Book Review: Banishing The Cross

[Mike Reed]

My first review of my book is in, just in time for Christmas (hint hint!):

Michael Reed aptly demonstrates in his new book "Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo" this history is much more recent and quite complex.

......

One of the most wonderful aspects of Reed’s book is its bountiful supply of illustrations, and chapter five, “Mormon Crosses before the Institutionalized Taboo,” provides plentiful documentation that Mormons once embraced the cross as a symbol of faith. Reed provides photos of crosses in quilts, in the stained glass in LDS chapels, in funeral arrangements (at John Taylor’s funeral, no less!), and in jewelry worn by prominent Mormons (one of Brigham Young’s wives and two daughters). It was even emblazoned on the spine of an 1852 European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The images throughout the book, especially in this chapter, were so good, so important to the thesis, I wished for better production values. I would love to have an over-size coffee table edition of this book. Any reader unconvinced by Reed’s argument, would find it difficult to remain unconvinced when confronted with his visual evidence.

..........

With contemporary Mormonism's more ecumenical focus, a tremendous lessening of anti-Catholic rhetoric, and greatly improved relations between all denominations of Christinanity and the LDS Church, it is not hard to imagine a world where Mormons can once again embrace the symbolic power of the cross. Reed’s book is a wonderful addition to Mormon history and a helpful guide in rethinking our contemporary aversion to the central symbol of Christianity.

For the entire review see the link below:

http://forums.mormon...ersen.aspx#2532

Edited December 21, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Daniel Peterson]

Congratulations on the (positive!) review.

I'm kicking myself. Should have lined Boyd up to review the book for Interpreter.

Oh well. Too busy. Things slip by.

[Tacenda]

I'm definitely going to check this book out. Is it out on kindle?

[Mike Reed]

I'm definitely going to check this book out. Is it out on kindle?

No. Only paperback at the moment.

[volgadon]

No. Only paperback at the moment.

Looking forward to it.

[Paloma]

Looks like a really interesting book! I looked for it on amazon.ca, but see that it's only at amazon.com.

I put it in my cart, and will order it close to the time when I'll be in the States early in 2013.

I was glad to read this review that you highlight here. And I read some good reviews on amazon as well!

[mfbukowski]

Congrats Mike!

[DH]

Congrats, Mike!

[Damien the Leper]

That's awesome bud! Congrats!

[theplains]

"“Mormon Crosses before the Institutionalized Taboo,” provides plentiful documentation that Mormons once embraced the cross as a symbol of faith"

Does your book touch on why latter-day Mormons moved away from displaying the cross?

Thanks,

Jim

[Mike Reed]

Does your book touch on why latter-day Mormons moved away from displaying the cross?

Thanks,

Jim

Yes. This is the focus of my paper--To explain how and why the cross taboo came about.

[Mike Reed]

Thanks for the congrats, all.

[Gohan]

Like I said on the Book of Face, that's awesome man. Methinks I'll need to get myself a paperback copy of it, I look forward to reading it soon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like a very worthwhile book. I'd like to know the history of that almost ascetic tendency among Mormons. My only caveat is that I never noticed the "taboo," and I was baptized during the presidency of George Albert Smith. True, there were no crosses on our meeting houses or temples, but that seemed more like the sort of difference among Christian churches which one expected, with a variety of symbols, such as the fish (ICHTHYS), madonna & child, etc., favored by one or another denomination. It seemed to me that those others put all their ornamentation and symbology into their meeting-houses or cathedrals, while we Mormons concentrated all that in our temples and tabernacles. What seems uniquely Mormon is thus the statue of Moroni flying above our temples. Was this all part of a deliberate effort to create a Mormon "brand"?

