What is the downside of someone using a symbol such as a (insert your traditional LDS necklace, CTR ring, etc., here), or a cross to show their devotion to God and acknowledgement of Jesus’ awesome sacrifice being accepted in their lives? No crosses, by golly, but say yess to the sickeningly sappy “Mormon Top 40″ songs being performed in LDS meetings. If the church hadn’t put a stop to the uncontrolled farewell rituals, I’m not sure how much more I could have stomached.

I consider the standard LDS responses to the question to be total bunk and no more than vain attempts to come up with answers to appease the doctrine police (if you are LDS, you are grinning now because every ward has ‘em).

I find the symbol a positive thing and feel positive when I see someone wearing one….I think it is a brotherhood thing perhaps. For Mormons to claim it is a “focus” issue is without depth of understanding and hyportical beyond belief. How can we assert that one particular component of the Atonement carries more sway than another?

While Mormons get wrapped around the axle regarding the use of a cross, I can’t help but wonder what Christ’s thoulghts would be regarding our insistance in portraying Christ, a Semitic, as having Anglo features. Interesting notion, that.

Joseph Fielding Smith, as only he or his son-in-law could express, wrote the following:
“To many, like the writer, 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.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:17)

He also went on to use the weapon of death analogy, a dagger or sword in his example.

What makes the difference to me is that he gave his life, it was not taken. What has made it “repugnant” (a word only a very few—one?–would use) is the tradition in which Mormons have been raised. We have talked elsewhere about the middle initial syndrome of the general authorities and the “odd” feeling we get when not calling them by their “official names”. To me it is all culturalization, not the essence of the cross itself.

A crucifix is a cross with christ hanging from it. It is a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice and not typically worn, but used in rosary and other places like churches.

A CROSS, however, is empty. It is a symbol of the resurrection, of the fact that Christ overcame death and is not there, for he has risen. It’s empty because christ is not dead, but conquered death. It is NOTHING like wearing a pistol around ones neck.

I always resent seeing the comparisons between a cross and a weapon being made, it shows a lot of ignorance about what other churches believe.

How has the Mormon use of symbols start? More often then not any significant symbol is associated with the Temple. There are only two “official” symbols used by the Church that are not tied to the Temple in a direct way and that is the Sacrament and the CTR ring. The Sacrament has a very specific purpose used at a very specific time. It is an extension of our baptismal oaths and covenants. One could argue that makes it partly Temple related. As for the CTR ring, it really started more as a primary gimmick that seems to have slipped from official usage and became consumerist. Paintings commissioned or displayed by the Church are actually rather generic and serving the purpose mostly of garnishing. There are still very few chapels that have any art (symbols) of any kind displayed – not even in the way of Islamic geometric patterns.

The reason Mormonism has not “taken up the cross” is because it already has a symbol that the cross fills in for; and that would be the Temple. Pictures of the Temple in homes are often placed where other religions would put their own symbols. When a prophet says that the symbol of Christ should be our own lives rather than a cross, that means something more than a cute expression of examples to others. That is precisely what the Temple is commanding us to do as members. Not saying that is what the prophets mean by that, but who knows? I have come to the conclusion that crosses are not bad (I prefer and keep, but don’t actually wear, an Ankh), but they are superfluous for Mormon tradition. I might even go so far as to say that Mormons who have gone to the Temple should put it aside. There might be several reasons a Mormon wants to wear a cross, but the only ones I feel that have a legitimate reason are converts and out of friendly gestures. I would love to expand on this topic, but worry about crossing sacred lines by expounding on my thoughts of why the Temple fills in for the Cross.

I don’t wear crosses to Church, I usually have on the CTR ring and bracelet. Does that make it any different that wearing a cross? Both are symbols of our beliefs, one just isn’t culturally acceptable and one is.

Either way, I think it is a personal choice, and no one’s business but my own. Like many who have posted, I like to focus on the living Savior, not on the way he left this mortal earth. But that doesn’t mean I don’t find the art of the many other religions of the world beautiful. Oh, I also have a wonderfully carved jade Buddha sitting on my bookshelf, and two Muslim prayer rugs displayed on another wall along with a Hindu goddess. Guess you could say, I like art for art’s sake and don’t place a lot of value on its religious symbolism.

“With regard to the mark of the beast, I think with Sir Isaac Newton, that it is the cross. This symbol has been abused by the Papists to the purposes both of the most infernal cruelties, and of the most childish superstition.” —Ray Potter. A Treatise on the Millennium, Or Latter-Day Glory of the Church, Compiled Principally From the Productions of Late Eminent Writers Upon that Subject. . . . By Ray Potter, Minister of the Gospel, Pawtucket. (Providence: Brown & Danforth, Printers, 1824), 269.

‘When I go to our chapels I rarely think of Jesus their are no pictures of him in the lobby or hallways – nothing.’
If this is the case then do something about it and ask your ward leaders to put some pictures on the walls in your chapel.

Good luck.

Having said that you have to know if you have been a member of the LDS faith for very long that it is not customary for LDS people to wear crosses and whatever the reasons are for not doing so, you are going to make people curious and wonder if you do wear one. Anytime you choose to do something that is not customary in a “culture” you will raise curiousity….it’s just the nature of the beast.

–I have not yet, but I would, if I found a nice one. (As a guy though, I’m not sure how. Necklace? No. Tie tack? Maybe. Tattoo. Oh yeah!)
–YES, YES, YES. I plan on it when I get my own place.
–YES, we should, I think. Most of the reasons for not doing so seem fatuous. Do we lose our Mormon identity by reading from the Bible as opposed to the Book of Mormon?

Other Christians use the Cross as a symbol of Christ’s death, and his grace to us. I understand this, so I don’t get offended by their use of the Cross, nor would I compare it to car crashes or anything else that makes light of their symbolic statement of appreciation of Christ’s sacrifice. I recognize this intent, and I admire it.

That said- I do not use the Cross, and I avoid using the symbol myself, because I also want to make a symbolic statement. Namely, that Christ is not dead, but living, and that likewise I believe in a Living Church, a living prophet, and in living miracles.

Most other Christian theology focuses exclusively on Christ’s mortal ministry- and they explicitly reject an extension of His work into today. Why doesn’t God talk to prophets today? “Because Christ has already come and done His work, and there is no need for any more visions or apostles or miracles.” It’s an outgrowth of the focus on Christ’s mortal ministry and the symbolic use of the Cross is part of that exclusive focus.

It even bleeds over into prayer. Sadly, while many Christians believe in prayer as a petition, few believe in it as a conversation- and those that do tend to be viewed as unorthodox (though not necessarily in a hostile way- sometimes there is a sense of envy).

Our rejection of the symbol of the Cross should be a symbolic reminder to us that Christ’s work is not finished- that He is alive, that He speaks to men today, and that we are part of that ongoing work. In other words, what happened in Gethsemane and at Golgotha are not just events that happened in the past- but rather are ongoing events in which we are participants.

When someone asks why we don’t use the cross as a symbol, it is an opportunity to express our belief in a living active Christ, who speaks to prophets today.

He is not dead. He lives. (And surprisingly many Christians today are a little wishy washy on the literal Resurrection- so that is also another arrow in our quiver that comes from officially rejecting the Cross symbol).

Symbols have power, and I think most of us have overlooked the powerful nature of our rejection of the Cross as a symbol for Christ.

I think it would probably be a net positive for the Church if it started using crosses, or at least stopped unofficially discouraging members from wearing them.

The explanation I was given when I joined the Church was that it was a symbol of Christ’s death (except I was told “stabbing” and “knife” instead of a car accident). I think the real reason we don’t use crosses, though, probably started with the Church’s origin among New England Protestants who disliked ornamentation in their churches and was reinforced by a desire for separation from 19th century Christian persecutors. I think the other explanations sound more like attempts to invent a theological justification for the tradition.