wouldn't know that by your obsession with it.

This is funny. This all stems from an experience I shared WAY back on this thread and then dealing with the attacks ever since. My only obsession is in not being misrepresented.

 

 

 

I don't see that there is any misrepresentation going on so much as an effort to dissect and analyze a facially implausible account.

 

It hasn't been established there was a greater such focus, just that this is your oversensitive perception.

I'm interpreting the substitution of a Christmas program the Sunday immediately preceding Christmas for a Sacrament service focused on Joseph Smith and the claims by those on this board that this is okay.

 

If (as is likely the case) this happened in the bicentennial year, Christmas Day fell on Sunday, the perfect time for a sacrament meeting Christmas program -- which would leave "the Sunday immediately preceding Christmas" free for a program honoring the Prophet.

 

Further evidence that Cinepro shared with Joseph Smith appearing on more Ensign covers than Christ that year shows JS is also getting a greater focus in that arena.

 

Horror of horrors: In the bicentennial year of his birth, the Ensign chooses to honor him with extra magazine covers. I am, well, underwhelmed.

 

They're going to claim this no matter what the Church does and seize on everything they think they can forge into a weapon against the Church. As I said earlier, we need not -- nor should we -- let our behavior as a church and a people be governed by their enmity.

Claiming that I and others like me are governed by our enmity is in itself prideful and as we know, Pride is enmity toward man and God.

 

Re-read what I wrote in context, and then repent for misrepresenting me. I said we should not let hypothetical others, including avowed enemies of the Church, govern our behavior. Taking personal offense at this was your choice, for which I am not accountable.

 

 

I see no mistake in giving extra focus to honoring the Prophet during the bicentennial year of his birth, not even when it means devoting a special sacrament meeting to it in December.

I don't mind JS getting some special attention during the bicentennial of his birth but Christmas is the wrong time to do it.

 

 

If your account is true, he was honored on or near his birthday, which happens to fall at Christmas time. Big deal.

 

 

And I note that you've ignored my suggestion of a plausible scenario: Having the traditional Christmas sacrament meeting program on Christmas Day, as it fell on Sunday in 2005 and having a Joseph Smith-themed meeting on the prior Sunday.

I haven't ignored this. It just doesn't make sense. This is in the past. It's over so offering an alternative is moot. Whatever year this happened, The Sacrament Meeting focused on Joseph Smith was the Sunday immediately preceding Christmas. You haven't read the thread carefully enough or this would be clear. I wouldn't have had any problem at all if the previous Sunday had been JS focused.

 

 

You're not understanding me. If a sacrament meeting Christmas program was held on a Christmas Day -- which fell on the Sabbath that year -- then the Sunday preceding Christmas Day would have been free for another theme, and it would have been reasonable under the circumstances to honor Joseph that day, since the Christmas program was already planned for the following Sunday, Christmas Day.

 

I'm suggesting that you might be misremembering things, particularly if you didn't attend sacrament meeting on Christmas Day. Some people don't as they go away from home to visit relatives on Christmas.

 

 

Nothing new here. He does this everytime this topic comes up. And it wasn't any the more impressive this time than the last time he did it.

I hadn't seen it before so I appreciate it whether you do or not but it's big of you to criticize me thanking someone else.

 

Just making an observation and expressing an opinion -- as you did.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Scott Lloyd,

 

I understand this isn't the end of the world, but I'm surprised that anyone would condone a greater focus on Joseph Smith than the Savior, even in a bicentennial year. Even if it's just the Ensign cover or one Christmas time Sacrament meeting. I think the church would do well to be sensitive to this or we will continue to have people claiming the church worships JS and use this kind of thing as evidence. Mistakes happen but when people then condone the mistakes it makes me wonder if there is an unhealthy level of hero worship.

 

By this logic we should never take a course of study through Church History or the D&C (or to a lesser degree, the OT).

We should only study the New Testament and the Book of Mormon because they are completely focused on Christ.  Or maybe just the New Testament because it features Christ's life and the others don't.

 

But then of course people would come along saying..."well we were never told XYZ about Church History because we only focused on Christ's life".

 

No pleasing some people.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You're not understanding me. If a sacrament meeting Christmas program was held on a Christmas Day -- which fell on the Sabbath that year -- then the Sunday preceding Christmas Day would have been free for another theme, and it would have been reasonable under the circumstances to honor Joseph that day, since the Christmas program was already planned for the following Sunday, Christmas Day.

No. That's not what happened. I'll trust you when you say Christmas was on a Sunday that year so it must have been a different year.

[Scott Lloyd]

No. That's not what happened. I'll trust you when you say Christmas was on a Sunday that year so it must have been a different year.

Well, that makes it even more implausible. I was trying to lend it some plausibility by suggesting it happened during the bicentennial year.

 

Either way, it strikes me as the proverbial much ado about nothing.

 

And Christmas did fall on Sunday in 2005. I just checked the calendar in my iPod touch.

 

If you don't have an electronic calendar program, you can probably find perpetual calendars online that would allow you to check this. Here's a link to one, in fact: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/generate.html

Edited October 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, that makes it even more implausible. I was trying to lend it some plausibility by suggesting it happened during the bicentennial year.

 

Either way, it strikes me as the proverbial much ado about nothing.

 

And Christmas did fall on Sunday in 2005. I just checked the calendar in my iPod touch.

 

If you don't have an electronic calendar program, you can probably find perpetual calendars online that would allow you to check this. Here's a link to one, in fact: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/generate.html

I'm guessing it was actually 2007 since Dec. 23rd was the Sunday before Christmas