Crosses In The New Friend Magazine

[3DOP]

some of us fundies in Utah were taught that in sunday school and seminary that crosses were evil. Our leaders would ask us, "would you where an emblum of a gun, or a guillotine around your neck?

 

I would wear a guillotine if Jesus said, "Take up your guillotine and follow me."

[ERayR]

Nobody said this was a problem.

 

Then why bring it up?  Your posts indicate to me you think there is a problem and you are trying to capitalize on the problem you perceive.

[ERayR]

some of us fundies in Utah were taught that in sunday school and seminary that crosses were evil. Our leaders would ask us, "would you where an emblum of a gun, or a guillotine around your neck?

 

I doubt that is what you were taught but then I only base this on the fact that in over six decades in various areas of the US I have never heard the cross described as evil.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, mola, why did you have to go and spoil it?

Sorry, I know what was going on in this thread . I did it because I like Mike, he is a nice guy and I think he has some interesting insights.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would wear a guillotine if Jesus said, "Take up your guillotine and follow me."

Ha, that is great.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I doubt that is what you were taught but then I only base this on the fact that in over six decades in various areas of the US I have never heard the cross described as evil.

What I had heard is that the cross represents death and why glorify the death when the resurrection is what is important.

 

Part of me thinks there may have been some animosity between us and Catholics that somethings might have been said back in the day (I am not sure when) and then it developed into this "The cross is evil" thing as our way to stick it to them. I mean really we wear a CTR ring. And that is a symbol. We wear garments. That is a symbol too. Every thing we do is a symbol it seems. I don't think the cross is bad at all. In fact one needs to recognize the symbol of the cross and what it stands for just as well as any of the other symbols that we recognize. The cross to me represents the physical sacrifice of the Savior. That physical sacrifice is part of the atonement. Any way carry on.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[canard78]

I doubt that is what you were taught but then I only base this on the fact that in over six decades in various areas of the US I have never heard the cross described as evil.

 

I've never been taught that crosses were evil but I've certainly heard the "machine gun" comparison several times from leaders justifying discouraging wearing a cross.

[MiserereNobis]

What I had heard is that the cross represents death and why glorify the death when the resurrection is what is important.

 

Part of me thinks there may have been some animosity between us and Catholics that somethings might have been said back in the day (I am not sure when) and then it developed into this "The cross is evil" thing as our way to stick it to them. I mean really we wear a CTR ring. And that is a symbol. We wear garments. That is a symbol too. Every thing we do is a symbol it seems. I don't think the cross is bad at all. In fact one needs to recognize the symbol of the cross and what it stands for just as well as any of the other symbols that we recognize. The cross to me represents the physical sacrifice of the Savior. That physical sacrifice is part of the atonement. Any way carry on.

 

Has anyone here been inside the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC?  I was travelling through Utah 2 summers ago and went to the Cathedral (and yes, I also toured, though briefly, Temple Square).  I noticed that there is a mural on the wall that might speak to the disagreements between the LDS church and the Catholic Church, especially in the past.  I found a picture of it on google image search:

 

 

I think the message to SLC Catholics was pretty clear, eh?

 

I'm sure it was a very tenous relationship between Catholic and Mormons early on, and perhaps this led to the vilification of the cross as a symbol.

 

Of course, I'd need to read Mike's book, but his attempt to sell me that book through this thread has kept me from buying it (ha, please read that as light-hearted)

 

[Mike Reed]

Has anyone here been inside the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC?  I was travelling through Utah 2 summers ago and went to the Cathedral (and yes, I also toured, though briefly, Temple Square).  I noticed that there is a mural on the wall that might speak to the disagreements between the LDS church and the Catholic Church, especially in the past.  I found a picture of it on google image search:

 

 

I think the message to SLC Catholics was pretty clear, eh?

 

I'm sure it was a very tenous relationship between Catholic and Mormons early on, and perhaps this led to the vilification of the cross as a symbol.

 

Of course, I'd need to read Mike's book, but his attempt to sell me that book through this thread has kept me from buying it (ha, please read that as light-hearted)

 

Thanks for posting that pic, MiserereNobis.  I was unaware of that passage being displayed in the Cathedral.  Fascinating!  

 

If you aren't sure about buying the book, you can read newspaper articles covering my research, book reviews, podcast interviews, and even watch a youtube video at the following fb group: https://www.facebook.com/BanishingTheCross

You can also preview the book on Amazon.

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone here been inside the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC?  I was travelling through Utah 2 summers ago and went to the Cathedral (and yes, I also toured, though briefly, Temple Square).  I noticed that there is a mural on the wall that might speak to the disagreements between the LDS church and the Catholic Church, especially in the past.  I found a picture of it on google image search:

 

 

I think the message to SLC Catholics was pretty clear, eh?

 

I'm sure it was a very tenous relationship between Catholic and Mormons early on, and perhaps this led to the vilification of the cross as a symbol.

 

Of course, I'd need to read Mike's book, but his attempt to sell me that book through this thread has kept me from buying it (ha, please read that as light-hearted)

 

I think a deeper reading of the Epistles would show that that is exactly what happened even while they were being written.

 

But of course you knew I would say that.       I think Paul knew well the Gospel According to Plato. 

Edited March 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

Like someone said before I wouldn't strain my brain by reading too much into Friend illustrations. They try to keep the pictures simple for the children. Perhaps the illustrator Katie McDee used to belong to an Evangelical church before converting and this is what came to mind when they asked her to draw a picture. No one else on the Friend staff would have thought anything more about it.

In fact she might not even be LDS. They may have just used her art work not knowing it was typical of Evangelical depictions. See the link.

http://www.katiemcdee.com/about.html

Edited March 22, 2014 by JAHS

[3DOP]

I think a deeper reading of the Epistles would show that that is exactly what happened even while they were being written.

 

But of course you knew I would say that.       I think Paul knew well the Gospel According to Plato. 

 

Do you consider Paul's epistles to be tainted by non-Christian philosophy? Or are you saying that he was able at exposing the errors of "the Gospel according to Plato."

[mfbukowski]

Do you consider Paul's epistles to be tainted by non-Christian philosophy? Or are you saying that he was able at exposing the errors of "the Gospel according to Plato."

No.

I think he knew the Gospel According to Plato was the "other" gospel which Paul foresaw  would be preached by authorities believed to be virtually "angelic".  So I find that quote in the cathedral quite ironic.

 

But my comment was not to you and I don't want to get into a discussion of the apostasy, especially not with Catholics.  I simply mentioned it to teddy because he understands my view of materialism, and I wanted to suggest to him that deviation from a theomorphic conception of God was at the root of the apostasy. 

 

Rory, you are a wonderful person and I do not want to offend you.  But I WILL stand up for what I think is right on this board.  And I think you are overly sensitive on these subjects.  There.  I said it.

 

I do not want to further derail this important discussion.

Edited March 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

No.

I think he knew the Gospel According to Plato was the "other" gospel which Paul foresaw  would be preached by authorities believed to be virtually "angelic".  So I find that quote in the cathedral quite ironic.

 

But my comment was not to you and I don't want to get into a discussion of the apostasy, especially not with Catholics.  I simply mentioned it to teddy because he understands my view of materialism, and I wanted to suggest to him that deviation from a theomorphic conception of God was at the root of the apostasy. 

 

Rory, you are a wonderful person and I do not want to offend you.  But I WILL stand up for what I think is right on this board.  And I think you are overly sensitive on these subjects.  There.  I said it.

 

I do not want to further derail this important discussion.

 

Hi Mark,

 

I just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly. Others here seem to be comfortable with opposing "Paul's Gospel" as though it is a corruption of "Jesus' Gospel". Since we are being candid, I wasn't trying to derail, just accumulating data, to file away for possible use in the future.

 

It is your perception that I am overly sensitive. Maybe you are right. I don't know. On this occasion, I wasn't trying to prompt any further discussion. There is no reason why the discussion of the Cross should be disrupted if anyone is inclined to continue.  

 

It seems to me like you are over sensitive when you talk about how sorry you are for offending when it seems to me like offense on my part would be misplaced. It embarrasses me to be perceived as being so easily offended. I think you should stop worrying about whether I am taking offense because if I am always taking offense, I would be in the wrong. But perhaps you should give consideration to how others perceive you as you interact with Catholics. 

 

Here is how I see it. You say something that I consider detrimental to Catholicism. I think I need to speak up. I can be passionate. I don't hide from people that I love my faith. I don't mind if it makes you look like the bad guy sometimes. That's your problem, not mine. My defensive posture is much easier to manage because I am talking about what I am and it creates sympathy. Whether its fair or not, it is much more difficult to go on the attack, criticising what somebody else believes without appearing to be the meany. If I frequently talked negatively about LDS teachings, I would appear to be the bad guy. Sometimes somebody else says something to you about your tactics. Just recently Yirgacheffe made the remarks about "Poke. Poke." Remember? I didn't say it. I didn't need to say anything. Yirgacheffe said what others were probably thinking. If anyone is taking offense, it is probably other people on my behalf, including a few LDS. That's not my fault nor does it mean I am taking offense personally. 

