"smithmas": A Perennial Anti-Mormon Lie

[Scott Lloyd]

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........

So you're ingnoring what has been said, then, about the prevalence of it on the Internet as shown by Google searches?

 

Or do we conclude that because you've never heard of it, it must not exist?

Edited December 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

So you're ingnoring what has been said, then, about the prevalence of it on the Internet as shown by Google searches?

 

Or do we conclude that because you've never heard of it, it must not exist?

I think it's just rubbing some people the wrong way because it usually works the other way around.   Usually we first we hear a distortion of truth about us from someone outside of the Church and then we either find out or we already know that is a distortion of truth.  Now some of us are first hearing about the distortion of truth from someone in the Church, and we don't like hearing about distortion of truth from Church members.

 

I'm still wondering what I should do with this knowledge that I would rather not have ever heard. I don't like distortions, period.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's just rubbing some people the wrong way because it usually works the other way around.   Usually we first we hear a distortion of truth about us from someone outside of the Church and then we either find out or we already know that is a distortion of truth.  Now some of us are first hearing about the distortion of truth from someone in the Church, and we don't like hearing about distortion of truth from Church members.

 

I'm still wondering what I should do with this knowledge that I would rather not have ever heard. I don't like distortions, period.

You do with it what you do with any false rumor or stereotype. You debunk it whenever or wherever you encounter it, and you correct the misconception of those who may have been innocently misled.

 

And if I may suggest it, discussing the matter publicly in venues such as this thread helps further the debunking and correcting.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

You do with it what you do with any false rumor or stereotype. You debunk it whenever or wherever you encounter it, and you correct the misconception of those who may have been innocently misled.

 

And I I may suggest it, discussing the matter publicly in venues such as this thread helps further the debunking and correcting.

Well, yeah, at least now I can't say I've never heard about "smithmas" before.   And thanks to you, i now have.

 

Who knows, as someone who doesn't usually go to ward Christmas parties I might have thought I was missing something good.

[foster]

So you're ingnoring what has been said, then, about the prevalence of it on the Internet as shown by Google searches?

 

Or do we conclude that because you've never heard of it, it must not exist?

 

What prevalence? I googled "smithmas" with a custom date range of 2006 - today, there were about 125 references to "smithmas". Not all the references were anti. So for simplisity sake lets just say 100 references in the past 7 years, that is less than 20 references a year.   I do not think I am alone in thinking you are remaking the Wasatch Front out of a mole hill.

 

Yes it is mentioned, Yes, Deseret News published an article on it. Yes, Daniel Peterson wrote about it. Yes other pro mormon people have blogged about it. But in all seriousness, it is a none issue that soooooooooooooooooooooooo many people have never heard of. Though you have done a great job of getting it out to the masses.

[Scott Lloyd]

But in all seriousness, it is a none issue that soooooooooooooooooooooooo many people have never heard of.

It's a non-issue for those who've never encountered. For those who have it may be at best an irritant, at worst a deception.

 

Though you have done a great job of getting it out to the masses.

 

Good. Maybe that many more will understand how stupid it is.

 

A date range beginning with 2006 would have filtered out a lot of references. But as I said, if it comes up less and less frequently as time goes by, well, that's a good thing.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Palerider]

So you're ingnoring what has been said, then, about the prevalence of it on the Internet as shown by Google searches?

 

Or do we conclude that because you've never heard of it, it must not exist?

 

I'm agreeing with Beesley, that by trying to stamp out this utterly pervasive phenomenon that awaits innocent, unsuspecting Mormons around every corner and in all knooks and cranies of the virtual world.....you are only serving to perpetuate it.

 

Congratulations.......You've succeeded!

[omni]

I think the posters on this board are pretty savvy with issues concerning Mormonism. Are there any here who had heard of this before the op and if so did you believe to be a big problem? For the record I had never heard of it until the op.

[Sevenbak]

I'm going to start rather early this year to head off the perennial anti-Mormon lie that Latter-day Saint observance of the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Dec. 23, overshadows the observance of the birth of Christ.

 

In support of my point, I present this link to a blog written a year ago by Daniel Peterson.

 

Dan makes the obvious point that among the Latter-day Saints, there is scarcely ever a mention of the birth of Joseph Smith at this time of year, let alone an observance of it that overshadows Christmas. Moreover, I believe that in almost every instance, the purveyors of this nonsense know better and hence are deliberately and purposefully endeavoring to mislead the public.

 

But, hey, when did such people ever let the truth get in the way of a good slander? Or fail to subscribe to the notion  that one way to get people to believe falsehood is to repeat it incessantly?

You are to be applauded for your efforts, Scott.  However, like you said, those who do this know fully well it's not the case.  They either do it to get a purposeful rise out of anyone who will take their bait, or are simply sowing seeds of hostility to see where they land and grow.  I suspect a little of both.

