mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 One of the purposes of the signs/symbols of a disciple is to help us be a disciple.We are well acquainted with this, trust me.I used to wear a scapular, now I wear temple garments. Similar basic concept though I will probably get LDS flak for saying so. 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) This is a false dichotomy.No one said we had to choose between the two. We just do. We deemphasized the cross for a while and now things seem to be swinging the other way. Nothing is as constant as change- so what?I believe you misunderstood my response (probably my bad). I wasn't speaking about the LDS church's use (or not) of crosses, but of the idea implied by stormrider that "this has more to do with being focused more on acting as a disciple rather than simply wearing the signs of a disciple." I was saying the false dichotomy was between acting as a disciple and wearing the signs of a disciple. One doesn't have to choose between acting and wearing the signs, and doing one doesn't mean you downplay the other.So should I post pictures of bloody Gothic period crucifixes to counter your nice resurrection picture?I have no problem with bloody Gothic period crucifixes. The "nice resurrection picture" was not posted by me, but by Darren10. I was just pointing out, with a smile to indicate the humor, that he posted a Catholic picture.Not a great argument either way.I wasn't even attempting to make an argument in the post with Darren10's picture. Edited October 1, 2012 by MiserereNobis
MiserereNobis Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) We are well acquainted with this, trust me.I figured you were, which is why I was responding to stormrider's post.I used to wear a scapular, now I wear temple garments. Similar basic concept though I will probably get LDS flak for saying so.The similarities between the scapular (I wear a brown scapular) and LDS garments have not escaped me. I point it out to fellow Catholics when they deride "magic underwear." Edited October 1, 2012 by MiserereNobis
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 The similarities between the scapular (I wear a brown scapular) and LDS garments have not escaped me. I point it out to fellow Catholics when they deride "magic underwear."Well thanks for that!
DavidB Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 The LDS as a culture, based in part upon saying(s) of LDS Prophets do have an aversion to displaying a Cross.Individual members may not have this aversion, but herd mentality will largely keep one without the aversion from waering or displaying a Cross.
MiserereNobis Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Do LDS display pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary? I haven't noticed any in the LDS homes I've visited, but I wasn't exactly examining every wall either.ETA: Maybe I should rephrase this. Why might some LDS display a picture of Our Lady and others not? I'm assuming there is no injunction either way, just like in the case of wearing a cross. Edited October 1, 2012 by MiserereNobis
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) That's a lovely Catholic picture of the resurrection. See, us Catholics do have more than just crucifixes Yes, it is and yes, you do. Edited October 1, 2012 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Do LDS display pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary? I haven't noticed any in the LDS homes I've visited, but I wasn't exactly examining every wall either.ETA: Maybe I should rephrase this. Why might some LDS display a picture of Our Lady and others not? I'm assuming there is no injunction either way, just like in the case of wearing a cross.It's more difficult to find pictures of the Blessed Mary in an LDs home but not at all uncommon. I had one growing up and I display one in my home as well.
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Do LDS display pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary? I haven't noticed any in the LDS homes I've visited, but I wasn't exactly examining every wall either.ETA: Maybe I should rephrase this. Why might some LDS display a picture of Our Lady and others not? I'm assuming there is no injunction either way, just like in the case of wearing a cross.Never.Never is a big word but I have never seen any, and I have been around the block a bit here and there. And we typically would speak of her as "Mary" instead of BVM and some might be confused as to whether or not we were speaking about Mary his mother or Mary as in "Martha and Mary".It is quite widely believed (though non-doctrinal as far as I can tell ) that Jesus was married to that other Mary.Probably shocking for Catholics, but many see scriptural evidence for that- one prominent possible evidence is that he first person to see Christ after his resurrection was Mary. We think that was not an accident.But no BVM stuff- that is seen as pretty "Catholic" and would be as weird as seeing a crucifix in an LDS home- though I have seen those, primarily in the homes of new Catholic converts, of whom we have many.
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 It's more difficult to find pictures of the Blessed Mary in an LDs home but not at all uncommon. I had one growing up and I display one in my home as well.Cool I haven't seen those.
