LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[Jane_Doe]

The veneration of the cross is pagan? Well in that case, it is better to be a believing 'pagan' Christian than an anti-Christ Mormon polytheist.

Hi Dzheremi,

I'm not Super14LDS and don't want to undermine his post, or the particulars of her/his personal beliefs, but I will set the record straight on official LDS beliefs.

1) Mormons are monotheists, not polytheist.

2) Mormons are disciples of Christ, not anti-Christ.

3) It is not official LDS beliefs that the cross is a pagan symbol (though it was originally made by pagans). Mormons do not have anything against the cross-- it's message or displaying the symbol (though it is not typical LDS culture to put the outward cross symbol on buildings, jewelry, etc).

4) While Super14LDS may enjoy reading the writings of Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, Bullinger is in no way a representative of the LDS church or it's beliefs. His words are not taught across the LDS pulpit, nor does he in any way dictate LDS beliefs. Same with John William Burgon.

 

[Super14LDS]

Hi Dzheremi,

I'm not Super14LDS and don't want to undermine his post, or the particulars of her/his personal beliefs, but I will set the record straight on official LDS beliefs.

1) Mormons are monotheists, not polytheist.

2) Mormons are disciples of Christ, not anti-Christ.

3) It is not official LDS beliefs that the cross is a pagan symbol (though it was originally made by pagans). Mormons do not have anything against the cross-- it's message or displaying the symbol (though it is not typical LDS culture to put the outward cross symbol on buildings, jewelry, etc).

4) While Super14LDS may enjoy reading the writings of Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, Bullinger is in no way a representative of the LDS church or it's beliefs. His words are not taught across the LDS pulpit, nor does he in any way dictate LDS beliefs. Same with John William Burgon.

The shape of the cross or tree as described in Acts, really isn't my concern, it was the Crucifixion and events leading up to it that are first and foremost. Trees often fork into a y shape, which is more realistic than a complicated and labor intensive process of cutting and attaching an actual cross-member, especially with round tree limbs versus the oft depicted perfectly straight and squared lumber resembling railroad ties.

The CROSS was introduced to the Christian Congregation by Pope Constantine in order to unite paganism and Christianity.

Crosses are the world's oldest good luck charms, talismans, or amulets and are found in every continent of the world.

This demonic object (CRUX in Latin) entered the vocabulary of most European languages through the corrupt Latin Vulgate version of Jerome. ...

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a TREE (Gk. xulon)" (Acts 5:29-30). ...

The origin of the cross

The prophet Ezekiel described a meeting of the apostate women of Israel who had set up a cross in the Temple of the Lord and were worshipping a false "messiah" named Tammuz. The cross came from the first letter of the name of this false Babylonian "messiah."

"He (JEHOVAH) said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:13-14). ... http://www.reformation.org/cross-busters.html


This link http://dharmagates.org/other_cheek.html gives background on how the Romans operated with fresh insights into the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was forced to carriy His cross (Greek word does not define the shape), the bible says nothing about Him constructing it, do you really think the Romans would of built a t shaped cross for Him?

.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Dzheremi,

I'm not Super14LDS and don't want to undermine his post, or the particulars of her/his personal beliefs, but I will set the record straight on official LDS beliefs.

1) Mormons are monotheists, not polytheist.

From the explanation of Mormon understanding of the Trinity given on this website by Mormons themselves (as here), it would seem that you guys are polytheists, as you do not say that the three persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, which is the orthodox Christian belief, but instead preach a radically different trinity wherein they are three separate gods, acting in unity of purpose. That is polytheism. If you do not confess that the three persons are of the same substance, then you are a polytheist.

2) Mormons are disciples of Christ, not anti-Christ.

That may be as you see it, but Christainity itself disagrees with you, whether concerning the Trinity, as above, or the preaching of a different Gospel, as you do with your Book of Mormon, or in many other ways. If Christianity is to mean anything, then the more traditional among us do not let the individual's or individual organization's self-identification be the yardstick by which such things are measured (though I am aware that this website is non-traditional in this regard). The heretics of the past were brought before councils which examined their faith. When the Christian leaders of today have examined what Mormonism teaches according to its own apologists and sources, they have found it to be at variance with even the basic concepts that we take as anchors of the Christian faith. So, yes, your religion is anti-Christ.

