Mormons and the Cross

[Mike Reed]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Pretty good story by Peggy Stack. I'd only point out one needed correction:

Reed came to his thesis naturally. As a Mormon child in Sacramento, Reed was fascinated by the cross. He once stole a cross necklace and wore it to church on the following Sunday. His mother viewed the theft and jewelry as signs of his apostasy, Reed says. "She asked me to put it under my shirt."

This quote makes it sound as though my mother was more concerned about me hiding the symbol, than returning the necklace that I stole. LOL! No... my mother never knew that I stole the necklace in the first place, not until recently that is. Oh well.

Asside from this quote, I am thrilled my research has gotten some media attention.

[Sargon]

Congratulations Mike!

[Tsuzuki]

w00t!

[Lars Umlaut]

Too cool, Mike! Congratulations, big guy.

[daz2]

Mike,

Many congratulations! Will your thesis be published or posted online at some point?

I was under the impression that, at the time of the Restoration, while protestant churches commonly had crosses inside the church (say, in front of or behind the podium), they did not have crosses outside the building on top. And therefore, when the Saint went west and constructed meetinghouse (which they had not done before the exodus, unless one counts the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples as meetinghouses) they similarly did not build them with crosses outside or atop the building.

Do you know whether that is true?

[Bsix]

Does anyone know what put the reporter onto the story?

Six

[JLFuller]

What is it with all the Catholic stuff? I thought this was an LDS board.

[Mike Reed]

Will your thesis be published or posted online at some point?

I hope so. I have not posted it online yet, since I'd like to check the interest in publishers first.

I was under the impression that, at the time of the Restoration, while protestant churches commonly had crosses inside the church (say, in front of or behind the podium), they did not have crosses outside the building on top. And therefore, when the Saint went west and constructed meetinghouse (which they had not done before the exodus, unless one counts the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples as meetinghouses) they similarly did not build them with crosses outside or atop the building. Do you know whether that is true?

Prior to the LDS Church's establishment (and shortly thereafter) American protestants mainstream had an aversion toward the symbol. Much like has been the case in the LDS Church over the last few decades, the opposition tended to be directed at the symbol in general (there were exceptions of course). Ryan K. Smith has some good material on this, showing that when iconoclastic protestant mobs tore down crosses from the top of church buildings, they also removed crosses from inside, to be burned in the street. By the time the Mormon mainstream's attitude toward the cross polarized around the turn of the 20th century, the Protestant mainstream had already become accepting of the symbol. Latter-day Saints then reached back and recycled the Protestant anti-cross arguments of previous generations. The exact same arguments, in fact: mark of the beast, symbol comparable to the guillotine, symbol of death, catholic symbol, idolatry, etc.

Thanks for your support, you guys.

I hope the article didn't come off as sensational.

I've tried very hard to keep my biases (as a non-believer) in check, and be as objective as possible. I purposefully chose this topic because I realized that it had no bearing on the truthfulness or falsity of the Church. Although I am disappointed that anti-Mormons (commenting about the article online) are using this to further their cause, I am not surprised. They weren't my target audience anyway. I donâ??t knowâ?¦ I guess I should feel as though I am in good company, since the same has been done to Bushman, Compton, Ships, and many other great scholars of Mormon Studies. If only that I could one day stand a little taller next to these intellectual giants.

[JLFuller]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Pretty good story by Peggy Stack. I'd only point out one needed correction:

This quote makes it sound as though my mother was more concerned about me hiding the symbol, than returning the necklace that I stole. LOL! No... my mother never knew that I stole the necklace in the first place, not until recently that is. Oh well.

Asside from this quote, I am thrilled my research has gotten some media attention.

Why would you want to do anything that the church disagrees with if you are LDS?

[saemo]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Pretty good story by Peggy Stack.

[Mike Reed]

Does anyone know what put the reporter onto the story?

Six

I contacted the newspaper about a month before Easter, letting them know that if they are looking for a topic related to the season, my thesis was available to them. Not much happened. Easter passed... so I figured they were not interested. Then to my surprise, Peggy shot me an email, saying that she had read a draft, found it persuasive and liked it a lot... and said that the editors (who also liked it) wanted to run a story on it. During an interview with her she asked if any well known LDS scholars had read my entire thesis yet. I told her that Robert Rees had, and that he had spoken highly of my research. So apparently, she interviewed him too, which is why his comments are included in the article.

[Ambrose]

What is it with all the Catholic stuff? I thought this was an LDS board.

Forgive me, Mr. Fuller, but would you wish to throw our Evangelical friends and their posts out too?

