The Cross Offensive

[beefche]

Enough. Prisonchaplin has explained that personal views are PERSONAL. No more accusations towards anyone.

[Maureen]

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.

I disagree. Mike provided information mentioning the research he had done. I think the reaction to the articles Mike linked seems a little overly dramatic. Personally I think it would be even better if we (the curious) could read his actual thesis.

[Misshalfway]

I agree. Mikes articles were informative and I learned a lot by reading them. Had his remarks not been personal I would have loved to continue a dialogue on the subject. In my mind, anything that can help the Christian factions understand one another is a good thing and it is sometimes true that even we don't understand how our attitudes evolved over time. I just wish it had been presented differently. That's all.

And I did get a little mouthy. Sorry.

[prisonchaplain]

Let me step out of the topic discussion and put on my moderator cap. :::sigh::: The issue is not the links. It's keeping the discussion about ideas, and not having it degrade into personal accusations. One can be so right s/he's wrong. If you make your point, but so offend your listener that s/he never hears it, what good have you done?

Each poster is entitled to their opinion, and nobody's posts should be publically "graded." On the other hand, it's not helpful to throw out our negative guesses at why people post or link what they do.

Bottom line: More ideas, less analysis of people...and let's play nice.

BTW, thank you Misshalfway...you hit my nail on my head. It hurts...but it's gratifying too! :-)

[Mike Reed]

Enough. Prisonchaplin has explained that personal views are PERSONAL. No more accusations towards anyone.

Yes... I understand that she was expressing her personal views. Are personal views off-limits to questioning? If so... then you might want to make this clear in the forum rules, to prevent future confusion. Regarding accusations... is Pam's accusation that I am "grand standing" also prohibited?

[Mike Reed]

I agree. Mikes articles were informative and I learned a lot by reading them. Had his remarks not been personal I would have loved to continue a dialogue on the subject. In my mind, anything that can help the Christian factions understand one another is a good thing and it is sometimes true that even we don't understand how our attitudes evolved over time. I just wish it had been presented differently. That's all.

And I did get a little mouthy. Sorry.

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.

[Maxgreen1]

I was reading my LDS handbook for Latter-Day Saints in the Military. Latter day saints do not wear the cross because it symbolizes the death of Christ. We believe that Christ Lives.

However some Latter-Day Saints do wear a cross. They are chaplains for the US Military, and are marked as such by a cross.

Just thought that would be a useful tidbit of information.

I read the last few pages and decided not to go ahead and post the link to the handbook, but it is available on request.

And yes, we must always keep in mind that contention and belligerence are not of the spirit of Christ. I find it honorable that the issue has already been neutralized :)

-Max

[Mike Reed]

I was reading my LDS handbook for Latter-Day Saints in the Military.... I read the last few pages and decided not to go ahead and post the link to the handbook, but it is available on request.

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.

Latter day saints do not wear the cross because it symbolizes the death of Christ. We believe that Christ Lives.

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.

They are chaplains for the US Military, and are marked as such by a cross.

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.)

Edited December 3, 2009 by Mike Reed

[Vort]

Sorry if this viewpoint has already been expressed.

I expect this has to do with beliefs on the atonement. Most of non-LDS Christianity believe that the atonement was completely accomplished on the cross; thus, the cross is their symbol of redemption. Latter-day Saints believe the atonement was accomplished primarily in the garden of Gethsemane, or at least that it was begun there. Thus, for Latter-day Saints the cross is primarily a symbol of torture and painful death, not of redemption.

[Misshalfway]

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.

It's all good, Mike. We each have our moments. Well, except Vort. He's my idol, you know. I am working on a statue of him on my birdfeeder in the yard. You should see it! Caesar's Palace wants a copy!

[Mike Reed]

Personally I think it would be even better if we (the curious) could read his actual thesis.

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.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Mike Reed

[Flyonthewall]

Here is another snippet from GBH on the cross:

"Even though we do not believe in using the cross as a symbol in our Church, we do not criticize others for wearing or using the cross in their religions. We should understand that the cross is significant and sacred to them. In fact, the 11th article of faith says, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

As far as the sacrament commemorating Christ's death, well it's not so much commemorating His death as much as it is partaking of an ordinance of the new testament, instituted by Jesus Himself, in rememberance of his body and blood, which was freely given and shed for us.

The cross was not institued as an ordinance.

Jesus used the prints of the nails and wound in His side as marks of identification...to prove that the person that was crucified is indeed the same person that stands before those He appeared to.

I guess one of the main reasons LDS do not dwell on the cross, is that the atonement was not complete until the resurrection. The completed process is after the tomb, not on the cross. The sacrament has the wine/water in rememberance of the blood shed for us, mainly in the garden. The bread symbolizes the body of Christ and all of the physical suffering before and on the cross. And afterwards, with our covenants renewed, and the name of Christ taken upon us, we live our lives in a Christ-like manner(hopefully anyways).

[AnthonyB]

Whilst happily acknowledging that the suffering of Jesus in the garden was significant and was clearly part of his redemptive action for mankind. A deliberate contrast to the events in the first garden. I'm even happy to admit that the LDS posters have lead me to a new depth of appreciation of the events in the garden and its part in the atonement.

However a simple word search of the NT from Acts onwards has the cross at 13 mentions versus the garden at 0. 1 in Acts, 11 in Pauline letters and 1 in Heb. The authors/editors (especially Paul) of the NT have either deliberately diminished the importance of the garden or it as an event simply didn't grab their attention like the cruxifiction.

Unfortunately I don't have the tools to do a similiar check on the BoM or DoC but I'd be curious for the comparision.

Edited December 4, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Mike Reed]

Whilst happily acknowledging that the suffering of Jesus in the garden was significant and was clearly part of his redemptive action for mankind. A deliberate contrast to the events in the first garden. I'm even happy to admit that the LDS posters have lead me to a new depth of appreciation of the events in the garden and its part in the atonement.

However a simple word search of the NT from Acts onwards has the cross at 14 mentions versus the garden at 0. 1 in Acts, 11 in Pauline letters and 1 in Heb. The authors/editors (especially Paul) of the NT have either deliberately diminished the importance of the garden or it as an event simply didn't grab their attention like the cruxifiction.

Unfortunately I don't have the tools to do a similiar check on the BoM or DoC but I'd be curious for the comparision.

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.

[AnthonyB]

Would be interested if anyone produce the stats? (I hadn't checked for Gethsemane but it alas is zero in the same range.)

[Vort]

Whilst happily acknowledging that the suffering of Jesus in the garden was significant and was clearly part of his redemptive action for mankind. A deliberate contrast to the events in the first garden. I'm even happy to admit that the LDS posters have lead me to a new depth of appreciation of the events in the garden and its part in the atonement.

However a simple word search of the NT from Acts onwards has the cross at 13 mentions versus the garden at 0. 1 in Acts, 11 in Pauline letters and 1 in Heb. The authors/editors (especially Paul) of the NT have either deliberately diminished the importance of the garden or it as an event simply didn't grab their attention like the cruxifiction.

Unfortunately I don't have the tools to do a similiar check on the BoM or DoC but I'd be curious for the comparision.

Agreed.

Ultimately, however, this is beside the point. The whole discussion is an academic exercise, nothing more. We Latter-day Saints don't use the cross as a common symbol in our worship for historical, social, and doctrinal reasons, but when it comes right down to it, we don't use that symbol because our prophet leaders have not used it. That's really the bottom line. Everything else is just talk.

[prisonchaplain]

Let me ask this question in reverse: What is it that we non-LDS miss by "over-focusing" on the cross, to the near-exclusion of Gethsame?

[Vort]

Let me ask this question in reverse: What is it that we non-LDS miss by "over-focusing" on the cross, to the near-exclusion of Gethsame?

In my opinion, focusing on the cross gives undue emphasis to Christ's physical suffering. It seems to turn any worship service into a virtual viewing of what I imagine Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was like.

Christ is not dead. He is alive. A focus on the empty tomb would, in my mind, be far more appropriate.

I would note in passing that Latter-day Saints don't have a particular focus on Gethsemane any more than they do on the cross.

[Mike Reed]

we don't use that symbol because our prophet leaders XXXX XXX XXXX do not use it.

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.

That's really the bottom line. Everything else is just talk.

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. Edited December 4, 2009 by Mike Reed

[prisonchaplain]

In my opinion, focusing on the cross gives undue emphasis to Christ's physical suffering. It seems to turn any worship service into a virtual viewing of what I imagine Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was like.

Christ is not dead. He is alive. A focus on the empty tomb would, in my mind, be far more appropriate.

I would note in passing that Latter-day Saints don't have a particular focus on Gethsemane any more than they do on the cross.

I've often read hear that we Protestants and Evangelicals are missing something important by our neglect of Gethsemane. If the only concern is that we are too morbid, I promise you that, at least in most evangelical churches, there's an appropriate balance of the somberness of the cross and the victory over the tomb. Countless times have I heard glory shouts of "The empty tomb! The empty tomb!" Very traditional churches greet Resurrection Sunday with the call and response:

He is risen!

He's risen indeed!

Somebody confirm if I'm wrong, but I've sensed that LDS believe we're bypassing something that happens at the Garden.

[Mike Reed]

Let me ask this question in reverse: What is it that we non-LDS miss by "over-focusing" on the cross, to the near-exclusion of Gethsame?

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)

Edited December 4, 2009 by Mike Reed

[Vort]

I've often read hear that we Protestants and Evangelicals are missing something important by our neglect of Gethsemane. If the only concern is that we are too morbid, I promise you that, at least in most evangelical churches, there's an appropriate balance of the somberness of the cross and the victory over the tomb. Countless times have I heard glory shouts of "The empty tomb! The empty tomb!" Very traditional churches greet Resurrection Sunday with the call and response:

He is risen!

He's risen indeed!

Somebody confirm if I'm wrong, but I've sensed that LDS believe we're bypassing something that happens at the Garden.

I am sure that many Latter-day Saints do think you're bypassing something that happened in the Garden. In the end, does it matter whether the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross? The point is, the atonement took place.

I have given some reasons why I find cross-focused worship perhaps a bit distasteful. But the bottom line is, I am uncomfortable with the symbol of the cross because that is not how I have been brought up, and those that do use the cross as a symbol of worship have too often been the same people to denigrate my beliefs. That's ultimately the only reason I can think of.

[prisonchaplain]

You miss that Jesus also atoned for sin by being wipped.

"... with his stripes we are healed." (see Isaiah 53:5 and Mosiah 14:5)

I use that almost every communion, because of our belief (in Pentcostalism) that healing is in the atonement. Also, Mel Gibson certainly reinforced that teaching is his cinematic devotional.

[Maxgreen1]

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.)

http://www.lds.org/pa/pdf/PrinciplesGospel_Mil.pdf

Page 64

"we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith."

It says it a lot better than I do :)

-Max

Edited December 7, 2009 by Maxgreen1

[Hemidakota]

Not only that, many of the early christian members were hanged on the same cross fixture by the romans.