Why No Crosses?

[Carborendum]

First, I do not believe that it is because "we worship the Living Christ, not the dead one."  Sectarians also believe in a Living Christ.  That's no different.

It is also not because we celebrate the resurrection more than the death.  That's kind of like saying that I like fresh baked bread, but I wish we didn't have any bread dough.  One has to precede the other.  The Atonement of Christ was not an event.  It was a process.  We believe it was ALL important.

In this admission, I don't completely discount those ideas.  They are true.  But they are more about public relations as a soft and cushy justification to shy away from the cross.  But I believe the more doctrinal and more significant reason is less rainbows and unicorns and a bit more...fire and brimstone.

History:

During the days of the apostles, the cross was known as an instrument of death.  And it was a gruesome one at that.  It took 300 years for that imagery to become unfamiliar to common men (and I'm not entirely sure that it was unfamiliar until much later).  And the idea of the Cross no longer carried the generational trauma (yes, I'm borrowing woke language here, heh-heh) of earlier centuries.

The cross was not adopted as a Christian symbol until after the death of the Apostles.  The apostasy was not achieved in one day.  It took hundreds of years before the "foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone" was finally dissolved.  As Elder Holland said,"The once blazing fire of the Gospel had been reduced to barely glowing embers."  (paraphrased).

The cross was finally adopted around the time when the creeds were written.  So, really the cross was the symbol of the "creedal Christians."  It was the symbol that was raised as soon as the last remnant of Divine authority was cut.  So, to us, the cross doesn't symbolize the sacrifice of the Savior.  It is a declaration of belief in the creeds and acceptance that the foundation was no more.  It was embracing the great apostasy.

Restoration:

As the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, we now have the authority that was lost.  The First Vision told us the creeds are an abomination.  We cannot embrace them. And through everything that was restored through the Prophet of this Dispensation, the Lord has formally ended the apostasy and restored lost truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As such, we are distancing ourselves from the creeds.  That includes ditching the cross as an icon.

We agree on the Bible.  But their interpretations are guided by the Creeds which included no prophets or apostles in the writing thereof (by their own admission).  Our interpretations are based on Divine Authority through apostles and prophets, and additional divine words which the Lord provided to us through those prophets (Standard Works).  We either believe they were true prophets, or we join the Creeds.  We don't believe the authority of their Creedal authors.  They don't believe in the authority of our prophets and apostles.

We do still, of course, have paintings of the crucified Christ in some of our churches.  There is nothing evil about having such paintings.  And today's Creedal Christians are not evil for including a cross as their iconography.  But we simply cannot in good conscience adopt that symbol because of the history I have outlined.  There is a reason why the paintings of Christ on the cross are in hallways and foyers, not in the Chapel.

Icons & Idols:

The minister did mention that we have icons like Moroni, stars, and other symbols borrowed from many cultures around the world (both Christian and Non-Christian).  But there is also another thing about the Cross that separates it from any other symbols commonly used in Christianity.  Worship.

We would never bow before a statue of Moroni.  It's decoration.  It is a reminder.  But we'd never kneel before it.  We'd never place a Moroni figurine in our rooms or closets to pray by.  If you're doing that, STOP IT! (Thank you, Elder Uchtdorf). 

But with a cross or crucifix, that is exactly what many Creedists do.  In their minds, they're not worshipping the object.  But from an outsider looking in, it sure looks that way.  And it is just a very slippery slope on a very short hill to idolatry.

There was a reason why the symbols of Baal, Ashera, and Moloch were cleansed from the temple.  Simply having them around was too great a temptation to place faith in an object rather than the Living God.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Carborendum

[askandanswer]

It's nothing to get cross about

[Carborendum]

So, there is a claim made by the prog-mo internet that the Church is moving toward the world.  Specifically, the Brethren are going woke to be more "inclusive."  One example was that they "sneaked" the cross symbol (🗡️) on Google Maps onto all our churches.  And, sure enough, if you look up our churches on Google Maps, they are represented with a cross just like all other Christian churches, as opposed to the Moroni/trumpet symbol.

Two points:

• They did not "sneak" anything.  Church officials communicated with Google that if the cross is the standard Google symbol for Christian churches, it would make sense for Google, as a company, to include our churches as having the same symbol on Google Maps.  Such change to Google iconography is not religious in nature.  It is commercial.  It's advertising/marketing.
• The Moroni symbol is still used to identify temples.  Obviously, this is not where we want non-members to go when they are searching for someone to talk to about the Church.  So, there is no real impetus to use that symbol for temples.  But if they ever did that, then, I still don't see a problem.

To me this is no different than when Ammon tells King Lamoni that "The Great Spirit" is "God".  I don't see this as the Church moving toward Babylon.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, there is a claim made by the prog-mo internet that the Church is moving toward the world.  Specifically, the Brethren are going woke to be more "inclusive."  One example was that they "sneaked" the cross symbol (🗡️) on Google Maps onto all our churches.  And, sure enough, if you look up our churches on Google Maps, they are represented with a cross just like all other Christian churches, as opposed to the Moroni/trumpet symbol.

Two points:

• They did not "sneak" anything.  Church officials communicated with Google that if the cross is the standard Google symbol for Christian churches, it would make sense for Google, as a company, to include our churches as having the same symbol on Google Maps.  Such change to Google iconography is not religious in nature.  It is commercial.  It's advertising/marketing.
• The Moroni symbol is still used to identify temples.  Obviously, this is not where we want non-members to go when they are searching for someone to talk to about the Church.  So, there is no real impetus to use that symbol for temples.  But if they ever did that, then, I still don't see a problem.

To me this is no different than when Ammon tells King Lamoni that "The Great Spirit" is "God".  I don't see this as the Church moving toward Babylon.

I had Google Maps up last night to reference something in regards to the city of Eagle Pass, Texas, for an RPG campaign I'm looking to do. I noted that whoever did the update changed the name of the church completely on the marker, switching it to botched Spanish that I *think* was them trying to give the name of the church in Spanish. Going to Street View, however, would show the front of the building, which very much looks like a stake center and which has the "visitors welcome" bit underneath the usual plaque identifying the church. 

I'm thinking that this is something that, as so often happens, will need tinkering with to get it correct. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

I had Google Maps up last night to reference something in regards to the city of Eagle Pass, Texas,

Are you talking about the one on Maria Del Refugio Dr?  I don't see another LDS church in the city.

EDIT: Whoa!  I did some moving around and the other churches popped up.  But they're all in Spanish.  What the ???

Oh, duh-uh. It's in Mexico.  The one church that remains in English is on the US side.  The remaining churches are all on the Mexico side.  That's why they change to Spanish when you click on them.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Are you talking about the one on Maria Del Refugio Dr?  I don't see another LDS church in the city.

Yeah. 

I'm trying to piece together a G. I. Joe RPG game, and since IRL the Texas State National Guard and other military groups are setting up "temporary" facilities near Eagle Pass I figured I could leverage it into an ostensible cover story for the construction of Joe HQ. I was refreshing myself as to what was where so I could get some maps going when I noticed that. 

edit - Neither Sunbow nor DiC established where the Joe base was in their respective cartoon series. Marvel US had the first base as an underground facility at Fort Wadsworth, the second base as an underground facility at The Presidio, and the third base as an underground facility somewhere in Utah, likely either Dugway Proving Grounds or Hill AFB. The game manual has the base in Utah, but posits it as being so far out in the middle of nowhere that IRL it *being* that far out in the middle of nowhere would be suspicious in its own right. 

 

(Hasbro cut a deal with an RPG publisher named Renegade to produce games based on G. I. Joe, Transformers, My Little Pony, and Power Rangers. But the "Essence 20" system Renegade is using is a flaming disaster, and the books themselves are shot through with typos & other obvious errors. Only an experienced game master should even consider running games using those manuals, as they will need to rely on their experience to compensate for how bad the books are.)

Edited November 27, 2024 by Ironhold

[NeuroTypical]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:33 AM, Carborendum said:

So, there is a claim made by the prog-mo internet that the Church is moving toward the world.  Specifically, the Brethren are going woke to be more "inclusive."  One example was that they "sneaked" the cross symbol (🗡️) on Google Maps onto all our churches.

Heh.  Identifying more closely with mainstream Christian symbolism is hardly something that happens when woke folks are interested in being more inclusive.   That's some pretty backwards YewTahh cultural weirdness right there.  

That said, absolutely the church has been marketing itself as a Christian church that worships Jesus Christ and is peopled by people doing their best to learn of Him and live Christlike lives.  We continue to stand by our doctrinal distinctiveness, and we're certainly not backing down from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or our restoration history, but it all comes 2nd to learning of and worshipping Christ.  We also won't be bending on the Proclamation on the Family any time soon.

And THAT said, well, um, yeah, you can't go to Churchofjesuschrist.org and swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen pages displaying cultural, gender, and racial diversity.   

