Disdaining the Cross

[AngelLynn]

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.

I agree. I look at the main reason as to why we don't use it or use it that often is because it has not always been associated with Christianity.

I find it difficult putting a lot of reliance on a symbol that the Early church condemned as pagan.

The LDS church believes that we are in the same model as the primative church. So in regards to history it makes a lot of sense to me why we don't use it or use it spareingly.

[Kawazu]

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.

Hi,

According to the Latter Day Saint model, Christ took upon himself all the sins and suffering of mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane. Later, on the cross, the presence of the Father withdrew, giving Christ the experience of utter loneliness and solitary despair. In all, the pain to the flesh while stretched upon the cross was the least of the Savior's concern, during that time.

I just don't think it's fair to compare the suffering of the cross to the suffering of taking upon the burden of all mankind's sin; that's like comparing 750 million in bonuses to 750 billion in bailouts.

To Latter Day Saints, the actual method which stopped the Savior's heartbeat is much less central than the fact that He overcame death through Resurrection. Catholics and Protestants equate the cleansing power of the Atonement more intimately with the cross than their LDS counterparts.

What saddens me is that, even though taking upon all of the sin and feeling the absence of His Father was immeasurably worse than any bodily agony Christ could have endured, the people still intended to injure their Lord with the worst torture they could imagine. Really, I do not understand how the populace revolted so cruelly against the one who performed so many miracles?

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Edited May 4, 2009 by Kawazu

[bytor2112]

I have no problem with the cross. It does seem to cloud the understanding of most of the importance of what Christ suffered and did for us in Gethsemane.

Consider the words of the late Elder McConkie as he describes the awful suffering of our Lord from Gethsemane to Golgotha:

We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.

We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup.

We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.

As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond compare—continued for some three or four hours.

After this—his body then wrenched and drained of strength—he confronted Judas and the other incarnate devils, some from the very Sanhedrin itself; and he was led away with a rope around his neck, as a common criminal, to be judged by the arch-criminals who as Jews sat in Aaron’s seat and who as Romans wielded Caesar’s power.

They took him to Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and back to Pilate. He was accused, cursed, and smitten. Their foul saliva ran down his face as vicious blows further weakened his pain-engulfed body.

With reeds of wrath they rained blows upon his back. Blood ran down his face as a crown of thorns pierced his trembling brow.

But above it all he was scourged, scourged with forty stripes save one, scourged with a multithonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.

Many died from scourging alone, but he rose from the sufferings of the scourge that he might die an ignominious death upon the cruel cross of Calvary.

Then he carried his own cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.

Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 a.m. to noon.

Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.

And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of his Father in all things—then he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.

As the peace and comfort of a merciful death freed him from the pains and sorrows of mortality, he entered the paradise of God.

When he had made his soul an offering for sin, he was prepared to see his seed, according to the messianic word.

[beefche]

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.

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.

I think His suffering in Gethsame also represented Spiritual Death--or the separation of us from God.

Here's the thing, I think most Mormons (not all, but there are some whacko Mormons out there) do not think much about a cross. They aren't offended or satisfied with it. A crucifix is more difficult to accept because it's, frankly, more graphic than a simple cross. But Mormons tend to not have anything in our churches or temples that represent our faith. Perhaps the closest is the angle Moroni seen on every temple spire. But even our LDS logo has changed over the years. We simply don't believe that a representation is needed. I can only speak for myself, but as a Christian I truly want people to know that I am Christian by knowing me and observing my life. I am very rarely shy, so usually upon meeting someone and speaking with them, they will know I am either a Christian or a Mormon.

[Islander]

It is a matter of indoctrination and tradition. For those with no religious traditions or reference to the cross, it would not accur to them to adopt it as a symbol of their newly found faith. It was not so for the first few hundred years of Christianity and remains so now. It is completely counter intuitive to elevate an instrument of death to a sign of worship.

[Moksha]

It is completely counter intuitive to elevate an instrument of death to a sign of worship.

Yet for most Christians, the symbolism of the cross represents Christ's ultimate sacrifice - the atonement - and Man's subsequent salvation. You might say they have trascended the original usage of the cross and replaced it with the hope of their faith.

.

[Winnie G]

If Christ was killed by a butcher knife would you ware one around your neck?

[Islander]

Yet for most Christians, the symbolism of the cross represents Christ's ultimate sacrifice - the atonement - and Man's subsequent salvation. You might say they have trascended the original usage of the cross and replaced it with the hope of their faith.

.

Sure. But the point was that in fact that is "learned" theology rather than logic or intuition. People in other parts have "learned" to worship stones or sea shells. Equally, some Christians have "learned" to use the cross as a symbol of their faith but it need not be so. It was not so in early Christianity.

