Let's Remember Joseph Smith In December Too!

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Outshined+Dec 16 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Dec 16 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Dec 15 2004, 09:19 PM

I just think that putting such emphasis on JS the Sunday before Christmas is "Way Out There".

"Such emphasis"? Singing one song at the end of sacrament?

To me it is just the timing the bothers me.

I am grateful to JS and I admire his strength and determination. I have heard many times (as a child) that the Mormons worship JS. Christmas is a time we celebrate the birth of the Savior and we do that along with many other Christian faiths. To add the celebration of the birth of JS just seems to take away from the Christmas season and the timing feels off to me. I wonder how Joseph Smith would feel about singing just one song about him following the Christmas Program¡Ä.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Dec 16 2004, 09:08 AM

I wonder how Joseph Smith would feel about singing just one song about him following the Christmas Program¡Ä.

I think he would be appalled.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 14 2004, 03:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 14 2004, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--EmmaLeigh@Dec 14 2004, 12:06 PM

I am simply uncomfortable with the idea...  It doesnt seem right, even though I know there were prohetesses in the scriptures... 

Women pastors dont bother me near as much as a woman APOSTLE and a woman prophet...  and the office of bishop and patriarch (evangelist now) are so historically male that it is difficult to see a woman in the presiding bishopric....

I also agree about many women not being focused on the right area of ministry... it has certainly opened a can of worms...

Brother West where do you live?

Making sure moving there isnt on your agenda in the future??? :)

I'm curious. Besides the obvious (belief that the priesthood is strictly a men's only club), what is it that is objectionable about a woman in a priesthood office? I agree that once a woman is a mother, her children deserve to be the undisputed top priority. If young mothers were burdened with the priesthood, the children would suffer. But what about unmarried women? Or married women who are unable to have children? Or older women whose children are grown? From a simply logical perspective it seems that these women have the human qualifications to hold priesthood offices if they have the organizational skills they require. Obviously, having a blanket rule banning women from the Priesthood is the simplest solution, but I think many women would make fine priesthood holders.

I see women as having the greater gift. They have purer hearts *ingeneral, not individually speaking*, and are more giving by nature. Those who do not have children or husband's can be helpful with children of other's whose house is full.

It was Ardith Kapp who showed how she could be a *mother* to all her children at school as a teacher. How blessed those children, and families of those children, were to have her recognize the higher calling of womanhood.

Priesthood is not a responsiblity I would want put upon my shoulders. It would be like someone making me the mule who pulled the plow. It is better to be the one behind the mule.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 16 2004, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 16 2004, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Dec 16 2004, 09:08 AM

I wonder how Joseph Smith would feel about singing just one song about him following the Christmas Program¡Ä.

I think he would be appalled.

I think so too.

[StrawberryFields]

Just curious...Where did Bro West Go?

[Outshined]

I think Joseph might be a bit more appalled that people would begrudge one song in remembrance of him at the end of sacrament, as if it were somehow detracting from Christmas. Makes it sound like we're ashamed of him.

I think Bro West's idea is fine. If he wants to sing one song in remembrance of JS's birthday, he shouldn't feel like he's somehow taking away from Christmas. That's a bit silly.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Outshined@Dec 17 2004, 06:38 AM

I think Joseph might be a bit more appalled that people would begrudge one song in remembrance of him at the end of sacrament, as if it were somehow detracting from Christmas. Makes it sound like we're ashamed of him.

I think Bro West's idea is fine. If he wants to sing one song in remembrance of JS's birthday, he shouldn't feel like he's somehow taking away from Christmas. That's a bit silly.

I won't need to worry about this because it isn't happening in my ward.

As far as your statement about JS, I will just say that "I agree to disagree with your point of view". B)

We are each entitled to our opinion.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Dec 17 2004, 07:04 AM

As far as your statement about JS, I will just say that "I agree to disagree with your point of view". B)

We are each entitled to our opinion.

Indeed.

[Guest GOD'S ARMY]

A closing hymn of A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief may be a good choice. It is a beautiful story that perfectly illustrates our Savior and as I recall one of the Prophet's favorites. I know I wouldn't mind hearing it as a celebration of my birthday and a testimony of my Savior.

GA

Merry Christmas all!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 12 2004, 11:14 PM

I have a better idea.  Let's take "Praise to the man" out of our hymnbooks and stick to celebrating Christ's birth in December (even if he wasn't born then.)

Will wonders never cease? I fully agree with you Curvette.

I also agree with Curvy--don't we worship, oops, I mean "praise", JS enough in the mormon church without pushing Jesus aside so we can worship JS even on Christmas?

[Outshined]

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 18 2004, 11:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 18 2004, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 12 2004, 11:14 PM

I have a better idea.  Let's take "Praise to the man" out of our hymnbooks and stick to celebrating Christ's birth in December (even if he wasn't born then.)

Will wonders never cease? I fully agree with you Curvette.

I also agree with Curvy--don't we worship, oops, I mean "praise", JS enough in the mormon church without pushing Jesus aside so we can worship JS even on Christmas?

[Outshined]

As someone said recently, we'll agree to disagree, because that mindset is ridiculous to me.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 18 2004, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 18 2004, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 12 2004, 11:14 PM

I have a better idea.  Let's take "Praise to the man" out of our hymnbooks and stick to celebrating Christ's birth in December (even if he wasn't born then.)

Will wonders never cease? I fully agree with you Curvette.

I also agree with Curvy--don't we worship, oops, I mean "praise", JS enough in the mormon church without pushing Jesus aside so we can worship JS even on Christmas?

Cal, did I miss something? Are you mormon? When did you join the church? Haven't you spent the last year or two arguing against it?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 18 2004, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 18 2004, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Dec 18 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 12 2004, 11:14 PM

I have a better idea.  Let's take "Praise to the man" out of our hymnbooks and stick to celebrating Christ's birth in December (even if he wasn't born then.)

Will wonders never cease? I fully agree with you Curvette.

I also agree with Curvy--don't we worship, oops, I mean "praise", JS enough in the mormon church without pushing Jesus aside so we can worship JS even on Christmas?

Cal, did I miss something? Are you mormon? When did you join the church? Haven't you spent the last year or two arguing against it?

Jenda--I can understand why you must think I am not a mormon. Since you inquired, I will share a little of my religious history with you, if you can stomach it.I was born in the LDS church, in fact in the LDS Hospital in SLC. All my ancestors were mormon pioneers. I did the whole mormon youth thing, mission and all. Then about 25 years ago I read "Joseph Smith, The First Mormon" by Donna Hill. It made me start to dig deeper into the assumptions I had made about religion and the history of the mormon church. I had been taught a bunch of things in seminary, the mission field etc that turned out not to be true about JS and mormonism. I wondered, "If what I had been taught about some of this is not true, then what else is not true?" I figured, if JS was wrong about some things, what else was he wrong about. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I decided to find out more.

Though I have no proof that God DID'T visit JS and tell him to organize the only true church, I have enough to make me seriously question some of his OTHER claims. There is a maxim in law that says that if a jury finds a witness to be false in one claim, it may find him false in all claims. (I'ld have to look up the latin form to sound more legalistic). I find that JS did not tell the truth about the Book of Abraham, nor was he correct about the origin of native americans in his area. This kind of thing leaves me as something of a semi-believer. All I can say for sure is that JS was not what I thought he was when I thought I had a "testimony". For those that lecture about following the "spirit"---no "spirit" has yet been able to change the fact that native americans did not decend from hebrews.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 19 2004, 09:45 AM

Jenda--I can understand why you must think I am not a mormon. Since you inquired, I will share a little of my religious history with you, if you can stomach it.I was born in the LDS church, in fact in the LDS Hospital in SLC. All my ancestors were mormon pioneers. I did the whole mormon youth thing, mission and all. Then about 25 years ago I read "Joseph Smith, The First Mormon" by Donna Hill. It made me start to dig deeper into the assumptions I had made about religion and the history of the mormon church. I had been taught a bunch of things in seminary, the mission field etc that turned out not to be true about JS and mormonism. I wondered, "If what I had been taught about some of this is not true, then what else is not true?" I figured, if JS was wrong about some things, what else was he wrong about. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I decided to find out more.

Though I have no proof that God DID'T visit JS and tell him to organize the only true church, I have enough to make me seriously question some of his OTHER claims. There is a maxim in law that says that if a jury finds a witness to be false in one claim, it may find him false in all claims. (I'ld have to look up the latin form to sound more legalistic). I find that JS did not tell the truth about the Book of Abraham, nor was he correct about the origin of native americans in his area. This kind of thing leaves me as something of a semi-believer. All I can say for sure is that JS was not what I thought he was when I thought I had a "testimony". For those that lecture about following the "spirit"---no "spirit" has yet been able to change the fact that native americans did not decend from hebrews.

Cal, when you were LDS, did they teach you (or do they teach today, for that matter) that all native americans were Lamanites? Not being LDS, I don't know what they teach about such things, and wonder what areas of teaching are different between our churches.

We were never taught that all the indians were Lamanites. There was a time when I was curious about parts of the BoM that talked about the Lamanites because there always seemed to be so many more Lamanites than Nephites. Finally, during a BoM class at a church reunion, the Spirit confirmed something to me (nothing that was taught in the class, either.) The spirit confirmed that all those that the Nephites were at war with were not Lamanites, but the Nephites called them Lamanites because they were other groups of warriors that were not Nephite. I believe that the actual number of "Lamanites" that were Lamanites were very small.

One of the things I learned from studying some of the DNA stuff, is that if a fairly small population is swallowed up by a much larger population, that the DNA becomes lost. I believe that this is probably what happened with those Lamanites who were left. They just got swallowed up (and lost) within the much larger native American population.

Another problem with the DNA evidence is that the right questions were not asked. It is impossible to get the correct answer if the wrong questions were asked. (All of this might have been broached on one of the LDS apologetic sites, but I have not read them to know, so they are my own questions and beliefs.)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 18 2004, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 18 2004, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Dec 14 2004, 09:59 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 12 2004, 11:14 PM

I have a better idea.  Let's take "Praise to the man" out of our hymnbooks and stick to celebrating Christ's birth in December (even if he wasn't born then.)

Will wonders never cease? I fully agree with you Curvette.

I also agree with Curvy--don't we worship, oops, I mean "praise", JS enough in the mormon church without pushing Jesus aside so we can worship JS even on Christmas?

We don't latria Jose'h, we dulia him. (Catholics have the coolest words for things!)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I figured, if JS was wrong about some things, what else was he wrong about. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I decided to find out more.

That line of thinking is the flip side of the Church's argument that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith's other teachings must be true. It forces you to think in "all or nothing" terms, and when it becomes clear that it isn't "all" true, people are inclined to think that none of it is.

The argument, to review, is this: "If you get a spiritual witness confirming that the Book of Mormon is true, it means that Joseph Smith must have translated it by miraculous means, since he could not have translated it from an ancient record unassisted. If Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by miraculous means, he was a true prophet. If he was a true prophet, the Church he founded was true, and his other teachings are true. If those things are true, the Church today is true. If the Church today is true, the teachings of Joseph Smith's successors must be true."

That's a logical train wreck. The first premise is correct -- if the Book of Mormon is a true translation of an ancient record, then Joseph Smith must have translated it by miraculous or supernatural means, as there is simply no way he could have translated a record written in an archaic, hieroglyphic Hebrew dialect. (He had a hard enough time translating regular Hebrew even after studying the language, years later.)

But all it means if Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by supernatural means is that he translated the Book of Mormon by supernatural means. It wouldn't automatically characterize him as a prophet, to be listened to for divine guidance on all matters. If you believe in supernatural powers and in the Bible, supernatural forces may be harnessed by people other than prophets. For example, in Exodus, Pharoah's magicians duplicate Moses' miracle of turning his staff into a snake.

Even if a miraculous translation qualified Joseph Smith as a prophet, that would be no guarantee that he continued as a prophet. Without more information, we can't foreclose the possibility that prophets could fall, or cease acting as prophets. To the extent that King Solomon was a "prophet" (the scriptural book of Ecclesiastes is attributed to him, and my understanding is that you have to be a prophet of some kind to produce canonized scripture), his fall into idolatry is one example of this.

Neither can we foreclose the possibility that Joseph Smith's successors did not inherit his prophetic mantle. The succession after Joseph Smith's martyrdom was messy, even though it was eventually agreed that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had the keys of appointing a successor.

In short, the logical chain connecting the truth of the Book of Mormon to the truth of today's LDS Church leaders has several gaps. A testimony of the Book of Mormon isn't enough. One needs a testimony of the whole thing -- the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's enduring prophetic calling, the apostolic succession, and the continuing prophetic calling of today's leaders. (Although you might be able to infer the final point from the preceding one.)

[srm]

Now, I could be wrong but Bro west sounds like a shill to me.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by srm@Dec 21 2004, 11:01 AM

Now, I could be wrong but Bro west sounds like a shill to me.

You could also be right; when someone posts once on a board and disappears, it's suspicious.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Outshined+Dec 21 2004, 11:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Dec 21 2004, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Dec 21 2004, 11:01 AM

Now, I could be wrong but Bro west sounds like a shill to me.

You could also be right; when someone posts once on a board and disappears, it's suspicious.

The word shill is new to me, what does it mean?

[srm]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Dec 21 2004, 07:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Dec 21 2004, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Dec 21 2004, 11:34 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Dec 21 2004, 11:01 AM

Now, I could be wrong but Bro west sounds like a shill to me.

You could also be right; when someone posts once on a board and disappears, it's suspicious.

The word shill is new to me, what does it mean?

A shill is a person planted in an audience to 'support' the person working the crowd. he appears to just be one of the crowd. This is a frecuent accusation from the anti crowd. ergo, I think he was attempting to set us up. They go so far as to say that we really celebrate 'smithmas' not Christmas. It is a specious argument...but a common one.

[Guest JRodan]

I, for one, DO NOT celebrate "Smithmas."

[Outshined]

Originally posted by JRodan@Dec 22 2004, 10:43 AM

I, for one, DO NOT celebrate "Smithmas."

No one in the Church does, as far as I've seen. It's hyperbole.

[srm]

Originally posted by Outshined+Dec 22 2004, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Dec 22 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JRodan@Dec 22 2004, 10:43 AM

I, for one, DO NOT celebrate "Smithmas."

No one in the Church does, as far as I've seen. It's hyperbole.

it is beyond hyperbole. It is, in most cases, dishonest.