403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : “Why Don’t I see any Crosses?”: 5 Good Answers, 5 Bad » “Why Don’t I see any Crosses?”: 5 Good Answers, 5 Bad

“Why Don’t I see any Crosses?”: 5 Good Answers, 5 Bad

Christian J - July 30, 2009

Just when you think a dead horse has been thoroughly beaten, someone opens their mouth. Its time to put this issue to rest.

5 Good Reasons Not to Wear or Display a Crucifix

5. “It’s not part of my religious tradition”

Even the most orthodox/fundamentalist Christian (of any stripe) has to acknowledge the presence of tradition in our modern religious experiences. Please don’t make me compile a list. Suffice it to say that, if the appearance of The Cross as a symbol of Christianity began as a tradition (and it did), then I see nothing wrong with a tradition that does not use it. For example, I don’t have a gripe with pre-medieval Christians.

4. “I live in France”

Fair enough.

3. “I’m not a jewelry kind of guy/gal”

I’m guessing you also don’t drive an ’86 IROC Z28 Camero and feather your hair? We understand each other.

2. “Pop culture has hijacked it”

Good point. I always thought is was strange to watch Ozzy Osbourne sing “No More Tears” with a symbol of our Lord around his neck. (Not that I have any beef with Ozzy) To be fair, It doesn’t work for Fiddy-Cent either.

1. “I choose to remember Jesus in a different way”

There are lots of great ways to remember Jesus. Some are even based on scripture. Good answer.

5 Bad Reasons Not to Wear or Display a Crucifix

5. “The early Christians didn’t use The Cross as a symbol”

This one is borderline. While its enjoyable to point this out to the judgmental cross police, there are a few holes in your argument. Are you also a strict pacifist who has given all her money to the poor? Didn’t think so.

4. “It was adopted during The Great Apostasy”

This is just silly. Do you want to cancel Christmas too? Well, that’s the road you’re headed down.

3. “We emphasize the living Christ – not the dying one.”

You can wiggle around this one and make it sound legit (emphasizing triumph over death/the Resurrection), but at the end of the day you’re going to look like a fool. There is no Resurrection without the slow and painful death on The Cross. The death in-and-of-itself was triumphant – that he freely chose to bear it.

2. “If Jesus died in a car accident, would you then walk around with a car around your neck?”

Uh ya, I would. Please stop talking.

1. “Don’t you think its kind of bloody and gross?”

I’m walking in the other direction.


  1. I like comedian Bill Hicks’ response:

    you think when Christ comes back that he would ever want to see another [expletive] cross. Kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant

    [tapping it saying]

    “just thinkin of John, Jackie…Just thinking of John’

    Comment by hcl — July 30, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

  2. I think (2) & (3) have something in common that I’m fairly sympathetic to. While it’s true there’s no resurrection without the death if our focus is on the resurrection then it makes sense not to focus on the potentially arbitrary means of death. Of course Protestants often have the unadorned empty cross to symbolize the resurrected Christ (as opposed to Catholics who often have Christ on the cross).

    I guess I am with those who don’t like focusing in on the particular means of torturing and killing Chris. Yes there’s a history to the cross. But I like the symbols for Christ I wear daily with my garments.

    Comment by Clark — July 30, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

  3. > “I’m not a jewelry kind of guy/gal”

    That would be me.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — July 30, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

  4. Nice post, CJ.

    “The early Christians didn’t use The Cross as a symbol”

    That depends on what people mean by “early Christians.” Second century is usually regarded as early Christianity. Besides, if people use this excuse, I always just point out that Mormons don’t use ΙΧΘΥΣ either, which was definitely a first century Christian symbol. I really don’t think mimicking the practices of the early Christians was a concern.

    Just pointing out more holes in this particular excuse…

    Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — July 30, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

  5. Can I ask you to fix the typo “bare”? It was kinda funny and not what you were going for. Feel free to delete this comment.

    Comment by JKS — July 30, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

  6. Great list. I think your suggestions will influence my answer, if anyone asks (or as I teach my kids).

    Comment by JKS — July 30, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

  7. Thanks for this, CJ Douglass. I really enjoyed it. The five “bad” reasons were my favorite. As for the “good” reasons, I’m thinking that number 1 (“it’s just not part of our tradition”) said with a simple shrug probably does the trick. And is honest without being condescending or pretentious.