3) It is not official LDS beliefs that the cross is a pagan symbol (though it was originally made by pagans). Mormons do not have anything against the cross-- it's message or displaying the symbol (though it is not typical LDS culture to put the outward cross symbol on buildings, jewelry, etc).

Apparently some of you do, but that's for you to sort out amongst yourselves.

4) While Super14LDS may enjoy reading the writings of Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, Bullinger is in no way a representative of the LDS church or it's beliefs. His words are not taught across the LDS pulpit, nor does he in any way dictate LDS beliefs. Same with John William Burgon.

Fair enough. I don't really care if he is or isn't. While it's curious that the various groups rejected by all others are so intent on finding whatever scrap of evidence they can from other churches to support their doctrines, even when those other churches in no way validate these groups (the SDAs have long tried to do the same with some old Coptic copies of the Gospels to support their own sick ideas, so I'm used to it), my point was more that it doesn't mean anything that this person or that person from 19th century England or what have you says this or that. It matters what has been passed down to us from the Fathers, and that most definitely includes veneration of the Cross, not just ambivalent toleration of it as a cultural symbol. I don't know that I buy that it is all a matter of cultural difference, anyway. If anything, it is a pan-cultural symbol of Christianity, as other symbols like the chi rho or the ichthus are not as easily adaptable to cultures that are further outside the Hellenic sphere of influence, and hence less likely to understand Greek.

Everyone can and should venerate the Cross, however.

 

[Jane_Doe]

From the explanation of Mormon understanding of the Trinity given on this website by Mormons themselves (as here), it would seem that you guys are polytheists, as you do not say that the three persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, which is the orthodox Christian belief, but instead preach a radically different trinity wherein they are three separate gods, acting in unity of purpose. That is polytheism. If you do not confess that the three persons are of the same substance, then you are a polytheist.

LDS view the Father, Son, and Spirit as ONE God, made up of three different persons. They are ONE through unity: to know the Father, is to know the Son. To follow the Spirit's direction is to follow the Son's direction. They are ONE. ONE God.

That may be as you see it, but Christainity itself disagrees with you, whether concerning the Trinity, as above, or the preaching of a different Gospel, as you do with your Book of Mormon, or in many other ways. If Christianity is to mean anything, then the more traditional among us do not let the individual's or individual organization's self-identification be the yardstick by which such things are measured (though I am aware that this website is non-traditional in this regard). The heretics of the past were brought before councils which examined their faith. When the Christian leaders of today have examined what Mormonism teaches according to its own apologists and sources, they have found it to be at variance with even the basic concepts that we take as anchors of the Christian faith. So, yes, your religion is anti-Christ.

The paragraph is full of false information.

 

[EmmaCat]

"Furthermore, while they are careful to shun the Cross of Christ, they do enjoy embellishing their temples and their magical garments with all sorts of occultic and masonic symbols such as the compass and square ... "

First of all, in the beginning post, the term "magical" was used in actually describing sacred garments Mormons wear.

I then put away any notion whatsoever of debating this topic at all. The term "magical" in this sense is HIGHLY insulting and EXTREMELY offensive to Mormons and I don't care if they're Christian or not, that's no reason to go around insulting and offending people, and I don't care who you are.

That is because of one of two things: The Mormon religion hasn't been researched by even one little iota by this debater for it is very common knowledge that this is horribly offensive. A serious debater of Mormonism would know this and if he or she had any shred of decency, he or she would abstain from using such a terrible word, especially here.

Or, the poster meant to use the term in the most derogatory way and in the most offensive context possible, which tells me this is the worst possible scenario for even a chat, much less a debate. Either way, I think the Mormons are owed an apology for this one. This was brutal and uncalled-for.

To the Mormons here, I'm sorry for the insulting and offending word used there. Not all of us are so uncaring and unkind, and I'm sure some may not realize how offensive this is to you. I know, though, and I care.

Now I'm not giving this thread another thought because I'd rather think about what's right in God than what's wrong with peoples' religions.

