No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[Mike_D30]

We all know that throughout time symbols can get distorted to mean different things. Like the Nazi crooked cross, for the rest of ternity the swastika is forever linked to nazism and the holocaust. But Mormon temples seem to go out of their way to use occultic symbology on thier temples, that already have those meanings. Including:

1. Sun Stone with a face within the stone (symbol of baal)
2. Sun Stones, Moon Stones
3. Pentegram
4. All seeing eye of Osirus
5. Ursa Major
6. The Hand Clasp

Now Mormonism is not even 200 years old, and these symbols were widely regarded as occultic in the mid 1800’s. Why use them for your temple?

One symbol you will never find on a Mormon temple:

A Cross, a fish, or any other “contempary” symbol of Christ and Christianity.

Now I would say it’s fair to assume there has to be intent towards the occult, not simply like forms. Which for Christianity there isn’t. But as far as Mormonism with secret sacred garments, secret temple worshipings, secret priesthoods, and secret handshakes. Is it fair to assume these symbols do have occultic meanings in Mormonism?

 

[Lapsed]

The Mormon temple and its ceremonies are derived from Joseph Smith’s interpretation and adaptation of Masonic rituals and symbols. Any one who takes the time to research the early Mormon temple rites and compare them with Masonic rites will see the obvious parallels.

 

[mormon_fool]

A Cross, a fish, or any other “contempary” symbol of Christ and Christianity.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on symbolism.

. . . .the Church has borrowed, without hesitation, from the common stock of significant actions known to all periods and to all nations. In such matters as these Christianity claims no monopoly. Religious symbolism is effective precisely in the measure in which it is sufficiently natural and simple to appeal to the intelligence of the people. Hence the choice of suitable acts and objects for this symbolism is not so wide that it would be easy to avoid the appearance of an imitation of paganism even if one deliberately set to work to invent an entirely new ritual.

Now I would say it’s fair to assume there has to be intent towards the occult, not simply like forms.

No it wouldn’t be fair. No more fair than assuming Catholics bacame pagan by re-appropriating pagan symbols. Catholics assign different meaning to those symbols. And Mormons certainly assign different meanings to the symbols than what they are accused of here.

Later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

1. Pentegram

Seen in a couple of French cathedrals between 1000-1200 AD. Also used by early Christians during Constantines time.

For a lengthy article about LDS interpret Temple symbolism see Richard Oman’s

Exterior Symbolism of the Salt Lake Temple: Reflecting the Faith That Called the Place into Being
contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=22032

thanks,
fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

No it wouldn’t be fair. No more fair than assuming Catholics bacame pagan by re-appropriating pagan symbols. Catholics assign different meaning to those symbols. And Mormons certainly assign different meanings to the symbols than what they are accused of here.

Later,
fool

Of course it’s fair, Catholic’s don’t have secret rituals and secret priesthoods. Just because we have a painting with a halo above the head obviously doesn’t mean we worship Baal the sun God. That hardly compares with the recently adorned Mormon temples with every symbol BUT a Cross.

However mormonism borrows these occultic symbols LONG after they’ve been considered occultic in mainstreem Chrsitianity. And adorns their temples with them.

And why no crosses?

You have to admit it is weird for a Christian to see.

 

[Mike_D30]

Seen in a couple of French cathedrals between 1000-1200 AD. Also used by early Christians during Constantines time.

You’re not getting my point. I posted already how symbols get twisted through out time (the Swastika analogy). You’re comparing a Cathedral from 1000 yeas ago and a temple build 100 years ago. Symbols change, why use symbols that are NOW used as occultic symbology? And don’t use ANY contemporary Christian symbols?

Please read my post in its entire context, and stop with the strawman arguments.

 

[gryskull]

Mike_D30:

We all know that throughout time symbols can get distorted to mean different things. Like the Nazi crooked cross, for the rest of ternity the swastika is forever linked to nazism and the holocaust. But Mormon temples seem to go out of their way to use occultic symbology on thier temples, that already have those meanings. Including:

1. Sun Stone with a face within the stone (symbol of baal)
2. Sun Stones, Moon Stones
3. Pentegram
4. All seeing eye of Osirus
5. Ursa Major
6. The Hand Clasp

Now Mormonism is not even 200 years old, and these symbols were widely regarded as occultic in the mid 1800’s. Why use them for your temple?

One symbol you will never find on a Mormon temple:

A Cross, a fish, or any other “contempary” symbol of Christ and Christianity.

Now I would say it’s fair to assume there has to be intent towards the occult, not simply like forms. Which for Christianity there isn’t. But as far as Mormonism with secret sacred garments, secret temple worshipings, secret priesthoods, and secret handshakes. Is it fair to assume these symbols do have occultic meanings in Mormonism?

