Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) So, recalling last year's thread about the "Smithmas" nonsense (link) I have been curiously checking Google to see if discussion about "Smithmas" would emerge again this year and if it is indeed, as I called it last year, "a perennial anti-Mormon lie." As yet, I've seen no mention of the "Smithmas" meme from any stridently anti-Mormon sources or from any faithful believers (as though faithful believers would be apt to acknowledge such a thing). The only sources I have seen bringing it up so far are some of the nominal Mormons over at the New Order Mormon discussion board. I've said it before: With members like these, who needs antagonists? Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
strappinglad Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 Then there are those renegades at MDD!
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 Then there are those renegades at MDD! Has anybody brought it up over there this year?
Popular Post cinepro Posted December 16, 2014 Popular Post Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) I would suggest that the best way to kill an idea such as "Smithmas" is to let it die from neglect. Starting a thread to talk about how we don't talk about it seems counterproductive, if that's the goal. But maybe that's just me. Edited December 16, 2014 by cinepro 14
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) I would suggest that the best way to kill an idea such as "Smithmas" is to let it die from neglect. Starting a thread to talk about how we don't talk about it seems counterproductive, if that's the goal. But maybe that's just me. Did somebody here start a thread to talk about "how we don't talk about it"? But if you mean to imply that my bringing it up serves to perpetuate it, events would seem to contradict the notion. That is to say, in the wake of the thread I started last year, the toxic anti-Mormons this year seem to have been silent about it -- so far. As for killing a criticism by letting it "die from neglect," do you really think the Church's critics would shut up if defenders stopped rebutting them? Seems like a rather naive notion to me. Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
Ahab Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 "Smithmas" x 1000or better yet"Smithmas" x infinity.There that might help to see it more on Google.or better yet, maybe I should post more on wiki
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 "Smithmas" x 1000or better yet"Smithmas" x infinity.There that might help to see it more on Google.or better yet, maybe I should post more on wikiI'm looking specifically for 2014 occurrences of it.
Ahab Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 I'm looking specifically for 2014 occurrences of it.I wrote that this year, in 2014.Are you not seeing it yet?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 I wrote that this year, in 2014.Are you not seeing it yet?No. I don't know what you're driving at.
cinepro Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Did somebody here start a thread to talk about "how we don't talk about it"? But if you mean to imply that my bringing it up serves to perpetuate it, events would seem to contradict the notion. That is to say, in the wake of the thread I started last year, the toxic anti-Mormons this year seem to have been silent about it -- so far. As for killing a criticism by letting it "die from neglect," do you really think the Church's critics would shut up if defenders stopped rebutting them? Seems like a rather naive notion to me. But what are you "rebutting"? You're saying that you've found it being discussed in one place on the internet. By bringing it up here, you have effectively doubled the number of times it has been mentioned this year. I would also point out that in the thread at NOM, the person who started it has acknowledged that the Church's Christmas Video and the Sacrament Meeting he recently attended both focused on Christ with nary a mention of Joseph Smith's birth. So I'm still not sure what you're "rebutting". Edited December 16, 2014 by cinepro 1
pogi Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) So there is one dude over at the NOM discussion board making fun of his Nauvoo period themed ward Christmas party. The whole "smithmas" part about it was a joke brought up by another poster, they are not taking it seriously. His beef was not about the overemphasized focus on Joseph at Christmas time, but it was that they didn't include Joseph's polygamous wives in the recreation of the time period. This guy is off the hinges for several reasons, but I don't think there are any real accusations of Mormons as a whole celebrating "smithmas." Edited December 16, 2014 by pogi 1
Ahab Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 No. I don't know what you're driving at.So what are you looking for exactly?Anyone in 2014 who mentioned the word "Smithmas"? I did that (x infinity) in this thread this year, but maybe that is not what you are looking for.How about someone who not only mentioned the word "Smithmas" this year but described what it is. pogi did that in this thread, but maybe that's not what you are looking for either.Or how about someone who reported this year that "Smithmas" was prolifically celebrated among Mormons, generally, with detailed descriptions of all the celebrations that he or she witnessed. I haven't seen such a report either, if that is what you are talking about.