Vance Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 It is quite widely believed (though non-doctrinal as far as I can tell ) that Jesus was married to that other Mary.Probably shocking for Catholics, but many see scriptural evidence for that- one prominent possible evidence is that he first person to see Christ after his resurrection was Mary. We think that was not an accident.Also, the fact that after spending a night (or evening) with Mary and Martha, no accusations of adultery from the Scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and hypocrites arose.
Vance Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Do LDS display pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary?I don't recall ever seeing one.
zerinus Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Jesus experieinced both types of suffering in the Garden for the atoning sacrifice for all. Then He presumably experienced residual spiritual suffering (but not the extent as in the garden) with new, cross-inflicted physical suffering while on the cross, a labor preparatory to overcoming death. Then He passed into another, seemingly more excrutiating form of spiritual suffering in the form of actual separation from the Father, . . .I think I missed something. Did that happen on the cross or somewhere else?I don't think the symbol of the cross, as generally accepted in teh world, adequately captures these principles.That is irrelevant to the point I was making; but in either case, either the symbol of the cross means nothing at all, or it means everything. I fail to see the point you are making.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 I think I missed something. Did that happen on the cross or somewhere else?Verses in Matthew 27 and Mark 27 address Jesus’ spiritual and physical separation from the Father to an extent unknown before: “…Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? …My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This suffering occurred on the cross, separately from His suffering in the Garden and apart from the sheer physical suffering of the crucifixion, and to my understanding plays into the non-atoning yet eternal scale of suffering that according to Talmage, intensified the agony (but not the atoning aspect) of Gethsemane beyond human power to endure.As I mentioned, there was a purpose for the suffering in Gethsemane; another purpose for physical suffering upon the cross; and a purpose for completing His mortal mission perfectly alone upon the cross. No doubt they were all forms of suffering, but the purpose for each point of suffering differs, and the purposes for using the cross as a symbol for each these has not been brought forth. For this reason, it is an inadequate symbol of all that Christ did in the garden and upon the cross though it doesn’t bother me that people use it for one reason or another.
teddyaware Posted October 1, 2012 Author Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) CV75, on 01 October 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:Jesus experieinced both types of suffering in the Garden for the atoning sacrifice for all. Then He presumably experienced residual spiritual suffering (but not the extent as in the garden) with new, cross-inflicted physical suffering while on the cross, a labor preparatory to overcoming death. Then He passed into another, seemingly more excrutiating form of spiritual suffering in the form of actual separation from the Father, . . .Hi there CV55! You seem to believe the requisite degree of suffering for sin, in order to make full atonement, was accomplished by the Lord in Gethsemane, before he ever suffered on the cross. In light of your paticular understanding of the Saviour's atonement, I would appreciate your insights on the following quote:"And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption [meaning atonement by suffering for sin] had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross." D&C 138: 35 Edited October 1, 2012 by teddyaware
Calm Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) It's more difficult to find pictures of the Blessed Mary in an LDs home but not at all uncommon. I had one growing up and I display one in my home as well.If there is a picture of Mary, it usually has something to do with Christ's birth or youth. Rarely is there a picture of Mary on her own, but there might be one for young women as a role model for one of the standards, can't remember which one she stood for.This was one that we had at the bookstore when I was working there back in 02: http://bookofmormonresearch.org/files/2010/08/Jesus-Praying-Mother-mormon.jpg Edited October 1, 2012 by calmoriah
Flyonthewall Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 If there is a picture of Mary, it usually has something to do with Christ's birth or youth. Rarely is there a picture of Mary on her own, but there might be one for young women as a role model for one of the standards, can't remember which one she stood for.This was one that we had at the bookstore when I was working there back in 02: http://bookofmormonr...ther-mormon.jpgI would add that many LDS have pictures or scenes from the scriptures that would include Mary or other people. My SIL is especiallly fond of the picture of the woman being healed by touching the hem of Jesus' clothes.
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) I don't recall ever seeing one.I guess I stand alone on this. Perhaps it's my personal experience bu, yes, we had a picture of Mary on the wall growing up and we have one in my home. I think Calmoriah addressed the confusion here.If there is a picture of Mary, it usually has something to do with Christ's birth or youth. Rarely is there a picture of Mary on her own, but there might be one for young women as a role model for one of the standards, can't remember which one she stood for.Correct. There are no LDS pictures of Mary as "holy" or "deified" (at least not that I know of) but there are LDS pictures of Mary. Edited October 1, 2012 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 This was one that we had at the bookstore when I was working there back in 02: http://bookofmormonr...ther-mormon.jpgIs it sacreligious to say that Jesus looks pretty cute in that painting?
CV75 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) CV75, on 01 October 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:Jesus experieinced both types of suffering in the Garden for the atoning sacrifice for all. Then He presumably experienced residual spiritual suffering (but not the extent as in the garden) with new, cross-inflicted physical suffering while on the cross, a labor preparatory to overcoming death. Then He passed into another, seemingly more excrutiating form of spiritual suffering in the form of actual separation from the Father, . . .Hi there CV55! You seem to believe the requisite degree of suffering for sin, in order to make full atonement, was accomplished by the Lord in Gethsemane, before he ever suffered on the cross. In light of your paticular understanding of the Saviour's atonement, I would appreciate your insights on the following quote:"And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption [meaning atonement by suffering for sin] had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross." D&C 138: 35The redemption is more than and is the result of more than the Lord’s atoning act in the garden. It entails the sacrifice of His mortal life and taking it up again (the resurrection) and gaining a fullness of power to resurrect, judge and exalt all God’s children by completing His mission alone, or under the condition of being apart from the Father in every way, spiritually and physically. At the end of His time on the cross, when “it was finished,” these three components were finished and effectuated the redemption. In an earlier post I described how all He ever did contributes to our redemption—and most of it not confined to the cross.So the redemption (which is much more than the atonement by suffering for sin) is wrought (put together, completed, or finished) through the sacrifice of the Son upon the cross. The sacrifice, where the Father and Son are one, is two-fold: Christ of His own mortal life; and both Christ and the Father with their separation, or the abandonment or sacrifice of their oneness, as horrible as it is, at the point when Christ was forsaken. His victory over even this qualified Him to effectuate our redemption in word and deed, making His power of atonement, resurrection, judgment and exaltation full and complete.At any rate, D&C 138:35 isn’t a good rationale for the Church to adopt the cross as a symbol of either the Church or of the redemption (no matter how one understands it). Edited October 1, 2012 by CV75
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 My SIL is especiallly fond of the picture of the woman being healed by touching the hem of Jesus' clothes.I like that one too.
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 I'd also like to add that having served in Recife, Brazil I noticed (how could anone not in that area) many paintings of Mary sanctified, holy, and charitable while Jesus was mostly bloodied, beaten up, weak, and feable. The LDs Church rejects that depiction of Jesus and Mary and frankly I'm very glad they do. Once again the LDS emphasis is placed upon Christ as living and exalted. Not only is he viewed as the Holy One of Isreal in LDS theology, faith and worship but also as the Mighty One of Isreal.
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 The similarities between the scapular (I wear a brown scapular) and LDS garments have not escaped me. I point it out to fellow Catholics when they deride "magic underwear."I second mfbukowski. Thank you for doing that!!!
Darren10 Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Individual members may not have this aversion, but herd mentality will largely keep one without the aversion from waering or displaying a Cross.You're probably correct on that.
Flyonthewall Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 CV75, on 01 October 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:Jesus experieinced both types of suffering in the Garden for the atoning sacrifice for all. Then He presumably experienced residual spiritual suffering (but not the extent as in the garden) with new, cross-inflicted physical suffering while on the cross, a labor preparatory to overcoming death. Then He passed into another, seemingly more excrutiating form of spiritual suffering in the form of actual separation from the Father, . . .Hi there CV55! You seem to believe the requisite degree of suffering for sin, in order to make full atonement, was accomplished by the Lord in Gethsemane, before he ever suffered on the cross. In light of your paticular understanding of the Saviour's atonement, I would appreciate your insights on the following quote:"And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption [meaning atonement by suffering for sin] had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross." D&C 138: 35Not sure what CV75 would say, but I would view it as the cross being the "altar" upon which Christ was sacrificed...the end or completion of the Sacrifice. I have always viewed Gethsemane as the place where the bulk of the suffering for the sins of the world took place. This was an emotional/Spritual suffering that occured. This is not to lessen the physical pain and suffering upon the cross, but it is in the Garden that caused God to suffer to the point where...well has HE puts it..."Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—"
Recommended Posts