Salt Lake Tribune story on my thesis

[_Blixa]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Pretty good story by Peggy Stack. I'd only point out one needed correction:

Reed came to his thesis naturally. As a Mormon child in Sacramento, Reed was fascinated by the cross. He once stole a cross necklace and wore it to church on the following Sunday. His mother viewed the theft and jewelry as signs of his apostasy, Reed says. "She asked me to put it under my shirt."

This quote makes it sound as though my mother was more concerned about me hiding the symbol, than returning the necklace that I stole. LOL! No... my mother never knew that I stole the necklace in the first place, not until recently that is. Oh well.

Aside from this quote, I am thrilled my research has gotten some media attention.

Your research sounds really fascinating, Mike. Can't wait til you publish!

[_why me]

Frankly, it's probably a good thing LDS DON'T wear crosses--if we did, the LDS retailers would just cheapen it as they do when there is money to be made off something, like the ctr and return with honor rings, youngwomen value rings, temple tie tacks, angel moroni pins etc.

Are you serious? Have you walked into any religious store where the cross has not been cheapened? My gosh, crosses are for sale...all kinds of crosses both cheap and expensive. And what about medals of catholic and orthodox saints? Religious bookshops and ornaments are filled with things to buy...some cheap and some expensive. Really, you need a reality check on this one.

[_why me]

Mike, that's a wonderful article, congratulations! I'm glad to hear your thesis is almost done. I know the man who was quoted, Bro. Rees, he's brilliant and a great person. Did he help you with your research?

I guess I'm in the minority among LDS because I've always had a reverence for the symbol of the cross and personally, it offends me when I hear other LDS denigrate or dismiss it as a symbol.

The cross was basically a second century invention. Now the fish would be more true to original christianity and as such a much more peaceful symbol to embrace. I do believe that at the time of Paul, no crosses were found in christianity. But I could be wrong in this. But it was the second century that the cross begins to take shape in christiandom.

[_solomarineris]

The cross was basically a second century invention.

Is that so?
I say 99.9% of what it was said about Jesus & Christianity was invention.
Nothing Christ, Paul, Peter, Mark, Matthew, John said & written, came to happen.
It is so obvious, all we have is second third hand eyewitness stories.
No doubt, The cross was a byproduct.

[_harmony]

Frankly, it's probably a good thing LDS DON'T wear crosses--if we did, the LDS retailers would just cheapen it as they do when there is money to be made off something, like the ctr and return with honor rings, youngwomen value rings, temple tie tacks, angel moroni pins etc.

Are you serious? Have you walked into any religious store where the cross has not been cheapened? My gosh, crosses are for sale...all kinds of crosses both cheap and expensive. And what about medals of catholic and orthodox saints? Religious bookshops and ornaments are filled with things to buy...some cheap and some expensive. Really, you need a reality check on this one.

You can buy anything in this world with money.

[_Mike Reed]

The cross as a christian symbol was a late comer. Originally it was the fish. I like the fish symbol. The cross was chosen as a symbol for chirst. It was a more potent symbol than the fish. Who would rally around the fish? But the cross...would have more pull.

You apparently misunderstand the absence of the symbol of the cross in early Christian remains, and falsely attribute motives that actually had no basis for its absence. No. Your assertion that the cross was not a symbol of early Christianity is false. It is quite clear in the New Testament (and even the Book of Mormon) that the cross was an acceptable literary symbol. If it was an acceptable literary symbol, why is it not found in early Christian remains? Your theory doesn't seem to answer this question.

There are three reasons: 1) Early Christians desired to worship inconspicuously, for fear of persecution; 2) Early Christians were mocked for their belief that Jesus was crucified, and therefore was not a useful emblem for attracting converts; and 3) Many early Christians avoided depicting the sacred in artwork in general, for fear that they would break the second commandment. Early Christians got around these reservations by actively searching for the sacred manifestation of the cross in the world around. They also got around these reservations by tracing the symbol on their forehead, and perhaps also by utilizing crypto-crosses.

Early Christian behavior toward the cross, and their reasons behind that behavior are not at all comparable to the LDS cross aversion. We can be certain that many early Christians would have objected (due to reasons 1 and 3) against the placement of gold angel statues on their meeting houses.

I include an appendix in my thesis which deals with this issue rather persuasively, with lots of evidence to back it up.

Now of course I can see why you guys favor the cross. Mainly because the Mormons do not have it as a symbol. Thus, something to be embraced by the critics.

Mind reading performance again, eh? {chuckle} Don't quit your day job.

And of course, it is now fashionable to claim that the LDS leadership was anticatholic. More fuel for the critics. It is my opinion that the LDS leadership separated itself from the cross because of what it represented.

So I take it that you believe Prophet David O. McKay was lying then when he said that he didn't want the Saints using the symbol because it was "catholic." Never mind the huge wave of anti-Catholicism that was happening at the time, and of which David O. McKay was caught up in. Is it common for you to pull speculations out of your rear end, or are blessing us with a special performance tonight?

And maybe they were right since the early christians at the time of Paul did not have the cross. It came during what the LDS church would consider the apostacy.

You should have told that to Spencer W. Kimball when he claimed to have received a sign of a cross from God, which confirmed to him that he had been called of God to serve in the Quorum of the 12.

[_Danna]

Congratulations, I too look forward to reading a forthcoming publication.
I too was told that the cross was like hanging on the wall the knife that killed your brother, and that it was a symbol of death.
Ironically, we couldn't wear pentacles or pentagrams either - but down here we had no idea they featured on early temples.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Congrats, Mike! Just out of curiosity---has there been any Mopologetic reaction (negative or otherwise) to your work?

[_Kishkumen]

Great work, Mr. Reed. I had always assumed that the denigration of the cross had belonged to the early years. But as late as DOM? Wow. I didn't know that.

[_Gazelam]

Sounds really interesting. Please let us know when we can get the whole article.


Alter Idem,

Hilarious story about vampires in church. I'm sure Ill repeat that to many over the years!

Gaz