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.Jason the Evangelist said: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?
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. LOLCrownCaster said:Yeah, I love that painting. It is called "O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. It is such a wonderful picture.
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 the Evangelist said: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?
So, lets see if I understand you right. You believe that the "sign of the Cross" :crosself:Jenda said: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.
Now, rather than jump on the rather brain dead reformist bandwagon, don't you think you should reconsider?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.
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.Jenda said: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.)happyinhisgrace said: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.
skylark1 said:". . . as well as other comments that I have red [sic] by LDS concerning display of the cross.
Doc, it is possible that you are one of the sources of the statements.Doc T said: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
~
http://christianforums.com/t671774&page=11&highlight=cross+nooseAtlanqa said: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?
Calgal said: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=1967375&highlight=cross+electric#post1967375Spike said: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.
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.skylark1 said: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.
Jason the Evangelist said: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?
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.GOD'S ARMY said: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 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.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.
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.skylark1 said: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.
skylark1 said: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
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?skylark1 said: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 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.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.
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!skylark1 said: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.
.
I personally don't have a problem with the use of the cross as a symbol, especially considering I had an OC upbringing.Augustine_Was_Calvinist said: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'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.GOD'S ARMY said: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?
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.Doc T said:Now I just have to find who started such a silly analogy.
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?skylark1 said:The cross symbolizes God's love for mankind. Without the cross, there was not a resurrection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?