Why Latter-Day Saints Do Not Generally Display The Crucifix, Or Cross, In Temples, Chapels, Or Even In Their Homes Or On Their Persons

Many people wonder why they don't see any crosses or crucifixes displayed on chapels and temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is even some diversity of opinion about the cross within the LDS community; while some traditionalists actually find the cross offensive, most modern LDS simply choose not to display it.

But is it actually a doctrinal prohibition, or merely an evolved tradition? Early Saints aggressively distanced themselves from the Cross to show distinct separation from the other Christian denominations. But more recently, remarks by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley suggest that it is merely a tradition rather than a hard core doctrine. Some of his remarks were recorded in the September 1996 edition of the New Era magazine, and LDS publication tailored towards adolescent Mormons. Here's the pertinent part of the article:

“Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, Sep 1996, 17

Answers are intended for help and perspective, NOT as pronouncements of Church doctrine.

Question: I have a friend who is a member of another religion and who asked me why we don’t wear crosses or have crosses on our buildings. Why don’t we?

New Era Answer: We do not use the cross as a symbol on our chapels, temples, or on our scriptures or in jewelry. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained the reason in a talk delivered in general conference. He told about talking to a Protestant minister following a temple open house. The minister had asked why there were no crosses anywhere if we say we believe in Jesus Christ. President Hinckley answered, “ ‘I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.’"

“He then asked, ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?’ I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“The Symbol of Christ,” New Era, Apr. 1990, p. 4).

President Hinckley further explained, “On Calvary he was the dying Jesus. From the tomb he emerged the living Christ. … Because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when he said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)” (pp. 6, 7).

Even though we do not believe in using the cross as a symbol in our Church, we do not criticize others for wearing or using the cross in their religions. We should understand that the cross is significant and sacred to them. In fact, the 11th article of faith says, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

We focus on the great atonement of our Savior, his sacrifice for us that makes eternal life possible. We think of his life and sacrifice every Sunday during the sacrament. Our testimonies become the precious things that we bear, along with our obedience, to show we are true followers of Christ.

The bottom line - while the mission of Jesus Christ required the agony of taking upon Himself all of the world's sins at Gethsemane and offering Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice at Calvary in order to gain the authority to take up His own body in the Resurrection to deliver us from eternal separation from the Father and spiritual death, it is the Resurrection that frees all of us, and so we choose to focus upon that final act. Thus we honor the Resurrected Christ over the Crucified Christ. But what we strive for is that instead of displaying external symbols of Christ, each Latter-day Saint becomes a living symbol of Jesus Christ by personal example.

Another reason why we tend to downplay the Cross is that many Latter-day Saints believe that the Cross has become excessively commodified and marketed in the secular world. Consequently, we do not wish to contribute further to that commodification. Some interesting further discussion available on a 2006 post on Feminist Mormon Housewives, a July 2008 post on AnsweringTheCritics, and a January 2009 post on Mormon Matters.

But as President Hinckley pointed out, we are NOT to look down upon our fellow Christians who do choose to use the Cross as a symbol of worship, just as we are not to belittle Catholics for paying appropriate honor to Mary, the earthly Mother of Christ. When we do belittle our fellow Christians for adhering to different traditions that have no bearing upon us, we are engaging in Pharisaism. Jesus Christ was a victim of Pharisaism; while the Romans executed the death sentence upon Jesus, it was the Pharisees and Saduccees who assembled themselves before Pontius Pilate, and screamed "Release Barrabas!" "Crucify Jesus!" The Romans were merely professionals obeying orders; it was the Pharisees who actually thirsted for Christ's blood (although we cannot say for certain whether or not they will end up as sons of perdition).

When The President Of The LDS Church Speaks Officially On Matters Of Doctrine, The Debate Is Over, Because The Thinking Has Been Done

There is a discussion taking place on the By Common Consent blog, in which quite frankly, some respondents are making me hot under the collar.

The discussion centers around a post entitled "God Loves Racists, Too". The author suddenly came to the realization that we don't need to apologize for the ban on Black Priesthood membership, using the “God loves racists, too” theory to explain it. He states that "God tends to give us what we want, because he loves us. God tends to let us ask for stupid things, because he loves us and recognizes that getting what you want is a good way to learn to not want stupid things. I think that the priesthood ban lapsed because we finally saw the petty stupidity of it. We, as a church, stopped wanting it and God, gratefully I think, let it go".

But others are not prepared to "let it go". In response, some commenters are playing the "Mormon Doctrine" card (based upon a book written by Bruce R. McConkie) and suggesting that the revelation issued by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 extending Priesthood eligibility to worthy males of African descent was merely a cover, despite the fact that McConkie actually updated the book to reflect the new revelation.

I will not tolerate such a suggestion that the revelation was merely "cover". Here's the bottom line. Spencer W. Kimball was the President of the Church, ordained to be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and authorized to speak for the ENTIRE Church on matters of doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie was an ordinary elder, not authorized to speak for the entire Church. On that basis alone, President Kimball TAKES PRECEDENCE over Elder McConkie.

Secondly, it no longer matters what previous Presidents of the Church had to say about this issue. The word of a living prophet ALWAYS takes precedence over that of a dead prophet. Living prophets have access to wisdom and experiences not available to dead prophets.

Why do Church bookstores continue to sell Mormon Doctrine? Because we are the Lord's Church, not a Soviet Church. During the 75-year Soviet occupation of Russia, every time a new General Secretary was chosen, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was completely scrubbed down and re-written. This means Russian history was re-invented for political reasons. The LDS Church does NOT re-write or re-invent history. Yes, we've made about 3,000 or so minor editorial tuneups to the Book of Mormon, but that was merely for clarity, and did NOT change the fundamental message. Yet we have imperfect critics demanding perfection from an organization operated by other imperfect beings. That's beyond stupidity; that's outright disingenuity. The term "Latter-day Saint" doesn't so much describe what we are, but more like what we are trying to be.

This is why those of us Mormons who remain faithful to Church doctrine believe that when the President of the Church officially speaks on matters of doctrine, the debate is over, because the thinking has been done. In accordance with free agency, we are free not to obey counsel, but we will not debate the veracity of that counsel. We may suggest adjustments to individual policies, such as the length of meetings, or whether or not non-members should be admitted to temples to witness temple marriages of loved ones, but we will not dispute the fundamental doctrine itself. We don't consider the President of the Church to be personally infallible, but when he issues revelations on behalf of the Church, they become indisputable.

Latter-day Saints who question the veracity of a revelation aren't merely dissenters; they are apostates, and need to be dealt with as such. This means reprove, betimes with sharpness, but don't forget to leave the door open for their return by showing an increase of love towards them thereafter if they are willing to repent.

LDS Church Creates Disabilities Website To Ensure Greater Understanding Of And A More Rewarding Experience For Disabled Mormons

Hat tip to Terrie Bittner for giving me the idea for this post.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that all people who come to earth are covered by the Atonement. Consequently, they seek to include people with disabilities in their outreach and amalgamation. To facilitate understanding of the challenges faced by disabled Mormons and to promote a more rewarding religious experience for them, they have created a special website dealing with disability issues.

As Latter-day Saints, we are commissioned to go out and preach the Gospel unto every creature. The word "every" means exactly what it says; this means those with disabilities also have a right to hear the Gospel and to accept it, within the limits of their capacities. A previous First Presidency statement posted on the Disabilities website sets forth the policy:

First Presidency Statement

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is working to provide easier access to its buildings and facilities for people with disabilities. We also are seeking more creative ways of providing religious training for those with physical, mental and emotional impairments. But there is an even greater need to reduce the barriers imposed by a lack of understanding and acceptance of those who have disabilities.

"We urge leaders, teachers, neighbors, friends and families to:

Help increase awareness and understanding of disabilities.
Accept those with disabilities as children of God and help them to feel respected, loved and understood.

Provide opportunities for members with disabilities to learn about the Savior and pattern their lives after Him.

Assist in the successful Church participation of people with disabilities and the appreciation of their unique gifts.

Provide meaningful opportunities for members with disabilities to serve, teach and lead others.

"It is our opportunity and our responsibility to follow the example of Jesus in loving our neighbors, and that includes those with disabilities" (Church News, Apr. 29, 1989, 7).

The LDS Church classifies disabilities into ten different categories. Most interestingly, they discriminate between Intellectual Disabilities and Learning Disabilities. This distinction is important; while the former implies limited intellect, the latter simply implies the inability to use and manifest resident intellect. A person with a learning disability may have a high IQ.

Folklore about how people acquired disabilities abounds within the ranks of Latter-day Saints. Many believe that people may have deliberately chosen their disabilities during their mortality planning process before the foundation of this world as a means to achieve faster eternal progression. The premise is that the more you suffer in mortality, the greater will be your eternal reward. To assure a truly independent and spontaneous mortal experience, memories of that choice are rendered inaccessible after one is born.

This thinking is expressed by Duane Crowther in the 1997 edition of his book, "Life Everlasting". On pp 101-2, Crowther documents the out-of-body (OBE) experience of a man named DeLynn. In 37 years of living, DeLynn had suffered as much as the average person does in 87 years. He had been plagued by a wide variety of ailments, most notably cystic fibrosis. During his OBE experience, he found out that he had chosen his disease and the amount of pain he would suffer before the foundation of the world. He was transported in time back to the occasion when he made his choice. He observed himself in a classroom environment. Here's a short excerpt about his experience:

"He [the instructor in front of the classroom] was instructing us about things we had to know in order to come to earth and get our bodies. Then he said, and I'll never forget this: You can learn lessons one of two ways. You can move through life slowly and have certain experiences, or there are ways that you can learn the lessons very quickly through pain and disease. He wrote on the board the words 'Cystic Fibrosis', and he turned and asked for volunteers. I was a volunteer; I saw me raise my hand and offer to take the challenge. The instructor looked at me and agreed to accept me"

Unfortunately, this book is not available online, but the immediate aftermath of this experience is significant. For this we turn to "Echoes From Eternity", page 126. The experience changed his whole attitude towards his disease. He now viewed it as his "mentor". At the end of the OBE, DeLynn was actually given a choice of remaining in heaven permanently, or returning to earth. Incredibly, he chose to return to earth, even though he was told he risked losing everything he had gained in eternal status and would suffer even greater pain if he returned. Three times he was asked if he was sure he wanted to return to earth - and three times he said Yes.

Un-freaking-believable. This modified my own attitude towards the disabled; I no longer curse handicapped drivers for slowing me down in traffic.

While OBEs and their companion Near-Death Experiences are not necessarily supported by official scripture, they are not rebutted by scripture, so they can be legitimately taken into consideration. I may research this a bit more for a future post, though. But the general idea is that we should be more solicitous towards the disabled, since they may have actually had the courage to choose the disability as a means of showing greater faith on earth and to make faster eternal progress.

Bottom line - the homeless cripple you abuse today may be YOUR boss in the next world.

Why Latter-Day Saints Don't Hold Special Religious Services On Christmas Eve Or Christmas Day

As Christmas 2008 approaches, perhaps you've checked your local newspaper to find out when and here Christmas worship services are being held. The Roman Catholic Church is particularly noteworthy for their Christmas religious services, particularly Midnight Mass, and I recommend that all people attend a Midnight Mass on at least one occasion to experience the liturgy and to pay homage to Jesus Christ.

But as you review the list of religious services, you'll notice that the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not listed as holding services, and perhaps you wonder why.

The reason the LDS Church does not hold special services on Christmas is because we do NOT believe that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th. Instead, we believe that Jesus Christ was born on April 6th, which also happens to be the date the LDS Church was formally organized.

But this has not canonized as official doctrine, but is merely a tradition. This is why Latter-day Saints continue to observe Christmas during the normal season in other ways. The history of the April 6th tradition is actually spelled out on the ReligiousTolerance website, and is described as follows:

Many Christians believe that Yeshua was actually born on December 25. Some suggest that he was born in the year 1 BCE. Many religious historians, liberals, etc. suggest that the birth occurred circa 4 to 7 BCE, possibly in the Spring, but more likely in the Fall.

Some Mormon leaders suggest that Jesus was born on April 6, which is the precise month and day on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was founded in 1830, (The church celebrated its 175 anniversary recently, on 2005-APR-06.)

James E. Talmage (1862-1955), a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, was commissioned by Church president Joseph F Smith to write a biography of the life of Yeshua called: "The Life of Christ." It is still in circulation almost a century later. He wrote: "As to the season of the year in which Christ was born, there is among the learned as great a diversity of opinion as that relating to the year itself. It is claimed by many Biblical scholars that December 25th, the day celebrated in Christendom as Christmas, cannot be the correct date. We believe April 6th to be the birthday of Jesus Christ as indicated in a revelation of the present dispensation already cited in which that day is made without qualification the completion of the one thousand eight hundred and thirtieth year since the coming of the Lord in the flesh. This acceptance is admittedly based on faith in modern revelation, and in no wise is set forth as the result of chronological research or analysis. We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, 1 B.C".

Elder Neil A Maxwell, who served as an Apostle in the Church, concurred with this date in his book "But for a Small Moment": "Significantly, Joseph [Smith] was finally released from Liberty Jail, with a subsequent escape en route, on April 6, 1839 -- both the Savior's and his church's birthday".

And this is also echoed by prolific LDS author Bruce R. McConkie in his book entitled "Mormon Doctrine". Since the text of this book cannot be found online, I am transcribing his entry about Christmas directly from pp 132-33 in the 31st printing, published in 1986:

"Modern day Christians celebrate December 25th as an annual church festival and as the traditional day of our Lord's mortal birth. Special gifts and greetings are common, and both Christmas itself and the whole yuletide season often take on an air of commercialism and worldliness. Apparently Christ was born on the day corresponding to April 6th (D&C 20:1), but the saints nevertheless join in the wholesome portions of the Christmas celebration. Christmas becomes to them an ideal opportunity to renew their search for the true Spirit of Christ and to center their attentions again on the true doctrine of his birth as the Son of an Immortal Father, a fact that enabled Him to work out the infinite and eternal atonement".

But while D&C 20:1 implies that Jesus may have been born on April 6th, it doesn't state so directly, so it remains merely a tradition and cannot be canonized as formal doctrine.

And the GospelCougar blog has posted statements from other LDS leaders, including the following from President Gordon B. Hinckley:

“In a few days comes the promise that spring will come again and summer will return, as it has through all the millennia that men have been upon the earth. It is no wonder that in ancient times Christmas, commemorating the birth of the Christ child, was celebrated at this solstice season. Men had no knowledge of the time of His birth, and so they came to bond the celebration of Christmas with the celebration of the return of the sun. While we now know through revelation the time of the Savior’s birth [April 6], we observe the 25th of December with the rest of the Christian world.”(“Christmas Devotional with First Presidency,” Ensign, Feb. 1998, 74–75)

To be consistent, Latter-day Saints do not hold special religious services on April 6th. In fact, Latter-day Saints only hold religious services on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. This means no special Easter services, either.

However, local LDS bishops are not barred from holding Christmas services if they so desire, and a few have held such services, as documented in some comments to this blog post on Feminist Mormon Housewives. But in general, devout Mormons have so many callings and other meetings related to these callings that they generally would rather take Christmas off and observe it in other ways.