The Cross

[mormonman]

Hi guys, I haven't posted on here in a really long time; BYU's killing me. Anyway, I know we don't use the cross as a symbol of our Church, because we focus on the Resurrection and His life instead of His death; that's the usually response anyway, but I want to take a different view on the cross. I've been learning (I can actually say I'm learning something now that I'm out of high school) about the Tree of Life symbolism in many of my classes. This symbolism is found all over the ancient world. I think of the cross as another tree of life symbol, because the act that is symbolized by the cross brings life to every one of us. Also, the Gospel of Peter uses the cross symbolism to describe Christ's resurrection. "2 While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. 3 The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them wen beyond heaven. 4 And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, "Have you preached unto them that sleep?" 5 The answer that was heard from the cross was, "Yes!"" I love what we have of the Gospel of Peter. This is an account of Christ's actual resurrection, and Peter uses the cross symbolism to describe the resurrected Lord. So, I think that the cross shouldn't be so shunned in the Church, I mean I have one in my room; it's right next to The Living Christ.

 

[Bishka]

That's beautiful!

Though 'shunning' crosses isn't exactly what we do. We just don't use them because they symbolize His death more then His life, and we are all about His life.

Although, I, myself find the celtic crosses to be some of the most stunning pieces of artwork ever created.

 

[Comprehend]

I don't get what you are saying. That you would like the church to start using crosses?(sp?) Personally, I like that we don't use them. His death was perhaps the saddest moment in the history of the earth (IMO) and his resurrection 3 days later the happiest.

I always think of this scripture as what we celebrate:
D&C 76:22
And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

the resign we do not use the cross is because it is not a perfect symbol, ever wonder why we only use spires on our church building? the cross is something we look to earth for, (i have other issues with it personally) i like the idea of a cross without Jesus it symbolizes that he is resign but this symbol is for the past with the new and everlasting covenants (all the ordinances and covenants that has been restored) there needed to be a new symbol a better symbol one that not only reminds us the he is resin but one that will remind us to look for his second coming, that is why we use the spire on our church buildings to look up to heaven to look for the coming of our lord and savior for he comith and the time on which we know not.

This is how I look at it…

 

[James the Persian]

I don't get what you are saying. That you would like the church to start using crosses?(sp?) Personally, I like that we don't use them. His death was perhaps the saddest moment in the history of the earth (IMO) and his resurrection 3 days later the happiest.

I always think of this scripture as what we celebrate:
D&C 76:22
And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

I don't understand this view. Could one of you explain? How could you have had the Resurrection without Christ's death and, therefore, how could the Crucifixion, theologically at least, be a sad event?

By the way, crosses don't concentrate on Christ's death. You could argue that crucifixes do (i.e. ones with a corpus), but an empty cross celebrates the fact that He is no longer crucified - in other words it celebrates the victory over death and not Christ's death itself. Just thought I'd end by trying to clear up a misconception you seem to have about what the symbol means.

James

 

[Comprehend]

I don't understand this view. Could one of you explain? How could you have had the Resurrection without Christ's death and, therefore, how could the Crucifixion, theologically at least, be a sad event?

By the way, crosses don't concentrate on Christ's death. You could argue that crucifixes do (i.e. ones with a corpus), but an empty cross celebrates the fact that He is no longer crucified - in other words it celebrates the victory over death and not Christ's death itself. Just thought I'd end by trying to clear up a misconception you seem to have about what the symbol means.

James

James,
obviously you are correct, there could be no resurrection without a death, but that doesn't mean that his torture and death is a *happy* event. It was necessary but terrible in my opinion. Even Jesus Himself asked not to go through with it.
We also choose to celebrate His victory over death, however we do not use a specific symbol such as the cross to point to it.

 

[mormonman]

That's beautiful!

Though 'shunning' crosses isn't exactly what we do. We just don't use them because they symbolize His death more then His life, and we are all about His life.

Although, I, myself find the celtic crosses to be some of the most stunning pieces of artwork ever created.

