sweetheart_ty wrote:Hi, Mike.
The Angel Moroni is not a symbol of His death, but a symbol of the restoration of the gospel.
I didn't say it was.
Since you raised the question in response to my statement that, 'In terms of a physical symbol of that sacrifice, I don't think God ever said physical symbols of His death are to advertise,' and since my statement made clear that I was referring to symbols of His death, I thought your question was in the same context. Is that an unreasonable assumption, and if so, then why?
My comments are in regards to whether symbols are acceptable, even if God says nothing about whether they should be used to "advertise."
So you thought I had a problem with a symbol being used on a men's room door, or a handicap sign on a parking space?
I am glad to see that you concede that such symbols may still acceptable for "advertising."
I think you might have meant 'agree' rather than 'concede.' Your choice of words could give others the false impression that we've both determined I was wrong about something.
So why then you make the exception for the cross. Simply pointing out that it is a symbol of death is not enough.
Death is frightening to people, especially being tortured to death. The Gospel is good news, not scary news. The sacrifice of Jesus is only understood in the context of the rest of the gospel. You might say it's about feeding milk before meat.
And since God Himself didn't choose a physical representation of his death as an official advertisement, I think discretion is in order.
Seem's your argument's ad hoc, having no real historical or revelatory basis.
I don't know why you think that.
The Christus depicts the nail marks in Christ's hands and feet, marks whose explicit purpose as explained by Christ is to advertise the sacrifice He made and to bear witness that He is God. See 3 Nephi 11:14-17. Seeing the prints on the resurrected Savior puts the sacrifice in context.
And? Why are you explaining the obvious?
I guess we're talking past each other. You asked if God ever said the Christus is to advertise, and in the context of what we were discussing, you seemed to me to be implying that the Christus was a symbol of His death and that the Church using the Christus to advertise therefore contradicted my belief that God didn't say to use physical symbols of His death to advertise.
The only reason I could see why you would classify it as a symbol of Christ's death is the marks in His hands and feet. I personally don't view the Christus as a symbol of Christ's death, but I was pointing out to you that if the statue is to be seen as a symbol of Christ's death then it is different from the cross because Christ indeed explained a purpose of the marks as being to advertise - the sacrifice He made and the fact that He is God.
But remember, I'm not minimizing the cross.
You are excluding it for use, when it comes to advertising.
The Church doesn't want pictures taken of baptisms, and I agree. Does that mean I'm minimizing baptism?
The cross is a visual depiction. Let's replace that visual with something comparable of an auditory nature, such as
How about the word cross? The term is quite common in LDS scripture and hymns. Now what?
That's not comparable. The spoken word \ˈkrȯs\ is comparable to the written-out word 'cross,' while the physical symbol depicting the shape of a cross is comparable to the relevant sounds associated with that cross, in this case the cross symbolizing the death of Jesus and the relevant sounds therefore being the sounds associated with that death.
the sound of a man being tortured on a cross, gasping for breath and crying out. Would it be appropriate for a Church to record that sound and play it each time someone enters through the doors? Or to make it the official sound of the Church and play it constantly in the background during service?
Can cathartic value, as well as an appreciation of the atonement, come from such? Sure.
Problem is, when used as a symbol of the Church rather than just a symbol of the sacrifice, it keeps a constant focus on Christ's suffering instead of the rest of the gospel, especially the reason for that suffering and the fact that He overcame.
Carthage proves that the Prophet's testimony was sealed with his blood. That fact is sacred even though the physical act of him being murdered was not sacred.
Was the physical act of murdering Jesus sacred?
No
And Carthage itself did not kill him, it merely bears witness.
The same can be said for the cross. The cross didn't kill him, his crucifiers. So what is your point? Both serve as reminders of death, even though both figures' work (according to LDS doctrine) continues beyond the grave.
Jesus gave up His own life, but the cross was the instrument intended to kill Him.
Your original question was, "Why do Latter-day Saints visit the place of martyrdom, and report having spiritual experiences therein?" I believe someone could visit the hill where Jesus was crucified and be touched spiritually. I also believe someone could view a cross and be touched spiritually. That doesn't make the cross a symbol for everything related to Christ. It is only a symbol of his death and I would be wary about using it to advertise everything as though it were the Gospel instead of just one piece of it, and a piece which can easily be misunderstood out of context.
