Doctor Scratch wrote:I remember a time, a few years ago, I reckon, when Dr. Peterson openly admitted to celebrating "Smithmas." Once upon a time, as you may recall, the Mopologists had a very different sense of humor about their approach to confronting critics. You can see the relics of this on SHIELDS, and in the "Metcalfe is Butthead" incident; it was evident in the Hamblin/Peterson screening of silent anti-Mormon films for Family Home Evening, and in the hamfisted jokes about "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventures in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell." That sort of ribald, rib-poking humor is completely gone from their game. Whereas Prof. P. used to be able to laugh about him and his "highbrow" friends celebrating Smithmas as a means of mocking Church critics, now he's back to the dour-faced insistence that Mormons don't venerate Joseph Smith in this way. I'm not sure which DCP is preferable--the mean, wise-cracking version, who loves to mock critics--or the pious, sad-sack version who has capitulated to pressure from the critics.
I mean, just look at his latest "series" of posts on SeN about "LDS Inc." In total, this may rank among the dumbest things he's ever tried to argue in public. I mean, who is the audience for this? The whole thing is written as if it is intended for people who did not complete the 8th grade. Is that what the joke's supposed to be? "Oh, ha ha! Critics are as dumb as 8th graders, so I'll treat them that way!"
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that the whole "series" is a distraction away from the fact that he openly plugged the Cruise Lady, which, of course, is a paying sponsor of the Interpreter Foundation. "LDS Inc." indeed. Oh, and don't forget: free airfare, lodging, food, etc., doesn't count as "pay." Here's a question for you: has Steve Densley arranged things such that "Interpreter" gets a percentage of any advertising revenue? I guess the bottom line is that people were correct to wonder why the accounting for the Witnesses movie was missing from the most recent financial report.
Very insightful and thought-provoking work, Doctor. You always manage to draw the conversation forward in interesting ways, and for that I am indeed grateful.
So, here are my thoughts. I hope you will forgive my more imaginative, and less strictly scholarly approach to these problems.
So, let's set aside the person we know as DCP and deal here with the persona of DCP, which can stand on its own and is, to an extent, an independent set of phenomena.
I would argue that the latter DCP is, in fact, always celebrating Smithmas, regardless of any overt position he might take on the issue. All of this is very provisional. DCP is playing a role, and I think you intuit correctly that the role should not be taken grimly seriously. When DCP appears to be criticizing the idea of Smithmas, he is not rejecting the idea in toto. Rather, he is rejecting what he views to be the inaccurate and negligible ideas that "critics," "anti-Mormons," and "ex-Mormons" have about Smithmas.
Smithmas is too sacred for our tainted hands and mouths. That does not mean it does not exist. If the Brethren were to institute a regular remembrance of Joseph Smith on his birthday that looked to outside observers to be Smithmas, DCP would've course embrace it enthusiastically, saying, "well, this is what we have always known, what we have always done, and the critics just had it all wrong," etc.
What we need to understand is that this DCP persona partakes of Smithmas in writing about it, one way or another, just as much as you or I do. And, I would argue that our vision of Smithmas could indeed honor DCP and recognize his contribution to this most sacred of holidays. We could see that the impish, holy fool of Mopologetics is really none other than modern Mormonism's . . . .
