It’s always best to start at the beginning. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This paper is a broad overview of early restorationist tendencies among the Disciples of Christ/ Christian Churches and the Mormons. It briefly discusses the theological heritage out of which they grew, how their movements interpreted restoration, and how their most important early leaders contributed to the discussion. Comparisons and contrasts are made along the way. Concluding remarks will involve a brief summary and editorial comments. An epilogue discussing some similarities among the leaders follows.
American Primitivism:
Restorationism has been a part of Christianity for centuries. It gained strength in the Swiss Reformation, especially under Zwingli who changed many of his churches practices on account of their being unbiblical. The ideology traveled to America by way of the Puritans. Through their influence, restorationism became embedded in America’s ideological history. Americans often thought of the New World as a new Garden of Eden where they could start over. The tumult of Europe was over! A new day had begun!
This ideological trend was a seemingly perfect solution to the problems Christianity faced in nineteenth century America. Many of the nineteenth century religious leaders of this period adopted radical forms of primitivism as a way of dealing with the multitude of exclusive and competing Christian confessions. They were ahistorical as Historian Sidney Mead observed in his work, The Lively Experiment. They idealized the earliest century of Christianity as the age to which they must return. From their perspective, the original church no longer existed. It had been corrupted to the point of non-existence. Fortunately, there was hope. God was working through them to re-establishing the pure church on American soil. This work was often considered to be a prelude to the Millennium.
The groups that espoused primitivism, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Disciples of Christ, Landmark Baptists, Mennonites and eventually Pentecostals understood the golden age of the Church in different ways. Some, like the Christian Churches under Stone, were primarily concerned with ethical reform. According to them the Church had become too entangled with secular society. Therefore, Christians were required to return to a radical form of Christian discipleship.
Other groups like the Mormons and the Pentecostals were more concerned with the early experience of being a Christian. God’s interaction through speech, feeling and miracle were necessary for the church to be perfect. Stone’s movement was not completely exempt from these leanings. Other groups still were patternists. They looked to the biblical way of doing church. Campbell’s Disciples are a good example of this. Returning to the New Testament, they cleared away all of the theological junk that had piled up over the centuries. These groups believed that they could unify the church by exorcizing unnecessary dogmas, and returning to the apostolic patterns of the church.
As a result these churches separated themselves from both the older ‘fallen’ churches of Europe and America, (sometimes under the pretense of uniting with them), and ‘returned’ to their understanding of ancient Christianity. For Mormons this meant regaining the authority of the original apostles. For those in the Stone-Campbell Movement, it ultimately meant recreating the apostolic pattern. It is time to turn to the Mormons.
Primitivism and the Mormonism
As the Mormon’s tell it, the Mormon restoration began in the spring of 1820 in upstate New York with Joseph Smith’s First Vision. His vision inaugurated The Dispensation of the Fulness of Time; the final dispensation of this earth. Like many during his time, Joseph Smith was confused by the competing Christian confessions. When he prayed for guidance, God told him not to join any church. The Church had been completely disintegrated. Mormons often call this concept the Great Apostasy. They teach that the beginnings of it are recorded in the New Testament. Gnosticism had infiltrated the Church; Augustine’s infant baptism was an example. They did not and do not deny individual faithfulness of ancient or modern believers. John Wesley was considered to be a righteous man. Righteous faithfulness was not enough. The church itself has lost its apostolic authority. The apostasy that caused this occurred before the councils; therefore the councils are not authoritative. Neither the Reformation nor the Restoration Movement could restore the church, because human will does not solve the problem of apostolic authority. In order to solve this problem, God told Smith that he would restore the church through Smith.
God did this in three ways. First he made Joseph the final Prophet in the long line of Prophets from Adam to Jesus. Second, He renewed the Ancient religious texts through Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. Finally, God re-established the necessary church ordinances and governing structures.
