The Cross

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

Perhaps,  It seems to be Peter who says it.

Here is a little something I found.  May be something to it:

 

Quote

 

Sometimes the Greek word for wood is used of the cross.  The word ξύλον "wood" occurs a total of 20 times in the New Testament.  Those that refer to the cross of Christ are:

• Acts 10:39, "We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross (ξύλον, wood)."
• Acts 5:30, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross(ξύλον, wood)."
• Acts 13:29, "When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross (ξύλον, wood) and laid Him in a tomb."
• Galatians 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (ξύλον, wood)."
• 1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross (ξύλον, wood), so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

 

This is as opposed to the Greek wood for cross:

Quote

The word (σταυρός, stauros) "cross" occurs 27 times in the New Testament in 27 verses: Matthew 10:38; 16:24; 27:32; 27:40; 27:42; Mark 8:34; 15:21; 15:30; Mark 15:32; Luke 9:23; 14:27; 23:26; John 19:17; 19:19; 19:25; 19:31; 1 Cor. 1:17; 1:18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12; 6:14; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 2:8; 3:18; Col. 1:20; 2:14; Heb. 12:2.

 

These come from a Matt Slick essay, which I understand shouldn't be linked to here, but it makes sense.

The KJV translators appear to have liked the poetry of using "tree" for wood/etz.

[HappyJackWagon]

For the vast majority of my life I felt a strong aversion to the cross, essentially because I had been taught that it was a false symbol. I now find the cross to invoke peace and reverence and I appreciate it much more. In addition to seeing the cross (on building, jewelry, clothing etc) the symbolism of the cross is also beautifully portrayed in literature and music. There are so many great songs about the cross. IMO it would be great if the church returned to acceptance of the cross as a valid symbol of the church's Christianity. It may also help others recognize the church as a Christian church.

I say "return" to acceptance of the cross because it is really a fairly modern thing that the cross has been disavowed as a legitimate symbol within the church. There are many pictures (like the one of BY's wife) showing prominent church members wearing the cross. The cross used to be included on chapels. It is my understanding that anti-Catholic sentiment may have led to some leaders developing, over time, a personal dislike of the cross as a symbol for the church.

In his book, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo, Michael Reed talks about the history of using the cross in the Church and how it became a taboo. It's a very interesting book. The author has also done many podcasts on the subject for those who like podcasts. Here's a review from BYU studies https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo

 

In any case, the cross is a personal symbol and IMO people shouldn't be discouraged from accepting the cross as a valid symbol of their faith.

 

[MiserereNobis]

I don't wear a cross or crucifix, though I have a few blessed crucifixes in my home. All Catholic churches are required to have a crucifix either on or above the altar. Mass cannot be performed without one. The death of Christ is the central moment in Catholicism. The incarnation, the birth of Christ, is when a transcendent God became immanent. The death of Christ is when an immortal God experienced pure mortality, doing so to redeem and save us. Not just to pay for our sins, but to sanctify us, to bring His Divinity into the human family and to draw us to Him by drawing closer to us. It is His death that does this. His resurrection reaffirms that He is God, immortal, and that sin and death cannot contain Him. But it is not His resurrection that redeemed us.

Holy Week is rightly the holiest time in Christendom because it liturgically relives the time of redemption. Today is Maundy Thursday, the celebration of the Last Supper. Tomorrow is Good Friday. I've had a non-Catholic ask why is it called Good Friday when it is the day that Christ was crucified. The answer is above: it is good because it is how we are saved. Easter is the culmination, not because the resurrection is more important than the crucifixion, but because it is the completion of the process.

At least, this is how I view it  

 

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't wear a cross or crucifix, though I have a few blessed crucifixes in my home. All Catholic churches are required to have a crucifix either on or above the altar. Mass cannot be performed without one. The death of Christ is the central moment in Catholicism. The incarnation, the birth of Christ, is when a transcendent God became immanent. The death of Christ is when an immortal God experienced pure mortality, doing so to redeem and save us. Not just to pay for our sins, but to sanctify us, to bring His Divinity into the human family and to draw us to Him by drawing closer to us. It is His death that does this. His resurrection reaffirms that He is God, immortal, and that sin and death cannot contain Him. But it is not His resurrection that redeemed us.

Holy Week is rightly the holiest time in Christendom because it liturgically relives the time of redemption. Today is Maundy Thursday, the celebration of the Last Supper. Tomorrow is Good Friday. I've had a non-Catholic ask why is it called Good Friday when it is the day that Christ was crucified. The answer is above: it is good because it is how we are saved. Easter is the culmination, not because the resurrection is more important than the crucifixion, but because it is the completion of the process.

At least, this is how I view it  

 

The cross was used prominently in LDS practice for years. There are books on a subject.this used to be a prominent topic on this board years ago but it seems no one has read those threads or they were not on the board at the time.

There are historic pictures of the Cross being used in chapels and be warned in photographic portraits of LDS people.

The LA Temple actually has some cross motifs used in a hidden sort of way.

Around the time that the LA Temple was built in the 1950s David o McKay was the prophet and he kind of started the movement against using the cross.

someone came up with a ridiculous analogy saying that if your son had been killed by a rifle would you make the rifle a treasured motif?

So in my opinion wrongly the cross was abandoned as an LDS motif.

I can understand that the atonement occurred not on the cross but in the garden of Gethsemane, which is LDS doctrine. Furthermore we emphasized the resurrection above the death of our Lord.

But I have nothing against using the cross any way someone sees fit.

I would wear one myself except it would be such a big deal over what I regard is a trivial matter so I don't.

When I look at a crucifix now I see four right angles and a compass formed by Jesus' arms. The compass in the square is acceptable but the cross is not. Go figure.

But as my wife is constantly telling me I don't see the world as others do.

We have our symbols too and to me they're all just symbols of the same thing.

http://www.withoutend.org/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo/

Edited April 18, 2019 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't wear a cross or crucifix, though I have a few blessed crucifixes in my home. All Catholic churches are required to have a crucifix either on or above the altar. Mass cannot be performed without one. The death of Christ is the central moment in Catholicism. The incarnation, the birth of Christ, is when a transcendent God became immanent. The death of Christ is when an immortal God experienced pure mortality, doing so to redeem and save us. Not just to pay for our sins, but to sanctify us, to bring His Divinity into the human family and to draw us to Him by drawing closer to us. It is His death that does this. His resurrection reaffirms that He is God, immortal, and that sin and death cannot contain Him. But it is not His resurrection that redeemed us.

Holy Week is rightly the holiest time in Christendom because it liturgically relives the time of redemption. Today is Maundy Thursday, the celebration of the Last Supper. Tomorrow is Good Friday. I've had a non-Catholic ask why is it called Good Friday when it is the day that Christ was crucified. The answer is above: it is good because it is how we are saved. Easter is the culmination, not because the resurrection is more important than the crucifixion, but because it is the completion of the process.

At least, this is how I view it  

 

There is nothing in your words that I disagree with. Well put. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The cross was used prominently in LDS practice for years. There are books on a subject.this used to be a prominent topic on this board years ago but it seems no one has read those threads or they were not on the board at the time.

There are historic pictures of the Cross being used in chapels and be warned in photographic portraits of LDS people.

The LA Temple actually has some cross motifs used in a hidden sort of way.

Around the time that the LA Temple was built in the 1950s David o McKay was the prophet and he kind of started the movement against using the cross.

someone came up with a ridiculous analogy saying that if your son had been killed by a rifle would you make the rifle a treasured motif?

So in my opinion wrongly the cross was abandoned as an LDS motif.

I can understand that the atonement occurred not on the cross but in the garden of Gethsemane, which is LDS doctrine. Furthermore we emphasized the resurrection above the death of our Lord.

But I have nothing against using the cross any way someone sees fit.

I would wear one myself except it would be such a big deal over what I regard is a trivial matter so I don't.

When I look at a crucifix now I see four right angles and a compass formed by Jesus' arms. The compass in the square is acceptable but the cross is not. Go figure.

But as my wife is constantly telling me I don't see the world as others do.

We have our symbols too and to me they're all just symbols of the same thing.

http://www.withoutend.org/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo/

Lds doctrine is that the atonement occurred in the garden, on the cross, and in the tomb. 😊

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Here is a little something I found.  May be something to it:

 

This is as opposed to the Greek wood for cross:

 

These come from a Matt Slick essay, which I understand shouldn't be linked to here, but it makes sense.

The KJV translators appear to have liked the poetry of using "tree" for wood/etz.

And of course we know all about the symbolism for trees don't we?

That idea opens up an entirely new page of symbolic connections. Wow.

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There is a professor of Ancient Near East studies at BYU who talks about the cross as a symbol of Christ's atonement.

It's easter!  We celebrate with religions around the world this holy day.  There are similarities and there are contrasting elements in our worship.  One being that we do not use the traditional cross.  I'm sure this has been discussed here before but it's easter and I just listened to a program about this topic.

The professor believes we 'should' implement the cross more in our religion.  

I think that would be pretty great in multiple ways - that said, I have always felt sort of icky about the cross, mainly because someone gave me a chain with a cross on it when I was a child and my mother reacted as if someone had given me a dirty magazine.  It was confiscated and not discussed.  

I think the cross is beautiful, and very meaningful.  I think that Christ's sacrifice of death is so relatable.  I try to understand the atonement, and it is important to strive to understand it, but it is really abstract.  His death is a concrete concept and I can certainly appreciate the fact that someone loved us so much that he was willing to be in mortal pain and anguish and to be killed.  We down play that (I think) and we focus on the garden.   I'd be all about wearing a cross as a declaration of my devotion and gratitude for His sacrifice.  I wear the Garment but nobody sees that.  Well, as long as I'm not wearing my cheeky shorts.  

This is all just my thoughts and rambling.  Do other people see the cross as an evil symbol like I did as a child, or as a real problem?  And would it actually hurt us if we celebrated the cross?  Would it bring new understanding of us to other people?  Would it really take away from the focus on the atonement, or are we capable of multitasking?  

Note that I know this site has no power.  It's not like the option is on the table or like me commenting on it is going to mean a thing.  I'm just thinking out loud.

I think a balanced approach to the Easter Week celebrations would not require encouraging the Church membership to focus on the cross or adopting a new symbol of our faith. The role of the cross and crucifixion is certainly a worthwhile in-depth pursuit for someone who is individually inclined or inspired to do so. The content of the last couple of Come Follow Me lessons offer plenty of opportunity for people to focus in on it and apply it to their testimony and worship if they wish.

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is interesting, because it implies that the symbol of the LDS faith would be something about a living Christ. However, the most obvious symbol of the LDS faith (as far as I can tell) is Moroni. Or maybe a CTR ring. Neither are symbols of a living Christ.

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It probably depends on how you look at it.  While I wouldn't say those things are the symbols of our faith (no one in my family has a CTR ring or any symbols of the Angel Moroni as decoration and we're not unique), they actually do make sense as symbols of the living Christ from a certain perspective.  

Moroni is a symbol, placed on top of our temples, that denotes the blessings of eternity and specifically the second coming of Christ.  "Choose the Right" is a symbol of following the resurrected Christ above all else.

 

As Hinckley most clearly taught - the logic goes: LDS view cross as a symbol of death, LDS prefer to celebrate his resurrected life, and they do so with the most meaningful instantiation of this resurrected life - which is the devout lives of LDS members.

There are certainly issues with this reasoning. There is no explicit ¨we prefer not to use inanimate objects or abstract ideas to represent our faith¨ and then say we prefer to represent our faith by our lives alone, although it is implied (at best), however:

1. This is a false distinction: you can display the cross without it being ¨the symbol of [your] faith¨
2. This is a false incompatibility: you can use the cross as a symbol and still focus and even prefer to have your member´s lives represent your religion
3. LDS do use and have plenty of symbols (without having to claim them as ¨the symbol of our faith¨ and without being distracted from emphasizing the lives of members): Moroni (on top of temple steeples where Christian churches traditionally have crosses, no less), temple symbols, and  even justify the use of pentagrams on their temples, but there are no crosses and no fight to have crosses.

Bluebell, considering all the other symbols that have some place in LDS official and lay culture, it seems superfluous to have to search for it in Moroni and CTR in order to justify its inclusion as unnecessary.  With so many symbols, it does not matter whether you can find your way to an interpretation to the Cross of Christ, the absence of the symbol is conspicuous nonetheless. Your points about CTR and Moroni are good for in-depth appreciation of these symbols - great for a Sunday talk - but, otherwise, makes the absence of the cross look more like a refusal of the symbol. If the meaning of the cross is already in multiple LDS symbols, then what could possibly be the justification for refusing the cross. Or, if they have the same meaning, what disqualifies the cross? Yes, Hinckley and so many others harp on death - but it is the death that is a crucial (pun intended... now) to the change in member´s lives.
 

yeah, so add: 4. Hinckley tries to argue that the resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and thus is a better symbol of his church, but its Jesus´ death that did the redemption, not the resurrection - they are all important, so symbols that represent any one part of the gospel of Jesus should be welcome.

But again, I think Reed has given the historical reason that the Cross is not part of LDS official culture. The above is just issues with Hinckley´s ¨reboot¨ of ¨no crosses¨.

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, TheRedHen said:

There is no LDS doctrine for or against the symbol of the cross.  Somewhere along the line some GA decided to give a talk that said we celebrate Christ’s life - not his death, and magically the cross got wiped from the Church.  It should be put in the same basket as Coke or coffee flavored candy being against the Word of Wisdom.  It’s folklore. If wearing a cross makes you feel closer to God go for it.

While there is something to your point here, I just want to make sure that you caught the several replies that mention Reed´s historical analysis of the presence and fall of the cross in Mormonism

 

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

@MustardSeed, as a Protestant, the cross for me represents the atonement; salvation, grace and love that comes from Christ's sacrifice.

If you're interested in how this aversion to the cross began in LDS history, I recommend the book by Michael G. Reed called Banishing the Cross, The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo.

M.

and my own links on page 2

[Joshua Valentine]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course we know all about the symbolism for trees don't we?

That idea opens up an entirely new page of symbolic connections. Wow.

 

I know you should be meaning this but just to be clear, for others, the writers using this metaphor for Christ on the Cross did know this symbolism, being Jews, and is why they used it throughout the NT.

[Wade Englund]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course we know all about the symbolism for trees don't we?

That idea opens up an entirely new page of symbolic connections. Wow.

 

I prefer symbols that emphasize life rather than death.

...not that endowed members need any additional symbols adorning their bodies.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

{snip}

David o McKay was the prophet and he kind of started the movement against using the cross.

{snip}

Being Scots himself, it makes sense that he would have inherited a cultural aversion to RC symbology.  Remember all that stuff during and about the English Civil War about ostentatious shows in High Church buildings and whatnot, and the marriage of convenience between Scots Presbyterians and English Puritans.

Those memories have a tough time dying off.  My grandfather used to recite a XIXth Century poem about the St Bartholomew's Day massacre, urging people to forget about it already.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course we know all about the symbolism for trees don't we?

That idea opens up an entirely new page of symbolic connections. Wow.

What seest thou?

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I prefer symbols that emphasize life rather than death.

If this is directed at the cross, let me remind you that is through Christ's death that we are redeemed. It is a beautiful aspect of Christianity, that the "lesser" things, like poverty, humility, chastity, meekness, and yes, death, are actually given prominence over the "greater" things, like riches, pride, etc. God lowered Himself all the way to death. That is why the cross is a potent symbol of Christianity.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For the vast majority of my life I felt a strong aversion to the cross, essentially because I had been taught that it was a false symbol. I now find the cross to invoke peace and reverence and I appreciate it much more. In addition to seeing the cross (on building, jewelry, clothing etc) the symbolism of the cross is also beautifully portrayed in literature and music. There are so many great songs about the cross. IMO it would be great if the church returned to acceptance of the cross as a valid symbol of the church's Christianity. It may also help others recognize the church as a Christian church.

I say "return" to acceptance of the cross because it is really a fairly modern thing that the cross has been disavowed as a legitimate symbol within the church. There are many pictures (like the one of BY's wife) showing prominent church members wearing the cross. The cross used to be included on chapels. It is my understanding that anti-Catholic sentiment may have led to some leaders developing, over time, a personal dislike of the cross as a symbol for the church.

In his book, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo, Michael Reed talks about the history of using the cross in the Church and how it became a taboo. It's a very interesting book. The author has also done many podcasts on the subject for those who like podcasts. Here's a review from BYU studies https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo

 

In any case, the cross is a personal symbol and IMO people shouldn't be discouraged from accepting the cross as a valid symbol of their faith.

 

I loved Michael Reed's book, and found the history fascinating to read regarding how many have come to really have a strong aversion to wearing a cross (or it's usage in other ways).  I know I grew up being taught this and feeling that way about it.

I would love to see more of an acceptance now, but I honestly believe it would take the members seeing the leaders wearing it (jewelry, tie tacks, etc) or specifically speaking about accepting it, for this to happen.

Edited April 18, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The cross was used prominently in LDS practice for years. There are books on a subject.this used to be a prominent topic on this board years ago but it seems no one has read those threads or they were not on the board at the time.

There are historic pictures of the Cross being used in chapels and be warned in photographic portraits of LDS people.

The LA Temple actually has some cross motifs used in a hidden sort of way.

Around the time that the LA Temple was built in the 1950s David o McKay was the prophet and he kind of started the movement against using the cross.

someone came up with a ridiculous analogy saying that if your son had been killed by a rifle would you make the rifle a treasured motif?

So in my opinion wrongly the cross was abandoned as an LDS motif.

I can understand that the atonement occurred not on the cross but in the garden of Gethsemane, which is LDS doctrine. Furthermore we emphasized the resurrection above the death of our Lord.

But I have nothing against using the cross any way someone sees fit.

I would wear one myself except it would be such a big deal over what I regard is a trivial matter so I don't.

When I look at a crucifix now I see four right angles and a compass formed by Jesus' arms. The compass in the square is acceptable but the cross is not. Go figure.

But as my wife is constantly telling me I don't see the world as others do.

We have our symbols too and to me they're all just symbols of the same thing.

http://www.withoutend.org/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo/

My sister who is an inactive LDS, wears a cross that is sideways. I love it because it's the best in both worlds. Goes along with the living Christ emphasis, IMO.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I loved Michael Reed's book, and found the history fascinating to read regarding how many have come to really have a strong aversion to wearing a cross (or it's usage in other ways).  I know I grew up being taught this and feeling that way about it.

I would love to see more of an acceptance now, but I honestly believe it would take the members seeing the leaders wearing it (jewelry, tie tacks, etc) or specifically speaking about accepting it, for this to happen.

I agree. Members tend to follow the leaders. If Pres. Nelson wore a cross tie tack during conference I imagine DBook would go crazy selling cross's of various varieties. It would be a good marketing move  I'll have to ponderize on that.

