frank_jessop Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Thoughts?I do not understand why so many rail you or berate you for your observation. I have reviewed the April issue of Friend from 2004 - 2014. Only the 2014 issue has a depiction of the 3 crosses (without bodies). Issue in 2013 and 2012 did not have depictions of crosses or crucifixion. Issue for years 2004 - 2009 had depictions of Christ on the Cross ranging from crops of same painting to a child's drawing. That the 3 crosses (I usually see three crosses, as depicted in the Friend, on the back windows of pickup trucks or other vehicles) is significant. The LDS just need to accept that we have been taught an aversion to the Cross. And we need to accept the significance of the depiction in the 2014 April Friend.
rodheadlee Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 ''The LDS just need to accept that we have been taught an aversion to the Cross. And we need to accept the significance of the depiction in the 2014 April Friend.'' I suspect it's a Utah bic thing. I have never been taught an aversion to the cross. 2
Vance Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) 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.I was thinking that the atonement was a process and not an event. To me the process began in the councils in heaven before the world was. And came to a conclusion when "all power" was given to Jesus, as mentioned in Matt 28:18. It may not be unreasonable to see the crucifixion as the climax, but I don't. I see the resurrection (an event) as the climax of the process. Edited March 23, 2014 by Vance 3
Vance Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 On the other hand, I am here to make people think- that is my goal- not to make friends.Well, intended or not, you have made me your friend. 3
Tacenda Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Wearing a very discrete cross to church today, thanks to the crosses in the Friend. I just want to avoid a neighbor friend that does have an aversion to the cross. Wish me luck, nervous as heck. Edited March 23, 2014 by Tacenda 1
oremites Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 The LDS just need to accept that we have been taught an aversion to the Cross. And we need to accept the significance of the depiction in the 2014 April Friend. I disagree that we have an "aversion" to the Cross. We certainly understand what the Cross symbolizes and use that symbol when appropriate. We just haven't been taught to have any special reverence to the symbol of the Cross. I'm willing to do any experiment, though. I know many people in my Ward whose families get the Friend. I'll ask some of them to look at the issue and tell me if they see anything unusual. If we have been taught an "aversion" then they would certainly find it odd that the church would put that in a children's magazine (of all things). If there's no particular aversion, then they won't even notice anything unusual. 4
3DOP Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Why?I was making a joke. I don't wear a crucifix, so I probably would not wear a guillotine. My point was that Jesus chose to make His Cross a symbolic focal point and it seems reasonable that Christians wishing to identify with Him, would use that symbol to signify how they are trying to emulate the One who died that way. 2
pogi Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I disagree that we have an "aversion" to the Cross. We certainly understand what the Cross symbolizes and use that symbol when appropriate. We just haven't been taught to have any special reverence to the symbol of the Cross. I think that Tacenda's anxiety over wearing a discrete cross to church speaks volumes. I don't blame her, I would feel terribly uncomfortable for wearing a cross to church. If there is no aversion, what exactly is it? How do you explain the taboo nature of the cross within the church? David O McKay said that crosses were "purely Catholic and Latter-Day Saint girls should not purchase and wear them." Gordon B. Hinckley said this about the cross: "For us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ." These kind of statements have fostered a sort of aversion, or at the least, have made it very taboo.
Tacenda Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I think that Tacenda's anxiety over wearing a discrete cross to church speaks volumes. I don't blame her, I would feel terribly uncomfortable for wearing a cross to church. If there is no aversion, what exactly is it? How do you explain the taboo nature of the cross within the church?David O McKay said that crosses were "purely Catholic and Latter-Day Saint girls should not purchase and wear them."Gordon B. Hinckley said this about the cross: "For us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ."These kind of statements have fostered a sort of aversion, or at the least, have made it very taboo.I only made it through some of church. The little boy that is Special Needs that I help didn't come today. I could have gone to RS but didn't want to brave wearing the cross. I'm chicken but also don't feel comfortable even while not wearing the cross going to class with adults, too use to Primary. I'm pretty sure wearing a cross isn't all that big of deal in other parts of the world though. Yes, I grew up with the thought that it's like wearing a weapon around my neck.
