Christian Symbols

[Dan Vogel]

I know that the Cross is more or less the de facto symbol of Christianity, but I also know that in the early church, a fish was used.

I was just thinking: What about a loaf of bread (preferably a baguette) and a jug of wine as a symbol? It just seems so... symbolic in a Eucharistic kind of way.

Anyway, I was wondering what ideas you may have....

Believers in Osirus drank beer and ate wheat cakes as symbols of the blood and body of their god.

The Osirian Sacrament

Although there were ethical and ceremonial considerations none of these could compare to the power of the divine eucharist, since it was literally believed to be the body (bread) and blood (ale) of the god. Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric cannibalism, whose practitioners believed that the virtues and powers of the eaten would thus be absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world.

One of the oldest of the Pyramid Texts is the Unas[13] from the 6th Dynasty (circa 2500 BC). It shows that the original ideology of Egypt commingled with Osirian concepts. Although ultimately given a high place in heaven by order of Osiris, Unas is at first an enemy of the gods and his ancestors, who he hunts, lassoes, kills, cooks, and eats so that their powers may become his own. This was written at a time when the eating of parents and gods was a laudable ceremony, and this emphasizes how hard it must have been to stamp out the older order of cannibalism. â??He eats men, he feeds on the godsâ?¦he cooks them in his fiery cauldrons. He eats their words of power, he swallows their spiritsâ?¦. He eats the wisdom of every god, his period of life is eternityâ?¦. Their soul is in his body, their spirits are within him.â? A parallel passage is found in the Pyramid Text of Pepi II, who is said to have â??seizeth those who are a follower of Setâ?¦he breaketh their heads, he cutteth off their haunches, he teareth out their intestines, he diggeth out their hearts, he drinketh copiously of their blood!â? (line 531, ff). Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died became a dominating obsession in the ancient world. Although the cult of Osiris forbade cannibalism, it did not outlaw dismemberment and eating of enemies, and practiced the ritual rending and eating of the sacred bull, symbolizing Osiris.

Although this sacramental concept only originated once in history, it spread throughout the Mediterranean area and became the dynamic force in every mystery cult. It was only by this sacerdotal means that the corruptible deceased could be clothed in incorruption and this idea appears again and again in infinite variety. The scribe Nebseni implores: â??And there in the celestial mansions of heaven which my divine father Tem hath established, let my hands lay hold upon the wheat and the barley which shall be given unto me therein in abundant measureâ? (Ibid. LXXII). Nu corroborates that this is the eucharist by saying: â??I am established, and the divine Sekhet-hetep is before me, I have eaten therein, I have become a spirit therein, I have abundance therein.â? (Ibid. LXXVII) Again Nu states: â??I am the divine soul of Raâ?¦which is godâ?¦I am the divine food which is not corruptedâ? (Ibid. LXXXV). The ancientness of the concept is again reaffirmed in the Pyramid Text of Teta (2600 BC) where the Osiris Teta â??receivest thy bread which decayeth not, and thy beer which perisheth notâ? In the Text of Pepi I we read: â??All the gods give thee their flesh and their bloodâ?¦. Thou shalt not die.â? In the Text of Pepi II the aspirant prays for â??thy bread of eternity, and thy beer of everlastingnessâ? (Line 390).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

The Philistines worshiped Dagon, the fish god.

http://www.bible-history.com/past/dagon.html

[jadams_4242]

Believers in Osirus drank beer and ate wheat cakes as symbols of the blood and body of their god.

The Philistines worshiped Dagon, the fish god.

http://www.bible-history.com/past/dagon.html

I still beleive something in line of the easter bunnie is warranted, because of the lords

ressurection ,not his death. clearly an easter bunnie would not work, but something that

would signify his ressurection.

[Mike Reed]

To me it always seemed kinda funny that the cross is being used? Does not the cross represent Christs death. Whatever happened to his ressurection, Shoulndt his ressurection be the symbol?

