Book Review: Banishing The Cross

[Mike Reed]

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

Please explain why you think this supports your position. I don't see it.

Anyone else disappointed that Gospelink online barely has anything?

You think it is Gospelink's fault that you can't find the quotes you are looking for?

[Mike Reed]

A podcast interview was uploaded today: http://www.themormon...boo-episode-12/

Wish I worded a couple things differently, but overall, I am happy with how the interview turned out.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[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

I bought it today...and will (I am sure) give it a great review.

[williamsmith]

Please explain why you think this supports your position. I don't see it.

Sure.

- The poem describes the "cross of old" as being the cross we carry which is "light" compared to the wooden cross and the sins of the world that Christ carried.

- It then describes how some focus/use much more on a "golden cross" (clearly referring to the cross as adornment and other uses) as well as a cross that isn't light, instead of the traditional cross which was spiritual in nature, not an object.

Basically, Christ's 'cross' was spiritual in nature, not physical, which fits with LDS Theology on the issue.

Other's focus on a more physical cross by for example of what the brother above does by making the spiritual reference of "christ's cross" as being actually somehow related to a "physical" cross, that of imagery, adornment, etc., instead of Christ's mission, sacrifice etc. as the scriptures are actually in nearly all cases speaking of.

You think it is Gospelink's fault that you can't find the quotes you are looking for?

Absolutely, including it's search capability. There is a lot missing, and the search doesn't work as well as it could.

I've read a lot more than what Gospelink includes in it's library, and thus I know it's severely incomplete.

I should note also, that some indications of the theological ban will be hard to find as well because the cross and it's theological de-emphasis can be talked about in other ways that aren't so easy to search.

[williamsmith]

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.

Yes, you're contention I contend against is that the ban was not theological based, but was based entirely on anti-Catholic sentiments.

I think this is severely shortsighted.

What is your view about the fact that the cross was not "dominate" or "common" in most other religions (outside of Catholic) up until starting in the 1850's, and it was clearly theological based? Sure, no one is denying that anti-Catholicism hasn't been a "part" of reasonings for the ban in all of history let alone Mormon history, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that it IS the reasoning for the ban. This is what i have a problem with Mr. Reed. No one is denying that anti-Catholic sentiment had a place as being a part of the historical reasonings for the ban, but it simply was not the driving ideology for the ban.

Edited January 15, 2013 by williamsmith

[williamsmith]

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

Teddy. My contention is not against the cross, it's against the main claim of Reed's Thesis.

As to the cross in "general" usage, I'm perfectly in-line with what the brethren has spoken of on the issue.

If you want to identify it as "overridingly important symbols employed in the worship of the Church" then that is your business.

I would disagree. We revere the spiritual nature of the cross, which is what most of the scriptures are speaking of, not the physical cross itself.

The usage of the word "cross" is a translation artifact in the Bible. It wasn't actually speaking of the actual cross Christ died on (accept the instances it is).

It's referring to Christ's "mission" Atonement, sacrifice, etc. Likewise, LDS leaders have spoken of this "cross", and about our own "crosses" when speaking to us. They are not teaching about a physical object, they are speaking the Word of God.

[teddyaware]

Teddy. My contention is not against the cross, it's against the main claim of Reed's Thesis.

As to the cross in "general" usage, I'm perfectly in-line with what the brethren has spoken of on the issue.

If you want to identify it as "overridingly important symbols employed in the worship of the Church" then that is your business.

I would disagree. We revere the spiritual nature of the cross, which is what most of the scriptures are speaking of, not the physical cross itself.

The usage of the word "cross" is a translation artifact in the Bible. It wasn't actually speaking of the actual cross Christ died on (accept the instances it is).

It's referring to Christ's "mission" Atonement, sacrifice, etc. Likewise, LDS leaders have spoken of this "cross", and about our own "crosses" when speaking to us. They are not teaching about a physical object, they are speaking the Word of God.

Hi William,

Intersesting and well-reasoned response. I now remember seeing your line of thinking on this subject on another thread.