 

No hard feelings. You have my sincere regards,

 

Rory

Edited March 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[Tiki]

Your book looks interesting, Mike.  I've never really been intellectually persuaded by the reasons Mormons have given me why they don't use crosses -- it has always appeared to be more cultural than doctrinal/theological.  I can understand not using a crucifix, maybe because so many protestants don't.  I like all the symbolism surrounding the crucifix.  Not only does it denote the moment of the atonement (yes, I know we differ on this), but it also reminds me that I have to pick up MY cross and I have to be willing to be "crucified," that I have to allow my ego to die in order to attain salvation.

 

Is this something new -- to have crosses depicted in the children's magazine?  Or is it just unusual?

So why aren't you a member of the LDS Church?

Even Prophets in the Americas around 600 B.C. knew of the concept of "taking up His cross" and bearing the shame of the world.

Moses lifting up the brazen serpent so that all who looked upon it would live, is also a symbol of the cross.

Jacob 1:8

8 Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world; wherefore, I, Jacob, take it upon me to fulfil the commandment of my brother Nephi.

On a humorous note, the cross isn't displayed in our houses of worship probably due to copyright issues of using another roman's invention of an instrument of death. Litigation is expensive.

[Damien the Leper]

Gethsemane isn't where the Atonement happened. That is theologically incorrect. Bleeding from pores in the Garden does not imply such. It is at the Cross that the Atonement occurs and is then fulfilled by the empty tomb at the Resurrection.

[Damien the Leper]

It is a children's story.  I am not surprised the illustrator might be a bit squeamish about depicting an actual crucifixion.

 

See this is what drives me crazy. The crucifixion, more importantly the entire last week of Jesus' life, is and was violent. I'm so sick of all this politically correct nonsense and censorship that many churches have adopted. If the crucifixion and last week are portrayed as the amazing Son of God simply humbly giving his life out of love then I want no part of that. The violence of the last week of Jesus' life is a reality that we must accept from an early age. These inclusive language and softenly worded Bibles that are coming out are horrible.

[Tiki]

Gethsemane isn't where the Atonement happened. That is theologically incorrect. Bleeding from pores in the Garden does not imply such. It is at the Cross that the Atonement occurs and is then fulfilled by the empty tomb at the Resurrection.

Well, Christ is the Atonement. His life, He lived a perfect life, His teachings, His actions, His thoughts, He never sinned, so His was a pure sacrifice for us all. And both in the Garden and on the Cross He atoned. Recall when His Father withdrew His Spirit from Him and He cried out, while on the Cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.." recorded both by Matthew and Mark?

Thus He was completely alone for a time, even from His Father, so that he took upon himself the full weight of everyones sins, mistakes and infirmities.

[Damien the Leper]

Well, Christ is the Atonement. His life, He lived a perfect life, His teachings, His actions, His thoughts, He never sinned, so His was a pure sacrifice for us all. And both in the Garden and on the Cross He atoned. Recall when His Father withdrew His Spirit from Him and He cried out, while on the Cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.." recorded both by Matthew and Mark?

Thus He was completely alone for a time, even from His Father, so that he took upon himself the full weight of everyones sins, mistakes and infirmities.

 

This still does not detract from the fact that the Cross is the climax. The Atonement happened on the Cross and not in the Garden.

[teddyaware]

Well, Christ is the Atonement. His life, He lived a perfect life, His teachings, His actions, His thoughts, He never sinned, so His was a pure sacrifice for us all. And both in the Garden and on the Cross He atoned. Recall when His Father withdrew His Spirit from Him and He cried out, while on the Cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.." recorded both by Matthew and Mark?

Thus He was completely alone for a time, even from His Father, so that he took upon himself the full weight of everyones sins, mistakes and infirmities.

Hi Tiki,

I know what I'm about to say may raise some hackles, but I believe it's likely that the "atoning sacrifice in the Garden of Gethsemane and death only upon the cross" scenario that has become so popular in LDS thinking is an example of the teachings of men (in this instance propagated by some well-meaning individuals) being allowed to undermine a fundamental teaching of the Gospel of Christ. The following verse from the Doctrine and Covenants warns of this possibility:

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. (D&C 46)

 

It's sad to contemplate all the absolutely unnecessary bad press the Church has received over the years on account of this 'Atonement only in Gethsemane" notion. The Bible teaches time and again that the atonement took place upon the cross, so who can blame the anti-Mormons for gleefully making such useful cannon fodder out of this issue for so many the years?

