52 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I don’t have a problem with people wearing crosses if that’s their preference, but I, for one, welcome the lack of crosses in the Church. It’s not a good symbol for the Savior. It’d be like wearing a rifle from the 1840′s around your neck to remember Joseph Smith. Yeah it’s a good reminder, but it’s still a death implement. |
Sam–yeah, I wouldn’t be excited for them to be the center point of our worship or architecture, either. But wearing one seems like a different thing. |
great photo, crappy scan, beef fierce looking dog Sam, with an uppercase S, I agree the cross is a bit grusome, but no more grusome than the suffering Christ went through because of me and you. I do think its a bit strange the way the early Catholic church so fully embrassed gory ignominous death, so it makes sense why the cross, a death and torture instrument in its day, was used by them. Well… it doesn’t make sense to me… but I guess I can see the connection on their side. I would also think it’s a bit odd to see someone whereing a small statue of Jesus praying around their neck. So I’m not sure it’s the cross specifically that rubs the wrong way, but more the fact that it’s such an outward, and almost casual, expression of something sacred and personal. Mormons typically don’t wear tshirts with huge logos saying “Jesus Saves” even though we don’t disagree with fonts, or the concept of Jesus saving. |
Very cool picture ESO. I wrote my MA thesis on the topic of Mormons and the Cross, which traced the development of the LDS Church’s attitude toward the symbol. Here are a couple articles published in newspapers about it: http://wildernesschristianity.net/info/LDS/The-Cross.html http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632 And here is a podcast interview that I recently did: http://mormonexpression.com/?p=274 You are right that the LDS negativity for the symbol was more of a late development in Mormon history. Your grandmother was certainly no rebel or apostate by wearing this necklace. ;) An opposition to the cross showed up in the Mormon mainstream around the turn of the twentieth century (a time when the issue became quite polarized in fact), and was later institutionalized into the Church (as protocol) in 1957 by David O. McKay. Before this time, several prominent Latter-day Saints embraced and promoted the symbol of the cross. In 1916 the Church had even petitioned the Salt Lake city council to erect a cross monument on Ensign Peak (to honor the pioneers). |
Historically, it was pretty routine for Mormons to wear the cross. Discouraging of cross wearing came pretty late in Mormon history. I’m a fan of religious art, and think many crosses fit in that category. When I see crosses I think of devotion to God, a gruesome death is not the first thing that comes to mind. |
Sam (comment 1): Shame on you for your gross and lazy insult of the cross: “It’d be like wearÂing a rifle from the 1840’s around your neck to rememÂber Joseph Smith.” Your comparison might hold some water if Joseph Smith were a god, and the one who worked the Atonement. But he didn’t. Instead, we worship Christ, and we remember his death every week when we take the sacrament. Do you have a problem with taking the “emblems of His death”? Quit repeating these nonsensical pretexts for why we don’t use the symbol of the cross much in the Church. |
@Hunter–I’m hoping you’re attempting to be funny! |
Not at all, Sam. Not at all. |
By the way, your initial comment doesn’t even makes sense. On the one hand, you say that the cross is “not a good symÂbol for the SavÂior.” (My question to you is: Why is an empty cross NOT a good symbol for Jesus Christ? Would you prefer a crucifix that contains the body of Jesus hanging on it?) But then you then say that the cross may be a good reminder of Jesus Christ, but “it’s still a death implement.” To that, I ask, what’s wrong with remembering “a death implement” if that implement was chosen by Jesus Christ to effectuate the final act of his atoning sacrifice? It’s the great and last sacrifice, no less. We sing a hymn about it every Sunday in Sacrament Meeting. And, as I said in my first comment, we remember the flesh and blood which were offered as that sacrifice on the cross each week when we take the Sacrament. In the end, we shouldn’t perpetuate silly and inane reasons for why we don’t currently emphasize the cross. There are valid historical reasons for this, but none of them have much to do with your after-the-fact made-up “death implement” arguments that you are repeating. |
@Hunter ok I’ll bite. Shame on me indeed! |
@Hunter I’ve never claimed that my reasons were the Church’s official reasons for not using the cross. |
I agree that Sam’s (capital S) rationalization is both poor and offensive. It smacks of the same kind of sensationalism that one should expect to hear from Ed Decker. Mormons (or any Christian for that matter) shouldn’t resort to such tactics. But with that being said… the argument Sam parrots isn’t unique to Mormonism. Many anti-Catholic Protestants said the same, long before Mormons ever did. |
