Cross on the temple

[RMGuy]

My apologies if this has been posted previously, but what are everyones thoughts with regards to the cross that will be on the main doors of the new Rome Italy temple? Particularly, I ask the question in regards to what has been past teachings regarding the cross in the church.

-RM

[slamjet]

I've not heard of this one. Do you have an official source?

[Vort]

The supposed "cross" is seen in the negative space of the temple doors design. It's a non-issue.

[pam]

This is what people are referring to. I'm not convinced the church had a cross in mind.

Edited September 30, 2011 by pam

[Just_A_Guy]

There appears to be a

showing some architectural renderings. It looks like the entry will be through a set of double-doors, each with a square panel above and a rectangular one underneath. The effect from a distance looks like a cross, but I'm not convinced that that is what was intended.

[Maureen]

IMO, I think it's a great idea; but construction has only just begun, so it might be a case of "I'll believe it when I see."

M.

[pam]

IMO, I think it's a great idea; but construction has only just begun, so it might be a case of "I'll believe it when I see."

M.

Actually Maureen, in some ways I agree with you. The area they are building this temple is so steeped in Catholic tradition. It almost seems respectful to me.

Edited September 30, 2011 by pam

[Jenamarie]

Well, Christ *did* die on a cross as a part of the Atonement. What's the big hoopla??

[FlaviusHambonius]

Perhaps a comforting gesture to all the possible converts of the area, that as Pam said is so steeped in the Catholic tradition, at least that was my first thoughts.

[FlaviusHambonius]

Well, Christ *did* die on a cross as a part of the Atonement. What's the big hoopla??

I agree, growing up in the LDS church and culture I was of the thought that any kind of outward celebration (such as wearing jewelery etc) was frowned upon.

I personally don't think it takes away from the reverance of the living Christ at all, especially if a person wears it with a personal conviction in their heart that it means something special to them.

Now if it's someone wearing it just because it's another piece of bling....well that's another thing -- but who am I to say.

[annewandering]

If the church approved it and saw that it looked like a cross then fine with me. It isnt the cross thats the problem anyway. Its the worshiping of a cross and forgetting the Man on it.

[Justice]

Yeah, it's 4 windows, not a cross intentionally. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it before construction just to avoid any speculation.

In our belief we honor His life and resurrection, and present ourselves as beling living examples of Christ. We have always expressed our belief in the risen Lord, and not the Lord crucified, even though it is reality. This has always been the case with the Church. I can't see that they intentionally designed a cross into the building's architecture. This being a temple makes it all the more symbolic to be a place of living.

The Church has begun to show the crucifixion in it's videos and such, but I don't think we'll ever see a cross put intentionally on a temple, in Rome or anywhere else.

I've been wrong before...

Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

[mordorbund]

Most Temples are illuminated to remind us of the light of the world; have fountains to remind us of the source of the wellspring of eternal life; have a baptistry where we symbollically die and are resurrected with Christ; bestow tokens as symbols of Jesus' death on the cross; contain other symbols of the triumph of the Atonement.

I don't see the problem with adding another symbol to remind us of Christ and the Atonement.

[mordorbund]

Oh, and there have been numerous threads about the LDS perspective on the cross, and some historical background.

LDS Social Network Forums - Search Results

[ADoyle90815]

To me, it's just a door with windows and wood that looks like an empty cross. In most Protestant churches, you see an empty cross only as a reminder that while Christ died on one as part of the Atonement, but He was resurrected on the 3rd day after His death.

[prisonchaplain]

If the church approved it and saw that it looked like a cross then fine with me. It isnt the cross thats the problem anyway. Its the worshiping of a cross and forgetting the Man on it.

I've never met a Christian who worships the cross and forgets Jesus.

[Maureen]

I've never met a Christian who worships the cross and forgets Jesus.

Ditto.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

*shrug* When I first saw this thread, I googled crosses on the Rome temple and came across a website from an ex-Mormon talking about how it was only when he left Mormonism that he could understand the true power of the cross. (His conclusion was that this is all some kind of sinister plot to ingratiate ourselves with the local Christian community.)