[prisonchaplain]

If Christ was killed by a butcher knife would you ware one around your neck?

Butcher knife, electric chair, firing squad rifle...yes, yes, yes--if they were the instrument by which my Savior paid the price for my salvation, then I'd have no difficulty using them as an emblem and symbol to remind me of the heavy price paid for my reconciliation with God.

[Moksha]

Sure. But the point was that in fact that is "learned" theology rather than logic or intuition. People in other parts have "learned" to worship stones or sea shells. Equally, some Christians have "learned" to use the cross as a symbol of their faith but it need not be so. It was not so in early Christianity.

You are right. Since Jesus was a fisher of Men, it could well have been a Wide Mouth Bass lure.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi,

According to the Latter Day Saint model, Christ took upon himself all the sins and suffering of mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane. Later, on the cross, the presence of the Father withdrew, giving Christ the experience of utter loneliness and solitary despair. In all, the pain to the flesh while stretched upon the cross was the least of the Savior's concern, during that time.

Perhaps you can explain why it's believed that Jesus experienced the burden of our sins in the Garden. That surprises me because I believe it was on the cross that he said, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" My understanding is that it was at that point that the Father removed himself, because he bore our sins. His outcry was not disbelief, but the natural reaction of one suddenly overwhelmed.

Really, I do not understand how the populace revolted so cruelly against the one who performed so many miracles?

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Mob mentality and fear. Consider the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the killing fields of Cambodia, that white trucker who had his head bashed in during the L.A. riots...we are capable of much evil in our broken, sinful state.

[Maxel]

The atonement began in Bethlehem...or it began when the Father asked and Jesus said yes, I'll go.

I guess one way we could look at it, that's true. However, I think the more accurate description is that the Atonement really began in the Garden of Gethsemane- Christ's life until that time was one of preparation and preaching. It wasn't until the Garden that Christ actually took upon Himself the sins of the world and then submitted to the bitter cup he was given. That's how I understand it, and generally (I think) how Mormons see the situation.

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.

I think that would be because the person wouldn't understand the extreme pain that Christ suffered in the Garden (where he literally sweat blood). If the person only ever understood that Christ suffered on the cross, than the person only gets part of the story- I fear that the cross gets too much preaching among some Christian religions, and the effect is to actually minimize the Atonement by representing it only in its partiality.

Like Paul said, we have to move from Gospel milk to meat. It is good to understand Christ suffered horribly on the cross; it is better to understand that his suffering included Gethsemane as well; it is best to understand that the suffering began in Gethsemane and culminated on the cross.

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.

Without denying what you have just said- indeed, you are right about the fact that all have sinned and fallen short- I humbly disagree with the notion that "none" seek God (if we understand a modern language shift, that seeking God doesn't imply perfection or constant striving for righteousness, but that "seeking after God" implies a person desiring to serve God and a person "hungering and thirsting" after righteousness).

Christ's- and our- physical and spiritual death must be understood to understand Christ's- and our- eternal life that occurs after death because of the Atonement. The purpose of the Atonement was to bring us back to Heavenly Father so that we may live; not to damn us so that we may die- the Atonement was a merciful act that fulfilled the eternal law of Justice so that we imperfect beings could live eternal lives with God. Understanding our own unrighteousness is important, but it is not the ultimate end of the Atonement- if a person stops and dwells longer than is needed on the death of Christ, in effect (s)he misses the joy and knowledge that comes from dwelling on and worshiping the living Christ. I understand that's not the intent of those that use the cross with such frequency, but I do fear it's the unintended result.

Ultimately, the lack of use of the cross among the LDS seems to stem from a different perspective and approach to the Atonement itself- which the cross represents to non-LDS Christians. One thing I don't understand at all is any actual antipathy from Mormons for the symbolism of the cross as it is used among non-LDS Christian religions.

[prisonchaplain]

Romans 3:11

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

I'm not sure why it matters WHERE Christ took the sins of the world upon himself. We all teach that he did so, and so do not miss the signficance of the Son experiencing seperation from the Father.

I do wonder why the belief that it was in the Garden, though. It was at Calvary that Jesus cried out asking Father why He had forsaken him.

[Moksha]

I found this picture most interesting:

It is a picture of the Community of Christ

(RLDS) Temple at Independence Missouri.

[Snow]

If Christ was killed by a butcher knife would you ware one around your neck?

We've already decided that is an inane line of reasoning Winnie.

[pam]

We could all get into the what ifs..however the topic is concerning the cross.

[Maxel]

We've already decided that is an inane line of reasoning Winnie.

Really? I didn't see any response to my explanation for using the same type of question. Good to know the question is inane because the mighty Snow says so.

What would we do without you?

PRISONCHAPLAIN: Regarding Romans 3:11, I agree that the general state of mankind- and indeed, the specific states of individual people at one time or another- is a lack of desire to seek after God. However, if we undergo a modern language shift and understand "seeking after God" to mean a person's desire to do right and hunger and thirst after righteousness, we can say that there are indeed those who do.

I'm not quite sure why I grabbed onto that phrase... my apologies for causing confusion.

I'm not sure why it matters WHERE Christ took the sins of the world upon himself. We all teach that he did so, and so do not miss the signficance of the Son experiencing seperation from the Father.

If the place indeed doesn't matter, why the heavy emphasis on the cross? (That's a rhetorical question; I am well aware and respect your feelings on the matter)

I do wonder why the belief that it was in the Garden, though. It was at Calvary that Jesus cried out asking Father why He had forsaken him.

I'm looking through the LDS canon for the answer. The most convincing scripture, IMO, is Doctrine and Covenants 19:18 concerning the immense suffering that comes from not repenting:

" 18 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—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— "

The bolded portions are remarkably similar to the wording in Luke's account of the happenings at the Garden of Gethsemane. Canonically, that's the strongest support I can find of the Atonement beginning in the Garden- however, there are numerous quotes from the modern prophets saying that the Atonement indeed began in Gethsemane (like the quote from McConkie that was quoted earlier).

I think it's important to note that we don't believe the Atonement ended before the suffering on the cross- and, as you stated, it was on the cross that the presence of the Father was fully withdrawn from the Son.

EDIT: I refer you to Kawazu's post (directly following this one) to more fully understand why the LDS believe the Atonement began in Gethsemane.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Maxel

[Kawazu]

Perhaps you can explain why it's believed that Jesus experienced the burden of our sins in the Garden.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1992:

Mob mentality and fear. Consider the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the killing fields of Cambodia, that white trucker who had his head bashed in during the L.A. riots...we are capable of much evil in our broken, sinful state.

Jesus was a fringe, iconoclastic, political figure, therefore the people tortured him to death?

[Snow]

Really? I didn't see any response to my explanation for using the same type of question.

I didn't think you had anything of substance in your explanation that called for a response, but since you ask... your's was a tired and old taunt. I myself used it when I was a teenager trying to denigrate the faith traditions of other believers.

Seriously - I did. While obviously not everyone will, you should outgrow it.

Yes I saw that you said you were only sharing your feelings to "further" the discussion - but for reasons that should be readily apparent, I am not fooled by those that make outrageous and offensive statements and when called on it, claim that they are innocent. And yes - I also saw that you said that you were pointing out that the cross was used to impart death and suffering... but seriously, could there be any Christian on the face of the earth for whom that wasn't already painfully obvious?

Good to know the question is inane because the mighty Snow says so.

Oh Maxel - the drama of it all. It isn't inane because I say so. It's inane because it deliberately makes the sacred symbol of a great many devote believers into an object of derision or silliness.

Every so often we get some nut anti-Mormon who comes on the board who tries to denigrate The Church of Jesus Christ by whining about our sacred symbols on the temple - that the five-pointed star is the symbol of the devil or that the moonstones are signs of occult worship. It's an inane argument. It is, in the words of the undoubtedly devote believer that was distressed at your post, "rude, arrogant, and ignorant." Symbols symbolize special things to those that use them. The meaning of the symbol is not dependent upon the ill-intentioned protestations of critics.

What would we do without you?

Mainly the reason I didn't respond to your post was because you apologized, but since you pressed for a response, there you go. I am always happy to serve.

... and no, " in LDS theology the cross is used to symbolize humiliation and adversity" is not correct. If you want to know how we view the cross, check the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Cross - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[Dr T]

...that white trucker who had his head bashed in during the L.A. riots...we are capable of much evil in our broken, sinful state.

His name was Reginald Denny.

[prisonchaplain]

It is rather fascinating. The Garden of Gethsamane probably gets the same apparent short-shift amongst Protestants and Catholics (from the LDS perspective) that the cross does amongst LDS (from our perspective). In reality, we all recognize both, we all underline the importance of the atonement, we all appreciate Christ's physical and spiritual sacrifice--and yet we remain consternated. My guess is that for many of us Protestants (evangelicals and fundamentalists especially) the cross is something of a sacred cow. We see this badge of shame as symptomatic of our courage--we are not afraid to proclaim the bloody sacrifice of Christ, though it may shock and anger sinners. Thus, we suspect the devotion of those who would want to de-emphasize it. And, as I've mentioned before, some more liberal and seeker-sensitive churches have removed theirs.

From the LDS perspective, I'm hearing that the cross is real and recognized, but that the Garden is more poignant. Additionally, there is a sense amongst many of you that the cross was wrongly hyped, and probably never should have become as ubiquitous as it has.

[AngelLynn]

I decided to look up Talmage's Jesus The Christ to find what it also has to state regarding Christ's suffering in Gethsamane.

Christ's agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable. Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come, and to a state of glory even beyond what He had before possessed; and, moreover, it was within His power to lay down His life voluntarily.[1236] He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused Him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing. No other man, however great his powers of physical or mental endurance, could have suffered so; for his human organism would have succumbed, and syncope would have produced unconsciousness and welcome oblivion. In that hour of anguish Christ met and overcame all the horrors that Satan, "the prince of this world"[1237] could inflict. The frightful struggle incident to the temptations immediately following the Lord's baptism[1238] was surpassed and overshadowed by this supreme contest with the powers of evil.

In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world. Modern revelation assists us to a partial understanding of the awful experience. In March 1830, the glorified Lord, Jesus Christ, thus spake: "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I, 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: and would that I might[Pg 614] not drink the bitter cup and shrink—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."[1239]

From the terrible conflict in Gethsemane, Christ emerged a victor. Though in the dark tribulation of that fearful hour He had pleaded that the bitter cup be removed from His lips, the request, however oft repeated, was always conditional; the accomplishment of the Father's will was never lost sight of as the object of the Son's supreme desire. The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which He had successfully passed.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Jesus The Christ, by James E. Talmage.

[Maxel]

Snow- again, I wrote a nice long post which I then deleted because I feel it's too contentious. All I have to say is that your tactics of condescending side-stepping is tiring; my post did contain substance that you just don't want to deal with (and the part that you attempted to prove wrong is actually proved right by the very article you cited); the original question of mine is not an attack on the cross nor an inane rhetorical exercise; that you failed to support anything you said with cogent support; and that I use drama in somewhat the same way that you use condescension.

I'm willing to let that be the end of the matter, so as not to derail this thread.

[FunkyTown]

Snow- again, I wrote a nice long post which I then deleted because I feel it's too contentious. All I have to say is that your tactics of condescending side-stepping is tiring; my post did contain substance that you just don't want to deal with (and the part that you attempted to prove wrong is actually proved right by the very article you cited); the original question of mine is not an attack on the cross nor an inane rhetorical exercise; that you failed to support anything you said with cogent support; and that I use drama in somewhat the same way that you use condescension.

I'm willing to let that be the end of the matter, so as not to derail this thread.

One of Snow's threads derailed by contention and petty insults? Perish the thought.

On a completely unrelated note, do you like Lord of the Rings? This is my favourite Lord of the Rings character

[MarginOfError]

Oddly, I find myself agreeing with Snow. To suggest hypotheticals of the form “If Christ were killed with X would you use X as a symbol of your faith?” demeans the symbol, and thereby the faith. The fact of the matter is that virtually all symbols are silly. The only thing that makes a symbol effective is the meaning that a group assigns to the symbol. So you can argue butcher knives, Cuisinarts, and rifles all you want—when a large group of people assign the same set of values and meanings to that symbol, it becomes an effective and powerful symbol.

I’m inclined to agree with Reed when he says that the disdain for the cross is derived form the personal feelings of some Church leaders on the issue. Reading The Great Apostasy, Articles of Faith, Mormon Doctrine (esp the first edition), and many other books by prominent LDS scholars of the early and mid 20th centuries should show you just how vehemently these people viewed the Catholic church in particular. These people clearly viewed the Catholic church as a paganistic bastardization of Christianity and openly derided it. The viewed the use of the cross as something akin to idolatry*. The result has been the cultural disdain for the cross that has prevailed among the LDS for a couple decades now. In my opinion, this disdain is taken to an extreme.

The much more tempered message we’ve been hearing, starting with President Hinckley, is that we should demonstrate our faith not by outward symbols, but by our actions. People should know we’re Christian just because of how we behave and how we strive to serve those around us. No symbol should be necessary. But necessary is the key word. Go ahead and let people wear whatever symbol they choose, but let their actions speak louder than their jewelry.

And by the way, what exactly is the difference between wearing a cross and wearing a CTR ring?

Perhaps instead of isolating ourselves from other faiths, we should learn to understand and appreciate their symbols. It’s time we spent more effort reaching out and less time accentuating our differences. We’re all a lot more similar than we think we are.

*Those who would suggest that one must pray before a cross, or that praying before a cross makes one’s prayer more powerful are, in my opinion, getting dangerously close to idolatry…but this is an inherent danger in symbolism. When people use symbols, we sometimes risk substituting the symbol for what it represents. We should be careful to always acknowledge what the symbol represents and not the symbol itself.