Posted on 06/21/2013 4:31:51 AM PDT by Colofornian
The Mormon Church has an ambivalent history with Christianity’s most iconic symbol, the cross. For about 70 years, the cross was generally tolerated within the church’s cultural fabric. However, the first decades of the 20th century initiated a slow but steady expression of disapproval of the cross; a criticism influenced by LDS leaders’ willingness to publicly declare the Roman Catholic Church as the “church of the devil” described in LDS scripture.
“Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo,” (John Whitmer Books) by Michael G. Reed, is a slim but valuable volume on the history of the Mormons’ relationship with the cross. As Reed notes, the Mormon Church was founded during an era of widespread Protestant hostility to the cross, a hostility that was due to that era’s wariness of Catholicism.
As Reed notes, Mormons were generally no fans of Catholicism, but they were more responsive to the cross as a religious symbol. There are two reasons for this. The first was that Mormonism was founded during a time of spiritual awakening in the early United States. While “organized religion” was criticized, individualistic spirituality flourished. Within these “rebel theologies,” spiritual manifestations were not uncommon. The symbol of the cross often played a role. Another reason the cross was tolerated by early Mormons, according to Reed, was due to founder Joseph Smith’s interest in Freemasonry. In fact, Nauvoo in the early 1840s was a hotbed of Freemasonry interest.
That interest is a key reason that the symbol of the cross traveled with the saints to Utah. Reed presents many photographs, both central to Mormonism and 19th century Utah, in which the cross is prominent.
However, as Reed notes, criticism of the cross started to creep more into the Mormon culture as a the 20th century began. Reed cites statements from leading Mormons, including then-apostle Moses Thatcher, that connected the cross to anti-Catholicism. Around 1915, a proposal in the Salt Lake area to put a cross on Ensign Peak received significant opposition, one that initially surprised LDS supporters. The eventual failure to place a memorial cross at Ensign Peak is cast — correctly by Reed — as a dispute between church leaders. The author writes that younger church leaders, such as David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith, had not grown up in the early era of the LDS Church and therefore had not been influenced by the more liberal, anti institutional, even anti-government thought of the 1840s to 1860s LDS leadership. Also, they had not been influenced by Freemasonry.
In my opinion, it’s important to note that in the first 30 years of the 20th century the LDS Church leadership had what might best be referred to as a “second Mormon reformation.” Leaders such as McKay, Fielding Smith, and later J. Reuben Clark, Mark E. Peterson and Bruce R. McConkie, successfully moved the church to extremely conservative ideology, including a renewal of harsh rhetoric against Catholicism.
As Reed notes, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “To bow down before a cross or to look upon it as an emblem to be revered because of the fact that our Savior died upon a cross is repugnant…”
The more blunt McConkie described the Roman Catholic Church as “being ‘most abominable above all other churches,’” writes Reed.
What I describe as a conservative era eventually endured about as long as the early Mormon Church’s initial tolerance of the cross. In the 21st it has waned. As Reed notes, it would be shocking to hear an LDS leader denounce Catholicism as McConkie once did. However, Reed still sees an institutional taboo against the cross in the LDS Church. To still use the term “taboo” though is too harsh.
While it’s true that an anti-Catholic diatribe by an LDS leader would be greeted with shock today, it’s also true that a talk about the symbolic spiritual value of the cross would mostly be greeted with non-surprised acceptance by most Latter-day Saints.
This article, from the LDS publication The Ensign, is evidence of a stance on the cross that would have been at odds with the rhetoric of church leaders of the past. A specific condemnation of the cross may be an occasionally tactless utterance from some church members, but most others would find such beliefs offensive. Today, Latter-day Saints define the cross as a responsibility to live a righteous life. That seems a pretty ecumenical position.
To help the children appreciate some of the difficulties faced by early members of the Church, and to strengthen the children’s desire to listen to and obey the prophet.
That says it all.
mormonism is all about control of not only the peson but their soul as well.
Watching my mormon family even after the hideous events in their family, still dutifully go to ward work in the fields/warehouses (because they can’t afford to pay “tithe”).
They never question anything for fear their “special underwear” will be taken from them.
You used a lot of words to say:
Jesus is not religion
and
the Bible is sufficient to spread the Good News.
I agree.
Maybe, just maybe people challenge you because you use so many words to state the simple.
Thanks. I appreciate the useful feedback.
You are right - I do tend to get wordy because it's hard to turn my brain off when I start on a topic - there's so much relevant stuff and I try to touch on way too much. I appreciate your mentioning it.
;-)
I take it that you were formerly Catholic?
What was written on that cross, Nana? It said “Vegeance is Mine: I will repay Saith the Lord.” Seems pretty obvious why Brigham Young would have wanted this torn down, irrespective of his view of the symbol of the cross. For what it is worth... I have several photos (a few of which were published in the book) of Brigham Young’s daughters wearing cross jewelry.
What was written on that cross, Nana? It said “Vegeance is Mine: I will repay Saith the Lord.” Seems pretty obvious why Brigham Young would have wanted this torn down, irrespective of his view of the symbol of the cross.
_____________________________________________
Welcome n00b
What was it the Mormon author of the Mountain meadows Massacre of 120 unarmed Christian men, women, children and babes -in-arms said ???
“No vengence is not God’s. It’s mine and I took some” and he ordered the Cross torn down...
No Christian would have ever torn down a Cross over a burial place nor objected to scripture straight out of the Christian Bible..
But a Bible hating Mormon would...and did...
You are missing the point. Yes... the Mountain Meadow’s massacre was a horrendous event. If Brigham Young gave the command... which I understand there to be conflicting information on both sides over the issue (and I could go either way)... yes... that would indicate that he wasn’t much of a “Christian”... if one defines Christianity in relation to one’s ability to turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, etc. But what is really the issue here? I mean, what is the issue in relation to the book here discussed? The book isn’t about the MMM. I am quite informed about this history, btw. In fact, Will Bagely (an excellent historian and authority on the subject—and the author of “blood of the prophet”) is a friend of mine, for what it’s worth. Neither is the discussion about who is and is not truly Christian. The use or non-use of the cross is a poor indication of this. As I explained in my book, early american protestants tended to reject the symbol, and regarded it (like Mormons of later generations) as a symbol of Catholic dominion. Anyhow... no... you are wrong in your claim that Brigham Young’s destruction of the cross monument is an indication that he rejected the symbol wholesale. This is contrary to the evidence. Brigham Young almost certainly destroyed it (if he indeed destroyed it at all) due to the inscription. Was Brigham Young a tyrant who commanded the massacre? Perhaps. But since my book isn’t on that topic, I have no real dog in that fight.
Started as a Catholic - Christening/Baptism/First Communion/Confirmation. Never got the real message or understood what it was all about. Could make the Latin responses in mass and not have a clue about what was being said. Made a conscious decision to become agnostic at about age 14 and stayed that way for close to 30 years. Events in life got me to acknowledge God and to begin praying, but still didn't have the real message. Sat in a non-denominational church at age 50 and heard and accepted the Good News - became saved that day with tears running down my cheeks. Got into the Bible and discovered so much to be in awe/wonder of and to appreciate God's Plan for us.
Good luck finding any historical proof to support this bald-faced lie. [SoConPubbie, post #17]
Yep. That comment made me stop dead in my tracks, too. [Alex Murphy, post #64 -- response to SoConPubbie]
Mr. Reed...Seems to be a consensus here about this part of your book: Your claim that there was "an era of widespread Protestant hostility to the cross"
What is the basis of this claim?
Mr. Reed...Seems to be a consensus here about this part of your book: Your claim that there was “an era of widespread Protestant hostility to the cross”. What is the basis of this claim?
There is a lot of evidence to support this, but outside of reading my book, I’d recommend you also get your hands on Ryan K. Smith’s excellent book titled “Gothic Arches Latin Crosses: Anti-Catholicism and American Church Designs in the Nineteenth Century” (University of North Carolina Press, 2006). I cover some of his research in my book, and you may notice that Dr. Smith was kind enough to contribute a blurb endorsing the back of my book.
Cartoon recently drawn for this book review: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4758555095851&set=a.1028278641271.3555.1654471852&type=1&theater
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.