"smithmas": A Perennial Anti-Mormon Lie

[Mark Beesley]

Of course. They wait until this time of year to bring it up.

 

That's why I said I'm mentioning it now: to head off the perennial nonsense.

 

That's quite a few in a year. And it could be that recent endeavors to brand it as the lie that it is are having some effect in stemming the tide.

It seems, instead of heading off anything, this thread has managed to remind people of something that is better ignored.

[foster]

It seems, instead of heading off anything, this thread has managed to remind people of something that is better ignored.

 

Too true.

 

The term Smithmas, seems to have been coined in 2005 in reference to a Joseph Smith "nativity scene" at BYU.   A google search for the term "smithmas" with a date range of 01/01/2006 - 01/01/2010 yielded about 125 results (actual total was 150 but one needs to account for all the DrWho Smithmas references and references to Will Smith. Regardless, for an active Saint to raise the issue of Smithmas seems more of an instance of the tail wagging the dog.  Interestingly enough, the 2013 references I saw to smithmas were this thread, and a anti-blog post from about 52 minutes ago. One could speculate that this thread lead to the creation of the anti blog post. Given the complete lack of interest some many have in knowing about smithmas, it seems smithmas is merely a boogeyman for Mormons and antis alike to use as an excuse to wag their fists at each other.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited December 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

It was my recollection that the "Smithmas" meme among the anti-mormons started in 2005, where some people were a little worn out by the year of Joseph's jubilee, and having it capped off with a December Ensign with Joseph on the cover was the straw that broke the camel's back.

.

It is hard to tell on my iPad and I am not getting out of bed to check, but I think I found a post from 2002 using the term...can't link to it due to being an anti site, googled smithmas and Mormon with a custom time range of between 1999 and 2004 and found it on rfm. Edited December 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I don't know about Smithmas - seems like a silly complaint drummed up by anti's, but I don't see any issue with revering the prophet Joseph Smith, (even almost to the point of worship, although I wouldn't go that far).

 

I think we often forget just what position Joseph Smith held as the head of a dispensation.  There are generally considered to be 7 major dispensations of the eternal Gospel from God to man -  Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith.  That's pretty good company for him to be in.  Why should it bother us to revere Joseph Smith to the level of these other men.  Yes, he should not surpass our Savior in our focus, our worship, our dependance or our esteem.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate him for the unique position he has held in this dispensation, and that can include celebrating his birth.

[Scott Lloyd]

So among those who have shown up on this thread to counter me, I am unable to discern a single, unifying consensus. The arguments might be summarized in italics as follows, with my response in regular type:

 

-- Eight years ago, during the bicentennial year of his birth, there was too much attention paid to Joseph Smith.

 

Debatable though this is, it is peripheral to the topic of this thread.

 

-- A corrollary to the above is the insinuation that the extra focus on the Prophet Joseph Smith during that landmark year somehow justifies the ongoing "Smithmas" nonsense.

 

To this I say that the perpetuation of slander and falsehood is never justifiable.

 

-- One approach has been to doubt or deny that the "Smithmas" meme even exists.

 

This contention, of course, is easily falsifiable.

 

-- Somewhat related to the above is the contention that, though the "Smithmas" nonsense has been present in the past, it has considerably lessened in recent years.

 

If that be the case, I say, "Wonderful!" Let the trend, if there be such a trend, continue to the extent that the "Smithmas" lie is seen to be so transparently false and those who perpetuate it so foolish that it disappears altogether from the anti-Mormon arsenal. May my opening of this thread contribute to and hasten the ongoing progress of such a trend.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems, instead of heading off anything, this thread has managed to remind people of something that is better ignored.

So long as the the falsehood remains in the public consciousness, a reasoned argument identifying it as a falsehood is all to the good, say I.

 

It hardly makes sense to leave a brazen lie on the table unrefuted under the assumption that if one ignores the lie it will just go away.

[Scott Lloyd]

  Interestingly enough, the 2013 references I saw to smithmas were this thread, and a anti-blog post from about 52 minutes ago. One could speculate that this thread lead to the creation of the anti blog post.

Or it could be that the new blog post is symptomatic of the same old lie once again emerging at this time of year. Hence, my creation of this thread as expressed in the OP.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know about Smithmas - seems like a silly complaint drummed up by anti's, but I don't see any issue with revering the prophet Joseph Smith, (even almost to the point of worship, although I wouldn't go that far).

 

I think we often forget just what position Joseph Smith held as the head of a dispensation.  There are generally considered to be 7 major dispensations of the eternal Gospel from God to man -  Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith.  That's pretty good company for him to be in.  Why should it bother us to revere Joseph Smith to the level of these other men.  Yes, he should not surpass our Savior in our focus, our worship, our dependance or our esteem.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate him for the unique position he has held in this dispensation, and that can include celebrating his birth.

I agree.

