independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 28th Feb 2020 1:04am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why doesn't Prince wear a cross around his neck anymore?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/03/13 5:39am

SpiritOtter

Why doesn't Prince wear a cross around his neck anymore?

I was just watching a glorious video clip from the Parade era of Prince performing Pop Life live with the Revolution, and it once again reminded me that something of a "trademark" of Prince's style back in the day (for God knows how long) was that he would wear a cross pendant around his neck. Stylistically, I quite liked it, and of course it perhaps sought to signal to the audience that whatever his"performance" on stage might indicate (e.g. Head), there was a degree of goodness behind the man's actions. He was essentially good, but he liked being bad. And he wanted to be saved. It was/is that dichotomy between the sexual/spiritual that made the genuine tension in Prince's psyche and, therefore, music and art all the more captivating to experience. With Prince no longer appearing to search for truth, it is interesting that his music concurrently appears to hold significantly less tension, which we could theorise was an essential ingredient to his creativity and, therefore, genius. Thus, the funk of his music can often feel more perfunctory or phoned in nowadays; some might even say "bland" (e.g. 1 +1 +1 is 3), as opposed to when he was genuinely feeling the funk in that alter-ego, Camille-eseque state (Erotic City). So, why doesn't Prince wear a cross around his neck anymore? And was it the basic cross pendant that he then morphed into his symbol to be more representative of his brand or were they completely independent items? It will be interesting to see if anyone can actually trace the last date he actually wore the cross pendant? Throughout the no-name years (i.e. long before the conversion to becoming a JW), I don't recall a cross being worn, but I could be mistaken. He seems to still identify at least with the love symbol bearing the male and female signs.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/03/13 6:03am

sovembol

Watch Prince's performance 1998 on the Essence Awards.. "The Christ"

SpiritOtter said:

I was just watching a glorious video clip from the Parade era of Prince performing Pop Life live with the Revolution, and it once again reminded me that something of a "trademark" of Prince's style back in the day (for God knows how long) was that he would wear a cross pendant around his neck. Stylistically, I quite liked it, and of course it perhaps sought to signal to the audience that whatever his"performance" on stage might indicate (e.g. Head), there was a degree of goodness behind the man's actions. He was essentially good, but he liked being bad. And he wanted to be saved. It was/is that dichotomy between the sexual/spiritual that made the genuine tension in Prince's psyche and, therefore, music and art all the more captivating to experience. With Prince no longer appearing to search for truth, it is interesting that his music concurrently appears to hold significantly less tension, which we could theorise was an essential ingredient to his creativity and, therefore, genius. Thus, the funk of his music can often feel more perfunctory or phoned in nowadays; some might even say "bland" (e.g. 1 +1 +1 is 3), as opposed to when he was genuinely feeling the funk in that alter-ego, Camille-eseque state (Erotic City). So, why doesn't Prince wear a cross around his neck anymore? And was it the basic cross pendant that he then morphed into his symbol to be more representative of his brand or were they completely independent items? It will be interesting to see if anyone can actually trace the last date he actually wore the cross pendant? Throughout the no-name years (i.e. long before the conversion to becoming a JW), I don't recall a cross being worn, but I could be mistaken. He seems to still identify at least with the love symbol bearing the male and female signs.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/03/13 6:03am

ludwig

Have you missed prince's infamous "stauros" speech?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/03/13 6:13am

SpiritOtter

ludwig said:

Have you missed prince's infamous "stauros" speech?

Hi ludwig,

What is that referring to? I have never heard of it before. And which era is this from? Did he stop wearing it before this speech?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/03/13 6:16am

TheEnglishGent

avatar

Prince is a Jehovah's witness, they don't believe Jesus was crucified on a cross but on a stake. The cross is not a symbol they assosciate themselves with so Prince would not wear one.

RIP sad
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/03/13 6:20am

SpiritOtter

TheEnglishGent said:

Prince is a Jehovah's witness, they don't believe Jesus was crucified on a cross but on a stake. The cross is not a symbol they assosciate themselves with so Prince would not wear one.

Thanks, TEG. Clearly, I am somewhat uninformed on these matters, but what is the significance of the difference between a "cross" and a "stake"? Does it not effectively amount to the same thing i.e. that He was crucified? And, assuming that is the case, then why would Prince not simply wear a "stake" symbol (if there is such a thing), to signify his newer belief?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/03/13 6:30am

Ymaginatif

avatar

The 'stauros' speech is based upon some nineteenth-century incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word 'stauros' (σταυρός) in koine Greek.

Since then, there has been abundant evidence that in the early centuries the word was used with reference to a cross shape.

In addition, the earliest writings (way earlier than the Gospel) describe Christ's stake as a T-shape (for which they use the word 'stauros').

So, the Jehovah's witness's claim is linguistically false.

