JLHPROF Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Actually the weird Mormon tradition of Christ being born in April is wrong or at least based upon questionable reasoning. It actually makes a fair bit of sense for Christ to be born in December. Except that's just tradition too. I have no probem with our Smithmas meetings. And I personally like the symmetry of an April 6th birth/death or resurrection/restoration. Heck, I've even heard the theory that April 6th is a cosmic date- start of each year, creation, end of the world etc... But Dec 25th is no more likely to be Christ's birthday than April 6th. Edited December 9, 2017 by JLHPROF
rongo Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Except Joseph was actually born on December 23rd. Christ almost certainly wasn't born anywhere near December. I'd say Joseph has more of a claim to be remembered by Mormons around this time of year. When Jesus was actually born doesn't matter. December is the Christmas *season* due to cultural tradition, and that's when we have our Christmas program. When we culturally celebrate it, I don't think we should have a Christmas program dedicated to Joseph Smith, but that's me. And those who know me know that I am not a fan of de-emphasizing Joseph Smith and the Restoration in favor of only Jesus, all the time, and nothing but. But, it's the *Christmas program* for Pete's sake! Me --- I think we can and should emphasize Joseph Smith at other times. Many other times. But let the Christmas program focus on him and his birth. 1
rongo Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) <Duplicate> Edited December 9, 2017 by rongo
clarkgoble Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Except that's just tradition too. I have no probem with our Smithmas meetings. And I personally like the symmetry of an April 6th birth/death or resurrection/restoration. Heck, I've even heard the theory that April 6th is a cosmic date- start of each year, creation, end of the world etc... But Dec 25th is no more likely to be Christ's birthday than April 6th. Did you read the whole article? Of course we can always distrust the accounts in the gospel since they were written long after the birth. But the reasoning (which is explicitly speculative) is tied to when Herod died and the Annunciation of Mary. The latter, if accurate in the gospel, gives the month when Jesus was conceived which corresponds to our March and therefore a birth in December. I'm not saying this is sure knowledge. There's reasonably good reasons to be a little distrustful of Luke on those early narratives. But it's probably what is most likely.
mfbukowski Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) fergitaboutit Edited December 9, 2017 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 What? More of this Christmas rubbish? What is wrong with the traditional “women in the life of Joseph Smith” sacrament meeting done in honor of Smithmas the church has been doing for years? 2
Gray Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 On 12/8/2017 at 10:48 AM, Urloony said: Our ward is prepping for its upcoming Christmas sacrament meeting and the topic for that day is "The Women in Christ's life." Deseret news had a nice article here on the women in Christ's life and it's possible that this article was the catalyst for our upcoming Christmas meeting. Is this a subtle example of feminism creeping into our sacrament meetings? There is obviously nothing wrong with this topic on any other given Sunday, it just seems a little odd to me that it would be the chosen topic for a Christmas meeting. It's akin to those Christmas sacrament meetings we've all been to where the speakers talk about Joseph Smith's birthday and his role as prophet, and then as a side note add "oh yeah, Jesus was important too." In recent years feminism has been infiltrating the church in far more high profile examples resulting in the excommunications of Kate Kelly and the like. Is feminism becoming more crafty in it's acceptance within the church? Heaven forbid we recognize the other half of the human race. 3
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 I like the topic. Other than the Father the women in Christ’s life played the largest roles in most of the key events in Christ’s life. It is a good way to structure the talks. I was going to say the Father and the Holy Ghost but it appears the latter was on some kind of sabbatical until the day of Pentecost. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) On 12/8/2017 at 3:56 PM, JLHPROF said: Except Joseph was actually born on December 23rd. Christ almost certainly wasn't born anywhere near December. I'd say Joseph has more of a claim to be remembered by Mormons around this time of year. I like the cake and ice cream of a Birthday Party anytime I can get it. Edited December 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted December 11, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) On 12/10/2017 at 12:43 PM, Gray said: Heaven forbid we recognize the other half of the human race. I think that a lot of people just sincerely haven't noticed that half of the human race frequently get's ignored. I know that I sometimes don't notice so I don't blame men when some of them don't. It's like the people who think that boys shouldn't have lessons that focus only on Esther or Ruth because "those are stories about women and boys won't be able to relate." Hello?? Of course that's not a rational argument, because girls spend their whole lives having to relate to scriptural stories that are only about men, but the people who make it don't even notice that it's not because they've never thought about it from a female perspective. Our culture has conditioned us to believe that it's normal for women to relate to men while it's asking something extra for men to relate to women. The idea that a sacrament devoted to women is 'feminism' while sacraments devoted to men is 'normal' is an example of that. Edited December 11, 2017 by bluebell 5
stemelbow Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/8/2017 at 9:48 AM, Urloony said: Our ward is prepping for its upcoming Christmas sacrament meeting and the topic for that day is "The Women in Christ's life." Deseret news had a nice article here on the women in Christ's life and it's possible that this article was the catalyst for our upcoming Christmas meeting. Is this a subtle example of feminism creeping into our sacrament meetings? There is obviously nothing wrong with this topic on any other given Sunday, it just seems a little odd to me that it would be the chosen topic for a Christmas meeting. It's akin to those Christmas sacrament meetings we've all been to where the speakers talk about Joseph Smith's birthday and his role as prophet, and then as a side note add "oh yeah, Jesus was important too." In recent years feminism has been infiltrating the church in far more high profile examples resulting in the excommunications of Kate Kelly and the like. Is feminism becoming more crafty in it's acceptance within the church? I hope feminism is gaining more acceptance in the Church. Wife and I were talking to a couple in the halls the other day and the lady chimed in with a joke of some sort about feminism. It was kind of awkward. We were not amused but the husband got a chuckle. So if there is an attempt for more acceptance there definitely is a movement to push back against it. The aforementioned excommunication of Kate Kelly might just be a good example of that.
