Christian Symbols

[Ron Beron]

I am a little confused. Does this mean that you are retracting your claim that there is no evidence that Christians used the cross symbol before the 3rd century?

And why have you not read post #65 yet? You should know that I adressed this "evidence" in it.

I haven't read it yet, but I'll be interested in doing so.

If the shrine in Herculaneum is accurate then I would have to reconsider. It could have been a pagan symbol as well. No one really knows. I do believe there were references to the cross at a very early stage although I don't believe they were in reference to the actual mode of execution, but to the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus.

[Mike Reed]

EnemyAce: Just as a note there is some evidence that cross was used during the middle of the first century by worshippers in Herculaneum.... As can be plainly seen is a outline of cross that used to rest in the niche, but was removed prior to the disaster.

Mike Reed: I am a little confused. Does this mean that you are retracting your claim that there is no evidence that Christians used the cross symbol before the 3rd century?

EnemyAce: If the shrine in Herculaneum is accurate then I would have to reconsider. It could have been a pagan symbol as well. No one really knows.

The following comes from footnote 2 of my lenghthy post:

Since the discovery of the cross at Herculaneum, â??Further consideration,â? says Everett Ferguson, â??has given a more utilitarian purpose: the imprint in the plaster was left by wooden brackets for a wall cabinet or perhaps a shelf or mantle with a supporting upright piece.â?(Backgrounds of Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003], 590.) Graydon Snyder agrees, â??[T]his so-called cross could have been anything attached to the wall by two cross pieces.â? (Snyder, 27.) But even if the new consideration is wrong, and that the engraving indeed marked where a Latin-style-cross was once displayed, there is no reason to believe that the cross was hung by a Christian, and not a Pagan. As already explained, the cross has been used throughout antiquity by nearly every known culture. Furthermore, outside this extremely questionable example, the underwhelming evidence that the Christians displayed the image of the cross during this period makes the idea â??simply appear to us as a surd in the development of early Christian art: it came three hundred years too soon.â? (Ibid.)

So... that being said... no. I don't think the Herculaneum "cross" warrants a retraction of your position (that early Christians did not embrace the physical symbol of the cross). However, when you read my lengthy post, you'll see that there are other good reasons for you to retract. Although Christians had reservations for materially depicting images, they looked for the visual manifestation of the cross symbol all around them. Below I provide more from post #65 which will explain.

EnemyAce: From a Jewish perspective death on the cross indicated the person was accursed by God. There were many who believed that a messiah could not be one who was publicly crucified. Perhaps this was the meaning behind Paul's comment that the cross was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The shape of the cross did not offend people, but its function did.

Right... this is one reservation that Christians had for depicting the cross materially.

Also taken from post #65:

This inconspicuous and sometimes â??nocturnalâ? worship, though, did not always ease persecutions, but instead (at times) bred further suspicion in the minds of their critics. The pagan Caecilius, for example, levels charges against Christians for â??the very obscurity which shrouds this perverted religion.â? He asks, â??Why else should they go to such pains to hide and conceal whatever it is they worship? One is always happy for honorable actions to be made public; crimes are kept secret.â? Caecilius continues to ask accusatory questions, â??Why do they have no altars, no temples, no publicly-known images? Why do they always assemble in stealth?â? (6) Caecilius apparently failed to understand that Christians worshiped inconspicuously in order to avoid persecution. Again, there were â??no publicly-known imagesâ? (like the cross) because Christians did not wish to be identified.

