Mike Reed

Ahh yes. My conslusions are based on mere opinion and speculation. Never mind my exhaustive research, and piles of evidence that I have gathered. Have they changed your personal understanding about the historical basis of the cross aversion in the LDS Church? You seem to presume that Church authorities have traced the historical development of the LDS attitude toward the cross. I wonder why that is. If they haven't explored this topic in depth, as I have done, then any comment from them would be outside their area of expertise. Fallacious appeal to authority.

What might those "real reasons" be? Would they have anything to do with the anti-Catholicism of previous generations? It would probably do you some good to read the following two articles (from Deseret News' "Mormon Times" and the Salt Lake Tribune) about my research on this topic: http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632 http://wildernesschristianity.net/info/LDS/The-Cross.html And this therefore makes the cross problematic for you, doesn't it? Why the double talk then? In post #72 you just said, "I don't have any problems with the cross itself." Think of it this way: The mainstream Christian experience of the cross is similar to how Mormons experience touring Carthage jail. Latter-day Saints have very real cathartic experiences while visiting this sacred space. And yet, every Sunday Latter-day Saints symbolically commemorate the death of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:26). Your attitude seems to be contrary not only to this ordinance, but also to the message preached in the BoM, Jacob chapter one verse eight: Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world....

Here is a brochure that I wrote for FAIR a few years ago: "Lucifer, the Brother of Jesus?" The only correction that I would make pertains the Lactantius quote. I was relying on a translation of a Giovanni Papini's translation of Lactantius. Contrary to the source I cited, Lactantius never explicitly said "brother". However, he did imply a sibling relationship.

Maxel, I am a non-believer. I left the Church a few years ago, but I continue to identify myself with LDS culture. I now consider myself to be an agnostic-secular-humanist-cultural-Mormon. My passion for Mormon Studies remains. I am not an atheist, and I am open to the possibility that a kind of divine inspiration may exist in the Church at times... but my over all perspective is secular, and my approach, an academic one. Instead of asking questions like "How does this make me feel" or "how does this teach me live a more Christ-like life", etc.... I instead ask questions like, "what is the social or historical context here," "what is this person trying to communicate to his audience," "Why did this event happen the way it did," "What are some identifiable key factors that have influenced this line of thinking", etc.

Old news on the opening page, but I'll try to add some fresh material in the near future. Advice is welcome. Cultural Mormon Cafeteria

In case anyone is interested, a story on my Sunstone Presentation appeared in print in Deseret News' "Mormon Times." There are a couple problems that I have with the article, but over all, I think DeGroote did a VERY good job. MormonTimes - Sunstone speaker attempts to explain LDS 'aversion' to cross

In case anyone is interested, a story on my Sunstone Presentation appeared in print in Deseret News' "Mormon Times." There are a couple problems that I have with the article, but over all, I think DeGroote did a VERY good job. MormonTimes - Sunstone speaker attempts to explain LDS 'aversion' to cross

Here you go. Moksha posted this link in the opening page of this thread:http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/21040-disdaining-cross.html The opening post gives a link to a Salt Lake Tribune story on my thesis, but the link is now defunct. You can read a transcript of the article here instead: WorldWide Religious News-Mormons and the cross Best regards, Mike Reed

I'd say that it qualifies as a greater credential than being a convert from catholicism. You are very hard to follow. Could you please try to be more coherent in your posts? Nobody said anything about romans or highways. You initially claimed that Mormons don't use the cross because it is a symbol of death, but now you seem to assert instead that the issue is idolatry. I presume that this shift is due to your unwillingness (inability?) to answer the question in my previous post. Nope. I never made this claim. My conclusion (that the LDS cross aversion fundamentally had an anti-Catholic basis) is based on the historical data that I have gathered and analyzed. So is it your opinion that Catholics would agree with your assessment that they idolize the cross? Ex-Mormon Ed Decker had a first hand perspective of what goes on in the temple? Should we therefore uncritically trust his claims as reliable? I find your "test" for truth to be unreliable. To illustrate my point... in 1916, Walter Ackroyd (a High Councilman of the Taylor Stake from Alberta Canada) explained that he turned to God in prayer, asking Him the meaning of the cross. The following is what he reported: {I} was not sure of the true original meaning of the cross that lay behind, that the populace understands, so I asked our Heavenly Father for light. One night as I was reading and thinking on the matter it seemed that a voice spoke to my mind thus: “The cross is Lucifer’s symbol and means that there is no preexistence of spirits.” Now contrast this meaning with the personal story of the struggle and revelation Spencer W. Kimball had in 1943, after being called to serve as an Apostle for the LDS Church. With great feelings of inadequacy, he turned to God in prayer. Kimball wrote a week after being called to the Quorum of the Twelve: “No peace had yet come, though I had prayed for it almost unceasingly these six days and nights. I had no plan or destination. I only knew I must get out in the open, apart, away,” he says. “I dressed quietly and without disturbing the family, I slipped out of the house. I turned toward the hills. I had no objective. I wanted only to be alone.” Kimball then describes the tearful hike he made up the hillside. I climbed on and on. Never had I prayed before as I now prayed. What I wanted and felt I must have was an assurance that I was acceptable to the Lord. I told Him that I neither wanted nor was worthy of a vision or appearance of angels or any special manifestation. I wanted only the calm peaceful assurance that my offering was accepted. Never before had I been tortured as I was now being tortured. And the assurance did not come. Finally, Spencer W. Kimball saw a sign that gave him assurance that God was with him: As I rounded a promontory I saw immediately above me the peak of the mountain and on the peak a huge cross with its arms silhouetted against the blue sky beyond. It was just an ordinary cross made of two large heavy limbs of a tree, but in my frame of mind, and coming on it so unexpectedly, it seemed a sacred omen. This experience made such an impact on him, that he revisited the place two years later (1945). Kimball recorded in his journal: I began to re-live my unusual experiences…. I followed my footsteps of that early morning…. Finally at the top of my sacred mountain I found my cross of July '43 was broken. I found a cross beam and carried it up the hill (remembering the Savior as he carried his cross up Calvary) and fixed it the best I could. Since you have so much faith in personal revelation... care to explain why God answered Kimball's prayer with "Lucifer's symbol"? As I said... I find your "test" for truth unreliable. See above.

Cool. I grew up Mormon, have pioneer ancestors on both sides, and am even related to Joseph Smith through his grandfather Asael (I doubt these facts count as real credentials, however). Up until three years ago, I was also an LDS apologist (I've written for both FAIR and FARMS), and I have since completed my MA in a liberal arts program that focuses on religious Studies. As previously explained, I wrote my thesis on the topic of Mormons and the cross. The thesis has been praised as the most exhaustive study on this topic to date. Most (if not all) of those who have read my work would consider me to be the world's leading authority on this topic. Joseph's ministry? Of course. My point is this: Since the sacredness of Carthage Jail does not necessary eclipse LDS understanding that Smith remains very much alive (and continues his ministry beyond the veil)... it stands to reason that the symbol of the cross does not necessarily eclipse the tenet that Jesus was resurrected. And again... if the symbol of the cross is rejected for its symbolic reference of Jesus' death, then why is death symbolism acceptable in the sacrament, endowment, or LDS scripture (as a literary symbol)? Please explain. You have the answer in my posts above. The reason for the LDS opposition to the cross is a season of past anti-catholic sentiment. Please explain.

This rationalization is problematic because it (however unintended it may be) carries the insulting implication that mainstream Christianity has somehow lost focus of the tenet that Jesus has been resurrected. Your explanation also fails to explain why other symbols of Jesus’ torture and death are acceptable in the LDS Church--such as those that are found in the Sacrament and temple endowment. And of course we know that many Mormons have spiritual/cathartic experiences while visiting Carthage jail, where the prophet was brutally shot and murdered. Does the popularity of this sacred site somehow eclipse LDS belief that Joseph Smith's ministry extends beyond the grave? No. Of course not. Other reasons must therefore account for the LDS opposition to the cross.

Did someone say cross? :-p Yes... as explained by Moksha, the LDS contempt for the cross symbol (which fundamentally had an anti-Catholic basis) was more of a development that started around the turn of the 20th century; later being institutionalized in the 1950s under the direction of LDS prophet David O. McKay, on grounds that it was "purely catholic." Prior to this time, many prominent Latter-day Saints embraced and promoted the symbol of the cross. The Salt Lake Tribune did a story on my thesis in May, and last week I presented at the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City.

Of the star windows? Nothing that I am aware of.

The starSTONES, Sunstones, and Moonstones represent the bride of Christ. Revelation 12 says she is clothed in the SUN, has the MOON at her feet, and wears a crown of STARS. As for the star WINDOWS, however... we don't know for sure. See my detailed post http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10044-whats-inverted-pagan-star-2.html#post178230 for my interpretation.

We don't know this for sure. Wandle Mace reported this only for the starSTONES; not the star WINDOWS.

I don't agree with this interpretation, as the stars are on the celestial-room level of the Nauvoo temple. The foreman of the framework of the Nauvoo temple, Wandle Mace, reported that the starstones represented the crown of stars worn by the Bride of Christ in Revelation 12. As for the star WINDOWS, however... we don't know for sure. But I think a hint to it's meaning is in the cruciform stonework surrounding the window, as well as the coloring of the star. I believe these (together) are rose crosses. The rose-cross has long been associated with the pentagram... The rose is often depicted with having five petals. The catholic rosary has five sets of beads (called Decades)... if you were to open up the circle of beads, you would be able to draw a pentagram by connecting lines from the start of each set (on the Amiens cathedral displays an inverted pentagram on one of its rose-windows Pentagram on Flickr - Photo Sharing!). The star's five points (as well as the five Decades) remind Catholics of the five wounds of Christ. Freemasonry likewise associated the pentagram with the five wounds of Christ, but also with what they called the "five points of fellowship." The coloring of the window on the Nauvoo temple matches Luther's mystic rose-cross, with red in the center, white petals, and blue on the outside. Rossicurians and Freemasons of Joseph Smith's day picked up this symbolism. Symbols can have layers of meaning, and I believe this to be the case particularly for the pentagram windows of the nauvoo temple. BTW... some may object to my interpretation, because they assume that the Church has always avoided using the symbol of the cross. This is not true. The no-cross protocol is a late development in the Church's history (as my MA thesis will show, once I finish writing it).

It wasn't. Evidence suggests that Eliphas Levi was the first to associate the inverted star with evil, and this post-dated the construction of the Nauvoo temple.