Banishing The Cross: The Emergence Of A Mormon Taboo

[Storm Rider]

Interesting! I noticed that the Blessed Virgin Mary is dressed in Her traditional blue. I also checked out the painter -- according to the omniscient wikipedia, he was a 7th Day Adventist.

A LDS Church admiring the artwork of a...7th Day Adventist??? God forbid; tear it off the walls, call in the Danites to remove the scurge of tolerant admiration of beauty, repaint everything with blue to a more neutral white.

You are hearing the negative too much; even your humor has become rusty with the strain of intolerance. There is no need to follow their example or you have become as they are.

[MiserereNobis]

Hi there MiserereNobis! I've read your posts on here and know you to be a man of good will, so it's my pleasure to respond.

Thanks!

I'm sure there are a few in the know Latter Day Saints on this board who read my previous post on this thread and then your response to the same who chuckled to themselves as they wondered how in the world I could explain to a non-member how it was possible for yours truly to make such a shockingly bold assertion without, as they say, "spilling the beans." To be perfectly honest, my good man, with regard to my startling declaration, you are unfortuately on the outside looking into something that was actually intended for the eyes of experienced and knowledgeable LDS insiders only.

I can understand your point-of-view here. Obviously there is something taught in the temple that relates to the Crucifixion and I of course wouldn't ask you to divulge any such thing. However, my issue was not whether or not the LDS church places focus on the Crucifixion; my issue was with your claim that you place greater focus on the Crucifixion than any other Christian church, without even a close second. Hopefully you can see that from my point-of-view, Catholic as it is, that is a rather bold claim, since the Crucifixion lies at the heart and soul of Catholicism (for which we are criticized, by both LDS and protestants). The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for example, is rightly called a "sacrifice" because it is partaking, re-presenting, the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Crucifix. The Crucifixion is the center of the Mass, and this occurs daily (and sometimes multiple times daily) in almost every Catholic church in the world. Everywhere you turn you will see a crucifix in Catholicism. Every Catholic house has a crucifix. The salvation of the world is focused on the crucifix, and on the crucifix alone.

So, while I do not know the specifics, it still seems hard to believe that a temple ceremony can trump the focus that Catholicism has on the Cross and the Crucifixion, especially since, as you point out, the average LDS member doesn't believe the Crucifixion to be all that important. Ask the average Catholic member about the Crucifixion, and you'll find out that it is the most important event in the history of the mankind.

This is all I can say to you on the matter because I'm treading on sacred ground. But I tell you what -- gain a testimomy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for yourself and be baptized and then in fairly short order you too can find out that all I set forth in my previous post is verily true.

Well now, that's a long order of things for me to do in order to believe your argument

All the best to you and yours, Ted

God bless you! Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Just for the record, Miserere, I know what he is talking about and endorse what he is saying here. Let's just say that the most sacred of the temple ordinances relate directly to the crucifixion. I pushed it farther than he did, and I think that is about as far as I am comfortable taking it.

Hi mfb! Would it be too much to tell me which ordinance? Endowment? Sealing? If it's too much to say which, I of course understand. Thanks!

[MiserereNobis]

A LDS Church admiring the artwork of a...7th Day Adventist??? God forbid; tear it off the walls, call in the Danites to remove the scurge of tolerant admiration of beauty, repaint everything with blue to a more neutral white.

You are hearing the negative too much; even your humor has become rusty with the strain of intolerance. There is no need to follow their example or you have become as they are.

Hmmm. I wasn't trying to be funny, just pointing out something interesting, especially as concerns the Blessed Virgin Mary wearing blue. Actually, coming from a Catholic, you should see that as a compliment Way to go LDS church, for honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary in her traditional color, especially since many non-liturgical Christians leave that out entirely

I think you totally misread the purpose of my post, storm rider. It was not a criticism.

(and I'm not quite sure whose example you think I am following?)

[Mike Reed]

Hi mfb! Would it be too much to tell me which ordinance? Endowment? Sealing? If it's too much to say which, I of course understand. Thanks!

Out of respect for the forum's rules, I can't be explicit, but consider Isaiah 22:23. Moreover, according to some sources, the 4th sign of the endowment was once called "crucifixion" (this was not the sacred name associated with it, so hopefully moderators are ok with me sharing this interesting little detail).

[Senator]

So, while I do not know the specifics, it still seems hard to believe that a temple ceremony can trump the focus that Catholicism has on the Cross and the Crucifixion, especially since, as you point out, the average LDS member doesn't believe the Crucifixion to be all that important. Ask the average Catholic member about the Crucifixion, and you'll find out that it is the most important event in the history of the mankind.

As a temple going member, I agree with you, the claim was a bit gushing.

[Mark Beesley]

The frustrations I've had to deal with while listening to these inexplicably uninformed people have left me mystified for many years. I was a greenhorn member of the Chuch of only five years when I got married in the Washington DC Temple in 1975, and ever since then I've known the truth on this subject. I think the main reason why many Latter Day Saints are ignorant of the overriding importance of the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion to our worship and theology can be ascribed to the phenomenon described by the Saviour when he said, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

This is all I can say to you on the matter because I'm treading on sacred ground. But I tell you what -- gain a testimomy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for yourself and be baptized and then in fairly short order you too can find out that all I set forth in my previous post is verily true. Whether or not there will ever come a time on this earth when the general body of the Latter Day Saints will become aware of the irrefutable truths on this matter, I do not know. I sincerely apologize for any frustrations you may experience as a result of my having of necessity to remain cryptic on this subject. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply "kept my mouth shut" in the first place.

Asserting that one is somehow "in the know" about something special that the general membership of the Church "just doesn't get" is dangerous ground to be treading. Beware of pride.

[teddyaware]

I can understand your point-of-view here. Obviously there is something taught in the temple that relates to the Crucifixion and I of course wouldn't ask you to divulge any such thing. However, my issue was not whether or not the LDS church places focus on the Crucifixion; my issue was with your claim that you place greater focus on the Crucifixion than any other Christian church, without even a close second. Hopefully you can see that from my point-of-view, Catholic as it is, that is a rather bold claim, since the Crucifixion lies at the heart and soul of Catholicism (for which we are criticized, by both LDS and protestants). The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for example, is rightly called a "sacrifice" because it is partaking, re-presenting, the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Crucifix. The Crucifixion is the center of the Mass, and this occurs daily (and sometimes multiple times daily) in almost every Catholic church in the world. Everywhere you turn you will see a crucifix in Catholicism. Every Catholic house has a crucifix. The salvation of the world is focused on the crucifix, and on the crucifix alone.

Hello again! I live in New Jersey, close to NYC, and I'm home from work because of a rather nasty "girl" named Sandy. My area was not hit too badly, but some areas nearby are suffering in the sad aftermath of the storm. I'm sure the Latter Day Saint congregations in this area will be mobilized (as they were when Hurricane Irene passed through) to respond the disaster. My heart and willing hands go out to those who's lives have been so suddenly turned upside down.

Now, my friend, upon reflection I must confess I was really only speaking for myself and on behalf of a few informed LDS family members and friends who have "seen the light" on this subject. And believe me, once a Latter Day Saint awakens from the slumber of ignorance on this point, there's no way he or she could ever go back to the old, worn out ways of thinking about the crucifixion of Christ. As for the reasons why so many Latter Day Saints remain ignorant when they are so frequently given such palpable and profound presentations of spiritual truth is mostly beyond me. The only answer I might venture to offer you is that in the wisdom of God, he wants things to be as they are because of the extremely sacred nature of these advanced gospel doctrines, teachings the Apostle Paul refers to as "the mysteries of godliness."

In reality, there seems to be little justifiable excuse for the ignorance of many Latter Day Saints when it comes to their not fully appreciating the eternal weight of salvative importance God has placed upon the symbolism of the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ. Yet, I have great faith the blessed day will come when all faithful Latter Day Saints will have the eyes of their understandings opened to the great salvational truths and realities that issue forth to the world of men from Calvary's hill. Yes, I cannot help but have a sure hope my brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel will eventually, by revelation, come to acknowledge the blessings that flow when one comes to comprehend the full extent of the infinite sufferings endured and eternal learning experiences gained, for our benefit, by the Saviour of the world as he hung upon the cross.

So I stand corrected. What I should have said is, "... because of what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches its members, I and some of my Latter Day Saint family and friends place at least as much salvative and symbolic importance on the crucifixion of Christ as do the faithful adherents of any other Christian religion." Please forgive me and understand, my use of "gushing," hyperbolic language is part and parcel of my aforementioned pent-up frustrations.

Thank you for sharing your great love for and deep appreciation of the sufferings of the Saviour of the world...

All the best, Ted

[Mark Beesley]

Interesting! I noticed that the Blessed Virgin Mary is dressed in Her traditional blue. I also checked out the painter -- according to the omniscient wikipedia, he was a 7th Day Adventist.

The Church has always been rather ecumenical with regard to works of art (paintings, music, etc.) that it incorporates into worship.

It's just your quirky theologies we struggle with.

[MiserereNobis]

The Church has always been rather ecumenical with regard to works of art (paintings, music, etc.) that it incorporates into worship.

It's just your quirky theologies we struggle with.

Ha!

[Mark Beesley]

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply "kept my mouth shut" in the first place.

And having read your most recent post on the subject, I am reminded of the following tune from Alice in Wonderland:

I often give myself very good advice but I very seldom follow it.

[MiserereNobis]

Hello again! I live in New Jersey, close to NYC, and I'm home from work because of a rather nasty "girl" named Sandy. My area was not hit too badly, but some areas nearby are suffering in the sad aftermath of the storm. I'm sure the Latter Day Saint congregations in this area will be mobilized (as they were when Hurricane Irene passed through) to respond the disaster. My heart and willing hands go out to those who's lives have been so suddenly turned upside down.

And for those of us far away, our prayers go out to you.

So I stand corrected. What I should have said is, "... because of what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches its members, I and some of my Latter Day Saint family and friends place at least as much salvative and symbolic importance on the crucifixion of Christ as do the faithful adherents of any other Christian religion." Please forgive me and understand, my use of "gushing," hyperbolic language is part and parcel of my aforementioned pent-up frustrations.

No need to ask for forgiveness. Thanks for the clarification of your views!

Thank you for sharing your great love for and deep appreciation of the sufferings of the Saviour of the world...

And thanks to you, too, for sharing your thoughts. He is the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. What divine love! May He have mercy on us all.

[teddyaware]

Asserting that one is somehow "in the know" about something special that the general membership of the Church "just doesn't get" is dangerous ground to be treading. Beware of pride.

The people "in the know" I was referring to are seasoned and knowledgeable temple attendees who are aware of the fact that the symbolism of the crucifixion of Christ should be held most sacred by the Latter Day Saints.

I've been carrying on here as I have because the unjustifiable ignorance many Latter Day Saints display on the sacredness of the symbolism of the crucifixion of Christ has been the cause of absolutely unnecessary alienation of many non-LDS Christians to the Restored Gospel. Non-members point to the Latter Day Saints' supposed lack of appreciation for the symbolism of the cross and crucifixion of Christ as prima facie evidence that we are not true Christians. All they have to do quote Paul, who in his epistle to the Galatians he said, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." They can then say to those who are investigating the Restored Church, "See, there's all the evidence anyone should need to know the "Mormons" don't believe in the God of the Bible; because unlike Paul, who gave supreme reverential respect to the symbolism of the cross of Christ, the Latter Day Saints, by their own admission, minimize the importance of the symbolism of the cross of Christ."

The sad part about all of the unnecessary alienation is that if many Latter Day Saints were paying attention, instead of there being enmity on this point of doctrine, there might exist comity, agreement and (at least on this issue) mutual respect.

In any case, Mark, I think you're quite justified in warning me of pride, as I'm beginning to feel like the proverbial "ark steadier." So I leave this thread as is, as saying anymore than I already have will likely be counterproductive. Thanks for your wise counsel.

All the best, Ted

Edited October 30, 2012 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

As a temple going member, I agree with you, the claim was a bit gushing.

I presume that is a pun?

[mfbukowski]

Asserting that one is somehow "in the know" about something special that the general membership of the Church "just doesn't get" is dangerous ground to be treading. Beware of pride.

On the other hand, he happens to be right. But in my opinion that has little to do with pride. We all have our talents. If I can play the saxophone and you can't does that mean I have "pride" in the simple fact that I can play the saxophone?

If I have studied German and you have not, does that mean that I necessarily have pride because I know German and you don't?

If I have studied the temple ordinances and you have not, does that mean I have pride because I have studied what you have not studied?

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfb! Would it be too much to tell me which ordinance? Endowment? Sealing? If it's too much to say which, I of course understand. Thanks!

By implication, it is in all of them.

Even if we gave specifics, I don't think it would help. Looks like Mike has given you some idea, but even with that, when you look it up, you will not understand the context. The words are not that important- the context and milieu and understanding the true nature of what lies behind the words is everything.

For the LDS here I guess we need to realize that speaking about sacred things just drives people to anti-mormon sites for information. I am as guilty as anyone, so I am not excluding myself from that.

Looking it up and reading the words would be like having a Protestant dining critic comment on the flavor and texture of the Eucharist as if that was all that was there- I think that may be an apt analogy.

[MiserereNobis]

By implication, it is in all of them.

Even if we gave specifics, I don't think it would help. Looks like Mike has given you some idea, but even with that, when you look it up, you will not understand the context. The words are not that important- the context and milieu and understanding the true nature of what lies behind the words is everything.

For the LDS here I guess we need to realize that speaking about sacred things just drives people to anti-mormon sites for information. I am as guilty as anyone, so I am not excluding myself from that.

Looking it up and reading the words would be like having a Protestant dining critic comment on the flavor and texture of the Eucharist as if that was all that was there- I think that may be an apt analogy.

Got it. In other words, faith informs much

[mfbukowski]

Got it. In other words, faith informs much

Kind of, but not exactly.

It's more like those who are deeply involved in a culture or language see a whole lot more nuances than those who are not.

A word is a nexus of meanings, innuendos, connotations, implications stretching almost to infinity. To really understand an abstract word you really need to nearly understand the entire language.

Have you ever used google translator? I rest my case!

We often use the phrase "becoming saviors on Mt. Zion". Perhaps that will help.

Obadiah 1:21- King James

"And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S"

Now there is a reference that I bet you did not expect in this discussion. That is what I mean by a nexus of nuances.

Edited October 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Kind of, but not exactly.

It's more like those who are deeply involved in a culture or language see a whole lot more nuances than those who are not.

A word is a nexus of meanings, innuendos, connotations, implications stretching almost to infinity. To really understand an abstract word you really need to nearly understand the entire language.

Certainly. I can use the traditional Latin Mass as my own personal example. There is so much going on there that many people miss because they are not immersed in the ritual and the theology. I can easily imagine the LDS temple ceremonies having such depth (as any good ritual will).

Have you ever used google translator? I rest my case!

We often use the phrase "becoming saviors on Mt. Zion". Perhaps that will help.

I plugged "becoming saviors on Mt. Zion" in google translator and got: decet salvatores, super Matth. Sion

Ha!

[mfbukowski]

I plugged "becoming saviors on Mt. Zion" in google translator and got: decet salvatores, super Matth. Sion

Ha!

Say WHAT?

I edited that and added a Bible verse- check out the new edit.

[MiserereNobis]

Say WHAT?

I edited that and added a Bible verse- check out the new edit.

Good example. And I love the phrase "nexus of nuances."

[mfbukowski]

Good example. And I love the phrase "nexus of nuances."

Yeah, I think I will use that one myself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Congrats Mike that is great.

[swfarnsworth]

Ask the average Catholic member about the Crucifixion, and you'll find out that it is the most important event in the history of the mankind.

If you ask a Mormon the same question about the Atonement, they would give the same answer.

Certainly. I can use the traditional Latin Mass as my own personal example. There is so much going on there that many people miss because they are not immersed in the ritual and the theology. I can easily imagine the LDS temple ceremonies having such depth (as any good ritual will).

My mother was raised Catholic (post-Vatican 2), and her mother still practices the faith. Years ago, while the two of them were preparing a meal, my grandmother (who isn't entirely over the whole "Mormon" thing, but has at least stopped bribing my mother with new cars to come back) was talking to my mother about the depth of the Mass. Several hours later, when my mom and I were alone, she complained to me about how she hardly understood the Mass as a kid and still thought that the Catholic Church would do well to remove what she thinks makes the whole ceremony less comprehensible/relevant to the common man. She then began to retract that idea as she remembered the symbolism of the Endowment.

I suppose that the changes made at Vatican 2 were in part an attempt to balance universal intelligibility with deep meaning, as the Catholic Church has a single ceremony to cover both of these.

As a side note, do you know where I can find a side-by-side comparison of the new, old, and Latin translations of the Mass? I remember seeing one in a newspaper and made notes of where I thought the new translation could have better reflected the Latin, but I returned that paper to its owner for whom I made the notes.

[MiserereNobis]

If you ask a Mormon the same question about the Atonement, they would give the same answer.

I don't doubt that at all, if we asked about the atonement, but the question was about the Crucifixion.

My mother was raised Catholic (post-Vatican 2), and her mother still practices the faith. Years ago, while the two of them were preparing a meal, my grandmother (who isn't entirely over the whole "Mormon" thing, but has at least stopped bribing my mother with new cars to come back) was talking to my mother about the depth of the Mass. Several hours later, when my mom and I were alone, she complained to me about how she hardly understood the Mass as a kid and still thought that the Catholic Church would do well to remove what she thinks makes the whole ceremony less comprehensible/relevant to the common man. She then began to retract that idea as she remembered the symbolism of the Endowment.

I suppose that the changes made at Vatican 2 were in part an attempt to balance universal intelligibility with deep meaning, as the Catholic Church has a single ceremony to cover both of these.

Interesting story and good observation. I am firmly committed to the traditional Latin Mass. I think the pendulum swung way to far with the idea of universal intelligibility and ended up dumbing everything down instead. Universal dumbability Instead of lowering the Mass, we should better catechize the congregation and raise them up to the Mass.

As a side note, do you know where I can find a side-by-side comparison of the new, old, and Latin translations of the Mass? I remember seeing one in a newspaper and made notes of where I thought the new translation could have better reflected the Latin, but I returned that paper to its owner for whom I made the notes.

There might be a site that has it all, but I didn't find it after a quick search. Here are multiple sites to help you out:

New Translation/Old Translation (no Latin -- scroll down a bit for side-by-side of main changes)

Old Translation/Latin (side-by-side old translation and new Mass in Latin)

Traditional Latin Mass (traditional Latin Mass and English side-by-side)

Hopefully between those sites you can find something of interest. Feel free to ask me any questions

[mfbukowski]

I don't doubt that at all, if we asked about the atonement, but the question was about the Crucifixion.

Interesting story and good observation. I am firmly committed to the traditional Latin Mass. I think the pendulum swung way to far with the idea of universal intelligibility and ended up dumbing everything down instead. Universal dumbability Instead of lowering the Mass, we should better catechize the congregation and raise them up to the Mass.

There might be a site that has it all, but I didn't find it after a quick search. Here are multiple sites to help you out:

New Translation/Old Translation (no Latin -- scroll down a bit for side-by-side of main changes)

Old Translation/Latin (side-by-side old translation and new Mass in Latin)

Traditional Latin Mass (traditional Latin Mass and English side-by-side)

Hopefully between those sites you can find something of interest. Feel free to ask me any questions

As a kid, I served (for the Mormons- that means I was a Catholic "altar boy" who assisted the priest move things around etc during Mass) Mass every Sunday and several daily masses every week, completely in Latin, the pre-Vatican II Priest-with-his-back-to-the-people High and Low Mass, the choir chanted in Gregorian chant and I must admit it was pretty cool!

But then everything changed and all that I loved went away. And then I started wondering about the theology of it all- as a kid I did not understand much of that, but the questions remained, and here I am today. Who knows- if there was never a Vatican II I might have majored in accounting or something useful and still have been Catholic.

But no! Vatican II actually got me thinking.

That just shows what a dangerous thing it was!