The Cross Offensive

[prisonchaplain]

Now I am not speaking for everyone else, am I?

BTW....LDS people do not dismiss the cross.

I guess I'm asking you to speculate. What is behind that question? I've heard it several time...would you wear a shot gun, a noose, an electric chair? If the cross is not offensive, or at least troublesome, why do people ask such a question?

And, of course, LDS people do not dismiss the cross. My point was that when one seems opposed to having them as jewelry, or emblems, it does appear dismissive. My guess is the OP is wondering what is behind the reticence?

[Misshalfway]

What is behind the question? I was only expressing that I personally am not alarmed by the use of the cross in other churches. It's not something I do. It's not something my church does and in some ways it underminds the way we see the atonement and worship. That doesn't mean that I don't try to understand and respect those who see things differently than I do.

For LDS people, we don't pray with or to any "thing". It's an OT thing. No engraven image or golden calf. No statue even if it is of the Lord depicted on the cross. We don't use the cross in our religious worship. Its just the tradition of my people. It's not necessarily a commentary on everyone that does. I can see how some might take it that way, but I don't think this is the way such explanations are meant.

My question is why isn't it ok for some to hold an objection? Just because some are turned off by wearing a cross or praying before/with a cross isn't necessarily something that should create an offense. Its a preference and in this case a tradition that contradicts other traditions like so many other LDS ways. The offense is a choice or an emotional defensive reaction, imho.

Just because someone reveres an object or holds it sacred doesn't mean everyone else will. If I am personally turned off by the cross itself, why should I have to justify myself? Is failing to use a cross in my worship or dressing style sinful? Is dismissing the symbol the same thing as dismissing a person for believing in it? If someone uses the difference to insult, well then that is something different. When people say "would you wear an electric chair?", I think this is an attempt to explain why some feel the turn off in a dramatic way. If one wants to take it as dimissive or as an indictment, that is there choice but it doesn't have to be that way.

This reminds me of a gal I taught in the mission field. She thought she had to hide her coffee machine cuz we were coming over. It was an unnecessary thing and clearly a misunderstanding of how and why we worship the way we do.

[prisonchaplain]

What is behind the question?

Excellent! It's so obvious that the question is loaded, isn't it? "Do you find the cross offensive?" It seems like an obscure question, and yet the one posing it seems "loaded for bear." Amongst evangelicals, and especially fundamentalists, the question is meant as a challenge. Do you love Jesus or just like him? Are you 100% committed, or are you just putting on a facade? Will you boldly proclaim your Christian witness, even when it means ridicule or worse?

To the unbeliever, the question means: The conviction that the cross conjurs up angers you, doesn't it? Yes, your sins (and mine) drove Jesus to the cross. You don't like the accusation, do you? But, there it is. The cross reminds us that it's not enough to "accept Jesus." We also must admit we are sinners, and repent.

To the "seeker-sensitive" Christians, the question is a condemnation. How dare you remove the cross from your churches simply because it's politically incorrect??? You dare to water down the gospel to fill your seats?

So, yes--the question is loaded. But what would it mean directed to an LDS member. Depending on who asked, the questioner may wonder, "Are you seeker-sensitive? Do you not believe in repentence? Are you like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who wrongly believe its use is idolatry?

We know that you do not have crosses on your churches, but generally don't know why.

in some ways it underminds the way we see the atonement and worship.

How so?

For LDS people, we don't pray with or to any "thing". It's an OT thing. No engraven image or golden calf. No statue even if it is of the Lord depicted on the cross. We don't use the cross in our religious worship. Its just the tradition of my people.

IMHO, most Protestants do not use crosses any differently than LDS use statues and pictures of Jesus. We don't pray facing them, nor do we hold them while we pray. Even Catholics use rosaries (with crosses on them) more for the beads, than for the cross. They help remind the petitioner where they are in their prayers.

My question is why isn't it ok for some to hold an objection? Just because some are turned off by wearing a cross or praying before/with a cross isn't necessarily something that should create an offense.

See the above. The suspicions related to cross removal are: watering down the gospel, specifically downplaying sin and the need for repentence. Also, some churches have removed crosses in what appears to be pure political correctness (You know the KKK uses them, don't you?)

Just because someone reveres an object or holds it sacred doesn't mean everyone else will. If I am personally turned off by the cross itself, why should I have to justify myself? Is failing to use a cross in my worship or dressing style sinful? Is dismissing the symbol the same thing as dismissing a person for believing in it? If someone uses the difference to insult, well then that is something different. When people say "would you wear an electric chair?", I think this is an attempt to explain why some feel the turn off in a dramatic way. If one wants to take it as dimissive or as an indictment, that is there choice but it doesn't have to be that way.