    I hope I’m not beating the proverbial dead horse, but how about a post on this subject: “5 Good Reasons to Give to Your Fellow Mormons As To Why You Choose to Wear/Display a Cross”? I’d love to see that one. Please.

    (Oh, and congrats to Nine Moons for shifting into high-gear lately with all these posts. Some great stuff. Even if everything has come from guest posters. Ahem.)

    Comment by Hunter — July 30, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

  8. Another bad reason: “I don’t worship idols.”

    Comment by Hunter — July 30, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

  9. I’m not a huge fan of “good reason” number one. It sounds evasive to me. I think the person who is asking the question is trying to determine why it’s not part of our religious tradition. Giving it as an answer kinda sounds like this:

    Bob: Hey Bill, how come Mormons don’t wear crosses.

    Bill: Because we don’t

    Bob: I know you don’t — that’s why I am asking… why don’t you?

    Bill: Because it isn’t something we do

    Bob: I know you don’t do it Bill, clearly it’s not a part of your religious tradition. I am asking why it isn’t.

    Bill: Oh, I see what you are getting at. The reason it is not a part of our religious tradition, is because wearing the cross isn’t a part of our religious tradition. Does that clarify it a bit?

    Bob: *crickets*

    Comment by Ryan — July 30, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

  10. Good point, Ryan. I guess that’s why I think reason #1 should be said “with a shrug.” It sort of communicates the idea, “Beats me!” And that might be enough for most people (and avoid an unwanted, over-affected theological dissertation).

    But, of course, if Bob really wants to talk doctrine, then, of course, a substantive follow-up answer would be appropriate at that point.

    Something like, “It’s complicated.” [wink]

    Comment by Hunter — July 31, 2009 @ 2:06 am

  11. You missed the absolute worst, bang-my-head-against-a-wall, writhe-in-abject-humiliation one that a non-member friend shared with me. Apparently she heard it from her friend’s father, who was a Stake President.

    We don’t wear crucifixes because Christ isn’t wearing a shirt while on them.

    SUCH pain.

    Comment by Heidi — July 31, 2009 @ 6:28 am

  12. ““We emphasize the living Christ – not the dying one.”

    This is a legitimate and good answer, no matter what this blog says. Although it isn’t the reason that it started as, “It’s not part of my religious tradition,” is a real answer based on historical reality. However, it is the current reasoning that has been given by LDS prophets and Apostles. If its a good enough reason to continue not using the cross for them, then religiously its good enough to me. The theology is sound, especially in a religion that emphasis what the cross symbolizes in so many other ways.

    Comment by Jettboy — July 31, 2009 @ 6:55 am

  13. We could probably think of different ways for the Apostle to express this, but with firm resolution he seriously declared one central theme to the Church of Jesus Christ that has always been under skeptical scrutiny:

    “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

    It is part of the text for this Sunday.

    Comment by Todd Wood — July 31, 2009 @ 7:12 am

  14. I think one legitimate reason is that as a religion we see the crucifiction as just one small component of what Christ did for us, ie his brith, his ministry, the event in Gethsemane, His Crucifiction, His resurrection, and his life now all play into what we believe about him and as such, compared to other faith traditions, that crucifiction event is less emphasized in our faith than, say, Catholicism.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2009 @ 7:18 am

  15. Jettboy: Really? Protestants emphasize the living Christ, too, specifically by the use of a cross (a cross, not a crucifix), in reference to the fact that Christ died but now is resurrected. So, there’s more to it than what you contend. (What you’re left with, based on your answer, is something like, “The reasoning given by LDS prophets and Apostles is that we don’t currently emphasize Christ’s death on the cross.” Hm. Good luck with that one.)

    This is why “It’s not part of my religious tradition” and “I choose to remember Jesus in other ways” are better responses.

    (Besides, if we really wanted to symbolize the living Christ, would we put up with this??)

    Comment by Hunter — July 31, 2009 @ 7:21 am

  16. (Forgot to mention on that link that you should scroll down to #11)

    Comment by Hunter — July 31, 2009 @ 7:24 am

  17. Ryan, you’re absolutely right. That would be a funny conversation. I guess I was going for short answers here. Hopefully though, the answer would be the start of a conversation about tradition.

    Jettboy, I feel ya. But you have to admit that its complicated. I don’t think its a terrible reason – just a flawed one. One additional reasons why:

    1. The sacrament and baptism both emphasize His death. Aren’t those pretty prominent ordinances in our faith? If so, it turns out – in practice – we do actually emphasize His death.

