Return Of The Cross

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know if you intended for the OP topic to head in this direction, but why shouldn't Mormons be happy to use the cross as a symbol? I don't know when the anti-cross tradition got started, but I understand that the main modern rationale is that we focus on Jesus' resurrection rather than his death, or we focus on Gethsemane rather than Calvary. But that's not to say that Jesus' death and sacrifice on the cross is not important within Mormonism. Wouldn't it go a long way toward convincing Evangelicals that we are Christian if we used the cross more? Evangelicals are big on symbolism, which is why they have hissy fits whenever you try to remove the Ten Commandments, the Baby Jesus, or other declarations of Christian faith from U.S. government property. (Ironically, Evangelicals focus on the resurrected Jesus rather than the dead Jesus, too.)

I give the Cross two thumbs up. I especially like the place of the Cross in the Gospel of Peter:

9 And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch,

there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence

with great light and approach the tomb.

And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and

both the young men entered in.

10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard

by keeping guard.

And as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two

of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the

head of him who was lead by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying,

Thou hast preached to them that sleep.

And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.

[Damien the Leper]

What I found interesting about this Deseret News article was the shot of the Brigham City Tabernacle with Joseph F. Smith preaching at a funeral- yes there is a cross-shaped floral arrangement, but if you look on the curving "balcony seats" on either side of the stand, you will see crosses actually designed into the building as an architectural element.

Arguably those crosses are each made of 5 circles, both 5 and the circle itself being important early LDS symbols.

http://www.deseretne...-the-cross.html

Nah! The builders of the tabernacle wouldn't make a mistake like that...just ask Pahoran.

[mfbukowski]

If there is anyone on this board who doesn't need any one else's defense it is certainly Pahoran- but I don't think he was saying the cross was never used by early LDS- I think all he is saying is that he doesn't believe that the Southern Cross on the cover of one magazine indicates some plot by the leadership to discover whether or not it is politically correct to now bring back use of the cross.

[Pahoran]

Nah! The builders of the tabernacle wouldn't make a mistake like that...just ask Pahoran.

Maybe you'd better not ask Pahoran. Pahoran's actual response is unlikely to resemble any assumptions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Huh?

I said "Chance" not "Must."

Leave it to Pahoran to turn my complementary optimism into an insult. Nice work, Pahoran. In a world of constant flux, it is nice to know that some things don't change.

For what it’s worth... I'll probably vote for Mitt Romney--at least in the primaries. But don't let that stop you from placing me in your nuanced-challenged polarized worldview, or from projecting your psychological profile upon me. Speaking of pizzas.

Your silly psychobabble fails to make any headway. You seized upon a picture that included a constellation not visible in the northern sky, and heaped all sorts of ridiculous suppositions upon it. You said "chance," not "must?" I suppose a probability of < .01% is still a "chance," but why would anyone be quivering with excitement over it?

Aren't there windmills in other threads that you can joust, Quixote? I think I can hear a young maiden calling for help.

The terrible giants!... someone, help me... I need a hero!!! PLLLLEEEAAASSEEEE!!!

Did anyone hear that?

You should talk to Eldwynn. I'm sure he could give you lessons in how to carry on an adult conversation.

Not that they would be very advanced lessons, you understand; but they'd be an improvement.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Buckeye]

You'll have to forgive me. It's been a while since I've been on this board much. What's with Pahoran? It was pretty clear that I was praising the Friend cover image, not claiming a devious intent.

[Damien the Leper]

Maybe you'd better not ask Pahoran. Pahoran's actual response is unlikely to resemble any assumptions.

Regards,

Pahoran

I know...I was just trying to have fun with you.

[Pahoran]

You'll have to forgive me. It's been a while since I've been on this board much. What's with Pahoran? It was pretty clear that I was praising the Friend cover image, not claiming a devious intent.

I don't have a problem with the Friend cover image. I was taking issue with Mister Reed, who has a bee in his bonnet about cross imagery and imagines that it's his responsibility to set the Church "right" over it. And who made the rather ridiculous leap from the Southern Cross on a Friend cover to the notion that the "powers that be" are "testing the waters" by means of a cartoon on a children's magazine.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Pahoran's just doing what he does best: taking shots, fanning the flames, stirring the waters, creating conflict. He is maintaining an environment where he can have some sort of relevance.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Damien the Leper]

You'll have to forgive me. It's been a while since I've been on this board much. What's with Pahoran? It was pretty clear that I was praising the Friend cover image, not claiming a devious intent.

Don't worry about Pahoran.

I don't know if the church is making any kind of 'attempt' toward anything with the picture but I like the idea of the Cross being more prominent in our faith.

[Mike Reed]

I don't know if the church is making any kind of 'attempt' toward anything

Me neither. Which, again, is why I said "chance"--not "must."

Anyway... Now that this thread is ruined, I think I'd go do something more enjoyable.

The dishes.

Thanks all (besides Pahoran). See you around.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Sky]

Pahoran's just doing what he does best: taking shots, fanning the flames, stirring the waters, creating conflict. He is maintaining an environment where he can have some sort of relevance.

Is it Pahoran's opinion that you don't like, or his uncanny ability to express his views in a rather blunt, sometimes confrontational way? Or maybe a little bit of both? There are plenty of people guilty of that on the other side too, you know.

And I have to say that I agree with Pahoran's assertion that it is a big leap to say that the Church is testing the waters with the cross simply because of a cover of The Friend with a constellation shaped like a cross.

[Buckeye]

Thanks everyone. This thread has really been worthwhile, particularly since I had no idea about Mike's book (which I will have to buy).

I have no idea if the editors of the Friend are trying to push something. We sheep in Ohio don't have much of a pulse on the Church Office Building. But I do think it was intentional to put the cross on the cover. They could have put Caseopia, or Drago, or the Big Dipper if they wanted. Heck, Polaris would be appropriate. But they put the Southern Cross. A cross, on the cover of a religious magazine. That is not coincidence.

I really don't think it matters what the editors do with it as much as what we do with it.

[Cobalt-70]

It would definitely make us more "mainstream" if we brought them back. But I guess that is both the good news and the bad news. Do we want to be more "mainstream"? I for one am tired of all the discussion as to whether or not we are "Christians" according to creedal Christians. I really don't care what they think at this point- we are what we are. Get over it.

So on one hand it would be nice to see crosses come back- but if it means giving up one iota of our principles, forget it.

I think we do want to be perceived as more mainstream. Not necessarily because of embarrassment, or a desire to "fit in," but simply because many people who might otherwise join the church decide not to because of how it is portrayed. On the other hand, I am not in favor, and very opposed, in fact, to trying to pull the wool over the eyes of traditional Christians and make them think that we are more traditional than we actually are.

But I think that Mormons are (based on their scriptures) more traditionally Christian than they think they are. One big problem is that Mormons do not take seriously the Book of Mormon--which is a very Protestant book. The Book of Mormon, last I checked, is still Mormon scripture, yet nobody reads it carefully or in the 19th century Protestant context in which it was given. The book, for example, comes down strongly in favor of the idea of original sin, and of the one-ness of the Trinity. Moreover, though the Book of Mormon notes the importance of works, it is pretty clear that it is by grace alone that we are saved from original sin. But these ideas are nowhere to be found in modern Mormon discourse, except within the small school of Mormon thought called Mormon neo-orthodoxy. Even the most radical elements of Mormonism, such as eternal progression, originated as more traditional Protestant ideas, and we could see that they have a place within that context, if we had not forgotten what that context was.

It would take a long time to start re-injecting traditional Christian/Book of Mormon thinking back into Mormonism. But it would be very, very easy to start using the cross more, and the dividends in new converts would likely be tremendous.

[Pahoran]

Thanks everyone. This thread has really been worthwhile, particularly since I had no idea about Mike's book (which I will have to buy).

I have no idea if the editors of the Friend are trying to push something. We sheep in Ohio don't have much of a pulse on the Church Office Building. But I do think it was intentional to put the cross on the cover. They could have put Caseopia, or Drago, or the Big Dipper if they wanted. Heck, Polaris would be appropriate. But they put the Southern Cross. A cross, on the cover of a religious magazine. That is not coincidence.

