"smithmas": A Perennial Anti-Mormon Lie

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

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

You really are worked up over this, Palerider.

 

Go sip some eggnog or hot chocolate. Maybe take a break from the board for a day or so.

 

And as thread originator, I hereby relieve you of any obligation you may feel to read or contribute here.

[jkwilliams]

Hmmm. I googled "Smithmas" and got only a couple of mentions from 2005 (when the 200th anniversary stuff was going on), some posts by Dan Peterson, and a few minor discussions from a couple of years ago on a different board. Even the snarkiest people there weren't alleging that Mormons celebrate Smithmas or that it overshadows Christmas.

 

I guess I'm wondering what the perennial lie is, other than a few bitterly sarcastic references to a single year when a few questionable things were done (IMO).

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmm. I googled "Smithmas" and got only a couple of mentions from 2005 (when the 200th anniversary stuff was going on), some posts by Dan Peterson, and a few minor discussions from a couple of years ago on a different board. Even the snarkiest people there weren't alleging that Mormons celebrate Smithmas or that it overshadows Christmas.

I got a lot more hits on my Google search string -- as I said in a post that you perhaps haven't read yet.

 

I guess I'm wondering what the perennial lie is, other than a few bitterly sarcastic references to a single year when a few questionable things were done (IMO).

 

And, as I've indicated, I don't concede that an extra focus during a landmark year such as a bicentennial justifies the bitterness, sarcasm, mean-spiritedness and snark.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I got a lot more hits on my Google search string -- as I said in a post that you perhaps haven't read yet.

 

And, as I've indicated, I don't concede that an extra focus during a landmark year such as a bicentennial justifies the bitterness, sarcasm, mean-spiritedness and snark.

 

As a past purveyor of bitter snark, I agree with you. For me, sarcasm was my way of dealing with hurt and anger, and it took too long to realize that it wasn't a good way to deal with those emotions. I understand the emotions people feel, and in a way I'm glad I and they are at least able to get them out of our systems. But you're right that there are better ways to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

As a past purveyor of bitter snark, I agree with you. For me, sarcasm was my way of dealing with hurt and anger, and it took too long to realize that it wasn't a good way to deal with those emotions. I understand the emotions people feel, and in a way I'm glad I and they are at least able to get them out of our systems. But you're right that there are better ways to do so.

Thank you for that acknowledgment.

[jkwilliams]

Thank you for that acknowledgment.

 

I have no problem acknowledging that I have behaved badly in the past and may yet do so again. I'm not perfect. What I have learned is important is to acknowledge and own the emotions you feel and then deal with them. I look back and recognize that what I was feeling was an entirely natural and appropriate response to what was going on in my life. I made the mistake of trying to suppress those feelings (because some people told me they were wrong and inappropriate), and in the process I made it worse. In the end, emotions will always emerge, so it's best to express them in healthy ways instead of trying to bottle them up.

[cinepro]

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 suspect a lot of the problem is that Joseph was born two days before Christmas, which admittedly wasn't his fault. But it does run the risk of looking bad.  No one would think twice about seeing a display like this set up in the Church History Museum in August, but typically the only time we see a public display commemorating the birth-scene of a public figure is Jesus' birth in December (meaning the public displays are in December, not Jesus' actual birth...).

 

 

I can clearly remember getting the December 2005 Ensign in the mail and seeing the cover and thinking to myself "You have got to be kidding...!"

Edited December 5, 2013 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

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

Hahaha! Sorry Scott, but this was funny.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hahaha! Sorry Scott, but this was funny.

I agree -- and said so in the post right after it.

[Tiki]

I've never heard non LDS claim:  "that Latter-day Saint observance of the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Dec. 23, overshadows the observance of the birth of Christ."

 

Must be a Utah thing.

[Sevenbak]

I've never heard non LDS claim:  "that Latter-day Saint observance of the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Dec. 23, overshadows the observance of the birth of Christ."

 

Must be a Utah thing.

Oh, it happens all the time.  You need to get out more.

 

 

 

Or, maybe you don't want to get out more... it's kind of ugly out there...

 

 

 

"Want evidence that the Mormon church leaders continually replace Jesus Christ with Joseph Smith at this time of year? I especially recommend these articles from Mormons..."

 

* A Prophet’s Life: The Cradle—Sharon, Vermont [Mormon Merry Smithmas Day!]

* The Joseph Smith Crèche at BYU, December 2005 [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

* Dealing with “Smithmas” [Mormon worship of Joseph Smith]

* “Praise To The Man”: A Review Of The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons [Mormon Merry Smithmas]

* Joseph Smith: a witness of Christ [O Come, O Come EmmanSMITHuel, anyone?]

* The dreaded Christmastime ward sacrament meeting [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

* Praising the man [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

* Exploring: The Church Began with a Prophet [Mormon Merry Smithmas Day!]

 

These other recent threads provide additional evidence:

* Reasons Joseph Smith Is More Important Than Jesus [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

* 'Praise to the Man' honors Joseph Smith [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

* Joseph Smith: Blessed Be His Name [Mormon Merry Smithmas]

* Joseph Smith Jr.—Prophet of God, Mighty Servant

* Tis the season for Smithmas; Whom do you worship? [Mormon Merry Smithmas]

1 posted on Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:10:56 PM by Colofornian

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

[Tiki]

Sounds more like an internet thing!

[Sevenbak]

Sounds more like a life thing!

 

How many non Mormons do you hear bashing the church verbally as opposed to the internet?  It's how the world communicates these days.

[Tiki]

Well, let's all govern our lives based on criticisms by non-Mormons.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Tiki

[Sevenbak]

Well, let's all govern our lives based on criticisms of non-Mormons.

Nope, just an observation.  I was responding to you saying it didn't happen, but it happens so much that I felt I needed to respond.  Frankly, correct me if I'm wrong, Scott, but I think it's why he started this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope, just an observation. I was responding to you saying it didn't happen, but it happens so much that I felt I needed to respond. Frankly, correct me if I'm wrong, Scott, but I think it's why he started this thread.

Yup.

The "I've not heard of it, so that means it doesn't happen" attitude strikes me as a tad parochial and myopic.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, let's all govern our lives based on criticisms by non-Mormons.

Not "govern our lives" per se.

Just do what we might do with any unfair criticism or stereotype: Debunk it when we encounter it and quash misconceptions.

Again, I earnestly disagree with the notion that defending oneself or others against untrue accusation or prejudice amounts to "engendering strife." That's a misapplication of scripture.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I can clearly remember getting the December 2005 Ensign in the mail and seeing the cover and thinking to myself "You have got to be kidding...!"

While I, on the other hand, saw it and thought: "What a nice way to remember the Prophet on the bicentennial of his birth. Perhaps there is content herein from which I can learn."

I can state emphatically that it did not detract from my Christmas observance or diminish in any way my reverence for or worship of the Savior.

I suspect that in more than a few cases, what drives this lingering uproar over the December 2005 Ensign cover are individuals' own personal issues with or antipathy for Joseph Smith. And that's a matter quite separate and apart from any unintended slight inferred from a magazine cover.

[Tacenda]

While I, on the other hand, saw it and thought: "What a nice way to remember the Prophet on the bicentennial of his birth. Perhaps there is content herein from which I can learn."

I can state emphatically that it did not detract from my Christmas observance or diminish in any way my reverence for or worship of the Savior.

I suspect that in more than a few cases, what drives this lingering uproar over the December 2005 Ensign cover are individuals' own personal issues with or antipathy for Joseph Smith. And that's a matter quite separate and apart from any unintended slight inferred from a magazine cover.

This Ensign issue stands out to me.  I remember it at the time of just finding out things in the church that I didn't know about.  And I remember that JS filled the pages of this issue.  And I probably looked at it differently since I had issues with JS, or the beginnings of it.  I haven't followed very well the thread, did "Smithmas" start after this Ensign issue came out?     

 

Also, there is the teaching in the early church that JS was starting his kingdom on earth.  Maybe people revered him at a higher level then, than they do now.  And he was martyred just like the Saviour, in their eyes.  So a lot comes from that possibly, handed down through generations.  Why even JS put himself above the Saviour in that he was able to hold a church together and the Saviour didn't.  So that sentiment sure doesn't help.   

 

But I agree that the so called anti's make it a bigger deal for the here and now, when it would have been more appropriate for the early church times.   

[Garden Girl]

   

  Why even JS put himself above the Saviour in that he was able to hold a church together and the Saviour didn't.  So that sentiment sure doesn't help.   

 

Okay Tacenda... CFR that Joseph put himself above the Savior by holding a church together when the Savior didn't...

 

GG

[Tacenda]

Okay Tacenda... CFR that Joseph put himself above the Savior by holding a church together when the Savior didn't...

 

GG

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact

 

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. BYU Studies link

Maybe I put words in JS's mouth by saying he put himself "above" the Saviour in this instance, I'm sorry.  But it sure gives the anti's more fodder to feed on.   

[JLHPROF]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact

 

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. BYU Studies link

Maybe I put words in JS's mouth by saying he put himself "above" the Saviour in this instance, I'm sorry.  But it sure gives the anti's more fodder to feed on.   

 

Fortunately, anti's opinions are unimportant.

And Joseph Smith DID succeed in breeding more loyalty during his life than the Savior did.  However, both loyalties within the respective early Christian & LDS churces grew most after their deaths, but just like the Saviour, Joseph Smith's church fragmented into many sects after his death, even if there is a clear majority successor.

[sethpayne]

This display at BYU in 2005 was unfortunate in that it provides some ammo:

 

 

 

I suspect BYU would not allow such a display again as any comparison, implied or explicit, between Joseph Smith and Jesus is highly inappropriate, IMO.  

 

 

ETA:  Whoops .... I see others have already mentioned this display.

Edited December 7, 2013 by sethpayne

[Mark Beesley]

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.

This is my third post in this thread. I have not bothered to count your posts. So, who is "bothered and worked up?" At the risk of "appeal[ing] to scripture," you might consider the beam that is crushing you. :-)

[Garden Girl]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Narcissism/Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact

 

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. BYU Studies link

Maybe I put words in JS's mouth by saying he put himself "above" the Saviour in this instance, I'm sorry.  But it sure gives the anti's more fodder to feed on.   

 

Thanks Tacenda... I'm disappointed at his statement in general because of its boasting, but I don't believe he was actually going so far as to put himself above Jesus per se... but no matter... it's still boasting, and agree that it gives fodder to our critics.

 

GG