 

It's very painful for me to remember a particular Easter Sunday sacrament meeting talk I heard some years ago, wherein a local Church leader said, "the suffering Christ endured while on the cross pales into insignificance when compared to the sufferings he endured in Gethsemane." I must have cringed as I heard those very well-intentioned but inaccurate words. Afterwards, I took Him aside and read the following from James E Talmage's "Jesus the Christ:"

At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? 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. (Jesus the Christ, pp.660-661)

Edited March 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tiki]

I think we're all in agreement. His suffering occured both in the Garden and on the Cross. Even before, if you include the flogging, the spitting upon, the mocking, the false trials before his leaders and people, the wagging tongues, mocking with the robe, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross through streets, i.e., paraded before everyone, a rejection of him by having a convicted murderer to be released in his place.

If the Climax of the Atonement was on the cross, meaning His Death, yes His Death came after He performed all that His Father allowed to happen to Him for His sacrifice to be accepted.

The Atonement can also include his foreordination to be Savior of the world, His creation both spiritually and physicallyof the Earth, His motal life, His death, His resurrection. Has he done anything but for the benefit of us?

[teddyaware]

I think we're all in agreement. His suffering occured both in the Garden and on the Cross. Even before, if you include the flogging, the spitting upon, the mocking, the false trials before his leaders and people, the wagging tongues, mocking with the robe, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross through streets, i.e., paraded before everyone, a rejection of him by having a convicted murderer to be released in his place.

If the Climax of the Atonement was on the cross, meaning His Death, yes His Death came after He performed all that His Father allowed to happen to Him for His sacrifice to be accepted.

The Atonement can also include his foreordination to be Savior of the world, His creation both spiritually and physicallyof the Earth, His motal life, His death, His resurrection. Has he done anything but for the benefit of us?

I concur. And I'll let you in on a little secret, I believe He still suffers even now when we sin.

[mfbukowski]

Others here seem to be comfortable with opposing "Paul's Gospel" as though it is a corruption of "Jesus' Gospel".

Hmmm- where was that? Here? Don't take this as a CFR or anything- I just don't recall anyone saying that is what that verse meant. To me, a perfect refutation is that WE Mormons are the ones who are preaching Paul's gospel-

But regarding "poking" - quite honestly I have no problem "poking" people and expect to be poked back, but it seldom happens.

I could definitely be more tactful and need to work on that in a big way, just for purposes of communication.

On the other hand, I am here to make people think- that is my goal- not to make friends. I really hope I do not offend others- I don't want that, but I DO want to make people think, and if that makes them squirm a little, that's fine with me. I am convinced that if people think things through they will understand the truth of Mormonism, and that we have nothing to worry about at all from ANYONE else's intellectual position.

As a people we have been too worried about telling the world what we believe and have beaten around the bush. We have no reason to do that. It is my personal belief that we are members of a church, a community, and lifestyle which is THE best way for human beings to live, believe, and act, and I believe I can show that to anyone willing to listen. Some may see it as arrogant, but it is not.

If I had created Mormonism, it might be, but I think God did, and standing up for him cannot possibly be "arrogant" since I do not see it as "my" position I am defending, but His, at least as near as we silly humans can see it. So Ahab and I have something in common after all

But the difference is that I am only dogmatic about relativism, as you have pointed out. But at least I know that my dogmatism is only relatively true, unlike others. Standing up for a position is important.

The only thing Plato has in common with Wittgenstein is the use of the Socratic method- discussion and "theraputic" questioning, and that is what I am trying to do: to help others think clearly. If you want to make an omelette, you gotta crack a few eggs.

But I am glad I have not offended you and will stop worrying about it.

[mfbukowski]

This still does not detract from the fact that the Cross is the climax. The Atonement happened on the Cross and not in the Garden.

....tap tap.... tap tap...

Hmmm- my "Atonement Detecto-Meter Compass" seems to disagree with yours- mine is pointing straight at the Garden.

My point is that there is no objective way of determining the truth of this- it was all one process- so I am suggesting that arguing about it is non-productive.

What is important is that without the Atonement we would all be lost. The details don't matter.

[Bernard Gui]

I would wear a guillotine if Jesus said, "Take up your guillotine and follow me."

Why?