Return Of The Cross

[Storm Rider]

Comma, except for pre-1840s Mormons, some neo-orthodox Mormons, and thousands of new converts.

That is your opinion and nothing more. I also disagree with you and I assume my opinion is as valid as yours, but thanks for sharing.

[Damien the Leper]

That is your opinion and nothing more. I also disagree with you and I assume my opinion is as valid as yours, but thanks for sharing.

Cobalt is right. Pre-1840 Saints would more than likely have been Trinitarian. The 1838 canonical FV would likely be the grassroots for the Godhead. Our theology on the Godhead would be foreign and awkward for them.

[Storm Rider]

Cobalt is right. Pre-1840 Saints would more than likely have been Trinitarian. The 1838 canonical FV would likely be the grassroots for the Godhead. Our theology on the Godhead would be foreign and awkward for them.

No, dear cobalt is not correct nor will he ever be correct in this opinion. This is the sweet little stupidity that some share, but in the sharing makes it no more correct than when it was first proposed.

If there was any confusion it was the same quality of confusion that we find in the Church today on specific doctrines; it is the same confusion that we find in any church when members are not learned in all things. Poppycock. He has been attempting to forcefeed anyone who will listen to his opinions and I just don't buy what he is peddling.

[mfbukowski]

. Our theology on the Godhead would be foreign and awkward for them.

Wow. A mindreader with a time machine!

How did you do the polling to determine that? With a ouija board?

Edited February 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

No, dear cobalt is not correct nor will he ever be correct in this opinion. This is the sweet little stupidity that some share, but in the sharing makes it no more correct than when it was first proposed.

If there was any confusion it was the same quality of confusion that we find in the Church today on specific doctrines; it is the same confusion that we find in any church when members are not learned in all things. Poppycock. He has been attempting to forcefeed anyone who will listen to his opinions and I just don't buy what he is peddling.

As of 1838, the official church theology was that taught in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which says that the Father and the Son were two "personages," and that the Holy Spirit was not a "personage," but was the shared mind of the Father and the Son. (Lec. 5:2j-k). I think most Mormons would have interpreted that as trinitarianism, but technically it is probably either modalism or binitarianism. It is close enough to trinitarianism, however, that most Mormons probably did not change their long-held belief in the Trinity, which they brought with them from the Christian faiths they were raised in.

[Damien the Leper]

Wow. A mindreader with a time machine!

How did you do the polling to determine that? With a ouija board?

Easy there buddy. You seem to make an argument that the converts to the early church automatically believe that the Godhead is three separate persons. This is unfounded. Consider more closely the faith traditions they were coming from. Also, consider more closely what Joseph taught about God before the 1838 FV account. The previous accounts may have been more harmonious with the theology of the earliest Saints.

What the LDS accept today as official doctrine on the nature of the Godhead may not have been what was taught in the first decade of the church's existence. There is no need to project today's doctrine and theology onto the early Saints.

[Damien the Leper]

No, dear cobalt is not correct nor will he ever be correct in this opinion. This is the sweet little stupidity that some share, but in the sharing makes it no more correct than when it was first proposed.

If there was any confusion it was the same quality of confusion that we find in the Church today on specific doctrines; it is the same confusion that we find in any church when members are not learned in all things. Poppycock. He has been attempting to forcefeed anyone who will listen to his opinions and I just don't buy what he is peddling.

That's neat and all...but you cannot discount the theology of the early Saints and the transitions that have been forcefed through church history to the point we're at now.

[mfbukowski]

Easy there buddy. You seem to make an argument that the converts to the early church automatically believe that the Godhead is three separate persons. This is unfounded. Consider more closely the faith traditions they were coming from. Also, consider more closely what Joseph taught about God before the 1838 FV account. The previous accounts may have been more harmonious with the theology of the earliest Saints.

What the LDS accept today as official doctrine on the nature of the Godhead may not have been what was taught in the first decade of the church's existence. There is no need to project today's doctrine and theology onto the early Saints.

