Calm Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 You'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.The Primary theme of the year is choose the right. Perhaps the cover reflects this by showing the Southern Cross which is symbolic like the North Star in portraying how to keep on one's path, etc.
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 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.Just for the record, that would include me, since sometimes people think I do not believe this.
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2012 Author Posted February 6, 2012 The Primary theme of the year is choose the right. Perhaps the cover reflects this by showing the Southern Cross which is symbolic like the North Star in portraying how to keep on one's path, etc.I like that. As I mentioned before, I have no idea was the editorial board "intends" from the design, but it seems very appropriate to have a parent and child following a path to stars that symbolize the Savior. That imagery is often used with the North Star in our hemisphere. Its seems appropriate with the Southern Cross, too.
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2012 Author Posted February 6, 2012 To which part?The cross on the Rome Italy temple. It's been answered now.
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 The cross on the Rome Italy temple. It's been answered now.I think he'll know that by the time he gets here But thanks anyway!
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.To the contrary, there are many believing Latter-day Saints that accept the Book of Mormon as a work of modern scripture. See http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10079
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 To the contrary, there are many believing Latter-day Saints that accept the Book of Mormon as a work of modern scripture. See http://signaturebook...ry.org/?p=10079Since your link goes to an anti-Mormon book written (or compiled) by the anti-Mormon Brent Metcalfe and published by Signature Books, aka Korihor Press, you've actually supported what I said.So far you have cited exactly zero "believing Latter-day Saints that accept the Book of Mormon as a work of modern scripture."For the rather good and sufficient reason that accepting the literal, historical truth of the Book of Mormon is an essential part of what defines a believing Latter-day Saint.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The cross on the Rome Italy temple. It's been answered now.Yes. It seems to consist of framing in windows and double glass doors. The one on the doors will be split in half every time someone opens them. I'm wondering if that might not be considered "naughty" if it was intended to be an iconographic cross.I know of no LDS source that suggests that there is anything essentially evil about two pieces of wood or metal joined at right angles. Nor that there is anything essentially holy about it.Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Yes. It seems to consist of framing in windows and double glass doors. The one on the doors will be split in half every time someone opens them. I'm wondering if that might not be considered "naughty" if it was intended to be an iconographic cross.I know of no LDS source that suggests that there is anything essentially evil about two pieces of wood or metal joined at right angles. Nor that there is anything essentially holy about it.Regards,PahoranSo really the whole question is open as to whether or not such "cross" was intended by the design. It's funny- I mentioned this to my wife, and she was totally non-plussed and she said "So what- people always say that their doors are a cross and bible".I had no idea what she meant until she explained it, and I looked it up, and viola! As always she was right!http://historichouseblog.com/2009/01/29/the-christian-or-cross-bible-historic-door/
Calm Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 So really the whole question is open as to whether or not such "cross" was intended by the design. It's funny- I mentioned this to my wife, and she was totally non-plussed and she said "So what- people always say that their doors are a cross and bible".I had no idea what she meant until she explained it, and I looked it up, and viola! As always she was right!http://historichouse...-historic-door/Very interesting. Never heard it before, probably because I've lived mainly in the West (all over it, but still it's not the Northeast or South).
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Since your link goes to an anti-Mormon book written (or compiled) by the anti-Mormon Brent Metcalfe and published by Signature Books, aka Korihor Press, you've actually supported what I said.So far you have cited exactly zero "believing Latter-day Saints that accept the Book of Mormon as a work of modern scripture."For the rather good and sufficient reason that accepting the literal, historical truth of the Book of Mormon is an essential part of what defines a believing Latter-day Saint.Regards,PahoranHave you read the book, or are you just interested in burning it. If you read the book, you'd see articles by, and discussions about, LDS Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as modern scripture. Nine of the 10 contributors to that book were (at least at the time of the writing--I don't know about now) believing Mormons. Then, you can also count none other than B.H. Roberts as apparently within that camp as well. You are the one that said that 100% of believing Mormons believe the "literal translation of ancient American writings" theory of Book of Mormon origins. All I needed to show is one counterexample, and I've done more than that. I think you are grossly underestimating the diversity of Mormon thought. Not everybody marches in lockstep. 2
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 So really the whole question is open as to whether or not such "cross" was intended by the design. It's funny- I mentioned this to my wife, and she was totally non-plussed and she said "So what- people always say that their doors are a cross and bible".I had no idea what she meant until she explained it, and I looked it up, and viola! As always she was right!http://historichouse...-historic-door/I believe in the death of the author. It doesn't matter whether the cross was "intended." All that matters is that the cross is read.
