CrimsonKairos

Of course he does! He is a special witness of Jesus Christ just as the New Testament apostles were. I believe that Pres. Hinckley has felt the prints of the nails in the hands and feet of our resurrected Lord. He can testify that Jesus lives in a very literal and personal way. It's all about remembering Christ's death. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor. 11:26) It's funny, but so many LDS members think the sacrament water represents the blood Christ sweat in Gethsemane. This is in no way true. We eat the bread first to remember the physical pain of his death on the cross, and we drink the water second to remember how wicked men shed his blood unjustly on Calvary. In the scriptures, Gethsemane happened before Calvary. But wait, in the sacrament tokens we remember Calvary first and what, rewind to Gethsemane with the water? It's so sad how confused too many LDS members are, especially when there is no excuse for it since we have the scriptures before us to teach us the truth.

Let me be clear. I don't wear a cross or have a cross tattoo. For me the cross is almost too sacred to wear, though I totally understand the attraction and desire to wear a cross necklace or have a cross ring or what have you. I respect people who wear a cross, I don't look down on them as misguided or shallow. Yeah, and Jesus died so we could be forgiven of our sins. What's so horrible about reminding ourselves and others that Jesus died for us? I guarantee you that the only reason Pres. Hinckley or any other prophet advises against our Church adopting the cross in our meetinghouse architecture and in the jewelry our members wear, is simply to set us apart from the other Christian churches out there. Perhaps not THE only symbol, but there is no prohibition against using the cross as A symbol of our faith. Look, I use the cross as a symbol of the atonement that sets me free from the sins of my past. I'm not saying you should use the cross to symbolize everything about Christ. The cross is, however, a potent symbol of the sacrifice for sin that ransoms you and me and all who repent. Joseph Smith taught this: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938), p. 121 (emphasis added). Joseph Smith said that he "published the foregoing [answer] to save myself the trouble of repeating the same a thousand times over and over again." (Ibid.)) So you can interpret Pres. Hinckley's remarks in any way you wish to. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to explain how it can be wrong to carry a symbol of the single most important act in time or eternity, to wit, the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross, where wicked men shed his blood, that our sins might be blotted out.

First off, I think you meant to say that you "could not care less," because if you could care less, you still care to some degree. Second, are you suggesting that the cross is not a symbol used within the LDS religion? That we're somehow so much more enlightened and better that we don't need the cross? Wrong. Wrong. Christ's preparation to atone was what occurred in Gethsemane, but the sacrifice for sin took place on the cross. I get so tired of that answer. Have you ever read past D&C 19? Ever read any scriptures about the atonement besides D&C 19? It makes me sick, really, that we have so many scriptures and all you and others can focus on is one scripture in D&C 19, ripped from context, raped of meaning, and forced to serve the false tradition of our parents that we can't let go of. Here are some scriptures for you, bro, just from the D&C alone. Maybe you should read and ponder them before you thrust D&C 19:16-19 out as the banner of your "true" understanding of the atonement. For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9) I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2) Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God. (D&C 45:52) To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 46:13) Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world. (D&C 53:2) And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138:35) So uh, checkers, what do you make of that? Was Joseph Smith out of his mind when he received those revelations that don't mention Gethsemane at all? But wait, there's an even clearer one that defines...defines...the atonement as consisting of the crucifixion. Period. That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:41, 69) What's that? He wrought the atonement through the shedding of his own blood? And he sweat blood in Gethsemane? Not the same thing. Let's see what "shedding blood" means in the scriptures, yes? Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Gen. 9:6) Does that refer to sweating blood from pores, or does it refer to killing? What man soever...killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat...he hath shed blood (Lev. 17:3-4) So it's pretty clear that shedding blood is not a reference to Christ's capillaries bursting and forcing blood through his pores as occurred in Gethsemane. Christ's shed blood refers to his life blood, losing his life. If you aren't allergic to the Bible and Book of Mormon, there are lots of great scriptures to inform you more. Here are a few. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (Eph. 2:16) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col. 1:14-20) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Ne. 11:33) Perhaps most importantly, we have Christ's own words concerning his atonement, and what it consisted of. Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— (3 Ne. 27:13-14) Hmmm, no mention of Gethsemane. I wonder why only Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19:16-19 refer to the incident where Christ bled from every pore? Why would we only have two...just two...scriptures talking about Christ bleeding from every pore, if that was part of the sacrifice for sin foreshadowed in the Law of Moses ritual of the Day of Atonement? And why, pray tell, is Gethsemane not even mentioned in the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles' 2001 declaration "The Living Christ?" Um, here's a thought: Maybe because Gethsemane is not where Christ paid the price for our sins. Maybe because over the years, well-meaning but misguided church members have interpreted D&C 19 out of context and propagated their false doctrine through numerous Sunday School classes and Seminary lessons until everyone I ask today tells me that the atonement happened in Gethsemane alone. So if you're going to suggest someone read the scriptures, try it for yourself first. You might be surprised at all the doctrine you never knew was there. The atonement was the sacrifice for sin. The sacrifice for sin has always involved killing and the death of an innocent, spotless sacrificial victim. Christ did not die in Gethsemane. Christ did not drink from the bitter cup in Gethsemane (read 3 Nephi to see where Christ says so himself, although there are New Testament scriptures that say so as well). So no, the atonement did not "begin" in Gethsemane. The atonement began when Jesus was arrested by wicked men, and ended with his uttering the words, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." You might wanna research your doctrine beyond the seminary answers you no doubt love and cherish. There's much more that you haven't even tapped into. Good luck. And please stop spreading unscriptural doctrines. There is no scripture that says, explicitly, "Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane." There are more than a dozen scriptures that say explicitly, "Christ atoned for our sins on the Cross." You do the math. One last reminder of what the scriptures say about the atoning sacrifice for sin: ...Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9) Jesus Christ was not tortured in Gethsemane by wicked men for the sins of the world, nor did Jesus have his blood shed by wicked men in Gethsemane. I'll tell you what I know: I know that Jesus Christ died so that my sins might too.

Amen. Sadly, all too often it is the adults who can't handle it.

Without the cross, there would be no need for Christ's birth or resurrection. Like Christ said in 3 Nephi, God sent Jesus into the world to be lifted up upon the cross. Annabelli, I have to confess that I haven't understood most of what you've said in this thread. Oh I know what the words mean that you used, but I don't get you. Who said anything about getting a "bargain" cross or that the cross wasn't official doctrine? By the way, if I have a cross on a ring, I can wear that in the temple so...I don't know what you're talking about. I've never had someone ask me as part of my temple recommend interview, "Do you affiliate with or endorse the display of any cross symbolism on your person?"

Being worthy to wear cross jewelry? Wow, that seems a bit "out there" to me. You wear it if you want to remind yourself of the awful ordeal that Christ underwent for our sakes. Are you serious? What, are we only to obtain them from a DeseretBook-affiliated retailer? Wow, you seem to be taking the wearing of the cross to an extreme, imho. I didn't understand this part. What do you mean by "Heavenly Father judging Jesus?"

Huh? Not unless your cross necklace is made of razor blades. How can using the symbol of a cross be a yoke? The atonement is the cross, and if you are trying to point to the sacrifice for sin, that means the cross. I'm not saying the cross is the only useful symbol relative to Jesus Christ's role as our Savior. I'm saying the cross is a powerful symbol of Christ that all too many LDS members are afraid to embrace.

I don't believe we should go around with crucifixes (the image of Christ actually on the cross), but the imagery of a cross can be useful if done tastefully. Palerider, I agree, a 3 yr. old probably wouldn't get the nail thing. I thought the OP was talking about older children. Plus, they gave the impression that regardless of their child's age, they the parent weren't comfortable with the nail.

Says who? The only reason this mentality exists is to set the LDS Church apart from other Christian churches whose main claim-to-fame is their emphasis of the cross (which, surprisingly, should be emphasized). It's like some people would be less offended hearing a dirty word in church than hearing someone talk about the cross. Freakin' ridiculous. This has got to change, or we're spitting on the sacrifice of God's Only Begotten Son. The atonement was not Gethsemane. The atonement was not the Tomb of Aramithaea. The atonement was made on the cross. Accept it, everyone. Read the scriptures. Stop going off the false traditions of your fathers/mothers and get doctrinal.

Okay, if the primary kid is like 3-6 years old, maybe the nail would go over their heads. But you can't seriously expect me to believe that 8-11 year-old kids who have action figures with guns and swords that depict violence and who watch movies like Ninja Turtles...these same kids are not supposed to be able to handle the awful truth of our Lord's death? Again, I think this uncomfortable feeling about the ornament isn't about age or propriety, but about a personal disconnect with the cross in LDS religion.

