Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

The Cross

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

This seems to be self-contradictory.
And completely unhelpful to your point.

Also, even if your claim were correct, it would just add even more reason to wonder why the cross is not used as a symbol. It also counters Hinckley´s talk that LDS prefer not to focus on the dead Christ and rather celebrate the current/living Christ.

Please don´t forget that CFR!

He is talking about the crucifixion not the cross. There are direct references to the process of the crucifixion itself as a physical event.

And those references lead to other references about the resurrection, not the dead Christ.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I personally might prefer of the anchor.

If you think about it that may be drawn, from top down, with a small circle atop a cross, which of course includes right angles, followed by a compass shape, making the bottom of the anchor.

Yes, and that is the nature of the non-denominational Anchor Bible series.

Image result for anchor bible logo

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Arguably he is right but he can't answer you.

There is a portion of the endowment in which the crucifixion is discussed in detail, and which requires a lot of symbolic personal reflection in a very direct way.

I’m going to be a stickler here. If he can’t answer the CFR, for whatever reason (temple or otherwise), then he must withdraw the claim. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m going to be a stickler here. If he can’t answer the CFR, for whatever reason (temple or otherwise), then he must withdraw the claim. 

How about he is right that we have that symbology in the temple (since any temple goer can vouch for that though others if they wanted a firsthand verification would have to use the immorally obtained temple ceremony films...which iirc you have respectfully declined to do), but he hasn't proven it is of more significance to our faith than the Cross and its symbology means to others?

And I don't think he can.  I have known a few temple goers who express boredom in participating in the endowment even while they do it because they recognize eternal significance for others in their actions.  I don't see a 'requirement' for symbolic personal reflection, but an opportunity for it...an opportunity not everyone takes.  If there are people in other faiths who take their rituals as opportunities, how can we claim ours is inherently of more symbolic importance in general?  

It may be for the individual, it may not.

Thinking about it, he may be able to argue why we should view it as more significant without specifics on what it is based on how he sees it impact us.  I would be interested to see if he is willing to do that. (Not saying I willagree with such conclusions, just that it could be an option for discussion)

Now I do believe there is great nonsymbolic importance in the ceremony that is dependent on the individual accepting the sacrament/ordinance for themselves, but that is a matter of faith I cannot prove.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/19/2019 at 4:22 PM, mfbukowski said:

Oh but that's not the best part.  The City of Industry is right next to the rendering plant that takes care of the leftovers.  :)

Check out the comments especially!  And if the wind is right you can smell it 10 miles away! 

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/10/23/rendering-plant-odor-smell/ .

You sure you're not thinking of beautiful downtown Vernon?  I used to work  there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a rather strong statement. A pleasant CFR please :)

 

7 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

This seems to be self-contradictory.
And completely unhelpful to your point.

Also, even if your claim were correct, it would just add even more reason to wonder why the cross is not used as a symbol. It also counters Hinckley´s talk that LDS prefer not to focus on the dead Christ and rather celebrate the current/living Christ.

Please don´t forget that CFR!

Please note the comments of the non-LDS theologians whom I quote above.

Share this post


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

Does he have different temple attire than others because of his office/station?

I have never seen a President of the Church in the temple setting, but all members wear the same temple clothing with slight variations of pattern or material. There are no insignias of rank or office for bishops, stake presidents, etc. I assume there would be none for the prophet, nor would they serve any purpose. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I’m going to be a stickler here. If he can’t answer the CFR, for whatever reason (temple or otherwise), then he must withdraw the claim. 

Stickle if you must, but no one will enforce the rule. :)

 

The mods know he is right. Sorry, it's a Mormon board and we have confirmation bias on our side. ;)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You sure you're not thinking of beautiful downtown Vernon?  I used to work  there.

Holy cow you're a brave man. And I hope you wore nose plugs. ;)

I really like those Farmer John murals with pigs frolicking in heaven. (Seriously)

https://www-vice-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/yv5agx/this-farmer-johns-slaughterhouse-mural-is-really-creepy?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen_us%2Farticle%2Fyv5agx%2Fthis-farmer-johns-slaughterhouse-mural-is-really-creepy

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What worried me more were some of the streets covered in grease early in the morning.  Very dangerous.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CTR rings are a recent phenomenon reminding the Saints to "choose the right." 

The only one I ever really considered was the "universal" with CTR in a dozen of languages or so.  It was more about feeling I shared something with others all around the world.  Isn't something that can be conveyed very well outside of language or flags and flags feel more nationalistic to me than communal.

