Disdaining the Cross

[AngelLynn]

. These people clearly viewed the Catholic church as a paganistic bastardization of Christianity and openly derided it. The viewed the use of the cross as something akin to idolatry*. The result has been the cultural disdain for the cross that has prevailed among the LDS for a couple decades now. In my opinion, this disdain is taken to an extreme.

I can certaintly understand some of their reservations towards the Catholic faith. A lot of Catholic traditions come from local paganistic traditions. I can understand the reasons behind it as if you were planning on teaching the people in regards to Christianity you would use the symbols the people were well familar with in their culture and surplant them with Christian terminology and ideas.

I am not going to say too much in offense to our Catholic brothers and sisters. I have deep respect for their beliefs. I find them extremly beauitful in many ways. I went to a Catholic service near the Easter season once as a school assignment in religious diversity. I found the service particularly moving. So it is how people preceive their faith that matters the most.

I think we should be careful with symbols and how we preceive them. What one group sees as sacred another group doesn't or doesn't view in the same regard or perspective. A lot of our understanding of religious doctrines and terminlogy is based on symbols, such as the terminology Christ used in His teachings such as "Casting Pearls before Swine", "The Ten Virgins", "Wheat and Tares" etc. If we don't use a degree of Spritual recognition in such of these things then Christ's teachings are lost upon our ears and people think of them only as pecular stories.

I still like President Hinkley's idea that we should focus on a living Christ, one who fullfilled the work the Father gave him. However, is there any doubt that other Christians reverence Christ's atonement any less that we do? We all do, it is just that we see and understand things a little diffrently.

[prospectmom]

The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly.

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

[bytebear]

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

If we start preaching that those who do not wear them are not true Mormons, then yes.

[Dravin]

To suggest hypotheticals of the form “If Christ were killed with X would you use X as a symbol of your faith?” demeans the symbol, and thereby the faith. The fact of the matter is that virtually*all*symbols are silly. The only thing that makes a symbol effective is the meaning that a group assigns to the symbol. So you can argue butcher knives, Cuisinarts, and rifles all you want—when a large group of people assign the same set of values and meanings to that symbol, it becomes an effective and powerful symbol.

The interesting thing is had he been shot, hanged or what have you people might be suggesting the cross as a hypothetical alternative form of death and asking if you'd use that. The thing is that its entirely possible that if a knife had been used and it had become a highly recognized symbol of Christianity both sides of the camp on this issue would most likely be looking at it the exact same way.

And by the way, what exactly is the difference between wearing a cross and wearing a CTR ring?

See, and that is why I'm not bothered by somebody wearing a cross. I do tend to think though that people (or at least some) put more emphasis on the cross then is ever put on the CTR ring. For instance, members don't wonder why the Jones' don't wear CTR rings and whether such makes them LDS or not.

Actually I think that may be one factor in general uneasiness with the cross. Certain segments of Christianity maintain we aren't Christian and part of the reason why centers on not using the cross. So in an effort to defend ourself we attack the idea that crosses are central to being Christian, because hey, we're Christian and don't use the cross and it takes off from there. Thing is they tend to be a loud minority that doesn't think we are Christian for more reasons then that so we end up spitting into the wind and the rest of Christianity wonders what's up with our issue with the cross.

Now the above is talking about the cultural aspects not the church policy and explanations such as those stated by President Hinckley that have been brought up in this thread.

*Those who would suggest that one must pray before a cross, or that praying before a cross makes one’s prayer more powerful are, in my opinion, getting dangerously close to idolatry…but this is an inherent danger in symbolism. When people use symbols, we sometimes risk substituting the symbol for what it represents. We should be careful to always acknowledge what the symbol represents and not the symbol itself.

Yeah, that was what I was talking about in some of the stuff bordering on idolatry (and yes, I'm fairly sure there is stuff that looks like that from where I'm sitting but actually isn't, see my first post). And I'd feel the same way if somebody prayed to/before an Angel Moroni. In fact my understanding* is one of the forms that idolatry took in ancient Israel was depictions of Jehovah were being worshiped. God didn't want statues or what have you prayed to and worshiped even if such statues or symbols represent him, he wanted himself to be the focus of such worship^.

