Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

The Cross

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This doesn't answer the CFR. According to board rules, give me evidence or retract. Saying you can't tell me isn't sufficient for a CFR.

The symbolism of the Crucifixion is not an "oblique" reference in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Walk into a Catholic Church and look around. There are crosses and crucifixes EVERYWHERE. Many churches are actually architecturally crosses themselves. Every single sacrament (ordinance) refers to the crucifixion or uses the symbolism of the crucifixion. In fact, the sacrament of communion is LITERALLY a reenactment of the Crucifixion, since we believe that the wine and host are turned into the body, blood, spirit, and divinity of Christ.

Now, if your argument is that you have the true rituals, or the higher rituals, or something along those lines, then we are going to argue truth claims, which I'm not interested in. Instead, let's take the point-of-view of an objective outsider non-LDS non-Catholic observer. Which church do you think that person would say uses the symbol of the cross and crucifixion more, LDS or Catholic?

Mark, please tell me honestly: you think that the LDS church uses the symbol of the cross and crucifixion more than the Catholic Church? If so, CFR.

I cannot cfr and neither can Teddy

I have taken on a sacred covenant not to reveal it.

Do you really think the mods are going to do anything about it?

The contexts are different that it's impossible to quantify "more" anyway.

I have never understood how the mass is a sacrifice of any kind, any more than our blessing the sacrament, so I am probably not the best person to ask.  I also do not subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

On the other hand many LDS May interpret the endowment symbolism differently that I do, so it becomes a toss-up.

But I think Teddy and I would agree on the content of the symbolism just fine. For LDS notice that Adam takes upon himself different names as he progresses.

From my perspective there is nothing like that in the Catholic Church, and cannot be, because there is no belief that we can literally become as Christ is.

Are the other hand we actually believe that we can become as the father and Christ are now. Of course that's after eons of self-perfection. There's no comparison or basis for comparison.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2019 at 7:56 PM, teddyaware said:

My claim is absolutely correct. The obvious answer as to why the Latter-Day Saints don’t wear crosses as jewelry and trinkets is because the symbolism is too sacred and appropriately employed only in the higher ordinances of the restored gospel..

Teddyaware, you could have just said ¨I´m right!¨ for all the attempt to actually engage in my comment you display in this reply.

@Calm kudos for the replies you have given Teddyaware. I appreciate the push-back you´ve given to someone in your own community.

In an attempt not to have to organize a bunch of previous quotes from this thread:

Teddyaware you said that some significant portion of LDS may not realize how important the Cross is to the LDS Religion - that is what I was referring to (as I quoted at the time) as being self-contradictory. If a near/majority of the religion do not realize its great significance within the religion, can it really be so significant? (That is, that a majority of LDS membership have never been to Temple ordinances - at least beyond Proxy Baptisms). Maybe God recognizes it this way in your religion technically (if the LDS Religion is true/of Him), but it is self-contradictory to say that the religion (made up of members) finds it significant and, at the same time, that a large portion/majority of the members aren´t aware of this great significance. You made this statement, not I. It seems at least highly probable of being self-contradictory. So for you to just reply ¨My claim is absolutely correct¨, let alone without engaging my comment and quote of you, seems, at best, lacking to a fault.

More pointedly, your comments about non-LDS ¨Oblique¨ references to the Cross in Protestant and Catholic rituals while touting your sacred and secret ceremonies that the majority of your religion have never experienced seem disingenuous. They also indicate a lack of engagement with these religious traditions which not only reinforces the need for a CFR, but you manage to doube-down on the self-righteousness by offering MiserereNobis a non-reply reply (more on this later). Your comments reek of religio-centrism (anyone found a word for the religious equivalent of ethnocentrism, yet?) and double-standard and blindness to your own myopia, as your replies (so far) to Calm have only confirmed.

