Book Review: Banishing The Cross

[williamsmith]

Dear Mr. Reed,

Note the below two comments by Joseph F. Smith, during a time when clearly the Church wasn't "anti" cross? You even give examples of this non anti-cross behavior in your presentation during that period.

Yet clearly from these quotes there most certainly was a "theological" basis for not using the cross in relation to the Church itself and it's belief systems and theology. Yet, according to you the revolution against the cross was started by McKay and it wasn't theological based.

Below I show you quotes some 50 years before. And this was just with some 15 minutes of Google. I'm sure if I had real research sources like you should have had access to, I would find a lot more, and much earlier. So, why couldn't you find these "theological" based views on the cross, yet I could in just a few minutes?

-----------

• "Many who join the [Mormon] Church who come from a Catholic or Protestant background while trying their utmost to live the gospel, and rid themselves of past, unconsciously bring some of the customs of their former environment with them. One of these is the wearing of the crucifix on a necklace, bracelet, or in some other form. The teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to indicate that this is improper because we do not hold any special reverence for the cross as such, nor do we have crosses in our chapels or homes or wear a crucifix as jewelry." LDS "Prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, p. 16.
  

• "To many [Mormons]...such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. Of all the ways ever invented for taking life and the execution of individuals, among the most cruel is likely the cross. This was a favorite method among the Romans who excelled in torture. We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death." LDS "Prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, pp. 17-18.
  

---------

Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.

Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”

I responded: “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.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

--------

Why Don't the Saints Wear Crosses?

Question: If Latter-day Saints are Christians, why don't they have crosses on their churches or wear them as jewelry?

Latter-day Saints are among several Christian groups who do not have the cross as part of their regular service or on their buildings. This doesn't mean that their theology is not Christ-centered—it just isn't cross-centered. Latter-day Saints remember the blood shed for us on Calvary each Sunday as we partake of the Sacrament.

To us, the message of Christ far exceeds the idea that he was tortured and died in one of the most brutal, painful ways known to man—by hanging on a cross for hours. Our central message is that after Christ died on the cross, he was physically resurrected and overcame death, and that he lives today with a resurrected body of flesh and bones. Through his resurrection all mankind will be resurrected.

The cross, as a piece of jewelry has been heavily commercialized. In the Christian merchandising industry it's frequently referred to as "holy hardware." Wearing a cross is simply a custom that has never appealed to Latter-day Saints, who tend towards simplicity in dress and a lack of ostentation. To us the cross is merely the vehicle upon which our Lord and Savior died. If he had been hung, stoned, or stabbed, would his true followers venerate a noose, rock, or knife? We think not.

There is no scriptural evidence that the twelve Apostles or Christ put any emphasis on wearing the cross. Surely, we can't for a minute think that they weren't Christians, can we? Consider Mary, the mother of the son of God, or Mary Magdalene, both of whom witnessed the agony of the one they loved as he died on the cross. They were Christians, yet to them and other Christians and Jews, the cross was a highly distasteful symbol of the crucifixions that took literally thousands of lives. Does any thinking Christian suppose for a moment that Mary would wish to adorn herself with a cross? Yet surely she shouldn't be excluded from the ranks of Christians. When Christ comes again, will he be wearing a cross? We would think not. Would Our Father in Heaven likely have a special place in his heart for the cross, the instrument of torture for his Only Begotten son?

The cross is not the mediator between God and man. Christ Jesus is the mediator, our advocate with the Father. Some well-meaning Christians have illustrations that show the gap between man's sinful ways and God bridged by the cross. The symbolism would be more accurate if Christ himself were shown bridging the gap, not the weapon that took his life.

We also do not emphasize the cross in our worship because we teach that a large part of the Atonement of Christ occurred prior to Calvary. When in the Garden of Gethsemane, Our Savior bled from every pore as he bore the weight of the sins, grief and pain of all mankind (see Luke 22:44 and D & C 19:18).

A related accusation is that Latter-day Saints worship the Angel Moroni, since his likeness is found on temples and elsewhere. Logic breaks down in that argument, since those making those statements would not say they worship the cross, even though it is used the same way—as a symbol. The statue of Angel Moroni is "heralding" the everlasting gospel to every nation, tongue, and people (Rev. 14:6). Moroni was a man, then an angel, neither of which should be worshiped.

Organizations often seek symbols or logos which differentiate them from similar organizations. Latter-day Saint architecture has long utilized a single spire as a distinctive symbol on its chapels, which are clearly recognizable because of their design. To some Latter-day Saints, this spire represents the glory of Christ's rising from the dead and the hope it brings to all mankind. It also represents man's upward reach toward God. This is a fitting contrast to many other demoninational buildings with crosses, which focus on what Latter-day Saints regard as the sorrow and grief of our Saviour's death.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/crosses.htm

--------

Edited December 29, 2012 by williamsmith

[Mike Reed]

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

.

And the "anti-Mormon website" happens to be relying on my research, which, incidentally has been covered in both the SL Tribune and Deseret News' "Mormon Times." My research has also been covered by a TV Evangelist, a Podcast, and countless blogs and message boards. I have also spoken at many conferences and symposia across the country. Ask long time message board contributors here (both believer and non-believer) if they think the above is relying on my research.

2. I'm not going to get in a ***-for-tat with you on the facts of history.

Of course not. Because if you did, you'd lose.

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.

The question is what anti-cross statements assert a theological basis for the aversion.

I think I can judge for myself as someone who's studied history whether your book represents mormonism, or whether it doesn't.

Yes. I realize you think that. But you haven't even read my book, so you don't have a clue.

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.

Assertion alone does not persuade. Back it up, buddy.

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

CFR. Please quote such public statements where I said Mormons should start using the cross.

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.

But you haven't yet shown it to be so.

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.

Huh? I'm not following you.

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

I returned to the Church last spring. It has been over a year since I posted on that blog.

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?

On my blog? No. I think you are exaggerating? But yes... I have been critical of the Church at times. I have been more critical of what I believe to be bad scholarship, however. And I have written on topics that you might be embarrassed about, such as to freemasonry and folk magic. Your embarrassment is not my problem, however.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Note the below two comments by Joseph F. Smith, during a time when clearly the Church wasn't "anti" cross? .

The cross taboo emerged at the grass roots around the turn of the 20th century and was institutionalized by David O. McKay in 1957. When was AGQ published? 1957-66. Volume four (of five) that you quote from would have published closer to the 1966 side of production.

The President Hinckley Arizona temple episode also postdates the grass roots emergence and 1957 institutionalization. Try again.

So, why couldn't you find these "theological" based views on the cross, yet I could in just a few minutes?

I have already found them. Read my book and you'd know that.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

I've gotta get back to my research. Think what you want, WS. I have no interest in wasting any more time trying to convince you. I'm not going to rewrite my book here on this forum for you. If you want to read the book, you know where to find it.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Thank you, Mark, for calling those to my attention. Hadn't noticed, although I am aware of many symbols on other temples -- especially on the Nauvoo and Salt Lake Temples.

[williamsmith]

The cross taboo emerged at the grass roots around the turn of the 20th century and was institutionalized by David O. McKay in 1957. When was AGQ published? 1957-66. Volume four (of five) that you quote from would have published closer to the 1966 side of production.

You're both missing and avoiding the point. Your entire thesis is based on the claim that there was not a theological basis for the ban, yet I clearly show at least two accounts by just one Prophet some 50 years before your claimed institutionalization.

Let me break it down even more for you. The theological basis for the ban existed. Just because some critical views of the cross started to develop around the same time (and really I don't even believe that for there have always been some in the history of the Church who had anti-catholic views aka Orson Pratt and Mckonkie), and didn't flourish according to you until much later, the claim that there reasons for the ban was Mormon anti-catholic sentiments is simply false and clearly debunked. You even use examples of the cross, the cross wreath etc. showing that during JFS's time there wasn't really any "anti-cross" sentiment. Yet, at the same time we have a theological anti-cross statement from that same prophet which allowed the cross in other ways.

Your thesis has been debunked. And I really wish some others would chime in here who have access to LDS databases and pull up some other statements on the cross that echo Joseph F. Smiths statements of a theological basis. I know they are there, because I've seen them many times in my studies of LDS history.

The President Hinckley Arizona temple episode also postdates the grass roots emergence and 1957 institutionalization. Try again.

I was simply quoting LDS views of the matter, as they've always been, it wasn't to give evidence pre-dating your claims. No need to try again. Plus, I already gave evidence pre-dating your claims.

I have already found them. Read my book and you'd know that.

I don't have to read your book. You claimed there was not "theological" basis for the ban, that it was institutionalized nearly 50 years later after quotes that clearly indicate a theological basis.

I think a person is perfectly allowed to respond to your public statements are they not? Why do I need to read your book to do that?

Your thesis is proven false.

Edited December 30, 2012 by williamsmith

[Damien the Leper]

You seem presumptuous, WS. If you have not read his entire argument then you are not well enough informed to counter his claims. Put in the work and then respond.

