Looking For The Cross In All The Wrong Places

[Mike Reed]

Yep, but depicting the manner of execution does not mean we revere a symbol. Certain crosses had meanings other than the crucifixion. Methods of taking life were always part of the esoteric rituals. I find that not a very convincing argument for the assertion.

it isn't depicted. Is symbolically referenced and utilized. A sacred symbol of an instrument that killed Jesus, it is so sacred that we can't mention it here. Moreover, it actually is instrumental in advancing through the kingdoms of heaven. So what were u saying? Edited April 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[CASteinman]

the book makes the argument. Or rather, I make the argument in the book. You should read it.

I understand the argument. But you are missing my point.

A modern prophet -- the President --has declared something to be so. So is it problematic that he does not agree with you or that you do not agree with him?

That's the question.

Its actually rhetorical though. The answer is not related to what's true. Its related to what someone thinks.

[CASteinman]

Don't think it is.

Actually, though, if you think about it -- that would be an interesting thing to review-- what is the dominant literary symbol of the atonement? Is there something that dominates?

I rather think its could be the Blood in Gethsemane.

[Mike Reed]

I understand the argument. But you are missing my point.

A modern prophet -- the President --has declared something to be so. So is it problematic that he does not agree with you or that you do not agree with him?

That's the question.

neither, silly. It is problematic because it is illogical, as it conflicts with other acceptable aspects of Mormonism.

[Mike Reed]

Is there something that dominates?

I rather think its could be the Blood in Gethsemane.

oh brother.... This is ridiculous. Ok... Here we go. Make a list of literary symbolism of gethsemane in scripture, and I will do the same for the cross, and we will see whose list is longer.

[Stone holm]

Actually, though, if you think about it -- that would be an interesting thing to review-- what is the dominant literary symbol of the atonement? Is there something that dominates?

I rather think its could be the Blood in Gethsemane.

I would agree with that it has always been my understanding that the Atonement was primarily worked out in the Garden of Eden.

[CASteinman]

neither, silly. It is problematic because it is illogical, as it conflicts with other acceptable aspects of Mormonism.

The question was rhetorical. The answer displays what you believe. It does not display truth.

One example of this is that you believe I am silly. Enough that it is reasonable to call me that name. But its not true. I am not silly. Its just a belief you hold. Like the belief you hold that the prophet is illogical and wrong in what he is saying.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

oh brother.... This is ridiculous. Ok... Here we go. Make a list of literary symbolism of gethsemane in scripture, and I will do the same for the cross, and we will see whose list is longer.

I said I thought it would be interesting. I did not say I was interested in doing it! I have a headache!

But I would point out that the "literary" symbolism I was thinking about was extra scriptorial. Still I don't think the cross is particularly well attested to as a focus of the atonement even in scripture. Certainly in the accounts of his death it figures prominently, but the atonement -- not quite so much. Maybe in scripture it would be "Lamb".

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I said I thought it would be interesting. I did not say I was interested in doing it! I have a headache!

But I would point out that the "literary" symbolism I was thinking about was extra scriptorial. Still I don't think the cross is particularly well attested to as a focus of the atonement even in scripture. Certainly in the accounts of his death it figures prominently, but the atonement -- not quite so much. Maybe in scripture it would be "Lamb".

Possibly my literalism is getting the better of me, but the cross separated from Christ has never seemed to me to be much of a symbol at all in Mormonism unlike Protestantism, and putting Christ back up on the cross like the Catholics do with their crucifixes seems too idolatrous and places too much emphasis on a dying Christ rather than a living God. So looking for Cross references might be a good book gimmick , but doesn't seem to add much weight to the idea that Mormons revere the cross, but just don't know it yet. I think we don't normally make a big deal about a person wanting to wear one because its just not a big deal and perhaps we don't want to offend our recent political allies the Evangelicals who like to flash the cross wherever and whenever they can.

[Mike Reed]

The question was rhetorical. The answer displays what you believe. It does not display truth.

Sure it does... and I demonstrate it in my book. You should read it.

One example of this is that you believe I am silly.

Which you are being.

Enough that it is reasonable to call me that name. But its not true. I am not silly. Its just a belief you hold. Like the belief you hold that the prophet is illogical and wrong in what he is saying.

Yes... Prophet's can be illogical. Prophets are human and imperfect at times. That may make you all squirly and insecure inside, but most Mormon intellectuals that I've talked to don't seem to have a problem with that notion. And why? Because the evidence proves this to be the case, and they have come to terms with this aparrent fact.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[CASteinman]

Sure it does... and I demonstrate it in my book. You should read it.

Which you are being.

Yes... Prophet's can be illogical. Prophets are human and imperfect at times. That may make you all squirly and insecure inside, but most Mormon intellectuals that I've talked to don't seem to have a problem with that notion. And why? Because the evidence proves this to be the case, and they have come to terms with this aparrent fact.

Its all about what you believe.

The President of the Church has explained why the Church -- officially -- does not put crosses on their buildings. He is the authority. You are not. No matter how much you wish otherwise.

If he says "This is my reason", that is his reason. If he says "This is the reason the Church does it" then that is the reason the Church does it. Because he gets to say. That is who he is. This has nothing to do with your historical analysis.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Mike Reed]

I said I thought it would be interesting. I did not say I was interested in doing it! I have a headache!

Convenient. You would fail if you tried. And if anyone wants to pick up your slack, more power to them. But nobody in their right mind will take up this challenge. You know why? Because such a position fights a losing battle.

But I would point out that the "literary" symbolism I was thinking about was extra scriptorial.

Which isn't binding on LDS... so...

Still I don't think the cross is particularly well attested to as a focus of the atonement even in scripture.

If you read the scriptures, you might have a different view.

Certainly in the accounts of his death it figures prominently, but the atonement -- not quite so much. Maybe in scripture it would be "Lamb".

Have you read the new testament?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[CASteinman]

Convenient. You would fail if you tried. And if anyone wants to pick up your slack, more power to them. But nobody in their right mind will take up this challenge. You know why? Because such a position fights a losing battle.

Which isn't binding on LDS... so...

If you read the scriptures, you might have a different view.

Have you read the new testament?

You know... being insulting does not make you a superior person.

ETA: But I see you have edited the post to not be insulting and I appreciate that.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Mike Reed]

You know... being insulting does not make you a superior person.

Just a thought: How about you substantiate your position, rather than resort to the you-are-picking-on-me stance?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Tacenda]

Maybe you should spend time substantiating your position, rather than take the you-are-picking-on-me stance now.

Lets make a list. Ready?

<drum roll please>

Maybe you could start with yours. I'm interested to know them. I heard once that in the scriptures it tells that the cross is hugely significant, almost a "saving" significant. Like, we need to do what the bible says to do with the cross, importance! But being bible illiterate, I'd need back up.

[Mike Reed]

Its all about what you believe.

The President of the Church has explained why the Church -- officially -- does not put crosses on their buildings. He is the authority. You are not. No matter how much you wish otherwise.

Such statements have not been declared revelation, neither have they been canonized. Infallibility isn't a Mormon doctrine, btw. And yes... I am the authority when it comes the the history of the cross in Mormon culture.

This has nothing to do with your historical analysis.

Yes. His opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis. Agreed. Church authorities do not suddenly become historians when they are ordained.

[Mike Reed]

Maybe you could start with yours. I'm interested to know them. I heard once that in the scriptures it tells that the cross is hugely significant, almost a "saving" significant. Like, we need to do what the bible says to do with the cross, importance! But being bible illiterate, I'd need back up.

I'm not saying that we need to do what the bible says. Neither am I talking about saving. I am saying that the cross does have a prominent literary presence as a symbol for the atonement. Lets just start with one, ok? I could pull up many more... but I don't want to overwhelm CAsteinman. Galatians 6.14-18 Edited April 25, 2013 by Mike Reed

[CASteinman]

Just a thought: How about you substantiate your position, rather than resort to the you-are-picking-on-me stance?

What needs to be substantiated about the fact that the President of the Church is the President of the Church and says what the Church does?

[CASteinman]

Such statements have not been declared revelation, neither have they been canonized.

Pretty much irrelevant.

I am the authority when it comes the the history of the cross in Mormon culture.

Also irrelevant.

Yes. His opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis.

Its not his opinion. Its his declaration. You seem to be of the opinion that this is a matter of vote or history. But its not. He gets to say why the Church is not doing something.

You may provide some historical analysis of why you feel things were done in the past, but that is not the same thing.

