In his recent General Conference address, LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland seeks to explain why the LDS church does not use the cross in its iconography or devotional life. He begins by remembering a question he was asked about 50 years ago by a friend at graduate school:
“Why have the Latter-day Saints not adopted the cross that other Christians use as a symbol of their faith?”
The LDS Church is free to use (or not use) the cross as it sees fit — I’m not going to argue whether it should or not should not. However, in answering this question, Elder Holland presents a series of misunderstandings and inaccuracies. I hope offering some correction will make for more fruitful discussion and understanding between Christians who use the cross devotionally, and Latter-day Saints who do not.
Specifically, let’s examine:
- The history of the LDS Church and the cross
- The meaning of the cross in Christian life
- The arguments put forward by Elder Holland
Latter-day Saints and the Cross: A Brief History
The question Elder Holland recalls begins: “Why have the Latter-day Saints not adopted the cross?” The better question would be: “Why did Latter-day Saints stop using the cross?”
The truth is, the LDS Church used the cross frequently until the mid-20th century. The major work examining this history is Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo by Michael G. Reed. In a review of the book by BYU professor Alonzo Gaskill, we get a nice summation of the history:
What Reed shows, rather convincingly, is that Mormonism has not always been uncomfortable utilizing the cross as one of its symbols (67–85). He establishes that Latter-day Saints (prior to the mid-twentieth century) employed that most common of Christian symbols in architecture, as jewelry, on headstones and in funeral floral arrangements, as the Church’s registered branding iron for cattle, and even on the spine of certain editions of the Doctrine and Covenants (for example, the 1852 European edition). Reed points out that in 1916, the Church approached the Salt Lake City council for permission to erect a very large concrete and steel cross on Ensign Peak — a monument so large that it would be visible from anywhere in the valley. Only one year later, the Church placed a cross-shaped monument in Emigration Canyon to mark the spot where Brigham Young said, “This is the right place” (86–101). Citing a series of examples and excerpts from the historical record, Reed establishes that the prevalent contemporary LDS attitude toward the cross as taboo largely grew out of hostilities between Utah Catholics and Latter-day Saints and did not become institutionalized in the Church until the administration of President David O. McKay (102–22).
The fact that the LDS Church very comfortably used the cross until quite recently suggests the theological and historical arguments Elder Holland will make are not intrinsically rooted in LDS teaching but are later justifications for a cultural practice. In short, while Elder Holland makes an LDS case against the cross, it seems one could just as easily make an LDS case in its favor.
The full book by Reed includes photographs of the cross in LDS temples and meetinghouses, jewelry, monuments, etc.
The Cruciform Shape of Christian Life
Before we analyze the specific arguments Elder Holland makes against the use of the cross, let’s first discuss why Christians use the cross. Elder Holland suggests it is a “symbol of faith,” or “conveys our gospel identity.” This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of why Christians wear the cross, adorn buildings with the cross, cross themselves, and pray before the cross. Elder Holland seems to think the main purpose is to communicate our identity to others; in truth, the main purpose is to make the reality of the cross present to us.
The cross is a central message of the teaching of Christ and the apostles — not merely that Jesus happened to die on one, but that each Christian is called to live a cruciform life. It is not just that we are called to bear our burdens with grace, but that self-denial, sacrifice, and death to the self is what brings life.
For us, the cross is the Tree of Life. See how it is used in these scriptures:
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34)
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:18)
But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal 6:14)
Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:12)
Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians incorporated the cross not as a way to show others they were Christian, but as the way to live out the Christian life, emulating the path of Jesus.
Elder Holland’s Arguments
In this light, let’s examine the specific claims Elder Holland makes:
The Bible
One reason we do not emphasize the cross as a symbol stems from our biblical roots.
I honestly don’t know what he means here. As I mentioned before, the Bible is filled with mentions of the cruciform nature of Christian life. Without more clarification, I can only say I disagree that using the cross devotionally is in any way contrary to the Bible.
Universal visual representation came later
Elder Holland:
Because crucifixion was one of the Roman Empire’s most agonizing forms of execution, many early followers of Jesus chose not to highlight that brutal instrument of suffering. The meaning of Christ’s death was certainly central to their faith, but for some 300 years they typically sought to convey their gospel identity through other means.
Because of cautious wording (“many,” “some,” “typically”) it’s hard to know what precisely is being claimed. Let’s briefly examine the history of Christians using the cross.
We know that devotional use of the cross dates back at least to the second century — long before “some 300 years.” It’s true that early Christians hesitated to make visual representations of the cross, but the cross was still part of their devotion. According to Alister McGrath:
There is evidence that Christians in the first century were reluctant to portray the crucifixion of Jesus. It was one thing to make the sign of the cross; it was quite another to depict Jesus on the cross of Calvary, especially on account of the issues of taste and decency involved in portraying Jesus naked. However, these inhibitions were gradually overcome.
As McGrath says, the “sign of the cross” as a devotional tool is known to be at least 2nd-century practice, possibly earlier. Tertullian, writing around 200, makes mention of people signing themselves and their objects frequently with the cross. There is no indication this is a recent practice. By limiting the discussion to universal visual representation of the cross, Elder Holland leaves out important details of early Christian devotion to the cross.
For more information, this Wikipedia page is a fairly good jumping off point.
Elder Holland:
By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.
I don’t know any Christians who claim to follow “generalized Christianity” — certainly those in the 4th and 5th centuries didn’t. They called themselves “catholic” and “orthodox,” members of the universal church.
It is true that Christian iconography developed over time. And thus it is true that the LDS rejection of that iconographic history is evidence of its break from historical Christianity in general.
But it does not follow that this is more authentically Christian. If it were, then the LDS Church should go back to using the cross, since earlier forms of LDS worship often included it. It’s plain to see that mimicry of earlier forms does not equate to authenticity. All Christians trace their origins to the time before developed “creeds and iconography”; but the church is also a living organism which grows and develops with time. It is the continuous, developing body — not praxis frozen in time — that marks fidelity to “true Christian beginnings.”
To see this is so, consider that the LDS Church has its own break-off movements which seek to restore earlier forms of Mormonism. “Earlier” is not necessarily “better” or “correct.” The LDS and Christian churches each must make a positive case for why its developments are authentic expressions of the Holy Spirit. But simply to say “the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings” is to misstate how even the LDS Church understands ongoing revelation and development.
It detracts from the resurrection
Elder Holland says:
Another reason for not using iconized crosses is our emphasis on the complete miracle of Christ’s mission — His glorious Resurrection as well as His sacrificial suffering and death.
The fact that most Christians use the cross does not mean we do not also emphasize the resurrection. The empty cross is often seen as a symbol of the resurrected Lord. Even the Catholic crucifix is meant as a reminder of our own path toward resurrection.
We cannot remember his crucifixion without remembering his resurrection; and we cannot remember his resurrection without remembering his crucifixion.
If Elder Holland feels the cross detracts from the resurrection, this may be an issue for him personally that he should not project on to other Christians.
“The crosses we bear rather than the ones we wear”
Elder Holland:
In every land and age, He has said to us all, “If any man [or woman] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This speaks of the crosses we bear rather than the ones we wear.
This again shows a misunderstanding of those who wear the cross. Nobody thinks that Jesus in this verse is telling us to wear a cross necklace. He is, rather, speaking of that cruciform shape of Christian living I mentioned earlier. The crosses we wear help remind us of that shape, that universal call to crucifixion; to joining ourselves to the cross, the tree of death made into the tree of life.
Christians developed a devotion to the visual cross to make the cruciform reality present, an incarnated reminder of a spiritual reality.
Conclusions
The cross is scandalous to many. It was scandalous to those in the 1st century, and it is scandalous now. It is not merely that we worship a man who died a shameful death, but that we too are called to participate in the cross ourselves: a shocking and frightening invitation! Even more shocking to claim it does not actually bring death, but brings life!
We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. (1 Cor 1:23)
But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal 6:14)