Mike Reed

At risk of being called a self-promoter again, here is my recent blog entry that explores a possible 19th century context for the Liahona: Liahona, a Mineral Compass?

There is an idea!! Lol!

Nice theory. Here is an idea: Maybe... just MAYBE.... I showed up here in this thread for the very same reason I show up in most threads posted in cyberspace: because I like to discuss the topic of Mormons and the cross. Gasp! Now you can move on to criticizing me for being a one-trick pony, an ark-steadier, yadda yadda yadda... Proudly? Nope. Just thought people should know, since I used to be an apologist.

In case you folks are like me and don't like clicking links, this is what their logo looks like: So what do ya think? Would this be "tacky" on a shirt? At a conference I spoke at last year in Claremont, Dr. Robert Rees suggested that Mormons could embrace the symbol of the cross, while still maintining their distinctness, by coming up with their own cross (as other denominations have done). He suggested the design a tree in the form of a cross. Any other ideas? So far, my favorite idea is the CTR shield above.

I think this CTR shield/cross of this facebook group is pretty cool. Mormons Who Glory in the Cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14) | Facebook I can imagine a few Mormons wearing a t-shirt with this on it. What do you think?

Your blog plagiarizes like crazy. Your post on Mormons and the Cross, for example, is taken directly from Stephen R. Gibson's "One-Minute Answers".

My next blog post will be about this.

To be honest, I haven't kept tabs on the controversy this year... and I only recently started saying happy holidays. The majority of my free time lately has been spent with my nose in the books. So I can't say whether or not the controversy is any greater now than it has been in recent years. For what its worth, a couple coworkers last week reported similar experiences. The statistic I gave reflects my entire experience over the past decade. During this holiday... ahem ... during this winter season, I haven't been able to spend much time on my blog. Hence, I chose to post a less meaty topic. That is a good question. I don't know.

The ratio is probably hundreds to one. The vast majority have responded either neutrally or favorably to it. Perhaps some were offended, but chose not to say anything.

Ha! How embarrassing. Thanks for catching that.

Last week I made the “mistake” of telling an elderly woman leaving my place of employment, “Thanks for coming in. Happy Holidays.” She quickly shot back, “No, it is Merry Christmas!” “Yes mam. Merry Christmas, and have a Happy New Year,” I replied, hoping she would understand that I wasn’t excluding Christmas with the phrase, but rather was including other holidays along with it. She reacted more frustrated than ever, shaking her head and finger (in unison, in fact), “This is about religious freedom... This is about freedom of speech... your company has no right to tell you what to say,” yadda, yadda, yadda. I thought, “Religion? I am agnostic. Freedom of speech? That’s ironic. Isn’t it YOU who is telling me what to say?” But I bit my tongue. “I’m sorry, mam. No... They didn’t tell me what to say. Merry Christmas.” The woman’s friend (obviously embarrassed by the scene she was making) gave a disapproving nudge, and they finally made their way to the door. Just before their exit, the lady (who had previously taken offence) turned around, smiled and said, “Thank you for saying ‘Merry Christmas.’” She left satisfied--at the expense of me feeling bullied and anything but the Christmas spirit. Later I realized that my company’s policy actually is for their employees to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Sigh... To avoid future confrontation at my place of work, I will therefore opt to say neither. For the rest of the year I will instead be telling people “Have a great day/good night” or “Enjoy the rest of your weekend.” Are we all happy now? Cultural Mormon Cafeteria: Happy Holy Days--‘Tis the season to take offence?

In my recent Sunstone symposium, I stated the following: On the other hand… it is also problematic… no… it is more than problematic. It is a blatantly false claim to say that Latter-day Saints avoid displaying the symbol because they are non-Christian. The material display of the cross has not been a consistent or continuous custom in Christian history. Early Christians, for example, avoided displaying the cross because (1) they worshiped surreptitiously for fear of persecution; (2) the image was a stumbling block to Jews and Gentiles, and therefore not a useful emblem for attracting converts; and (3) they feared that depicting the cross (or any other sacred symbol) materially was in violation of the second of the Ten Commandments. It should not be concluded from these reservations that early Christians therefore believed the symbol of the cross to be an expression contrary to their faith. No… Although it may be true that early Christians avoided displaying the cross materially, they still embraced and promoted the symbol by actively searching out its hidden occurrence in the world around them. They also traced the cross invisibly on their foreheads, prayed in a cruciform posture with arms extended, and used crypto-crosses; such as those suggestive in the design of a ship’s sail or anchor. But even more relevant to the LDS church’s position, until the middle of the nineteenth century, American Protestants in general did not use the cross as a material symbol because of its association with Catholicism. And my MA thesis included the following postscript: There exists a common element that has driven the taboo (against depicting the cross materially) in early Christianity, early Protestantism, and Mormonism. The common element is fear. Early Christians feared idolatry and persecution. Protestants and Mormons feared Catholicism. For the early Christian and Protestant movements, it took over three centuries for their mainstreams to accept material depictions of the symbol. Although Latter-day Saints now look like the “odd man out,” it is important for critics (whether Catholic or Protestant) to understand that the LDS cross taboo has only been mainstream for less than a century. That being said, should the LDS Church take another two hundred years to become accepting of the symbol, comparatively speaking, such a length of time could be considered merely “par for the course.”

Yes indeed. And I am happy to stand in defense against the common anti-Mormon claim, which has insisted that Mormons aren't Christian because of their rejection of the material symbol.

You miss an important point. Why do these traditions say that Peter desired to be crucified upside down? Because he was unworthy to be crucified like Jesus was... which shows that (at least in their mind) there was something sacred about the actual means by which Jesus was killed. Whether you like it or not, the Cross was sacred symbol to early Christians. It was also sacred to many early Latter-day Saints.

Are you equally against holocaust monuments? If so, why? Many find such monuments to be extremely important. I am among them. How about the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror? Are you aware of the history of the choker? How about 9-11? Consider the new US Navy battleship made from recycled steel of the World Trade Center. Regarding Mormon symbolism, consider the examples that I listed in post #106. If these symbols of death and torture are acceptable in the LDS Church, why shouldn't the cross be?

What is your point?

Yes. This is the same as what is found in the "True to the Faith" manual (see pp 45-46). Thanks for the link. I am less satisfied with the entry. I find it to be a post-hoc rationalization that lacks historical basis and logical consistency.

You miss that Jesus also atoned for sin by being whipped. "... with his stripes we are healed." (see Isaiah 53:5 and Mosiah 14:5)

I agree with much of what you say, Vort. I would, however, modify this statement into the present tense. According to my research, the discomfort over the symbol of the cross was more of a late development in Mormon history, being first manifest around the turn of the twentieth century, later being institutionalized in 1957 (under the direction of President David O. McKay). Prior to this time, many prominent Latter-day Saints (including Church authorities) embraced and promoted the visual/material symbol of the cross.Consider this example from Spencer W. Kimball (a page lifted from my thesis): ------------------------ Spencer W. Kimball undoubtedly saw the cross as a sacred symbol of Christianity. Kimball recounts a personal story of the struggle he had in 1943, after being called to serve as an Apostle for the LDS Church. With great feelings of inadequacy, he turned to God in prayer. Kimball wrote a week after being called to the Quorum of the Twelve: “No peace had yet come, though I had prayed for it almost unceasingly these six days and nights. I had no plan or destination. I only knew I must get out in the open, apart, away,” he says. “I dressed quietly and without disturbing the family, I slipped out of the house. I turned toward the hills. I had no objective. I wanted only to be alone.” Kimball then describes the tearful hike he made up the hillside. I climbed on and on. Never had I prayed before as I now prayed. What I wanted and felt I must have was an assurance that I was acceptable to the Lord. I told Him that I neither wanted nor was worthy of a vision or appearance of angels or any special manifestation. I wanted only the calm peaceful assurance that my offering was accepted. Never before had I been tortured as I was now being tortured. And the assurance did not come. Finally, Spencer W. Kimball saw a sign that gave him assurance that God was with him: As I rounded a promontory I saw immediately above me the peak of the mountain and on the peak a huge cross with its arms silhouetted against the blue sky beyond. It was just an ordinary cross made of two large heavy limbs of a tree, but in my frame of mind, and coming on it so unexpectedly, it seemed a sacred omen. This experience made such an impact on him, that he revisited the place two years later (1945). Kimball recorded in his journal: I began to re-live my unusual experiences…. I followed my footsteps of that early morning…. Finally at the top of my sacred mountain I found my cross of July '43 was broken. I found a cross beam and carried it up the hill (remembering the Savior as he carried his cross up Calvary) and fixed it the best I could. --------Edward L. Kimball and Andrew E. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball: Twelfth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1977), 192-94, 221-22. As I have mentioned before, such "talk" (ie. the post-hoc rationalizations that LDS give today) reminds me of the parable of the pot-roast.

Excellent point, Anthony. The ratio you find in the New Testament is comparable to what is found in the BoM, D&C, and PoGP. Any mention of Gethsemane is far outnumbered by the cross. The cross is indeed the dominant literary symbol for the atonement in LDS scripture.

I can't tell you how much I wish I could just post a draft of my thesis online for all to read. But doing so would interfere my chances to find a publisher. The good news is that a condensed version of my thesis will be submitted to Dialogue soon. When it appears in print, I will be sure to announce it on this forum (and my blog), Cultural Mormon Cafeteria. Until then... anyone interested can access a copy of my thesis at the new LDS Church History Library in SLC: Michael G. Reed, "The Development of the LDS Church's Attitude Toward the Cross," (CSU Sacramento, 2009). The certificate that the Church sent me has a typo, dating the thesis as 2004 (doh!)... so it is possible that this is the year recorded in their database. Also... at risk of being view as a grandstander, I am willing to answer some questions (complete with documentation) here on this forum. If anyone is interested, that is.

Millitary handbook? Is the entry the same as what is found in the "True to the Faith" manual (see pp 45-46)? I'd like a link. Thanks. This explanation is problematic because it (however unintended it may be) carries the insulting implication that mainstream Christianity has somehow lost focus of the tenet that Jesus has been resurrected. The apologetic also fails to explain why other death symbolism is acceptable in the LDS Church. Did you read the list of examples I gave in this thread? Latter-day Saints symbolically commemorate the death of Jesus every Sunday as they perform the sacrament (1 Cor. 11:26); consider also the symbolism of the nails that Jesus was crucified with (endowed members can turn to Isaiah 22:23 to understand what I am alluding to); consider also that the resurrected Jesus (according to LDS history and scripture) regularly shows the wounds of his crucifixion as a means to introduce himself; consider also that the cross is used as a literary symbol throughout LDS scripture; consider also that Mormons treat Carthage jail as sacred space--does this undermine the belief that Joseph's ministry extends beyond the veil? No. Of course not. If you have the time and interest, I'd love to read a response from you, explaining how mormons can logically claim that these symbolic reminders of death are ok, while the symbol of the cross is not? Thanks. Are you implying that this is evidence that the Church has therefore not been opposed to using the cross? Chaplains currently have a limited number of badges to choose from—-a moon crescent for Islam, wheel for Buddhism, Star of David for Judaism, and a cross for Christianity. (See “Chaplain Badges,” USA Military Medals) I think it is safe to say that if a different symbol was made available for the Mormon faith (like the Beehive or Angel Moroni), then the Church most certainly would instruct their chaplains to use it instead of the cross. Although the U.S. government has yet to provide a unique badge for Latter-day Saints chaplains, the Church successfully applied for and received an angel Moroni grave-stone marker in 1980. (see Edwin G. Sapp, “Suitland Maryland Stake,” History of the Mormons in the Greater Washington Area [Washington D.C.: Community Printing Services Inc., 1991], 112; and "News of the Church," Ensign [August 1980], 80.)

I'm willing to call a truce. :) Sorry if you felt interrogated by my posts. I need to remind myself that I am not on an apologetics forum when participating here.

I know what True to the Faith states. What is stated therein is a post hoc rationalization that lacks historical basis and logical consistency. Never mind that Latter-day Saints symbolically commemorate the death of Jesus every Sunday as they perform the sacrament (1 Cor. 11:26); never mind the nails (endowed members can turn to Isaiah 22:23 to understand what I am alluding to); never mind that the resurrected Jesus (according to LDS history and scripture) regularly shows the wounds of his crucifixion as a means to introduce himself; never mind that the cross is used as a literary symbol throughout LDS scripture; never mind that Mormons treat Carthage jail as sacred space--does this undermine the belief that Joseph's ministry extends beyond the veil? No. Of course not. When the prophets speak (even when the message lacks logical consistency), the thinking has been done for you. Understood. Luckily there are others in this forum who are open minded, and in a better condition to appreciate my research. If these truly were your reasons, then it would seem that the other things I listed above would be problematic for you too. But they aren't, are they? The parable of the pot-roast seems fitting. Since when it is not my right to question (teach) people about their religious traditions? Nothing more. Nothing less. Oh brother...

Sure there is. Again... you claimed, "I don't have any problems with the cross itself"; but then in the next breath asserted, "I feel the cross undermines my worship of the Atonement." This is a contradiction. You have a problem with the cross because it would interfere with your worship. Understood. I didn't claim otherwise. I merely pointed out that you contradicted yourself. You said that you don't have a problem with the cross, when in reality you do. Of course. I didn't assert otherwise. I am an agnostic cultural mormon. You asserted that the symbol of the cross undermined your worship of the atonement, since it is a symbol of Jesus' death. However, Jacob taught that "all men" should view the death of Jesus. He further promoted the literary symbolism of the cross, saying that the Saints should "suffer his cross". The explanation you give is a post hoc rationalization that lacks historical basis and logical consistancey.