georged Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Actually, the cross is the "mark of the beast" or the sign of that evil kingdom or church (note the reference under "Sign of the Cross" in Mormon Doctrine). I have also received this personal witness of which I am happy to share! The "in" is an error which should have been written "with," or , in other words, making the sign of the cross with the right hand and forehead.
Yirgacheffe Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Actually, the cross is the "mark of the beast" or the sign of that evil kingdom or church (note the reference under "Sign of the Cross" in Mormon Doctrine). I have also received this personal witness of which I am happy to share! The "in" is an error which should have been written "with," or , in other words, making the sign of the cross with the right hand and forehead.Please do share!! The references in Mormon Doctrine also, I'd love to see that.
georged Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 OK, if you look, even in the second edition of "Mormon Doctrine," under the topic "Sign of the Cross," you can see that referrence used. Obviously, there would be no purpose in using it except that that was what it was referring to. I had a very spiritual experience in the LSU library when I was working on a commentary for the book of Revelation in which that was confirmed to me, and when I saw that in "Mormon Doctrine" about six months later, I got the same burning testimony that I had had earlier.
Ares Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Actually, the cross is the "mark of the beast" or the sign of that evil kingdom or church (note the reference under "Sign of the Cross" in Mormon Doctrine). I have also received this personal witness of which I am happy to share! The "in" is an error which should have been written "with," or , in other words, making the sign of the cross with the right hand and forehead.You were told to treat other religions with courtesy and not post until you understood the board rules. You are on hiatus for 48 hours. That should give you time to read the rules and other posts so you can learn how to interact on this forum.
Yirgacheffe Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 OK, if you look, even in the second edition of "Mormon Doctrine," under the topic "Sign of the Cross," you can see that referrence used. Obviously, there would be no purpose in using it except that that was what it was referring to. I had a very spiritual experience in the LSU library when I was working on a commentary for the book of Revelation in which that was confirmed to me, and when I saw that in "Mormon Doctrine" about six months later, I got the same burning testimony that I had had earlier.I don't have a copy of Mormon Doctrine, could you provide the referrence?
Ares Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I don't have a copy of Mormon Doctrine, could you provide the referrence?georged is taking a little break to read the board guidelines.
Yirgacheffe Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 georged is taking a little break to read the board guidelines.When he gets back then. Or not, as you wish.
jskains Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I think there are three problems with the cross:1. It focuses on His death, which wasn't that uncommon. Many people were executed in that way, some even more horrifying than Christ was looking at it from a purely human standpoint (ignoring the taking on of sins).2. It lacks focus on the real miracle, His resurrection.3. It violates the 10 commandments.JMS
Cobalt-70 Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I think there are three problems with the cross:1. It focuses on His death, which wasn't that uncommon. Many people were executed in that way, some even more horrifying than Christ was looking at it from a purely human standpoint (ignoring the taking on of sins).2. It lacks focus on the real miracle, His resurrection....You could cite the same reasons for what is allegedly wrong with the Sacrament, and two particular symbolic parts of the temple ceremony which I will not mention.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I think there are three problems with the cross:...3. It violates the 10 commandments.Please elaborate. Are you saying that the cross is a graven image? Then what about the Christus statue replica on Temple Square? Edited March 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 You were told to treat other religions with courtesy and not post until you understood the board rules. You are on hiatus for 48 hours. That should give you time to read the rules and other posts so you can learn how to interact on this forum.That dude is scary.
Storm Rider Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) georged is taking a little break to read the board guidelines.Ares, thank you. I hope he means well, but he has not taken counsel well and refuses to adapt to the guidelines. I have begun to wonder if he is even a member of the LDS Church and not some obsure, fundamentalist offshoot. Edited March 21, 2012 by Storm Rider
jskains Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Please elaborate. Are you saying that the cross is a graven image? Then what about the Christus statue replica on Temple Square?The statue is theoretically not being taken up as a graven image in the actual places of worship. Catholics, for example, take it up as not only part of worship during their ceremonies, but carry it around. That would be taking upon oneself as a graven image.The Lord called for worship through the sacrement. That is not the same as having a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross. I rather worship his resurrection than his execution.JMS
blueadept Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 That dude is scary.Ares, thank you. I hope he means well, but he has not taken counsel well and refuses to adapt to the guidelines. I have begun to wonder if he is even a member of the LDS Church and not some obsure, fundamentalist offshoot.While georged is properly quoting LDS sources, actual dialogue with those of other faith, especially Catholics, doesn't seem to be expected. I suspect I'll be using the ignore button. No sense in allowing one rotten apple to ruin dialogue with the Christ-like folks of MDDB. Just my 2 cents.The statue is theoretically not being taken up as a graven image in the actual places of worship. Catholics, for example, take it up as not only part of worship during their ceremonies, but carry it around. That would be taking upon oneself as a graven image.The Lord called for worship through the sacrement. That is not the same as having a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross. I rather worship his resurrection than his execution.JMSYou do realize that Catholics do consider themselves an 'Easter people.' While the season of Lent is 40 days which brings us closer to Christ through the acts of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, we celebrate the season of Easter for 50 days from His resurrection to Pentecost.I understand the misconceptions LDS have about the 'gory image of Christ nailed to the cross.' Life is about embracing our personal crosses and to endure them as Christ did. By doing so, we have the hope to share in His Resurrection. You can't have one without the other. At least we do celebrate longer than we suffer which is a point that I believe LDS miss in regards to why we wear a crucifix. JMO.