Another factor (which is related to the first above) explains the absence of the cross: To quote Paul, â??Christ crucified [is a] stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.â? (7) The scholar Jack Tressider explains that the symbol was too controversial, being an image of capital punishment: â??In the Roman, Persian and Jewish world, the crucifixion cross was a brutal and humiliating instrument of execution for non-citizens such as slaves, pirates and foreign political agitators or other criminals. Thus, at the time of Christâ??s death, it hardly seemed an emblem likely to make many converts.â? (

Even the mere idea that Jesus was crucified for the salvation of mankind was an embarrassment, being an issue that attracted mockery from critics. (9) Writing to â??Those [Christians] who are ashamed of the cross of Christ,â? Bishop Methodius of Olympus proclaims that â??God Himself esteems [the cross] to be beautiful, even though it be contemned and despised by all elseâ?¦. [b}y this figure He hath willed to deliver the soul from corrupt affectionsâ?¦.â? Therefore, he says, â??we ought to receive it, and not to speak evil of it.â? (10) The oft repeated council and rebukes (as well as celebration and glorying about the cross) from religious leaders, to those Christians who are ashamed of the cross, underscores just how common this concern was.

EnemyAce: Tertullian in defense of Christianity spoke out against comments negative towards the Christians by pagans who considered them "a priesthood of a cross" (Tertullian, To the Nationes 1.12) and rendering "superstitious adoration to the cross." (Tertullian, The Apology 16.6). A 3rd century author in commenting on the cross stated, "We neither worship nor wish for crosses." (Mark Minucius Felix)

The fact that Christians are defending themselves from critics against the claim that they worship the cross suggests that the cross was likely included in their symbology. They may not have worshipped the symbol, but they embraced the symbol none the less. A good examle to support my point is Minucius Felix' declaration (as you quote) ""We neither worship nor wish for crosses." Felix goes on to say, however (again, taken from post #65), "We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it."

You see, EnemyAce... the visual symbol of the cross is embraced, but it is not depicted materially.

More from post #65, and notice that Tertullian is among those quoted:

It is clear that many Christians refrained from using images that derived from an improper process of unnaturally manipulating dead matter, which would have (according to Clement and other Christians) dishonored nature and God, and broken the second commandment. Christians were not creating a religious symbol for the sake of its religious significance. Rather, the images they viewed were mere natural manifestations of spiritual realities, perceived by the mind.

This mystical viewing was a popular trend among early Christians. Jerome discovered the manifestation of the cross in a swimming man, flying bird, and a man praying with extended arms. (20) Justin Martyr proclaims that a shipâ??s sail, a plough, the banners and trophies of the government, and the human form (body posture, and profile of face head) each manifest â??no other form than that of the cross.â? (21) Tertullian speaks of the cross being manifested in the human posture, and by â??Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position.â? (22)

Christians similarly looked for hidden manifestation of the cross throughout the Old Testament. (23) Tertullian observes the way that Moses, â??at the time when Joshua was battling against Amalek, pray[ed] sitting with hands expandedâ?¦,â? and in the brazen serpent that Moses hung on a tree, in order to heal Israel. â??[H]e was exhibiting the Lord's cross,â? concludes Tertullian. (24)

The Epistle of Barnabas finds a manifestation of the crucifixion in the number of men that Abraham circumcised in his household:

For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted â?? Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy. (25)

The Tau (T or +)(26) is the last Letter of the Greek alphabet, and has the numeric value of 300. Christians believed that the tau was equivalent to the Hebrew letter omega (being the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and name of God), and manifested the image of the cross in its form. Such symbolism was also found manifest in the proportions of Noahâ??s ark: â??Now there are some who say that three hundred cubits are the symbol of the Lord's sign,â? reports Clement of Alexandria. (27)

The mystical search and observation of the cross, allowed Christians to embrace the symbol without depicting it materially (breaking the second commandment) or drawing the attention of their persecutors. Christians also got around these obstacles by tracing the â??Lordâ??s sign,â?(T or +, which revealed the cross) upon their foreheads. Tertullian records:

We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (28)

The Christian act of tracing the sign was in fact a reenactment of Godâ??s command in Ezekiel 9:4. Tertullian explains this elsewhere:

He [Christ] signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: "The Lord said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men." Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalemâ?¦ Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found amongst you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ. (29)

Tracing the cross (tau) upon their forehead was not in conflict with the second commandment, since doing so did not manipulate dead matter. Nor did the private action draw the attention of critics, since the symbol was traced invisibly. By tracing the sign, rather than drawing it visibly Christians were able to worship inconspicuously, and get around their reservations for depicting the cross materially.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I repeat that the absence of the image of the cross in Christian artwork was due to three significant reasons. 1) Christians desired to worship inconspicuously. 2) The image was a stumbling block to Jews and Gentiles, and therefore was not used as an emblem for attracting converts. 3) Christians had reservations about depicting the cross materially, fearing that they would commit the sin of Idolatry.

One should not conclude from this absence that the visual sign of the cross wasnâ??t therefore sacred to Christians. Though they had reservations about creating material depictions of the cross, many of them got around those reservations by looking for its mystical manifestation, and tracing it upon their foreheads.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed: If you were not making a negative argument, on what grounds to you make the following statement of fact?: "Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it."

EnemyAce: I consider late to be after the 2nd century.

Okay... but on what grounds to you make the claim that the cross wasn't introduced to Christianity until that time?

I understand exactly what you wrote, but it is wrong. See the accompanying picture of a cross in Herculaneum.

See my response to your picture.

Additionally, symbols of fish, boats, anchors, and shepherds are quite replete before the 2nd century.

And can be definitively identified as both Christian and anti-2nd century? Provide the goods, EnemyAce.

Awhile back I posted a graffito that some feel was made around 68B.C. although it is generally thought to be much older.

Yes... MUCH older. And how does this example contradict Ferguson's remark? It is not an example of Christian remains, since it was drawn by a CRITIC.

If I have conflicting thoughts it can be no more than what I am getting from you.

I am not talking about you, but the Early Christians. I was responding to your statement: "For the 1st and 2nd century of Christianity the event of Jesus' death was so fresh it would be hard to think of them using the cross in anything but a derisive artifact." Cognitive dissonance can explain why Christians were so quick to embrace the symbol of the cross.

[Ron Beron]

Okay... but on what grounds to you make the claim that the cross wasn't introduced to Christianity until that time?

See my response to your picture.

And can be definitively identified as both Christian and anti-2nd century? Provide the goods, EnemyAce.

Yes... MUCH older. And how does this example contradict Ferguson's remark? It is not an example of Christian remains, since it was drawn by a CRITIC.

I am not talking about you, but the Early Christians. I was responding to your statement: "For the 1st and 2nd century of Christianity the event of Jesus' death was so fresh it would be hard to think of them using the cross in anything but a derisive artifact." Cognitive dissonance can explain why Christians were so quick to embrace the symbol of the cross.

What is really interesting is that after having read your post #65 I found that you are agreeing with some of my thoughts particularly the part where Christians treated the crucifixion with disdain. So why the animosity? As to the rest of the post I would like to address it later with some more completeness. Thanks.

[Mike Reed]

What is really interesting is that after having read your post #65 I found that you are agreeing with some of my thoughts particularly the part where Christians treated the crucifixion with disdain.

I didn't argue that Christians treated the symbol with disdain. Rather, I argue that Christians resisted outwardly and openly displaying the symbol, partly because it represented something that critics mocked them about (by evidence of the Paletine Graffiti you cited). One should not draw from this that Christians didn't view the symbol as sacred. This would run counter to the fact that Christians actively looked for the manifestation of the cross all around them, and traced it on their forehead. The symbol was an appropriate expression of their faith and was sacred to them... but the symbol attracted persecution and therefore was not an effective tool for evangelizing.

[Mike Reed]

Bump.

[Mormon Vader]

I find it funny (but not ha ha funny) every time there is a thread on crosses or symbols that Mike Reed pops up and starts educating Mormons again.

And the judge rule on this thread:

Mike Reed 1

EnemyAce 0

Mike changed my beliefs on the cross several months ago, and I find it highly entertaining watching him do battle with other members that share the viewpoint I used to have on the cross, namely the "anti-cross protocol."

