Statue installed at slc temple “Jesus Christ Carrying the Cross”

[I Have Questions]

Peterson now agrees that placing a statue with cross symbology in front of the Church’s flagship temple, IS a significant shift from the past.

I think that Latter-day Saint objections to the cross have faded a bit over the past couple of generations, and I’ll speculate that this may be related to a general fading of anti-Catholicism in (and beyond) our ranks.

The subtle attempt at blaming the members for past leaders’ repugnance of the cross is pretty disingenuous given the plethora of quotes from various leaders. He is keen to suggest that the past position of anti-Catholicism and the cross symbology was down to the general membership’s views rather than a systemic position driven by leaders. Sorry Dan, that doesn’t fly. The evidence is overwhelming.

Although it’s true that Latter-day Saints and the Church leaders who emerge from their ranks have historically rejected the veneration or “adoration” of the cross that is common in several Christian traditions (most of all on Good Friday, which happens to be today), it simply isn’t true, despite one poster’s declaration, that Latter-day Saints “have rejected all portrayals of the cross of Jesus as ‘repugnant’ and as not in keeping with the Mormon [sic] faith.”

Well no, some members may well have rejected the leadership’s past party line that the cross was a repugnant symbol and not in keeping with the Mormon faith. But it is true that Church leaders instructed Church members that the cross symbology was repugnant and not in keeping with Mormon faith. So it IS a significant U-turn to place that previously repugnant symbology that was not then in keeping with our faith in front of the SLC temple. And you know it.

[I Have Questions]

There are plenty of quotes that have been provided that SLC LDS have rejected all portrayals of the cross of Jesus as "repugnant" and as not in keeping with the Mormon faith. Why are you lying? To whom are you lying? Yourself perhaps?

You are correct and your interlocutor is wrong. Here's the thing -- was this guy ever active enough in the Church to know what it teaches? He apparently didn't grow up in a very active home and so it's possible he just doesn't know about some of these things.

I hadn’t considered the notion that gap in his life experience within Mormonism. That his upbringing was “less Mormon” than quite a few people who contribute to this board who were raised in an active Mormon family. It explains quite a lot.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Huh. So, he’s still obfuscating the truth by blame shifting. Cool. Cool cool cool. Like dog returning to his vomit, DCP can’t help but fudge the truth. Man, Mormonism really does a number on a man’s brains, sheesh.

[Shulem]

Although it’s true that Latter-day Saints and the Church leaders who emerge from their ranks have historically rejected the veneration or “adoration” of the cross that is common in several Christian traditions (most of all on Good Friday, which happens to be today), it simply isn’t true, despite one poster’s declaration, that Latter-day Saints “have rejected all portrayals of the cross of Jesus as ‘repugnant’ and as not in keeping with the Mormon [sic] faith.”

Well no, some members may well have rejected the leadership’s past party line that the cross was a repugnant symbol and not in keeping with the Mormon faith. But it is true that Church leaders instructed Church members that the cross symbology was repugnant and not in keeping with Mormon faith. So it IS a significant U-turn to place that previously repugnant symbology that was not then in keeping with our faith in front of the SLC temple. And you know it.

But it's the leaders that are responsible for setting the example by leading the entire church. They did that by rejecting all statues of the cross of Christ and limited themselves to viewing paintings and works of art. But statues were like graven images to the leaders of the Utah Mormon Church which maintained a strict distance from Catholic influences. Veneration or adoration of statues of Christ was strictly forbidden in Mormonism. But plural marriage and discrimination against black people was the law in the Church.

The leaders of the Utah Mormon Church were also responsible for setting the example that members would not allow blacks to hold the priesthood because of their race. The precedent and ruling came from each succeeding First Presidency that rubber stamped every application for change with: DENIED!

[Shulem]

I think that Latter-day Saint objections to the cross have faded a bit over the past couple of generations, and I’ll speculate that this may be related to a general fading of anti-Catholicism in (and beyond) our ranks.

What might Brigham Young say to his congregations had he been informed by a soothsayer that 150 years after his own death the Second Coming had not occurred, Africans were being ordained to the priesthood, the practice of polygamy is a crime against the church and subject to automatic excommunication, and a statue of Christ carrying his cross is on full display out front of the Salt Lake Temple? Somehow, I get the impression that Brigham Young would strongly disagree with all of it.

And this list is a rather short list. When you look at Mormonism *then* and Mormonism *now*, they are not the same church!

[huckelberry]

You are correct and your interlocutor is wrong. Here's the thing -- was this guy ever active enough in the Church to know what it teaches? He apparently didn't grow up in a very active home and so it's possible he just doesn't know about some of these things.

I hadn’t considered the notion that gap in his life experience within Mormonism. That his upbringing was “less Mormon” than quite a few people who contribute to this board who were raised in an active Mormon family. It explains quite a lot.

It is possible I misremember but I think I remember that he is an adult convert.

[I Have Questions]

Peterson is still intent on misleading his small number of readers.

Citing yesterday’s blog entry, one of the regulars at the Peterson Obsession Board summarizes it as follows: “Peterson now agrees that placing a statue with cross symbology in front of the Church’s flagship temple, IS a significant shift from the past.”

I had opened that blog entry with the following comment:

One of the first steps in a serious, intellectually honest disagreement is to attempt to understand (and perhaps even to restate) the differing position of a discussion partner in such a way that she would recognize it as expressing her own actual opinion.
Here is my actual opinion, in my own actual words:

I don’t think that the Michael Hall statue of Jesus Christ Carrying the Cross is an instance of “cross symbology” . . . Placing Michael Hall’s statue on Temple Square indicates no reversal on the use of “cross symbology.” We haven’t adopted “cross symbology.”
How do you rate the POB poster’s attempt to understand and restate my position on this matter? I have to be honest: I don’t think that his effort is, umm, fully adequate. Can you discern any difference between what I said and his proposed summary of it?

I dunno. I’ve decided to forego further futile attempts to help the folks on the Obsession Board understand my viewpoint on this matter. I’ve seen no evidence that they’re interested.

Dan, can you point to where I said that the Church is adopting the cross symbology? No? Well that’s because I didn’t say that. What I said, and what you quoted me as saying, was that placing a statue with cross symbology outside of its flagship temple in SLC is a significant shift from the past. Which it is. As has been clearly demonstrated. The church has gone from “the cross is repugnant and not part of our worship” to placing the cross front and centre outside its flagship temple. A significant change. My point was that you have now agreed that it’s a significant change from church leaders previous stance. Which you have. Now stop with the misdirection and learn a new skill - intellectual honesty.

[Gadianton]

Dan, can you point to where I said that the Church is adopting the cross symbology? No? Well that’s because I didn’t say that. What I said, and what you quoted me as saying, was that placing a statue with cross symbology outside of its flagship temple in SLC is a significant shift from the past. Which it is. As has been clearly demonstrated. The church has gone from “the cross is repugnant and not part of our worship” to placing the cross front and centre outside its flagship temple. A significant change. My point was that you have now agreed that it’s a significant change from church leaders previous stance.

This is classic DCP, going for the ultimate strawman he can build to reinforce the misguided convictions of his commenters.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

In total, 829 (97%) students in our sample chose a painting of Gethsemane. When asked why they chose the painting they did, 410 people (48%) specifically wrote something negative relative to Crucifixion imagery, suggesting that part of their decision was influenced less by what they liked about the Gethsemane images and more by what they did not like about the Crucifixion images. We examined these 410 responses
looking for common themes. A process of emergent coding led to five themes that we used to code each reference.

32 percent said that the Crucifixionimages were too violent and graphic. For example, one student wrote, “The [paintings of the Crucifixion] seemed more gruesome and made me feel guiltier about being human and making mistakes in my life.” Another responded, “I don’t want to always remember Christ in pain and agony, it seems like it is almost celebrating his suffering.” One student captured the sentiment of many, writing, “It is sad to see Jesus Christ on cross and too violent for my future children to look at everyday even though it is important to remember.

[drumdude]

One of the first steps in a serious, intellectually honest disagreement is to attempt to understand (and perhaps even to restate) the differing position of a discussion partner in such a way that she would recognize it as expressing her own actual opinion.

The irony, lol.

[huckelberry]

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

In total, 829 (97%) students in our sample chose a painting of Gethsemane. When asked why they chose the painting they did, 410 people (48%) specifically wrote something negative relative to Crucifixion imagery, suggesting that part of their decision was influenced less by what they liked about the Gethsemane images and more by what they did not like about the Crucifixion images. We examined these 410 responses
looking for common themes. A process of emergent coding led to five themes that we used to code each reference.

32 percent said that the Crucifixionimages were too violent and graphic. For example, one student wrote, “The [paintings of the Crucifixion] seemed more gruesome and made me feel guiltier about being human and making mistakes in my life.” Another responded, “I don’t want to always remember Christ in pain and agony, it seems like it is almost celebrating his suffering.” One student captured the sentiment of many, writing, “It is sad to see Jesus Christ on cross and too violent for my future children to look at everyday even though it is important to remember.

This is an interesting article about lds and people's feelings about the Crucifixion.

It's an Easter contemplation. People like to distance from the matter and sugar coat with candy Easter eggs. The atonement should indicate that there are aspects of oneself which need to die. Well perhaps so but people do not wish to look too closely at death. Thinking of images it is little surprise people rarely choose a Crucifixion image over the dining table. There may be better time and place for such an image. Quiet and contemplation.

I am not comfortable with Mormon focus on agony in the garden. I think death and public condemnation are essential to the atonement not a finite episode of pain even if including wrestling with uncertainty and isolation (why have you forsaken me?) There can be other reasons people might avoid cross images. The article includes choices I could not tolerate. in some Jesus is above the rest of humanity as if no longer a part of us when in fact most deeply a part of us. In some images he looks 10 ft tall and in some realm above us. No. I think too easily images of either cross or garden get a little sugar coat and a special protective light.

I find myself puzzling over the movie Passion of Christ. It is certainly a cross image. It is also a whipping image. Whip is in the scripture and usual Roman procedure. It is also not a common Christ image. In the movie it seems to focus on great pain endured. I cannot imagine that wrong but I was left with a very bad taste for the movie. It came to my taste stronger after a few days. I do not think it wrong in the details present but perhaps by what was not included. I could imagine the movie expecting revenge from Jesus. Or perhaps an expectation of revenge instead of mercy, and transformation to new life.

I noticed an observation about Roman whipping. They could well be lethal. Jesus whipped shortened his time on the cross perhaps a small touch of mercy. Somehow this connects, him back with the ordinary people that Rome executed in my thought. He became one of us that we may become new in him.