* This is one of those vaguely remembered things, and may actually be from one of Skousen's books, and he doesn't seem to be held in particularly high scholarly esteem 'round these parts.

[a-train]

The old discussion goes that Christians see Calvary as the climax of the Saviour's sacrifice but LDS folks see Gethsemane instead. Perhaps many LDS think so, but this is incorrect. The emphasis of the LDS leadership on Gethsemane is not to discount Calvary, nor to explain that what had long been thought to have occured there actually happened the night before. The emphasis is actually on the expansion of revealed information on what took place there.

The notion is not that the Saviour suffered in private rather than in public, nor spiritually rather than physically. The notion is that He suffered BOTH in private as well as in public, and BOTH spiritually as well as physically.

This first misunderstanding of the LDS expanded view of the Sacrifice of the Messiah tends to perpetuate the false reasoning behind the lack of LDS usage of the symbol of the cross. This lacking is not a function of the LDS view of Gethsemane, nor any difference of opinion regarding Calvary. It IS a product of the LDS view of what we call THE GREAT APOSTASY. That is where the difference lies.

As the cross was not a part of sacred ordininances in New Testament Christianity, but rather a part of ordinances performed in the epoch of the Great Apostasy, the LDS view it simply as a product thereof. There is no superstitious view of the cross among the LDS. It is not thought to evoke evil. The lack of its use is akin to the lack of any use of the robes of Catholic Bishops. Its absence is virtually insignificant, it is not any special statement.

-a-train

Edited May 5, 2009 by a-train

[prospectmom]

bytebear... not sure what point your trying to make????

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly.

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

[bytebear]

bytebear... not sure what point your trying to make????

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly.

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

Ni, but if the symbol becomes more important than the message, then it should be done away with. When the cross is more important than Christ, then the cross is being used inappropriately. The interesting thing is that the only real sybolic tool Mormons use in their daily lives are worn under their clothes as a personal reminder, not as a display of our faith. They are not meant to be a public display of "who the better Mormon is". And the cross should not be used determine who the better Christian is.

Edited May 5, 2009 by bytebear

[MarginOfError]

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

That isn’t what I said at all, actually. What I said was that while all symbols are silly, they still carry meaning to the people who adopt them. It makes no sense to demean another person’s adopted symbols simply because we don’t assign the same value to those symbols. I also suggested that perhaps we should spend more time trying to understand the symbols others adopt, rather than dismissing them. If we can understand the symbols people use, we can gain great insight into their person and character. Simply put…symbols are silly, but effective.

Some other silly symbols:

The American flag—why do we pledge allegiance to the flag? Isn’t that somewhat absurd?

CTR rings—what exactly about the CTR ring is supposed to remind us of who we are?

The Rainbow—why when we see a rainbow bumper sticker are we supposed to reflect on racial diversity?

[Maxel]

The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly.

I don't think that's the best way to describe the situation- when deciding which symbols are 'silly' or not, one needs to have a set of principles from which they base their judgments off of.

I don't think the symbols in the temple are silly, or the symbolism employed by the Sacrament- nor do I think that the Christians who hold to the cross as a symbol of Christ think it is silly either. Bad or idolatrous symbols are either silly or blasphemous; holy and profound symbols are... holy and profound. It seems that a wicked and idolatrous man is the first man to cast a stone at another's holy symbols, regardless of the situation.

I’m inclined to agree with Reed when he says that the disdain for the cross is derived form the personal feelings of some Church leaders on the issue. Reading The Great Apostasy, Articles of Faith, Mormon Doctrine (esp the first edition), and many other books by prominent LDS scholars of the early and mid 20th centuries should show you just how vehemently these people viewed the Catholic church in particular. These people clearly viewed the Catholic church as a paganistic bastardization of Christianity and openly derided it. The viewed the use of the cross as something akin to idolatry*. The result has been the cultural disdain for the cross that has prevailed among the LDS for a couple decades now. In my opinion, this disdain is taken to an extreme.

In my little social circles growing up (in Colorado), no one ever talked about the symbolism of the cross as it was used among non-LDS Christians. I was unaware of any LDS disdain for it until I moved to my current place of residence at the age of 19- even then, I learned about it from an online resource. I arrived at my personal conclusions not through indoctrination, but through reflection. That doesn't really matter, but I fail to see- and this might be because I've never lived in Utah before- a general LDS antipathy towards the cross. If there is, it seems to be a cultural Mormon thing- and I despise virtually all fruits of cultural Mormonism. (By 'cultural Mormon', I mean the highly hypocritical practices often found in Utah- getting drunk and high on Saturday and passing sacrament on Sunday, etc.)

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that the cross is actually the instrument of Christ's death, is never referred to in a positive manner in all of the scriptures (except in the writings of Paul, in which he uses the cross as the "message of the cross"- most importantly, the cross is never portrayed positively in the Book of Mormon), and therefore is not the best symbol to use to represent Christ because by its nature it focuses on Christ's death, not his life. Christ died; all must die- but Christ overcame that death and ascended to heaven and because of that we all can overcome death and ascend to heaven.

And by the way, what exactly is the difference between wearing a cross and wearing a CTR ring?

Well, first of all they symbolize two different things- the cross symbolizing the Atonement, the CTR ring symbolizing the commitment to "Choose the Right" and follow the Savior's example. As far as having a physical object to represent something sacred, though, there's virtually no difference- including the fact that both are symbols adopted by their corresponding religions without a canonized reason for doing so. There's a clear difference between sacred symbols given to us by God and symbols adopted by man of his own impetus.

Perhaps instead of isolating ourselves from other faiths, we should learn to understand and appreciate their symbols. It’s time we spent more effort reaching out and less time accentuating our differences. We’re all a lot more similar than we think we are.

God was not a ecumenical on some important matters; neither am I- nor do I think any person of real faith should be. It is not disrespectful to voice an opinion. Perhaps I don't get the 'big deal' about this issue, because I don't think I've never been around someone who actively insulted the cross as a symbol (I've never lived in the 'Utah bubble', which I suspect may be the place where a lot of that antipathy is manifest). Most of the comments I've read here have been respectful, so I don't grasp the basis of the accusation of a general antipathy among Mormons towards the Christian cross other than it's a cultural thing.

As far as accentuating our similarities instead of our differences- I couldn't agree more. However, all are done a disservice when real differences are glossed over to avoid offending anyone who might choose to take offense.

*Those who would suggest that one must pray before a cross, or that praying before a cross makes one’s prayer more powerful are, in my opinion, getting dangerously close to idolatry…but this is an inherent danger in symbolism. When people use symbols, we sometimes risk substituting the symbol for what it represents. We should be careful to always acknowledge what the symbol represents and not the symbol itself.

Exactly. Doing so is a requirement of living and understanding the Gospel- we are required to understand the difference between the bread and water of the Sacrament from the blood and body of Christ while at the same time understanding how the two are related, and the symbolism that the bread and water espouses. Edited May 5, 2009 by Maxel

[Moksha]

bytebear... not sure what point your trying to make????

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly.

So we should do away with those silly little CTR rings etc????

One good thing about those CTR rings is that even if you take the religious component out of it, it can still be an aid in teaching the parent's political values to their children.

[MarginOfError]

I don't think that's the best way to describe the situation- when deciding which symbols are 'silly' or not, one needs to have a set of principles from which they base their judgments off of.

I don't think the symbols in the temple are silly, or the symbolism employed by the Sacrament- nor do I think that the Christians who hold to the cross as a symbol of Christ think it is silly either. Bad or idolatrous symbols are either silly or blasphemous; holy and profound symbols are... holy and profound.

and that's exactly the point. If you don't understand what the symbol represents, then it's nothing but a silly symbol. Take all of the symbolism in the temple and it all boils down to a bunch of gobbledygook unless you understand the meaning associated with the symbols.

You say bad or idolatrous symbols are either silly or blasphemous, and I say you can only judge that from your own understanding of what those symbols represent. When you judge those symbols as silly and blashpemous, the people that recognize those symbols are simultaneously judging the symbols you consider "holy and profound" equally as silly as you consider their symbols to be.

Symbols are effective because they convey a large amount of information quickly--faster than language alone can convey the same information. But they only work when the group is agreed to the meaning of the symbol. That is true for any symbol, regardless of how silly, blasphemous, holy, or profound you think it may be.

