In my April 2009 “Voices” article I showed that almost every generation in the church story has had to address the conditions-of-membership issue. Decision-makers of the Reorganization century, starting about 1860, accepted members on their previous baptism. Discretionary baptism proved useful to signal that the Reorganized Church was not a new church, but rather a reorganization of the original.

Those from other denominations also enjoyed the recognition of their original baptism. Archival letters support this observation and provide valuable insight. They also offer much room for interpretation. Since the Reorganization’s early days, there has been considerable reflection and flexibility on the issue.

So how did decision-makers approach conditions of membership in the Restoration Era from 1830 to 1844? Was there the same pragmatic approach found in even earlier generations? Did the “new and everlasting covenant” mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 20 have exceptions? This article addresses these questions.

On November 10, 1837, Canadian Saint William Law wrote a letter from Churchville, Ontario, to his close friend and confidant, Isaac Russell. The topic was the August visit that Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon paid them during their missionary venture. Suggested in the letter, Law had expressed regret to the prophet about several local women. Among them was a Sister Graham, who requested baptism but could not receive it because of family circumstances. Law wrote Russell:

We had the blessing of a visit from Bro. Joseph Smith Jr. and Bro. Sidney Rigdon, they were here four or five days, from whom we received much information, one thing I would mention he says we have a right to administer to such as Sister Graham, who is prevented by their husbands from baptism, we may confirm such and give the Sacrament &c.

Law’s letter can be found in his personal diary. In 1841 he began serving as a counselor in the church presidency. He remained in that role until January 1844, when he lost favor and was dismissed. Before then, Law was among Smith’s strongest advocates and had a wonderful relationship with Emma and the family.

Historically, Law’s statement to Isaac Russell could be seen as an important exception to a hard and fast rule that only baptized members in good standing would have access to church sacraments. However Smith’s permission to the good sisters wanting baptism occurred less than two years after his vision of the celestial kingdom on January 21, 1836, in Kirtland, Ohio. In this vision, as written in his journal, the prophet saw

the beautiful streets of that Kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold—I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin, that has long since slept, and marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that Kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life, before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

Alvin died at the age of twenty-five in November 1823 in upstate New York, some six years before church organization. According to church beliefs, Alvin should have been considered one of the unbaptized “honorable men of the earth” to receive a lesser glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:6).

It is difficult to discern accurately the minds and motivations of people living so long ago. This is especially true of Joseph Smith Jr. Like the events highlighted in the April “Voices” article, some today may tend to read their own values into Law’s Restoration Era quote. They also may interpret to their own standards similar events during the Reorganization Era.

One must conclude, however, that these early church leaders extended the blessings of a sacramental church, including membership confirmation, to people who were not baptized into the church. On this point the historical record is clear.

—Mark Scherer
Church historian