I'll grant that statements like "power of the cross" probably means something very different than the way outsiders tend to interpret it. But you traditional Christians can sure use some strange vocabulary sometimes, and it leaves the rest of us a mite confused.

[Hello, Kettle. My name is Pot, and I'm very pleased to meet you!]

[Guest pogi]

Is there a theological reason why there shouldn't be a cross on the temple?

It is my understanding that many of the early saints adorned themselves with crosses. It wasn't until President Mckay, who had a personal distaste for the symbol of the cross, that the church as an institution began to have an aversion to wearing the cross. It's all in personal taste. I can see why some would have a distaste for it, and I can see why it is a powerful symbol for good in others.

The early baptists did not have crosses on their buildings for some time, I guess we just didn't see any reason to change.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think someone already linked to a couple of earlier threads on the topic. I agree with you that the Mormon de-emphasis on the cross was not a feature of 1830 Mormonism; but I think it did precede McKay's tenure by quite a bit. As I recall, James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy had some pretty impolitic comments about the use of crosses around the turn of the 20th century.

[Justice]

It may not have been common knowledge until words were really recorded. But, the temples built by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have crosses on them. Since it was a common symbol in Christianity, it seems if they were inclined toward it as a symbol it would have been used somewhere.

But, I realize that in reality the lack of evidence has never proved or disproved anything. I really don't know what they thought. I don't remember reading anything they ever said on the subject. Even still, I'm inclined to think they leaned away from it's use because it doesn't appear on the building they were responsible for constructing. Who knows though.

[mnn727]

I've never met a Christian who worships the cross and forgets Jesus.

I think a better way to have put it was that they celebrate His death as the 'be all' and 'end all' of his mission. While it was a necessary part, it certainly was not the defining moment. Many people have died for their beliefs, but only Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world and then was resurrected after His death.

If there was a way to portray an empty tomb that would be easily recognizable, I think that would be a better symbol.

[annewandering]

When I was a small child I noticed a small wooden cross with a figure depicting Jesus on my grandmothers wall. I had never gone to church at that time that I remembered. My grandmother told me it was Jesus when He was crucified. I asked her why he was all bloody and looked like he was in a lot of pain. She explained it was to remind people that Jesus died for us. I told her in no uncertain terms that I thought that was horrible and disgusting to make such a thing and put it in anyones house. I remember she tried to explain it to me but I could not see past the horror and cruelty.

Now as an adult my opinion has not changed. I will never understand such a thing. If it offended my soul as an innocent child I have to trust that feeling that it is wrong.

As far as putting it on the temple doors, I have to wonder if they wont change the doors as well. Considering its area though it does make a bit of sense to leave it on for those who have been taught it is a sign of reverence.

[prisonchaplain]

I think a better way to have put it was that they celebrate His death as the 'be all' and 'end all' of his mission. While it was a necessary part, it certainly was not the defining moment. Many people have died for their beliefs, but only Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world and then was resurrected after His death.

I've never met a Christian who believes that Jesus' death was the be all and end all of his mission. Every Christian church I have been in teaches that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, and then was resurrected after his death.

[SteveVH]

If the church approved it and saw that it looked like a cross then fine with me. It isnt the cross thats the problem anyway. Its the worshiping of a cross and forgetting the Man on it.

Which is why Catholics wear the crucifix and have it displayed above the altar. The cross didn't save anyone. The one hanging on it did. Nevertheless, the cross is still a sign of the greatest love ever known to man. I cannot imagine why anyone would have a problem using it as a Christian symbol.

And I have never know anyone who "worships" the cross or forgets about the man on it. There is no resurrection without the crucifiction. They cannot be separated. There seems to be a notion that one cannot remember his sacrifice and at the same time his resurrection. This is like saying that we should not have a Christmas "nativity scene" because Jesus is no longer a baby. Yes, we know that.

Edited October 1, 2011 by StephenVH