The reason why they don’t have crosses in their churches is because, and this is what they say today, the cross symbolizes the death of our LORD. Should we say otherwise? I don’t think we should and I don’t think it would be fair to them to interpret their symbolism the way we see it. Although we know that looking at history these symbols had different meaning. But another question comes to mind. Why do they see it as a symbol of they death of our LORD instead of seeing it as our salvation the way the early christians have seen it considering that they call themselves christians. Even our protestant brothers and sisters see the cross as a sign of our salvation(right?). And I do agree with what Lapsed said. J. Smith was a mason before he became the leader of the LDS church.

 

[Mike_D30]

gryskull:

And I do agree with what Lapsed said. J. Smith was a mason before he became the leader of the LDS church.

lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/people/joseph_smith/masonry_why.htm

Joseph Smith was a Mason as was his brother Hyrum and many leading early Mormons. That’s why the Temple ceremony is an obvious rip off of the Masons Temple ceremony.

 

[mormon_fool]

gryskull:

Lapsed said. J. Smith was a mason before he became the leader of the LDS church.

His father and brother Hyrum were masons before the church was organized. Joseph Smith didn’t get made a Mason on sight until almost 12 years after he became a leader of the LDS church.

Besides this minor correction I thank you for a very wonderful and thoughtful post.

 

[Mom_of_5]

As christians we believe that Christ’s dying on the cross he saved us. Mormons believe that Jesus in His agony in the Garden of Gethsemine was where/when He saved us. The cross has no real meaning to LDS because the cross/ “tree” was the way of executing inmates in the day of Jesus, nothing really “special” about Christs dying on the cross.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

His father and brother Hyrum were masons before the church was organized. Joseph Smith didn’t get made a Mason on sight until almost 12 years after he became a leader of the LDS church.

Besides this minor correction I thank you for a very wonderful and thoughtful post.

Wasn’t Joseph Smith ordered not join other Churches by God himself?

Some say the Masons are a fraternal order and not a Church, but there’s no doubt that there’s religious connotations to much of the Mason’s and many consider them a Church.

I guess if Jesus told me himself not to join other Churches, I would probably refrain from joining the Mason’s too. Not to mention the Methodists…

 

[amgid]

gryskull:

But another question comes to mind. Why do they see it as a symbol of they death of our LORD instead of seeing it as our salvation the way the early christians have seen it considering that they call themselves christians. Even our protestant brothers and sisters see the cross as a sign of our salvation(right?).

The LDS Church has been restored by the living Christ, and it a witness to the reality of His life, that He yet lives, and has once more intervened in the affairs of men to restore His covenants and His gospel to mankind after the long night of the Apostasy. It testifies that Jesus is a living God, and is a God of miracles, and still reveals Himself to man and communicates with them now as He did in ancient times. The symbol of the cross, which signifies His death, is no longer an appropriate symbol to convey the reality of that glorious message of the Restoration to mankind in our time.

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

The LDS Church has been restored by the living Christ, and it a witness to the reality of His life, that He yet lives, and has once more intervened in the affairs of men to restore His covenants and His gospel to mankind after the long night of the Apostasy. It testifies that Jesus is a living God, and is a God of miracles, and still reveals Himself to man and communicates with them now as He did in ancient times. The symbol of the cross, which signifies His death, is no longer an appropriate symbol to convey the reality of that glorious message of the Restoration to mankind in our time.

amgid

IMO there was no apostasy, the only Church that can claim direct Apostolic succession is…The Roman Catholic Church, not the Mormons.

The only thing Mormonism restored was gnosticism heresy I would say.

I don’t understand why Mormon’s even worship jesus since he wasn’t even powerful enough to keep his Church together for 50 years (although pledging the gates of hell would not prevail against it) before it completely apostatsized for 1800 years.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

You’re not getting my point. I posted already how symbols get twisted through out time (the Swastika analogy). You’re comparing a Cathedral from 1000 yeas ago and a temple build 100 years ago. Symbols change, why use symbols that are NOW used as occultic symbology? And don’t use ANY contemporary Christian symbols?

Your orginal point about symbols getting twisted over time adds little to the discussion. The Catholic encyclopedia showed that Christians adopted similiar symbolism compared to their contemporary pagans, their NOW. Would it be fair for us to go hop in a time machine and call those Christians pagans because what they were doing in their NOW? I think not. Please demonstrate reasoning that doesn’t call for double standards.

Nobody is going to take a hammer and chizzle to LDS temples just because someone else uses the symbol in a different way. Will Christian Churches ever give up the cross if another group uses that symbol to represent evil? I doubt it. LDS adopted inverted stars before they were also associated with evil. It is NOW used in the Navy’s medal of honor.

My links explain why LDS temple designers chose the symbols they did and not standard Christian symbols. As a hint they have nothing to do the occult and everything to deal with deriving symbols from scripture readings.

Please read my post in its entire context, and stop with the strawman arguments.

I responded only to your question about fairness and not to any of your arguments. You may wish to look up the strawman fallacy. In order to commit it I would have to restate your argument in an incorrect way and then argue against the misleading representation. Clearly no one can accuse me of restating your position at all.

Don’t your PM buddies give you any coaching?

–fool

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

IMO there was no apostasy, the only Church that can claim direct Apostolic succession is…The Roman Catholic Church, not the Mormons.

The only thing Mormonism restored was gnosticism heresy I would say.

I don’t understand why Mormon’s even worship jesus since he wasn’t even powerful enough to keep his Church together for 50 years (although pledging the gates of hell would not prevail against it) before it completely apostatsizing for 1800 years.

You can say as you please. This is His voice, speaking to us in modern LDS scripture today:

D&C 6:

21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
His true sheep recognize His voice today, as they did in ancient times, and will follow Him.

amgid

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

IMO there was no apostasy, the only Church that can claim direct Apostolic succession is…The Roman Catholic Church, not the Mormons.

The only thing Mormonism restored was gnosticism heresy I would say.

I created a list the other day on things that the LDS church restored.

Creation ex materia (Creation Ex nihilo not Christian before Irenaeaus, Tertullian ~200 A.D.)
Deification (pre-Creation ex nihilo has no insurmountable creator/creature gap which puts this solidly in the LDS corner more than considerations about Marriage in Heaven)
Subordinationalist Godhead ("pre-Nicene orthodoxy was subordinationalist’)
Anthromorphism (up to Tertullian with Augustine and Origen as reluctant witnesses)
Covenant based (vs. Natural law based see Reynolds latest essay in ECiD)
Definition of Apostasy (Rebellion against leaders vs. refusing creedal statements)
some Temple ritual (this got repackaged into Mass)
Continuing Revelation/Open Canon
Living Apostles
Eternal Marriage (An implied belief of Jewish Christianity in the Jesus Sadduccee showdown, Origen as a reluctant witness, and gnostic texts)
Baptism for the Dead
Pre-existence (minority view, but still! Origen)
Anti-Philosophy (Justin uses it for defence only, Tertullian against it, Clement embraces it, but Origen use it to systemize theology)
Pessimistic about the continuation of the full church (Shepherd of Hermas, selected NT passages)

I don’t understand why Mormon’s even worship jesus since he wasn’t even powerful enough to keep his Church together for 50 years (although pledging the gates of hell would not prevail against it) before it completely apostatsized for 1800 years.

Or alternatively Christ was powerful enough to grant his followers free agency to reject his teachings and ultimately triumph over the gates of Hell by resurrecting (restoring) the formerly dead church.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

You can say as you please. This is His voice, speaking to us in modern LDS scripture today:

D&c 6:

21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
His true sheep recognize His voice today, as they did in ancient times, and will follow Him.

amgid

Like the part in the Doctrines & Covenants about polygamy as a necessity to attain the Celestial Kingdom in the Doctrine and Covenants? But that was conveniently changed when the US was going to deny statehood to Utah. Very convenient and timely “revelation”.

Is the part in the D&C you listed as easily “changeable” as section 132 was?

Do Mormon’s have any American Indian converts? Did they turn “White and Delightsome” after converting?

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

Wasn’t Joseph Smith ordered not join other Churches by God himself?

Yes.

Some say the Masons are a fraternal order and not a Church,
I would say “All say” but there is some uninformed people out there but there’s no doubt that there’s religious connotations to much of the Mason’s and many consider them a Church.

Joseph Smith didn’t and it his conscience that counts.

Not to mention the Methodists…

Good thing Joseph Smith never thought about that after his 1st Vision.

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Don’t your PM buddies give you any coaching?

–fool

Do you feel it necesary to be a patronizing in every retort?

You take 25% of my argument and argue against it while leaving 75% out of context. That’s a strawman. A strawman can be arguing any point other than the one the other person put forth, defeating it, and claiming victory. This is what you do all day here.

*"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present the opponent’s argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.

Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person’s arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation"*

This is what you do when you compare symbols on Cathedrals that were NOT considered occultic when the Cathedral was built. Compared to Mormon Temples that have the All seeing eye of Osirus on them, and other symbols that HAVE been occultic for centuries prior to Temple construction, while passing on any Christian symbol. Compeltely different scenarios, Yet you dismiss it, everytime simply by saying “it doesn’t pertain”.

So therefore you are defeating a “weakened form” of my position and acting as though you are defeating my initial position. (which you haven’t come close to).

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Good thing Joseph Smith never thought about that after his 1st Vision.

Then why did Joseph Smith attend a Methodist Class AFTER the first vision?