Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New Symbol to Identify the Church


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Scott, what movie was that?

Unfortunately I guess I'm a little behind the times.

The problem might be that you’re not old timer enough rather than the opposite. The term is inspired by a couple of 1940s film adaptations of an earlier stage play. This is from Wikipedia:

“The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in the 1938 stage play Gas Light,[4]and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944.[5] In the story, the husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusionalwhen she points out these changes. The play's title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions. He further uses the lights in the sealed-off attic to secretly search for jewels belonging to a woman whom he has murdered. He makes loud noises as he searches, including talking to himself. The wife repeatedly asks her husband to confirm her perceptions about the dimming lights, noises and voices, but in defiance of reality, he keeps insisting that the lights are the same and instead it is she who is going insane.[6]:8 He intends on having her assessed and committed to a mental institution, after which he will be able to gain power of attorney over her and search more effectively.[citation needed]

“The term ‘gaslighting’ has been used colloquially since the 1960s[7] to describe efforts to manipulate someone's perception of reality. The term has been used to describe such behaviour in psychoanalytic literature since the 1970s.[8] In a 1980 book on child sexual abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor's Gaslight (1944) based on the play and wrote, ‘even today the word [gaslighting] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another's perception of reality.’”[9]

Link to comment
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

That is how symbols become symbols.  Newsflash: Symbols are not literal.

He has been portrayed as a member of any race you can think of, including the usual LDS blue-eyed Christ.

The worship of Jesus Christ puts us above racist and false symbolism.  We feel his teachings in the Word of God, not in the worship of Odin or Zeus.  The false worship of symbols is called out in the Ten Commandments.  Now we're urged by some saints to worship the image of Asherah.  Images defeat the true worship of God.

I recall driving around Mexico City in cabs.  Every time the cabdriver would see an image of Mary or Jesus, he'd cross himself.  It is the natural inclination of man to translate seeing the Christus into an emotional feeling that he is seeing God.  The worship of God is in the heart, not in your symbols.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The worship of Jesus Christ puts us above racist and false symbolism.  We feel his teachings in the Word of God, not in the worship of Odin or Zeus.  The false worship of symbols is called out in the Ten Commandments.  Now we're urged by some saints to worship the image of Asherah.  Images defeat the true worship of God.

I recall driving around Mexico City in cabs.  Every time the cabdriver would see an image of Mary or Jesus, he'd cross himself.  It is the natural inclination of man to translate seeing the Christus into an emotional feeling that he is seeing God.  The worship of God is in the heart, not in your symbols.

Are words and letters symbols?

Are letters true or false?

Are words (not sentences) true or false?

I've spent my life studying the philosophy of language and I think you are wrong.  Please show me something that justifies your position philosophically.

It is the natural inclination of man to translate seeing the name of "Jesus" into an emotional feeling that he is speaking of the emotion God brings us

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you recognize the difference between using a symbol and worshiping it?

Yes, this is the key.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Are words and letters symbols?

Are letters true or false?

Are words (not sentences) true or false?

I've spent my life studying the philosophy of language and I think you are wrong.  Please show me something that justifies your position philosophically.

It is the natural inclination of man to translate seeing the name of "Jesus" into an emotional feeling that he is speaking of the emotion God brings us

The scriptures authorize the use of written language to communicate the word.  Hebrew, Greek and English are not pictographic. No Romance language is.  The rare pictographic languages, like Mayan, are not rooted in Christianity and don't have a pictogram for Jesus.  But you know that, being the intense student?

The scriptures nowhere authorize the use of an image in the worship of deity and instead condemn it.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The scriptures nowhere authorize the use of an image in the worship of deity and instead condemn it.  

Yep.

That shows the correctness of what was asserted above.

 You see no difference between interpreting a symbol and worshiping it.

Nobody is worshipping the Christus.

It's essentially a logo for Pete's sake.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

That shows the correctness of what was asserted above.

 You see no difference between interpreting a symbol and worshiping it.

Nobody is worshipping the Christus.

It's essentially a logo for Pete's sake.  

Who is Pete?  My name is Bob.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Who is Pete?  My name is Bob.

 

Cute but obviously no answer.  

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Reviving a semi-moribund thread, because I just remembered a question that has been bugging me for over thirty years, but it is actually unimportant I suppose.

I lived in SLC for pretty much the calendar year 1981, right after I converted and I have a memory concerning the Christus in the visitors center on temple square. 

I am absolutely positive that during that time, the face was altered in the statue to make it more "smiley" and after a while it was changed back to the original.

I have tried to find pictures of the change, and I am absolutely certain (as opposed to being actually "right" ;)) that these changes occurred 

Am I totally crazy?

Does anyone else remember this ??   Are there any pictures that might show these changes??

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Reviving a semi-moribund thread, because I just remembered a question that has been bugging me for over thirty years, but it is actually unimportant I suppose.

I lived in SLC for pretty much the calendar year 1981, right after I converted and I have a memory concerning the Christus in the visitors center on temple square. 

I am absolutely positive that during that time, the face was altered in the statue to make it more "smiley" and after a while it was changed back to the original.

I have tried to find pictures of the change, and I am absolutely certain (as opposed to being actually "right" ;)) that these changes occurred 

Am I totally crazy?

Does anyone else remember this ??   Are there any pictures that might show these changes??

 

My memory is just as bad, but I recall the difference in expression had something to do with the angle at which it was viewed. PS it may have been the painting in the Washington DC temple also... frowning on those standing on the  "left" and smiling at those on the right".

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Reviving a semi-moribund thread, because I just remembered a question that has been bugging me for over thirty years, but it is actually unimportant I suppose.

I lived in SLC for pretty much the calendar year 1981, right after I converted and I have a memory concerning the Christus in the visitors center on temple square. 

I am absolutely positive that during that time, the face was altered in the statue to make it more "smiley" and after a while it was changed back to the original.

I have tried to find pictures of the change, and I am absolutely certain (as opposed to being actually "right" ;)) that these changes occurred 

Am I totally crazy?

Does anyone else remember this ??   Are there any pictures that might show these changes??

 

There are many copies of Thorvaldsen’s Christus statue in the Church, mainly in visitor centers. Some do differ slightly from others, and yes, the facial expression is a point of difference. 
 

You might have a memory of seeing more than one of these copies in separate locations and conflating in your memory your viewing of these separate statues with your recollection of the one on Temple Square. Memory is a funny thing. It can fool us even when we are positive in our recollection of something. 
 

To my knowledge, the face of the sculpture on Temple Square has not been altered, be it since 1981 or at any time. There was, however, an incident many years ago in which a deranged vandal broke off the hands of the statue in the North Visitors Center on Temple Square. The statue was promptly repaired thereafter. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some do differ slightly from others, and yes, the facial expression is a point of difference. 

 

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My memory is just as bad, but I recall the difference in expression had something to do with the angle at which it was viewed.

Hmmm.  Maybe I am not totally mad after all....  🤪

But I am really sure of the location and the expression.  I was horrified.  I even went home to get my camera, and went back to take a picture of it, but of course one thing led to another and I did not get back for a while- maybe a week?  When I got back, it was back to normal.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 4/10/2020 at 2:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

And so, you have it here again, "substance" which can mean anything and nothing vs "function" which is perfectly definable, linked to teleology, and may I add the core of Pragmatic philosophy, and why the "Trinity" makes no sense to me.

Quote from the site you quoted above:

"The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). "

No "substance" indeed, thank God!! ;)

Our Godhead is not one in substance, but in function, purpose, and love.

"God is love" makes perfect sense.

The unity of the three persons is one of purpose and love, that unity makes them One God, and  so yes, "God" IS love!

"God is substance"?

Show me that one in the scriptures.! :)

That trumps the Nicene Creed "consubstantiality "any day.

And that goes just as well for Protestants as Catholics, and any group who defines the Trinity through substance.

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

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

People did fight wars over this stuff.  Doubt we'd see that here stateside but considering how petty people are getting, esp. the fights on social media which at times make bitter spiteful enemies out of former friends for the dumbest of reasons, well....

At least the likes of me get to sit back and watch the fun.  The logo is pretty though, i'll give the LDS Church that.  I'll miss Moroni and his iconic trumpet. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, poptart said:

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

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

People did fight wars over this stuff.  Doubt we'd see that here stateside but considering how petty people are getting, esp. the fights on social media which at times make bitter spiteful enemies out of former friends for the dumbest of reasons, well....

At least the likes of me get to sit back and watch the fun.  The logo is pretty though, i'll give the LDS Church that.  I'll miss Moroni and his iconic trumpet. 

Yes I know those articles, but thanks.

The reason the issue is important is that the notion of "transcendence" is logically contradictory.  If anything was truly "transcendent", we could not fit it in our little minds and so any definition of God which includes ideas like that are useless to humans with human minds.

Moroni is not going anywhere, the Christus will just become more of a Church logo.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I know those articles, but thanks.

The reason the issue is important is that the notion of "transcendence" is logically contradictory.  If anything was truly "transcendent", we could not fit it in our little minds and so any definition of God which includes ideas like that are useless to humans with human minds.

Moroni is not going anywhere, the Christus will just become more of a Church logo.

 

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I know those articles, but thanks.

The reason the issue is important is that the notion of "transcendence" is logically contradictory.  If anything was truly "transcendent", we could not fit it in our little minds and so any definition of God which includes ideas like that are useless to humans with human minds.

Moroni is not going anywhere, the Christus will just become more of a Church logo.

Lol religion can and often is totally illogical hence why so many opt with feelings of knowing or as you would hear from some clergy, supernatural reasoning.  Not trying to argue one point or the other, i'm just going off history and the poltics/money involved past and present.  That's what I care about, still you do have a point.  That being said, i'd go with the doctorine of trinity because yeah, most people cannot comprehend such things  Supposedly, through some practices one can gain something of it, most are not willing to undergo such training  aragyo is extreme, I know one guy who's done it twice, maybe more.  This is from my own perspective which you now know a bit about, I don't go for the gods/God making things easy for people, if you want it work for it, suffering included if need be.  Then again, i'm not a Latter Day Saint, I have no reference point to go off of when it comes to doctorinal differences of deity.  That and well, mixing non Christian concepts with Christian ones tends not to work too well.  I have a funny feeling that me just using factual things and treating the bible/holy texts as historical allegory isn't the same thing you do.  I do forget that not everyone does that.

Whew, i'd miss Moroni, that's always a nice feature whenever I see LDS temples here, would be sad if he went away.

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Hmmm.  Maybe I am not totally mad after all....  🤪

But I am really sure of the location and the expression.  I was horrified.  I even went home to get my camera, and went back to take a picture of it, but of course one thing led to another and I did not get back for a while- maybe a week?  When I got back, it was back to normal.

It sounds like someone was “gaslighting” you (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). 😆 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Hmmm.  Maybe I am not totally mad after all....  🤪

But I am really sure of the location and the expression.  I was horrified.  I even went home to get my camera, and went back to take a picture of it, but of course one thing led to another and I did not get back for a while- maybe a week?  When I got back, it was back to normal.

It sounds like someone was “gaslighting” you (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). 😆 

When you went back the last time, did you bring your camera with you?  So you could compare the image in the camera with what you could see standing in front of the Christus?  Maybe the angle of the sun can cause a certain shadowing effect to create the impression of a smile or a frown?  If not the sun, then maybe a light bulb in the atrium had burned out and was replaced a couple days later?

Or were you just wonked out on psychedelic mushrooms?  :P

Link to comment
2 hours ago, longview said:

When you went back the last time, did you bring your camera with you?  So you could compare the image in the camera with what you could see standing in front of the Christus?  Maybe the angle of the sun can cause a certain shadowing effect to create the impression of a smile or a frown?  If not the sun, then maybe a light bulb in the atrium had burned out and was replaced a couple days later?

Or were you just wonked out on psychedelic mushrooms?  :P

Unfortunately, no.  ;)

I think even the mushrooms in Utah obey the word of wisdom.  I think it must be in the soil or something and every bite you take comes pre-sprayed with false doctrine for you.  :diablo:

Ever heard "You are what you eat"?  That "You" is actually a U.   And the R is for revisionism.

Put it all together and you get "Utah Revisionism is what you eat"

Few people know that.  :ph34r:

Nothing wacko about me, no sir!!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

error

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It sounds like someone was “gaslighting” you (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). 😆 

It had to have been that newspaper there, what do they call that again? :crazy:  Man, those people that write that stuff.... 8P

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...