Why Mormons do not use the cross (most the time)

The History of the Cross in Latter-day Saint Symbolism

 

Today, Christians around the world solemnly remember the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the willing sacrifice of His life for ours. We know that Christ’s suffering on the cross is an essential component of His Atonement and President Gordon B. Hinckley taught “we cannot forget [the cross]. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us.”

And yet, though Latter-day Saints have deep doctrinal beliefs about what took place on Golgotha’s hill, we have a complex history with the cross as a symbol. On this Good Friday, take a closer look at the history of the cross in Latter-day Saint symbolism.

Early Christian Symbols

For the earliest Christians, the cross represented gruesome torture and exquisite death. While we are far removed from the depravity of crucifixion today, death by crucifixion was common for slaves and the lower classes. Thus, the cross was not a popular Christian symbol in the first few centuries following Christ’s death. This isn’t to say the cross wasn’t associated with early Christians or used in iconography; it simply wasn’t venerated on the same scale in later years and was included in a wide array of symbols, including the ichthus, the dove, and the good shepherd.

In his book, The Cross Before Constantine, Bruce W. Longenecker helps us understand the meteoric rise of the cross as a symbol after the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and legalized the faith.

 

“It is not my view that the cross was predominant among the early Christian symbols,” Longenecker writes. “Other symbols were also employed by pre-Constantinian Christians as symbols of faith, and some of them seem to have had a wider currency (e.g., Jesus the Good Shepherd).

“Moreover, the cross clearly does not have the same kind of prominence prior to Constantine that it came to have after Constantine. At that point, the cross increasingly became incorporated into Christian worship, outstripping other symbols as the preeminent symbol of the Christian faith in the centuries that followed. During the fourth through the seventh centuries, the cross continued to rise to prominence as the centerpiece of Christian religious art, adorning walls, and architecture at key positions in post-Constantinian places of Christian worship.”

The Reliquary Cross of Justin II.

 

In the years leading to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the cross was displayed in multiple ways—on buildings, on personal tokens and artifacts, and in religious ceremonies. As the years passed, it became more and more common to depict the actual crucifixion with the oft-gruesome body of Christ displayed hanging upon it. This helped spur a change in meaning for the cross. Instead of a symbol of victory, with empty crosses displayed as scepters and decorated with gems and gold, it became a connection to Christ’s intimate knowledge of our own suffering.

However, as the Reformers began to push against the doctrines and policies of the Catholic Church, the use of the cross began to be hotly contested. Protestants often saw the cross as an idol and many churches removed or simplified the cross. This clash between Catholicism and other reformed churches would continue in modern times and directly impact Latter-day Saint symbolism.

The Restoration

In Joseph Smith’s time, reformed sects dominated the religious landscape and early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were likely to have been part of churches that remained separated from the heavy iconography of the cross.

John Hilton III writes in Considering the Cross, “In America, during the 1820s, the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and many other Protestant churches did not typically display the image of the cross on or in their buildings. That was a Catholic practice, and at that time Catholics comprised a very small minority of Christians in America.”

 

Hilton went on to quote historian Richard Bushman when he said that Joseph Smith did not consciously reject the cross since the choice would have “required no decision on Joseph’s part. No one around him used the cross.”

Crosses for Early Latter-day Saints

 

 

Amelia Folsom Young, a wife of Church President Brigham Young, is photographed wearing a cross necklace.

 

Though crosses may not have been commonplace in the religious iconography of the day, the doctrine behind the cross was taught frequently in early Latter-day Saint meetings and the cross as a symbol wasn’t taboo or stigmatized. Crosses were displayed at funerals, worn by prominent Latter-day Saint members (especially women), and printed on an 1852 European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Charles W. Nibley, the Presiding Bishop for the Church at the time, even wrote a letter in 1916 requesting a cross be erected on Ensign Peak as a memorial to the pioneers. The idea was supported by President Joseph F. Smith and a local newspaper stated, “The monument is intended as an insignia of Christian belief on the part of the Church which has been accused of not believing in Christianity.”

Though the proposal would eventually be rejected, it stands as an example of the neutral, if not positive attitudes, the leadership of the Church had in regard to the cross.

The Great Transition and Continued Tensions

So, what changed? How did Latter-day Saints come to be so firmly against the cross as a symbol?

First, the growth of the Catholic Church greatly expanded between the 1840s and 1860s in eastern America as immigrants flocked to the country. This includes the arrival of over half a million Irish Catholics due to the 1845 Potato Blight. Attitudes changed and many churches which fought against the symbolism of the cross began to embrace it. However, this was the same time period in which the Church migrated to escape religious persecution. The Saints became largely isolated in the Intermountain West and kept from this revival of cross iconography.

Second, Latter-day Saint leaders continued to experience tension with the Catholic Church, stemming from prejudice that existed amongst multiple sects in Joseph Smith’s time. The Catholic Church had become linked in the minds of some Latter-day Saints with the “great and abominable church of all the earth” as referenced in 1 Nephi 14, though this was never publicly expressed by leaders. Privately, disdain brewed and eventually led to the rejection of the cross as an accepted personal symbol for members. This firm line in the sand took hold during the presidency of David O. McKay, the ninth president of the Church.

President McKay had a spirit of warmth for individual Catholics, but animosity to the institution of the Catholic Church. He served as the president of the European mission in the 1920s and recorded in his journal that during a late-night celebration at a Catholic church people were “drinking and carousing until 6:30 this morning. O what a Godless farce that organization is.” The Church also had a difficult time with proselytizing efforts in the deeply Catholic countries over which President McKay presided.

 

Despite his personal feelings, relations between Latter-day Saints and Catholics remained cordial in Utah until 1948. During that year, the Church began a series of radio addresses on Sunday nights where President J. Reuben Clark Jr. of the First Presidency would affirm core tenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The radio station also made airtime available on Sunday nights for the Catholic Bishop Duane Hunt to do the same. After Bishop Hunt’s first address, Church leaders reacted negatively, taking his words as an assault on Church theology and President Clark felt there was an active agenda to lead Latter-day Saints from the Church by local Catholic leaders.

A month later, a pamphlet written by Bishop Hunt’s assistant and designed to raise money for underfunded Utah parishes was published. No mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made, but when President McKay saw the title, “A Foreign Mission Close to Home!” he assumed the pamphlet was about proselytizing to Latter-day Saints and began to speak against it. Bishop Hunt was deeply hurt and wrote to a colleague, “I have done everything possible to contribute to harmony…Some day I will discuss the whole subject with you, but not at present. I am too angry. I must wait until I have cooled off.”

With the pamphlet, the crisis between the Catholic Church and Latter-day Saint leaders boiled over. Local leaders throughout Utah were invited to meetings about how the Catholic Church was waging a war against Latter-day Saints and damaging sentiments were broadly shared. Eventually, meetings between Bishop Hunt and President McKay were held, tensions were eased, and the benevolent relationship between the two faiths resumed. When Bishop Hunt died in 1960, President McKay attended his funeral.

Still, President McKay’s personal feelings remained conflicted. In 1953, as he and a host passed by a Catholic Church in California, President McKay said, “There are two great anti-Christs in the world: Communism and that church.”

Discouraging Crosses Is Codified

One of the first public teachings against wearing or displaying crosses in the private lives of members occurred just a few short years after this conflict erupted. As author Michael G. Reed relates in his book, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo, President McKay spoke publicly on wearing crosses in 1957 after a jewelry store advertised cross necklaces for girls. Joseph L. Wirthlin, the Presiding Bishop, saw the advertisement, contacted President McKay, and asked if it was appropriate.

President McKay responded and said crosses were “purely Catholic and Latter-day Saint girls should not purchase and wear them…Our worship should be in our hearts.” While Latter-day Saints had never used the cross as an official symbol, this statement helped codify the idea that members should not embrace the cross as a private symbol of their faith.

In 1975, President Gordon B. Hinckley talked in General Conference about the symbols of Christ and what symbols best represented the Church. President Hinckley shared the following response he gave to a Protestant minister who toured a temple and wondered why no crosses were displayed:

“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 went on to say, “And so, 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.’”

The Cross As a Symbol Today

Because the Church does not employ the cross as an official symbol, many question if the Church is indeed Christian. Though the Church continues to embrace the living Christ and living discipleship as the ultimate symbol, recent changes have helped reflect our dedication to Christ.

In October 2018, President Russell M. Nelson placed prophetic emphasis on using the correct name of the Church. In April 2022, he announced a new logo for the Church featuring the Christus Statue.

It’s important to note that there is no statement in the Church’s official handbook about wearing or displaying crosses in the private lives of members. However, the Church has a Gospel Topics essay on the cross, which states, “As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.”

John Hilton III ultimately summarized how we can consider the cross today when he wrote, “Throughout the history of Christianity, faithful believers have had differing perspectives on how the cross should be used to represent Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Varying meanings of the image of the cross have been found among many denominations and geographic regions and even within the history of the restored Church. Today, some may choose to wear or display images of the cross or Crucifixion to remind themselves or teach their children of Christ’s love, shown through his atoning sacrifice. Others prefer to avoid images related to Christ’s death and instead focus on other symbols that remind them of the Savior’s Atonement. Either way, instead of judging the actions of others, we can all treasure the doctrine that Jesus Christ was ‘crucified for the sins of the world.’”

This paper was completed by Aleah Ingram

Gethsemane or Calvary?

 

·     800+ BYU students were asked where Christ suffered for sins; 58% said Gethsemane, 2% said Calvary, and 40% said both.

 

·     There are two scriptures that talk of Christ suffering for sins in Gethsemane (Mosiah 3 and D&C 19), but there are 50+ scriptures that talk of Calvary or Christ dying for our sins.

 

·     Only once in scripture does Christ himself talk about Gethsemane, but 20 times about His crucifixion.

 

·     The first time Nephi talks about Christ’s sacrifice, he states, I saw Him lifted up on the cross, dying for our sins.

 

·     After introducing himself, Christ says when he appears to the Nephites, “Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet.” (3Ne 11)

 

·     “This is my gospel… that I might be lifted up on the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father.” (3Ne 27, 13-14)

 

 

·     “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

 

·     In all of Joseph Smith’s teachings, not once did he talk about Gethsemane.

 

·     In General Conference talks from 1850 to 2020, there are five times more that talk of Christ dying on the cross than suffering in Gethsemane.

 

·     Russell M. Nelson has said, “In the Garden of Gethsemane, our Savior took upon Himself every pain, every sin, and all of the anguish and suffering ever experienced by you and me and by everyone who has ever lived or will ever live.  Under the weight of that excruciating burden, He bled from every pore.  All of this suffering was intensified as He was cruelly crucified on Calvary’s cross.”1

 

·     We love the scripture, “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.”  But the very next verse He states, “Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet.” (D&C 6:36-37) He wants us to fix our eyes on the crucifixion.  It is personal to Him; it opens up a window to connecting with Him.

 

·     With our pain in life, we can draw closer to Christ knowing that He understands us and can provide a healing connection.  “If He can do that, I can do this”; or “I can stop this.”

 

Crucifixion in the Ordinances

 

·     We are, “baptized into his death” (Romans 6:3)

·     What is important in the sacrament is that we remember, “my body which was laid down for you, and my blook which was shed for the remission of your sins.” (D&C 27:2)

 

·     In the sacramental prayers we eat, “in remembrance of the body”, and, “of the blood.”

 

·     “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death.” (1Cor 11:26)  In the sacrament we crucify the old you.

 

·     The veil of the temple, which represents Christ, was torn that all may enter, and as we do, we go through Christ into God’s presence.

 

·     The alter has always been known as a place of sacrifice and death, and as we kneel at an alter we are sealed as families. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” (Eph 5:25)  

AA current apostle's comments on this topic here.

 

1-Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church,” Liahona, Nov. 2018, 88.

 

 

My miracle keeping the Sabbath Day holy

 

Scriptural basis of the Sabbath

 

God made the Earth in seven periods or days.  But on the seventh day He ended his work… and He rested. (Gen 2: 2)  He then asked the same of man—that he do all his labors in six days, then rest on the seventh.  This was his request to Adam in behalf of all men.  Eventually this request ended up as one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses in behalf of the children of Israel… “Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.  Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.  (Deut 5: 12-15).

 

The Lord was very serious about this law.  At one point an Israelite man decided to gather sticks on the Sabbath.  Let’s read what happened to him… “they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.  And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.  And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.  And the Lord said unto Moses, the man shall be surely put to death:  all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.  And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died: as the Lord commanded Moses (Num 15: 32- 35).”

How much did the man really need to gather sticks on the Sabbath?  Perhaps he underestimated on his Saturday gathering and he was cold.  Perhaps he had children that scattered or ran off with his gathered sticks.  Or perhaps he just forgot until too late.  Whatever the reason, the Lord thought it worthy of death.  

  

Although today very few seem to think of Sunday any different than other days, there is no indication that this law was ever revoked.  In fact, Jesus himself reconfirmed the Ten Commandments and the apostles continued to uphold them as well.

 

My story of getting Sundays off

 

As I got old enough and got into the workforce, I too was very serious about keeping the Sabbath.  I would not accept jobs that required this.  If Sunday work was needed, I requested that I not work this day, and my request was granted.

 

When it came time to decide my life’s work, for some reason this concept did not seem to come into my consideration—only how much I wanted to become a pharmacist and the interesting things I would learn in doing so.  But when I became licensed, unfortunately it became necessary to do so on an every other weekend basis.  I reasoned within myself that there are many other good people, as well as latter-day-saints that must work on Sunday—Firemen, policemen, and several other pharmacists that I knew of.  I reluctantly settled into this situation and did so for several years.  However, eventually—at least for me—I began to feel like I was missing something.  I felt like I was being passed over when others were being asked to serve.  I was not there with my family on what seemed like what should be a family and worshipful day.  The weeks I did have off I truly appreciated.  I felt close to the Lord and to my family and part of the whole process, but again I felt this needed to be a part of every week, not just every other week.  

 

I decided I needed to at least try to get all Sundays off.  I tried other areas of pharmacy with great effort and sacrifice without success.  Eventually I decided to gather up as much faith as I could and began to earnestly pray that I could somehow have Sundays off.  I did not know how it was possible, but I did so anyway.  

 

It wasn’t very long and, as happens quite often, I got a new partner—I believe he was Hindu.  He asked if he could have Saturdays off.  Apparently this was his holy day.  I agreed if I could get Sundays off.  This worked out very well for me.  My prayers were answered.  

 

After about a year however, this partner was transferred to another store and I was to get someone else.  I thought within myself, “well, so much for that.  It was great while it lasted.”  Then I found my next partner had an interesting request as well.  He had another job and wanted Monday thru Thursday afternoon off.  I in turn got Thursday afternoon thru Sunday off.  

 

Amazingly, this pattern (of getting partners that worked with me to get Sundays off) continued.  Through the years I cannot say I got all Sundays off, but I have had several other partners with many different scenarios, and except for one brief period, the result was that I ended up with Sundays off.  

Some were simply kind enough to rearrange the schedule.  At times company policy changed that resulted in the same.  For example, at one point, as it was looking like I would have to go back to Sunday work, policy changed that allowed us to use our vacation in separate days rather than in weekly periods.  For a long while I took advantage of this using my vacation days to get a paid day off on my Sunday.  When policy changed again not allowing this, I sacrificed nearly $1,000 per month for several years, with no second thought, giving away this day of work to my partner as overtime for him that he gladly did.  I was blessed enough to not miss that money at all.  Then they decided overtime cannot be scheduled, but other non-overtime help must be requested instead.  At the same time our store picked up a great amount of business and we needed additional pharmacist help and for a while I was able to request that help on my Sunday in the form of a floater pharmacist.  About the time they decided I could not do this, we were assigned a part-time pharmacist to work only our store that I could schedule how I wanted.  The person assigned to us only wanted to work every other weekend and one other night per week.  My partner was good with me using her on my Sunday (since weekends were actually easier to work than weekdays).  She worked my Sunday for several years.  Then just 3 months before I retired, they decided that all additional part-time help must go through a central scheduler which put her at other stores.  She did not like this and she quit.  So, I did as they said and again requested help on my Sundays.  This worked up until 2 weeks before I retired and they decided all days off with pay must be approved beforehand.  I happened to have extra vacation pay I needed to use up and they allowed me to use it to continue Sundays off until I retired.  I don't think I worked a single Sunday the last several years I worked.

I would estimate that more than 300 pharmacists worked for the company and no others besides myself that I knew of got Sundays off.  I did not feel that I was somehow better than them, but I did feel blessed.

 

How much I appreciated and felt honored at having the blessing of Sundays off.  I feel I have been greatly blessed for doing so.  To others it is an easy day to work, but I didn’t mind working a little harder or getting paid a little less for it.

 

In all of this process I have become very cognizant of those that do come to the pharmacy on Sunday.  After all, if they did not come to buy on Sunday, I would not have to be there when I did work it, to serve them in the first place!  I would often evaluate to myself--do they really need to be here on this day?  Couldn’t they come on another day?  In my personal and unscientific evaluation, I would estimate that only 5 to 10% of Sunday shoppers really need to get their medications on Sunday.  But even most of those, with more careful planning could do it on another day if they really wanted to.

 

I realize that some things cannot be avoided.  Some will need to be served on Sunday.  Some will need to work to serve those in need.  We should not judge.  In any case, I make sure that I do not add to that need if at all possible.  I have heard many interpretations of what activities are or are not keeping the Sabbath day holy.  Whatever that may be, I do not want to be any part of a reason to make someone else have to work on Sunday and deprive that person of blessings that could be otherwise observed.

 

There are many things we mortals do not understand—things that we must take on faith.  This commandment is probably one of them.  Why did the Lord rest on the seventh day and require the same for man?  We can only speculate—for example, some may assume that the body needs to rejuvenate.  Or maybe we need to respect what the Lord has done for us and learn gratitude by making this day different than the rest.  Or perhaps we need one day to buoy us up for the other 6.  These are all good answers, but the best answer is… because the Lord has commanded it.

The Important Question of God's Method of Creation

The Question

Did God create the world out of nothing (ex nihilo), or did He create it from existing matter and organize it?  The very first word in Genesis is the Hebrew word bereshit, which is more closely translated as, "In a beginning."  But using more correct English, it would say something like, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth..."  The implications of this small correction are massive.  The earth and its muck were already there.  Right out of the gate the ex nihilo fans have a problem.

 

Why this Matters

 

What’s at stake is much more than meets the eye.  Important theological doctrine lives or dies with the answer to this question.  The nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ and His relationship to God and us, our relationship to Him, our own value, and keys to understanding difficult questions, such as The Problem of Evil.

 

The Changing Answer Through the Ages

 

Most theologians today insist the word create in Genesis 1, or "bara" in Hebrew is understood to mean “to make something out of nothing" (ex nihilo).  This must be so in their minds or the very sanctity of God is at stake.  In other words, if God did not create out of nothing, then it is possible for matter, or even man, to be coeternal with God.  This is blasphemy in their minds as it demeans the power and majesty of God.  It also opens the door to other doctrine they cannot fathom to even be possible, such as the extremely prevalent doctrine in early Christianity of human deification.

 

But creation out of nothing has not always been the orthodox belief and is not found in the Bible.  Contrary to most of todays theologians' claims, their belief in ex nihilo creation was not shared by the first Christians. It crept in early, but was officially adopted in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

According to Gerhard May, in Schoepfung Aus Dem Nichts, the concept of creation ex nihilo “began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen's time. In fact the doctrine first emerged in the first several centuries of the common era. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creation ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian, Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker; the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of ‘non-existing’ matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of ‘seeds’, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos.”  

Thus, the doctrine of creation out of nothing was first advanced by a Gnostic (a heretical branch of Christianity), and even then it did not appear until more than a century after the birth of Christ.

However, the idea of God using pre-existing material in creation was common belief shared by many of the early Church Fathers, confirming that beliefs about the mechanism of creation altered over time.  

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) said: “And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received-of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.”

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) said in his "Hymn to the Paedagogus", “Out of a confused heap who didst create this ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass of matter didst the universe adorn...”

As was the case in many cherished doctrine among the early Christians, Greek philosophical ideas intruded on Christian doctrine, often changing it altogether. 

What we see in all texts from about 165 A.D. and after is that Platonic philosophy, both Middle and Neo, have infiltrated Christian thought and became a basis for major innovations in doctrine. To promote a restorationists view, we clearly see an apostasy in action here. The personal God of the Bible known through revelation and personal encounter is suddenly too far removed from the human sphere of existence to be involved in such things with humans. The notion that humans are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1: 26) must be reinterpreted to fit the Platonic view, that God is utterly unique and entirely unlike humans.

The adoption of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo had other far reaching implications for the history and form of Christian theology even to our own day. The doctrine of creation out of nothing led inevitably to what came from the council of Chalcedon, which put in stone the idea that Christ was one person having two natures, consubstantial with the Father in his deity. This two-nature theory of Christology assured that the Platonic view of natures and substance would be essential to make sense (at least to the Greek mind) of the doctrine of God within the new creedal tradition.  This way of thinking gave rise to what became todays popular doctrine of the Trinity--that God is three in substance.

 

The doctrine of creation out of nothing also leads to incorrect arguments in which everything that occurs must be caused by God, for if he didn’t cause each substance to exist anew in each moment, it would cease to exist.  By definition, this must include both good and evil creations--even Satan himself.

