New Symbol to Identify the Church

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus obviously looks like this, right?

Which prophet was it who identified this as the most true image of Jesus? I can't recall.

Depends which branch of our folklore you consider to be canon.

[The Nehor]

On 4/6/2020 at 3:49 PM, JAHS said:

According to some he looked like this:

 

While I have respect for the process used to create that image it has a lot of guesswork involved. It is mostly based on 1st century Palestinian skulls but the musculature and soft tissue involves a LOT of guesswork.

Holding it up as the "most likely" image is problematic.

[smac97]

On 4/6/2020 at 11:18 AM, Bob Crockett said:

Artwork used to depict the message of the New Testament in beautiful and meaningful -- Jesus and the rich man; the calling of Peter.  The Marriage at Canaan.

How is Thorvaldsen's sculpture not "artwork used to depict the message of the New Testament?"

On 4/6/2020 at 11:18 AM, Bob Crockett said:

Artwork used to depict deity alone runs directly afoul of the Ten Commandments.  Christ in the red robe.  Thorvaldsen's.  Fairbanks'.

I don't think that's correct.  I think the relevant scriptural context is not whether an artistic depiction is of "deity alone," but the intended purpose of the image, and consequent behavior in relation to the image.

I think this bit is helpful (emphasis added) :

Quote

When reading the scriptures, it is necesssary to include the complete thought in order to understand what the Lord is communicating. That may take at least a complete sentence, or sometimes as much as a paragraph. It is also important to understand that sentence composition and structure in biblical times among Bible people did not follow the modern English idiom. So a true understanding of the scriptures is sometimes really difficult. In the last analysis, God’s word in the holy scriptures can only be understood by the spirit of inspiration and revelation that proceeds from God to man. Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 2:9-11 that

9 as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

(A more correct rendition of this scriptural phrase would be but by the Spirit of God). So Paul tells us that the scriptures are not subject to man’s reasoning, but can only be understood by the Spirit of God. With that preamble, let’s look at the scripture to which you refer, found in Deuteronomy 5:7-9,

7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

The context here relates to the representation AND the function for which the graven images are made and used. There is no doubt that it is no sin to have a picture of a loved one in your wallet. In that act there is no concept of bowing down, or worshipping the image rather than God. As an extension of that concept, other pictures, paintings or sculptures that are used to bring to mind either scenes, noted characters, or even angels, as long as there is involved no concept of substituting these representations for Deity and worshiping them rather than the true God, are not offensive to God, and indeed are not prohibited by the intent of Holy Writ.

And this (emphasis added) :

Quote

It is claimed that the Church violates the Biblical command against "graven images" because it displays sculptures of Christ, statues of the angel Moroni on the spires of our temples, or paintings showing scriptural scenes, within temples, chapels, visitors' centers, and publications. (See Exodus 20:3-4.)

Since

1. God is the revelator of the verses in question, and
2. God is God, and
3. Moses was there and heard firsthand,

one should side with God and Moses and say that Exodus 20:3 does not mean that one cannot have pictures, statues, or images of earthly or heavenly things in one's home or in church.

Instead one should stick with the unambiguous interpretation of this principle that is given in Exodus 34:17, "Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." We are commanded not to worship images, or anything else besides God, and members of the Church do not.

And this (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

The prohibition in Exodus 20: (see also Deuteronomy 5:) is not the production of graven images per se but the bowing down and serving of such images. We should remember that God later commanded the construction of the seraphim and cherubim for the ark (Exodus 25:17-22, Exodus 37:8-9) and temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:23-35, 1 Kings 8:6-7), and the veneration given to the Ark of the Covenant, as well as the brass serpent (Numbers 21:6-9).

In similar fashion, Latter-day Saints do not bow down and serve/worship images of Moroni and images of past and present leaders.

One of the facts that must be reconciled with any interpretation of Exodus 20:3-4 is that the Bible states that God explicitly commanded that the Israelites make images and include them in their holiest places of worship. The text explicitly says that these images were revealed to Moses while he was on the mount (Exodus 25:40 and Exodus 26:30), meaning that they were given at the same time as the Ten Commandments and are part of the environment in which Exodus 20 must be interpreted.

For example:

• Exodus 25:18-20: God commands that gold Cherubim be made to cover the mercy seat in the tabernacle. (Exodus 37:7-9 says that Moses made the image.)
• Exodus 25:33: God commands that the tabernacle bowls be almond-shaped with flowers. (Exodus 37:19 says that Moses made the image.)
• Exodus 26:1: God commands that Cherubim be fashioned on the Tabernacle curtains. (Exodus 36:8 says that Moses made the image.)
• Exodus 26:31: God commands that Cherubim be on the vail of the temple. (Exodus 36:35 says that Moses made the image.)
• Exodus 28:33: God commands that pomegranates be sewn onto the hem of the high priest's robe. (Exodus 39:24-26 says that Moses made the image.)

And finally:

And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the LORD had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them. (Exodus 39:43).

Furthermore, we have not even mentioned all the images that were used during the construction of Solomon's Temple, such as the oxen holding up the brass sea (see 1 Kings 7:25) or the lions, oxen, and cherubim on the base (see 1 Kings 7:29).

Those people who reject all images of things on earth or in heaven have an interpretation of Exodus 20:3-4 that doesn't agree with God's interpretation of those verses or with Moses' interpretation of those verses.

Thoughts?

On 4/6/2020 at 11:18 AM, Bob Crockett said:

I can see where this is going.  Bumper stickers, stickers for scriptures.  The image becomes deity.

No, I don't think it does.  The Church has used images of the Savior of all sorts for a very long time.  We haven't had a problem with these images "becom{ing} deity."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I re-listened to Pres. Nelson in the Sacred Grove to hone in on them. First, that the church needed to be restored since the keys were lost. Second, that JS was visited by the Saviour and God Almighty. Third that Joseph found the Gold plates and added to the Bible another testament of Jesus Christ. These alone are not mainstream. 

Claiming exclusive authority isn't mainstream?  Don't Catholics claim this as well as some other Christian groups?  The claim to have God's authority doesn't strike me as unique of a claim as say the idea that Mormons can become Gods and populate their own planets, which is a doctrine taught in the early church that in recent times we've seen a distancing away from.  I also see the church's move towards grace as being evidence of mainstreaming.  As well as a move away from emphasizing the literal nature of some early church ideas.  That said, the church wouldn't exist anymore if it completely lost all its uniqueness.  I'm speaking mostly about the direction things are going in recent years.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While I have respect for the process used to create that image it has a lot of guesswork involved. It is mostly based on 1st century Palestinian skulls but the musculature and soft tissue involves a LOT of guesswork.

Holding it up as the "most likely" image is problematic.

I would go further than that and say it’s ludicrous. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So are you just throwing these construction and regulatory ideas out as speculation about other possible factors?  Sure, they possibly could be influential factors, but do you have any evidence to support the speculation, or are these just musings at this point?   don't really have any evidence to support the speculation.  All we really can see is a clear trend away from Moroni on the future temples as a percentage of temples compared to the existing base of temples.  Why the move away from Moroni is anybody's guess, unless someone has inside information they can share. 

Poor Moroni....

 

I think the move away from Moroni is a fantasy of your own creation. 
 

And I don’t remember a Moroni icon being used very often as a logo on printed materials anyway. I thought the standard logo was the name of the Church in a distinctive typeface with the name Jesus Christ standing out in larger type. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I don’t remember a Moroni icon being used very often as a logo on printed materials anyway. I thought the standard logo was the name of the Church in a distinctive typeface with the name Jesus Christ standing out in larger type. 

No Moroni here:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Interesting little fact about past development:

https://fontsinuse.com/uses/4894/lds-church-logo-1974-1995

Hmm...

Quote

The image of the angel Moroni blowing a trumpet is commonly used as an unofficial symbol of the LDS Church. Moroni appears on the cover of some editions of the Book of Mormon. Statues of the angel stand atop many LDS temples, with most statues facing eastward.

In 2007, the LDS Church stated that an image of the angel Moroni in an advertisement violated one of the church's registered trademarks.[24]

They also show a picture of Moroni used to mark gravestones by the USVA, but it isn't the familiar variety.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

So a trademark, not logo?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/reference/trademark-guidelines?lang=eng&country=go

Maybe someone else can figure out how to look up trademarks.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 4/7/2020 at 6:48 AM, mfbukowski said:

And who is forcing you to stay?

What rational person would stay in a cesspool voluntarily?

A dunnikindiver?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Claiming exclusive authority isn't mainstream?  Don't Catholics claim this as well as some other Christian groups?  The claim to have God's authority doesn't strike me as unique of a claim as say the idea that Mormons can become Gods and populate their own planets, which is a doctrine taught in the early church that in recent times we've seen a distancing away from.  I also see the church's move towards grace as being evidence of mainstreaming.  As well as a move away from emphasizing the literal nature of some early church ideas.  That said, the church wouldn't exist anymore if it completely lost all its uniqueness.  I'm speaking mostly about the direction things are going in recent years.  

