News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders

Mormons and The Cross

If the preaching of the Cross (or “very word Cross”) is foolishness to those who are perishing, how much more distasteful will such people find its image?

Interesting arcticle. Thanks for posting.

We had a thread about them not using the cross. They never admitted that that was the reason why they did not display the cross. Either they didn’t know the history of it or they did not want to admit the truth.

Well that was something about mormons I didn’t know but it should make sense since, I don’t recall seeing a cross on any of their churches. i guess though that explains why when a local stake bought a protestant church here they removed the large cross off the outside of it. i did research on them when my catholic godson married one and found little or nothing “saintly” about them. They have some very bizarre doctrines by the way that they don’t tell their people and leaving the church gives one all kinds of problems. When I worked in RCIA we had a lady coming to us from mormonism whose bishop sent the most horrible letter about her accusing her of adultry, blasphemy,and everything except “praying her black matins at midnight” (to borrow a line from Sir Gwain and the Green Knight).We had a special meeting to discuss it with her and were left with the conclusion that the bishop was very angry at losing one of his own and was going to all lengths to discredit her and keep her from joining us. She was baptised at the Easter vigil that year and joined the church!:thumbsup:

[quote=ricko]We had a thread about them not using the cross. They never admitted that that was the reason why they did not display the cross. Either they didn’t know the history of it or they did not want to admit the truth.

Most LDS know nothing about their organization’s history. It is hard to fault them for it, because their leaders try to hide the true history and instead present a whitewashed fantasy and call it history.

Note the number of LDS on this forum who didn’t know that Joseph Smith killed two men during the gun battle in which he died. The LDS leaders claim that he died as a martyr and went “like a lamb to the slaughter”. So far as I know, lambs do not carry sidearms nor do they shoot their attackers.

Note also the number of LDS on this forum who were unaware that Joseph Smith married many women who were already married to other men (after he sent those men away on missions).

Very interesting article. Thanks Paul.

“…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” 1 Cor. 1:23

God bless

It sounds bogus to me. I don’t recall anything from my reading of LDS hstory that leads to that conclusion. Mormons do not have an “aversion” towards the cross. They just don’t use it. I am sure the “thesis” is something that can be easily disproved by LDS scholars.


Did you read the article all the way through?

What do you think of this part:

…in Mormon Doctrine , a book by the late Bruce R. McConkie. McConkie, vehemently anti-Catholic, equated the cross with the Bible’s satanic “mark of the beast.”

or this:

Two years after becoming president [of the LDS Church] in 1953, McKay pointed to a Catholic church in California and commented: “There are two great anti-Christs in the world: Communism and that church.”

In 1957, McKay established the LDS Church’s no-cross protocol, saying it was not proper for LDS girls to wear it on their jewelry, saying the cross is “purely Catholic. … Our worship should be in our hearts.”

Though McKay later tempered his comments about Catholicism, his opposition to the cross became church policy. From that day to this, Mormons look askance at any member who pays too much homage to the ubiquitous Christian symbol.

Anti-Catholic sentiments have existed in the LDS Church in the past, and it goes way beyond the time of David O McKay. He inherited it; he did not start it. And not using the symbol of the cross has been a practice of the LDS Church from much earlier times. It is not a statement against the Catholic Church.

The LDS Church’s past anti-Catholic sentiments has now been recognized as a mistake. All churches make these kinds of mistakes. The Catholic Church used to be anti-Semitic for most of its history. Now they recognize that that was a mistake. They sent crusaders during the Middle Ages to kill and murder innocent Muslims in the Holy Land. Now they realize that was a mistake. The last Pope even went so far as to appologize for them. If you wanted to explore the past and dig up old graves, you will find a lot more skeletons in Catholic cupboards than in Mormon ones.


I don’t care what any of those quoted in the article are quoted as having said. (I hope they have gotten over their hard feelings.) I appreciate whenever I see someone wearing a cross as a symbol of their faith in Christ and of their sacred personal religious beliefs. I’m grateful for the symbol, and for the beliefs they hold dear. I also enjoy the many different kinds of creche displays, most Holy Family artwork, and a beautiful small statue of Christ holding His arms outstretched that was given to my daughter when she was ill and sits on our mantle.

Paul, I did hear back from my friend, and he said those brethren are very busy and probably don’t read every manual word for word. His personal opinion was more in line with what you said you had been taught earlier. 'Hope all is well with you and your family.

Z let’s be honest here. I live in Utah and have all my life. When someone wearing a cross comes into a room filled with Mormons (as I have done on several occasions) You know as well as I do they stare in disgust. If you get in a conversation about it most Mormons have similar lines about not worshiping the cross and not focusing on Christ’s death etc. Now for a look at real history, Get a real history book and get away from the hollywood historians of our time. In short, The Crusades were actually started due to the fact that two-thirds of Christian lands hand been conquered and enslaved by Muslims. Catholics were not the aggressors, Muslims were coming right into Rome and carrying out conquests. The first crusade was a do or die situation where most historians agree that were it not for Catholics fighting their defensive wars it is possible you would be wearing a turban worshiping Allah today whether you liked it or not. Remember Muhammad really did preach conversion by the sword. In real history there are various letters from Popes condemning the actions of Christian fighters who broke the rules of conduct and committed evil acts in these defensive wars. The inquisitions grew out of the crusades. For example after Spain had been enslaved for many years the Christians took it back and it was still full of Muslims eager to infiltrate and take back over. The inquisition was originally intended as an intelligence gathering instrument to prevent internal subversion of Governments etc. Yes these too were abused by those usually breaking clear Catholic laws. Later Kings etc. used the inquisition as a front to commit all kinds of atroicities in the Name of the church.
Please realize that Catholic answers and other historical sources show evidence that the Catholic church officially was not responsible for any unjust deaths etc. though there were many who used the Church’s defensive positions as an excuse to commit great evils.

I don’t know how large of a cross MormonPro was talking about, but if it was a small one as I’ve commonly seen, then I don’t get where he is coming from since I see such very commonly in Utah and I don’t see anyone staring at the people wearing them. I had very good friends in high school in Utah in the early 1970’s who wore crosses to school and seemed very comfortable wearing them. I appreciated that aspect of their culture. But I guess maybe I lived in a more homogenized part of Utah–Davis County. Ah, well.

I think I have noticed inconsistancies in their teachings. It is just me or do they shift on doctrine through the years? :hmmm:

Does this mean that the Mormon church has given up it’s Apostacy-Restoration dichotomy?

That is the part of Mormonism that Catholics find the most offensive, the statement that the Catholic church became so corrupt and “apostate” that the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the Church, and the church “died” until it could be “restored” back into existence by Joseph Smith.

Until that doctrine is removed I see little hope for LDS/Catholic discussion. I really see the LDS/Mormon presence on this Catholic board as an attempt to openly proselityze Catholic from their faith.

After all this is a Catholic board, not a Mormon board.:frowning:

Absolutely not! That is a fact, not a mistake. We rectify errors; we don’t give up facts.

That is the part of Mormonism that Catholics find the most offensive, the statement that the Catholic church became so corrupt and “apostate” that the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the Church, and the church “died” until it could be “restored” back into existence by Joseph Smith.

Apostasy does not mean that “the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the Church, and the church “died””. The church did die in the sense that the priesthood authority was lost. But it didn’t die in the sense that “the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the Church”. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Christians had (and still have) the Holy Spirit to guide them according to their faith and desires to do good.

Until that doctrine is removed I see little hope for LDS/Catholic discussion.

Maybe you don’t; but I doubt if the Catholic hierarchy think that way. I don’t think your opinion counts for very much in the Vatican—sorry to disappoint!

I really see the LDS/Mormon presence on this Catholic board as an attempt to openly proselityze Catholic from their faith.

I am here to counter your Mormon bashing! :slight_smile:

After all this is a Catholic board, not a Mormon board.:frowning:

Wrong again! How many times do you intend to be wrong in one post? This is a non-Catholic religions board.


That is an absolute load of rubbish. On the subject of the cross, Mormons have no such attitude towards the cross. Just last Sunday I met a man with a nice looking small white cross pinned to the lapel of his coat (with some other symbol attached to it). I became curious about that, and asked him what it meant. He told me that it was the insignia of some Christian club or association he was member of. He was happily wearing it in Church, and nobody cared. I was the only one who even noticed.

On the subject of the crusades, I suggest you read up your history before talking so much nonsense about what you evidently know nothing about. The amount of info on the Internet is legion. Here is a good place to start. If the crusades were so great, why did the last Pope have to apologize for them?


He didn’t, actually.It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if he had, but…he didn’t. Sorry. He was only able to fire three times and even THEN he didn’t fire until after the mob had killed his brother. It would have been difficult, given that there were 200 men trying to get into that room to kill him, for him to MISS with those three shots, but the fact is, even though John Taylor (he was on OUR side) wrote that he had heard that two of the men Joseph shot had died, it was wishful thinking based upon rumor. The three men who were shot were: John Willis…shot in the arm, survived just fine; William Voras…shot in the shoulder…survived; William Gallaher…shot in the face, also survived. All three where indicted for the murder of Joseph Smith and ran for the hills. There is no evidence at all that any of the three died as a result of their wounds, or even that they were seriously inconvenienced (well, except for the having to run to escape being tried for murder part)

There was, evidently, one more person wounded in that attack (well, other than the murder victims, who evidently don’t count according to you). Since Joseph only fired three times, it’s hard to put that down to his gun. In fact, there were so many bullets flying around that the odds are rather high that one, two, or all three of the men whose wounds were attributed to Joseph were actually wounded by 'friendly fire."

(shrug) I personally want to think that Joseph got them, though, so we’ll leave that as is.

Given the level of accuracy you have shown here, sir, I would say that the 'number of Mormons" you point to as ‘not knowing’ things you claim to be true would equal—all of them.

Wow Z did you even read the reference you speak of here or just assume you were right without any proof as usual. To quote the Wikipedia reference: “The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.” My point exactly, The crusades were started as defensive wars to take back Christian lands enslaved by Muslims. Also you noticed the man wearing the cross in your mormon church, and you approached him and asked him what it meant, it sounds very dishonest for you to suggest you were the only one who noticed it. Come on you have got to be kidding yourself again…

Abortion, the butchering of millions (and billions world wide) of totally helpless children in our very day and time!!! Have you ever read Roe Vs. Wade Z??? The wording is almost exactly the same as your current Mormon doctrine allowing abortions: "President Gordon
B. Hinckley for the first time publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)
In review of this statement we see that first, Mr. Hinckley denounces abortions and in the same breath makes allowances for what he denounces. Next he lists 5 cases (i.e. 1.rape 2.incest 3.Jeopardy to the life of the Mother 4. Jeopardy to the health of the mother. 5.Severe deformity.)
Remembering that only God can place a child in the womb for whatever purpose is known to him and that the purpose of an abortion is to bring forth a dead child, we ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows them to kill a totally innocent child because someone injured them by rape or incest? Many Mormons argue devoutly for abortions where the mothers life is at risk, (while at the same time ignoring the other four cases their church allows) is it loving the child as she loves herself for a mother to ensure that her child dies because her life is at risk? Wouldn’t the council of other Christian Churches that if you are determined that the child must come forth do not kill it first, but rather bring it forth alive and give it every chance to live, uphold loving as we love ourselves? HEALTH is a term used by the abortion industry to uphold an abortion for virtually any medical or psychological reason. Roughly 95 percent of all abortions in Utah and nationwide are done using Therapeutic (Health) as a reason, In 1997 (the year of Hinckleys announcement embracing abortion) Utah had 3,054 of 3,140 total. (source; Utah Dept. Of Health, Bureau of Vital Records ph. 801–538–6301 free technical report). To those in the know, it is incredible that Mr. Hinckley would include health as a case for abortions his church allows. Would Jesus tell a mother he allows her to kill her innocent child because her health may be at risk?
Mr. Hinckley next makes allowances for a mother to kill her child if it is known to have serious defects, and he claims that the doctors know the child will not survive beyond birth? We ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows her to kill her child now, because it may not survive 9 months? Is it loving The Child as our self? Is this how Jesus would have you treat the least of these? This is not a new concept, euthanasia (The concept that only the Healthy have a right to live as long as they will live) was also taught by Hitler and others who for their own purposes ignore the teachings of Christ in preference to their own. Amazingly, Mr. Hinckley suggests that people pray to God and receive a 'confirmation before proceeding. Would God give the confirmation that a parent should kill their own innocent child? Knowing that this has never happened and is strictly forbidden by the Holy Bible, isnt it obvious where Mormons are getting their instructions to kill their children from?

This is an apostasy of the Mormon church in our very day and time showing the Mormons clearly have their hands full of blood on a scale never equaled in history.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit