My Sister is Mormon....

[zerinus]

Zerinus, would you explain this from your last post?
and that the heavens are now open as they used to be in ancient times;

We believe that the ancient Church was led by revelation through the Twelve Apostles who were appointed by the Lord to be its leaders and and to guide it by revelation. Following the Apostasy that line of communication between the Lord and His church was broken. That remained so until the Restoration in this dispensation.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

We believe that the ancient Church was led by revelation through the Twelve Apostles who were appointed by the Lord to be its leaders and and to guide it by revelation. Following the Apostasy that line of communication between the Lord and His church was broken. That remained so until the Restoration in this dispensation.

zerinus

I see that zerinus is still here, purveying his usual hay that has already been through the horse. What “restoration”, zerinus? What 'apostacy"? You cannot “restore” that which was never lost. No mormon can prove any “apostacy”. That question has been disposed of many times on these forums. Everybody is well satisfied with the fact that no “apostacy” has ever occured, except for, well, the members of the mormon cult. BTW, wasn’t zerinus banned a while ago?

 

[mfbukowski]

There were concerns earlier about keeping this thread charitable, and this is why. Some just can’t do it.

 

[mfbukowski]

The cross of Christianity is actually a transformed symbol which is much older than Christianity. This is not to detract from it’s symbolism to Catholics and Christians-- because of course it has become a symbol of the savior’s sacrifice.

But anciently it was a fertility symbol – a male symbol. The egyptian Ankh for example combines the male cross symbol with a female fertility oval symbol and is the symbol for “life” – male plus female equals life.

So really it is an ancient symbol renewed in meaning

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see that zerinus is still here, purveying his usual hay that has already been through the horse. What “restoration”, zerinus? What 'apostacy"? You cannot “restore” that which was never lost. No mormon can prove any “apostacy”. That question has been disposed of many times on these forums. Everybody is well satisfied with the fact that no “apostacy” has ever occured, except for, well, the members of the mormon cult. BTW, wasn’t zerinus banned a while ago?

Let alone that the heaven were closed. In the list of all things Mormon that cannot be proven or believed, this tops it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The cross of Christianity is actually a transformed symbol which is much older than Christianity. This is not to detract from it’s symbolism to Catholics and Christians-- because of course it has become a symbol of the savior’s sacrifice.

But anciently it was a fertility symbol – a male symbol. The egyptian Ankh for example combines the male cross symbol with a female fertility oval symbol and is the symbol for “life” – male plus female equals life.

So really it is an ancient symbol renewed in meaning

And?

 

[RebeccaJ]

We preach the message of the Restoration; that He lives, and has spoken again from heaven. His sufferings have now ended. We celebrate the glory of His resurrection, and that the heavens are now open as they used to be in ancient times; and that He still speaks, as He ever did before. The long silence of the past centuries has been broken. It is a message of joy and gladness that we share with the world; the joy that the heavens have been opened once more, and the living Christ has spoken again from heaven. This is a new dispensation of the gospel, and it celebrates the joy of Christ with a symbol appropriate to itself.
Matthew 9:

16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.zerinus

Missionary mode, again, I see.

Really zerinus, have you ever stopped to think about what you write?

 

[hosemonkey]

There were concerns earlier about keeping this thread charitable, and this is why. Some just can’t do it.

Ski, it is not charitable to attempt to mislead people with false doctrine. It IS charitable to teach the truth and expose falsehood, just as it is charitable (a corporal work of mercy) to bury a rotting corpse, ie: mormonism.

 

[zerinus]

Pound for pound, Mormons are the nicest group of people I’ve ever met. I had many as neighbors in Phoenix. I wish I could move to Utah and be surrounded by them. They are truly wonderful people.

But talking theology with them is like feeding Gizmo after midnight.:bigyikes: :bigyikes::bigyikes:

What “theology” were you trying to “talk with them”? Maybe the problem was on your side rather than theirs.

zerinus

 

[ricko]

The cross of Christianity is actually a transformed symbol which is much older than Christianity. This is not to detract from it’s symbolism to Catholics and Christians-- because of course it has become a symbol of the savior’s sacrifice.

But anciently it was a fertility symbol – a male symbol. The egyptian Ankh for example combines the male cross symbol with a female fertility oval symbol and is the symbol for “life” – male plus female equals life.

So really it is an ancient symbol renewed in meaning

Sorry, but you’re incorrect in saying the cross of Jesus is an ancient symbol renewed in meaning. The Christian cross is unique and is not a symbol revived from a pagan or any other source. What you will find in searching history is a similarity between many objects of the past and today. In Vietnam for instance they used the swastika in the Buddist temples but it was not the German swastika. The JWs also try to make such connections with Christmas trees and other things. For goodness sakes, let’s not go out in left field.

 

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, but you’re incorrect in saying the cross of Jesus is an ancient symbol renewed in meaning. The Christian cross is unique and is not a symbol revived from a pagan or any other source. What you will find in searching history is a similarity between many objects of the past and today. In Vietnam for instance they used the swastika in the Buddist temples but it was not the German swastika. The JWs also try to make such connections with Christmas trees and other things. For goodness sakes, let’s not go out in left field.

You’re wrong. A cross is a cross, a swastika is a swastika. This like like saying an “S” is not an “S”. You can use an “S” in “bad words” or “good words” but an s is still an s.

How can the christian cross be unique? Two lines crossing eachother can hardly be unique. What it stands for, the meaning we give it, is another story.

 

[mfbukowski]

Ski, it is not charitable to attempt to mislead people with false doctrine. It IS charitable to teach the truth and expose falsehood, just as it is charitable (a corporal work of mercy) to bury a rotting corpse, ie: mormonism.

Vile as ever I see.

 

[Stephen168]

But anciently it was a fertility symbol – a male symbol. The egyptian Ankh for example combines the male cross symbol with a female fertility oval symbol and is the symbol for “life” – male plus female equals life.

Christ was not crucified on an ankh.

The cross of Christianity is actually a transformed symbol which is much older than Christianity.

Transformed?

A cross is a cross, a swastika is a swastika.

An ankh is an ankh

 

[mfbukowski]

Christ was not crucified on an ankh.
Transformed?

An ankh is an ankh

So you are arguing it was not transformed? That it is still a fertility symbol? I know you are not, but what does “Transformed?” mean?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

The ankh is effectively a ligam and yoni figure combined. Of course Jesus was not crucified on an ankh.

My point is that symbols are symbols and the earliest Christian symbols were anchors and of course the fish. There are many reasons the fish was used. Let me ask you this. Why does the gospel of John describe the apostles catching 153 fish? Why not “many fish” or “scores of fish” or “an abundant quantity of fish”? Do you really think there were exactly 153 and this fact was important enough for John to remember and write years later?

First one with the right answer gets an A

Mormons don’t use the cross for many reasons. There are other older symbols.

 

[dzheremi]

Heaven closed? Balderdash!

As the Rabbi Shalom Shabazi wrote (and as was famously sung by Ofra Haza): “If the doors of the wealthy are locked, the doors of Heaven will never be locked!”

Mormons are wrong in at least two religions. No wonder they need this “great apostacy” idea to keep their faith alive. What is it about the promises of God that seems violable to you, Mormons? Since you claim to be Christians, why is the Word of GOD not good enough for you?

 

[Stephen168]

and I have always wondered why they do not have any crosses in their churches. Does anyone know why this is?

And the Mormon answser is the one given by Gordon B. Hinckley.

Mormons don’t use the cross for many reasons.

Then maybe a Mormon could answer the question.

I believe you are correct.

 

[zerinus]

Then maybe a Mormon could answer the question.

What question?

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Then maybe a Mormon could answer the question.

I believe you are correct.

I believe that the link posted to the article written by President Hinckley gave the best, most courteous and comprehensive answer. To give another one, perhaps it would be best to paraphrase Bill HIcks when he said “A lot of Christians wear corsses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a…cross? It’s like going up to Jackie Onassiss wearing a rifle pendant.”

Now Bill Hicks is not the only person to notice this, and he was certainly more strident in his approach than most, but the basic idea? Well, there it is, part of the reason we do not use, or wear, crosses.

However, symbols mean what the people who use them think they mean. The swastika is a classic case in point; until Hitler got hold of it, it was a symbol of life, peace and abundance. I have a quilt with that symbol all over it–that I do not dare use. My great grandmother would be aghast at the meaning it has aquired since her time!

To most Christians, the cross means more than simply the instrument of His death–to us that’s pretty much all it does mean. Should we be condemned for that, and forced to wear a symbol that means something horrendous–His torture and crucifixion/death–in order to “prove” that we are Christians?

(shrug) We aren’t asking you to cease from wearing one in order to prove your Christianity. Nor would I drop it and step on it if one of you gave me one in friendship; I would respect it for the meaning you give it.

I’m a little fuzzy about the difference in meaning between the cross and the crucifix, other than that the one is empty and the other depicts Christ suffering upon it; so I’m not going to do any comparing here between ideas. I’m simply commenting on the LDS position on the matter.

Diana

 

[dianaballein]

I believe that the link posted to the article written by President Hinckley gave the best, most courteous and comprehensive answer. To give another one, perhaps it would be best to paraphrase Bill HIcks when he said “A lot of Christians wear corsses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a…cross? It’s like going up to Jackie Onassiss wearing a rifle pendant.”

Now Bill Hicks is not the only person to notice this, and he was certainly more strident in his approach than most, but the basic idea? Well, there it is, part of the reason we do not use, or wear, crosses.

However, symbols mean what the people who use them think they mean. The swastika is a classic case in point; until Hitler got hold of it, it was a symbol of life, peace and abundance. I have a quilt with that symbol all over it–that I do not dare use. My great grandmother would be aghast at the meaning it has aquired since her time!

To most Christians, the cross means more than simply the instrument of His death–to us that’s pretty much all it does mean. Should we be condemned for that, and forced to wear a symbol that means something horrendous–His torture and crucifixion/death–in order to “prove” that we are Christians?

(shrug) We aren’t asking you to cease from wearing one in order to prove your Christianity. Nor would I drop it and step on it if one of you gave me one in friendship; I would respect it for the meaning you give it.

I’m a little fuzzy about the difference in meaning between the cross and the crucifix, other than that the one is empty and the other depicts Christ suffering upon it; so I’m not going to do any comparing here between ideas. I’m simply commenting on the LDS position on the matter.

Diana

Comparing the Cross that Jesus died on to the rifle that killed Kennedy is ridiculous. The cross did not kill Jesus. The people who put him up on the cross did. The nails driven into him…the sword in his side…his entire body weight suspended…that killed him. Not the cross itself. The cross does not represent the death of Jesus for me…it represents the birth of my salvation, and the tremendous love God had for me in taking the life of his Son.

When Jesus returns, he will not be looking at the cross necklace I wear to honor him. He will be looking at all of the hearts who love him, honor him and who are ready to be taken Home.

 

[majick275]

there is a huge problem with this analogy. JFK didn’t rise from the dead in fulfillment of his own prophecy. if he had you might very well see the rifle as a symbol of triumph.

St. Paul said in his first letter to the corinthians:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

so i ask who believes the cross is foolish?