6 Organizing the Church as a Religious Association in 1830

While much has been written about the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in upstate New York, questions remain regarding the events of April 6, 1830. This article examines the organizational events of the Church from a legal perspective. In the nineteenth century, individuals desiring to form a church had two legal alternatives: forming a religious corporation or organizing a religious society. Understanding the requirements of each and considering which legal entity Church leaders would have preferred provide new insights into the organizational events.

Historical Background

In June 1829, shortly after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood, they were commanded by revelation to organize a church.1 Received ten months before the organization, this revelation outlined a rough agenda for the future meeting and commanded Joseph and Oliver to defer this organization until those who had been or would be baptized could meet together and sanction such an event.2

Around noon on Tuesday, April 6, 1830, over fifty persons gathered in the small, two-room farmhouse of Peter Whitmer Sr. to witness the organization of the Church of Christ.3 After opening the meeting with prayer, the twenty-four-year-old Joseph Smith called on the brethren present to show whether they accepted him and Oliver Cowdery as their “teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God” and whether they should be organized as a church.4 After a unanimous vote, Joseph ordained Oliver by the laying on of hands to the office of elder, after which Cowdery in turn ordained Smith to the same office.5 They then oversaw the administration of the sacrament and confirmed those present who had previously been baptized, conferring upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost.6 Joseph also received a revelation and ordained others to priesthood offices.7 Joseph states that “we dismissed with the pleasing knowledge that we were now individually, members of, and acknowledged of God, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ organized in accordance with commandments and revelations.”8

Laws Regarding the Formation of Nineteenth-Century Religious Corporations

Not only were the events of that day spiritually meaningful to members of the Church, but the actions taken were legally significant. The early leaders of the Church apparently were aware of these legal implications as they tried to obey the laws of the land in organizing a church.9 In seeking out what legally took place on April 6, 1830, historians have assumed that Church leaders attempted to incorporate, and they cite an 1813 New York statute entitled An Act to Provide for the Incorporation of Religious Societies.10 But upon closer examination, the historical evidence, as well as the purposes and benefits of religious corporations fails to align with the act of incorporation, suggesting that the Church never incorporated in New York.

In nineteenth-century New York, a corporation was a legal entity “composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed[ed] each other” so that the entity continued unchanged despite an evolving membership.11 Various types of corporations existed,12 including religious corporations, which were composed of “spiritual persons”13 who took “a lively interest in the advancement of religion”14 and who took the steps to incorporate.

The literature of that era refers to three main benefits that flowed to a church by being incorporated. First, religious corporations maintained a perpetual succession with trustees carrying out the original purpose of the church despite an ever-changing membership or the passage of time.15 Second, this “immortality” allowed for the religious corporation to manage “with more facility and advantage, the temporalities belonging to the church or congregation.”16 Without corporate status, the property of the church was owned by individual members, and the church did not possess “the power to transfer the privileges given to it to other persons” when the owning members died.17 Alternatively, a corporation was “considered as one person, which has but one will”18 and could transfer property upon death with relative ease.19 Third, religious corporations had various legal rights, including the power to make contracts, to have a common seal, and to use the corporate name,20 all allowing for easier property management.

State laws varied on how a congregation could form a religious corporation.21 New York updated its incorporation statute in 1813, entitled An Act to Provide for the Incorporation of Religious Societies, which detailed how a church could self-incorporate.22 Section Three of the Act stated that to form a religious corporation, the congregation should gather to elect between three and nine trustees:

It shall be lawful for the male persons of full age . . . to assemble at the church, meeting-house, or other place where they statedly attend for divine worship, and, by plurality of voices, to elect any number of discreet persons of their church, congregation or society, not less than three, nor exceeding nine in number, as trustees, to take the charge of the estate and property belonging thereto, and to transact all affairs relative to the temporalities thereof.23

Trustees played a key role in a religious corporation. Similar to directors of present-day corporations, trustees were managing officers responsible for the temporal affairs of the church.24 The church vested all property in these trustees, who held it for the use and benefit of the congregation.25