In response I would say that when the word cross is used as a literary symbol in the scriptures (most especially by Paul), that it refers to Christ's sacrifice and death while on the cross as well as to his "mission" in general. There's no denying that the infinite and eternal God, Jesus the Christ, suffered physically, mentally, spiritually and then died (gave up the ghost) while on that cross of wood. So that specific portion and phase of his atoning sacrifice and life-mission is at least as important as when he fasted for forty days and nights, called his disciples, gave the Sermon on the Mount, walked on water, raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, met with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, gave his great intercessory prayer, suffered in Gethsemane, etc.

So when you say the literary symbol of the cross bespeaks of the Saviour's entire mission, you make my point. Because if the cross of Christ is a powerful symbol of the sacrificial nature of Christ's entire life, not just his epic physical and Gethsemanic suffering while on the cross, it powerfully validates its use as a symbol. And by your own word there is no denying the cross is a valid and powerful symbol of Christ's life and atoning sacrifice. That's why Paul so often used it -- the symbolof the cross of Christ kind of "says it all," if you will.

Now, in reponse to this statement of yours, "If you want to identify it (i.e. the symbolism of the crucifixion of Christ) as "(the) overridingly important symbols employed in the worship of the Church" then that is your business. "

Because of the extremely sacred nature of the necessary reponse to your incredulity on this point, I'm constrained from saying what I'd like to say in order to drive my point home. But let me discreetly put it this way:

Without the applied sybolism of the crucifixion of Christ there would:

1 Be no means for God to endow us with greater power from on high.

2 Be no means of entry into the highest realm of glory in the celestial kingdom.

3 Be no salvation in the celestial kingdom for the dead.

4 Be no eternal marriage.

5 Be no sealing of children to parents as a prelude to celestial family life.

It's a wonder to me how any thinking Latter Day Saint does not clearly realize and understand that the symbols of the crucifixion of Christ are, by far, the most important symbols employed in our worship.

Edited January 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It certainly seems to me that William Smith has rattled Mike Reed. I haven't read this book and have no particular desire to really.

I wouldn't wear a cross because of the theology, not because it is a catholic symbol (which it is not. Well, not exclusively anyway). There certainly are theological reasons for not wearing or displaying the cross so if Mike Reed's position is that the move away from the cross was only because of anti-catholic rhetoric, then he is clearly wrong.

So, in my view William Smith makes a very good point.

[Mike Reed]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It certainly seems to me that William Smith has rattled Mike Reed. I haven't read this book and have no particular desire to really.

I wouldn't wear a cross because of the theology, not because it is a catholic symbol (which it is not. Well, not exclusively anyway). There certainly are theological reasons for not wearing or displaying the cross so if Mike Reed's position is that the move away from the cross was only because of anti-catholic rhetoric, then he is clearly wrong.

So, in my view William Smith makes a very good point.

Yes. I'm quite rattled. I am terrified, mortified, stupefied, petrified by WilliamSmith. Nevertheless, feel free to help him find statements showing the alleged theological basis.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It certainly seems to me that William Smith has rattled Mike Reed. I haven't read this book and have no particular desire to really.

I wouldn't wear a cross because of the theology, not because it is a catholic symbol (which it is not. Well, not exclusively anyway). There certainly are theological reasons for not wearing or displaying the cross so if Mike Reed's position is that the move away from the cross was only because of anti-catholic rhetoric, then he is clearly wrong.

So, in my view William Smith makes a very good point.

You will not read it but pass judgement on it?

[williamsmith]

I would agree I haven't rattled you. But, I would like you to respond to the various points I've made outside of the quotes dating issue.

Specifically the Protestant and other religions de-emphasis of the cross long before Mormonism, and the fact that Fielding Smith's statement on the issue despite the dating doesn't show an anti-Catholic basis for the de-emphasis either.

Just because we haven't yet found many verbalizations especially early on doesn't mean the "theological" i.e. ideological reasons never existed for not using the cross "much" in outside of Catholic worship, let alone Mormon.

If there are found statements from Protestants and Mormons providing a theological basis for a de-emphasis of cross usage, would you correct your error in making it only about anti-catholic sentiment?

