Mormon underwear? This can't be true...

[happyinhisgrace]

Well....isn't the "priesthood garment" venerated as being sacred in and of itself? The marks make it holy, thus the command to cut the marks out when the garment is worn?

Yes sir, they sure are. They are considered so sacred in fact that when it is time to get rid of them and get new ones, the markings on them are to be cut out and burned.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Yeah, I love that painting. It is called "O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. It is such a wonderful picture.

I really like that picture too. Greg Olson does some wonderful paintings, he has a very artistic gift. I do with however, that he would make his renditions of Jesus look a bit more non-caucation as we know that Jesus was a Jewish man, not a fair skinned white man. LOL

 

[A New Dawn]

May I say that that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. It's right up there with mormons being born with horns.

Dawn, you don't really believe that, right?

I believe that there are lots of early Christian and reformation beliefs that are forgotten to memory because they fell out of favor. Is this one of them? I believe it quite possibly is.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

I believe that there are lots of early Christian and reformation beliefs that are forgotten to memory because they fell out of favor. Is this one of them? I believe it quite possibly is.

So, lets see if I understand you right. You believe that the "sign of the Cross" :crosself:

Is the mark of the beast? Did you even read the rest of the quote from revelations?

And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; 17and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six.

Now, rather than jump on the rather brain dead reformist bandwagon, don't you think you should reconsider?

 

[skylark1]

LDS purposefully do not use the cross. There reasoning is "if Jesus was killed with a gun, would you display a gun". They say they don't focus on his death but rather his ressurection and life and the cross is the symbol of his death.

This reasoning is not quite correct, if you go back to the original reason they started not using crosses. It is because the cross was originally the sign of the anti-christ. (A belief originally associated with the early reformation.)

Whether or not some people of the early reformation believed that the cross was originally a son of the anti-christ, I think that it is of more importance that God chose to display his love for the world on the cross.

I recently read the following by Max Lucado, and thought that it related to this discussion, as well as other comments that I have read by LDS concerning display of the cross.




"The cross. Can you turn any direction without seeing one? Perched atop a chapel. Carved into a graveyard headstone. Engraved in a ring or suspended on a chain. The cross is the universal symbol of Christianity. An odd choice, don't you think? Strange that a tool of torture would come to embody a movement of hope.

Would you wear a tiny electric chair around your neck? Suspend a gold-plated hangman's noose on the wall? Would you print a picture of a firing squad on a business card? Yet we do so with the cross.

Why is the cross the symbol of our faith? To find the answer look no farther than the cross itself. Its design couldn't be simpler. One beam horizontal--the other vertical. One reaches out--like God's love. The other reaches up--as does God's holiness. One represents the width of His love; the other reflects the height of His holiness. The cross is the intersection. The cross is where God forgave His children without lowering His standards.

How could He do this? In a sentence: God put our sin on His Son and punished it there.

"God put on him the wrong who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God" (2 Corinthians 5:21 MSG).

Or as rendered elsewhere: "Christ never sinned! But God treated him as a sinner, so that Christ could make us acceptable to God" (CEV).

Envision the moment. God on His throne. You on the earth. And between you and God, suspended between you and heaven, is Christ on His cross. Your sins have been placed on Jesus. God, who punishes sin, releases His rightful wrath on your mistakes. Jesus receives the blow. Since Christ is between you and God, you don't. The sin is punished, but you are safe--safe in the shadow of the cross.

This is what God did, but why, why would He do it? Moral duty? Heavenly obligation? Paternal requirement? No. God is required to do nothing.

Besides, consider what He did. Just for you He gave His Son. His only Son. Would you do that? Would you offer the life of your child for someone else? I wouldn't. There are those for whom I would give my life. But ask me to make a list of those for whom I would kill my daughter? The sheet will be blank. I don't need a pencil. The list has no names.

But God's list contains the name of every person who ever lived. For this is the scope of His love. And this is the reason for the cross. He loves the world.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (John 3:16 NLT).

As boldly as the center beam proclaims God's holiness, the crossbeam declares His love. And, oh, how wide His love reaches.

Aren't you glad the verse does not read:

"For God so loved the rich..."?

Or, "For God so loved the famous..."?

Or, "For God so loved the thin..."?

It doesn't. Nor does it state, "For God so loved the Europeans or Africans..." "the sober or successful..." "the young or the old..."

No, when we read John 3:16, we simply (and happily) read, "For God so loved the world."

