The Cross and Religious Symbols

[RevTestament]

6 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?

   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.

You have received several good answers. First, I would point out that the spiels several GAs have said about symbols is not really true. It is true as a Church body, we don't use any symbol to represent our faith, however, the Church certainly does use symbols. A common one identified with the Church is an angel figure with a trumpet. This is oft displayed on top of various temples. One can readily find tie pins and coat pins with the angel Moroni depicted. Further, there are symbols all over the exterior of the Salt Lake Temple, and various posts on this board have been started in the past alleging their masonic character, although most are clearly of a more universal Christian character. However, I think it is true that the Church has striven to avoid using symbols used by other Churches so as to create a unique identity for The Church of Jesus Christ. In other words if we put a cross on our steeples, people may identify us as a Protestant or Catholic Church. I personally do not have a huge problem with the cross. The Lord had Moses make an image of a serpent on a pole. The cross represents overcoming the fear of death through the resurrection. It is not a violation of the strict Mosaic law since it is not a graven image of a heavenly thing or being. I have bought a cross for my mother on one occasion, but I wear little to no jewelry myself. Jewelry can quickly become objects of vanity. I don't particularly like the cross image anymore though. This is because I feel it is not really accurate, and has led to a false sense of how our Savior died - by dragging His cross through the streets. I now firmly believe this to be wrong. I believe the Romans had tree trunks permanently implanted on the hill Golgatha which they used for crucifixions. The crucified would be fastened to a crossbeam, which then was lifted up on these poles. Sometimes a footstand was then placed on the pole for the feet. So from a technical standpoint the usual cross does not bring an accurate picture to mind. He was hung on a tree as scripture originally referred to the event. 

Quote

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.

Again, I think it apparent that LDS have striven somewhat to maintain a separate identity from other Christian Churches. I can see why one might take offense to this comment by Hinckley. In most churches the cross is used as a symbol of the atonement, and as LDS this is certainly a central teaching of our Church. Again, I personally see nothing wrong with it. I personally, would shy from a crucifix, however, since we have little idea of what our Savior looked like on earth, and depicting Him on the cross just bothers me for this reason. Nonetheless, one will find all kinds of LDS art depicting the Savior - most with distinctly European features. I and a few others have commented on this forum that this is probably not the most appropriate way to depict Him for a world-wide Church.  It has always rubbed me the wrong way, but it seems a European Savior sells more paintings than a Semitic Savior in certain LDS circles. Don't get too bent out of shape about comments of certain leaders. They are meant to create an identity for the restored Church which people can readily grasp. I don't readily share that need, but I do think some Church leaders have striven to create a sense of uniqueness as a "peculiar people" to the Lord. I don't personally think that we need to create some peculiar identity to cling to though. We are unique in our beliefs about the nature of God, and principles of the restored gospel, and I feel don't need to be creating additional, somewhat artificial constructs to cling to create some identity to be "proud of."  i think that is what you are seeing that is rubbing you the wrong way. I certainly understand it. I think the Church struggles with that somewhat. The outward manifestations of "cleanliness" such as abstaining from cigarette smoking, coffee and tea I think can cause members to shy from befriending people or letting LDS children play with non-LDS children much like Jewish priests shied from the Samaritan on the side of the road. This is one of the hazards of creating an identity. It creates a box outside of which some are fearful to venture, and from which some are willing to point at others. As Christians we need to be open to all who are willing to search for truth. Such persons can come from unexpected quarters. Last night I watched the movie "I Can Only Imagine" about a boy being raised by a rough, alcohol-drinking father who beat him. He began to find comfort and strength in Christian music, and left home after breaking his leg playing football, and finding a refuge in singing. Later, he found the gospel was able to bring changes to his father's life as well, which became the inspiration for the hit song "I Can Only Imagine." Many LDS families may shy away from such a boy, and the turmoil of his family life, but yet, Christianity had a profound affect on his life. We must be cautious not to allow our identities to stop us from reaching into the lives of people such as this who are open to principles of the gospel, and desperately need its help. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by RevTestament
typos

[Thinking]

Quote

But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.

Cross

 

IMO the movement away from the cross was an attempt to separate the LDS Church from the rest of Christianity. After all Mormons are a peculiar people. I believe that embracing the cross as a symbol has solid scriptural justification.

I have always thought it ironic that Mormons reject the cross as a symbol, but they will buy this.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Thinking

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

 

IMO the movement away from the cross was an attempt to separate the LDS Church from the rest of Christianity. After all Mormons are a peculiar people. I believe that embracing the cross as a symbol has solid scriptural justification.

I have always thought it ironic that Mormons reject the cross as a symbol, but they will buy this.

Some will, but I doubt it is a big seller.  And many may buy it just to complete the set.  

But I doubt there would be any expressed concerns if one saw it on a Christmas tree while seeing crosses might trigger some comments.

The Jupiter Talisman is another knick knack that has been put out there that made me go hmmm......, but we never sold one from my store that I knew of.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

.................................

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.

Nearly all of your observations and objections in that post are correct, but you seem unaware that Mormons wear priestly vestments in their temples, priestly garb under their outer clothing 24/7 (with highly symbolic marks on them), and have a primary icon of Moroni on every temple.  On some temples, such as the Nauvoo and SLC temples, important symbolism is to be seen on the buildings themselves.  Mormon temple liturgy is filled with symbolism and figurative meaning.  When I am walking down a hallway in an LDS temple, the sisters look to me very much like nuns in their habits.  If anything, Mormons straddle both the Puritan Protestant and Roman Catholic worlds.

As to the cross, I am very comfortable with it and with icons of Jesus on the cross.  That Mormons do not use the cross is to me a mere accident of history based on the apostate nature of Christendom, and the Mormon desire not be associated with it.  Nothing more, although Director Mel Gibson's effort to make a film version of Jesus as icon clearly went too far (The Passion).

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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 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.

 

And the letter L is also a square and 1/4 of a cross if you choose to find meaning in  that .  I mean look at the word LOVE, which contains a square a circle and a compass, and three squares unified as one letter.

And is God not three persons unified by purpose and love?

If you want to create it there is symbolism everywhere.

 

 

[Guest]

I was once on the way somewhere with friends, when the driver asked, "Bill, how do you feel about the cross"? She grew up Catholic, and I grew up Baptist, so when I started quoting from Church opinion, she said; "no how do YOU feel about it? My reply was short and sweet, I said, "I love it". I told her, if my mother had given me one growing up, I would be wearing it right that moment. 

[strappinglad]

I wonder what symbols , if any , were worn by the members in the 1st century AD/CE . At what point did the cross become a symbol for Christians? Ya I know, I should look it up.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/cross-religious-symbol

Edited September 6, 2018 by strappinglad

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Wouldn’t work in my stake. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours 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.

This makes me sad. More traditions of men...

[Hamba Tuhan]

As I’ve noted before; we buried my sister with her pearl cross (not inset but a single pearl in the shape of a cross) resting on the pleats of her temple robes. 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

IMO the movement away from the cross was an attempt to separate the LDS Church from the rest of Christianity. After all Mormons are a peculiar people. I believe that embracing the cross as a symbol has solid scriptural justification.

I have always thought it ironic that Mormons reject the cross as a symbol, but they will buy this.

CTR rings also qualify as symbols IMO, as does a white shirt.  They are just outward symbols, and the LDS has as many or more than most churches.  

I had a small silver cross that I had on the zipper of my scriptures.  I had it during my mission and afterward.  It was amazing to the amount of negitive comments I received because of it.  My Mission President and latter a Ward leader asked me to remove it.  I declined both times. 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I wonder what symbols , if any , were worn by the members in the 1st century AD/CE . At what point did the cross become a symbol for Christians? Ya I know, I should look it up.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/cross-religious-symbol

As the article notes I think it was Constantine who brought the symbol into the forefront of the Church. However, in Egypt the Ankh had been the symbol of life for eons. Another ancient Egyptian name for the cross sign was the Tet.

This ancient Egyptian symbol became associated with the Christian cross in much of eastern Christianity. 

I personally prefer to think of the atonement with the tree of life, which I believe is paralleled by his death on the tree. The symbol of the cross seems like a scriptural hijack. But I guess that is just me.

[carbon dioxide]

I have no problem with people using the cross if it helps them focus more on Christ.  I personally don't put much meaning into the device or method used in how he suffered and died.  Christ had to give his life but whether it was by stoning or crucifixion would not matter. The fact that Christ suffered on a cross means little as other people also suffered and died by being crucified in those days.  Anyone can die on a cross and that does not make Christ unique.  The resurrection is what separates Christ from everyone else.  Only one person was able to do that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I personally don't put much meaning into the device or method used in how he suffered and died.  Christ had to give his life but whether it was by stoning or crucifixion would not matter.

I respect your preference. For me, it matters that the Saviour in scripture has asked us to take up the cross and follow Him, not the stone or whatever. I think of many things when I see a cross, but this is certainly one of the main things I think. 

[Bernard Gui]

What is there to prevent any Latter-Day Saint from wearing a cross?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is there to prevent any Latter-Day Saint from wearing a cross?

Dirty looks and verbal rebukes.

[SouthernMo]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

always thought it ironic that Mormons reject the cross as a symbol, but they will buy this.

Wow...  never saw this.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dirty looks and verbal rebukes.

Never seen that, but I could easily wear a cross on a chain under my shirt if I wanted to. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Never seen that, but I could easily wear a cross on a chain under my shirt if I wanted to. L

True. If you hide the symbol people won't be offended by it  

Back a few years ago, after I had first read the Banishing of the Cross book  I posted about it and how I hoped we (LDS church) could get past the heartburn that seems to be associated with the cross. The responses were insane. Parents, friends, and ward members chastised me for claiming a false symbol and failing to follow the prophet. Friends on FB I haven't seen for 20 years came out of the wood work to call me an apostate, all because I think the cross is a valuable symbol.

In any case, it was one of those experiences that helped me to realize that I really don't care  if someone approves of my personal choice or not, especially when their disapproval is rooted in ignorance.

Them- "If Jesus was shot to death, would you wear a bullet to symbolize his death?"

Me- Turn and walk away

There is a serious aversion to the cross by many in the church and I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the symbol and too much value being placed on the personal preference of a couple of church leaders.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is a serious aversion to the cross by many in the church and I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the symbol and too much value being placed on the personal preference of a couple of church leaders.

For me, my aversion to the cross comes from pop culture/movies/t.v. shows.  

I have no experience with the cross as being spiritually significant, and all the experience i do have with it is when it shows up on movies or in t.v. shows, usually in shows about demons or something evil, and how the person brandishing the cross is almost always ultimately overpowered by the evil presence.  Now, I certainly don't take those shows seriously, but since that has pretty much been my only exposure to the cross, it definitely impacts the way that I feel about it.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. If you hide the symbol people won't be offended by it  

Back a few years ago, after I had first read the Banishing of the Cross book  I posted about it and how I hoped we (LDS church) could get past the heartburn that seems to be associated with the cross. The responses were insane. Parents, friends, and ward members chastised me for claiming a false symbol and failing to follow the prophet. Friends on FB I haven't seen for 20 years came out of the wood work to call me an apostate, all because I think the cross is a valuable symbol.

In any case, it was one of those experiences that helped me to realize that I really don't care  if someone approves of my personal choice or not, especially when their disapproval is rooted in ignorance.

Them- "If Jesus was shot to death, would you wear a bullet to symbolize his death?"

Me- Turn and walk away

There is a serious aversion to the cross by many in the church and I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the symbol and too much value being placed on the personal preference of a couple of church leaders.

Indeed, some people can be insensitive and ignorant. Turn and walk away. If you want to wear a cross but don't want to face the thoughtless reactions (I have never seen it), wear it under your shirt if it means that much to you, or wear it proudly and let the fur fly. The symbols I wear are sufficient for my needs and indicate my commitment to Jesus (and His cross) just as well as wearing a cross around my neck. We LDS have other situations where we revere the cross, some of them in our most sacred places and moments. I don't feel badly about not wearing a cross, but everyone else is free to do as they wish.

EDIT with apologies.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is there to prevent any Latter-Day Saint from wearing a cross?

Their own weirdness. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:17 AM, Rain said:

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?

I don't think I do have such a belief. However, I think the cross is a wonderful symbol for bringing together the vertical (heaven and earth) and the horizontal (our daily lives) at the intersection of the heart of Our Savior.

Of course, if some other method of execution were used I'm sure we would have been able to figure out some good symbolism for that as well. However, I do think that God must have had some hand in the matter. I don't think the prophesies were simply foretelling the future, but were God's way of being involved in what was going to happen. That is my own idea, of course.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:30 AM, mfbukowski said:

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.

I love frying my brain with symbolism, which is why I go to a traditional parish that celebrates the Tridentine Mass. I imagine the depth of your temple rituals would be as lost on me as the depth of the Tridentine Mass would be as lost on LDS folk.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:36 AM, bluebell said:

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.

The crucifix is almost solely Catholic and we get some grief from protestants from time to time about it.