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I believe in the death of the author. It doesn't matter whether the cross was "intended." All that matters is that the cross is read.But what we are talking about is whether or not the church is going "back" to using the cross. Obviously in that context the intent is what is important.You can "read" crosses looking at telephone poles if you want, but that doesn't mean the company who put up the telephone pole is Christian. 1
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Have you read the book, or are you just interested in burning it. If you read the book, you'd see articles by, and discussions about, LDS Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as modern scripture.Except I don't. I see articles by apostates and revisionists who demand that we reject the Book of Mormon and then try to throw us a sop to the effect that it might still be good for something anyway.Nine of the 10 contributors to that book were (at least at the time of the writing--I don't know about now) believing Mormons.I don't agree. I don't wish to get into discussing personalities, but I don't know of anyone who thinks Dan Vogel, for example, is a believing Latter-day Saint.Then, you can also count none other than B.H. Roberts as apparently within that camp as well.A notorious and utterly discredited canard.Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 But what we are talking about is whether or not the church is going "back" to using the cross. Obviously in that context the intent is what is important.You can "read" crosses looking at telephone poles if you want, but that doesn't mean the company who put up the telephone pole is Christian.That's a good point. In order for the Church to go "back" to doing something, events must happen in the following sequence:1) The Church does some X;2) The Church ceases to do X;3) The Church resumes the practice of X.In the case of crosses, I'm unaware of any time when crosses were overtly, explicitly and prominently displayed in LDS places of worship. OTOH, I am also unware of any time when approximately cruciform shapes completely disappeared from LDS architecture. We've already seen the "four-leaf clover" decorations featured in the Brigham City Tabernacle; to them I add the overall shape of the Laie Hawaii Temple (originally built in the shape of a Greek Cross.)The Hamilton New Zealand Temple was built in the mid-50's, and its architectural details were approved by President David O. McKay. (Incidentally, President McKay has been widely vilified by some who don't like the direction the Church took under his leadership, and like every one of the Lord's latter-day prophets, he was immeasurably better than his critics.) Although there is very little external decoration on this temple, there are clear cruciform details thereon.So when I see the cruciform detail on the front doors of the Rome Italy Temple, I scarcely notice them. There is nothing new there. OTOH, the temple as a whole is going to be breathtaking.Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) That's a good point. In order for the Church to go "back" to doing something, events must happen in the following sequence:1) The Church does some X;2) The Church ceases to do X;3) The Church resumes the practice of X.In the case of crosses, I'm unaware of any time when crosses were overtly, explicitly and prominently displayed in LDS places of worship. OTOH, I am also unware of any time when approximately cruciform shapes completely disappeared from LDS architecture. We've already seen the "four-leaf clover" decorations featured in the Brigham City Tabernacle; to them I add the overall shape of the Laie Hawaii Temple (originally built in the shape of a Greek Cross.)The Hamilton New Zealand Temple was built in the mid-50's, and its architectural details were approved by President David O. McKay. (Incidentally, President McKay has been widely vilified by some who don't like the direction the Church took under his leadership, and like every one of the Lord's latter-day prophets, he was immeasurably better than his critics.) Although there is very little external decoration on this temple, there are clear cruciform details thereon.So when I see the cruciform detail on the front doors of the Rome Italy Temple, I scarcely notice them. There is nothing new there. OTOH, the temple as a whole is going to be breathtaking.Regards,PahoranI think if you look earlier in this thread Mike Reed makes a good case that crosses were used at least peripherally, but I think you are right that they clearly have never been a central symbol of the faith- at least I have not seen evidence of it. And such evidence would I think have survived- there are enough old chapels, tabernacles etc in the West where such architectural elements would still remain if they were ever there.There is one photo of the Brigham City Tabernacle which uses crosses as a decorative element in the architecture, and the picture also shows a cross as a flower arrangement since the occasion for the photo was a funeral. But yes, a "central use" of the cross would be if it was on a steeple, or windows clearly in a cruciform shape where it is clearly intended to be a "cross" and not just a horizontal element meeting a vertical element which might be intended to be a "cross" or notI mean when you go into a Catholic church- there is no doubt that a cross will be a "central" feature of the building's decorative symbology. Big difference!I really have no problem either way, if crosses become more common, and in fact, I would kind of like to see them become more accepted because I think the alleged reasons for their supposed rejection are vague. So in short, I see no harm in using them and quite a bit of upside in at least conveying the idea to the outside world that we believe in the Atonement.I don't care so much frankly if we ever make it into the "christian" club now that we have years of mis-definition of that term behind us, but since we are known as "Mormons" and no one knows what that means, if they saw some crosses associated with "Mormons" that would at least convey the message that we believe that something important happened at Calvary and the events leading to it.Edit: That was post 25 where I posted the pic of the Brigham City Tabernacle Edited February 7, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
Mike Reed Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) to them I add the overall shape of the Laie Hawaii Temple (originally built in the shape of a Greek Cross.)Yes indeed. While the Hawaii temple was being built, so too was the Cardston Alberta Temple. This is the same period that the Church petitioned the SLC Council to erect a cross monument on Ensign Peak, to honor the Mormon pioneers (who were then quickly dying off). Moreover, the two temples were identified as being in the shape of a cross.The Hamilton New Zealand Temple was built in the mid-50's, and its architectural details were approved by President David O. McKay.... Although there is very little external decoration on this temple, there are clear cruciform details thereon.It was in 1957 that McKay informed Presiding Bishop Wirthlin the position of the Church in regards to images of the cross--almost two years after the construction of the NZ temple had begun. Presumably, the Church had already negotiated and approved the design with the architects. And yes... there is a grid like pattern on the temple, and cross like images on the lower level (on the sides). It is interesting that they aren't on the front, though. Instead the grid patterns (on the lower level) are interrupted with squares placed in the center of where the lines would have otherwise intersected). (Incidentally, President McKay has been widely vilified by some who don't like the direction the Church took under his leadership, and like every one of the Lord's latter-day prophets, he was immeasurably better than his critics.)David O. McKay was a great man in many ways. Everyone has their faults, to be sure. I certainly do. Fortunately though, anti-Catholicism isn't on my list--at least, it isn't to a significant enough degree that I notice it.So when I see the cruciform detail on the front doors of the Rome Italy Temple, I scarcely notice them. There is nothing new there. OTOH, the temple as a whole is going to be breathtaking.It will depend on how overtly they are depicted. If the design somehow makes the Latin appearance of the cross stand out (in a way that differs from traditional patterns), that will be a different story. So will it be if the Church confirms what McCraney says the temple Architects asserted: that they are crosses. Like I said, it is too early for pro-cross LDS to celebrate (since we should take what McCraney says with a grain of salt), but the rumors are sure intriguing--at least, they are to me. Edited February 7, 2012 by Mike Reed
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 But what we are talking about is whether or not the church is going "back" to using the cross. Obviously in that context the intent is what is important.You can "read" crosses looking at telephone poles if you want, but that doesn't mean the company who put up the telephone pole is Christian.With regard to Mormon architecture, I also believe the Freudian idea that there are no accidents. If the Church's ego didn't do it, then we can blame it on the church's id.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I don't agree. I don't wish to get into discussing personalities, but I don't know of anyone who thinks Dan Vogel, for example, is a believing Latter-day Saint.I think Vogel was the 1 out of 10. Vogel has long been an atheist.
Mike Reed Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I think Vogel was the 1 out of 10. Vogel has long been an atheist.I am pretty sure that he considers himself agnostic. But yes... it is probably safe to say that he isn't a believing Mormon. Edited February 7, 2012 by Mike Reed
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 With regard to Mormon architecture, I also believe the Freudian idea that there are no accidents. If the Church's ego didn't do it, then we can blame it on the church's id.Great line! But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Mike Reed Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Great line! But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Yeah... but would Freud agree with you?
Damien the Leper Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 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,PahoranFair enough.I'm not anti but I see JS all over in the Book of Mormon. HOWEVER, I will be honest that because I am not sure as of yet, as a member of the church, how to approach the BoM. For the time being, I suppose I will do so with the same attitude as I do the Bible. I take it with a grain of salt and look for understanding and meaning.
Damien the Leper Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Have you read the book, or are you just interested in burning it. If you read the book, you'd see articles by, and discussions about, LDS Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as modern scripture. Nine of the 10 contributors to that book were (at least at the time of the writing--I don't know about now) believing Mormons. Then, you can also count none other than B.H. Roberts as apparently within that camp as well. You are the one that said that 100% of believing Mormons believe the "literal translation of ancient American writings" theory of Book of Mormon origins. All I needed to show is one counterexample, and I've done more than that. I think you are grossly underestimating the diversity of Mormon thought. Not everybody marches in lockstep.Hallelujah! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? I have no problem with what the conservatively minded LDS believe so long as they don't project a majority or totallity of belief upon myself or others who are similar. It is a gross mischaracterization and a blatant one at that.
Recommended Posts