Interestingly, as I was reading this thread, I noticed a miniature statue of Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (it's on my desk). When I hear the weak arguments of "Why would you want to remember Christ suffering? Would you wear a gun if he was shot, etc," I looked at this replica of the Garden of Gethsemane scene and I wondered, how many LDS have this little statue in their homes? I know it is a popular seller at Deseret Book. What is the freakin' difference between having a cross or a statue of the Gethsemane scene? Both portray the suffering of Christ, and the Gethsemane scene was worse for Christ!

At least on the cross, Christ died without (presumably) using his godly powers to keep him alive, whereas in Gethsemane he had to use his godly powers to keep him alive. One scene was definitely more painful than another scene.

The arguments to not have the cross as a symbol are weak and pointless. The real reason Mormons don't have the cross as a symbol is because that would too closely associate them with the abominable Christian churches out there. They won't say that though because it isn't very nice (but I strongly believe it to be their thinking).

[Ron Beron]

MorgBot writes,

I find it funny (but not ha ha funny) every time there is a thread on crosses or symbols that Mike Reed pops up and starts educating Mormons again.

It does seem to be his passion and he has put a lot of work in it.

And the judge rule on this thread:

Mike Reed 1

EnemyAce 0

I want a recount.

Mike changed my beliefs on the cross several months ago, and I find it highly entertaining watching him do battle with other members that share the viewpoint I used to have on the cross, namely the "anti-cross protocol."

Yet, there is a strong sentiment in the church on the display of the cross, and in spite of the usage of it in the past we don't use it today referring instead to different images.

Interestingly, as I was reading this thread, I noticed a miniature statue of Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (it's on my desk). When I hear the weak arguments of "Why would you want to remember Christ suffering? Would you wear a gun if he was shot, etc," I looked at this replica of the Garden of Gethsemane scene and I wondered, how many LDS have this little statue in their homes? I know it is a popular seller at Deseret Book. What is the freakin' difference between having a cross or a statue of the Gethsemane scene? Both portray the suffering of Christ, and the Gethsemane scene was worse for Christ!

More importantly, why have any image at all.

The arguments to not have the cross as a symbol are weak and pointless. The real reason Mormons don't have the cross as a symbol is because that would too closely associate them with the abominable Christian churches out there. They won't say that though because it isn't very nice (but I strongly believe it to be their thinking).

I think it is more profound than that. I simply think that leaders in the church see veneration of the cross to of less importance than the supernatural events that took place in the garden. Anyone could've and did hang on the cross in the 1st and 2nd century, but only one person could take our sins in the manner in which he did.

I believe Mike and I are probably of the same vein on the subject of the cross. I find nothing wrong with it as a symbol of Christianity. I guess my biggest objection was a cross with a dying bleeding Jesus on it. It stops being a symbol and begins to be an idol. I'll have to post more on these items of agreement later. I'm battling a toilet that is leaking. Talk about your ox in the mire!

[Mike Reed]

EnemyAce: I believe Mike and I are probably of the same vein on the subject of the cross. I find nothing wrong with it as a symbol of Christianity.

I would be very happy to learn that we are in agreement.

MorgBot: Mike changed my beliefs on the cross several months ago, and I find it highly entertaining watching him do battle with other members that share the viewpoint I used to have on the cross, namely the "anti-cross protocol."

Thank you for your remarks, MorgBot.

On a side note... I found the following unfortunate quote yesterday:

"The world at large has the idea that the symbol of Christianity is the cross, but it's no such thing. The cross is the symbol of the cruelest form of torture and execution that the Romans could devise; that is what the cross is for." Apostle Mark E. Peterson, The Covenant People of God, 28 September 1980.

The reduction of the symbol of the cross as a mere instrument of torture is an insult to Christians, and smacks of the same kind of sensationalism that one should expect to hear from Ed Decker. It is my hope that Latter-day Saints can one day shake off their disgust for the symbol... and interpret it in the context that the user intended it to communicate. This is, after all, what Latter-day Saints expect from others when they notice the inverted pentagram.

[Ron Beron]

Mike writes,

This is, after all, what Latter-day Saints expect from others when they notice the inverted pentagram.

Good point. I made an unfortunate comment a number of years ago when I noticed a cross hanging around a very cute girl's neck. I made the usual indolent Mormon comment about crosses. She looked at me for a minute and told me that someone very special gave it to her. She then gave me instructions on how to remove one's foot when it was extremely stuck in one's mouth.

Mike, you have asked me a few questions, now let me ask you one. What is your view on the wearing of the cross?

[Mike Reed]

Mike, you have asked me a few questions, now let me ask you one. What is your view on the wearing of the cross?

As an agnostic secular humanist, I am not sure how to answer that question. It is kind of like saying, "What is your view on saying the word Momma?" It would all depend on the tone expressed, the context from which it was spoken, and to whom the title is given. The mere word I am entirely neutral to, and I do not associate any particular power to it. I may, however, be fascinated by the linguistic anthropology of the term... or perhaps I may feel the warm fuzzies when I hear a young baby say this to his mother for the first time... I may on another occasion be disgusted by the way a guy harassingly yells "Hot MOMMA!" to a young girl. But the word... in and of itself has no significant value to me.

[Ron Beron]

As an agnostic secular humanist, I am not sure how to answer that question. It is kind of like saying, "What is your view on saying the word Momma?" It would all depend on the tone expressed, the context from which it was spoken, and to whom the title is given. The mere word I am entirely neutral to, and I do not associate any particular power to it. I may, however, be fascinated by the linguistic anthropology of the term... or perhaps I may feel the warm fuzzies when I hear a young baby say this to his mother for the first time... I may on another occasion be disgusted by the way a guy harassingly yells "Hot MOMMA!" to a young girl. But the word... in and of itself has no significant value to me.

Hmmmm....I'm certainly not an agnostic, perhaps a gnostic, and I definitely not a secularist, perhaps a humanist, but I can agree with your conclusion of the word, "cross". Aside from the historical and symbolic limitations placed on it it has not any real value to me.

[alter idem]

I think it is more profound than that. I simply think that leaders in the church see veneration of the cross to of less importance than the supernatural events that took place in the garden. Anyone could've and did hang on the cross in the 1st and 2nd century, but only one person could take our sins in the manner in which he did.

I believe Mike and I are probably of the same vein on the subject of the cross. I find nothing wrong with it as a symbol of Christianity. I guess my biggest objection was a cross with a dying bleeding Jesus on it. It stops being a symbol and begins to be an idol. I'll have to post more on these items of agreement later. I'm battling a toilet that is leaking. Talk about your ox in the mire!

Sorry about the leaky toilet.

I agree that the displays of Christ on the cross are often venerated--even worshipped. I can understand this creating a negative attitude among LDS leaders towards crosses because of this. However, I still disagree with your second statement; while many people did hang and die horrible deaths on the cross, that still does not take away the importance that Jesus Christ died on a cross. He wasn't hanged, beheaded, or shot. The cross was not random--it was chosen.

As Bruce R. McConkie said; "Since Jesus our Lord came into the world for the express purpose of dying upon the cross for the sins of the world, it follows that a Divine Providence placed him among a people, and in a religious and political climate, where the chief object and end of his mortal sojourn could and would be brought to pass. He came to die: he must be slain; his desitiny was to be hanged upon a tree; and the cross was prepared for his crucifixion from the foundation of the world, as it were."

The scriptures support Elder McConkie's statement.

[Ron Beron]

Sorry about the leaky toilet.

I agree that the displays of Christ on the cross are often venerated--even worshipped. I can understand this creating a negative attitude among LDS leaders towards crosses because of this. However, I still disagree with your second statement; while many people did hang and die horrible deaths on the cross, that still does not take away the importance that Jesus Christ died on a cross. He wasn't hanged, beheaded, or shot. The cross was not random--it was chosen.

