Over the years, I’ve heard the criticism from individuals in the Christian community about the lack of crosses on Latter-day Saint architecture.
From my perspective, I remember hearing all different kinds of ideas and theories from other members as to why our buildings don’t feature crosses.
I’ve seen everything from members wearing crosses like it’s no big deal to a ward mission leader’s wife who sternly reproved a less-active kid who wore a cross at church. (As a missionary, it really angered me at the time) But maybe she was influenced by teachings like this:
In 1957, President David O. McKay, in his personal journal, wrote that he told a bishop that Latter-day Saint girls should not purchase or wear cross necklaces, stating it was “purely Catholic… Our worship should be in our hearts.”
John Hilton III
The main idea that I remember is that the cross was more of a creedal Christian symbol and that the restoration focused more on the living Christ. The teaching about it I remember most was something similar to what Gordon B. Hinckley said in a 1975 talk:
For us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ. … The lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
The New Era
While some of these explanations are understandable, what makes the most sense to me is that the Latter-day Saints’ view of the cross was simply a continuation of beliefs that the early members retained from their Protestant heritages.
See, the image of a cross mounted above a church steeple or hanging prominently inside a sanctuary is now taken for granted in many Protestant congregations.
But that was not always the case. During much of the early nineteenth century, Protestant churches in America rarely used the cross as an architectural or liturgical symbol.
When it did become widespread, the change reflected deep shifts in theology, aesthetics, and Christian identity.
The 1800s Context
In early nineteenth-century America, the dominant Protestant churches such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and others bore little resemblance to the ornate, symbol-rich churches of medieval Europe.
Most Protestant traditions in early America avoided architectural crosses, while Lutherans and many Anglicans retained crosses or crucifixes in liturgical settings.
- Puritans and Congregationalists – extremely plain worship, no religious symbols, no crosses. Their churches were bare, emphasizing preaching and the written Word.
- Presbyterians – descended from Scottish Calvinism, which opposed religious images. Their meetinghouses were functional and undecorated.
- Baptists – rejected anything that hinted of “vain ceremony” or Catholic influence. Crosses were rare to nonexistent.
- Methodists – early Methodism under John Wesley and Francis Asbury stressed holiness and simplicity, not ornament. Their chapels were austere.
- Quakers – rejected all outward symbols, including the cross, as unnecessary forms.
- Early frontier and revivalist movements (like the Stone-Campbell Movement or Restorationists) – emphasized pure New Testament Christianity and therefore avoided symbolic displays.
Meetinghouses were plain: white clapboard walls, clear windows, and simple pulpits. The focus was on the preached Word rather than visual ornamentation, much like how Latter-day Saint chapels look today.
For many Protestant believers of that era, the use of crosses, and especially crucifixes, carried connotations of Catholic ritualism and “images” of devotion that they considered inappropriate.
Obelkevich, James; Roper, Lyndal (5 November 2013). Disciplines of Faith: Studies in Religion, Politics and Patriarchy. Routledge. p. 548.
The Calvinizers sought to remove the crucifix as idolatrous. There was considerable continuity, certainly, between the Lutheran use of the crucifix and the Catholic.
In short, the cross was not a common feature in Protestant churches during the early to mid-1800s; kind of interesting how things change over time.
A few groups maintained limited or earlier use of the cross, mostly because of their connection to Europe’s older liturgical traditions.
- Lutherans – Lutherans never completely abandoned the cross or the crucifix, especially among German and Scandinavian immigrants. Their theology was less iconoclastic. The cross might appear in a church interior or on liturgical objects, but usually not on building exteriors in early America.
- Anglicans / Episcopalians – The Church of England historically retained the cross in some form, though in colonial America even Anglicans were cautious to appear too “High Church.” Many early Episcopal churches were quite plain, but by the mid-1800s, under the influence of the Oxford Movement, crosses and altar adornments returned. An 1834 attempt to place a cross on an Episcopal church in New Jersey sparked resistance, illustrating how contested the symbol still was among Protestants. “‘lo! a Cross made quite a Catholic appearance on the apex of the pediment!’ Controversy arose, ‘both in the Vestry and out of it,’ and ‘after a very warm meeting, one of the Vestry shortly after declared that unless the Cross was taken down very soon, it should be pulled down.'” (Cambridge)
- Catholics – Of course, Roman Catholic churches prominently displayed both crosses and crucifixes. But Catholic presence was limited and often marginalized in early Protestant-dominated America. Anti-Catholic sentiment was one of the main reasons Protestants refused to use the cross in the first place.
The Turning Point: Late 1800s Revival of the Cross
Several overlapping movements contributed to the shift from avoidance of the cross to its embrace in Protestant spaces.
1. The Anglo-Catholic or Oxford Movement
Within the Anglican Church in the mid-nineteenth century, the Oxford Movement reintroduced liturgical forms, altar crosses, and church ornamentation that had been abandoned after the Reformation. This movement eventually influenced American Episcopalian and other Protestant churches. For example, Church History published an article titled “The Cross: Church Symbol and Contest in Nineteenth-Century America,” which describes how even Episcopalians met resistance when placing crosses in their sanctuaries during the 1830s and 1840s. (Cambridge University Press, Encyclopedia Britannica)
2. The Victorian Aesthetic Revival
The nineteenth-century romantic rediscovery of Gothic architecture and medieval art encouraged churches to express devotion through beauty. Stained glass, carved wood, and symbolic forms reappeared in Protestant worship spaces. The cross became a visible testimony of faith rather than a mark of “ritualism.”
3. Denominational Identity
As American Christianity encountered modernity, pluralism, and secularization, churches looked for a unifying emblem of faith. The cross offered an instantly recognizable symbol that communicated Christian belief to the wider culture.
The Congregationalists seem to be a bit of an outlier because in the 1850s they were already debating and in some cases approving cross use. (Books and Culture)
But by the turn of the twentieth century, most Protestant churches in the United States were incorporating crosses on steeples and sanctuaries. The design typically favored a simple, unadorned cross rather than a crucifix with the body of Christ. This choice reflected Protestant convictions: honoring the sacrifice of Christ without emphasizing a lingering image of suffering.
One commentary observes, “…at the turn of the this century the Protestant churches (excluding Lutheran) were still pretty much opposed to display of the cross, even the bare cross. The bare cross was not in wide use until recently, though current Protestants don’t know their own history on the matter and that their predecessors opposed it as much as they did the Crucifix.” (Catholic Fidelity)
Why the Bare Cross?
When the cross reentered Protestant worship, it did so in a way that reflected the core Protestant emphasis on the resurrection. As one description explains:
“In other Protestant traditions [the cross] is depicted without the corpus, interpreting this form as an indication of belief in the resurrection rather than as representing the interval between the death and the resurrection of Jesus.”
(Wikipedia, St. Paul’s Ev. Lutheran Church)
The plain cross became a symbol not only of the crucifixion but of victory, redemption, and new life.
Today, the cross is so universally accepted among Protestants that its absence feels unusual. Yet understanding when and why it emerged helps explain the theological caution and cultural shifts that shaped its return.
Bringing it all together
The history of the cross in Protestantism sheds light on an important truth within the Restoration.
Early Latter-day Saints were shaped by the same Protestant culture that valued simplicity and shunned religious images. The Kirtland Temple reflected that spirit: a plain, reverent house of worship, dedicated to instruction, prayer, and revelation rather than ornament. (Wikipedia)
Yet, as revelation unfolded, the Lord directed His people toward increasing richness and symbolism. The Nauvoo Temple represented a turning point, filled with celestial imagery, sunstones, moonstones, and starstones that pointed the mind heavenward. The pattern has continued to the present, with each temple revealing sacred truths through inspired symbols.
This evolution shows that the Restoration did not reject sacred symbolism itself but rather redefined where and how it should appear.
Latter-day Saint worship remains centered on covenant and ordinance rather than on icons or objects of veneration. There is no handbook prohibition on wearing a cross. Meetinghouse guidance emphasizes artwork of the Savior and scriptural scenes. Many chapels display approved depictions of the Crucifixion along with other scenes from His life. (LDS Living)
At the same time, many Latter-day Saints wear or display the cross as a personal expression of faith in Jesus Christ. It was actually something you’d see even among early Latter-day Saints.
Some of my children and family members wear crosses along with many people I know at church and I’ve never seen anyone object to it.
The Church does not forbid it, and many find meaning in that emblem. What matters most is the intent of the heart. Whether through the symbol of the cross or the covenants of the temple, both point to the same Redeemer and His infinite Atonement.
Where modern Protestantism embraced the cross as its central emblem, the Restoration embraced the living Christ Himself and expressed that devotion through covenant, temple, and transformation.
The early Protestant desire for purity of worship lives on among the Saints along with the restored appreciation for divine symbolism.
Personally, I see the cross, among other things, as a simplified tree of life.
The Book of Mormon features many motifs that echo that theme such as Nephi’s vision. (1 Nephi 11) Fruit hung on the tree in the vision, and the tree represented Mary the mother holding the Christ child as her fruit. And finally, Jesus hanging on a “tree” to fulfill his divine mission and satisfy the demands of justice and allow mercy to claim her own. (Alma 42:23-24)
The cross has carried different meanings across centuries and faith traditions, and its symbolism has evolved over time. What was once a point of division has become, for many, a unifying emblem of faith.
A simple yet profound reminder of what Christ accomplished for all humankind. It speaks of His triumph over sin, His endurance through the world’s cruelty, and the promise of victory and life to all who look to Him and live.
Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world;
Jacob 1:8