[teddyaware]

You're both missing and avoiding the point. Your entire thesis is based on the claim that there was not a theological basis for the ban, yet I clearly show at least two accounts by just one Prophet some 50 years before your claimed institutionalization.

Let me break it down even more for you. The theological basis for the ban existed. Just because some critical views of the cross started to develop around the same time (and really I don't even believe that for there have always been some in the history of the Church who had anti-catholic views aka Orson Pratt and Mckonkie), and didn't flourish according to you until much later, the claim that there reasons for the ban was Mormon anti-catholic sentiments is simply false and clearly debunked. You even use examples of the cross, the cross wreath etc. showing that during JFS's time there wasn't really any "anti-cross" sentiment. Yet, at the same time we have a theological anti-cross statement from that same prophet which allowed the cross in other ways.

Your thesis has been debunked. And I really wish some others would chime in here who have access to LDS databases and pull up some other statements on the cross that echo Joseph F. Smiths statements of a theological basis. I know they are there, because I've seen them many times in my studies of LDS history.

I was simply quoting LDS views of the matter, as they've always been, it wasn't to give evidence pre-dating your claims. No need to try again. Plus, I already gave evidence pre-dating your claims.

I don't have to read your book. You claimed there was not "theological" basis for the ban, that it was institutionalized nearly 50 years later after quotes that clearly indicate a theological basis.

I think a person is perfectly allowed to respond to your public statements are they not? Why do I need to read your book to do that?

Your thesis is proven false.

William Smith,

Do you believe there is a theological basis for the symbology of Christ's crucifixion that lies at the heart of the most sacred forms of LDS worship? If not, what then do you believe is the justification for the employment of crucifixion symbology if there is no theological basis for the same?

I think what's happening here in this dispute is an inability to see the forest for the trees. Any experienced and alert Church member should know -- of all LDS symbology, the symbols of Christs crucifixion are most sacred above all. Just because members of the Church don't wear crosses around their necks doesn't mean the symbols of Christs crucifixion are not far and away the most holy and overridingly important symbols employed in the worship of the Church. It never ceases to amaze me how so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter Day Saints are inexplicably blind on this point.

Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand

Edited December 31, 2012 by teddyaware

[williamsmith]

You seem presumptuous, WS. If you have not read his entire argument then you are not well enough informed to counter his claims. Put in the work and then respond.

Isn't this a veiled personal attack?

What do you actually know about me to judge according to how much I know on the subject or his arguments to be able to comment?

I've listened to his Sunstone presentation and I've read likely all of his public comments on the issue.

I think I'm qualified enough to make some general observations on his work on a message board.

I'm still however awaiting a response to the fact that a "theological justification" for the so-called "ban" did in fact exist at least 50 years before the so-called ban.

He specifically stated that there never was a theological basis prior to Mckay years so-called Catholic prejudice, I've demonstrated two quotes well before from just one prophet.

Edited January 6, 2013 by williamsmith

[mfbukowski]

I'm still however awaiting a response to the fact that a "theological justification" for the so-called "ban" did in fact exist at least 50 years before the so-called ban.

This is a problematic sentence.

Did you tell us where this alleged theological justification appears? Did you give us a reference? I am genuinely asking because I don't recall seeing it.

[Damien the Leper]

Isn't this a veiled personal attack?

What do you actually know about me to judge according to how much I know on the subject or his arguments to be able to comment?

I've listened to his Sunstone presentation and I've read likely all of his public comments on the issue.

I think I'm qualified enough to make some general observations on his work on a message board.

I'm still however awaiting a response to the fact that a "theological justification" for the so-called "ban" did in fact exist at least 50 years before the so-called ban.

He specifically stated that there never was a theological basis prior to Mckay years so-called Catholic prejudice, I've demonstrated two quotes well before from just one prophet.

No, it's not a veiled attack. Rather than focusing on his presentations and what you seem to assume about his book perhaps you should read the book.

[mfbukowski]

I think a person is perfectly allowed to respond to your public statements are they not? Why do I need to read your book to do that?

Your thesis is proven false.

This attitude pretty clearly speaks for itself.

[Mike Reed]

Isn't this a veiled personal attack?

Nope. Just observation, I gather.

What do you actually know about me to judge according to how much I know on the subject or his arguments to be able to comment?

"What do you actually know about me to judge... how much I [have spoken] on the subject?"

I've listened to his Sunstone presentation and I've read likely all of his public comments on the issue.

I have I have spoken on this topic at Sunstone on 4 separate occasions.

I've spoken on this topic at about 10 seperate formal occasions. I also wrote a thesis and book that the public is free to read. The LDS Church History Library (in Salt Lake) and the library at CSU Sacramento have copies of my thesis. And you can buy my book on amazon. You have read neither.

I'm still however awaiting a response to the fact that a "theological justification" for the so-called "ban" did in fact exist at least 50 years before the so-called ban.

You have yet to establish this as fact. CFR.

He specifically stated that there never was a theological basis prior to Mckay years so-called Catholic prejudice,

Did I specifically state this? In this thread, or somewhere else? I may have, but I really don't remember. To make sure you aren't putting words in my mouth, CFR please.

I've demonstrated two quotes well before from just one prophet.

Um... where? The quotes I saw you give postdated the institutionalization of the cross taboo. CFR.

BTW... forum rules require you to honor CFR's.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

You're both missing and avoiding the point. Your entire thesis is based on the claim that there was not a theological basis for the ban, yet I clearly show at least two accounts by just one Prophet some 50 years before your claimed institutionalization.

Aside from the question of whether or not these quotes are really theological (and apart of anti-Catholic sentiment) ... Neither of them were 50 years before the institutionalization. The institutionalization was in 1957. The quotes you give postdate this period.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Neither of those quotes are 50 years before the institutionalization. The institutionalization was in 1957. The quotes you give postdate this period.

Not to mention whether or not they are "doctrinal".

[Mike Reed]

Not to mention whether or not they are "doctrinal".

Indeed. You are quick, mfbukowski... you posted this before I finished editing.

[williamsmith]

I've made a big mistake, and I need to appologize.

The quotes by Joseph Fielding Smith that I quoted thinking they were sometime prior to 1920 were in fact apparently from sometime after 1953 when he started answering questions in a periodical as president of the church. For some reason the original website I quoted those quotes from gave me the impression that they were quotes from that earlier period.

Nevertheless, even though I haven't found a quote yet from an LDS leader (even though I'm positive I've seen a couple) from earlier years prior to the 1950's promoting a theological basis for the ban, I still am sure my position is valid. I'm even more sure that it wasn't Catholic bigotry by the Church and it's leaders that lead to the ban as Reed tries to claim. Further, even though the quotes were apparently from the 50's JFS and other's did not indicate the Catholic Church or otherwise as being the cause for the ban, they indicated theological reasons.

The Church has not been afraid of saying something was "apostate" with other religions on some other issues, especially McConkie, so why would it change it's pattern for this issue? It wouldn't. The Church alway's had a de-emphasis toward the cross, it simply continuing the ideology and then vocalizing it more in later years doesn't change this fact. After all, if most early converts to the Church were from other religions that also didn't use the cross as much, then clearly there already was a theological basis for the "ban". And it wasn't simply Catholic bias, because Protestants are well known for their "priesthood of all believers" theology and related gifts of the spirit, and not using "icons" because of their idolatry, so the same/similar existing in mormonism from the beginning is not such a hard thing to believe. In fact, it's an irony that this is used as somehow proving the Church later developed the ideology, when in fact the ideology was already there, because most other religions other than Catholics didn't also use the cross as much, for they had their reasons also. Protestants using the cross like they do today is also a "modern" thing.

[williamsmith]

I have found a poem from 1929 Improvement Era (at least when published) that clearly indicates a "Theological" de-emphasis of the cross.

CROSSES

Christ carried His cross to Calvary,

With his body bended, aching, sore,

He sipped the gall, the thistles wore;

For a sinning world the pain He bore.

When He carried His cross to Calvary.

We'll carry a cross to Calvary,

But because of pain the Master stood,

Ours may be fashioned of lighter wood.

He took the heavy one for man's good.

When He carried His cross to Calvary.

But many that go toward Calvary

Are not content with the cross of old.

They want one fashioned out of gold.

But, oh, it will cut and be hard to hold

As they journey on to Calvary.

Holliday, Utah HELEN M. LIVINGSTON

Anyone else disappointed that Gospelink online barely has anything?

Edited January 14, 2013 by williamsmith

[teddyaware]

I've made a big mistake, and I need to appologize.

The quotes by Joseph Fielding Smith that I quoted thinking they were sometime prior to 1920 were in fact apparently from sometime after 1953 when he started answering questions in a periodical as president of the church. For some reason the original website I quoted those quotes from gave me the impression that they were quotes from that earlier period.

Nevertheless, even though I haven't found a quote yet from an LDS leader (even though I'm positive I've seen a couple) from earlier years prior to the 1950's promoting a theological basis for the ban, I still am sure my position is valid. I'm even more sure that it wasn't Catholic bigotry by the Church and it's leaders that lead to the ban as Reed tries to claim. Further, even though the quotes were apparently from the 50's JFS and other's did not indicate the Catholic Church or otherwise as being the cause for the ban, they indicated theological reasons.

The Church has not been afraid of saying something was "apostate" with other religions on some other issues, especially McConkie, so why would it change it's pattern for this issue? It wouldn't. The Church alway's had a de-emphasis toward the cross, it simply continuing the ideology and then vocalizing it more in later years doesn't change this fact. After all, if most early converts to the Church were from other religions that also didn't use the cross as much, then clearly there already was a theological basis for the "ban". And it wasn't simply Catholic bias, because Protestants are well known for their "priesthood of all believers" theology and related gifts of the spirit, and not using "icons" because of their idolatry, so the same/similar existing in mormonism from the beginning is not such a hard thing to believe. In fact, it's an irony that this is used as somehow proving the Church later developed the ideology, when in fact the ideology was already there, because most other religions other than Catholics didn't also use the cross as much, for they had their reasons also. Protestants using the cross like they do today is also a "modern" thing.

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 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, are 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 two 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)

In addition to the above, would you not agree there must be some theological basis for the symbology of Christ's crucifixion that lies at the very heart of the most sacred forms of LDS worship? If not, what then is the justification for the same? And why do you think there is such employment of crucifixion symbolism in our most sacred forms of worship, if there is no theological basis for it?

I think what's happening here is an inability to see the forest for the trees. Any experienced and alert Church member should know -- of all LDS symbology, the symbols of Christs crucifixion are most sacred above all. Just because members of the Church don't wear crosses around their necks doesn't mean the symbols of Christ's crucifixion are not far and away the most holy and overridingly important symbols employed in the worship of the Church. It never ceases to amaze me how so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter Day Saints are inexplicably blind to this point.

Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand

Edited January 14, 2013 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

I have found a poem from 1929 Improvement Era (at least when published) that clearly indicates a "Theological" de-emphasis of the cross.

CROSSES

Christ carried His cross to Calvary,

With his body bended, aching, sore,

He sipped the gall, the thistles wore;

For a sinning world the pain He bore.

When He carried His cross to Calvary.

We'll carry a cross to Calvary,

But because of pain the Master stood,

Ours may be fashioned of lighter wood.

He took the heavy one for man's good.

When He carried His cross to Calvary.

But many that go toward Calvary

Are not content with the cross of old.

They want one fashioned out of gold.

But, oh, it will cut and be hard to hold

As they journey on to Calvary.

Holliday, Utah HELEN M. LIVINGSTON

Anyone else disappointed that Gospelink online barely has anything?

Read it again, it doesn't hep your point much.

[mfbukowski]

Read it again, it doesn't hep your point much.

Agreed.

But I have to commend williamsmith for his apology. It takes guts to stand up and say you were wrong, and it is natural to try and hedge a bit in such a situation.

Could this possibly mean that Mike was right, all along? Who wudda thunk it?

I am not surprised!

[Mike Reed]

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!

Not on amazon.ca. Hmmmm... That's strange. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I'll ask around to see what is going on with this.

[Mike Reed]

Agreed.

But I have to commend williamsmith for his apology. It takes guts to stand up and say you were wrong, and it is natural to try and hedge a bit in such a situation.

Could this possibly mean that Mike was right, all along? Who wudda thunk it?

I am not surprised!

[Mike Reed]

No need to apologize for the mistake, WilliamSmith. A retraction is suficient, and I commend you for that. Hopefully you will also eventually reconsider your judgement that I am a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing... but until then, I will be fine. Fortunately those who know me know better, and I have learned to have thick skin.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

No need to apologize for the mistake, WilliamSmith. A retraction is suficient, and I commend you for that. Hopefully you will also eventually reconsider your judgement that I am a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing... but until then, I will be fine. Fortunately those who know me know better, and I have learned to have thick skin.

BTW, WilliamSmith... it isn't my claim that anti-cross statements do not exist prior to 1957. The year 1957 marks the institutionalization of the taboo. Prior to this, the cross taboo emerged at the grass roots around the turn of the 20th century (c1880-1920). FWIW... the earliest anti-Cross statements I have found (and which are tinged with anti-Catholicism) come from Edward Tullidge and Moses Thacher.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mike Reed