I really don't think it matters what the editors do with it as much as what we do with it.

I agree that there's probably some significance to the choice of the constellation: the editors of the Friend chose a constellation that (1) cannot be seen from the North American sky, and (2) is strongly identified with New Zealand and Australia.

IOW, maybe they're trying to show little American kiddies that America isn't the whole world; an idea that, for some Americans, seems harder to grasp than the rather silly notion that the Church is surreptitiously trying to soften people up to a change in iconography.

And maybe they're trying to show little Aussie and Kiwi kiddies that Church HQ knows something about where they live.

But who knows? Maybe there is a "hidden agenda" somewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I think we do want to be perceived as more mainstream. Not necessarily because of embarrassment, or a desire to "fit in," but simply because many people who might otherwise join the church decide not to because of how it is portrayed. On the other hand, I am not in favor, and very opposed, in fact, to trying to pull the wool over the eyes of traditional Christians and make them think that we are more traditional than we actually are.

But I think that Mormons are (based on their scriptures) more traditionally Christian than they think they are. One big problem is that Mormons do not take seriously the Book of Mormon--which is a very Protestant book.

Pure unmitigated rot.

The Book of Mormon, last I checked, is still Mormon scripture, yet nobody reads it carefully or in the 19th century Protestant context in which it was given.

Nephi was a Protestant? Who knew?

The book, for example, comes down strongly in favor of the idea of original sin,

Call for references, please.

and of the one-ness of the Trinity.

And the three-ness of the Trinity.

Moreover, though the Book of Mormon notes the importance of works, it is pretty clear that it is by grace alone that we are saved from original sin.

CFR, again.

But these ideas are nowhere to be found in modern Mormon discourse, except within the small school of Mormon thought called Mormon neo-orthodoxy. Even the most radical elements of Mormonism, such as eternal progression, originated as more traditional Protestant ideas, and we could see that they have a place within that context, if we had not forgotten what that context was.

It would take a long time to start re-injecting traditional Christian/Book of Mormon thinking back into Mormonism.

Pure bilge. There is no need to "re-inject" Christianity into Mormonism, because Mormonism is Christianity par excellence.

But it would be very, very easy to start using the cross more, and the dividends in new converts would likely be tremendous.

Ah. Another ark-steadier.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I think we do want to be perceived as more mainstream. Not necessarily because of embarrassment, or a desire to "fit in," but simply because many people who might otherwise join the church decide not to because of how it is portrayed. On the other hand, I am not in favor, and very opposed, in fact, to trying to pull the wool over the eyes of traditional Christians and make them think that we are more traditional than we actually are.

But I think that Mormons are (based on their scriptures) more traditionally Christian than they think they are. One big problem is that Mormons do not take seriously the Book of Mormon--which is a very Protestant book. The Book of Mormon, last I checked, is still Mormon scripture, yet nobody reads it carefully or in the 19th century Protestant context in which it was given. The book, for example, comes down strongly in favor of the idea of original sin, and of the one-ness of the Trinity. Moreover, though the Book of Mormon notes the importance of works, it is pretty clear that it is by grace alone that we are saved from original sin. But these ideas are nowhere to be found in modern Mormon discourse, except within the small school of Mormon thought called Mormon neo-orthodoxy. Even the most radical elements of Mormonism, such as eternal progression, originated as more traditional Protestant ideas, and we could see that they have a place within that context, if we had not forgotten what that context was.

It would take a long time to start re-injecting traditional Christian/Book of Mormon thinking back into Mormonism. But it would be very, very easy to start using the cross more, and the dividends in new converts would likely be tremendous.

Well, straight up, I pretty much agree with Pahoran's assessment of this post. Are you really LDS? Because it seems you are coming from kind of a weird perspective here.

We do not pull the wool over anyone's eyes

The BOM is NOT a "Protestant Book"- and is full of distinctly Mormon doctrines, nor should it be read in a 19th century context.

