Here’s the portion of Don’s post to which I was replying, as I quoted it in my comment:
“The Pope” was specific enough. I didn’t address (because I didn’t intend to) the rest of the Church - there were both heroic and cowardly actions, depending on the region or person. Any statement trying to characterize the whole Church during the war would be too general. But I won’t stand for popular myths smearing Pius XII, who was a hero for the Jews.
I have come into this discussion late, but I see that the topic has shifted from the OP so I will comment on that.
Since when was the “All seeing eye of Osirus”, the “Hand Clasp”, and the “Ursa Major”, ever a Christian symbol in history? If you restored it from the corrupted forms of Christianity, then you can point to a period in Christian history where these symbols were in fact Christian. But they weren’t the All Seeing Eye of Osirus was never a Christian symbol. It was more than likely taken from the masons, rather than to worship any Egyptian Gods, but still it didn’t restore anything.
I believe the regular Pentacle was a Jewish symbol in the past, and a Christian one too, but I believe the inverted pentacle or Pentagram has been associated with satanism since the 1600s.
True, however, with a little research I was able to find that “Before Christianity adopted the fish symbol, it was known by pagans as “the Great Mother”, and “womb”. Its link to fertility, birth, and the natural force of women was acknowledged also by the Celts, as well as pagan cultures throughout northern Europe.” So to argue over what and what does not constitute appropriate Christian symbolism as applied to the LDS Church is a red herring.
I don’t have the patience to respond when the posts are cut to pieces. Simply quote my entire post and respond to the ENTIRE post in its context instead of one sentence.
I am not obliged to answer all of you post. I will comment on what catches my interest. I will leave you with your lack of patience, and are welcome to respond or not as you choose. I will leave your post in tacked, as you request.
While it’s true that we are all free to assign whatever meanings we wish to various symbols, we must recognize that certain symbols are so ingrained into the conciousness of a society that an attempt to change the meaning of such a symbol can be seen as very confusing, or even offensive. For instance, if I fly a swastika flag in my front yard because it’s a symbol for peace in buddhism, my motives may be noble, but I would be doing something extremely offensive in most people’s opinion. We may arbitrarily assign meanings but those meanings have implications in the real world. We are perceived and judged based on what we value, even the symbols we value, because they have real meanings attached to them.
Not at all. That is not “the fact” at all. The subject of the thread is why there are “no crosses on Mormon temples,” not “what are the significance of all the symbols used by Mormons”. If you have an issue with the total symbology used by Latter-day Saints, or if you have questions about specific symbols, you can start a thread with the appropriate title, and other LDS would be willing to join in and offer whatever explanation they can. This is merely an attempt on your part to derail the discussion because you have failed to adequately counter the valid arguments brought by LDS posters in response to the original question of “why there are no crosses on Mormon temples”. Historic Christianity is full of symbols of may shapes and sizes and descriptions; and the LDS Church is not an exception to this rule.
Your point is well taken. However, the symbolism on the temple was well accepted in the years the Salt Lake City Temple was in construction, without the connotation posters on this thread are claiming. To most LDS these symbols are just decoration nothing more. There may be some who personally attribute meaning to them, which if they choose is their personal right to do so.
We do not reject the significance of the Cross nor do we reject anyone’s right to use it symbolically in any way they wish. We just don’t use it as an identifying symbol, we don’t need to. Just because it has been historically used does not mean it needs to be used. Again please show me were we are commanded to do so.
But not for as you say two hundred years. It was an evolution of use, not used from the beginning. Those who were closest to Jesus at the time of His crucifixion may have viewed the Cross as a symbol, the same why you suggest of the swastika.
Conversely, the citizens in 1777 would have certainly thought that you were strange, if you waved the American flag of today.
Your assertions here are inconsistent with my comments, and Yes, indeed we do attribute meaning to the cross, we just don’t feel the need to represent the death of our Lord in this way. We hold this in our hearts not in our hand.
Why would I accept that. Our Lord and Savour is powerful.
300, 200,100 it’s still a long time. Perhaps it took the next generation or two to pass, allowing the emotional associations to Cross to change.
With what crosses were used for at that time, I highly doubt it.
That is exactly why they did use it!!! The cross was not simply “an instrument of death”. At the time, the cross was the very sign and symbol of an ignominious, horrible, death. In fact, it was so hated that you woudn’t even use the word in polite company. However, we know that the use of the cross by Christians was widely in use by 200 A.D., and we also know that crucifixions were still a very popular form of execution during the same time period.