Byu Easter Conference, 2012--Reclaiming The Cross

[Scott Lloyd]

Fortunately, Mormonism of the 21s century is gradually moving moving in a direction away from Pahoran's type of world view--"which of course merely serves to raise [the Church] in my estimation."

I agree with Pahoran's worldview. We can recognize the scriptural symbolism of the cross without making it the pervasive icon that it is in other Churches. There is nothing wrong with distinguishing the Church from sectarianism.

[Mike Reed]

I agree with Pahoran's worldview. We can recognize the scriptural symbolism of the cross without making it the pervasive icon that it is in other Churches. There is nothing wrong with distinguishing the Church from sectarianism.

Sectarianism? I think you have things backwards. The cross taboo emerged in Mormon culture due to anti-Catholic sentiment.

By the way... I didn't suggest that it should be a pervasive icon in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sectarianism? I think you have things backwards. The cross taboo emerged in Mormon culture due to anti-Catholic sentiment.

By the way... I didn't suggest that it should be a pervasive icon in the Church.

The pervasive icon is what I had in mind when I used the term sectarianism. If you're not arguing that it should be a pervasive icon, then I don't see that we have much of a clash.

[Mike Reed]

The pervasive icon is what I had in mind when I used the term sectarianism. If you're not arguing that it should be a pervasive icon, then I don't see that we have much of a clash.

Ok. Good. FWIW... Here are Pahoran's remarks that I was responding to:

Pahoran: I mention this because President McKay is the bête noire of the wannabe cross-worshippers (which of course merely serves to raise him in my estimation).

Flagrant and offensive sectarianism (as Pahoran expressed in this thread) is the sort of thing that the Church has done well to rid itself of.

It is probably a safe bet that you don't agree with Pahoran's expressed views above.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok. Good. FWIW... Here are Pahoran's remarks that I was responding to:

Pahoran: I mention this because President McKay is the bête noire of the wannabe cross-worshippers (which of course merely serves to raise him in my estimation).

Flagrant and offensive sectarianism (as Pahoran expressed in this thread) is the sort of thing that the Church has done well to rid itself of.

It is probably a safe bet that you don't agree with Pahoran's expressed views above.

Apparently, you have quoted an earlier version of Pahoran's post. I notice that in its present form, "cross-worshipers" has been subbed out for "ark steadiers."

As one who frequently revises his own posts, I am inclined to be charitable toward others who do so. Thus, I regard the most current version as the truest expression of the author's intended meaning.

[Log]

I agree with both versions. The sentiment is identical, even if the phraseology has been tamed.

And the first was funnier, too.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

Ok. Good. FWIW... Here are Pahoran's remarks that I was responding to:

Pahoran: I mention this because President McKay is the bête noire of the wannabe cross-worshippers (which of course merely serves to raise him in my estimation).

Flagrant and offensive sectarianism (as Pahoran expressed in this thread) is the sort of thing that the Church has done well to rid itself of.

It is probably a safe bet that you don't agree with Pahoran's expressed views above.

Why do you obsess about that? And how is it "sectarianism?" The wannabe ark-steadiers (or cross-worshippers, if you prefer) in view present as fringe, apostate or otherwise defective Mormons, not followers of any sectarian doctrine.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Why do you obsess about that? And how is it "sectarianism?" The wannabe ark-steadiers (or cross-worshippers, if you prefer) in view present as fringe, apostate or otherwise defective Mormons, not followers of any sectarian doctrine.

Regards,

Pahoran

I wont waste my time explaining what should already be obvious, and I'm quite satisfied with the admission that you still stand by the remark.

[Pahoran]

I wont waste my time explaining what should already be obvious,

I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim.

Thus, it stands refuted. There is no "sectarianism" in my post.

and I'm quite satisfied with the admission that you still stand by the remark.

Certainly I stand by my post in its final form. Clearly you find the first draft more amenable to your purposes, but tough luck; it's no longer available to you.

In neither version does it mean what you prefer to think it means. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran