Posted on 06/21/2013 4:31:51 AM PDT by Colofornian
The Mormon Church has an ambivalent history with Christianitys most iconic symbol, the cross. For about 70 years, the cross was generally tolerated within the churchs cultural fabric. However, the first decades of the 20th century initiated a slow but steady expression of disapproval of the cross; a criticism influenced by LDS leaders willingness to publicly declare the Roman Catholic Church as the church of the devil described in LDS scripture.
Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo, (John Whitmer Books) by Michael G. Reed, is a slim but valuable volume on the history of the Mormons relationship with the cross. As Reed notes, the Mormon Church was founded during an era of widespread Protestant hostility to the cross, a hostility that was due to that eras wariness of Catholicism.
As Reed notes, Mormons were generally no fans of Catholicism, but they were more responsive to the cross as a religious symbol. There are two reasons for this. The first was that Mormonism was founded during a time of spiritual awakening in the early United States. While organized religion was criticized, individualistic spirituality flourished. Within these rebel theologies, spiritual manifestations were not uncommon. The symbol of the cross often played a role. Another reason the cross was tolerated by early Mormons, according to Reed, was due to founder Joseph Smiths interest in Freemasonry. In fact, Nauvoo in the early 1840s was a hotbed of Freemasonry interest.
That interest is a key reason that the symbol of the cross traveled with the saints to Utah. Reed presents many photographs, both central to Mormonism and 19th century Utah, in which the cross is prominent.
However, as Reed notes, criticism of the cross started to creep more into the Mormon culture as a the 20th century began. Reed cites statements from leading Mormons, including then-apostle Moses Thatcher, that connected the cross to anti-Catholicism. Around 1915, a proposal in the Salt Lake area to put a cross on Ensign Peak received significant opposition, one that initially surprised LDS supporters. The eventual failure to place a memorial cross at Ensign Peak is cast correctly by Reed as a dispute between church leaders. The author writes that younger church leaders, such as David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith, had not grown up in the early era of the LDS Church and therefore had not been influenced by the more liberal, anti institutional, even anti-government thought of the 1840s to 1860s LDS leadership. Also, they had not been influenced by Freemasonry.
In my opinion, its important to note that in the first 30 years of the 20th century the LDS Church leadership had what might best be referred to as a second Mormon reformation. Leaders such as McKay, Fielding Smith, and later J. Reuben Clark, Mark E. Peterson and Bruce R. McConkie, successfully moved the church to extremely conservative ideology, including a renewal of harsh rhetoric against Catholicism.
As Reed notes, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, To bow down before a cross or to look upon it as an emblem to be revered because of the fact that our Savior died upon a cross is repugnant
The more blunt McConkie described the Roman Catholic Church as being most abominable above all other churches, writes Reed.
What I describe as a conservative era eventually endured about as long as the early Mormon Churchs initial tolerance of the cross. In the 21st it has waned. As Reed notes, it would be shocking to hear an LDS leader denounce Catholicism as McConkie once did. However, Reed still sees an institutional taboo against the cross in the LDS Church. To still use the term taboo though is too harsh.
While its true that an anti-Catholic diatribe by an LDS leader would be greeted with shock today, its also true that a talk about the symbolic spiritual value of the cross would mostly be greeted with non-surprised acceptance by most Latter-day Saints.
This article, from the LDS publication The Ensign, is evidence of a stance on the cross that would have been at odds with the rhetoric of church leaders of the past. A specific condemnation of the cross may be an occasionally tactless utterance from some church members, but most others would find such beliefs offensive. Today, Latter-day Saints define the cross as a responsibility to live a righteous life. That seems a pretty ecumenical position.
SURE they will!
Mormonism is OPEN to HOMO’s, just as long as they pay their tithe.
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
I think he may have meant a little bit MORE than that, but failed to post it.
Good luck finding any historical proof to support this bald-faced lie.
Yep. That comment made me stop dead in my tracks, too.
Mormonism is OPEN to HOMOs, just as long as they pay their tithe.
Right guys???
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52486958-78/mayne-gay-lds-ward.html.csp
Why do so many misinterpret/skew my words?
The Jesus Christ part is a given and I didn't think y'all needed to be reminded. I said it was not a religion, but a movement/state of being, not state of "mind". If the apostles/disciples didn't start a movement, by preaching the Good News of the Gospel, what did they do and how did word spread? Why are descriptive words of the English language so hard to stomach/ascribe?
OK....let's take The Lord's Supper/Communion/The Eucharist.
Some Christians regard bread/wafers as merely "symbolic"; others don't -- and not only Catholics.
Some of the key Protestant reformers discussed Christ's "real presence" as being the "Living Bread" who came down from heaven (see John 6).
Most Christians would regard these wafers -- and wine/grape juice -- as "holy"...whether they see these elements as "symbolic" or not. Would you castigate them as well?
Jesus is not a state of my mind, He is the state of my heart.
Jesus is not my religion He is my Savior.
Jesus is not my “movement”, He is my all.
So when I say, to your statement “there we have it, I thought Christianity was about Jesus” -
it explains why we definitely have differing views on Him.
As Reed notes, the Mormon Church was founded during an era of widespread Protestant hostility to the cross,
____________________________________________
What a lying piece of crap this Mormon guy is
That interest is a key reason that the symbol of the cross traveled with the saints to Utah
_______________________________________________
and yet shortly after the Mormons arriveed in Utah, theocratic dictator Brigham Young had a cross over the makeshift graves of Christiaqns he had murdered torn down ..