As Bruce R. McConkie said; "Since Jesus our Lord came into the world for the express purpose of dying upon the cross for the sins of the world, it follows that a Divine Providence placed him among a people, and in a religious and political climate, where the chief object and end of his mortal sojourn could and would be brought to pass. He came to die: he must be slain; his desitiny was to be hanged upon a tree; and the cross was prepared for his crucifixion from the foundation of the world, as it were."

The scriptures support Elder McConkie's statement.

The toilet is much better now. I just hope I can keep the good graces of my unfortunate neighbor.

As to the rest more important material I couldn't agree more. My problem is not a denial of the cross or the events leading up to it, but a veneration of it. The cross, while a mode of execution, should not take the place of the death itself. The cross didn't kill Jesus, He allowed His own life to leave. Nothing took it from Him.

[Mike Reed]

Aside from the historical and symbolic limitations placed on it it has not any real value to me.

What is valuable to me is interfaith dialogue, and the diffusion of unneccesary tension that exists because of dogmatic thinking.

[Ron Beron]

What is valuable to me is interfaith dialogue, and the diffusion of unnecessary tension that exists because of dogmatic thinking.

I agree, but as far as I am concerned there has never been any tension, necessary or not, in talking with others of different faiths. As a teacher I have students that are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and Mormon. I haven't any problems with with whatever they wear to symbolize their faith, except skulls....I hate skulls. Darn pagans!

[Mike Reed]

I agree, but as far as I am concerned there has never been any tension, necessary or not, in talking with others of different faiths. As a teacher I have students that are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and Mormon.

What about your following remark?: "I made an unfortunate comment a number of years ago when I noticed a cross hanging around a very cute girl's neck. I made the usual indolent Mormon comment about crosses. She looked at me for a minute and told me that someone very special gave it to her. She then gave me instructions on how to remove one's foot when it was extremely stuck in one's mouth." Wasn't this a time of tension?

I haven't any problems with with whatever they wear to symbolize their faith, except skulls....I hate skulls. Darn pagans!

Lol!

[Ron Beron]

What about your following remark?: "I made an unfortunate comment a number of years ago when I noticed a cross hanging around a very cute girl's neck. I made the usual indolent Mormon comment about crosses. She looked at me for a minute and told me that someone very special gave it to her. She then gave me instructions on how to remove one's foot when it was extremely stuck in one's mouth." Wasn't this a time of tension?

Ahh...yes. I was verrrrry young, naive, and intolerant and the girl was verrrry young, beautiful and LDS. That was a great learning experience. One I have thought about from time to time.

[Mike Reed]

Ahh...yes. I was verrrrry young, naive, and intolerant and the girl was verrrry young, beautiful and LDS. That was a great learning experience. One I have thought about from time to time.

Ok. I understand. When you said "never," you meant "rarely today." That's cool.

Would you agree that the no-cross protocol breeds tension for the LDS Church today?

It just seems silly to me that the Church would even have such a protocol. After all... the Church is all about encouraging the individual to privately interpret the symbolism of the endowment ceremony, that each may receive their own personal revelation. Why not do the same for the symbol of the cross?

It seems to me that they should.

[Severian]

I was just thinking how nice it would be to have a picture of some white doves for the Visitors Center and perhaps the Stake Centers.

Of course these could be sinewy doves, perhaps dressed in Roman armor to fit the rest of the paintings.

[Ron Beron]

Ok. I understand. When you said "never," you meant "rarely today." That's cool.

Would you agree that the no-cross protocol breeds tension for the LDS Church today?

It just seems silly to me that the Church would even have such a protocol. After all... the Church is all about encouraging the individual to privately interpret the symbolism of the endowment ceremony, that each may receive their own personal revelation. Why not do the same for the symbol of the cross?

It seems to me that they should.

No...never today. That was in a previous yet secret time that I said that to the young lady.

It doesn't breed tension for me nor does it for anyone I know. I'm a bit of a liberal Mormon so I would hang with those. If the church does have a protocol it would seem silly for them to apply to individuals, but not to the church itself. I can understand their emphasis. If a person wants to wear a cross I have no problem. I wear a small green nephrite stone (Monterey Jade) to remind me of my hometown. I have also worn a "ahkh" symbol as a representation of eternal life. Several men in my ward wear a symbol for the Melchizedek priesthood which is simply to squares placed together.