 

Well-known author Edwin Hatch noted the influence of some Greek philosophical ideas in the change to the now orthodox belief in creation ex nihilo:

“With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was "out of that which was not" that He made things to be . . . . The basis of the theory was Platonic, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church.” The transition appears in Tatian, ca. A.D. 170.

Evaluation only from the Scriptures, “sola scriptura” 

Michael L.T. Griffith in One Lord, One Faith, clarifies the Greek translation of the word create.  “The Greek text translated from Hebrew does not teach ex nihilo, but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb “ktidzo" carried an architectural connotation...as in 'to build' or 'establish' a city.... Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material.”

 

The Bible never expressly states that God made everything from nothing in any language.1 The definition of the word bara in Hebrew is an abstract concept with no apparent concrete foundation.  The English translation we conceive is therefore not a Hebrew concept, and as we shall see, the translated word can and does change throughout the scriptures.  But a simple view of its use through hermeneutics can help.  In Genesis 2:7 it states that the Almighty “formed” man.  The Hebrew word here translated as “formed” is the verb “yatsar” and is best understood as the process of pressing clay together to form an object such as a figurine.  We can plainly see from this verse that man was made from something; however, in Genesis 1:27 we read, according to most translators, “God created (“bara”) man”, and it is said this means from nothing.  However, as we have discovered, man was made from something.  In fact in Genesis 2:7 it states that God formed man out of dust.  Therefore the word “create” or “bara” in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27 cannot mean to make something out of nothing.  By examining other passages where this word appears, we can begin to see its true meaning more clearly.

“‘Why do you kick at My slaughtering and My offering which I have commanded in My Dwelling Place, and esteem your sons above Me, to make yourselves fat (bara) with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?” (1 Sam 2:29).

 

Believe it or not, the word “bara” is translated as “fat” in the verse above and is the original concrete meaning of this word. With this translation in mind, what would it mean in Genesis 1:1 when it says, “Elohim fattened the heavens and the earth”? When an animal is chosen for the slaughter, it is placed in a pen and fed grain so that it can be fattened, or “filled up.” This idea of “filling up” is now more relevant to the next verse.

 

    “And the earth became formless and empty (unfilled)…” (Genesis 1:2)

 

The New Testament does not teach creation ex nihilo. To the contrary, 2 Peter 3:5 expressly teaches that God created out of the already existing chaotic waters, Hebrews 11:3 expressly teaches that God created the visible world from the already existing invisible world, and Romans 4:17 teaches that God created from an already existing substrate.

 

   Numbers 16:30 describes a miracle, but not technically an ex nihilo event. There are several similar uses in the book of Ezekiel.  In the well-known petition of king David, “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalms 51:10), he uses the word, bara.

   Thinking of God organizing or filling in the creation process simply makes more sense in English and is more true to the word, bara.

 

Let’s consider 2 Corinthians 4:18.  “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal", suggesting that aspects of the created "unseen world" are eternal, despite the exercise of God's creative power upon them.

 

Conclusion

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who support the view of creation ex materia, are often held up as the "bad" example when this topic is criticized.  Critics of the LDS church in their stance on this issue claim Joseph Smith’s theology to be Pagan, false and recently contrived.

 

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

“Far from reverting to paganism or simply falling into sloppy thinking, Smith was carrying his confidence in Christ to its fullest possible expression....All things are possible not only for us but also for God, in that this universe does not exhaust the divine creativity. The universe is not big enough to hold the majesty of God’s ingenuity. Rather than reacting negatively to the apparently infinite expansiveness of the universe, Smith called astronomy’s bluff and multiplied the universe by the same expansive factor. Smith was wiping the theological slate clean of the Neo-Platonic metaphysics that had so influenced Augustine.”

 

Doctrine and Covenants 93: 29 is a verse that can be easily read through without much notice, but it literally explodes millennia of debate and error and opens up this issue in wonder and simplicity, “Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”  

 

Among other important doctrine, it blew apart The Problem of Evil, at least in part.  This is a philosophical and theological problem that basically states; If God is good, and God is omnipotent, why does evil exist?  Either He can’t or won’t eliminate it. This dilemma drives people to atheism more than any other issue. Probably the biggest “evil” here is man and his evil works.  Why would God create this evil being in the first place?  Answer:  He didn’t—at least not the inner part with the predisposition to choose good or evil.  But He is trying His best to change that evil part into good.  He is literally our Heavenly Father as He is the Father of our spirits, but we have always existed.

