Talk:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about Mormonism, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) |
The information contained in this article, as well as several others concerning "LDS denominations" is inaccurate in it's explanation of the "crisis of succession". When Joseph Smith was murdered, the procedures by which the next prophet and president was to be ordained were already established by revelation. The organization of the First Presidency and Quorom of Twelve Apostles followed the correct process, and by inspiration and common consent the Lord directed Brigham Young to continue the work.
These articles give the false impression that Brigham Young was leading a "secret faction" and that he essentially assumed power by misleading the entire church membership into voting for him. This could not be further from the truth since Young, along with the rest of apostles, actually adhered to church doctrine and followed the correct procedures after the death of Smith.
During this time there were several men who took it upon themselves to become the next prophet in opposition to everything that had been previously organized. These men left the Church and decided to disregard the approved process. They forgot that prophets are called by God through revelation, not by the personal desires of men who covet power.
The Bickertonites, Strangites, etc. all decided to seperate themselves from the Church based on what they thought should happen rather than simply following the proper procedures.
These articles paint the apostates as heroes while Young and other church leaders are denigrated for doing what they were directed to do by Joseph Smith himself.
- Being LDS, I totally understand your view, but this view is only that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and does not reflect the view of other Mormon denominations. Because of Wikipedia policy, we have to make sure that articles present a neutral point of view. COGDEN 21:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I was being neutral. Can you tell me how to improve?
It should be pointed out to the writer above that Brigham Young created a new church when he had all members who followed him to the Great Basin baptized, thus rejecting the authority of God restored through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and creating a new authority based on Young.
With regard to the above, no church members were rebaptized into the Mormon church of Brigham Young vs the Mormon church of Joseph Smith. Do you have a reference for the claim?
Contents |
[edit] Questions/comments
The article states, "Church members always greet each other with a "holy kiss" (following New Testament precedents)."
A holy kiss is an interesting concept and should be explained in more detail? What does it entail? A simple kiss on the cheek? An Eastern kiss? More detail on this would be nice to explain. Also a reference to the D&C on washing of the feet (or something similar) would be useful cross referece.
Speaking of the D&C, what are the Bickertonites scriptures? is it just the bible and book of mormon?
(Speaking as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ headquarters Monongahela PA, The scriptures that are accepted are the Bible, and Book of Mormon. None of Joseph Smiths other writings are accepted.)
"Hymns through a single sister" The entire last paragraph of the hyms section needs to be re-written - it is difficult to understand. Who is the single member? Is she married? Is it the same she as is referenced in the next sentence? Etc.
Just a few suggestions to make this better. -Visorstuff 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The assertion that the procedures were already in place for selection of the next President of the LDS Church after Joseph Smith is entirely wrong. Eeven after John Taylor (the 3rd President) the succsssion order had not yet been established and it was nearly 3 years before Wilford Woodruff becaame the 4th President and it was with his Presidency that the succession order was established forever for the future of the Salt Lake City based LDS Church.
[edit] Not NPOV
I realize that when one deals with religion it is very difficult to remove a point of view, but the quote from the article "The songs are quite beautiful and filled with the Spirit of God" definitely is not NPOV.
Agreed. This article in no way shape or form follows the NPOV Policy of Wikipedia. The article mentions how elders aren't called by "Father" or "Reverend" as they are volunteers and not paid (as according to Scripture)! I don't think it is an article's purpose to tell the reader what is and isn't scriptual. There are changes that are easy to make such as replacing the "as according to Scripture" with "as according to the scriptual interpretations of the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite).",etc
[edit] Why Always the "A" Word???
Excuse me, but IN CONTEXT, it should be clear to anyone with even the smallest mental capacity that this article is about The Church of Jesus Christ and its position on points that separate it from the rest of the Restoration Churches in the Latter Day Saint grouping.
I dispute this comment:
"When Joseph Smith was murdered, the procedures by which the next prophet and president was to be ordained were already established by revelation. The organization of the First Presidency and Quorom of Twelve Apostles followed the correct process, and by inspiration and common consent the Lord directed Brigham Young to continue the work."
This is NOT borne out by the facts. There was confusion and Smith left a number of possible succession models behind. There was no "one" procedure in place, but several possible succession models.
Not only was there no procedure in place but such did not happen until after the death of John Taylor, the 3rd President of the Salt Lake City LDS, when it went nearly 3 years before it was decided up Wilford Woodruff. It was not until this time that the procedure to be used forever forward in the Church was approved and sustained by the Twelve.
There was no policy that the Second Quorum succeed the First. That was the position taken by the faction of the church that eventually followed Young to Utah.
Since Sidney Rigdon was STILL alive, his position was as valid as any. You have to remember that what we see now as "obvious" was not so obvious back then.
The story about Sidney Rigdon being rejected by Smith has been shown to be an oft-repeated myth that was constructed later AFTER Rigdon and the Twelve went their separate ways. See Samuel Taylor's "Auntie Mormon" recap of the actual events, among others. So, while TRUE that the relationship between Smith and Rigdon was very strained at the time of Smith's death, it was not so bad that Ridgon was not part of the First Presidency as some haver falsified.
Brigham Young may well have felt right in his position and he did carry the vote of the majority as the Second Quorum was sustained in their calling. Rigdon's suggestion that he be appointed as guardian was rejected, partially on the strength that Young advanced on no one being able to replace the Prophet.
Rigdon was later excommunicted and he, in turn, excommunicated the Twelve.
At the time, he was denouncing the Twelve for POLYGAMY and POLYANDRY and he was called a liar and an apostate for doing so. Recall that a faction in the Church was practicing these at a time that BOTH the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon SPECIFICALLY denounced these abberations.
Young later re-instituted a First Presidency under less-than-full quorum conditions.
History has also shown that the LDS have been by far the most successful branch of this movement. That does not, however, give it exclusive rights to the claims of the movement!
"These articles give the false impression that Brigham Young was leading a "secret faction" and that he essentially assumed power by misleading the entire church membership into voting for him."
I think Brigham Young was an able and skilled leader. He believed in what he was doing. He exhibited the Alpha Male behaviour at times in doing so.
He was NOT universally accepted by all in the original church.
You Utah LDS have a right to claim to be PART of that history, but so do the others of us. We are NOT your "apostates" any more than YOU are ours. All of the resulting churches at the dispersion of the saints at Nauvoo have a claim to this legacy!
"This could not be further from the truth since Young, along with the rest of apostles, actually adhered to church doctrine and followed the correct procedures after the death of Smith."
I beg to differ.
The point that has been obscured by revisonist history is that it was but ONE of MANY possible "church doctrine and ... correct procedures" Smith left behind. Michael Quinn, formerly of your church, wrote an article that defined the 8 (as I recall) models of succssion Smith left behind. You may want to read it.
"During this time there were several men who took it upon themselves to become the next prophet in opposition to everything that had been previously organized. These men left the Church and decided to disregard the approved process. They forgot that prophets are called by God through revelation, not by the personal desires of men who covet power."
Now who is slipping in OPINION as fact? The above is the Utah LDS view. If we "Bickertonites" agreed with you, there would not be an issue, right?
"The Bickertonites, Strangites, etc. all decided to seperate themselves from the Church based on what they thought should happen rather than simply following the proper procedures."
Again easily demonstratable as OPINION.
"These articles paint the apostates as heroes while Young and other church leaders are denigrated for doing what they were directed to do by Joseph Smith himself."
Why do so many of you Utah LDS like the "A" word??? Is that your BEST answer to the legitimacy of other Restoration Christians? Why can't you just love us and let us love you back?
We were together for a mere 14 years and have existed APART for 161 years. We have ALL survived and we have disproven each other's "dire" predicitions of each other's failure.
Can we move on?
Why can't we do as Community of Christ President Steve Veazey suggests towards other Restoration churches and "be good neighbors"? Part of that process would eliminate the use of the "A" word and the ability to accept that there ARE legitimate reasons for other latter day saints to follow variant positions without name-calling. ..
- Hi Anon, you are correct. Please feel free to clean up some of the POV that other editors have introduced.
- Often the edits are not meant to be malignant, but are done with the best intent. Please be patient with the other editors, whether they are Brighamite or Bickertonite. I also believe that other Bickertonites have edited this page in the past, so you may want to see who introduced those edits and engage in dialogue with them directly. We all have a very rich history, and as part of the Latter Day Saint movement, I don't think we realize how influential we can be when we work together. -Visorstuff 20:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
In both Bibilical and Book of Mormon scripture, it is clearly outlined that "by their fruits, ye shall know them". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints clearly fits the description, and any break off from the true restored church of God, separates itself from living revelation.
[edit] Proposed Rigdonite Merge
Whoever proposed this merge doesn't have a clue about this Church or what it represents. Yes, William Bickerton converted to Mormonism under Sidney Ridgon's influence, but Bickerton broke with Rigdon in 1846. The Ridgonite Church went on to other parts of Pennsylvania while Bickerton remained behind in Monongahela. Bickerton was largely a self-taught (autodidact) Mormon and founded his own Church completely independent of Rigdon. Therefore, this suggested merge is ridiculous. The two Churches are entirely separate and independent of each other. StudierMalMarburg 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
