Disdaining the Cross

[Snow]

What's behind the LDS antipathy towards the Cross?

Mormons and the cross - Salt Lake Tribune

It's no accident that Mormon steeples, temples and necks are free of Christian crosses.

LDS leaders long have said the cross, so ubiquitous among traditional Christians, symbolizes Jesus' death, while Mormons worship the risen Christ. Some Latter-day Saints go even farther, condemning the cross as some kind of pagan or satanic symbol.

... but is that the whole story?

[a-train]

No. The symbol of the cross is used by the Church, but not with reference to the crucifixion. It is also not used in ordinances and our priests do not make its sign with their hands when giving blessings. However, the cross has its place among sacred geometric symbols used in the temple.

-a-train

[Celica]

They see it more as a torture tool, that was used to kill the savior. Remember it about what Christ did for us and not what he did it on. The symbol of the cross are worn by Latter-day Saint chaplains, who wear it on their military uniforms to show that they are Christian chaplains. I've also met a few members who have crosses in their homes and sometimes they wear a cross necklace. Its personal choice. There was a talk that i belive that Prophet Hinckley did on this topic, I can't seem to find it. However since i've read this talk I've adopted this LDS view.

[mightynancy]

I think any member's "disdain" for the cross is the usual overzealousness we're prone to. Just because the church doesn't generally use something isn't cause for actual disdain of it.

My daughter is very, very faithful...and she'd really like a cross necklace as a symbol of her love for Jesus Christ. She's 8, and doesn't have much background in the LDS use or nonuse of the cross (I'm faithfully LDS, but I don't subscribe to a lot of the LDS cultural traditions). I don't have a big problem with such a necklace, my problem is any negative feedback she'll get from other LDS people who feel strongly about it. I'm looking for an alternative that makes my daughter happy without inviting busybodies' input.

[pam]

President Gordon B. Hinckley once made a statement when asked by a Protestant minister why LDS don't use crosses. I had to search to find his exact words because I didn't want to misrepresent what Pres. Hinckley had to say. The words stuck with me. Here is what he said.

“He 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 only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, p. 4).

President Hinckley further explained, “On Calvary he was the dying Jesus. From the tomb he emerged the living Christ. … Because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when he said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)” (pp. 6, 7).

I bolded to provide emphasis on the words that stuck with me the most.

[pam]

In reading the article again that Snow posted....do we as LDS still hold to the idea of no crosses because of the disdain that some former Prophets felt towards the Catholic Church? I'm thinking that we as a Church have become more tolerant of other religions. At least I've seen that with some of the most recent Prophets. President Hinckley and President Monson especially.

[Dravin]

I gotta be honest, I've seen some treat the cross in ways that makes me feel like they are bordering on idolatry, though to be fair I'm sure others are unsure about songs like Praise to the Man, We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet and the Angel Moroni.

Honestly when I was teaching people I never told them they had to get rid of crosses before they could get baptized, and I'd never heard anything to that effect. I think the aversion to the cross, at least in the sense that walking into a Catholic Mass and seeing the huge crucifix makes me feel a little uncomfortable* is more cultural than doctrinal, not putting them on our buildings because we don't feel it the proper/appropriate/(some other better word?) symbol of Christ and our faith I feel is more doctrinal.

* Interestingly enough, somebody wearing a cross necklace or what have you doesn't make me feel uncomfortable on any kind of level at all, at least not that I can tell.

[Maxel]

If Christ had been executed by firing squad, would the universal symbol of Christianity be a rifle?

Like a-train said, the cross has its place in LDS symbolism; also in scripture and theology (2 Nephi 9:18, Jacob 1:8, 3 Nephi 12:30), specifically as a symbol for extreme, prolonged hardship and suffering.

My take on the issue is this: the Gospel (or 'Good news') of Christ isn't necessarily that he died, but that he lives. I find the symbolism of a steeple- standing for an aspiration and movement towards heaven- much more in line with the ultimate, basic doctrines of Christianity: that through Christ we are saved. That Christ suffered and died is a very integral part of that, but his manner of death is far less important than the fact that he still lives, despite having died.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Maxel
Typo fix

[Maureen]

In my protestant view, I see the symbol of the cross as a reminder of Christ's atonement. Before Christ could be resurrected he had to die; and in his death through God's grace came mankind's salvation. Without Christ's death there is no salvation. His resurrection show us the hope of life after death eternally with God.