The main event at incorporation meetings was the election of these trustees. New York’s statute described the formalities of this election:

And that at such election, every male person of full age . . . shall be entitled to vote, and the said election shall be conducted as follows: the minister of such church . . . shall publicly notify the congregation of the time when, and place where, the said election shall be held . . . ; that on the said day of election, two of the elders . . . to be nominated by a majority of the members present, shall preside at such election, receive the votes of the electors, be the judges of the qualifications of such electors, and the officers to return the names of the persons who, by plurality of voices shall be elected to serve as trustees for the said church, congregation or society.26

The minister of the religious society gave notification of the upcoming election at least fifteen days beforehand, including two successive Sabbaths.27 The notice was very simple, merely requiring that the time and place of the election be given.28 By a voting majority, the congregation was to elect two elders to preside over the election, tally votes, and announce the winning trustees.

The statute also required certification with the county clerk:

And the said returning officers shall immediately thereafter certify, under their hands and seals, the names of the persons elected to serve as trustees . . . in which certificate the name or title by which the said trustees and their successors shall forever thereafter be called and known, shall be particularly mentioned and described; which said certificate, being proved or acknowledged as above directed, shall be recorded as aforesaid; and such trustees and their successors shall also thereupon, by virtue of this act, be a body corporate, by the name or title expressed in such certificate; and the clerk of every county for recording every certificate of incorporation by virtue of this act, shall be entitled to seventy-five cents, and no more.29

The trustees were required to certify the incorporation by filing a document containing the names of the trustees, giving the official title by which the corporation would be known, and paying a fee. Upon the certificate being recorded, the organizing church officially became a religious corporation.

Evidence That the Church Probably Did Not Incorporate

Three reasons become apparent as to why leaders of the early Church probably did not incorporate it on April 6, 1830: (1) incorporation would have required an organizational structure incompatible with that of the Church; (2) the early Church would not have received any tangible benefits for which other churches would have traditionally sought incorporation; and (3) historical evidence does not align with several of the statute’s main requirements.

First, the trustee system of incorporated churches would have forced an organizational framework that was not in accordance with the preferred leadership structure of the early Church. In religious corporations, power was disbursed between three to nine trustees, who led by democratic majority vote. This system did not comport with the single office of a prophet who was to lead the Church. According to at least one account, on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith was ordained the prophet, seer, and revelator for the Church, plainly the sole leader of the new organization.30 Oliver Cowdery was likewise Joseph’s unequivocal second-in-command. These two men, with Joseph foremost, were to lead the Lord’s Church through revelation, not three to nine trustees who governed by majority vote.31

Second, most of the benefits of forming a religious corporation would not have enticed the early Church. As mentioned above, religious corporations primarily formed to enjoy perpetual succession and easier property management.32 Such benefits would not have concerned Church leaders in 1830 due to the Church’s financial state. The Church did not own any property, such as a building or land. Rather, the Saints used public lands such as creeks and rivers to perform baptisms and members’ homes, schools, or other churches as meetinghouses.33 Perpetuity and simplified property management are of little advantage when a church holds no assets. The minimal tangible benefits combined with a forced organizational structure likely would have dissuaded the early Church leaders from incorporating.

Third, the eyewitness accounts of the organizational meeting and descriptions of subsequent Church operation only modestly resemble the statutory requirements of New York’s law. While the early Saints followed a few of the following minor requirements, the more essential portions of the statute appear to not have been followed on April 6, 1830.

The statute required that “male persons of full age . . . assemble at the church, meeting-house, or other place where they statedly attend for divine worship.”34 The Saints met in the home of Peter Whitmer Sr., a locally influential farmer residing in Fayette, New York.35 Despite not being an actual church, the home of a member appears to be a valid setting for an ecclesiastical election; other churches during that time period likewise chose to incorporate in the house of a member.36 But the Whitmer home does not appear to be where the Saints “statedly attend[ed]” for divine worship. The Church held no formal meetings there before April 6, 1830,37 and after organization the Church met at various locations, including two different schoolhouses, various churches, and other members’ homes.38 However, the Whitmer home was the location of three subsequent general conferences, which implies that when the early members needed a formal meeting place, they chose the Whitmer home. Additionally, Joseph Smith resided there at the time of organization, and it was essentially the headquarters of the Church.39 Such a setting would probably qualify as an appropriate location for incorporation under the statute.

