So the LDS does not use the cross on it's church buildings because we worship Christ life and his resurrection not his suffering on the cross. Except for a few details that's how I understand it. So I have always figured the cross was a useless symbol. Then I go through the temple and to my surprise the cross is very important. Two secret hand shakes regarding the cross are required to get into the C.K. what am I missing?

really, nothing. They have Nothing to offer.

Heaven forbid the symbol of Christ's atonement should feature in the temple!

As for the angel Moroni on top of each temple however...

Definitely Not a cult of Christianity!

Worshipping the living Christ rather than the dead one was actually the motto of a gnostic break-away group that flourished within decades of Christ's death.
One of many.

The early church fathers had to deal with groups claiming to have "secret knowledge" (Gnosis) on a regular basis, even back then.

Mormonism is just another gnostic group.
Except hey have some 'splaining to do why god would wait so long to come up with another one in the early 1800s LOL.

Don't look for consistency in Mormon doctrine. Made-up sh!t is hard to keep straight.

64monkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I have always figured the cross was a
> useless symbol....

I'm not much in favor of worshiping a symbol, and even
less supportive of worshipping a man.

But if some guy (or gal) died in order to save me or
my family, I'd certainly honor his memory.

Does a cross honor the memory of Jesus the son of Mary?
I'm not even convinced that he was crucified, but if he
was, then I still would have no use for the Christian cross.

However, there are other crosses in human history -- it has
been an important symbol for other reasons than those
associated with crucifixion. Take the Templar cross, for
example -- not a depiction of the pole and cross-bar used
by the Romans for execution, but something else. A symbol
so powerful that the ancient Ethiopians cut it into rock
in order to form very large sacred spaces.

Then there is the cross that Buddhists (and Hindus before)
have used for centuries as a sacred symbol -- the same
one that showed up in Germany during the middle of the
20th century, and which can still sometimes be spotted
today at KKK rallies.

I wouldn't say that crosses are useless symbols, but I
would point out the fact that Jesus's followers got along
for centuries without making much use of the figure --
and if the Mormons were really serious about "restoring"
the apostolic church of 1800 years ago, then they'd
be on solid theological/historical ground in avoiding
using the cross today.

UD

The Buddist cross and the swastica are not the same -- they are mirror images of each other. Not dissagreeing with you. Just sayin.

fossilman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Buddist cross and the swastica are not the
> same -- they are mirror images of each other. Not
> dissagreeing with you. Just sayin.

The Hindu school I worked at in Nepal used a right-handed
swas-tika as the school symbol. Up in the hills I saw
a left-handed version on Mahayana thankas, etc. -- then,
up in the high mountains, the right-handed version again,
on yak harness decorations, with the Bon yak drivers.

I have no idea which version is the older one.

UD

Both orientations are ancient Indic symbols, the meanings of which I don't recall. Two symbols, not a transformation of one.

They are representations of the sun or of a device used primitive people to start fires



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2013 09:23PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are representations of the sun or of a device
> used primitive people to start fires

In South Asia I almost always saw the symbol free-standing,
but a few times I also saw it as a repeating border pattern.
We can see something similar at the hems of Ancient Greek
clothing and graphics -- a magical, protective border --
you'll see something similar in the decor of the US Senate
chamber.

The free standing swastika was always portrayed in a square
position, and not the rotated diamond German design.

I have the feeling that it was one of many ancient symbols,
invented independently in various primordial cultures, and
that it need not have a single, specific meaning. However,
in South Asia there appears to be some conflation of an
immovable spot (a tika) and the cycle of motion. I know
that the Sanskrit does not directly support this, but I
perceived that meaning nevertheless.

The Sun is at once stationary (relative to us) and mobile,
its being somehow carried across the sky. In Canaanite mythology
Baal is carried across the sky by angelic creatures that
pull his chariot. Apollo carries the Sun itself across the
sky, in a celestial chariot, drawn by magical horses. A
comet appears to move through the sky, either pushed by, or
pulling its ephemeral tail.

I'm thinking that all these sky elements come together in
the swastika -- it is at once an immobile point (bindu)
and has arms that appear capable of pulling or pushing it.
The figure presents an illusion of stationary motion.

Like a picture of a child's pinwheel, the hooked cross
seems just about ready to begin turning. Like the wheel
in the center of the national flag of India, it connotes
cyclic motion, while remaining in place.

It is easy to see how a sun symbol, thus portrayed, could
later be "borrowed" by evolving societies, to symbolize
the cycle of re-birth, the wheel of karma, infinity, etc.

UD

And this from the Theosophical Society, whose seal uses the swastika in reverse of the Nazi version. Both are rotating crosses with flames at the ends. The position of the flames indicates which direction the cross is rotating. In the typical Hindu version, the flames are trailing to the left, showing that the cross is rotating to the right; this "right-hand path" is the direction of white magic and spiritual evolution. The Nazi version is the reverse of this, with flames trailing to the right, meaning the cross is rotating to the left--the "left-hand path."

As a Christian, I do not worship the cross. If I were of a jewlery-wearing bent, I might wear one, tho.

In the same way as someone who's life was saved by a pocketwatch might keep it on him as a reminder of how lucky he is.

Or, the other side of the coin, someone wearing the bullet that nearly killed him as a pendant.

theGleep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a Christian, I do not worship the cross. If I
> were of a jewlery-wearing bent, I might wear one,
> tho.
>
> In the same way as someone who's life was saved by
> a pocketwatch might keep it on him as a reminder
> of how lucky he is.
>
> Or, the other side of the coin, someone wearing
> the bullet that nearly killed him as a pendant.


The way I had it explained to me, the crucifix represents
the universal vicarious atonement and the empty cross
represents resurrection and eternal salvation. My training
was in a United Methodist school, which combined a flame
with the empty cross, to represent Pentecost, continued
working of the Spirit, etc.

I served my student pastorate in an ABC Baptist congregation,
whose members were deeply suspicious of the Methodist cross
adorning the cover of my New Testament. They felt that it
might be "new age" or "gnostic."

Oh well...

UD

Humans are funny that way. I've seen equally passionate disputes by students of martial arts, SLR camera owners, and football fans. Symbols and tribes, that's all this is, right?

GQ Cannonball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Humans are funny that way. I've seen equally
> passionate disputes by students of martial arts,
> SLR camera owners, and football fans. Symbols and
> tribes, that's all this is, right?

I always thought that the crossed sickle and hammer was
a powerful symbol -- a prediction of what might happen
in society if industrial workers joined with agricultural
workers, in order to establish a cooperative democracy.

Then, years back, the United States penny was re-designed,
with the Lincoln Memorial on the obverse side of the coin.
There was a great uproar from the John Birch Society and
others, protesting a purported crossed hammer and sickle
hidden in the artwork -- which obviously proved that
President Eisenhower was establishing a dictatorship, etc.

UD

I always wondered what christians would be wearing if Jesus had been hanged instead of crucified? Or stoned? Or drawn and quartered?

The subject of the cross is a debate that has happened at my famalies gatherings several times. They are all Mormon. I'm not.

I constantly hear, "Mormons are Christians!! don't say that we are not!!"

Most Mormons believe that Jesus payed for our sins in he Garden of Gethsemane. That goes against what the bible says. True Christians don't believe that. Mormons are the only people that believe that.

Christians are offended by that notion, because it lessons the significance of the sacrifice Jesus made. Which is the central core of Christianity.

If Mormons can't accept the theological principals of Christianity they just need to shut up and stop claiming to be Christian! They are NOT Christians.

So, what *does* it mean, Mr. No True Christian?

If he paid for the sins in the garden then why bother with the crucifiction?

+100

Personally, I see nothing wrong with wearing a cross as a symbol of Christian beliefs or simply because you like them. What's weird is how freaked out Mormons get about them. Seriously, who cares? If you want to wear a cross or a flower or a skull around your neck to express yourself, do it. But why to Mormons act like they are vampires being threatened by a cross in a horror movie?

Answer: Because it's just one more way Mormons can get their Church Lady Thrill on. Another reason to act like they possess superior insight, knowledge and standards to those ordinary, run of the mill Christians. A chance to say "Bad heathens. I'm a good Mormon and I'd never behave like YOU."

The temple in Kirtland had a cross. The symbol of Christianity goes back a long way as does the symbol of the fish. The appalling thing of moism is the use of symbols other than the cross, symbols from masonry, etc. It is not just the lack of the cross but its replacement with non-Christian symbols which is egregious and indicates a cult. Mind you, certain other groups such as those calling themselves "The Church of Christ" eschew the cross - and it was from this group that Rigdon came. The cross for Christians is as the star of David to Jews. I do not believe in giant crosses but a small one around one's neck is a symbol of the risen Christ. It is not the symbol of death, but of life, a symbol of the resurrection.

BTW, besides the Gnostics there were other heresies which came and went but moism, at one time or another, has fallen into ALL of them. JS combined all of the errors into his church. When I appeared "before the Sanhedrin" I opined that I was not sure if mormons even went to heaven. My doubts of it are even greater today. My final comment of it being "the Church of Satan" is probably closer to the truth as it is Satan we follow in the temple and hang onto his every word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2013 04:31PM by rhgc.

You may be interested in this presentation on Mormons and the cross at Sunstone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43AuTyJ-p0w

Michael Reed also has a book out and there are a number of articles online covering his research. Mormons originally DID use the cross, like just about everything else, God changed his mind on the suitability of the cross.

My Catholic wife has asked me numerous time why the LDS church never has a cross on it's buildings....and my answer has always been that I don't know...or care. We have crosses in our home because she wants them there...and I don't care about them either.

Ron Burr

Well, if Christ was shot and killed with a gun, there'd be guns on steeples. I was always told that the cross was representative of the dead Christ. I remember being scared to death of crosses as a kid, especially after seeing an old vampire movie. LOL!

I am ambivalent towards them...I just don't care about them...

Ron Burr

I find the cross offensive and I think of people wearing them as superstitious. Maria Shriver was wearing one on the news last night and I thought, "Aren't you more highly educated and sophisticated than to wear such a silly symbol?" She might as well wear a pentagram.

How tolerant.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How tolerant.

Well, thank you, good goddess. That is quite a concession from an Christian apologist that is highly intolerant of the viewpoint of atheists and secular humanists.

Actually, I see no reason to give a pass to the ridiculous and intolerant beliefs of today's religions, whether it be Yahweh from the Bronze Age, or the 2,000 year mythical Christian religion any more than I do Horus from Egypt, or Zeus from the Ancient Greeks.

In any other forum of human discourse, you would be laughed at for such strange and absurd beliefs, but because you call it a religion, I am expected to conceal my laughter and accept it as an alternative world view of reality. I don't think so.

Look, I am not a believer and am a little tired of you saying differently. However , unlike YOU I try to understand and respect other people. I also understand that there are a variety of religious beliefs and some are good and some are bad. I stand by what I said. That remark is bigoted. Maria Shriver is an intelligent woman with a degree from an Ivy League university and I doubt she is wearing a cross because she thinks it will scare off vampires whatever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2013 07:23PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, I am not a believer and am a little tired of
> you saying differently.

I referred you as a Christian apologist, not a believer. Don't misquote.

However , unlike YOU I try
> to understand and respect other people.

I also respect other people. It is their beliefs that cause so many problems in the world as well as their attempt to control my life and well being according to their ridiculous, outdated, unsupported theology that bother me.


I also
> understand that there are a variety of religious
> beliefs and some are good and some are bad.

I am not sure about the good, maybe Jainism and meditation, but I certainly agree with you on the bad. Religion does give humans a sense of community that the human animal needs.

I
> stand by what I said. That remark is bigoted.
> Maria Shriver is an intelligent woman with a
> degree from an Ivy League university and I doubt
> she is wearing a cross because she thinks it will
> scare off vampires whatever.

I conceded that Shriver is sophisticated, well educated, and yes, intelligent. I never mentioned vampires. How can you so misrepresent my statements? It is right in front of you for the viewing.

The symbol she wears is from a very superstitious theology, that has a history of intolerance, theocracy, brutal murders and genocide, torture, ambiguity, selling of salvation, misappropriation of donations, inhumanity, enemy of science and truth, and unsupported claims.

You really need to educate yourself and you are every bit as intolerant as the worst believer.I am done.

I agree with you bona dea.

Thanks.

Actually, good goddess, you did make me laugh aloud after reconsidering the religion of Maria Shriver. Granted she seems quite intelligent, but...

Isn't her religion the religion of Our Lady of Fatima, the Virgin Mary, immaculate conception, virgin birth, the image of the Virgin Mary from everything from grilled cheese sandwiches to recently washed church windows, no condoms for AIDS plagued Africa (or for anyone), indulgences, bleeding miracle idols, the curative powers of the waters of Lourdes, transubstantiation (literally eating flesh and drinking blood) ...?

Come on the list goes on and on. These ludicrous beliefs certainly make one smile and the least and gives me cause for outright laughter. Jeezzzus.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really need to educate yourself and you are
> every bit as intolerant as the worst believer.I am
> done.

You confuse education and tolerance and criticism of beliefs. I am not surprised.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2013 10:02PM by No Mo.

The two go together and FYI I am educated.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two go together and FYI I am educated.


They words carry entirely different definitions.

This entire board is about recovery and criticism of the absurd claims of the Mormon Cult. You are intolerant of Moism and atheists.

I am intolerant of a few atheists who are ignorant, misinformed and intolerant. I have no problem with most atheists here or in the real world. I also have a problem with religious people who are ignorant,misinformed and intolerant. They are two sides of the same coin.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am intolerant of a few atheists who are
> ignorant, misinformed and intolerant.

Apparently, to you, that just means any atheist that speaks up, no matter how informed or educated he is.

Sigh.

Wow. I agree with bona dea. My son just started wearing a cross (a really nice one I bought him) cause he said he wanted Jesus on his side when he started going to a new school this year. There is no harm in that.

Of course we live in Utah county, sooooo. But saying someone is not educated because they wear a cross. My son is exploring and trying to figure all this crap out. If he is happy wearing it, I got nothing to say against it.

Anyway, I told his Uncle that he was wearing a cross now, and all he said was "hmph" and very quickly changed the topic. That's really educated from a TBM.

Thank you.

Wearing a cross in Utah County is certainly a good way to demonstrate rebellion. Taking up beer, cigarettes and drinking the rather benign cup of coffee are other great signs of rebellion in Happy Valley. Be careful what you wish for in your son. ; )



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2013 10:20PM by No Mo.

So because I let my son wear a cross he is going to drink and smoke and do drugs and screw around? That is quite the leap!! He is 16 and knows more than a lot of kids his age, and I do NOT equate him wearing a cross as the same type of rebellion the other things are. Hell, most of the Mormon kids he knows do all the other things, and he does not so far.

I keep track of my son and know who he is with and what he is doing, and we talk about it. That's a ton different than most mo parents around here.

I have always been surprised at BYU fans that wear red. I mean how can they be true fans of BYU if they insist on wearing the color of their favorite enemy?

I don't follow the logic, Mormons don't care for the cross, they must not be Christian.

The problem is not that mos don't wear the cross BUT that they wear, instead, masonic emblems, etc.

True they do were masonic symbols.

I don't follow the logic, Mormons have masonic symbols embossed into their shit stained, yellow underwear, they must not be Christian.

I have a Thor's hammer. It probably does as much as any cross, and no harm in wearing it.