[williamsmith]

You will not read it but pass judgement on it?

First Reeds "thesis" and views of the issue, which the book is entirely based on is already well established public knowledge.

Why does a person need to read a book when the main points are already known?

Why can't a person judge those main points and thesis according to their own experience, learning, and study of Mormonism and Christian history?

Do we not judge anti-mormon books without having to read them because we already know the false points they claim?

He's made well clear that it's anti-Catholic sentiment that caused the de-emphasis of the usage of the cross. This is false. We are addressing that falsehood. We are not contending such sentiment never existed, it certainly has, all through history, not simply mormonism. But this doesn't mean there was not a theological basis for the de-emphasis, he claims there wasn't.

I'm a convert to the Church, as well have left it. I have a long background of study in Christianity and Mormon history.

This is no question Reeds claims are entirely false.

Edited January 15, 2013 by williamsmith

[volgadon]

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.

If anything, this seems to be about fashioning crosses out of extravagant materials, such as gold, rather than humbler wood. Sure, one could argue that the poem is symbolic,that it isn't talking about physical crosses, but the second half points in a different direction. It polemicises against those who use expensive materials, seeking somehow to carry something fancier and heavier than the "cross of old." In a word, they seek to do more than Christ. What church fashioned crosses out ofgold in those days?

[Alan]

Yes. I'm quite rattled. I am terrified, mortified, stupefied, petrified by WilliamSmith. Nevertheless, feel free to help him find statements showing the alleged theological basis.

Oh dear. Sarcasm. You are clearly more rattled than I thought.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

First Reeds "thesis" and views of the issue, which the book is entirely based on is already well established public knowledge.

Why does a person need to read a book when the main points are already known?

Why can't a person judge those main points and thesis according to their own experience, learning, and study of Mormonism and Christian history?

Do we not judge anti-mormon books without having to read them because we already know the false points they claim?

He's made well clear that it's anti-Catholic sentiment that caused the de-emphasis of the usage of the cross. This is false. We are addressing that falsehood. We are not contending such sentiment never existed, it certainly has, all through history, not simply mormonism. But this doesn't mean there was not a theological basis for the de-emphasis, he claims there wasn't.

I'm a convert to the Church, as well have left it. I have a long background of study in Christianity and Mormon history.

This is no question Reeds claims are entirely false.

You left the Church, have not read the book? Sorry, I will make my own decision, as an ex-Mormon why do you care, what else do you think Mormonism lies about?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Oh dear. Sarcasm. You are clearly more rattled than I thought.

You know I might not agree with the book, but I am not going to shoot it down without even reading it. I am 55 and don't have a book, nor do most here, no lack of critics though. I read books to learn...not just those I agree with, I don't get this at all.

[mfbukowski]

First Reeds "thesis" and views of the issue, which the book is entirely based on is already well established public knowledge.

Why does a person need to read a book when the main points are already known?

Why can't a person judge those main points and thesis according to their own experience, learning, and study of Mormonism and Christian history?

Do we not judge anti-mormon books without having to read them because we already know the false points they claim?

He's made well clear that it's anti-Catholic sentiment that caused the de-emphasis of the usage of the cross. This is false. We are addressing that falsehood. We are not contending such sentiment never existed, it certainly has, all through history, not simply mormonism. But this doesn't mean there was not a theological basis for the de-emphasis, he claims there wasn't.

I'm a convert to the Church, as well have left it. I have a long background of study in Christianity and Mormon history.

This is no question Reeds claims are entirely false.

I am ashamed that anyone would show such ignorance here. Unbelievable. I have seen some ridiculous statements but this gets the prize.

[Gohan]

First Reeds "thesis" and views of the issue, which the book is entirely based on is already well established public knowledge.

Why does a person need to read a book when the main points are already known?

Why can't a person judge those main points and thesis according to their own experience, learning, and study of Mormonism and Christian history?

Do we not judge anti-mormon books without having to read them because we already know the false points they claim?

He's made well clear that it's anti-Catholic sentiment that caused the de-emphasis of the usage of the cross. This is false. We are addressing that falsehood. We are not contending such sentiment never existed, it certainly has, all through history, not simply mormonism. But this doesn't mean there was not a theological basis for the de-emphasis, he claims there wasn't.

I'm a convert to the Church, as well have left it. I have a long background of study in Christianity and Mormon history.

This is no question Reeds claims are entirely false.

Ignoring the rest of the inanity of your statement. Even with your 'experience', why should I even expend the mental effort to read your 'review' or 'thoughts' on Mike's book if you're not even willing to put in the legwork to read it?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Gohan

[Alan]

The reason I waded in here was that I felt Mike Reed was overly intolerant of anyone who questioned his take on things; in fact, aggressively so. He was more than happy to lap up the applause of those who have also not read his book. But the moment someone challenged him about the initial asssumption upon which his entire thesis is based, his tone altered considerably and he became very dismissive; resorting then to sarcasm.

My advice to Mike Reed; if you don't like people challenging your views don't publish them.

[Mike Reed]

If you have a problem with my tone, Alan, make a complaint to the moderators. I suspect that if you do, that they will weigh what I have to say (including my tone) against ws's unsubstantiated accusation that I am a wolf in sheeps clothing out to deceive people.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The reason I waded in here was that I felt Mike Reed was overly intolerant of anyone who questioned his take on things;

Defending one's beliefs, or standing one's ground does not make them "intolerant".

[Peppermint Patty]

I am ashamed that anyone would show such ignorance here. Unbelievable. I have seen some ridiculous statements but this gets the prize.

mfbukowski,

I have to agree 100%. Part of me is convinced that williamsmith is intentionally trying to stir the pot. I feel dumber for having read his "comments".

Mike Reed, I look forward to reading your book. Congratulations!

[Alan]

If you have a problem with my tone, Alan, make a complaint to the moderators. I suspect that if you do, that they will weigh what I have to say (including my tone) against ws's unsubstantiated accusation that I am a wolf in sheeps clothing out to deceive people.

I don't have a problem with your tone, and certainly wouldn't run off to tell tales to the Mods. I suggest you go back and re-read your posts. Like I said, all was sweetness and light when people (who hadn't read your book) were congratulating you. The moment WS had something else to say your attitude changed dramatically and you questioned his observations based on the fact he hadn't read your book. However one looks at this, it smacks of double standards my friend, and I think you know it - hence the sarcasm.

[Mike Reed]

I suggest you go back and re-read your posts. Like I said, all was sweetness and light when people (who hadn't read your book) were congratulating you. The moment WS had something else to say your attitude changed dramatically and you questioned his observations based on the fact he hadn't read your book. However one looks at this, it smacks of double standards my friend...

I never denied that my tone changed. My tone changed immediately after WS said, "That's the book in a nutshell, all flowered up pretty to deceive."

My tone was in reaction reaction to insult, as well as closed minded ignorance

the "congratulators" never made such insults. And unlike you, neither did they exhibit WS's closed minded ignorance.

Hence, there is no double standard.

Now go run along... You and WS have some quotes to find and a book to read.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Mike Reed

[williamsmith]

You left the Church, have not read the book? Sorry, I will make my own decision, as an ex-Mormon why do you care, what else do you think Mormonism lies about?

Pa Pa, you are confused and on the wrong side. I'm an ultra pro Latter-day Saint, who had once left the Church.

I'm confused why you are defending a work by a well known critic of the Church?

Sure, he's apparently returned to the Church, but I see no change in his negative views toward the Church, including this book which claims the entire basis for the "de-emphasis" of the usage of the cross within Mormonism was because of "anti-Catholic" sentiment. Fruits tell all.

Do you believe that Pa Pa? Do you also wish to claim the Church and it's leaders were "bigots"?

Mormonism doesn't "lie" about anything, only works like this book does.

And Reed, I'm still awaiting a response for Protestant de-emphasis of the cross which also wasn't simply anti-Catholic, and also why when an LDS did mention a theological basis for the de-emphasis that there was no mention of "Catholic" in the statement, at a time by the way when according to you Catholic bigotry was in full force institutionalized?