Mormons And The Cross--A Podcast Interview On My Book

[Scott Lloyd]

yeah... but I have about 50 images in my book, and buyers would likely feel ripped off of I did that.

Not necessarily, if the digital edition could be had for a substantial cost savings and it was well understood that there is value-added for purchasing the printed copy.

Would all 50 images require lucrative negotiation or just some of them?

[Mike Reed]

Just some of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just some of them.

Well then, a digital edition would not be altogether devoid of illustrations, it would seem.

[Mike Reed]

Another positive review. This time by Doug Gibson of the Ogden Standard examiner:

------

“Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo,” (John Whitmer Books) by Michael G. Reed, is a slim but valuable volume on the history of the Mormons’ relationship with the cross.

http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2013/06/19/book-deals-with-that-mormon-taboo-the-cross/

[Mike Reed]

Cartoon for the recent review of my book http://www.flickr.com/photos/45229913@N05/9136452223/

Edited June 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

BTW...Mike your book is dead on with this issue...my only question is why are many threatened by this topic, as well as the making of jokes (sometimes very vulgar) about rhose who love it?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Mike Reed]

BTW...Mike your book is dead on with this issue...my only question is why are many threatened by this topic, as well as the making of jokes (sometimes very vulgar) those who love it?

I'm glad you liked the book, PaPa. I was wondering what your response would be. It is also interesting to me that so many are bothered by it the symbol. I think it has a lot to do with the establishment of identity markers and boundary maintenance. It is easy to be disgusted by the practices of religions we don't subscribe to. Reminds me of people accusing Catholics of canibalism (for their belief of transubstantiation), and yet nevertheless maintain that symbolic cannibalism (the belief that the bread/wine are only symbolic of Jesus' body/blood) is somehow ok.

[williamsmith]

PaPa...

I don't see how anyone that is faithful LDS can claim this book is "dead on" when his entire premise portrays LDS leaders aversion to the cross as stemming entirely from Catholic bigotry in the mid 20th Century and not theological based thinking that's always been found in mormonism simply because he can't find any "quotes" pre 20th Century that emphasis a theological basis. Even though oddly he does acknowledge one early 20th Century quote well before the "catholic issues" that states a theological basis with no anti-catholicism involved, yet in his mind that doesn't apply or mean anything.

Even more anyone that knows history knows that the LDS theological aversion of the cross clearly comes from the Protestant theological aversion to it. Yet, anyone like he if quoting history would think it's "entirely" Catholic bigotry, since that is often when it's most often mentioned.

For some reason Mike Reed believes that the "most vocal" equals historical truth. That simply because there wasn't and still isn't any "emphasis" on a theological basis for not using the cross, that that somehow means the more often "negative" things said in history means the theological basis never existed. That's simply bad scholarship, and dishonest scholarship frankly. Making the Church racist when it wasn't/isn't isn't good scholarship, especially by someone who claims to be Mormon again.

And for those unfairly sensitive out there, if we can judge the works of Grant Palmer or anyone else, why can't we judge Mike Reeds works without be thread banned?

[Mike Reed]

Delete

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

@ws. Thread ban? You've discovered our secret combinations...

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Maybe I have the power to ban you from the entire apologetic world. Dont piss me off or you are toast. :-p

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad you liked the book, PaPa. I was wondering what your response would be. It is also interesting to me that so many are bothered by it the symbol. I think it has a lot to do with the establishment of identity markers and boundary maintenance. It is easy to be disgusted by the practices of religions we don't subscribe to. Reminds me of people accusing Catholics of canibalism (for their belief of transubstantiation), and yet nevertheless maintain that symbolic cannibalism (the belief that the bread/wine are only symbolic of Jesus' body/blood) is somehow ok.

I admit upfront I've not read Mike's book.

But lately, I have been re-reading Les Miserables. Victor Hugo's description of a Spanish convent causes me to ponder as to whether the LDS antipathy toward the cross as icon may stem from the excesses of the medieval past. I quote here a passage from the book:

The Spanish convent is the most funereal of all. There rise, in obscurity, beneath vaults filled with gloom, beneath domes vague with shadow, massive altars of Babel, as high as cathedrals; there immense white crucifixes hang from chains in the air; there are extended, all nude on the ebony, great Christs of ivory; more than bleeding, -- bloody; hideous and magnificent, with their elbows displaying the bones, their knee-pans showing their integuments, their wounds showing their flesh, crowned with silver thorns, nailed with nails of gold, with blood drops of rubies on their brows, and diamond tears in their eyes. The diamonds and rubies seem wet, and make veiled beings in the shadow below weep, their sides bruised with the hair shirt and their iron tipped scourges, their breasts crushed with wicker hurdles, their knees excoriated with prayer; women who think themselves wives, spectres who think themselves seraphim. Do these women think? No. Have they any will? No. Do they love? No. Do they live? No. Their nerves have turned to bone; their bones have turned to stone. Their veil is of woven night. Their breath under their veil resembles the indescribably tragic respiration of death. The abbess, a spectre, sanctifies them and terrifies them. The immaculate one is there, and very fierce. Such are the ancient monasteries of Spain. Liars of terrible devotion, caverns of virgins, ferocious places.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

PaPa...

I don't see how anyone that is faithful LDS can claim this book is "dead on" when his entire premise portrays LDS leaders aversion to the cross as stemming entirely from Catholic bigotry in the mid 20th Century and not theological based thinking that's always been found in mormonism simply because he can't find any "quotes" pre 20th Century that emphasis a theological basis. Even though oddly he does acknowledge one early 20th Century quote well before the "catholic issues" that states a theological basis with no anti-catholicism involved, yet in his mind that doesn't apply or mean anything.

Even more anyone that knows history knows that the LDS theological aversion of the cross clearly comes from the Protestant theological aversion to it. Yet, anyone like he if quoting history would think it's "entirely" Catholic bigotry, since that is often when it's most often mentioned.

For some reason Mike Reed believes that the "most vocal" equals historical truth. That simply because there wasn't and still isn't any "emphasis" on a theological basis for not using the cross, that that somehow means the more often "negative" things said in history means the theological basis never existed. That's simply bad scholarship, and dishonest scholarship frankly. Making the Church racist when it wasn't/isn't isn't good scholarship, especially by someone who claims to be Mormon again.

And for those unfairly sensitive out there, if we can judge the works of Grant Palmer or anyone else, why can't we judge Mike Reeds works without be thread banned?

Because of earlier statements not even listed in the book. Have you read it, or forgotten the first addition of Mormon Doctrine? But thank you for suggesting I am not a faithful member. Just the pictures in the book show how loved the cross was in the early Church. Not to mention I grew up hearing anti-Catholic comments.

[Mike Reed]

Weird how my only critics of the book seem to be those who have never read it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Weird how my only critics of the book seem to be those who have never read it.

Are you saying I've criticized the book? If so, where?

[Calm]

why can't we judge Mike Reeds works without be thread banned?

I think people are more likely to be threadbanned for attempting to judge the faithfulness or lack thereof in others.

[Mike Reed]

Are you saying I've criticized the book? If so, where?

No, Scott. I was responding to William Smith's remarks. Sorry... I should have been more clear.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, Scott. I was responding to William Smith's remarks. Sorry... I should have been more clear.

OK. Thanks.

[williamsmith]

Because of earlier statements not even listed in the book. Have you read it, or forgotten the first addition of Mormon Doctrine? But thank you for suggesting I am not a faithful member. Just the pictures in the book show how loved the cross was in the early Church. Not to mention I grew up hearing anti-Catholic comments.

You seem to be responding to things I didn't really say. I never said anti-Catholic statements never existed in the Church.

I've read Mike's paper on the subject and watched his presentation on it. I think I can judge it well enough without having to read the book form of it.

Further, why don't you respond to my points? You seem to be avoiding them. Does he or does he not blame the so-called ban on Catholic sentiment, thus claiming the ban stems entirely from bigotry by Church leaders?

[Mike Reed]

I've read Mike's paper on the subject

CFR. What paper did you read?

[Mike Reed]

Does he or does he not blame the so-called ban on Catholic sentiment, thus claiming the ban stems entirely from bigotry by Church leaders?

Nope. I discus 3 other factors that came into play... and I concede that other factors would have existed. The fundamental basis for the emergence of the taboo was indeed anti-Catholicism. You should read the book.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You seem to be responding to things I didn't really say. I never said anti-Catholic statements never existed in the Church.

I've read Mike's paper on the subject and watched his presentation on it. I think I can judge it well enough without having to read the book form of it.

Further, why don't you respond to my points? You seem to be avoiding them. Does he or does he not blame the so-called ban on Catholic sentiment, thus claiming the ban stems entirely from bigotry by Church leaders?

This is a message board, so I was addressing what was in the book and statements of others. I was using your post, because you seem to think I cannot think for myself. My question still stands...have you read the book? As well as your implication that I might not be a faithful member. Edited June 27, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Mike Reed]

Still shamelessly plugging your products, I see. How about making your writings available to everybody, for free?

I am plugging my "products" by making a CFR. Uh... ok. If you want to read MA my thesis for free, then you can read it via interlibrary loan (from CSU Sacramento), or you if you live in SLC, you can check it out at the LDS Church history library. Or... you can just pay for the book and read an expanded and improved volume. Edited June 27, 2013 by Mike Reed

[CA Steve]

I am plugging my "products" by making a CFR. Uh... ok. If you want to read MA my thesis for free, then you can read it via interlibrary loan (from CSU Sacramento), or you if you live in SLC, you can check it out at the LDS Church history library. Or... you can just pay for the book and read an expanded and improved volume.

Mike,

Will you be writing any more LDS themed books or do you plan on retiring off the proceeds from this one?

[Calm]

do you plan on retiring off the proceeds from this one?

And undoubtedly living a totally hedonistic lifestyle among the other rich and famous LDS themed authors....