The Cross Of Christ

[volgadon]

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

I am asking in all seriousness because you frequently use that word. Instead of our being considered Christians if we accept Christ, we are being judged an item of jewelry, or a decoration on a building, something not even in the Bible.

Doesn't this kind of legalism bother you?

[zerinus]

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

All of which, nevertheless, points to the Atonement having been carried out on the cross.

Edited October 3, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

Hater.

Can't stand the stuff.

It tastes like soap!

People who like it are clearly mutants.

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

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.

I asked the question because after GBH uttered his famous statement about earrings, the BYU honor code was modified.

Since the Church has a policy against the use of the cross, I wondered if wearing one would disqualify a member from participating in temple ordinances.

[Buckeye]

I asked the question because after GBH uttered his famous statement about earrings, the BYU honor code was modified.

Since the Church has a policy against the use of the cross, I wondered if wearing one would disqualify a member from participating in temple ordinances.

You'd have to ask each temple president. The two temples in which I've served had instructions for temple workers to avoid excesses of jewelry, but there was no specific instruction as to crosses.

As pure speculation, I believe that a simple cross worn for personal reasons (not to raise dissent) would not cause someone to be excluded from the temple. In my experience, lesser commandments - such as wearing only one set of earrings or the past prohibitions on caffeine - are much more enforced at BYU than in the general church population. A young woman will not be allowed to take a test at BYU if she has two earrings. But I have yet to meet a bishop that would exclude her from young women's for the same action. I love BYU, but it can afford to more strictly enforce standards because there is a long line of people dying to get in; sort of the opposition of our wards and temples where we fight to get people to go.

[MiserereNobis]

Can't stand the stuff.

It tastes like soap!

People who like it are clearly mutants.

Soap? I can see someone not liking cilantro, but I can't imagine it tasting like soap.

I love cilantro! But I am clearly a mutant

[teddyaware]

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.

It seems that folks on this board frequently talk past each other, and I suppose I'm guilty of the same. Here's an example on your part:

If you've comprehended what I've been saying in my posts on this thread. you'd know I've never once advocated that the cross be used as a symbol of the LDS faith. If I appear to have done so inadvertantly, would you kindly cite the quote so that I may see it and edit the same to conform with my views on the subject.

What I have been trying to say is two fold. First, the Apostle Paul often used the cross of Christ and his crucifixion as literary symbols for the atonement of Christ; therefore, since the New Testament forms a part of our Standard Works, Latter Day Saints should not be at all surprised that non-LDS Christians revere the cross as a symbol of the atonement because Paul himself did.

Second, I'm hoping to get those Latter Day Saints who tend to minimize Christ's multifold sufferings (not just physical suffering) on the cross to stop doing so, because it is improper to continue on in that vain. Also, by continuing to minimiize the eternal significance of the agonies Christ endured on the cross (as well as his ultimate victory thereupon), many Latter Day Saints are placing an unnecessary stumbling block between themselves and the rest of the Christian world. Because when non-LDS Christians hear Latter Day Saints minimize Christ's sacrifice on the cross -- when compared to his sacrifice in Gethsemane -- they often catagorize Mormons who do so as being like those of whom Paul said:

"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ." Philipians 3: 18

My effort here is in the spirit of Paul's counsel to the saints in 1 Corinthians 9, wherein he taught:

"20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake ..."\

Many LDS leaders of late have taught that Christ's sufferings on the cross are were at least as severe as his agony in Gethsemane. So why continue on in the incorrect path? And in light of Paul's clear missionary-minded counsel above, let's declare that we are in agreement on this point with our traditional Christian friends. Yet we do have something of great import to add to their understanding of the infinite and eternal sacrifice of the Saviour-- and that is that Christ suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane as well, not just upon the cross.

In the end, all I'm trying to say here is that the Latter Day Saints should glorify and honor Christ for his sacrificail labor upon the cross with at least the same degree of appreciation and honor as our non-LDS Christian friends

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

I am asking in all seriousness because you frequently use that word. Instead of our being considered Christians if we accept Christ, we are being judged an item of jewelry, or a decoration on a building, something not even in the Bible. Doesn't this kind of legalism bother you?

I do think that is legalistic to the nth degree. But I think what is more revelant in this thread is that we don't place as much significance on the "cross" as we do on the "garden" being the most significant. But as Teddyaware has shown, with passages from the bible, it can be somewhat problematic, it's not that we have to have the object of the cross as much as the thought process. Please read this entry made by someone who studied Christ's crucifixion. It's quite humbling.

http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/184/1/Jesus-Suffering-and-Crucifixion-From-a-Medical-Point-of-View/Page1.html

[volgadon]

Soap? I can see someone not liking cilantro, but I can't imagine it tasting like soap.

I love cilantro! But I am clearly a mutant

If soap tastes like cilantro, yummy.

[williamsmith]

In consideration of the fact that the Latter Day Saints tend to de-emphasize the relative importance and severity of the sufferings endured by Christ during his crucifixion when compared to the sufferings he endured in Gethsemane;

Mormons do not do this at all. Mormons only state that the actual "point" in which Christ took on the sins of the world was in Gethsemane. We have always taught that Gethsemane, Death on the Cross, and the Resurrection of Christ were all key and part of Christ's Atonement for mankind.

It would be best if you didn't allow the negative and false emphasizes of our critics dictate our story and beliefs.

and considering the well-established fact that Latter Day Saints de-emphasize the importance of the cross of Christ as a religious symbol, and even go so far as to totally eschew it:

And why should mormons use the symbol of the cross? Because everyone else does?

We believe in focusing on Christ's Atonement not on his death. There is no real reason why we should use the cross as a symbol.

If a friendly and non-confrontational Evangelical Christian were to quote the following scripture and then ask you why, in light of said verse, the Mormons react the way they do to Christ's cricifixion and the symbolism of his cross, what would you say to him or her in response?

"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

If you read the verse in context of the sentence and the surrounding verses you would know that the "cross" being talked about is not the cross Christ died on, it's referring to "Christ's Cross" i.e. his sacrifice, his mission, his Atonement for all mankind. The word cross being used here is simply a translation artifact. It's not at all referring to the actual cross Christ died on.

In fact, if you look at nearly all mentions of the word "cross" in the Bible you would see that other than direct mentions of the actual physical cross, the cross being talked about is Christ's sacrifice and Atonement. That is/was his "cross" to bear.

[teddyaware]

Mormons do not do this at all. Mormons only state that the actual "point" in which Christ took on the sins of the world was in Gethsemane. We have always taught that Gethsemane, Death on the Cross, and the Resurrection of Christ were all key and part of Christ's Atonement for mankind.

It would be best if you didn't allow the negative and false emphasizes of our critics dictate our story and beliefs.

And why should mormons use the symbol of the cross? Because everyone else does?

We believe in focusing on Christ's Atonement not on his death. There is no real reason why we should use the cross as a symbol.

If you read the verse in context of the sentence and the surrounding verses you would know that the "cross" being talked about is not the cross Christ died on, it's referring to "Christ's Cross" i.e. his sacrifice, his mission, his Atonement for all mankind. The word cross being used here is simply a translation artifact. It's not at all referring to the actual cross Christ died on.

In fact, if you look at nearly all mentions of the word "cross" in the Bible you would see that other than direct mentions of the actual physical cross, the cross being talked about is Christ's sacrifice and Atonement. That is/was his "cross" to bear.

Have you ever been to the temple?

Read my previous post above to get clarification on my views.

The fact is that for the Last 42 years I've repeatedly heard well-meaning sacrament talks, Gospel Doctine lessons and testimonies where it was said that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the comparitively less difficult part of his atoning sacrifice. Haven't you?

If you have time, and if you so desire, read all my posts on this thread to get a complete picture of my thinking on this subject.

All the best ...

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Soap? I can see someone not liking cilantro, but I can't imagine it tasting like soap.

I love cilantro! But I am clearly a mutant

I might have known YOU would be one of those people!!

[williamsmith]

Have you ever been to the temple?

And?

The fact is that for the Last 42 years I've repeatedly heard well-meaning sacrament talks, Gospel Doctine lessons and testimonies where it was said that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was the comparitively less difficult part of his atoning sacrifice. Haven't you?

And? Of course it was "less difficult" in comparison. In Gethsemane he took upon him the sins of the world and bleed as sweat from every pore, and suffered in agony, so of course there would be an emphasis ever so slight between the two. But there is no on going around saying the cross was nothing. He died there.

If you have time, and if you so desire, read all my posts on this thread to get a complete picture of my thinking on this subject.

All the best ...

And what am I supposed to say to this, a second repeat at that?

I've addressed your points, and you also didn't respond to most of my corrections to your points, especially the main point that being the Evangelical belief that spurred this discussion. So, what else is needed? The entire argument is a straw-man that has been debunked, so what else do you need from us?

[KevinG]

We debate which part of the atonement was more painful...

We debate if works or faith is more important to salvation...

We debate if Mormons are Christian or not...

We debate which symbols are most appropriate to represent Christ...

,,,and the Devil laughs.

Edited October 3, 2012 by KevinG

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We debate which part of the atonement was more painful...

We debate if works or faith is more important to salvation...

We debate if Mormons are Christian or not...

We debate which symbols are most appropriate to represent Christ...

,,,and the Devil laughs.

He is raotflol

[urroner]

Personally, and completely IMOO (In My Own Opinion), I think that the suffering the cross caused him is nothing compared to the suffering he went through for our sins. Whether it started in the Garden or if it started on the cross or it started by the flogging he received from the Roman soldiers, it really doesn't matter.

Plenty of people died on crosses and the pain the cross caused them wouldn't be that much more than what Christ suffered due to the cross. IMOO, it doesn't matter how Christ died, on a cross, in an electric chair, being flayed alived, or some other way, his method of death didn't affect the Atonement and the suffering the Atonement caused.

So for those out there who insist that I have to believe that the major portion of the Atonement and Christ's suffering for the sins of the world started on the cross or started in the Garden, or whenever, it doesn't really matter now, does it!

Does believing when his suffering started affect my salvation in any way? Does our Father in Heaven and His Son really care one way or the other?

For all I care, Christ's suffering for sins could have started only after his statement that his Father had left him.

What really counts is not what mechanism caused him to die, but why he died and what he did before his death.

Also, I firmly and fully believe that the Resurrection of Christ was the greatest point of the Atonement. This is when I believe that the sons of God again shouted for joy, but I don't think the Resurrection is the finale of the Atonement. The Atonement is still ongoing. Our HF and Christ have done their parts, now we need to do our part.

An old and obsolete definition of "atone" is "to become reconciled; agree." I don't believe whether we think the symbol of the cross is or isn't important affects us in becoming reconciled with God and Christ. Christ simply said "If ye love me, keep my commandments." That is how we become reconciled with God and Christ. And we all should know what the two most important commandments are and if we followed those commandments, I tend to think of them a righteous principles and not rules, then everything will be fine in the end.

[williamsmith]

Amen Urroner.

LDS don't begrudge people for using the cross as a symbol of their faith, but anti's certainly begrudge our preference not to use it.

Ultimately, it's not what matters. The Atonement of Christ and our faith and obedience is what matters.

[teddyaware]

williamsmith said:

"And? Of course it was "less difficult" in comparison. In Gethsemane he took upon him the sins of the world and bleed as sweat from every pore, and suffered in agony, so of course there would be an emphasis ever so slight between the two. But there is no on going around saying the cross was nothing. He died there."

And so you are among those of whom I've been speaking about on this thread. You believe, apparently, that the physical, emotional and spiritual agonies Christ endured for us while on the cross of Calvary were less severe than his sufferings while in Gethsemane.

Apostle Bruce Mc Conkie just before his death taught:

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."

And so, in spite of my best efforts here, there are some of my fellow Latter Day Saints on this board who will continue to believe Christ's sufferings in Gethsemane were greater in magnitude than what he endured upon the cross, thereby unnecessarily alienating millions of of our fellow Christians. They will continue to believe this even though we are taught all the sufferings of Gethsemane recurred while he was on the cross. They will continue to believe even though his recurrent Gethsemanic agonies (abject spiritual death) while on the cross were compounded by the unspeakable physical torture of crucifixion and the merciless taunting of his human and spiritual enemies who gathered around to psychologically torment him.

By the way, I find your analysis on a more expanded meaning for ths symbolism of the cross of Christ to be excellent! You've added to my perspective on sacred things. Though I understood the concept before, you've expanded my understanding, for which I am grateful.

