I started last week at the beginning by asking my class the question: “How does our history begin?” Now, I was prepared for people to take this as a trick question. I thought I might get answers like “actually, since Christ founded the church, our history begins with the ministry of Jesus in Palestine,” or I thought someone might want to push back further to Eden or even the Pre-Existence. Instead, I instantly got the answer I was fishing for, “with a young man praying in a grove,” one of the class members volunteered immediately.

Exactly. This is how we today always start our story. With the “First Vision.” I next asked “What is the story of the First Vision?” and I had one of the folks write each detail on the whiteboard. The class came up with these details, which I’ll put into order: 1820s, revival meetings, confusion of sects, James 1:5, grove, prayer, vision, personage, creeds an “abomination,” don’t join any sect, found the church. The only details I had on my list that didn’t get volunteered were: “confronted by dark powers” and “pillar of light.” The class clearly knew the story from memory.

We know this story well. I next asked: How do we know it? Where does this story come from? A different class member volunteered, “It was published in the church newspaper.” Bright class! Exactly the traditional account comes from the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo in 1842. (In the LDS Church, this article has been added to a canonized booklet called the “Pearl of Great Price,” a Utah compilation that isn’t part of the Community of Christ tradition.) I had the class read selections from the account to refresh everyone’s memory, which was already pretty good except “remembering” the additional detail of a commission to found the church.

This is the story we tell when we begin to tell our overall story. This is the story we traditionally tell when we’re doing missionary work. My next question to the class was: Why are we using a version from 1842? The church had missionaries from the beginning. It had a newspaper beginning in 1832 and it published tracts and broadsides from the start. Earlier accounts of stories, by and large, are more historically accurate than later retellings. Why are we using such a late version of this pivotal story?

This time I either stumped them or they weren’t as ready to speculate, so they waited for me to supply the answer. My answer is that the earliest missionaries did not tell this story. It was not published in the church’s first newspaper. The earliest members were totally unacquainted with the “First Vision,” and during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, the story did not occupy the critical foundational place that it now occupies. (An example of this unfamiliarity is William McLellin, one of the original apostles who left the church in 1837, had no knowledge of the “First Vision,” see Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey, eds., The William McLellin Papers, 1854-1880, xxv-xxvi.)

I then explained that although the story wasn’t widely known among members in the 1830s, earlier accounts do exist. The earliest version is from the Kirtland Letter Book and is written in Joseph Smith’s handwriting in 1832. We then read this account and noted some of the differences from the details we’d already written on the whiteboard. The 1832 account is as follows:

At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God

thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that of adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul

thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and div[is]ions the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind

my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my sins, and by searching the scriptures I found that did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament

and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God

for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their majesty through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the strength of beauty whose power and inteligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created

and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man said fool saith in his heart there is no God

my heart exclaimed all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity

and when I considered all these things and that being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god

and the opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy walk in my statures and keep my commandments

behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life

the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not commandments
they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud in the glory of my Father

and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me, but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart”

(From Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 4-6.)

Obvious differences are the inclusion of young Joseph’s concern for over his own sins and salvation and his assurance that his sins were forgiven. Also, in the earlier account, his own scripture reading had convinced him that contemporary Christian sects had practices that were not in keeping with the precedents described in the New Testament. Although we hadn’t written “Two Personages,” another difference is that there is no indication of multiple personages in the earlier account. I then passed out a chart based on information compiled by Richard P. Howard from six versions of the First Vision story (published in Restoration Studies, vol. 1, 107-117; revised and made into a chart by Mark A. Scherer). The chart illustrates an evolution in the details concerning the way the story was remembered and told, from the unfamiliar 1832 account up to the familiar 1842 account.

My point in highlighting the evolution was not to discount or deconstruct the experience. I don’t believe that Joseph Smith told the story different ways because he was “just making it up.” Rather, we should understand that the story was told at different times, to different audiences, for different purposes. It’s clear that memory is also elastic. When our class “remembered” that Joseph had been charged to found the church, they weren’t “lying.” Despite the fact that everyone knew this story so well and none of the accounts includes this detail, our own memories supplied the detail because we know this story as the pivotal precursor to the foundation of the church. Our memories “fixed” the story we know so well by adding details that didn’t originally exist. Likewise, as the theological speculation in Nauvoo turned to the nature of God, Joseph’s later retellings of the story began to include the memory of multiple, distinct “personages.”

I then suggested to the class that we today in the church are also a very different audience than anyone in the 1830s and 1840s, and that the significance of this experience has presumably evolved for us as well. For example, our class balked at the detail that the creeds of fellow denominations are called “an abomination” in the traditional 1842 account. Class members had three or four ways they rationalized that term in order to soften or delete it because as a faith community, we no longer believe we have to call everyone else “false,” in order to claim to possess truth ourselves.

I had intended to ask the class for other enduring truths or elements of the First Vision story that still have meaning for our church, our congregation, and ourselves as individuals today. However, as you can imagine, the lesson had already run long, so I just supplied my own answers, which were: personal search for the divine in all things, continuing revelation, God’s love for all people, open faith without set creeds, hope for forgiveness/salvation.

I ended with the open-ended question that started the lesson. If early church members were unfamiliar with the First Vision story — if it did not originally hold the place in the narrative that it does now — “How does our history begin?”

Item No. 1:
Last week CofC leaders released details on new procedures for church membership for Christians previously baptized in other denominations. An interim policy takes effect January 1, 2011, and will be valid through the following August 31.

On September 1, 2011, an official policy becomes effective. It is anticipated that a new church-members introductory course will be available by that time, and all new prospective members will be required to complete it. Until then existing resources (Walking with Jesus: Disciples in Community of Christ and Sharing in Community or We Share: Identity, Mission, Message, and Beliefs) may be used by local authorities.

A key element in both the interim and official policies is that this procedure is only for those people who were baptized (1) at the age of eight or older and (2) their baptism involved water [full or partial immersion, pouring, or sprinkling]; in other words: infant baptism does not qualify. All people seeking membership in Community of Christ in this way must agree to a Shared Understanding of Baptism statement.

Included with the official announcement of this significant policy change was a letter from church president Stephen M. Veazey. In it he explains how the policy came into being, its direct connection to Doctrine and Covenants Section 164 (approved in April 2010 at World Conference), and a brief personal reflection.

Item No. 2:
On November 10, delegates to the General Assembly of the National Council of Churches U.S.A. unanimously approved Community of Christ for membership. A report by a NCC committee recommending approval is here (the report also includes the church’s “We Share” document). The NCC report makes for interesting reading, particularly the section that notes that the Community of Christ’s “founder” was not Joseph Smith Jr. but Joseph Smith III (admittedly, this information is provided by a representative of Roman Catholic bishops and excerpted from a letter by him to the committee).

The announcement on the church’s Web site is here. While this announcement is not totally unexpected (recall that the NCC’s general secretary, the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, addressed the CofC World Conference this year and expressed his strong support for this step), it does represent a significant (some would probably substitute “radical”) development in RLDS/Community of Christ history.

These separate announcements are not simply administrative actions, of course. There are major theological and historical issues involved. Clearly there are those who view this moment in the church’s long history as a leap into religious maturity while others see it as damning proof of apostasy.

Perhaps in both cases this becomes a core question: Now that the Community of Christ allows church membership for Christians without requiring rebaptism and the denomination is a part of the National Council of Churches USA, what difference is that going to make as the church (understood as a worldwide communion, national churches, mission centers, congregations, and faith movement) moves ahead?

In its shortened form, it’s simply this: So what?

As it turned out, they only wanted to talk about Joseph Smith. Apparently, our faith movement’s founder represented all that anybody needs to know about contemporary Latter Day Saint groups.

To shorten a long and rather nasty story, I’ll just skip to the part where representatives from United Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, and Roman Catholic Churches prevailed. A Methodist pastor put it this way: “Nobody asked me to prove I was ‘Christian enough’ to join, so why should we start now?”

Eventually most of the fundamentalists/evangelicals bolted from the alliance when an LDS representative was admitted a few years later. They formed their own group, which over time has dwindled in size and influence.

I mention this episode as a way to ask, “Do we expect to be misunderstood or misrepresented?” Is this a natural outgrowth of religious discrimination and persecution experienced by our forebears in the almost two centuries of our faith movement’s existence? Although nobody’s getting tarred and feathered these days (at least here in North America, as far as I’m aware), has suspicion become our default setting?

A few weeks ago I received what was, in actuality, a personal and professional compliment. Yet my first response was something along the lines of “What did he really mean by that?”

Bill Tammeus is the former religion/faith writer for the Kansas City Star. He is highly respected locally and nationally and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer for the Star years ago. He graduated from the University of Missouri School of Journalism a few years before I did. And he writes a monthly column for his own denomination’s magazine, the Presbyterian Outlook, a bi-weekly column for the National Catholic Reporter, and his daily blog, “Faith Matters,” is read by a wide audience.

In early July he featured my book, What Was Paul Thinking?, on that blog. As part of his comments about the book, he noted that it might just be the book to finally get the conversation about the New Perspective on Paul out of scholarly circles and into the hands of people in the pews where it really needs to be today. And then he added this paragraph:

One thing I found especially interesting about this book is that the author is a member of the Community of Christ, which used to be known as the Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints, the smaller branch of the Mormons. But as far as I could tell nothing in Brown’s book is in any way different from the way a scholar who came from one of the traditional Christian branches (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) might have written it.

Wait a minute—What?

Several other Community of Christ members agreed with my initial assessment that that was at least a curious thing to say. A couple even thought it might be a veiled slam against the church.

I have since been assured by a highly respected friend, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Mr. Tammeus, that the comment was anything but a “slam.” In fact, my friend said it was a sincere and significant compliment to me, the church, and other Community of Christ members who’ve engaged in graduate-level religious studies. Furthermore, it bodes well for the church long-term.

You can read the entire blog entry here, if you want the complete context. But I’d like to return to my original concern with some questions:

1. Do we still have remnants of a “persecution complex” in the Community of Christ?

2. Will we ever be fully accepted as part of mainstream Christianity—and is that something we should even want anyway? By the way, just how significant was it to have the general secretary of the (U.S.) National Council of Churches address this year’s World Conference?

3. At what point do “different” and “distinct” cross over into “exclusionary”? Is there a slippery slope involved in all this somewhere?

4. What’s been the experience of other CofC members in seminaries, graduate schools, and other higher-education institutions? (My seminary experience was 30 years ago, so I’m certain something has changed.)

5. Will people outside the church (particularly in the media) ever just refer to our church name as Community of Christ without mentioning what it used to be?

Perhaps we in the Community of Christ fuss over the whole question of identity way too much. We’ve certainly spent a lot of time pondering who we are, who we aren’t, what makes us different or distinctive (two quite different things, I contend), what we believe, what we’ve discarded along the way, and what we’ve acquired on our faith journey. I can’t help but wonder if we’d put half that much energy into evangelism and mission (once again, two different things) how our life together might be different today.

Our goal has been to tell the church’s history vividly, using the graphic-intensive format we created for last year’s illustrated history of the Kirtland Temple. The new book will be 74 pages long. Writing a 74-page book doesn’t initially seem like that big a deal, but some times it can be harder to write a short book than a long book.

For one thing, when writing an introduction designed for both church members and a general audience, you can’t just jump right into church jargon — you have to introduce and explain every word as you go. Take the statement, “the Temple was ultimately built on part of the original 63 acres that Bishop Edward Partridge purchased for the planned city of Zion.” There’s a lot of things that have to be introduced to make that statement. Not only who was Partridge, what’s a temple, what’s meant by Zion, but also, what’s a bishop?

The next big challenge was constructing a new historical narrative. Our historians community has done a great job deconstructing church history, but as we’ve challenged folklore, we haven’t always done a great job replacing it with an informed story that is inspiring. For me, that’s a shame, because I think the informed story has the potential to be infinitely more inspiring than the old folk tales.

So a lot of thought has gone into it, and I’m pretty proud of the results so far. I’m including here a sneak-peek at some of the 2-page spreads:

The book will be available next year from John Whitmer Books (and on Amazon), debuting at the Restoration Studies Symposium. I can’t wait!

I reached Kirtland the second day of the reunion and found that I had been elected to preside . . . Some 25 or 30 tents were on the ground just back of the temple, and a great many people had taken rooms in the hotel and private houses. . . . Our meeting passed off very pleasantly and profitably. The meetings were spiritual and the solemn and sacred atmosphere of the temple seemed to influence the minds of those who were present. A great many outsiders were present and there were in all ten baptisms. Some forty or fifty of the Canadian Saints were there and enjoyed themselves immensely.” [Elbert A. Smith, Letter to Joseph Smith, September 7, 1911, Lynn Smiths’ Papers, Elbert and Clara Smith Collection, P78-2, f158, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.]

While Kirtland Temple was already hallowed ground for these Community of Christ members, the annual reunions held there added a new dimension to the evolving Community of Christ sense of sacred space. There’s a lot to reflect on here–such as how meeting in particular places can enact our understandings of things sacred. However, such reflection gets way ahead of ourselves. Let’s first think about the specific history of reunions before considering their social, theological, or wider historical relationship to Christianity in the United States America (reflections which I will post in a follow-up entry).

Community of Christ members started reunions in 1883 in response to the desire of many members to meet more than once a year (at the time, what we would call “world conference” met once a year). The first RLDS reunion met in a rural setting near Council Bluffs, Iowa, for a week long gathering. Families slept in tents and cooked for themselves. Firewood was provided along with hay for horses. Preaching and prayer meetings lasted all day, from nine a.m. to nine p.m. Attendance astounded even the most optimistic.  After this first “reunion” experience, church members wanted to meet again the next year. Soon, reunions spread from coast to coast among RLDS members. Early meetings were often referred to as “grove meetings” as well as the more familiar term, “reunion.” (I think the term “grove meetings” refers to the location of the events, not a reference to Joseph Smith’s “First Vision,” though it is tempting to try to make some connection.) Organized at a local level, reunions featured guest ministry provided by missionaries or traveling elders and apostles. By the 1890s, permanent reunion grounds were being bought in places like Maine, California, and Iowa.

If any of this sounds a lot like a nineteenth-century camp meeting familiar to so many Americans, it’s because reunions in many ways form our counterpart to this venerable Evangelical institution. My next post will reflect on the reunion as sacred space and compare it to evangelical camp meetings and later Protestant church camps and communities. For now, though, I’d like feedback on what you have experienced at reunions. What has changed over the years? What differences have you noted from one reunion to the next? Why are reunions important to you?