When something is prolific, and one chooses to separate from that, it's so natural for us to wonder why? If we were in 40 AD, there be little question. But, for 2000 years the cross has permeated Christian tradition, as a symbol of Christ's suffering and our need for repentence and salvation. So, when a person or a group says, "We don't use the cross," it's normal to say, "Why not? What's wrong?" It's not that you've simply chosen a spire instead of a cross. There's been an intention separation from the cross.

This reminds me of a gal I taught in the mission field. She thought she had to hide her coffee machine cuz we were coming over. It was an unnecessary thing and clearly a misunderstanding of how and why we worship the way we do.

BTW, thank you. These conversations can be uncomfortable, because it's natural to feel challenged one way or the other. Am I being doubted, looked down upon, belittled, etc.? Your willingness to express traditions, and some of the thinking behind this matter is instructive and good.

[Misshalfway]

I am not uncomfortable or threatened that other Christians might think we are making a mistake here. I know they don't get it and I am fine with that. I am fine that some people use the cross and some don't and in my adulthood am able to appreciate the sentiment more than when I was a child. I am even fine with the fact that sometimes religions don't understand one another's comments or reactions. What people do next IS of concern to me.

In reading the OP, its clear to me that those LDS teens probably didn't understand the real reasons why we don't use the cross nor had they been taught how to deal with religious differences. They were probably disturbed by something that was strange/different and in turn made Latte feel unwelcome or unfavorably labeled. I grew up in Utah and felt some of the same reactions when I first started to learn that not everyone on the planet was LDS and that not everyone understood what was so natural to me. I think Latte's experience could have happened in reverse had I been the only mormon in a Southern US High school. Tell someone you believe Christ came to America and people wrote about it and you get the same sorts of reactions. Like the dude who wouldn't even touch the cover of the book cuz his preacher said he was going to hell if he did. Ridiculous! imo.

How so?

I feel the cross undermines my worship of the Atonement because it is incomplete representation of why I am a Christian. And frankly, I just don't need it. The Atonement for LDS spans a great deal of time starting in the pre earth counsels of heaven and culmanating in the triumphant ressurrection of the Lord and emmancipation of the entire family of man. We don't talk of the Atonement very often without encorporating all the events including the last supper and the betrayal and certianly the garden.

Focusing on the cross feels like it eliminates the joy and celebration of the gift. The cross was not the culmination of the sacrifice.....the resurrection was! I would rather use an empty tomb as a symbol.

Yes, I can see how the cross can help one remember that Christ died for us and that we need to repent. I can see how this is meaningful for some, but I can also see that it could be seen as a giant guilt trip too. Not that mormons don't throw around their fair share of guilt, but just that this isn't generally our approach to helping people embrace Christ. Fearing God for us is more about humility than it is about fearing hell and damnation, although that is a part of sound understanding too.

So, when a person or a group says, "We don't use the cross," it's normal to say, "Why not? What's wrong?" It's not that you've simply chosen a spire instead of a cross. There's been an intention separation from the cross.

Of course there has been an intentional separation from the cross and of course its normal to ask questions about something we don't understand. We pretty much separated ourselves from just about every other aspect of traditional Christianity too. It's just another thing that sets us apart and also another thing that I am sure makes us strange in the eyes of outsiders. But its not something we worry about a lot either. We don't talk of the cross, we talk of Christ. It's just a different paradigm.

And if Latte and people like her get stuck feeling the distain of LDS people OR vise versa, we won't get anywhere with our relations with one another. One thing I was impressed by in your thread about the Evangelicals who repented to the mormons was that he finally realized mormon BBQ's were just parties and that invitations weren't necessarily missionary overatures. Finally!! Someone who understands.

[prisonchaplain]

And if Latte and people like her get stuck feeling the distain of LDS people OR vise versa, we won't get anywhere with our relations with one another. One thing I was impressed by in your thread about the Evangelicals who repented to the mormons was that he finally realized mormon BBQ's were just parties and that invitations weren't necessarily missionary overatures. Finally!! Someone who understands.

So how come it was that Pam invited me to an LDS.net gathering, and during the meal different site members, and even some of the MoreGood people kept asking me, "You're looking kinda dry and parched. Sure you don't want to take a dip in this little baptisma...ur...uh this little artificial pond we have set up????

[Misshalfway]

That's just like hitting the girl you like in the sixth grade. It means your loved, PC and it means people trust you enough to joke. What better compliment could a person ask for?

We could just treat you like the Nephites did with their enemies in the BofM. Ask you if you wanna convert and kill you if you didn't.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

BTW....When Christ said "take up your cross", I am not sure he meant to put one on the church. I think this is something that is a man made tradition. Perhaps that is another reason I don't find religious meaning in it.

[lattelady]

Our church decided to put a cross on it, not on the structure itself but on our sign. For us it was partly to connect with others of like faith. As has been noted, the cross has become a universal symbol of the Mainline Christian Church. It was also a way of saying, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to every man who believes...". (the gospel being the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The world has sought to remove God from view--I love having the cross in full view!! I am thankful that for at least the time being, it is still our right as Americans to display a symbol of our faith.

[Mike Reed]

In reading the OP, its clear to me that those LDS teens probably didn't understand the real reasons why we don't use the cross

What might those "real reasons" be? Would they have anything to do with the anti-Catholicism of previous generations? It would probably do you some good to read the following two articles (from Deseret News' "Mormon Times" and the Salt Lake Tribune) about my research on this topic: http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632

http://wildernesschristianity.net/info/LDS/The-Cross.html

I feel the cross undermines my worship of the Atonement because it is incomplete representation of why I am a Christian.

And this therefore makes the cross problematic for you, doesn't it? Why the double talk then? In post #72 you just said, "I don't have any problems with the cross itself."

I can also see that it could be seen as a giant guilt trip too.

Think of it this way: The mainstream Christian experience of the cross is similar to how Mormons experience touring Carthage jail. Latter-day Saints have very real cathartic experiences while visiting this sacred space.

The cross was not the culmination of the sacrifice.....the resurrection was! I would rather use an empty tomb as a symbol.

And yet, every Sunday Latter-day Saints symbolically commemorate the death of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:26). Your attitude seems to be contrary not only to this ordinance, but also to the message preached in the BoM, Jacob chapter one verse eight:

Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world....

[Misshalfway]

Mike, there is no double talk. I honestly don't have a problem with other people who choose to use the cross as part of their religious worship. I understand that it is a sacred symbol for them and I appreciate and value that. PC asked me to explain why its not part of my personal religious feelings and so I answered that. It's an explanation of me, not an indictment of anyone. I can have my own preference and respect the preference of others at the same time. Latte started this thread with an experience from her childhood where LDS students acted repulsed by her wearing of the cross. I have no such feeling inside of me. If Latte were with me today, the cross wouldn't matter.

Don't know if you are LDS or not, but I am glad you went to dig up whatever evidence you need to explain the LDS practice of not using it. IF that works for you, great. But the bottom line is that for whatever reason the LDS does NOT use the physical representation of the cross as a sign of the devotion we feel for what happened on the cross. And I don't think the church is gonna start anytime soon. How on earth is my message contrary to the words of Jacob?

For outsiders who don't understand our ways, I am happy to explain. But I absolutely have no problem with how another may choose to worship and I don't have any problem with not adopting the same tradition. Just because I don't in no way illustrates my lack of devotion to LDS theology. What else can I say to be more clear than that?

[pam]

What might those "real reasons" be? Would they have anything to do with the anti-Catholicism of previous generations? It would probably do you some good to read the following two articles (from Deseret News' "Mormon Times" and the Salt Lake Tribune) about my research on this topic: http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632

http://wildernesschristianity.net/info/LDS/The-Cross.html

Honestly..why would it do her good to read those two articles. Because YOU wrote them? I've read them and it hasn't changed my personal feelings on the wearing of a cross. Miss 1/2 has explained very eloquently her thoughts on the subject so why condemn her for her feelings on the subject.

[Maureen]

Honestly..why would it do her good to read those two articles. Because YOU wrote them?

Mike did not write either article but both articles talk of the research Mike did in showing the LDS history toward the symbol of the cross.

[pam]

Doesn't matter. The writing of one of the articles was based on his thesis. So whether his name is on the byline or not..it's still his thoughts.

[BenRaines]

Wouldn't a fish do the same thing, "to show your Christian belief"? Lattelady?

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

A fish or a dove, for that matter. They represent different aspects though. Very few people would find the fish troublesome. It represents Jesus himself. Likewise, the dove, the Holy Spirit--power and perhaps peace.

But the cross? It represents painful death, and calls to mind our sins against God. IMHO, non-Christians find it offensive because it stands as an accusation against humanity. Further, I do find Moksha's and Mike's posts to offer compelling partial reasons: a reaction against evangelical anti-Mormonism, and against the Catholic Church, which maintains much of the same church structure as LDS, but rejects both the Apostasy doctrine and the Restoration. Finally, I agree with Pam that Ms. Halfway offered a heart-felt and authentic description of her personal reasons for not using a cross--reasons which did NOT reference other religions.

[Maureen]

Doesn't matter.

It does matter if you infer something that is not true.

[pam]

Okay let me rephrase. Why should she read articles that are based on your thoughts and opinions? Because two people wrote articles about them? There.

[Misshalfway]

Or better yet...provide official LDS statements on the issue.

[Mike Reed]

Pam: Okay let me rephrase. Why should she read articles that are based on your thoughts and opinions? Because two people wrote articles about them? There.

Ahh yes. My conslusions are based on mere opinion and speculation. Never mind my exhaustive research, and piles of evidence that I have gathered.

I've read them and it hasn't changed my personal feelings on the wearing of a cross.

Have they changed your personal understanding about the historical basis of the cross aversion in the LDS Church?

Misshalfway: Or better yet...provide official LDS statements on the issue.

You seem to presume that Church authorities have traced the historical development of the LDS attitude toward the cross. I wonder why that is. If they haven't explored this topic in depth, as I have done, then any comment from them would be outside their area of expertise. Fallacious appeal to authority.

[Misshalfway]

Mike....why don't you just say "here are some articles that might shed some light" rather than all this grandstanding?

[pam]

No matter the amount of research that has gone into it..

True to the Faith states this:

The cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior’s death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

Your life must be the expression of your faith. Remember that when you were baptized and confirmed, you covenanted to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ. As your associates observe you, they should be able to sense your love for the Savior and His work.

The only members of the Church who wear the symbol of the cross are Latter-day Saint chaplains, who wear it on their military uniforms to show that they are Christian chaplains.

I don't need exhaustive research to change my understanding of why we have an attitude about something.

I have nothing against anyone wearing a cross if that is their personal preference. My preference is not to wear one for the reasons cited in "True to the Faith."

So I ask that you respect the personal thoughts of those that might not think the same way you do. Just because you have done "research" still gives you no right to question those that, again, don't think like you do. This throwing around of links to articles that are based on your research is nothing more to me than a "hey look at me" grandstand.

Edited December 1, 2009 by pam

[Mike Reed]

Mike, there is no double talk.

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.

I honestly don't have a problem with other people who choose to use the cross as part of their religious worship.

You have a problem with the cross because it would interfere with your worship.

It's an explanation of me, not an indictment of anyone.

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.

I can have my own preference and respect the preference of others at the same time.

Of course. I didn't assert otherwise.

Don't know if you are LDS or not

I am an agnostic cultural mormon.

How on earth is my message contrary to the words of Jacob?

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".

For outsiders who don't understand our ways, I am happy to explain.

The explanation you give is a post hoc rationalization that lacks historical basis and logical consistancey.

[Misshalfway]

I give. You are right. I am a sad sack double talker and I really hate the cross and everything it represents. I also clearly have no understanding of the scriptures or what it means to suffer the shame of the world. Thank you so much for pointing it out. And also the final reminder that next time I will post I must act as though I am in debate class and am being graded on my remarks. And now...I will retreat and let you have the floor.

[prisonchaplain]

This string is getting awfully personal...and unnecessarily so. Misshalfway stated repeatedly that her views are her own. There should be no need to analyze her personal impressions as though she were presenting a position paper.

On the other hand, Mike's links were very informative. I read the first and learned that the aversion to the cross seems to have stemmed not from LDS history--but mine. In the mid-19th century LDS were using crosses freely, whereas Protestants did not, saying they were "Catholic symbols." If I'm reading Mike's story right, the LDS aversion came later, ironically after Protestants began embracing the symbol.

None of that had to be contentious. There are people behind our goofy avatars.

[Mike Reed]

True to the Faith states this:

I know what True to the Faith states. What is stated therein is a post hoc rationalization that lacks historical basis and logical consistency.

But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

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?

I don't need exhaustive research to change my understanding of why we have an attitude about something.

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.

My preference is not to wear one for the reasons cited in "True to the Faith."

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.

Just because you have done "research" still gives you no right to question those that, again, don't think like you do.

Since when it is not my right to question (teach) people about their religious traditions?

This throwing around of links to articles that are based on your research is nothing more to me than a "hey look at me" grandstand.

Nothing more. Nothing less. Oh brother...

Edited December 2, 2009 by Mike Reed