There may be other reasons to reject the cross (KKK association, to name one) to reject the cross as a symbol though ...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/03/13 8:41am

SpiritOtter

Ymaginatif said:

The 'stauros' speech is based upon some nineteenth-century incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word 'stauros' (σταυρός) in koine Greek.

Since then, there has been abundant evidence that in the early centuries the word was used with reference to a cross shape.

In addition, the earliest writings (way earlier than the Gospel) describe Christ's stake as a T-shape (for which they use the word 'stauros').

So, the Jehovah's witness's claim is linguistically false.

There may be other reasons to reject the cross (KKK association, to name one) to reject the cross as a symbol though ...

Thank you, Ymaginatif. False claim or not, I guess I am somewhat failing to understand the spiritual/religious/other signifance of their pointing out this potential discrepancy i.e. what is the grand point I am missing that the JW, or Prince, are trying to point us towards?? I guess I am asking, semantics aside (cross or stake), what is such a big deal?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/03/13 8:41am

raddahone

avatar

Somewhere during the Scandalous video is the first time that i remember seeing Mr. Prince without the cross and wearing the symbol with the circle, cross, and arrow combined. BTW - this is ancient symbolism/sacred geometry. Many think that it indicates Man and Woman together as One in God.

The Cross is a symbol of Heaven and Earth combined. Heaven is the vertical line and Earth is the horizontal line.

Strange how the H and the E when combined make the word, HE. I doubt though that this "he" was really intended. But, it is interesting from a perspective of duality and how everything here/Earth seems to be based on duality.

~honey is b-ing 1 with the 1~
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/03/13 8:45am

swanny

Tha lack of a cross around his neck has nothing to do with JW. He stopped wearing the cross around 89\90. Certainly there are summer 89 Batman pics with him wearing the cross but by the time of Graffiti Bridge and the Nude Tour in 1990 he was wearing the a version of the symbol which he continued to wear in different versions for years.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/03/13 8:47am

SpiritOtter

raddahone said:

Somewhere during the Scandalous video is the first time that i remember seeing Mr. Prince without the cross and wearing the symbol with the circle, cross, and arrow combined. BTW - this is ancient symbolism/sacred geometry. Many think that it indicates Man and Woman together as One in God.

[b]The Cross is a symbol of Heaven and Earth combined. Heaven is the vertical line and Earth is the horizontal line/b].

Strange how the H and the E when combined make the word, HE. I doubt though that this "he" was really intended. But, it is interesting from a perspective of duality and how everything here/Earth seems to be based on duality.

Interesting. I never knew that is what the Cross symbolised - Heaven and Earth. Also, it is interesting if approximating the Batman era (i.e. after his spiritual epiphany a la Lovesexy), he then possibly abandoned using the Cross in his imagery, opting instead for his love symbol motif?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/03/13 9:20am

errant

avatar

SpiritOtter said:



Ymaginatif said:


The 'stauros' speech is based upon some nineteenth-century incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word 'stauros' (σταυρός) in koine Greek.


Since then, there has been abundant evidence that in the early centuries the word was used with reference to a cross shape.


In addition, the earliest writings (way earlier than the Gospel) describe Christ's stake as a T-shape (for which they use the word 'stauros').



So, the Jehovah's witness's claim is linguistically false.



There may be other reasons to reject the cross (KKK association, to name one) to reject the cross as a symbol though ...




Thank you, Ymaginatif. False claim or not, I guess I am somewhat failing to understand the spiritual/religious/other signifance of their pointing out this potential discrepancy i.e. what is the grand point I am missing that the JW, or Prince, are trying to point us towards?? I guess I am asking, semantics aside (cross or stake), what is such a big deal?




There is none. Every sect has its own arbitrary shit to distinguish itself from every other sect that worships the Skybully.
"does my cock look fat in these jeans?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/03/13 9:28am

Graycap23

errant said:

SpiritOtter said:

Thank you, Ymaginatif. False claim or not, I guess I am somewhat failing to understand the spiritual/religious/other signifance of their pointing out this potential discrepancy i.e. what is the grand point I am missing that the JW, or Prince, are trying to point us towards?? I guess I am asking, semantics aside (cross or stake), what is such a big deal?

There is none. Every sect has its own arbitrary shit to distinguish itself from every other sect that worships the Skybully.

What is the big deal?

Let's 4 argument sake say that Prince is correct and that all of these centuries folks have been lied 2 about this event (if it actually took place).

My stance is simple, where there is 1 lie, there are many that have yet 2 be uncovered.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/03/13 9:37am

SpiritOtter

Graycap23 said:

errant said:

SpiritOtter said: There is none. Every sect has its own arbitrary shit to distinguish itself from every other sect that worships the Skybully.

What is the big deal?