Almost lastly, yes the Temple ceremonies are sacred to the LDS, but so are the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Yet the latter are not kept secret.  If the Cross is brought to the forefront in LDS Temple rituals (as you claim in your off-putting offer to MiserereNobis that if he ever gets a chance to be in an LDS Temple ritual [which obviously would require him to convert, be a member of good standing for 1 year, and honestly answer Temple Recommend questions correctly - yet you speak of it as if it is something he could do on a whim and without betraying everything he believes in]- way to go on your authenticity again, btw) it is still kept from the majority of LDS members that have never been thru those rituals. Withholding the truth of the Cross from members of your own church does not seem like it would be pleasing to the God you claim originated both.

Finally, for now, just as your replies do not show true engagement with me, MiserereNobis, or Calm, your descriptions of non-LDS Christianity do not indicate real engagement with the religion either. Your mention of only rituals of Christianity as evidence of the place of the Cross in non-LDS Christianity (as opposed to the plethora of songs, books, sermons, symbols, etc) indicates your religio-centric assumption that rituals are so much higher and out of the league of such other practices that they can make up for the relative lack of the Cross in all those others in the LDS religion. Again, this harms the apparent authenticity of your comments. I am sure you do not wish to come off so myopically high and righteous, so maybe this feedback will help you try to show more consideration and understanding of others and more humble about your own religion even as you express your beliefs in your religion´s truth, significance, and power.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/27/2019 at 10:13 AM, mfbukowski said:

I cannot cfr and neither can Teddy

I have taken on a sacred covenant not to reveal it.

Do you really think the mods are going to do anything about it?

The contexts are different that it's impossible to quantify "more" anyway.

I have never understood how the mass is a sacrifice of any kind, any more than our blessing the sacrament, so I am probably not the best person to ask.  I also do not subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

On the other hand many LDS May interpret the endowment symbolism differently that I do, so it becomes a toss-up.

But I think Teddy and I would agree on the content of the symbolism just fine. For LDS notice that Adam takes upon himself different names as he progresses.

From my perspective there is nothing like that in the Catholic Church, and cannot be, because there is no belief that we can literally become as Christ is.

Are the other hand we actually believe that we can become as the father and Christ are now. Of course that's after eons of self-perfection. There's no comparison or basis for comparison.

If you cannot CFR, then the correct action would be not to make the claim at all. It´s a bit rich and disingenuous to attempt to ¨engage¨ while having a bunch of claims and extents/depths of belief be off-limits to challenges, simply because you can´t talk about them. If you can´t talk about them, maybe you should not make claims about them, at least with non-LDS. Make them all you want with LDS, but not non-LDS participants. If a non-LDS challenges what you said to LDS, simply state you were speaking to LDS, not making claims to non-LDS.
 

More generously, perhaps if you are going to make a CFR-impervious claim to a non-LDS poster  you should admit, in an at least somewhat embarrassed way, that you are making an unsupportable claim. Then you should just accept that those you are making these unsupportable claims will not give them much weight, nor CFRs.

So the solution seems to be two-fold: Temple-experienced LDS should not make Temple-experience-based claims toward non-LDS and non-LDS should either not respond to unsupportable claims (not made to them anyways) or simply and decisively point them out as useless unsupportable claims (as directed at non-LDS). And then the LDS should simply not reply, implicitly accepting that the claim was unsupportable and not worthy of engagement.

You can't CFR sacred temple content here.
Skylla

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

If you cannot CFR, then the correct action would be not to make the claim at all. It´s a bit rich and disingenuous to attempt to ¨engage¨ while having a bunch of claims and extents/depths of belief be off-limits to challenges, simply because you can´t talk about them. If you can´t talk about them, maybe you should not make claims about them, at least with non-LDS. Make them all you want with LDS, but not non-LDS participants. If a non-LDS challenges what you said to LDS, simply state you were speaking to LDS, not making claims to non-LDS.
 

More generously, perhaps if you are going to make a CFR-impervious claim to a non-LDS poster  you should admit, in an at least somewhat embarrassed way, that you are making an unsupportable claim. Then you should just accept that those you are making these unsupportable claims will not give them much weight, nor CFRs.

So the solution seems to be two-fold: Temple-experienced LDS should not make Temple-experience-based claims toward non-LDS and non-LDS should either not respond to unsupportable claims (not made to them anyways) or simply and decisively point them out as useless unsupportable claims (as directed at non-LDS). And then the LDS should simply not reply, implicitly accepting that the claim was unsupportable and not worthy of engagement.

Or,  non-LDS could accept in good faith that the LDS temple-goer is telling the truth. A CFR can be answered in a number of ways.

As per the OP, the cross is the preeminent symbol in the three most sacred LDS ordinances....the sacrament, the endowment, and the sealing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or,  non-LDS could accept in good faith that the LDS temple-goer is telling the truth. A CFR can be answered in a number of ways.

I'm not claiming you [plural LDS] are lying about what happens in the temple. My pushback is against teddyaware's claim that the cross has greater significance in the LDS church than in any other Christian church. He's making a comparison here. Please admit that that is a very bold claim since the LDS church doesn't use crosses in anything public, including one the outside of temples. Contrast that to Catholicism, where we literally cross ourselves every time we do anything religious, where our churches are covered, both inside and out, with crosses, where it is liturgically required to have a crucifix on the altar because the Eucharist is the literally reenactment of the crucifixion, where the priest becomes an "alter Christus", another Christ," during the consecration of the Eucharist -- it is Christ offering Himself up again. The cross and crucifix are literally EVERYWHERE in Catholic thought, prayer, architecture, liturgy, theology, music, etc, etc.

So again, it is a bold and extraordinary claim that the cross is more significant for LDS when I do not see a cross anywhere publicly. I'll take your word for it that crucifixion and its symbolism are everywhere inside the temple. But that is only a part of your religion. The rest of your religion is what is public and from what I see there are basically no crosses there, but instead the existence of a taboo against the symbolism of the cross.

To restate: my core issue isn't whether or not there are crosses in the temple liturgy. It is the claim that the cross is more important to LDS than other Christians. I find that hard to believe for the reasons stated above.

ETA:

Quote

As per the OP, the cross is the preeminent symbol in the three most sacred LDS ordinances....the sacrament, the endowment, and the sealing. 

I didn't see or hear anything about a cross the times I have attended sacrament meeting. How is the cross preeminent when it is absent?

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/27/2019 at 11:13 AM, mfbukowski said:

I cannot cfr and neither can Teddy

I have taken on a sacred covenant not to reveal it.

Do you really think the mods are going to do anything about it?

This didn't quite hit me until I read it a second time. Are you claiming that the mods are biased in their enforcement of the CFR rules? That a non-LDS CFR is treated differently than an LDS CFR?

I certainly hope that is not the case. One of thing I have enjoyed here over the years is the fact that I have felt the mods are fair and balanced in the way they allow discussion to proceed, calling out LDS and non-LDS alike.

And if it is true that the mods are biased towards you, it is poor form for you to hide your arguments behind biased arbiters.

On 6/27/2019 at 11:13 AM, mfbukowski said:

I have never understood how the mass is a sacrifice of any kind, any more than our blessing the sacrament, so I am probably not the best person to ask.  I also do not subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Well, of course if you don't believe in transubstantiation then it isn't a sacrifice. That's pretty obvious. If one doesn't believe in the underlying doctrine then one won't believe in the claims of the ritual. For example, I don't believe in the authority of your priesthood so I don't see your blessing of the sick as being any more than a Catholic praying for someone to get better.

The do

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

More pointedly, your comments about non-LDS ¨Oblique¨ references to the Cross in Protestant and Catholic rituals while touting your sacred and secret ceremonies that the majority of your religion have never experienced seem disingenuous. They also indicate a lack of engagement with these religious traditions

This is how I felt. Using the word "oblique" to describe the Catholic liturgy's use of the cross/crucifixion shows at best a deep ignorance of the actual words and actions of ALL of our rituals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@Bernard Gui

I did my homework and looked up the sacrament prayers on the bread and water. Neither one mentions a cross. The bread mentions the body of Christ, and the water mentions His blood which was shed, but these are tangential references to the cross. They are references to Christ's sacrifice, for sure, but that is not the topic of this overall thread nor the current topic of discussion. The topic is about the cross and crucifix and its significance to LDS and, as teddyaware claimed, how its significance is greater for LDS than for other Christians.

I will readily admit that the sacrificeofr Christ is significant for LDS (but I would neither say it is more or less than other Christians, because that's a silly claim). But I have a hard time accepting that the cross is significant for LDS since it is nowhere to be found publicly.

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Bernard Gui

I did my homework and looked up the sacrament prayers on the bread and water. Neither one mentions a cross. The bread mentions the body of Christ, and the water mentions His blood which was shed, but these are tangential references to the cross. They are references to Christ's sacrifice, for sure, but that is not the topic of this overall thread nor the current topic of discussion. The topic is about the cross and crucifix and its significance to LDS and, as teddyaware claimed, how its significance is greater for LDS than for other Christians.

I will readily admit that the sacrifice for Christ is significant for LDS (but I would neither say it is more or less than other Christians, because that's a silly claim). But I have a hard time accepting that the cross is significant since it is nowhere to be found publicly.

I worked in the same office for 7 years.  Most people have pictures up of their families, religious symbols, or other things they consider to be of value.  After 7 years, my desk area is barren of pictures of my family, or religious symbols, or anything else.

Does that mean I love my family or God less than those which did decorate their desk space?  No, of course not.  I don't think anyone's devotion to God or anything else is measuring by how they physically decorate themselves or their spaces.

 

Note: I'm not going to argue that any group of Christians values Christ or His sacrifice more than any other-- honestly I find such arguments to be very silly.   Equally silly is the idea that how a person/apce is physically decorated is indicative to their love or inward devotion to Christ. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Does that mean I love my family or God less than those which did decorate their desk space?  No, of course not.  I don't think anyone's devotion to God or anything else is measuring by how they physically decorate themselves or their spaces.

But this isn't about devotion to God or belief in Christ or belief in the atonement. This is specifically about "the cross." To use your example, I wouldn't dismiss your devotion to your family because you didn't have any pictures of them. However, if you told me that pictures of your family are super important to you, but then I didn't see any of those pictures, I would certainly question that.

That's what's going on here (and maybe that's where we are all talking past each other). I'm reacting to the claim that the cross is significant for LDS. As far as I can see it is not significant at all. However, I readily and easily admit that the sacrifice of Christ is significant. Those are two different yet related things.

And I don't think I'm splitting hairs here since the topic of this thread is "the cross" and the recent discussion has been about how the cross is significant to LDS. If we're talking about the cross, I just don't see it. If we're talking about the atonement of Christ, well, that's not the direct subject of this thread and discussion.

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I worked in the same office for 7 years.  Most people have pictures up of their families, religious symbols, or other things they consider to be of value.  After 7 years, my desk area is barren of pictures of my family, or religious symbols, or anything else.

Does that mean I love my family or God less than those which did decorate their desk space?  No, of course not.  I don't think anyone's devotion to God or anything else is measuring by how they physically decorate themselves or their spaces.

 

Note: I'm not going to argue that any group of Christians values Christ or His sacrifice more than any other-- honestly I find such arguments to be very silly.   Equally silly is the idea that how a person/apce is physically decorated is indicative to their love or inward devotion to Christ. 

This is completely irrelevant to what MiserereNobis said. You are even saying the very things he said. Perhaps, I am wrong that your reply is in opposition to what MiserereNobis said. But then, that´s would be some weird writing.

Otherwise, red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And I don't think I'm splitting hairs here since the topic of this thread is "the cross" and the recent discussion has been about how the cross is significant to LDS. If we're talking about the cross, I just don't see it. If we're talking about the atonement of Christ, well, that's not the direct subject of this thread and discussion.

If the topic is just the use of the Cross as a symbol. Then, it is quite obvious that the LDS use it less, and most are ready to admit that.

Admittedly not reviewing the OP, I believe the OP did ask why this lack of use occurs. Does it mean the Cross is less important or somehow abhorrent to the LDS religion and members? Perhaps.

Would that mean Christ´s sacrifice was less important to LDS? Not at all.  An action or event is quite separate from the things that people use to represent those events.

If one wanted to discuss the relative importance of Christ´s sacrifice and Atonement in Mormonism (Salt Lake LDS and other LDS groups), then it would be much more appropriate to discuss the actual teachings surrounding them - what it was, what it dealt with, what exactly it resulted in, etc. So that would be a very different discussion.

So, it seems the question here is if, given the lack of use of it, is the Cross less important to LDS (than other religions claiming Christ)? Again, if we keep this to the symbol - obviously yes, it is, generally, not an important symbol in Mormonism. If we try to move from the use of the symbol to the event of the Cross (and Cross only), then it would seem that - while the Cross was necessary for there to be a sacrifice unto death - given the emphasis of Jesus ¨shed blood¨ in the Garden of Gethsemane as being even just part of the blood sacrifice for Sin, then the cross is made less significant (only part instead of the whole sacrifice for sin). Again, this says nothing about the import of Christ´s sacrifice or Atonement, only the significance of the Cross in that sacrifice and Atonement. So for Christians, the Cross is important because it is the primary place of sacrifice, atonement, and death, instead of the secondary place of sacrifice and atonement, and the place of death.

Here is where we cannot simply take LDS´ word for it about Temple rituals and the place of the Cross in them @Bernard Gui. One can say that the Cross is central to LDS religion and evidenced so by its central place in Temple rituals. But, much like the issue of three gods being God rather than One God being God, the Cross can be both central to these rituals and yet be partially displaced by the addition of emphasis on the Garden of Gethsemane in those same rituals.

So, I think it is quite clear that the Cross is not ¨as important¨ in the LDS religion as it is in non-LDS Christian traditions, simply because it is sharing air time and at least part (if not the majority) of the Atonement with the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, this means nothing about the Atonement being less important to LDS. One could argue that it hints at such, but the evidence for whether the Atonement actually means less in Mormonism than in Christianity would be in the teachings and beliefs, not the symbols and their use, of the religions.

Lastly, what about the blood of the whipping, the crown of thorns, the nails, the spear, etc?

Edited by Joshua Valentine

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/27/2019 at 12:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

I cannot cfr and neither can Teddy

I have taken on a sacred covenant not to reveal it.

What is ¨it¨? The exact meaning of the non-disclosure oath has be debated here before - I believe there were multiple opinions of what and to the extent the oath actually barred discussion.

Did you all conclude the place of the Cross was part of that as well? The number of times the Cross comes up in the rituals? The actual use of the symbol physically? Whether the Cross shares time/credit with the Garden?

Too convenient. Again, better not to make claims from it at all then.
 

On 6/27/2019 at 12:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

Do you really think the mods are going to do anything about it?

The contexts are different that it's impossible to quantify "more" anyway.

So why make the claim in the first place? mfbukowski, why are you saying this to MiserereNobis and not to Teddyaware?

 

On 6/27/2019 at 12:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

But I think Teddy and I would agree on the content of the symbolism just fine. For LDS notice that Adam takes upon himself different names as he progresses.

That´s quite the change up here. Is there a connection between the symbolism of the Cross and Adams names? You are probably talking about the symbolism of the rituals in general, right? Ok.

On 6/27/2019 at 12:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

From my perspective there is nothing like that in the Catholic Church, and cannot be, because there is no belief that we can literally become as Christ is.

First, mfbukowski, given your philosophical perspective, I am surprised you are arguing from anything ¨literal¨. Second, Adam´s name changes to nothing like ¨that¨ in Catholicism to ¨there is no belief that we can literally become as Christ is¨? That´s hard to follow just reading, let alone logically. Just because Christians do not believe the Redeemed become ¨literally¨ the same state of being and level of authority as Christ, does not mean that there is nothing like name changes in Christianity - the whole ¨new name¨ thing in the New Testament would be something rather than nothing. Just because it is not ¨literally¨ as Christ is (still weird to hear you say such a thing) does not mean that Christians don´t believe we will become like Christ - as Paul taught. So, what do you mean by there ¨cannot be¨ anything ¨like that¨ in the Catholic Church. Again, you´re writing is unclear here. Even more so given the above evidence about names and being.