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 If I mention that fact that Joseph Smith actually was born in December and Christ wasn't will I be called anti-Christian?If I bear my testimony of Joseph Smith in the last week in December am I violating our focus on Christ?If I start singing "I'm dreaming of a white Smithmas" will I be labelled racist as well as anti-Christian?If I ONLY post about Joseph Smith on December 23rd and ONLY post about Christ on December 25th will I make people happy?If I respond to this thread will I provide another hit when someone googles Smithmas? These are the questions that trouble me... 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) So it would appear that if there's a correlation to be drawn, it is that the more I mention "Smithmas" here, the less it gets brought up elsewhere -- and even then, only by the NOMinal Mormons. Hmm. Seems the opposite of what Cinepro intimated. Maybe trying "to let it die from neglect" isn't the best way to kill it. Maybe one more year of my posting about it will wipe it out altogether. Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 We just need to make it a Brigham New Year and then make Easter about John Taylor. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) So there is one dude over at the NOM discussion board making fun of his Nauvoo period themed ward Christmas party. The whole "smithmas" part about it was a joke brought up by another poster, they are not taking it seriously.If it's the thread that Cinepro linked to, the opening post has the standard Jesus-gets-too-little-attention-from-Mormons-in-December, too-much-emphasis-on-Joseph-Smith, blah-blah, yada-yada mantra. Maybe you found a different thread than that one. Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
mormonnewb Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 In almost four years since discovering the Church, this is the first time I've ever even heard of Smithmas (or the claim that Mormons celebrate too much Joseph and not enough Jesus). In fact, I didn't even know that JS' birthday was in December until reading this thread. So from my limited experience, I would suggest that Smithmas is dead and may it rest in peace (until brought up in a MDD thread next year). 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) But what are you "rebutting"? You're saying that you've found it being discussed in one place on the internet. By bringing it up here, you have effectively doubled the number of times it has been mentioned this year.I would also point out that in the thread at NOM, the person who started it has acknowledged that the Church's Christmas Video and the Sacrament Meeting he recently attended both focused on Christ with nary a mention of Joseph Smith's birth. So I'm still not sure what you're "rebutting".I'm rebutting the false stereotype, the one he himself perpetuates in the opening post. If, by actually paying attention this year instead of harboring ill-considered and ill-founded prejudices, he ends up killing his own stereotype, well, that would be a good thing. Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 In almost four years since discovering the Church, this is the first time I've ever even heard of Smithmas (or the claim that Mormons celebrate too much Joseph and not enough Jesus). In fact, I didn't even know that JS' birthday was in December until reading this thread. So from my limited experience, I would suggest that Smithmas is dead and may it rest in peace (until brought up in a MDD thread next year).If, by this time next year, I am able to report that the stereotype seems to be altogether absent from current Internet discourse, no one will be more pleased than I.
why me Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 So it would appear that if there's a correlation to be drawn, it is that the more I mention "Smithmas" here, the less it gets brought up elsewhere -- and even then, only by the NOMinal Mormons. Hmm. Seems the opposite of what Cinepro intimated. Maybe trying to let it die from neglect isn't the best way to kill it. Maybe one more year of my posting about it will wipe it out altogether.Smithmas came about 9 years ago in 2005 celebrating 200 years since the birth of Joseph Smith. The outcry focused on the crib scene that was displayed for JS as a baby. As we can see below it was much ado about nothing. It was just a scene from what could have been the home of Joseph's parents as they awaited the arival of the new baby boy.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 Smithmas came about 9 years ago in 2005 celebrating 200 years since the birth of Joseph Smith. The outcry focused on the crib scene that was displayed for JS as a baby. As we can see below it was much ado about nothing. It was just a scene from what could have been the home of Joseph's parents as they awaited the arival of the new baby boy. I agree it was much ado about nothing. I will point out as an aside, though, that the diorama at BYU was quite inaccurate historically. Christmas was scarcely noticed in the early 1800s, let alone observed as we do so today. Charles D i c kens's famous novel about Scrooge and Bob Cratchit and the three ghosts of Christmas, published in 1843, helped promote a revival in England of Christmas observance, which had been waning until then. And, according to this site, the first recorded instance of a Christmas tree being displayed in America was in the 1830s in German homes in Pennsylvania, and as late as the 1840s, a Christmas tree was not accepted by most Americans, being regarded as a pagan symbol. 2
omni Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 I agree it was much ado about nothing.I will point out as an aside, though, that the diorama at BYU was quite inaccurate historically. Christmas was scarcely noticed in the early 1800s, let alone observed as we do so today. Charles D i c kens's famous novel about Scrooge and Bob Cratchit and the three ghosts of Christmas, published in 1843, helped promote a revival in England of Christmas observance, which had been waning until then.And, according to this site, the first recorded instance of a Christmas tree being displayed in America was in the 1830s in German homes in Pennsylvania, and as late as the 1840s, a Christmas tree was not accepted by most Americans, being regarded as a pagan symbol.Careful Scott, you may have inadvertently taken your first step on the slippery slope to anti-Mormonism. It often starts with with a mild criticism of the Lord's Anointed, or in this case those they've chosen to make inspired decisions regarding church sponsored displays.
Ahab Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Careful Scott, you may have inadvertently taken your first step on the slippery slope to anti-Mormonism. It often starts with with a mild criticism of the Lord's Anointed, or in this case those they've chosen to make inspired decisions regarding church sponsored displays.Yes, so repeat this mantra to demonstrate your true faith to the world, Scott:Everything the Church does is inspired by God.Everything the Church does is inspired by God.Everything the Church does is inspired by God.The Church is basically as perfect as God, don't ya know.
Recommended Posts