    Again, either way you slice it, it ends up sounding like you don’t revere and remember the pain and agony in the Garden and on the Cross.

    Heidi, OUCH.

    Comment by CJ Douglass — July 31, 2009 @ 7:28 am

  18. “We emphasize the living Christ – not the dying one.”

    This is a bogus and terrible answer. It makes us look stupid and ignorant given the fact that many Christians wear an empty cross rather than a crucifix because the empty cross is used as a symbol of the living/resurrected Christ as opposed to the dying one. We say we don’t want to emphasize the dying Christ and most Christians stare back blankly, thinking, “but that is why you should use a cross you dingbat.”

    Furthermore, if we are going to say we don’t emphasize the dying Christ, we need to stop drinking his blood every week after singing about his death.

    Further still, we need to stop putting out movies like The Lamb of God, which depict his death in vivid detail.

    And again, we need to stop putting up so many paintings of Jesus in Gethsemane and on the cross.

    Comment by Jacob J — July 31, 2009 @ 7:30 am

  19. correction Jettboy: Upon further review, baptism was probably a bad example to use -since it has symbols of both life and death.

    Still, the sacrament is something we partake of every week

    Comment by CJ Douglass — July 31, 2009 @ 7:32 am

  20. ““We emphasize the living Christ – not the dying one.”

    This is a legitimate and good answer, no matter what this blog says.

    The problem with the answer is that it misses an important fact: the empty cross symbolizes, inter alia, the resurrected Christ. And while the imagery of the crucifix might lead one to conclude those who worship it emphasize the dead Jesus, telling them that would raise more than a few eyebrows and reveal a superficial understanding of their devotion.

    Comment by Peter LLC — July 31, 2009 @ 7:37 am

  21. Sorry about joining the pileup on Jettboy; the other posts weren’t there yet when I started typing. Yes, I think slowly and type even slower….

    Comment by Peter LLC — July 31, 2009 @ 7:38 am

  22. Jacob J:

    And again, we need to stop putting up so many paintings … on the cross.

    Show me one framed on the wall of any LDS chapel anywhere (Take a picture of it and show me), and I’ll buy you a donut.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2009 @ 7:45 am

  23. Matt W,

    I’ve never seen a single painting in any chapel, so I think you might be restricting the issue unnaturally. However, I’ve seen this painting by Harry Anderson lots and lots of times during the 3 hour block of my Sunday meetings. You’ve never seen that painting while at church? (If not, a possible reason could be that you didn’t go to primary. We use more pictures in primary than in Elder’s quorum.)

    Comment by Jacob J — July 31, 2009 @ 8:08 am

  24. Peter, yea, Hunter’s 15 wasn’t there when I was writing 18 either.

    Comment by Jacob J — July 31, 2009 @ 8:11 am

  25. 23,

    I have seen that painting on the wall at church. I’m pretty sure that we don’t put pictures up in chapels.

    Comment by Ian Cook — July 31, 2009 @ 8:35 am

  26. Regarding Bad#3, CJ Douglass said, “there is no Resurrection without the slow and painful death on The Cross.” And, there would be no slow and painful death on the cross without a virgin birth, but we don’t pray to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, for intercession.

    CJ, Peter LLC, and anyone else, the “empty cross” worn by Protestants does not symbolize the resurrection. An empty cross only symbolizes death. Think about it: all three dead bodies were taken from the crosses on Golgotha after the day that Jesus died. There were three empty crosses, but only one empty tomb. Only one was reunited with its spirit on the third day. An empty cross is meaningless; it is only an attempt to display a traditional Christian icon, i.e., the crucifix, without the attendant idol-worshipping.

    If you can point me to some Protestant teachings contemporaneous to the adoption of an empty cross that says that they ascribe the “resurrection” meaning to the empty cross, then fine, that’s what they believe. But, they are wrong, more wrong than you insist LDS who believe that we don’t display crosses because we choose to emphasize the resurrected Christ.

    Comment by Russel.G — July 31, 2009 @ 9:18 am

  27. Russel.G, that was funny. You were trying to be funny, weren’t you? (You ask for someone to show where Protestants ascribe meaning to their “empty crucifixes,” and then say, even if someone finds the pertinent teaching, well, the Protestants are wrong.) That’s funny that you think you can speak for a whole segment of the population. Hee hee.

    (What happened to the “If you want to know what a [insert name of religion] believes, ask them, not their detractors” line of reasoning?)

