That all may be true but it is still a catholic tradition and interpretation. A cross without the crucifixtion can hold the same meaning. And no cross symbolism at all can still hold the same meaning as one attempts to live the commandments and practice christianity in daily life as the mormons attempt to do.
This is not true at all. The early mormon leaders and members basically came from protestant traditions. They would certainly bring with them catholic hangups from that protestant tradition.
I am an internet scholar!Come on Mike admit it Whyme’s research has yours beat hands down. And his method is … well what can one say about google, copy, paste repeat?
I have had experience with mike on a couple of forums besides this one. We are old hands at this.LOL if the symbol of Christ hanging from the cross is misleading since we have no idea what he looked like, then every single depiction of Jesus, whether on a cross, resurrected, as an infant, etc. is misleading as well.
Mike can speak for himself about what his graduate level research on this issue has shown. I think I’ll trust his opinion on the history of this issue, since he’s actually researched it, over yours. And I’m sure that he understands the distinction between a crucifix and a cross.
I was refering to the non use of the cross itself in lds chapels and in the temple or in the wearing of the cross as traditional christians now use the symbolism. Gordon B. Hinckley may have been repeating folklore which is okay too. But I think that his reasoning developed over time in lds culture. But to assert that it had anticatholic beginnings is what I am questioning.
LDS were foroced to show Jesus as white since they did not allow blacks to hold the Priesthood until the 1970s when pressure caused a “revelation”
This is not true. Protestants took issue with both. I suggested that you read two sources. Read them, and you will know (as I know) that you are wrong. Here is a link where you can read a few pages of the book. Buy the book, so you can read it in its entirety. I’ve read Ryan Smith’s book thoroughly. I’ve read his article too. I’ve tracked down and read several of his sources. I’ve found several sources of my own that confirm his conclusions. I’ve conversed with Ryan Smith privately over my use of his book in my thesis, and he’s given me feedback that will help improve the final publication of my book.
Thank you ThesosM. Yes. I know the difference.
Awww shucks! I thought if I tried really hard to fake it, maybe I could sucker you all into believing I’m an authority on this topic.
I’ve heard that one a hundred times! Do you live in Utah by any chance?
Hi Lax. My departure happened during my grad studies, in part due to a divorce I was going through at the time. I tried to remain strong, but as I continued in my grad studies, it soon became obvious to me that I was unwilling to look at my own faith through the same lens that I perceived other religions (like Catholicism). So I left the Church. I still consider myself a “Cultural Mormon”, but I’m agnostic now.Mike - I noticed that at one time you were a Mormon.
Did your departure happen before/during/after your studies began?
After all, this thread is about “former mormon de-conversion stories.”
Thanks mike for the book. I have skimmed through it and discovered something interesting. The book was centered in the United States. But overlooked Europe. And as the book stated, the luthern church in the US bucked the trend and had the cross. And as you probably know, luthernism is the leading protestant church in Europe. It would be interesting to see if protestantism in Europe used the cross. I do believe the luthern and anglican church in Europe retained the use of the cross.
Zaff was joking. She is a big fan of yours.Awww shucks! I thought if I tried really hard to fake it, maybe I could sucker you all into believing I’m an authority on this topic.
My thesis was US centered because early Mormonism was US centered.You need to become less US centered.
I figured she was joking. I was joking with her back.Zaff was joking. She is a big fan of yours.
Mike’s research seems to be US centered, overlooking the bastion of protestantism which is Europe. Luthernism is very much a part of life in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany (northern), Estonia, and Latvia. And of course, Anglicanism can be found in England. I can not say that luthernism and anglicanism forsook the cross in Europe.