Taking it a step further in that fashion makes it no longer comparable.



If a symbol is chosen by God, use it in the name of God. If a symbol is chosen by man, use it in the name of man.

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?



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 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.



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.



I don't know why you think that.



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.



The Church doesn't want pictures taken of baptisms, and I agree. Does that mean I'm minimizing baptism?



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.



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.



No



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.

I didn't know this. Really. Seriously.

As far as I remember, members of the family have made photos about it.
As far as I remember, I've said "the environment could be better, to see the event by he audience".
As far as I remember, the leaders present didn't objected my words.

The baptism is an important event. I - as an atheist - can accept and can handle it. We have pictures of our grandchildrens about baptism, confirmation, receiving into the church, or whatever. Different religions, btw. (The marriage of the grandchildrens will be the next step on the path of aging...)

The Church doesn't want pictures taken of baptisms...
And nonmembers can not attend marriages...
The FAMILY is important, ehhhh



You have to. It was Your option.

Yes, we can kiss again in the appropriate circumstances, and that is scriptural. It is also scriptural not to take the "mark of the beast."

It must be comforting to you, that your children and grandchildren spend so much time in rituals that would seem to have no logical meaning, except to offer an opportunity to take photos that will one day fade and be recycled. The deathbed is such a wonderful fulfillment of one's life to look forward to...

???

Whaddya say, man?

You said and I quote: " I - as an atheist - can accept and can handle it "
I am only holding up the mirror. Do I know Mormonism is correct? I know that Biblically and spiritually it is not. I am a saved individual that doesn't depend on "religious" ritualism to make me acceptable to God. But I also realize that there is a God. Everything points to God in one way or another. Atheism pretends to be logical , modern, and educated. But the reality is that confronted with family, friends, ideals and one's own life ---- even an atheist wants something more than a forgotten grave to look forward to. And I know that such nagging feeling originate with God.

The Christian Scientist as well as many other so called Christian sects also feel as though those "primitive rituals" that Christ established are really not necessary for salvation, and they will also stand accountable in the judgement day for that!

"But the Pharisees and lawyers {in addition to many other educated people who think their wisdom excels all, evangelicals, Christian Scientists, etc., etc., etc.} rejected the council of God against themselves {shooting themselves in their own foot} BEING NOT BAPTIZED OF HIM"!!!

Ye must be born again (I see not ritual in that simple statement).

Absolutely, Little Nipper. It is in the "born again" experience that salvation comes and all ritual is just public demonstration of what has taken place in the believers heart. Baptism is the public display, the symbolic display, of what has already taken place in the new birth experience. As I have explained before, the awarding of a medal for valor does not convey valor any more than being baptized for the remission of sin conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness (salvation) comes in and only through God's grace to all who believe at the moment they believe.

Well, it is most obvious that neither you nor I are Mormon.

it is not simply a public "display"...it is an actual manifestation, it is a confirmation of that reality, and without it you are delusional.
God has always demanded action, does He not require "repentance", does He not require "motion"?
You paint a picture of salvation that is purely cerebral..a "i think i am saved, therefore i am"....unfortunately, Heavenly Father has been explicit otherwise.

Clearly you do not understand the Biblical position of salvation by grace alone "For now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Grace that has to be earned by works is simply not grace but becomes earnings due.

Is not action involved in being on this forum? Is this not what God asks, that His disciples should witness and declare Gospel message. All of this is action that reaches out.

i never said it was not...however, thank you for agreeing that "action" is required...
it really is just as simple as 'faith without works is dead'.

clearly i do understand it...whereas you rest upon it, God commands that you do anything but that.
Even the Devil believes in God, but that ain't enough is it?

However, do such works find their origin with the individual or do such come from God. If from the individual, then clearly they are not eternal...

other than beside the point, your obvious definition here is correct.
However, clearly we have established that action is commanded of us....and that our salvation is inextricably bound to our actions.

My Religions temple has a trumpeter on it's steeple.

I think it's an homage to Miles Davies....

Yea, that's a false evangelical baptism Nipper. You and Albion keep spouting out all that evangelical stuff instead of quoting the Bible as you should. Christ told Nicodemus that except a MAN be born of the water and Spirit, he could not enter the kingdom of heaven. A MAN is already born Nipper, but he needs to be born of the water (baptism) and born of the spirit (the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy Ghost), just like it was done in the Bible, Nipper! One problem that I have with all those evangelical priestcrafters is that they don't even read non Mormon Christian Biblical encyclopedias, etc. If they would read them, then they would see that they are teaching just what I have stated!

Also, the angel blowing the trumpet (Moroni) lifted up on the temples is a hopeful wake up call, or a sign, to the nations to come to Christ's church!

"And he will lift up an ensign to the nations, and he will assemble the outcasts of Israel {a special meaning to me!), and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

"

Can you provide a quote from the Bible where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was administered by a laying on of hands?