Exactly WHAT they believed is irrelevant to today, and I would argue that you have shown no evidence for what you think they thought.

All Christian denominations believe that God is in some way "three persons"- I was taught that myself as a Catholic. I remember the words of a hymn I was taught which ends "God in three persons, blessed Trinity".

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις):^[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial (Greek: ὁμοούσιοι). Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being (Greek: οὐσία).^[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Joseph never believed in the idea of "substance" or "being" and it is not taught in the Book of Mormon.

Of course converts originally are taught in different faith traditions- that is why they are called "converts"

They CHANGE their faith tradition when they join the church. That is because they no longer believe what they were originally taught.

The difference between the LDS notion of the Godhead and traditional Christianity is not that there are "three persons" but how it is possible for them to be "One God" in three persons.

I am not arguing that the concept of the Godhead has not changed- I am simply arguing that the early Saints were "Trinitarians" because they came from Trinitarian faith traditions.

That doesn't follow at all, and you haven't shown any evidence for it.

Edited February 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

Exactly WHAT they believed is irrelevant to today, and I would argue that you have shown no evidence for what you think they thought.

All Christian denominations believe that God is in some way "three persons"- I was taught that myself as a Catholic. I remember the words of a hymn I was taught which ends "God in three persons, blessed Trinity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Joseph never believed in the idea of "substance" or "being" and it is not taught in the Book of Mormon.

Of course converts originally are taught in different faith traditions- that is why they are called "converts"

They CHANGE their faith tradition when they join the church. That is because they no longer believe what they were originally taught.

The difference between the LDS notion of the Godhead and traditional Christianity is not that there are "three persons" but how it is possible for them to be "One God" in three persons.

I am not arguing that the concept of the Godhead has not changed- I am simply arguing that the early Saints were "Trinitarians" because they came from Trinitarian faith traditions.

That doesn't follow at all, and you haven't shown any evidence for it.

Once again, slow your roll and ease up a little on the hostility.

The evidence that I speak of is the same as you. However, I see little evidence in the earliest years that the Saints were changing their views on the specifics of the Godhead. That does not mean that they weren't.

If you could, please provide a reference on what the Saints of the first 5-6 years of the church believed about God. I only know of what, as Cobalt provided, is taught in the 1835 D&C.

I will agree with you that WHAT they believed is irrelevant to today because they were a different church that is an ancestor to the modern restoration churches in existence.

[mfbukowski]

Once again, slow your roll and ease up a little on the hostility.

The evidence that I speak of is the same as you. However, I see little evidence in the earliest years that the Saints were changing their views on the specifics of the Godhead. That does not mean that they weren't.

If you could, please provide a reference on what the Saints of the first 5-6 years of the church believed about God. I only know of what, as Cobalt provided, is taught in the 1835 D&C.

I will agree with you that WHAT they believed is irrelevant to today because they were a different church that is an ancestor to the modern restoration churches in existence.

1- There was no hostility whatsoever in my post.

2- I have no idea what they believed, as I have said several times, and I have said it is irrelevant. It is you who seem to know what they believed. I am only challenging your mind-reading abilities.

3- You cannot believe in a "Trinity" unless you have some conceptual mechanism for making 3 persons into one "God". I see no evidence EVER for any such conceptual mechanism in the LDS church. From this I conclude that such beliefs never existed because once such beliefs are formed, they do not die easily.

Edited February 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

1- There was no hostility whatsoever in my post.

2- I have no idea what they believed, as I have said several times, and I have said it is irrelevant. It is you who seem to know what they believed. I am only challenging your mind-reading abilities.

I'm basing what I think they believed within the context of the religious experience at the time.

Once again, I agree that what the early Saints believed as members of their church is irrelevant to what members of the LDS church members and their beliefs.

[Pahoran]

Most Mormons consider the "the Restoration" to have begun with Joseph Smith's first vision, about a decade before the organization of the Church of Christ. So "the Restoration" is broader than the church.

Yes Cobalt, but you are equivocating. Most Latter-day Saints talk about the Restoration as a process that took place in a particular historical setting. That process began with the First Vision and included such landmark events as the (actual) angel Moroni delivering the (actual) Gold Plates to Joseph, the (actual) translation of the (authentically ancient) Book of Mormon, the restoration of the (actual) Priesthood by (actual) heavenly messengers, and the organisation of the (exactly one) Church. I was not addressing that; I was responding to Valentinus' use of "the Restoration" as something equivalent to "the movement Joseph Smith founded," which, while falling well outside normative LDS usage, is (by a curious coincidence) just the way the Reorganites have always used it.

Pretend I'm a Trinitarian for a moment:

Unlike breaking up, that's not very hard to do.

I'm not trying to exclude anyone who wants to be Christian. But you need to understand that you become part of the faith by believing in the Trinity, not by trying to make over our beliefs to match your fuzzy brand of polytheism.

Good point, but do you know where your analogy fails?

It fails because Latter-day Saints don't pretend to be creedal trinitarians. We claim to be pre-creedal Christians.

As of 1838, the official church theology was that taught in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which says that the Father and the Son were two "personages," and that the Holy Spirit was not a "personage," but was the shared mind of the Father and the Son. (Lec. 5:2j-k). I think most Mormons would have interpreted that as trinitarianism, but technically it is probably either modalism or binitarianism. It is close enough to trinitarianism, however, that most Mormons probably did not change their long-held belief in the Trinity, which they brought with them from the Christian faiths they were raised in.

There you go tossing around labels as if you know what they mean. "Modalism" is the notion that the one God has different "modes" of manifesting Himself to mortals; like the masks an actor would wear when playing different roles, sometimes God would adopt the "mode" of Father, sometimes of Son and sometimes of Holy Ghost. The teaching that the Father and the Son are separate personages, whatever else it might be, is absolutely not "modalism."

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

There you go tossing around labels as if you know what they mean. "Modalism" is the notion that the one God has different "modes" of manifesting Himself to mortals; like the masks an actor would wear when playing different roles, sometimes God would adopt the "mode" of Father, sometimes of Son and sometimes of Holy Ghost. The teaching that the Father and the Son are separate personages, whatever else it might be, is absolutely not "modalism."

I know what modalism is, and I have spoken about it on this board several times. The most likely interpretation of the 1835 D&C is binitarianism, but modalism is possible. It depends on whether you equate "personage" with "person" or with a "character," which is another definition of the term "personage." The 1835 D&C said that the Father and the Son shared the same mind, which is more modal than trinitarianism. They are united not just in essence, but in mind, which could imply that they are the same person in the form of two different "personages."

A trinitarian interpretation of the 1835 D&C is also possible, and I think it's likely that many Mormons made that interpretation. Such an interpretation would be possible if, despite the now-defunct scripture's statement that the Holy Spirit was not a "personage," that he was still considered a "person."

Prior to the 1835 D&C, there is nothing within Mormonism to suggest that God was not either a Trinity or (as the Book of Mormon portrays) a modal unity. But the Book of Mormon's modalism was probably lost on the majority of trinitarian Mormons, who were not, after all, theologians. 1830's Mormon theology has been described as a "layman's trinitarianism."

Edited February 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

As of 1838, the official church theology was that taught in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which says that the Father and the Son were two "personages," and that the Holy Spirit was not a "personage," but was the shared mind of the Father and the Son. (Lec. 5:2j-k). I think most Mormons would have interpreted that as trinitarianism, but technically it is probably either modalism or binitarianism. It is close enough to trinitarianism, however, that most Mormons probably did not change their long-held belief in the Trinity, which they brought with them from the Christian faiths they were raised in.

Interesting. It also sounds exactly like the Godhead we believe in today. If someone said that in Church today I would see no problem with it. You seem to do a lot of creating outside the box; I know you are not alone, but that still doe snot make it right.