Also, watch it here, mfbukowski, you´ll muddy up those responses LDS given about ¨being like God¨ when non-LDS challenge LDS teaching that they can become gods.😉

 

On 6/27/2019 at 12:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

Are the other hand we actually believe that we can become as the father and Christ are now. Of course that's after eons of self-perfection. There's no comparison or basis for comparison.

I feel like you´ve constructed your own, uncalled for, straw man here, just to come to ¨no comparison¨. In fact, given my above responses, I feel like there´s a lot of straining going on here to make the reader think there is no comparison, when that is quite untrue.

Weird post, mfbukowksi, weird post.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

some significant portion of LDS may not realize how important the Cross is to the LDS Religion - that is what I was referring to (as I quoted at the time) as being self-contradictory. If a near/majority of the religion do not realize its great significance within the religion, can it really be so significant?

I have ask a number of friends and family, including the FairMormon group that answers questions (so I estimate a couple of dozen at least highly educated, temple attending, devout worldwide Saints read my inquiry) if they were ever taught or heard the idea the Cross is too sacred to be used (as a visual symbol, it is used frequently in hymns) outside of the temple.  None replied that they had heard that....or thought it apparently (since they didn't say they hadn't thought it, it is an assumption on my part).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

the cross is the preeminent symbol in the three most sacred LDS ordinances....the sacrament, the endowment, and the sealing. 

The experience/result of the cross is celebrated and remembered in the Sacrament.  I think the tomb (death and then resurrection is symbolized in the cloth covering the emblems and then being removed.  Christ's body (broken) and blood (shed), life giving ( bread and water/wine) are present as well.  I am curious as to what you see as a representing the Cross itself, could you explain please.

Added:  the wounds of Christ are referenced in the temple more directly than the Cross itself, imo.  It has been awhile since I have been able to attend, hopefully next time I go I will remember to look for direct references as well as oblique ones.  I may start asking my family as well if they see direct cross references throughout the temple rituals.  I have attended several sealings recently and don't remember direct ones there, though there is a reference to a wound of Christ.  (Hopefully that is not too far).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/20/2019 at 4:14 PM, MustardSeed said:

This reminds me of a story.  Anecdotal,of course, and off topic but I started the thread and give myself permission to digress lol.., 

15 years ago or so two young men in suits knocked on my door and tried to sell me animated Book of Mormon videos.  I turned them down.  Their replay: “Don’t you want the spirit in your home?”

im sure you can guess my answer to that.  

 

We bought them!  They were actually pretty good.  We didn't care for the fact that once you committed to buy the series you couldn't quit.  The manufacturer made it extremely difficult to quit buying the series.  Really turned us off about that outfit -- although beforehand we had bought their dramatized scriptures series (audio) and really enjoyed that.

Pretty sure you didn't need the videos to get the spirit into your home, though!  I hate hard-sell, with a passion.  Or at least some urgency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/27/2019 at 1:56 AM, teddyaware said:

My claim is absolutely correct. The obvious answer as to why the Latter-Day Saints don’t wear crosses as jewelry and trinkets is because the symbolism is too sacred and appropriately employed only in the higher ordinances of the restored gospel..

I don't think this answer is at all obvious.  In 50 years of church activity I have never heard this rationale for not wearing the cross.  Until today, that is.  And I don't think I am ill-educated.  Nor can I remember ever having seen a cross, except as a decorative motif, in the temple.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or,  non-LDS could accept in good faith that the LDS temple-goer is telling the truth. A CFR can be answered in a number of ways.

As per the OP, the cross is the preeminent symbol in the three most sacred LDS ordinances....the sacrament, the endowment, and the sealing. 

But it is not seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What symbol would be appropriate to wear as a remembrance of the resurrection and the atonement? 

Share this post


Link to post

I can see what Teddy is saying as reasonable. We don’t wear crosses.  We hold the atonement as sacred.  So perhaps one can reason that because it’s so sacred we don’t adorn ourselves with such things.  That seems reasonable, but I don’t believe it’s actual policy.  Sounds more like an explanation one might offer a child who wonders why the aren’t allowed to wear their cross necklace that they got at their birthday party to church. 

There has been enough discussion with no real solid answer that I’m going to determine ***for myself that there is no good reason that we are uncomfortable with the cross and that in fact it might even suggest to some who don’t otherwise know us that we are not Christian.  It’s more of a “just because” cultural rule than anything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/27/2019 at 10:25 AM, Thinking said:

I've never heard that members don't wear the cross because it's too sacred.

I would also like to know if anybody has worn a cross that was visible during an endowment session.

I’ve seen a number of sisters wearing the cross in the temple, fwiw, including during the endowment.  Just one brother, unless you count tattoos of the cross, then it would be a half dozen more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

instead the existence of a taboo against the symbolism of the cross.

I would phrase it as a taboo against the use of the cross alone as a visual symbol (though I have seen it used as either a group of three or by itself on a hill on programs and an occasion picture at church),  I think everything the Cross stands for as far as I understand it is present in my faith, but we use other symbols to represent those concepts/beliefs/events.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

If you cannot CFR, then the correct action would be not to make the claim at all. It´s a bit rich and disingenuous to attempt to ¨engage¨ while having a bunch of claims and extents/depths of belief be off-limits to challenges, simply because you can´t talk about them. If you can´t talk about them, maybe you should not make claims about them, at least with non-LDS. Make them all you want with LDS, but not non-LDS participants. If a non-LDS challenges what you said to LDS, simply state you were speaking to LDS, not making claims to non-LDS.
 

More generously, perhaps if you are going to make a CFR-impervious claim to a non-LDS poster  you should admit, in an at least somewhat embarrassed way, that you are making an unsupportable claim. Then you should just accept that those you are making these unsupportable claims will not give them much weight, nor CFRs.

So the solution seems to be two-fold: Temple-experienced LDS should not make Temple-experience-based claims toward non-LDS and non-LDS should either not respond to unsupportable claims (not made to them anyways) or simply and decisively point them out as useless unsupportable claims (as directed at non-LDS). And then the LDS should simply not reply, implicitly accepting that the claim was unsupportable and not worthy of engagement.

Yes Mommy I will try to remember. I am terribly embarrassed. The only reason I even commented was to support Teddy. He was right. Board nannying is also prohibited.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This didn't quite hit me until I read it a second time. Are you claiming that the mods are biased in their enforcement of the CFR rules? That a non-LDS CFR is treated differently than an LDS CFR?

I certainly hope that is not the case. One of thing I have enjoyed here over the years is the fact that I have felt the mods are fair and balanced in the way they allow discussion to proceed, calling out LDS and non-LDS alike.

And if it is true that the mods are biased towards you, it is poor form for you to hide your arguments behind biased arbiters.

Well, of course if you don't believe in transubstantiation then it isn't a sacrifice. That's pretty obvious. If one doesn't believe in the underlying doctrine then one won't believe in the claims of the ritual. For example, I don't believe in the authority of your priesthood so I don't see your blessing of the sick as being any more than a Catholic praying for someone to get better.

The do

Explain to me how it becomes a sacrifice if if transubstantiation is true. The Eucharist bread becomes the body of Christ. Let's stipulate that. Where's the sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Nor can I remember ever having seen a cross, except as a decorative motif, in the temple.

I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a direct reference to a cross outside of what happened on the Cross.  Thank you for confirming my impression.  A cross is not on clothing though there are other marks, we do not move to form a cross.  There are many references to Christ's death, imo, verbal references and things that might lead us to think of the Cross but use of a cross itself as it seen throughout Catholic and many other Christian faiths....not seeing that myself either, Stargazer.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...