Let's 4 argument sake say that Prince is correct and that all of these centuries folks have been lied 2 about this event (if it actually took place).

My stance is simple, where there is 1 lie, there are many that have yet 2 be uncovered.

Fair point, Gray, but where is the evidence to suggest that it was actually a deliberate "lie", rather than something far more related to a possible correct/incorrect understanding of terminology? In other words, what on Earth would be the point of the lie? It seems like such a small and insignificant point around semantics in this particular case.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/03/13 9:40am

Se7en

avatar

Yeah, the whole "Stauros" era was just weird. I remember seeing Prince and Larry Graham on some odd talk show talking about it. It seemed like crazy talk, and IIRC they implied that the host needed to amend his own beliefs and that THEY (Prince/Larry) were correct. I guess that's how most people are, but still. The idea that a mistranslated word -- turning the idea of a cross into a wooden stake (similar to a telephone pole) -- somehow throws into question everything we know about Christianity?

.

And, let's not forget: crucifying people was a long-standing form of punishment back then. It didn't start with Jesus, and it didn't end with Jesus. So even if you're not a believer in Christ or Christianity, the fact that crucifixes existed is not disputed.

.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/03/13 9:46am

Graycap23

SpiritOtter said:

Graycap23 said:

What is the big deal?

Let's 4 argument sake say that Prince is correct and that all of these centuries folks have been lied 2 about this event (if it actually took place).

My stance is simple, where there is 1 lie, there are many that have yet 2 be uncovered.

Fair point, Gray, but where is the evidence to suggest that it was actually a deliberate "lie", rather than something far more related to a possible correct/incorrect understanding of terminology? In other words, what on Earth would be the point of the lie? It seems like such a small and insignificant point around semantics in this particular case.

I'll ask u a simple question.

Do u think the Slave Master is going 2 teach the Slave every thing he knows?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/03/13 9:49am

Se7en

avatar

SpiritOtter said:

Graycap23 said:

What is the big deal?

Let's 4 argument sake say that Prince is correct and that all of these centuries folks have been lied 2 about this event (if it actually took place).

My stance is simple, where there is 1 lie, there are many that have yet 2 be uncovered.

Fair point, Gray, but where is the evidence to suggest that it was actually a deliberate "lie", rather than something far more related to a possible correct/incorrect understanding of terminology? In other words, what on Earth would be the point of the lie? It seems like such a small and insignificant point around semantics in this particular case.

Agreed.

Even to this day, certain words seem interchangeable but they really are not. Floor and ground are not necessarily interchangeable, but they might seem to be. So let's say that in the Bible somewhere it says that "Jesus slept on the ground". Historians might think dirt, grass, even rocks. What if it was the wrong word and he was simply sleeping on a wooden or even finished stone floor? In that case historians got it wrong . . . but was it a LIE?! It's in cases like this that CONTEXT has everything to do with the translation.

.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/03/13 9:58am

SpiritOtter

Graycap23 said:

SpiritOtter said:

Fair point, Gray, but where is the evidence to suggest that it was actually a deliberate "lie", rather than something far more related to a possible correct/incorrect understanding of terminology? In other words, what on Earth would be the point of the lie? It seems like such a small and insignificant point around semantics in this particular case.

I'll ask u a simple question.

Do u think the Slave Master is going 2 teach the Slave every thing he knows?

Somehow, that doesn't feel like a simple question at all, but a rather loaded one?! :lol)

But to your point, where did the mantle of "Slave Master" come from and to whom/what are you/they referring to?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/03/13 10:20am

Graycap23

SpiritOtter said:

Graycap23 said:

I'll ask u a simple question.

Do u think the Slave Master is going 2 teach the Slave every thing he knows?

Somehow, that doesn't feel like a simple question at all, but a rather loaded one?! :lol)

But to your point, where did the mantle of "Slave Master" come from and to whom/what are you/they referring to?

Let me rephrase the question.

If someone wanted 2 educate on on this subject matter...............and it somehow got off track, do u think they would have made sure that was an effort 2 put people back on the right track after centuries of misinterpretation?

If not.............maybe it was intentionally done that way. (assuming that it actually happened)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/03/13 10:27am

Tremolina

SpiritOtter said:

Ymaginatif said:

The 'stauros' speech is based upon some nineteenth-century incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word 'stauros' (σταυρός) in koine Greek.

Since then, there has been abundant evidence that in the early centuries the word was used with reference to a cross shape.

In addition, the earliest writings (way earlier than the Gospel) describe Christ's stake as a T-shape (for which they use the word 'stauros').

So, the Jehovah's witness's claim is linguistically false.

There may be other reasons to reject the cross (KKK association, to name one) to reject the cross as a symbol though ...

Thank you, Ymaginatif. False claim or not, I guess I am somewhat failing to understand the spiritual/religious/other signifance of their pointing out this potential discrepancy i.e. what is the grand point I am missing that the JW, or Prince, are trying to point us towards?? I guess I am asking, semantics aside (cross or stake), what is such a big deal?

The "grand point" was that "somebody lied about the way that Jesus died".

One could argue about who rteally lied, but I am surprised you didn't know this.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/03/13 10:35am

SpiritOtter

Tremolina said:

SpiritOtter said:

Thank you, Ymaginatif. False claim or not, I guess I am somewhat failing to understand the spiritual/religious/other signifance of their pointing out this potential discrepancy i.e. what is the grand point I am missing that the JW, or Prince, are trying to point us towards?? I guess I am asking, semantics aside (cross or stake), what is such a big deal?

The "grand point" was that "somebody lied about the way that Jesus died".

One could argue about who rteally lied, but I am surprised you didn't know this.

Tremolina, I think the point I am somewhat confused about is does the difference between a cross and a stake constitute a deliberate and false "lie" about the way He died? And, if so, what on God's Earth was the actual point of the alleged "lie"? It seems like a trifling matter of semantics, without knowing/understanding the alleged purpose of said alleged deliberate falsifying of potential events?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/03/13 11:05am

vivacious1

Jehovah Witnesses don't wear crosses.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/03/13 11:15am

Graycap23

SpiritOtter said:

Tremolina said:

The "grand point" was that "somebody lied about the way that Jesus died".

One could argue about who rteally lied, but I am surprised you didn't know this.

Tremolina, I think the point I am somewhat confused about is does the difference between a cross and a stake constitute a deliberate and false "lie" about the way He died? And, if so, what on God's Earth was the actual point of the alleged "lie"? It seems like a trifling matter of semantics, without knowing/understanding the alleged purpose of said alleged deliberate falsifying of potential events?

If u can't get that SIMPLE part correct............why should anyone believe any of the story?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/03/13 11:22am

Stymie

vivacious1 said:

Jehovah Witnesses don't wear crosses.

This. It's just that simple.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/03/13 11:27am

Tremolina

SpiritOtter said:

Tremolina said:

The "grand point" was that "somebody lied about the way that Jesus died".

One could argue about who rteally lied, but I am surprised you didn't know this.

Tremolina, I think the point I am somewhat confused about is does the difference between a cross and a stake constitute a deliberate and false "lie" about the way He died? And, if so, what on God's Earth was the actual point of the alleged "lie"? It seems like a trifling matter of semantics, without knowing/understanding the alleged purpose of said alleged deliberate falsifying of potential events?

Prince's point was the lie was deliberately. To hide the truth from us. That's why he was so passionate about it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/03/13 11:33am

Tremolina

Perhabs, but I'm not sure, Prince also realised that "the cross" already existed as a symbol before Christ.

He realised it was by origin "pagan". More reason to reject wearing one.

However, there are many more originally pagan traditions rooted in Christianity. Like the date for Christmas. And thus, Prince also made an issue out of that.



I am aware that JW's make a big deal out of this in general. That's one of the reasons why they are different than most other churches. They try and/or claim to stick closer to the truth. Or better yet, have the one and only truth.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/03/13 11:38am

SpiritOtter

Stymie said:

vivacious1 said:

Jehovah Witnesses don't wear crosses.

This. It's just that simple.

You are both likely correct. I guess it is more a curiosity that he apparently hadn't worn a cross since 1989/1990, approximately a decade before he became a JW.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/03/13 11:40am

fuzion

Prince stated himself in a chat years ago that he stopped wearing a cross after Lovesexy due to a conversation with friends regarding the iconography of the cross as a form of capital punishment, something to the effect of what KRS-ONE said in the song "The Truth" about if Jesus was killed in an electrc chair, we'd be wearing gold electric chairs around our necks.

The JW association just solidified his aversion to it.

[Edited 9/3/13 11:41am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/03/13 11:49am

SpiritOtter

fuzion said:

Prince stated himself in a chat years ago that he stopped wearing a cross after Lovesexy due to a conversation with friends regarding the iconography of the cross as a form of capital punishment, something to the effect of what KRS-ONE said in the song "The Truth" about if Jesus was killed in an electrc chair, we'd be wearing gold electric chairs around our necks.

The JW association just solidified his aversion to it.

[Edited 9/3/13 11:41am]

Wow - that is new news to me re: a conversation with friends after Lovesexy about the iconography of the cross, but it makes sense and lends credence to the idea that he appeared to no longer identify himself with the cross after the Lovesexy era. Thank you for the insight, fuzion.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/04/13 12:38pm

SuperSoulFight
er

Is everyone missing the obvious here? Look closely at the prince. The cross is right in the middle of it. He never stopped wearing it. He just "customized" it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why doesn't Prince wear a cross around his neck anymore?