The Cross Of Christ

[MiserereNobis]

Calling her blessed, and blessing and praying to her, would seem to be two different things.

Well, we were talking about calling her the Blessed Virgin Mary, so the discussion was about her name and what to call her, not about praying to her.

The Angel Gabriel calls her Blessed and Elizabeth calls her Blessed.

Luke 1:

28. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

42. And she [Elizabeth] cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

I like how Elizabeth repeats what Gabriel says ("Blessed art thou among women") but then continues on to bless Jesus as well. It certainly draws a connection between Our Lord and Our Lady. It points out that she is blessed because of Him, but also elevates her by pointing out her special role. I'm sure Gabriel would have said the same thing, except he was greeting her before the Incarnation, so she did not yet have a fruit of the womb.

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.

Neither one of our religions is Bible-only, so I don't think your request for a strict Biblical verse promoting the practice is reasonable, as there are many things in the LDS church which are not in the Bible, too

But I will say this. When we are in need, we often ask our friends to pray for us. Why? Because the more people that ask, the more likely we are to get help. Jesus taught this principle in the Parable of the Importunate Widow, who keeps bothering the unjust judge until finally he gives in so she will leave him alone:

Luke 18:5

Yet because this widow is troublesome to me, I will avenge her, lest continually coming she weary me.

So, if an unjust judge will listen to repeated requests, how much more will Our God? So we should pray and pray. Now, add to that the prayers of our friends. Then, we ask those who were righteous and are now close to God to pray for us (the Saints). And then we ask God's mother, with whom He obviously has a special relationship, to ask Him on our behalf. Can you imagine how much more quickly the unjust judge would have granted the request had he been "bothered" by not only the widow, but all of her friends, and then in the end even his own mother?

That is why we ask the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary to pray for us and to intercede for us.

[altersteve]

The Angel Gabriel calls her Blessed and Elizabeth calls her Blessed.

Luke 1:

I like how Elizabeth repeats what Gabriel says ("Blessed art thou among women") but then continues on to bless Jesus as well. It certainly draws a connection between Our Lord and Our Lady. It points out that she is blessed because of Him, but also elevates her by pointing out her special role. I'm sure Gabriel would have said the same thing, except he was greeting her before the Incarnation, so she did not yet have a fruit of the womb.

I pretty much agree with this, except that I would rather emphasize that she was blessed because she accepted her calling to give birth to the Son of God. She was foreordained to this in the pre-mortal life, and she remained worthy enough in mortality to receive this calling, so she was blessed by the Lord with the power to accomplish it.

[CV75]

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?

You have to understand that my comments began to counter those advocating that the LDS Church and members adopt the cross as a symbol of our faith. The justifications based on the cross’ role in the atonement were woefully inadequate in light of what took place there and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

In a subsequent post, I provided from lds.org a description of the LDS view of the Atonement, which shows that it was far from limited to the Lord’s sufferings on the cross. This is my main point: the cross is not a compelling symbol of the Atonement.

To review the actual points I made about the Redemption (which I distinguished from the atoning act in the garden, though I sometimes use the two terms synonymously): It is more than the Lord’s atoning act in the Garden of Gethsemane. It also consists of His gaining the power to resurrect and exalt. The redemption was brought about by three things the Lord performed, and was complete only after He said “it is finished” before giving up His life on the cross:

1. His suffering the punishment or penalty for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane so that we can be forgiven on conditions or repentance (this could be used as a marker for when the events surrounding His power to redeem, which is more than this, began).

2. The voluntary sacrifice of His mortal life to prepare the way for His resurrection (as an aside, the cross was only a prop for Him to give up His life.)

3. The attainment of a fullness of power to take up His own life, return to the Father, resurrect all God’s children, and judge and exalt them by completing His mission alone and apart from the Father (as an aside, another location than the cross could have been chosen, and He used these powers after He died on the cross).

This illustrates why the cross is inadequate as an official or formal symbol of the LDS Church.

[MiserereNobis]

I pretty much agree with this, except that I would rather emphasize that she was blessed because she accepted her calling to give birth to the Son of God. She was foreordained to this in the pre-mortal life, and she remained worthy enough in mortality to receive this calling, so she was blessed by the Lord with the power to accomplish it.

I agree, too, based on Our Lady's own words, that it was her humility and her acceptance of God's will, her calling as you say. When Gabriel tells her what is going to happen, she accepts it with what has been known as the Fiat:

Luke 1:38

And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.

She offers herself as God's handmaid, God's servant, and says that His will, according to the word of His messenger the Angel Gabriel, will be done.

Then, when Mary visits Elizabeth, she explains that it was due to this humility in accepting God's will that all generations will call her blessed:

Luke 1:48

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

So yeah, I'm with you on the fact that her blessedness comes from her humility and her acceptance of God's will. We'll just leave the pre-mortal thing alone as an obvious difference between our religions

[mfbukowski]

You know what?

I really don't care WHERE the atonement happened.

All I care about is THAT it happened.

[volgadon]

You know what?

I really don't care WHERE the atonement happened.

All I care about is THAT it happened.

I do care where it happened, but I care more that it did happen.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I do care where it happened, but I care more that it did happen.

In reality it happened from the time Christ entered into the Garden to pray, until resurrection morning. Edited October 2, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[mfbukowski]

We'll just leave the pre-mortal thing alone as an obvious difference between our religions

You do realize I hope that none of that stuff is doctrinal-

This is what the Book of Mormon says about it in Alma 7

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

That and one passage in Mosiah- that's about it.

My opinion about all the Brigham Young stuff was just good old Brother Brigham talking off the top of his head again- and I will say that to his face if I ever have the opportunity to meet him!

You might be interested in this video- not directly relevant to the question at hand, but I think it shows well our attitude toward Mary.

http://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/mary-the-mother-of-jesus?lang=eng

[teddyaware]

In a subsequent post, I provided from lds.org a description of the LDS view of the Atonement, which shows that it was far from limited to the Lord’s sufferings on the cross. This is my main point: the cross is not a compelling symbol of the Atonement.

I started this thread in an attempt to help my LDS brethren (you among them) come to an understanding as to why traditional Christians (whom we hope to gain the confidence of and teach the Restored Gospel to) have used the cross of Christ as the symbol of their faith for centuries, with much reverence are affection. My hope was to bring enlightenment so that an unnecessary stumbling block -- even what traditional Christians perceive as a rejection of and disdain for the symbol of the cross by the Latter Day Saints) -- that stands in the way of our reaching out to and opening successful dialogue with our brethren of other Christian faiths. My hope was that an unecessary impediment to mutual respect and understanding with our non-LDS brothers and sisters might begin to be removed.

This reverence for the cross as the foremost symbol of traditional Christian faith did not just pop up out of nowhere without any rationale, justification or biblical inspiration.

The reason why the cross of Christ became the premiere symbol of pre-Restoration Christianity is because the Apostle Paul repeatedly used it as a powerful literary device in his epistles. If one studies Paul's writings, there can be no doubt -- at least as far as Paul was concerned -- the cross of Christ was a more than adequate symbolic representation for the atonement of the Saviour. The verse from Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, quoted by myself at the start of this thread, is a prime example of Paul's reverence for and satisfaction with the cross of Christ as a powerful and dramtic figurative representation for the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ.

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Galatians 6:14

After reading your contributions to this thread, It seems you're one of those who will hold the line and not allow yourself to appreciate this issue from another point of view -- and that's fine.

My suggestion is that you go to our Bible's Topical Guide and look up the words "cross" and "crucifixion," as used by Paul, and then honestly tell me if doing so has not helped you come to an understanding as to why traditional Christians adopted the cross as the sacred symbol of the eternal victory of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure there are a few who have participated on or read this thread who appreciate what I'm trying to say and do here.

There is much I could say (if I were disposed to do so) on this thread that could very powerfully sustain and solidify to Latter Day Saints the points I'm trying to make here, apropos to the eternal significance and overriding importance of the symbololism surrounding the cross and crucifiction of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ... but I dare not do so, because I would be carelessly treading into the solemn realm of that which is too sacred to utter, and that which is unlawful for man to write. All I will say is that Latter Day Saints in the know understand we view the applied symbloism of the cross and crucifivion of Christ as being more important to our salvation than does any other Christian religion. He who hath an ear, let him hear...

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

The LDS view of the cross is going to be added to a list of many reasons the non lds don't think we're Christian.

[Thinking]

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

It doesn't sound like it's even an option for a member to choose to wear the cross.

Would you be denied a temple recommend if you showed up to the interview wearing a necklace with a cross, or cross earrings?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Thinking

[zerinus]

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/t...christ?lang=eng

***

Thank you for the complement. I do derive personal satisfaction from my understanding of the scriptures, which is “able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). You are welcome to learn what you can from the Church’s website; but I prefer to go direct to the scriptures. The scriptures teach that Jesus suffered great sufferings throughout His life, which includes (but is not limited to) Gethsemane. He was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3; Mosiah 14:3).

Mosiah 3:

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

He suffered these throughout His life, including Gethsemane, all of which count towards His Atonement. Gethsemane may have even been the severest of His triels, though not limited to it, as shown in the above verse. Nevertheless all the scriptures testify that the Atonement was in fact performed on the Cross. Here are some scriptures for you to consider:

1 Corinthians 1:

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ [i.e. His atoning sacrifice] should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 1:

18 For the preaching of the cross [i.e. the Atonement] is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Galatians 6:

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross [Atonement] of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Ephesians 2:

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross [i.e Atonement], having slain the enmity thereby

Philippians 3:

18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross [Atonement] of Christ.

Colossians 1:

20 And, having made peace through the blood [Atonement] of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

1 Nephi 11:

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

3 Nephi 27:

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross [i.e. make an atonement]; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross [made the Atonement], that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil

D&C 138:

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.

Moses 7:

47 And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me.

The symbolism of the Old Testament sacrificial rites also bear this out:

Hebrews 9:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself [as a sacrificial lamv] without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The entire symbolism centres on the death of the sacrificial victim, whereby the Atonement was made—hence the repeated reference to the blood (i.e. death) of the victim. However, whereas under the Law of Moses the sacrificial victims were subjected (symbolically) to physical death only, Jesus endured the pains of spiritual death, which is far more agonizing than physical death. All the scriptures bear witness that these events took place on the cross—without in any way diminishing all the other sufferings that Jesus experienced throughout His life, including Gethsemane as part of that Atonement.

Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary.

As teddyaware pointed out, you tend to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Your words are self-contradictory. One minute you say one thing, and then you say the opposite.

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).

It seems to me that the mistake you are making is in thinking that when it says, “I partook and finished my preparations ...,” that “finishing” refers to the events in Gethsemane. It doesn’t. It refers to all of His sufferings, including and especially those on the cross.

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.

***

This analysis is arbitrary and incorrect. You cannot categorise the “stages” of the Atonement in this way. That is not borne out by scripture. It is a long time ago that I read Talmage, but if my memory serves me right, he teaches that on the cross the agony of Gethsemane was being repeated. Jesus was experiencing those agonies again, perhaps more intensely so.

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.

The symbol of the cross means whatever you want it to mean. To Mormons who have not traditionally used it as such, it may mean nothing, or very little. To traditional Christians it many mean everything that it is supposed to mean.

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

Ummm, I think others may read that differently. Luckily this is a public forum, and other people are ultimately the judges of what has been said or not said and by whom. I will let them decide.

[mfbukowski]

Would you be denied a temple recommend if you showed up to the interview wearing a necklace with a cross, or cross earrings?

Figure it out- that question is not on the list. Bishops don't get to make up their own questions, even though I think that people who like cilantro should not be allowed in the temple.

I don't get to decide that.

[Thinking]

Figure it out- that question is not on the list.

Yes it is.

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Bishops don't get to make up their own questions, even though I think that people who like cilantro should not be allowed in the temple.

I don't get to decide that.

This is a poor comparison since the Church has never made any statement (to my knowledge) about cilantro.

[spartacus]

Crosses meant little until made legend by Constitine,s vision of it.

Yep. Jesus teaching and commanding with the cross symbolically and it being recorded six times in Scripture (see my post on page 2) meant little. Paul teaching with the cross for years and being recorded several times in Scripture meant little. Yep.

Edited October 3, 2012 by spartacus

[mfbukowski]

Yes it is.

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Give me a break.

No.

Crosses are not opposed to the church, they are on temples for pete's sake.

They were used extensively until around the time David O McKay became president. Just look up the bazillion threads and tons of pictures of LDS uses of the cross on this very forum.

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

Would you be denied a temple recommend if you showed up to the interview wearing a necklace with a cross, or cross earrings?

Does this possibility actually sound rational to you?

I have personally issued temple recommends to people who were wearing crosses on necklaces. As MFB already pointed out, jewellery choices are not included in the list of questions asked during a recommend interview.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[volgadon]

Figure it out- that question is not on the list. Bishops don't get to make up their own questions, even though I think that people who like cilantro should not be allowed in the temple.

I don't get to decide that.

Hater.

[volgadon]

The LDS view of the cross is going to be added to a list of many reasons the non lds don't think we're Christian.

Doesn't that kind of legalism bother you?

[teddyaware]

Zerinus: I'm in full agreement with you.

One interesting point to ponder when contemplating Christ's sufferings for us while on the cross can be gleaned from the following two verses found in John 18:10-11. Christ's sufferings in Gethsemane are at an end, and Judas has just betrayed the Saviour to the temple guards; when impetuous Peter violently intervenes in his Lord's behalf by drawing his sword and severing off the ear of Malchus, one of the Temple Guards. And so we read:

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

The "cup" the Lord refers to in verse 11 is the "the cup of the wrath of God," or "cup of trembling," which he three times begged his Father to take away from him if at all possible to do so in righteousness . This "bitter cup" of which we are now speaking, is the cup filled, as it were, to the brim with the wrath of God to be poured out against sinners, which Christ voluntarily took to himself and "drank," that the children of men might be spared the pains and sorrows of hell upon condition of repentance. Notice that he had not finished drinking to the dregs the bitter cup while in Gethsemane. So he must of necessity subsequently continued to suffer and spill his blood for our sins after leaving the Garden. This continued suffering and spilling of blood took place when he was brutally scourged, had a cruel crown of thorns forced down upon his head, and when he was nailed to the cross.

As both Talmage and McConkie tell us, while in unspeakable physical agony on the cross the unfathomable spiritual sufferings of Gethsemane (Gethsemanic suffering or spiritual death) recurred during the three hours of darkness. In addition, he suffered horrific emotional abuse as his hateful, demon-inspired enemies mocked, taunted and tempted him. And can there be any doubt the unseen hosts of hell were gathered there to torment him as well?

So, by simple statement of demonstrable fact, the Lord's greatest suffering for sin must have occured while he hung on the cross. And this because in addition to the recurring and even (according to Talmage) intensified agonies of Gethsemanie, the Saviour was being tortured physically by crucifixion, and was emotionally/spiritually brutilized by his heartless human enemies and the gathered demonic hosts of hell. Satan threw everything he could at him, but the Saviour won!

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, speaking of the recurrent Gethsemanic suffering the Lord had to endure while on the cross, taught:

"It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

Apostle Bruce McConkie taught:

"Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem's walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon.

Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred."

Always remember, while upon the cross the Gethsemanic suffering of Christ was cruely compounded by the addtional physical, emotional and spiritual agonies and insults for sin which wore the Lord of men down to the point that he, an immortal being, finally, literally died of a broken heart.

The time has come for all saints to put aside this false construct of Gethsemane and Calvary, that the Saviour of the world might receive the full measure of praise and glory he deserves for the heroic battles he won for us while in Gethsemane; when judged by the wicked of the world; while whipped within an inch of his life before the scourger; while struggling to carrying the cruel cross, as if the weight of the world was on his shoulders -- for it was; and while being crucified in utter aloneness on Calvary's Hill. All these sorrowful, sacred events are indispensible parts of his infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice. Praise ye the Lord!

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[CV75]

I started this thread in an attempt to help my LDS brethren (you among them) come to an understanding as to why traditional Christians (whom we hope to gain the confidence of and teach the Restored Gospel to) have used the cross of Christ as the symbol of their faith for centuries

Thank you, but I do understand and appreciate why the cross is used as a symbol or in figurative language, and as I said in an earlier post, it doesn’t bother me that it is used as the world’s generally recognized symbol for Christianity. My vision has simply been expanded beyond the need for that.

that stands in the way of our reaching out to and opening successful dialogue with our brethren of other Christian faiths.

My view of using the cross as a symbol of my faith has never stood in the way of reaching out to and successfully dialoguing with other Christians--the subject has never even come up.

After reading your contributions to this thread, It seems you're one of those who will hold the line and not allow yourself to appreciate this issue from another point of view -- and that's fine.

Then you misunderstand my contributions to this thread. This is understandable in light of your calling as self-appointed advocate for your cause. I take little if any exception to your observations about what the cross represents, just your insistence that it be embraced by the LDS Church as a symbol. A narrow focus will always be countered by broader considerations.

There is much I could say ... but I dare not do so, because I would be carelessly treading into the solemn realm of that which is too sacred to utter, and that which is unlawful for man to write. ...He who hath an ear, let him hear...

Now this is the subtext that undefrmines your cause -- all this for adopting an official Church symbol?

[CV75]

Thank you

None of this, for me, justifies that the cross should be officially adopted by the LDS Church.

[CV75]

The time has come for all saints to put aside this false construct

This is the other counterproductive subtext: that those who do not accept the cross as the symbol of the LDS faith are hanging on to a false construct.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yep. Jesus teaching and commanding with the cross symbolically and it being recorded six times in Scripture (see my post on page 2) meant little. Paul teaching with the cross for years and being recorded several times in Scripture meant little. Yep.

I mean having the symbol around their necks or adorning buildings...the scriptures you quote are speaking metaphorically.

[Tacenda]

Doesn't that kind of legalism bother you?

Don't quite know where you're going with this. Are you asking in all seriousness or harping on my repeated speak of legalism?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Tacenda