I also found this website interesting due to frequency of symbols that Mormons do approve of.

http://www.custommementos.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=22

[Severian]

I was impressed by this from the above catalog:

It is a Seal of the Twelve Apostles Money Clip

[Ron Beron]

I was impressed by this from the above catalog:

It is a Seal of the Twelve Apostles Money Clip

It reminds me of something that Hugh Nibley once commented about the oxymoronic nature of having the word Zion in Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution, which, may I add had "Holiness to the Lord" printed on all it's billings.

[Mike Reed]

No...never today... It doesn't breed tension for me nor does it for anyone I know. I'm a bit of a liberal Mormon so I would hang with those.

If a new convert were to wear a cross necklace to church, there is a good possibility that he/she would be persuaded to remove it. Missionaries are instructed to persuade investigators remove idols from their homes, and to the minds of many missionaries, this would include "crosses". The comment that you made years ago towards the little girl is echoed by many members today. In Robert Millet's book, "Getting at the Truth," he includes a letter that was written by a Baptist pastor to the Indiana elementary school (predominantly attended by LDS): "Several times this new school year, " the Pastor reports about his first-grade daughter, "as well as a time or two last year, she has experienced some difficulties because on occasion she wears a cross necklace to school.... ome children in her class have told her that it is bad to wear the cross. One child even said that he hated the cross and that she should take it off." (24-25)

[Mike Reed]

I wrote: The comment that you made years ago towards the little girl is echoed by many members today.

After doing a quick search online last year, I found the following remarks:

This is one from an LDS: If Jesus had died in a car wreck, would a wreck be the Christian symbol? A better question would be why is a cross the symbol of Christianity. It's a symbol of the method of torture used by Romans during their rein of terror in Israel. The fish was the Christian symbol until Constantine carried the cross into battle in the 4th Century. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060706053714AAEdUrb Another LDS quotes Gibson's "One Minute Answere" on this page.

Here's another: To answer your question, if Jesus were hung, most Christians would probably wear a stylish noose (might look like the Ankth?) on a chain. http://www.ghostvillage.com/ghostcommunity...p?t4908-50.html

Another from an LDS: I don't know that the cross should be the symbol on our churches and temples any more than the priest's knife should be on the synagogue or jewish temple

http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/cgi/ultimatebb.c...=1;t=001234;p=1

Another LDS Remark: If Christ had been stabbed or shot, would his followers display or wear a knife or a gun? http://home.swbell.net/dslaught/mormonanswers.html

Another LDS comment: Think about this though....what if your loved one who was stabbed to death rose from the dead and because of the stabbing was able to take you to heaven when you died....might you now view the knife as a symbol of hope and victory?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?...786#post1356786

Another LDS comment: This is the reason we do not put crosses or crucifixes in our chapels or wear them on necklaces. It would be like wearing a gun or a hangman's noose, or having one put in a promenent place in your church. http://www.beliefnet.com/boards_mini/index...p;boardID=34856

Another LDS comment: If Jesus had been killed by a gun, would you hang a tiny gun around your neck to symbolize your faith? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=174733

Another LDS reports: My husband and I are both lds (although I have a great interest in the Catholic Church and attended my first mass on Easter Sunday - a topic for another post). I have a protestant background and feel that the use of a cross is appropriate for a Christian. This doesn't go over very well in the lds church. Last night my husband told me because its symbolism it was offensive, like somebody wearing a swatstika. Well, I kinda flipped out at that comparison. Can anybody provide very early church documentation of the use of the cross? Most lds believe that the cross wasn't used until maybe the time of the council of Nicea, which then gets into the great apostosy. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=46520

Another LDS reports: I've always disliked the way Mormons denigrate the wearing of the cross, sometimes to the point of mocking, which is not only disrespectful to those believers who wear the cross but to God himself.