The Cross and Religious Symbols

[MiserereNobis]

In a different thread, the issue of the symbol of the cross came up. I thought it would make a good topic for a separate thread, especially because the talk/article linked to explain the LDS view of the cross was controversial to me. The issue, as I see it, is not just about the cross but also about external religious symbols.

What is it about religious symbols that makes this general authority look down on them? Why the negative view of the cross?

Here is my post:

 

   12 hours ago,  pogi said: 

The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

The article sets up the false dichotomy between symbols and what the symbols represent. He says:

  Quote

It is the preaching of what happened on the cross that is more important than the symbol of the cross.

Not a single Christian wearing a cross would dispute that. In fact, religious symbols are often used to "preach" because they represent so much -- a picture is worth a 1000 words sort of thing.

  Quote

The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes what happened on the cross, but this message and meaning is within each of us and requires no external symbol to manifest our faith. Our cross is the giving up of worldly sins and following the Savior with a humble heart and an obedient spirit.

My faith requires no external symbol to be manifest, but the external symbol increases it. I can pray just fine kneeling in a forest. I can also pray just fine kneeling in front of an altar with a crucifix, but the latter deepens my prayer because it shows me symbols of what my faith is and through those symbols I can further understand my faith, in a way that often transcends words.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of symbols underlying this talk. Does it come from the LDS protestant/puritan historical background? (Upstate New York early 1800s...) He then goes on to quote scriptures about God not looking on the outside but looking on the inside. No Christian would dispute that. No priest wearing his full vestments would dispute that.

Again, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either I have faith without symbols or I have no faith with symbols. Either my faith is real on the inside with nothing on the outside or all I have is the outside with nothing on the inside. That is a false choice. I can have real faith on the inside AND show my faith on the outside, too.

  Quote

We are Christians in the true inward sense, and we display Christ to the world through our lives, our message, and our love rather than through a symbol whereby we are identified.

You can absolutely have both. He keeps up with the idea that having no symbols on the outside is superior to having symbols on the outside but the only justification he gives is the assumption that symbols on the outside means one's faith is lesser on the inside. And that is a terribly false assumption which is rather offensive.

It closes with a harsh barb against the symbol of the cross by President Hinckley:

  Quote

“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. …"

You can preface anything you want with "I do not with to give offense" but if what you say is offensive that preface doesn't mean anything.

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith.

This is profoundly offensive AND a complete straw man of Christianity. There is NO way to separate the death of Christ from the resurrection of Christ and it is through His death, His suffering, His pains that we are redeemed. If He had not died for us there would be no atonement. If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement. He was/is God -- of course He is living. The miracle and beauty of His absolute mercy is that as God, He chose to suffer and die as a mortal for us.

The symbol of the cross and of the crucifix is powerful indeed. Our infinite God chose to incarnate as a human, suffer as human, die as a human for us. A living God is a given. The miracle of Christianity is that a living God chose to die for us.

I do not say that those who choose to eschew Christian symbols have a lesser faith but that is what was seriously implied in this talk about those who choose to use Christian symbols.

[kllindley]

I will comment more later today, but I just wanted to thank you for opening this thread and providing the opportunity to discuss this. 

[Rain]

I too agree this is a good topic and you have made some good points. I'd also like to come back to it.   

In the meantime I am wondering about what you said here: "If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement".

You are right that without his death there would be no resurrection. Without his suffering there would be no atonement. Do you have a doctrinal belief that Christ had to suffer and die on the cross verses some other way of dying. And I don't mean prophecies that it would happen, but reasons why it had to be on a cross?

Edited September 6, 2018 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

Remain calm.

Much of this prejudice against the cross comes from the time of the administration of David O McKay.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the cross was used all the time. There are pictures of wives of Brigham Young wearing a cross there are pictures of crosses in an LDS context all over the place.

http://www.withoutend.org/banishing-cross-emergence-mormon-taboo/

We hide our crosses well, and in fact most of our symbolism is in the temple. We wear symbols on our garments.