The Mormon myth was and is outstandingly American. According to Smith, much of the primal history of the Judeo-Christian religion had occurred upon American soil. Smith taught that Independence, Missouri was the biblical Garden of Eden. Christ would return there. Independence was going to be the site where God fulfilled God’s millennial promises. Smith’s Book of Mormon records the story of the Jews in America. According to this history, the Jaredites came over about 2200 BC, during the time of the Tower of Babel. Again they traveled to America just before the Babylonian Exile in about 600. Even Jesus had been here. Shortly after his resurrection in Jerusalem, Jesus walked on American soil. During his visit he established the same church order he did in Jerusalem. This involved ordaining 12 apostles to priest status, 70 disciples whom he made preachers and established ordinances including baptism.
The Mormon myth is one of restoration after restoration. The gospel began in the Garden of Eden. After the Fall Adam received the priesthood and the news that he could be saved through the “Only Begotten.” Adam and Eve taught their children the gospel of Jesus Christ. The generations after them rebelled, and the church fell. Then a Prophet was chosen to restore the Church. Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were actually prophets in the same way that Joseph was a prophet. They were chosen by God to restore the true gospel. God also revealed the gospel to Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Each time a prophet came, the gospel would be restored. Each time it was restored, degradation would take place and eventually God would send a new prophet to restore the gospel. Jesus himself had to restore the gospel with its priesthood, covenant and ordinances both in America and Jerusalem during his ministries. Even his restoration did not last. Jesus teachings were eventually rejected both by the Jews of Jerusalem and the Jews of America. In Europe the church lost its priesthood, and was perverted, in America, it was completely destroyed. Joseph was the final restoring prophet to come before Christ’s return.
Not long after God ordained Smith as prophet, He restored the 12 Apostles. On June 1829, in Fayette, NY, Smith proclaimed a revelation in which he declared to Oliver Cowdery that he and eleven others were to become an apostle of the Church. Like the early apostles, Cowdery would be ordained by God to ordain the teachers and priests of the church by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
So, in one sense, Mormonism drank deeply both from American nationalism, and from restorationism. However, the more divisive aspects of restorationism were curtailed. Most restorationist movements are fraught with doctrinal divisions that make it difficult for the movements to last through the centuries. This problem is not likely to become serious among the Mormons. If one accepts Mormon doctrine, then one should accept that no other reforming prophet is to arise. Of course, logic only has so much power over people’s beliefs and actions. Institutionalized divisions are bound to arise in any successful movement.
This problem was abated in another way also. Mormons claim that while forms and structures were restored, the lost forms and structures were the primary issue. The central problem was the lost of a Prophet through whom God communed with humanity. If one could prove that the Mormons were not embracing a doctrine or practice of the early church, it would be a secondary issue. Ultimately, the authority is in the church leadership that communes with God, not in how it practices liturgy and such. This differs substantially from developments in the Stone-Campbell Movement.
The restoration of a prophet and the other apostolic offices of the church solved the problem of competing Christian confessions in another way. Even the restoration messages, whether they were confessions or not, were competing ideas about the restoration. The different opinions concerning what restoration might mean could be said to have muddied the waters as much as cleared them. Campbell and others could preach their opinions about the early church. They could even quote scripture. If others quoted other scriptures, what were they to do? Smith did not have this problem. He had received the truth from God.
In this way the Mormons have side-stepped another problem that has or is killing the restoration movements of the 1800’s. The Stone-Campbell movement and others like it typically struggle with a crisis of authority. Whose interpretation of scripture is authoritative. To this day, there is no end to the multitude of theologically competing publications in the Stone-Campbell movement. The Mormon’s do not have that problem, at least not to the same degree.
The prophet did more than just interpret scripture through God’s guidance. The prophet was given the authority to reveal new truths from God. Mormon writer Truman Masden says that Smith’s teachings were such that it was assumed that more would be revealed by God at a latter time. Hugh Nibley reports that Brigham young spoke ex cathedra frequently. In one sense, this is primitivism at its best. Moses, Jesus, the 8th century prophets, and Paul all declared “thus saith the Lord.” If one believes that God is the kind of God that acts in those ways, then it is not unreasonable to believe that God always desires to do so. The claim is simply that God works with God’s people just as God always has—directly, through the mouth of a prophet. On the other hand, the doctrine is extremely progressive. It allows for doctrine to change at the drop of a hat. Pope Innocent III never had it so good.
Another part of the Mormon primitivism was its non-committal biblicism. Smith and the Mormons took biblical literalism to new heights. Jesus became the biological son of God the Father. Stone made a similar move, though not identical. He denied the doctrine of the Trinity because of its unbiblical nature. Anthropomorphic passages concerning the God were interpreted to mean the Father, and were taken literally. Just as priesthood was received in the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit in Acts, Smith preached that one received ordination through the laying on of hands. Unlike Catholics, the Mormons followed Old Testament president in dealing with unrighteous priests. They could be removed. Believing in freewill, he denied infant baptism. Campbell made the same theological move on account of it not occurring in the New Testament. (Ironically, both movements posited an “unbiblical” age of accountability to justify the practice). The modern church had abandoned these very “clear” biblical doctrines.
The literalism may not end there, but literalism is not the only side of the Mormon hermeneutic. Smith did not believe in biblical inerrancy. He was working on his own ‘revised’ translation of the Bible. So his literalism was inconsistent. This is difficult for rationalists to swallow, but then Mormons did not consider rationalism to be primary.
Mormonism spread slowly at first, but it found wide support among restorationists. Many of the Disciples became influential members of the early Mormon movement. Among them were Oliver Cowdery, Parley Pratt and Sidney Rigdon. The example of Rigdon is a good explanation of why this happened.
Rigdon was a Baptist minister with a primitivist mindset. He had read some of Campbell’s work, and was so impressed that he traveled 85 miles to see the man. It was not long after this that he began working under Campbell’s influence as a minister in Pittsburgh.
Rigdon became a powerful speaker for the movement, attracting thousands. Unfortunatley for the Disciples, Rigdon came to believe that Christians ought to live communally. He believed spiritual gifts would accompany restoration, and He wondered how Campbell had received the authority to bring about restoration. For these, and perhaps other reasons, he left Campbell’s movement for Smith’s in1830.
Brigham Young, the Mormons second president after Smith, also demonstrates Mormon primitivism. In his sermon on “True and False Riches” he demonstrates an understanding of the people and the land reflects Deuteronomistic History, but his understanding of true wealth shares similarities with Sermon on the Mount. He says that God will bless the Mormons in Salt Lake if they are obedient. They have already made much progress. However, they must remember that God is God, and attaining the first resurrection is primary. Attaining the Spiritual good is what really mattered He had a primitive understanding of prosperity, on one hand, and a primitive understanding of Christian morality on the other. Both primitivisms are common in American history. Right wing Fundamentalists exhibit the prior to this day, just as Mennonites do the latter. In addition to this, Young was the first person in the movement known to have spoken in tongues. So he also exhibited experiential primitivism as well.
The Stone-Campbell Movement or (The Disciples)
The Stone-Campbell Movement’s had leadership influences from both English-speaking sides of the Atlantic. This paper will focus on Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott. These men are probably the most influential early influences. Of the three, only Stone was born American.
Like Mormonism, the Stone-Campbell Movement set out to address the problem of competing confessions within Christianity. Like the Mormons, they believed that the church had fallen from its original New Testament state. Unlike Smith and his followers, their original solution was not to anathematize every other group. Rather, they abolished the creeds and their own confessions as unbiblical tests of fellowship, and proposed that scripture be the only unifying text.
The Disciples did not begin under the leadership of one person. Stone, Campbell and Scott were three of its prominent leaders and editors. Stone was a Presbyterian minister and a revival preacher. He wrestled both with Christian disunity, and with seemingly unbiblical doctrinal confessions, especially since they were tests of fellowship. He disagreed with Calvinism, believed in adult immersion, and ironically enough, open-communion. After wrestling with many of these issues, and having trouble with his denomination over some of them, Stone and the ministers under his influence decided to dissolve their Springfield Presbytery. They recorded this act in The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. The stated reason for doing so was to dissolve itself into the larger body of Christ. The principle Stone embraced was one of declaring unity without the promise of reciprocity so as to create unity.
Stone was a perfect example of ethical primitivism. Rather than defining his movement in terms of forms and structures, he was wholly concerned with radical discipleship. Sacrificial love was very important to him. He gave up his personal belongings to benefit the poor. He freed his slaves. Not only did he free them, he educated them first so that they would suffer from their emancipation.
Along the same lines, he fought for social justice. Even though he considered himself apolitical, he wrestled for a while with what to do about slavery. Owning people seemed counter-gospel, but freeing them seemed to hurt them as much as help them. For a time he supported recolonization, but when this effort did not seem to be working, he became a full-blown abolitionist.
His personal demeanor reflected the same attitude. John Rogers, who made additions to Stone’s autobiography claims that he never saw Stone angry or say a cross word. Even Stone’s opponents knew of his piety. However, he was still a controversial figure. His views concerning freewill and the Trinity have already been mentioned. Apparently, even concerning his demeanor was peaceful, but he was not afraid to articulate his views when challenged, even if it caused division. He let his yes be yes, and his no be no.
One of the odd similarities between Stone’s restoration and Smith’s was their experiential nature. At several of his meetings he records people falling and groaning for hours. His meetings attracted people numbering into the thousands.
Alexander Campbell’s primitivism was more concerned with the liturgical and organization patterns of the early church than Stone, and less concerned, though not unconcerned, with early Christian ethics. He did hold some views about personal piety. He believed in strong self-discipline, communion with God, self-denial, and so on. While he never became an abolitionist, he did free his own slaves. However, unlike Stone, he was accused, even by some of his supporters, as being to harsh and sarcastic. Self-disciple and honesty were clearly virtues he held on to, but self-sacrifice and humility were disregarded if they cost too much.
During his early years, he was highly optimistic. He believed that restoration was possible in during his lifetime. Scripture and rational thought were the keys to success.
Campbell called his movement a restoration of “The Ancient Order of Things.” He encouraged all Christians to rid their churches of whatever was not part of the apostolic church. Creeds, missionary societies, even Sunday schools and “unscriptural words” were on their way out. Since ordination was not a scriptural idea, he took hold of a radical idea about the priesthood of all believers. Every Christian was encouraged to practice rigorous study of the New Testament until they understood it well. The Mormons shared a similar notion. According to them, all Mormon’s were considered missionaries.
His almost scholastic biblicist patternism is demonstrated in a Q&A on Baptism he published. The article has 134 questions and answers. Here is a brief selection:
46. Did you ever read of the baptism of any infants in the scriptures? A. No. 47. Did you ever read of the sprinkling of any infants in the scriptures? A. No. 48. Whose commandment, then, do we obey in having our infants baptized? A. The commandment of the clergy. Do we transgress any divine command in neglecting to have our infants baptized? A. No: I never read of any one being accused of this sin in the Bible, nor of any commandment that was thereby transgressed.
Although he was highly patternistic, he taught that some early practices were no longer necessary. These include, foot-washing, the holy kiss, communal living, charismatic gifts and the female deaconate. Rather than these primitivist practices that other primitivist groups did consider necessary, Stone focused on strict congregationalism, believers baptism as a sacrament (though he probably would not have used that “unscriptural” word), and multiple elders leading local congregations. When one compares Campbell’s concerns with Rigdon’s, it becomes clear why their alliance did not last for long.
The Church of Christ wing of the movement reflects Campbell’s early biblicism to this day. The Churches of Christ grew out of a split in 1906 that followed the 1889 Sand Creek Declaration by less than two decades. The declaration said that practices not based on a clear “thus saith the Lord” were to be banned from Christian worship. So instruments were out. Missionary societies suffered from the same logic. After the split the rigorists taking the name Churches of Christ, often with a lower-case “c” in the word church to defy “denominationalism.”
Of course, these propositions could only be so popular. Many people disagreed with Campbell. He did not hesitate to debate them, but that was not a sign of division for Campbell. He usually did not anathematize his opponents. Instead, he was quick to declare unity in spite of disagreement. He hated sectarianism, calling it “the Offspring of Hell.”
Stone and Campbell differed on several doctrines, but they agreed closely in this. They were anti-creed, anti-sectarian, and pro-unity. They believed that scripture should be the only test of fellowship, and the only organizing document for the church. Their movements encountered each other with ever increasing frequency in the 1820’s and in 1832 they merged.
The Stone-Campbell movement grew, and was subsequently formed through the evangelist Walter Scott, who borrowed from Campbell rather than Stone. Scott was a humanist scholar and a Scottish Common Sense rationalist, like Campbell. Like the others he taught immersion, however, his view was stricter. He believed it to be the only valid form of Baptism. His view became the dominant one.
That Scott was working from the same primitivist assumptions as Campbell is clear from his Gospel Restored. In it Scott asserts that Christians had strayed from “true Christianity,” by clinging to unbiblical creeds. Fortunately he believed, Campbell’s “Ancient Order” has ushered in a new and exiting era for restoration in the church.
Scott is probably best known for his “five-fingered exercise.” He developed it during a sermon on Acts 2:38. His message was that those who repent, confess and are baptized, will receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. This exercise was done with the acts and rewards counted upon the fingers of one hand. The Holy Spirit and eternal life were counted on one finger. Scott was so impressed with his own explanation of salvation that he said the Gospel was restored the day he preached that sermon. Others must have agreed. The message has been repeated for nearly two hundred years.
When one reads the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement it becomes obvious that restoration and thoughts about the millennium were closely linked. This is true even if one forgets that one of Campbell’s publications was called The Millennial Harbinger.
Campbell taught that only a movement that could create unity between Christianity and society could bring about the millennium. He believed that his “Ancient Order” movement would bring about the millennial church.
These quotes from Stone are particularly telling.
Some indulge the idea that in the millennium, all the wicked world will be converted; but the truth is, that not one of the wicked will live to see that day.
Some have thought that Christ would not come and reign in person on the earth; that his coming and present reign? His first coming was in person; so shall reign on earth are entirely spiritual. How then differs his reign in the millennium from his his second be. Some indulge the idea that in the millennium, all the wicked world will be converted; but the truth is, that not one of the wicked will live to see that day.
Some have thought that Christ would not come and reign in person on the earth; that his coming and reign on earth are entirely spiritual. How then differs his reign in the millennium from his present reign? His first coming was in person; so shall his second be.”
What is odd about their concern with the millennium is that it is almost a non-concern for many in their movement today. From my experience in the Churches of Christ, the movement is neither premillennialist, nor post-millennialist. I cannot recall a single conversation or sermon about the millennium one-way or the other.
The movement that was influenced by Stone, Campbell, Scott and others like them reflected what they most agreed upon; scripture, congregationalism, and adult immersion. Among the subsequent divisions of these movements, the Churches of Christ most closely resemble Campbell’s original ideals. They have no denominational structure. No official conferences, and no official authorities outside of the local congregation. They are organized around simple liturgical and organizational practices rather than theology. The conversion experience tends to have little importance. The group tends to have orthodox Trinitarian beliefs, but usually refuses to acknowledge creeds associated with them as a requirement for orthodox Christianity, since it is an extra-biblical doctrine. Often enough, they also claim not to practice anything unbiblical, although this is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
Ironically, Campbell would be disappointed about their rigorousness concerning his “Ancient Order of Things.” As Campbell was aging he began to notice problems within his movement. It was not producing what he had expected. His movement was scattered and disorganized. It was radically Congregationalist. It claimed scripture as its only creed. That was what he had wanted, but it was not creating the unity necessary to bring about the millennium. Eventually he asserted that a book is not enough to organize a fellowship. Toward the latter side of his career, he was calling his movement a denomination. He even changed his opinion of missionary societies, and allowed the church to have one. One wonders what other changes he might have made had he lived another century.
Conclusion
The restoration movements of the nineteenth century fed off American Christians’ desire to solve the problem of competing confessions. The Mormon religion addressed the issue by claiming that all other churches fallen. They lacked apostolic authority. God would restore it in the form of the prophet, and subsequent presidents. The Disciples addressed the issue by clearing away the accumulated grime of the centuries, creeds, confessions and everything unbiblical.
The Stone-Campbell movement looks like it could be on its last legs. It failed because of an inability to agree on the essentials of Christianity. This is almost inevitably the case with primitivism. The Mormons have been spared some of this trouble through the lead of a Spirit inspired teaching office.
It is difficult not to speculate as to how things might have been different if these movements had taken slightly different approaches. For example, what would have happened if the Smith had not revealed plural marriage, and some of the other more offensive doctrines? Would the Mormons be an even larger group today? It stands to reason.
How would the Stone-Campbell Movement have looked if Stone had been the dominant influence rather than Campbell? There is little doubt that it would have been a less divisive movement, if less popular. It was almost inevitable that Stone’s influence would wear off in comparison with Campbell’s. Rigorism is typically easier for people than radical self-sacrifice and compassion. It is easier to think oneself better than another than to serve him or her. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wish that Stone’s influence had won the day in most respects.
Much more study on this topic is in order. Richard Hughes makes apt assertions while commenting on the small number of works on this subject, Hatch’s in particular. He says that while populist influences cannot be extracted from the restorationist movements of the 1800’s, the philosophical and theological influences were more influential. Otherwise, the fierce separation of the movements into different camps over distinct theologies would make little sense. Different readings of scripture shaped their ideas of primitivism. This is true even of the Mormons. Hughes suggests that the misplacement of socio-economic factors ahead of theological ones by recent historical writers comes from an anachronistic dismissal of the period’s theological concerns. Just because Hatch does not care about them, does not mean that Campbell and Stone did not.
Epilogue: Similarities Among the Movers and Shakers
Of the many other things that could be gathered from the information in this paper, the similarities among the restorationist demagogues are worth noticing. All of the movers and shakers of these restoration movements were ‘self-made’ men. They were brilliant thinkers and more or less prolific writers. Smith wrote the BOM, much of the D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and innumerable other documents from books to newspaper articles. During the Mormon’s time in Ohio, a seven-year period, Smith organized the first stakes, set up a priesthood, established a newspaper, a bank, a printing office, and supervised the building of the LDS’s first temple. He also prepared a school system for the future leaders of his movement. While in Hancock, Missouri, Smith delegated a successful mission through the brilliant leadership of Brigham Young. There have always been questions about Smith’s character. A letter from Jesse Townsend of Palmyra NY to Phineas Stiles claims that Smith was a fortune-teller and a thief long before he was a religious leader. Promiscuity was certainly not a problem for him. He was married to nearly thirty women during his lifetime and martyred. He received all the benefits of a religious life, with all the pleasures of a pagan one.
Stone published and preached before thousands. He lived a life worthy of canonization in nearly every regard, minus being Catholic. Perhaps most surprising of all, he allowed his unity movement to be swallowed up into a larger one. He was a self-made man who was not in it for himself.
Scott published a journal and wrote books. Like Stone, he spoke before large crowds. He simplified the gospel down to a “five-fingered exercise.” Without canonization his formalized creed has been passed down from generation to generation. Often the carrier is completely unfamiliar with the original host.
Campbell published the Christian Baptist, the Millennial Harbinger and more. Unlike Stone, he did not have a problem being active in politics. He served as an elected delegate to Virginia’s Constitutional Convention. He was an educator who ran a boy’s school and started a university. He was also a businessman who made himself wealthy raising sheep. He even translated his own Bible.
Young and Rigdon published less, but both influenced thousands regardless. Smith, Campbell and Young all started schools and were involved in business in a multitude of ways. Young was a brilliant organizer who led a band of religious fanatics to a strange promised land, and laid the infrastructure for the survival of a religion and the beginning of a state. These men were not simply preaching religion, they hand their hands deep in the spirit of their time, grabbing bricks to build their empires.
Works Cited
“Apostasy,” Page 4 in Historical Dictionary of Mormonism in vol 1. Edited by Davis Bitton. 1 vol. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2000.
Arrington, Leonard. 1992. Young Brigham Brigham Young, Pages 1601-1609 in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 4. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Blowers, Paul M. 2004. Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, Pages 398-402 in The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in vol 1. Edited By Hans J. Hillerbrand. 4 vols. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Bushman, Richard and Dean Jessee. 1992. Smith, Joseph: The Prophet, Pages 1331-1339 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 3. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Campbell, Alexander. “Questions and Answers on Baptism,” in Restoration Readings, edited by Oram Swinney. Johnstown, PA: Oram Swinney, 1949.
Compton, Todd. 1992. Apostasy, Pages 56-58 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 1. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Dillenberger, John and Roger Keller. 1992. Restorationism, Protestant, Page 1221 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 3. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Doctrines and Commands, Lamoni, Iowa: Board of Publication of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1913.
Foster, Douglas A. 2004. Disciples of Christ, in Pages 593-597 in The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in vol 2. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. 4 vols. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Garrett, Leroy. 2004. Campbell, Alexander, Pages 112-134 in in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement in vol 1. Edited by Doug Foster, Paul Blowers, Anthony Dunnavant and D. Newell Williams. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Hughes, Richard and C. Leonard Allen. Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America 1630-1875. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1988.
Hughes, Richard. 2004. Restoration, Historical Models of, Pages 635-638, in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement in vol 2. Edited by Doug Foster, Paul Blowers, Anthony Dunnavant and D. Newell Williams. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
________. “Two Restoration Traditions,” Pages 348-363.in Michael Casey and Douglas Foster. The Stone-Campbell Movement: An International Religious Movement, Knoxville: University of Tennesee, 2002,
Klaus, Hansen.1987 and 2005. Mormonism, Pages 6192-6195 in Encyclopedia of Religion in vol 9. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 15 vols. New York: Macmillan, 2005.
Knowles, Lloyd. 2004. Rigdon, Sidney, Pages 652-653 in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement in vol 1. Edited by Doug Foster, Paul Blowers, Anthony Dunnavant and D. Newell Williams. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Little, David. 2004. Restorationalism, Page 1608 in The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in vol 3. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. 4 vols. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Madsen, Truman. 1992. Smith, Joseph: Teachings of Joseph Smith, Pages 1339-1343 in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 3. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Matson, Mark. 2004. Churches of Christ, Non-Instrumental, Pages 425-428 in The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in vol 1. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. 4 vols. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Murch, James Deforest. Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement. Cincinnati: Standard. 1962.
Nibley, Hugh. 1992. Young, Brigham: Teachings of Brigham Young, Pages 1609-1611 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 4. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Ostling, Richard and Joan Ostling. Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.
Packer, Rand. 1992. Dispensation of the Fulness of Time, Pages 385-386 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 1. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Reid, Daniel. 1990. Primitivism, Pages 940-941 in Dictionary of Christianity in America in vol 1. Edited by Daniel Reid. 1 vol. Downers Grove: IVP, 1990.
Scott, Walter. “Gospel Restored (Selections from),”in Restoration Readings, edited by Oram Swinney. Johnstown, PA: Oram Swinney, 1949.
Shute, R. Wayne. 1992. Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Pages 1220-1221 in Encyclopedia of Mormonism in vol 3. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Steorts, Mitchael C. 2006. Mormonism, Pages 293-295 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Religious and Spiritual Development. Edited by Elizabeth M Dowling and W. George Scarlett. 1 vol. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
Stone, Barton and William Caldwell, “An Exchange on the Millennium (1833-1834), in The Christian Messenger (October 1833, No. 10 312-314; December 1833, No 12 365-367), On line: The Restoration Pages [http//www.mun.ca/rels/resmov/texts/bstone/stone2.html. (Cited: May 2, 2006), Edited by Dr. Hans Rollman, 1995-2005.
Townsend, Jesse, “Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles” in Early Mormon Documents in vol 3. Edited by Dan Vogel, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2000.
Toulouse, Mark G. Restoration Movements, Pages 659-664 in The Encyclopedia of Christinity in vol 4. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 15 vols. Detroit: Macmillan, Thomas Gale, 2005.
Toulouse, Mark G. 2004. Scott, Walter, Pages, 673-679 in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement in vol 1. Edited by Doug Foster, Paul Blowers, Anthony Dunnavant and D. Newell Williams. 1 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Van Orden, Bruce. 1992. Rigdon, Sidney. Pages 1233-1235 in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism vol 3. Edited by Daniel Ludlow. 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Williams, D. Newell. 2004. Stone, Barton W. Pages 700-720 in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement in vol 1. Edited by Doug Foster, Paul Blowers, Anthony Dunnavant and D. Newell. Williams. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Young, Brigham. The Essential Brigham Young. Editor not listed. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment