Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[zaffiroborant]

I suppose you could also ask why Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or the apostles didn’t use the cross as a symbol of religion.
Stephen168;5473298:

How many Temples did Jesus, Peter, Paul, or the Apostles build? Of all those Temples how many had a statue of Moroni on the top?

Or how many wore CTR jewelry? And where ARE these symbols found in the Bible?

Or how many used the compass and the square as symbols?

 

[Janet1983]

We all know that there is a certain time for establishing with everything…
The first Christians weren’t even called Christians until they were in Antioch…
The symbol of the cross was used and there with the early Christians, but the fish was just more common. From the 2nd century on the cross was closely associated with the Christians.

However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the second century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next, and by the fact that by the early third century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον (the Lord’s sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ΤΙΗ) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted using numerology as a foreshadowing (a “type”) of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (ΙΗ, the first two letter of his name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, standing for 18), and his contemporary Tertullian could designate the body of Christian believers as crucis religiosi, i.e. “devotees of the Cross”. In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Or how many used the compass and the square as symbols?

Or sunstones? Or, how about the Star of David? Why are these symbols on their buildings, but not the cross?

To the CTR ring, wiki says:

“The symbol is also used in LDS culture by members of all ages, both as a reminder of the motto [Choose The Right], as well as an indicator of religious affiliation.”

 

[chris2009]

How many Temples did Jesus, Peter, Paul, or the Apostles build? Of all those Temples how many had a statue of Moroni on the top?

The question for the thread is “Mormons, why don’t you have crosses in your churches?” I guess we can change the subject a little if you want. I think you are missing my point. I’m not saying crosses are evil. I’m not saying symbols are evil. I’m telling you why Mormons don’t use the cross like other religions. The symbol of the cross and the crucifix started with the Catholic Church and then at around 1500 AD when other Protestant Churches broke away, they all essentially adopted all the Catholic doctrines and practices with a few changes to make them closer to what they felt was true. The Pilgrams in 1620 were Seperatists - they wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church and wanted a whole new religion. They were persecuted for this - fled to Holland and then to America. My 10th great grand mother Mary Chilton was one of these on the Mayflower. Then in 1630 the Puritans under John Winthrop wanted to “change” or make pure the doctrines of the Catholic Church. John’s niece Elizabeth Winthrop is my 9th great grandmother. I love the history of these great people. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we stand with the Protestants, Pilgrams and Puritans in our belief that their was a Great Apostasy from the truth after the death of Christ and the apostles (as prophecied in the Bible). (2 Thes. 2:1-4) A full and complete restoration of all the keys and authorities were necessary.

Temples are an entirely different topic, but just briefly I’m not aware of any temple that Jesus, Peter or Paul built. As you remember, Jesus’ ministry lasted only three years. We are aware of Solomon’s Temple that was built, destroyed, built and destroyed again. Moses had a portable tent that acted as the temple. Often the tops of mountains were used as temples. Jesus, Peter, James & John on the Mount of Transfiguration and Moses on Mount Sinai are two examples. From LDS Bible Dictionary: “From Adam to the time of Jesus, ordinances were performed in temples for the living only. After Jesus opened the way for the gospel to be preached in the world of spirits, ceremonial work for the dead, as well as for the living, has been done in temples on the earth by faithful members of the Church. Building and properly using a temple is one of the marks of the true Church in any dispensation, and is especially so in the present day.” Syriac Manuscripts and New Coptic Writings suggest that following Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus visited the apostles for 40 days and gave them a “secret” knowledge that gave them power to go forward to fulfill their missions. These writings and manuscripts suggest this knowledge was sacred temple ordinances. (I can share this information with you if you’d like.)

Moroni is not on any ancient temple obviously - Moroni didn’t live until around 400 AD. The angel Moroni with trumpet on the tops of some temples is a symbol (yes, a symbol) of the restoration of the everlasting gospel in the latter days. John saw this:

“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Revelation 14:6)

 

[chris2009]

No you obtuse child. I’m showing you where the symbol of the cross is truly represented as religion, as an important belief, by Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark and Luke. That CHRISTIANS choose to wear this symbol outwardly should not be construed as having anything to do with your ignorance.

But what should I expect from someone who holds beliefs that “the message of the resurrection” replaces the “message of the cross”.

Wow. Let’s not get personal here and start name calling. We can be adults and have an honest civilized discussion right? I want you to know I have nothing against you - God bless you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Zundrah: There’s your answer. The Mormons have retained the anti-Catholic views and practices of the Puritans.

 

[Janet1983]

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we stand with the Protestants, Pilgrams and Puritans in our belief that their was a Great Apostasy from the truth after the death of Christ and the apostles (as prophecied in the Bible). (2 Thes. 2:1-4) A full and complete restoration of all the keys and authorities were necessary.

No you don’t stand with us… If it were so, why would J. Smith call all the churches at his time false?
The Apostasy is happening these days and not back then… More and more people turn to atheism, evolutionism, agnosticism, eastern mysticism, paganism, witchcraft, satanism, christadelphianism, universalism, christian science, the new age movement, relativism, rosicrucianism, scientology, swedenborgianism, kabbalah and several other cults…

 

[chris2009]

Or how many used the compass and the square as symbols?

Again you missed my point. I’m not condeming symbols. There are many good and uplifting symbols. I’m explaining why Mormons don’t use the symbol of the cross.

In addition, no matter how good the symbol, we never worship the symbol or our prophets. We don’t pray to Moroni or bow to him. We only pray to and worship Heavenly Father. Symbols are simply reminders of what we believe and try to stand for.

From wikipedia:
"There was a continuing opposition to misuse of images within Christianity from very early times. “Whenever images threatened to gain undue influence within the church, theologians have sought to strip them of their power”[22] Further,“there is no century between the fourth and the eighth in which there is not some evidence of opposition to images even within the Church[23] Nonetheless, popular favor for icons guaranteed their continued existence, while no systematic apologia for or against icons, or doctrinal authorization or condemnation of icons yet existed.”
“The Iconoclastic Period began when images were banned by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian sometime between 726 and 730. Under his son Constantine V, a council forbidding image veneration was held at Hieria[26] near Constantinople in 754. Image veneration was later reinstated by the Empress Regent Irene, under whom another council was held reversing the decisions of the previous iconoclast council and taking its title as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council anathemized all who hold to iconoclasm, i.e. those who held that veneration of images constitutes idolatry. Then the ban was enforced again by Leo V in 815. And finally icon veneration was decisively restored by Empress Regent Theodora.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Symbolism_in_icons

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wow. Let’s not get personal here and start name calling. We can be adults and have an honest civilized discussion right? I want you to know I have nothing against you - God bless you.

All 11 of your posts have been nothing but stating what you have against Catholicism. And then there is the “enlighten me with your superior knowledge” remark. Don’t play coy with me, child.

 

[chris2009]

No you don’t stand with us… If it were so, why would J. Smith call all the churches at his time false?
The Apostasy is happening these days and not back then… More and more people turn to atheism, evolutionism, agnosticism, eastern mysticism, paganism, witchcraft, satanism, christadelphianism, universalism, christian science, the new age movement, relativism, rosicrucianism, scientology, swedenborgianism, kabbalah and several other cults…

You have to read more carefully. I said “As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we stand with the Protestants, Pilgrams and Puritans in our belief that their was a Great Apostasy from the truth after the death of Christ and the apostles”. In other words, we all agree their was an apostasy from the truth.

All those groups firmly believed the Catholics had fallen away from the original true church. Otherwise they wouldn’t have broken away on their own. Baptists (formerly Anabaptist) believed the true doctrine to be baptism by immersion - not by sprinkling or pouring. (Ana means again,twice thus Anabaptist means re-baptizers) Baptists are correct in this point of doctrine, however, the necessary priesthood authority is required to perform these ordinances.

What you are saying above is true regarding the people of the world being extremely wicked today. However, you are referring to individual personal apostasy. I am referring to the apostasy of God’s one and only true church of Jesus Christ - the organization, the denomination, the kingdom of God established upon the earth.

 

[chris2009]

Zundrah: There’s your answer. The Mormons have retained the anti-Catholic views and practices of the Puritans.

And don’t forget the Pilgrams also.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And don’t forget the Pilgrams also.

Yes, they both made laws that prescribed death as the penalty for being Catholic.

 

[chris2009]

All 11 of your posts have been nothing but stating what you have against Catholicism. And then there is the “enlighten me with your superior knowledge” remark. Don’t play coy with me, child.

Yes, I have arguements against Catholicism, but YOU are not Catholicism. I have nothing against you personally. I suppose my remark of “enlighten me with your superior knowledge” was a little bold, but it was a bold response to a demeaning question suggesting all my answers come from HS seminary. However, I’m willing to forgive and forget and still be friends. Except I’m not quite a child, I’m 39 with grey hairs.

 

[chris2009]

Yes, they both made laws that prescribed death as the penalty for being Catholic.

I think you might have things backwards. It was the Catholics who had control of the governments throughout the world. The Pilgrims were a small group. Only about 100 of them sailed on the Mayflower to the New World and half died on their trip.

The Puritans had more people and John Winthrop was I admit a strict prude. People like Ann Hutchinson, Roger Williams and Elizabeth Winthrop Fones disagreed with John and were eventually cast out of their society.

I’m not aware of any laws that prescribed death for being Catholic by either of these groups of people. I would be interested in learning though. Will you provide your sources?

 

[Stephen168]

The Pilgrams in -]1620/-] were Seperatists - they wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church and wanted a whole new religion. They were persecuted for this - fled to Holland and then to America. My 10th great grand mother Mary Chilton was one of these on the Mayflower. Then in -]1630/-] the Puritans under John Winthrop wanted to “change” or make pure the doctrines of the Catholic Church. John’s niece Elizabeth Winthrop is my 9th great grandmother. I love the history of these great people. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we stand with the Protestants, Pilgrams and Puritans ……………

Yes, they had freedom in Holland but came to America to force others into their brand of Christianity. Pilgrims to America, Mormons to Utah.

 

[Stephen168]

I think you might have things backwards. It was the Catholics who had control of the governments throughout the world. The Pilgrims were a small group. Only about 100 of them sailed on the Mayflower to the New World and half died on their trip.

The Puritans had more people and John Winthrop was I admit a strict prude. People like Ann Hutchinson, Roger Williams and Elizabeth Winthrop Fones disagreed with John and were eventually cast out of their society.

I’m not aware of any laws that prescribed death for being Catholic by either of these groups of people. I would be interested in learning though. Will you provide your sources?

The Catholic Church had already been wiped out of England before the puritans came along.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think you might have things backwards. It was the Catholics who had control of the governments throughout the world. The Pilgrims were a small group. Only about 100 of them sailed on the Mayflower to the New World and half died on their trip.

The Puritans had more people and John Winthrop was I admit a strict prude. People like Ann Hutchinson, Roger Williams and Elizabeth Winthrop Fones disagreed with John and were eventually cast out of their society.

I’m not aware of any laws that prescribed death for being Catholic by either of these groups of people. I would be interested in learning though. Will you provide your sources?

Well according to CapeCodToday in their history of Cape Cod section

05/26/09 · 12:00 am :: posted by CCToday

"1647: Puritans ban Jesuit priests from colony on penalty of death

On this day in 1647, Massachusetts Bay banned Jesuit priests from the colony on penalty of death."

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not aware of any laws that prescribed death for being Catholic by either of these groups of people. I would be interested in learning though. Will you provide your sources?

The “Pilgrims” were subset of the Puritans. The Plymouth Bay ("Pilgrims) colony was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay colony.

The Massachusetts Bay colony passed an anti-priest law in May of 1647, which threatened the death penalty for “all and every Jesuit, seminary priest, missionary or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged or pretended, from the Pope or See of Rome.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

The “Pilgrims” were subset of the Puritans. The Plymouth Bay ("Pilgrims) colony was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay colony.

The Massachusetts Bay colony passed an anti-priest law in May of 1647, which threatened the death penalty for “all and every Jesuit, seminary priest, missionary or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged or pretended, from the Pope or See of Rome.”

And John Winthrop was the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time.

 

[Janet1983]

All those groups firmly believed the Catholics had fallen away from the original true church. Otherwise they wouldn’t have broken away on their own. Baptists (formerly Anabaptist) believed the true doctrine to be baptism by immersion - not by sprinkling or pouring. (Ana means again,twice thus Anabaptist means re-baptizers) Baptists are correct in this point of doctrine, however, the necessary priesthood authority is required to perform these ordinances.

Where in the world did you get that from? The only priests mentioned in the NT are actually Jews, Levites… After that there was no specific priesthood and all were called to be saints.
(I know you are using the same terms, but you are also using a different dictionary.)