The temple is literally nothing but symbols. Every step you take is walking through a Garden of symbols. 

I hereby predict that the cross will be back.

It never should have left there's no reason for it.

Trust me. When you get into the temple, every step and every move you make is symbolic. The profundity of the symbols is staggering and enough to fry the brain of any good Catholic.

More later.

[bluebell]

I've always wondered, is there a difference between a crucifix and a cross?  (I mean, besides one has Christ on it and the other doesn't).  Do all other christians view them as being the same, or is a crucifix Catholic?  Would a Baptist wear a crucifix?

Personally, I'm pretty neutral on crosses.  They are a symbol and their power is in what they symbolize.  I don't see them as bad and I don't see them as necessary.  I'd like to learn more about them though.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In a different thread, the issue of the symbol of the cross came up. I thought it would make a good topic for a separate thread, especially because the talk/article linked to explain the LDS view of the cross was controversial to me. The issue, as I see it, is not just about the cross but also about external religious symbols.

What is it about religious symbols that makes this general authority look down on them? Why the negative view of the cross?

Here is my post:

 

   12 hours ago,  pogi said: 

The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

Hi Mis,

I can see how personal this is to you and how meaningful and important the symbol of the cross is to your worship.  I respect that and apologize if what I said or linked to offended you.  I guess I don't read it the same way you do, but I can understand where you are coming from.   

To answer your first question about religious symbols - we don't look down on them.  We value and use religious symbols probably more than most Christian faiths.  We literally wear symbols almost all of the time.  Our garments are symbols, and embroidered on those symbols are more symbols.  It is one of the first things we see when we wake up and one of the last things we see when we go to bed.  We literally drape ourselves with symbols.  Our temples are full of symbols, both internally and externally.  The structures themselves are symbols.  Also, like other Christians, we do find meaning and use symbols of Christ's suffering, death, and atonement for us - I am not talking about the cross, but the sacrament that we all partake of weekly.  So, it is not that we don't use or like symbols, and it is not that we don't find it important to be reminded about his sacrifice for us through symbols, but it is simply a personal preference to focus the message of our gospel on the idea that he lives.  I understand that you see the resurrection as intrinsically tied to the symbol of the cross.  If that works for you, that is great.  That is the thing about symbols, we can each get different things out of them. 

Historically, we do not come from a "period or tradition in which its use was common. Given that there is nothing in scripture which mandates the use of the cross as a symbol or item of worship, Latter-day Saints prefer to make their Christian discipleship evident by the conduct and caliber of their lives." (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Mormonism_and_the_symbol_of_the_cross) But as bukowski has pointed out, the symbol of the cross was still used by early members. 

It is simply a personal preference of what we chose to make our symbol of our Christian identity.  We find it more meaningful to make our living lives  symbols of our Christian discipleship, but we have no objection to others using the cross.  We find more meaning in that symbol.  Because we find more meaning in different symbols, we naturally find it to be a better choice than wearing a cross.  There is nothing in that article which suggests that one symbol is "inherently" better than another.  

I have more to comment on, but have a patient to see, so more later. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Google YouTube Michael Reed sunstone symposium 2013

I could not link to the video

 

[SouthernMo]

Great topic. The history of the cross in the LDS faith is a microcosm of a challenge we and other faiths face at the intersection of revelation, opinion, and tradition.  Over time, we mix the three, and are less prone to give these things study, thought, and prayer.

This is why our faith needs people who break taboos. Taboo breakers tend to shatter the unintentionally constructed amalgam of revelation, opinion, and tradition, and get to the truth of things.

Wear a cross!  You’re helping people think!

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Great topic. The history of the cross in the LDS faith is a microcosm of a challenge we and other faiths face at the intersection of revelation, opinion, and tradition.  Over time, we mix the three, and are less prone to give these things study, thought, and prayer.

This is why our faith needs people who break taboos. Taboo breakers tend to shatter the unintentionally constructed amalgam of revelation, opinion, and tradition, and get to the truth of things.

Wear a cross!  You’re helping people think!

I wear a chain mail tie to church occasionally. Is that helping?

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I wear a chain mail tie to church occasionally. Is that helping?

Certainly. Has the side benefit of making sure you’re not given callings requiring significant responsibilities.  It’s the same reasoning I wear jeans to church.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Certainly. Has the side benefit of making sure you’re not given callings requiring significant responsibilities.  It’s the same reasoning I wear jeans to church.

Too late, I already have three callings and one is generally considered important. I get/have to go to Bishopric meeting and Ward Council. They all complimented it last time I wore it. Well, except for one of bishop’s counselors. He mocked it but that is his way of showing approval and just plain communicating. I mocked him back so it is all good.

Edited September 6, 2018 by The Nehor

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Google YouTube Michael Reed sunstone symposium 2013

I could not link to the video

 

Is this the one you are talking about?

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Certainly. Has the side benefit of making sure you’re not given callings requiring significant responsibilities.  It’s the same reasoning I wear jeans to church.

My husband says that this is why he has a beard-to keep him out of leadership callings.   

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is this the one you are talking about?

Yes thanks! It wouldn't work on my phone.

It's just those good old Protestant ideas invading the church. We still want to sit at the cool kid alleged "Christian" table and be anti-catholic.

 Sigh.

As that wanes so will the cross taboo. There's no reason for it.

Edited September 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just now, bluebell said:

My husband says that this is why he has a beard-to keep him out of leadership callings.   

Tell him that won't work. Our newly called Bishop had a beard. 

The Sunday after he was set apart he didn't.

 

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith

Those are your words; not his and that is not what he meant. I think his remarks about the cross are mostly in response to critics who claim we are not Christian because we don't display the cross as other Christian faiths do. After the Church was initially organized I think the church leaders wanted to distance themselves from the other Christian faiths because of some important differences in doctrine but mostly because they believed that the restored church was a bringing back of the original church that Christ organized while on the earth. To make sure people knew there was a difference they decided not to use the cross as a symbol of the faith. As far as I know I don't know many fellow church members who look down on anyone who wears the cross; I know I don't. It's a way for Christians to let everyone know who they follow.
The death of Christ on the cross was a very important part of the whole Atonement process. His death brought about His resurrection and the resurrection of us all.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Tell him that won't work. Our newly called Bishop had a beard. 

The Sunday after he was set apart he didn't.

 

The bishop in my parents ward currently has a big beard, so I think he knows it's a fool's hope.  

[The Nehor]

I cannot grow a beard. It grows slowly and patchy. Give it a month and it is a deranged mess and I quickly start to look like a registered sex offender mugshot.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In a different thread, the issue of the symbol of the cross came up. I thought it would make a good topic for a separate thread, especially because the talk/article linked to explain the LDS view of the cross was controversial to me. The issue, as I see it, is not just about the cross but also about external religious symbols.

What is it about religious symbols that makes this general authority look down on them? Why the negative view of the cross?

Here is my post:

 

   12 hours ago,  pogi said: 

The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

The article sets up the false dichotomy between symbols and what the symbols represent. He says:

  Quote

It is the preaching of what happened on the cross that is more important than the symbol of the cross.

Not a single Christian wearing a cross would dispute that. In fact, religious symbols are often used to "preach" because they represent so much -- a picture is worth a 1000 words sort of thing.

  Quote

The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes what happened on the cross, but this message and meaning is within each of us and requires no external symbol to manifest our faith. Our cross is the giving up of worldly sins and following the Savior with a humble heart and an obedient spirit.

My faith requires no external symbol to be manifest, but the external symbol increases it. I can pray just fine kneeling in a forest. I can also pray just fine kneeling in front of an altar with a crucifix, but the latter deepens my prayer because it shows me symbols of what my faith is and through those symbols I can further understand my faith, in a way that often transcends words.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of symbols underlying this talk. Does it come from the LDS protestant/puritan historical background? (Upstate New York early 1800s...) He then goes on to quote scriptures about God not looking on the outside but looking on the inside. No Christian would dispute that. No priest wearing his full vestments would dispute that.

Again, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either I have faith without symbols or I have no faith with symbols. Either my faith is real on the inside with nothing on the outside or all I have is the outside with nothing on the inside. That is a false choice. I can have real faith on the inside AND show my faith on the outside, too.

  Quote

We are Christians in the true inward sense, and we display Christ to the world through our lives, our message, and our love rather than through a symbol whereby we are identified.

You can absolutely have both. He keeps up with the idea that having no symbols on the outside is superior to having symbols on the outside but the only justification he gives is the assumption that symbols on the outside means one's faith is lesser on the inside. And that is a terribly false assumption which is rather offensive.

It closes with a harsh barb against the symbol of the cross by President Hinckley:

  Quote

“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. …"

You can preface anything you want with "I do not with to give offense" but if what you say is offensive that preface doesn't mean anything.

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith.

This is profoundly offensive AND a complete straw man of Christianity. There is NO way to separate the death of Christ from the resurrection of Christ and it is through His death, His suffering, His pains that we are redeemed. If He had not died for us there would be no atonement. If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement. He was/is God -- of course He is living. The miracle and beauty of His absolute mercy is that as God, He chose to suffer and die as a mortal for us.

The symbol of the cross and of the crucifix is powerful indeed. Our infinite God chose to incarnate as a human, suffer as human, die as a human for us. A living God is a given. The miracle of Christianity is that a living God chose to die for us.

I do not say that those who choose to eschew Christian symbols have a lesser faith but that is what was seriously implied in this talk about those who choose to use Christian symbols.

I think each side of this issue feels disparaged by the other.  That is unfortunate.  

Both sides have reasoned and reasonable grounds for their respective positions, but neither position needs to justify itself by the disparaging the other.

This article from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is pretty good:

Quote

The cross, a traditional symbol of Christianity, is displayed extensively in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. In each tradition, the symbol of the cross focuses the worshiper's attention on central elements of the Christian faith. However, different theological points may be emphasized. For example, in Catholicism the crucifix (the cross with the dead Christ hanging on it) symbolizes the crucifixion of Christ and invites meditation on the Atonement. In contrast, the plain cross used by Protestants symbolizes not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection of Christ, for the cross is empty. The Eastern Orthodox crucifix is a symbolic concept somewhere between those of Catholicism and Protestantism: Christ hangs on the cross, but as the living Lord, his head not bowed in death but raised in triumph. Thus, the crucifixion, the Atonement, the resurrection, and the Lordship of Christ are all graphically presented in the Orthodox crucifix.

Latter-day Saints do not use the symbol of the cross in their architecture or in their chapels. They, like the earliest Christians, are reluctant to display the cross because they view the "good news" of the gospel as Christ's resurrection more than his crucifixion.

The LDS conception of the Plan of Salvation is comprehensive. It encompasses a Council in Heaven; Jehovah's (Jesus') acceptance of his role as Savior; the virgin birth; Jesus' life and ministry; his saving suffering, beginning in Gethsemane and ending with his death at Golgotha; his burial; his preaching to the spirits of the righteous dead; his physical resurrection; and his exaltation to the right hand of the Father. No one symbol is sufficient to convey all this. Moreover, the cross, with its focus on the death of Christ, does not symbolize the message of a living, risen, exalted Lord who changes the lives of his followers. Thus, President Gordon B. Hinckley, counselor in the First Presidency, stated that the lives of people must become a "meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship" (p. 92).

While the symbol of the cross is not visually displayed among the Latter-day Saints, the centrality of the Atonement is ever present in their observance of baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the temple ordinances, and in their hymns and testimonies. Without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, there is no hope for the human family. Scripture is replete with the admonition that disciples of Christ must "take up their cross," yielding themselves in humility to their Heavenly Father (D&C 56:2, 14-16;112:14-15), releasing themselves from the ties of worldliness (3 Ne. 12:20), and submitting themselves to persecution and even martyrdom for the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 9:18; Jacob 1:8).

I hope we can get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

That is not what he said.  This is what he said: 

Quote

“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. …"

"But for us", implies personal perception. It is not a comment on how others may perceive it.  There is not only one right way to perceive a symbol.  The symbol that represents the swastika can mean different things in different cultures for example.  When I was in the Philippines, I saw "KKK" flags all over the place - it means something different over there.  It was a a revolutionary society formed to gain independence from Spain.  President Hinckely was not a commenting on your message - he was commenting on ours, and what symbols we find most effective and meaningful in portraying that message.  For our leaders, they find the symbol of our very lives and the way we live to be a powerful sign of our belief and message in the living Christ.  A living symbol to represent the Living Christ, I find it very fitting and beautiful.  A picture may be worth a thousand words, but exemplifying our beliefs in action are worth a thousand pictures.  It is not a false dichotomy.  You certainly can have both, but our leaders have simply chose to prefer the one symbol over the other.  

The capital letter in "Living" is in reference to the title given to the Savior in this document, which is the testimony, and central message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  If you will notice, "Living" is capitalized throughout.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by pogi

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In a different thread, the issue of the symbol of the cross came up. I thought it would make a good topic for a separate thread, especially because the talk/article linked to explain the LDS view of the cross was controversial to me. The issue, as I see it, is not just about the cross but also about external religious symbols.

What is it about religious symbols that makes this general authority look down on them? Why the negative view of the cross?

(Speaking my personal take here)

I really don't like people of any faith judging another based off of which external symbols they do or do not wear.  Faith is about a change of heart, and the heart is not accurately measured by external symbols.  If a person wishes to wear symbol X wherever, that is their choice and I respect it.  Same with someone choosing not to use symbol X.  Honestly I find our choice in which symbols we use and how is very very influenced by culture.  Culture does not make a person more or less a disciple of Christ.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not what he said.  This is what he said: 

"But for us", implies personal perception. It is not a comment on how others may perceive it.  There is not only one right way to perceive a symbol.  The symbol that represents the swastika can mean different things in different cultures for example.  When I was in the Philippines, I saw "KKK" flags all over the place - it means something different over there.  It was a a revolutionary society formed to gain independence from Spain.  President Hinckely was not a commenting on your message - he was commenting on ours, and what symbols we find most effective and meaningful in portraying that message.  For our leaders, they find the symbol of our very lives and the way we live to be a powerful sign of our belief and message in the living Christ.  A living symbol to represent the Living Christ, I find it very fitting and beautiful.  A picture may be worth a thousand words, but exemplifying our beliefs in action are worth a thousand pictures.  It is not a false dichotomy.  You certainly can have both, but we simply chose to prefer the one symbol over the other.  

The capital letter in "Living" is in reference to the title given to the Savior in this document, which is the testimony, and central message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ:

 

Out of rep points, but yes, I think that Mis probably read more into the capitalization of Living than the author of the article intended.  The Living Christ is a title that we sometimes use in our church, and as a proper name it would need to be capitalized.  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Speaking my personal take here)

I really don't like people of any faith judging another based off of which external symbols they do or do not wear.  Faith is about a change of heart, and the heart is not accurately measured by external symbols.  If a person wishes to wear symbol X wherever, that is their choice and I respect it.  Same with someone choosing not to use symbol X.  Honestly I find our choice in which symbols we use and how is very very influenced by culture.  Culture does not make a person more or less a disciple of Christ.

Amen.

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I cannot grow a beard. It grows slowly and patchy. Give it a month and it is a deranged mess and I quickly start to look like a registered sex offender mugshot.

I was going to say you could always just grow a mustache, but it probably wouldn't be any better in that regard.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Google YouTube Michael Reed sunstone symposium 2013

I could not link to the video

 

Michael Reeds work on this is great. I recommend his book Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo. He's also on a number of podcasts. Like you say, I think the cross will return as a symbol for the church. Ironically, that is the position I've taken the most heat for in my family and ward.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17252842-banishing-the-cross