What's wrong with what we teach about the Atonement

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it starts with a disagreement about some of the fundamental language surrounding the atonement.

Mormons and Evangelicals are likely to disagree about ...

1- what it means to be saved (salvation)- What is the nature of heaven and the person's role in it?

2- What it means to have faith (versus works)- How is faith properly demonstrated?

3- The nature of Jesus Christ. (this is a big one IMO)- They believe that Jesus is literally the Father. As in they are different manifestations of the same person. They view Mormons as putting their faith in Jesus, who is not the same person as The Father, as believing in a different Jesus, who doesn't have the power to save.

4- Priesthood authority- I think they view the relationship between man and God as being personal without need of a middle man who must act as savior in performing ordinances and declaring worthiness.

In regards to the scriptures I posted a little later in the thread, do these disagreements come into play with those verses of scripture do you think?

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In regards to the scriptures I posted a little later in the thread, do these disagreements come into play with those verses of scripture do you think?

I think disagreements about the language colors everything in the scriptures.

For example, stating that Christ came to the earth means something different to Mormons and Evangelicals.

They may not phrase it quite this way, but I think they view our version of Jesus as a demi-god instead of GOD, which changes everything else.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Other Christian faiths believe that we go to a place that's functionally identical to the terrestrial Kingdom. Or if you're from a denomination which believes in a post-judgement earth like our own without death, then the telestial kingdom. Differentiating exaltation from salvation only becomes necessary with the addition of the celestial kingdom and the its attendant degrees/grades/levels.

There is at least one difference between those kingdoms and other beliefs in heaven in that typically others' beliefs include the full presence of God...which may be the only really relevant attribute of heaven for many.

[Calm]

 

Quote

3- The nature of Jesus Christ. (this is a big one IMO)- They believe that Jesus is literally the Father. As in they are different manifestations of the same person.

This is modalism or Sabellianism, three manifestations/modes of the same person.  This is a heresy for traditional Trinitarians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

While some, perhaps many EVs understand their denomination's teachings in that way, most actual descriptions of the Trinity by the denominations' leaders are three persons in one Being, the Being being infinite and eternal is a different category than "person" unlike our typical usage where we would use them interchangeably.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Quote

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Greek τριάς and τριάδα, from Latin: trinus "threefold")[2] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[6][7][8] Sometimes differing views are referred to as nontrinitarian.

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think disagreements about the language colors everything in the scriptures.

For example, stating that Christ came to the earth means something different to Mormons and Evangelicals.

They may not phrase it quite this way, but I think they view our version of Jesus as a demi-god instead of GOD, which changes everything else.

So it sounds like you are saying that it doesn't really matter what we teach about the Atonement because our beliefs about Christ are wrong enough (in some other Christians' eyes) to negate everything else.  Is that right?

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it sounds like you are saying that it doesn't really matter what we teach about the Atonement because our beliefs about Christ are wrong enough (in some other Christians' eyes) to negate everything else.  Is that right?

Yeah, kind of. Sorry to be a downer.

Obviously, not everyone will see it that way.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, kind of. Sorry to be a downer.

Obviously, not everyone will see it that way.

 

No worries, I think you are probably right.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

This is modalism or Sabellianism, three manifestations/modes of the same person.  This is a heresy for traditional Trinitarians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

While some, perhaps many EVs understand their denomination's teachings in that way, most actual descriptions of the Trinity by the denominations' leaders are three persons in one Being, the Being being infinite and eternal is a different category than "person" unlike our typical usage where we would use them interchangeably.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

 

Thanks for sharing that, Calm. I agree. I was imprecise in my language, but I think that illustrates part of the problem. "3 manifestations of the same being" versus "3 beings in one" versus "3 distinct beings in one godhead" gets a bit confusing, but for some people the distinction is a HUGE, insurmountable deal. Just as you say modalism is heresy to traditional Trinitarians, the Mormon understanding of Jesus is also a heresy. It can be a challenge to build on common ground when the foundation of any common ground is considered a heresy.

[Okrahomer]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Living in Utah, there's a chance that a Baptist might come to my door and want to discuss religion with me in the near future.  With that in mind, what does the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach about the Atonement that other Christians disagree with?

(For reference, here's what we actually teach)

In a nutshell we teach that-  

• The Atonement is necessary for our salvation
• Jesus Christ was the only one who could atone for our sins
• Christ suffered and died to atone for our sins
• The resurrection and atonement bring resurrection to all
• The atonement makes it possible for show have faith in Christ to be saved from their sins

What in that list is a Baptist, or other non-Latter-day Saint Christian, likely to have issues with?  

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but another area where our beliefs about the Atonement of Jesus Christ would probably not align well with our Baptist friends would be with respect to their belief in "eternal security"  Here's a snipet from the linked article:

"According to Mark 10:45, Christ gave his life as a ransom for many. Jesus bore God’s wrath we deserved so he could buy us back from the curse of the law. If a ransomed one can be finally lost, doesn’t that then mean that the ransom price paid was not enough to actually purchase its intended product—the eternal salvation of God’s people? Final apostasy also seems to undermine the substitutionary nature of the atonement, since Christ was condemned in the place of his people. This view would seem to indicate that due to an exercise of their free will some of God’s people have once again fallen under condemnation with their sins no longer covered by the sacrifice of the substitute—even though they were once covered through the blood of Christ."

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but another area where our beliefs about the Atonement of Jesus Christ would probably not align well with our Baptist friends would be with respect to their belief in "eternal security"  Here's a snipet from the linked article:

"According to Mark 10:45, Christ gave his life as a ransom for many. Jesus bore God’s wrath we deserved so he could buy us back from the curse of the law. If a ransomed one can be finally lost, doesn’t that then mean that the ransom price paid was not enough to actually purchase its intended product—the eternal salvation of God’s people? Final apostasy also seems to undermine the substitutionary nature of the atonement, since Christ was condemned in the place of his people. This view would seem to indicate that due to an exercise of their free will some of God’s people have once again fallen under condemnation with their sins no longer covered by the sacrifice of the substitute—even though they were once covered through the blood of Christ."

Good point. 

[MiserereNobis]

It's very minor, but (from what I've seen/heard) Mormons focus on the Garden of Gethsamene as the location of the atonement and downplay the Cross, where for Catholics it takes place on the Cross with the death of Christ, which is why the crucifix is such a prominent symbol. It is in that moment of death that the atonement temporally occurred.

Admittedly minor, but a difference that (I think) has led to the lack of crosses in LDS iconography, which can cause issues because it is by and far the biggest icon/symbol of Christianity.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's very minor, but (from what I've seen/heard) Mormons focus on the Garden of Gethsamene as the location of the atonement and downplay the Cross, where for Catholics it takes place on the Cross with the death of Christ, which is why the crucifix is such a prominent symbol. It is in that moment of death that the atonement temporally occurred.

Admittedly minor, but a difference that (I think) has led to the lack of crosses in LDS iconography, which can cause issues because it is by and far the biggest icon/symbol of Christianity.

We see the atonement as taking place in 3 locations, the garden, the cross, and the tomb.  In the garden he took upon him our sins and infirmities, on the cross he descended below all things to fulfill all righteousness and literally died for our sins, and in the tomb he conquered death itself.  The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

[Navidad]

I have been traveling all day today. I am just now trying to catch up on posts. So, let me say I am very sad and disappointed in the posts I have seen from today. It seems that 1. the Mormons on this thread are insistent on predicting what will be the objections in the minds and hearts of Protestants. That is so contrary to inter-faith dialogue. How about we let the Baptists tell us what their problems will be, instead of the Mormons doing so? So many of you want to make issues so you can continue your rants about how terrible the Protestant view of Mormons is. You thrive on that. You must maintain that to maintain your otherness. Please let it go. The issues raised today border from silly to pitiful.  I am sorry, but as a Mennonite/Protestant I am deeply saddened by the apparent need to discuss the three locations of Christ's suffering, eternal security, the trinity, when all that was asked was about the atonement. You all need to debate how many angels will dance on the head of a railroad stake in Utah. Shame on you. All of this has nothing to do with the original question about the atonement. Methinks the majority of the folks on this forum want and need there to be conflict between Protestants and yourselves. You need that to maintain your identity as the "other," the persecuted ones," and on and on. A very specific question started this thread, why don't we stick to that? Why? Because as I have said there is no difference; that is your worst nightmare. Some of the folks here apparently don't ever want there to be peace between Protestants and Mormons. Shame on you. You will forever come up with theological nitpicking to find differences instead of accepting that we are moving much closer to each other. That must really scare you! I will get back to the original post in a few minutes.

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The issues raised today border from silly to pitiful.  I am sorry, but as a Mennonite/Protestant I am deeply saddened by the apparent need to discuss the three locations of Christ's suffering, eternal security, the trinity, when all that was asked was about the atonement. You all need to debate how many angels will dance on the head of a railroad stake in Utah

Actually, I was the one who brought up the location of Christ's suffering, and I am neither Mormon nor Protestant.

And as a Catholic, we have a long history of debating how many angels will dance on the head of a pin. Mormons most definitely do not have that tradition. So, if you are going to attack someone for theological nit-pickiness, you should go after me as the Catholic, not after the Mormons who have no systematic theology.

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Shame on you ... Shame on you.

Dude, chill out. You are the one causing a ruckus now. You are the one causing tension in this thread. I thought we were having a fine discussion.

[Navidad]

Ok, let me try this again .......if we are talking about the atonement, we are talking about soteriology, not about the nature of the Godhead, not about heaven, not about eternal security, nothing but the atonement. Let's discuss that and do our best to limit ourselves to that. For those of you who apparently need to find differences and potential conflict, go start your own thread on that. You seem to need the conflict to maintain your sense of Mormonness, or your sense of Orthodoxy. So sad.......Let's talk about the atonement again. If I err in stating the Mormon position, please correct me. I am a Mennonite who has worked in Baptist circles for years. Give me another shot at this:

The atonement - Christ was sent to earth by the Father as a baby born to a virgin birth. Christ was one person in the Godhead who came to earth to redeem humankind. Christ was virgin born to Mary and after His birth was fully God and fully human. He lived, was killed on the cross of Calvary by his own volition. The Jews didn't kill him. The Romans didn't kill him. "He could have called ten thousand angels to destroy the world and set him free.," as the great song goes. But he didn't. Greek - middle voice - he put himself on the cross to suffer and die for us. He suffered in Gethsemane and forward until he died. Literally he died. He died for our sins. He died in our place. he literally died. Three days later he rose again. He revealed himself to his followers. He then ascended back into heaven and promised to send a comforter.

All of us who believe what I just wrote and accept his death as satisfaction for our sins, repent of our own sins, and gladly accept his sacrifice on our behalf are his followers - Christians. We experience being "saved." We all acknowledge that being saved is only a beginning point. We must continue to progress in our consistency, holiness, and practicing of the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Protestants term this sanctification; Mormons term this exaltation. For the Protestant, sanctification continues through this life as we learn, grow, serve, are faithful, desire to learn more about our heavenly Father and grow in grace. The absence of that is a negative. It might indicate we weren't serious when first "saved." Mormons believe identically except they continue "exaltation" into the next world. Mormons desire to grow in grace and faith in this life after accepting the atonement. They accept the atonement as an act of grace. By their lives, their faithfulness, their works, their obedience to what they believe they, as Christians should do, they become more like Christ. They believe they will continue that into the afterlife. Sanctification for the Protestant ends at death. Exaltation for the saint never ends. That is about the only difference. So folks, that is it. For Protestants salvation happens at a point in time; it is then followed by sanctification (hopefully). For the Saint, salvation begins at repentance and continues as exaltation for eternity. There are virtually no other differences between Protestants and Mormons regarding atonement. They are joined at the hip on this.  To all of you who want and need there to be a big difference, I am sorry. It just isn't there. Any other discussions about other aspects of Systematic Theology don't belong in the answer to the original poster's question. Talk about them somewhere else. I will probably be there, ready to join in.

Let's be committed to finding our similarities. Of course that wont' satisfy the Protestant who needs to prove himself more orthodox than the Saint. It won't satisfy the Mormon who need to prove himself more theologically erudite, or more "early church," or less "creedal" than the Protestant. So which of you on either side don't agree with my second paragraph? How wide is the divide? How determined are you to keep it in existence, and why?

Edited September 6, 2018 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

The article sets up the false dichotomy between symbols and what the symbols represent. He says:

Quote

It is the preaching of what happened on the cross that is more important than the symbol of the cross.

Not a single Christian wearing a cross would dispute that. In fact, religious symbols are often used to "preach" because they represent so much -- a picture is worth a 1000 words sort of thing.

Quote

The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes what happened on the cross, but this message and meaning is within each of us and requires no external symbol to manifest our faith. Our cross is the giving up of worldly sins and following the Savior with a humble heart and an obedient spirit.

My faith requires no external symbol to be manifest, but the external symbol increases it. I can pray just fine kneeling in a forest. I can also pray just fine kneeling in front of an altar with a crucifix, but the latter deepens my prayer because it shows me symbols of what my faith is and through those symbols I can further understand my faith, in a way that often transcends words.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of symbols underlying this talk. Does it come from the LDS protestant/puritan historical background? (Upstate New York early 1800s...) He then goes on to quote scriptures about God not looking on the outside but looking on the inside. No Christian would dispute that. No priest wearing his full vestments would dispute that.

Again, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either I have faith without symbols or I have no faith with symbols. Either my faith is real on the inside with nothing on the outside or all I have is the outside with nothing on the inside. That is a false choice. I can have real faith on the inside AND show my faith on the outside, too.

Quote

We are Christians in the true inward sense, and we display Christ to the world through our lives, our message, and our love rather than through a symbol whereby we are identified.

You can absolutely have both. He keeps up with the idea that having no symbols on the outside is superior to having symbols on the outside but the only justification he gives is the assumption that symbols on the outside means one's faith is lesser on the inside. And that is a terribly false assumption which is rather offensive.

It closes with a harsh barb against the symbol of the cross by President Hinckley:

Quote

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ. …"

You can preface anything you want with "I do not with to give offense" but if what you say is offensive that preface doesn't mean anything.

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith.

This is profoundly offensive AND a complete straw man of Christianity. There is NO way to separate the death of Christ from the resurrection of Christ and it is through His death, His suffering, His pains that we are redeemed. If He had not died for us there would be no atonement. If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement. He was/is God -- of course He is living. The miracle and beauty of His absolute mercy is that as God, He chose to suffer and die as a mortal for us.

The symbol of the cross and of the crucifix is powerful indeed. Our infinite God chose to incarnate as a human, suffer as human, die as a human for us. A living God is a given. The miracle of Christianity is that a living God chose to die for us.

I do not say that those who choose to eschew Christian symbols have a lesser faith but that is what was seriously implied in this talk about those who choose to use Christian symbols.

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, I was the one who brought up the location of Christ's suffering, and I am neither Mormon nor Protestant.

And as a Catholic, we have a long history of debating how many angels will dance on the head of a pin. Mormons most definitely do not have that tradition. So, if you are going to attack someone for theological nit-pickiness, you should go after me as the Catholic, not after the Mormons who have no systematic theology.

Dude, chill out. You are the one causing a ruckus now. You are the one causing tension in this thread. I thought we were having a fine discussion.

Greetings. If I am causing tension, then so be it! Comfort for Mormons, Protestants, and sometimes, Catholics lies in sustaining differences. It meets the needs of identities for each party. The discussion, as I read it only serves to continue to make the divide wider. I think both Mormons and Protestants have that heritage. It has become second nature.

I spend hours here in our village with our Catholic priest discussing his cancer, our village's lack of a spiritual center, the little Assemblies of God church in town, how to cut down on the drunkenness we see here, what is a really good pasta, how do we really change hearts, how do we keep his church building in good physical condition, how does he help his people learn what living the Christian life really means, my sense of significance and meaningless in our village, and on and on. We come away refreshed; I think I can say that for both of us. Not once did we discuss whether Christ suffered more in the garden or on the cross. Never once did we discuss whether my baptism was acceptable. Never once have we discussed eternal security. Never once have we discussed how many angels dance on the head of either a pin or a railroad stake. It is wonderful. It is true inter-faith fellowship. Yet on this forum, as soon as we begin to discuss, it is about what are the differences, what might be the differences, or what we think the other will think about what we think are the differences. That makes me sad and tense. If there is no place for the expression of that on this forum, then please tell me and I will go away.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

if we are talking about the atonement, we are talking about soteriology, not about the nature of the Godhead, not about heaven, not about eternal security, nothing but the atonement.

You cannot divorce the atonement from the nature of God and Christian cosmology.

 

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The atonement - Christ was sent to earth by the Father as a baby born to a virgin birth. Christ was one person in the Godhead who came to earth to redeem humankind. Christ was virgin born to Mary and after His birth was fully God and fully human.

See, you talk about the nature of God and the Godhead (including that Jesus was fully God and fully human, which I'm pretty sure Mormons don't believe) in the very first sentence of your next paragraph.

[Calm]

Quote

Ok, let me try this again .......if we are talking about the atonement, we are talking about soteriology, not about the nature of the Godhead, not about heaven, not about eternal security, nothing but the atonement

My opinion...Latter-day Saints generally don't think like that, separating into different topics.  We don't have trained theologists to study.  We are told to liken the scriptures to ourselves and we can really wander when we are doing so. Everything tends to be tied together.  I think we like the idea of everything being connected.  Maybe it is because we don't do systematic theology, so we have an unsystematic one.

Quote

Not once did we discuss whether Christ suffered more in the garden or on the cross. Never once did we discuss whether my baptism was acceptable. Never once have we discussed eternal security. Never once have we discussed how many angels dance on the head of either a pin or a railroad stake. It is wonderful. It is true inter-faith fellowship. Yet on this forum, as soon as we begin to discuss, it is about what are the differences, what might be the differences, or what we think the other will think about what we think are the differences. That makes me sad and tense. If there is no place for the expression of that on this forum, then please tell me and I will go away.

This is the one and only place I have these types of discussions.  I love it.  We are a bunch of nitpickers here that enjoy looking at minute, irrelevant to how we live details from what .I have seen.  I like hearing how others think.  I also keep track of who is saying what and always assume those talking about their own faith are the authorities (thus I had the RCC Catechism as my bedtime reading from a Catholic friend for a number of months and search out EV sites to get a variety of POV, only when .I have had my interpretation confirmed by a believer will I repeat it, though usually I try to link to an authoritative site).  

Face to face conversations are very different in my experience.  It is too hard to convey emotion and spiritual connection through text alone, too many chances for misunderstanding.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Comfort for Mormons, Protestants, and sometimes, Catholics lies in sustaining differences. It meets the needs of identities for each party. The discussion, as I read it only serves to continue to make the divide wider.

True inter-faith dialogue does not ignore differences. We are not the same and pretending we are is foolish. True interfaith dialogue recognizes similarities and differences, honoring both while holding on to what we believe is true.

I am not going to believe that my religious faith and yours are the same. We have points of similarity, yes, and many of them I am sure, but we also have some rather profound differences. Ignoring that and telling ourselves that we are the same would be akin to lying. Instead, we speak of our similarities and we try to understand each other's differences and we love each other through it all. That, to me, is true interfaith dialogue.

And again, saying things like "Shame one you. Shame on you. So sad" is not going to foster what you seem to be wanting.

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

True inter-faith dialogue does not ignore differences. We are not the same and pretending we are is foolish. True interfaith dialogue recognizes similarities and differences, honoring both while holding on to what we believe is true.

I am not going to believe that my religious faith and yours are the same. We have points of similarity, yes, and many of them I am sure, but we also have some rather profound differences. Ignoring that and telling ourselves that we are the same would be akin to lying. Instead, we speak of our similarities and we try to understand each other's differences and we love each other through it all. That, to me, is true interfaith dialogue.

And again, saying things like "Shame one you. Shame on you. So sad" is not going to foster what you seem to be wanting.

I agree on your last point and edited out the first shame on you. I reacted too strongly and too quickly. I had thought this thread might be one in which we could come together. I traveled all day, came back and read, and discovered I was wrong and that disappointed me. You are right. As I read back through this thread, I don't see evidenced what you are trying to say. I see almost no discussion of the agreements; only of the differences. I see folks trying their best to insert differences by changing the subject to another aspect of theology. Of course we have differences, but dwelling only on differences serves only to divide, which I absolutely believe meets the agenda of many Protestants and Saints - especially when dealing with each other. That has been the history of the relationship for almost 130 years. Only recently have books been written focusing on understanding that the divide is not nearly so wide as has historically been portrayed. Also as sociologists have gotten involved in the discussion there has been much better understanding about how the divide serves the purposes of both parties. That is what I think is so sad. I wont' delete that. It is so sad.

[sunstoned]

On 9/4/2018 at 4:22 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

There is only one condition attached to the Atonement, and that is acceptance of it (belief, faith), from which all else flows.  In other words, the grace of Christ is unconditional.  Even the Jews believe that God's grace is unconditional.  One cannot earn it.

Evangelicals do not believe that Mormons understand that, and they consider the supposed LDS belief in salvation by works to be a primary mark of heresy.

I believe this.  Not everyone does.  I wish you were my bishop😃

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree on your last point and edited out the first shame on you. I reacted too strongly and too quickly. I had thought this thread might be one in which we could come together. I traveled all day, came back and read, and discovered I was wrong and that disappointed me. You are right. As I read back through this thread, I don't see evidenced what you are trying to say. I see almost no discussion of the agreements; only of the differences. I see folks trying their best to insert differences by changing the subject to another aspect of theology. Of course we have differences, but dwelling only on differences serves only to divide, which I absolutely believe meets the agenda of many Protestants and Saints - especially when dealing with each other. That has been the history of the relationship for almost 130 years. Only recently have books been written focusing on understanding that the divide is not nearly so wide as has historically been portrayed. Also as sociologists have gotten involved in the discussion there has been much better understanding about how the divide serves the purposes of both parties. That is what I think is so sad. I wont' delete that. It is so sad.

Navidad, I have to say that I get no small measure of enjoyment when I read or listen to discussions about the differences between "my" Christian church and "your" Christian church. I am befuddled at the attempts to make the differences insurmountable and much too great to be overcome and consider all part of the body of Christ.

I know of nothing greater in all Christendom than the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God; that he was crucified for our sins; that he was resurrected and sits on the right hand of the Father; that he will return in glory one day. Now, somehow Jesus Christ is not big enough for those that follow him to recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

In closing, I am not attempting to say that differences in doctrine are not important. To the contrary, they are important because truth is important. However, no doctrine is so vital that it supersedes the Alpha and Omega of our beliefs. 

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I believe this.  Not everyone does.  I wish you were my bishop😃

The Arabs say that you can lead a donkey to the gates of Paradise, but you can't make him enter.  

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

The article sets up the false dichotomy between symbols and what the symbols represent. He says:

Not a single Christian wearing a cross would dispute that. In fact, religious symbols are often used to "preach" because they represent so much -- a picture is worth a 1000 words sort of thing.

My faith requires no external symbol to be manifest, but the external symbol increases it. I can pray just fine kneeling in a forest. I can also pray just fine kneeling in front of an altar with a crucifix, but the latter deepens my prayer because it shows me symbols of what my faith is and through those symbols I can further understand my faith, in a way that often transcends words.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of symbols underlying this talk. Does it come from the LDS protestant/puritan historical background? (Upstate New York early 1800s...) He then goes on to quote scriptures about God not looking on the outside but looking on the inside. No Christian would dispute that. No priest wearing his full vestments would dispute that.

Again, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either I have faith without symbols or I have no faith with symbols. Either my faith is real on the inside with nothing on the outside or all I have is the outside with nothing on the inside. That is a false choice. I can have real faith on the inside AND show my faith on the outside, too.

You can absolutely have both. He keeps up with the idea that having no symbols on the outside is superior to having symbols on the outside but the only justification he gives is the assumption that symbols on the outside means one's faith is lesser on the inside. And that is a terribly false assumption which is rather offensive.

It closes with a harsh barb against the symbol of the cross by President Hinckley:

You can preface anything you want with "I do not with to give offense" but if what you say is offensive that preface doesn't mean anything.

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith.

This is profoundly offensive AND a complete straw man of Christianity. There is NO way to separate the death of Christ from the resurrection of Christ and it is through His death, His suffering, His pains that we are redeemed. If He had not died for us there would be no atonement. If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement. He was/is God -- of course He is living. The miracle and beauty of His absolute mercy is that as God, He chose to suffer and die as a mortal for us.

The symbol of the cross and of the crucifix is powerful indeed. Our infinite God chose to incarnate as a human, suffer as human, die as a human for us. A living God is a given. The miracle of Christianity is that a living God chose to die for us.

I do not say that those who choose to eschew Christian symbols have a lesser faith but that is what was seriously implied in this talk about those who choose to use Christian symbols.

I've started another thread on this issue.