How wide is God's love? Wide enough for the whole world. Are you included in the world? Then you are included in God's love. God's love is just for you.

It's nice to be included. You aren't always. Universities exclude you if you aren't smart enough. Businesses exclude you if you aren't qualified enough, and, sadly, some churches exclude you if you aren't good enough.

But though they may exclude you, Christ includes you. When asked to describe the width of His love, He stretched one hand to the right and the other to the left and had them nailed in that position so you would know He died loving you.

But isn't there a limit? Surely there has to be an end to this love. You'd think so, wouldn't you? But David the adulterer never found it. Paul the murderer never found it. Peter the liar never found it. When it came to life, they hit bottom. But when it came to God's love, they never did.

They, like you, found their names on God's list of love.

Because God loves you, He has invited you to enjoy eternal life with Him in Heaven. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6 NIV). Jesus made a way to accept God's invitation, and He did it just for you. Accept God's invitation by believing that Jesus received the punishment for your sin by His death on the cross. Confess that you've sinned and ask His forgiveness. Invite Him into your life and ask for God's help to turn from your sin."

 

[Doc T]

". . . as well as other comments that I have red [sic] by LDS concerning display of the cross.

I keep hearing that people here have "read" or "heard" such comments by LDS. My question is where??!!

I certainly don't expouse such, where did such a story come from?

Doc

~

 

[skylark1]

I keep hearing that people here have "read" or "heard" such comments by LDS. My question is where??!!

I certainly don't expouse such, where did such a story come from?

Doc

~

Doc, it is possible that you are one of the sources of the statements.

Numerous LDS both online and here in Utah have said that to them the cross is a symbol of death, just like an electric chair or a noose, and that is why they chose not to display or wear the cross.

If I can find any quotations, I will post them, but it isn't something that I feel like spending much time on. I am sure that you have at least read similar statements. I am very surprised that you question my comment.

 

[skylark1]

Here are some statements made on this forum:

Without wanting to sound confrontational, or like I'm belittling your beliefs about the cross (I can appreciate that the symbol is very sacred to you, and I have no desire to destroy that sacredness), imagine Christ had waited two-thousand years to perform his mortal ministry, and had been around, say, 50 years ago instead of 2000, and instead of being crucified, had been put before a firing squad; would an empty gun be a good symbol for Christianity? Or if he had been beheaded, as poor Nick Berg was, would you use a knife as a symbol? Or if it had been 500 years ago, and he had been stretched to death on a rack (the only method of torture invented by man thought to come anywhere near to the level of pain suffered through crucifixion), would you use an empty rack as a symbol?

http://christianforums.com/t671774&page=11&highlight=cross+noose

Allow me to clarify a point for you: when I was Mormon I was told that wearing a cross as a Mormon was equivalent to wearing a noose or gun since the cross according to my Gospel Doctrines teachers was an implement of death. I am not sure if that changed since i have not attended an LDS church meeting in a while.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1783387&highlight=cross+noose#post1783387

This is exactly what an LDS bishop told me.

The 'message of the Cross' is not 'the Cross'.

The cross was not used exclusively for the physical death of Christ. It was used rather often for all manner of criminals, which obviously Christ was not.

Had times been different, and Christ been subjected to His physical death by means of a gallows or an electric chair, I would not relish using those artifacts as a symbol of His sacrifice, either.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1967375&highlight=cross+electric#post1967375

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Tis a pity the LDS don't see the beauty in the Cross of Christ.<p>Like the use of wine in celebrations and feasts, or the bitter herbs in the Passover seder, both symbolizing the duality of bitterness and sweet satisfaction, the Cross was bitter for the Lord but sweet and satisfying for the believers whom Christ shed His blood for.

 

[GOD'S ARMY]

Doc, it is possible that you are one of the sources of the statements.

Numerous LDS both online and here in Utah have said that to them the cross is a symbol of death, just like an electric chair or a noose, and that is why they chose not to display or wear the cross.

If I can find any quotations, I will post them, but it isn't something that I feel like spending much time on. I am sure that you have at least read similar statements. I am very surprised that you question my comment.

To a degree I believe that way. As LDS we have a different view of the atonement than other Christians. The crowning and most important moment in the life of my Savior is not his dead body hanging from a cross. Jesus Christ means far more to me than a cross could ever symbolize..... With that said, do not assume to know what I believe or understand of the atonement. Not using the cross as a symbol for our Savior does not diminish our faith or understanding.