Universal ctr spinner ring

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Stickle if you must, but no one will enforce the rule. :)

 

The mods know he is right. Sorry, it's a Mormon board and we have confirmation bias on our side. ;)

 

You believe he is right in the bolded phrase?

Quote

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than does any other Christian church.

Not a claim we put a huge symbolic importance importance and salvative efficacy, but his claim that it is more than any other Christian church?

How do you make that comparison of importance to each If so?  How can the "more than" be measured in your view?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What worried me more were some of the streets covered in grease early in the morning.  Very dangerous.

Oh yuck!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I personally might prefer of the anchor.

If you think about it that may be drawn, from top down, with a small circle atop a cross, which of course includes right angles, followed by a compass shape, making the bottom of the anchor.

The anchor is a good idea. There Is nothing to prevent one from wearing one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

You believe he is right in the bolded phrase?

Not a claim we put a huge symbolic importance importance and salvative efficacy, but his claim that it is more than any other Christian church?

How do you make that comparison of importance to each If so?  How can the "more than" be measured in your view?

Alma 32.

It's sweet to me. You don't want to try to make it objective do you?

Not possible. That makes it true to me.

It's Religion. Not science.

I mean how did we decide we had more truth than other Christian churches?

No difference.  Ask Navidad about that one. ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a rather strong statement. A pleasant CFR please :)

For what it's worth, as a member of the church, I don't agree with Teddy on his claim.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

So. Leviticus. Heave offerings and waive offerings.

Put em together and what have you got?

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So. Leviticus. Heave offerings and waive offerings.

Put em together and what have you got?

Bibity bobit-.... oh no wait .... sorry, nevermind. 

:)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Watching the Passion of the Christ right now and it starts out in the Garden of Gethsemane. He is sweating drops of blood and very much looks to be suffering as many mention. I worry if I can watch more though but I feel it's probably good for me to see the suffering as well. Not sure how this movie conincides with how the LDS church believes. But I know it's going to be really harsh coming up. I believe it was directed by Mel Gibson, and I guess it's going to go all out and show the real sufferings and not soften. 

Always was afraid to watch but here goes nothing. 

Happy Easter to the board, hope you're having a blessed day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I doubt it will be more than a guess on the "real suffering".  No matter how good an actor is, he is still acting.  Plus I hope neither the director nor the actor ever saw a person suffering at that level of pain, so how can they know how to portray it save by extrapolating from much lesser experiences of suffering?

Not saying that won't appear traumatic enough watching.  The actor was injured a number of times himself, so quite a bit of the pain itself is real.  But he wouldn't have to be wearing makeup if the suffering was completely real.

https://www.today.com/popculture/caviezel-playing-christ-proved-be-challenge-wbna4297029

So if you want to watch it, but it is troubling you, try reminding yourself it is mostly pretend, highly committed pretend, but pretend nonetheless.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, USU78 said:

So. Leviticus. Heave offerings and waive offerings.

Put em together and what have you got?

The macarena?

giphy.gif

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

You believe he is right in the bolded phrase?

Not a claim we put a huge symbolic importance importance and salvative efficacy, but his claim that it is more than any other Christian church?

How do you make that comparison of importance to each If so?  How can the "more than" be measured in your view?

There is another answer to this as well- that we each write our own language in dealing with God.  Measuring "more than" another is purely subjective, a living image of God that changes as one learns.

Quote

"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is another answer to this as well- that we each write our own language in dealing with God.  Measuring "more than" another is purely subjective, a living image of God that changes as one learns.

 

I was pretty sure that is what you meant,  wanted to be sure. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

I doubt it will be more than a guess on the "real suffering".  No matter how good an actor is, he is still acting.  Plus I hope neither the director nor the actor ever saw a person suffering at that level of pain, so how can they know how to portray it save by extrapolating from much lesser experiences of suffering?

Not saying that won't appear traumatic enough watching.  The actor was injured a number of times himself, so quite a bit of the pain itself is real.  But he wouldn't have to be wearing makeup if the suffering was completely real.

https://www.today.com/popculture/caviezel-playing-christ-proved-be-challenge-wbna4297029

So if you want to watch it, but it is troubling you, try reminding yourself it is mostly pretend, highly committed pretend, but pretend nonetheless.

When it first came out a few years ago I really wanted to see it, until everyone was saying how Mel made it as real as possible and it was very bloody. But I did make it through it today and was fine. It was good for me to watch something to do with the Saviour especially when I didn't attend Sacrament or any other church service. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...