Mormons claim we worship a dead Christ

[lax16]

I’m 36, raised and active in the LDS church my whole life until about 18 months ago, and have heard variations of that statement. I don’t think I ever heard it specifically with an AK-47, but definitely with a generic gun or a knife. I grew up in the Bible Belt so maybe I heard it more often because other than a stint at BYU, I’ve always lived in the “mission field”?

I was asked by our Mormon friends when they lived in Utah County “If Jesus died in a car wreck, would you wear a car around your neck?”

I thought that was a very odd question but answered quickly “Absolutely!”

That was about 10 years ago.

 

[Marie5890]

Thanks Mike. Interesting to know that adversion to the cross was a later and cultural adversion in Mormonism rather that an actual theological/doctrinal one.

Another bit of LDS history put into its real context.

Just one more:

“While President Gordon B. Hinckley repeatedly emphasized his respect for other churches that use the cross, he emphasized that, “for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.” [2] Unfortunately, this argument rings hollow, perhaps even condescending, to other Christians since they too worship the Living Christ. The cross reminds them not only of Christ’s death, but of his atoning sacrifice—his life, death, and resurrection—and of their complete dependence on that expiating force. So the symbolic force of the cross is a major division between LDS Christians and creedal Christians. And for the average Mormon, LDS antipathy to the cross may seem doctrinal, perhaps foundational, dating back to teachings from Joseph Smith. However, as Michael Reed aptly demonstrates in his new book “Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo” this history is much more recent and quite complex… While many Mormon historians have noted correctly that early Mormons echoed the anti-Catholic attitudes and polemics of their nineteenth-century neighbors, Reed conclusively shows that early Mormons had no aversion to the cross. He persuasively demonstrates that the taboo against the cross arose as Mormons lost their connection with folk magic and masonry, as anti-Catholic bias grew within both the membership and leadership of the Church, and as relations between Church leaders and Salt Lake area Catholics grew more tense. What is fascinating about Reed’s analysis is that the institutionalization of the taboo occurred quite late in Mormon history and is not based on any strong theological reasoning. With contemporary Mormonism’s more ecumenical focus, a tremendous lessening of anti-Catholic rhetoric, and greatly improved relations between all denominations 'of Christinanity and the LDS Church, it is not hard to imagine a world where Mormons can once again embrace the symbolic power of the cross. Reed’s book is a wonderful addition to Mormon history and a helpful guide in rethinking our contemporary aversion to the central symbol of Christianity.” --Boyd J. Peterson, LDS author and professor of religion at UVU and BYU

 

[lax16]

Thanks Mike. Interesting to know that adversion to the cross was a later and cultural adversion in Mormonism rather that an actual theological/doctrinal one.

Another bit of LDS history put into its real context.

Hi Marie,

According to the article or book, the aversion to the cross arose from anti-Catholic sentiment.

 

[Marie5890]

Hi Marie,

According to the article or book, the aversion to the cross arose from anti-Catholic sentiment.

Yes, I know. Very Protestant thing to do at the time. Very common.

 

[lax16]

Yes, I know. Very Protestant thing to do at the time. Very common.

Hi Marie,

Are you saying being anti-Catholic was cultural for the Protestants and Mormons? (I am trying to understand what you meant).

Unfortunately, I have found anti-Catholic sentiment to be happening now among some Protestants and Mormons, not just years ago. In fact, the meanest things ever said to my face came out of the mouths of Protestants and Mormons regarding my Catholic faith.

I’m not going to heaven because I am not saved, I belong to a church filled with pedophile priests, the Catholics helped Hitler exterminate the Jews, The Our Father is a repetitive prayer…these things were all said within the last 15 years.

 

[Sabacthani]

One of the claims made in the local ward’s sacrament meeting yesterday was that Mormons worship a resurrected, living Christ, but that since we use the crucifix we are worshiping a dead Christ. It seems to me it could be said we worship both the living Christ and the suffering Christ on the cross. To recognize the resurrected Christ while minimizing the crucified, suffering Christ seems to me to ignore one of the essential messages of Christianity. Anyway, Mormons seem to self-righteously claim our use of the cross is wrong.

I’m pretty friendly towards Mormonism and like to debunk falsehoods about them (as I do about Catholics) but I have to agree that the Mormon thing with crosses is just weird. Especially since it only started in the 1900s.

deseretnews.com/article/705328913/Mormons-and-the-cross.html?pg=all

Instead, Reed found the cross all over Mormondom.** It appeared as jewelry on Brigham Young’s wives and daughters.** It appeared in floral arrangements in funerals. It appeared as tie tacks on men’s ties and watch fobs on men’s vests. It appeared on cattle as the official LDS Church brand. Crosses were on church windows, attic vents, stained-glass windows and pulpits. They were on gravestones and quilts.

Even two temples, the Hawaiian and the Cardston, Alberta, Canada Temple were described in a 1923 general conference as being built in the shape of a cross. Reed said the cross “taboo” was grass roots and began around the turn of the 20th century.

Anyway, as best I can tell the anti-cross thing is a weird little fad that Mormons have mistaken for their religion, like the no double earring thing.

The article I cited suggests that it was a turn of the century anti-Catholic reaction from the two Mormon Bishops in Mexico that were shot by Pancho Villa because they refused to kneel to the Virgin Mary. As if Pancho Villa was a model Catholic, plus who knows if the stupid story was even true. I think it’s an awfully silly reason to reject the cross. A reason based on pride, if you ask me. My guess is that the Mormons will get over it and will be wearing crosses again eventually. They aren’t the only Christians to make what Jonathan Swift called big-endian and little-endian issues out of their religion.

Anyway, that’s an awful thing for them to teach in the Mormon church. My suggestion is go make a complaint to the bishop. I bet that they’d take care of it. I’ve talked to LDS church leaders when I saw something stupid being taught, and they corrected it even though I’m not a member.

 

[Sabacthani]

Just one more:

“While President Gordon B. Hinckley repeatedly emphasized his respect for other churches that use the cross, he emphasized that, “for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.” [2] Unfortunately, this argument rings hollow, perhaps even condescending, to other Christians since they too worship the Living Christ. The cross reminds them not only of Christ’s death, but of his atoning sacrifice—his life, death, and resurrection—and of their complete dependence on that expiating force. So the symbolic force of the cross is a major division between LDS Christians and creedal Christians. And for the average Mormon, LDS antipathy to the cross may seem doctrinal, perhaps foundational, dating back to teachings from Joseph Smith. However, as Michael Reed aptly demonstrates in his new book “Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo” this history is much more recent and quite complex… While many Mormon historians have noted correctly that early Mormons echoed the anti-Catholic attitudes and polemics of their nineteenth-century neighbors, Reed conclusively shows that early Mormons had no aversion to the cross. He persuasively demonstrates that the taboo against the cross arose as Mormons lost their connection with folk magic and masonry, as anti-Catholic bias grew within both the membership and leadership of the Church, and as relations between Church leaders and Salt Lake area Catholics grew more tense. What is fascinating about Reed’s analysis is that the institutionalization of the taboo occurred quite late in Mormon history and is not based on any strong theological reasoning. With contemporary Mormonism’s more ecumenical focus, a tremendous lessening of anti-Catholic rhetoric, and greatly improved relations between all denominations 'of Christinanity and the LDS Church, it is not hard to imagine a world where Mormons can once again embrace the symbolic power of the cross. Reed’s book is a wonderful addition to Mormon history and a helpful guide in rethinking our contemporary aversion to the central symbol of Christianity.” --Boyd J. Peterson, LDS author and professor of religion at UVU and BYU

You go, boy! Much better said than what I was trying to explain.