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/who-are-the-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?facet=all&lang=eng&query=inclusion&page=1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?facet=all&lang=eng&query=diversity&page=1

(Glad to see almost zero stuff about "Equity".  Which is nice, because it's basically either Marxism or people rebranding the word equality to appeal to ignorant socialists.)

Edited November 27, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/who-are-the-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?facet=all&lang=eng&query=inclusion&page=1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?facet=all&lang=eng&query=diversity&page=1

I was just pondering the words "diversity" and "inclusion".  I realized that wokeness has poisoned the words so much that I've gotten sick of the concepts. So, why is the Church using those words?  If I can have enough faith to believe that the Brethren are directing/approving this tactic, then I need to look at what is causing my disdain for these words.

It appears (at least for the moment) that "woke" is dying.  With that so are the DEIs.  What I perceive on the horizon is that we've gotten so sick of these words that we'll naturally gravitate towards their antonyms.  We want to exclude and only deal with people within a very narrow Overton window.

Humans have a hard time dealing with nuances and the balanced middle.  We tend to gravitate towards extremes.  I hope to not be one who runs to one end or the other.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was just pondering the words "diversity" and "inclusion".  I realized that wokeness has poisoned the words so much that I've gotten sick of the concepts. So, why is the Church using those words?  If I can have enough faith to believe that the Brethren are directing/approving this tactic, then I need to look at what is causing my disdain for these words.

It appears (at least for the moment) that "woke" is dying.  With that so are the DEIs.  What I perceive on the horizon is that we've gotten so sick of these words that we'll naturally gravitate towards their antonyms.  We want to exclude and only deal with people within a very narrow Overton window.

Humans have a hard time dealing with nuances and the balanced middle.  We tend to gravitate towards extremes.  I hope to not be one who runs to one end or the other.

There's a big difference between "depicting people as they naturally are" and "there's a checklist of who and what must be depicted in order to give the appearance that you're all for everyone". 

The church is now a global church and so the materials are trying to reflect this. It's an organic shift. 

What activists and whatnot have tried to push is "I don't care if it's not historically accurate; you *must* have all of these groups in your movie at once or you'll be blacklisted!". 

[HaggisShuu]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:09 PM, Carborendum said:

First, I do not believe that it is because "we worship the Living Christ, not the dead one."  Sectarians also believe in a Living Christ.  That's no different.

It is also not because we celebrate the resurrection more than the death.  That's kind of like saying that I like fresh baked bread, but I wish we didn't have any bread dough.  One has to precede the other.  The Atonement of Christ was not an event.  It was a process.  We believe it was ALL important.

In this admission, I don't completely discount those ideas.  They are true.  But they are more about public relations as a soft and cushy justification to shy away from the cross.  But I believe the more doctrinal and more significant reason is less rainbows and unicorns and a bit more...fire and brimstone.

History:

During the days of the apostles, the cross was known as an instrument of death.  And it was a gruesome one at that.  It took 300 years for that imagery to become unfamiliar to common men (and I'm not entirely sure that it was unfamiliar until much later).  And the idea of the Cross no longer carried the generational trauma (yes, I'm borrowing woke language here, heh-heh) of earlier centuries.

The cross was not adopted as a Christian symbol until after the death of the Apostles.  The apostasy was not achieved in one day.  It took hundreds of years before the "foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone" was finally dissolved.  As Elder Holland said,"The once blazing fire of the Gospel had been reduced to barely glowing embers."  (paraphrased).

The cross was finally adopted around the time when the creeds were written.  So, really the cross was the symbol of the "creedal Christians."  It was the symbol that was raised as soon as the last remnant of Divine authority was cut.  So, to us, the cross doesn't symbolize the sacrifice of the Savior.  It is a declaration of belief in the creeds and acceptance that the foundation was no more.  It was embracing the great apostasy.

Restoration:

As the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, we now have the authority that was lost.  The First Vision told us the creeds are an abomination.  We cannot embrace them. And through everything that was restored through the Prophet of this Dispensation, the Lord has formally ended the apostasy and restored lost truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As such, we are distancing ourselves from the creeds.  That includes ditching the cross as an icon.

We agree on the Bible.  But their interpretations are guided by the Creeds which included no prophets or apostles in the writing thereof (by their own admission).  Our interpretations are based on Divine Authority through apostles and prophets, and additional divine words which the Lord provided to us through those prophets (Standard Works).  We either believe they were true prophets, or we join the Creeds.  We don't believe the authority of their Creedal authors.  They don't believe in the authority of our prophets and apostles.

We do still, of course, have paintings of the crucified Christ in some of our churches.  There is nothing evil about having such paintings.  And today's Creedal Christians are not evil for including a cross as their iconography.  But we simply cannot in good conscience adopt that symbol because of the history I have outlined.  There is a reason why the paintings of Christ on the cross are in hallways and foyers, not in the Chapel.

Icons & Idols:

The minister did mention that we have icons like Moroni, stars, and other symbols borrowed from many cultures around the world (both Christian and Non-Christian).  But there is also another thing about the Cross that separates it from any other symbols commonly used in Christianity.  Worship.

We would never bow before a statue of Moroni.  It's decoration.  It is a reminder.  But we'd never kneel before it.  We'd never place a Moroni figurine in our rooms or closets to pray by.  If you're doing that, STOP IT! (Thank you, Elder Uchtdorf). 

But with a cross or crucifix, that is exactly what many Creedists do.  In their minds, they're not worshipping the object.  But from an outsider looking in, it sure looks that way.  And it is just a very slippery slope on a very short hill to idolatry.

There was a reason why the symbols of Baal, Ashera, and Moloch were cleansed from the temple.  Simply having them around was too great a temptation to place faith in an object rather than the Living God.

https://johnhiltoniii.com/can-we-use-the-cross/ 

I found this blog post to be an interesting read on the topic. 

Personally I don't see anything wrong with wearing a cross, or having one in your home. I have one of solid gold, it was and still is precious to me. Coming from a creedist (protestant) background (I specify protestant because protestants don't usually use crucifixes which have a little Jesus glued on, whereas orthodox/catholic do tend to.) It was never an object of worship, but more Protestants answer to a CTR ring. I stopped wearing it because my wife got funny with it, and of course, temple garments have somewhat replaced the need for it, but I still frequently return to it when I need a pick me up. To look upon a cross I find to be a very personal, powerful reminder of the suffering christ endured, and the fact it is empty, a reminder of the victory over death. 

I personally feel we'd be better off reclaiming the narrative (so to speak), than shying away from the symbol. But that's just an opinion, of course there is idolatry at play in some homes, but done right, the cross is one of the most powerful symbols religion has to offer.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

https://johnhiltoniii.com/can-we-use-the-cross/ 

I found this blog post to be an interesting read on the topic. 

Personally I don't see anything wrong with wearing a cross, or having one in your home. I have one of solid gold, it was and still is precious to me. Coming from a creedist (protestant) background (I specify protestant because protestants don't usually use crucifixes which have a little Jesus glued on, whereas orthodox/catholic do tend to.) It was never an object of worship, but more Protestants answer to a CTR ring. I stopped wearing it because my wife got funny with it, and of course, temple garments have somewhat replaced the need for it, but I still frequently return to it when I need a pick me up. To look upon a cross I find to be a very personal, powerful reminder of the suffering christ endured, and the fact it is empty, a reminder of the victory over death. 

I personally feel we'd be better off reclaiming the narrative (so to speak), than shying away from the symbol. But that's just an opinion, of course there is idolatry at play in some homes, but done right, the cross is one of the most powerful symbols religion has to offer.

I am of somewhat different mind.  I do not wear any kind of jewelry.   Not even a watch or wedding ring.  Especially on men – I believe such things to be vain.  But I must be careful.  I have never been able to become attached to things – especially physical things.  I do believe in stewardship.  I do not understand fashion (especially clothing with unnecessary holes – I believe to be a public display of stupidity) and yet I do believe in organizing and taking care of things in my stewardship.  I do not understand why people (especially people with pets) insist on living in filth.

I would say something about wearing a cross.  It seems to me that if you think such identifies you as a Christian – that you have no idea who Jesus Christ was or what he taught.  When I am asked my religion, I respond by telling them that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.  I use the word disciple because it requires discipline that I believe is a necessary element of true worship.  I like almost everybody and find it difficult to love those I do not like very much.  I am aware that I am difficult for some to like but I do not know anyone as my enemy.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not even a watch or wedding ring.

I have a thing for watches but I don’t wear a wedding band either. Instead we have multiple tattoos dedicated to one another. 
 

Been married for 23 years now so it works for us. 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Personally I don't see anything wrong with [...] having one in your home.

As someone who used to have this antique inherited Masonic plate hanging on his kitchen wall, I agree. 

 

It ain't idolatry if the only reason it's there is to test the courage of your LDS guests.

Edited March 10 by NeuroTypical

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

As someone who used to have this antique inherited Masonic plate hanging on his kitchen wall, I agree. 

 

It ain't idolatry if the only reason it's there is to test the courage of your LDS guests.

Please tell me you use this to serve chilled foods……. About 32 degrees