Wearing crosses and blessing objects

[ElectofGod]

Not sure a piece of wood or metal, no matter how fancy it is can be considered as living as something growing crops.

I really am not understanding why a blessed cross is any different than an unblessed one. If a cross makes you remember Christ does a blessed one make you remember Him more?

As a Priesthood bearer I would not participate in the blessing of an object like this and yes I do think its different than blessing a home.

my 2 cents - your mileage may vary

FWIW

"ALL THINGS PRAISE THE LORD"

Legends of the Jews [Chapter I: The Creation of the World, Volume I]

As for blessing objects. There are many blessed objects in the book of mormon. The question is what is the purpose for doing it?

[Quin]

Quin, you really think a Temple is no different than a McDonalds or a piece of wood carved into a cross?

While its sitting in the lumbar yard?

Yep.

Just a piece of wood.

What makes a thing special isn't the thing itself.

It's the spirit inside of it.

Q

[Vort]

While its sitting in the lumbar yard?

Another name for a chiropractor's office.

[pam]

Another name for a chiropractor's office.

Good catch Vort. :)

[Traveler]

I see nothing wrong with wearing the cross. If it reminds you of our Heavenly Father and his son, then go ahead and wear it.

I see nothing wrong with putting aside such things as a cross and seeking (committing to) new traditions and new expressions of a new faith - as Ruth did in the Old Testament.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

I see nothing wrong with putting aside such things as a cross and seeking (committing to) new traditions and new expressions of a new faith - as Ruth did in the Old Testament....

Traveler, check out this 3D model of the Fort Collins Colorado Temple. From an aerial view you can see that there is a cross on the top (roof) of Temple. What is your opinion of this architecture for this Temple?

Fort Collins Colorado LDS (Mormon) Temple 3D Model

M.

[Guest]

I see nothing wrong with putting aside such things as a cross and seeking (committing to) new traditions and new expressions of a new faith - as Ruth did in the Old Testament.

The Traveler

And there's nothing wrong with keeping it either if there's no good reason to set it aside.

[Blackmarch]

I agree there isn't anything wrong with wearing it as long as we don't fall into worshipping it or attributing powers to it or some such. As for blessing items, we generally don't do that... however if there is some necessity or specific purpose for something to be blessed (such as a home to invite the spirit, dedicating a grave or even blessing something as like a car so that it will work on a long trip, or a temple to be the House of God) then it can be done, but such things should never be considered trivial or done on just a whim.

If something is important to you that you need preserved, you certainly have the freedom to pray to God to bless it to whatever end. I've done that for my Scriptures when they were lost, and they were preserved and returned to me a month later.

[Leah]

While its sitting in the lumbar yard?

Yep.

Just a piece of wood.

What makes a thing special isn't the thing itself.

It's the spirit inside of it.

Q

But you were comparing a temple to a McDonald's, not to lumber in a lumber yard. While it is still lumber in a lumber yard, it is not a McDonald's either.

[Guest]

But you were comparing a temple to a McDonald's, not to lumber in a lumber yard. While it is still lumber in a lumber yard, it is not a McDonald's either.

Leah, she wasn't comparing the Temple's sanctity to McDonald's. But, the Temple building is an ordinary building just like McDonald's. Okay, a temple is bigger and more ornate than the top of the line McDonald's buidling... but that's beside the point.

What sets the Temple apart from any other building including McDonald's is not the building itself but the purpose of it. What sets it apart from a Ward Building or a Stake Center is what it is consecrated as. Basically, an OBJECT has no meaning in and of itself. What gives it meaning is what one ASSIGNS to it or what one consecrates it as. So a cross that Madonna wears on her music videos may not have the same meaning as what Andypg has (not really sure as Madonna is Catholic but having a cross dangling about her neck while performing racy videos makes you wonder)... one is a sacred object, the other is just jewelry.

Edited December 2, 2013 by anatess

[SoaringEagle]

I have a black diamond cross that I was given as a gift from my mother before I converted to the church. I had another cross too but lost it somewhere. I stopped wearing them because I was not big on jewelry however that doesn't stop my mother from wondering why I don't wear it.

[Traveler]

And there's nothing wrong with keeping it either if there's no good reason to set it aside.

Sometimes point of view is what is the most revealing. I think that as we become one with G-d that we begin to see "things" in a different light.