In my short time lurking here, I've learned so much from all the wonderful LDS members that I would be sorry for not having visited. Have you learned anything from somebody of another faith?

[why me]

Forgive me, Mr. Fuller, but would you wish to throw our Evangelical friends and their posts out too?In my short time lurking here, I've learned so much from all the wonderful LDS members that I would be sorry for not having visited. Have you learned anything from somebody of another faith?

I think that Fuller is refering to the fact that the article in the Tribune was just a little critical of McKay implying that he was anticatholic. Unfortunately there is no reference for McKay's remark. Why for example, the Tribune would include that quotation based on Reed's master thesis is best left up to the imagination and why the Tribune is read by mainly non-lds. Perhaps there is a correlation.

Now that we have given Mike Reed are claps and shouts of joy the question remains: does his thesis have validity?

[Aquilifer]

Congrats, Mike.

Notwithstanding the several strange threads floating around here on the cross in LDS thought, and the usual spiteful comments on the SL Trib site, I think it's always useful to wade through historical evidence for deeper understanding of how successive generations of members have viewed the Gospel and its symbols. The symbol of the cross per se carries little meaning to me personally; that it may have meant something to my LDS forebears is meaningful. The shifting meanings and values people ascribe to given objects over time is fascinating.

[Mike Reed]

delete

[Mike Reed]

I think that Fuller is refering to the fact that the article in the Tribune was just a little critical of McKay implying that he was anticatholic. Unfortunately there is no reference for McKay's remark. Why for example, the Tribune would include that quotation based on Reed's master thesis is best left up to the imagination and why the Tribune is read by mainly non-lds. Perhaps there is a correlation.

As I stated in the other forum, I don't think you give Peggy enough credit. Consider the following.

My thesis also gave this quote from David O. McKay's diary: â??A Catholic Church celebration was held last night [saturday]â??People drinking and carousing until 6:30 this morning. O what a Godless farce that organization is!â?

Compare this to what Peggy wrote in her article: "He noted with disdain one Catholic celebration in Belgium, where people were 'drinking and carousing until 6:30 a.m.'"

If (as you asserted on the other forum) Peggy was driven by anti-Mormon agenda while writing this article, it seems odd that she would have left out the juiciest part of the quote.

[Bernard Gui]

Sorry if I don't jump on the bandwagon...Mike knows how I feel about his thesis.

Here's a little tid-bit from the article:

While Reed was a Mormon missionary in Baltimore, a potential convert said he had dreamed of a cross in flames, which he interpreted as a signal to join the church. Uncomfortable with the cross as divine message, Reed later sought answers in Mormon Doctrine, a book by the late Bruce R. McConkie. McConkie, vehemently anti-Catholic, equated the cross with the Bible's satanic "mark of the beast."

I'm looking at my 1st edition "Mormon Doctrine." I'm looking at the entry for "cross." I'll summarize.

Section 1. In many cultures the cross was an instrument of execution. That it would be used to kill

the Christ was revealed to many prophets. Jesus said the reason he came to the world was to

fulfill the will of the Father in being lifted up on the cross

Section 2. For many people the cross has come to have symbolic meanings for those who believe

in Christ. Paul used it to identify the whole doctrine of the atonement. Apostate Christianity came

to use it as a symbol on buildings, clothing, and jewelry, eventually incorporating a depiction of

the body of Christ himself on the cross. This is not in harmony with the quiet worship and reverence

as one remembers His death. The sacrament is the true way to remember his death and resurrection.

Section 3. The cross has come to symbolize the concept that afflictions and trials may come upon

those who follow Christ. Such afflictions and trials are "crosses" that we must bear.

Section 4. All saints must take up his cross and follow him, meaning service, consecration, devotion,

and obedience to him.

Seems to me that Bro. McConkie had a wholesome view of the cross, quite traditional in fact.

Now I'm looking up "Sign of the cross." He was not thrilled with this. I will summarize.

Members of that church which is not the Lord's church make the sign of the cross. He describe what

it is and states the purpose is to show devoutness in worship or to consecrate and bless persons or

objects.

This practice is without scriptural or divine warrant. "Many" see it as fulfillment of John's vision

as recorded Rev.13, "all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond...receive a mark

in their right hand, or in their foreheads..."

It appears to me that Mike was misquoted in the article. If not, then he needs to do a bit of

revision in his thesis before it is published.

Bernard

[Mike Reed]

Here's a little tid-bit from the article: McConkie, vehemently anti-Catholic, equated the cross with the Bible's satanic "mark of the beast."

"Satanic" is Peggy's choice of words. Not mine.

I'm looking at my 1st edition "Mormon Doctrine." I'm looking at the entry for "cross." I'll summarize.

Seems to me that Bro. McConkie had a wholesome view of the cross, quite traditional in fact.

Now I'm looking up "Sign of the cross." He was not thrilled with this. I will summarize.

It appears to me that Mike was misquoted in the article. If not, then he needs to do a bit of

revision in his thesis before it is published.

Wholsome? Rather than paraphrase, perhaps you should let McConkie speak for himself:

â??In apostate days the degenerate Christian Church developed the practice of using symbolic crosses in the architecture of their buildings and as jewelry attached to the robes of their priests. Frequently this morbid mania for dwelling on the personal death struggle of our Lord has caused these apostate peoples to put sculptured representations of Christ on their crosses, thus forming so-called crucifixes. All this is inharmonious with the quiet spirit of worship and reverence that should attend a true Christian's remembrance of our Lord's sufferings and death.â? Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:Book Craft Company, 1958), 160.

Now here is what McConkie says under "sign of the cross":

â??As part of their worship, members and priests of that great church which is not the Lord's Church make the sign of the cross. In doing so they draw a cross in the air with the right hand beginning at their forehead. Their purpose is to show devoutness in worship or to consecrate and bless persons or objects. This religious formality is without scriptural or divine warrant. Indeed many see in it at least a partial fulfillment of John's vision in which he saw that the great apostate beast would cause â??all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.â?? (Rev. 13.)â? Ibid., 642.

You should also take note that the second edition edited out the statement about what other people thought of the sign, and yet McConkie still cites Revelations 13 at the end of the entry. Apparently, McConkie agreed with the "many" people he spoke of. Moses Thatcher also identified the sign of the cross as the "mark of the beast."

Of course, there are many other examples in the book illustrating McConkie's anti-Catholicism.

[Mike Reed]

I never expected that the article would be this popular:

Top-rated stories Stories with the highest ratings by Tribune readers in the past five days.

â?¢ Mormons and the cross (241)

â?¢ Utah prime location for gay-rights movement (197)

â?¢ LDS missionaries (103)

â?¢ Monson: Three major Jazz questions answered (79)

â?¢ Health-care pandemic (72)

â?¢ Elizabeth Smart: Kidnapping was a defining life moment (72)

â?¢ Filth and stench (70)

â?¢ Immigration arrest of missionary puts focus on LDS policy (63)

â?¢ Jones: The GOP jumps the shark (59)

â?¢ Moab is a redrock R&R hot spot, but slow to grow (58)

The second place article seems to be hot on its tail. No pun intended.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Satanic" is Peggy's choice of words. Not mine.

Wholsome? Rather than paraphrase, perhaps you should let McConkie speak for himself:

â??In apostate days the degenerate Christian Church developed the practice of using symbolic crosses in the architecture of their buildings and as jewelry attached to the robes of their priests. Frequently this morbid mania for dwelling on the personal death struggle of our Lord has caused these apostate peoples to put sculptured representations of Christ on their crosses, thus forming so-called crucifixes. All this is inharmonious with the quiet spirit of worship and reverence that should attend a true Christian's remembrance of our Lord's sufferings and death.â? Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:Book Craft Company, 1958), 160.

While I don't countenance the harsh rhetoric in this passage from the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, I think it only fair to compare it with the more temperate phrasing in the last (1966) revision of the book. Since Mike has not done so, I will quote it here:

In succeeding centuries, the churches which came into being through an intermingling of pagan concepts with the true apostolic Christianity developed the practice of using symbolic crosses in the architecture of their buildings and as jewelry attached to the robes of their priests. Frequently this practice of dwelling on the personal death struggle of our Lord has caused these churches to put sculptured representations of Christ on their crosses, thus forming so called crucifixes. All this is inharmonious with the quiet spirit of worship and reverence that should attend a true Christian's remembrance of our Lord's sufferings and death. In fact, the revealed symbolism to bring these things to the attention of true worshipers is found in the ordinance of the sacrament.

I am disposed to regard a revision of an earlier work as superseding the earlier version; therefore, I see it as less than fair to hold an author to his unrevised words as though such revision had not been made.

[why me]

As I stated in the other forum, I don't think you give Peggy enough credit. Consider the following.

My thesis also gave this quote from David O. McKay's diary: â??A Catholic Church celebration was held last night [saturday]â??People drinking and carousing until 6:30 this morning. O what a Godless farce that organization is!â?

Compare this to what Peggy wrote in her article: "He noted with disdain one Catholic celebration in Belgium, where people were 'drinking and carousing until 6:30 a.m.'"

If (as you asserted on the other forum) Peggy was driven by anti-Mormon agenda while writing this article, it seems odd that she would have left out the juiciest part of the quote.

And I gave my answer on the other forum. Since it showed catholics drunk during a catholic celebration she may have chose not to use it. It tends to reinforce the stereotype of drunken catholics. The one she used is much worse.

[consiglieri]

My heartiest congratulations, Mike.

It seems to me that the LDS Church went through a period when it attempted to distinguish itself from other Christian churches in a number of areas, and that the Mormon aversion to the cross is one such manifestation.

Does that idea jibe at all with your research?

For the past 30-years or so, it seems the LDS Church has entered into a new phase where it is doing the opposite, and is trying to accentuate the similarities with other Christian faiths.

In light of this, do you think the cross may once more become acceptable Mormon symbolism?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jjblaze904]

My heartiest congratulations, Mike.

It seems to me that the LDS Church went through a period when it attempted to distinguish itself from other Christian churches in a number of areas, and that the Mormon aversion to the cross is one such manifestation.

Does that idea jibe at all with your research?

For the past 30-years or so, it seems the LDS Church has entered into a new phase where it is doing the opposite, and is trying to accentuate the similarities with other Christian faiths.

In light of this, do you think the cross may once more become acceptable Mormon symbolism?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Don't be fooled that the changes the church goes through are simply a matter of "trying to accentuate the similarities with other Christian faiths". The church is and always will be guided by direct revelation from God Himself. I would truly be shocked for the cross to become acceptable as a symbol of the church. President Hinckley was once asked at a temple open house, "Why in this whole building claiming to be a house of God is there no symbol of Him, the cross?" His reply was essentially that we believe that the Savior's death was and is an event of eternal significance, and while other churches choose to focus on this event in His life, we choose to focus on His life and teachings, and allow the symbol of our Christianity to be the actions of our members. I thought this summed it up pretty well.

[Mike Reed]

And I gave my answer on the other forum. Since it showed catholics drunk during a catholic celebration she may have chose not to use it. It tends to reinforce the stereotype of drunken catholics. The one she used is much worse.

You REALLY think McKay mentioning "People drinking and carousing until 6:30 this morning" is a stronger anti-Catholic statement than a sweeping generalization declaring Catholicism a "Godless farce"?!? REALLY?? And why do you speak as though Peggy had to choose between the two and couldn't choose both??

[Bernard Gui]

"Satanic" is Peggy's choice of words. Not mine.

Wholsome? Rather than paraphrase, perhaps you should let McConkie speak for himself:

“In apostate days the degenerate Christian Church developed the practice of using symbolic crosses in the architecture of their buildings and as jewelry attached to the robes of their priests. Frequently this morbid mania for dwelling on the personal death struggle of our Lord has caused these apostate peoples to put sculptured representations of Christ on their crosses, thus forming so-called crucifixes. All this is inharmonious with the quiet spirit of worship and reverence that should attend a true Christian's remembrance of our Lord's sufferings and death.” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:Book Craft Company, 1958), 160.

Now here is what McConkie says under "sign of the cross":

“As part of their worship, members and priests of that great church which is not the Lord's Church make the sign of the cross. In doing so they draw a cross in the air with the right hand beginning at their forehead. Their purpose is to show devoutness in worship or to consecrate and bless persons or objects. This religious formality is without scriptural or divine warrant. Indeed many see in it at least a partial fulfillment of John's vision in which he saw that the great apostate beast would cause ‘all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.’ (Rev. 13.)” Ibid., 642.

You should also take note that the second edition edited out the statement about what other people thought of the sign, and yet McConkie still cites Revelations 13 at the end of the entry. Apparently, McConkie agreed with the "many" people he spoke of. Moses Thatcher also identified the sign of the cross as the "mark of the beast."

Of course, there are many other examples in the book illustrating McConkie's anti-Catholicism.

Well, thanks for simply echoing my post. In the article she said you were bent out of shape because of what Elder McConkie said about the cross,

but it would appear you got torqued over "the sign of the cross" entry. Anyway, it's a non-issue. Elder McConkie's entry on "cross" is spot on, AFAIAC.

Christianity was apostate and "degenerate" has more nuanced meanings than you are allowing. Since you are not LDS, what do you care?

Why do she/you not refer to the corrections that were made in the 2nd edition? Didn't suit your agenda?

Bernard