The Cross Of Christ

[Lachoneus]

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.

My experience in Rome, Italy, was similar. I was particularly struck by Michelangelo's La Pieta where Mary is shown in her 20s cradling the adult body of her Son who is clearly lifeless.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Lachoneus

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I appreciate the interest and even the passion shown in the responses to my postings on this thread.

Just to make things clear, I am an active member of the LDS Church who was bapitzed in August of 1970

I started this discussion not because I'm advocating for our chapels and temples being adorned with crosses or our people wearing crosses as jewelry around their necks. Rather, for quite some time I've been concerned that many Latter Day Saints have been unnecessarily alienating our traditional Christian brethren by making it seem as if the Latter Day Saints believe the crucifixion of Christ was almost a perfunctory afterthought in God's eyes, when compared to the Lord's sufferings in Gethsemane.

I've been around long enough to have heard many Easter Sunday sacrament talks wherein the speaker minimized Christ sufferings on Calvary when compared to his sufferings in Gethsemane. One of the most memorable of these talks had a high-ranking local LDS leader say, "Christ's sufferings on the cross were a cake walk (yes, he used the words "cake walk") when compared the much sorer sufferings he endured in the Garden of Gethsemane!" That one really got me riled up (I was much more passionate in those days); I couldn't take it anymore, so I made a last minute change to the topic of my Priesthood lesson planned for that day, and spent the last hour teaching the combined Elders Quorum and High Priest Group, enlightening the brethren on Pauls teaching that, from his perpective, the atonement happened primarily on the cross. The brother who made the comment in Sacrament Meeting was there, but I didn't hold back (must say I'm much more mellow these days, now that I'm getting older, and would now just let it ride).

Why was I so zealous, passionate and exercised on this point of doctrine? In reality, if the truth be told, I believe Christ's sufferings on the cross were more severe (if that's possible) than his sufferings in Gethsemane. I quote from Apostle James E. Talmage's masterpiece, Jesus the Christ:

His suffering in the Garden which such that he had to have multiple blessing from angels to endure...while his Apostles slept, it there he cried out in agony for the "cup to pass from him"...the more prayed the most he shed blood because of all the filthy sins passed upon this perfect being. The he suffered, mind, body and soul...not to mention what the guards had waiting floor him before they would kill him. The worst suffering of all was when of the cross his Father withdrew him presence. He had to choose and suffer alone.

[zerinus]

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, . . .

My understanding of the scriptures is that the Atonement in fact took place on the cross, not in Gethsemane. Jesus endured great sufferings (mostly of a spiritual kind) throughout His life, culminating in Gethsemane and the cross, all of which are part of His Atonement (Mosiah 3:7); but the scriptures teach that the Atonement in fact took place on the cross, not in Gethsemane.

. . . 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.

If you are replying to my post, that is an irrelevance; however, in answer to it, I would have to say that for the traditional Christians the cross is the symbol of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and as such it must necessarily embody all aspects of that Atonement. To what extent that Atonement is understood is an irrelevant issue. If it is meant to symbolize the Atonement, then it must necessarily symbolize all aspects of the Atonement, regardless of how well or how little the nature of that Atonement may have been understood.

Edited October 1, 2012 by zerinus

[teddyaware]

The 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).

CV75: I don't believe it can be shown through the scriptures that Christ's unfathomable suffering while on the cross was not atoning suffering for sin. Please cite specific scriptural references that set forth clearly Christ's suffering on the cross of calvary was not vicarious, atoning suffering for the sins of the world.

Spiritual separation from God (spiritual death) is the wages of sin. When Christ was forsaken by the Father while on the cross, that dreadful experience constituted the epitome of spiritual death. The Saviour descended as far away from the light and presence of the Father as it's possible for any being to be (he descended below all things and suffered the wrath of God, even as if he were the son of perdition). Therefore, it's exceeding difficult to believe the spiritual death he experienced on while on the cross was not, indeed, suffering for sin.

Edited October 2, 2012 by teddyaware

[zerinus]

CV75: I don't believe it can be shown through the scriptures that Christ's unfathomable suffering while on the cross was not atoning suffering for sin. Please cite specific scriptural references that set forth clearly Christ's suffering on the cross of calvary was not vicarious, atoning suffering for the sins of the world.

Spiritual separation from God (spiritual death) is the wages of sin. When Christ was forsaken by the Father while on the cross, that dreadful experience constituted the epitome of spiritual death. The Saviour descended as far away from the light and presence of the Father as it's possible for any being to be (he descended below all things and suffered the wrath of God, even as if he were the son of perdition). Therefore, it's exceeding difficult to believe the spiritual death he experienced on while on the cross was not, indeed, suffering for sin.

Very well taught and understood; thank you.

[MiserereNobis]

My experience in Rome, Italy, was similar. I was particularly struck by Michelangelo's La Pieta where Mary is shown in her 20s cradling the adult body of her Son who is clearly lifeless.

That is the definition of Pieta -- it is a depiction of Mary holding Jesus right after he was taken down off of the cross, so of course Jesus would be lifeless.

At the heart of such depictions is not the denial that Christ is the Mighty One of Israel, but instead the recognition that the Mighty One of Israel allowed Himself to be tortured and killed in order to save humanity, to save you and me. It is a reminder to all of us of the incredible love that God has for us, that He was incarnated and willed Himself terrible suffering.

Mary did not have terrible physical sufferings, nor was Mary God, so the depictions of her focus on her purity, chastity, and grace. There are also depictions of her that focus on her mental/emotional sufferings, since, as she was told in prophesy, a sword would pierce her heart because of the death of her Son. This was knowledge that she had to live with from the earliest days of Jesus' life until His death. The idea behind these depictions (such as Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows) is to generate sympathy and compassion, especially as regards feeling the amount of love that Our Lord showed us by going through the sufferings that also caused His mother to suffer.

[Tacenda]

That is the definition of Pieta -- it is a depiction of Mary holding Jesus right after he was taken down off of the cross, so of course Jesus would be lifeless.

At the heart of such depictions is not the denial that Christ is the Mighty One of Israel, but instead the recognition that the Mighty One of Israel allowed Himself to be tortured and killed in order to save humanity, to save you and me. It is a reminder to all of us of the incredible love that God has for us, that He was incarnated and willed Himself terrible suffering.

Mary did not have terrible physical sufferings, nor was Mary God, so the depictions of her focus on her purity, chastity, and grace. There are also depictions of her that focus on her mental/emotional sufferings, since, as she was told in prophesy, a sword would pierce her heart because of the death of her Son. This was knowledge that she had to live with from the earliest days of Jesus' life until His death. The idea behind these depictions (such as Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows) is to generate sympathy and compassion, especially as regards feeling the amount of love that Our Lord showed us by going through the sufferings that also caused His mother to suffer.

I think we forget about Mary alot and leave her out of the equation sometimes. I don't believe our father/Savior would be too pleased. Thanks for the reminder!

[MiserereNobis]

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".

Well, she did say that all generations would call her "blessed" so feel free to join in

I know that you do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, so I guess you could just leave the virgin part out and call her Blessed Mary. That would ease the confusion with the other Mary, eh?

I've assumed, but I find out all the time that my assumptions are wrong, that the LDS church believes that Mary was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. Is this correct? The idea/speculation on another thread that Jesus was conceived with God's sperm threw me for one, so I figured I'd check in on this assumption.

As far as Jesus being married, I'll leave that to the other thread.

Edited October 2, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That is the definition of Pieta -- it is a depiction of Mary holding Jesus right after he was taken down off of the cross, so of course Jesus would be lifeless.

At the heart of such depictions is not the denial that Christ is the Mighty One of Israel, but instead the recognition that the Mighty One of Israel allowed Himself to be tortured and killed in order to save humanity, to save you and me. It is a reminder to all of us of the incredible love that God has for us, that He was incarnated and willed Himself terrible suffering.

God his Father will and He submitted as a good son..."not my will be done, but thine". Could not ask for better evidence that they. Are two beings...one subordinate to the other. Jesus has a "Father and God", the same as us Elohim.

[MiserereNobis]

God his Father will and He submitted as a good son..."not my will be done, but thine". Could not ask for better evidence that they. Are two beings...one subordinate to the other. Jesus has a "Father and God", the same as us Elohim.

Well, technically the trinitarian doctrine of separate Persons fits your scenario just fine, too, including the "subordination" as a son is always subordinate to a father so God the Son would be, in a matter of speaking, subordinate to God the Father.

Of course, we take the idea of God the Father and God the Son as a metaphor pointing towards something much greater than a simple father/son relationship, but it is a metaphor that works best, so it is the one we were given.

But perhaps we shouldn't derail this thread to a discussion of the trinity -- there are many other threads with that battle being waged.

[MormonMason]

Well, she did say that all generations would call her "blessed" so feel free to join in

Calling her blessed, and blessing and praying to her, would seem to be two different things. Find me a Bible text that teaches to pray to her or to actively bless her, rather than merely "call her blessed" and you have material with which to make a case for the practice.

Edited October 2, 2012 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

Well, she did say that all generations would call her "blessed" so feel free to join in

I know that you do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, so I guess you could just leave the virgin part out and call her Blessed Mary. That would ease the confusion with the other Mary, eh?

I've assumed, but I find out all the time that my assumptions are wrong, that the LDS church believes that Mary was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. Is this correct? The idea/speculation on another thread that Jesus was conceived with God's sperm threw me for one, so I figured I'd check in on this assumption.

As far as Jesus being married, I'll leave that to the other thread.

We believe it was a virgin birth.

As far as the rest, you would have to check with her doctor and husband I suppose. I really think it is none of our business.

[MormonMason]

If we wanted to speak of what was the most painful, the garden and the scourging would have my money as being the most painful of the experiences of Jesus. The imagery of, say, the movie Passion of the Christ, for all of its inaccuracies elsewhere, was quite accurate in its depiction of the scourging before sending him off to be crucified. It was so accurate that that is what gave the film its 'R' rating. Having one's flesh flayed from one's bones would be quite a painful experience. The endorphins released in the aftermath of such a scourging actually would take the edge off of the insertion of the nails and hanging on the cross.

But, at least in the garden he got an angel to strengthen him even though the pain and anxiety from that caused the capillaries in the sweat glands to burst and color the water of his sweat. (Being crushed between two cars of a locomotive would cause enough pain to cause a few in the face to burst and produce a bloody sweat, to provide a small bit of perspective).

Both these garden and scourging experiences would be considerably more painful than crucifixion. The Greek of the passage concerning the garden ordeal, where he took upon himself our sins, indicates that Jesus was in agony during the garden ordeal. No such word is used to describe what he felt on the cross. There were cases of people being kept alive on a cross, one for well over a week's time, and then taken down and surviving the ordeal. I do not now recall the name of the ancient historical text where I read that, however. Anyone else recall reading this and where it is?

Edited October 2, 2012 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

If we wanted to speak of what was the most painful, the garden and the scourging would have my money as being the most painful of the experiences of Jesus. The imagery of, say, the movie Passion of the Christ, for all of its inaccuracies elsewhere, was quite accurate in its depiction of the scourging before sending him off to be crucified. It was so accurate that that is what gave the film its 'R' rating. Having one's flesh flayed from one's bones would be quite a painful experience. The endorphins released in the aftermath of such a scourging actually would take the edge off of the insertion of the nails and hanging on the cross.

But, at least in the garden he got an angel to strengthen him even though the pain and anxiety from that caused the capillaries in the sweat glands to burst and color the water of his sweat. (Being crushed between two cars of a locomotive would cause enough pain to cause a few in the face to burst and produce a bloody sweat, to provide a small bit of perspective).

Both these garden and scourging experiences would be considerably more painful than crucifixion. The Greek of the passage concerning the garden ordeal, where he took upon himself our sins, indicates that Jesus was in agony during the garden ordeal. No such word is used to describe what he felt on the cross. There were cases of people being kept alive on a cross, one for well over a week's time, and then taken down and surviving the ordeal. I do not now recall the name of the ancient historical text where I read that, however. Anyone else recall reading this and where it is?

I remember being told when I was a child, that the others were tethered with rope not nails in the hands. Therefore the reason some could live for a week. Maybe you were aware of this already though. Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[MormonMason]

I remember being told when I was a child, that the others were tethered with rope not nails in the hands. Therefore the reason some could live for a week. Maybe you were aware of this already though.

No, I distinctly recall that in the ancient account the guy who was taken down was nailed, having his wounds nursed afterwards. I expect that some were tied with rope but I distinctly recall the guy being nailed on his cross before being taken down well over a week later. If I recall correctly, the Romans could keep a man alive for up to two weeks on the cross if they so desired. They were masters of the art.

[volgadon]

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.

I have an El Greco that I like to look at (talk about east meets west). I also took a photo of a very endearing painting of Mary and the infant Jesus from the Greek Orthodox church in Capernaum. It was renovated by Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox, but as the picture looks more Catholic, it is probably from Western Ukraine, which had a lot of Polish influence. Apologies for the somewhat blurry image. I guess that for me it boils down to aesthetic and spiritual preference for certain portrayals.

[volgadon]

My experience in Rome, Italy, was similar. I was particularly struck by Michelangelo's La Pieta where Mary is shown in her 20s cradling the adult body of her Son who is clearly lifeless.

My first area on my mission was in the former Stalingrad. The war memorial has a copy representing the mothers of the fallen soldiers, something I found particularly poignant considering the meaning of the original La Pieta.

[volgadon]

That's a lovely Catholic picture of the resurrection. See, us Catholics do have more than just crucifixes

Lutheran, actually, but they did use a similar idiom.

[volgadon]

The scriptural record says Christ's body was removed from the cross, but we do not know the reason for this

Actually, we do. Jesus was dead and Jewish law forbade leaving a dead body overnight.

[volgadon]

The scriptural record says Christ's body was removed from the cross, but we do not know the reason for this

Actually, we do. Jesus was dead and Jewish law forbade leaving a dead body overnight.

[Bernard Gui]

I think the cross is a good symbol for Christianity only becaue the world recognizes it as such. But I do not think it universally teaches anything about His Person, the culmination of all that He did, or His greatest work, especially in light of what we know from the restored gospel. I do not think it correctly conveys a full understanding and appreciation of His atoning sacrifice and death. This only comes from the Spirit, and then we are free to attach any meaning we want to place upon any symbol of our choosing.

Nor does it really reveal anything about the person wearing it....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ejel-T-Shirt-Black-Red-Christian-Cross-Bling-Biker-Chick-Rhinestones-Angel-Wings-/130725700714

[CV75]

My understanding of the scriptures is that the Atonement in fact took place on the cross, not in Gethsemane.

While you may gain personal satisfaction from your understanding of the scriptures, I believe the Church offers a far better interpretation of the scriptures.

http://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

***

Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins:

“I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

“But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

“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—

“Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:16-19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7).

The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—“lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33).

On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all.

***

The Atonement and its various aspects were not limited to what occurred on the cross. This is also explained in the article above. This is why I find the the cross a poor symbol of the Atonement.

for the traditional Christians the cross is the symbol of the Atonement of Jesus Chris ...regardless of how well or how little the nature of that Atonement may have been understood.

Not sure why you are parroting what I have said a few times already.

[CV75]

CV75: I don't believe it can be shown through the scriptures that Christ's unfathomable suffering while on the cross was not atoning suffering for sin. Please cite specific scriptural references that set forth clearly Christ's suffering on the cross of calvary was not vicarious, atoning suffering for the sins of the world.

You seem to not understand my posts. See the one right above this one.

[teddyaware]

You seem to not understand my posts. See the one right above this one.

Did you not state somewhere on this thread that you believed the atonement for sin was made only in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that though Christ's continued sufferings after he left the Garden were expedient in the Father's eyes, they were endured for reasons other than making it possible for us to receive a forgiveness for our sins?

Edited October 2, 2012 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Of course, we take the idea of God the Father and God the Son as a metaphor pointing towards something much greater than a simple father/son relationship, but it is a metaphor that works best, so it is the one we were given.

Few things are more complicated than what you refer to as a simple father/son relationship.