 

[A New Dawn]

So, lets see if I understand you right. You believe that the "sign of the Cross" :crosself:

Is the mark of the beast? Did you even read the rest of the quote from revelations?

Now, rather than jump on the rather brain dead reformist bandwagon, don't you think you should reconsider?

Yes, the whole scripture from revelations was included in the text of the article, including the 666 thing, I just quoted the part that spoke directly to the cross issue. I could quote the part that dealt with the 666 thing, too. They are all interrelated.

However, I was pointing out why the early restoration church did not use crosses, not why people choose not to wear them today. I wear a cross, so evidently it is not a high priority belief on my part.

 

[skylark1]

To a degree I believe that way. As LDS we have a different view of the atonement than other Christians. The crowning and most important moment in the life of my Savior is not his dead body hanging from a cross. Jesus Christ means far more to me than a cross could ever symbolize.....

I suspect that you did not read the quote that I posted from Max Lucado. The cross symbolizes God's love for mankind. Without the cross, there was not a resurrection.

With that said, do not assume to know what I believe or understand of the atonement. Not using the cross as a symbol for our Savior does not diminish our faith or understanding.

I am not sure why you are admonishing me. I would appreciate it if you would point out where you believe that I have made assumptions as to what you believe about the atonement.


Thanks.

 

[A New Dawn]

Whether or not some people of the early reformation believed that the cross was originally a son of the anti-christ, I think that it is of more importance that God chose to display his love for the world on the cross.

No one is arguing that God chose the cross to display His love for humanity on. But in many ways, it doesn't matter what the instrument of death was, as long as Christ fulfilled His purpose.

I believe that many things start out having a good purpose. People looking to the cross to remind them of Christ's sacrifice is noble and endearing, however, things like that can take on fanatical meanings to those people that are bent on fanaticism. And that seems to be something that happened at one point in the past. What meaning it might have assumed in the past should not bear on how we view things today, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of those things, lest we repeat that mistake. That is all I am saying.

 

[Doc T]

Here are some statements made on this forum:


http://christianforums.com/t671774&page=11&highlight=cross+noose

[/color]
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1783387&highlight=cross+noose#post1783387

This is exactly what an LDS bishop told me.



http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1967375&highlight=cross+electric#post1967375

Looks like there has been reasons for believing this. Okay, I guess I might be a bit of an anomoly. But that would not suprise a few of you.

Now I just have to find who started such a silly analogy.

Doc

~

 

[GOD'S ARMY]

I suspect that you did not read the quote that I posted from Max Lucado. The cross symbolizes God's love for mankind. Without the cross, there was not a resurrection.

I didn't read the quote. I was responding to your saying a lot of mormons see the cross as a symbol of death. The Holy Ghost, The Savior, The plan of salvation, the scriptures, revelation. Those are all things that are manifest by God's love for mankind. Without Christ's death there would be no resurrection. Many more people will be resurrected without dying on a cross than those who have. Why do you think the cross was so important that without it there would be no resurrection?

I am not sure why you are admonishing me. I would appreciate it if you would point out where you believe that I have made assumptions as to what you believe about the atonement.


Thanks.

I wasn't directing it at you personally. People sometimes assume that they know what others are thinking or know and I was just covering my bases. Not for you. I have found you to be very fair in this respect. Sorry.

 

[CrownCaster]

Numerous LDS both online and here in Utah have said that to them the cross is a symbol of death, just like an electric chair or a noose, and that is why they chose not to display or wear the cross.

.

Yeah, I have heard that one too. Should have seen the looks I got when I started wearing a cross while I was still attending the LDS ward!

I guess you would see it this way though if you dont have a firm understanding of its importance and instead placing the atonement as being concluded in the Garden of Gethsemane. To see the cross as a death instrument is only to look at a small piece of the pie. Jesus chose the cross. He could have come today and had a lethal injection but instead He used the cross to bring about our redemption. He knew before He came off His throne in the Heavens in the company of all the angels who were there worshiping Him that His journey would lead to the cross. Hallelujah.

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to those of us being saved, it is the power of God!

 

[Swart]

Tis a pity the LDS don't see the beauty in the Cross of Christ.<p>Like the use of wine in celebrations and feasts, or the bitter herbs in the Passover seder, both symbolizing the duality of bitterness and sweet satisfaction, the Cross was bitter for the Lord but sweet and satisfying for the believers whom Christ shed His blood for.

I personally don't have a problem with the use of the cross as a symbol, especially considering I had an OC upbringing.

I think the use of the cross by OCs and its non-use by LDS has more to do with history than anything else. The CoC uses the cross without any problems for example.

In my brief historical study of the matter, it appears that the use of the cross as a symbol was not widely adopted until the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Early Christians would indetify themselves with the sign of a fish. Two people would meet and one would make an arc on the ground with his foot whilst they were talking, the second would also make an arc, forming a fish sign. The first person would then erase the picture so no one woul see it. Thus, fellow Christians could identify themselves to each other.

As Christianity spread and became the state religion, several pagan influences were infused into the church or even officially adopted (such as Christmas and Easter). Many pagans used symbols quite frequently. Some were replaced by the cross and the circle symbol for infinity was incorporated into it to produce the celtic cross. The cross was also seen to contain magical powers to ward off evil.

Studying the history of the CoJCoLDS, it is not difficult to see that LDS would feel threatened by OC. The sight of cross carrying people burning your house down, tarring and feathering you and then raping your wife might cause you to become dis-inclined to feel an affinity for the symbol. Indeed any might see the abondonment of the symbol as a sign of separation from those mobbers.

Consider the use of the burning cross as a symol for the KKK. Because the KKK use the burning cross, people are abhored by the sight of it. In times past, the burning cross was more widely used and was seen as a symbol of enlightenment emanating from the cross. But today, ifthe local Baptist church was to erect a burning cross outside for an evening meeting there would be cries of outrage.

There are no revelations regarding the use of the cross as a symbol. Church policy is that there are no crosses to adorn church buildings or in church publications. It is silent about the use of the cross by individual members of the church.

 

[skylark1]

I didn't read the quote. I was responding to your saying a lot of mormons see the cross as a symbol of death. The Holy Ghost, The Savior, The plan of salvation, the scriptures, revelation. Those are all things that are manifest by God's love for mankind. Without Christ's death there would be no resurrection. Many more people will be resurrected without dying on a cross than those who have. Why do you think the cross was so important that without it there would be no resurrection?

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I'll try to answer it anyway. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are saying.

You wrote: "Many more people will be resurrected without dying on a cross than those who have."

I only speak of the cross, I only mean one cross, and that is the cross on which Jesus gave his life so that who ever believes in him may have everlasting life and look forward to life in heaven with God. No one would be resurrected without the atonement of Christ on the cross. It is there that he paid for our sin. The good news is more than just God becoming man, and teaching us the right way to live. The good news is that sin has been dealt with. The resurrection is proof that the atonement was accepted by God the Father, and that death, which is the result of sin, has been abolished on that basis. It is only through faith in the sacrifice of Christ as our substitute, that we can enter into a new relationship with God and follow Christ.

 

[Swart]

Now I just have to find who started such a silly analogy.

It's most likely a missionary thing. I've said before that many missionaries from the MC have a great deal of time separating doctrine from culture. I had a few Utah born-and-bred companions that didn't like the idea of new converts still displaying crosses in their house or using or wearing them.

We have a recent convert in our branch that has a huge cross attached to the side of his house. Another new member made a cover sheet for the organ table that had crosses embroidered on it. We politely explained that we couldn't use it in the church because of the crosses so she changed them to crotchets.

Of course, I firmly believe that converts are the life-blood of the church. Where there are fewer converts the membership becomes increasingly insular. I suspect that is the case with the MC.

I spoke yesterday with someone who spent a few months in Utah earlier this year. He said he hated it; the only thing he liked about SLC was Temple Square. He said the ward he attended was unfriendly and most of the saints he met were more interested in getting rich than anything else. He was appalled at the disparity between rich and poor and the fact that a medical illness could bankrupt a family.

I would like to visit Utah myself some day. But mainly to see place's like Bryce Canyon and to hike the Rocky Mountains and maybe take a peek at the fundy's; rather than to immerse myself in Utah LDS culture. Who knows, I might even look up a few UT buddies.

I doubt I would want to live there, however. Not when I have a backyard like this...

 

[GOD'S ARMY]

The answer that I am looking for has to do with this:

The cross symbolizes God's love for mankind. Without the cross, there was not a resurrection.

If our LORD had died in another way would the cross be a symbol for the atonement or the love of God? How is it that without the cross there is no resurrection? Could our LORD have not died in another way, equally terrible and equally redeeming? What is the significance of the cross beyond the fact that that is how our Savior died?