Mormons claim we worship a dead Christ

[Marie5890]

This FAIR entry still needs to be revised. I published my book on this, an expanded revision of my MA Thesis (marywarfield’s link above leads to a SL Tribune article that ran a story on my research), a year and a half ago. It is true that mainstream American protestants rejected the symbol of the cross when Mormonism was in its early stages of development, but it is not true that early Mormons therefore rejected the symbol. My research shows that the cross taboo was instead a rather late development in Mormon history, emerging at the grass roots around the turn of the 20th century, and was institutionalized in 1957 on grounds that it was a “catholic form of worship.” Prior to this, many Mormons (including Church authorities) embraced and promoted the symbol of the cross. If you are interested, my book’s title is “Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo” and can be previewed on Amazon.

Interesting bit of history Mike! Thanks for the reality and historical check.

 

[iepuras]

If I recall correctly, wont the LDS Rome temple have a cross on it’s doors?
Also, if I recall correctly, the original symbol for Christians wasnt a cross but in the ancient communities, a fish?

From what I understand, it looks like a cross from a distance, but up close, not so much.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Here is an interesting article I found written by
an LDS member after researching the history
of the cross in Mormonism.
His claim is the LDS of the 1800’s did frequently
have and wear crosses but their rejection beginning
in the 1920’s is rooted in their anti Catholicism.

sltrib.com/ci_12256269

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I work with several mormons and I wear a cross. They like to be in charge. I have always felt they treated me differently. It feels like you are only allowed so much access to themand are made to feel you cannot be included in their group or that you will ever be seen as their equal.

 

[marywarfield]

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I work with several mormons and I wear a cross. They like to be in charge. I have always felt they treated me differently. It feels like you are only allowed so much access to themand are made to feel you cannot be included in their group or that you will ever be seen as their equal.

Me too. What I found is when they discovered I was
Catholic they became very friendly and told me
we should be good friends because Catholics and
Mormons are really not different at all proven
by our family values being the same.

Uh, not quite.

Anyway they were very chummy and invited us to
a Christmas party in which we were the only non
Mormons. We were specifically told to bring a practical
joke gift for secret Santa. Knowing the men were all
hunters my husband bought the then very popular
deer “rear end” remover but the name started with a
B if you get my drift.

Well dead silence when it was opened. Everyone
looked scandalized. Then finally one very old man
began to laugh uncontrollably but was slapped
and silenced by his wife.

We were told later that the hosts wife stated we
would never be welcomed in her home again. We
were unchaste.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Seriously Paul?

I must have missed that week in priesthood meeting.

Got that one at BYU, also was taught to us in the LTM (now called the MTC). All of us missionaries used it.

I have a hard time believing that you never heard it, since I have heard it from multiple sources both before and after my defection.

Paul

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

We worship Christ. The same Christ that was born of a Virgin, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, died, and was buried. He was resurrected on the third day, He ascended to Heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the Father. It’s the same Christ that they claim to worship. Comments like these only reveal the ignorance and prejudice of the speaker, IMHO.

Peace,
Robert

 

[PaulDupre1]

Seriously Paul?

I must have missed that week in priesthood meeting.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:

“To many [Mormons]…such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. Of all the ways ever invented for taking life and the execution of individuals, among the most cruel is likely the cross. This was a favorite method among the Romans who excelled in torture. We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.”

• LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, pp. 17-18.

Here, Shawn McCraney tells of learning to use a similar argument (with a buck knife this time) in the LTM.

Did you serve a mission? Did you spend time in the LTM? If so, then I can’t believe you never heard it.

Also, I never claimed that I was taught that in priesthood meetings. Interesting how you worded your response to make it exclusive to priesthood meeting. Plausible deniability? I guess they still teach that technique of deception as well.

Paul

 

[Marie5890]

Got that one at BYU, also was taught to us in the LTM (now called the MTC). All of us missionaries used it.

I have a hard time believing that you never heard it, since I have heard it from multiple sources both before and after my defection.

Paul

Maybe that is part of it, it’s part of older Mormonism? When I was at BYU in the 80’s by then it was the MTC.

In the 70’s it went from the LTC to the MTC.

I always heard it said that when GBH became president, he did a great deal to make Mormonism mainstream. I expect that would include making Mormonism less offensive in it’s language when dealing with Non-Mormons, which this would be an example of that.

All of us who are former Mormons have seen the changing of, softening of, Mormon dogmas over history.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Maybe that is part of it, it’s part of older Mormonism? When I was at BYU in the 80’s by then it was the MTC.

In the 70’s it went from the LTC to the MTC.

IIRC, NeuroTypical is plenty old enough to have been an adult in the 70s and 80s when I was LDS. He is also old enough to have read Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding Smith.

The “I never heard that” routine is used by Mormons regularly as a way to distance themselves from their organization’s embarrassing or unpopular teachings.

 

[Marie5890]

IIRC, NeuroTypical is plenty old enough to have been an adult in the 70s and 80s when I was LDS. He is also old enough to have read Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding Smith.

The “I never heard that” routine is used by Mormons regularly as a way to distance themselves from their organization’s embarrassing or unpopular teachings.

My bad.

I thought NT was younger than me.

 

[zaffiroborant]

My point is that I find arguments as to why LDS don’t wear crosses or have them in/on their houses of worship unconvincing. The best argument I’ve seen is by FAIR:

"Latter-day Saints have no objection to the symbol of the cross. Historically, the Church’s earliest members were not from denominations or traditions who used the cross in their worship. When they joined the Church, these traditions continued with them. Isolation in Utah meant that the Saints were not much affected by the increased use of the cross by American protestants later in the century. "

I don’t find FAIR’s argument all that good, many of the churches that members came from used crosses, the Methodists that JS dabbled with for instance. Mike Reed (an LDS member if IIRC) who posted here wrote a book called Banishing the Cross that tells how the early church embraced the cross and the aversion seen today is a 20th century development.

Here are a couple of reviews on Amazon where you can get Banishing the Cross

I loved this book, and had been looking forward to reading it since I first read about it in a Salt Lake Tribune article published back in 2009 (see links below). The book is chocked full of fascinating details relating to the history of the Cross within the LDS Church dating back to the 19th Century. Impressively researched and thoughtfully written, the book presents compelling evidence (and pictures) indicating that aversion to the cross within the LDS Church is a relatively recent development, one that began in the early 20th at the grass roots, and later institutionalized during the 1950s. Great book, highly recommended.

**Gave me a much better understanding why Mormonism and Catholicism are so much in opposition.
By MCB **
In Banishing the Cross (2012), Mike Reed explores the rejection of the crucifix, and eventually, the cross, as Papist glorifications of Jesus’ death.

The early Mormons were involved in Masonry and folk-magic, where they frequently saw various permutations of the cross: they therefore did not reject the symbol. With increased Catholic competition, around 1900 and around 1950, Mormons reacted by becoming almost phobic about the cross, as a symbol of Jesus’ Sacrifice and Resurrection. They do not understand it-- partially because of the analogy they draw between Jesus and Joseph Smith. Although Reed does not cover the Catholic theology of the cross, any Catholic who knows their faith can fill this in.

Even today representations of the crucifix are never seen in the low churches. They reject it as Papist. Even the cross is not frequently seen. These churches and the Mormons all have difficulty with the problem of pain.

An excellent book, well researched, which filled in blank spaces in my own research.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Real quick:

• I’m 43. Sent to church from a young age by my inactive Mom.
• When I claim I haven’t heard something before, I’m telling the truth. Sort of offensive to be told I’m practicing some tactic of deception. I have far better things to do than come here and lie to Catholics.
• I did not go on a mission, but I have been sealed in the temple, and have held a calling as executive secretary which meant I’ve attended bishopric meetings and know a thing or two about how local units function. (Giving this stuff as data points only, not bragging or claiming to know it all.)
• I’ve probably read various parts of “Answers to Gospel Questions”, but have never read it. I don’t own a copy to the best of my knowledge.
• I’ve been interacting with critics, criticisms, and defenders since the mid-'90’s. These days, maybe only once or twice a year do I hear new criticisms I’ve never heard before. And no really, April 2014 is the first time in my life I had ever heard something like this:

Mormons, when challenging Christians about the cross, are trained to say “If Jesus was shot with an AK-47, would you put one on top of your church?”

 

[Mike_Reed]

And no really, April 2014 is the first time in my life I had ever heard something like this:

That is really quite surprising. This rationale (which interestingly derived from Protestant antiCross rhetoric many generations ago) was especially common twenty years ago. The most popular today, however, is the explanation, “The cross is a symbol of death, but Jesus was resurrected, etc.”

 

[Marie5890]

Real quick:

• I’m 43. Sent to church from a young age by my inactive Mom.
• When I claim I haven’t heard something before, I’m telling the truth. Sort of offensive to be told I’m practicing some tactic of deception. I have far better things to do than come here and lie to Catholics.
• I did not go on a mission, but I have been sealed in the temple, and have held a calling as executive secretary which meant I’ve attended bishopric meetings and know a thing or two about how local units function. (Giving this stuff as data points only, not bragging or claiming to know it all.)
• I’ve probably read various parts of “Answers to Gospel Questions”, but have never read it. I don’t own a copy to the best of my knowledge.
• I’ve been interacting with critics, criticisms, and defenders since the mid-'90’s. These days, maybe only once or twice a year do I hear new criticisms I’ve never heard before. And no really, April 2014 is the first time in my life I had ever heard something like this:

Thanks NT. I had thought you were younger than me. Im 49. Not sure why Paul assumed you were older.

I personally have never thought you to be lying or being deceptive and I am sorry that some have put that kind of presumption on you.

As Catholics, we are taught to be careful with presumption, as it is a sin.

I can well understand that you have not heard that sort of thing. I would hear it by a few individuals when I live in Provo, but never as a general teaching of Mormonism.

 

[iepuras]

That is really quite surprising. This rationale (which interestingly derived from Protestant antiCross rhetoric many generations ago) was especially common twenty years ago. The most popular today, however, is the explanation, “The cross is a symbol of death, but Jesus was resurrected, etc.”

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”?

 

[Marie5890]

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”?

That makes sense. Hearing in areas that are more anti-Catholic.

 

[TexanKnight]

Real quick:

• I’m 43. Sent to church from a young age by my inactive Mom.
• When I claim I haven’t heard something before, I’m telling the truth. Sort of offensive to be told I’m practicing some tactic of deception. I have far better things to do than come here and lie to Catholics.
• I did not go on a mission, but I have been sealed in the temple, and have held a calling as executive secretary which meant I’ve attended bishopric meetings and know a thing or two about how local units function. (Giving this stuff as data points only, not bragging or claiming to know it all.)
• I’ve probably read various parts of “Answers to Gospel Questions”, but have never read it. I don’t own a copy to the best of my knowledge.
• I’ve been interacting with critics, criticisms, and defenders since the mid-'90’s. These days, maybe only once or twice a year do I hear new criticisms I’ve never heard before. And no really, April 2014 is the first time in my life I had ever heard something like this:

I am not surprised NT has not heard it…why would he? His past prophets have said and we all know how Mormons start running away from what their “prophets” say mere minutes after their prophets die.

I heard it. I was a missionary. I was also in bishopric. I heard it more than once. I was taught it in the MTC. I was taught it in my mission.

Then, after I became Catholic and started wearing a crucifix, a Mormon asked me that very question, but instead of an AK-47, he said a pistol. I said, “if being killed by the pistol saved all of us from our sins and gave us the gift of Salvation, then, yes, I believe I would.”

 

[Mike_Reed]

I don’t find FAIR’s argument all that good, many of the churches that members came from used crosses, the Methodists that JS dabbled with for instance. Mike Reed (an LDS member if IIRC) who posted here wrote a book called Banishing the Cross that tells how the early church embraced the cross and the aversion seen today is a 20th century development.

Here are a couple of reviews on Amazon where you can get Banishing the Cross

Thanks, Zaffiroborant. I am extremely pleased that my book has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. In case anyone is interested, here are a few more reviews:

“Michael Reed’s invaluable study shines new light on Mormon’s complex and ambiguous relationship with the cross. Reed’s research, the most exhaustive ever undertaken on this subject, should help other Christians understand the historic, cultural and religious context out of which Latter-day Saint attitudes toward the cross emerged–and it should help Latter-day Saints find greater spiritual meaning to this most poignant and profound of Christian symbols.” --Robert A. Rees, LDS author of “The Reader’s Book of Mormon” and religious studies professor at UC Berkeley and GTU

“Michael G. Reed has written a book that deftly examines one aspect of Mormonism’s inconsistent overlaps with traditional Christianity and inconsistent departures therefrom.” --D. Michael Quinn, author of The Mormon Hierarchy

“This is a fascinating study of a surprisingly misunderstood symbol. Reed’s well-researched history of the cross has much to teach modern readers across denominational lines.” --Ryan K. Smith, american historian and author of “Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses: Anti-Catholicism and American Church Designs in the Nineteenth Century”

“Just finished reading Michael G. Reed ‘Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo’. It was a very informative read. Reed did a lot of research that really enlightens our understanding of the (typical) current Mormon aversion to the cross. Drawing on many historical sources, Reed demonstrates that the cross-taboo was not a part of early Mormonism. In contrast, most nineteenth-century American Protestants found the cross to be distastefully Catholic. The Mormon view changed, in part, because of the influence of early nineteenth century cultural perceptions of certain influential Latter-day Saints. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Mormon history.” --Mike Ash, LDS apologist and author of “Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt”

“Though a fairly light read, the book is interesting and engaging— and it is, in many ways, a significant contribution to the historical record. Reed sets straight several misconceptions about the place of the cross as a symbol in the restored gospel, while inviting the reader on a pictorial journey through a transitional period in LDS Church history.” --Alonzo Gaskill, LDS author and BYU professor of Church History and Doctrine

“In recent years, Mormon Church leaders have made significant attempts to repair the rift with the Catholic Church engendered by the former anti-Catholic rhetoric of some of its leaders. Banishing the Cross provides an important and comprehensive study of what animated the prejudice against the cross in the first place and of its manifestation as a historical aberration rather than a constant in Mormon history. I highly recommend this outstanding book, not only for a greater understanding of the reasons behind the banishment of the cross, but also for its rich treatment of an animus so at odds with Joseph Smith’s own sentiments vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church. In his last recorded sermon, Joseph stated: ‘The Old Catholic church is worth more than all’ the rest.” --Fiona Givens, coauthor of “The God Who Weeps”

“An insightful discussion of LDS—Roman Catholic relations can be found in Michael G. Reed, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo (Independence: John Whitmer Books, 2012).”–Stephen H. Webb, Author of “Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints” and retired professor of religion and theology from Wabash College

“In his first book, based on his master’s thesis, Michael Reed has already made a groundbreaking contribution to Mormon studies and religious studies in general… Reed’s fine work therefore represents a historiographical breakthrough. One hopes that he is blazing a new path in Mormon studies…” --Don Compier, Dean of the Community of Christ Seminary.

 

[Mike_Reed]

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

 

[Mike_Reed]

And here is a Youtube video of one of my Conference presentations.

youtube.com/watch?v=43AuTyJ-p0w

Pardon my dorkieness and being “slow of speech”.