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[urroner]

Apostle Bruce Mc Conkie just before his death taught:

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."

Maybe the sufferings of what he endured on the cross is about the only type of pain that most people understand, the physical pain caused by something physical. Maybe that is why the cross is important for many, but having gone through severe depression, almost to the point of suicide, physical pain most of the time doesn't even begin to hold a candle to that type of depression and very few people understand that type of pain I went through.

Too many people when they attempt to describe the pain that Christ went through during the Atonement, only refer to the physical pain he suffered on the cross due to what the Romans had done to him and caused him to suffer. To me, that pain is nothing compared to the mental anguish he suffered while in the Garden and on the cross.

Thousands suffered death by crucifixion, were their physical pains crossed by being hung up on a cross any worse than those of Christ? I think people tend to focus too much on his suffering caused by being crucified and not focusing more on the mental anguish he suffered due to suffering for the sins of others, which I believe started in the Garden and ended on the cross.

Edited October 3, 2012 by urroner

[williamsmith]

Really don't see what the issue is? LDS don't go around saying that one was greater than the other. We simply say that the main moment when Christ suffered for the sins of the world was in Gethsemane, which is what the scriptures say to us. The only people making an issue is our critics because they believe it occurred on the cross, and everything is about the cross, cross cross cross.

As to McConkie, it may be true what he stated, but the scripture is clear that the suffering for the sins of the world part occurred in Gethsemane. I also don't know of any scripture that makes that claim either, so it's simply his opinion.

Other Christians are free to believe what they want, it doesn't change the fact that the Atonement happened, and it's something we ALL believe in.

[williamsmith]

Again well said Urroner. I've experienced the same, and nothing else compares. The emotional pain of the "sins of the world" which we know also manifested itself physically by blood from every poor would by simple logic be the greatest than the cross itself.

That of course doesn't discount the cross experience, and the death, etc., but you are so very right.

[teddyaware]

williamsmith said,

"As to McConkie, it may be true what he stated, but the scripture is clear that the suffering for the sins of the world part occurred in Gethsemane. I also don't know of any scripture that makes that claim either, so it's simply his opinion.

Other Christians are free to believe what they want, it doesn't change the fact that the Atonement happened, and it's something we ALL believe in."

When Christ was leaving the Garden of Gethsemane we read:

"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.

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?" John 18

So from the foregoing we see the bitter cup of suffering for that Christ embibed from while in the Garden was still filled to a measure with the awful judgements of God against sin and wickedness. The plain meaning of the Saviour's words here indicate there was still more to drink from the "cup of the wrath of God" or "cup of trembling." So when did the Lord fulfiill his Father's commandment to finish drinking bitter cup to the dregs if it wasn't sometime after he left Gethsemane? For according to the record, he never returned there again before his death.

So if it wasn't for sin, why do you think Christ continued to suffer so terribly after he left the precincts of the Garden. A couple more quotes for you to consider:

1. From Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." So it seems the Lord also suffered for our sins when he was scourged.

2.Elder James E. Talmage in Jesus the Christ reported: “It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death."

So if Apostle Talmadge is correct when he says that the Gethsemanic sufferings of Christ were intensified beyond what he experienced in the Garden while he hung in additional physical agony upon the cross -- what was he suffering for if it wasn't for sin? Where's the fairness? If the Lord had already finished his work in Gethsemane, for what reasoning requisite with the justice and mercy of God would the Father make the Son continue to suffer as if for sin, if the laws of justice had already been satisfied?

Edited October 3, 2012 by teddyaware

[urroner]

teddyaware, who is saying that all the suffering for the sins of the world happened only in the Garden and not at all on the cross? Who is saying that the suffering on the cross wasn't important or part of the Atonement? Please point out in this thread where anybody has said that and I will berate them.

[mfbukowski]

We debate which part of the atonement was more painful...

We debate if works or faith is more important to salvation...

We debate if Mormons are Christian or not...

We debate which symbols are most appropriate to represent Christ...

,,,and the Devil laughs.

yeah, but my atonement really IS cooler than your silly atonement!

[urroner]

yeah, but my atonement really IS cooler than your silly atonement!

But what rumors I have heard is that while your atonement might be cooler, the place you're headed for is a lot hotter. :diablo:

Just repeating the rumors I've heard from some really, really important people.