So which Christian church doesn't believe the things in the Bible are enough, just curious.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Tacenda

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

What's next?  Keychains?  Stickers for Primary children?  Images in chapels?   Images outside, on meetinghouses?   Bumper stickers?  Moroni going down from temples; Christus going up?  Christus cards for use in seminary?  Christus images in the stake president's office?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are not going to like the new Children and Youth Crystal.

Or the new Children and Youth Temple Recommend Holder which is now given to all youth when they turn twelve. 

Or any of the other images of Christ, not apparently related to any particular biblical story, that the Church has been selling for years (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here). 

I've got to be honest though - I genuinely don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between images of Christ as depicted in "a story from the New Testament" as opposed to "an image of deity that we should fall down and worship." I mean, when Del Parsons depicts Jesus carrying a sheep, that's just fine and dandy, but take away the sheep and - BOOM - graven image!?! 

Both contain the exact same image of Christ. Neither induce me to 'fall down and worship.' So why is one bad and not the other? Why is one 'false' and the other...true?

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No Moroni here:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Interesting little fact about past development:

https://fontsinuse.com/uses/4894/lds-church-logo-1974-1995

Hmm...

They also show a picture of Moroni used to mark gravestones by the USVA, but it isn't the familiar variety.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

So a trademark, not logo?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/reference/trademark-guidelines?lang=eng&country=go

Maybe someone else can figure out how to look up trademarks.

Here's an example of the Angel Moroni logo used by the US Veterans Administration (at least in 2015).

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

A dunnikindiver?

Maybe he should take that on as his new moniker. 

 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No Moroni here:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Interesting little fact about past development:

https://fontsinuse.com/uses/4894/lds-church-logo-1974-1995

Hmm...

They also show a picture of Moroni used to mark gravestones by the USVA, but it isn't the familiar variety.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

So a trademark, not logo?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/reference/trademark-guidelines?lang=eng&country=go

Maybe someone else can figure out how to look up trademarks.

A company's logo is a registered trademark. All of these logos are or were trademarked.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the move away from Moroni is a fantasy of your own creation. 
 

And I don’t remember a Moroni icon being used very often as a logo on printed materials anyway. I thought the standard logo was the name of the Church in a distinctive typeface with the name Jesus Christ standing out in larger type. 

As much as I would love to take credit for creating the new logo, alas I can't.  This had nothing to do with me.  

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So which church doesn't believe the things in the Bible are enough, just curious.

Not sure what you mean, I didn't say anything about the bible.  I was talking about God's authority.  I think Catholics call it priesthood, but some other groups might not conceive of it quite the same way, or to quite the same degree.  It might be softer forms of authority in other religious traditions though.  

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure what you mean, I didn't say anything about the bible.  I was talking about God's authority.  I think Catholics call it priesthood, but some other groups might not conceive of it quite the same way, or to quite the same degree.  It might be softer forms of authority in other religious traditions though.  

Does the Bible mention that Christendom needed to be restored? That's all I'm getting at. Sorry I don't can't articulate very well. Mainstream Christian faiths that I know of don't have a prophet that restored the keys of the PH. 

[JAHS]

I wonder if the logo on all the meetinghouses will be changed to the new one?

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

A company's logo is a registered trademark. All of these logos are or were trademarked.

But are trademarks logos?

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I re-listened to Pres. Nelson in the Sacred Grove to hone in on them. First, that the church needed to be restored since the keys were lost. Second, that JS was visited by the Saviour and God Almighty. Third that Joseph found the Gold plates and added to the Bible another testament of Jesus Christ. These alone are not mainstream. 

As a non-member and in the whatever it is worth department I was concerned when I read the proclamation. I agree with tacenda. It seems to me that the past proclamations of the church have had a unifying purpose. This one seems to be focused on highlighting the non-mainstream or non-orthodox positions of the church. I think this will be a negative to missionary work when it is read by non-LDS Christians. Perhaps differentiation was the intent, but that does not seem to be the intent of the church as late. Armand Mauss has noted in his writings, the lessening of the differentiation because of comfort of the church as being a stable and mainstream organization. As a non-LDS supporter of the church I was concerned when I read it.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Claiming exclusive authority isn't mainstream?  Don't Catholics claim this as well as some other Christian groups?  The claim to have God's authority doesn't strike me as unique of a claim as say the idea that Mormons can become Gods and populate their own planets, which is a doctrine taught in the early church that in recent times we've seen a distancing away from.  I also see the church's move towards grace as being evidence of mainstreaming.  As well as a move away from emphasizing the literal nature of some early church ideas.  That said, the church wouldn't exist anymore if it completely lost all its uniqueness.  I'm speaking mostly about the direction things are going in recent years.  

I am always intrigued by the idea that there are other churches that claim exclusive authority. Catholics are named, but never any other. The Catholic members of this forum seem very traditional in their outlook, not big fans of Vatican II. I am regularlyy conversant with our local priest here in the village and he certainly doesn't claim exclusive authority for the Catholic church, especially after the Catholic church started accepting Protestant baptisms, together with a kind of adult catechism for membership. I wonder if really the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the final bastion (of a decent-sized group) of exclusive authority in modern Christianity? The Catholic church at least as I know it in Mexico has really changed, sparking a backlash among its more conservative members.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Does the Bible mention that Christendom needed to be restored? That's all I'm getting at. Sorry I don't can't articulate very well. Mainstream Christian faiths that I know of don't have a prophet that restored the keys of the PH. 

The bible can say a lot of things when creatively interpreted.  It has been used as a proof text for all sorts of ideas over the years.  Fundamentalist Mormons read their own restoration movements into scriptures.  Humans are pretty creative creatures.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am always intrigued by the idea that there are other churches that claim exclusive authority. Catholics are named, but never any other. The Catholic members of this forum seem very traditional in their outlook, not big fans of Vatican II. I am regularlyy conversant with our local priest here in the village and he certainly doesn't claim exclusive authority for the Catholic church, especially after the Catholic church started accepting Protestant baptisms, together with a kind of adult catechism for membership. I wonder if really the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the final bastion (of a decent-sized group) of exclusive authority in modern Christianity? The Catholic church at least as I know it in Mexico has really changed, sparking a backlash among its more conservative members.

I think there are reasons within the protestant traditions that priesthood kind of authority isn't the emphasis of their exclusivity claims is because they came out of the Catholic tradition.  Protestants largely focus on the Bible as being the source of authority.  Makes sense to me, I'm surprised that you're intrigued by this dynamic as it seems logical.  

As for Catholics accepting baptisms from Protestants, I wasn't aware that was a thing.  Can you provide any references around that, is it an official directive for the whole church?   It does seem like the Catholic tradition has been softening their exclusivity claims over the years, they have been around a lot longer than Mormons after all.  2000 years is a lot longer than 200.  I imagine at the rate Mormonism is evolving that it will look a lot different in a few hundred years as well. 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

As a non-member and in the whatever it is worth department I was concerned when I read the proclamation. I agree with tacenda. It seems to me that the past proclamations of the church have had a unifying purpose. This one seems to be focused on highlighting the non-mainstream or non-orthodox positions of the church. I think this will be a negative to missionary work when it is read by non-LDS Christians. Perhaps differentiation was the intent, but that does not seem to be the intent of the church as late. Armand Mauss has noted in his writings, the lessening of the differentiation because of comfort of the church as being a stable and mainstream organization. As a non-LDS supporter of the church I was concerned when I read it.

I see this as the differences between Hinckley/Monson and Nelson in their approach to things as leaders.  Some leaders have been much more bridge building focused.  

[Bob Crockett]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

But are trademarks logos?

Can't trademark the Christus.  Already in the public domain.

[darkrats]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am always intrigued by the idea that there are other churches that claim exclusive authority. Catholics are named, but never any other. The Catholic members of this forum seem very traditional in their outlook, not big fans of Vatican II. I am regularlyy conversant with our local priest here in the village and he certainly doesn't claim exclusive authority for the Catholic church, especially after the Catholic church started accepting Protestant baptisms, together with a kind of adult catechism for membership. I wonder if really the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the final bastion (of a decent-sized group) of exclusive authority in modern Christianity? The Catholic church at least as I know it in Mexico has really changed, sparking a backlash among its more conservative members.

There are many Churches that claim exclusive authority, but most are considered (like the Mormons) not to be Christian. Examples would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Church of God (many varieties) and so on. When we focus to much on the LDS Church we tend to believe that our doctrines and practices are unique and special, but they are not. Think eternal marriage (Swedenborgians), becoming Gods (any offshoot of the once well known World Wide Church of God), having Apostles (Apostolic Churches). Some churches even do the LDS Church one better by speaking in tongues (Pentecostal Churches) which isn't done by the LDS Church. Other churches practice healing, playing with serpents (snakes). Even the Eastern Christian churches believe in ascending to some form of Godhood. The LDS Church is not the final bastion of exclusive authority. There are also many occult groups that operate as churches which have additional scriptures over and above the Bible. Joseph Smith may have had a true vision, but he wasn't experiencing anything completely different. I don't recall the name of the church, but there was even a group that constructed a temple around the same time as JS lived. As for end time Prophets, think the Bahai's who had their own latter-day prophet.