But seriously, it's a symbol; A Christian symbol not some occultist/devil sign . There's really no reason to shun it. My wife was given a cross necklace by a dear friend many years ago but she never felt comfortable wearing it and it always made her sad that she'd rejected a gift from a friend. Now she wears it most Sundays with a pride.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

As Hinckley most clearly taught - the logic goes: LDS view cross as a symbol of death, LDS prefer to celebrate his resurrected life, and they do so with the most meaningful instantiation of this resurrected life - which is the devout lives of LDS members.

There are certainly issues with this reasoning. There is no explicit ¨we prefer not to use inanimate objects or abstract ideas to represent our faith¨ and then say we prefer to represent our faith by our lives alone, although it is implied (at best), however:

1. This is a false distinction: you can display the cross without it being ¨the symbol of [your] faith¨

Hinckley taught-

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

Pres. Hinckley clearly said "for us" (meaning the church as a whole, especially pertaining to adorning our buildings or decorating with the cross because he was answering a question asked by a Pastor about why there were no crosses in a newly constructed temple) to view the cross this way.  He acknowledges that others view the cross differently, and therefore because he is not saying that one cannot view the cross in many different ways he is not created any false distinction.

Quote

This is a false incompatibility: you can use the cross as a symbol and still focus and even prefer to have your member´s lives represent your religion

That's obvious. Pres. Hinckley never said you couldn't.  I think you might be looking for things to disagree with in his statement that aren't actually there.  That we choose not to does not mean that it's not possible.

Quote

LDS do use and have plenty of symbols (without having to claim them as ¨the symbol of our faith¨ and without being distracted from emphasizing the lives of members): Moroni (on top of temple steeples where Christian churches traditionally have crosses, no less), temple symbols, and  even justify the use of pentagrams on their temples, but there are no crosses and no fight to have crosses.

Yep.

Quote

Bluebell, considering all the other symbols that have some place in LDS official and lay culture, it seems superfluous to have to search for it in Moroni and CTR in order to justify its inclusion as unnecessary.  With so many symbols, it does not matter whether you can find your way to an interpretation to the Cross of Christ, the absence of the symbol is conspicuous nonetheless. Your points about CTR and Moroni are good for in-depth appreciation of these symbols - great for a Sunday talk - but, otherwise, makes the absence of the cross look more like a refusal of the symbol.

There wasn't anything in depth about my points.  It's basic stuff.   We use different symbols than other Christian religions do and have chosen not to use the symbol of the cross.  If you want to interpret that as a refusal to use the symbol of the cross in our worship of Christ that's fine, it doesn't really matter.

Quote

If the meaning of the cross is already in multiple LDS symbols, then what could possibly be the justification for refusing the cross. Or, if they have the same meaning, what disqualifies the cross? Yes, Hinckley and so many others harp on death - but it is the death that is a crucial (pun intended... now) to the change in member´s lives.
yeah, so add: 4. Hinckley tries to argue that the resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and thus is a better symbol of his church, but its Jesus´ death that did the redemption, not the resurrection - they are all important, so symbols that represent any one part of the gospel of Jesus should be welcome.

But again, I think Reed has given the historical reason that the Cross is not part of LDS official culture. The above is just issues with Hinckley´s ¨reboot¨ of ¨no crosses¨.

I own his book, it's a good one.  I have a degree in History and love that stuff and I agree that it's incredibly obvious that our history with protestants and catholics impacted our views of the use of crosses as a symbol of Christianity, no doubt.

But our history does not generally impact how individual members view the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity today.  When you read the comments on the members on this thread about their personal feelings about the use of the cross, it becomes very apparent that the historical reasons are just that, history.  They impact but they do not control our understanding of the cross today.  

(Per the bolded part is a good example of why your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine leads you to some erroneous conclusions about how we should feel about things.  In LDS doctrine the resurrection is an integral part of the redemption.  It is our doctrine that there is no redemption without the resurrection.  And choosing not to integrate crosses into our worship does not mean that they are not welcome.)

[MustardSeed]

Well if we are going to compare, I’ll submit the symbolic adornment used by the scouting program, or the young women’s medallion.  Of course we have plenty of symbolism in the garment.  

*For me, the use of a cross has differentiated  me from other Christian faiths.  

If an LDS friend were to wear a cross, I’d think (incorrectly)-“hu.  What’s THAT about?” Why though? Why would I care? I annoy myself with this. 

Im going to read the link above.  Thank you for thoughts.  It interests me, the different points of view and attitudes. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hinckley taught-

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

Pres. Hinckley clearly said "for us" (meaning the church as a whole, especially pertaining to adorning our buildings or decorating with the cross because he was answering a question asked by a Pastor about why there were no crosses in a newly constructed temple) to view the cross this way.  He acknowledges that others view the cross differently, and therefore because he is not saying that one cannot view the cross in many different ways he is not created any false distinction.

That's obvious. Pres. Hinckley never said you couldn't.  I think you might be looking for things to disagree with in his statement that aren't actually there.  That we choose not to does not mean that it's not possible.

Yep.

There wasn't anything in depth about my points.  It's basic stuff.   We use different symbols than other Christian religions do and have chosen not to use the symbol of the cross.  If you want to interpret that as a refusal to use the symbol of the cross in our worship of Christ that's fine, it doesn't really matter.

I own his book, it's a good one.  I have a degree in History and love that stuff and I agree that it's incredibly obvious that our history with protestants and catholics impacted our views of the use of crosses as a symbol of Christianity, no doubt.

But our history does not generally impact how individual members view the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity today.  When you read the comments on the members on this thread about their personal feelings about the use of the cross, it becomes very apparent that the historical reasons are just that, history.  They impact but they do not control our understanding of the cross today.  

(Per the bolded part is a good example of why your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine leads you to some erroneous conclusions about how we should feel about things.  In LDS doctrine the resurrection is an integral part of the redemption.  It is our doctrine that there is no redemption without the resurrection.  And choosing not to integrate crosses into our worship does not mean that they are not welcome.)

I agree with much of what you say here, but I do think you underestimate the impact on membership of how some leaders have taught about the cross. I think Reed effectively makes the case that the teachings of leaders and their personal preferences regarding the cross deeply impacted the church as a whole in how it sees and uses the cross. Sure, it happened more in the past than it does today but that doesn't make it a historical problem. I think those teachings have led to the cross being stigmatized among many/most church members. But it would be interesting to study the differences of feelings about the cross amongst life-long members and converts coming from other Christian denominations. I suspect there may be a difference BIC members view the cross more harshly than people who grew up with the cross being a positive/normal part of their faith.

Just for fun, sharing a "Cross" song that I enjoy.

 

[Wade Englund]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

If this is directed at the cross, let me remind you that is through Christ's death that we are redeemed. It is a beautiful aspect of Christianity, that the "lesser" things, like poverty, humility, chastity, meekness, and yes, death, are actually given prominence over the "greater" things, like riches, pride, etc. God lowered Himself all the way to death. That is why the cross is a potent symbol of Christianity.

My statement wasn't meant as a criticism, but as a preference--which doesn't deny the potent symbolism of the cross.  

And, perhaps some Christians give prominence to the supposed "lesser" things like death over the "greater" things like "life," but I don't.  I value what the angle said to the women at the tomb: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? HE IS RISEN." (Lk 24:5-6--emphasis mine)

Again, this is not a criticism, but a preference for where I wish to place an emphasis--particularly during Easter. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Wade Englund

[teddyaware]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hinckley taught-

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

Pres. Hinckley clearly said "for us" (meaning the church as a whole, especially pertaining to adorning our buildings or decorating with the cross because he was answering a question asked by a Pastor about why there were no crosses in a newly constructed temple) to view the cross this way.  He acknowledges that others view the cross differently, and therefore because he is not saying that one cannot view the cross in many different ways he is not created any false distinction.

That's obvious. Pres. Hinckley never said you couldn't.  I think you might be looking for things to disagree with in his statement that aren't actually there.  That we choose not to does not mean that it's not possible.

Yep.

There wasn't anything in depth about my points.  It's basic stuff.   We use different symbols than other Christian religions do and have chosen not to use the symbol of the cross.  If you want to interpret that as a refusal to use the symbol of the cross in our worship of Christ that's fine, it doesn't really matter.

I own his book, it's a good one.  I have a degree in History and love that stuff and I agree that it's incredibly obvious that our history with protestants and catholics impacted our views of the use of crosses as a symbol of Christianity, no doubt.

But our history does not generally impact how individual members view the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity today.  When you read the comments on the members on this thread about their personal feelings about the use of the cross, it becomes very apparent that the historical reasons are just that, history.  They impact but they do not control our understanding of the cross today.  

(Per the bolded part is a good example of why your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine leads you to some erroneous conclusions about how we should feel about things.  In LDS doctrine the resurrection is an integral part of the redemption.  It is our doctrine that there is no redemption without the resurrection.  And choosing not to integrate crosses into our worship does not mean that they are not welcome.)

It would be most interesting to listen in on a conversation between President Hinkley and the Apostle Paul if they they were tp set forth their mutual views concerning the value of the cross of Christ as a symbol of the salvation of Christ:

18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the CROSS of Christ: (Philippians 3)

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the CROSS of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Galatians 6)

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the CROSS of Christ should be made of none effect. 

18 For the preaching of the CROSS is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1Corinthians 1)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his CROSS; (Colossians 2)

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the CROSS, having slain the enmity thereby: (Ephesians 2)

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the CROSS, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12)

12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the CROSS of Christ. (Galatians 6)

And there are many more...

 

 

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

My statement wasn't meant as a criticism, but as a preference--which doesn't deny the potent symbolism of the cross.  

And, perhaps some Christians give prominence to the supposed "lesser" things like death over the "greater" things like "life," but I don't.  I value what the angle said to the women at the tomb: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? HE IS RISEN." (Lk 24:5-6--emphasis mine)

Again, this is not a criticism, but a preference for where I wish to place an emphasis--particularly during Easter. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I've heard that perspective a lot so I think a lot of people agree with you.

I've heard people take it further and say things like, "if Jesus was shot with a gun, would I wear a necklace with a gun around my neck?" IMO that is quite a silly response as it misses an important aspect of the symbol. Yes, the cross represents Jesus' death & resurrection (empty cross), but the cross also represents each individual's willingness to follow God, no matter the cost. "Take up your cross" and follow me. IOW- It's not just about Jesus's cross, but also about ours.

It was mentioned by others earlier about the translation issues around "cross" and/or "tree". IIRC in ancient Judaism being hung on a tree was a symbol of condemnation before God. Of course Jesus wasn't condemned of God, but he received our condemnation and removed it (empty cross).

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I know you should be meaning this but just to be clear, for others, the writers using this metaphor for Christ on the Cross did know this symbolism, being Jews, and is why they used it throughout the NT.

And you see it in many Renaissance paintings where the crucifixion is depicted with the skull of Adam washing up at the bottom of the cross. But of course there are even older symbols for the tree than the tree of life, which are probably the reason that the tree of life was called the tree of Life In the first place, and it's Canaanite origins.  

And then we have the fish symbol related to the vesica piscis and the lingam and yoni. And on it goes.

This is VERY ancient stuff.

Very basic. Very human. I love it to death.

31 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I value what the angle said to the women at the tomb:

Great typo.

Living in LA it just popped right out at me. The city of angles, not to mention twists and turns.

That seems about right.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by mfbukowski