altersteve Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 How do you tell the difference, based on actions alone, between a good Christian and a good Buddhist or a good Jew? Your attempt to show the world that you believe in Christ by your actions alone could inadvertently have the result of showing them that you are Buddha-like. That's why Mormons put pictures of temples in their living rooms, and why missionaries look the same and wear name tags.I don't think that was the point Storm Rider was trying to make, but in my opinion, all who do good are, in some way or another, "followers" of Christ, whether they know it or not. Because all good comes from Him.
Flyonthewall Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 http://www.lds.org/new-era/1996/09/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng&query=crossPresident Gordon B. Hinckley explained the reason in a talk delivered in general conference. He told about talking to a Protestant minister following a temple open house. The minister had asked why there were no crosses anywhere if we say we believe in Jesus Christ. President Hinckley answered, “‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.’“He then asked, ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’“I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, p. 4).President Hinckley further explained, “On Calvary he was the dying Jesus. From the tomb he emerged the living Christ. … Because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when he said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)” (pp. 6, 7).
Cobalt-70 Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 http://www.lds.org/n...eng&query=crossPresident Gordon B. Hinckley explained the reason in a talk delivered in general conference. He told about talking to a Protestant minister following a temple open house. The minister had asked why there were no crosses anywhere if we say we believe in Jesus Christ. President Hinckley answered, “‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.’“He then asked, ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’“I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, p. 4).President Hinckley further explained, “On Calvary he was the dying Jesus. From the tomb he emerged the living Christ. … Because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when he said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)” (pp. 6, 7).Yet we use the symbol of the angel Moroni to represent our faith. Surely it would be better to use a Jesus-related symbol than a Moroni-related symbol. Plus, like I said in prior posts, we do use the symbol of the dying Jesus in our holiest ordinances. Two of the most sacred Mormon symbols (used in the Endowment ceremony) directly reference the crucifixion. Therefore, these rationales that no symbols are adequate to represent Jesus, or that we only symbolize the living Jesus lose some steam.
Flyonthewall Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 Yet we use the symbol of the angel Moroni to represent our faith. Surely it would be better to use a Jesus-related symbol than a Moroni-related symbol. Plus, like I said in prior posts, we do use the symbol of the dying Jesus in our holiest ordinances. Two of the most sacred Mormon symbols (used in the Endowment ceremony) directly reference the crucifixion. Therefore, these rationales that no symbols are adequate to represent Jesus, or that we only symbolize the living Jesus lose some steam.The angel Moroni is uniquely LDS, so is a CTR ring... We do not use the angel Moroni as a symbol of our faith any more than the CTR ring, they are simply LDS in origin.I think there is a difference between symbols we use in worship and ordinances, and symbols of our faith/religion.
Storm Rider Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 How do you tell the difference, based on actions alone, between a good Christian and a good Buddhist or a good Jew? Your attempt to show the world that you believe in Christ by your actions alone could inadvertently have the result of showing them that you are Buddha-like. That's why Mormons put pictures of temples in their living rooms, and why missionaries look the same and wear name tags.You are stretching and you know it. Only family and friends come to my home; not the public or the world. There is nothing similar to wearing a symbol for all the world to see. Missionaries are missionaries; they are supposed to be recognized for their calling as such. The same reason you can tell a priest is a priest when you see them with their collar on. If someone wants to think of me as a buddhist because of my actions that would not offend me. However, this again is stretching and you know it. I live in Abu Dhabi and some think I am a Muslim, which is also not offensive to me. The point is that at times my actions are such that people realize that there is something different AND THEY ASK WHY? Then a personal conversation about my Master is easy. I see no need to wear a cross or a CTR ring or anything else; our actions should always speak louder than anything else.
mfbukowski Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 I would have no problem with using the cross, we have done so before and our new Temple in Italy does.Huh?
Mike Reed Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Huh?Popping head in...The digital movie of the planned temple appears to have a cruciform design in the door way, but the Temple is not built yet, so it is too early for pro-cross LDS to celebrate. After it is built hopefully we can find a good close up photo of the doorway to get a better look. Here is the video. You'll see the doorway at 1:50. For what it is worth, Shawn McCraney asserts that the architects confirmed that there will indeed be "bold" crosses on both sides of the temple. Notice how cynical he is about this. Now compare this cynicism to his optimism expressed a couple years previously about my MA thesis on Mormons and the Cross (starts at 6:30):http://www.hotm.tv/o...ws/20090505.htmMcCraney jumbled his remarks in ways that seem to conflate my and Robert Rees' names. Moreover, he adds many of his own sensational words like "spiritually twisted". Rees made a few remarks for the tribune, but the research McCraney is reporting (while reading from the tribune article, about the taboo being a late development, etc) is mine. Anyway... It is interesting that McCraney praises Rees' "campaign" for the cross in the Church. Using the cross in LDS Chapels might "blur the waters," he says, but this would still be good step. He in fact proclaims, "I believe [it] is an *awesome* step." But now that the temple in Rome (according to McCraney) is planned to have doors with "bold crosses" on them, he has since changed his mind.Ok... gotta go. Edited February 4, 2012 by Mike Reed
mfbukowski Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 Popping head in...The digital movie of the planned temple appears to have a cruciform design in the door way, but the Temple is not built yet, so it is too early for pro-cross LDS to celebrate. After it is built hopefully we can find a good close up photo of the doorway to get a better look. Here is the video. You'll see the doorway at 1:50. For what it is worth, Shawn McCraney asserts that the architects confirmed that there will indeed be "bold" crosses on both sides of the temple. Notice how cynical he is about this. Now compare this cynicism to his optimism expressed a couple years previously about my MA thesis on Mormons and the Cross (starts at 6:30):http://www.hotm.tv/o...ws/20090505.htmMcCraney jumbled his remarks in ways that seem to conflate my and Robert Rees' names. Moreover, he adds many of his own sensational words like "spiritually twisted". Rees made a few remarks for the tribune, but the research McCraney is reporting (while reading from the tribune article, about the taboo being a late development, etc) is mine. Anyway... It is interesting that McCraney praises Rees' "campaign" for the cross in the Church. Using the cross in LDS Chapels might "blur the waters," he says, but this would still be good step. He in fact proclaims, "I believe [it] is an *awesome* step." But now that the temple in Rome (according to McCraney) is planned to have doors with "bold crosses" on them, he has since changed his mind.Ok... gotta go.I have still not taken or posted pictures of the east doors of the LA temple, but they arguably have crosses on them. I say arguably because the design on the doors is a grid shape of rectangles or squares (can't remember which) which, at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical elements, have extra metal ornamentation covering only the intersections, forming in effect a grid-design of crosses.Incidentally those doors are not important doors, and lead into the kitchen and cafeteria areas and are typically used for deliveries to the temple etc.One could argue that the grid is just ornamentation and no series of crosses is intended, but from what I have seen of temple design, that does not happen in temple design. Every element of temple design, in my experience, has some symbolic importance so I see no reason to doubt that these elements also have importance
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 The angel Moroni is uniquely LDS, so is a CTR ring... We do not use the angel Moroni as a symbol of our faith any more than the CTR ring, they are simply LDS in origin.I think there is a difference between symbols we use in worship and ordinances, and symbols of our faith/religion.Apart from putting the angel at the top of Mormon steeples and having used the symbol on the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church frequently uses the angel Moroni as the symbol of the Mormon faith. For example, it authorized the U.S. Government to use the symbol of the angel Moroni rather than the cross on the headstones of Mormon veterans. The church uses the angel moroni as the symbol for the "Mormon Channel" (the church's podcast) http://mormonchannel.org/?lang=eng. The church uses the angel Moroni as the symbol for its lds publications app for Android, iPhone, etc. The church has also use the angel Mormoni as a symbol for the church on scouting patches and awards.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 You are stretching and you know it. Only family and friends come to my home; not the public or the world. There is nothing similar to wearing a symbol for all the world to see. Missionaries are missionaries; they are supposed to be recognized for their calling as such. The same reason you can tell a priest is a priest when you see them with their collar on.If someone wants to think of me as a buddhist because of my actions that would not offend me. However, this again is stretching and you know it. I live in Abu Dhabi and some think I am a Muslim, which is also not offensive to me. The point is that at times my actions are such that people realize that there is something different AND THEY ASK WHY? Then a personal conversation about my Master is easy. I see no need to wear a cross or a CTR ring or anything else; our actions should always speak louder than anything else.Okay, so let's take as given that actions should speak louder than symbols. How, then, do you leap to the conclusion that symbols should not speak at all? What is wrong with actions and symbols both speaking? This line of reasoning seems to be based on the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Why is it that Mormons can demonstrate their faith by actions or symbols, but supposedly not both?Actually, refusal to use a symbol can speak just as loudly as the use of the symbol, which is why many non-Mormons assume that our anti-cross attitude is related to not being Christian.
Flyonthewall Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Apart from putting the angel at the top of Mormon steeples and having used the symbol on the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church frequently uses the angel Moroni as the symbol of the Mormon faith. For example, it authorized the U.S. Government to use the symbol of the angel Moroni rather than the cross on the headstones of Mormon veterans. The church uses the angel moroni as the symbol for the "Mormon Channel" (the church's podcast) http://mormonchannel.org/?lang=eng. The church uses the angel Moroni as the symbol for its lds publications app for Android, iPhone, etc. The church has also use the angel Mormoni as a symbol for the church on scouting patches and awards.I'm thinking we aren't on the same page here....If I see someone wearing a cross, I think "christian". I don't think specifically Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, Methodist, Evangelical, etc. LDS do not use a symbol to advertise their Christianity, we are to put forth a Christ-like life as the symbol of our Christianity.Yes there are some things that we use as identifyers of our specific brand of Christianity, things that are unique to us. The angel Moroni is one....but that is different than having a symbol of our Christianity.
Storm Rider Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Okay, so let's take as given that actions should speak louder than symbols. How, then, do you leap to the conclusion that symbols should not speak at all? What is wrong with actions and symbols both speaking? This line of reasoning seems to be based on the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Why is it that Mormons can demonstrate their faith by actions or symbols, but supposedly not both?Actually, refusal to use a symbol can speak just as loudly as the use of the symbol, which is why many non-Mormons assume that our anti-cross attitude is related to not being Christian.It is too easy to wear a symbol like the cross and then live like a demon. To often we see examples of this type of thing on the news and other reporting agencies; a criminal is brought in and he is wearing a cross and has a tatoo of a cross on his upper arm. I am not against the symbols, but against the abuse of symbols. We too often wear them without thinking about them or understanding their importance and value. People also begin to look for symbols to qualify an individual while forgetting that it is actions that are the real "tell" not the fact of wearning a symbol.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) It is too easy to wear a symbol like the cross and then live like a demon. To often we see examples of this type of thing on the news and other reporting agencies; a criminal is brought in and he is wearing a cross and has a tatoo of a cross on his upper arm. I am not against the symbols, but against the abuse of symbols. We too often wear them without thinking about them or understanding their importance and value.People also begin to look for symbols to qualify an individual while forgetting that it is actions that are the real "tell" not the fact of wearning a symbol.It seems that you are not saying that Mormons should not use the symbol of the cross, only that they should not use the symbol in vain. It sounds, then, that you would order the following situations in this order of priority:1. Christ-like actions while displaying a cross2. Christ-like actions without displaying a cross3. Evil actions without displaying a cross4. Evil actions while displaying a crossDo you agree? Edited February 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 I'm thinking we aren't on the same page here....If I see someone wearing a cross, I think "christian". I don't think specifically Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, Methodist, Evangelical, etc.LDS do not use a symbol to advertise their Christianity, we are to put forth a Christ-like life as the symbol of our Christianity.Yes there are some things that we use as identifyers of our specific brand of Christianity, things that are unique to us. The angel Moroni is one....but that is different than having a symbol of our Christianity.The question is, why is it that the symbols we use to identify our "specific brand of Christianity" have nothing to do with Christ? Shouldn't we be the first ones to include some reference to Jesus within the symbols we use to identify us?
altersteve Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 The question is, why is it that the symbols we use to identify our "specific brand of Christianity" have nothing to do with Christ? Shouldn't we be the first ones to include some reference to Jesus within the symbols we use to identify us?You can't be serious. No Latter-day Saint would ever say that the symbols we use "have nothing to do with Christ."The statue of Moroni symbolizes the Restoration of whose gospel? The CTR ring symbolizes the importance of doing good, which is a commandment given by whom? Come on, dude.
Storm Rider Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 It seems that you are not saying that Mormons should not use the symbol of the cross, only that they should not use the symbol in vain. It sounds, then, that you would order the following situations in this order of priority:1. Christ-like actions while displaying a cross2. Christ-like actions without displaying a cross3. Evil actions without displaying a cross4. Evil actions while displaying a crossDo you agree?Cobalt, I am not sure I understand the purpose of the the last two. I am a sinner and I know that as a mortal that I will always be a sinner. This applies to all other people on the earth. Those who wear a cross will always sin. If we are going to wear the cross or other outward symbols (those for the world to see), we should be serious about it. It is not a piece of decoration a la Madonna. That is one of the problems about these type of symbols, everyone wears them whether they are Christian or not. When it is seen on another person in public we don't know if they wear it as a piece of jewelry or because they are actually disciples of Christ. I am not against a LDS wearing a cross, but it is just not something I would wear. I could see having them in my home, but not to be seen by the world. Religion is a of a personal nature and I perfer to see it kept pesonal. I have a pointed head and I am an old fokey (sp?) and I am certainly anally retentive; I admit these things freely. So take my position as a grain of salt. It is just one opinion.
KevinG Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Some of the caution in using symbols of Christ comes from our deep reveence for him. I know some folks in the department that runs pageants and shows for the church and they were very careful to use any means they could not to portray Christ in a casual manner, up to and including using only His worlds from the scriptures and having Him as an offstage character to avoid trivial or casual presentations of Him.I treat others symbols with reverance as do most of the LDS I know. Someone criticizing a crucifix these days is likely to be corrected in class. Sadly what some bratty cruel teenage girls did to a Catholic classmate is what our public image is to some. I pray more non-LDS receive priase and reverence for their symbols of Christ and Christianity.
Flyonthewall Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 The question is, why is it that the symbols we use to identify our "specific brand of Christianity" have nothing to do with Christ? Shouldn't we be the first ones to include some reference to Jesus within the symbols we use to identify us?I believe everything that identifies us has a reference to Christ. The Angel Moroni, under the direction of Christ, revealed the BoM, which contains the gospel of Christ. A CTR ring. The church name. Triple combination or quad. A missionary name tag. A temple.The question would by why do you think they have nothing to do with Christ?
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 You can't be serious. No Latter-day Saint would ever say that the symbols we use "have nothing to do with Christ."The statue of Moroni symbolizes the Restoration of whose gospel? The CTR ring symbolizes the importance of doing good, which is a commandment given by whom? Come on, dude.I don't think the CTR ring symbolizes Mormonism. It is more like a "WWJD" band. But as for the angel Moroni symbol, a symbol is worthless if it is not readily understood. How many non-Mormon understand the extremely weak and tangential connection with Jesus that you outlined above? If only Mormons know that there is a hidden conceptual connection to Jesus, what good is it?
Cobalt-70 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Some of the caution in using symbols of Christ comes from our deep reveence for him. I know some folks in the department that runs pageants and shows for the church and they were very careful to use any means they could not to portray Christ in a casual manner, up to and including using only His worlds from the scriptures and having Him as an offstage character to avoid trivial or casual presentations of Him.I treat others symbols with reverance as do most of the LDS I know. Someone criticizing a crucifix these days is likely to be corrected in class. Sadly what some bratty cruel teenage girls did to a Catholic classmate is what our public image is to some. I pray more non-LDS receive priase and reverence for their symbols of Christ and Christianity.Jews don't use God's name (YHWH) out of reverence, so many of them write things like "the Lord" or "G-d." Muslims don't depict images of Muhammad for the same reason. There might be an argument that Mormons are doing the same thing with Jesus, except that we don't. The church's current logo contains a huge and obvious symbol of Christ: the words "JESUS CHRIST" in large capital letters. Of all the symbols of Christ, the typescript "JESUS CHRIST" is the most direct and crude. Using Jesus' name in capital letters is less deferential and respectful than the use of a cross. Therefore, saying that we don't use a cross out of respect is a faulty argument.
bjpascoal Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 The February 2012 Friend has a very cool cover design featuring a cross. Yes, its the "Southern Cross" constellation, not a physical ornament, but its still very prominent on the page. In fact, the child pointing to the cross makes it the focus. So next time you are asked why Mormons don't have crosses, you can say "we do!"http://www.lds.org/f...012/02?lang=engIs there a bigger image of that cover somewhere? I can't make out the cross to which you are referring.
LeSellers Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Is there a bigger image of that cover somewhere? I can't make out the cross to which you are referring.The "Crux" is the Southern Cross (roughly equivalent to the North Star in the northern hemisphere in terms of navigation). It's a five-star constellation several degrees off the southern pole axis:It was once fully visible as far north as southern Europe. It can now be seen only from south of the 34th parallel in the southern hemisphere all night long.Because four of its stars are much brighter than the other, it really doesn't look like a cross, but then if anyone can really see two bears in in the ursa constellations, I'd like to see them, too.Lehi Edited February 6, 2012 by LeSellers
Damien the Leper Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 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,PahoranThis is YOUR opinion and YOU impose a generalized and institutional standard on the rest of the members of the church in order for them to be seen as "any Real Mormon".
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2012 Author Posted February 6, 2012 Is there a bigger image of that cover somewhere? I can't make out the cross to which you are referring.Here is a PDF version someone put on their blog (I can't vouch one way or the other for the blog, its just the first thing that came up my google search): http://www.nothingwavering.org/2012/01/19/33781-pdf-the-friend-february-2012.htmlYou'll notice that the stars that make up the southern cross constellation are enlarged to be more prominent that they naturally are. They are the focus of the cover; not just a starry sky that happens to include them.
Pahoran Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 This is YOUR opinion and YOU impose a generalized and institutional standard on the rest of the members of the church in order for them to be seen as "any Real Mormon".No, it is Latter-day Saint doctrine at every level: official, semi-official, and unofficial. There was a Lehi colony. The Book of Mormon is a translation, by the Gift and Power of God, of an abridgement of their sacred records. That is the sole position of the Church, and the unanimous view of all believing Latter-day Saints.By contrast, there is no one anti-Mormon position on the origin of the Book of Mormon, because no satisfactory explanation has yet been found; witness the periodic attempts to resuscitate the Spalding theory. However, the "Joe Smith done wrote it" theory is probably the most prevalent, and consistently so.As I said: it is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. No believing Latter-day Saint accepts it.Get used to it.Regards,Pahoran 1
Recommended Posts