I love celtic crosses too; they're so gorgeous.

 

[mormonman]

I don't understand this view. Could one of you explain? How could you have had the Resurrection without Christ's death and, therefore, how could the Crucifixion, theologically at least, be a sad event?

By the way, crosses don't concentrate on Christ's death. You could argue that crucifixes do (i.e. ones with a corpus), but an empty cross celebrates the fact that He is no longer crucified - in other words it celebrates the victory over death and not Christ's death itself. Just thought I'd end by trying to clear up a misconception you seem to have about what the symbol means.

James

I definately agree with you. The cross has beautiful symbolism; as a type of a tree of life and, as you said, representing Christ's victory over death. I do think His death was a very sad day, I mean our God was crucified, but, at the same time, it was such a wonderful day, because His death was necessary for our salvation.

 

[mormonman]

I don't get what you are saying. That you would like the church to start using crosses?(sp?) Personally, I like that we don't use them. His death was perhaps the saddest moment in the history of the earth (IMO) and his resurrection 3 days later the happiest.

I always think of this scripture as what we celebrate:
D&C 76:22
And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

I would not be opposed at all if the Church used the cross. His death was necessary for our salvation. It's not like using the cross means that you automatically stop celebrating the Resurrection. I have my cross right next to The Living Christ. For everyone that doesn't know what The Living Christ is, here's a link - http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,90-1-10-1,00.html. It is a truly a beatiful document.

By the way, D&C 76:22-24 is my favorite scripture in the D&C. Here it is for everybody, "And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

 

[Bishka]

In fact, there is no where that says we shouldn't, we just don't.

 

[mormonman]

In fact, there is no where that says we shouldn't, we just don't.

Oh I know. But, it seems that, as a Church, we try to separate ourselves too much from Catholic and Protestant things. How many times in sunday school is it taught that we are the sons and daughters of Christ or that we are saved by grace; or how amazingly close the doctrine of the Trinity is to our doctrine? I mean in the D&C Christ sometimes talks as the Father, in first person. Just my view on things.

 

[jonny]

Oh I know. But, it seems that, as a Church, we try to separate ourselves too much from Catholic and Protestant things. How many times in sunday school is it taught that we are the sons and daughters of Christ or that we are saved by grace; or how amazingly close the doctrine of the Trinity is to our doctrine? I mean in the D&C Christ sometimes talks as the Father, in first person. Just my view on things.

I've never understood why the cross was such a big deal. There are a lot of churches that don't have a cross on top. I've seen paintings of Christ on the cross in a LDS church before.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't understand this view. Could one of you explain? How could you have had the Resurrection without Christ's death and, therefore, how could the Crucifixion, theologically at least, be a sad event?

Obviously, we realize that the Resurrection would have been impossible without the Crucifixion, but we just choose to focus on the Resurrection. Besides, we believe that Christ endured even more agony in Gethsemane when He bled from every pore than He did on the cross.

By the way, crosses don't concentrate on Christ's death. You could argue that crucifixes do (i.e. ones with a corpus), but an empty cross celebrates the fact that He is no longer crucified - in other words it celebrates the victory over death and not Christ's death itself. Just thought I'd end by trying to clear up a misconception you seem to have about what the symbol means.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may be wrong, but I think it's crucifixes that bother the Latter-day Saints more than empty crosses.

I personally love some of the crosses I see as jewelry (not crucifixes). In fact, I might even consider wearing one if I didn't think I'd be criticized by some of the more conservative members of my Church.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh I know. But, it seems that, as a Church, we try to separate ourselves too much from Catholic and Protestant things.

And with that statement, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Comprehend]

Oh I know. But, it seems that, as a Church, we try to separate ourselves too much from Catholic and Protestant things. How many times in sunday school is it taught that we are the sons and daughters of Christ or that we are saved by grace; or how amazingly close the doctrine of the Trinity is to our doctrine? I mean in the D&C Christ sometimes talks as the Father, in first person. Just my view on things.

but Isaiah sometimes talks as God also, as do various angels. Personally I think our doctrine is a huge difference from the Trinity (and it seems that those who believe in the Trinity agree). I think it is important because of what is taught in the Lectures on Faith. If we do not correctly understand the properties of God, it wrecks the foundation of the faith we have in Him. to ditto mormonman, this is also just my view...