Buckeye Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 The statue is theoretically not being taken up as a graven image in the actual places of worship. Catholics, for example, take it up as not only part of worship during their ceremonies, but carry it around. That would be taking upon oneself as a graven image.The Lord called for worship through the sacrement. That is not the same as having a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross. I rather worship his resurrection than his execution.JMSI think Cobalt's point is that a cross could be worn/displayed in an appropriate manner without making it a graven image. Just like the Cristus statue could be displayed without making it a graven image, but also could be worshipped outright. Thus, the argument you made - that wearing a cross "violates the 10 commandments" - is not necessarily true. If someone wears a cross for the same reasons the Church displays the Cristus statue that person does not violate the commandment against graven images. Would you agree?
Buckeye Posted March 21, 2012 Author Posted March 21, 2012 I understand the misconceptions LDS have about the 'gory image of Christ nailed to the cross.' Life is about embracing our personal crosses and to endure them as Christ did. By doing so, we have the hope to share in His Resurrection. You can't have one without the other. At least we do celebrate longer than we suffer which is a point that I believe LDS miss in regards to why we wear a crucifix. JMO.I would only add that, to my knowledge, there is no LDS prohibition regarding gore. I've seen many Catholic crucifixes (my wife's extended family is Catholic and I served a mission with hispanic people). In my experience, any gore in those depictions pales in comparison to the gore described in the BOM, such as Shiz's head being cut off, the rape/canniablism of lamanite young women, etc. etc.
Storm Rider Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The statue is theoretically not being taken up as a graven image in the actual places of worship. Catholics, for example, take it up as not only part of worship during their ceremonies, but carry it around. That would be taking upon oneself as a graven image.The Lord called for worship through the sacrement. That is not the same as having a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross. I rather worship his resurrection than his execution.JMSJaskins, you are getting a little out there with the descriptor "a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross". I have never viewed a crucifix as gory, but rather a realistic representation of the pain the Savior when through by being nailed to a cross. The main point is that one worship Christ not where we imagine him: resurrected, on the cross, in the Garden, walking on water, etc. The place is meaningless; the fact that we are disciples of Christ is what is important. It is impossible to declare that Catholics are not disciples of Christ because they use a crucificx unless one is striving to be obtuse. As an aside, I also like to think of Christ as Christ resurrected; however, I have thought of him in all phases of his ministry from beginning to end.
jskains Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Christ's Crucifiction was not unique, nor was it the worst example of the use of Crucifiction as a method of execution. From a natural/human perspective, a cross could symboize a lot of deaths, not just Christ's.I look at it like "The Passion of the Christ". I think it focuses too much on His execution, and is way too unfocused on the maricle that was the resurrection.And again, notice that no one that I know of wears a statue of Christ around their neck nor is there one in the actual place of worship. IMHO it is a graven image that was prohibited from use in worship specifically by the 10 commandments.JMS
jskains Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 BTW, it isn't a misunderstanding of the cross. I keep seeing that statement. My disagreeance with the use of the cross has nothing to do with my misunderstanding of the cross. I simply don't agree with the pro-Cross position.JMHO.Thanks,JMS
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) There is no way that Catholics use crucifixes as "graven images". Cheesh. For them it is a reminder of all he did for us. And yes, he died a bloody death. That is reality. That is part of "all he did for us".The scourging alone probably removed much skin. Crucifixes are not gory enough to be a true depiction of the probable reality. Edited March 21, 2012 by mfbukowski
saemo Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Christ's Crucifiction was not unique, nor was it the worst example of the use of Crucifiction as a method of execution. From a natural/human perspective, a cross could symboize a lot of deaths, not just Christ's.I look at it like "The Passion of the Christ". I think it focuses too much on His execution, and is way too unfocused on the maricle that was the resurrection.And again, notice that no one that I know of wears a statue of Christ around their neck nor is there one in the actual place of worship. IMHO it is a graven image that was prohibited from use in worship specifically by the 10 commandments.JMSThe Catholic profession of faith is threefold: We proclaim your death oh Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come again. Three events that are central to our belief. One event does not exist without the other two. All three, considered separately, are unique events, each having profound meanings
blueadept Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 IMHO it is a graven image that was prohibited from use in worship specifically by the 10 commandments.JMSWell, I understand what others see. If that was my understanding, I would acknowledge that I'm breaking that commandment.There is no way that Catholics use crucifixes as "graven images". Cheesh. For them it is a reminder of all he did for us. And yes, he died a bloody death. That is reality. That is part of "all he did for us".
Calm Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 IMHO it is a graven image that was prohibited from use in worship specifically by the 10 commandments.One might as well exclude any images of the Ten Commandments themselves with that logic.
jskains Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 One might as well exclude any images of the Ten Commandments themselves with that logic.I don't see people hanging 10 commandments around their necks, or kneeling before an image of the 10 commandments to pray to God with.JMS
Recommended Posts