Thank you Snow for the article. The author of the thesis Michael Reed has visited this forum. He talked about this future thesis of his at that time (although it could have been LDStalk, since it was a while ago). The thesis itself would be an interesting read; it's good to know that he's actually completed it.

M.

[Maureen]

In my protestant view, I see the symbol of the cross as a reminder of Christ's atonement. Before Christ could be resurrected he had to die; and in his death through God's grace came mankind's salvation. Without Christ's death there is no salvation. His resurrection show us the hope of life after death eternally with God.

Thank you Snow for the article. The author of the thesis Michael Reed has visited this forum. He talked about this future thesis of his at that time (although it could have been LDStalk, since it was a while ago). The thesis itself would be an interesting read; it's good to know that he's actually completed it.

M.

[Snow]

If Christ had been executed by firing squad, would the universal symbol of Christianity by a rifle?

It might be. What's that got to do with anything? ... and that's a rhetorical question - I understand that you are trying to conjure up an image that is unseemly in your mind's eye, so you've choose an example you find unappealing - you could have picked an even funner example - say, hit over the head with a Cusinart - but what does your ability to come up with an unseemly image have to do with Christ's sacrifice on the cross?

[Moksha]

It is good to see Mike Reed getting well deserved attention for all the research that went into his thesis. Seems like we have been discussing parts of it with him on message boards for several years now.

I lament that we have disdained this universal symbol of Christianity for the sake of peculiarity. Choosing to look upon it as an instrument of death rather that symbolizing our hope in resurrection and salvation seems like such a downer.

I have pointed out many times, that if you hold a cross to the forehead of a Mormon they will not be burned. That still holds true.

Had that early twentieth century idea of building a huge cross atop the hills overlooking Salt Lake City been fulfilled, it would have gone a long ways in dispelling many of the misconceptions about the Church. No one can mistake the Christian intent of Rio de Janeiro with that giant landmark crucifix overlooking that city.

:)

[Elgama]

see coming from a Roman Catholic/Anglican background I just see it as a difference like the difference between a crucifix and a cross. Or the Methodist which has a very plain cross or the Celtic Cross etc.... ours is we don't wear one (although I do my friend bought it me)

Personally I see the logic in focusing on the Lord alive today rather than when he died yesterday, its important but I do wonder if its part of what can take away from a personal relationship which is so crucial to being LDS, when the focus is on the past rather than the here and now

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

No. The symbol of the cross is used by the Church, but not with reference to the crucifixion. -a-train

This confuses me. Crucifixion is done on a cross, so why wouldn't the symbol be used for its most immediate context, but would be used as a geometric symbol in the Temple???

MAXEL: If the execution of Jesus by firing squad led to my redemption, I would gladly honor the rifle as a symbol of my salvation. I'd preach the rifle, make sure to take up my rifle and bare it daily, etc. Yes the resurrection is what seals the deal. BUT, as much as I like the sugar, I need the salt too--I need to know of the difficult, painful, pricey journey my Savior took to wrest my reconciliation to the Father.

[Snow]

Had that early twentieth century idea of building a huge cross atop the hills overlooking Salt Lake City been fulfilled, it would have gone a long ways in dispelling many of the misconceptions about the Church. No one can mistake the Christian intent of Rio de Janeiro with that giant landmark crucifix overlooking that city.

:)

Hmmm - Rio is probably one of the most sinful places on earth - sex, drugs and violence.

[YellowLight]

If Christ had been executed by firing squad, would the universal symbol of Christianity by a rifle?

If instead of Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith it was a pink unicorn, would you adorn the Temples with pink unicorns on top? Your statement comes off as rude, arrogant, and ignorant of other's views.

[bytebear]

If instead of Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith it was a pink unicorn, would you adorn the Temples with pink unicorns on top? Your statement comes off as rude, arrogant, and ignorant of other's views.

Interesting concept. but even moreso, the Angel Moroni atop temples is not a requirement anymore than crosses are. Not all temples have the Angel Moroni, and they are still the House of the Lord.

The point is, no Mormon is going to be excommunicated by having crosses or even crucifixes in their home or on their person. And I don't believe any Christian will tell someone who is "born again" that if they do not have a cross, they are not truly saved (although some might).

