Transcription
Welcome to Teacher and Design podcast.
You know, around 2008, I think it was, I was researching online and I Googled the phrase “restoration movement,” which, along with the phrase “the restoration,” is how most RLDS people, uh, refer to the work of Joseph Smith and the various churches and efforts that came out of it. The term “restoration movement” is also used by other restoration churches. I, I know my friends from the Church of Christ Temple a lot, for example, have used this terminology. I Googled “restoration movement,” a term that I was very familiar with in our churches when we were referring to what Joseph Smith had done, because I wanted to research other restoration groups and their history. But the results of the search were rather unexpected, and something I didn’t quite know what to do with. Looking back, I think the Lord may have been trying to reveal a truth to me, but I was afraid to explore it at the time. Still, a seed was planted, one that would remain dormant until now. Just recently, the memory of what I discovered all those years ago resurfaced.
The first result that you get when you Google “restoration movement” is this Wikipedia page on a historic movement called the restoration movement. And it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Or does it? As we read about on this page, the restoration movement, also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone-Campbell Movement, and pejoratively as Campbellism, is a Christian movement that began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening, which began in 1790 and continued to about 1840. So the original restoration movement predates Joseph Smith and his work considerably. The page goes on to say that the pioneers of this movement were seeking to reform the church from within, which, for them, was basically all of Christianity. They didn’t want to start a new church or another denomination, but they were seeking the unification of all Christians in a single body that was patterned after the church in the New Testament.
When I read about the beliefs of this restoration movement, I am impressed. There are major similarities between what they were striving for and what I believe God intended in using Joseph Smith to bring forth the Book of Mormon, which is probably why Sidney Rigdon and other Campbellites converted so quickly. Go on to read here. The restoration movement sought to restore the Christian church based on visible patterns as outlined in the New Testament and believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. They believed that Christians should celebrate the Lord’s supper and that baptism of adult-only believers—not children—was necessary by immersion in water, because they wanted to abandon all denominational labels. They used biblical names for the followers of Jesus, like “Christian church,” “church of God,” or “church of Christ,” as opposed to “Methodist” or “Lutheran,” etc. Rejecting the creeds of the various denominations, they promoted a return to the purposes of the first-century church as described in the New Testament.
Before joining Joseph Smith’s church, Sidney Rigdon was a Campbellite. You’ve probably heard that before. “Campbellite” was just another name given to participants in this restoration movement that we’re just now reading about. In early September of 1830, Sidney Rigdon’s associate Pratt was baptized into the Church of Christ, founded by Joseph Smith. In October, Pratt and Zeba Peterson began a mission preaching to the American Indians. They were told to go into the wilderness among the Lamanites, which, at that time, was considered to be the western edge of civilization beyond the borders of Missouri, which is also known as the Indian Territory. However, they delayed going there by first spending some time in Ohio, intending to convert whites, including Sidney Rigdon and his wife Phoebe. As a result of this delay, winter would set in before they could reach the Indian territory, which only further delayed the mission. Come spring, the opportunity to minister to the tribes in the Indian territories would be closed to them by the government, which now required a permit, which they were unable to attain.
So, let’s think about that for just a moment. The trade-off for getting Sidney Rigdon and more white members into the church was losing out on the opportunity to convert the Lamanites on the border of the United States in the Indian territory, whom God had told them to go to. The same Lamanites whom the Book of Mormon reveals will be key to the establishment of Zion. Although there were two Indian tribes a church briefly came in contact with in New York, let’s be perfectly honest, handing a group of Indians a book that they cannot read and making a speech and then leaving, never to return, is not what God had asked them to do. If the early church had really understood or believed the Book of Mormon and not treated it lightly, they would have known that the Native Americans were key to Zion. Let’s face it, they probably had no real love in their heart for the Indians; feigned love, perhaps, even the same love that people in the churches today profess to have for one another, even though they will turn on you and abandon you at the slightest disagreement. Instead of taking seriously the mission God gave them to go to the descendants of Lehi, they turned their focus on converting whites, building up the church institution, and being spectacularly unsuccessful in trying to build Zion without Lehi’s descendants. And history tells us how that went.
When Rigdon received the Book of Mormon, he read it in 14 days, proclaimed its truthfulness, and was baptized into the church on November 14th, 1830, in Mentor, Ohio. He proceeded to convert hundreds of members of his Ohio congregations. Now, at the time, the membership in Joseph Smith’s Church of Christ was only about 60 or maybe 70 people. Think on that. Within just a few years, because of Sidney Rigdon, around 3,000 Campbellites joined the church. So, as you can imagine, Rigdon’s influence would have been considerable. Joseph Smith ordained Sidney Rigdon almost immediately, making him part of the church presidency. As Rigdon was known to be a fiery orator, Joseph immediately called him to be the spokesman for the church. Rigdon also served as scribe and helped with Joseph Smith’s re-translation of the Bible. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is another topic I will be covering in greater detail in a future episode of the podcast.
Sidney Rigdon was older and more knowledgeable than Joseph Smith and the other elders of the church. He had a powerful personality and was able to influence and convince people of his beliefs. Add to that the weakness of Joseph Smith, according to God, that he was easily persuaded by men. I think this should be considered when we examine the sudden and rather drastic change in the direction of the church after this. Though we have come to view the work of Joseph Smith as the work of the restoration, the word “restoration” was never used by the Lord in any revelation to describe what he was doing with the church. It was not until Rigdon came into the picture that the concept of restoring the church would come into the vocabulary of the Saints. I know this may be shocking, but regarding the church, the only thing God told Joseph Smith was that if this generation repented, he intended to bring about a reformation and bring his—not Joseph’s, but Christ’s—church out of the wilderness. The church was defined by Christ in section 10 LDS or section 3 in the RLDS as simply all those who repented and came unto him, stating that if anyone added to this requirement, they are not of God and not a part of his church. And is it a reasonable question to ask: Did they end up adding to the requirement? And if so, and we believe the word of Christ in this revelation, then did the church of 1830 eventually cease to be a part of his church, of Christ’s church?
What I’ve come to realize is that rather than the true church of Christ emerging from the wilderness, which was conditional, they instead built up an earthly institution according to the wisdom of men. As soon as they did this, the emphasis went from going into all the world to preach the gospel and power to every creature, using the Bible and the Book of Mormon, beginning with the Lamanites—which is the priority that God had outlined for them in the early revelations—to instead building up a church organization and converting whites who already believed in Christ to what would amount to as a more correct church, and from that point onward would add to the requirement of what it took to be counted as part of Christ’s church. When section five in the Doctrine and Covenants was later revised in 1835, an entire paragraph was removed from the words of the Lord where he had revealed that if this generation would repent, he would do a work of reformation, along with the vital information that God intended to return the church to be like the church found in the New Testament. But all of this was removed in the 1835 edition. Why? The only use of the word “restoration” or “restore” before Rigdon came along, either from God or the angel that appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the plates, was regarding the restoration of the lost tribes or the restoration of the whole house of Israel as part of the fulfillment of God’s covenants with them. That’s it. This restoration was the express purpose of the Book of Mormon and why it was vitally important for this knowledge to go to the Lamanites. Never once did God speak about restoring a church or restoring a priesthood. It was Sidney Rigdon who had, in his background, the idea of restoring the church. That was, after all, what the Campbellites or the restoration movement was all about. It would seem that Rigdon may have imported the idea of that kind of restoration of the church into Joseph Smith’s newly formed church. I don’t think this was necessarily a bad thing. As I said, I think it very much harmonized with the purpose of the Book of Mormon in helping the church to emerge from the wilderness and become like the church taught by the disciples of old, as God told Joseph Smith he wanted to do.
However, Rigdon began to develop his own particular view on the restoration which diverged from that of the Campbellite restoration movement. And I think this is where the trouble began. You see, participants in the restoration movement specifically believed that there was too much influence from the Old Testament in the churches of the time and that the church needed to return to the message of the New Testament. However, Sidney Rigdon departed from this and began to think that the restoration of the church should include a restoration not only of things from the New Testament, but things found in the Old Testament as well.
With this in mind, I was curious about some of those things from the Old Testament that mysteriously started showing up in Joseph’s church after Rigdon joined it. I wondered if there was any evidence to suggest that Rigdon was the primary influence for this. I used Google’s AI to help me research those questions.
Now, a quick word about AI, or artificial intelligence, in case you’ve been hiding under a rock recently. You know, we are currently inundated by fake stories and fake images that are generated by AI. But this is only because people are using AI to purposely generate those falsehoods according to their instructions, and then they go about posting it on social media. AI is neither good or bad. It is simply a tool. One thing that AI tools are very useful for is the ability to pull information from thousands of potential sources almost instantly to analyze and answer your questions in a very intelligent way. Most AI tools will also provide links to the sources that they use, and it’s important to verify those answers. Look at the sources and decide for yourself.
The first question I put to Google’s AI was whether or not there was any evidence to suggest that Sidney Rigdon had been influential in the idea of building temples. This question was a complete shot in the dark because, honestly, I had no clue if he was or not. The answer that it returned was yes. Evidence suggests Sidney Rigdon was influential in the idea to build a temple. He became a strong advocate for the Kirtland Temple and played a significant role in its dedication. Rigdon was also present with Joseph when the revelation to build a temple was first received. Interesting. I did not know that.
For my next question, I wanted to test my hypothesis that Rigdon was primarily responsible for the idea of the restored priesthood. So I asked, and the answer was yes. There is evidence to suggest Sidney played a significant role in the formation of the priesthood within the Latter-day Saint movement, particularly in the early years. He was a key figure in the establishment of the church and contributed to the development of its doctrine, including the understanding of the priesthood. Rigdon’s extensive biblical knowledge and powerful preaching helped shape the young church’s identity, mission, and beliefs. He prepared and delivered a series of theological lectures that were later canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. Rigdon’s teachings and leadership had a lasting impact on the development of the Latter-day Saint doctrine, particularly in the early years. He played a role in shaping the church’s understanding of the priesthood and other key aspects of its theology. Brother David Whitmer, you’ve been vindicated by an advanced technology you could not have imagined in your day. Rest easy, my friend.
Now, at first I questioned the claim that Sidney Rigdon was a key figure in the establishment of the church, seeing that the church had been formally organized a few months before Rigdon joined. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the kind of church that was organized in 1830 was very different from the one that developed over the next few years after 3,000 Campbellites joined and Sidney Rigdon became the spokesman for the church and part of the First Presidency. And so I began wondering what else Rigdon may have been at the center of. Though I honestly had no reason to suspect Rigdon had any part of it, I decided to ask if there was any evidence to suggest that Rigdon may have been responsible for the failure of the bank at Kirtland, Ohio. Well, the answer surprised me. Yes, there is evidence suggesting Sidney Rigdon was at least partially responsible for the failure at the Kirtland Safety Society Bank. While the failure was also influenced by broader economic conditions, including the Panic of 1837, evidence points to potential mismanagement and financial irregularities within the Kirtland Safety Society, particularly when Rigdon was in charge. I did not expect that one to be honest.
I then wondered about the troublesome changes to the name of the church. In case you didn’t know this, the church organized in 1830 was simply called the Church of Christ, in accordance with the instructions from Christ found in the Book of Mormon. But from 1834 to 1838, the name of the church was changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yeah. So, I put the question to AI and guess what? As it turns out, Sidney Rigdon was the one who put forth the motion to change the name of the church from the Church of Christ to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The motion passed, and the name of the church was changed, and Joseph said nothing. Why? It almost seemed like Joseph Smith had taken a backseat when it came to some of these decisions that were made at the time.
I began to think that Rigdon was at the heart of many of the things that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord had caused me to question over the years and recognize as grave missteps on the part of the church. Therefore, my mind turned to what is probably the darkest of all the missteps ever made by the church. Was there evidence to suggest that Sidney Rigdon was influential in the formation of the Danites? And the answer was yes. There is evidence suggesting Sidney Rigdon was influential in the formation of the Danites, which came to be known as “destroying angels.” He was a prominent church leader, and his rhetoric and actions in Far West, Missouri, are seen as contributing to the environment that led to the formation of the Danites. Rigdon’s speeches, especially his “salt sermon” and the Independence Day oration, were highly militaristic and confrontational. These speeches, along with other actions, contributed to a climate of tension and militancy within the Latter-day Saint community. Sidney Rigdon’s efforts to purge dissenters from the church, coupled with the controversy surrounding the consecration of the properties and voting patterns, created internal divisions. Ebenezer Robinson, who remained with the church, recalled a letter written by Rigdon that was later signed by all Danites on June 17th, 1838, in Far West, Missouri, addressed to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman E. Johnson, pronouncing a decree that the dissenters would have 3 days from receipt of the document to leave the county before facing “a more fatal calamity.” To be clear, the warning was to leave or be murdered. The dissenters took it seriously and left the county for fear of their lives. David Whitmer writes about this in his address to all believers. And all of this was done under the auspices of the First Presidency. Although Joseph Smith did not personally sign the letter, just like the change to the name of the church, Joseph was present but absent from his duty. If Joseph did not directly support the formation of the Danites, he certainly stood by and watched as it unfolded, though he did later condemn it, referring to the band as both evil in nature and a secret combination.
In summary, because the Saints did not make the mission of bringing the knowledge of the salvation of Christ and the covenants found in the Book of Mormon to the Native American tribes in the Indian territory as they were instructed, after which the Saints were supposed to become numbered among the seed of Lehi, they instead prioritized the conversion of white families who already believed in Jesus. And because of this, the restoration of the house of Israel was placed on hold, which meant the building of the New Jerusalem was placed on hold, since the Book of Mormon clearly says that it is the seed of Lehi that will build it. And all we can do is assist. Which meant the promise of God to Joseph Smith to bring the church out of the wilderness if they repented was also put on hold. And all of this due to disobedience in place of the wondrous promises God had in store for the Saints if they would have been obedient. We instead got another dead religion filled with the precepts of men. In particular, I believe the precepts of Sidney Rigdon, with temples and Old Covenant priesthood mysteries designed to supplant the plain gospel and doctrine of Christ and dead works of plenty. The consequences of this disobedience were that the Saints were scattered and smitten everywhere they went until they ended up even as Jeremiah 17:5-6 describes: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart departs from the Lord, for he shall be like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see when good comes, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, and in a salt land that is not inhabited.’” Which is why Isaiah 11:11 tells us that God will have to set his hand a second time to recover Israel.
In conclusion, I believe the influence of thought that came from the original restoration or Campbellite movement was very much in harmony with what God had revealed to the early Saints in the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon. However, Rigdon modified certain fundamental principles of that restoration movement by importing artifacts from the Old Covenant, changing the name of the church, and pushing a restoration of the church that was exclusive and therefore sectarian, which was the very opposite of what the restoration movement sought to establish and opposite of what God revealed in the Book of Mormon and in those early revelations Joseph received through the year 1830.
So here are the main principles of the restoration movement as outlined in Wikipedia:
Number one, Christianity should not be divided. Jesus intended the creation of one church. Remember in the Book of Mormon, the angel tells Nephi there are saved but two churches only. One of those is the church of Christ, the church of the Lamb of God. And the other church is the church of the devil. And so, in truth, there is only one true church. And I don’t think that’s a denomination. It’s not an earthly organization. It is simply, as Jesus said, with the warning to not add anything to it, that it is simply all those who repent and come unto him.
Number two, creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible. And I think we agree with this, and it’s true to what the Lord revealed to Joseph.
Number three, ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice as best as can be determined by the early church. Again, it’s an appeal to returning to how Christianity was practiced in the New Testament, in the first-century church.
Number four, names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church. In other words, like “Christian church” or “church of God” or “church of Christ,” as opposed to “Methodist” or “Lutheran.” You can only be a Methodist if you’re a Methodist, and you can only be Lutheran if you are a member of…
The Lutheran church. But the church of God or the church of Christ simply represents all believers who are following Christ, who have repented and come unto him, even as the Lord told Joseph Smith in 1828.
Number five, thus the church should stress only what Christians hold in common and should suppress divisive doctrines and practices. And I think this was important because at the time there was so much diversity of beliefs and doctrines and teachings and preaching, and no one could agree, and it was very confusing. But if you stick with what is in the Bible, or in our case the Book of Mormon as well, the simple and plain gospel teaching doctrine of Jesus Christ as taught, we can agree on those things, can't we? So there's a lot of other things we can't agree on. Maybe set those aside. Focus on the main thing. You know, make the main thing the main thing.
And there were also a number of slogans that were used in the restoration movement to express some of the distinctive themes of that movement. Included in that was: where the scriptures speak, we speak. Where the scriptures are silent, we are silent. I think that's very smart. Not to exclude personal revelation, but when it comes to the church as a whole moving forward and unifying in Christ, if it's not in the scriptures, maybe leave it alone. Don't try to force it down people's throats. It's okay if you believe a certain way, but if it's not in the scriptures, and if it's not in the teachings of Jesus, leave it be. The church itself needs to center itself on the teachings of Christ, where we can all agree on those things.
Another slogan was: the church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one. Again, Paul asked the question: is Christ divided? Paul saw that there were divisions and people saying, hey, I was baptized by Apollos, and others were baptized by Paul, etc. This is the kind of thing that we should not have. Again, once more, we're channeling ourselves into the divisions of man and the teachings of men and the traditions of men and the various church denominations. But the Christian body should be one. There is but one shepherd and one sheepfold. Ultimately, that is the picture of Christ's church.
Another slogan is: we are Christians only, but not the only Christians. Here we see a strike at the idea of exclusivity, to push other people out and claim that you alone are Christ's church and no one else is unless they come join your particular organization. This is a truth, one I stand by, one that the Lord has shown me repeatedly and also is backed by the scriptures themselves.
And then there's: in essentials unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love, which, lo and behold, happens to be the motto of the hope of Zion site, the discussion forum on Facebook that I run. I never had any clue that that was associated with this restoration movement until now.
And then there's: no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the divine. Now, no book but the Bible, you know, that's something that Mormons will typically, you know, push against, but this wasn't against the Book of Mormon or against legitimate scripture. It didn't even exist at the time that this motto was brought out. It was basically saying: instead of going to all these books and ideas and teachings of men, let's stick with what the scriptures say. So when those Campbellites joined into the church of Christ, they then saw the Book of Mormon as equally being scripture with the Bible. And so that's just a slight modification. The point is not to say there can be no more word of God. The point is: let's stick with the word of God rather than all these other opinions and scholarly ideas.
And then there's: do Bible things the Bible way and call Bible things by Bible names. I think that could be a real advantage to Christians today. I mean, there's so many things that are taught um that are a main part of the beliefs of Christians, like the rapture, but you won't find the word rapture anywhere in the Bible. So, if we stick with what the Bible calls it, I think it might help some people get free of the lies associated with the rapture and understand what those scriptures are actually talking about.
It seems to me that this restoration movement, though imperfect, had to be at least partially inspired by the Holy Spirit and may have served as a precursor to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. After all, there is a reason why so many Campbellites joined the church of Christ, because the church that Joseph started was at least initially a great match, even the next step, if you will.
It is my theory that had the church been obedient in making the Lamanites their main priority, and if it hadn't been for the exorbitant influence of a certain ego, one Sydney Rigdon, and the documented weaknesses of Joseph Smith that God himself pointed out, even the tendency to be unduly influenced by men, that the history not only of the church but of this whole nation would have looked very different. Even David Whitmer admitted that he and the other elders of the church were completely enthralled by Sydney Rigdon at first. By all accounts, he was a powerful orator and influencer. He was older than Joseph, Oliver, and David, and he appeared to them to have a greater grasp of the Bible, of history, and scholarly knowledge. He was almost immediately raised to the first presidency, the highest station in the church. And as it turns out, Rigdon appears to have been at the very center of many of the most substantive changes that brought about the expansive transformation of the church and its doctrines. The Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit were supposed to be the principal guides of the church. But when Sydney Rigdon joined the church, he seems to have wowed them all and may have become even more influential than the foundational things that God had given them. And it's understandable. Men tend to prefer following other men. It certainly is easier. People want a prophet to follow, and they prefer a flesh and blood servant of God that they can go to and ask questions of rather than having to seek those answers directly from God themselves. It's the problem that Israel had, preferring to have their relationship with God directed through Moses, even though God had invited them to come into his presence. And is that not precisely what we ended up with in the so-called restored church? We ended up with another Moses to tell us what God had to say. And behind that Moses, we find Sydney Rigdon influencing, convincing, and pulling strings.
Having said all this, what should be our main takeaway from this information? Well, it's time to go to God for ourselves. Time to search the scriptures for ourselves. Stop looking for some end-time servant. When we do this, we are actively seeking to find deception. It is also time to know what is really scripture and what is not scripture. God revealed that he would give the Gentiles two books of scripture. That's the Bible and the Book of Mormon, to correct their stumbling and lead them to all truth. Not three books, not four books, not five or six. We were told that we would get no other books until we took these two records seriously. Not only to say we believe, but to live according to the words therein. And finally, we were told that the sealed records would not come forth in a time of wickedness and abominations. So throw the five or six sealed books out there into the trash. They will not lead you anywhere but in circles of distraction. I also believe it is time to question every revelation that was ever received for the church, especially any revelation that came forth after the church parted with the right way, and all those revelations that were changed by men to fit a new agenda for the church. It's time to question many things we have presumed to be true according to the traditions and the teachings of the church. Finally, and most importantly, time to get our feet firmly planted on the only foundation that we can trust in when the storms come and the floods rage. And that foundation is Jesus Christ alone. He is the truth we need most of all. Amen. Until next time, God bless. Come [Music] on. [Music]