All good things
Emmy

 

[dzheremi]

LDS view the Father, Son, and Spirit as ONE God, made up of three different persons. They are ONE through unity: to know the Father, is to know the Son. To follow the Spirit's direction is to follow the Son's direction. They are ONE. ONE God.

Again, you can say that they are "one" until the cows come home, but if you are not willing to say that they are homoousios -- of the same substance -- then you do not adhere to the Christian faith. A unity of action only is tritheism, not monotheism. If you say that they are united in action, as when issuing directions, rather than in substance as the fathers said at the Council of Nicaea, you are not a Trinitarian. You are a polytheist.

The paragraph is full of false information.

If it is false, then please tell me which other churches accept the Book of Mormon and the strange Mormon teaching on the Trinity? Or if you mean that it is somehow false that heretics were called before bishops to account for their faith, please read up on what happened to Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and others. There is no false information in that paragraph, only things that you disagree with, which is understandable since you are a Mormon so its your group that is being criticized by all others, and you don't like that. That's a totally reasonable reaction, but it doesn't make Mormonism Christian. People sometimes say things I don't like about my Church, too, but I can back up our actual beliefs by pointing out what we pray and preach. By contrast, the explanations from Mormons as to their distinctive ideas and practices do not meet the basics of what would be considered Christian by any other Church in any era.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, you can say that they are "one" until the cows come home, but if you are not willing to say that they are homoousios -- of the same substance -- then you do not adhere to the Christian faith. A unity of action only is tritheism, not monotheism. If you say that they are united in action, as when issuing directions, rather than in substance as the fathers said at the Council of Nicaea, you are not a Trinitarian. You are a polytheist.

If it is false, then please tell me which other churches accept the Book of Mormon and the strange Mormon teaching on the Trinity? Or if you mean that it is somehow false that heretics were called before bishops to account for their faith, please read up on what happened to Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and others. There is no false information in that paragraph, only things that you disagree with, which is understandable since you are a Mormon so its your group that is being criticized by all others, and you don't like that. That's a totally reasonable reaction, but it doesn't make Mormonism Christian. People sometimes say things I don't like about my Church, too, but I can back up our actual beliefs by pointing out what we pray and preach. By contrast, the explanations from Mormons as to their distinctive ideas and practices do not meet the basics of what would be considered Christian by any other Church in any era.

This post points to you quite enjoying your current state of misinformation and lack of interest in respectful educational dialogue. Is that impression correct?

 

[dzheremi]

Again, how is it misinformation? Are we talking about your religion, or is the topic of the thread whether or not you feel I am being respectful?

If you do not wish to explain how it is that Mormonism is not polytheism, then at least don't complain that I am not interested in "respectful education" or dialogue. How does presuming things about me answer how it is that Mormonism is not polytheism? That's not any kind of education, respectful or otherwise.

 

[Sophrosyne]

My father's ex-wife was a Mormon, briefly, and when I asked her about this issue (because there is an LDS building a few blocks from my father's house, and I had noticed that it does not have a cross atop it like a church would), she said that she was taught that the LDS believe that Christ was crucified not on a standard t-shaped cross but on some other type of plank that looks more like what their buildings have on them...just sort of a straight stick:

I have no idea if this is true or some erroneous information she picked up from someone, but that's what she said was the understanding that she picked up from her time in the LDS religion. So I guess because of that, I wouldn't personally assume that just because a Mormon doesn't have a cross it means that they are against it. Maybe there are explanations like this one or others.

Of course, Mormonism is anti-Christ and not Christian for many other reasons, but even it were just a matter of symbology (which I agree with the OP is not really what this is about, in the sense of being personally more comfortable with this symbol over that symbol), I can't imagine being any more comfortable worshiping in such a place than they would likely be in an Orthodox Church, where we greatly venerate the holy cross, as is right to do.

I haven't heard of them with the pole thing but I do know where that sort of comes from the JW's believe Jesus didn't die on a cross but a pole or spear or post and I'm betting if mormons believe such it is because Mr. Smith plagiarized it from folks back that time.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm not sure what to believe about that now, as several Mormons in this thread have told me that it is not true, while another has seemingly come to the defense of this idea. So it's probably something that some believe and some do not, without it being a matter of officially-promulgated LDS doctrine.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, how is it misinformation?