Shame on you because you needlessly disparage early members of our own Church who used the symbol of the cross as an expression of their inward belief of the Savior. And shame on you because you also needlessly disparage millions of our Christian brothers and sisters who wear the cross/crucifix everyday as a symbol of their fervent belief in Christ. It’s shameful. The bottom line, to me, is that the Church has chosen not to use the symbol of the cross very much as a valid way to distinguish itself from mainstream Christianity. It’s a way to proclaim that we are not just another Protestant church. But don’t take that historical fact as license to impugn the cross and the millions of other Christians out there who use it as their symbol. |
I’m the third Sam to chime in, and frankly, a big fan of crosses. I got my daughter to (her non-religious) preschool early today; her preschool meets in an Episcopal church. She spent a couple minutes counting the crosses on the wall (a bunch of cool ones, all different styles) and talking about Jesus. I forget exactly what she said, but it was very cute and sweet. And Sam, a cross around your neck is not a “death implement,” unless the one being killed is tiny or the one wearing the cross is a giant. What a cross is is a symbolic representation of the Atonement. Whether that particular symbolism is your cup of tea or not, it certainly isn’t symbolic of gruesome death, full stop. And, although I’ve heard the same rhetoric in Church on occasion, it vastly misrepresents and is frankly insulting to people who appreciate the symbolism. I don’t have any problem if the institutional Church doesn’t want to use crosses, for whatever reason. But they are a beautiful symbol, representing both the agony and salvific power of Jesus. |
Hunter: The Bread and Water were not used to murÂder the SavÂior. Me: True. But the nails were. Out of respect for LDS and the endowment, I won’t be specific here. See Isaiah 22:23. |
Nice! Reading FTW! |
Sam B: I loved that: “a cross around your neck is not a ‘death impleÂment,’ unless the one being killed is tiny or the one wearÂing the cross is a giant.” Good one. |
I think how the cross is viewed now is completely different to how it was viewed by the early Catholic church. If you look at the old cathedrals and artwork in them, there are people being flayed alive, getting their heads chopped off, etc. prominently displayed all over the place. The cross as a death instrument actually fits rather nicely with this narrative of dying and suffering in terrible ways. I think we still see relics of this in certain parts of the world (filipinos crucifying themselves comes to mind) even though the vast majority of catholics are probably appalled by it. But, you still can’t get around the fact that we believe in and worship a God that died and suffered in gruesome ways for us. I suppose the point is, we shouldn’t let the gruesome manner of suffering overshadow the reason for it–love. So I’d guess, originally the cross stood for terrible gruesome suffering and death (because he loves us), and over the years it has evolved into standing for just a symbol of love (so much that he suffered for us). Just a quick google of cross death yields 144million hits, while cross love yields 188 million. |
and fyi, cross dress only yields 17million hits, so good is still triumphing evil! |
And to keep commenting to myself, I wonder if the people dying in gruesome ways was actually more beneficial. Now we talk about how if you do the right thing, things will work out, with the unspoken disclaimer, you may be killed/raped, etc. and it will work out in the end. 1500 years ago they were faced with so many of their friends being butchered, the “things will work out” speech would seem kind of odd. So they pointed out that terrible things happen in life, and we have to endure to the end. Different times, different message. (of course there were some really twisted people back then too) |
ESO, |
@Mike Reed’s #15–I wouldn’t consider the nails an implement of His death anymore than the wood composing the cross. The Romans used the cross as an implement of death, not specifically the wood, rope, or nails that made its torturous cruelty possible. Well, I’ll leave off with this since my remarks have been ridiculously twisted into some aspersion of Christianity. Have a good one all! |
Of course it’s your opinion, Sam. But it was you who said that you welÂcomed the lack of crosses “in the Church.” You were the one who went there. You can’t now retreat from your first argument by pretending that your comments weren’t read. If you are bowing out from the discussion without giving a substantive response to the comments, I’ll take that as a tacit admission that you can’t defend your position because it’s indefensible. |
Sam: “I wouldn’t conÂsider the nails an impleÂment of His death anyÂmore than the wood comÂposÂing the cross.” Me: Sure you wouldn’t. The question is, WHY? On what grounds do you, relative to the cross, DENY that the nails were implements of Jesus’ death? It seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference–a logical fallacy of sorts. |
Anyway, I liked the picture. |