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like a very worthwhile book. I'd like to know the history of that almost ascetic tendency among Mormons. My only caveat is that I never noticed the "taboo," and I was baptized during the presidency of George Albert Smith. True, there were no crosses on our meeting houses or temples, but that seemed more like the sort of difference among Christian churches which one expected, with a variety of symbols, such as the fish (ICHTHYS), madonna & child, etc., favored by one or another denomination. It seemed to me that those others put all their ornamentation and symbology into their meeting-houses or cathedrals, while we Mormons concentrated all that in our temples and tabernacles. What seems uniquely Mormon is thus the statue of Moroni flying above our temples. Was this all part of a deliberate effort to create a Mormon "brand"?

The fish/vesica piscis is quite obvious in the LA temple in the main chapel ceiling as well as etched on some glass doors in the baptistry which I find particularly appropriate. As I have mentioned before, there are indeed also crosses on the LA temple both displayed directly and in other patterns which "pop" out at you when compare the positive and negative space in the pattern.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My first review of my book is in, just in time for Christmas (hint hint!):

For the entire review see the link below:

http://forums.mormon...ersen.aspx#2532

We can say we knew you when...

[williamsmith]

Sounds like a very worthwhile book. I'd like to know the history of that almost ascetic tendency among Mormons. My only caveat is that I never noticed the "taboo," and I was baptized during the presidency of George Albert Smith. True, there were no crosses on our meeting houses or temples, but that seemed more like the sort of difference among Christian churches which one expected, with a variety of symbols, such as the fish (ICHTHYS), madonna & child, etc., favored by one or another denomination. It seemed to me that those others put all their ornamentation and symbology into their meeting-houses or cathedrals, while we Mormons concentrated all that in our temples and tabernacles. What seems uniquely Mormon is thus the statue of Moroni flying above our temples. Was this all part of a deliberate effort to create a Mormon "brand"?

Folks need to be careful of this book. This books entire premise is that the cross was banned due to Catholic and otherwise conflicts, rather than simply basic LDS Theology and teachings simply not ever promoting it, and having theological reasons for it, which are the actual reasons for the avoidance of the cross. Nothing at all related to Catholic etc. issues. Not that there wasn't a corollary during those conflict periods (so that part of the books premise is correct), but, they certainly aren't in any way the "cause". The actual cause is Mormonism entire history and theology on the subject, all of which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church etc.

It creates a strawman and then focuses the evidence on that alone, one which essentially is critical of the Church, that is that our own "bigotry" towards Catholics and otherwise is what created the ban. So, we need to not be bigots anymore, and just adopt the cross, it's okay now.

That's the book in a nutshell, all flowered up pretty to deceive.

[Mike Reed]

Folks need to be careful of this book. This books entire premise is that the cross was banned due to Catholic and otherwise conflicts, rather than simply basic LDS Theology and teachings simply not ever promoting it, and having theological reasons for it, which are the actual reasons for the avoidance of the cross. Nothing at all related to Catholic etc. issues. Not that there wasn't a corollary during those conflict periods (so that part of the books premise is correct), but, they certainly aren't in any way the "cause". The actual cause is Mormonism entire history and theology on the subject, all of which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church etc.

When David O. McKay was asked by Bishop Whirthlin what the position of the Church was regarding wearing the cross, what did he say? Did he say, "Well... actually, it is because we believe that Jesus atoned in the Garden of Gethsemane"? Is that what he said? No. It isn't. McKay's response was that wearing the cross was a "Catholic" form of worship. When LDS folks previously protested against the Church's 1916 Ensign Peak Cross monument proposal, what was their overwhelming concern? Answer: That the cross was Catholic. What did the earliest Mormon anti-Cross statements assert? Any mention of Gethsemane or differences in theology? Nope. Again... what was the concern? You know the answer... if you read the book you do. Did you read it? I doubt it. What evidence have I overlooked? Please cite anti-cross statements of the 19th and early 20th century explaining "theological reasons" for rejecting the cross. Please also explain the timing of anti-Cross rhetoric. Why does it appear and reappear so late in Mormon history? Were there any theological shifts at the time?

It creates a strawman and then focuses the evidence on that alone, one which essentially is critical of the Church, that is that our own "bigotry" towards Catholics and otherwise is what created the ban. So, we need to not be bigots anymore, and just adopt the cross, it's okay now.