 

It is regrettable that there should be a sentiment calling for us to back away from honoring Joseph as the Prophet of the Restoration. Apart from the very significant position he holds in the context of the progress of the Kingdom of God as a man whose mission was foretold in ancient scripture, he deserves to be honored for the sheer dedication to duty and commitment to the commandments of God in the face of enormous hardship and oppression.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Calling this a "perennial lie" seems to be an exageration.

perennial - lasting for an indefinitely long time; enduring.

 

I said earlier I had done a Google search and come up with 20 hits in the first three pages that were all from antagonistic sources. I gave my search string. Others are free to replicate my search, if they so choose.

[thesometimesaint]

sounds like a straw man to me. show me where someone says that all mormons put more stock in JS's birthday than JC's .

 

There MAY be one or two Mormons that believe it.  I haven't surveyed all Mormons. I'll leave the whole war on Christmas meme to others.

[Mark Beesley]

So long as the the falsehood remains in the public consciousness, a reasoned argument identifying it as a falsehood is all to the good, say I.

 

It hardly makes sense to leave a brazen lie on the table unrefuted under the assumption that if one ignores the lie it will just go away.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." 2 Tim. 2:23.  I would amend that by including, avoid foolish and unlearned arguments, claims, or insinuations.  That is not always easy for us to do, but sometimes it is better to simply ignore foolishness and ignorance, realizing that the audience for such are, dare I say, fools and ignoramuses.  No reasonable person would ever believe that Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith to same degree as the Savior.  Any person who would latch onto such a claims, and coin or use a terms such as Smithmas is not someone I feel a need to correct, for it is likely they that are not open to being corrected.

 

But if you feel that need, carry on, realizing of course, that it does gender strifes.

 

(If no Latter-day Saint had ever responded to the Smithmas nonsense, how long of a life do you suppose it would have enjoyed?)

[Hamilton Porter]

Although I am cocksure Grant Palmer is full of it, why did the Church correlation committee schedule the lesson on Joseph Smith the week of Easter? All we did in Sunday School that day was heap praises on Joseph Smith.

 

The teacher was reading an Elder Maxwell quote on Joseph Smith being possibly the greatest person who ever lived.

 

My bishop, being more intelligent, spoke about the amazing things he did in spite of his frailties.

 

I will never sympathize with anti's and their crybaby reasons for leaving. But we are in part breeding people for disappointment with this over-emphasis.

 

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but I'm sure glad I have the propensity to take my spiritual development in my own hands.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[Senator]

It seems, instead of heading off anything, this thread has managed to remind people of something that is better ignored.

Pre-emptive apologetics

Hmm...

[Calm]

Not all wards give the same lessons the same week due to varying stake conferences and other stuff so I am unsure how Coorelation could schedule a particular lesson for a specific week. I was ward librarian for decades and the instructions sent out never went into that much detail that I remember.

I do wish we paid more attention to religious holidays in our adult classes rather than feeling the need to stick to a certain theme of development throughout the entire year.

[Buzzard]

Many, many moons ago, I read a book (sorry, the memory of the title and authoress have faded from memory) about a couple who left the church for a polygamist group, and their eventual return to the church. In that particular sect, split off from the main church, they DID give their children gifts on 12/23 in honor of Joseph Smith, and ignored Christmas. 

So while I do not have a link or references, it seems plausible that the switching of Christmas for JS's birthday may be attributed to a few small polygamous offshoots. I'll root around and see if I come up with anything more concrete.

[Palerider]

It seems, instead of heading off anything, this thread has managed to remind people of something that is better ignored.

 

In conjunction with this thread, is the first time I have heard the term "Smithmas".

 

Just seems like someone going out to their junk pile and picking up a peice and waving it around for all to see so they can declare how much they hate it and what a big peice of junk it is........

[Garden Girl]

I reactivated into the Church 17 years ago (after many years of being inactive), and in those 17 years... all lived here on the Oregon coast in my ward... I have never had Joseph's birthday in any way even approach our Christ centered Christmas seasons.  In fact, his birthday is just barely mentioned in passing... There is nothing wrong with honoring Joseph as the Prophet of the Restoration, much like we honor our founding fathers of our country, or those who fostered our independence as a nation.  Never have I experienced "Joseph worship" in any way during my lifetime as a Latter Day Saint, and see no wrong in honoring the person chosen for the Restoration.  This falls waaay short of worshipping. 

 

GG

[Hamilton Porter]

Not all wards give the same lessons the same week due to varying stake conferences and other stuff so I am unsure how Coorelation could schedule a particular lesson for a specific week. I was ward librarian for decades and the instructions sent out never went into that much detail that I remember.

I do wish we paid more attention to religious holidays in our adult classes rather than feeling the need to stick to a certain theme of development throughout the entire year.

 

Well, the Sunday School manual has a schedule. So for most wards, it would fall on the same week.

[Calm]

It's been awhile since I looked, not surprised if I spaced on it...but having been in the library handing out lesson material, the wards I've served in weren't rigid in keeping to schedules and whenever people discuss lessons given online it always seems to me some are saying we had that lesson last week while others are saying we will have it next week. I wonder how many rigidly follow it and if it's really meant to be...you've made me curious, time to go refresh and correct my memory.

[Calm]

Well, the Sunday School manual has a schedule. So for most wards, it would fall on the same week.

Would you mind giving a link to this please, I looked and couldn't find one...unless you mean that one is expected to follow the order of the lessons and take one week for each lesson and not that a particular lesson would fall on a particular date in a particular year.

Assuming stake and ward conferences are spread out evenly through the year (our stake is in January in fact), by Easter wouldn't a fourth to a third have had conferences already and so be behind at least one week? Then by six months half of the wards would be teaching one week, the other half would be teaching the next? Throw in odd events like substitutes that teach the wrong lesson or special ward meetings preempting the schedule...while I think one can give a range of just a few weeks for a particular lesson, it seems unlikely there is a high one to one correspondence except for the first month or two.

With the same manual being used every four years for sometime now, but Easter varying what week it is celebrated, it might very well be a different lesson on Easter even for the same manual and just chance that a particular topic hits Easter a particular year.

However, that is kind of irrelevant to what I at least was thinking was your point anyway, which is that we don't have typically Easter lessons on Easter in SS at least if the teacher keeps to the manual. I know I didn't in Primary as a teacher after about ten years with the same manuals as I tended to look to the scriptures more for my themes, can't remember what I did my one year of teaching on Easter as a youth GD teacher...though I think knowing my preferences, I would easily be able to pull the topic of the Resurrection in through discussion about the Atonement which I see as being able to be tied to any topic in the manuals in some way...though it may take some creativity...the Gospel being the Atonement and all else being appendages to it (big paraphrase there, hopefully I kept true to the original enough).

[Scott Lloyd]

The Apostle Paul wrote, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." 2 Tim. 2:23.  I would amend that by including, avoid foolish and unlearned arguments, claims, or insinuations.  That is not always easy for us to do, but sometimes it is better to simply ignore foolishness and ignorance, realizing that the audience for such are, dare I say, fools and ignoramuses.  No reasonable person would ever believe that Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith to same degree as the Savior.  Any person who would latch onto such a claims, and coin or use a terms such as Smithmas is not someone I feel a need to correct, for it is likely they that are not open to being corrected.

 

Whether or not they're open to being corrected, their malice needs to be countered lest it influence the uninformed.

 

But if you feel that need, carry on, realizing of course, that it does gender strifes.

 

Defending oneself or one's group by refuting a falsehood amounts to gendering strife? That's an interesting take you have on the matter.

 

But I wonder: Should your repeated expression of disagreement with me on this topic be regarded as "gendering strife"?

 

(If no Latter-day Saint had ever responded to the Smithmas nonsense, how long of a life do you suppose it would have enjoyed?)

 

Probably at least as long or longer than it will have as it is. The places I have seen it perpetuated (the New Republic website, certain anti-Mormon or apostate websites) are pretty much closed societies that faithful Latter-day Saints don't frequent.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Although I am cocksure Grant Palmer is full of it, why did the Church correlation committee schedule the lesson on Joseph Smith the week of Easter? All we did in Sunday School that day was heap praises on Joseph Smith.

The "correlation committee" does not set lesson schedules in individual wards. That's up to the teacher under the direction of the bishopric. And what has Grant Palmer got to do with it?

 

The teacher was reading an Elder Maxwell quote on Joseph Smith being possibly the greatest person who ever lived.

 

CFR that Elder Maxwell ever uttered such a comment. I'm fairly certain that Elder Maxwell would agree with virtually all Latter-day Saints and Christians that Christ was the greatest person who ever lived.

 

My bishop, being more intelligent, spoke about the amazing things he did in spite of his frailties.

 

 

Even acknowledging his frailties I believe Joseph Smith dwarfs most people in greatness -- including (and especially) his perennial critics.

 

I will never sympathize with anti's and their crybaby reasons for leaving. But we are in part breeding people for disappointment with this over-emphasis.

 

 

On Joseph Smith? I don't concede there is an over-emphasis, let alone that we are "breeding people for disappointment" with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pre-emptive apologetics

Hmm...

Hardly pre-emptive, when the thing surfaces every year.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not all wards give the same lessons the same week due to varying stake conferences and other stuff so I am unsure how Coorelation could schedule a particular lesson for a specific week. I was ward librarian for decades and the instructions sent out never went into that much detail that I remember.

As a former gospel doctrine teacher and stake Sunday School president, I can attest that nobody from Church headquarters ever gave me a directive as to scheduling lessons. I did, however, see an advantage to holding to the sequence in the manual and keeping on track with what the older youth were learning. It gave opportunity for at-home discussions on the lesson topics that were being studied by the youth and the adults at the same time.

 

I do wish we paid more attention to religious holidays in our adult classes rather than feeling the need to stick to a certain theme of development throughout the entire year.

 

Since it is all part of the gospel of Christ, I should think a creative teacher could find a way to tie in most any lesson to the religious holiday du jour.