Do you think a convert today carries only orthdox doctrine into the baptismal font? Or, to you think they continue to learn things as they grow in the gospel? Very strange premise on which you operate it seems.

[Pahoran]

I know what modalism is, and I have spoken about it on this board several times. The most likely interpretation of the 1835 D&C is binitarianism, but modalism is possible. It depends on whether you equate "personage" with "person" or with a "character," which is another definition of the term "personage."

As a matter of fact, the word "person" in the conventional Christian creeds, is a translation of a Greek word that means "character," in the sense of a role an actor plays. Modalism is an outgrowth of classical creedal trinitarianism in much the same way as Mormonism is not an outgrowth of Methodism or Campbellism.

However, the English word "character" has a semantic range of which "role" is only a small part. The primary meaning of "character" in Joseph's day dealt with a person's reputation for moral behaviour.

OTOH, the early adoption of the word "personage" represented an attempt by Joseph to emphasise the distinct reality of each of his heavenly visitors as an individual in His own right.

The 1835 D&C said that the Father and the Son shared the same mind, which is more modal than trinitarianism. They are united not just in essence, but in mind, which could imply that they are the same person in the form of two different "personages."

I can only assume you are quite unaware of how that concept appears in LDS scripture. Here's one that many LDS teenagers can recite by heart:

Moses 7:

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Wow, all those people in Enoch's Zion had the same mind. What were they? Some sort of uber-modalist multiplinity?

A trinitarian interpretation of the 1835 D&C is also possible, and I think it's likely that many Mormons made that interpretation. Such an interpretation would be possible if, despite the now-defunct scripture's

Pardon me for interrupting your revisionist pamphlet, but the LoF were never "scripture." They were bound in with the D&C in much the same way as various non-canonical introductions, appendices and study aids are bound in with modern editions. Only the revelations were scripture in the normative LDS sense.

statement that the Holy Spirit was not a "personage," that he was still considered a "person."

Whatever.

Prior to the 1835 D&C, there is nothing within Mormonism to suggest that God was not either a Trinity or (as the Book of Mormon portrays) a modal unity.

We have been through this. The Book of Mormon "portrays" no such thing. In fact, it "portrays" Jesus, after His resurrection, praying to His Father, who is clearly not Jesus Himself, and is, in fact, not immediately present, even though Jesus quite uncompromisingly is.

I grant you that the Book of Mormon contains conventional expressions emphasising unity among the members of the Godhead. But what it "potrays" is something quite different.

But the Book of Mormon's modalism was probably lost on the majority of trinitarian Mormons, who were not, after all, theologians.

More importantly, nor were they anti-Mormons, nor yet revisionist fringe Mormons over-impressed with their own cleverness. The notion of Book of Mormon "modalism" escaped its earliest readers for the very good and sufficient reason that they weren't determined to find it.

Because it is only available to fairly aggressive eisegesis.

1830's Mormon theology has been described as a "layman's trinitarianism."

I'll go you one better: it was actually "pre-creedal trinitarianism." Just as it is today.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I would say that the crosses these shields are depicted more overtly than the average heraldry cross, since the corners are rounded. What do you think?

Sorry it took so long, been bedbound more or less this past week and didn't want to have to climb over the back of the sofa to get to my books (too many bookcases, too little room)...then I remembered tonight, the books I wanted were at the end of the sofa, no climbing required. I think I would agree with you that the focus is on the cross.

The mitering in the center of the cross brings one's eye to the center quite naturally. This does not appear to be a common choice to avoid the right angles, I was rather surprised because not only do I like the effect and think it catches the eye, it reminds me of what were likely the construction of the first crosses, out of wood, wrapped in the center with leather, twine or something along those lines. I think the choice of the curved sides is very unusual. I didn't find that in my heraldry books at all for a cross that was used as the divider into fields or quarters instead of decoration (where the ends of the cross did not come to the edge of the shield or smaller crosses were placed within the fields, not defining the borders of them.) It could hardly have been very easy to do so it seems an intentional artistic choice, making a dynamic line that again draws one's eye along the length of the cross to the center. It appears that the colouring choices above the horizontal crosspiece are darker than the ones below, adding depth and attention upward while the lighter colour of the cross makes it stand out with the white areas around the shield frame the shield though the top part blends into an ornate crown effect. I would say the ends of the crosses are shaped that way due to the shape of the shield which is common when crosses extend to the edge of shields.