The cross isn't merely a symbol of death for Christians, nor has the cross always been viewed as an inappropriate expression of the LDS faith. For example... in an 1845 Times of Season (vol. 6, No. 1, p. 874-875), the cross was identified as "an Emblem of the Death and Redemption of the LORD JESUS," "symbol of universal love," and "symbol of salvation." In 1834, the First Presidency prophesied of a heavenly cross monument. In 1916 the church petitioned the SLC council to erect a cross monument on ensign peak, with hopes to make the statement, "You see?... We are Christian too!" Are you aware that the Hawaiian temple was built in a cruciform design? I could go on and on... but I won't. Suffice it to say that the no-cross protocol was a late development in the LDS Church's history, and cannot be traced back to any claimed revelation. Ironically... the USE of the symbol, on the other hand, CAN be traced back to claimed revelations (plural).

And on a side... do you also find it funny that Latter-day Saints are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday in Sacramento meeting and every time endowments are performed in the temple? (see Isa. 22:23)

[Mike Reed]

The cross isn't merely a symbol of death for Christians, nor has the cross always been viewed as an inappropriate expression of the LDS faith. For example... in an 1845 Times of Season (vol. 6, No. 1, p. 874-875), the cross was identified as "an Emblem of the Death and Redemption of the LORD JESUS," "symbol of universal love," and "symbol of salvation." In 1834, the First Presidency prophesied of a heavenly cross monument. In 1916 the church petitioned the SLC council to erect a cross monument on ensign peak, with hopes to make the statement, "You see?... We are Christian too!" Are you aware that the Hawaiian temple was built in a cruciform design? I could go on and on... but I won't. Suffice it to say that the no-cross protocol was a late development in the LDS Church's history, and cannot be traced back to any claimed revelation. Ironically... the USE of the symbol, on the other hand, CAN be traced back to claimed revelations (plural).

And on a side... do you also find it funny that Latter-day Saints are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday in Sacramento meeting and every time endowments are performed in the temple? (see Isa. 22:23)

Bump!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bump!

I don't find it "funny."

[seriously honestly]

To me it always seemed kinda funny that the cross is being used? Does not the cross

represent Christs death. Whatever happened to his ressurection, Shoulndt his ressurection

be the symbol?

It's not really his death that it represents (to me at least), but rather hope, and that he loved us so much he provided a way for us to be with him. Oh, and his ressurection means just as much--without one the other doesn't mean a thing

[LifeOnaPlate]

It;'s just an easily made icon to represent Christ. I don't care to display it, myself, and am especially turned off by the large representations of a dying Jesus on the cross careved in wood and whatnot.

That said, many of these Christian icons appear to have also been used by pagans before the time of Christ, and thus, when evangelicals and others accuse The LDS Church of using satanic iconography on temples, they must remember: the same can be said of them.

[Mike Reed]

That said, many of these Christian icons appear to have also been used by pagans before the time of Christ, and thus, when evangelicals and others accuse The LDS Church of using satanic iconography on temples, they must remember: the same can be said of them.

It seems you are equating pagans with Satanists. Why is that?

[Mike Reed]

I don't find it "funny."

Which "it" are you referring to? The Christian reverence for the cross... or the mainstream LDS contradiction that the cross isn't used by Latter-day Saints because it is a symbol of Jesus death, despite the fact that death symbolism is found throughout LDS ritual? Or both?

[Mike Reed]

It's not really his death that it represents (to me at least), but rather hope, and that he loved us so much he provided a way for us to be with him. Oh, and his ressurection means just as much--without one the other doesn't mean a thing

An interesting quote from the Mormon author Ogden Kraut: "The cross reflects the central theme of the doctrine of Christ.... Though the cross had always represented the most horrible form of torture, Christ made it represent man's only pathway back to God.... It was once the most dreaded of all things, but now it represents salvation. If Christ's life has transformed that horrible cross of crucifixion into a symbol of glory, what must he be able to do in changing the lives of men!" (Christ and the Crucifixion, 5-6.)

[Ron Beron]

An interesting quote from the Mormon author Ogden Kraut: "The cross reflects the central theme of the doctrine of Christ.... Though the cross had always represented the most horrible form of torture, Christ made it represent man's only pathway back to God.... It was once the most dreaded of all things, but now it represents salvation. If Christ's life has transformed that horrible cross of crucifixion into a symbol of glory, what must he be able to do in changing the lives of men!" (Christ and the Crucifixion, 5-6.)

I would have to disagree to a point. As humans we tend to see all things in a positive light including the ways in which we torture ourselves (consider Monty Python's Life of Brian's end scene). Certainly men have been able to use the crucifixion as a focal point for change, but for Jesus it was just an instrument of death as it was before, during and after His death. I was raised Catholic and went to a very Roman/Spanish church with pictures and images of death abound. It was the one real turnoff for me as a Catholic. Later I attended mass where these images were downplayed and it was much more conducive to the spirit. When I attended LDS services I felt the atmosphere was much more pleasant. While I find the crucifix et al interesting and attractive I cannot help, but think of Jesus, bleeding and bruised, on the cross. I prefer to consider the savior arising from tomb not place in it.

[Mike Reed]

for Jesus it was just an instrument of death as it was before, during and after His death.

How do you know? If he were the Son of God, and if he understood that his death would be an atoning sacrifice... how do you know that he didn't see the cross as a symbol of the tree of life?

I was raised Catholic and went to a very Roman/Spanish church with pictures and images of death abound. It was the one real turnoff for me as a Catholic. Later I attended mass where these images were downplayed and it was much more conducive to the spirit. When I attended LDS services I felt the atmosphere was much more pleasant. While I find the crucifix et al interesting and attractive I cannot help, but think of Jesus, bleeding and bruised, on the cross. I prefer to consider the savior arising from tomb not place in it.

What do you think of durring the sacrament service in the LDS Church? His broken body and spilled blood?

[jadams_4242]

How do you know? If he were the Son of God, and if he understood that his death would be an atoning sacrifice... how do you know that he didn't see the cross as a symbol of the tree of life?

What do you think of durring the sacrament service in the LDS Church? His broken body and spilled blood?

I strive to think of the covenants i made with him, because thats what the sarement synbolyzes.

And to take upon me his name and always remember him,And to keep his commamdments,

Because of his sacrifice which made the sacrament possible and our sins redeemable.

[Mike Reed]

I strive to think of the covenants i made with him, because thats what the sarement synbolyzes.

And to take upon me his name and always remember him,And to keep his commamdments,

Because of his sacrifice which made the sacrament possible and our sins redeemable.

LDS Sacramental Prayer:

that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son...

Do it in rememberence of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them...

BTW, Jadams... I am still waiting for you to respond to post 28 above.

[Ron Beron]

How do you know? If he were the Son of God, and if he understood that his death would be an atoning sacrifice... how do you know that he didn't see the cross as a symbol of the tree of life?

Given the extreme pain and his utterances on the cross I would certainly doubt it. If Jesus had been disemboweled then I doubt serious he would have found the instrument of torture a symbol of freedom and salvation.

What do you think of durring the sacrament service in the LDS Church? His broken body and spilled blood?

When I was younger I thought of my screaming children, now I just concentrate on Jesus holding His hands out with acceptance. It kind of reminds me of Tom Hanks admonition to Pvt. Ryan at the end of Saving Private Ryan where he says "Earn this!" Although we don't have to earn just accept.

[Mike Reed]

Given the extreme pain and his utterances on the cross I would certainly doubt it. If Jesus had been disemboweled then I doubt serious he would have found the instrument of torture a symbol of freedom and salvation.

What utterances in particular give you reason to doubt, and why? Also... do you believe that his utterances and extreme pain would indicate that he held the same view for the NAILS used to crucify him?

"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." (Isa. 22:23)

Also... what do you guess Jesus would have thought about Paul's glory in the cross? (Gal 6:14)

When I was younger I thought of my screaming children, now I just concentrate on Jesus holding His hands out with acceptance. It kind of reminds me of Tom Hanks admonition to Pvt. Ryan at the end of Saving Private Ryan where he says "Earn this!" Although we don't have to earn just accept.

You don't think of Jesus' spilt blood and broken body? Interesting.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes...

What utterances in particular give you reason to doubt, and why? Also... do you believe that his utterances and extreme pain would indicate that he held the same view for the NAILS used to crucify him?

I especially considered...

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

You don't think of Jesus' spilt blood and broken body? Interesting.

Why? That is not the point of Jesus' suffering. Many men have died in similar ways. Do we worship them? Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death. To me that is morbid.

[Mike Reed]

I especially considered...

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Please explain WHY this passage gives you reason to doubt. Also... I ask again... do you believe that his utterances and extreme pain would indicate that he held the same view for the NAILS used to crucify him?

"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." (Isa. 22:23)

Also... what do you guess Jesus would have thought about Paul's glory in the cross? (Gal 6:14)

Why?

What do you mean "Why"? The LDS sacramental prayer tells you to take the sacrament in "remembrance of the blood of thy son, which was shed for them." And according to Joseph Smith, Jesus instructed the restored church to partake of the sacrament "remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." (D&C 27:2) And the Book of Mormon says Jesus instructed, "ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you... And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things.... But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation...." (3 Nephi 18:11-13)

Heteropraxy: Pertaining to people who do not follow the teachings of their religion.

[Mike Reed]

Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death. To me that is morbid.

Your views are not consistant with LDS doctrine, EnemyAce. Christ's glory is the same as God the Father's: "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

"That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified.... And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time." (Moses 6:59, 60, 62)

According to LDS doctrine, Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection AND his suffering/death.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

Please explain WHY this passage gives you reason to doubt. Also... I ask again... do you believe that his utterances and extreme pain would indicate that he held the same view for the NAILS used to crucify him?

Because I am sure that Jesus would rather have foregone this particular part of his salvific responsiblity.

"And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." (Isa. 22:23)

The nail in question is actually a wooden peg that is used to hang utensils. It is through Christian interpretation that this verse has come down to reference Jesus. I, personally, am not sure that it does. In the Interpreter's Commentary it states,

From the judgment of the people Isaiah turns to pillory a man whom he accounted the chief enemy of his message and the leading advocate of the fatal policy of alliance with Egypt. That there are difficulties and inconsistencies in this passage the Exeg. makes clear; but nothing can mitigate the scorn and anger of the prophet for this upstart foreigner who had bartered and bribed his way to power. With undisguised contempt for the man, Isaiah declares God will deal with him. He is to be thrown out as a man tosses a ball, and that will be the end of Shebna, his pretensions and his famous tomb. It is significant that Shebna's chief ambition was to have a tomb to rival that of the nobility. It was not his name that would endure, but only his grave; which is true of many a man who has won a position of power, and for a little has been a force to reckon with, and then suddenly gone out like a light. Shebna's case raises the question of any man's memorial. Where is it? In the cemetery or in men's lives? It is a poor immortality that is bought from the stonemason; but a man has not lived in vain if he is remembered gratefully for what he did and was to his fellows.

Also... what do you guess Jesus would have thought about Paul's glory in the cross? (Gal 6:14)

I cannot answer for Jesus' approval or lack thereof, but I do know Paul wasn't exactly glorying in the cross, but using the cross as a symbol of Jesus' suffering. There is not indication of any veneration of the cross.

Another source may be examined to better understand this scripture. Paul isn't glorying in the cross, but instead is referencing the cross upon which Christ died in order that the men of faith might be crucified to the evil in the world, i.e., severed from it.

A parallel scripture is Romans 6:4 "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin."

Another passage is found in Luke 14:26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple." At the very least Paul is referencing a metaphor.

What do you mean "Why"? The LDS sacramental prayer tells you to take the sacrament in "remembrance of the blood of thy son, which was shed for them." And according to Joseph Smith, Jesus instructed the restored church to partake of the sacrament "remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." (D&C 27:2) And the Book of Mormon says Jesus instructed, "ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you... And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things.... But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation...." (3 Nephi 18:11-13)

It also makes the comment that, "O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

The key point here is that we partake of the water in remembrance of HIM not His death or the means in which he died and also that we remember Him. I choose to remember Him not through His suffering, but through His life, teachings and the sins He took upon Himself in the garden. Mormons do not believe that the propitiation took place on the cross, but in the garden where it was reported that He bled.

[Ron Beron]

Your views are not consistant with LDS doctrine, EnemyAce. Christ's glory is the same as God the Father's: "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

"That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified.... And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time." (Moses 6:59, 60, 62)

According to LDS doctrine, Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection AND his suffering/death.

