In this inaugural episode of “Matters of Perspective,” Rick Jepson reads his November 2005 Sunstone article, “Godwrestling: Physicality, Conflict, and Redemption in Mormon Doctrine,” which explores through many different angles the transformative power of struggle, both physical and spiritual. It contains one of the most complete discussions in all of Mormon writing of the Genesis story of Jacob’s wrestle with the angel, and links Jacob’s transformation from this intense battle with physical ordeals in the lives of other prophets, especially Joseph Smith, as well as Jesus’s struggle to complete the Atonement. It also examines in wonderful ways Jacob’s and Esau’s difficult relationship, Jacob’s struggle to win the esteem of his father, Isaac, and even some of the reasons it was  important for him to break free from the influence of his mother, Rebekah. It also teaches us a ton of fascinating things about wrestling!

This article is a master example of the power of both the personal voice–Jepson reveals a great deal about himself and formative experiences in his life and that of his family–as well as first-rate scholarship. We are so pleased to offer it as the first in the Matters of Perspective series!

______

Link to the article (which includes endnotes with many interesting extras).

In this inaugural episode of Matters of the Heart, Kelly Quinn shares her essay, “The Elder Daughter,” which she wrote after listening to Mormon Matters Episode 51 (“The Dynamics of Guilt and Shame”) that contained a different angle on the Parable of the Prodigal Son than is typically given voice to in LDS discourse. As many biblical scholars suggest, this parable might better be referred to as the Parable of the Two Lost Sons. In this essay, Quinn discusses her own embodiment of many of the same qualities of that parable’s elder brother and the role that the Atonement has played in helping her journey toward greater peace and wholeness.

We invite your comments below!

In this podcast episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jared Anderson, Brian Johnston, and Tresa Edmunds explore these questions and the historical attempts to answer them and explain the experience of transformation or renewed life through Christ that so many claim, including the panelists themselves. In general, the discussion explores the Atonement from the ideas that first show up in biblical sources and then onto the main Atonement theory categories: ransom, satisfaction, penal substitution, and moral influence. It also gives attention to various angles on the Atonement and Christ’s redeeming work that are emphasized the most in Mormonism, as well as a couple of Atonement models that are unique to it. The panelists then close the discussion with their own views regarding or experiences with the Atonement in their own lives.

This episode is longer than a typical Mormon Matters podcast, but if one is to believe the Atonement is the most important single thing to ever take place in this world, the discussion’s extra length is fitting for its subject (and even far too short)! We hope you will all join in and further the discussion in the comments section below.

_____

Links to articles/essays of possible interest:

Lorin Hansen Dialogue article that describes the main categories of Atonement theories while suggesting Mormon ideas are closest to the Moral Influence theory.

Eugene England essay on the Atonement, which also suggests a Moral Influence reading. He adds an attempt to do what Moral Influence has had trouble doing, which is to explain why it was “necessary,” how it is that “only Jesus” could effect this change.

J. Clair Batty Sunstone personal essay that shares his journey from confusion over God needing blood and anguish to forgive us to a sense of peace about the Atonement.

Link to an online posting of W. Cleon Skousen’s uniquely Mormon take on why the Atonement requiring Christ’s sacrifice was necessary.

Blake Ostler article outlining his views on how the Atonement works and comparing them to other Mormon theories.

Jared Anderson essay, “Jesus: Savior or Symbol,” mentioned a few times in the podcast. Anderson’s attempt to honor the reality of the experiences with the Atonement many persons have while not necessarily forcing one to see the Atonement as a discreet, literal event.

We hope you will join Mormon Matters host, Dan Wotherspoon, and panelists Ken Driggs (an LDS death penalty lawyer who has worked on some 75 capital punishment cases), Heather Olson-Beal, and Tom Grover for personal stories and important insights pertaining to this very sobering subject that deserves everyone’s careful attention.

After listening, please join in the discussion below!

_____

Links to articles mentioned in the podcast:

Ken Driggs:

Reflecting on the Death Penalty

Reflections of a Public Defender

Martin Gardner:

Mormonism and Capital Punishment: A Doctrinal Perspective, Past and Present

Whether or not you want to discuss this with your bishop is your own personal decision.  It’s important to remember that the purpose of confession is that of cleansing and lifting a burden from yourself to a source that is willing to support it for you – that of Jesus Christ. I would hope that the repentance process would not elicit feelings of fear – but rather feelings of love and support. We are all in need of it. It’s normal to feel embarrassment or even shame when we fall and make mistakes. But I hope that the knowledge that we all fall can help you understand that you are not alone. This situation is not unique to you. If you are uncomfortable talking with the bishop because he is a male, you can always consider talking with one of your female leaders instead (i.e. Relief Society President). You can also request that a female be present with you in a priesthood interview if that would help put you more at ease.
I hope you will easily forgive yourself and free up your energy for much more positive aspects of your life.

MM readers:

• What are your thoughts about the purpose of confession?
• When is it “necessary” to confess to a bishop versus going to the Lord directly in prayer?
• Why is it that confession and even repentance seem to have such negative connotations associated with them?
• How can we best do a re-frame so that we can each better benefit from the gift of the atonement?
• What gender issues are there for women who go to confess to a male holder of the priesthood – especially when the sin is sexual in nature?
• What about disciplinary action?  Is this where the fear comes from?  And what are its purposes?  Are its purposes legitimate?  Do you see any conflict between disciplinary action and Jesus’ words about being forgiven?

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist.  She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

• I like the idea of Jesus as a lawyer for humanity.  Having a defense attorney, someone totally in your court who will fight for your cause is enormously appealing to me.
• I like the symbolism of the atonement:  olive press (Gethsemane), the name “at one” ment, the mingling of the divine and the human.
• I like the idea of Bodhisattva, a voluntary sacrifice for others.  But I like it more as one who might sacrifice than as one who would be the recipient of the sacrifice.  Similarly, I’m somewhat uncomfortable receiving gifts.  Although I’m not that comfortable giving them either.  So there you go.

What I have generally not loved about the concept of “atonement”:

• that it creates a religion of losers, appealing to the down-and-outers. Dennis Miller once observed that the prison inmates always seem to find Jesus when no one else down here will talk to them anymore.
• that it is a contrasting idea to theosis (the seeds of divinity within man), a concept which I find inherently more appealing. I’d rather focus on strengths & potential than weakness and shortcomings.  I’m just a cock-eyed optimist!  I do find sadness somewhat off-putting.
• the idea of justice and mercy that is represented feels man-made and not like something that God would be bound to follow. I don’t like the legalistic metaphors often used to explain the atonement.

Here are a few of the ways the atonement has been viewed over the centuries, each with a unique insight:

• Ransom Theory.  In this metaphor from the 4^th century, Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind).  A variation of this view is known as the “Christus Victor” theory, in which Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees the enslaved humans from their captor.  (like an action movie with hostages being rescued).  This one sounds kind of cool in a Die Hard sort of way, but it also doesn’t ring quite true for me.  A variation of this I heard on my mission was someone buying a cage full of dirty, diseased birds with lousy attitudes.  Not my favorite perspective on humanity.
• Penal Substitution.  Another metaphor, from the 11^th century, is that man is in debt to a sovereign God who has the power to forgive debt, but also has to uphold the laws. In this metaphor, only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of the transgressed laws, and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice.  A slight variation of this is the Protestant “penal substitution theory,” which sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law, and Jesus takes the punishment in the sinner’s stead.  This is probably the most common metaphor used for the atonement, but it is very legalistic and leaves me cold.  I think we let the metaphor become the thing it symbolizes in this one.  I suspect the atonement is not entirely encompassed by this view.
• Moral Influence.  A third metaphor from the 11^th century, and speaks to the power of the image of a suffering Christ who sacrifices himself out of love for man, and mankind, moved by the extent of God’s love is transformed and healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  I appreciated this one because I think we LDS tend to look at the crucifixion images in Catholic churches as ghoulish and morbid, but this metaphor explains their appeal to millions of worshippers in a whole new light for me.
• Theosis Metaphor.  Eastern Orthodoxy views the atonement as not a legal release, but a transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. The Orthodox emphasis is that Christ died to change people so that they may become more like God.  This is one I find very appealing, although it’s not one I ever recall hearing at church.  It lines up nicely with our idea that we are sons & heirs of God, with the seeds of godhood within us.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we expand on these metaphors by recognizing and emphasizing some additional components to the atonement:

• Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. Modern day revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants adds emphasis to the role of Gethsemane in the atonement process: “…how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not…. Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit…”  I like the focus in LDS theology on the sacrifice being deliberate on Jesus’ part, that he chose to do this of his own free will despite how hard it was.  I like the emphasis on free choice, not so much on the difficulty which feels like a major guilt trip (I suppose because it IS).
  • The name Gethsemane literally means oil press.  In Gethsemane, Jesus as the Son of God is pressed as the olives were.  Oil was and is used for all sorts of purposes: to perform priesthood ordinances, to anoint the body, and to heal the sick and restore them to health.  Metaphorically, Jesus is the ultimate healing and anointing oil.
  • In a talk on the Symbols of the Atonement in 1991, E. Russell Nelson said:  “Olive trees are special in the Holy Land. The olive branch is universally regarded as a symbol of peace. This tree provides food, light, heat, lumber, ointments, and medicine. It is now, as it was then, crucial to life in Israel. It is not a deciduous tree, but ever bearing—always green. Even if the tree is chopped down, life will spring from its roots, suggesting everlasting life.  Jesus came to the base of the Mount of Olives to affect the first component of the Atonement. This He did at the Garden of Gethsemane. The word Gethsemane comes from two Hebrew roots: gath, meaning “press,” and shemen, meaning “oil,” especially that of the olive.  There olives had been pressed under the weight of great stone wheels to squeeze precious oil from them. So the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was literally pressed under the weight of the sins of the world. He sweat great drops of blood—his life’s “oil”—which issued from every pore.  Jesus was accorded titles of unique significance. One was the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “anointed.” The other was the Christ, which in the Greek language means “anointed” as well. In our day, as it was in His day, the ordinance of administration to the sick includes anointing with the consecrated oil of the olive. So the next time you witness consecrated oil being anointed on the head of one to be blessed, and these sacred words are said, “I anoint you with this consecrated oil,” remember what that original consecration cost. Remember what it meant to all who had ever lived and who ever would yet live. Remember the redemptive power of healing, soothing, and ministering to those in need. Remember, just as the body of the olive, which was pressed for the oil that gave light, so the Savior was pressed. From every pore oozed the life blood of our Redeemer. And when sore trials come upon you, remember Gethsemane.”
• Empathetic purpose. Christ did not only suffer for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, “that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).  This empathy allows Jesus to be a more effective advocate and personal friend to us.  This sounds remarkable similar to the one about the image of the suffering Christ creating empathy in humanity (the reverse of this).  But I think when you put them both together, it adds some interest to the perspective.
• The relationship between justice, mercy, agency, and God’s unconditional love. We focus on the need for free agency.  Just as Jesus had the ability to choose to lay down his life, if we are truly penitent we will voluntarily come unto him to receive his grace.  We do this through the process of repentance.  I do find this idea useful – the focus on our personal choice.

I liked the idea that there are many different ways to interpret the atonement, and some of these are more appealing to me than others. How about you?  Were any of these helpful?  How do you feel about the atonement?  Discuss.

The following statement was made by the LDS Church last Wednesday in conjunction with the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner by firing squad in Utah.  I see this as a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what was taught in the past regarding the doctrine.

Mormon Church Statement on Blood Atonement

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.  However, so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

Some church members and leaders used strong language

This statement glosses over the fact that it was the prophet and second president of the Church Brigham Young who initiated and publicly taught this doctrine numerous times, followed by later prophets and General Authorities in official discourse:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

“I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them….

“And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;

“I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit…. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.” (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church’s Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Officially, the doctrine of Blood Atonement was to be practiced voluntarily.  However, Michael Quinn has shown evidence that this practice was carried out among church members and leaders and sanctioned by Brigham Young in the early days of Utah. (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 241-261)

An appeal to Latter-day scriptures on the application of blood atonement to the sin of murder results in confusion. Alma 24 :10 states that murderers can receive forgiveness by repentance, while D&C 42:18 teaches that murder is unpardonable.  Attempting to doctrinally resolve this seeming conflict in a Deseret News article on July 4, 1883, Apostle Charles W. Penrose taught that in some cases such as murder done in anger or provocation, murder might be forgiven, but only after the guilty party atones for the murder by the shedding of blood. (Charles W. Penrose (July 4, 1883), “An Unpardonable Offense,” Deseret News 32 (24): 376.)  President Joseph Fielding Smith agreed, while making it clear that this should be completely voluntary on the part of the sinner:

Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel…Man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge — that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as the power lies — for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail…But that the Church practices “Blood Atonement” on apostates or any others, which is preached by ministers of the ‘Reorganization’ is a damnable falsehood for which the accusers must answer. (Joseph Fielding Smith (1954), Bruce R. McConkie, ed., Doctrines of Salvation, 1, Salt Lake City, Utah:Bookcraft.)

According to both Penrose and Joseph Fielding Smith, the doctrine of blood atonement was the reason the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for capital punishment, giving murderers a choice to be shot by firing squad as a “willing expiation” for their sin.

Blood atonement was understood to be a doctrine of the Church, and influenced policy-making and practice among nineteenth-century Mormons.  I believe that the majority of modern members will welcome a change in this policy.  But to present this change as anything but a departure from that which was taught by early Church leaders as doctrine is disingenuous.

We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

Finally we come to  the connection this post has to this week’s Sunday School lesson.  It is a common misperception that the Church teaches “the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ.”  But in reality, our manuals and even our LDS edition of the scriptures teach that there are sins for which complete repentance through Christ’s atonement is not possible.  The murder of Uriah by King David is one of these.  Though David spent the rest of his life and hundreds of Biblical passages repenting of this sin, D&C 132:39 states:

The Bible Dictionary explains:

[David] was guilty of grave crimes; but unlike Saul, he was capable of true contrition and was therefore able to find forgiveness, except in the murder of Uriah. As a consequence David is still unforgiven, but he received a promise that the Lord would not leave his soul in hell. He will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. Because of his transgressions, he has fallen from his exaltation.

Even the Sunday School manual concurs, backing up the position with a quote by Marion G. Romney:

Note that adultery is a serious sin, but David forfeited his exaltation because the Lord held him accountable for the murder of Uriah.

President Marion G. Romney said: “David, … though highly favored of the Lord (he was, in fact, referred to as a man after God’s own heart), yielded to temptation. His unchastity led to murder, and as a consequence, he lost his families and his exaltation” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1979, 60; or Ensign, May 1979, 42).

The LDS stance that King David was unable to be completely forgiven despite his obvious and sincere repentance has greatly bothered me.  Most other Christian churches teach that the atonement was active in David’s case, wholly cleansing him from all of his sins.  But the Mormon church does not.  That the fallen condition of David is so pervasively taught in LDS scripture, General Authority addresses, and curriculum materials lends credence to the doctrine of blood atonement as taught in the past.  In such cases, the Savior’s sacrifice is insufficient to cleanse transgressors from certain sins such as murder.  I witnessed one of the ramifications in Church policy when an investigator friend of mine in college was denied baptism into the Church because she had previously had an abortion.

I am curious to know the opinion of our readers on this subject.  First, do you feel the recent official statement above reflects an honest articulation of the teachings of the Church on Blood Atonement? Next, do you think that David lost his exaltation, and if so, does this place limits on the effects of Christ’s Atonement?

In a recent talk, the speaker had attended an interesting interview with an evangelical who had converted from Mormonism because of what he felt was a misunderstanding on our part of the atonement, that Jesus’ atonment was in fact personal and not just for mankind.  This idea that there might be other youth who misunderstand the theology prompted the speaker to open a discussion with the youth.  He shared the following quiz questions with the youth in the stake.  I thought I would post the 4 true/false questions here for our readers:

1. The church does NOT teach that we are saved by grace.
2. The church teaches that we are saved by works.
3. The final judgment will be like legal scales; if your good works outweigh your bad works, you will be rewarded.
4. We will get the reward we’ve earned.

Most of the youth surveyed correctly answered #1 and #2; however, #3 and #4 were a mixed bag, with a split down the middle in understanding the atonement as revealed by those questions.  Why is this?  Here are some theories:

• The “church” is just a group of people who don’t always understand the gospel.
• The doctrine of salvation (three degrees of glory) adds in a meritocracy component missing in a pass/fail (e.g. Heaven/Hell)construct.
• Other Christian sects essentially wage war on “works” (as if works undermine grace) to illustrate that Mormons aren’t Christians.  Mormons are on the defensive on this point theologically, which results in over-emphasis of works in our teaching.
• Mormonism as a community is highly focused on outward behaviors (works) which are measurable rather than the internal behaviors such as belief and acceptance of grace (in other sects, witnessing). 
• Even though both are emphasized, works are easier to grasp because they are “controllable.”  Kids especially want to know what they have to do (the rules) to meet minimum requirements because kids need structure.

The speaker also distinguished between mercy (not getting something bad that you deserve) and grace (getting something good that you haven’t earned).

So, are we failing to clearly teach the concept of atonement to our youth or do they understand it?  Does the community speak louder than the theology?  Discuss.

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

In this series of posts on The Cross (not sure how many yet), I will try to examine this Christian symbol from a few different angles. In Part 1, I will look at the scriptures that deal with “Taking up your cross.”

“And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:38)

When I first encountered this scripture, I thought it odd that Jesus was talking about “the cross” well in advance of His crucifixion. Certainly, at that point in the beginning of His ministry, His death and the method of it was quite a ways off. My first inclination was to think that maybe these were not the words of Jesus, that it was a mistranslation of some sort. There are illusions to His crucifixion in the Old Testament (Psalms 22:16: “they pierced my hands and my feet” and Zechariah 13:6 “What are these ^awounds in thine hands?  Then he shall answer, Those with which I was ^bwounded in the house of my friends”). The greek word used in that verse is σταυρός (stauros, stau-ro’s) “stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ:–cross.” ( Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Macdonald Publishing Company)

However, upon further reflection, I discovered that this expression, “Taking Up Your Cross” is used elsewhere in the scriptures, in addition to the New Testament, pre-crucifixion. They serve as a witness and testify to the words Jesus spoke to his disciples.

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus, speaking to the Nephites, after his death and resurrection:

“For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your ^across, than that ye should be cast into hell.” (3 Nephi 12:30)

In the Doctrine & Covenants:

“Behold, I manifest unto you, Joseph Knight, by these words, that you must take up your ^across, in the which you must ^bpray ^cvocally before the world as well as in secret, and in your family, and among your friends, and in all places. (D&C 23:6)

“And he that will not take up his ^across and ^bfollow me, and keep my commandments, the same shall not be saved. ” (D&C 56:2)

“Now, I say unto you, and what I say unto you, I say unto all the Twelve: Arise and gird up your loins, take up your ^across, follow me, and ^bfeed my sheep” (D&C 112:14)

It seems that “taking up your cross” is an important action within the gospel, the consequences of not “taking up your cross” are grave:

• “…is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:38)
• “…let him ^adeny himself” (Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23)
• “…cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:27)
• “…ye should be cast into hell” (3 Nephi 12:30)
• “…must ^bpray ^cvocally before the world as well as in secret, and in your family, and among your friends, and in all places” (D&C 23:6)
• “…the same shall not be saved” (D&C 56:2)
• follow me, and ^bfeed my sheep” (D&C 112:14)

We can obviously conclude that Jesus was not commanding us to emulate Him and be crucified or even suffer as He did.

So what do you think He means by “Taking Up Your Cross?” In a Church where we minimize the symbol of the Cross, not display it in or on our meetinghouse or Temples, and not wear it around our necks, how do we do this?

How do you “Take Up the Cross daily?”