The unity of the Godhead is described more in terms of a family relationship than the traditional "Trinity"

It is distinctive Mormon doctrine that we are indeed saved by grace- "after all we can do" which isn't much really. Repentance is seen as essential to receiving a higher reward- not "salvation"- which is rather ambiguous in a Mormon context.

Eternal progression a Protestant idea?? Come on!

I think that indeed the use of the cross would lead to more converts, but as I posted earlier, there would be good news and possibly bad news in that.

That's about all I have to say about your post.

But commenting beyond your post, the idea of some kind of doctrine of the "elect" is appealing to me more and more lately- it seems that some of us just "get" Mormonism and take to it like a fish to water- and others don't. And it doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not you are born to it.

Some have true testimonies and some don't. That's God's business, not mine. But it is becoming more and more clear to me that there is little use in arguing with those who just plain aren't "there". I don't think it can be taught. Either you "know it's true" or you don't.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70, on 01 February 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

The book, for example, comes down strongly in favor of the idea of original sin,

Call for references, please.

Alma 41:11, Mosiah 3:19, Mosiah 16:3-5, Alma 22:13, Mosiah 27:25, and several other passages.

Cobalt-70, on 01 February 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Moreover, though the Book of Mormon notes the importance of works, it is pretty clear that it is by grace alone that we are saved from original sin.

CFR, again.

2 Nephi 10:24 ("it is only in and trough the grace of God that ye are saved"), 2 Nephi 25;23. Also, Moroni 10:32-33 (which also discusses the Wesleyan "second grace," or "holiness" doctrine).

Edited February 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Well, straight up, I pretty much agree with Pahoran's assessment of this post. Are you really LDS? Because it seems you are coming from kind of a weird perspective here.

Not that it matters, but yes I am really LDS. You may think this perspective is weird, but you wouldn't think that way had you been born in the early 19th century. For background, see http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/theology/preface.htm#preface

We do not pull the wool over anyone's eyes

I'm glad. I hope every Mormon realizes the futility of that effort.

The unity of the Godhead is described more in terms of a family relationship than the traditional "Trinity"

Actually, the Book of Mormon describes the Trinity as more unified than even the Nicene Creed. Book of Mormon theology has widely been described as modalistic. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/044-36-44.pdf http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,16645

It is distinctive Mormon doctrine that we are indeed saved by grace- "after all we can do" which isn't much really. Repentance is seen as essential to receiving a higher reward- not "salvation"- which is rather ambiguous in a Mormon context.

That's no different than what most Protestant churches teach. There's nothing novel there.

Eternal progression a Protestant idea?? Come on!

Eternal progression is an extension of the Christian perfection, sanctification, or holiness doctrines of the Arminian branches of Protestantism.

[LeSellers]

Eternal progression is an extension of the Christian perfection, sanctification, or holiness doctrines of the Arminian branches of Protestantism.

In other words, and from the LDS perspective, the Armenian-Protestant doctrine of "Christian perfection, sanctification, or holiness" are the Gospel doctrine of Eternal Progression pruned to feel comfortable in the Armenian mind. Or, an example of "Plain and Precious Truths" lost from their Bible.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Alma 41:11, Mosiah 3:19, Mosiah 16:3-5, Alma 22:13, Mosiah 27:25, and several other passages.

Really?

Let's test that. I'll take your first one.

Alma 41:

11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.

Yes, and? Where is the "original sin" in this passage?

Just so you know: "original sin" does not merely mean that we are subject to the "natural man." If it did, then you would be right: both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teaches quite unambiguously that we are fallen creatures. The term "original sin" actually entails "inherited guilt," which is something taught in neither volume.

I'm not going to bother chasing any more of your references. If any of them genuinely teach "original sin," then I invite you to quote and expound them. I asked for references that support your claim, not red herrings on which to waste my time.

2 Nephi 10:24 ("it is only in and trough the grace of God that ye are saved"), 2 Nephi 25;23. Also, Moroni 10:32-33 (which also discusses the Wesleyan "second grace," or "holiness" doctrine).

Call for references, please. This means quote and explain.

Since the plates were hidden long before John Wesley was born, and not unearthed until long after he died, it follows that he did not contribute in any way to the Book of Mormon. Therefore there is no believing Latter-day Saint anywhere who thinks there is any "Wesleyan" doctrine in it.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

In other words, and from the LDS perspective, the Armenian-Protestant doctrine of "Christian perfection, sanctification, or holiness" are the Gospel doctrine of Eternal Progression pruned to feel comfortable in the Armenian mind. Or, an example of "Plain and Precious Truths" lost from their Bible.

Lehi

Not Armenian. Arminian (i.e., Methodists, Holiness, and other Wesleyans, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Universalists, and to some extent Baptists). The Book of Mormon is mostly Arminian because Joseph Smith said he had an affinity toward Methodism.

All I'm saying is that eternal progression is an extension of Arminian sanctification doctrines such as Christian perfection. There is an established tradition within mainstream Christianity in which humans can become like God, or even in a sense gods. Where eternal progression departs from traditional Christianity is in the Mormon belief (widespread and important to Mormonism, but nowhere found within the Mormon canon or modern LDS publications) that God was once a man.

[JDave]

IOW, maybe they're trying to show little American kiddies that America isn't the whole world; an idea that, for some Americans, seems harder to grasp than the rather silly notion that the Church is surreptitiously trying to soften people up to a change in iconography.

And maybe they're trying to show little Aussie and Kiwi kiddies that Church HQ knows something about where they live.

But who knows? Maybe there is a "hidden agenda" somewhere.

Wouldn't either your hypothesis or Mike's hypothesis be "hidden agendas" since there is no public statement as to the meaning of the cover art?

[Pahoran]

Not Armenian. Arminian (i.e., Methodists, Holiness, and other Wesleyans, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Universalists, and to some extent Baptists). The Book of Mormon is mostly Arminian because Joseph Smith said he had an affinity toward Methodism.

Lehi, I wish to apologise to you. When Cobalt first appeared on this forum, you warned us that he was not being straight up with us. I thought you were being unfair to him. It is clear that your judgement has been fully vindicated.

You, Cobalt, are entitled to your opinion. Believing Latter-day Saints would say that the overlaps between Arminian Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist for the same reason as overlaps between other forms of Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist, namely because there is no form of Christianity that gets absolutely everything wrong. They all get some things right, and wherever they do, they will agree with the Book of Mormon.

The notion that the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith's own ideas and beliefs is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. No believing Latter-day Saint takes it seriously for a picosecond.

But as I said: you are entitled to your opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Let's test that. I'll take your first one.

Alma 41:

11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.

Yes, and? Where is the "original sin" in this passage?

Just so you know: "original sin" does not merely mean that we are subject to the "natural man." If it did, then you would be right: both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teaches quite unambiguously that we are fallen creatures. The term "original sin" actually entails "inherited guilt," which is something taught in neither volume.

Like most Mormons, I suspect you don't really understand the Christian doctrine of original sin. It does not mean "inherited guilt." Rather, it means the state of fallen depravity that humanity is in as a result of the Fall. It means that because of the Fall, every child is born as a "natural man," which is, to use Book of Mormon terminology, "carnal, sensual, and devilish." The only thing that Adam and Eve transmitted to their posterity is a fallen state, not guilt for any particular sin. According to the Catholic Catechism 404-5, "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state....[O]riginal sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice."

The Book of Mormon goes further than Catholicism in its support of original sin. The Catechism says of original sin that "human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and dominion of death, and inclined to sin." The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, takes a more Arminian view of Original sin, more similar to the doctrine of "total depravity." The "natural man" is not just ignorant or handicapped as to the powers of light--in the Book of Mormon, the natural man is actually an "enemy to God" since the fall of Adam (Mosiah 3:19) who may only be saved by the grace of Jesus. All of humanity was not just "wounded" in the Fall, but became "carnal, sensual, and devilish" as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve (Mosiah 16:3). The Book of Mormon teaches a stronger version of original sin than does the Catholic Catechism.