DiscussMormonism.com

I must have been on a roll in Church yesterday. In Sunday school, the teacher was talking about the Atonement, and asked why it might be that Mormons tend to focus on the Gethsemane rather than Golgotha as where the event primarily occurred.

Knowing the teacher to be of a similar mind to myself, I suggested that it may have to do with the Mormon aversion to the cross as a symbol; and hence a perceived need to deemphasize the measure of the Atonement that occurred there.

(I probably went too far when I jokingly likened Mormons to "latter-day vampires" who hiss and retreat at the sign of the cross, or when I suggested that the the big empty space on the wall at the front of the chapel fairly cries out for a crucifix.)

But with these acknowledgements in place, what do you think of this idea? I know Mike Reed would likely have some thoughts on the issue.

Something I did not say is the strangeness of Mormon temples and temple rites being so immersed in just about every symbol under the sun (and including the sun), many Masonic, and yet Mormons getting all bent out of shape when somebody puts together a horizontal line with a vertical.

Oh, yes, to complete the story, the teacher then began quoting the first lines to the hymn, "The Old Rugged Cross," and said how powerful it was to him and how meaningful it could be to all of us as we contemplate what Jesus did on our behalf. (I told you he was of a similar mind.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I've always loved Isaac Watts' hymn, which I learned singing in the MTC choir:

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.
See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

There's definitely an aversion to the symbol. In my experience, it's mostly because the cross is identified with mainstream "apostate" Christianity. It's ironic that we want to be considered Christians, but we don't want to be confused with those Christians.

When I was a kid I always thought the churches that had the crosses on the top were the bad churches. It was like a sign of the devil to me.

If the Mormon church is trying to act more mainstream I wonder if they will slowly introduce more symbols of the cross.

Yeah but another big religion uses the crescent moon and a star rather than a cross.

Rambo wrote:
If the Mormon church is trying to act more mainstream I wonder if they will slowly introduce more symbols of the cross.

I wonder about that, too. I can understand why some Christian churches view Mormons as non-Christian with their patent aversion to the traditional symbol of Christianity.

On a related note, there was recently added to our stake center a large, white spire at the front resembling those seen on Baptist churches.

No cross, but I think it may be a step in that direction.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

On a related note, there was recently added to our stake center a large, white spire at the front resembling those seen on Baptist churches.--Consiglieri

As you move toward normalcy, it's my understanding that your church dinners probably meet doctrinal requirements, and church basketball is probably played with the same Christian love, and your level pretentiousness and judgementalism are probably at sufficient levels - so this is one more piece to the puzzle as you move toward orthodoxy.

consiglieri wrote:I must have been on a roll in Church yesterday. In Sunday school, the teacher was talking about the Atonement, and asked why it might be that Mormons tend to focus on the Gethsemane rather than Golgotha as where the event primarily occurred.

I can't say why this has happened, but I can give you some contributing factors.

1) Mormons for the most part ignore the Pauline epistles. And it's the Pauline epistles that really drive home a theology of the cross. Mormons are always more comfortable with the epistle of James than they are with Paul. Less emphasis Paul -> Less emphasis on the cross.

2) Because Mormons like James more than Paul, there is an overemphasis on how James approaches faith, i.e. "Faith without works is dead." This leads to an emphasis on works that people do, not on the work Christ did. This moves people away from both Gethsemane (the locus of the atonement for Mormons) and from the cross (the locus of the atonement for orthodox Christians). But the bottom line is that Mormons move away from the cross no matter how you slice it.

3) Mosiah 3:7 contributes to this.

Mosiah 3:7 wrote:And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

The big suffering of Jesus for sin is associated with bleeding from every pore here. This naturally gets associated to Luke 22:43-44. Unfortunately, Luke 22:43-44 is probably a late addition to the New Testament. Most modern translations put it in double brackets, signalling that the translators don't think it's original.

4) D&C 19:17-18 contributes to this

D&C 19:17-18 wrote:But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

Again, in this section suffering for sin is associated with bleeding at every pore. So again, the logical association is with Luke 22:43-44 and Gethsemane.

Pr. Hinckley - ... But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’

nice try hinckley... but it is the dying Christ that saves. The cross is a stumbling block, and a offense to the Mormons as it is to all false religions.

It shows that Mormons don't understand the continuity of the new and old testaments. Jesus is the lamb, the lamb had to be slain for the forgiveness of sins. It's very strange to me, they won't come out and say it, but they do seem to want the benefits and sentimentality of the cross, but they are offend by it. He had to die and it is in his death that we are saved... the wages of sin are death. So Christ taking on the sins of the world (and most of the Mormon's sins) must die in our stead. In essence, that is how we are saved, then we benefit from his resurrection and perfect life. I could care less about the symbolism of the cross on a bumper sticker or church. It's the symbolism of eating his body and blood remembering his death in our hearts.

The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28)

Romans 6:1-23
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. ...


1 Peter 2:24

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Aristotle Smith wrote:4) D&C 19:17-18 contributes to this

D&C 19:17-18 wrote:But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

Again, in this section suffering for sin is associated with bleeding at every pore. So again, the logical association is with Luke 22:43-44 and Gethsemane.

Good points, all.

This last was actually brought up by another class member right after my comments, being the D&C section you cite.

I agree with you about the emphasis on James rather than Paul in LDS circles.

I think that is a pity and when I taught Sunday school, I doubled up on the gospels, covering them two at a time so we had plenty of time left to delve into the rest of the New Testament, and had lots of time for Paul. (Right now our teacher is going according to the manual which means we won't be out of the gospels until August and not out of Acts until September. This doesn't leave a lot of room for exploring Paul's epistles . . ..)


Our teacher yesterday brought up this idea in the context of Mark's gospel which has Jesus crying out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

He said it sounded to him like it didn't get any worse for Jesus than what happened on the cross, comparing his Gethsemane experience where he had an angel sent to comfort him.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hoops wrote:As you move toward normalcy,

I am afraid I continue to move toward heterodoxy among LDS circles while retaining my non-normal status in other churches.

Even among misfits, you're misfits!


All the Best!

--Yukon Cornelieri