[Moksha]

My friend Bill at Beliefnet always has a reasoned and informative take on these topics:

The cross was probably not the original symbol of Christianity. That honor most likely goes to the fish. During the earliest days of Christianity, when its adherents were being imprisoned, tortured and executed, it would not have been practical to wear an emblem advertising one's affiliation with the hated sect. That would be like wearing a giant bullseye or dressing up like a deer during Utah's hunting season.

I'm not sure what that earliest symbol was, but if I were a betting man, I'd peg it as a lamb. Jesus is presented as referring to himself as "the lamb of God." In fact, lambs are a particularly Jewish symbol. They're small. They're the kind of herding animals that a nomadic, desert-traveling, people would identify with. Sheep need shepherds. The lamb without blemish made the appropriate sacrifice. In the institutional worship surrounding the temple, the rich had their bulls, the middle-class had their lambs, and the poor had their turtledoves - but the lamb, as symbolized in the passover meal, made the perfect icon. God was Israel's shepherd. Without him, they were scattered and devoured.

By declaring himself the lamb, Jesus intended to tap into all that symbolism.

But assuming Jesus did exist, and was Jewish, and was rejected by his countrymen, the future of the movement would lay in the hands of foreigners. As such, the proper mascot would have to change. Given the distinctively Jewish imagery associated with sheep, it would not be fitting to use the typical Jewish symbol of foreigners. Christians would not, for obvious reasons, cast themselves as wolves or dogs. They would need a non-Jewish symbol, but one that cast converting Gentiles in a kinder, gentler light.

Enter the fish.

Ichthus, the fish, became a convenient symbol for the non-Jewish peoples with whom many Jews - including many Christians - would find themselves as the Roman occupation of "Palestine" built to a bloody climax. The Jewish Revolt would result in the destruction of the Jewish temple, the slaughter of many locals and the scattering of Jewish populations all over southern Europe and Asia Minor. To the degree they were forced out first (or left to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles), Jewish Christians may have gotten out first. What we think of as a great missionary work - to take the Gospel to the Gentiles - may well have simply been an exodus in slow motion. Either Jewish Christians left behind their Jewish homeland (in response to local persecution) or Jews BECAME Christians as they adopted survival colonies in the Greco-Roman world.

We are used to thinking of Jews as becoming Christians, getting rejected by the Jewish nation and then going forth into a strange new world - intent on converting it to the One True Faith. This may be a little like watching the trees bend in the wind and concluding that the trees shake the air. It's just as likely that Jews were moving out of the promised land, not because they were being driven out by other Jews but because the Romans were intent on their own version of "the final solution." No doubt, a certain number of these Jews resisted assimilation; others simply adapted. The Gospels make the Christians the endangered minority, and they do so by presenting the rest of Jewry as oppressors. History, on the other hand, might suggest just the opposite - that the bulk of these people assimilated, and that what we call "Jews" are the small minority of souls who didn't.

If so, that would explain why Christianity is more Greek than Jewish. Its hero is Jesus, not Yeshua. This Jesus is depicted as coming from Bethlehem (just so he can sire from the City of David) and growing up in Nazareth (just so he can be called a Nazarene in an outsider's confusion between Nazarenes, who were dwellers of Nazareth, and Nazarites, who were holy warriors who didn't cut their hair or shave their beards). This Jesus had "apostolos," some of whom bore Greek names. They came from northern Israel, from places that had swine pens. They were fishermen, not shepherds. Their mission was not to "gather the lost sheep" but to be "fishers of men." Their leader was less a meschiach than a Christos. He proclaimed himself to be "the alpha and omega," not the aleph and the tau. Despite the iconic image of the Last Supper, with Christ distributing the passover meal of bread and wine, Jesus was more often depicted as distributing bread and fish.

Surprise, surprise - the New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Whatever the case, early European Christianity involved fish, not lambs and certainly not crosses. Some argue that the cross was a child of Coptic Christianity, which simply appropriate the Egyptian ankh and adapted it to the story of Jesus. Gnostic or near-gnostic traditions would appreciate the value of picking a symbol representing healing, resurrection and eternal life. The ankh was the symbol of Osiris, murdered by his brother - alternatively by being entombed in a box or put in a dead tree. It was his wife who brought him back to life (just as the women were on the scene "on the third day" to anoint the body of the Lord). But Osiris, having died, could not come back from the dead, even though he had come back from the dead. His job was to be the judge of the quick and the dead. His symbol, much like John the Baptist's baptismal font at the River Jordan, was the Nile.