 

There's a certain rabid anti Mormon over at Freerepublic who uses this tactic like clockwork, goes by the name of Colofornian.  I'm waiting on this year's bells' chime, but I know it's coming.  Here's her (she's a she) last few years of doing several threads.  Just had to look up Smithmas.

 

http://freerepublic.com/tag/smithmas/index?tab=articles

[cinepro]

Unfortunately, starting a thread about the topic of "Smithmas" will only help turn the "Smithmas Meme" theme into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Months from now, we may not remember why we discussed it, but we will all remember that it came up.

So I propose an experiment. Next year (Christmas 2014), let's have everyone who thinks anti-Mormons (and others) talk about "Smithmas" too much not talk about it. Don't mention it at all, and if someone else does, don't respond. And especially don't start any threads about it.

Then in January 2015, we can look back and see how many different people mentioned it online. We could even compare this with how many times the birth of Joseph Smith is mentioned in December 2014 by Church leaders or publications. If "Smithmas" is mentioned more by anti-mormons than LDS themselves, then point made. If not...

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm agreeing with Beesley, that by trying to stamp out this utterly pervasive phenomenon that awaits innocent, unsuspecting Mormons around every corner and in all knooks and cranies of the virtual world.....you are only serving to perpetuate it.

 

Congratulations.......You've succeeded!

As I've already made clear, I quite disagree with you.

 

But if the very act of discussing it bothers you so much, I cordially invite you to ignore this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately, starting a thread about the topic of "Smithmas" will only help turn the "Smithmas Meme" theme into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Months from now, we may not remember why we discussed it, but we will all remember that it came up.

 

Actually, as Sevenbak has noted, it comes up every year and has emerged as one of the less-appealing signs of the season.

 

So I propose an experiment. Next year (Christmas 2014), let's have everyone who thinks anti-Mormons (and others) talk about "Smithmas" too much not talk about it. Don't mention it at all, and if someone else does, don't respond. And especially don't start any threads about it.

Then in January 2015, we can look back and see how many different people mentioned it online. We could even compare this with how many times the birth of Joseph Smith is mentioned in December 2014 by Church leaders or publications. If "Smithmas" is mentioned more by anti-mormons than LDS themselves, then point made. If not...

 

If you theorize that I wield such power over public discourse that I could single-handedly perpetuate this nonsense merely by starting a thread to discuss it, it may be that my power extends in the opposite direction to the point that my having brought it up this year would convince people of the stupidity of it to the point that it would be minimized or altogether eradicated by next year.

 

Thus, an experiment such as you propose, even if "Smithmas" were never mentioned again, would be inconclusive.

 

But either way, as I've already said, if the "Smithmas" meme is waning to the point that it is on the verge of extinction, I can only say "Hurrah!"

Edited December 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Is this the right thread in which to wish everyone a Merry Smithmas and a happy Young Year?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this the right thread in which to wish everyone a Merry Smithmas and a happy Young Year?

I love it! And I cordially return the greetings.

[Palerider]

As I've already made clear, I quite disagree with you.

 

But if the very act of discussing it bothers you so much, I cordially invite you to ignore this thread.

 

Oh, sorry to disillusion you but I'm not bothered by this at all. It's actually quite comedic to me. Getting all puffed up over nothing....

 

So here's my question. Since so many "anit's" are bringing this up this season, can you show me one reference in the past thirty days where some anti has addressed this issue BEFORE you brought it to our attention......

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the posters on this board are pretty savvy with issues concerning Mormonism. Are there any here who had heard of this before the op and if so did you believe to be a big problem? For the record I had never heard of it until the op.

Actually, it has been discussed here on the board before. So the answer to your question whether any board contributors have heard of it is obviously yes.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, sorry to disillusion you but I'm not bothered by this at all. It's actually quite comedic to me. Getting all puffed up over nothing....

 

Really? Because the protestations from you and Beesley (with his appeal to scripture about "engendering strife" and what not) rather remind me of the amusing irony of individuals who get so bothered and worked up over perceived judgmentalism that they become judgmental on their own in their railing against judgmentalism.

[jkwilliams]

 Generally, I think the anti's over do it a little on Joseph, but I think maybe the church over did it a little on the bicentennial of his birth in 2005.

 

There were soooo many stories and magazines dedicated to him that year that I figured (hoped?) that at least they would leave the Christmas issue of the Ensign to the Savior..........

 

Here's a small image of the cover (wish I could have found a larger).

 

Maybe next time they could find some other obscure reason to celebrate the prophet.......like the bicentennial of the date he had surgery on his leg. That would convince those anti's that LDS aren't over enthralled with Joseph........