I had two uncles that fought each other over a family piano. The piano was sacred to both and when my grandparents died and one uncle took the piano the other would no longer talk to the first. The piano meant too much to both to bend. Both uncles went to their grave refusing to reconcile with the other. Today this piano sits in ill repair in a cousin's home that would give it away - if anyone wanted it and would take care of it.

As much as we become attached to many "things" (including money) we cannot take such things with us beyond the grave. The grave is interesting because all things that are not eternal - must be set aside at that time.

I believe it is important to have a heart and mind to put aside things that really do not matter - that we, as believers in Christ, should be willing to set aside in this life those things we cannot take to the next. This does not mean that we put everything aside - but that we are willing to do so.

I do not plan on taking a cross with me beyond the grave. There are other "things" that I personally have greater difficulity with - but a cross not so much.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Sometimes point of view is what is the most revealing. I think that as we become one with G-d that we begin to see "things" in a different light.

I had two uncles that fought each other over a family piano. The piano was sacred to both and when my grandparents died and one uncle took the piano the other would no longer talk to the first. The piano meant too much to both to bend. Both uncles went to their grave refusing to reconcile with the other. Today this piano sits in ill repair in a cousin's home that would give it away - if anyone wanted it and would take care of it.

This is a competely different scenario than having your own cross you wear around your own neck.

As much as we become attached to many "things" (including money) we cannot take such things with us beyond the grave. The grave is interesting because all things that are not eternal - must be set aside at that time.

I believe it is important to have a heart and mind to put aside things that really do not matter - that we, as believers in Christ, should be willing to set aside in this life those things we cannot take to the next. This does not mean that we put everything aside - but that we are willing to do so.

I do not plan on taking a cross with me beyond the grave. There are other "things" that I personally have greater difficulity with - but a cross not so much.

The Traveler

Take everything you said here and replace "things" with your wife's picture or your children's picture that you are keeping in your wallet.

Okay... maybe you don't do pictures in your wallet either. Oh well. I do. And if the house burns down, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for me to jump into the burning building to try to save that wallet (no, I don't have money in it). Even if I can't take those pictures to my grave. Because those pictures are irreplaceable and I like to be able to look at them whenever I want to remind me of them even when they've flown the roost.

The problem with your perspective is that you are assigning an attachment that is not there. We wear a cross because we can and it reminds us of Christ's atonement. If President Monson declares it is adviced that all of us get rid of that cross, neither Andypg nor I will even think twice about putting it away.

You don't become more spiritual just because you got rid of a cross. But, just like wearing garments, having that cross close to your heart can remind me of my spiritual promises.

Edited December 3, 2013 by anatess

[Maureen]

I do not plan on taking a cross with me beyond the grave. There are other "things" that I personally have greater difficulity with - but a cross not so much....

Traveler, for many people the cross represents God's love for us. God loved the world so much that he would give up his sinless son to save this sinful world. The cross reminds people of that love that God has for us. It is similar to your covenants that you hold dear between you and God. The cross is eternal and sacred to others in a similar way that your covenants are sacred to you.

M.

[Traveler]

Traveler, for many people the cross represents God's love for us. God loved the world so much that he would give up his sinless son to save this sinful world. The cross reminds people of that love that God has for us. It is similar to your covenants that you hold dear between you and God. The cross is eternal and sacred to others in a similar way that your covenants are sacred to you.

M.

Not really - the things I hold sacred in my covenants - I know I will take with me beyond the grave. There is a very real difference between the love I have for my wife and the wedding ring that symbolizes our love. One is not eternal - but only a symbol that is no where near as important as the other. And I see little reason to pretend that what is not important to be important. However, I do regret that my opinion in this matter is such a disappointment to others - I just do not understand being attached to a symbol as though the symbol itself has significances in it self. What it symbolizes is important - but to me "it" (being the symbol itself) is nothing to be concerned about.

I like symbols - up to the point that the symbol becomes important - then I think too much importance has been taken from what it symbolizes and given to something that does not really matter at all.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

This is a competely different scenario than having your own cross you wear around your own neck.

Take everything you said here and replace "things" with your wife's picture or your children's picture that you are keeping in your wallet.

Okay... maybe you don't do pictures in your wallet either. Oh well. I do. And if the house burns down, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for me to jump into the burning building to try to save that wallet (no, I don't have money in it). Even if I can't take those pictures to my grave. Because those pictures are irreplaceable and I like to be able to look at them whenever I want to remind me of them even when they've flown the roost.

The problem with your perspective is that you are assigning an attachment that is not there. We wear a cross because we can and it reminds us of Christ's atonement. If President Monson declares it is adviced that all of us get rid of that cross, neither Andypg nor I will even think twice about putting it away.

You don't become more spiritual just because you got rid of a cross. But, just like wearing garments, having that cross close to your heart can remind me of my spiritual promises.

Hmmmm - I see things differently - I forget most of the time I am wearing my garments. The real reason I wear them is because I gave my word that I would. If I were to be taken a prisoner and my garments taken from me and used for any number of things - I would not be concerned. Neither me nor my G-d have been harmed - only those that think such things have some lasting importance.

As for picture of family, friends and other things - sure I like such things - but not near as much as family, friends and other things. I see no reason to risk important things for things that are not important - I would not enter a burning building to save pictures but I would to save persons. This may upset you a little - but I would not risk my life for a pet - even thought I like my pets - just not that much.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

It might be a clever and meaningful venture for an LDS member to come up with a way of presenting the Garden on jewelry. It would have to be something simple to work. Maybe Traveler's warnings about graven images have kept artists from trying?

One could probably do a pendant with Christ praying against an olive tree. Something similar to this image:

Though you'd need to arrange Christ so he wasn't in front of the tree, and it certainly wouldn't be as stylistically simple as a plain cross.

[Guest]

Hmmmm - I see things differently - I forget most of the time I am wearing my garments. The real reason I wear them is because I gave my word that I would. If I were to be taken a prisoner and my garments taken from me and used for any number of things - I would not be concerned. Neither me nor my G-d have been harmed - only those that think such things have some lasting importance.

Then we agree. I would mourn its loss but it's not going to kill me.

As for picture of family, friends and other things - sure I like such things - but not near as much as family, friends and other things. I see no reason to risk important things for things that are not important - I would not enter a burning building to save pictures but I would to save persons. This may upset you a little - but I would not risk my life for a pet - even thought I like my pets - just not that much.

The Traveler

I'm not upset by it. There are people who take on the responsibility of having pets and the minute it becomes inconvenient they drop the pet off at a shelter. How much more for trying to save pets from a burning building. That has nothing to do with my penchant for keeping symbols of my worship or trying to keep mementos of my children as these are sacred to me. For you, nothing you own is sacred. That's fine. But, it remains, that just because I hold mementos sacred doesn't mean you're somehow more spiritually elevated than I.

Edited December 3, 2013 by anatess

[Leah]

Leah, she wasn't comparing the Temple's sanctity to McDonald's. But, the Temple building is an ordinary building just like McDonald's. Okay, a temple is bigger and more ornate than the top of the line McDonald's buidling... but that's beside the point.

What sets the Temple apart from any other building including McDonald's is not the building itself but the purpose of it. What sets it apart from a Ward Building or a Stake Center is what it is consecrated as. Basically, an OBJECT has no meaning in and of itself. What gives it meaning is what one ASSIGNS to it or what one consecrates it as. So a cross that Madonna wears on her music videos may not have the same meaning as what Andypg has (not really sure as Madonna is Catholic but having a cross dangling about her neck while performing racy videos makes you wonder)... one is a sacred object, the other is just jewelry.

I think the poster I am addressing is perfectly capable of responding to my post and do not need others speaking on their behalf. What you do or do not think is not relevant, as my comments were not addressed to you.

Besides, you completely missed my point.

[Guest]

I think the poster I am addressing is perfectly capable of responding to my post and do not need others speaking on their behalf. What you do or do not think is not relevant, as my comments were not addressed to you.

Besides, you completely missed my point.

Of course she is. She's QUIN! She's, like, up there with Vort.

But, as she already responded and you're still not "getting it" then I thought I'd say it in my own words. And of course it is relevant just like quadzillion other posts directed at you is relevant whether you addressed them or not as long as the topic stays in point.

And no, I didn't miss your point. You completely missed Quin's.

Do you need help untwisting your bloomers?

[Traveler]

Then we agree. I would mourn its loss but it's not going to kill me.

I'm not upset by it. There are people who take on the responsibility of having pets and the minute it becomes inconvenient they drop the pet off at a shelter. How much more for trying to save pets from a burning building. That has nothing to do with my penchant for keeping symbols of my worship or trying to keep mementos of my children as these are sacred to me. For you, nothing you own is sacred. That's fine. But, it remains, that just because I hold mementos sacred doesn't mean you're somehow more spiritually elevated than I.

If you do not mind - I will speak just a little, my opinion concerning pets. This I do because I am not sure we take upon ourselves that much more responsibility with pets. I believe that mankind (all of us) according to covenants before we came to mortality entered into a covenant with G-d to be responsible stewards of all things created on this earth. I do not believe we "own" other living things but that we have all been given stewardship - especially as saints to oversee and care for G-d's creations.

Part of our sacred stewardship is in allowing living things to fulfill the measure of their creation. This can be difficult because, for the most part, we may not understand the measure for which many living things were created - especially those living things that for the most part were created to be "wild". But we can make efforts to understand and learn to be stewards - asI have implied - not sure that we change the purpose and intent of our stewardship covenants by "owing" pets.

You are wrong in thinking that to me nothing is sacred - it is the opposite - all things are sacred; including the agency of those that, for whatever reason, oppose what I believe, including what I believe sacred. I will voice my understanding of things - but their agency is sacred to me and I encourage agency - which means that one day before G-d they will make an account. At such a day I will only make account for my responsibilities and agency and if someone has attempted to take from me my agency and made effort to prevent me from keeping my covenants.

I believe my covenants include trying to be intelligent and making decisions based upon the reasonableness of what I am facing. That should I error - I can learn and repent. But that I should not turn away from difficult choices but rather be unafraid to seek to learn and grow from my experiences. One such lesson - would be not to sacrifice things of less importance for things of greater importance. A human soul, as best as I understand, is of far greater importance than anything else to which I have been given stewardship. Therefore I try to conduct what I do and say to conform to my understanding of my sacred covenants - as I assume others are doing as well. But to be honest - it does appear to me that others are making choices without taking their covenants into account. So am I judging them? Perhaps but again there are times I do feel that I should say something about their covenants - as well as listen to others concerning my own covenants.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

Some people have opinions that are very important to them and miss the fact that others disagree with them over it's importance.

If it works for you Great - but to many others it doesn't work or isn't important.

This is a place where people come for advice and get it from many different people, just because we don't always agree does not make anyone's answer less valid.

Or as my wife frequently says: "Its not all about you."

Edited December 4, 2013 by mnn727

[Guest]

If you do not mind - I will speak just a little, my opinion concerning pets. This I do because I am not sure we take upon ourselves that much more responsibility with pets. I believe that mankind (all of us) according to covenants before we came to mortality entered into a covenant with G-d to be responsible stewards of all things created on this earth. I do not believe we "own" other living things but that we have all been given stewardship - especially as saints to oversee and care for G-d's creations.

Part of our sacred stewardship is in allowing living things to fulfill the measure of their creation. This can be difficult because, for the most part, we may not understand the measure for which many living things were created - especially those living things that for the most part were created to be "wild". But we can make efforts to understand and learn to be stewards - asI have implied - not sure that we change the purpose and intent of our stewardship covenants by "owing" pets.

You are wrong in thinking that to me nothing is sacred - it is the opposite - all things are sacred; including the agency of those that, for whatever reason, oppose what I believe, including what I believe sacred. I will voice my understanding of things - but their agency is sacred to me and I encourage agency - which means that one day before G-d they will make an account. At such a day I will only make account for my responsibilities and agency and if someone has attempted to take from me my agency and made effort to prevent me from keeping my covenants.

I believe my covenants include trying to be intelligent and making decisions based upon the reasonableness of what I am facing. That should I error - I can learn and repent. But that I should not turn away from difficult choices but rather be unafraid to seek to learn and grow from my experiences. One such lesson - would be not to sacrifice things of less importance for things of greater importance. A human soul, as best as I understand, is of far greater importance than anything else to which I have been given stewardship. Therefore I try to conduct what I do and say to conform to my understanding of my sacred covenants - as I assume others are doing as well. But to be honest - it does appear to me that others are making choices without taking their covenants into account. So am I judging them? Perhaps but again there are times I do feel that I should say something about their covenants - as well as listen to others concerning my own covenants.

The Traveler

I think you misunderstood me. We were talking of OBJECTS. So, when I said you don't hold anything sacred I only meant any OBJECT sacred.

Okay, with pets... I "own" my pets like I "own" my children. I don't own my pets like I own a TV. Therefore, when I took on the responsibility of raising 3 dogs, 3 birds, 2 turtles, 1 lizard, 10 fish, and 6 snakes, I took on the responsibility of giving them their proper care. It's not a responsibility that is easily set aside like if I happen to move and the TV does not fit the new house I put it up on craigslist. And so if the house burns down, it is my responsibility to save these creatures to the best of my ability because I am a steward of God's creation. Why don't I try to save a houseplant? Because, I have not received revelation that houseplants feel pain.

There is no living thing on this planet that is not "created to be wild". And that includes the dog. So, why do I have pets? Because, there is nothing more powerful in teaching my children compassion for God's creation than having them care for one of them every single day of their lives. We learn about their unique qualities, we gain experience in the proper conditions, not only for their survival, but also for their contentment, we gain respect for them and love them for what they are. It is not possible for us to live in the zoo and it is not possible for us to live in the African/Amazon jungle.

Talking about stewardship... how many people do you know whose first instinct when they see a snake is not to run for the shovel to chop its head off? I have 2 kids right here who has gained that respect for animals including snakes. When they grow up, they have a better chance of fighting for animal preservation because they have a personal relationship with them.

Okay, back to topic.

Edited December 4, 2013 by anatess

[Quin]

1) Annatess is completely right.

2) last go:

I was trying to explain cross-religious significance... Which can be a difficult thing.

Catholic Blessed Objects

Islamic Samctity of Qur'ans

LDS Temples

All working from, actually, a Shinto perspective.

Which will either confuse things even more, or maybe add clarity.

When I was a small child, there was a huge old tree in my neighborhood, that was ringed round with flags.

When I asked my caregiver why the tree was like that, it was explained to me that the ancient old tree was still young. It needed to grow for another hundred years or so, before it could be cut down.

Then, it would still not be used.

It would be sunk to the bottom of a lake for another hundred years or so.

Only then, would it be raised up, and fashioned into the timber for a Temple.

The tree was a sacred tree.

Not for what is was, but for what it would be.

HERE, we don't have that concept.

We don't plant trees, and protect them as sacred.

All trees are cut, aged, planed, shipped about to stores, bought by contractors.

Wood sitting in a mill or Home Depot can & will go to myriad sources.

Some will be carved into Rosary Beads, some built into Temples, some into Play Sets, McDonalds, Strip Clubs, Strip Malls, Swimming Pools, Schools, Mansions, Low income housing, police stations, crack houses.

Is all just lumber.

It doesn't become sacred until much later.

If ever.

When we build our Temples, we use the same wood/ metal/ stone used in myriad other buildings.

When we complete our Temples, we open them to the public for tours.

It's not UNTIL the space is sanctified, the Spirit invited in, that the public is kept out & the space is sacred.

The sum is equal to more than its parts.

A Temple is more than wood and stone.

Or as Carl Sagan says:

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."

I was trying to get people to think of WHEN it becomes more than just wood & stone.

Not in the lumber yard & quarry.

Not during construction.

Not even AFTER its finished being constructed.

It's only afterward.

After its blessed, set apart, sanctified, given purpose, meaning, etc.

As a child, the culture I loved in didn't have this concept.

A thing was sacred from the root.

Not here.

Here, things become sacred.

Synergistically.

=

In Catholicism, certain objects that one carries with them at all times are blessed & sanctified.

In Islam, the Word of God is sanctified.

In the LDS Church, Our Temples are sanctified.

In every religion, and every schism, different things are regarded as sacred.

For different reasons.

Which can be a hard thing to translate.

Which is why I usually put the shoe on the other foot

LDS

- We write in our bibles, but don't spray paint our Temples.

- We bless people & spaces, not things.

But other religions do those things, for the same reasons we do things.

The OP undoubtedly feels as weird wearing an unblessed cross, as you would in a Temple open to the public.

Q

[Guest]

The OP undoubtedly feels as weird wearing an unblessed cross, as you would in a Temple open to the public.

Q

That about sums up how I felt! After wearing garments though, the wierdness of the unblessed cross seems to fade away because I don't feel as "naked" without it anymore. Make sense?