Salt Lake Tribune story on my thesis

[_why me]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Pretty good story by Peggy Stack.

Where did this quotation come from?:

Two years after becoming president in 1953, McKay pointed to a Catholic church in California and commented: "There are two great anti-Christs in the world: Communism and that church."

Now of course that wonderful newspaper Salt Lake Tribune had to include that quotation by Mckay, right? Nice attempt by the paper to make the Mormons look bad and gain some readership from the gentiles settled in Salt Lake.

[_why me]

Something doesn't smell right here. The cross is actually a symbol of Protestantism and not catholicism. What is a symbol of catholicism that separates inself from protestantism is the cross with the figure of a crucified Christ. Now that is catholic but not the cross standing empty. The protestants have the empty cross as a symbol of the risen Christ and as a separation of their catholic past. And so, why would church leaders actually call the cross catholic. I do believe that they had something else in mind.

Plus, the cross has a colored past in prechristianity. And I also believe that it was not the main symbol of the early church. The fish was the main symbol since it focused on being fishers of men...ie, missionary work through acts of kindness and love (as Christ fed the gathering that came to listen to him with fish). The fish is more LDS than the cross.

[_harmony]

Something doesn't smell right here. The cross is actually a symbol of Protestantism and not catholicism. What is a symbol of catholicism that separates inself from protestantism is the cross with the figure of a crucified Christ. Now that is catholic but not the cross standing empty. The protestants have the empty cross as a symbol of the risen Christ and as a separation of their catholic past. And so, why would church leaders actually call the cross catholic. I do believe that they had something else in mind.

Of course you do. You cannot imagine the possibility that our church leaders wouldn't notice that difference and would simply lump all crosses together under the label, Catholic. Just because you know something doesn't mean they did or do, Why Me.

Plus, the cross has a colored past in prechristianity. And I also believe that it was not the main symbol of the early church. The fish was the main symbol since it focused on being fishers of men...ie, missionary work through acts of kindness and love (as Christ fed the gathering that came to listen to him with fish). The fish is more LDS than the cross.

And you've done the research necessary to write a master's thesis on the subject? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[_why me]

And you've done the research necessary to write a master's thesis on the subject? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Weeeeeeellllllll, when I look in the mirror every morning I usually say: Why me, you kinda intelligent.

But in the cross there has been much debate about pagan origins. Also, why the cross became the symbol with the crucified Christ.

I would have to say harmony that it is not a bad thing that the LDS church has put the cross to the sidelines. We need to understand something about the LDS faith. It does not have at its center the cult of Jesus as one may find in other christian churches. For the LDS, heavenly father is the center of the faith. It is to him that the LDS pray to in the name of his son, Jesus Christ. Other christian groupings put the cross at the center of their faith to the exclusion of heavenly father. In some cases, Jesus becomes a cult-like figure.

Now there is nothing wrong with having a close relationship with Jesus and the LDS are encouraged to do so too. But they are also encouraged to look upon heavenly father as a father, someone who can be reached through prayer as Christ did in his ministry on earth.

My problem with the Reed article is that the Tribune attempted to make the LDS church out to be anticatholic once more. Now if I were Reed, I may be a pissed at that. But I think that Reed and his thesis paints the LDS church in the same light. Thus, it becomes counter productive and if true, it is a cheap shot.

[_Kishkumen]

My problem with the Reed article is that the Tribune attempted to make the LDS church out to be anticatholic once more. Now if I were Reed, I may be a pissed at that. But I think that Reed and his thesis paints the LDS church in the same light. Thus, it becomes counter productive and if true, it is a cheap shot.

I think it would be entirely fair to say that Mormonism had its fair share of anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric in the past. Since Reed's thesis is about Mormonism's past, it is not inaccurate to pull in that anti-Catholicism for the purposes of the argument.

You are concerned about a false impression that Mormonism is anti-Catholic today. While I understand that concern, I don't think it is at all reasonable of you to expect that concern to govern everyone else's work. Like many sensitive Mormons, you seem to want only the best side of Mormonism ever to come out into the public view. Not gonna happen.

[_Nightingale]

... in the cross there has been much debate about pagan origins.

"Pagan origin" is the reason given by the WatchTower Society (JWs) for them also passing on use of the cross in their faith. That and its association with Catholicism, which they also abhor ("the great whore").

We need to understand something about the LDS faith. It does not have at its center the cult of Jesus as one may find in other christian churches. For the LDS, heavenly father is the center of the faith. It is to him that the LDS pray to in the name of his son, Jesus Christ. Other christian groupings put the cross at the center of their faith to the exclusion of heavenly father. In some cases, Jesus becomes a cult-like figure.

I'm going to assume that you mean some other Christian churches. Otherwise, it would seem that you have some misconceptions about non-LDS faith. "Cult of Jesus" is not accurate to describe many of the Protestant denominations I have examined and, in fact, that term would be considered on the offensive side. I understand what you mean about Heavenly Father being at the center of your faith. I have heard LDS explain that before. Christians also pray to the Father in the name of the Son - that is not exclusively LDS (which you make it sound).