He is not saying "Historically this is why we have not done it". He is saying "This is why we do not do it" -- present tense. He is the Chief Administrator of the organization.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Pretty much irrelevant.

Also irrelevant.

Its not his opinion. Its his declaration. You seem to be of the opinion that this is a matter of vote or history. But its not. He gets to say why the Church is not doing something.

You may provide some historical analysis of why you feel things were done in the past, but that is not the same thing.

He is not saying "Historically this is why we have not done it". He is saying "This is why we do not do it" -- present tense. He is the Chief Administrator of the organization.

Tend to agree with the reasoning here, but I believe the cross references have been taken out of context anyway so the historical analysis is flawed in any event.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I understand the argument. But you are missing my point.

A modern prophet -- the President --has declared something to be so. So is it problematic that he does not agree with you or that you do not agree with him?

That's the question.

Its actually rhetorical though. The answer is not related to what's true. Its related to what someone thinks.

Prophets are men, granted men of God. It is not a sin to have a cross. The scriptures tell us to "worship at the cross", we sing about it and remember it every Sunday. "Behold the Great Redeemer Die", "I Stand All Amazed".

[CASteinman]

Prophets are men, granted men of God. It is not a sin to have a cross.

I don't think anyone has said it was a sin. You seem to be implying that some prophet has declared it a sin and that he was wrong to do so.

The scriptures tell us to "worship at the cross",

That is a scripture that I am unfamiliar with. Which one is it?

we sing about it and remember it every Sunday. "Behold the Great Redeemer Die", "I Stand All Amazed".

I don't think the word "cross" appears in either of those hymns. The first hymn is not about the cross per se but about how the Savior suffered and died willingly "a broken law to satisfy". It describes His physical tortures, including the crucifixion but its not a song about the cross. The second hymn is also about His sacrifice with an emphasis on how He condescended to come down from on high to save us -- individually. Again, it is not about the cross.

[Stone holm]

I don't think anyone has said it was a sin. You seem to be implying that some prophet has declared it a sin and that he was wrong to do so.

That is a scripture that I am unfamiliar with. Which one is it?

I don't think the word "cross" appears in either of those hymns. The first hymn is not about the cross per se but about how the Savior suffered and died willingly "a broken law to satisfy". It describes His physical tortures, including the crucifixion but its not a song about the cross. The second hymn is also about His sacrifice with an emphasis on how He condescended to come down from on high to save us -- individually. Again, it is not about the cross.

I agree. CA you gotta quit doing this we are suppose to disagree on everything!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Possibly my literalism is getting the better of me, but the cross separated from Christ has never seemed to me to be much of a symbol at all in Mormonism unlike Protestantism, and putting Christ back up on the cross like the Catholics do with their crucifixes seems too idolatrous and places too much emphasis on a dying Christ rather than a living God. So looking for Cross references might be a good book gimmick , but doesn't seem to add much weight to the idea that Mormons revere the cross, but just don't know it yet. I think we don't normally make a big deal about a person wanting to wear one because its just not a big deal and perhaps we don't want to offend our recent political allies the Evangelicals who like to flash the cross wherever and whenever they can.

I don't think Mike was seeking a clever idea for a book, just doing as others do...seek to put forth an idea worthy of discussion. The point is, many LDS think wearing or having a cross is not kosher. But in the early history of our Church many did so and little was thought of it. We do not need it on our buildings to be Christian, we have a greater charge from Christ, to "pick up our crosses and follow him". According to Church teaching and in our Sunday School material for new members we are reminded that the Atonement began in Gethsemane and ended on the Cross. Most people have crosses in their homes, via "Christian doors" the most common in nice homes, they have the cross on top and the bottom is to symbolic of the open Bible. From what I understand the Temple in Rome was designed this way to make such a statement. I don't care if we don't have them on our buildings, but hope we have them in our hearts and minds. If they were to be put on every building or Temple, I would be OK with, just don't see it as necessary to show others we are Christian. What matters most is what is inside the building.

[CASteinman]

The point is, many LDS think wearing or having a cross is not kosher.

Doesn't seem like it would be, on reflection. I also think its a little bit disrespectful if you have been taught right.

But in the early history of our Church many did so and little was thought of it.

Yeah.. not so many.

If they were to be put on every building or Temple

I think that would be a mistake. Too crass.