On the 24 January 2017 the First Presidency distributed a letter to all General and local leadership down to the Bishop/Branch President level. It stated:
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
During the next few years, the Church will enter a period of significant anniversaries of major Church history 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.
Sincerely yours,
The First Presidency
This came to me as a bit of a surprise. I recall a number of historical commemorations in my early years in the Church.
Over 25 years ago prior to the sesquicentennial celebrations of the arrival of the pioneers into the Salt Lake Valley, the First Presidency said to priesthood leaders: “We are giving advance notice of activities and events scheduled for 1997 to help you plan early to allocate local resources and funds for sesquicentennial activities”.
It would appear that we are now in a very different place.
The letter from the First Presidency did not specify any particular events, however it did give a timeline of “the next few [2 or 3?] years”. In thinking about the events that we are likely to see over that period of time, I can think of the following:
175th Relief Society
40th Priesthood and Temple Ban
200th First Vision
So why has the Church issued this decree?
Answer – If I was being kind
Being a relatively young church, it might be argued that the LDS tradition is maturing by not commemorating every historical event, particularly at the general level. Being an international church, there are many things to celebrate in many countries.
Answer – If I was being harsh
Historical issues have copped a beating in the media recently and the Church doesn’t want any undue attention on these issues.
So, how would you answer this question??
Wheat & Tares 
The Brethren are a bunch of killjoys.
I’m guessing it’s your “harsh” answer, sadly. However, I’m betting there will be plenty of conference talks about events though — especially in 2020.
If you think that the curch is a killjoy, tell me then how should the church celebrate any historical event? What are the centralized actions that would make these events significant for a regular member? Would it be money well-spend?
I’m fine with having the local units find their ways to commemorate these.
Suspect it’s actually the harsh reason, though I’m grateful for the result whatever the reason. I found those big celebrations rather embarrassing growing up, and a world away from the church in Britain.
But then maybe it’s me that’s the killjoy ;).
I hope individual Wards/Branches would have a special service to highlight a historical event in our history. I hope to arrange a Song Service around the 1st Vision.
The harsh answer for sure. I’m sure they don’t want to bring up the Temple /Priesthood ban or the First Vision(s).
My, how times have changed even in comparison to something as recent as 2005. From the 2005 D-News’ coverage of Joseph Smith’s 200th birthday:
“Proceedings will be carried to meetinghouses throughout the world via satellite and will be broadcast locally.”
“‘This is a very significant event. It happens only every 100 years,’ President Hinckley said in reference to another church president, Joseph F. Smith, who came here on Dec. 23, 1905, to dedicate a monument that stands in honor of Joseph Smith.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635170946/Joseph-Smith-celebration-tonight.html?pg=all
Pretty obvious that your harsh answer is the correct one. Why put a spotlight on the first vision when it’s now widely known that there were multiple different (some even say conflicting) accounts? The Church is smart enough to know it doesn’t need another historical black eye from the media…
The latter.
Even if it is the latter, it’s definitely true that the Brethren have been a killjoy over the past thirty years. Remember roadshows? Gone. Remember missionary farewell parties? Discouraged. Mutual activities that were just fun, and not solemn assemblies. I remember being excited for the Hosanna Shout at the Palmyra Temple dedication, scoured the valley for a white handkerchief, and Boyd nearly fell asleep mumbling Hosanna and absentmindedly flipping around his handkerchief. Would it kill us to actually enjoy our religion once in a while?
Maybe none of the above-maybe as a worldwide church we have the intelligence and information to know the money, and energy, would be better spent elsewhere. Faced with a choice of activities, most churches these days would be focusing on aid rather than self-congratulation. Maybe we’re just growing up. I prefer it that way.
Definitely the first. There’s so much going on in the church globally that I just don’t think they want to create a whole lot more work at the general level. They’re probably tired just thinking about it (thus, the “undue burdens” phrase at the end).
I think the church generally is proud of its history overall. Most members aren’t as caught up in the historical complications as the blogosphere.
“Would it kill us to actually enjoy our religion once in a while?”
Yes. We would all go to hell. /sarcasm
“…most churches these days would be focusing on aid rather than self-congratulation.”
Look, I’m sure someone with a medium IQ at HQ could easily make this a missionary opportunity celebration as they do with all Temple Open Houses and Visitors centers. Heck maybe they could talk about how Joseph Smith First Vision helped pave the way for the Law of Consecration and helping the poor. Surely this can’t be that hard to pull off.
Bunch of killjoys, I say.
But nowadays who would consider the law of consecration something you’d want to go public with? It seems at best to be seen as an embarassing idealistic failure rather than an enlightened attempt to cure poverty.
The premier event among the upcoming anniversaries is not easily turned into a large, mass celebration. Conference talks will certainly note the First Vision and the important truths taught to the world after it. A pageant or big dance celebration is not in keeping with the holy spirit of Joseph’s theophany.
The anniversary of the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the church are much more appropriate for widespread public celebration. I think that we will see it then.
Handle with care, we covenant to obey the law of consecration today still. It wouldn’t be that hard to tie taking care of the poor to our current temple covenants and note that JOSEPH smith started it all. We can hand wave away all the historical issues as we always have. I really think it can be done easily as has been done for 100 years. I could even advise if anyone asked me.. It’s not that hard and they have had more practice than me.
El oso, I can post a link later to dancing in the. Nauvoo temple. Joseph and Brigham weren’t nearly so staid as our current crop of boring killjoys. Brigham was known for his love of dancing and I’m sure the Byu young ambassadors and Polynesian cultural center dancers could come up with some cool dance routines that appeal to a wide international audience with church standards and good taste. It boggles my mind the lack of creativity among some of the bloggernacle, and I don’t consider myself exceptionally creative.
You might enjoy the discussion on the topic over at this blog: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/01/31/significant-anniversaries/
According to Brigham Young, it seems that dancing was common in the temple. Since we don’t dance, does that mean we are wicked? See https://mormonheretic.org/2009/12/14/dancing-in-the-temple-and-other-changes-over-the-years/ (Speaking in tongues in Nauvoo was common too. Not so in our day.)
The scriptures have a precedent for the principles of remembrance. However it was often coupled with hope for the future. The exodus is a remembrance of Gods redemption of Israel with the hope of his future redemption. Same with our sacrament, etc. Remembrance is meant to invoke faith.
Unfortunately our historical narrative has cause significant reduction in faith not the other way around. There may be a hesitation in creating much ado about our past if it is only going to cause angst among members and the perception of Mormons in general. It’s a shame really, we have a great opportunity to own our historical narrative with celebrations of our past.
I’m with Martin – enough with all the added crap. A few years ago our ward RS held an event, the same week the Stake RS held a “women’s conference”, the week before the General RS Board held their annual meeting. I remember thinking then, “how can anyone not see how ridiculous this is.”
I agree with others that the church will likely do the big hurrah on the commemoration of the church organization in 1830, so they’re keeping the stuff before then low-key at the general level. Avoiding thorny historical issues (like with the priesthood ban) isn’t the main motivation, IMO(though it’s a nice perk). With the release of the newer handbooks in 2010, there was a big emphasis on simplifying programs and allowing for more flexibility in adapting to local situations. I see this as an extension of that.
I’m glad they added the “undue burden” part. I think of the stake in California that built a full-scale replica of the tabernacle to celebrate youth study of the Old Testament. It’s a good example of how easy it is to create massive unnecessary burdens for wardmembers in the name of celebration and community/missionary work. In my own life I was responsible for implementing an insane plan by an over-zealous 20-something-year-old bishop and it just about killed me. It was also in the name of community outreach and missionary opportunity. Mormons are highly skilled at overcomplicating our church obligations and burning out.
Where can we get an original copy of this??