 

[Darkness]

I am no longer Christian, but I wear a crucifix. I do agree that Celtic Cross are awesome. :yes:

 

[Katzpur]

I am no longer Christian, but I wear a crucifix.

That's interesting. May I ask why?

 

[James the Persian]

Thanks for the answers. I'm glad to see that people were looking on the Crucifixion as sad from a human perspective rather than a theological one. That, at least, makes sense.

Kat,

I agree with you about crucifixes. I don't particularly like them and would never wear one (particularly if it were a three dimensional corpus - too much like a statue). The only exception I make is to iconography, where we often have wall crosses with a painted corpus (in Churches this can often be detached from the cross so the corpus is not there on feasts like the Resurrection). I have one myself at home, the thing is icons aren't naturalistic and the usual icon of the Crucifixion has Him standing in victory rather than slumped in death - overcoming the cross, so to speak. So it is possible to concentrate on Christ's victory rather than death even with the corpus.

James

 

[mormonman]

but Isaiah sometimes talks as God also, as do various angels. Personally I think our doctrine is a huge difference from the Trinity (and it seems that those who believe in the Trinity agree). I think it is important because of what is taught in the Lectures on Faith. If we do not correctly understand the properties of God, it wrecks the foundation of the faith we have in Him. to ditto mormonman, this is also just my view...

You're right, the New Testament says that is "life eternal" to know the nature of God; that is why we have to look at very sound doctrine that is not taught in sunday school. Here's a passage from the scriptures, "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." This isn't found in the New Testament, but the Book of Mormon. This is part of Abinadi's speech to King Noah (Mosiah 15). This passage illustrates the classic Protestant and Catholic three but one doctrine; three different manifestations, one God. Our doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even though separate, act as one God in perfect unity. I really think that, with the knowledge that the early Church had when they were interpreting this doctrine, they got very close. The main difference is that the Father and Son have spiritual bodies as opposed to a body of spirit; their bodies having flesh, but being ruled by the spirit.

Don't worry about the underlines, my computer is being rediculous.

Protestant and Catholic friends - please let me know if I misspoke in my interpretation of your doctrine.

 

[Comprehend]

You're right, the New Testament says that is "life eternal" to know the nature of God; that is why we have to look at very sound doctrine that is not taught in sunday school. Here's a passage from the scriptures, "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." This isn't found in the New Testament, but the Book of Mormon. This is part of Abinadi's speech to King Noah (Mosiah 15). This passage illustrates the classic Protestant and Catholic three but one doctrine; three different manifestations, one God. Our doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even though separate, act as one God in perfect unity. I really think that, with the knowledge that the early Church had when they were interpreting this doctrine, they got very close. The main difference is that the Father and Son have spiritual bodies as opposed to a body of spirit; their bodies having flesh, but being ruled by the spirit.

Don't worry about the underlines, my computer is being rediculous.

Protestant and Catholic friends - please let me know if I misspoke in my interpretation of your doctrine.

Actually, the very sound doctrine you share above IS taught in sunday school. I am a sunday school teacher and that is the very first scripture addressed in the manual's lesson on the Godhead (see manual). This scripture is explaining that they are one in purpose, not one essense. According to LDS doctrine they are most definitely not three manefestations of the same personage and mormon doctrine is very clear on this point. Those who believe in the trinity believe that God, Jesus, and the HG are all of one essense, if one were destroyed, all 3 would be destroyed. We do not believe that. The first vision makes it quite clear for LDS doctrine that God the Father and Jesus Christ have separate bodies and are distinct individuals.(to echo MM again, my apologies if I have improperly described the trinity).

edited for spelling error