Roman persecution of Christianity, like the modern persecution of Falong Gong by the hardline Chinese, has a lot to do with misunderstanding the intentions, values and views of a rising sect. During this period of persecution, all things Christian were banned from Rome and Christianity was seen as a threat. Christians were reviled as enemies of the state. In an empire whose only national cult was the reverence of a human emperor, Christians defied and discouraged such veneration, opting instead to honor a Jewish cleric killed by Roman occupiers. Where Jews were exempted from worshiping Caesar because it was against their religion to worship anyone but God, Christians had turned a Jew into God and worshiped him instead of Caesar. What's more, they invited the coming of "the Kingdom of God," where all would worship Jesus as "king of kings, lord of lords."

So Christians were hated for worshiping a counterpoint to Caesar, a holy emperor who had promised to come back and destroy the nations of the world. Such beliefs and practices made Christians a hated group, at least during the most gung-ho phase of the empire. But as the empire began to lose steam, the hated group gained the greatest cache as the religion of defiance. What was once a symbol to be hated - the cross - eventually became hip. And when Christianity finally gained the upper hand, it wasn't a lamb or a fish people decided to wear around their necks. It was the cross. In the Christian takeover of the Roman empire, the cross became a symbol of solidarity, as if to say, "Yes, we did!"

As the Roman empire continued its expansion through western Europe, the cross went with the soldiers. As the empire fell back, so did the cross. But as newly independent tribes sought for ways to increase their learning, technology and skill, the cross became - yet again - a way of deciding who is in and who is not. Not surprisingly, it found new life in the Holy Inquisition, the Crusades and the Spanish Conquest of North America.

As Christianity continued its evolution, the cross continued to symbolize tribal differences. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sects made use of different styles of cross, as would the Protestants later on. For Latter-day Saints, the cross would symbolize a Christendom that had been rejected as hollow, hypocritical and lacking in authority.

The dealbreaker came with the persecution of Mormons by people sporting crosses.

That, I take it, is the real reason why Mormons are not so friendly to the cross.

[Maxel]

You say bad or idolatrous symbols are either silly or blasphemous, and I say you can only judge that from your own understanding of what those symbols represent.

Agreed. However, I posit that the scriptures and God Himself have weighed in on certain types of symbols- idols representing heathen gods, for instance, are strictly forbidden and all idolatry is condemned. Furthermore, if someone takes the time to learn what the symbol represents to a group of people, the ability to accurately judge either the effectiveness, accuracy, or spiritual "wrongness" of the symbol in question increases.

When you judge those symbols as silly and blashpemous, the people that recognize those symbols are simultaneously judging the symbols you consider "holy and profound" equally as silly as you consider their symbols to be.

So, we should appeal to ecumenical relativism and be content with a form of symbol henotheism? I frankly don't care if anyone else considers the temple symbols inane or stupid- the fact is that the temple symbols aren't, because such symbols are given us by God Himself. Man may rail against them, but the ways of God are higher than the ways of man. In the same vein, I won't abandon the idea that some people cling to either blasphemous idols and/or stupid symbols (by "stupid" I mean a symbol that doesn't accurately reflect the idea or phenomenon it's claimed to represent) simply because said people hold those symbols as precious.

I should make the disclaimer that I don't think the cross is either blasphemous or stupid.

But they only work when the group is agreed to the meaning of the symbol. That is true for any symbol, regardless of how silly, blasphemous, holy, or profound you think it may be.

Again, an appeal to a relativist understanding of symbols doesn't seem cogent to me.

If we accept the premise that a symbol only holds the symbolic importance that a group of people attribute to it, then we have to admit that no symbol can be used to teach us about the world or the Gospel because there is no intrinsic meaning- others may teach us to draw similarities, but by studying "types and shadows" we cannot gain any additional wisdom or insight because there is no innate insight to be drawn from them. We must assume, then, that the exercises of attending the temple and studying the scriptures- learning by studying types and shadows- is pointless and does not work.