Where in my book do I assert that Latter-day Saints should adopt the cross?

That's the book in a nutshell, all flowered up pretty to deceive.

Ah yes... I'm out to deceive the world. Oh brother...

To those who may be interested in reading past assertions that WilliamSmith has made against me, see: http://www.mormondia...entry1209189731

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Personally, I think WilliamSmith's claim (that there is a strong theological basis for the taboo) is far more harmful to the Church than mine, which argues that the emergence of the taboo was more of a historical/cultural accident motivated fear, and a desire to preserve Mormon identity and dissasociate the Church from Catholicism. In addition to the questions I asked him above... How can WilliamSmith's claim be reconciled with symbols of crucifixion instruments in the temple ceremony (Isaiah 22:23), or literary symbolism of the cross that is pervasive throughout LDS scripture, or Spencer W. Kimball's "sacred omen" of the cross, or the many other visions of the cross that early Mormons reported?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Tacenda]

Personally, I think WilliamSmith's claim (that there is a strong theological basis for the taboo) is far more harmful to the Church than mine, which argues that the emergence of the taboo was more of a historical/cultural accident motivated fear, and a desire to preserve Mormon identity and dissasociate the Church from Catholicism. In addition to the questions I asked him above... How can WilliamSmith's claim be reconciled with symbols of crucifixion instruments in the temple ceremony (Isaiah 22:23), or literary symbolism of the cross that is pervasive throughout LDS scripture, or Spencer W. Kimball's "sacred omen" of the cross, or the many other visions of the cross that early Mormons reported?

You got it right. Atleast according to some reading I did a few years back. And our acceptance of the cross is crucial to being Christian.

[Damien the Leper]

Personally, I think WilliamSmith's claim (that there is a strong theological basis for the taboo) is far more harmful to the Church than mine, which argues that the emergence of the taboo was more of a historical/cultural accident motivated fear, and a desire to preserve Mormon identity and dissasociate the Church from Catholicism. In addition to the questions I asked him above... How can WilliamSmith's claim be reconciled with symbols of crucifixion instruments in the temple ceremony (Isaiah 22:23), or literary symbolism of the cross that is pervasive throughout LDS scripture, or Spencer W. Kimball's "sacred omen" of the cross, or the many other visions of the cross that early Mormons reported?

Don't worry about him, Mike. He's just being a "William Smith".

[Mike Reed]

Don't worry about him, Mike. He's just being a "William Smith".

[teddyaware]

Folks need to be careful of this book. This books entire premise is that the cross was banned due to Catholic and otherwise conflicts, rather than simply basic LDS Theology and teachings simply not ever promoting it, and having theological reasons for it, which are the actual reasons for the avoidance of the cross. Nothing at all related to Catholic etc. issues. Not that there wasn't a corollary during those conflict periods (so that part of the books premise is correct), but, they certainly aren't in any way the "cause". The actual cause is Mormonism entire history and theology on the subject, all of which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church etc.

What are the specific points of "basic LDS theology and teachings" that call for an "avoidance of the cross" as a symbol of sacred remembrance for the atoning sacrifice of Christ? Over the next few sacrament meetings, count how many times the cross and crucifixion of the Saviour are utilized in our hymns as a means to turn our minds and hearts to the Lord's "holy offering" on Calvary's hill.

Certainly, one cannot find scriptural justification for such claimed "avoidance." Look up 'cross,' 'crucifixion' and 'nail(s)' in the topical guide or an exhaustive concordance to the Standard Works and observe how often solemn reference is made to each. Most surely, the Lord and his authorized prophetic servants have never raised any warning to avoid an impulse to show reverential appreciation for what the Saviour endured and accomplished for us while he hung on the cross.

In fact, the Lord and his servants can only be said to have emphasised the central importance of Christ's suffering on the cross. Here's a brief scriptural sampling:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me"

So the Lord sets about to define precisely what his gospel is and chooses to emphasize the cross and the crucifixion, and the "lifted up by men" part of the whole thing. By the way, are you aware of the fact that the alter (high place) is symbolic of Calvary's hill? Kind of puts into sharper focus the the kinds of things that happen at the alter, doesn't it?

The last section of the Doctrine and Covenants does nothing to cause a Latter Day Saint to want to avoid thinking of the cross of Christ and his crucifixion in a sacred and reverential way:

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138)

So the sacrifice Christ, and the redemption wrought thereby, is apparently emphasized when the gospel is preached to the dead.

Paul does nothing by doctrine or teaching to cause the saints to want to avoid the cross as at least a valid literary symbol of the Saviour's atoning sacrifice in the following 2 verses form his epistles

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)

2For I determined not to know any thing among you,save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (2 Corinthians)

Of course, I could go on and on but won't.

Finally, it is my considered opinion -- regardless of how or why it actually happened -- that the reason why the physical symbol of the cross fell into disfavor among the Latter Day Saints is because the Lord wanted it that way. Why? because the symbolism of the cross and crucifixion of Christ is too sacred. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can't help you.

Edited December 28, 2012 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Congratulations on the (positive!) review.

I'm kicking myself. Should have lined Boyd up to review the book for Interpreter.

Oh well. Too busy. Things slip by.

I already have a book that has a chapter by you, Dan. "Mormons and Muslims"

[williamsmith]

When David O. McKay was asked by Bishop Whirthlin what the position of the Church was regarding wearing the cross, what did he say? Did he say, "Well... actually, it is because we believe that Jesus atoned in the Garden of Gethsemane"? Is that what he said? No. It isn't. McKay's response was that wearing the cross was a "Catholic" form of worship. When LDS folks previously protested against the Church's 1916 Ensign Peak Cross monument proposal, what was their overwhelming concern? Answer: That the cross was Catholic. What did the earliest Mormon anti-Cross statements assert? Any mention of Gethsemane or differences in theology? Nope. Again... what was the concern? You know the answer... if you read the book you do. Did you read it? I doubt it. What evidence have I overlooked? Please cite anti-cross statements of the 19th and early 20th century explaining "theological reasons" for rejecting the cross. Please also explain the timing of anti-Cross rhetoric. Why does it appear and reappear so late in Mormon history? Were there any theological shifts at the time?

1. Strange, where have I heard this before? Oh that's right, an "anti-mormon" website as just one of many examples.

7. The whim of the leadership

The cross aversion was not so strong in the early days. Indeed, Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon includes the instruction for a sinner to make the

sign of the cross

: "cross yourself" (Alma 39:9).

It was not until the 1950s that

President David O McKay

institutionalized the no-cross policy in the LDS Church protocol

.

2. I'm not going to get in a ***-for-tat with you on the facts of history. But the fact is that there exists far more quotes from history concerning the cross from a theological perspective, rather than some conflict or that's another religions symbol perspective.

I think I can judge for myself as someone who's studied history whether your book represents mormonism, or whether it doesn't. I know the theology, and it has nothing at all due to the Catholic Church. Just because someone said something, doesn't mean it's "all" that's been said on the subject.

Where in my book do I assert that Latter-day Saints should adopt the cross?

Never said it did. I'm only addressing your public comments about the book and subject matter.

Ah yes... I'm out to deceive the world. Oh brother...

And mockery does what? I'm addressing your thesis as simply not being honest from the same vain as those such as above who aren't honest of LDS history.

Bruce R. McConkie is also from that period, are you going to claim his Catholic sentiments as recorded in Mormon Doctrine are also the doctrines and theology of the Church? After all, it's history, he said it, he didn't say the otherwise that the Church has always taught on the Church of the Devil and other subjects.

To those who may be interested in reading past assertions that WilliamSmith has made against me, see: http://www.mormondia...entry1209189731

Anyone that's read you on your blog, other forums, this forum etc. knows I'm accurate in my comments.

Or are you trying to tell us your views do not portray the Church in a negative light in almost every issue and claim you make?

Have I said anything dishonest? No.