rongo Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 . . . what is meant? A recent letter from the First Presidency said the following: "During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church events. The Church will not be commemorating these anniversaries at the general level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members." 1) For the life of me, I can't think of very many "significant anniversaries" of "major" Church events coming down the pike "during the next few years." First Vision in 1820 (200th)? Ending of the priesthood ban (40th)? Moroni's visit in 1823 (stretching the boundary of "next few years")? 2) Since when has the Church not jumped at the opportunity to celebrate "significant anniversaries of major Church events?" I found the muted tone (or at least the appearance and feel of a muted tone) to be interesting. The Church has always big-dealed "significant anniversaries of major Church events" in the past. But again, what is most head-scratching to me is what "significant anniversaries of major Church events" are meant here. Any ideas? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 2022- 100th Anniversary of removing the Lectures on faith from the D&C? Here's a website that looks at notable anniversaries for 2017 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865670380/Notable-2017-LDS-Church-dates-and-anniversaries.html ETA- It's pretty hard to imagine the church NOT doing some kind of major celebration for the first vision. This may also indicate that the church (at the general level) can't keep up with celebrating every event people feel is historic for their locale. For example, the people in SLC may feel strongly about celebrating the 140th anniversary of the tabernacle whereas it's not important to people in other locations. Instead of making a judgment about what is and isn't important at the general level they are leaving it to localities to determine what are significant anniversaries for themselves. Maybe??? Edited February 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 2
Rain Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 2022- 100th Anniversary of removing the Lectures on faith from the D&C? Here's a website that looks at notable anniversaries for 2017 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865670380/Notable-2017-LDS-Church-dates-and-anniversaries.html ETA- It's pretty hard to imagine the church NOT doing some kind of major celebration for the first vision. *Chuckle over "notable"* I agree with the organization of the RS. Some of those are stretching though. Lol. 1
Tacenda Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 I saw this elsewhere and some of the comments were that the leaders no longer believe in the dominate narrative of the history of the church. And they don't want to bring a lot of attention to say the First Vision anniversary. But I highly doubt that this is true.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Just now, Tacenda said: I saw this elsewhere and some of the comments were that the leaders no longer believe in the dominate narrative of the history of the church. And they don't want to bring a lot of attention to say the First Vision anniversary. But I highly doubt that this is true. I would be very surprised if that is the case.
Tacenda Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I would be very surprised if that is the case. I think that it probably isn't the case, and the church is just leery of too much exposure in the press since there is so much backlash right now. They're very aware of the opposition. But whatever happened to "opposition in all things"? I'm surprised they aren't doing what they have in the past with celebrating such as the Sesquicentennial Celebration. And all the celebrations leading up to it were quite celebbratory. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/10/news-of-the-church/celebrating-the-sesquicentennial?lang=eng Edited February 11, 2017 by Tacenda
Rain Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Opposition in all things doesn't mean you should encourage opposition. It just means there is opposition. 3
cdowis Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) I remember that the church in Georgia would faithfully celebrate July 24. I always wondered why we wee doing this, and finally it fell out of style. We are no longer a Utah church, but international. Edited February 11, 2017 by cdowis 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Rain said: *Chuckle over "notable"* I agree with the organization of the RS. Some of those are stretching though. Lol. Looking over the list, I'm puzzled about your contempt. I don't see anything there that could not be viewed as having Church-wide sgnificance. That said, I'm not eager to get into a war of words over the significance of this or that event.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 39 minutes ago, cdowis said: I remember that the church in Georgia would faithfully celebrate July 24. I always wondered why we wee doing this, and finally it fell out of style. We are no longer a Utah church, but international. The establishment of a headquarters for the Church as a base of operation from which the gospel could be carried to every nation -- this in the face of oppression that for many years threatened the very existence of the Church -- is an apt cause for celebration wherever a Church member lives. I'm saddened that some refuse to see this. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: . . . what is meant? A recent letter from the First Presidency said the following: "During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church events. The Church will not be commemorating these anniversaries at the general level. However, stake and ward leaders may choose to commemorate some of them at the local level. We ask that any local commemorations not place undue burdens on leaders and members." 1) For the life of me, I can't think of very many "significant anniversaries" of "major" Church events coming down the pike "during the next few years." First Vision in 1820 (200th)? Ending of the priesthood ban (40th)? Moroni's visit in 1823 (stretching the boundary of "next few years")? 2) Since when has the Church not jumped at the opportunity to celebrate "significant anniversaries of major Church events?" I found the muted tone (or at least the appearance and feel of a muted tone) to be interesting. The Church has always big-dealed "significant anniversaries of major Church events" in the past. But again, what is most head-scratching to me is what "significant anniversaries of major Church events" are meant here. Any ideas? I see this as simply a reasonable acknowledgement that the Church has grown so large that anniversary celebrations at a general level are no longer as feasible as they once were (think of the Pioneer Sesquicentennial in 1996-97 for which an overland wagon train re-enactment was a centerpiece that drew international attention).
bluebell Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Pioneer day is going to have it's 170th anniversary this year. I can't think of any others.
Popular Post Calm Posted February 11, 2017 Popular Post Posted February 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Looking over the list, I'm puzzled about your contempt. I don't see anything there that could not be viewed as having Church-wide sgnificance. That said, I'm not eager to get into a war of words over the significance of this or that event. Rain is a faithful member. Why in the world would you jump to "contempt" when her expression is of amusement? She may be wrong about whether such are "notable", but that seems a subjective measure. 5
rongo Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, cdowis said: I remember that the church in Georgia would faithfully celebrate July 24. I always wondered why we wee doing this, and finally it fell out of style. We are no longer a Utah church, but international. My anthropology professor at BYU's specialty was India, and he showed us pictures of a Pioneer Day celebration in India. Little kids wearing bonnets and cowboy hats pulling decorated wooden wagons. Very cute! Here's what puzzles/intrigues me about this: 1) As others have noted, places far removed from the Wasatch Front haven't really done Pioneer Day for some time (parades, salt water taffy thrown to the crowd, big celebrations, etc.). Letting these places know by letter that . . . they don't need to put on a big thing seems unnecessary. 2) I don't think this has anything to do with the Church being ashamed of the First Vision, wanting to divest itself of the "narrative" (boy, am I tired of that buzzword, lately. Thanks, Richard Bushman! ), wanting to keep a low public profile and not draw attention, etc. 3) The Brethren have always seemed really gung-ho about big productions for anniversaries. This has the feel for me of being tired of them. I'm wondering if there will be any talking out of both sides of the mouth whiplash on this, like with other things (e.g., "don't write GAs," then reading letters people write to GAs all the time in GC, thus ensuring that people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC continue writing GAs) --- i.e., tone it down with celebrations, then "all hands on deck" for a big worldwide celebration. 4) As has been discussed here, I can't think of any big anniversaries until really 2030 or 2047. The letter seems like a solution in search of a problem. ------ Fond sesquicentennial memory: Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be married within a year of returning from my mission. I bought two tickets to the sesquicentennial in January or February so that I could take a girl to it. Turns out, my fiance and I went a couple of weeks before our sealing . . . 3
Rain Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Looking over the list, I'm puzzled about your contempt. I don't see anything there that could not be viewed as having Church-wide sgnificance. That said, I'm not eager to get into a war of words over the significance of this or that event. I'm puzzled why you assumed I had any contempt. You are assigning me a feeling I do not have about this. I don't have much feeling at all. Just found the word a little amusing in this situation. 4
juliann Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: ------ Fond sesquicentennial memory: Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be married within a year of returning from my mission. I bought two tickets to the sesquicentennial in January or February so that I could take a girl to it. Turns out, my fiance and I went a couple of weeks before our sealing . . . I saw the pot stirring on FB. It must be a slow news day. I was in local PA during the CA sesquicentennial (our greater area played a part in Mormon history.) It takes an extraordinary amount of time to plan these things. It was unbelievable....try to imagine every over the top RS activity coordinator let loose. These events always court VIPs and give them special attention and privileges which didn't sit well with me. It was a well managed and successful series of events but sheesh. I'm very glad to see the Church stepping back on this kind of thing. To see this painted as them trying to hide something is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. 2
juliann Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Looking over the list, I'm puzzled about your contempt. I don't see anything there that could not be viewed as having Church-wide sgnificance. That said, I'm not eager to get into a war of words over the significance of this or that event. You are in trouble, Scott. * don't mess with the UMW. Edited February 11, 2017 by juliann 4
rpn Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Sounded to me like the Presidency read the Desnews article and said they didn't want to spend money or general effort on any of those anniversaries. If I were sitting in a ward council, the only one of those I would consider celebrating would be the RS founding, and we celebrate that every year any way. 1
rongo Posted February 12, 2017 Author Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, rpn said: If I were sitting in a ward council, the only one of those I would consider celebrating would be the RS founding, and we celebrate that every year any way. Maybe I can wave the letter around as justification for not doing the Blue & Gold banquet every year in February (Scouting's birthday). Local discretion, and all that . . . 3
Calm Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Do the kids enjoy the banquet? If no, take a poll of the parents and find out if it has value to them. There is nothing that requires it, right? Spend the time and money on something the ward wants or make it into a ward party (I know this can be difficult in their own way, but I wish wards got together more in nonUtah places where it is harder to have fun as a community together. Edited February 12, 2017 by Calm
Rain Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 It could get ugly if you did away with blue and gold in my ward. 2
bluebell Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 I think my ward would be good with it. We're not much of a scouting ward. 1
CMZ Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Tacenda said: I saw this elsewhere and some of the comments were that the leaders no longer believe in the dominate narrative of the history of the church. And they don't want to bring a lot of attention to say the First Vision anniversary. But I highly doubt that this is true. "dominant" No, I don't think either that the leaders lack faith in the First Vision. I do think the general membership needs to be careful how they go about "celebrating" certain things. We don't need to be somber but I do think sometimes that people want to "celebrate" things that are maybe better to be held in sacred remembrance instead. Edited February 12, 2017 by CMZ 1
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 7 hours ago, rongo said: . I'm wondering if there will be any talking out of both sides of the mouth whiplash on this, like with other things (e.g., "don't write GAs," then reading letters people write to GAs all the time in GC, thus ensuring that people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC continue writing GAs) --- i.e., tone it down with celebrations, then "all hands on deck" for a big worldwide celebration. Agree. I have always wondered how they even got those letters- in my experience they are immediately returned to the Stake president for replies. Something in the screening process I guess.
CMZ Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 7 hours ago, rongo said: (e.g., "don't write GAs," then reading letters people write to GAs all the time in GC, thus ensuring that people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC continue writing GAs) I do think there's a dual thing going on here where the GAs do not want to seem distant, so if there's an actual reason to write one of them then it should be fine. But I also think they don't like getting flooded with letters that could actually be handled by someone's bishop or stake president (or someone else) instead.
Recommended Posts