We can escape that trap by assuming that God Himself has attributed certain importance to some symbols (for instance, that God created all things spiritually before He created them physically)- but then we must admit that said symbols are, in and of themselves, hold some significance. We must further assume that all objects hold some sort of innate significance and therefore can be employed as a symbol either effectively or ineffectively- we can further assume that some uses of symbols can be, in reality, blasphemous and/or stupid; holy and/or profound.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Maxel

[the Ogre]

I should make the disclaimer that I don't think the cross is either blasphemous or stupid.

I am glad you made this clear. It is neither. For me the cross is only representative of murder and oppression. Many others, however, do not feel the same way. Many feel it is a holy symbol that warms their hearts and helps them get to a holy state of being where they can commune better with deity.

Again, an appeal to a relativist understanding of symbols doesn't seem cogent to me.

Too bad you relegate a legitimate logic system to the toilets. My experience is different then yours and so I will interpret symbols differently. Yes, I am LDS, but when I look at crosses, or apostrophes we will not see the same things. Is there a problem with this? No. There is a problem with insisting on a universal interpretation for everything.

We must further assume that all objects hold some sort of innate significance and therefore can be employed as a symbol either effectively or ineffectively- we can further assume that some uses of symbols can be, in reality, blasphemous and/or stupid; holy and/or profound.

The best example of this is the swastika. When I first went to South Korea with the military in 1986, I saw a Buddha's Birthday parade being put on by elementary school children. They were all holding little swastikas. I was quite unhappy about that as were most of the other soldiers I was with, but it was explained to us by a KATUSA what was going on. Symbols do not mean the same thing to all people. Do not expect everyone to agree with you and do not think they lack the grey-matter to understand you ("cogent", my hairy white butt).

[prisonchaplain]

Those Korean Augmentations to the U.S. Army are some smart fellows. Can't remember, but I believe the Buddhist "swastika" is a symbol of peace. :-)

[beefche]

I respect the symbol of the cross. I do not wear one and I have absolutely no problems that our chapels and temples do not display one. But the meaning of the cross is not lost on me.

Once when my mother was having a very serious surgery, the nurse was showing us the way to see her. My friend (a non-Mormon Christian) was with me when the nurse said, "Go towards the cross and then turn left" referring to a cross on the wall (it was a Catholic hospital). My friend and I looked at each other and I said that the nurse said something that has a lot of meaning.

Today I was at my hairdresser (who is Baptist) and we began discussing crosses. She had made a cross out of her grandmother's comb and scissors. I thought it was precious--a way to remind her of her grandmother and a way to follow God's path for her. It's funny that she brought it up, but it reminded me of this thread.

[prospectmom]

The Rainbow—why when we see a rainbow bumper sticker are we supposed to reflect on racial diversity?

__________________

I claim the rainbow to be a reminder of the flood and God's promise.

When the cross is more important than Christ

I

I do not think any christian will say that.

[Snow]

Snow- again, I wrote a nice long post which I then deleted because I feel it's too contentious. All I have to say is that your tactics of condescending side-stepping is tiring; my post did contain substance that you just don't want to deal with (and the part that you attempted to prove wrong is actually proved right by the very article you cited); the original question of mine is not an attack on the cross nor an inane rhetorical exercise; that you failed to support anything you said with cogent support; and that I use drama in somewhat the same way that you use condescension.

I'm willing to let that be the end of the matter, so as not to derail this thread.

I, on the other hand, have not written out a nice long post as a response and then deleted it. I say what I think and post what I want.

You know, I do think that you sometimes have important contributions and sometimes effective rebuttals but when you must know, I assume you do know, that I am hardly the type that finds dismissive claims about my posts [with(out) cogent support] to be worth the virtual ink used to post them. I am well aware of the quality (or lack thereof) of my posts as I write them and don't much care whether an emotional and biased critic of mine likes em.

[Snow]

One of Snow's threads derailed by contention and petty insults? Perish the thought.

On a completely unrelated note, do you like Lord of the Rings? This is my favourite Lord of the Rings character

It's always a pleasure to have you read my posts and threads - despite your public stance that you do not.

Welcome - again.

[Faded]

It is difficult to track when the cross became the most recognizable symbol of Christianity. Many point to Constantine's experience prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as a beginning point where the symbol the cross began to be instituted. The problem was, the symbol that Constantine conquered under bears absolutely no resemblance to the Christian Cross.

The origins of the Christian Cross is one of those things whose history has puzzled me greatly. One thing that may have a lot to do with it comes from the Germanic and Norse peoples. At the time of Constantine, the Goths, a Germanic people, were already overrunning the Roman Empire. Their incursions would ultimately doom the Western Roman Empire to collapse. Those Germans held one symbol so sacred that they placed it on graves and wore it around their necks to show their devotion. That symbol was The Hammer of Thor, Mjolner.

Now it cannot be conclusively proven that the Hammer of Thor was the primary contributing source for the rise of the Christian Cross, but it's uses and reverences seem to have copied themselves a bit too perfectly from paganism to Christianity. The fact that both symbols are traditionally worn around the neck and placed on graves, the fact that both symbols are viewed as a ward against evil of all types, etc. Thor's Hammer certainly looks a lot more like the Cross than Constantine's Chi-Rho symbol. It would make logical sense for Christianity to want to adopt a symbol that is very similar to Thor's Hammer as a means to and end -- to convert the Germanic peoples to Christianity by revering a symbol that was extremely similar to their most sacred symbol, Mjolner, Thor's Hammer. This wouldn't seem much of a stretch considering that the Europe of Christendom named 4 of the 7 days of the week after Viking Gods: Tuesday (Tyr's Day), Wednesday (Odin's Day), Thursday (Thor's Day), Friday (Freyja's Day.) Viking and Germanic remnants saturate Medieval Europe and the legacy of that influence continues to this day. It should not seem at all surprising if the Hammer of Thor had more to do with the acceptance of the Cross than any other thing. Mjöllnir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do Latter Day Saints disdain the cross? No, and I hope that saying as much is not an open attempt to try to create contention over something where there is no reason for argument. Traditional Christian churches display crosses. Indeed that is where Christ was when His mortal life ended and it is where he finished the process of paying an infinite atonement for all of us. But the cross is not the end of the story. Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven triumphant. The cross commemorates where Christ was. The steeple found on LDS buildings points to where he is now. He is not dead, but is risen and ascended into heaven. There is no evidence to suggest that the cross was an important symbol of Christianity during the time of the Apostles, so I suppose that makes the whole thing a matter of preference. Our Church leaders have elected to not use the cross as a symbol of faith in the same manner that other Christian religions accepted it. If Christians view the Biblical Christian Church as the basis for determining what is or is not Christian then they can hardly criticize the LDS faith for not accepting a symbol that is non-Biblical. To a Latter-Day Saint, the Atonement spans the Garden, the Cross, and the rising from the dead and the empty tomb. It wasn't really complete until all of that had occurred. The cross references a single step along the way.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Faded

[Faded]

Those Korean Augmentations to the U.S. Army are some smart fellows. Can't remember, but I believe the Buddhist "swastika" is a symbol of peace. :-)

The Swastika is an Indo-European symbol whose origins are so ancient that it is difficult to fully determine. Remember that the Indo-Europeans are the ancestors to the Aryan Conquerers of India who effectively instituted Hinduism in that nation. Buddhism was begun as an evolutionary step from within Hinduism, thus the Swastika would have been sacred to Buddhists because it was a sacred Hindu symbol.

The Indo-Europeans are also the ancestors of the most European nations. The Swastika turns up as an ancient symbol from the British Isles, to Poland, to Turkey -- basically everywhere in Europe.

Someone wrote a nice Wikipedia article on it. Swastika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is unfortunate that Nazi Germany dammed this symbols already existing legacy with their monstrous atrocities.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Faded

[Maxel]

I'm bowing out of this discussion. I've been off my depression medication for about a week now, and it's beginning to affect my judgment and thinking. I cannot respond to anything now without resorting to childish insults, so I'm getting out of this discussion for my own sake.

Snow, I actually saved my post (via Word) in case you took to insulting me for trying to avoid the contention it would cause. As of right now, it should be in your inbox. My hope is that you read and at least think about it.

Ogre... I wish I could respond to your claims in a civilized manner. The fault lies with me, not you, but I ask that you not come into a discussion in the '9th inning', so to speak, and blast someone for a position that person doesn't actually adhere to. I will follow this thread- just not post- so I am curious: which system of logic am "I relegating to the toilet"?

