Your perception of what is taught/spoken of in LDS church services RE: JS/JC

[Sleeping in EQ]

Yes, good catch. I should have explained.

I view the lyrics and tone of JSFP as an interpretive historical piece. It is basically outlining a sequence of critical events that played an important role in the Church's early history.

The lyrics are laden with prose, but the core message is that Joseph wondered, he pondered, he prayed, and received an answer to his prayer.

While I love singing "Praise to the Man" (aka Scotland the Brave!), the lyrics have always struck me as borderline worshipful:

"Kings shall extol him and nations revere." While that may be true (I'm not sure it is), it seems to go completely against Christ's decision to give glory to the Father.

"Hail to the Prophet" and "Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his Brethren".....again, we don't Hail to any man. We respect the prophet, yes. We do not worship him. Also, what are these plans Joseph is undertaking right now while mingling with Gods? Again, Jesus acquiesced to the Lord's plan. I think it is weird to sing about Joseph making his own plans up in Heaven.

The lyrics get a little more blatant in the next verse:

"Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins, Plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame."

The final verse is nothing short of bizarre, frankly.

Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "Brother Joseph" again.

First, this is doctrinally incorrect. There is only one Atonement. It is an incredibly poor chose of words to claim that there will be another atonement, specifically on behalf of Joseph Smith.

Finally, I have always wondered about the meaning of the final phrase...millions shall know "Brother Joseph" again. One, why is his name in quotes? Second, it has always struck me as a threat....sort of an "oh yeah?....ok, you'll be sorry...." sort of thing.

Anyway, I'm not offended by this hymn, I just think it sends a confusing message that goes along with scotty's inquiry. As mentioned before, if I had an investigator at Church, I would NOT want to sing "Praise to the Man."

I love the pioneer-era songs, but I'm ready for this one to go, or to be revised to account for the issues you've mentioned.

[DU Ute]

I love the pioneer-era songs, but I'm ready for this one to go, or to be revised to account for the issues you've mentioned.

I can see the complaints about this song, but whenever we sing it I try to think about it in it's historical context. If someone came up with this last week I think it would definitely be pretty hokey, but when you consider the angst and uncertainty the early Saints must have felt coupled with the lack of solid doctrine of the time it seems appropriate. I like this hymn, I just think it's necessary to view it in proper context.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I can see the complaints about this song, but whenever we sing it I try to think about it in it's historical context. If someone came up with this last week I think it would definitely be pretty hokey, but when you consider the angst and uncertainty the early Saints must have felt coupled with the lack of solid doctrine of the time it seems appropriate. I like this hymn, I just think it's necessary to view it in proper context.

A case can be made that the contemporary Church is reinforcing a kind of JS worship. Take, for example, the JS film that is playing in Nauvoo, where when Joseph falls through the window he "ascends to heaven."

Moreover, there is the implication that we need JS as much as we need Jesus Christ. And lest you think this isn't tacitly taught, consider the possiblility of someone being baptized and confirmed (you know, born of the water and the spirit) who believes in Jesus but who does not believe in JS. The LDS Church will not let the person participate in the ordinances (which are ostensibly about being born again in God, but the LDS Church let's JS horn in).

As I type this, I contemplate wearing a JS martyrdom commemorative ring (which I could purchase at Deseret Book), but not a cross (because those are like wearing electric chairs, or something).

We've got problems, right here in River City.

[Jarid in Cedar]

A case can be made that the contemporary Church is reinforcing a kind of JS worship. Take, for example, the JS film that is playing in Nauvoo, where when Joseph falls through the window he "ascends to heaven."

Moreover, there is the implication that we need JS as much as we need Jesus Christ. And lest you think this isn't tacitly taught, consider the possiblility of someone being baptized and confirmed (you know, born of the water and the spirit) who believes in Jesus but who does not believe in JS. The LDS Church will not let the person participate in the ordinances (which are ostensibly about being born again in God, but the LDS Church let's JS horn in).

As I type this, I contemplate wearing a JS martyrdom commemorative ring (which I could purchase at Deseret Book), but not a cross (because those are like wearing electric chairs, or something).


We've got problems, right here in River City.

Well stated SIEQ.

[JohnnyLingo]

A case can be made that the contemporary Church is reinforcing a kind of JS worship. Take, for example, the JS film that is playing in Nauvoo, where when Joseph falls through the window he "ascends to heaven."

Moreover, there is the implication that we need JS as much as we need Jesus Christ. And lest you think this isn't tacitly taught, consider the possiblility of someone being baptized and confirmed (you know, born of the water and the spirit) who believes in Jesus but who does not believe in JS. The LDS Church will not let the person participate in the ordinances (which are ostensibly about being born again in God, but the LDS Church let's JS horn in).

As I type this, I contemplate wearing a JS martyrdom commemorative ring (which I could purchase at Deseret Book), but not a cross (because those are like wearing electric chairs, or something).

We've got problems, right here in River City.

Fair criticisms. I also am leery of Joseph worship when it shows up.

I believe he did a lot of good work, and that without this work, the Church wouldn't have been restored. That said, God could have easily chosen someone else.

[woot]

I think a strong argument can be made that the church's historical emphasis on JS was a good thing, and that its sharp turn in the late 90s toward run-of-the-mill conservative christianity is unfortunate. The LDS church is relatively unique because of its claims of special authority and modern revelation. The story of the LDS church is about Joseph, not Jesus.

That having been said, it was interesting on my mission how useless the discussions became when teaching Muslims or Hindus. They really do assume a working knowledge of Jesus and the Bible.

I voted for the 3rd option in the poll, because after the recent re-emphasis it seemed about the same (as of when I stopped going, which was probably '07).

[smokymountainrain]

That's good. I'm curious to know what made you decide to take note.

Good question. I was proud of the primary president for making the program solely about Jesus and that stood out to me. I thought a lot about it during the day and made it a point to notice in the other meetings that followed.

[Moliere]

I think a strong argument can be made that the church's historical emphasis on JS was a good thing, and that its sharp turn in the late 90s toward run-of-the-mill conservative christianity is unfortunate. The LDS church is relatively unique because of its claims of special authority and modern revelation. The story of the LDS church is about Joseph, not Jesus.

Should we be teaching the story of the church or the doctrine of the church? I think we should teach both. I cringed at times when we talk about the salvation that JS has brought to others or even when we as church members are referred to as saviors on mount zion. I understand the meaning of those phrases in Mormondum but it still doesn't feel right to me. There is but one Savior.

I have no problem with talking about JS in church and even having a lesson dedicated to him. He was the prophet of the restoration but I have issues though with excess amounts of praise being heaped on him to the point that it seems like we worship him (see my post above).

[beefytee]

That having been said, it was interesting on my mission how useless the discussions became when teaching Muslims or Hindus. They really do assume a working knowledge of Jesus and the Bible.

We had discussions that were modified a bit to address this issue in Asia. I don't know how effective they were though. Mostly it was more "teaching helps" in the right column in the first few principles of the 1st discussion.

In Korea most of the people had some background or knowledge in Christianity.

[beefytee]

First, this is doctrinally incorrect. There is only one Atonement. It is an incredibly poor chose of words to claim that there will be another atonement, specifically on behalf of Joseph Smith.

Should we be teaching the story of the church or the doctrine of the church? I think we should teach both. I cringed at times when we talk about the salvation that JS has brought to others or even when we as church members are referred to as saviors on mount zion. I understand the meaning of those phrases in Mormondum but it still doesn't feel right to me. There is but one Savior.

This seems like protestant influence to me.

Of course there can be more than one savior and anyone can atone for wrong-doings depending on what it is.

To become Christ-like we need to be saviors and "atone" all we can.

I have issues with Praise to the Man as well. It's not that big of a deal though. I know that President Hinckley thought the Hymn was significant.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6730

[beefytee]

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6730

My favorite part of that speech is where he says that the U almost destroyed his Testimony!

It is true that during the years which followed there were times when that testimony wavered somewhat, particularly in the seasons of my undergraduate university work--not at this university, but at another.

[DU Ute]

My favorite part of that speech is where he says that the U almost destroyed his Testimony!

Sounds like someone went through the refiner's fire and came out stronger for it. Had he gone to the Y and never had his testimony put to the test he probably would have wound up a mediocre High Priest Group Leader in Kearns.

[beefytee]

Sounds like someone went through the refiner's fire and came out stronger for it. Had he gone to the Y and never had his testimony put to the test he probably would have wound up a mediocre High Priest Group Leader in Kearns.

But what of all those poor souls that are lost because of the inferno?

Won't anyone think of the undergraduates?

[DU Ute]

But what of all those poor souls that are lost because of the inferno?

Won't anyone think of the undergraduates?

Better than being lukewarm!

[statman]

While I don't think the doctrine has ever shifted, I do think the emphasis has changed. remember that the early pioneers were people who had given up EVERYTHING to follow the gospel as described by JS. They had to revere him. IMO their devotion to him was an act of self affirmation. It justified what they had done, it acknowledged the importance of the work, and it told them it was all worth it. 30-40 years ago when I was a kid in Utah, there was more of an emphasis on JS, IMO. As the Church has diversified this emphasis has diminished.

Isn't Joseph Smith's first prayer (Oh how lovely was the morning?) also about JS?

About something he did, but not a song of praise to him. I really dislike "Praise to the Man" - I usually choose not to sing it. Although once I discovered that my son (about 10 years old at the time) thought the lyrics included the phrases "traitors and pirates now fight him in vain" and "bling-bling with God," the song has become a bit of a family joke that we snicker all the way through...