Salt Lake Tribune story on my thesis

[_why me]

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

This newspaper is owned by MediaNews Group, Inc.

http://www.mediaowners.com/company/medianewsgroup.html

[_why me]

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 don't think so. I have not heard any official anticatholic statements coming from a LDS pulpit. And I have not heard any anticatholic statements coming from members. And by anticatholic statements I mean hostile statements. But I have heard catholics use hostile language against the LDS church. I hear it everyday on the catholic apologetic board.

Member of churches will disagree with one another and may not use the most positive statements to describe one another. That is fine. But statements of hatred and vile I have discovered on protestant and catholic boards.

[_harmony]

I thought there was some dust up a few years ago about ownership of the Trib, and some folks were up at arms because the church was involved in some way.

[_Kishkumen]

I thought there was some dust up a few years ago about ownership of the Trib, and some folks were up at arms because the church was involved in some way.

I seem to recall the same thing. I have a friend who worked there who said something about this to me. It seemed the Church was involved in some way in the paper's change of ownership. Precisely how I do not recall at the moment.

[_aussieguy55]

Wow when you read some of the 220 letters regarding the matter, there are some nasty people out there in Mormonland.

[_moksha]

Mike, congratulations on getting the thesis finished and recognition for it in newsprint . The thesis is also being talked about on LDS.net and two of the Mormon forums at Beliefnet.

[Hawkeye]

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?

Nearly all of my research was already completed by the time I ever contacted Dr. Rees. But although he didn't help me with my research, he was a great mentor for me... as he provided valuable feedback in response to drafts that I sent him. I contacted him after I learned that he gave a presentation on Mormons and the Cross at Sunstone west last summer. I agree that he is a brilliant and great person. He was generous enough to forward me a hard copy of a paper (on the same topic) that he is working on--which I took one quote from to use in my thesis.

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. I think if anyone spends any time really reading the scriptures-especially the Book of Mormon, they will recognize the importance of the cross as a symbol of Christ--and treat it with reverence. That doesn't mean they have to display it or even wear it, but they should never talk about it in the way that they sometimes do.

I get the sense that the number of people like you (who are accepting of the symbol) is growing. It will be interesting to see if such a movement eventually becomes influential in leading Church authorities to reconsider the institutionalized opposition to the symbol. This would seem rather appropriate, since after all... the aversion had started at the grass-roots level to begin with.

I believe Pres. Smith and Elder McConkie and Pres. McKay were wrong in their attitudes towards the cross--they were influenced by their own biases, and unfortunately, they had a lot of influence on others--I think the church needs a "course correction" to return understanding and reverence to the members of the church for the symbol of the cross.

Another person to add to your list: Apostle Moses Thatcher. He promoted anti-cross polemics when the polarization began around the turn of 20th century. He equated the cross with the Mark of the beast… and there is evidence that he also spread the popular argument which reduces the symbol merely to the level of other instruments of torture (dagger, guillotine, etc.).

Your story about wearing the cross reminds me of my youngest daughter wanting to wear a cross necklace to church--I let her but suggested she keep it tucked in her shirt (I told her that looking at the cross makes some people feel sad because Jesus died on a cross). I assumed she wanted to wear it because she has a positive attitude towards the cross (because of me) and because it was very pretty. But halfway through sacrament meeting I realized the REAL reason she was wearing it--she took it out and held it up to the people sitting behind her. When there was no reaction from them she said (loud enough for them to hear) "No Vampires here.." and stuck it back in her shirt. I guess she thought if there were any vampires, they'd start cringing in agony or turn into dust. Instead we all tried to stifle our giggles.

LOL! That is a great story. :)

[_Mike Reed]

You can buy anything in this world with money.

Ha! Quoting the temple script, are ya? I didn't pick that up until I read your comment a second time.

[_Mike Reed]

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

Most that have spoken up have complimented me for the story. I suspect that there are several who think negatively about it, but aren't saying so because they'd rather not get into a debate with me. The comments on the SL Tribune are all over the place. Conservative Mormons labeling me an anti-Mormon with an agenda to dirty the reputation of the Church, and anti-Mormons claiming that my research is nothing but apologetic spin--that I am even a pawn for the church, laying the groundwork for a policy change.

[_Mike Reed]

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."

See Gregory Prince and Walmart. Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 120. The book cites a David B. Haight interview.

Now of course that wonderful newspaper Salt Lake Tribune had to include that quotation by Mckay, right?

Had to? No. They didn't have to do anything. Should they have? Of course... since, after all... the article was explaining the anti-Catholic basis for the institutionalized cross aversion.


My thesis also gave this quote from David O. McKay's diary: “A Catholic Church celebration was held last night [Saturday]—People drinking and carousing until 6:30 this morning. O what a Godless farce that organization is!”

Compare this to what Peggy wrote in her article: "He noted with disdain one Catholic celebration in Belgium, where people were 'drinking and carousing until 6:30 a.m.'"

It seems to me that you aren't giving Peggy enough credit.