The cross is a symbol of the belief in Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. It is certainly not the cross itself that is the centre of a Christian's faith. Protestants focus on "the empty cross", which is the difference in their symbol as opposed to that used in the Catholic Church. It signifies to them, of course, that "He is Risen".

Re the "exclusion" of God the Father - Don't forget the Trinity concept in mainstream Christianity (Trinitarians, at least). There is balance there between God the Father and God the Son, along with Holy Spirit. The distinctions may not be as clear to some, I grant, as with JWs and LDS where the concept of Godhead, Three-in-One is not taught. The way I learned it and the way it has developed for me, there are different purposes and attributes in the various aspects of the Godhead (not that I particularly like that term so I don't usually use it). In my worship and daily life, I visualize the entity, if you will, and the role and purpose of each aspect of it. It also helped me very much in my searching years to learn not to focus too much on the symbols and concepts and doctrines (which are, in my view now, just human attempts to conceptualize what we understand about the divine) and to try and think beyond that, to the spirit of it, if you will, the meaning, rather than the symbol. If someone gets overly focused on the cross, I believe that is an erroneous diversion.

Now there is nothing wrong with having a close relationship with Jesus and the LDS are encouraged to do so too. But they are also encouraged to look upon heavenly father as a father, someone who can be reached through prayer as Christ did in his ministry on earth.

I don't see anything here that is different from what mainstreamers also believe. We do pray to the Father, after all. (Maybe some non-mainstream groups do not - I am not familiar with them).

My problem with the Reed article is that the Tribune attempted to make the LDS church out to be anticatholic once more. Now if I were Reed, I may be a pissed at that. But I think that Reed and his thesis paints the LDS church in the same light. Thus, it becomes counter productive and if true, it is a cheap shot.

I wouldn't say it's a cheap shot or that the Trib is trying to make the LDS Church out to be something it is not, from the quotes I have read by Church leaders (granted, not recent quotes, if that is all you think carries weight). There is also the aspect of "oral history" and tradition within Mormonism to consider. I have observed a high degree of strong anti-Catholic sentiment. That goes along with the attitudes I have seen expressed in print by church leaders. I also observe something quite curious (to me) in the exmo crowd, especially with BICs - an ongoing strong reaction against Catholicism. That must have something to do with what is taught to them in the Mormon Church and it carries over even after they leave the church. Part of it too could be the ease with which they can see parallels and examples within the Catholic Church to their own former faith (it's easier to see it looking back than while you're in the midst of it).

I agree that with instant journalism and quick sound bytes these days cheap shots abound. However, when the underlying evidence points to the veracity of their points it's hard to dismiss them out of hand.

[_why me]

I think it would be entirely fair to say that Mormonism had its fair share of anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric in the past. Since Reed's thesis is about Mormonism's past, it is not inaccurate to pull in that anti-Catholicism for the purposes of the argument.

You are concerned about a false impression that Mormonism is anti-Catholic today. While I understand that concern, I don't think it is at all reasonable of you to expect that concern to govern everyone else's work. Like many sensitive Mormons, you seem to want only the best side of Mormonism ever to come out into the public view. Not gonna happen.

I do believe that Rush would call such a sentence a 'drive by' sentence which implies that the LDS leadership were anticatholic. And the problem with that sentence in the Tribune is that it is not sourced. When, where and to whom did McKay say it would be nice to know. But a drive by is just that a drive by and iit is designed to see where the chips fall.

It is not a question of having the best side coming out at all times. But I see no point in quoting someone without proper documentation. And quite frankly I think that we all know what side of the fence the Trib is on.

[_Kishkumen]

I do believe that Rush would call such a sentence a 'drive by' sentence which implies that the LDS leadership were anticatholic. And the problem with that sentence in the Tribune is that it is not sourced. When, where and to whom did McKay say it would be nice to know. But a drive by is just that a drive by and iit is designed to see where the chips fall.

It is not a question of having the best side coming out at all times. But I see no point in quoting someone without proper documentation. And quite frankly I think that we all know what side of the fence the Trib is on.

The Trib is a newspaper, not a scholarly monograph. I think your expectation that they document their sources is optimistic and a little ambitious. As far as the claim of "what side the Trib is on" goes, I don't know. I haven't been keeping up with their "loyalties," and frankly I am not sure I care a whole lot. I think you are overreacting to a fairly harmless little history article.

[_why me]

... in the cross there has been much debate about pagan origins.

"Pagan origin" is the reason given by the WatchTower Society (JWs) for them also passing on use of the cross in their faith. That and its association with Catholicism, which they also abhor ("the great whore").

I think that the JWs note the pagan origins of the cross and decided that it is of pagan origin and unchristian.

[_harmony]

The church owns the Trib, if I remember the takeover correctly.