Recently I bought a couple of cool Ethiopian Orthodox cross in a flea market in Helsinki. I started wearing it. I have been reading the New Testament with my two daughters (8 years and 10 years) and I recently read The Last Temptation of Christ and the cross has been sort of a symbol for my renewed interest in what it means for me to be a Christian, so I have been wearing it nearly all the time for the last couple of weeks.
My wife questioned whether it was appropriate for me to wear it or use it as a symbol considering the prevailing Mormon position on the cross, i.e. we don’t use it as a symbol of Christ at all. I did some cursory research and found the standard justifications for not using the cross (i.e. that its a symbol of the torture and death of Christ by romans rather than the atonement and resurrection and that it is not an original primitive Christian symbol) but I could not find the origin of the tradition. I checked the handbook of instructions for priesthood leaders and found no reference to the cross. I am pretty sure that a prohibition against crosses is not in the Scriptures so it makes me wonder whether the prohibition might be hurtful to the cause.
So I have a bunch of questions.
For Evangelicals: What would your reaction be to Mormons using the cross as a symbol, would it make you all more likely to sympathize with Mormons as followers of Christ? (or would it be seen as more craftiness to dupe people into believing we are really Christians.)
For Mormons: is there any harm in allowing or even embracing the use of the cross? Is it “selling out” to gain acceptance from more worldly (less inspired) churches? Is a feeling of stronger brotherhood with other believers in Christ a good thing or a hindrance to the work of the restoration and the “gathering of the elect.”? Is there anything really doctrinally unacceptable with the cross, if so, where is the revelation that tells us this?
I am not sure of my own view yet so it would be interesting to hear from all who have anything to say.
(Forgive me if this was discussed previously I could not find any previous post on this with a search of the blog, but I might have missed it)
I have no objection to the cross as a symbol of the atonement. The only real danger I see is a possible cheapening of the symbol by overuse, but that can happen with any symbol.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, Mormons’ reluctance to use the cross is a cultural matter, nothing more. There’s probably some historical reason, but I’ve never been able to find it. There are those who try to give it theological justification, but the arguments when closely examined don’t make much sense.
By the way, LDS military chaplains do wear crosses so that soldiers can identify them as Christians. That would suggest there’s nothing inherently wrong with it as a symbol.
My daughter received a cross as a gift from a friend. It was positively lovely on her, but I was reluctant to let her wear it. My reason: I know that some LDS find it objectionable; while I do not agree with their view, I feared that one of them might say something negative to my daughter; seeing that she was ~6 yrs old at the time, I worried that she wouldn’t understand the criticism. In the end, I just talked with her about it, explained the potential resistance she might get, and let her wear it.
(She lost it within a few weeks anyway!)
Tim said:
You had a brief discussion here.
I assume that this particular post is a hypothetical only. I have heard nothing to indicate that the Church has any plans to start displaying crosses or encouraging the wearing of them, nor would I expect any such move. And while I think the cross is a fine symbol, it’s also fine with me that we have our own distinct symbols.
Eric,
I don’t expect the church to do so, as a lifelong Mormon I have (in the past) found the cross a particularly difficult symbol to deal with. Almost a symbol of errancy in itself. I think some Mormons see the cross as a bit disturbing. The aversion to the cross seems so ingrained in me, at least, that thethought of a cross on the wall of a ward building, let alone a temple, almost makes me shudder.
I suppose part of the point in this post and my new thoughts about the cross is that by attempting to get over my prejudice against the cross It makes me feel a bit closer to others who endeavor to follow Jesus. It makes me think that it may make sense for Mormons to officially or unofficially to move toward acceptance of the symbol. I mean Moroni 7 does say that anything that persuades us to believe in Christ is of god. . .
(By the way, I wrote this post…by I am flattered that you mistook me for Tim
)
One of the automatically generated links yielded this description of how the Church ended up averse to the cross:
http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/cross.html
Scientologists use a cross.
I have no problem with the cross, but don’t see any real point in displaying it the same way other Christians do. I don’t mind preserving a few distinctions between us and the rest of Christianity.
The standard explanations – that we prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection than his crucifixion, and that the symbol of the LDS Church is its people work just fine for me.
I understand that the Protestant cross is usually empty – symbolizing Christ’s life and has other meanings. Fine.
But to me, it is still a focus on the crucifixion. Mormons generally focus more on the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane than the suffering on the cross – which to us, has an element of the sensational about it. Indeed, I have found that other Protestants and Christians often tend to come close to forgetting the resurrection ever happened – as illustrated by the misguided notion popular among many Christians that Christ currently a disembodied spirit, and we can all expect to be as well. There is also a certain philosophical contempt for the body that most of Christianity has historically entertained, that Mormons find offensive and disrespectful.
It’s a matter of different focuses. Mormons choose one thing, Evangelicals choose another. We both make errors in doing so. At the very least, I’d like to see Mormons retire the “Jesus torture device” argument against wearing the cross. And I’d like to see lay Protestants stop using the lack of a cross as an argument that we don’t believe in Jesus as Savior.
To clarify, since my second paragraph was less than clear… The two main Mormon arguments against using the cross as a symbol are:
1. We prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection rather than his death, and Gethsemane rather than Golgotha; and
2. The symbol of the LDS Church is its people – the name of Christ they have taken upon themselves, and his “image in their countenance.”
Like I said, both explanations are acceptable to me.
I think you’re making a bizarre caricature about what Protestants believe. They most definitely focus on Christ’s ressurection more than on his death. You’re making what I believe is a typical Mormon mistake, which is not comparing Mormonism to what other Christians actually think, believe, or do, but to what Mormons tell themselves other christians think, believe, or do.
Mormons generally focus more on the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane than the suffering on the cross – which to us, has an element of the sensational about it.
The contempt that this statement shows for Jesus Christ’s Passion absolutely sickens me.
Jared C — Sorry about the mistake. It’s a bit of a change (although a good one) to have blog entries from the “other side,” so to speak, and I missed that it was occurring.
And thanks for the link with the info from Bushman. That account makes perfect sense, and also explains why I haven’t been able to find any statements from the early restored church explaining the cross’s nonuse. It sounds like its just one of those accidents of history.
For what it’s worth, the symbol of Christ that I like is wheat (from Jesus being the Bread of Life and all that). It’s a very common symbol, although usually subtle, in many of the temples and reminds me both of what Jesus did for us through his suffering and death as well as the example he set for us in the way he lived his life.
I think it is very important to look for historical explanations, rather than contemporary or popular explanations for why Mormons do not wear crosses or have crosses on their meeting houses. For that matter, it is important to draw a distinction between the cross as a doctrinal symbol, an architectural symbol and for personal adornment.
In regards to meetinghouses, Bushman observes that “During the course of his life, [Joseph] never built a standard meetinghouse, even in Nauvoo, where the Mormon population exceeded 10,000.” Rather, Joseph’s “architectural imagination focused on temples.” Bushman explains, “However culturally anomalous, the City of Zion occupied a central place in Joseph Smith’s design for world renewal. He conceived the world as a vast funnel with the city at the vortex and the temple at the center of the city.” I haven’t found any historical evidence that Joseph taught using crosses in architecture was somehow unfavorable or improper, but rather he was looking towards the tradition of ancient Israel for his inspiration and sought to create “a church of cities rather than a church of congregations.” (RSR, 216-222).
In regards to wearing crosses, Millet offers this food for thought. “Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, which included not using crosses. For that matter; Baptists did not have crosses on their churches for a long time, at least until they began to move into mainstream Protestantism.” (Claiming Christ, 100). This corresponds to Bushman’s response that “The cross was used by very few Protestant churches in 1830 . . . Thus it required no decision on Joseph’s part. No one around him used the cross.” To me, this explains why I haven’t found any historical evidence that somehow the early saints are were encouraged not to wear crosses.
In regards to popular explanations, the unfortunate notion that the cross on a necklace represents merely an instrument of death and that many people were crucified and not just Jesus of Nazareth may be partly correct as far as the naked facts are concerned, but I find it utterly lacking in sympathy and in understanding of the beliefs of others. Not only is it uncharitable it is entirely unpersuasive. It would be good to retire this indefinitely. All religions choose symbols to imbue with religious significance. For many Christians, the cross is an intimate symbol expressing their faith, love and devotion. One convert from Mormonism to Catholicism quipped that if Christ was executed in a gas chamber, he would find the biggest gas chamber he could find and wear it.
Furthermore, I think there is a lack of understanding about the two symbols: the cross and the crucifix. For many Protestants the cross is notable because it is an empty cross in contrast to the crucifix. In this context, the empty cross represents the resurrection of Christ, an empty tomb, He is not here, he is risen! There is a deep irony that for one person this symbol points to the resurrection, another chooses to see this as merely a means of torture. Also, while one can find Protestant polemics against the Catholic crucifix as a means of religious symbol we would do well to have religious sensitivity and tolerance for both symbols.
Lastly, in regards to doctrinal symbolism, my perspective is that the cross is definitely a symbol for Christ and his redeeming atonement even in the Mormon tradition. For the Nephite prophets, the cross was highly important and Nephi, Jacob and King Benjamin preach and prophecy of Christ and the cross. There is absolutely nothing incompatible with the cross and Nephite orthodoxy. Millet quotes Joseph F. Smith’s words that “having been born anew, which is the putting away of the old man sin, and putting on the man Christ Jesus, we have become soldiers of the Cross, having enlisted under the banner of Jehovah for time and for eternity.” (Ibid.)
What all of this tells me is that there is often a very unfortunate result when we feel compelled to make up some sort of explanation for why we are different from someone else that has no basis in history. To point out that Latter-day Saints do not use a particular symbol in the same way as other religions is not an explanation but merely an observation. In addition, a Latter-day Saint may explain why he or she personally does not use wear crosses, but this is a completely different question from why the Latter-day Saint church and tradition historically did not adopt the cross in its architecture or in personal adornment. If we are seeking to explain the latter, then we must use historical sources. If we are seeking to explain the former, I simply suggest we proceed with caution because the results can be disastrous.
Well Kullervo, I don’t feel any particular contempt about it.
That’s why I deliberately used the word “element” in describing the focus. I don’t think it’s necessarily universal. I just wanted to say it feels like it’s there.
I’m well aware that thoughtful Protestants are just as disgusted with “sensationalizing” the crucifixion as anyone. I think you’re overreacting to what I actually said. Maybe I’m just not being clear.
A final point, Protestant and Evangelical theologians most certainly do focus on the resurrection. However, you find much more of a mixed bag among lay believers. If commitment to a bodily resurrection is as much a part of ordinary Protestant worship as you claim, why do noted Protestant theologians like N.T. Wright have to publish books and release statements reprimanding lay Christians for not believing in bodily resurrection.
I’m not going off of Mormon stereotypes here. I’m going off of what I know ACTUAL PROTESTANTS are saying about THEMSELVES. If you believe the debates I’ve been following, there is a rampant and widespread problem in Christianity of lay Christians disbelieving in the resurrection. “Body = Evil” is a very common Christian misconception. Any good Protestant minister will point out that this is a “gnostic heresy,” but it remains an ingrained part of Christian culture and it is reinforced by incorrect popular focus on death rather than resurrection.
And yeah, I do think a lot of Protestant treatments of the crucifixion are highly sensationalized. Not that I’d judge actual Protestant theology on that basis. You can find dubious pop culture in any religion – especially Mormonism. I generally prefer to judge a religion by the best of what it has to offer, and not the worst. But it’s misguided to ignore the pop culture, or ignore how religious symbols influence it.
If commitment to a bodily resurrection is as much a part of ordinary Protestant worship as you claim, why do noted Protestant theologians like N.T. Wright have to publish books and release statements reprimanding lay Christians for not believing in bodily resurrection.
Because N. T. Wright is an Anglican bishop, in a church which has since the early 20th century century been marked by a strong leaning toward liberal theology, a la Shelby Spong, which denies a lot of the truth-claims of Christianity in literal terms and reduces them to a kind of “meaningful mythology.”
However, Wright’s church is in serious decline (except for in the global south where Anglcianism is orthodox to the point of being fundamentalist, which is one of the reasons for the present schismatic rumblings in the Anglican communion), and liberal theology is, in wider Protestant circles, widely unpopular and derided. Especially in the United States.
Once again, you’re dumping all Protestants into the same bucket and not realizing how heterogenous of a group “Protestanism” is.
We need to have a rule that says when you talk about “Protestants” you have to say what Protestants you’re talking about.
It’s not like there’s a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Protestantism or Roman Protestantism with a Pope or Prophet that makes theological pronouncements to the big organization. We’ve been over this before. You honestly need to do some more homework before you know what you’re talking about.
It’s not just Anglicans Kullervo. I’ve heard this from Evangelical ministers too. And N.T. Wright’s statements were not just directed at his own church. He made it quite clear he was addressing Christianity proper.
Glad to see my old link pop up in the auto-reference. http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/why-i-love-the-cross/
I would love to see Mormons take up the cross. I think it would do a lot to put us on the same page. Symbolism carries power. The power of the cross is that Jesus was able to redeem even a torture device into a symbol of grace and salvation. If he can defeat even the terrible thing that took his life, what great hope he offers me!
Perhaps the saddest part of this discussion to me is the reluctance to use a cross because of what other Mormons might think. The fear to express devotion to Jesus caused by other believers has got to be the exact opposite of what we are after. If anything you should wear a cross to challenge the faith of those who do not think you should.
or would it be seen as more craftiness to dupe people into believing we are really Christians.
Indeed Scientologist use a cross. On a tour of the L. Ron Hubbard museum someone asked why the Scientologist use a cross and the guide responded that it was a symbol of a church. Clearly Scientologist do not understand what the cross means and are using it to dupe people into believing they are a (christian) church. I think Mormons would understand quite well what the cross means, so I would love to see them use it.
You can pardon my ignorance here (and please correct it). But I think part of the Mormon emphasis on the garden is a back-end way to justify not using the cross. I really don’t know where scripturally you get the idea that the atonement took place in the garden. I’d love to be enlightened.
———————————————————————
It’s clear to me that using a cross personally or corporately is a cultural thing. It doesn’t define who is and who isn’t a Christian. In Peru, Protestants do not ever wear crosses on their person because it’s seen as too Catholic. Catholicism there is much more of a cultural allegiance rather than a personal religious choice. So Protestant choose fish over crosses to differentiate themselves.
I don’t think anybody has to use a cross. But it’s such a powerful symbol, it’s a shame not to.
It’s not just Anglicans Kullervo. I’ve heard this from Evangelical ministers too. And N.T. Wright’s statements were not just directed at his own church. He made it quite clear he was addressing Christianity proper.
+Wright can say all day who he’s intending to address, but he’s stil personally smack-dab in the middle of Anglicanism, which means his personal experience of Christianity is going to be skewed toward his own situation.
I think the explanation that Mormons do not focus on the suffering of Christ almost a theological mistake. Maybe Mormons should focus more on the death and suffering.
Mormon encouraged his son Moroni to have the sufferings and death on the cross (among other things) rest in his mind forever:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/9/25#25
Tim said:
I think most of us, regardless of religious affiliation, tend to follow the dictates of the subculture we’re in. Maybe that’s bad, or maybe it’s good, I’m not sure, but it’s certainly human. I’d be surprised if you see very many Protestant kids in Provo or Idaho Falls wearing CTR rings either, even though the sentiment is one they certainly would agree with. It’s just that different groups of people have different symbols, or use the same symbols in different ways. That’s not good or bad, it just is.
Although I certainly believe in what the cross represents to most Christians, I have no desire to wear one. I’m already wearing symbols of my faith, ones that are powerful to me, and have no reason at this point to add to that.
For what it’s worth, we do have a stylized cross on display on one of the walls in our home. The only people who have ever commented on it are Mormons, some of whom have said they find it “interesting.”
Tim said:
Historically, I don’t think there’s anything to support that conclusion.
Tim said:
The LDS teaching as I understand it is that the atonement began in the Garden with Jesus taking the sins of the world upon him and was completed with his death and resurrection. As far as I’ve been able to find out, that belief isn’t explicitly taught in the scriptures (Biblical or non-Biblical), but neither is it inconsistent with them.
I realize that there are Mormons who will tell you that the atonment took place at Gethsemane, period. I have heard it said myself. But that isn’t what the Church teaches, and it’s not a teaching I’ve been able to find uttered by any of the church’s prophets/presidents.
And, to mention a semi-official source of doctrine, it’s not what the Church says on its web site:
I’m not sure that the LDS teaching about when the atonement took place are all that much differerent than Catholic teaching, which places more emphasis on the sufferings of Christ (the Passion), which began in the Garden and continued through his death, than does most Protestant teaching. In my view, to speak only of Christ’s death while ignoring the suffering that preceded it misses a big part of the story.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=280161cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Tim, I too disagreed with your statement:
“Perhaps the saddest part of this discussion to me is the reluctance to use a cross because of what other Mormons might think. The fear to express devotion to Jesus caused by other believers has got to be the exact opposite of what we are after. If anything you should wear a cross to challenge the faith of those who do not think you should.”
…but Eric (#19) beat me to the reply. I think you’re missing the point of my (and others’ ) reluctance to use the cross. It’s a battle over what? a piece of jewelry. I don’t see any point in “challenging the faith” of others over such detail—and I’ll bet you can think of the verse from Paul that supports me in this….
And let’s get one thing straight before anyone misreads me: the cross is central to Christianity. True, it is meaningless without the resurrection, but the reverse is just as true: if Christ had simply died of natural causes and then resurrected, there would not have been an atonement. The cross is inseparable from the atonement. When I see a cross, I think of the whole process, not just the suffering. So wear a necklace with a cross on it or wear one with an “empty tomb” on it—it’s all the same to me.
Don’t know if anyone mentioned it yet but there is a reason the LDS church does not display the cross in most of its venues.
As with some other sects of Christianity the LDS church celebrated the resurected Christ and does not push the image of the cross as a reminder of Christ’s death. Not to say the LDS church never shows the Cross nor to say it has ever shown me a time where it was not appropiate to bare the Cross. It is a simbol and like any simbol some people put more inphasis on it than others.
I would encourage everyone to be accepting of other’s opinions about the Cross.
As an LDS Sunday school teacher I have had a few students who have worn a Cross to Church, in these times I did not see them treated negativly nor did I see anyone overtly ask about it. I did not think anything strange over the issue nor did I notice anyone else put any thought into the matter.
As a Former Lutheren, I have a small wooden Cross that carries special semtimental value to me as it was given to me the first day I passed the sacrement, this was in the Lutheren Church and I was an accolite. I do not think there is any mallious in the church not displaying the Cross, again it is just a different focus as we like to remember that Christ did resurect. With out that fact there would not be any christian faith alive today.
Thank you,
-D
I wonder when the Cross will be banned from School due to its use by Gangs. Some things are too sad.
-D
I wonder when the Cross will be banned from School due to its use by Gangs. Some things are too sad.
Seriously, I would not want to be the school district that tries to make that policy.
Interesting Richard Bushman quote about the historical reason for not using the cross. I think it demonstrates that ultimately, this just isn’t a big issue worth disputing over.
Of course, the issue of displaying or not displaying the cross has taken on different meaning in modern times. For other Christians, it can represent an opportunity to emphasize the “otherness” of Mormons. For Mormons, it’s basically the same.
But it really isn’t worth arguing over. You can argue over the same issues on purely doctrinal and scriptural grounds, without bringing in the traditional use or non-use of a piece of jewelry.
I don’t know that it’s just about a “piece of jewelry.”
I think that’s what the issue between us ought to be reduced to. Basically, de-toxify the whole thing and limit ourselves to debating actual doctrinal differences, rather than merely tenuous symbols of those doctrinal differences.
In essence, we probably have bigger fish to fry.
I’m just not sure it’s as simple as that. I’m not really sure you can disentangle the symbology from the doctrine as easily as you would like to. Or maybe you can, because Mormonism’s relationsip with symbology is essentially different than Christianity’s.
As usual, you are self-norming without realizing it.
“Mormonism’s relationsip with symbology is essentially different than Christianity’s.”
I bag to differ. Especially with this issue. There are sects of Catholisim that do not use the Cross Simbology, Like the “Mormon” philosophy they choose to celebrate the Resurected Christ not the suffering Christ. There are yet other groups of Christians who choose to do the same. But the main view from outsiders of the Christian Faith is that the Cross is the main Simbol and focus. In reality to any insider of the Christian Faith the Main Symbol and Focus is Jesus Christ. We should not replace our Savior with a Roman tool of exicution.
-D
No, you have completely misunderstood what I said.
Something’s not quite right about pairing the following two quotes:
“Or maybe you can, because Mormonism’s relationsip with symbology is essentially different than Christianity’s.”
and
“We need to have a rule that says when you talk about “Protestants” you have to say what Protestants you’re talking about.”
Noper. I’m talking about the religion as a whole. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a single organization. Yeah, it has diversity of membership, but still it can be talked about in general terms meaningfully.
So can Protestantism, of course, but not necessarily in the same kinds of general terms. “Protestantism” an umbrella term for a huge number of organizations, denominations, schismatic groups, all of which trace their history back to the Reformation somehow.
There’s a hell of a lot of difference–and kinds of differences between, say, John Shelby Spong and Fred Phelps. But both of them are Protestants.
My point was that Mormons are largely ignorant about the ins and outs of the rest of Christianity and make blanket statements about Protestantism that only apply to certain subgroups. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to make general statements about Protestants. It just means the ones Seth were making were wrong, for this reason.
There are always exceptions to the rules and you have said one that I am an exception to. I am LDS and yet know extencively about other Christian groups, some of them even Protestant. As for Largly ignorant I find that most “Mormons” do their homework and learn about others, but there may be some signifant number of us that are ignorant of Protestant groups. However, how does one become educated in this unless they show their ignorance?
-D
Ditchu–you can study about it independently. My experience has been that most LDS members draw conclusions about other Christian denominations through the remarks made by converted members during church meetings, most of which are negative. If one was raised LDS, it is entirely possible to draw incredibly negative impressions of the rest of Christianity. Most people were willing to leave their prior church organizations because they were dissatisfied for whatever reason, and those are the things that they usually share.
As for the cross (you know, the actual topic), I can only share my perspective. I was not raised with religion at all, and thus I had no strong feelings about the cross one way or the other. I did notice that many of the so-called Christians I went to school with, and who condemned me to Hell on a regular basis were very busy being hypocritical and doing the same things that they were saying I shouldn’t be doing.
When I joined the LDS Church (8 years ago yesterday, actually) there wasn’t any mention of the cross or not the cross. But, through the years, it became apparent that use of the cross, while not disallowed, wasn’t done. And, like BrianJ, I would have been uncomfortable displaying one because there are ignorant people who make ignorant comments, and I tend to be sensitive to those, and made to feel quite uncomfortable. I had also been told the ‘we prefer to think of Jesus as alive, not dead’.
As time went on, the negative connotation that I felt around me about the cross became a kind of disdain for those who chose to use the cross. Now, granted, this is just me, and I certainly won’t attribute my own shortcomings to other people. I do think that the attitude of superiority that I wound up feeling (not just about the use of the cross, but about all of the extra commandments and practices of the LDS Church that other churches don’t adhere to) is a common feeling among LDS members–LDS hold themselves to higher standards… which can be interpreted as holding themselves as better people. I admire the people who can be within the church organization and not get smug–that person was not me.
As such, when I left the church and ate some big pieces of humble pie, and felt drawn to stay close to Jesus Christ, the cross took on a new kind of meaning for me. Along with the remembrance of Christ, his suffering, his resurrection, it also stands for me as a reminder of the shortcomings that I struggle with and how I want to follow Christ and be a new, better person. It is a reminder that I can wear (and not resent, like I did garments).
Seth said:
I think that’s what the issue between us ought to be reduced to. Basically, de-toxify the whole thing and limit ourselves to debating actual doctrinal differences, rather than merely tenuous symbols of those doctrinal differences.
In essence, we probably have bigger fish to fry.
I think this is a bit wrong headed. I don’t think we are going to get very far debating doctrinal differences, but I think we can get much farther in breaking down human barriers that divide us. Obviously there are all kinds of symbols that we are not going to agree on, we won’t see bishops start to wear clerical collars, for example. But I think the cross has developed into a universal symbol of christianity, something that it apparently wasn’t when the Church was organized in the 1830s. I think I would agree with KatyJane that the cross is generally viewed as a symbol of having the wrong doctrine among mormons. In justification for not using it we have toxified it, so to speak. I think this is as wrong headed as some brands of evangelical anti-mormonism that serve to divide and create un-christian feelings toward others. I would propose that mormons giving up their aversion to the cross would bring us closer to other christians without having to embrace their errant ideas about Jesus.
I would suggest that the opportunity here is not to convert the devout evangelical but make them our brothers without converting them.
The cross is easily the most powerful and recognizable symbol in the world. I don’t care if people use it as jewelry or not, but to eschew it as a device for corporate identity and worship is a missed opportunity.
Tim said:
Jared C. said:
Those two comments reminded me of an article I recently read. See the article “Humming Our Testimonies” at the bottom of this page. Because of the songs we share with other Christians, the LDS couple and the Chinese man in the story were able to have a time of fellowship they wouldn’t have had otherwise. I think this is a good examples of the result Jared is looking for.
katyjane: very interesting personal insight. thanks for sharing!
Regarding why LDS don’t wear a cross, it isn’t stated in scripture, but LDS prophets have suggested not wearing them. Here’s a talk by President Hinckley and an answer he gave when asked why Mormons don’t wear the cross:
Why Don’t We Use Crosses?
President Gordon B. Hinckley was once asked by a minister why Latter-day Saints do not wear crosses or display them in their buildings.
President Hinckley said to him: “ ‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.’
“[The minister] then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’
“I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith.”
President Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Symbol of our Faith,” Liahona, Apr. 2005, 2; see “The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, 4.
Here’s the link (sorry it’s long):
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=05ca0617f64eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
My daughter is getting baptized on Saturday and my wife decided to get her a cross to wear (as well as a new CTR ring). My wife is a convert to the LDS Church and always wore a cross before she converted at 15. She was told not to wear one afterword and gave it up. After realizing that there is nothing “wrong” with the cross I think she is anxious to start using it again as a symbol/reminder of her faith.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think Mormons suffer from a dearth of outward symbols. I think the CTR ring (originating from a children’s hymn and a children’s Sunday school class motto in 1970) has filled a need/gap in the LDS community for some outward symbol/reminders of faith.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think Mormons suffer from a dearth of outward symbols.
That’s what I was getting at before. Mormonism has symbols, but it certainly does not have anywhere near as close of a relationship with its symbols as, say, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, or Anglicanism.
The cross itself does not have much symbolic meaning to me, and I have no real desire to wear or display one. Just my own upbringing I guess.
But I certainly would agree that converts and others should not be discouraged from wearing them if it has meaning to them.
In Japan, we missionaries were instructed that it was OK for members to keep their personal household shrines. The ones where they burn incense for deceased ancestors. As long as it was understood as a gesture of respect for and veneration of ancestors and not outright, “worship,” it was considered OK to keep the tradition.
So I think the Church already is flexible on these issues. The cross probably represents one of the holdouts.
I disagree with Tim that we ought to adopt the cross as a “corporate” symbol (as I think he put it). But I think any rhetoric discouraging private use ought to be put behind us.
You know he didn’t mean “corporate” like “business,” right?
Yeah, I know that. And I don’t think it’s a good idea.
What’s not a good idea? To use “corporate” to mean “group?” It’s a pretty common religious studies/theology term.
Or do you mean using the cross as a corporate symbol in Mormonism?
Again I should emphisize the reason the Cross is not used in “Mormonism” as it is in some other christian Groups is due to the focus of the church. While some groups focus on the cross as a symbol of our salvation by christ the Resurective view focuses on Christ himself, as the resurected christ because the view point is that our salvation did not come from the cross, Jesus started on the path to our salvation long before he was put on the cross. The biggist turning point was in the Gardin of Gethseminy where he made the choice to fulfill God the Father’s will. Also it did not end with his death on the cross, If Jesus did not resurect there would be no resurection and all would be lost, this is the focus of many Christian groups that can be considered Resurectionist Christian, and that is why thier focus in not the Cross. “Mormonism” subscribes to this view and thus should not use the Cross as a general symbol for their religion. Although there is still room for the cross to be displaied and used simbolically by these groups including “Mormonism” it should not be the standard.
-D
I meant using the cross as a group symbol for Mormons. I’ve never viewed Mormonism as the property of traditional Christianity. It’s always seemed to me that we are more between different world faith traditions, sharing important elements with all of them.
I’d like to see Mormons acknowledged for their veneration, love of, and even worship of Jesus Christ. Aside from that central issue, I’m not really eager to tie our identity irrevocably to traditional Christianity. I think we are a much different religion than traditional Christianity. Adopting the cross would only muddy the waters further.
But as I said, I think there should be no discouragement on people bringing perfectly good and praiseworthy things from their own religion into ours. That would include the symbolic meaning of the cross.
I just don’t think a church-wide adoption is appropriate.
Ditchu,
That is one explanation of why the church doesn’t use the cross but it appears to be just the reason people have used to reinforce the tradition. I think catholics and cross using protestants believe pretty much the same thing with regard to the resurrection. They all believe Christ is living now. I think its pretty myopic to assume that others don’t focus on the living Christ.
Ditchu,
If people have a desire to use a symbol to represent their faith, and, as you said, they “should not” use the cross, what should they use? Perhaps a picture of Jesus? A little statue? What would you suggest? Maybe an LDS Church logo?
Please don’t place value judgments on what other people choose to do to draw closer to Christ.
If you personally want to use the cross as a focus of your faith or even as a symbol then by all means do so. I am not suggesting that any person should or should not use the cross as a symbol. what I am saying is that I think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints as a group should not use the cross as the focus of their religion and thus should not cause it to be a group identity symbol. We LDS should do as he church has led us to do and use for a symbol of our faith in Jesus Christ our lives. living his commandments and as best as we can living his example.
I do not make judgments on people as you have indicated but I am stating what I think a group should and should not do pertaining to the common views of the members of that group. As I have mentioned breifly before, I do not see the cross in a negative light, and I do not look down on anyone who has chosen to use it as a symbol. I have a wooden cross myself from my days as a Lutheren Youth Acolite.
Also not all Catholics use the cross due to some resurectionist sects that focus not on the Cross of Christ but the resurected Christ.
Peace with you all,
-D
You’re making a bizarre caricature of the rest of Christianity, ditchu. I promise you that Protestants and Catholics emphasize the risen Christ at least as much as Mormons, if not more.
K,
Again it all depends on which sect of these groups you are speaking of, and I am speaking about the focus of these faiths not just that they spend time looking at the risen Christ, but is the focus of the group on the Risen Christ, the suffering Christ, or the teaching Christ. These 3 parts of the life of Christ can be found easily in any Christian faith but the focus may very well deturmine if the group uses the cross as a general identity, or as a symbol of their faith. As for your generalization of these groups like Catholic I have specified that there are sects of the Catholic Church that do not bare the cross as a symbol as they are Resurectionist. Like these sects of other Churches there are whole church Faiths that tend to focus on the Resurected Christ and that is the reason these churches do not tend to use the cross (generally seen as a symbol of the Suffering Christ) for their group identity.
That is all I am saying about these sects. It is not necessarily good to over generalize when someone else picks out examples within your generalization and specifies that it is not the entire group. I do not think it is reasonable to assume that the resurectionist are a majority in the Catholic Church but there are some Churches that they are a majority.
Thank you and God Bless,
-D
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (KJV)
I wear the cross to remind me that those were MY SINS that Christ suffered for.
Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (KJV)
And to all of you who ask, would I wear a whip (or a gun) if that were the murder weapon?
If Christ asked me to take up my whip and follow him, then yes, I would.
The Cross I cary is not an emblem or a charm but the Life I live.
This is what I think is ment by these versus of Scripture.
But I commend you on finding something to help you keep the Atonement in rememberance. Many would think that I am telling them not to use the Cross for this but that is not the case. I urge you to continue to use it if it helps you to do Right. I just have the view point that for some it does not help in the same fasion.
God be with you,
-D
[...] – bookmarked by 2 members originally found by cholkers2 on July 17, 2008 Mormons and Evangelicals, Can we rally around the Cross? http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/mormons-and-evangelicals-can-we-rally-around-the-cross/ – [...]
I am a graduate student from CSU Sacramento who is writing my MA thesis on The Development of the LDS Church’s No-Cross Protocol. It is nearly finished at 90+ pages long, and a draft is presently being reviewed by my thesis committee. My thesis will be the first in-depth analysis of this subject ever published; explaining how and why the LDS cross aversion came about. Most readers (whether Mormon or Mormon-critic) will be surprised to learn that the cross aversion was a very late development in the Church’s history, first starting at the grassroots level around the turn of the 20th century, and then became institutionalized as church-protocol in the 1950s under the direction of President David O. McKay. Prior to the protocol, several prominent Saints (including Joseph Smithn Jr.) embraced the Christian symbol.
Mike,
No suprise here… But I applaud you in your research. I did not know how or when the many steps came about. I however still stand by my ideal that it is not an adversion to the symbol but a lack of use. I do not see “Mormons” running away from the cross but just not employing it in the same terms of many other christians. I tend to think it is out of respect to our living God, that the cross is a reminder of Jesus’ Death, and, to many, is not adiquate to symbolise his resurection.
Thank you for your research, It would be interesting to see the Paper when it has passed the review board.
God bless,
-D
Interesting!
I’d like to read that thesis.
Mike,
It would be very interesting to hear the reasoning and strategy behind the grassroots movement and the protocols. Give us a taste of your research and conclusions if you are willing. I think they would be relevant to our inter-faith discussion.
Mike,
You may want to wait until after the board has approved of your Masters, before posting any of it here… I would not want you sited for Plagerism on your own work. Also then you could share the entire thing somewhere or use it as a source for this information.
Hope all goes well during this phase of your Educational Achievments.
God blass,
-D
bless! not blass…
-D
Ditchu: I however still stand by my ideal that it is not an adversion to the symbol but a lack of use. I do not see “Mormons” running away from the cross but just not employing it in the same terms of many other christians.
Me: People don’t always run away from things that they have an aversion to. New members in the LDS Church often feel persuaded to discard, pack away, or hide cross heirlooms that they had embraced prior to their conversion. As I am sure you know, the saints generally interpret the cross as an apostate symbol, and often reducing it to a mere instrument of death and torture, saying things like, “If your brother were killed by hanging, would you wear a noose around your neck to remember him?” This is indeed an aversion. To quote Joseph Fielding Smith, “To many, like the writer, such a custom [of wearing a cross] is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer.” Of course there are exceptions, particularly for “internet Mormons” who tend to be more liberal, but this perception of the cross remains strong in the LDS mainstream.
Ditchu: I tend to think it is out of respect to our living God, that the cross is a reminder of Jesus’ Death, and, to many, is not adiquate to symbolise his resurection.
Me: I don’t buy it. Latter-day Saints are quite accustomed to death symbolism, whether it be the sacrament (1 Cor 11:26), the endowment (Isaiah 22:23), the glorification of martyrdom (Carthage Jail is treated as sacred space), or literary symbolism in scripture. Besides, symbols by their nature can take on multiple layers of meaning, and don’t have to be limited to one meaning. The refusal to interpret a symbol more abstractly says less about the symbol itself, and more about the individual (or group of people) interpreting the symbol. The apologetic you suggest is a post-hoc rationalization, invented to pacify the critic, having no real basis in fact, reason, or revelation. The apologetic you note was in fact borrowed from 19th century American Protestant Iconoclasts.
Ditchu: I would not want you sited for Plagerism on your own work.
Me: I doubt sharing information from an unpublished work qualifies as self-plagiarism. Brent Metcalfe and Nick Zeleski, for example, have posted information online about the Joseph Smith Papyri/KEP and Mormon-Freemasonry, before their books have been published.
Jared C: One of the automatically generated links yielded this description of how the Church ended up averse to the cross: http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/cross.html
Me: Yes. Bushman’s theory (which is shared by Terryl Givens, David Paulson, and Paul Anderson) is good, but unfortunately it is only half right. He is right about the general 19th century Protestant view of the cross (Bushman’s exposure to this info was large–he was on Ryan K. Smith’s dissertation committee, in fact). But Bushman (whom I have a great deal of respect for) incorrectly assumes that the cross aversion has always existed in the Church, and that it paralleled the Protestant aversion during the early establishment of the LDS Church. Bushman additionally overlooks *other* circles of influence that Smith was involved in (outside of Protestantism). I don’t want to steal my own thunder by giving too much of my thesis material here, so I will bite my tongue and encourage you to read my thesis when it is ready.
Mike,
Interesting. I appreciate this. I think the cross issue is fascinating and perhaps and example of divergence that is either unwarranted or unhelpful for Mormons in their relationships with other Christians. (in my pluralistic view of course)
I recent addendum to this discussion on Aquinas’ blog: http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/mormonism-and-the-cross-looking-at-the-history/#comment-1298