Hardly the act of somneone who believed in and respected the Cross...
As Paul said “The preaching of ther cross is foolishness to those who are persishing”
Non-Christian Brigham Young was perishing then when he scorned the Cross of the LORD Jesus Christ in 1857 and he was still perishing when he died 20 years later and went to Hell for his unbelief and rejection of Jesus...
what about a hand cart ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeJz1h_BY0
Not Do-Re-Mi though. Probably Hey - Ha Hee.
Utah 1896-1996
yeppers Ive said it before TN is more Conservative than Utah
TN was a state in 1796 100 years before Utah
and why is that Nana???
Im glad you asked...
TN was always a moral area with Godly marriage etc One man, one woman...
Utah was denied statehood because of their pagan religion and deviant sex lifestyle...wholesale adultery and child rape...polygamy..
They lied and pretended to quit the filth of polygamy in 1890 just so they could get statehood..
however every Mormon leader until 1945 continued the multiple sex partner rituals of their unGodly religion...
To the LORD Jesus Christ polygamy is akin and equal to homosexuality...both lead to spiritual death for the sinner...
When you spit on the LORD Jesus Chrfist and the Cross you’ll accept any old unGodly thing...
I'm not castigating anyone - just trying to have some conversations. My personal belief is that they are only bread and juice/wine, but the symbolism is the important thing - we we commanded to remember Him when we broke bread and drink so we would constantly have the gift of Grace on our minds and in our hearts (I really am a believer and a Christian).
I think that considering the wafer and the wine as holy demonstrates one of the problems with religion. While Jesus did say that if we had a mustard seed of faith, we could command a mountain into the sea (probably to demonstrate how little faith we are capable of despite His presence), some religions claim that their priests are empowered to be the constant conduit of miracles by having the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ or even make water holy. I have a question - can all priests cause this transubstantiation? Even those who "stray from the straight and narrow"? How can one be sure the sacrament of Holy Communion is being faithfully delivered? Another faith thing, but not one that is spelled out in the Bible - faith needs to be in God, not men (even priests). Jesus told us that the bread and wine were His body and blood, and commanded us to remember Him with them as a symbol (probably OK to use grits and orange juice too as it is a remembrance). He did not tell us that we could actually affect a change over our food or that we should have our priests claim it occurred each and every time. He walked the Earth as wholly God and Wholly Man and was able to ask the Father to perform miracles ("It is the Father that doeth the works"), and even opened the channel for some of his disciples to do similar acts - but their faith was not enough to sustain the process just as a certain guy got out on the water then lost it.
I merely wish to provoke thought about what's important - all the canons and intricacies of any particular religion or just carrying the Word of Grace through a beautiful and loving sacrifice which kept God's main OT promise of the new Covenant. I seems that many take it personally and end up offended and either aggressive , defensive, or some combination thereof - not my intent.
We don't have differing views on Jesus - He is the manliest and lovingest Man to ever walk the Earth. He is God who stepped out of Heaven to die at the hands of sinners that those same sinners need not perish themselves. He humbled Himself and called mere mortals "friend" and he suffered terribly in body, mind and spirit - how terrible it must have felt when He took all our sins on Himself and for the first time was cut off from the Father and cried out that He had been forsaken. We worship the same Jesus - please don't take things so personal that you keep changing my words and intent. I said Christianity was the movement. I never indicated it in any way lessened the stature of Jesus. How can anything a human does do something that reflects negatively on God? Anyone who thinks he can hurt God's status is egotistical and misinformed. God stands above all else and does not need our support or defense.
I was saved by the same Jesus as you and am part of the same "movement" of Christianity. I understand and love Him as much as anyone and do not intend to demean Him. I ask questions about religion because I've been involved with a few and most diluted the message by inundating the flocks with all sorts of extraneous stuff that at times seems to contradict the Bible. Where it doesn't contradict the Bible, it comes out as doctrinal thesis material instead of clean and simple words. It has members calling the priests "Father" despite the Bible telling us to call no earthly man "Father" because we have but one Father. It makes the act of the Lord's Supper into a deal that requires a priest in order to do a "proper remembrance". It has people praying to the saints for intercession on their behalf when we were given a direct conduit to God Himself for our prayers - "When you pray, do it something like this....Our Father, which art in heaven..."
Most of the folks who respond negatively to me aren't defending Jesus or God. They usually don't even bring up carrying the Word and Good News of the Gospels. They defend their religion. There are over 30,000 sects of Christianity and they all appear as different versions of religion that have the same core concept - "Christ is the Savior", but they all have other beliefs that are either added or subtracted for the others to make them a unique entity. Speak in tongues/handle snakes/roll in the aisles, etc., etc., etc...
God's Word in the Bible is sufficient to carry the news and bring folks to Christ - religion causes distractions - Ireland anyone?
This is quite possible; but he could also just be misinformed by his church.
I'd guess that over 99% of them are.
Once a MORMON is finally told the truth, and it sinks in, they usually end up NOT being a MORMON any more.
Right, Ex-MOs??
Yeah; that's a 'symbol', too.
One that should remind MORMONs that B.Y. killed WAY more MORMONs by his 'revelation from GOD' to walk to the Utah territory than Bogg's 'extermination order' did.
They’ve got to be taught,
before it’s too late...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.