Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

The Cross

Recommended Posts

On 4/23/2019 at 8:02 AM, MustardSeed said:

My biggest favorite organizational aspect of our church right here.  It helps me trust the message so much more.  At least for local leadership. 

Does this mean you don't trust the message when it comes from a GA, as in when they speak during GC?

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does this mean you don't trust the message when it comes from a GA, as in when they speak during GC?

M.

Hi Maureen.  I try to take all things into consideration, don’t take anything for granted, am aware they are paid, pray for confirmation on any action I take for change after conference. I respect them but as a rule I don’t worship anyone in the way I see others get really excited about GAs.  Deep respect yes. 

I never buy their books. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

That makes perfect sense to me. 

Many of us have seen people struggle with being released from certain callings, as if their identities are crushed by a releasing.  It nearly destroyed my grandfather to be released as bishop and he was a legit good man,  but people certainly have motives outside of a pure desire to serve God which can appear convolute the message.  Pride, a sense of worth, attention, reassurance, redemption, we’ve seen it if we haven’t indeed even felt it ourselves.  

Money just happens to be a dirty culprit and obvious target .  

Agreed, I think money is brought up and seemingly all other motivations are ignored because money is an easily available, generally valued, physical scapegoat/cause of corruption.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/22/2019 at 8:42 PM, USU78 said:

You no doubt saw Apocalypto, which depicted the Catholic Spaniards as saviors of the Maya and their elites' bloody avarice.

Umm. I think you completely misinterpreted that ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/17/2019 at 12:55 PM, randy said:

There ya go!!!

it helps if you quote the person to whom you are responding so that those individuals know that that answer is meant for them. :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. I think you completely misinterpreted that ending. 

Perhaps, but the agenda and background of the filmmaker makes it more than probable, in my view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps, but the agenda and background of the filmmaker makes it more than probable, in my view.

The key to the ending is that the hero runs away from them. They're a kind of doppleganger of the Mayan city folk come to punish the Mayan. Now it's fair to point out that Gibson completely conflates Aztecs and Mayans (Gibson justifies this by saying the Mayan picked up some Aztec behaviors in the north). But the ending doesn't portray the Spanish as saviors, although Gibson has elsewhere said he sees them as leading a revolution as much as anything (which also isn't really that accurate). So don't get me wrong, the movie has tons of flaws and in many ways is just a classic 80's action film put in a fairly inaccurate historical situation with no one speaking English. But the ending is more complicated than you suggest regardless of Gibson's own rather bigoted personality.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The key to the ending is that the hero runs away from them. They're a kind of doppleganger of the Mayan city folk come to punish the Mayan. Now it's fair to point out that Gibson completely conflates Aztecs and Mayans (Gibson justifies this by saying the Mayan picked up some Aztec behaviors in the north). But the ending doesn't portray the Spanish as saviors, although Gibson has elsewhere said he sees them as leading a revolution as much as anything (which also isn't really that accurate). So don't get me wrong, the movie has tons of flaws and in many ways is just a classic 80's action film put in a fairly inaccurate historical situation with no one speaking English. But the ending is more complicated than you suggest regardless of Gibson's own rather bigoted personality.

A fun conversation, and thank you for engaging.  I will post the ending clip at the end of this post.

The hero, after having been chased to the brink of his known world by the agents of the corrupt city aristocracy, encounters the Spaniards in tenders coming towards shore.  His enemies forget all about him, leaving him free to return to where he left his oh-so-pregnant wife and child in the pit with the waters rising, where he can then rescue them.  The ending is about the rising tide of danger to good people among the Maya, the happy folk who eschew the bloody, cynical city, and the rescue that is just outside their known world, but is surely coming.

As the waters of approaching danger seek to destroy the modicum of safety our hero could fashion for his in extremis family, so judgment at the hands of the Spaniards is approaching those who seek to destroy our hero and his family.  It's all very Book of Mormon-y.  By the wicked, the wicked are about to be punished. 

Our hero doesn't know what's coming to at the hands of those few Spaniards in their few tenders and their few ships, but we do.  Punishment for the wicked, salvation for the righteous. All he knows is that he can now return to his family, in the rain, and get them out of the pit.  As they ascend at the very end, they look down on the apparently peaceful ships at anchor.  They don't know what's coming, but they do know they got out of Sodom just in time.  Judgment is coming, and, like Lot and a better version of Lot's wife, they flee the known danger.

It's not an accident the faces of the Spaniards in the lead tender are quite noble faces.  These are the faces of men bringing Christ.  The filmmaker knew quite well what he was doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/28/2019 at 1:06 PM, MustardSeed said:

A family member was a participant this year

I’m the old guy wearing a black mandarin dress shirt in the first violin section. Been playing  there for many years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m the old guy wearing a black mandarin dress shirt in the first violin section. Been playing  there for many years. 

I sent you a pm

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, USU78 said:

As the waters of approaching danger seek to destroy the modicum of safety our hero could fashion for his in extremis family, so judgment at the hands of the Spaniards is approaching those who seek to destroy our hero and his family.  It's all very Book of Mormon-y.  By the wicked, the wicked are about to be punished. 

Our hero doesn't know what's coming to at the hands of those few Spaniards in their few tenders and their few ships, but we do.  Punishment for the wicked, salvation for the righteous. All he knows is that he can now return to his family, in the rain, and get them out of the pit.  As they ascend at the very end, they look down on the apparently peaceful ships at anchor.  They don't know what's coming, but they do know they got out of Sodom just in time.  Judgment is coming, and, like Lot and a better version of Lot's wife, they flee the known danger.

It's not an accident the faces of the Spaniards in the lead tender are quite noble faces.  These are the faces of men bringing Christ.  The filmmaker knew quite well what he was doing.

The Russian in subtitles of what you linked to obscures things. Try this one and pay attention to the subtitles.

"What are they?"

"They bring men."

"Should we go to them?"

"We should go to the forest. To seek a new beginning."

That's not an embracing of the Spanish. As I said earlier there's no doubt that Gibson downplays the conquistadors. But the ending just isn't what you portray.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Russian in subtitles of what you linked to obscures things. Try this one and pay attention to the subtitles.

"What are they?"

"They bring men."

"Should we go to them?"

"We should go to the forest. To seek a new beginning."

That's not an embracing of the Spanish. As I said earlier there's no doubt that Gibson downplays the conquistadors. But the ending just isn't what you portray.

 

I get that.  This guy is Lot.  Fleeing Sodom.  The coming judgment by the wicked of the wicked doesn't apply to him.  Lot's wife looked back, but this time shrugged off the coming judgment and went on her way.

You have way better Youtube sleuthing skills than I do.  I grabbed the first clip I could find of the end scenes.

Edited by USU78
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/20/2019 at 4:33 PM, MiserereNobis said:

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

If you ever have the opportunity to worship in one of the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you’ll know for certain I speak the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If you ever have the opportunity to worship in one of the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you’ll know for certain I speak the truth

How much worshipping have you done with Catholics or other Christian faiths lately?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/20/2019 at 5:25 PM, 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!

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Latter-Day Saints don’t wear crosses as jewelry and trinkets is because the symbolism is too sacred a

You need to get the word out and tell a lot of Saints that is the reason because so many think it is because the cross is a torture device or is too focused on death in my experience.

No mention of too sacred here, including Pres. Hinckley's quote.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

Nothing about too sacred here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/cross?lang=eng&_r=1

Quote

The cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior’s death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

How much worshipping have you done with Catholics or other Christian faiths lately?

I find competitions over faith (who is more Christian than others) rather inappropriate.  Wouldn't be surprised if God wasn't too happy about that.

