Perhaps the TTTF doesn’t mention this (out of political correctness?) but couldn’t idolatry have something to do with this? The early leaders of the Church, particularly Joseph Smith, took the injunction to avoid idolatry (that is, the worship of idols) very seriously. I have great respect for most Christian churches (even looking past their generally ubiquitous anti-Mormonism) but must still admit the impression of idolatry I get when observing a baroque crucifix of the tortured Christ in, e.g. Regensburg, or gazing at the massive golden statue of the crucified Christ, albeit sans crucifix, that hangs ominously above the congregation in Berlin’s Gedächtnis-Kirche near Zoo Station. I actually greatly appreciate these items for their artistic merit but shy away from the thought of worshipping them, even as only a symbol of the living and triumphant Jesus that I have come to know through the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The angel Moroni, you might counter, is just as much the idol as is the giant hanging golden Jesus in the Gedächtnis-Kirche. I have to disagree with that because there is no way in which the Church can accurately be described as worshipping a statue of Moroni. The statue of Moroni is more analogous to the statues of Luther, Zwingli, Melanchton, and Calvin in the Berlin Cathedral, which I don’t think that our Church necessarily has anything against. After all, we have our share of statues of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Karl G. Maeser, etc. These are just works of art, not to be worshipped.

The devotion given to the crucifix with its tortured Christ, rightly or wrongly according to strict tenets of doctrine in those churches, actually seems to closely resemble Greco-Roman worship of statued deities. If for that reason alone the Church has pursued the correct course in choosing not to raise the cross, despite the Church’s obvious central focus on Jesus Christ. This actually applies also to the devotion given to statues of the Saints in the Catholic Church. Nowhere was this more evident to me than while visiting the Wieskirche in Bavaria last month. To reiterate, I highly value the contribution of the Catholic Church to the righteousness of our societies, and I love the artistic value of these things, but standing the Wieskirche looking at the “gegeiselte Heiland,” I couldn’t shake the impression of Greco-Roman idol worship.

I think you’re conflating two things that are quite different. I mean, there are crosses and there are crosses. Der gegeiselte Heiland might make you uneasy, but it’s a LONG way from a simple cross. I don’t have a theological problem with the former (au contraire, was not the Passion an experience of brutal, horrible agony?), but aethetically I would prefer not to adorn my home with pictures of torture. But a simple cross, like a Celtic cross or an Armenian cross in particular, would be welcome in my home.

Remember why Moses lifted up the staff in the wilderness? Because our hope, our only hope is Jesus and his atonement. All other symbols (Moroni etc.) pale in comparison.

From United Brethren’s discussion: Mormons DO focus on the cross. Where’s Gethsemane in the Book of Mormon? What’s the holiest token in the Temple? What symbols does Jesus carry even now on his body? The True to the Faith explanation is just plain PC twaddle. The real reason? To draw a distinction between us and traditional Christians. The Cross as a corporate symbol has a tainted history (Ku Klux Klan anyone?) and it’s sensible to reject it, as a corporate symbol. But as a personal symbol of one’s devotion to Jesus? Fine by me.

I, too, have wondered about this issue. I’ve honored it, but because I was raised attending many different churches, I find comfort in the cross symbol. When my daughter (aka BG) who is very faithful, decided rather rebelliously and untypically for her, to buy a cross necklace, I let her. She got bored with it, nobody commented, I don’t think it’s sinful. They are quite pretty.

The same way I think about the similarities between Enuma Elish and Genesis, Gilgamesh and the Flood, Psalm 82 and the Hymn to the Aten, Jesus and Dumuzi, the Christmas tree and the pagan tree, and the temple and Freemasonry…

…i.e. that symbols are fluid from one religion to another, that connections between the two are hard to resist but difficult to prove, and that once a symbol is imbued with a new meaning, its origin is largely irrelevant.

So, if the cross has a pagan origin, I don’t care. When Christians revere the Cross they are not revering Zeus.

Now, when they are burning it whilst lynching blacks, that’s another issue entirely…

I’ve seen missionaries go to great lengths to coerce new converts into removing crosses from their houses or their personal effects. However, these extremes seem unjustified to me. The cross isn’t a symbol of the LDS church, which is well established. So what if new converts use the cross not as a symbol of their status as Saints but rather as a symbol of family tradition or of membership in the broader community of Christians? All of this seems fairly unproblematic to me.

With respect to the church’s decision to avoid crosses, I think it’s a reasonable marketing decision. It helps differentiate our product on the religious market, and that’s fine. The theological justification has always seemed weak at best to me, however. Other Christians don’t use the cross to commemorate a dead Christ; they use it to celebrate the atonement and Christ’s sacrifice–and, as Dave noted, to remember the resurrection. We do the same when we eat the sacrament. So we’re obviously not opposed to commemorating the atonement and the resurrection. Nor does our supposedly distinctive emphasis on the living Christ prevent us from reading the last few chapters of each Gospel. So this all strikes me as an essentially shallow justification of a marketing decision.