"smithmas" 2014?

[why me]

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.

However, the picture was circulated all over the web and it allowed the antis to make much ado about nothing. I remember it quite well because I spent much time on the web addressing them about it. What was interesting about the antis is that any decision a person may make in the church, becomes an entire church problem. For example, some church designer made the decision to put such a scene in the building and then it becomes a much wider church issue, a way and a means to attack the church.

[why me]

I think that this thread and the responses too it, demonstrate that "smithmas" isn't an issue for critics and not something they attack people of the Church.

However, back when the picture was circulated, it was. The antimormon internet sites were all the buzz. Now, it is all past history. Not much concern with something that happened in 2005.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that this thread and the responses too it, demonstrate that "smithmas" isn't an issue for critics and not something they attack people of the Church.

And how does it demonstrate that? Did you notice sevenbak's links to Free Republic?

 

To quote from his post:

 

The usual suspects over at Free Republic have started what I can only assume is their 12 days of "Smithmas marathon".  It seems to be an annual tradition there to deceive the uneducated and spam the search engines.

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

However, back when the picture was circulated, it was. The antimormon internet sites were all the buzz. Now, it is all past history. Not much concern with something that happened in 2005.

You can't call it past history when it crops up every year (irrespective of whether or not I start a thread about it).

[Scott Lloyd]

However, the picture was circulated all over the web and it allowed the antis to make much ado about nothing. I remember it quite well because I spent much time on the web addressing them about it. What was interesting about the antis is that any decision a person may make in the church, becomes an entire church problem. For example, some church designer made the decision to put such a scene in the building and then it becomes a much wider church issue, a way and a means to attack the church.

Yes. It's like I said. They'll seize on and run with any excuse, however marginal or manufactured.

[why me]

Yes. It's like I said. They'll seize on and run with any excuse, however marginal or manufactured.

That is true. But the smithmas has run out of steam. Now, it the church would have on the ensign cover joseph smith for december, well, it would be back. But it was an one off event with the scene. And it wasn't even meant to replace the nativity scene. But yes, every year, an exmember tries to make some hay about it but it is old hat now.

[canard78]

I could easily prepare a talk centered around Christ that included appropriate and relevant discussion of the mission of Joseph Smith and even mention of his birth in December.

Of course, such mention, however brief and passing, would be quite enough to set off anew the "Smithmas" detractors.

If I never started another thread on the topic, they would find an excuse somewhere. And if they couldn't find it, they would invent it from whole cloth.

Does Gorbachev also still hide in your closet?

[tonie]

 

If I never started another thread on the topic, .....

 

Then for the year 2014, by my count, there would only be 2 references to "smithmas" on the few few pages of google.  One of the discussion was/is on lds.net, which was started by in October (freerepublic is simply a reposting of the lds.net discussion) and a reference on RFM

[rodheadlee]

I forget, when is Joseph Smith's birthday?

[Scott Lloyd]

I forget, when is Joseph Smith's birthday?

[on my iPod so I can't post emoticons. Insert laughing one here.]

[Scott Lloyd]

Then for the year 2014, by my count, there would only be 2 references to "smithmas" on the few few pages of google.  One of the discussion was/is on lds.net, which was started by in October (freerepublic is simply a reposting of the lds.net discussion) and a reference on RFM

You're not counting the thread on the NameOnlyMormons board then?

And, as my friend Sevenbak has observed, the guy on Free Republic raises it every year. He surfs the net for excuses he can twist into Mormons celebrating Smithmas and thus spam the Internet with search engines hits. That's his M.O.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Does Gorbachev also still hide in your closet?

Are you still making cheap shots?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are you still making cheap shots?

 

 

You're not counting the thread on the NameOnlyMormons board then?

 

Pot meet kettle.

Edited December 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

I haven't been following the entire thread but has Daniel Peterson's Smithmas themed article been posted yet?  It's well done and worth reading.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865617930/A-modern-witness-to-the-baby-born-in-Bethlehem.html

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't been following the entire thread but has Daniel Peterson's Smithmas themed article been posted yet?  It's well done and worth reading.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865617930/A-modern-witness-to-the-baby-born-in-Bethlehem.html

A beautiful piece. Well done indeed. I'm grateful to you for the reference.

 

I didn't see any direct reference to Smithmas, though.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pot meet kettle.

Did I say "NameOnlyMormons"? Freudian slip.

 

New Order Mormons.

 

As punishment, I pledge to deny myself the consumption of any fruitcake this holiday season.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The couple of years after that I searched for things of Christ.  I looked for his gospel and principles in the talks.  And those things were taught - as taught by Joseph instead of Christ. 

Rain, I won't dispute your experience. I wasn't there to see and hear the things you did, and I can't get inside your head to know how they might have impacted you.

 

I do wish to comment on the above though.

 

If people were propounding the teachings of Christ as coming from Joseph Smith instead of from Jesus, then shame on them. We can and should do better.

 

With that said, I'm keenly aware that Jesus Christ gave this mandate to the Prophet Joseph Smith early in this gospel dispensation:

 

But this generation [meaning the people living in this latter-day gospel dispensation] shall have my word through you.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 5:10)

 

With that in mind, it should not be greatly surprising or disturbing that in our day much of what Christ taught has come through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This would include, of course, scripture and revelations that have come forth in the latter days, an enlightened understanding of the Fall, the Atonement, the plan of salvation, the saving ordinances of the temple, the eternal sealing of families across the generations, a restoration of the ancient doctrine of theosis, etc.

 

To draw a comparison, I would point out that the content in the New Testament pertaining to the words of and teachings about Christ came forth not from His having directly written them down, but as conveyed through the minds and pens of the gospel writers and of the apostles John, Paul and Peter, who held the same office in their day as the Prophet Joseph Smith did in latter days.

 

I think some are prone to compartmentalize too much when they complain about an emphasis on Joseph Smith, perhaps forgetting that his mission and role was inextricably linked to the commandments and revelations that came from the Lord Jesus Christ. For most of us, a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ is implied whenever we testify of the divine mission and calling of Joseph Smith.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Rain, I won't dispute your experience. I wasn't there to see and hear the things you did, and I can't get inside your head to know how they might have impacted you.

I do wish to comment on the above though.

If people were propounding the teachings of Christ as coming from Joseph Smith instead of from Jesus, then shame on them. We can and should do better.

With that said, I'm keenly aware that Jesus Christ gave this mandate to the Prophet Joseph Smith early in this gospel dispensation:

(Doctrine and Covenants 5:10)

With that in mind, it should not be greatly surprising or disturbing that in our day much of what Christ taught has come through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This would include, of course, scripture and revelations that have come forth in the latter days, an enlightened understanding of the Fall, the Atonement, the plan of salvation, the saving ordinances of the temple, the eternal sealing of families across the generations, a restoration of the ancient doctrine of theosis, etc.

To draw a comparison, I would point out that the content in the New Testament pertaining to the words of and teachings about Christ came forth not from His having directly written them down, but as conveyed through the minds and pens of the gospel writers and of the apostles John, Paul and Peter, who held the same office in their day as the Prophet Joseph Smith did in latter days.

I think some are prone to compartmentalize too much when they complain about an emphasis on Joseph Smith, perhaps forgetting that his mission and role was inextricably linked to the commandments and revelations that came from the Lord Jesus Christ. For most of us, a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ is implied whenever we testify of the divine mission and calling of Joseph Smith.

Well that was convenient to put that scripture in the D & C. Also, that JS was a King.

[tonie]

Well that was convenient to put that scripture in the D & C. Also, that JS was a King.

 

Based on his comments, I am beginning to believe that Scott wants to promote a type of Smithmas.  There is nothing wrong or improper with honoring Joseph Smith and what he did - and we can tell from Scott's comments that he feels the same way about Joseph Smith.

 

Unfortunatley, for  Smithmas or a type of "Smithmas" is that Smithmas falls so close to Christmas. The closeness of Smithmas to Christmas might cause some to think that "Smithmasers" are more interested in Smithmas than Christmas. I am not sure what we can do for Smithmas, other than the co-honor Christmas and Smithmas.

 

If honoring Joseph Smith, around the time of his actual birthday, is Scotts desire and intent, I just wish he felt comfortable being open about it. Perhaps Scotts unnecessary Smithmas thread, are to coopt the 3 internet thread negativity toward Smithmas; so that he and others can celebrate a type of Smithmas without feeling like they are being ridiculed.

 

(I would like to pat myself on the back for doing my part to bump this thread on google results in terms of "Smithmas" google searches)

[Garden Girl]

Based on his comments, I am beginning to believe that Scott wants to promote a type of Smithmas.  There is nothing wrong or improper with honoring Joseph Smith and what he did - and we can tell from Scott's comments that he feels the same way about Joseph Smith.

 

Unfortunatley, for  Smithmas or a type of "Smithmas" is that Smithmas falls so close to Christmas. The closeness of Smithmas to Christmas might cause some to think that "Smithmasers" are more interested in Smithmas than Christmas. I am not sure what we can do for Smithmas, other than the co-honor Christmas and Smithmas.

 

If honoring Joseph Smith, around the time of his actual birthday, is Scotts desire and intent, I just wish he felt comfortable being open about it. Perhaps Scotts unnecessary Smithmas thread, are to coopt the 3 internet thread negativity toward Smithmas; so that he and others can celebrate a type of Smithmas without feeling like they are being ridiculed.

 

(I would like to pat myself on the back for doing my part to bump this thread on google results in terms of "Smithmas" google searches)

 

I am okay with honoring the Prophet Joseph on his birthday within reason... but to make it comparable to celebrating the birth of Christ or in any way a "Smithmas" is offensive to me... and I wish any notion of Smithmas would be discontinued... I had never heard of it except on this Board...

 

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

Well that was convenient to put that scripture in the D & C.

So I take it that you deny the validity and divinity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

I thought you were still a believer. Perhaps I'm wrong in that impression.

 

Ancient prophets as well testified that Jehovah revealed His word to them and instructed them to impart it to the people. Would you with similar sarcasm imply that they were dishonest also?

 

 

Also, that JS was a King.

 

Reference, please.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Based on his comments, I am beginning to believe that Scott wants to promote a type of Smithmas. 

 

Absolutely not. I don't know how you would have gotten that impression from my comments.

 

I think the notion is an invention by enemies of the Church. I'm trying to rebut it.

 

There is nothing wrong or improper with honoring Joseph Smith and what he did - and we can tell from Scott's comments that he feels the same way about Joseph Smith.

 

That part you got right.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am okay with honoring the Prophet Joseph on his birthday within reason... but to make it comparable to celebrating the birth of Christ or in any way a "Smithmas" is offensive to me... and I wish any notion of Smithmas would be discontinued.

 

GG

To be clear, I agree with you. I think most any faithful Latter-day Saint would.

 

It's enemies and critics of the Church who try to promote the notion that Mormons observe "Smithmas."

Edited December 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

To be clear, I agree with you. I think most any faithful Latter-day Saint would.

 

It's enemies and critics of the Church who try to promote the notion that Mormons observe "Smithmas."

 

Just to play devil's advocate here:

 

1. Who cares what enemies of the Church think of the things we choose to celebrate?

2. Christ was NOT born at Christmas - why do we think celebrating it is SUCH a big deal to our Christ focus?

3. Joseph Smith played a significant role in bringing the gospel to our day.  Why should it be a big deal to remember his birthday?

 

If the big bad scary fear is that we might dare to put Joseph Smith in front of Christ, well, that is something each individual should make sure they don't do.  Do we make certain to REALLY focus on the atonement around Easter?  It's far more significant an event than Christmas?  Or is it all bunnies, eggs, chicks, and chocolate?

I think members worrying about Joseph Smith's birth vs Christ's birth is ridiculous, and if anti's want to do it, let them.

Edited December 19, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

So I take it that you deny the validity and divinity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

I thought you were still a believer. Perhaps I'm wrong in that impression.

 

Ancient prophets as well testified that Jehovah revealed His word to them and instructed them to impart it to the people. Would you with similar sarcasm imply that they were dishonest also?

 

 

Reference, please.

I don't believe everything in the D & C.  I think Joseph got carried away and said something was a revelation when it was convenient, or helped the work or he needed something. 

 

Also, for the reference you asked for.  I've heard the actual "Council of the Fifty" minutes will soon be available to read, so maybe we'll be able to get a better understanding.  Or maybe they're already out. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_government/The_Council_of_Fifty   Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council

On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.

The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God

Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings."^[1]

The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:

To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.

[2]

What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were free to withdraw from the council without repercussions. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.

The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended

Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.

 

Me:  Fair Mormon goes on to what it does best...put it in a better light.

 

And btw, I don't have a problem with celebrating Joseph Smith's B-day.  But I agree with Rain, we don't get enough Jesus time.  But it may be just in our particular wards.