frank_jessop Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I disagree that we have an "aversion" to the Cross. We certainly understand what the Cross symbolizes and use that symbol when appropriate. We just haven't been taught to have any special reverence to the symbol of the Cross.I'm willing to do any experiment, though. I know many people in my Ward whose families get the Friend.I'll ask some of them to look at the issue and tell me if they see anything unusual. If we have been taught an "aversion" then they would certainly find it odd that the church would put that in a children's magazine (of all things). If there's no particular aversion, then they won't even notice anything unusual.Your experiment is flawed, and is designed to get the response you want. How about one or all of the following. First read to your friends the following statement from the New Era 1996 "We do not use the cross as a symbol on our chapels, temples, or on our scriptures or in jewelry."Then give each friend a piece of jewerly which depicts a cross. Document their reaction and report.ORYou print out (your choice) on 8x11 a depiction of the images of 3 crosses on hill. Have it framed and give it to your LDS "friends". Document their reactions and if they hang the picture on the wall.Lastly, Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley: "But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”vsFriend 2014: It shouldn't be hard to sit very still And think about Jesus, His cross on a hill, And all that He suffered and did for me;So we don't use the Cross because it reminds us of His death, but the Cross is being used to inspire and guide our thoughts to Christ suffering, death, and all that it did for us? how about we just admit that the depiction of the 3 empty crosses in a LDS Magazine is significant. Unless you are willing to show where such 3 empty crosses have been emphasized before. Edited March 23, 2014 by frank_jessop
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Well, intended or not, you have made me your friend. Well you are the exception. We seem to be on the same wavelength practically every single time. It's kind of spooky actually!
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I think that Tacenda's anxiety over wearing a discrete cross to church speaks volumes. I don't blame her, I would feel terribly uncomfortable for wearing a cross to church. If there is no aversion, what exactly is it? How do you explain the taboo nature of the cross within the church? David O McKay said that crosses were "purely Catholic and Latter-Day Saint girls should not purchase and wear them." Gordon B. Hinckley said this about the cross: "For us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ." These kind of statements have fostered a sort of aversion, or at the least, have made it very taboo.You absolutely MUST read Mike's book.
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I'm pretty sure wearing a cross isn't all that big of deal in other parts of the world though. Yes, I grew up with the thought that it's like wearing a weapon around my neck.And that is the source of your problem. We have a lot of former Catholics in my Ward- probably 30% of my Ward are former Catholics who are Hispanic. They often wear crosses and nobody cares. 2
Tacenda Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 And that is the source of your problem.We have a lot of former Catholics in my Ward- probably 30% of my Ward are former Catholics who are Hispanic. They often wear crosses and nobody cares.Not going to happen in my neck of the woods. You practically live on a different planet comparably.
Pepcigirl Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) It was never revelation that the LDS church and members shouldn't wear or use the cross.David O McKay was the instigator of the no cross teaching because of his anti-Catholic views: ".. after establishing a policy that discouraged LDS girls from wearing crosses, because "this was a Catholic form of worship".. (David O McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism, the University of Utah Press, 2005 Page 121). "Two years after becoming president in 1953, McKay pointed to a Catholic church in California and commented: "There are two great anti-Christs in the world: Communism and that church."In 1957, McKay established the LDS Church's no-cross protocol, saying it was not proper for LDS girls to wear it on their jewelry, saying the cross is "purely Catholic. ... Our worship should be in our hearts."Though McKay later tempered his comments about Catholicism, his opposition to the cross became church policy." (Mormon Chronicles: http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/mormons-cross.html) Edited March 23, 2014 by Pepcigirl 1
Mark Beesley Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Thoughts?My thoughts? It can be really, really, really hard for an 8-year old to sit quietly when he's got a younger sister and brother on either side of him poking him, and grandpa is 3 feet away playing angry birds, and mom has just escorted the 2-year old to the lobby. So, I found the lyrics naive and silly. Beyond that, for anyone looking for a doctrinal or policy shift in the Church based on a cartoon drawing in a magazine directed to Sunbeams . . . that is silly too. 1
Mark Beesley Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 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.You are incorrect in any attempt to place the atonement. Gethsemane was an integral event in the process, as was the scourging, the crucifixion and the resurrection, culminating in Christ's ascension into heaven with the promise of a glorious return.
ERayR Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 And that is the source of your problem.We have a lot of former Catholics in my Ward- probably 30% of my Ward are former Catholics who are Hispanic. They often wear crosses and nobody cares. I don't think anybody in my ward really notices jewelry unless it is big diamond about the size of a hen's egg.
Damien the Leper Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 You are incorrect in any attempt to place the atonement. Gethsemane was an integral event in the process, as was the scourging, the crucifixion and the resurrection, culminating in Christ's ascension into heaven with the promise of a glorious return. I'm not detracting from the significance of the Garden. Had the Resurrection not covered, there would be no Atonement at the Cross. The last week is not some Atonement process or drama. The days leading to the Cross were in preparation for the Atonement. The Resurrection declares the Atonement in affect.
Bernard Gui Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Wearing a very discrete cross to church today, thanks to the crosses in the Friend. I just want to avoid a neighbor friend that does have an aversion to the cross. Wish me luck, nervous as heck.Why would you want to do something that would push her buttons, especially in sacrament meeting? 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I was making a joke. I don't wear a crucifix, so I probably would not wear a guillotine. My point was that Jesus chose to make His Cross a symbolic focal point and it seems reasonable that Christians wishing to identify with Him, would use that symbol to signify how they are trying to emulate the One who died that way. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," not, "If you love me, wear a cross." But to me, it's neither here nor there. I do have some heartburn with cross bling, however. http://www.struts.co.uk/party-fancy-dress-shop/fancy-dress-sales/60s-70s-abba-fancy-dress/60s-70s-accessories/70s-pimp-jumbo-bling-medallion-necklace Seems like this is the inevitable result of using the cross as jewelry, even if it is to express religious belief.
Tacenda Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Why would you want to do something that would push her buttons, especially in sacrament meeting?That wasn't what I was trying to do, if it were I'd probably have stayed the whole block. I've had my necklace for the past few years, but never worn it! Why does anyone wear a copper bracelet for medicinal reasons? To offend? No, it's because it helps them in some way.
MiserereNobis Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," not, "If you love me, wear a cross." But to me, it's neither here nor there. I do have some heartburn with cross bling, however. http://www.struts.co.uk/party-fancy-dress-shop/fancy-dress-sales/60s-70s-abba-fancy-dress/60s-70s-accessories/70s-pimp-jumbo-bling-medallion-necklace Seems like this is the inevitable result of using the cross as jewelry, even if it is to express religious belief. I think I'm more offended by that dude's hair. Wow Of course, you'll always find an extreme if you look for it. How about this from a Desert News article: A gold CTR signet ring, the "Sampson," is the company's most expensive at $449.95. But custom-made CTR rings, like one Leatham had mounted with a half-karat diamond for a Primary teacher in Colorado, can cost more. If someone is wearing a cross just for adornment, they've missed the point. I don't wear a cross or crucifix or rosary, by the way, though I do carry a rosary with me at all times in my man bag Edited March 25, 2014 by MiserereNobis 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 It was never revelation that the LDS church and members shouldn't wear or use the cross.David O McKay was the instigator of the no cross teaching because of his anti-Catholic views: ".. after establishing a policy that discouraged LDS girls from wearing crosses, because "this was a Catholic form of worship".. (David O McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism, the University of Utah Press, 2005 Page 121). "Two years after becoming president in 1953, McKay pointed to a Catholic church in California and commented: "There are two great anti-Christs in the world: Communism and that church."In 1957, McKay established the LDS Church's no-cross protocol, saying it was not proper for LDS girls to wear it on their jewelry, saying the cross is "purely Catholic. ... Our worship should be in our hearts."Though McKay later tempered his comments about Catholicism, his opposition to the cross became church policy." (Mormon Chronicles: http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/mormons-cross.html)Well, nobody is perfect. It really is kinda of a shame. Sometimes, and I don't really find much to complain about in GC, but I hate it when the apostles go off on some one else beliefs or teachings. I mean, GC is a time to learn about our church, not what is wrong with some one else. And I take this view mainly from the many many local churches in VA and WV that would just talk about the Mormons and their crazy beliefs. I mean I don't like it when others tear down my beliefs esp when I am not there to defend or offer an opinion about what I believe.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I'm not detracting from the significance of the Garden. Had the Resurrection not covered, there would be no Atonement at the Cross. The last week is not some Atonement process or drama. The days leading to the Cross were in preparation for the Atonement. The Resurrection declares the Atonement in affect.Well, lets have a conversation. So Christ died on the cross and that was the atonement of the physical body. When did the atonement of the spiritual body take place? What I am offering is some perspective.
Recommended Posts