First of all you are not up to deciding whether my views are consistent or not with LDS doctrine. That is in the discretion of my bishop and he is fine with it. So, enough of the baiting with codswallop. Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well. The atonement was made in the garden NOT on the cross.

[Mike Reed]

Because I am sure that Jesus would rather have foregone this particular part of his salvific responsiblity.

Ah... then following your logic, Jesus wouldn't have interpreted the wine and bread as his spilt blood and broken body. This is not the case in Mormon theology, however.

The nail in question is actually a wooden peg that is used to hang utensils. It is through Christian interpretation that this verse has come down to reference Jesus. I, personally, am not sure that it does.

Being an endowed LDS, you should not be so unsure. Call it a hunch, but I suspect you are only waffling because it is convenient for you to do so now in our discussion. For what it is worth, though, the LDS footnotes identifies this passage as a prophecy about Jesus.

I cannot answer for Jesus' approval or lack thereof, but I do know Paul wasn't exactly glorying in the cross, but using the cross as a symbol of Jesus' suffering.

Um... Yes.... he was glorying in the symbol of the cross. This is what I have been arguing all along. The symbol of the cross is an appropriate expression for the Christian faith, and has biblical basis.

There is not indication of any veneration of the cross.

The word "venerate" has a number of meanings... but I am wondering why you use it. I have said nothing about veneration in this thread. You are therefore arguing out of context.

At the very least Paul is referencing a metaphor.

Yes. And a metaphor is a symbol. Very good. Your point?

It also makes the comment that, "O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Remembrance of the BLOOD THAT WAS SHED.

The key point here is that we partake of the water in remembrance of HIM not His death or the means in which he died and also that we remember Him.

Um... no. This passage does not make this point. The passage, in fact, states the contrary. Again... you are to remember the blood that Jesus shed.

I choose to remember Him not through His suffering, but through His life, teachings and the sins He took upon Himself in the garden.

And you choose heteropraxy.

Mormons do not believe that the propitiation took place on the cross, but in the garden where it was reported that He bled.

Um... no. Mormon doctrine is that the atonement occurred in BOTH the garden AND on the cross. I can't believe that you (a "pundit") didn't know this.

"Through the Atonementâ??performed by Jesus Christ with His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by His suffering and the voluntary surrender of His life on the crossâ??He saves you from your sins as you sincerely repent and follow Him."

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.js...000176f620a____

"Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary." True to the Faith (2004), 14â??21

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...0004d82620a____

"The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving his life on the cross."

Gospel Principles, 71.

"And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 11:33)

"Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood." (Alma 22:14)

"For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come...." Helaman 14:15)

"Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart." (D&C 21:9)

"I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world...." (D&C 35:2)

"To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world." (D&C 46:13)

"Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world." (D&C 53:2)

"It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting." (President Gordon B. Hinckley, 1996 First Presidency Christmas Devotional.)

OK, EnemyAce... now please provide me some quotes showing that the propitiation did not take place on the cross, and then we shall compare lists.

[Mike Reed]

First of all you are not up to deciding whether my views are consistent or not with LDS doctrine. That is in the discretion of my bishop and he is fine with it. So, enough of the baiting with codswallop.

Doctrine isn't defined by your bishop, EnemyAce. It is defined by Scripture and the General Authorities of the Church.

"ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you... And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things.... But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation...." (3 Nephi 18:11-13)

And the rains came down and the floods came up,

the rains came down and the floods came up,

the rains came down and the floods came up,

and the house on the sand washed away.

Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well.

I never said it was only the cross. I said that Mormon doctrine gives glory to both. YOU are the one who said that it wasn't both: "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death."

The atonement was made in the garden NOT on the cross.

WRONG!!! See my previous post.

[Mike Reed]

The cross isn't merely a symbol of death for Christians, nor has the cross always been viewed as an inappropriate expression of the LDS faith. For example... in an 1845 Times of Season (vol. 6, No. 1, p. 874-875), the cross was identified as "an Emblem of the Death and Redemption of the LORD JESUS," "symbol of universal love," and "symbol of salvation." In 1834, the First Presidency prophesied of a heavenly cross monument. In 1916 the church petitioned the SLC council to erect a cross monument on ensign peak, with hopes to make the statement, "You see?... We are Christian too!" Are you aware that the Hawaiian temple was built in a cruciform design? I could go on and on... but I won't. Suffice it to say that the no-cross protocol was a late development in the LDS Church's history, and cannot be traced back to any claimed revelation. Ironically... the USE of the symbol, on the other hand, CAN be traced back to claimed revelations (plural).

And on a side... do you also find it funny that Latter-day Saints are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday in Sacramento meeting and every time endowments are performed in the temple? (see Isa. 22:23)

Bump again for jadams_4040.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes

Being an endowed LDS, you should not be so unsure. Call it a hunch, but I suspect you are only waffling because it is convenient for you to do so now in our discussion. For what it is worth, though, the LDS footnotes identifies this passage as a prophecy about Jesus.

Sorry, there isn't much goose stepping in the LDS faith. I never said that the LDS didn't believe this, I simply stated I didn't. I think Isaiah was discussing something else.

Um... Yes.... he was glorying in the symbol of the cross. This is what I have been arguing all along. The symbol of the cross is an appropriate expression for the Christian faith, and has biblical basis.

So, whose stopping you? I really don't care. As to its appropriateness that is another thing entirely. Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it. Given your example I would be completely within my right to wear a swastika if I wanted to proclaim my Buddhism since that is distinctly a symbol of Buddhism of unity.

Doctrine isn't defined by your bishop, EnemyAce. It is defined by Scripture and the General Authorities of the Church.

And bishops follow this doctrine. How would you know?

What I said..."Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well."

Mike Reed states...

I never said it was only the cross. I said that Mormon doctrine gives glory to both. YOU are the one who said that it wasn't both: "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death."

Given my quote then it wasn't obviously the case. The foremost testimony of all LDS is Jesus' resurrection not necessarily his death. In Moses 762 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

At the center of this is Jesus' atonement which was began in the garden and was finished on the cross. Read again..."Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well."

Jesus wouldn't have interpreted the wine and bread as his spilt blood and broken body. This is not the case in Mormon theology, however.

Only in the minds of Catholics and believers transubstantiation. Jesus stated to partake of these things in remembrance not "AS" anything. Frankly, given the extreme prohibition of Jews toward blood I find this comment interesting.

Yes. And a metaphor is a symbol. Very good. Your point?

It is also an allegory or an analogy.

Remembrance of the BLOOD THAT WAS SHED.

And where was the blood shed. In the garden and on the cross. Why not wear a symbol of a olive tree? Neal Maxwell has reported,

"The necessary but awesome shedding of Jesusâ?? blood thus occurred not only in the severe scourging, but earlier in Gethsemane. A recent and thoughtful article by several physicians on the physical death of Jesus Christ indicates that â??the severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a preshock state.â? (We all recall, of course, that a dramatically weakened Jesus needed help to carry the cross.) â??Therefore, even before the actual crucifixion, Jesusâ?? physical condition was at least serious and possibly critical. â?¦ Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedureâ? (Journal of the American Medical Association, 21 Mar. 1986, pp. 1458, 1461).

In addition to the consequences of scourging, how Christâ??s lifeblood had already flowed in Gethsemane! Remember, he suffered â??both body and spiritâ? (D&C 19:18). Declared King Benjamin, Christ would suffer â??even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguishâ? (Mosiah 3:7).

Having bled at every pore, how red His raiment must have been in Gethsemane, how crimson that cloak!

No wonder, when Christ comes in power and glory, that He will come in reminding red attire (see D&C 133:48), signifying not only the winepress of wrath, but also to bring to our remembrance how He suffered for each of us in Gethsemane and on Calvary!

And with the comments of the apostle M. Russell Ballard,

With all of this feeling among Mormons for Jesus Christ and His marvelous atonement, you may have wondered why you've never seen your LDS neighbors wearing a cross on a necklace, or why there are no crosses adorning LDS buildings or literature. Most other Christians use the cross as a symbol of their devotion to Christ, a physical reminder of His crucifixion on Calvary. So why don't members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follow suit?

We revere Jesus. He is the Head of our Church, which bears His name. He is our Savior and our Redeemer. We love Him. Through Him we worship and pray to our Heavenly Father. We are grateful beyond measure for the essential and awesome power His atonement has in each of our lives.

But while thoughts of the blood He shed for us in Gethsemane and on Calvary fill our hearts with profound appreciation, it isn't just the fact that He died that is so meaningful to us. Our hope and faith are rooted in the profound understanding that He lives today, and that He continues to lead and guide His Church and His people through His spirit. We rejoice in the knowledge of a living Christ, and we reverently acknowledge the miracles He continues to work today in the lives of those who have faith in Him. That is why we choose to place less emphasis on a symbol that can be construed to represent primarily His death.

Um... no. Mormon doctrine is that the atonement occurred in BOTH the garden AND on the cross. I can't believe that you (a "pundit") didn't know this.

I stated "propitiation" which is different than atonement. This was done in the garden. Bruce R. McConkie states..."

The revealed word speaks of a propitiation for sins; of a ministry of reconciliation; of intercession being made for the faithful; of One who advocates the cause of his people in the courts above; of the labors and work of the great Mediator; and of what man must do to put off the natural man and be numbered with the redeemed. It is in connection with all of these divine pronouncements that we will find the rationale that explains, so far as can be, the infinite and eternal atonement.

The cross sealed Jesus' life and testimony, but it was in the garden he took our sins. I am surprised you didn't know this! Andrew Skinner has written in his book, Gethsemane,

"The events that occurred in Gethsemane were part of the atonement of Jesus Christâ??not preparatory to it, nor secondary to it, but at the very heart of it. Without the Savior's unique and unparalleled redemptive activity in Gethsemane, there could have been no atonement, no reprieve from the relentless degenerative effects of sin, and, ultimately, no resurrection to eternal life beyond the Savior's own. Hence, physical and spiritual deterioration could never have been reversed. The pervasive, perpetual degeneration of our universe that is a result of the fall of Adam would not have been halted.

The redemption brought about by events in Gethsemane and the redemption brought about by the Resurrection fit together in complementary fashion. The Savior had "life in himself" (John 5:26) and thus power over his own death. But it was his substitutionary payment in Gethsemane for the fall of Adam and for our sins, together with his resurrection, that gave us lasting power over death. Gethsemane was as essential to salvation as Golgotha and the Garden Tomb. Gethsemane brought into existence the opportunity for all of Heavenly Father's children to experience spiritual rebirth, newness of life, and the renewal, rejuvenation, and cleansing of spirit bodies, just as resurrection brings about the renewal, even the re-creation, of physical bodies and establishes them as indestructible material entities. Both kinds of redemption are necessary. Golgotha and the Garden Tomb would mean nothing to us without Gethsemane.

Getting back to original meaning of this thread, Mormons don't wear a cross because as Joseph Fielding Smith as written...

While we have never questioned the sincerity of Catholics and Protestants for wearing the cross, or felt that they were doing something which was wrong, it is a custom that has never appealed to members of the Church. The motive for such a custom by those who are of other churches, we must conclude, is a most sincere and sacred gesture. To them the cross does not represent an emblem of torture but evidently carried the impression of sacrifice and suffering endured by the Son of God. However, to bow down before a cross or to look upon it as an emblem to be revered because of the fact that our Savior died upon a cross is repugnant to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

THE CROSS WAS AN EGYPTIAN SYMBOL

The use of the cross dates back to a very early time. Its early meaning is somewhat obscure. We are informed that the Egyptians used it as a symbol representing life and fertility of crops. However the general use throughout the Christian world comes from the crucifixion of our Redeemer. This custom of adoring the cross seems to have grown out of the purported vision given to Constantine when it is stated that he saw a cross in the heavens and was told that by it he was to conquer. From that time the use of the cross as an object of reverence grew, and when the rebellion against the Catholic Church commenced, the adoration of the cross continued more or less among the Protestant churches.

To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. Of all the ways ever invented for taking life and the execution of individuals, among the most cruel is likely the cross. This was a favorite method among the Romans who excelled in torture. We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.

Humble, contrite spirit and sincere prayer of gratitude is a far better means of worship and acknowledgment of our love for the great blessings we receive through our Savior's voluntary sacrifice than to adore the cross. It is through the shedding of his blood that we gain the resurrection; and by our faithfulness, exaltation in the kingdom of God.