Mormon Exhorters

Mormonism lacks a trained clergy; never had it, never will. So where did the Mormon tradition of a lay ministry start and what did it use for its initial format or example? Much of it was drawn from Methodism. Both Joseph Smith, Jr., and John Taylor, for example, served as Methodist Exhorters as teenagers (see JS-H 1:7-8 and Anderson, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, 1999, p. 39 for Joseph; this short bio for John Taylor). What exactly is a Methodist Exhorter and what did they do?

The modern office that discharges that role in the Methodist Church is called Lay Speaker, and they have their own Lay Speaking Ministries site. A short history of the Exhorter/Lay Speaker office is provided. They didn't preach sermons or interpret scriptures publicly--they couldn't. They had no training. They would just have spread screwy interpretations leading to confusion and serving to discredit the church. So they just "exhorted" by urging folks to pray and repent, offering encouragement, and admonishing listeners to act. Sound familiar?

Here's a quote for what early Methodist Exhorters in England did: "They did not 'preach' in the usual sense of that term, but held meetings for prayer, and addressed the people on the subject of religion, giving them requisite encouragement and admonition and calling 'them that were without' to repentance" (the article is quoting Simon, 1923).

Here's how it worked in America: "Early exhorters in the American church were used to 'exhort' the people to follow God's Word and to live exemplary lives. They would often 'exhort' the people to action after the appointed clergy had 'preached' the sermon" (from the article). The modern Methodist regulations noted in the article require local church lay speakers to take a basic course and certified lay speakers to take the basic plus one of several advanced courses. These aren't "trained ministers." In the Methodist Church you need training just to be the lowest of lay speakers. Training improves performance; it is a form of quality control for the provision of services. Quality preaching matters to Methodists, it seems. I'm jealous.

It's pretty clear that early Mormon leaders, Joseph included, designed Mormon services around their exhorting experience. They had no ordained clergy to preach proper sermons from a text. No liturgy, no clergy, just hymns, a simple eucharist ordinance, and plenty of praying and exhorting. That still defines Mormon services to this day. General Conference is just exhorting writ large with a better choir.

If this helps you understand the origin and structure of the Mormon approach to Sunday services, it might also help you understand what goes on each Sunday in church. Getting a little tired of being exhorted at for 60 minutes every Sunday? Have you ever found yourself (gasp!) thinking that maybe having a trained minister to preach a proper sermon wouldn't be so bad? Think how things would change if every Mormon sacrament meeting speaker had to take a 10-hour basic lay speaker course before inflicting themselves on the congregation. I mean it's only the gospel of Jesus Christ we claim to be preaching on Sunday--you would think leaders would take it more seriously. At least as seriously as Methodists do.

Comments

[Ann]

I sang with a Methodist choir for a year, attending their services whenever we sang. The senior minister was an enthusiastic preacher, and man, did he know his stuff. That Ph.D. in Theology was not a waste of time. It was always a challenge for me to attend an LDS service right after, because it did not contrast well.

Funny, though, how we see what we're looking for; I had an LDS friend attend FUMC's Christmas Eve service and she was taken aback by Dr. Horton's preaching style. She found it very off-putting. He was at his most enthusiastic that night.

[David]

I can in no way disagree with Dave's assessment of this rhetorical gifts of most sacrament meeting speakers. However, I don't think it's fair to categorize church speakers as "untrained". Children give talks in primary (starting, if things haven't changed since my primary days, at a rather young age) partly to prepare them to speak in front of the whole congregations. Youth talks serve a similar purpose. And in my understanding, the CES "Seminary" program is called "Seminary" precisely because it is intended to prepare young members of the Church to participate in the lay-ministry. Of course, none of this is required of people who speak in meetings, but it is likely that a large percentage of those who do speak in church have spent some time (more than 10 hours) in programs of this type. Maybe, then, the problem is with the effectiveness of the training, and not with its presence or absence.

[Dave]

David, nice comments. Perhaps formal/informal is a better label than trained/untrained. Mormon worship has no formal sermon because we have no distinct clergy and no liturgy that calls for formal sermons. Everything that happens at a Mormon pulpit is informal. For all the practice LDS youth get speaking, I can't think of any specific training, either to youth or to adults, about what should be said or not said in a talk from the pulpit, about how to deliver it, etc. There is regular comment about what to say or not say in monthly testimony meetings, but with only slight effect on what people actually say. There is a "teacher training" course in the LDS Sunday School curriculum--why not a "speaker training" course?

I agree that LDS children get practice in front of groups and LDS youth get experience delivering (informal) talks before large congregations. I think adult Mormons who end up speaking in front of people professionally owe some of the comfort and polish they display to their early LDS experience. Similar comments apply to the teaching experience many Mormons get that is tough to come by elsewhere. The speaking and teaching skills that many (not all) develop due to this early and continuing exposure in church is something many of us can and should be grateful for.