History (not church history) shows that J.S. joined the Methodists after having been told not to join any of the sects.

Has anyone read any critiques or texts that demonstrate traces of Methodism in Joe's Mormonism? Are there doctrines or philosophies that coincide? Or anything that, especially, seems to diverge from Methodist beliefs? I don't know much of anything about Methodism, but you'd think there would be some trace elements of those beliefs popping up in Joe's work.

Also, it seems that I read somewhere that Sidney Rigdon had all his stuff burned at his death--are there any existing commentaries about the religious philosophies he espoused before hooking up with Mormonism? Again, with the same intent as above--what kinds of ideas and doctrines were passed on to Mormonism from his particular beliefs, or are we to believe that Mormonism just came out of nowhere? (Okay, angels, gold plates, etc.--i.e., nowhere).

On the Sidney Rigdon side yes this exists. On of the reasons that Rigdon is suspected as being the primary author of the Book of Mormon is that is matches his teachings so closely. So I don't remember where I originally read that...

Also one of the critiques of the Book of Mormon is that it addresses all of the major religious issues and arguments of the early 1800s but doesn't address any of the current issues of today.

I've heard the second criticism, but I'm wondering if, specifically, they are related to Methodism (again, I have no idea what that would be, so that's why I'm asking).

I don't know either but am interested to here what others have to say.

As far as Rigdon:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm

(Section 4 addresses your question directly)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2012 07:26PM by bc.

I've thought for a long time that ol' Joe stole at least a couple of things from Methodist tradition. Methodists discourage the use of alcohol and tobacco although they're not banned outright. Also, while Joe had the "burning in the bosom" the Methodists' John Wesley "...had felt my heart strangely warmed." This is known as "The Experience at Aldersgate" (there's a plaque in the sidewalk in London where it happened). While these *could* be coincidental I do think his knowledge of these things influenced his later thinking.

ETA a letter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2012 12:02AM by BestBBQ.

Smith joined the Methodist Church after he lost the Book of Mormon manuscript and he and Emma lost their first child. He was also living on his father-in-law's property and was at odds with him. It may well be Smith had second thoughts about his Book of Mormon project and turned to the Methodist Church to try to go straight. However, he was greeted with suspicion and told he would have to denounce his former claims and behavior if he were to join. Smith was unable to do this and so did not continue with the Methodists. Instead, he returned to his Book of Mormon project.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2012 09:24PM by robertb.

Is this talked about in a book? I haven't read "Rough Stone Rolling" yet. Or can it be found in journal, e.g., Dialogue or Sunstone?

Sorry--just looking for further light and knowledge, and I was hoping someone on the board had a quick reference.

I should have included a reference, so it is good you asked--Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (so tempted to write "Profit") by Dan Vogel, pages 127-128.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smith joined the Methodist Church after he lost
> the Book of Mormon manuscript and he and Emma lost
> their first child. He was also living on his
> father-in-law's property and was at odds with him.
> It may well Smith had second thoughts about his
> Book of Mormon project and turned to the Methodist
> Church to try to go straight. However, he was
> greeted with suspicion and told he would have to
> denounce his former claims and behavior if he were
> to join. Smith was unable to do this and so did
> not continue with the Methodists. Instead, he
> returned to his Book of Mormon project.

This is one of the things that makes JS seem like such a fraud to me. Honestly, if both God and Jesus had told you that all churches were wrong and that all their creeds were abominable, would then try to join a church that recites the apostle's creed each week? I think both God and Jesus would be rightly pissed off!

Rough Stone pp. 69-70. Emma's cousins had him blackballed because they didn't think a proper Methodist could be a "necromancer" all though JS's upstate fellow treasure hunter was a Methodist exhorter. Bushman tries to spin it as JS just going along to keep the Hales happy.

I've played with the idea that this is when JS decided he would need to start his own church (the "join none of them" phrase not having been actually written until after this point.)

I just noticed that Rough Stone talks briefly (too briefly in my opinion) about Methodism and Mormon organization, conferences, priesthood offices, on pp. 251 & 254.

The Google God which giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not has all kinds of articles.

Methodism was a very powerful movement at the time, its advantage was that it had a tight hierarchical organization. But as the US frontier became ever broader, it fell behind to Baptist who were completely congregational and could be more flexable as more and more little towns sprung up over vaster and vaster distances and outstriped the Methodists organizational abilities. However, even then Methodists remained in 2nd place just behind Baptists.

But back to Methodism and Mormonism. I had a religion professor he always said that in the early 1800s there wasn't much in the US that wasn't influenced by Methodism.

JS said that as a youth he was partial to Methodism. There is evidence that while he was still in upstate New York he was a "Methodist" exhorter. His wife was a Methodist as was her immediate family and JS joined her Methodist class.

