Historical Reflections: Conditions of Church Membership
By Mark Scherer

Hmmm…courageous people. That’s what comes to mind as I look through the mists of our past and see members living in historic and challenging times. At those pivotal moments with complex is-sues there were never easy answers.

Each generation of the church has addressed “conditions of membership.” Thus it’s not surprising that with our evolving presence in the world, it’s our turn. World Conference Resolution 1293, “Conditions of Church Membership,” approved by the 2007 World Conference, included a request to the First Presidency. It was “to examine the issue of rebaptism in the context of the worldwide mission of the Community of Christ… [and that] following prayer, reflection, and discernment of God’s will for the Community of Christ, the First Presidency issue instructions relevant for today regarding requirements for church membership.” As part of a year-long discernment period called for by the First Presidency, I have been asked to bring some historical perspective.

During the Restoration era (up to mid-1840s), conditions of membership undergirded church identity and full participation. Joseph Smith Jr. addressed this issue at Manchester, New York, in April 1830, the earliest days of church organization. He equated organization of the church with the “new and everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning.” He viewed baptism into other denominations as “dead works.” Doctrine and Covenants 20 was a predictable response.

Launching a new religion in this volatile American era was a daunting task. No guarantee existed that Latter Day Saintism could compete with other denominations. Historian Nathan O. Hatch described the times as “a wildly diverse religious culture [that] made both denominational identity and authority fragile creations.” Most churches, including ours, believed theirs was “the only true church.”

Thus baptism became a key boundary issue to reinforce denominational supremacy and survival.

The Kirtland, Ohio, and Missouri experiences proved that through enormous sacrifice our church had a future. Baptism, the moment of commitment as a condition of membership, took on added meaning as the church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois. The temple ritual of “baptism for the dead” extended salvation to those who had not experienced baptism on “this side of the veil.” By the end of the Restoration era, baptism signaled an uncompromised commitment to a “theology of works.”

Joseph Smith III was uncomfortable with the temple ritualism. Over time as he took on his role as prophet-president, he felt empowered to reinterpret baptism as a condition of membership. The precedent for accepting old members (be-fore 1844) into the new Reorganization was set with Joseph III and his mother, Emma Hale Smith. They were accepted by vote on their earlier baptisms. In the third issue of the True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, Joseph III established policy:

Members of the church who were in good standing until the death of Joseph the Martyr, are received into the Reorganized Church with or without re-baptism, as they may choose. The ordination of those who held the priesthood and were members in good standing until that time, are acknowledged to be valid.

Conditions were set to question the legality of certain baptisms in “apostate” organizations, but where evidence of legality existed, baptisms were recognized. Often, repentance and contrition were far more important than rebaptism.

One influence on Joseph III’s position on rebaptism was that Brigham Young required it of old members on their way west. At a time when creating separation was so important, discretionary rebaptism proved useful. It showed that the Reorganization was not a whole new church but a “reorganization of the original.” On many occasions Joseph III wrote that “there may be an even greater portion of the spirit made available to those who chose rebaptism.” But this was not a prerequisite for such memberships.

Priesthood authority factored into this historical issue. Writing from Plano, Illinois, to J.S. Comstock on October 19, 1880, the prophet-president stated church policy: “I do not insist on rebaptism for you, if you can state definitely who baptized you, and when and where, that we may answer the requirements of the law which says ‘it shall be known unto the authorities of the church that he has authority….’”

In a February 11, 1911, letter to W.E. Winkworth, an inquirer about priesthood authority living in Salt Lake City, Joseph III wrote:

The church accepts the idea that there may be in each and every portion into which the church was divided at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, individuals who held and may now hold legitimate priesthood. This includes the church in Utah. We are willing to concede that there may be individuals in that body who have not forfeited fully their priesthood.

The circumstances of the individual and the priesthood member shaped the decision of the local branch membership, which knew the candidate best.

In an August 8, 1895, letter to C.D. Carter, responding to an inquiry about the baptism of Carter’s mother and father, Joseph III declared:

…baptisms performed by any faction of the church, or any of the sects of the day, as they conferred nothing, could take nothing away, for this reason though your mother should have been baptized by the Baptists could not be required to be rebaptized. If she chooses to claim her standing with us, it can be properly granted by vote of the branch, so with your father. Or if he prefers, he can be received by the vote of the District, or General Conference. The branch can by vote legally receive both your father and mother….

Joseph Smith Jr.’s consistency of belief (orthodoxy) gave way to his eldest son’s consistency of practice (orthopraxy). This does not suggest a lenient attitude with “Young Joseph.” While Joseph III expressed more pragmatic grace on the issue than his father, baptism was received with great sincerity and high expectation. How Joseph III handled the rebaptism issue shows his moderating influence in moving the Reorganization forward.

Twentieth-century General Conference resolutions are an interesting portal to understand the development of conditions of membership. On April 8, 1918, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Reorganized Church adopted twenty-four “Agreements of Working Harmony.” Both church conferences agreed to recognize the conditions of each other’s membership, having been “baptized by men holding authority” and “who have remained true to the original faith….” These agreements, which recognized each other’s priesthood authority, functioned until rescinded April 7, 1926. A lack of trust, more than philosophy, prompted the change.

Conditions of membership arose again in 1972, when church leaders reported to World Conference delegates the baptisms of polygamous Sora tribal members in India.

These are just a few historical examples of how we have addressed “conditions of membership.” We need far more exploration than expressed here. We have handled the complex issues before and no doubt will handle this one again with pragmatic grace and discernment.