My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Inconceivable]

In fact, we [the Mormon church] generally don't mark his birthday at all, let alone celebrate it

..my wife and I have hosted a Joseph Smith birthday party on 23 December for the past ten or fifteen years..

Only once did we actually do something related to Joseph Smith.

I've been a member of the LDS Church my whole life. The only year that "Smithmas" was an issue was 2005.

Evidently the Mormon writer of this article hasn't invited you to his yearly party. But don't worry, it really doesn't have much to do with Smith. ??

Yet Smithmas happened in 2005, didn't it? Trial balloon? Probably. Didn't go over well did it? Embarrassing to some. Enough to write an article that efforts to make the church appear to be tubing in the main stream at Santa season.

So much so that one particular quirky Mormon "intellectual" who celebrates Smithmas parties for the past 15 years doesn't even relate the party to him. What?

What's the point of the article other than to demonstrate that Smith is so important that he DOESN'T deserve recognition at his own commemoration? Huh?

Strange behavior. Peculiar people. Peculiar person. Lot's of red rubber noses and big orange floppy shoes.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The only year that "Smithmas" was an issue was 2005.

Since 2005 was the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's birth, it was scarcely surprising to see a considerable uptick in mentions of him around 23 December of that year.

I don't recall ever hearing any complaints about it, though, from mainstream believing members of the Church, who honor him as a good man and a prophet. Not because we worship Joseph, but precisely because we understand with perfect clarity that we don't.

The only complaints I ever encountered, personally, came from on-line critics. (I would imagine that they muttered off-line, too. But I didn't hear them.)

Search results on LDS.org for the name "Joseph Smith" show nearly 10,000 hits
The same for "Jesus Christ" get 18,000 hits.

So at least on the website, Jesus is talked about nearly twice as much as Joseph Smith.

HOWEVER, should we discount the number of times the phrase "...in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." is used?

You definitely shouldn't discount occurrences of Savior, Son of God, Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, and the like.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Search results on LDS.org for the name "Joseph Smith" show nearly 10,000 hits
The same for "Jesus Christ" get 18,000 hits.

So at least on the website, Jesus is talked about nearly twice as much as Joseph Smith.

HOWEVER, should we discount the number of times the phrase "...in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." is used?

You definitely shouldn't discount occurrences of Savior, Son of God, Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, and the like.

Nor should you discount occurrences of Joseph, Smith, Prophet, Guy with face in hat, and the like.

[_Yoda]

The only year that "Smithmas" was an issue was 2005.

Since 2005 was the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's birth, it was scarcely surprising to see a considerable uptick in mentions of him around 23 December of that year.

I don't recall ever hearing any complaints about it, though, from mainstream believing members of the Church, who honor him as a good man and a prophet. Not because we worship Joseph, but precisely because we understand with perfect clarity that we don't.

I didn't claim that we DO worship Joseph Smith. If you read my post in its entirety, Dan, you will see that I was agreeing with you.

I should expand on my comment regarding Smithmas. In 2005, my in-laws were mission presidents in Texas. We drove out to spend the holidays with them. While we were there, we attended a fireside dedicated to Joseph Smith's birthday. Although I understood it, I have to admit being a little weirded out attending a Fireside so fully focussed on Joseph Smith at Christmas time.

Like I said, growing up, there had never really been any emphasis at all on his birthday. The focus during December had always been Christ's birth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you read my post in its entirety, Dan, you will see that I was agreeing with you.

I understood that.

Thanks.

[_Joey]

I haven't done the math recently, but every time I've checked in the past, I've been a bit surprised to discover that the proportion of converts on the site was remaining constant at about 22%. That's absolutely not the result of any effort or intention on my part.

Some converted in their youth, some later. My first "volunteer" converted, as I recall, in his early sixties.

Would you provide the names of the Scholars on MST who converted to the LDS Church after they became scholars? I can't think of any reason that you or they would be opposed. Might actually go to the purpose of the site!

[_moksha]

I thought it wholly inappropriate to commingle Christmas and the 2005 Smithmas both on the same Sunday. The Celebration of Joseph Smith should have occurred the Sunday before the Christmas program. In my ward, we had lesser occurrences of this for several years and then the Bishop changed and in 2008 we had exactly an equal parts Christmas and Smithmas. To me this means that the worship of Christ and the reverence for Joseph Smith have blurred in some member's minds.

This might be a good topic for a November 2011 column in the Mormon Times. Dr. Peterson could address this issue and perhaps convince people to use different Sundays for the two.

[_TAO]

You ward celebrates Smithmas? 0.o

[_Daniel Peterson]

I thought it wholly inappropriate to commingle Christmas and the 2005 Smithmas both on the same Sunday. The Celebration of Joseph Smith should have occurred the Sunday before the Christmas program. In my ward, we had lesser occurrences of this for several years and then the Bishop changed and in 2008 we had exactly an equal parts Christmas and Smithmas. To me this means that the worship of Christ and the reverence for Joseph Smith have blurred in some member's minds.

This might be a good topic for a November 2011 column in the Mormon Times. Dr. Peterson could address this issue and perhaps convince people to use different Sundays for the two.

I've never -- ever -- encountered what you describe.

Would you provide the names of the Scholars on MST who converted to the LDS Church after they became scholars?

I suppose I could go through the roughly 220 biographies that are up on the site at the moment and try to compile a list of such people for you. There are several of them.

But then, you could do that, too.

I've been promised an entry within the week -- we'll see! -- from a Mesoamerican archaeologist who converted to Mormonism many years after she received her doctorate. I'm confident that, if you read her entry at all, you'll dismiss it with a sneer.

Incidentally, after the first of the year I intend -- for the sake of my own sanity, such as it is -- to slow the pace of posting new entries from one every other day to one every third day. Just so you know. (I've got a lot on my plate.)

[_Ray A]

I've been promised an entry within the week -- we'll see! -- from a Mesoamerican archaeologist who converted to Mormonism many years after she received her doctorate. I'm confident that, if you read her entry at all, you'll dismiss it with a sneer.

I'll probably make an exception to your site to read Kim Goldsmith's testimony.