Everyone that knows me here won't be surprised by this answer, but I thought the ornament was an awesome idea. I tire of the contempt for the cross that the majority of LDS members have. It's sadly amusing to see some people squirm at the mere thought of the cross, as if it's evil. I can't see how an ornament can be bad if it calls to mind the atonement of Christ. "And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." (1 Ne. 11:33) "13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross..." (3 Ne. 27:13-14) "...Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart." (D&C 21:9) "I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..." (D&C 35:2) So could someone please explain to me why a Christmas ornament that symbolizes the atonement on the cross, is a bad thing? I'm actually surprised at the question: "Was the teacher a new member?" What, are we supposed to ignore the cross in our Church?

Before his brain injury, my dad used to carry around a bunch of LDS pass-along-cards, and when he gave money to beggars or whatnot, he'd give them a card too and say that card was worth more than the money, because of the knowledge and blessings available to those who call the number on the card. I've done that too. Feels good to give both money and a spiritual offering.

The pleasure's mine.

Sounds great, except for one thing. It's against the Word of Wisdom. The standard isn't "no caffeinated coffee." It's "no coffee," period. Check it out with your Bishop sometime.

Why is that ironic? The LDS Church never claimed to have a copyright on the Spirit or Truth. :) We just believe we have a fulness of it. I too sense the Spirit of God in you, but that's just me. Or should I say, your "behavior" on this website has been among the most Christian I've seen along with several other LDS posters.

The scriptures truly are powerful.

Nailed it, sixpack. Well said. I'd add that once we do our best to abandon our sins and become better, we gain confidence born of the knowledge that our Savior will fight for our salvation, and when you have Christ on your side, you can't fail. I think of a few scriptures in connection to this topic. After Christ visited the Nephites following his death and resurrection, at one point he prayed to the Father for them, and this is what they said about that: "... and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father." (3 Ne. 17:17) And what is it he says to the Father on our behalf? "3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him— 4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified; 5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life." (D&C 45:3-5) I don't know about you, but I feel excited and comforted when I read those words. Of course, the key to having Christ take up our cause is repentance and having charity (read: Christlike love) for those around us. Guilt is good only so far as it creates "divine discontent" within us, the desire to change and grow. However, when guilt becomes self-loathing or self-hate or despair, that's when Satan is at work and not the still, small voice. Ultimately, we know we can't be perfect...by ourselves. The challenge of this life is to partake of the divine nature which the Father and Son possess, and in so doing, become like them in thought, word, and deed. Do you know the main way we partake of the divine nature? Through ordinances and covenants. That is why baptism, sacrament, endowment and temple marriage (to name a few) are so important. So my point, rosie, is that it is the very ordinances you're questioning that provide the key to dispelling the guilt or crushing pressure you feel due to our inability to "do all the things" we as LDS members are to do. If you're feeling overwhelmed, the ordinances should not be the first thing you decide to stop doing. They are the only way to overcome feeling overwhelmed by inadequacy, because it is by partaking of ordinances that we enter the covenant/contract relationship with Christ whereby he promises to persuade the Father to forget all the ways in which we weren't perfect if we tried our best. I love how Christ says this, and I really think this is the sum of the matter: "36 Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not. 37 Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen." (D&C 6:36-37) Doubt not, fear not. Be faithful. Strive to keep the commandments the best you can. And guess what? You'll inherit the kingdom of heaven. Period. Christ has spoken it. And that gives birth to a joy brighter than the sun, a joy that banishes the darkness of fear and doubt and excessive guilt.

I stayed at the LAX Marriott recently, and they had herbal tea in addition to coffee in my room. I just used the coffee maker to brew my herbal tea for me. No one else has ever had herbal tea in their room?

