The LDS Web Site says, "...because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith." But Paul said, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross..." Why don't Mormons 'glory in the cross' too like Christians do?
by 
Mister IT has a Liahona equipped COAT
ANSWERS: 5
-
Not all Christians put that same "glory in the cross". There are at least two that I know of that believe its symbolic nature calles attention away from the man, and his message. The symbol itself is quite archaic. The design itself is a throwback to the days when we new very little about Roman crucifiction techniques. The "cross" would have almost certainly been in the shape of an uppercase "T", a fact that probably contributes to the point that symbolism is (and probably should be) restricted to that realm alone. As a only formerly religious person with friends of many different faiths, I certainly don't have a "preferential idea" of my own, but the logic that a cross (a symbol of death and subservience to oppressive forces) is not a fitting symbol for a message that many believe emphasises freedom (from evil) and everlasting life makes a lot of sense to me.
-
The problem is that we see people putting too much emphasis on the cross. Some imbue the cross itself with power. In some ways it almost becomes an idol to some people. Consider the brazen serpent that Moses was commanded to make when the camp of Israel was afflicted with venomous serpents. Symbolism of looking to the brazen serpent, which was lifted up on a pole, and living is a clear reference to the Savior and the role that He would play in our eternal salvation. As such, it was a good thing. However, as Israel fell into apostasy, they started forget that it was God that worked the miracle and not the serpent. So, they began to credit this statue with power and this led them to turn it into an idol rather than a symbol of Christ. We can see similar things beginning to happen in Christianity as people bow down before crosses, kiss them, and use them as symbols of power. There is too much of an emphasis on the cross rather than what happened on that one cross. So, we prefer to keep the emphasis on what actually happened and the sacrifice that Jesus made for all of us rather on a symbol.
-
The name Blaylock rings a bell. Is it supposed to be symbolic. Don't mind my ignorance of religious matters I was raised an atheist. I studied all major religions in universities through my Phd and find them all basically the same but I miss out on catch phrases from not being in the loop. I don't mean to offend you sir. If I had to choose one I'd say zoroastrianism. They seem to be the source of all judeo-christian faiths, go back before the written word and still have millions of followers. Have a smiley nice day
-
Paul was actually making a point about circumcision. There were some Galatians in the church who thought all Christians should be circumcised. Paul was saying that was unimportant, that only Christ and what he had done were. . Your question includes its own answer. Christ said "I am the resurrection and the life". His death was necessary to the atonement. But his resurrection and life are the triumph that made these things possible for us. And that is what we consider most important.
-
The Cross, as used by Paul, was a symbol of the Atonement. Paul gloried in the Atonement of Christ, as do Latter-day Saints.
Glenn Blaylock RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC