Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t believe that any faithful Church member who is not already a “disgruntled one” would find Hinckley’s explanation of why we don’t use the cross inadequate, a fudge, or a dodge. Neither do I believe that any honest non-LDS Christian would find his explanations “insulting” to himself or to his Christian faith. I am convinced of that.Sacrament/communion? The “sign of the nail” and “sure sign of the nail” in the LDS temple ceremony? The use of the word “cross” as a literary symbol?
I am not surprised. I have never judged you to be the most observant of fellows. I could direct you to Alter Idem (from MADb), or Robert Rees (who spoke about Mormons and the cross at the Sunstone West symposium last year). But maybe it would be better to simply suggest that you get out more.
How do you know that they didn’t find it insulting? Did you ask them? Did Hinckley say that they weren’t? Or are you once again displaying your amazing ability to pull things out of your… cough… I mean… out of thin air? Hinckey understood the potential for insult, which is why he prepped his statement with “I do not wish to give offense to my Christian colleagues… but…”
Like I said, you need to get out more. You should also read up on the topic. Although there are exceptions, there is a general view held among mormons that the symbol of the cross is an apostate and repugnant symbol, and for this reason the symbol is avoided. Yes… it is called an “aversion.”
By the way, you will notice that this is my 4,000th post on CAF! Think how privileged you are to be the recipient of my 4,000th anniversary post!
zerinus