Popular Post Calm Posted December 11, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 11, 2017 29 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The aforementioned excommunication of Kate Kelly might just be a good example of that. Highly unlikely. I know plenty of feminists who are out spoken in their views and yet remain undisciplined by their leadership, Kelly's version was rigid, extreme, and focused on drawing outside pressure onto leadership over and above trying to change membership viewpoints. 5
Gray Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 16 hours ago, bluebell said: I think that a lot of people just sincerely haven't noticed that half of the human race frequently get's ignored. I know that I sometimes don't notice so I don't blame men when some of them don't. It's like the people who think that boys shouldn't have lessons that focus only on Esther or Ruth because "those are stories about women and boys won't be able to relate." Hello?? Of course that's not a rational argument, because girls spend their whole lives having to relate to scriptural stories that are only about men, but the people who make it don't even notice that it's not because they've never thought about it from a female perspective. Our culture has conditioned us to believe that it's normal for women to relate to men while it's asking something extra for men to relate to women. The idea that a sacrament devoted to women is 'feminism' while sacraments devoted to men is 'normal' is an example of that. Yup, I think you've nailed it. Men need to learn to relate to women. There are some great women leaders and role models in the scriptures, I'd really love to see their stories emphasized more. 1
stemelbow Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 15 hours ago, Calm said: Highly unlikely. I know plenty of feminists who are out spoken in their views and yet remain undisciplined by their leadership, Kelly's version was rigid, extreme, and focused on drawing outside pressure onto leadership over and above trying to change membership viewpoints. It's quite possible that there are plenty of feminists who are out spoken and remain undisciplined and yet the Kate Kelly affair can still be signs that there is an effort to push back against feminists in the Church. Indeed, I'm not thinking it just possible but quite likely. Mind you, I'm not necessarily trying to defend Kate Kelly here.
bluebell Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It's quite possible that there are plenty of feminists who are out spoken and remain undisciplined and yet the Kate Kelly affair can still be signs that there is an effort to push back against feminists in the Church. Indeed, I'm not thinking it just possible but quite likely. Mind you, I'm not necessarily trying to defend Kate Kelly here. I think it would depend on whether or not a man doing something similar (publicly calling for reform in the church for years by using outside pressure and saying that nothing less than that reform would suffice) would receive the same treatment. I tend to think that he would, which is why i don't believe KK's excommunication was an effort to push back against feminists. 3
Atheist Mormon Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 On 12/8/2017 at 10:48 AM, Urloony said: Our ward is prepping for its upcoming Christmas sacrament meeting and the topic for that day is "The Women in Christ's life." Deseret news had a nice article here on the women in Christ's life and it's possible that this article was the catalyst for our upcoming Christmas meeting. Is this a subtle example of feminism creeping into our sacrament meetings? There is obviously nothing wrong with this topic on any other given Sunday, it just seems a little odd to me that it would be the chosen topic for a Christmas meeting. It's akin to those Christmas sacrament meetings we've all been to where the speakers talk about Joseph Smith's birthday and his role as prophet, and then as a side note add "oh yeah, Jesus was important too." In recent years feminism has been infiltrating the church in far more high profile examples resulting in the excommunications of Kate Kelly and the like. Is feminism becoming more crafty in it's acceptance within the church? Well....You should know the decisions come down from the Brass...Even so, too little effort. but nice to hear.
stemelbow Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think it would depend on whether or not a man doing something similar (publicly calling for reform in the church for years by using outside pressure and saying that nothing less than that reform would suffice) would receive the same treatment. I tend to think that he would, which is why i don't believe KK's excommunication was an effort to push back against feminists. I wish that was the sole (wait is that the fish spelling?) tale of Kate Kelly here. But again, it's quite possible that a man might also be excommunicated for publically seeking reform in the church too and yet this still could be an example of attempted push back against feminism in the Church. I guess it doesn't really matter what people have decided about Kate Kelly and feminism though. it remains to be seen, at least by me, that the church is wholly comfortable with feminism even if it tolerates some feminists. Therefore, in spite of anyone's particular disagreement with the kate Kelly example as the OP brought up, it seems to me it's quite reasonable that there is some push back in Mormonism against the acceptance of feminism. But to be sure, the situation is likely better than it was 50 years ago, and 20 years ago. Maybe not much better, but ti seems to be improving.
blueglass Posted December 15, 2017 Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) Does anyone know who authored the Mother in Heaven gospel topics essay? It offers the huge Paulsen and Pulido footnote, but only a small percentage of the material. I'm worried it was a far longer essay and was clipped 80% to the anemic essay we have now. Edited December 15, 2017 by blueglass
Recommended Posts