I think JS's revelation on priesthood offices bears a remarkable resemblance to Methodist offices and the Methodist Book of Discpline of the day. Mormon deacons were to exhort, just like Methodist exhorters were to exhorted. Where Methodism used a word for an office that could not be found in the bible, like exhorter, JS changed it to a word that could be found there in his church.

The first Mormon elders/missionaries were similar to Methodist circuit riders in some, although not all respects. In fact, an argument could be made that the whole Mormon missionary program, even today is based on Methodist circuit riders. As any RM knows, everyday you were out there working your circuit only we called them areas.

Mormons meet in conference just like Methodists. Methodists had borrowed from the Quakers, monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual conference. You all know about semi-annual conferences and I'm old enough to remember stake quarterly conference 4 times a year. One way to look at General Conference is the Methodist annual conference that took care of business followed by revival preaching. Hard to think of the GA drone as revival preachin, I know. In the old mission field and in Methodism "conference" could also designate a geographical area.

Nathan O. Hatch who is one of the big names in US religious history did a Tanner Lecture on Mormons and Methodists which was later published in the Journal of Mormon History (I think, couldn't find it just now.)

Brooke who wrote a very good book on Mormons and magic says the the best indicator of whether people in a given US town would convert to Mormonism was that there had been Methodist activity in the town.

I would also say that Mormon ideas of perfection,calling and election made sure, which parallels with the Second Anointing had at least some roots in the Methodist idea of a Second Blessing or Sanctification after being saved (the first blessing or being justified) after which one would pretty much not be inclined to commit sin, kind of like the Second Anointing. Methodist Second Blessing was sometimes seen as being so thoroughly overcome by the Holy Spirit that it would now never leave you, a rather familiar Mormon idea, were as the salvation or the first blessing, while very important, was merely a visit of the Spirit sufficent to save you.

In the mid-1800s one of the slogans of Methodists who were very much into Sanctification/Second Blessing was "Holiness to the Lord." Perhaps you've seen it.

One of the divisions in Methodism was "how much Spirit" one should have. Into the 1900s the movement split with those who thought Methodism didn't have enough spirit becoming Pentacostals. But if you think back to Kirtland, this was an issue for Mormons too, could you have a vision, you could if you were JS. Could you speak in tongues, yes. Could roll in the aisles, no.

Remember JS's conversation with the Methodist minister? He didn't like the idea of someone seeing God. There were other Methodists that disagreed with him. Look at all of the other stories of people seeing God in JS's day (although not all of them Methodists). Within Methodism itself, the disagreement between the JS Methodist minister and Methodists who thought it was OK to have extreme religious experiences had developed, about 100 years later, into the Methodist Pentacostal split.

I don't think you can go too far wrong in thinking that Mormonism was Methodism's red headed, illegitmate stepchild (no offense to redheads, my family's full of them, old English Mormon convert roots you know.)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2012 06:10PM by lulu.

Thank you very much, lulu! This sounds like there could be some very interesting reading/research in this area.

Of course, lots of mormons could find ways to easily dismiss similarities, but the stuff you listed is great.

Thank you!

There's a little overlap here with my own non-mormon religious background:

In earlier times, Rigdon was a disciple of sorts of Alexander Campbell, who was an early leader in the Restoration Movement. Their main premise was that the church at large was too fragmented, owing to denominational dogma, and that these differences should be discarded and the various denominations should aim to work together and reunite and work together as "christians only." In other words, restore the church. One of the early leaders was sort of pushed out over some theological differences (I wonder now if it was Campbell--don't recall).

JS, or perhaps the theologians in his sphere, took this a step further (imo) by claiming to BE the "restored church" and that all others are apostate.

Other similarities: weekly communion and baptism by immersion (which some other churches ascribe to as well). Also, churches have "elders," although they tend to actually be old, wise members who govern the local congregations.

The Restoration Movement's goal was to restore the existing church, whereas JS and his minions ended up way off the reservation, so to speak, with their own new church.

Ironically (I almost want to say "naturally"), the altruistic goals of the movement didn't last long, and there was division even within it! There are four current church groups that trace their lineage back to the restoration movement:

1) Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -- a denomination with a central church government/hierarchy. This is relatively the most "liberal" in terms of theology and culture according to what I've read--never been to one).

2) Independent Christian Church(es) -- fairly mainstream, orthodox christian beliefs. Lean towards "evangelical." Independent, meaning churches are governed locally, usually by a board of elders and deacons. These churches tend to be open and friendly places, lean towards "contemporary" worship in modern times.

3) Church(es) of Christ -- similar to #2, but lean towards "legalism" and ultra-fundamentalist views, e.g. no salvation without baptism by immersion, and not only that but baptism must have taken place in a CoC church. In extreme cases baptism only by the local pastor (if you move or change churches, the local pastor may expect to re-baptize you, because baptism anywhere else is "suspect"). They also tend to believe that they are the only "true" church (sometimes, again, only their local congregation--even other CoC churches are suspect).

4) Church(es) of Christ (non-instrumental) -- similar to #3, but only allow acapella music in what they call "the worship." Theologically they also tend to be even more fundamentalist than #3.

Naturally, there are gradations in between these groups, especially 2 & 3, with 2-like congregations experiencing friction to be like 3, and vice versa. Since each is "independent," each has its own personality, and in some cases become cults of personality surrounding a pastor.

I've been to some "3" congregations, and they can be scary. I've been to some "2" congregations that have 3-like tendencies. In some regions, 2's and 3's are hard to tell apart--just a difference in name, some good, some not. Depends on the locality and long term influences in the area.

And I've seen "4" people accidentally turn up at a "3" church on Sunday morning and have a hissy fit and storm out screaming and yelling because "'man-made' instruments have no place in 'the worship'."

I've also seen mormons turn up at #3 churches in areas where there are no local wards/stakes. Looking back, this is kind of interesting--never gave it a lot of thought before.

I believe it's from #3 that TSCC took its original name, and probably derived some of its notions of exceptionalism, "goodness" (we're better than others, only "true" church, etc). Regionally, the most extreme examples of 3's tend to be in the mid-west and up into NY, where TSCC was born.

I've spent about half my life in #2 churches, sometimes leaving in disgust when they lean too much towards #3. Even in the 2's, I tend to find the people "unsophisticated" and ignorant, at least by the worldly definitions (sorry if that sounds haughty or judgmental of me). At the same time, there are lots of good people in those churches (as in all churches, probably even in Mormon churches...).

Growing up in and around restoration movement churches, I'd heard stories/history about the early days, and the splintering, and that mormonism was one of the splinter groups. I've also heard lore that some "failed" preacher (unfortunately, success as a minister often tends to be based on how likable the individual is) realized he needed a charismatic "front man," and ironically he chose JS. I wonder if Rigdon was that preacher..?

Well, this has gotten kind of long...and I'm not even sure I made the point I started out to...sorry.

Oh, while I was typing my lengthy screed above, lulu posted a lengthy message as well, and that reminded me of a point I wanted to make but got distracted from by the Restoration Movement connection.

Early Methodism spread like wild fire because they didn't rely on trained clergy. They'd put any man on a horse who was willing to ride a circuit. Without the theology training, they simply provided instructions and pre-written sermons (i.e. the "method" from which the church derived its name). The Methodist Church is often held up today as a positive example of church growth. Churches/denominations tend to stop growing when they get large enough to spawn a large group of seminary trained "professionals" looking for comfy jobs (rather than riding through the wilderness in search of the lost). My grandparents were staunch Methodists and my granddad would talk (brag?) about all that stuff.

The Methodist Church still provides alternate routes to ordination for people who live in rural areas and are willing to kind of do on the job training.

I mentioned spending half my life in Restoration Movement churches. Well, many early years were spent in the Methodist church. But I defintely don't know as much as lulu on the subject, because I think the church also changed some through merges (becoming the "United Methodist Church" long before I was born) and it was also when I was younger and didn't have much interest in that sort of thing. I'm also not a mormon, and never have been, so I don't know much about the offices and governing structure there either.

But there are definitely similarites between the original Methodist Church's style of growth/missionary efforts and TSCC, especially relying on non-professionals to "spread the word."

nomonomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But there are definitely similarites between the
> original Methodist Church's style of
> growth/missionary efforts and TSCC, especially
> relying on non-professionals to "spread the word."

Yes, and I don't think it would be a stretch to say that this is what Mormon missionaries do today (leaving aside the untrained hierarchy) only now the mishies don't ride horses although some of them ride bicycles :)

I think Rigdon was more responsible for the early theology, while Smith provided the 'face' of the movement. He's a pretty fascinating under-played part of Mormon history.
http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/09/sidney-rigdon-portrait-of-religious.html

Heresy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Rigdon was more responsible for the early
> theology, while Smith provided the 'face' of the
> movement. He's a pretty fascinating under-played
> part of Mormon history.
> http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/09/sidney-rigdon-portrait-of-religious.html

Interesting link. Someone commenting on the blog post mentions another allegation that I've heard before: that the BoM was actually stolen out of a print shop, which, if true, would mean that it was written by someone else altogether.

nomonomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heresy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think Rigdon was more responsible for the
> early
> > theology, while Smith provided the 'face' of
> the
> > movement. He's a pretty fascinating
> under-played
> > part of Mormon history.
> >
> http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/09/sidn
> ey-rigdon-portrait-of-religious.html
>
> Interesting link. Someone commenting on the blog
> post mentions another allegation that I've heard
> before: that the BoM was actually stolen out of a
> print shop, which, if true, would mean that it was
> written by someone else altogether.

Oops, I see there are whole other threads on the questionable authorship of the BoM. Sorry folks--I'm new here! ;-)