The statute further required that the minister “publicly notify the congregation of the time when, and place where, the said election shall be held.”40 Joseph Smith’s manuscript history states, “[We] made known to our brethren, that we had received commandment to organize the Church And accordingly we met together for that purpose, at the house of Mr Whitmer.”41 Joseph states that he gave such notification, which is also evidenced by the sizable number in attendance at the organizational meeting.

The location and notice requirements constitute the extent of clear similarities between the statute and the accounts of the Church’s organization. Additional requirements only tangentially align with the descriptions given of the meeting.

For example, the statute requires the election of two elders to preside over the election. “Two of the elders . . . [shall be] nominated by a majority of members present . . . [to] preside at such election, receive votes of the electors, . . . and the officers to return the names of the [elected trustees].”42 A seemingly parallel event is found when the congregation on April 6, 1830, voted on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery: “[Joseph] proceeded . . . to call on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God. . . . To these they consented by an unanimous vote.”43 But such an election was not for Joseph and Oliver to be temporary officers who would preside, run, and tally an election of a board of trustees. The congregation sustained Joseph and Oliver as the leaders of the Church. There is no record of any electoral judges being chosen.

Perhaps of most significance is the absence of any actual election of trustees. The statute states that “male persons of full age . . . [shall elect three to nine] trustees, to take the charge of the estate and property belonging thereto, and to transact all affairs relative to the temporalities thereof.”44 In the accounts of April 6, 1830, there is no mention of any election of trustees. Since the central purpose of an incorporation meeting was to elect these trustees, this silence is informative. Scholars point to the six original members of the Church as evidence of statutory compliance with this requirement.45 But the accounts refer to them simply as “members,” not trustees. Further, these six original members played a minimal role in the organizational meeting; in fact, their names were only recorded several decades afterward.46 Also, after the organization these six original members do not appear to collectively perform any typical trustee duties such as the buying and selling of property or the creation of bylaws for the Church.47 The statute clearly demonstrates that the decision-making power of a religious corporation should lie in the trustees after incorporation, while in reality, Joseph Smith maintained sole decision-making power as prophet.

Finally, the statute required that the officers “certify, under their hands and seals, the names of the persons elected to serve as trustees, . . . [and] the name or title by which the said trustees and their successors shall forever thereafter be called and known.”48 No one has ever found the Church’s incorporation certificate that was to be filed with the county clerk. Two historians in particular have meticulously searched to no avail for the certificate of incorporation in several government offices and courthouses in upstate New York.49 While it is not unusual for historical documents to go missing and never be found again, historians not only have failed to find the actual certificate, but also have not found any record that the county clerk ever received such certification or the requisite fee—separate notations that the clerk would have made in addition to filing the certificate.50 This absence comes despite records of several other churches filing certificates during the time period.51

In summary, the only clear similarities between the statute and the events of April 6, 1830, appear to be Joseph Smith giving notice to the members of the Church to meet at the Whitmer home, a place where the Saints would typically gather. Otherwise, there are only seeming coincidences in the numbers of elders and electoral judges and of original members and trustees. While this could merely show a lack of awareness or compliance with the statute, it is more likely the Saints were simply not trying to incorporate, and perhaps were even unaware of the statute.

Seeing the Church as an Unincorporated Religious Society

Stronger evidence suggests that on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith organized the Church as an unincorporated “religious society.” First, in the nineteenth century, formation of a religious society often preceded incorporation. Second, the organizational events of the Church closely align with the customary methods that other churches followed for creating new religious societies. Third, early statements regarding the organization of the Church support the creation of a religious society. These facts lead to the likely conclusion that Church leaders did not incorporate the institution in New York but instead formed an unincorporated religious society.

Religious societies were regularly operating churches that did not hold corporate status. The legal definition of a religious society was “a voluntary association of individuals or families . . . united for the purpose of having a common place of worship, and to provide a proper teacher to instruct them . . . and to administer the ordinances of the church.”52 Essentially, religious societies comprised all unincorporated churches.

A religious society could be created by anyone wishing to form one’s own church. Unlike religious corporations, in 1830 no federal or state statutes regulated the formation of religious societies. Rather, formation was determined “by usage”; in other words, according to the policies and customs of each church.53 In the 1830s, it was the common practice to create a religious society before incorporating.54 In fact, nineteenth-century incorporation statutes were drafted with the presumption that such a statute would be applied to a preexisting religious society.55 If early Church leaders were aware of such a practice, they would have opted to form a religious society and not a corporation.

The organizational events of the Church align with customary methods that other churches followed for creating new religious societies (see sidebar1 at end of chapter). Unlike religious corporations, in 1830 the formation of a religious society was regulated by the individual policies and customs of each church, not by legislative statutes.56 Most new societies formed local branches of larger existing religions, such as the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopal faiths, whose mother churches had detailed policies that the new religious societies were to follow in order to effectively organize. Alternatively, a new church not being formed as a branch of an existing denomination had no restrictions on how they could form. By examining the instruction that other churches gave regarding how to form new congregations, one can understand the customary method for forming a religious society with which Joseph Smith possibly employed. The events of the organization of the LDS Church align in several ways with the guidelines of these other churches.

One of the leading faiths in upstate New York was Presbyterianism.57 To guide the growth of the church in new communities like Palmyra, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church printed pamphlets and treatises specifying how to form new congregations.58 The organization of a new Presbyterian religious society occurred as follows. Individuals were to send a petition to the presbytery that would appoint two ruling elders to organize the church.59 The two ruling elders, “having given due notice to the persons who are to compose the new congregation of the time and place of meeting . . . [would] converse with all who propose[d] to unite in forming the congregation; and being satisfied with their religious attainments and character, . . . on the day appointed for the organization, [would] publicly receive them.”60 The organizational meeting was to begin with the “usual exercises of public worship,”61 or “devotional exercises, conducted by the presiding minister,”62 followed by the election of the ruling elders.63 Only “male communicating members” in the church could be elected as elders, who after election were ordained to their offices.64 This was accomplished when one of the elders asked the congregation, “Do you the members of this congregation acknowledge and receive this brother as a Ruling Elder . . . in this church?”65 The members then responded “in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands” and then witnessed the setting apart of the elder by prayer.66 Baptisms also commonly played a role in such events.67

The Methodist Church published similar guidelines. Methodists were among the earliest to organize in the Palmyra area and enjoyed tremendous growth during Joseph Smith’s youth due to the success of Methodist circuit riders.68 In rural areas, these itinerant preachers rotated through different areas of the country, opting for camp meetings in forest groves or barns rather than formal meetinghouses.69 The actual formation of a congregation often had to wait until a preacher was willing to permanently minister to a congregation. The church counseled that “persons desiring to organize themselves . . . [should] apply to a Methodist preacher, having regular pastoral charge near them, who receives them as members of the church . . . on a profession of their faith. The preacher then enrolls their names in the general register of his charge” and “when these steps have been taken, the society is duly constituted, and becomes an organic part of the church, and has regular pastoral care.”70

The Baptist Church was also prominent in the Palmyra area and had a membership of several hundred in the 1820s.71 They grew quickly, “primarily by converting unchurched americans,” and relied on uneducated lay ministers to staff their congregations.72 A key tenet of the Baptist faith focused on the independence of each congregation.73 The method for organization of a Baptist society was thus, not surprisingly, free of many formalities and could differ from society to society. One treatise describes the loose requirements as follows: “When a number of Christians, members of the same or of different churches, believe that their own spiritual improvement, or the religious welfare of the community so requires, they organize a new church. This is done by uniting in mutual covenant to sustain the relations and obligations prescribed by the Gospel. . . . Articles of faith are usually adopted, as also a name by which the church shall be known, and its officers elected.”74

The Episcopal Church in the United States, formerly known as the Church of England, also instructed new members on how to form a congregation.75 Like the Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church gave general instructions for formation without any rigid formalities. The congregation was to give notice of an upcoming organizational meeting and at such meeting adopt articles of association, assume a suitable name, elect officers, and agree to the beliefs and practices of that church.76

Comparability to the Organization of the LDS Church

While a significant difference exists between organizing an entirely new church and forming a new congregation under an existing denomination, the organizational events of April 6, 1830, align quite closely with various elements in the customary methods for organizing local congregations as prescribed by these other churches.

Notice was given to the membership. Joseph Smith informed his brethren of the revelation commanding him to organize a church.77 Both the Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches required notice be given to the prospective membership of a religious society. The prospective leadership gave “due notice to the persons who [were] to compose the new congregation of the time and place of meeting.”78

Ruling or leading elders were elected. Joseph Smith called on the brethren present to know whether they accepted him and Oliver Cowdery as “their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God.”79 Each of the four other churches elected their officers at their organizational meetings. The April 6 election of Joseph and Oliver is most similar to the Presbyterians’ subscribed meeting, which included the election of two “ruling elders.” Oliver and Joseph respectively ordained one another as elders on April 6, 1830,80 with Joseph being the “first elder” and Oliver the “second elder.”81 Compare also the question asked at a Presbyterian service (“Do you the members of this congregation acknowledge and receive this brother as a Ruling Elder?”82) with Joseph Smith’s description of the election (“[We called] on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the kingdom of God”83). Presbyterians then answered in the affirmative by raising their right hands,84 a practice similar to that of the LDS Church.

The organization was accompanied by usual exercises of public worship. The April 6 meeting opened with prayer and, after the election of elders, included the administration of the sacrament as well as “time spent in witnessing.”85 Each of these portions of the meeting could be considered parts of a normal worship service, similar to the Presbyterian organizational meeting that began with the “usual exercises of public worship” and “devotional exercises.”86

Ordinations, baptisms, and confirmations were then performed. In addition to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being ordained to the office of elder by the laying on of hands, others were called and ordained to priesthood offices. The leaders then confirmed members of the Church and gave them the gift of the Holy Ghost.87 After the meeting, “several persons who had attended . . . [became] convinced of the truth, came forward shortly after, and were [baptized].”88 This coincides with the practice of the Baptist and Episcopal churches, who similarly ordained other officers and accepted additional members into their church through baptism on the days of organization.

An official church name was given, membership recorded, and articles of regulation were soon put in place. After the organizational meeting, the Church was officially known as “The Church of Christ.”89 Similarly, the Baptist and Episcopal churches both required that the congregation designate a suitable name for each church that organized.90 Also, at the organizational meeting, Joseph Smith received a revelation that called for a record to be kept among the Church (D&C 20:82).91 The Methodist Church likewise kept a record after organizing that included a “general register” of the members of the church. Note also the role of the Articles and Covenants of the Church, which represent a declaration of the doctrine and practices that the newly organized Church would follow—in essence a constitution or bylaws for the new church.92 Correspondingly, the Episcopal Church required the reading and adoption of articles of association at their organizational meetings, and the Baptist Church required that articles of faith be adopted. While it is unknown how much, if any, of the Articles and Covenants was read at the organizational meeting,93 they were accepted by the Church in a June conference, and the focus of early Church leaders on composing these articles aligns with the customary practice of other denominations. In summary, the events of the LDS organizational meeting aligned with the custom of coexisting churches seeking to form a religious society.

Historical Statements in Context

Finally, viewing the organization of the Church from the perspective of a religious society aligns well with the historical statements made by its earliest members. Indeed, the absence of any historical reference to incorporation in any of the accounts of April 6, 1830, is revealing. There exists no statement from any eyewitness or early Church member describing the event as an act of “incorporation.” The events were instead consistently referred to as the “organization” or “organizing” of the Church, terms typically used to describe a formation of a religious society.94 If the leaders of the Church were familiar with the statutory difference between incorporation and organization, their use of the word “organization” is significant.

While Church members did not refer to the incorporation statute, they did refer to the organization being done according to the laws of the land. The Articles and Covenants describe the organization being done “agreeable to the laws of our country.”95 Additionally, in 1887 David Whitmer stated that the Church was formed according to the “laws of the land”:

The reason why we met on that day was this; the world had been telling us that we were not a regularly organized church, and we had no right to officiate in the ordinance of marriage, hold church property, etc., and that we should organize according to the laws of the land. On this account we met at my father’s house in Fayette, N.Y., on April 6, 1830, to attend to this matter of organizing according to the laws of the land.96

These statements have motivated scholars to look for a statute that the Saints were trying to comply with and implement—a specific “law of the land.” But reference to the organization being accomplished “according to the laws of the land” can just as well be construed as a declaration that the organization was done “legally” or “in a customary manner,” not necessarily according to a specific statute.97 Whitmer’s overall concern appears to have been that community members were criticizing their lack of any legal organization whatsoever. Forming a religious society would have quelled such criticism.98

Further, Whitmer specifically mentions the Church lacking the authority to marry and hold church property. Both of these acts could be done by a religious society. The ability to perform marriages was not exclusively held by religious corporations but could be performed by a minister of any religious society,99 and the members of an organized religious society could hold property on the congregation’s behalf.100

A number of statements by subsequent members show a misunderstanding of New York’s legal requirements for organizing a church.101 These statements have since caused confusion regarding the Church’s formation, most notably the reason for having six original members. As an example of one of these statements, the Apostle Erastus Snow stated the following in 1873:

At that time there existed in the State of New York a legal statute forbidding anybody to minister in spiritual things, except a regularly recognized minister, and which also provided, that any six believers had the right to assemble to organize a religious body. After inquiring of the Lord, and to enable him to minister lawfully, the Prophet Joseph was commanded to enter into an organization; it was therefore on the 6th of April, 1830, that this statute was complied with, and the Church became recognized by the laws of the State of New York.102

A number of problems exist in this statement regardless of whether the Church incorporated or not. No portion of the religious incorporation statute, or any statute for that matter, forbade the exercise of “spiritual things” by nonministers. Additionally, the thought that there must be six believers to organize a religious body is also mistaken. There was no numerical requirement to form a religious society, and the incorporation statute required between three and nine, not six exactly.103 Statements like Elder Snow’s have led historians to believe that the number of original members held legal significance.104 Such was not the case. Unfortunately, understanding the Church’s organization as that of a religious society rather than a corporation fails to shed light on why Joseph chose to recognize six men as members, other than that it was probably not because any statute or law required it.

Conclusion

In the nineteenth century, church members could legally form a new congregation through two methods: the creation of a religious corporation or the organization of a religious society. While historians have long assumed Joseph Smith created a religious corporation on April 6, 1830, it is more likely he created a religious society when he organized the Church. Considering the Church’s condition in 1830, forming a religious society clearly met the Church’s needs and avoided an undesirable leadership structure. Additionally, the recorded accounts of the organizational meeting lack conformity with the incorporation statute’s requirements but strongly resemble the customary methods of how other churches formed religious societies.

Understanding the legal status of the newly organized Church places the events of April 6, 1830, in a clearer context. Nearly every aspect of the Church’s organizational meeting was a typical practice of the Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, or Presbyterian churches.105 This not only shows that the early Church members did comply with the law in organizing, but also possibly explains why they chose certain actions during the meeting.106

After the meeting, Joseph records that he felt “acknowledged of God, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ organized in accordance with commandments and revelations.”107 Not only did Joseph organize the Church according to the laws of the land, but he obeyed God’s commandments in doing so. The Church’s organization was thus done according to both the laws of God and man.

Sidebar. Excerpts from Pamphlets and Rules Regarding the Formation of Local Congregations

Presbyterian: Form of Government and General Administration: Prescribed Rules for Organizing a United Presbyterian Congregation.

When a congregation becomes too numerous to meet conveniently in one place for public worship, or when for any other reason it would promote the general interests of the church to organize a new congregation, the persons so judging shall make application to the Presbytery, within whose bounds they reside, setting forth the necessity or propriety of such organization. Whenever application for this purpose is made, notice shall be given by the Presbytery to the session of the congregation, that may be affected by the new organization, before the petition is granted.

If after hearing the reasons, the Presbytery determines to grant the application, it shall appoint a minister and two ruling elders, if practicable, to carry the object into effect; and they having given due notice to the persons who are to compose the new congregation of the time and place of meeting for said purpose, shall, after the usual exercises of public worship, proceed to hold an election for the proper officers.

When the persons who are to compose the new congregation are already members of the church in full communion, the election of officers shall be conducted as in congregations already organized.

But when the applicants are not in communion, the minister shall converse with all who propose to unite in forming the congregation; and being satisfied with their religious attainments and character, he shall, on the day appointed for the organization, publicly receive them by proposing the questions usually proposed to applicants for membership. The election shall then be conducted in the prescribed way.

When the election is over, the minister shall announce to the congregation the names of the persons elected; and on their agreeing to accept the office, and having been examined by him as to their qualifications for, and their views in undertaking it, a day shall be appointed for their ordination, the edict served, and the ordination conducted as in other congregations.

The presiding minister shall report to the Presbytery his procedure in the case, with the names of the officers who have been chosen and ordained. And these with the name of the congregation shall be entered on the Presbytery’s list.

Methodist: Mode of Organizing a New Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church as determined by Usage.

If in a certain neighborhood there are persons desiring to organize themselves into a Christian Society in accordance with the rules and usages of the M. E. Church, how is such organization effected?

They apply to a Methodist preacher, having regular pastoral charge near them, who receives them as members of the church, either by written certificate of their good standing in some other society, or on profession of their faith. The preacher then enrolls their names in the general register of his charge, and in a class-book which he gives to one of them whom he appoints as leader of the class. The leader represents them in the Quarterly Conference.

When these steps have been taken, the society is duly constituted, and becomes an organic part of the church, and has regular pastoral care. And this care is perpetuated from year to year by the appointment of a pastor by the bishop at the session of the Annual Conference in whose bounds such society is situated.

If this society have a house of worship, or propose to erect one, a board of trustees must be created in accordance with the laws of the state or territory to hold the property in trust for said society. These trustees must be approved by the Quarterly Conference of the Circuit of which such society is a part. And to be admitted, the charter, deed or conveyance of such house of worship, must contain the trust required by the discipline of the church.

Baptist: Edward T. Hiscox, The Baptist Directory: A Guide to the Doctrines and Practices of Baptist Churches.

When a number of Christians, members of the same or of different churches, believe that their own spiritual improvement, or the religious welfare of the community so requires, they organize a new church.

This is done by uniting in mutual covenant, to sustain the relations and obligations prescribed by the Gospel, to be governed by the laws of Christ’s house, and to maintain public worship and the preaching of the Gospel. Articles of faith are usually adopted, as also a name by which the church shall be known, and its officers elected.

Episcopal: Murray Hoffman, A Treatise on the Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.

Whenever any number of persons shall associate to form an Episcopal congregation, they shall . . . acknowledge and accede to the constitution, canons, doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States . . . ; they shall assume a suitable name by which their church or parish shall be designated, and appoint not less than three nor more than eleven vestrymen and two wardens. . . .

The form of organization of a parish is this: “We the subscribers, assembled for the purpose of organizing a parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of ____ . . . , after due notice given, do hereby agree to form a parish, to be known by the name of ____ church, and as such do hereby acknowledge and accede to the constitution and canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and the constitution and canons of the same Church in the diocese.

First published with more extensive analysis under the title “Legal Insights into the Organization of the Church in 1830,” BYU Studies 49, no. 2 (2010): 121–48.