 

 

Joseph Smith’s theology is simple, yet vast as the multiverse.  It eliminates Neo-Platonism and Augustine’s part therein.  It reestablishes the belief that we are a whole universe more personal with God and significantly elevates our potential—that we really were made in the image and likeness of God.  It is my conviction that his theology was revealed to him from God himself.  Given his lack of education, this is by far the most logical conclusion.  Man’s medaling with theology, even by well-educated theologians and philosophers, without God’s help too often leads down a road to more and more error and misunderstanding, and it is no different in this case.

 

See here for further reading, or a video here

1-Creation "ex nihilo", Origin, Development and Contemporary Challenges, Gary A. Anderson

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Power of Covenants

When Joseph Smith was first visited by The Father and Jesus Christ, he was told that the professors of religion of the day had “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”  They did have some godliness, but what about this power?  2 Tim 3:5 councils us of those, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”  How do they have godliness but deny its' power?  The mystery is solved in D&C 84:21, “Without the ordinances thereof, and the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh.”  These ordinances spoken of here go hand in hand with making covenants.

According to Merriam-Webster, a covenant is 1) usually a formal, solemn, and binding agreement.  2) a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action.  

But is the meaning of covenant the same biblically?  According to bibleproject.com, biblically, “A covenant is a relationship between two partners who make binding promises to each other and work together to reach a common goal.  They’re often accompanied by oaths, signs, and ceremonies.”  We can easily extend this to include ordinances.  This sounds very close to Webster and aligns well with LDS beliefs.  

However, according to Pastor John Giarizzo of Grace Covenant Church, “covenants in the Bible do not create a relationship that did not exist before, but formalize a relationship that is already in place… while we have an ongoing, personal relationship with God, we don't make covenants with Him, but live out the implications of the covenants that have been made and are still in force.”  He comments that this way of thinking is "tradition", and claims this to be, "historic and orthodox Christianity." If this is true, it would seem to cancel out any agreements or promises between two parties as well as any working "together to reach a common goal".

To make things even more muddy, biblestudytools.com states, “In religious and theological circles there has not been agreement on precisely what is to be understood by the biblical term (covenant).”  There is no doubt disagreement among theologians on this matter.

As much as I have learned about and practiced making and keeping covenants, its meaning and importance truly can be somewhat allusive.  We know that God has worked with man through covenants from the beginning, so they must be important.  In fact, what we know as the Old and New Testaments were anciently known as the Old and New Covenants.  The word "covenant" is used almost 300 times in the King James Bible.

To make things more clear, President Russell M. Nelson put it simply, "The covenant path is all about our relationship with God."  We understand that covenants we make with God bind us to Him, helps us rely on Him, and more fully allows Him to bless us, just as we would our own children.   

There are several covenants we make as members of the church.  The baptismal covenant is the first.  We covenant to take upon us His name and always remember Him.  You might say we promise to become a Christian and all that it entails (Gal 3:27).  We are then given the Holy Ghost as our constant companion.  Even though I’m sure I was taught that, it was years before I really understood it to any degree.  But going even further to understand the reason and nature of covenants helps as well.

 

When I was still young in Primary, I remember one Sunday we were all being very rambunctious—more than usual.  Besides being loud, we were taking turns sneaking to the light switch and turning the lights off and on.  There were no windows in the room, so it got pretty dark.  Each time the lights came back on, we would look to see who the culprit was and laugh it off.  Then one time the lights went off and on as usual, but as we all turned to see who did it, there was nobody even close to that light switch.  We immediately all became very quiet.  I’m sure you could have heard a pin drop.  We all slowly and instinctively went to our seats, sat down and looked to the front towards our teacher.  The teacher asked us what we thought just happened.  One boy raised his hand and said, “Heavenly Father told us to be reverent.”  The class then proceeded in that manner to the end.

 

I tell this story, not to underline the importance of reverence in the Lords house, or of how thin the veil can be (though they can be important lessons), but to pose the question; how did the relationship between the teacher and the students change at that moment?  Obviously the teacher lacked the ability to control her class, but after the light phenomenon she had complete control.  We looked to her for guidance, which she gave, but also she could look to us as humble and obedient in every respect.  She could trust us to do whatever she asked, whether it be to retrieve something, or to simply listen and learn.  In fact I think we could say that her power as a teacher increased in that she had many that would obey her word and she knew it.  We not only looked to her for guidance, but we had faith in her words and even honored her and her wisdom.   At that moment, we were completely loyal and one with that teacher.  This is the type of relationship that our Heavenly Father wants with His children, and it is often through covenants that this is achieved.  In this state of humility, loyalty and respect, we are more receptive and progress at a much faster rate.

 

Loyalty is power in any respect.  As we make covenants, we are extended trust that we will be obedient to that covenant.  A form of loyalty, which not only elevates us, but in a sense increases power, not only to the one extending it, but also to the one receiving it.  (Of course priesthood authority is needed to extend the covenant which is associated with an ordinance, as mentioned in the above scripture.)  As more become one in purpose, the greater the force to promote that purpose.  This power can be shared with all parties, sometimes sooner and sometimes later, depending on the level of trust.  

In some respects, the very moment we make a covenant, we begin to reap the blessings of that covenant as if we always had and always will keep it.  To make a common comparison, when we make a promise to make mortgage payments, we then have the power to live in and improve our house any way we please—as if it was paid off.

 

I think anyone would agree that power is an essential attribute of deity.  Understanding better the source of that power can help us to more effectively become more like Them.

 

In Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 we read, “…behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power.”

 

Here we learn that His honor is his power, at least in part.  Where does He get honor?  There are many ways, but as we have faith in, and follow the will of God, this in fact honors Him and in a sense increases His power, which He then shares with us.  

 

As we engage in this process and continually repent, we eventually become a being that is incapable of sin and worthy of all the trust the universe has to offer.  Although our sinful past does not qualify us for that trust, the law is satisfied through Christ’s atonement that we qualify for through our obedience to ordinances and covenants.  Our sinful past is replaced with Christ’s and trust in us grows as we continue to honor our covenants.*

 

As we established, the source of His power, at least in part, is in the honor and loyalty given Him by His creations.  We are told that all things that are created obey His word—all except for man.  Man must learn obedience.

 

In Mark 4: 37-39 we read, “And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.  And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him and say unto him, Master carest thou not that we perish?  And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, peace, be still.  And the wind ceased and there was a great calm… And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

 

What is it that gave Him power in this situation?  It surely was not obedient men.  The implication here is that even the very elements obey Him, which could also imply to the honor, faith, and love that even the elements have for Him.

Obedience to covenants can give us help in ways we may not have considered.  I love the comments on this subject at the April 2021 conference by D. Todd Christopherson.

"The ordinances of the temple and the covenants you make there are key to strengthening your life, your marriage and family, and your ability to resist the attacks of the adversary..." 

 

When we are diligently pursuing the covenant path, we quite naturally avoid many “unforced errors.” We sidestep the various forms of addiction. We do not fall into the ditch of dishonest conduct. We cross over the abyss of immorality and infidelity. We bypass the people and things that, even if popular, would jeopardize our physical and spiritual well-being. We avoid the choices that harm or disadvantage others and instead acquire the habits of self-discipline and service.

 

The covenants God offers to His children do more than guide us. They bind us to Him, and, bound to Him, we can overcome all things."

Keeping in mind this great quote and looking more deeply into the baptismal covenant from the sacrament prayer, "that they do always remember Him, that they may have thy spirit to be with them."  We can surmise that if we do not keep this or other covenants, we will not have His spirit to be with us.  In this state, we are more susceptible to temptation.  Keeping all our covenants keeps us in a safe zone, so to speak.

We are given hints in scripture as to how God uses His power to rule and I think this may be helpful to better understand as well.  We know it is not by the priesthood as we are told in D&C 121.  In other words, not by demand, not by physical strength, not by anger, but, “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.  By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.”  He admonishes us to, “Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God… The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.”

 

The, “without compulsory means” part is telling here to me.  In other words, He does not force us or any element in the universe to obey Him.  His word is followed out of love.  To me this is power in its most divine sense.

Our father in heaven loves to grant blessings whenever possible. But to randomly do so, especially with no offering on our part may be received with less meaning or gratitude. With a covenant, as we keep it, we are blessed with the promise of that covenant, and we increase as a person. We grow and learn and appreciate to a greater extent than we would without that covenant.  As Elder Robert M. Daines has taught, "Covenants are the shape of God's embrace."

The same joy that the Father has He wants for His children.  He has given us the gift of covenants, the keeping of which allows the power of God to enter our lives and fill us with love as we work side by side our Father to become godly ourselves.

*Please see The Power of Covenants by Darrel Zeltner here

 See a video on an alternate side of covenants here