The Cross and Religious Symbols

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:37 AM, pogi said:

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. 

Thanks for your response. I think I had a knee-jerk reaction that was overblown. One of those days, I suppose. As I said in my OP, I can easily honor a Christian faith of someone who does not use the cross as part of their tradition. I guess I got defensive feeling like the use of the cross was being looked down upon as something like a substitute for real faith.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:47 AM, 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!

Honestly, I don't wear a visible cross. I carry a small rosary made of olive wood and rope in my pocket (or in my man-bag, ha). The issue for me was about the cross as a symbol in general -- like Hinckley said, something on vestments, something on steeples, something stamped on literature. To me that is a much greater issue than what one chooses to wear as personal adornment. I felt like the article was denigrating the use of the cross at all, not just as a necklace or whatever.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:09 AM, Rain said:

Is this the one you are talking about?

I'll check it out. Thanks!

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:29 AM, JAHS said:

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.

I can understand that if that was the context and exigency, but that context was not at all apparent in the article.

Quote

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.

This is a good and interesting point, but it seems contradictory to the desire to be seen as a part of the overall Christian faith. Almost a push-and-pull of "we are part of you but we won't use your symbols" or "we are a part of you but you are apostate."

Quote

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.

I probably should have clarified that it's not about the wearing of the cross, but the use of the cross as a symbol anywhere.

[Jane_Doe]

@MiserereNobis, I very much appreciate the humble, charitable, contemplative, and generally Christ-like nature of vast majority of your posts here.  Thank you for them.  

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:49 AM, smac97 said:

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:

I hope we can get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for sharing that. I'm sure we can get along. My OP was probably a tad harsher than it should have been.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:08 AM, pogi said:

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.  

I do agree with you, but that is not the overall connotation of the article. I stand by my statement that the article/talk is not saying that it is a simple preference, but is saying that not using a cross is superior to using one. Again, look at the scriptures quoted to support his reasoning. It is all about the internal being superior to the external. Catholics totally agree -- you can't cover up an internal mess with external symbols (whited sepulchers and all), but the way they are used in the article is disparaging to external symbols.

Maybe I am still reading it wrong because I am not LDS and not the intended audience of the talk, but it still comes off as more than a personal preference.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:08 AM, pogi said:

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.

Yes, my focus on a capital letter was pretty dang pedantic. Forgive me  

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I love frying my brain I know.  That's why I go to Tridentine masseswith 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.

Yep

That's why I love to go to Tridentine masses as much as I can.

It's a double-fry situation. 

I see things in the temple that relate to the mass and see things in the mass that relate to the temple.  Amazing.  

What was REALLY amazing was speaking in the temple to a former Catholic priest who was a temple worker, as am I, meaning he had memorized all the temple ceremonies and I know most of the tridentine mass in Latin, or at least as much as I remember - and he of course know MUCH more about it than I did about the mass.

We only speak of temple matters while we are physically IN the temple so that is the only place we can freely discuss symbology etc. so this was a RARE opportunity!  MAN was it cool!

All I can say is that there is no doubt in my mind that the endowment IS an ancient Christian ritual at its heart- of course elements have been changed, added and subtracted- but clearly both ceremonies have a common ancestor.  No way Joseph could have known that stuff- NO POSSIBLE WAY.

We actually DO things in the temple Catholics do including various gestures we have in common including arguable the SIGN of the cross but one would have to have been a temple worker before some recent changes were made to recognize it.

I really wish I could speak about the parallels but we agreed that they were astounding.  Absolutely astounding.

Double brain fry!! 

After you join the church we will meet in a temple and talk. 

Or I suppose after I become a Catholic again would also work.  (ain't gonna happen- I am working on a book that will obviate that!)

Edited September 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:59 AM, RevTestament said:

 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.

As I said before, this is an interesting take since there is a fervent push by LDS to be included in the greater Christian family, yet this is an admission of wanting a separate identity.

Quote

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.

Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking about wearing a cross as jewelry, but as using the cross in general.

Quote

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.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps breaking down those constructs would make it easier for fellow Christians to accept you in fellowship. But erecting these constructs and then complaining when Christians claim you are not Christian seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a good and interesting point, but it seems contradictory to the desire to be seen as a part of the overall Christian faith. Almost a push-and-pull of "we are part of you but we won't use your symbols" or "we are a part of you but you are apostate."

Quote

The LDS church does not want to be seen as part of the overall Christian (capital C) faith, although they do want to be considered friends and fellow followers of Christ along with all Christians.
They do want people recognize that the church is christian(little c), because we do worship Christ and see Him as our God, Lord, and Savior.

Edited September 8, 2018 by JAHS

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

As I said before, this is an interesting take since there is a fervent push by LDS to be included in the greater Christian family, yet this is an admission of wanting a separate identity.

Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking about wearing a cross as jewelry, but as using the cross in general.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps breaking down those constructs would make it easier for fellow Christians to accept you in fellowship. But erecting these constructs and then complaining when Christians claim you are not Christian seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Honestly I don't see this very different than Catholics: Catholics are indeed Christian, but they're not "same difference" as Methodists or other Christian faiths.  There is the very strong belief that the Catholic Church = Christ's Church.

Same with LDS: LDS view ourselves being indeed Christian, but they're not "same difference" as Methodists or other Christian faiths.  There is the very strong belief that the LDS Church = Christ's Church.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Is there a talk where the symbolism of temple rituals and vestments and garb is downplayed because God looks upon the heart?

That is my problem here. The connotation/tone of the talk looks down upon symbols as being lesser than an internal "invisible" faith. I would love to see a talk that tells Latter-day Saint to not look upon their garments (I assume that is what you are referring) as important, because their hearts are more important.

Again, I see it as a false dichotomy. I imagine many LDS leaders have said that the symbols of temple rituals are neither more important nor less important than the heart within. In other words, a good faithful Mormon will use temple vestments AND have a strong internal faith.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

We have some clear temple teaching regarding the crucifixion and its symbolism.  Not as protestant as you may think.

 

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Me- Turn and walk away

I guess my (passive-)aggressive nature would say, "yes. Don't you want to honor the death your God suffered for you?"  

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Maybe a rewrite is in order?

 

Again, just to emphasize, I'm not just talking about wearing a cross. I don't wear a cross. I'm talking about using the symbol of Christianity.

And c'mon, you have to know that your "rewrite" would be offensive, yes?

[MiserereNobis]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The LDS church does not want to be seen as part of the overall Christian (capital C) faith, although they do want to be considered friends and fellow followers of Christ along with all Christians.
They do want people recognize that the church is christian(little c), because we do worship Christ and see Him as our God, Lord, and Savior.

This seems like a very small distinction. So if I said "You are in no way at all Christians!" you would agree without pause?

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

This seems like a very small distinction. So if I said "You are in no way at all Christians!" you would agree without pause?

Right. Although I don't know if everyone would agree with me.  And it's not a small distinction. There are some major differences in how we comprehend the nature of God.
Christian is a noun describing all those who's doctrines are based on the Bible and Nicene and Athanasian creeds. 
On the other hand "christian" is more of an adjective, describing a faith that basis its beliefs on Christ as taught in the Bible. Mormons are not Chrstians, but Mormons are christian. 

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right. Although I don't know if everyone would agree with me.  And it's not a small distinction. There are some major differences in how we comprehend the nature of God.
Christian is a noun describing all those who's doctrines are based on the Bible and Nicene and Athanasian creeds. 
On the other hand "christian" is more of an adjective, describing a faith that basis its beliefs on Christ as taught in the Bible. Mormons are not Chrstians, but Mormons are christian. 

I rather agree with this, but I think most might brand me/us as anti-Mormon for saying so.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

I served my mission in a heavily Catholic area. The small number of Evangelicals there were so busy accusing Catholics of cannibalism, trying to keep people out of heaven, etc. that we were pretty much left alone. I’ve seen more than one tract that specifically targeted the crucifix. I’m personally not a fan and would never own one, but thankfully that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with ugly and twisted Protestant rhetoric designed to sow hatred and fear. 

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

I rather agree with this, but I think most might brand me/us as anti-Mormon for saying so.

It all depends on how one in their mind defines the word Cristian/christian. And sometimes it's the way other Christians might accuse memebrs of the LDS church as not being Christian, making it sound like an insult.
It makes Mormons feel like they are being acused of not believing in Christ, so they take offense to it. 

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again, just to emphasize, I'm not just talking about wearing a cross. I don't wear a cross. I'm talking about using the symbol of Christianity.

And c'mon, you have to know that your "rewrite" would be offensive, yes?

It wasn’t meant to be offensive, but I see now that it is. I apologize and remove it.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again, just to emphasize, I'm not just talking about wearing a cross. I don't wear a cross. I'm talking about using the symbol of Christianity.

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

We could also use the "fish" icon, so pregnant with  meaning (Ichthys -- Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior"):

For some, that is the primary symbol of Christianity.  I have no problem with that or the Cross.  Mormons use neither, perhaps to distinguish themselves from all the rest.  Mormons take other symbols far more seriously perhaps because that is part of their liturgy and culture.  You are reading more into that than it deserves.

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are reading more into that than it deserves.

I'm coming to that conclusion, yes.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is there a talk where the symbolism of temple rituals and vestments and garb is downplayed because God looks upon the heart?

Unlikely.  LDS temple vestments, rites, and symbols (and much else besides) are part of a very formal, sacramental liturgy -- including baptism, confirmation, initiatories (washings & anointings), endowments (oaths & covenants), and sealings (marriage & family).  They are seen as essential to every person who has ever lived on Earth.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

That is my problem here. The connotation/tone of the talk looks down upon symbols as being lesser than an internal "invisible" faith. I would love to see a talk that tells Latter-day Saint to not look upon their garments (I assume that is what you are referring) as important, because their hearts are more important.

Not too much importance need be given to a single talk by a well-meaning LDS general authority.  All GAs are fallible humans who have personal opinions -- and they freely express them.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again, I see it as a false dichotomy. I imagine many LDS leaders have said that the symbols of temple rituals are neither more important nor less important than the heart within. In other words, a good faithful Mormon will use temple vestments AND have a strong internal faith.

Since the LDS faith is exhibited in praxis rather than in systematic theology (we have no canon lawyers), the priesthood garb worn 24/7 and the temple vestments are seen as merely part of a single stream of traditional faith (as for orthodox Jews).  In other words, LDS faith is monistic and practical.  There is no bifurcation between the natural and supernatural.