New Podcast Episode, On "banishing The Cross"

[Mike Reed]

Pardon the distortion (knocking sound) from my headset, but I thought it.was a great interview. Thoughts?

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/06/michael-reed-and-the-symbol-of-the-cross/

[Rivers]

Never understood LDS arguments against using the cross. It's a symbol of Christ's sacrificial love similar to the bread and water we pass around every Sunday.

But it's never bothered me that much either that we don't use the cross. We have CTR rings and angel moroni's instead.

Great interview. I loved the parable of the pot roast.

[Bernard Gui]

Never understood LDS arguments against using the cross. It's a symbol of Christ's sacrificial love similar to the bread and water we pass around every Sunday.

But it's never bothered me that much either that we don't use the cross. We have CTR rings and angel moroni's instead.

Great interview. I loved the parable of the pot roast.

Oh, but we do have the cross. You just have to look in the right places....the ones that actually count. Edited June 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[halconero]

Eh...it was a relatively rare symbol among early Christians until it started gathering prominence about 150-200 years after Christ's crucifixion. If they were fine without it, I am too.

[Bobbieaware]

Oh, but we do have the cross. You just have to look in the right places....the ones that actually count.

It has long bewildered me how the symbolism of the cross is featured so prominently in the higher forms of LDS worship, playing a much more significant role in the LDS church than it does in any other religion, and yet the membership at large seems to be totally oblivious to that fact. When I hear these seasoned members say the symbolism of the cross is not important in the LDS church, all I can do (because I am constrained.by the sacred nature of the subject) is stand back and scratch my head.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

The actual Cross, as a symbol, is not used in the church. Even in the temple the discussion of the crucifixion is verbal but not visual regarding the actual cross.

 

It is interesting that at the time the church was organized the protestants didn't use the cross either because it felt too Catholic. There is a lot of anti-Catholicism within greater Christianity. The LDS church began using the symbol but by the mid 20th century got away from it again, arguably because of anti-catholic sentiment. It was also a matter of personal preference of David O McKay. I believe it is discussed in the David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.

[Bobbieaware]

The actual Cross, as a symbol, is not used in the church. Even in the temple the discussion of the crucifixion is verbal but not visual regarding the actual cross.

It is interesting that at the time the church was organized the protestants didn't use the cross either because it felt too Catholic. There is a lot of anti-Catholicism within greater Christianity. The LDS church began using the symbol but by the mid 20th century got away from it again, arguably because of anti-catholic sentiment. It was also a matter of personal preference of David O McKay. I believe it is discussed in the David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.

The only thing that gives the cross any meaning at all is that the fact that the crucifixion of Christ occurred there. So in Mormonism -- though for some inexplicable reason it seems the vast majority of the members are oblivious to the fact -- crucifixion symbology has more importance and plays a more significant role than it does in any other church. This fact is undeniable. Without this symbolism there is no entry into exaltation, no eternal marriages, no eternal families and no hope of exaltation for the dead. And just because many members are apparently blind to the obvious doesn't make it any lest true.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ liveth in me." (Galatians 2:20)

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

The only thing that gives the cross any meaning at all is that the fact that the crucifixion of Christ occurred there. So in Mormonism -- though for some inexplicable reason it seems the vast majority of the members are oblivious to the fact -- crucifixion symbology has more importance and plays a more significant role than it does in any other church. This fact is undeniable. Without this symbolism there is no entry into exaltation, no eternal marriages, no eternal families and no hope of exaltation for the dead. And just because many members are apparently blind to the obvious doesn't make it any lest true.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ liveth in me." (Galatians 2:20)

This is the 2nd time you've made this claim. I'm not arguing against the significance of temple symbols in the church but that is not the same thing as embrassing the symbol of the cross. I'm curious if you are credentialed in some way to speak to the "fact"  that the crucifixion symbology plays a more significant role in our church than "any other church." This is a very bold statement and I'm curious how you are qualified to make this statement of "fact". 

 

You still have not refuted the notion that as a church we don't accept the symbol of the cross. Again, please recognize that suggesting we reject the cross symbol is not the same thing as rejecting Christ, the atonement, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.

[Bobbieaware]

This is the 2nd time you've made this claim. I'm not arguing against the significance of temple symbols in the church but that is not the same thing as embrassing the symbol of the cross. I'm curious if you are credentialed in some way to speak to the "fact" that the crucifixion symbology plays a more significant role in our church than "any other church." This is a very bold statement and I'm curious how you are qualified to make this statement of "fact".

You still have not refuted the notion that as a church we don't accept the symbol of the cross. Again, please recognize that suggesting we reject the cross symbol is not the same thing as rejecting Christ, the atonement, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.

Because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no Christian church, save the Latter-day Saints, for whom the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion is so essential to salvation. The highest saving ordinances of the LDS Church are pregnant with the symbolism of Christ's death on the cross, and without the ordinances that contain this symbolism there is no exaltation, no eternal marriages, no eternal families, no sealing of families, and no hope of exaltation for the dead. Is this not perfectly clear?

Can you name for me another other Christian religion for whom the applied symbolism of Christ's crucifixion plays as significant a role in the salvation of its adherents as the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion plays in the worship of the Latter-day Saints? Other than the Catholics, as far as I can see, all the other churches merely employ the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion as a visual reminder of his sacrifice; meanwhile, in the LDS Church the symbols of Christ's crucifixion are employed in saving ordinances that are ESSENTIAL to salvation. If you are aware of a church that places as much liturgical importance on the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion as do the Latter-day Saints, please let me know who they are because I would like to read up on them.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

Because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no Christian church, save the Latter-day Saints, for whom the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion is so essential to salvation. The highest saving ordinances of the LDS Church are pregnant with the symbolism of Christ's death on the cross, and without the ordinances that contain this symbolism there is no exaltation, no eternal marriages, no eternal families, no sealing of families, and no hope of exaltation for the dead. Is this not perfectly clear?

Can you name for me another other Christian religion for whom the applied symbolism of Christ's crucifixion plays as significant a role in the salvation of its adherents as the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion plays in the worship of the Latter-day Saints? Other than the Catholics, as far as I can see, all the other churches merely employ the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion as a visual reminder of his sacrifice; meanwhile, in the LDS Church the symbols of Christ's crucifixion are employed in saving ordinances that are ESSENTIAL to salvation. If you are aware of a church that places as much liturgical importance on the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion as do the Latter-day Saints, please let me know who they are because I would like to read up on them.

I'm not educated enough in every other Christian denomination to make any statement about symbolism in their tradition. It sounds like you're not either, which is fine. But I choose not to make broad assumptions about something I don't know.

[Bobbieaware]

I'm not educated enough in every other Christian denomination to make any statement about symbolism in their tradition. It sounds like you're not either, which is fine. But I choose not to make broad assumptions about something I don't know.

I know plenty, and I'm sure you do too, about other churches. And unless we are talking about some esoteric sect that I don't know anything about, it's very likely there are no other Churches -- with the possible exception of the Catholics -- who employ the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion in saving ordinances to any significant extent. To any who are motivated to do so, I ask for your input to be shown if I'm right or wrong on this point.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

I know plenty, and I'm sure you do too, about other churches. And unless we are talking about some esoteric sect that I don't know anything about, it's very likely there are no other Churches -- with the possible exception of the Catholics -- who employ the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion in saving ordinances to any significant extent. To any who are motivated to do so, I ask for your input to shown if I'm right or wrong on this point.

You are the one who is making the claim so you are responsible for backing it up. I've tried hard to discuss this without calling for a CFR because I know you won't be able to supply one. It takes a fair amount of hubris to think you have a perfect understanding of all other christian faith traditions to make these claims. Again, if you're a scholar in this area I'd be happy to listen but I suspect this is like many of your other wildly broad assumptions.

[Bobbieaware]

You are the one who is making the claim so you are responsible for backing it up. I've tried hard to discuss this without calling for a CFR because I know you won't be able to supply one. It takes a fair amount of hubris to think you have a perfect understanding of all other christian faith traditions to make these claims. Again, if you're a scholar in this area I'd be happy to listen but I suspect this is like many of your other wildly broad assumptions.

Well JackWagon, it turns out I was correct. I did a search on the ordinances of most of the mainstream churches and, as I already knew to be almost certainly true, we are the only church that employs symbolism of Christ's crucifixion in our saving ordinances. The other churches employ crosses and crucifixes as visual reminders of Christ's sacrifice.

[Calm]

I think you may be mistaken:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_cross

Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

I think you may be mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_cross

Of course, as an observant human being who has lived in a predominantly Catholic area for my entire life, I already knew about the sign of the cross for I have seen it used many, many times. Interstingly, earlier today I was thinking about the sign of the cross in connection with this thread, which is why in earlier posts I indicated the Catholic Church could be an exception. But my original assertion stands: Although many Latter-day Siants don't seem to realize it, the ordinances of the LDS Church place more significance and indispensible salvational importance on the actual symbols of Christ's crucifixion than does any other church. Without the employment of those sacred symbols there is no exaltation, no eternal marriage, no eternal families, no sealing of families for eternity and no hope for the salvation and exaltation for the dead.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

 my original assertion stands

 

I was not challenging that, but only the immediate post's claim.

[Bobbieaware]

I was not challenging that, but only the immediate post's claim.

When I was researching the ordinances of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches (mainly baptism and the Lord's Supper) there was no mention of utilization of crucifixion symbolism in the thumbnail descriptions of those ordinances. But now that I think about it, I remember the sign of the cross being used in connection with both baptism and the Eucharist.

I guess what for me is the most important point to be made on this subject is that I've heard some members almost boast that, unlike other Christian denominations. we Mormons don't place much importance on the symbolism of Christ's agony and death. Meanwhile, nothing could be further from the truth. I have always found the above frequently expressed attitude among the saints to be as astonishing as it is bewildering.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

Well JackWagon, it turns out I was correct. I did a search on the ordinances of most of the mainstream churches and, as I already knew to be almost certainly true, we are the only church that employs symbolism of Christ's crucifixion in our saving ordinances. The other churches employ crosses and crucifixes as visual reminders of Christ's sacrifice.

OK then, CFR. You can't just claim you are right and then not provide a reference for how you've been proven right I still find it interesting that you feel you have such a great handle on every other Christian faith tradition and that you find your proof after a quick google search. You seem to have it all figured out. Good job.

 

 

Although many Latter-day Siants don't seem to realize it, the ordinances of the LDS Church place more significance and indispensible salvational importance on the actual symbols of Christ's crucifixion than does any other church. Without the employment of those sacred symbols there is no exaltation, no eternal marriage, no eternal families, no sealing of families for eternity and no hope for the salvation and exaltation for the dead

I would also point out that this would only be true IF these things are taken literally and not as a metaphor for judgement and reintroduction to heavenly glory. I know many will claim these things are literal but in an endowment of symbols and allegory I'm not convinced they are or that it is necessary to think of them that way. But that's a different discussion.

[Bernard Gui]

I have had the exact thoughts expressed by bobbie about the temple. At our last visit there, Sis Gui talked at length about the profound and encompassing presence of the cross in the our most sacred ordinances and how our very existence and our potential future are founded upon the promises it represents. The cross is the centerpiece of the temple. The more I think about it, the more beautifully obvious that becomes.

The last time this topic was brought up, I pointed out the profound and rich references to the cross and crucifixion in dozens of our sacrament hymns we sing each Sunday, virtually all penned by LDS poets.

Our worship is permeated by the cross. I don't feel the need for it's visual representation in our building, but one is free to wear or venerate it privately if one wishes or feels the need.

The cross is there....if we look for it.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bobbieaware]

OK then, CFR. You can't just claim you are right and then not provide a reference for how you've been proven right I still find it interesting that you feel you have such a great handle on every other Christian faith tradition and that you find your proof after a quick google search. You seem to have it all figured out. Good job.

I would also point out that this would only be true IF these things are taken literally and not as a metaphor for judgement and reintroduction to heavenly glory. I know many will claim these things are literal but in an endowment of symbols and allegory I'm not convinced they are or that it is necessary to think of them that way. But that's a different discussion.

I'm somewhat astonished by your posts:

1) Last point first: In my posts on this thread, I have consistantly indicated the LDS ordinances employ the SYMBOLS of Christ's sacrifice and that the ordinances are SYMBOLIC. The symbolism is strikingly graphic, yes, but it's still symbolism. What a weird thought that it somehow crossed your mind that some think the LDS ordinances involve literal crucifixion!?! Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well enough for me to be able to grasp what you're actually trying to say.

2) Before this thread ever began, it was common knowledge to me that the non-LDS churches of the world performed but few ordinances. Some churches don't perform any ordinances at all. My research confirmed what I already knew to be true; that except for the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper there is little else performed in these churches by way of ordinances. The Catholics do have 5 other lesser known ordinances, but in none of the non-LDS churches do we find anything close to the graphic and powerfully dramatic symbolic presentations of the Lord's suffering and sacrifice found in the temples of the LDS church. Do a Google search under "ordinances of the 'fill-in-the-blank' church" and you'll soon see the ordinances of the LDS church are unique.

For a starter, here are the seven ordinances of the Catholic Church and their symbolic meaning:

"Seven Ordinances of the Catholic Church

Water Baptism

Symbolizes: New birth. Our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:47-48; 19:5

Lord's Supper

Symbolizes: Body and blood of Christ that was broken and shed for our salvation, deliverance, and healing.

Scriptures: Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30

Christian Veiling

Symbolizes: Submission to God's creation order and authority

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Foot Washing

Symbolizes: Servanthood and humility towards one another

Scriptures: John 13:1-15

Kiss of Charity

Symbolizes: Christian love toward one another

Scriptures: 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14

Anointing with Oil

Symbolizes: Consecration and dedication to God for a purpose.

[in N.T. is used every time for healing]

Scriptures: Mark 6:13; James 5:14

Marriage

Symbolizes: Ideally represents the union, love, and commitment between God and His people.

Scriptures: Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-12; 1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5:21-33; Hebrews 13:4" (Lighthouse Ministries guide to the Catholic Church)

As per Mike Reed's book and podcasts, which are the subject of this thread's OP, the most important thing to understand in all of this is that though some Latter-day Saints have said the symbols of Christ's suffering and death (like the cross) are not stressed in the LDS Church, the fact is that the ordinances of baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ant those of the temple all disprove the mistaken idea that the symbols of Christ's suffering and death are not particularly emphasized in the LDS Church. And as I said before, just because a large number of the members are mysteriously oblivious to the obvious doesn't make what's obvious any less true. And while Mike Reed has made it a point to demonstrate how the symbol of the cross was "banished" from the LDS Church, all the while -- apparently flying under his 'radar screen -- he seems to have neglected to mention that the Church has all the while been awash in the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion -- sacrificial symbolism that is actually essential to our salvation.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm somewhat astonished by your posts:

1) Last point first: In my posts on this thread, I have consistantly indicated the LDS ordinances employ the SYMBOLS of Christ's sacrifice and that the ordinances are SYMBOLIC. The symbolism is strikingly graphic, yes, but it's still symbolism. What a weird thought that it somehow crossed your mind that some think the LDS ordinances involve literal crucifixion!?! Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well enough for me to be able to grasp what you're actually trying to say.

 

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself well and maybe you're just not understanding. I was trying to be somewhat vague out of respect for the temple. You had expressed the idea that the symbols of the crucifixion (not necessarily the cross) that are found in LDS ordinances ( I presume you reference the temple) are essential for exaltation as if those signs and symbols are literal keys to the gates of heaven. This is what I was referring to when I suggested those symbols do not necessarily need to be taken as literal keys to exaltation. My reference in no way indicated I believe in a literal crucifixion as part of LDS ordinances, only the memory of Christ's crucifixion is important. But again, the symbols of that crucifixion are just that...symbols.

 

If you believe the signs/tokens will literally be given to gain exaltation that's fine. I don't have a problem with people feeling that way. I just don't feel the need to view it literally in that way myself. Also, if that is the case, heaven will only be populated by Mormons and Masons (who share the same signs and tokens).