I agree with Sam on every account. Hunter, I’m not sure about you but I worship The Father not Christ (as you pointed out in # 6) although I do it in His name. There is absolutely no need for us to display the cross in our buildings or temples. |
Deaco, Asserting that crosses are an inappropriate symbol of the Atonement and, by implication, that Christians who display/wear a cross are somehow worse people is a horrible misreading of what the cross represents in contemporary Christianity. |
Thank you, queuno. I had no idea this was such a hot topic. |
Ummm… my beef isn’t to pick sides here, I actually agree with both of you guys. Until I read that Sam (not B) supposedly implicated Christians who wear a cross are a worse people. I didn’t read that, but I just read Sam B. put those words in Sam’s mouth. This sam thinks that’s pretty unfair and goes to the heart of what the misunderstanding is. You guys are all too quick to get offended at each other because you’ve got your personal feelings about the cross (as well as feelings about those who feel differently than you) on the line. I can understand why someone would view the cross as an inappropriate symbol of the atonement, and I could understand how someone disagrees. I think it’s patently unfair for anyone to suggest that a person is a worse person or worse Christian for wearing a cross. I do think an argument could be made, although I’m not making it, because I don’t think I even agree with it, that wearing a cross could potentially distract from what the main focus should be. That says absolutely nothing about a person being better or worse… |
Well, nothing in this thread reminds me of Christ. |
Sorry, the original post and picture were great. |
queuno said, “AnyÂway, I liked the picture.” And ESO said, “Thank you, queÂuno. I had no idea this was such a hot topic.” Yeah, it’s a pretty hot topic. I’m surprised you’re surprised, though — lazy insults of the cross seem to pop up in the Bloggernacle quite frequently. Thanks, Sam B., for your helpful comments. In any case, I really loved the photo, too. Thanks for sharing. It’s great. |
Cool picture, I would love to pull something like this out in a lesson… too bad she’s not holding a cup of joe, though. |
Sam B #26 – I don’t think you read my comments correctly. I merely stated that I worship The Father not Christ and then asserted that I feel there is no need for crosses in our worship. I am unsure where you feel I implied that it takes a lesser person to bear the cross? Please read my comments correctly prior to commenting. |
Sam B – Just reread my last post and apologies if it sounds catty!! |
The history of the cross as a symbol has some odd twists. The earliest Christians found the cross, I understand, as an anathema for all the death symbolism ideas mentioned. It was elevated by Emperor Constantine (of the Roman Empire) who saw in a vision before a battle, a cross in the sky, with the caption “vinces in hoc” which is Latin for In This Sign Conquer–which he did. This was the beginning of the road that resulted in Christianity being elevated to become the state religion of Rome, not all that long after they were throwing Christians to the lions. Constantine (whose mother I think was Christian) never converted but was responsible for calling the Council at Nicea, an attempt to formalize and unify Christian doctrine (since it was now the state religion) in 325. The cross was pretty much the symbol of Christianity thereafter. Thanks to a nonbeliever. I think this is right. I didn’t bother with fact checking, but I think so. |
Jim Donaldson, |
ESO – you might be interested in some hashing that has previously taken place. http://www.nine-moons.com/2009/07/30/why-dont-i-see-any-crosses-5-good-answers-5-bad/ |
# “and was later instiÂtuÂtionÂalÂized into the Church (as proÂtoÂcol) in 1957 by David O. McKay” I always believed that Joseph Fielding Smith pushed that agenda but yes, it did happen under McKay’s leadership. But (and correct me if I’m wrong here) LDS chaplains in the military wear a cross insignia on their left collar and they have approval from church headquarters so I don’t think its much of a problem really. |
Charlie: But (and corÂrect me if I’m wrong here) LDS chapÂlains in the milÂiÂtary wear a cross insignia on their left colÂlar and they have approval from church headÂquarÂters so I don’t think its much of a probÂlem really. Me: 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, http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/chaplain-badges-c-2071_2470_2506.html) 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.) |
RE: Chaplain badge I was wondering if they used a cross–thanks for the confirmation. For the record, I am not wild about the Angel Moroni grave-stone for military members. No, I don’t have any better ideas, but I wish we had something that indicated our devotion to Christ, not Moroni (no offense, Moroni). |
ESO, I actually really like the symbolism of a trumpet sounding and the resurrection with the Angel Moroni on gravestones. |
Deaco (34), I didn’t, however, mean to address my second paragraph directly to you, or, for that matter, directly to Sam; instead, I meant to address the mindset that takes Sam’s reasoning and concludes that people who wear crosses are morally suspect. |
#39 Mike Reed “Me: ChapÂlains curÂrently have a limÂited numÂber of badges to choose from” Yes it could be that but also with Hatch and Reed so high up in congress and the Apostles not pushing this on them then maybe it means that they really don’t think its much of an issue. It does help the Church get a bit closer to its ‘friends’ in the rest of Christianity by allowing LDS Chaplains to wear a cross (if only by a very small bit). I believe the current trend in church headquarters is to move closer to other Christian faiths. By the way I enjoyed your discussion over in mormonexpression; interesting and educational. |
Charlie: Yes it could be that but also with Hatch and Reed so high up in conÂgress and the AposÂtles not pushÂing this on them then maybe it means that they really don’t think its much of an issue. ——————– Me: I’d say that PR is a greater concern than getting a new LDS badge for chaplains. I am quite confident that the Church would rather avoid the negative publicity that would surely follow, should they decide to petition to get their own chaplain badge. Now… if you are saying that the cross isn’t “much of an issue”, **compared** to how attitudes were a few decades ago (ie. in the days of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie)… then yes, I’d agree with you. I still believe a certain level of discomfort exists in the church, though. Or at least, it existed in the not-so-distant past when the Church was under the leadership of President Hinckley (Whether or not things have completely changed after Hinckley passed away, I think is too early to tell). I think a discomfort is implied the Church’s statement published in the “True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference” (2004) book. The entry reads: “[B]ecause the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith…. 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.â€(p. 46) At first glance, this statement may seem to fallaciously deny that there are non-chaplain Latter-day Saints who use the symbol of the cross as an expression of their faith. This interpretation unnecessarily brings into question the credibility of the First Presidency, who would therefore prove themselves to be ignorant or lying. Rather than being a report of LDS practice, it is more reasonable (in my view) to conclude that this statement is merely a reinforcement of protocol: It is only appropriate for chaplains to wear the cross; otherwise, the symbol should not be used. Consider also that the Missionary Handbook, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1973, quoted Brigham Young saying, “If you go on a mission to preach the gospel with lightness and frivolity in your hearts, looking for this and that, and to learn what is in the world, and not having your minds riveted on the cross of Christ, you will go and return in vain.†(p. 19) The more recent 2006 edition of the handbook, however, edits out the symbol of the cross from Brigham Young’s quote, and instead says, “If you go on a mission to preach the Gospel with lightness and frivolity in your hearts, looking for this and that, and to learn what is in the world,… you will go and return in vain…. Let your minds be centered on your missions.†(7) Similarly, Elder Carlos E. Asay (of the Quorum of the Seventy) preached the following in 1978’s fall General Conference: “We, like Israel of old, must rivet our eyes and minds upon the cross of Christ if we hope to gain eternal life, because through His resurrection we will gain the victory over physical death.†Carlos E. Asay, “‘Look to God and Live’,†Ensign (Nov 1978), 54. Asay’s reference to the cross was omitted in the Old Testament Church curriculum manual, just as was done in the Missionary Handbook to Brigham Young’s quote: “We, like Israel of old, must rivet our eyes and minds upon … Christ if we hope to gain eternal life.†Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001), 71. I believe these examples (among many others that I could list) reveal that a very real discomfort still exists in the Church over the symbol of the cross. ——– Charlie: It does help the Church get a bit closer to its ‘friends’ in the rest of ChrisÂtianÂity by allowÂing LDS ChapÂlains to wear a cross (if only by a very small bit). I believe the curÂrent trend in church headÂquarÂters is to move closer to other ChrisÂtÂian faiths. Me: I agree. Charlie: By the way I enjoyed your discussion over in mormonÂexpression; interesting and educational. Me: I am glad that you feel that way. I just wish I had initiated the opportunity to talk about the 1916 Ensign Peak proposal–the juiciest and most interesting part of my thesis! Oh well. For another podcast/publication, I suppose. :) |
I picked up a great book the last time I was at Deseret called “What Happened to the Cross?” and it covers this issue as well as some other “differences” between the LDS faith and mainstream Christianity. There are many things that have evolved over time in the LDS religion that continue to make us seem odd to other Christian faiths. At the time Joseph Smith organized the church, there were many other new religions popping up all over the region. Starting a new church wasn’t a big deal. Even the beliefs he first asserted weren’t viewed as all that different. But the LDS church is a church of continuing revelation and with that comes a continually evolving culture. I think many Mormons take pride in this particular difference of the cross. My younger sister left the church to become a “born again” Christian and seems to take great delight in wearing her cross around my parents and family to see if it elicits a response (we try to ignore it). Cross or no cross, the foundations of our faith don’t change. Occasionally our attire does (though I’m not trying to incite a discussion about garment modification over time) and I think not wearing the cross is just one of them. |
#44 Mike, Very persuasive. Seems that there is some discomfort with the cross amongst the brethren. But they do have a valid point also when they talk about the living Jesus and the cross as a symbol of suffering and pain too. But then it would help us Mormons get closer to the rest of Christianity if they allowed us to wear a cross at least, after all we take the bread (body of Christ) and water (blood of Christ) anyway! All the best, |
#45 PftPP, “OccaÂsionÂally our attire does (though I’m not tryÂing to incite a disÂcusÂsion about garÂment modÂiÂfiÂcaÂtion over time) and” There should be. Women today have changed the garment radically, even the sister missionaries, they will use very long skirts as per mission rules but then small tight tops or T’s with the G’s rolled up under a small sleeve (but with 100+ temp one can’t really blame them). Men also lift the bottoms up (npi) to use some shorts even though the rule is still that the G should cover the left knee. Anyway I digress here, sorry. |
Charlie: Very perÂsuaÂsive. Seems that there is some disÂcomÂfort with the cross amongst the brethren. Me: Thank you. The good news is that this discomfort is easing over time. Give the Church another generation or two, and this discomfort will probably be a thing of the past. Hopefully my thesis will help with this transition. Charlie: But they do have a valid point also when they talk about the livÂing Jesus and the cross as a symÂbol of sufÂferÂing and pain too. But then it would help us MorÂmons get closer to the rest of ChrisÂtianÂity if they allowed us to wear a cross at least, after all we take the bread (body of Christ) and water (blood of Christ) anyway! Me: Good point. If the sacrament symbolizes the death of Jesus (1 Cor 11: 26), the what is the big deal? Does this symbolism eclipse the doctrine that Jesus is resurrected? No. Of course not. Then why should the cross? Mormons visit Carthage jail where the Prophet was murdered, and have very real cathartic/spiritual experiences in the process. Does this experience eclipse the belief that Joseph’s ministry extends beyond the grave? No. I don’t think so. Consider also that Jesus is so often said to have introduced himself by showing the marks of his crucifixion. Consider also how these wounds relate to the temple ceremony (see Isaiah 22:23 get an idea of what I am alluding to). Not to mention, literary symbolism is found throughout LDS scripture. Frankly, I see the “death symbolism” rationalization a post-hoc attempt to justify a custom that they don’t really understand. The parable of the pot-roast comes to mind: http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blog/conventionalwisdomassumptionsandpotroast/ |
#45 PftPP: I picked up a great book the last time I was at Deseret called “What Happened to the Cross?†and it covers this issue as well as some other “differences†between the LDS faith and mainstream Christianity. Me: Robert Millett is the author of the book you speak of: http://deseretbook.com/item/4988463/What_Happened_to_the_Cross_ I’ve read the book, and was a bit disappointed that only a small part of it was even about cross symbolism. And the theory he gives to explain the historical absence of the cross in LDS culture is wrong–I confess, though, that part of me was relieved to find this out, since my thesis was in the works, and I didn’t want him to steal my thunder. :) Millett does a great job, however, in correcting the false doctrine that is still promoted by some members of the Church today, which insists that Jesus only atoned for sin in Gethsemane, and not on the cross. He showed quite persuasively that LDS doctrine is that Jesus atoned for sin in both locations. This is the best part of the book. |
What bothers me about this is the implication that the cross is Satanic. Not here, that I’ve read, but a general feeling by members of the church. The Lord judges by intent and if a Catholic, or a Mormon wears something because they think it’s beautiful or is a symbol of their love and appreciation for the sacridice of the Savior, that’s what it means. I think we Mormons get caught up in small things and condemn others, no matter the protestations to the contrary. |
annegb: I’d love a copy of this picture. Me: The picture is pretty neat, isn’t it? I’ve collected dozens of images like this. Several of them I gave to Mormon Times writer, Michael DeGroote, for the following article about my recent Sunstone presentation: Be sure to click the links for Nabbie (Nabby) Young |