[ADoyle90815]

For Protestants, the empty cross is a reminder that Christ had to die before He could be resurrected, but since the cross is empty, He has risen from the dead and lives. Catholics have the crucifix because they remember His suffering, but they still believe in the Resurrection. The thing they have in common is that they believe that the Atonement happened on the Cross. As for myself, I prefer the empty cross, and I frequently wear cross jewelry.

[Faded]

If it keeps our focus on Christ and what he has done for us, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[the Ogre]

Those Korean Augmentations to the U.S. Army are some smart fellows. Can't remember, but I believe the Buddhist "swastika" is a symbol of peace. :-)

Yup . . . I am still friends with one of them. He is a nice guy (and smart) who had trouble think that J-sus is a Jew, but eventually he relented over the years. He is a Chr-stian Lay Minister and construction engineer living in Seoul, Gang-Nam in the same complex that I lived in when last there.

Peace is one of the Asian representations for the Swastika.

Wikipedia says the following:

The swastika (from Sanskrit svástika स्वस्तिक) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing (卐) form or its mirrored left-facing (卍) form. Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. Another legend suggests it first came from Greece, because it looks like a runner running, his arms and legs bent; a common Grecian symbol. It occurs mainly in the modern day culture of India, sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol. It remains widely used in Eastern religions / Dharmic religion such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism . . .

The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit word svastika (in Devanagari, स्वस्तिक), meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck. It is composed of su- (cognate with Greek ευ-, eu-), meaning "good, well" and asti, a verbal abstract to the root as "to be" (cognate with the Romance copula, coming ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h1es-); svasti thus means "well-being." The suffix -ka either forms a diminutive or intensifies the verbal meaning, and svastika might thus be translated literally as "that which is associated with well-being," corresponding to "lucky charm" or "thing that is auspicious." The word in this sense is first used in the Harivamsa.

The Hindu Sanskrit term has been in use in English since 1871, replacing gammadion (from Greek γαμμάδιον).

Alternative historical English spellings of the Sanskrit word include suastika, swastica and svastica. Alternative names for the shape are:

* crooked cross

* cross cramponned, ~nnée, or ~nny (in heraldry), as each arm resembles a crampon or angle-iron (German: Winkelmaßkreuz)

* ugunskrusts (fire cross), also pērkonkrusts (thundercross), kāškrusts (hook-cross), Laimas krusts (Laima's cross), fylfot, is a central element in jewelry, national clothes in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old-Prussian culture, symbolizing as a element of life. It is used in a Latvian Seven-Day Ring. The ring has 7 symbols, each representing a day of the week, where fire-cross represents the symbol for Thursday, and its motto is: "Domā un rīkojies krietni" (Think and do honorable actions.)

* double cross, by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, on the April 6, 1941 edition of his radio program The Catholic Hour, not only comparing the Cross of Christ with the swastika, but also implying that siding with fascism was a "double-crossing" of Christianity

* fylfot, possibly meaning "four feet", chiefly in heraldry and architecture (See fylfot for a discussion of the etymology)

* gammadion, tetragammadion (Greek: τέτραγαμμάδιον), or cross gammadion (Latin: crux gammata; French: croix gammée), as each arm resembles the Greek letter Γ (gamma)

* hook cross (German: Hakenkreuz);

* sun wheel, a name also used as a synonym for the sun cross

tetraskelion (Greek: τετρασκέλιον), "four legged", especially when composed of four conjoined legs (compare triskelion (Greek: τρισκέλιον))

* Mundilfari an Old Norse term has been associated in modern literature with the swastika.

* Thor's hammer, from its supposed association with Thor, the Norse god of the weather, but this may be a misappropriation of a name that properly belongs to a Y-shaped or T-shaped symbol. The swastika shape appears in Icelandic grimoires wherein it is named Þórshamar.

* The Tibetan swastika is known as nor bu bzhi -khyil, or quadruple body symbol, defined in Unicode at codepoint U+0FCC ࿌.

* The buddhist sign was standardised as a Chinese character 卍 (pinyin wan), and as such entered Japanese 卍字 (Manji)

Obviously its interpretation depends on the individual and is thus relative. Edited May 6, 2009 by the Ogre