I would say the significance of the design is primarily to draw one's eye to the center as you have both the obvious X in the center plus the curves of the side of the cross and the colours of the fields make the fields almost form 4 arrows/triangles pointing into the center. The surround both sets it off with the white areas and then blends it into what appears to me to be grapevines, the product of which is a symbol of Christ's blood as well signifying the harvest like the rest of the design. And then you have the alpha and omega symbols too.

So I would say the shield is there primarily to display the cross artistically speaking and bring to mind what it means....but I am no expert on either art or heraldry (though my mom who is an artist says I have an eye for it even if my hand belongs to a klutz). The center of the cross seems to be the focal point, where Christ would be placed if it was a crucifix...I would be surprised if this was not intentional. I think it would have been easier to cut right angles for a full cross or one long piece with two shorter arms than get four mitered pieces to fit so nicely in the center....but that is based on mitering wood and tile, not glass so I may be wrong. It may have been too difficult to do the curved sides AND approximate right angles.

Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Came across this for those interested in stained glass:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/01/stained-glass-windows-a-latter-day-saint-legacy?lang=eng

[Calm]

Found some little crosses here in another window of the Liberty ward: http://ldsarchitecture.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dsc_0482_adj.jpg

[Mike Reed]

Found some little crosses here in another window of the Liberty ward: http://ldsarchitectu...sc_0482_adj.jpg

Thanks for your analysis, Cal. And good eye catching those smaller crosses. Be careful... if you keep looking so closely, you may end up turning cross-eyed. Hope you are felling better soon.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Sorry it took so long, been bedbound more or less this past week and didn't want to have to climb over the back of the sofa to get to my books (too many bookcases, too little room)...then I remembered tonight, the books I wanted were at the end of the sofa, no climbing required. I think I would agree with you that the focus is on the cross.

The mitering in the center of the cross brings one's eye to the center quite naturally. This does not appear to be a common choice to avoid the right angles, I was rather surprised because not only do I like the effect and think it catches the eye, it reminds me of what were likely the construction of the first crosses, out of wood, wrapped in the center with leather, twine or something along those lines. I think the choice of the curved sides is very unusual. I didn't find that in my heraldry books at all for a cross that was used as the divider into fields or quarters instead of decoration (where the ends of the cross did not come to the edge of the shield or smaller crosses were placed within the fields, not defining the borders of them.) It could hardly have been very easy to do so it seems an intentional artistic choice, making a dynamic line that again draws one's eye along the length of the cross to the center. It appears that the colouring choices above the horizontal crosspiece are darker than the ones below, adding depth and attention upward while the lighter colour of the cross makes it stand out with the white areas around the shield frame the shield though the top part blends into an ornate crown effect. I would say the ends of the crosses are shaped that way due to the shape of the shield which is common when crosses extend to the edge of shields.

I would say the significance of the design is primarily to draw one's eye to the center as you have both the obvious X in the center plus the curves of the side of the cross and the colours of the fields make the fields almost form 4 arrows/triangles pointing into the center. The surround both sets it off with the white areas and then blends it into what appears to me to be grapevines, the product of which is a symbol of Christ's blood as well signifying the harvest like the rest of the design. And then you have the alpha and omega symbols too.

So I would say the shield is there primarily to display the cross artistically speaking and bring to mind what it means....but I am no expert on either art or heraldry (though my mom who is an artist says I have an eye for it even if my hand belongs to a klutz). The center of the cross seems to be the focal point, where Christ would be placed if it was a crucifix...I would be surprised if this was not intentional. I think it would have been easier to cut right angles for a full cross or one long piece with two shorter arms than get four mitered pieces to fit so nicely in the center....but that is based on mitering wood and tile, not glass so I may be wrong. It may have been too difficult to do the curved sides AND approximate right angles.

Your mom is right! You sound like an art historian!

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting. It also sounds exactly like the Godhead we believe in today. If someone said that in Church today I would see no problem with it. You seem to do a lot of creating outside the box; I know you are not alone, but that still doe snot make it right.

Do you think a convert today carries only orthdox doctrine into the baptismal font? Or, to you think they continue to learn things as they grow in the gospel? Very strange premise on which you operate it seems.

Modern LDS theology regards the Holy Spirit as a distinct person, and therefore he's not the shared mind of the Father and the Son. He has his own mind, as does the Father and the Son. Also, contrary to the 1835 D&C, the Father has a body, and there are three, not two, personages of the Godhead.

[Cobalt-70]

As a matter of fact, the word "person" in the conventional Christian creeds, is a translation of a Greek word that means "character," in the sense of a role an actor plays. Modalism is an outgrowth of classical creedal trinitarianism in much the same way as Mormonism is not an outgrowth of Methodism or Campbellism.

Personam means the same as person in English. But that's just the Latin word which refers to the Greek concept of hypostasis, which is definitely not merely a "character." Rather, it means something like "individual existence."

Pardon me for interrupting your revisionist pamphlet, but the LoF were never "scripture." They were bound in with the D&C in much the same way as various non-canonical introductions, appendices and study aids are bound in with modern editions. Only the revelations were scripture in the normative LDS sense.

Your history is wrong. They were the "doctrine" part of the "Doctrine and Covenants," and were sustained by the church body as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith." It was only in the 20th century that Mormons began for the first time inventing reasons why it was supposedly never part of the canon. But the history is what it is. But so what? Our canon has undergone lots of changes. Big deal.

We have been through this. The Book of Mormon "portrays" no such thing. In fact, it "portrays" Jesus, after His resurrection, praying to His Father, who is clearly not Jesus Himself, and is, in fact, not immediately present, even though Jesus quite uncompromisingly is.

Again, from the perspective of a spirit/flesh modalist, his body is present, but his "spirit" (the Father) is absent, or at least not in view of the Nephites. this is quite different from the situation of Mahonri Moriancumr in Ether 3, who witnessed both the spirit of God and the image of his future flesh. He saw them both in one, and in that case, God speaks of himself interchangeably as both the Father and the Son.

[altersteve]

Modern LDS theology regards the Holy Spirit as a distinct person, and therefore he's not the shared mind of the Father and the Son. He has his own mind, as does the Father and the Son. Also, contrary to the 1835 D&C, the Father has a body, and there are three, not two, personages of the Godhead.

LDS doctrine is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost do have a "shared mind," meaning that they are perfectly agreed in all things. There is no contradiction.

[Cobalt-70]

LDS doctrine is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost do have a "shared mind," meaning that they are perfectly agreed in all things. There is no contradiction.

That's not what the original D&C said. It said that the Father and the Son shared their mind, and that this mind was the Holy Spirit, who was not a personage. The Holy Spirit did not share his mind with the father and son, he was that mind.

[mfbukowski]

One of the things we do a lot in church is pick up chairs and tables. I have done it in many wards in many places and it is always the same.

Have you noticed how effortlessly people switch between tasks- one guy flops over the table and collapses one leg while the other guy collapses the other and then they grab the ends and put the table on the cart? Then the other guy goes and grabs some chairs and takes them to the guy hanging them on the chair cart, walks back and now, with a smaller table collapses and carries it to the cart himself.

Everyone is busy, no one tells anyone what to do and the job gets done. THAT is being "one in purpose" and "one in mind".

You don't have to have some mysterious cosmic mental connection to pull that off.