Robert Millet on the cross

[Sleeping in EQ]

As I've said previously, the usual explanations for why Mormons don't display crosses don't hold water for me. Bruce R. McConkie's and Joseph Fielding Smith's explanations just don't square with what Protestants and Evangelicals typically say are their reasons for wearing or displaying crosses.

They say that wearing or displaying crosses is not about dwelling on the instrument of his death, but is rather about emphasizing that Christ is not on the cross because he has triumphed over it!

This is why they see a big difference between crosses and crucifixes.

Elder McConkie gives his opinion in MD, but I don't think it makes sense. He asserts that the greatest suffering was in the Garden of Gethsemane and not on the cross, and that therefore the cross was not the "climax" of Christ's torture.

Who decided that "intensity of suffering" was the measurement? Elder McConkie did, and even as he offered no scriptures in support and cited no one else.

But if we go along with such "logic," then maybe it would be more appropriate to display olive tree symbols?

Maybe we'll ignore that Jesus says in 3 Ne. 27 that "my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father."

That doesn't sound like a climactic moment at all, does it? Oh, wait. Yes it does.

Or maybe we should ask why the "intensity of suffering" measurement isn't applicable in, say, the case of symbolizing Moroni.

Elder McConkie was simply giving his opinion, which he is perfectly entitled to do. His opinion wasn't binding on Church members, though plenty decided to bind themselves with it anyway.

Joseph Fielding Smith's explanations aren't any better. He says in Answers to Gospel Questions Volume 4 that:

"Many who join the Church who come from a Catholic or Protestant backgrounds while trying their utmost to live the gospel, and rid themselves of the past, unconsciously bring some of the customs of their former environment with them. One of these is the wearing of the crucifix on a necklace, bracelet, or in some other form. The teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to indicate that this is improper because we do not hold any special reverence for the cross as such, nor do we have crosses in our chapels or homes or wear a crucifix as jewelry."

What you just read was not "reasoning," (except of the circular kind) and was not an "explanation." It was an assertion that our customs are right and Catholic and Protestant customs are wrong, and that LDS teaching is that wearing crosses or crucifixes (as though they were the same) is improper because "we do not hold any special reverence for the cross as such." It's a self-justifying non-explanation.

In that same "Answer" Joseph Fielding Smith gives his famous comparison that "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."

Nevermind that Joseph Fielding Smith gives no explanation for why a cross must be thought of in such a way (Protestants and Evangelicals certainly think of it in another way). Mormons in multitudes make that same logical leap with him, and with no compelling reason to do so.

The fact is that Protestants and Evangelicals wear and display crosses not because they want to dwell on his death, but rather because they find a sense of triumph in Christ not being on the cross! Christ's absence from the cross is taken as a signification of his victory! They do not adore the cross! The adore that Christ was resurrected and is no longer on it!

And then Mormons get all huffy when Protestants and Evangelicals look askance at Mormons' "means of execution talk." We're talking past one another, to be sure.

Finally, Robert Millet has given an explanation for Mormon's attitudes toward the cross that I find illuminating. In Claiming Christ, he writes:

"It appears that crosses were seldom if ever placed on our meetinghouses. Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, which included not using crosses." (100).

Yep, it's Puritanical and traditional. And the anti-cross thing stuck even as the Moroni statue thing was OK.

Personally, I'm mulling over the idea of 3 Ne 27 as a distinctive reason for Mormons' giving positive symbolic value to the cross. "Now that Christ has been crucified all people might be drawn unto him." Try thinking of that the next time you see a cross.

[MikeWaters]

I wouldn't wear a cross because I do not want to be taken for an evangelical.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I wouldn't wear a cross because I do not want to be taken for an evangelical.

LOL!

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

As I've said previously, the usual explanations for why Mormons don't display crosses don't hold water for me. Bruce R. McConkie's and Joseph Fielding Smith's explanations just don't square with what Protestants and Evangelicals typically say are their reasons for wearing or displaying crosses.

They say that wearing or displaying crosses is not about dwelling on the instrument of his death, but is rather about emphasizing that Christ is not on the cross because he has triumphed over it!

This is why they see a big difference between crosses and crucifixes.

Elder McConkie gives his opinion in MD, but I don't think it makes sense. He asserts that the greatest suffering was in the Garden of Gethsemane and not on the cross, and that therefore the cross was not the "climax" of Christ's torture.

Who decided that "intensity of suffering" was the measurement? Elder McConkie did, and even as he offered no scriptures in support and cited no one else.

But if we go along with such "logic," then maybe it would be more appropriate to display olive tree symbols?

Maybe we'll ignore that Jesus says in 3 Ne. 27 that "my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father."

That doesn't sound like a climactic moment at all, does it? Oh, wait. Yes it does.

Or maybe we should ask why the "intensity of suffering" measurement isn't applicable in, say, the case of symbolizing Moroni.

Elder McConkie was simply giving his opinion, which he is perfectly entitled to do. His opinion wasn't binding on Church members, though plenty decided to bind themselves with it anyway.

Joseph Fielding Smith's explanations aren't any better. He says in Answers to Gospel Questions Volume 4 that:

"Many who join the Church who come from a Catholic or Protestant backgrounds while trying their utmost to live the gospel, and rid themselves of the past, unconsciously bring some of the customs of their former environment with them. One of these is the wearing of the crucifix on a necklace, bracelet, or in some other form. The teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to indicate that this is improper because we do not hold any special reverence for the cross as such, nor do we have crosses in our chapels or homes or wear a crucifix as jewelry."

What you just read was not "reasoning," (except of the circular kind) and was not an "explanation." It was an assertion that our customs are right and Catholic and Protestant customs are wrong, and that LDS teaching is that wearing crosses or crucifixes (as though they were the same) is improper because "we do not hold any special reverence for the cross as such." It's a self-justifying non-explanation.

In that same "Answer" Joseph Fielding Smith gives his famous comparison that "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."

Nevermind that Joseph Fielding Smith gives no explanation for why a cross must be thought of in such a way (Protestants and Evangelicals certainly think of it in another way). Mormons in multitudes make that same logical leap with him, and with no compelling reason to do so.

The fact is that Protestants and Evangelicals wear and display crosses not because they want to dwell on his death, but rather because they find a sense of triumph in Christ not being on the cross! Christ's absence from the cross is taken as a signification of his victory! They do not adore the cross! The adore that Christ was resurrected and is no longer on it!

And then Mormons get all huffy when Protestants and Evangelicals look askance at Mormons' "means of execution talk." We're talking past one another, to be sure.

Finally, Robert Millet has given an explanation for Mormon's attitudes toward the cross that I find illuminating. In Claiming Christ, he writes:

"It appears that crosses were seldom if ever placed on our meetinghouses. Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, which included not using crosses." (100).

Yep, it's Puritanical and traditional. And the anti-cross thing stuck even as the Moroni statue thing was OK.

Personally, I'm mulling over the idea of 3 Ne 27 as a distinctive reason for Mormons' giving positive symbolic value to the cross. "Now that Christ has been crucified all people might be drawn unto him." Try thinking of that the next time you see a cross.

Agree completely.

[Archaea]

I'm not much into ceremony, and plainness of dress is important to me. I wear almost no jewelry, very little identification, and prefer quality to flash.

For me, the cross or crucifix has become a symbol of the NBA player who wins the NBA championship, thanks Jesus for his victory and then goes out and sleeps with ten groupies. The cross, beflecked with gold appears gaudy and nothing representative of the Savior.

I'm reminded of the scene of the cup sought by Indiana Jones, where all the golden cups were deception and the simple cup represented Christ. That's how I see modern displays of the cross, false outward declarations of empty faith.

[DrumNFeather]

I suspect that one of the main reasons why we don't wear crosses is because it helps to separate us from the Catholic church. Most off shoots of Catholicism still wear crosses as a symbol of their faith & religion...much like our people wear CTR rings.

Right or wrong, our church likes to focus on the life of Christ and only discusses his death in terms of asking members to take advantage of the atonement.

Symbols such as crosses on a necklace, bracelet or a ctr ring and the necessity thereof is probably a whole other thread, but it is certainly interesting to discuss.

[MikeWaters]

I know precious few LDS adults that wear CTR rings.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Right or wrong, our church likes to focus on the life of Christ and only discusses his death in terms of asking members to take advantage of the atonement.

Is this true? I don't think so. Whenever this topic comes up, we say it's because we don't like to talk about Christ's death only his life. But I don't think it's true. We talk of Christ's death when it's appropriate. If you compare a sample of sermons from LDS to Christian, I don't think you find a significantly different portion of time discussing Christ's death vs life.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I know precious few LDS adults that wear CTR rings.

Unfortunately in Provo area there are quite a lot.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I know precious few LDS adults that wear CTR rings.

Similarly, I know precious few adults that wear crosses as anything else outside of a fashion statement.

Point is, there are people in both groups that do.

I know I know I know, there are far more people that wear crosses etc...