You give false "facts".

If you do not wish to explain how it is that Mormonism is not polytheism, then at least don't complain that I am not interested in "respectful education" or dialogue.

I am willing to explain-- if you're willing to listen (sorry, I don't talk to just be ignored). But I don't think you're interested in listening. Rather I suspect your goal is to "inform" me that I am a polytheistic anti-Christ heretic. Am I correct in these suspension? Or if I am error, where?

 

[dzheremi]

You give false "facts".

Where? In what way? You keep repeating that I'm spreading misinformation, but you are not showing where or how. You are just repeating the same accusation over and over.

I am willing to explain-- if you're willing to listen (sorry, I don't talk to just be ignored). But I don't think you're interested in listening. Rather I suspect your goal is to "inform" me that I am a polytheistic anti-Christ heretic. Am I correct in these suspension? Or if I am error, where?

Am I not listening now? I am in the thread. Again, you have only answered any of my posts by saying that I am spreading misinformation, not by actually showing how Mormonism meets the definition of traditional Christian Trintarianism. I have shown one way in which it does not (because you guys are apparently unwilling to confess that the three persons are homoousios), and instead of being told "No, we do believe they are of the same substance/consubstantial" and shown evidence that this is so, what I see in reply is an unrelated observation regarding my ability or willingness to listen. Well, give me something to listen to, then. Something substantial that actually answers the Christian criticism of Mormonism being polytheistic, instead of simply saying "No it isn't" and "You don't wanna learn".

 

[Jane_Doe]

not by actually showing how Mormonism meets the definition of traditional Christian Trintarianism.

I did not say that Mormons meet the definition of traditional Christian Trinitarianism. In fact I thoroughly reject any such claims.

I claimed that Mormons are monotheistic, and explained why in post #104.

I also claimed that Mormons are disciples of Christ (aka Christian).

I have shown one way in which it does not (because you guys are apparently unwilling to confess that the three persons are homoousios)

Correct: we reject this non-Biblical idea.

Now, if you wish to claim "you can't be a Christiain because you don't believe in homoousios!", please show me a verse in the Bible that says belief in homoousios is required to be a disciple of Christ.

Something substantial that actually answers the Christian criticism of Mormonism being polytheistic, instead of simply saying "No it isn't" and "You don't wanna learn".

I already explained this in post #104.

 

[mmksparbud]

Mormons do believe in only One God----on this world. And that He always existed---just as a human before He became God. He worked His way to becoming God, so therefore we can do the same thing. On other worlds, there are other gods. God did not create everything everywhere, just almost everything on this world, but it all was matter before He created it, He never created anything from nothing. And yes, Jesus is the Son of God---just not His only Son, it was His only sinless one, the others, that God had with the Heavenly Mother, were not sinless. And we existed before being born as we are those children that God had with His wife, the Heavenly Mother. And Gabriel was Noah. They believe in he bible as long as it is correctly interpreted, and the writings of Joseph Smith are also scripture and they interpret the bible correctly. They can correct me if I got something wrong.

 

[dzheremi]

I did not say that Mormons meet the definition of traditional Christian Trinitarianism. In fact I thoroughly reject any such claims.

Trinitarianism is the only monotheism that has been accepted in historic Christianity. All non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian positions have been condemned as heresies in their own day, and down until today. So in a very real way we can say that to be a non-Trinitarian is to be a non-Christian, as the Christian God -- the one God that there is -- is the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not a single person as in various kinds of unitarianism (either contemporary or modern).

I claimed that Mormons are monotheistic, and explained why in post #104.

Yes, I know you claimed that. The problem is that any kind of trinity in which the persons are not of one substance is by definition not monotheistic, as in that case they cease being of one and the same divinity. Any three people who are not divine can have the same relation that you claim preserves Mormon monotheism, so there must be something more than just a unity of action to make them one, or else you have three gods in place of one. The Church has traditionally answered this by saying that they are of one substance, as defined in the Creed. What is Mormonism's answer to what makes the internal relation of the Persons distinct from the relation of any other people who also worked as one with God the Father by doing His will, as the patriarchs of the Old Testament did? Why are Moses, Elijah, and so on also not 'gods', then?

I also claimed that Mormons are disciples of Christ (aka Christian).

The Mormon rejection of what was taught by those who learned from the apostles and the disciples directly in favor of Mormon doctrine established in the 18th century puts that claim, and the claims of all restorationists, in serious doubt.

Correct: we reject this non-Biblical idea.

Non-biblical? So you reject John 10:30, where Jesus says that He and the Father are one? Or John 14:9, where He says that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father? These are clearly not just saying "I do what the Father tells me to do" or what have you, as there are completely other verses where Jesus makes that point (even in the same gospel, as in John 12:49-50).

Now, if you wish to claim "you can't be a Christiain because you don't believe in homoousios!", please show me a verse in the Bible that says belief in homoousios is required to be a disciple of Christ.

See above.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Mormons do believe in only One God----on this world. And that He always existed---just as a human before He became God. He worked His way to becoming God, so therefore we can do the same thing. On other worlds, there are other gods. God did not create everything everywhere, just almost everything on this world, but it all was matter before He created it, He never created anything from nothing. And yes, Jesus is the Son of God---just not His only Son, it was His only sinless one, the others, that God had with the Heavenly Mother, were not sinless. And we existed before being born as we are those children that God had with His wife, the Heavenly Mother. And Gabriel was Noah. They believe in he bible as long as it is correctly interpreted, and the writings of Joseph Smith are also scripture and they interpret the bible correctly. They can correct me if I got something wrong.

Actually this is wrong as they believe Jesus is a separate God that was born from the father (and mother God) and got exalted into godhood so there is 3 gods that aren't one god. I'm unsure how they consider the Holy Spirit as also a separate god or not.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Trinitarianism is the only monotheism that has been accepted in historic Christianity.

With all do respect, I don't determine what is True based upon the popular opinion of sinful men (councils, creeds, etc). If you want to talk God-breathed scripture, then I'm game.

(And I mean no disrespect by this, I realize councils and creeds are very important to many here- I acknowledge and respect that. But they don't mean anything to me).

All non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian positions have been condemned as heresies in their own day, and down until today. So in a very real way we can say that to be a non-Trinitarian is to be a non-Christian, as the Christian God -- the one God that there is -- is the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not a single person as in various kinds of unitarianism (either contemporary or modern).

As I asked, easier, please give me a Bible verse to support your argument. I am not interested in non-scripture.

The problem is that any kind of trinity in which the persons are not of one substance is by definition not monotheistic, as in that case they cease being of one and the same divinity.

Again, please show me a Bible verse claiming this.

Any three people who are not divine can have the same relation that you claim preserves Mormon monotheism

Actually no. Us humans are bickersome people, not capable of anything close to Perfection and complete unity.

The Church has traditionally answered this by saying that they are of one substance, as defined in the Creed.

Again, the creeds and traditions of men are not indicators of Truth to me.

What is Mormonism's answer to what makes the internal relation of the Persons distinct from the relation of any other people who also worked as one with God the Father by doing His will, as the patriarchs of the Old Testament did? Why are Moses, Elijah, and so on also not 'gods', then?

No: Moses etc were still sinful and far from 100% ONE with Perfect righteous deity.

The Mormon rejection of what was taught by those who learned from the apostles and the disciples directly in favor of Mormon doctrine established in the 18th century puts that claim, and the claims of all restorationists, in serious doubt.

Actually, the best verse for the LDS position is Christ in John 17:21. The same verse make so sense in the homoousios paradigm. (Again, I'm a scripture person).

Non-biblical? So you reject John 10:30, where Jesus says that He and the Father are one? Or John 14:9, where He says that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father? These are clearly not just saying "I do what the Father tells me to do" or what have you, as there are completely other verses where Jesus makes that point (even in the same gospel, as in John 12:49-50).

I actually very much accept these verses, and the Father and Son being ONE. I have said this repeatedly now. I reject the notion that this oneness comes via homoousios, which is not said in any of these verses.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no discussion to be had with a person who cannot accept Christianity due to their own bias against "sinful men", and instead want to have a conversation not from a common base (which is what the councils and the Creed represent: the dividing line between those who are within Christianity and those who are not), but from what of our scriptures that they will accept (after mutilating them, as you have done with John 17:21; the fathers, rather, understood this verse to be a reference to the homoousian reality of the Holy Trinity, e.g., St. Augustine writes in his Tracte CX on John: "The Father, therefore, is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, in such a way as to be one, because they are of one substance"). This is not different than any non-Christian religion, as is obvious when looking at the parallels between Mormonism and the religions of others who claimed to be restoring the true faith that had been manipulated and filled with paganism by others.

Be that as it may, just for everyone's edification, the standard 27-book NT that is accepted by all Christian churches (some have more, but all have at least those 27) was first enumerated in the 39th festal (Easter) letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the 20th Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in 367 AD. It was subsequently accepted by other churches outside of Egypt, being confirmed (e.g.) at a synod in Carthage in 382.

It is also one tradition (in the Coptic Orthodox Church) that our father HH St. Athanasius authored the Nicene Creed, though other traditions say that he wrote it together with HG Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, and still others that it was collaborative effort between many of the assembled bishops. Point being, we have here a man who is ultimately responsible for promulgating the Biblical canon used by all Christian churches, who at least had a role in authoring the Creed which is used by the majority of churches as well as their symbol of belief, and so on...and the Mormons would have you believe that, as church leaders are sinful men, they can't possibly be correct regarding how to interpret that very same Bible that they themselves canonized and that very same faith that they laid down for us just as we continue to affirm today.

And while all the saints from the first century (including those taught by the apostles and the disciples themselves, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, Anianus of Alexandria, etc.) onward got it wildly wrong, a farm boy in New York in the 19th century (I mistyped earlier; Mormonism is even younger than I remembered) somehow restored everything to how it was meant to be from the apostolic times until today...novel doctrines and books, "Reformed Egyptian", magical seeing stones and all.

You guys do remember how all that is in the Bible, right? The coming of Joseph Smith and his restoring of Christianity?

Yeah. Sure. But it is the rest of Christianity that has embraced "non-Biblical ideas", right?

 

[Super14LDS]

This excerpt ends on a poignant point.

Some critics say we are not Christian because we do not use the symbol of the cross as they do. One can disagree with us, but that does not cost us our status as Christians. In fact, if we are excluded from Christianity for this reason, then the early Christians would also be excluded. According to non-LDS scholars, "In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with CHrist here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave" (H. Child and D. Colles, Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern, Bell and Sons, London, 1971, p. 10, as cited by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, Aspen Books, Salt Lake City, UT, 1992, p. 132). Latter-day Saints and early Christians seem to share the same view on this matter.

Even some modern Protestant writers make the same point. "The power of salvation, Paul says, is not in the cross, as fundamentalist evangelists have claimed, but in the resurrection" (L.J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon,, Pilgrim Books, New York, 1989, p. 88, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 132).

Here's our perspective: we worship the Resurrected, Living Christ. We remember his death and sacrifice each week as we partake of communion, etc., but we prefer to picture him as the glorious, living Lord. The cross was an instrument of torture and somehow to me just doesn't seem like an appropriate primary way to remember him (though you may find not-too-gory paintings of him on the cross in some LDS buildings and certainly in LDS publications). To illustrate my problem with the popular use of the cross, if my wife were stabbed to death, I wouldn't put knives on my wall to remember - ...

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml

 

[Goatee]

The Cross is a symbol of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us all. It is where he suffered for our sins. It doesn't matter what shape it was. What matters is what he did for us.

The cross in Christianity goes back a long time.

If you pray to Jesus crucified what do you think of? Yes, a cross! We look at the cross in reverence and worship and love.

I have several crucifixes on the walls in my house! I look at them and everyday i see Our Lord giving himself for me! His undying love. Who gave us the cross? JESUS GAVE US THE CROSS!