 

http://uwire.com/2013/07/24/bicentennial-of-joseph-smith-surgery-celebrated-with-5k-run/

 

 

 

 

I think that's where a lot of this comes from. As I recall, BYU had a sort of "Joseph Smith Manger" scene set up that Christmas season, which to me was a bit unseemly. One would have to walk a fine line to commemorate the 200th birthday of Joseph Smith at the same time celebrating Christmas, and IMO, some in the church stepped over the line a bit.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's where a lot of this comes from. As I recall, BYU had a sort of "Joseph Smith Manger" scene set up that Christmas season, which to me was a bit unseemly. One would have to walk a fine line to commemorate the 200th birthday of Joseph Smith at the same time celebrating Christmas, and IMO, some in the church stepped over the line a bit.

I'm not familiar with the occurrence at BYU, but somebody mentioned it in a comment responding  to Daniel Peterson's blog post a year ago, and Daniel responded as follows:

 

 

Not really. Somebody at BYU apparently put up a display purporting to depict the interior of the Smith home on Christmas Day 1805, including the two-day-old Joseph in his crib and a — probably anachronistic — Christmas tree.

If there were even the slightest hint that the tree is actually a Smithmas tree, or that the baby in the crib should be an object of worship, the critics might have a point. As a matter of fact, though, they don’t.

 

 

I've already addressed the matter of the December 2005 issue of the Ensign and commented that in the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth -- which happened to occur in December -- I don't concede that a magazine cover and four out of the 20 items within that issue is unreasonable.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Palerider]

Really? Because the protestations from you and Beesley (with his appeal to scripture about "engendering strife" and what not) rather remind me of the amusing irony of individuals who get so bothered and worked up over perceived judgmentalism that they become judgmental on their own in their railing against judgmentalism.

 

You didn't anwer my question.......just as I suspected.   

[Scott Lloyd]

You didn't anwer my question.......just as I suspected.

Sorry. Sometimes I fail to take cognizance of quibbling.

So here's my question. Since so many "anit's" are bringing this up this season, can you show me one reference in the past thirty days where some anti has addressed this issue BEFORE you brought it to our attention......

I didn't say a lot had done it this year. If you'll recall, I said in my opening post that I was mentioning it early so as to head it off. And since it's a seasonal sort of derision relating to Christmas, people are not apt to lob it in November, are they? Edited December 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rameumptom]

I recall the one Christmas Sacrament meeting during my mission (1979), when a member of the stake presidency spoke and said he wasn't going to talk about Jesus, who he said was not born in December, but in April.  So he talked about Joseph Smith. He [mis]quoted D&C 135 by saying "Joseph Smith has done more for the benefit of man than any other man in history".

 

Our Sunday School Gospel Doctrine teacher, who was a school principal, had about a dozen teachers from his school he invited so they could see Mormons believe in Christ.....

 

As it is, my wife and I celebrate "Smith-mas" in our home, but only because I am a Smith (and it happens in September on my birthday).

[jkwilliams]

I'm not familiar with the occurrence at BYU, but somebody mentioned it in a comment responding  to Daniel Peterson's blog post a year ago, and Daniel responded as follows:

 

 

I've already addressed the matter of the December 2005 issue of the Ensign and commented that in the bicentennial year of the Prophet's birth -- which happened to occur in December -- I don't concede that a magazine cover and four out of the 20 items within that issue is unreasonable.

 

I never said it was a "Smithmas tree" or that the scene represented worship of Joseph Smith. What I said is that it was a little unseemly to me, as it seemed to muddy the message of Christmas and blur it in with the birth of Joseph Smith. My point about the 2005 celebrations is that, IMO, some of it was over the top. I still believe that.

 

For the record, I do not believe that members of the church implicitly or explicitly worship Joseph Smith. I've never said anything remotely like that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said it was a "Smithmas tree" or that the scene represented worship of Joseph Smith. What I said is that it was a little unseemly to me, as it seemed to muddy the message of Christmas and blur it in with the birth of Joseph Smith. My point about the 2005 celebrations is that, IMO, some of it was over the top. I still believe that.

OK. I disagree, but such is life.

For the record, I do not believe that members of the church implicitly or explicitly worship Joseph Smith. I've never said anything remotely like that.

Never said you did.

[Palerider]

I never said it was a "Smithmas tree" or that the scene represented worship of Joseph Smith. What I said is that it was a little unseemly to me, as it seemed to muddy the message of Christmas and blur it in with the birth of Joseph Smith. My point about the 2005 celebrations is that, IMO, some of it was over the top. I still believe that.

 

For the record, I do not believe that members of the church implicitly or explicitly worship Joseph Smith. I've never said anything remotely like that.

 

jk! This thread really isn't worth wasting your time with.

 

Oh! Here's the exit over here........