You also have to remember who Paul was writing to. Jews. Pharisees. Scribes. Dare I say even Sadducees. Given that Jews were adamantly loyal to...er...Judaism...it makes sense that Paul would argue strongly against the Old Testament system of worship/salvation since Jesus had instituted a new system with new ordinances. Ever since the controversy in Antioch about whether Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses or not (see Acts 15), Paul's mission was to disprove the need for the Law of Moses after Christ's death and resurrection. Paul never argued that Christ did away with all ordinances, or that Christ no longer wanted any leaders/prophets/apostles to guide his Church. That's the difference. I understand that's the non-LDS view, but I think it misses something important. The Law of Moses was given to Israel after they worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness, showing Jehovah that they weren't ready for the higher law and higher priesthood with its attendant ordinances (endowment, temple marriage, etc...). So if Christ did away with or fulfilled the lower law and lesser ordinances, it makes sense that he'd then institute the higher law and higher priesthood and greater ordinances that he originally desired Israel to have in the first place. That is why there is still a need for a physical temple. The Jewish temple was for the lesser priesthood ordinances. Once that was done away with, the temple or house of God now becomes a place where we partake of the higher priesthood ordinances. Why would anyone want to be left with no ordinances, lesser or greater? No temple? No thanks, I'll keep mine. B) Again, look who Paul was trying to persuade: Jews who still believed that animal sacrifice was necessary for salvation. Paul isn't arguing against any physical ordinances or formal system of worship. I think we both know, though, that prophets in the scriptures were not merely people who prophesied. Anyone can prophesy as its a gift of the Spirit that we may all receive (though not all of us do). The Old Testament is replete with a pattern of God trying to correct and guide and save His people through the ministry of hand-picked prophets. Moses was Israel's spiritual leader. His role was not just to prophesy. His role was to lead, govern and reveal God's will. I contend that Jesus didn't intend for his apostles to just die away and leave the flock without any divinely authorized shepherd to guide in Christ's physical absence. But that's just me. :) I don't see the contradiction. Christ sacrificed himself once and for all, true, but what does that have to do with whether Christ's followers can sin or fall away from the faith? We miss out. If you have the opportunity to partake of the sacrament, and you are a baptized member of the Church, and you don't go...I personally believe you are not forgiven since you are not renewing the covenant that makes remission of sin possible. But that's not what I said at all. I said I use sacrament meeting to help me focus on the foundation of my religion and spiritual life: Jesus Christ. I never said Church is just a time to meditate or that ordinances aren't necessary. In addition, I don't think the scriptures say that either. Christ himself instituted the Lord's Supper as an ordinance to replace the Passover, so I hardly think it's an unnecessary ordinance. Given that human nature is what it is, I don't think it's strange at all. I mean, Jehovah wanted Israel to obey so badly that after the exodus from Egypt, He commanded them to nail scriptures to their doorways, wear scriptures on their foreheads, etc. all to remind them of their new duties and doctrines. Yet all too often, the very presence of the reminders proved an obstacle to remembering what was truly important in their worship of Jehovah.

I'd say a physical temple would be useful even after Christ's death. However, the special ordinances that would be performed in a temple would no longer include animal sacrifice and burnt offerings, etc. since that was done away with by Christ's death on the cross. So what new ordinances would Christ have introduced into temple worship in place of the old system? Sounds like a question for a prophet of God. So happens we have one today. What do you mean by the LDS doctrine of "falling away?" You mean the apostasy? Or personal sins? I'm confused. Agreed. That's one of my favorite parts as well. I for one appreciate the Lord's Supper on Sunday. It is a (hopefully) quiet time to remember Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and re-synchronize our lives and hearts with God's will for us. I personally am guilty of sometimes losing focus, but I think that's a function of being mortal with all sorts of spiritual and temporal responsibilities to attend to. Sometimes we just get busy. At the end of the day, though, I know who has saved me from death and hell, what he expects me to do to as a covenant member of his Church, and how blessed I am to know these things. :)

Hey Aphrodite, long time no hear. Gib was here to persecute, not investigate. His "question" is such an old anti-mormon attack that it's rather sad. I wish the anti's would at least come up with some stuff that hasn't been around since the 1800's. Now if YOU asked me a question, Aphrodite, I'd take time to answer. :) Why? Because I like you. And I know you're not a jerk just out to cause trouble.

Cast lots? (always wanted to do that) Seriously though, PC, which scriptures lead you to believe Satan will not preside over the wicked that have followed his temptations and rejected Christ? Or do you like a-train's answer better as more of a "gut feeling" kinda thing?

Um, yes we do. At least, if you believe the Book of Mormon: "3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. 11 If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation—" (Mosiah 16:3, 11) "6 And behold I say unto you all that this was a snare of the adversary, which he has laid to catch this people, that he might bring you into subjection unto him, that he might encircle you about with his chains, that he might chain you down to everlasting destruction, according to the power of his captivity. 17 Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will." (Alma 12:6, 17) "35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked." (Alma 34:35)

Conversion wasn't on Gib's list of things to do.

Gib, Why did Jesus claim he was the sacrifice for sin, and our High Priest, when Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah, and Moses only authorized the Tribe of Levi and, specifically, the descendants of Aaron to be High Priests? Guess that means Jesus was a fake and the New Testament is based on a fraud. Oh wait, you mean you can subject LDS beliefs to a standard of Truth that your own beliefs can't stand up to? Hmmm, what did Jesus say about that? "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt. 7:2) My point? Think before you fixate on silly "contradictions," because the New Testament is full of them.