Peterson is now suggesting that the SLC LDS use of the cross symbology outside of the religion's flagship temple, is just akin to an illustration of New Testament happenings, and that it doesn't represent a significant shift from the past when Church Leaders explicitly stated that use of the cross symbology was "repugnant".
I’m still bemused by the antics of a small but vocal gaggle of critics who profess to see no difference between mainstream Christian veneration of the cross as the symbol of Christianity and of the atonement, on the one hand, and, on the other, showing a cross in a scene from the life of Jesus — whose life actually does involve a cross at an important part of the story.
So use of cross symbology in the rest of Christianity is still repugnant, but the SLC LDS Church use of it isn't, but anyway....Mormons are Christians. I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of what Peterson is suggesting as an excuse for why the SLC LDS Church has committed a significant U-Turn on the use of cross symbology.
I’m reasonably confident that there will be no veneration of Michael Hall’s bronze sculpture of Jesus Christ Carrying the Cross. And, while tomorrow is Good Friday, the day in the Catholic liturgical calendar when such activities typically occur, I’ve heard of no planned rituals of adoration in the vicinity of the statue.
Is it even remotely possible that these critics are serious? That they’re commenting in good faith? Honestly, I doubt it. This is, so far as I can tell, a ginned-up pseudo-controversy. (Such things apparently amuse them.) They appear to believe, or pretend to believe, that Latter-day Saints have rejected any and all portrayals of the cross of Jesus until, well, just now. But such a claim is plainly unsustainable.
Dan, you're gaslighting. 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?
I don’t think that my position is so complex that ordinary mortals cannot understand it.
Your position is very clear Dan, you will say anything and everything to justify SLC LDS acts, even if it is the opposite of what you or anyone else has said previously. Gaslighting is your stock in trade. Even your own faithful Church member commenters have pointed out that this is a significant change. Which it obviously is. Why are you struggling to accept that?
Peterson is trying to make it sound like the previous shunning of cross symbology was simply cultural tradition that just came about like urban myth. But the quotes from past leaders of the Church show that it was driven from the top. When a Prophet speaks the members take that as an instruction. Always. Or is Peterson willing to say that what members hear Oaks & Co. say at General Conference is just their cultural tradition being verbalised and it shouldn't be taken as inspired instruction? He wants to have his cake, and eat it. As always.