Aside from the somewhat oblique references to the crucifixion of Christ found in the Catholic and Protestant ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, what other Church is there that employs essential ordinances of salvation that specificity and repeatedly draw upon the symbolism of the Crucifixion of Christ as do the Latter-Day Saints in the higher ordinances of the gospel, ordinances that are indispensable in order to inherit the fullness of celestial glory?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to get the word out and tell a lot of Saints that is the reason because so many think it is because the cross is a torture device or is too focused on death in my experience.

No mention of too sacred here, including Pres. Hinckley's quote.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

Nothing about too sacred here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/cross?lang=eng&_r=1

 

Why do you think essiential saving ordinances that employ the symbolism of the crucified and dying Christ are so pervasive in the higher sacred rites of the gospel?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Not because it is too sacred to use for lesser ordinances or membership identification.

Our leaders have not been shy about teaching us what we value as sacred in such a way as to set them apart from the world, such as not exposing garments or church clothing too casually.  We are instructed not to use temple language so as to set it apart as sacred.

And yet I don't believe I have ever come across such teachings about the Cross.  Plus cross symbolism is used extensively in our hymns, not only saved for higher ordinances.

Btw, I am not telling you not to feel that way about your own usage of cross symbolism, simply that I don't see it as a church teaching or belief.  You are the only one I have seen express this idea though there may be others who hold it.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

You left out the last paragraph.

Quote

The only members of the Church who wear the symbol of the cross are Latter-day Saint chaplains, who wear it on their military uniforms to show that they are Christian chaplains.

That doesn't sound like members have the option of wearing a cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You left out the last paragraph.

That doesn't sound like members have the option of wearing a cross.

Members can wear them, I have seen it.  I brought celtic cross earrings for my sister at her request.  I highly doubt temple recommends get pulled for wearing a cross.  Would be interested to see any claims of that.  Now lots of social pressure and implied instructions that we don't (comments to others that members don't wear crosses as opposed to lessons to us on not wearing them) sure, so very few do and some members even get upset if they see other members wearing one.  My sister likely doesn't wear them to church, if she hasn't lost them (probably more than 20 years ago).  Missionaries have been known to tell converts they must remove them from what I have read.

But teddy is claiming we don't wear crosses because the Cross is too sacred.  Do you see that as accurate?  I am challenging his explanation for why we don't wear them as a community, not that we don't wear them in general.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why do you think essiential saving ordinances that employ the symbolism of the crucified and dying Christ are so pervasive in the higher sacred rites of the gospel?

I am totally with you on this one.

Our  ceremonies make US saviors on Mt. Zion in explicit ways.  If that does not communicate to those who are not getting your point, I don't know  what will  other than  saying things one should  not.

We take on a personal identification with  the  crucified. We are there with Him. We ARE Him.  You are not going to find that elsewhere.  And then with Him we are resurrected.

Is THAT clear enough??

Doubting Thomas?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If you ever have the opportunity to worship in one of the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you’ll know for certain I speak the truth

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.

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Aside from the somewhat oblique references to the crucifixion of Christ found in the Catholic and Protestant ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, what other Church is there that employs essential ordinances of salvation that specificity and repeatedly draw upon the symbolism of the Crucifixion of Christ as do the Latter-Day Saints in the higher ordinances of the gospel, ordinances that are indispensable in order to inherit the fullness of celestial glory?

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?

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am totally with you on this one.

Our  ceremonies make US saviors on Mt. Zion in explicit ways.  If that does not communicate to those who are not getting your point, I don't know  what will  other than  saying things one should  not.

We take on a personal identification with  the  crucified. We are there with Him. We ARE Him.  You are not going to find that elsewhere.  And then with Him we are resurrected.

Is THAT clear enough??

Doubting Thomas?

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.

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

They are right in that we do use the symbol of the cross and crucifixion in our temple ceremony.  There is no way to prove that to you, other than perhaps using two or three witnesses?  I don't know that it's more than the Catholic church though; I don't know how someone would qualify that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

But teddy is claiming we don't wear crosses because the Cross is too sacred.  Do you see that as accurate?  I am challenging his explanation for why we don't wear them as a community, not that we don't wear them in general.

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.

  • Like 2

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...