[prisonchaplain]

Is the cross an offense though...embarrassing in these modern times...far too stark for or enlightened sensibilities? It may be unfair to surmize that many LDS believe so, but do you understand why we might?

[pam]

Personally I don't find the cross offensive. I choose not to use or wear them as I've been taught that since childhood. I agree with the reason we, as LDS, don't use them in our religion. But yet I don't find, when those of other faiths wear them, offensive at all.

[AngelLynn]

The Cross hasn't always been a purely Christian symbol though. There are many examples of it being found in pre-Christian societies.

I found this while doing a search.

Jesus Family Tomb: The Jesus Tomb & Symbolism: The Cross

During the first three centuries of Christianity, depictions of the cross as a Christian symbol were extremely rare. In many cases, use of the cross was condemned by early Church Fathers as a symbol of paganism. Instead, early Christians used the fish or "Ichthys" to identify each other.The Christian cross can be traced back to the Tao cross, which resembled the Greek letter "tao", or the English "T." This symbol has been attributed to many pre-Christian cultures, and is one of the most established of ancient symbols.

The Tao has also been connected to the Pagan Druids, who fashioned crosses in this shape from oak trees to represent the god Thau. The Tao cross was furthermore a Roman and Greek symbol of the gods Mithras and Attis, whose predecessor was the Sumerian solar deity Tammuz worshipped in Babylon.

The ritual of marking a cross on the forehead with ash used in Ash Wednesday celebrations dates back to celebrations of the shepherd-god Tammuz. Tammuz, like Jesus, was associated with fishing and shepherding, and his believers commemorated his resurrection every spring.

It is believed that the cross first became a prominent Christian symbol in third century Egypt. Ancient Egyptians had previously celebrated the mystic Tao of Tammuz, but adopted the symbol upon their conversion to Christianity.

Emperor Constantine: The First Christian Cross

The Roman Emperor Constantine adopted what many consider the first Christian cross. Constantine adopted the Chi-Rho emblem. This pre-Christian symbol originally represented Chronos, the Roman god of time, as well as other solar deities, and was considered a symbol of good fortune.

According to Church Father Eusebius, the symbol appeared to the Emperor in a dream on the eve of a battle, inscribed with the fortune: "By this sign you shall conquer." It became the standard symbol of Constantine’s army and represented the first two letters of the name of Christ: "Chi" and "Rho." Previously, these letters had been associated with Chronus.

Concidence that our Church leaders may not be so into the cross as it's clear that even the early church declared it as pagan

Edited May 4, 2009 by AngelLynn

[Moksha]

Hmmm - Rio is probably one of the most sinful places on earth - sex, drugs and violence.

That darn violence and drugs again!

[Maxel]

If instead of Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith it was a pink unicorn, would you adorn the Temples with pink unicorns on top? Your statement comes off as rude, arrogant, and ignorant of other's views.

If it was actually a pink unicorn that came to visit Joseph Smith, than I would expect us to use the pink unicorn instead of the Angel Moroni- because that would be what would have happened. Of course that's not what, in reality, happened.

My apologies for sounding "rude, arrogant, and ignorant"; I can assure you my intentions were not to be rude, I attempt to keep arrogance out of my posting, and on this matter I am not ignorant. My reason for using that statement is found below.

If Christ had been executed by firing squad, would the universal symbol of Christianity by a rifle?

It might be. What's that got to do with anything?

The stated point of this thread was to find out "what's behind the LDS antipathy towards the cross?", and I was attempting to further discussion by offering my own feelings and insight. My statement was an introduction to my post, which dealt with the fact that the Gospel of Christ is not so much about his death, but his life and life-after-death, and the fact that in LDS theology the cross is used to symbolize humiliation and adversity.

I was pointing out the fact- through a question- that the chosen symbol of general Christianity to represent Christ is in actuality the instrument of his suffering and death. President Joseph F. Smith compared the cross to a guillotine- both instruments of execution. I think I'm in good company by drawing the comparison, and I believe the comparison is valid.

... and that's a rhetorical question - I understand that you are trying to conjure up an image that is unseemly in your mind's eye, so you've choose an example you find unappealing

Actually, I wasn't attempting to denigrate the symbolism of the cross in any way by attempting to replace it with a more 'unseemly' image (the idea of execution by firing squad is far more humane than the idea of death by crucifixion)- merely stating a question hinting at a fact. A poignant and accurate one, judging by the mild outcry.

- you could have picked an even funner example - say, hit over the head with a Cusinart -

That would have gone against the spirit and purpose of my post- to offer my serious reflections on the matter in a thoughtful way.

but what does your ability to come up with an unseemly image have to do with Christ's sacrifice on the cross?

Nothing. I wasn't attempting to comment on Christ's Atonement or suffering- I was commenting on the symbolism of the cross. Isn't that what this thread is about?

I'm somewhat surprised that a rhetorical question garnered such heated opposition. Also, I don't find the symbolism of the cross offensive at all- it seems the discussion is currently regarding that topic, so I thought I'd clarify that.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Maxel

[Maxel]

MAXEL: If the execution of Jesus by firing squad led to my redemption, I would gladly honor the rifle as a symbol of my salvation. I'd preach the rifle, make sure to take up my rifle and bare it daily, etc. Yes the resurrection is what seals the deal. BUT, as much as I like the sugar, I need the salt too--I need to know of the difficult, painful, pricey journey my Savior took to wrest my reconciliation to the Father.

I think part of the hesitance to use the cross as a general symbol is the LDS doctrine that the Atonement was not carried out solely on the cross, but actually began in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before.

If that's the case, the cross doesn't even represent the Atonement in full because the Atonement was not inextricably linked to the cross; it was the other way around- the cross was linked to the Atonement and was but one part of the entire ordeal. Even in regards to Christ's physical suffering, the cross played but one (although paramount) part- there was the abuse from the Pharisaical tribunal, the scourging by the Roman soldiers, and the carrying of the cross-beam of the cross through the streets of Jerusalem.

My own belief is that the Atonement of Christ saved not only human spirits, but a fallen nature as well. I don't know about Protestant theology, but the explanations I have heard is that nature needs no atoning sacrifice and therefore the Atonement didn't cover nature. Personally, as I begin to study the Atonement and its effects I have to continually "step back" and take in a wider view of it and understand its scope in a greater magnitude. When I do that, the instant in time of Christ's suffering on the cross diminishes, but its effect in my life grows. I think that's part of what President Hinckley meant when the "only meaningful expression of [Mormonism]" should be the lives of the Saints.

[prisonchaplain]

The atonement began in Bethlehem...or it began when the Father asked and Jesus said yes, I'll go. Jesus' anguish in the Garden was real, palpable. But, the Garden was not the place of death. Satan "crushed Jesus' heel" (Gen. 3:15) on Calvary's cross.

If I tell a sinner that her sin cost Jesus the anguish he felt in the Garden, she might be mildly saddened or ashamed. Tell him that his sin cost Jesus his life, slowly offered on a bloody Roman cross, and I'm likely to get anger (offense), or repentence.

Without denying any of what you say, imho the cross is what offends, because it calls us to account for our sins, and declares with stark truth that there is none righteous, none that seek God--that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that the wages of that sin is rightly death.

So, I know... you know, understand, and accept that Jesus died for our sins. Yet, for us Protestants, the hesitance about the cross strikes a nerve. We don't know what to make of it, and find ourselves wondering why the seeming unwillingness to embrace this paramount episode of Christ suffering and death.

[sensibility]

I don't disdain the cross. On the contrary, I have often found that the symbol can be a powerful reminder of Christ's sacrifice for me, just like, say, taking the Sacrament (certainly meant to symbolise Christ's death and Atonement, not His resurrection).

However, I don't assume that it's imbued with any power or that it's sacred by itself. It's still an instrument of torture, devised by cruel and wretched people, thoroughly evil in its intent. It just happens to be an instrument of torture which reminds me of my Lord (certainly an example of God turning something awful to His glory). I don't generally wear it as jewelry or anything, because its history is so horrible; however, I'm completely comfortable using it in churches, where people are already gathered to recognise Christ's sacrifice.

I wouldn't be surprised if we first stopped using it because of anti-Catholic sentiments. However, I don't think any of those sentiments persist.

On a slightly tangential note, have you ever tried to make jewelry symbolising the living Christ? My seminary class did once, and it was actually very difficult. I think we came up with an overlapping circle and square, to symbolise the stone rolled away from the tomb, but it sort of lacked elegance.