    Comment by Hunter — July 31, 2009 @ 9:42 am

  28. Russel.G,

    RE point #2

    An emphasis on the resurrected Christ (as an answer to this particular question) is a creation of the last 50-100 years. That’s fine, but it doesn’t explain why the 19th century Saints didn’t use The Cross. Which, I would argue, is the real reason present LDS don’t use the cross – its a tradition.

    I’m not aware of any statements by Joseph Smith giving this answer. If you can cite one, I stand corrected.

    Comment by CJ Douglass — July 31, 2009 @ 9:48 am

  29. BTW, My own opinion on why the early saints didn’t use The Cross? To be different.

    Comment by CJ Douglass — July 31, 2009 @ 9:50 am

  30. Sorry, I just realized chapel means just the one room of the “church building” to you. I’ve seen the Harry Anderson painting. It’s in the Gospel Principles Manual. But of all the Harry Anderson Paintings the Church owns, this one is never on the walls of any of our churches, and is relgated to being brought out as lesson material, rather than displayed as art.

    Comment by Matt W. — July 31, 2009 @ 9:52 am

  31. Hunter, notwithstanding your condescending tittering, I was not trying to be funny. You were the one that was saying that the “empty cross” has meaning to Protestants.

    I wasn’t “speaking for a whole segment of any population,” I was pointing out that the meaning of the empty cross that you ascribe to an entire segment of the Protestant population makes no sense.

    I have never heard any Protestant tell me that that is what the cross means: a resurrected Savior. When I was a Lutheran, I was always taught that the cross was a symbol of the death and crucifixion of Christ.

    Oh, and because it’s Friday: “Hee, hee” backatcha!

    Comment by Russel.G — July 31, 2009 @ 10:12 am

  32. Russel.G

    An empty cross only symbolizes death.

    That is a very odd thing to claim, given that the meaning of symbols is subjective and fully up to the people using the symbol. It is remarkably easy to find Protestants talking about the cross as a symbol of the resurrected Christ, just google “cross vs. crucifix” for lots of examples of people saying this.

    You further claim that the relevant issue is whether this teaching can be found “contemporaneous to the adoption of an empty cross.” I don’t know one way or the other, but this point is moot with regard to the current argument. Even if the idea of the empty cross representing the resurrected Christ was developed after the adoption of the empty cross as a prominent Christian symbol, it doesn’t change the fact that our excuse is strained at best. It is quite clear that the symbol of an empty cross is compatible with an emphasis on the resurrected Christ.

    Of course, it is reasonable for and LDS person to say that for me the cross symbolizes the dead Christ and I want to focus on the living Christ. But, in such a case, I would just point to the last three paragraphs in my #18 to demonstrate that we don’t actually focus on the living Christ to the exclusion of the dying one. Have you read our sacrament hymns recently? The hymns we sing at what is said to be the most sacred time in our worship? Yep, choke-full of references to Jesus suffering and dying.

    Comment by Jacob J — July 31, 2009 @ 10:57 am

  33. Re: “Oh, and because it’s Friday: “Hee, hee” backatcha!”

    Thanks for keeping it light, Russel.G. Admittedly, I’m a little cranky today.

    I agree with CJ Douglass’ point in comment 28 that it’s ultimately our tradition (whether by recent embellishment in favor of the resurrection, or by initial 19th century cultural bias against all things Catholic). So, that’s really the best answer to the question; it’s truthful and it can stand on its own. We’re entitled to our own tradition! (But we don’t have to denigrate another’s in the process.)

    Comment by Hunter — July 31, 2009 @ 11:13 am

  34. Russel.G,

    I’ll just repeat myself because I think my original comment addresses your concerns (I’ve highlighted some points I think you missed):

    The empty cross symbolizes, inter alia, the resurrected Christ. And while the imagery of the crucifix might lead one to conclude those who worship it emphasize the dead Jesus, telling them that [not to mention paras 2 and 3 from your #26] would raise more than a few eyebrows and reveal a superficial understanding of their devotion.

    Comment by Peter LLC — July 31, 2009 @ 11:14 am

  35. Jacob, Hunter, and Peter LLC, I’ll admit my first error was to fall in into the trap of focusing on what meaning others ascribe to the symbol of an empty cross.

    I still stand by my assertion that *for me* a cross, with or without the body of Christ, does not convey the meaning of the resurrection. I don’t think my claim is odd at all. There were two other empty crosses, and neither of thieves were resurrected on the third day. If it empty cross makes sense to someone else as a symbol of Christ’s resurrection, then, as I said before, that’s fine for them. Just don’t tell me that I should wear it because others find meaning in it.

    Look, in the 70′s there were gold footprint pendants symbolizing the “Footprints in the Sand” poem, and gold sand dollar pendants for some other bland Christian poem with sand dollar imagery that I don’t recall. They are fine for someone who feels moved to wear them. I wasn’t. I had a turquoise lighting bolt because it rocked, and because it was the 70′s.

    Let me say that if someone were to tell me I look like a fool as a challenge my practice of not wearing a cross because I choose to emphasize the living Christ, then I would point out that an empty tomb, rather than an empty cross, is a better symbol of Christ’s resurrection and power over death. It’s so hard to find a good, gold-plated pendant accurately depicting an open tomb, though.

    How’s that?

    Comment by Russel.G — July 31, 2009 @ 11:47 am

  36. Your point about the empty cross strikes me as eminently reasonable.

    Still, consider the text (my own translation in parentheses) of this antiphon sung on Good Friday (a Protestant holiday if there ever was one) in German speaking countries (arguably an area with a long Protestant tradition):

    Im Kreuz ist Heil
    (in the cross is salvation)
    im Kreuz ist Leben
    (in the cross is life)
    im Kreuz ist Hoffnung
    (in the cross is hope)

    There’s another hymn that reads as follows:

    Heiliges Kreuz, an dem das Heil der Welt gehangen.
    (Holy Cross upon which the salvation of the world hangs)
    Heiliges Kreuz, an dem der Tod bezwungen.
    (Holy Cross upon which death was overcome)
    Heiliges Kreuz, gepflanzt als Baum des Lebens.
    (Holy Cross, planted as the tree of life)
    Heiliges Kreuz, erwählt zum Thron des Königs.
    (Holy Cross, chosen as the throne of the king)
    Heiliges Kreuz, du Zeichen des Sieges
    (Holy Cross, victory’s sign)
    Heiliges Kreuz, du Zuflucht der Sünder
    (Holy Cross, sinners’ refuge)
    Heiliges Kreuz, du Unterpfand des heiles
    (Holy Cross, salvation’s pledge)
    Heiliges Kreuz, du einzige Hoffnung
    (Holy Cross, the only hope)

    Sure, it’s not definitive proof of anything in particular, but these and other Protestant texts regarding the cross should at least cause one to pause before suggesting they are focused on death while we, on the other hand, are unique in emphasizing life.

    Comment by Peter LLC — July 31, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

  37. Peter LLC, forgive me for my lack of clarity. I am not denying that the cross has importance to Protestants or even in LDS theology.

    As a Lutheran, I was taught and reminded that the cross is the pinnacle of Christ’s mission. I know that Christ’s death on the cross was a necessary part of his mission.

    But that’s my point: for me Christ’s death on the cross, while necessary, was not sufficient to bring to pass the salvation of man.

    Rather than conflate all of the events of the last days of the Savior into one event*, i.e., the crucifixion, as Latter-day Saints, we ascribe meaning to each event independently: Gethsemane, the betrayal and trial, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Each was necessary to complete the Savior’s divine mission to make salvation possible, but, without the literal resurrection, the others would have been meaningless. (*By the way, another popular icon in wall hanging and precious metal-plated pendants is the image of Christ’s hands clasped together in prayer depicting either the Lord’s prayer or the prayer in Gethsemane. If some choose to use this image to remember the Savior, that’s fine. I don’t.)

    Bottom line: I don’t think the #3 answer is as “bad” as some suggest. It works for me.

    Comment by Russel.G — July 31, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

  38. I don’t wear one for the same reason I don’t wear a lightning bolt or a hammer… Christ’s birth of a virgin, death, and subsequent resurrection are just one more myth like Zeus or Thor. Besides, the symbol of the cross, as most of the story predates Christ himself. If your going to honor him why not do it following the teachings credited to Christ… oh, wait, that’s right the gospels contradict each other so that might be a bit tough.

    Comment by Aaron — July 31, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

  39. #38 Aaron ~ Maybe you should wear one of these around your neck instead. Sounds like a good symbol for your faith.

    Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — July 31, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

  40. One problem with Good Reason #5 is that it actually is part of the Mormon tradition. Michael Reed just finished an M.A. thesis on use of the cross in the early Utah period–it was quite common until well after the turn of the century. The very common notion among Mormons that wearing a crucifix not Mormon is, at least, not historically well-informed. (Look for an article in Dialogue next year)

    Comment by Kristine — July 31, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

  41. Just for the record, I have not said that #1 is bad reasoning. However, as Kristine has pointed out from another article it is bad history. Number 3 bad on the other hand I and others will stick with as a good reason. Obviously not the only, but a good one. A private reason upheld by the LDS leadership if you will. In fact, it is because there are so many other symbols that we use that “a” cross has become questionable.

    Sure, we might use other symbols to emphasis the cross and the Scriptures do ask us to remember the cross. Kristine’s mentioning of an article and Russel.G. has kind of skirted around another reason. It has, bluntly, become a symbol of apostate Christianity. One that continues to deny Mormons their Christian identity. Regardless of the snark associated with it, Aaron is absolutely correct that we should honor Christ by following his teachings. That is exactly what Pres. Hinkley said on more than one occasion.

    Comment by Jettboy — August 1, 2009 @ 6:09 am

  42. Kristine,

    Thanks for the info. I am admittedly not as informed as I’d like to be concerning 19th century Mormon use of the cross.

    However, if the cross was very common, then why does it take a M.A. thesis to dig up the evidence? Why don’t we simply look at the most “common” photographs we have of that period? I’ve looked at quite a few and have rarely seen a cross (I saw one on a photo of a hymnbook once). Another easy way is to look at Mormon architecture* – and again, I just don’t see any crosses.

    So, I’m very eager to see the work of Michael Reed, but will be surprised if he’s found anything more than a rare use of the cross among early LDS.

    *The link I gave you was to some early 20th century Utah chapels. Although you were referring to the 19th, I think its still relevant.

    Comment by CJ Douglass — August 1, 2009 @ 7:06 am

  43. I wish I didn’t have to rely on kitschy symbols for people to guess I want to follow Christ.

    Besides, with all the Satan-worshiping (somewhat tongue-in-cheek here), coke snorting, adulterous Heavy Rockers prominently displaying crosses on their persons, why fixate on it to begin with.

    As for me, I just do not wear anything that doesn’t serve a practical purpose. If my shirt has a nice color, that’s nice, but for me, a good reason is that “I just don’t”.

    And I think we do believe that Jesus was not killed. He gave his life. He said that himself — “no man taketh my life…”. The cross is totally arbitrary as a means of humiliation and execution.

    Paul’s gushing in Romans notwithstanding… could that be a late insert. Like in John 4:25 “the Messiah, which is the Christ”. Really, a poor Samaritan Aramaic-speaking woman using the Greek “Christos” and Hebrew “Maschiach” (the transliteration varies greatly) in one sentence?

    Comment by Velska — August 1, 2009 @ 10:06 am

  44. Mike Reed left an interesting comment on his crosses thesis at fMh here.

    Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — August 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am

  45. Hello all. I am glad to see that many of you find this topic as fascinating as I do. Thank you, Kristine, for mentioning my thesis.

    I am anxious to get my research out asap. I spoke at the Sunstone Symposium a couple weeks ago (I am not sure if recordings of my presentation are available to purchase yet), and I now look forward to writing an article for Dialogue, Sunstone Magazine, and Patheos.com. I will also be doing an interview for John Larson’s Mormon Expressions podcast in the next few weeks (currently scheduled for September 21st), and two publishers are looking at hard copies of my thesis as we speak, considering whether or not they think it is worth publishing during this season of economic stress.

    No doubt, my research won’t be appreciated by everyone. But so far, responses (from both Mormons and non-Mormons)to it have been overwhelmingly positive. I can’t tell you how much of a relief this has been. As some of you may know first hand, it can be a scary/dangerous thing extending your neck out onto the chopping block of Mormon Studies.

    Anyhow… to those who are living in the Salt Lake area, and who are interested in my research, a copy my thesis should be available at the LDS Church History library soon. One of the Church’s head historians/archivists recently asked me to donate a copy. How flattering is that!

    Comment by Mike Reed — September 1, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

  46. [...] Jacob J, commenting on CJ Douglass’s post “‘Why Don’t I See Any Crosses?’: 5 Good Answers, 5 Bad” at Nine Moons: if we are going to say we don’t emphasize the dying Christ, we need to stop drinking his blood every week after singing about his death. [...]

    Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | Nacle Notebook 2009: Funny comments — June 20, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI