Contributed by Greer Bates Cordner
Greer Bates Cordner is a Ph.D. candidate at Boston University. Her primary area of research is American Religious History, with Global Christianity and Mission as a secondary area. Greer also holds a Master of Theological Studies degree (Boston University) and a B.A. in History (Brigham Young University). She is a mom to three young kids, all of whom were born during her doctoral program, and who put her academic and gospel studies into perspective with their questions, hugs, and prayers.
Throughout March, Latter-day Saints reviewed Doctrine & Covenants sections that detail aspects of the organization and administration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In common parlance, many Latter-day Saints might refer to these events as “the restoration” (sometimes with a capital R). What that term means, and how it gets used, can change depending on context, time period, speaker, etc. But the fact that restoration frames Latter-day Saints’ understandings of the origins of their faith movement invites some discussion about restorationism as a concept in American religious history generally, and in Latter-day Saint history in particular.
Restorationism in America
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a number of new church movements began to appear across the United States that historians have categorized as “restorationist.” The term is broad, and covers a wide span of churches, but in general, restorationist movements share two core commitments: 1) the idea that the Christianity of the first century contained the essential doctrines and practices of the gospel; and 2) that some of those doctrines/practices had corrupted or vanished over time. The restorationist impulse is to attempt to return to the perceived roots of Christianity.
Defining “restorationism” for the Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, Richard Hughes argues that “[e]very Christian is to some degree restorationist, in as much as they all appeal to” the “ancient norms” of Christianity’s founding, and pattern their own practices after these ancient examples. But for Hughes, what sets apart true restorationist churches is their relationship to history. Hughes notes that, while “most Christian traditions mix that appeal [to ancient norms] with an appreciation for historical development . . . the unmistakable hallmark of restorationist Christianity is the complete and utter rejection of any historical mediation of ancient, founding norms.”[1]
Hughes’s wording strikes me as a bit over the top—specifically, his use of the word “rejection.” There certainly can be tendencies among restorationist Christians to actively reject the idea that expressions of Christianity in first-century Judaea might not have been identical to those in nineteenth-century America. But many restorationists seem simply to overlook the mitigating factors of time, location, language, and culture more passively; it’s not a rejection as much as an oversight.
Hughes’s ultimate point holds, though: It’s all too easy to overlook the reality of change over time in the context of restorationism.
Some (certainly not all) church movements that sprung up in America that can qualify for the term restorationist include:
- the family of churches that share Alexander Campbell as a founder (especially the Church of Christ and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ])
- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Jehovah’s Witnesses
- the Church of Christ—Scientist
- various charismatic/pentecostal movements
Each of these groups tended to prioritize specific aspects of original Christianity that they believed other churches lost sight of. For instance, Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) emphasized biblical promises of healing; Charles Parham and William Seymour (pentecostalism) emphasized tongue-speaking; and Charles Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses) emphasized specific views of the nature of the human soul, and eschatology.
Like his fellow restorationists, Joseph Smith Jr. taught that Christians must reclaim important features of original Christianity, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically emphasized priesthood authority as the feature that most needed restoration. The sections that March’s Come, Follow Me study guide covered reflect some of the revelations Smith received as steps along the process to bringing shape and order to this authority that he said heavenly messengers had brought back to the earth.
Changing Views of “Restoration”
Patrick Mason has recently pointed out that somewhere along the way, Latter-day Saints began to use the term “restoration of the Church,” but that during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and for decades after, restoration was linked with priesthood or gospel rather than with church.[2] Mason’s observation that “restoration” has meant different things to Latter-day Saints over time highlights one of the ways that Richard Hughes’s definition of restorationism holds unique importance for Latter-day Saints. Specifically, Latter-day Saints must grapple with the realities of change over time in two key ways. After all, not only do norms differ between the 1st century and the 19th century, but they also differ between 19th century and the 21st century. So Latter-day Saints need to account for historical developments from the founding of Christianity to the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and from the founding of the Church to the present.
One recent historical development in the Church has related to the concept of restoration itself. In addition to some of the shifts that Patrick Mason has identified, there’s been a new application of the concept of restoration within the Church. I haven’t yet conducted a formal, thorough study to back up this claim, but I’ve begun to study the rise of the term “ongoing restoration” in official Latter-day Saint speeches. As far as I’ve been able to determine so far, the earliest appearance of the phrase “ongoing restoration” in General Conference occurred in 2019, when Quentin Cook used it to announce major shifts in Church practices.[3] Before 2019, changes to Church practice and teachings typically fell under the category of “continuing revelation” rather than “ongoing restoration.”
What stands out about this shift in Latter-day Saint perspectives of restoration is that what was once seen as an event has morphed into a principle; “the restoration” was not simply the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the ongoing mission of the Church.
In some ways, rebranding “the restoration” as something that’s still in the works opens greater potential for Latter-day Saints to address Richard Hughes’s critique of ahistoricity among restorationists. With looser definitions of restoration, Latter-day Saints have the opportunity—and obligation—to reflect on the reality of change over time. They can probe those changes to identify patterns, external influences, and internal dialogues that have shaped believers’ experiences of the Church. They can also initiate conversations about the ways that change, like restoration, is ongoing.
[1] Richard T. Hughes, “Restorationism,” in Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, eds. Ian A. MacFarland, et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 443-444.
[2] Patrick Q. Mason, Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World (Faith Matters Publishing, 2020). See also Mason’s podcast interview, “Restoring the People of God: An Excerpt of ‘Restoration’ by Patrick Mason,” https://faithmatters.org/restoring-the-people-of-god-an-excerpt-of-restoration-by-patrick-mason/.
[3] Quentin L. Cook, “Adjustments to Strengthen Youth,” October General Conference 2019, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/25cook?lang=eng.
milk & honey mamas 
Leave a comment