Talk:The 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 the Latter Day Saint movement, 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)

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive 4/Archive 5/Archive 6/Archive 7/Archive 8/Archive 9/Archive 10/Archive 11/Archive 12/Archive 13/Archive 14/Archive 15

[edit] Pictures

Does someone know how to properly post Apostle Paul Palmieri and the World Conference Center on the site?? The pictures looked great but they need proper citation.Jcg5029 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can it be cited from the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ? CSG 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

the pictures are the same ones as those on this church's website, and the website specifically states that the items on it are under copyright. If the website were to state "everything on here is under public domain" then that would suffice. McKay 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. CSG 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are free downloads on the official webpage even though the page itself has a copyright. Wouldn't the pictures be under the same principles? If not - what is the difference? I simply am not well versed on this subject.Jcg5029 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a download is free doesn't mean that we can use it on the encyclopedia. If they own the copyright, they can copy it as much as they want, and distribute to as many people as they want, so even though I can look at it, I can't further reproduce it, because I don't own the copyright. Consequently, Wikipedia as an entity can acquire a copy of the image, but because wikipedia doesn't own the copyright, they can't reproduce it and put it in their encyclopedia. McKay 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks I didn't know. I thought since my computer automatically copies them and places such pictures in the temp internet files that it would be okay for the pictures. Lets face it, every computer does that same thing thus somehow violating a copyright?? I understand your point though you are right. Thanks for the info.Jcg5029 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By visiting their site, The Church of Jesus Christ, as copyright holder, has authorized you to look at the image. Fair use stipulates that you can store that temporarily to look at that image, but you do not have rights to upload that to a different website to share with others. Similarly, if you go buy a CD from the store, you have acquired a copy of the music, and you can listen to it. Fair use stipulates that you can use the CD on your computer, (even though technically, it first makes a copy of the music, buffers it onto the CD-ROM drive's buffer, copies that again across the bus to the RAM, makes a copy in the RAM, in RAM makes another copy as it translates it to a format playable by the speakers, then translates that across the bus again to the sound card, where the sound card copies it again and buffers it to play out the speakers). But none of that means that you can put the music up on your website, because you don't own the copyright. Does that make sense? McKay 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%Jcg5029 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can probably remedy this pretty easy. I will probably see Paul this weekend and I'll just take a picture of him myself and use that to post. As far as the Conference Center I can do the same when I am home in two weeks. I'll just swing by and take a good picture of it to use and post. That should solve any problems JRN 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed some pictures with Dwayne this past weekend and he agreed to look for several pictures that can be used for the site. He has also given his permission for the pictures donated to be on Wikipedia. Just an FYI! CSG 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that it isn't enough to give permission to use on Wikipedia, but it must be licensed under a free license, like Creative Commons or GPL McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. Once those pictures are found, they will be licensed for this usage. Thanks for the FYI. CSG 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

I think great progress has been made on this page in the past couple weeks. I think that it is now coming together as a much better page. Will all the arguements on the name in the past week much hasn't been said about more revisions of the page. How does everyone feel about the page; Are there any other areas that we need to specifically address? Any new categories or headings that we feel need included? Let's try and get a good concensus and move forward so this page can continue to improve. I would also to like to thank everyone for their input. JRN 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Other section is random and spotty. This is because it was basically taken from Verry Valenti's article which was all question and answer. There is questionable info that needs sourced or taken out about a millenialistic belief system, etc. Also more pictures should be added legally when possible.Jcg5029 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there more that can be possibly included about the Faith and Doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ? It would provide for a more infomrational visit to this site and encourage other people to learn more about this organization. There are several people that can be contacted who have taken personal photos of many people and events. CSG 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to have less points, howabout a Faith and Doctrine Heading and a Ordinance?? See what it looks like and throw in thoughts!Jcg5029 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Bickerton

There should be a William Bickerton page. I will volunteer to start it up!Jcg5029 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

Some unidentiied user has been making some good edits to the page lately, but he/she has changed alot of wording withing the intro paragraphs. I feel that the new paragraphs are very awkwardly worded and have lost the flow. Does anyone have any good suggestions to clean it up. I know the first paragraph has been touchy so I wanted to open it back up so we can have a concensus JRN 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those changes have been made for the better, but I agree with JRN that the opening could be more professionally worded. I would encourage that person to identify himself/herself so that we can discuss these changes. CSG 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rigdonite

The rigdonite reference was made at the end of the article. I dont believe that this is appropriate. I would like to see this removed. I understand that the organizations that resulted from the leadership of Sydney Rigdon are referred to as such, however it is the same as the term 'Bickertonite'. I believe that it is not appropriate to have at the end of the article as this organization should simply be referred to by its legal name. What does everyone else think? CSG 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rigdonite article looks well sourced, and relates to this article, there should definitely be some cross linking. If the appelation fits, it must be used. McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the Rigdonite article and think it is fine. I removed the reference to The Church of Jesus Christ at the beginning of the aritcle as a "Rigdonite" church because it was POV, but I find nothing wrong with a See also article at the end because it is well written and explains a good portion of history after 1844. Just having the Rigdonite article at the end doesn't mean that we are Rigdonites but just that it can explain some history more. JRN 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that The Church of Jesus Christ denies being a Rigdonite church? I think you're mistaken, but I may not understand the situation entirely. McKay 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a flaw of logic and somewhat opinion to say terms like "Bickertonite" and "Rigdonite" when refering to our church. First and foremost I have never heard the LDS church referred to as "Youngites" yet that is how you claim your line of succession. So my question is why "Rigdonite" or "Bickertonite" when referring to us. It almost gives says the impression that the LDS church is the only true one as other one's must have "ite" names at the end. I know this isn't exactly the question you asked and I'm not trying to start arguements but my question is why the apparent hierarchy that the LDS church has no "ite" reference. I think calling the church "Youngite" would be correct. JRN 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the late 1800s, it was not uncommon for the Community of Christ members (then members of the RLDS Church) to refer to members of the LDS Church as "Brighamites". They referred to themselves often as "Josephites". This nicknaming has been a very common aspect of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. Of course these terms are not in general usage today, either by members in the CoC or anyone else as far as I know. However, Brighamite does link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on WP. -SESmith 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct in your assessment on several accounts:

1. The church that Joseph Smith jr. established broke apart into several churchs, and each claims true successorship.
2. Rigdon and Young are two of those with claims to successorship to Joseph Smith
3. Those who followed Young are more numerous, and wanted a way to refer to the other groups
4. the term "Rigdonite" was chosen to refer to those who believe Sydney Rigdon had the more-valid claim of successorship.
5. "Youngite" is an equally valid as a way to refer to those who believe Brigham Young had the more valid claim of successorship.

Yet there's an article on Rigdonite and not an article on Youngite, why?

The reason is one of WP:A. "Rigdonite" has been used to describe those Rigdonites for quite some time. You may note that I recently put the Template:NN on the Rigdgonite article. I couldn't find any references on the term "Rigdonite", but references to the term abound ([1] [2]...) So while the term may not be notable enough for it's own article, it is at least prevalent enough to attach the term to various denominations (including The Church of Jesus Christ (the one that is also associated with William Bickerton)).

The term "Youngite" is, as far as I can tell, unassociated with the Utah headquartered churches in any WP:RS. That doesn't mean the appelation is incorrect, but without attributability, we can't apply the term to the "relevant" wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia is not for things made up on wikipedia. Though if you were to use the term off of wikipedia for some time, it might gain popularity enough so that there'd be something attributable to say on the Utah church's article. But as of right now, we can't put such an appellation on wikipedia. So while you may not like that the term is used refferring your church, it is a matter of fact that the monongahelan church is a Rigdonite church. McKay 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I never advocated the use of "Youngite" as a reference to the LDS church on wiki, I merely made the logical arguement that it is a correct term. What I was getting at is that the history is written mainly from the perspective of The LDS church (hence the abounding use of Bickertonite, Rigdonite, Strangite and Cutlerite yet no Youngite). This was not meant as an argumentative statement, merely a question of logic to point how LDS perspective has become mainstreamed.

The missing term you are all searching for is Brighamite, and it links to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on WP. -SESmith 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now as far as being called Rigdonite, again, I would ask to keep such references out of the article for The Church of Jesus Christ. Although we don't argue that the term could be used to describe us, although I would argue how we could be called Rigdonite and Bickertonite on the same page, I would ask it not to be used on the page due to offensiveness. The reasons those terms are offensive is because we don't consider our church to be founded after any man besides Jesus Christ and they were names given to us by outsiders. So I would ask under the policy of civility to keep such references out of the text of our page. I find no problem with the See also link to describe history but I ask to discontinue those references in the text. I will remove the "Rigdonite" sentence from the intro paragraph due to offensiveness. I would appreciate your compliance. 205.149.72.72 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of respect. The Church of Jesus Christ is offended at any other term than its actual name. McKay may not like it, but its true. Please respect The Church of Jesus Christ. I can find and cite the Latter-day Saints being called mormons by actual historians. I do not use these sources to change the name of the Latter-day Saint Church because I respect them and understand that name is offensive to many within the organization. I would ask McKay to use that same respect with The Church of Jesus Christ.Jcg5029 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own argument militates in favor of using the term. Some LDS are offended by the use of the word 'Mormon', as you say, but this does not prevent many historians from using it, as you say, and so it shouldn't prevent WP from using the term. Similarly, Rigdonite seems like a fair term to use since it is used commonly by historians. That's what NPOV dictates. If you are removing because it offends you, you are injecting POV. -SESmith 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"The parenthetical (Mormonism) is no longer favored when referring to the more than one Latter Day Saint denomination, because it may be seen as inaccurate or offensive by members of several Latter Day Saint denominations to which the article may apply, such as the Community of Christ.". Here is one example of why offensive terms are not to be used. Please do not use the terms. I could use the example that the *N* word could be used to refer to people of African American descent as I can find many uses of that term throughout history and I would be correct in what I say. Yet you will not see me use terms of that nature on wiki because it is an ethnic slur and offensive. I could use example after example of terms that could be found historically and cited yet are considered offensive and should not be used. So please do not use terms for The Church of Jesus Christ that we find offensive as we consider them to be religious slurs. This is not POV as I am not stating that we COULDN'T be called that but simply that we wish not to as we find it offensive. Your arguement is ridiculous. JRN 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an article called Mormon and there is an article called Nigger. Maybe you would like to edit the already-existing article called Rigdonite and explain why historians continue to use it despite its offensiveness to members of The Church of Jesus Christ. In the meantime, like the use of "Mormon" in many articles relating to the LDS Church, the mention of the term "Rigdonite" is not inappropriate here, unless viewed from a biased POV. It's not like the term is being used repeatedly throughout the article as the term of choice. -SESmith 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good research except that I was talking about using the words to describe people in present context. Of course there are articles because there is a historical basis but that doesn't advocate the use. Again poor arguement JRN 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you take it out of the article? Check the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I bet it mentions "Mormon". -SESmith 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to discontinue your WP:PA SESmith and try to be somewhat civil here. JRN 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for mocking your spelling. So why DID you take it out of the article, then, if it was not to advance a particular POV? -SESmith 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accpeted. I took it out of WP:NCON because I think it clearly shows that in cases of terms that may be found offensive by denominations, such as the use of mormonism and the CoC, then the term should not be used. JRN 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Those rules generally only apply to the naming of articles or to the terms that are used to repeatedly refer to subject within the article. It is not inappropriate to have a mention of the term in the article itself if it is commonly used by historians, etc. Thanks for accepting my apology. -SESmith 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been picked up in the section below entitled "Section on alternative name usages". -SESmith 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I'm working on the sources for this article, and I would like to get a copy of "Valenti, Jerry (1986). "Volume 56", Welcome to The Church of Jesus Christ. Bridgewater, MI: Gospel News, 9." how would I go about doing that? McKay 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I believe you may contact The Church of Jesus Christ through their website.Jcg5029 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in general

After reading much of the discussion on this page, it appears that a common theme is members of The Church of Jesus Christ requesting that non-member editors do this or that because it offends the sensibilities of the members or is alleged to show a "lack of respect" for the church or its members. Wikipedia:NPOV would seem to dictate that the members' requests should not be determinative in these matters, and that it is prudent and fair to include the otherwise encyclopedic information or terms that offend the members, and then to also explain in the article that members object to this characterization and why. This is the approach taken in all WP articles on religion. WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion. The article should not be controlled exclusively by The Church of Jesus Christ or its members, and they should have no veto over or a greater say in what is and is not included merely because they are members of the organization that is the subject of the article. If we can't at least agree to these basic premises of editing, perhaps we should begin to work on getting protection for the page. -SESmith 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, members of The Church of Jesus Christ are not in control of this page, everybody is free to edit and to improve upon the page. I know of no bias in favor of The Church of Jesus Christ over another church.

As a note of improvement what does everyone feel on a section about Terms such as "Bickertonite" "Rigdonite" and the like and why the church does not like or condone the use of such appelations. Would that satisfy your claims of POV? JRN 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussions above, where there are many mentions that such-and-such should not be mentioned or included because it offends members. Whether it is members of the church making these arguments I do not know and it is not important, but it is important that in practical terms such arguments appear to be made on behalf of the church or its members. -SESmith 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have not shown how ("The article should not be controlled exclusively by The Church of Jesus Christ or its members"). As I see it is being edited by a variety of people. JRN 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I never said that it was being so controlled, and if you got that impression from the statement I hereby repeal the statement. I was merely pointing out that that is one of the imperitives we must strive for. The greater issue that my comment was meant to highlight is one of NPOV and the appearance that changes are being made because they are said to offend the Church or its members. -SESmith 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, let me rephrase my initial concern:

"After reading much of the discussion on this page, it appears that a common theme is some editors are requesting that other editors do this or that because it is said to offend the sensibilities of certain editors or is alleged to show a "lack of respect" for the church or its members. Wikipedia:NPOV would seem to dictate that these requests should not be determinative in these matters, and that it is prudent and fair to include the otherwise encyclopedic information or terms that may be offensive to members, and then to also explain in the article that members object to this characterization and why. This is the approach taken in all WP articles on religion. WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion. If we can't at least agree to these basic premises of editing, perhaps we should begin to work on getting protection for the page." -SESmith 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting this issue be resolved in a timely manner and not dragging it through the mud. I agree with the consensus so far in this discussion. Clearly we do not want POV to cloud historical accuracy. My statement was mostly in concern with the name discussion and I feel that this clears up the '-ites' issues.Jcg5029 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on alternative name usages

Well what do you think on creating a section on the use of the terms in context and why the church finds such terms offensive. I belive that would keep with a NPOV as it would show both sides and not support or deny either. JRN 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great way to deal with that particular problem and would applaud such a development if the consensus favored it. This could also be supplemented by a discussion on pages such as Rigdonite.

My overarching concern (as discussed in the section above on NPOV in general) is also that editors stop using the "take this out because it is offensive" argument and rather focus on addressing these concerns by creating and refining a balanced discussion in the article, not by requests to eliminate terms or information. -SESmith 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that's acceptable. Although it may seem POV I just want to make sure that The Church is represented correctly and I feel that we can work together so that it is represented right and there is a NPOV

Where do you feel the placement of the paragraph should go? I think towrds the beginning so that the use of the terms in the intro paragraph can be cleared up in proximity to their use in the article. What do you think? JRN 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome it wherever the consensus wants it placed. In all honesty, I don't have a preference. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the discussion about the name of the church and the different nicknames and whether members like them or not (Mormon, LDS, etc.) is placed quite late in the article, but I see no absolutely no reason why in that article it wouldn't fit earlier too if that were the consensus. (I mention this article not because I think this one needs to be patterned after it, but because it is an article that has in the past faced similar issues of nicknaming and the relative approrpiateness and offensiveness of the nicknames. There are probably other examples that could be used too. The article on the Unification Church does not seem to have a discussion of the derogatory term Moonies.)

For this article, if you want to create such a section, I would suggest just putting it where you think is best and if others decide it should be moved, presumably they will move it and hopefully a consensus will develop through the edits and the discussion here. -SESmith 00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a rough one. We can use it as a basis to edit and come to a concensus on.205.149.71.152 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is better for the representation of this organization. It is simply a matter of making the page better. I simply felt as though the simple mention of 'Rigdonite' randomly at the bottom of the page was a bit tacky and lacking in professionalism. This mentioning of it causes a bit more clarity. CSG 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Note: this refers simply to the first several paragraphs CSG 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks great and helps distinguish the terms.Jcg5029 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with SES, the inclusion of a seperate paragraph (like the one we have) is fine. McKay 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's developing nicely and is quite clear in making the points necessary on both sides. I like the paragraph placed where it is in the article. -SESmith 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countries/Total Membership

Recently different editors have requested citations on two statements specifically.

1. Total Membership - is roughly 15k but needs a source

• • This is difficult because The Church is growing so fast it will probably double or triple in another five years, making this a continual update that is very difficult to continually have published for accuracy.

2. The Fact that The Church of Jesus Christ is growing

• • This is a true statement condisering over the past ten years The Church of Jesus Christ has been established in the Congo, Malawi, Rwanda, Mosambique, Nepal, Malasia, Philippines, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Peru, and many, many other countries. Now because of this very swift growth there is probably no current publication saying yes this Church is spreading throughout dozens of countries, but that does not make the statement less true.

Any suggestions??128.118.80.170 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the church ever publish population numbers? Like in a General conference or something? The numbers don't have to be accurate as of today, but find a published number and use it.

"Growing" is kinda ambiguous. If you can attribute that over the past ten years, it has been newly established in several countries, then you may as well say that. If you can show that the population of the church has increased over the past 10 years, then you can say that.

The recent link gives a proper citation and ends naming disputes.Jcg5029 00:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree Link (revisit)

Some unknown individual has again repeatedly added the Tree Link template to the page. I really think it is pointless and is just junking up the page. If anything it should at least be moved out of the external links section. What does everyone think? JRN 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with it. Sure, move it if you think it belongs elsewhere, I think the guy who put it on the page was just aiming for the bottom of the page. McKay 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Locating templates at the bottom of articles (after external links & before categories) is a very common here at Wikipedia, and this is generally considered a proper location. I added one additional line between the last ext link & the template so that it displays a little more distance between those two screen elements. -- 12.106.111.10 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The following related discussion is copied from User talk:12.106.111.10#The Church of Jesus Christ

Although you make think the template is valid if you checked the talk page you would see that a concensus voted to keep it off the page as they viewed it as not valid. Please refer to the talk page before making any major additions or corrections. JRN 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is legitimately found on:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Community of Christ
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
• Latter Day Saint
• Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
• The Church of Jesus Christ
• Latter Day Saint movement
• Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)
• Category:Latter Day Saint denominations
• Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints)
• Rigdonite

Subjectively removing it from only one of the articles it relates to (in this case 'The Church of Jesus Christ') is highly POV, and removing it from all of them based on a limited discussion on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ would be highly irregular. Consensus building is not a "vote", and even at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ I see no real consensus for removing the template. If you think that the template has no value I suggest that discuss this at WP:LDS, and/or do a TfD so that the template is completely removed from Wikipedia.-- 12.106.111.10 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the way you are removing the template is also harmful, because you keep removing more that just it. You have absolutely no justification for removing all of the categories & foreign language links. -- 12.106.111.10 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the categories and foreign links was a mistake. 205.149.72.72 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I support having this template included per reasons above. -SESmith 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think before the issue was a name 'Bickertonite' for the name of the church, correct me if I am wrong. I see no real issues with the link as it is currently found on the many groups pages within the movement.Jcg5029 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. This tree is only useful for Latter Day Saint movement articles, and sparingly on those. It is being overused. Succession Crisis (ok), Latter Day Saint movement (ok), Church of Christ (maybe), all specific denominations, no. Don't clutter up specific denomination articles when the reader can easily go to articles where the chart actually makes sense. Should LDS articles also have the Christian denomination tree as well? Of course not, Neither should other Christian denominations. Bytebear 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tree shows all of the break-offs and churches formed as a result of the Latter Day Saint movement. It belongs on that page, but putting it on every other page just amounts to clutter with no real value added. Stekun 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay that makes a lot more sense than having it on every page. I would be in favor of removing it so long as it is still included in the movement pages while not denomination pages. So long as the movement is entirely consistent in its stance of this issue.Jcg5029 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I started this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Mormon_Denomination_Tree to put it in a more central location so we can reach a consensus on how it should be used. Stekun 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Church vs the church (Name revisted)

After referring to WP:Manual of Style, can it be agreed that apart from quotations we should be referring to "the church" rather than "The Church"? There has been an small "edit war" re:this and I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Thx.-SESmith 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine with me, I didn't realize it was an issue.Jcg5029 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I take blame for that as I must have misread that a while back. I thought it was ok to reference as "The Church". I was incorrect and should have rechecked the WP:Manual of Style before reverting. I have brought up the use of "The Church" as a shortened reference to The Church of Jesus Christ on the manual of style (LDS) page to try and find a proper shortened for of the name for use as one doesn't exist now. Please feel free to go there and comment and make suggestions. Thanks - JRN 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, -SESmith 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

   * Guiding principles
   * Listed in relative priority
         o Use accurate titles and terms. - The Church of Jesus Christ is the name recognized by the United States Government
         o Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church. - This title does not play favorites or oppose anything but upholds United States Government recognition
         o Avoid disrespect without sacrificing NPOV policy. - This name does not disrepect anyone and is not POV directed because of the registration as a corporation under this name in the USGovt registry
         o Prefer general Christianity and Latter Day Saint movement articles (such as "Priesthood" or "Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)") over more specific unidenominational articles, unless there is a significant amount of unidenominational material. - No conflict here.
         o Make it easy for readers to find articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement and its various denominations, their members, and their theology. - This has been done due to the current disambiguation page in place.
         o Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones. - Adding anything additional to the title violates this.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rigdonite

Okay, I know I know this has been beaten over. We are all happy with the section added clarifying the issue right?? I just want everybody to read the third paragraph...doesn't that last sentence just sound bad?? I'm not saying Rigdonite is not a historical term that should be mentioned, but is there a better way or even a less clunky way here or later in the page to say it?Jcg5029 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. It terribly interrupts the flow and reads like a 2nd grade report. It sticks out like a sore thumb and breaks all continuity in the paragraph. The use of descriptive terms clarifies those statements so I don't think it needs to be there.

On a side note I'm up for revisiting the introduction as I feel it has been mutilated. It seems to jump back and forth and spends too much time on the bickertonite issue. Thoughts???? JRN 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some small changes and rewordings that I feel convey the message clear and with less jumpbled jargon. How does it look??? JRN

[edit] Disambiguation and the "The"

This appears to be a difficult disambiguation problem, but maybe we're focusing on the wrong things. Can't we resolve this by making a distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ with the initial "The", which represents an organization, and Church of Jesus Christ, which seems to be a good candidate for a disambiguation page? I think including the "The" is very significant. There's no clear indication that any of the other organizations use the "The" as part of a proper name, and someone searching Wikipedia hoping to find out about the Christian Church wouldn't include the "The". I would analogize this to The Cure, which is about the band, versus Cure, which is a disambiguation page. COGDEN 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

There seems to be some confusion about pictures within this article. There have been many addition of pictures and removal of pictures. In order for these desired pictures to be a part of the article, there needs to be some clairification on how this can be accomplished. Copyright cannot be the entire issue if this aforementioned person keeps removing them. Any explaining yourself would be helpful to all so that we can go about this correctly. My understanding of the policy is that provided that these images have been taken by a person who wishes them to be used on the site, they can simply relinquish them to public domain and add them to the site. Is it really that simple? CSG 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit I recently made. I didn't actually remove any images during that edit. Those images were commented out, and didn't appear on previous versions of the page for quite some time. They were commented out, becuase those images were marked as possible copyvio images.

Yes, if the person who took the images puts them in public domain, they can be added to the site. McKay 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I added a lot of good, well known information into this site -- it expands it and I welcome other editors to help make it look awesome. Also some later history not well known...Jcg5029 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig sections

McKay has done excellent research to change the Cutlerite name to no longer include the article (The). Because of this I propose and am changing the link to the Cutlerites - who can already be found though the other disambig page. Plus see all the reasons why the disambig on their page to this one was considered by all editors as not needed. Jcg5029 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational Structure and Auxilaries

I added a ton of external links in the hopes of expanding the page and giving more information on church auxilaries and structure. Jcg5029 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences?

What are the differences between this group and other LDS/Mormon groups?

I'm sorry, but that's a sensitive subject around here. They don't like to be compared to other LDS sects. Comparison material gets removed from the page. McKay 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, McKay, could you repeat what you desired to remove from the page? I didn't follow. Is there a specific place on this site or other sites that need worked on in order to properly represent this group and its history and membership? Jcg5029 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (EC, this was removed, I've re-added it as my reply pertains to this).

It was a vigorous struggle in April of this year.

• "there is very little similar"
• should probably be removed from wikiproject
• we did have a doctrinal section, but it was too wordy

  He refers to an older version, that did have comparisions, but JN, and JCG, and a couple others, gradually removed all of it.

• removing all links to other LDS churches
• stop adding references to LDS churches

  I believe he refers to these edits (and others like them):

  • [4]
  • [5]

• stop "vandalizing" with your opinion

  Referring to basically the same content.

So, while I think such comparison content should be added to the page, it won't stay. They fight big battles over removing content like that, so while I'd like to help, I feel like I don't have time to fight this smaller battle. McKay 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh let me explain. My question I initially posted was directed at McKay not realizing he did not actually make the unsigned post, I had thought it was a part of his post.

To answer the initial question I agree with McKay. Comparison material on certain subjects has been removed to remain neutral for this organization in respect to them and their beliefs. Jcg5029 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the doctrinal section was a literal quote from the Faith and Doctrine of this church, not a comparison between groups. Also the links were a separate issue. They were linking ordained offices of this organization to specific pages where the overwhelming majority of the information was on other groups like the LDS Church. A nice edit made the links non denomination specific as it stands now. Jcg5029 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I don't believe he does agree with me. We both have seen that the content was removed in the past. He thinks that comparision is a violation of NPOV, which it is not. I think that it should be placed back in, and would support anyone doing so. McKay 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this jumbled jargon, the above edits to this page made it NPOV. I would seriously ask any individual to view this page as of six to ten months ago to today. Huge improvements. As for the many many editions and changes referenced below, many did involve clear POV issues and some even vandalous to the site.

WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion, many of the above discussions or edits have been made so there is no bias against this religious group.Jcg5029 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand, is that a comparison to another religion is not POV. It doesn't favor a church if you're comparing it. Encyclopedias should be useful. People who read the article on The Church of Jesus Christ would probably think a comparison to the much more common The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints helpful. It doesn't mean that that church is any "more true" than the church in this article, it just provides a frame of reference that would be more familiar to the reader. McKay 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that this page is NOT ABOUT THE LDS CHURCH. Therefore putting information on here about the LDS church would violate policy because then this page would be used to advertise another church. If someone really wants to find out about the lds church then they are more than welcome to go to the lds page. THAT'S WHAT THE LDS PAGE IS THERE FOR. Please just stop whining about the additions/corrections that have been made to this page. We've all heard the same junk for quite some time now.

JRN 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For example:

Liquid crystal display television references competing technologies.

Rational trigonometry references "classical" trigonometry

Halo: Combat Evolved references its "competitors" half life, and goldeneye.

Planck units though defined "naturally" they're also made by a direct comparison to their SI counterparts.

Relational model is compared to the hierarchical and network models

Would anyone in their right mind say "No, you can't reference SI units when talking about Planck units, Planck units are natural, we must only refer to them by their natural calculations! We have to keep a NPOV!" Absolutely not. It's absoultely absurd.

By saying that there shouldn't be any comparison with the LDS Church, you are exerting your own POV onto the situation. McKay 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep whining. This page has been drastically improved over the past couple months and is extremely NPOV. I see no faults with the page now and I really don't feel like arguing the same monotonous point over and over again with you. I have in no way exerted a POV over this page but have labored to keep it as neutral as possible. JRN 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe when the LDS Church also includes a section on other Latter Day Saint groups it would be appropriate. Discussion on the movement's page might be more appropriate. I have a hard time seeing where McKay keeps strict NPOV when he/she does not attempt to have this same type of section on other group's pages. Maybe a separate page with the basic differences of the major groups? Just a thought. That way all the groups could have the same basic section on the page linking to the major page. That way one group isn't picked on more than another. Until then. Jcg5029 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing any of the other pages. I can't speak for their POV. I've been watching this page, so I'm working on making it in line with policies and guidelines. McKay 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is in line with policy and procedure. No thanks to you and your POV. JRN 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the differences between this group and other LDS/Mormon groups?

This was the initial question. There are many, many Latter Day Saint articles here on wiki. Many are supposed to include opinions of multiple organizations, but thus far only info has been provided for the LDS Church and maybe the CoC. I think to bring this back to the initial point -- LOTS of work needs done on other Latter Day Saint pages to provide proper information on this organization. I suggest since all three of us feel this issue is extremely important we start working on them. Jcg5029 00:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For whoever keeps leaving the unsigned comment I will list a couple (not all) of the main differences between the 2 churches:

1. We believe in one priesthood after the order of the Son of God 2. We do not believe Joseph Smith was the choice seer 3. We do not believe that we are currently in zion as the scripture describes 4. The President of our church is not arbitrarily given the title of prophet, seer, and revelator 5. We do not believe in "sealing" or celestial marriage 6. We never endorsed plural marriage or polygamy at any time during our history 7. We believe Joseph Smith had many revelations contrary to the will of God and that Joseph Smith eventually became a fallen prophet 8. We believe that there exist no other gods besides the true and living God. 9. We don't believe in baptism for the dead 10. We only use the bible and book of mormon as scripture There are many many others but I don't want to leave a lengthy post. As I have said before, there is very little common between TCOJC and the lds church. I disagree that this sight needs a section that differentiates us from any other organization, including the lds church. The only way that I would consent to a section like that is if there would be a section added to every other religion article covering the differences between it and every other religion. Unless we can satisfy that I don't feel the need to add one here. JRN 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession crisis issue

I have what is more of a question than anything else about a sourced statement in the section with the heading "Sidney Rigdon".

It is implied that during the 1844 succession crisis, John Taylor and P.P. Pratt (members of the Quorum of the Twelve) were not present because they were in the Salt Lake Valley. I'm quite sure this is wrong if the intent is to refer to the August 1844 meeting where Young and Rigdon were vying for leadership. Taylor and Pratt were both present at the August 1844 meeting, according to my sources. Perhaps the cited source is referring to another instance—the re-creation of a First Presidency under Brigham Young in 1847, perhaps? In any case, this needs fleshed out in the article to make it clear what we are talking about there. –SESmith 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand now--the article did say that this was the meeting to decide the Presidency, which would make it the 1847 meeting. I'll edit the article to clarify that. -SESmith 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just another example of one of the many points that we disagree on. I too thought it was the 1844 meeting and not the 1847 meeting. Personally I'm for removing the whole section of information because it really doesn't deal with the history of TCOJC since Ridgon left the organization before that point and the history tie ended. What do you think SESmith??? JRN 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised it was added and wouldn't be disappointed to see it removed. I can see it's relevance since Bickerton's argument for authority is based on Rigdon's original claim, but I think Rigdonite article could cover the issues better, as could Succession crisis (and probably even Sidney Rigdon or First Presidency), though I see there's a debate over at Rigdonite whether the mere existence of that article is appropriate. It's the kind of thing that is relevant, but might be better served by a "see also" or a shorter summary section with a "Main article:" redirection.

If the intent was to refer to the 1844 meeting, I'm sure the information on Taylor and Pratt being in Utah is incorrect. None of the Latter Day Saints went to Utah until 1847. If it's referring to the December 1847 meeting it's totally correct—only 7 of the apostles were at that meeting. –SESmith 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited portion was about the 1847 re-institution of the First Presidency by the Quorum of Twelve. From my understanding The Church of Jesus Christ views these actions as a example of why the quorum was not acting correctly in these proceedings, thus sustaining (in their opinion) why authority remained with Sidney Rigdon as the primary Councilor to Smith in the First Presidency. Now, it is true, around this time Rigdon was looking to rebuild zion which caused a complete splintering of that self titled 'Church of Christ' which was later re-organized by William Bickerton. But TCOJC to my understanding of the cited article views these proceedings as a final move, along with rebaptism, which caused them to commit the dreaded 'A' word. So to shed light of their thoughts on these proceedings I feel it is very important to include this section where it is. Jcg5029 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, to clarify = TCOJC views since Rigdon was the right hand counselor to Smith in the First Presidency naturally the reigns of government were to fall on him UNTIL one could have been lawfully elected as President of the church. In their views, the quorum usurped authority from Rigdon and then (without the quorum with a lawful majority in their opinion) sustained a new First Presidency to lead the church in an unlawful manner violating church policies - once again in the eyes of TCOJC. So I feel their views on these proceedings are very important. Jcg5029 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks—got it. That's what I thought was meant and the edits I made reflected that.

From what's in the article, I'm not clear on how the authority passed from Rigdon to Bickerton. Is it Bickerton's vision that gave him authority to proceed with reorganization, or did he have the authority because he was an Elder in the "Rigdonite" church? –SESmith 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JRN may have a greater understanding of this. From my studies it appears authority of the priesthood was given through the ordinations within the Rigdonite organization - which obviously they felt was the continuation of the Church of Christ. When Rigdon abandoned the church many people dissented and went to other organizations. Bickerton himself never joined them because he felt assured of his calling in the 'true and unadulterated Gospel of Christ'. With this authority of God Bickerton was completely alone at that time. He felt to join another church or faction of the restoration would require the inspiration of God. Through his visions, much like Joseph Smith, he was shown all these factions were incorrect and he alone must preach the Gospel which he had been ordained. All others had fallen. He alone carried the weight and responsibility. The Church of Jesus Christ consideres itself through William Bickerton to be the 'new wine found in the cluster' of Isaiah. So I guess my understanding is authority of Christ was ordained through Rigdon's 'Church of Christ' and revelation drived Bickerton to take the stands he did. Jcg5029 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jcg5029 is correct of the descent of authoriy. We claim authority from Smith to Rigdon to Bickerton whereas the LDS Church goes Smith to the Quorum to Brigham Young (I believe). Bickerton was ordained an elder and evnagelist under Rigdon's authority before Rigdon's group splintered. Bickerton's vision did not give him anymore anuthority than he already had but merely placed him in the point where he was either to continue to preach the truth of the gospel as was given to him or not to, which would have led him to the dark chasm he saw before him. Of course this is all what TCOJC believes, and not necessarily the views of anyone else. Does this better explain the descent of authority? JRN 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. If I understand you correctly, Bickerton had full authority to do what he did by virtue of his ordination as an Elder in the "Rigdonite" reorganization of the church. Or was it because he was an Evangelist? –SESmith 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both really. The ordination of an elder gave him the authority and the ordination of an evangelist made it his responsibility to preach the gospel to anyone who would hear him. JRN 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parent church = "...of Latter Day Saints", or no?

I reverted back to the name of the parent church being "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", because that is objectively the name of the Church Sidney Rigdon belonged to and held a senior leadership position in at the time of Joseph Smith's death, and which Rigdon is believed to have been perpetuating, which is also what the modern Church of Jesus Christ claims its succession through.

Furthermore, even this article quotes the Church of Jesus Christ's council, in 1855, under Bickerton, as referring to their own church as "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..." This suggests this was still what they referred to themselves as. Is this wrong, or is there something I'm missing here? If it is true, this extends by many years the time in which the earlier stage of the modern church was known under the name I reverted to.

As an aside, the church's official website, as linked to in the article, also says "The Church of Jesus Christ is not affiliated with any other Church and has never been known under any other name" [6] (emphasis added), although this seems to be contradicted by the quotation from the church council under Bickerton in 1855 calling it "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...", even if not by the claims of descendency from the church Joseph Smith organized in 1830, which was also known by other names, and as the article also notes, the church's name was also legally registered at one early point as "Church of Jesus Christ of Green Oak, Pennsylvania". Not trying to be antagonistic here, just pointing out and asking about something I'm not too familiar with but that doesn't seem consistent.

And, we should probably seek consensus here before changing the "name of the parent church" in the article again. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: I too believe the parent church should be "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", and the link should direct to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). The Church of Jesus Christ explicitly claims to trace its authority through Rigdon, who ordained Bickerton (see discussion section immeidately above this one)—and the church Rigdon broke from in 1844 was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents worth...The Church of Jesus Christ does not claim to be the continuation of the Rigdonite Church. What The Church of Jesus Christ does claim is to be the continuation/true branch of the Church of Christ as restored to Joseph Smith. Now that name was changed over time, but its the original name that even the LDS Wiki page uses. I suggest we stay congruent between pages. I'll make the change. Jcg5029 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also the name of the page we are linking to, its the Church of Christ. Why make it any different??? Jcg5029 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the Church of Christ was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1844, and the split did not happen until then at the earliest. Saying it is are a continuation of the Church of Christ means it was a continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, unless you are arguing for a pre-1833 branch off. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree with the historical name, but there is a bigger issue. Leaving the name as Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints is completely accurate for history at the time, but it is very confusing to many who may view this page that are not associated with the Latter Day Saint movement. Lets be honest - most would assume that break off was of the Latter-day Saint church NOT the Latter Day Saint church. And yes there is a huge difference. So in order to not confuse the two -- it simply is easier to refer to it by its original name. Jcg5029 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to understand what this organization (The Church of Jesus Christ) is claiming. As far as my understanding is concerned, they claim to be the spiritual successor of the original organization that Joseph Smith, JR. set up initially. They do not claim any succession from any of the additional changes made to Joseph's initial organization. When Rigdon gained the presidency according to succession, and then Bickerton, they both tried to go back to what Joseph initially set up. The parent church of this organization according to practice and doctrine is The Church of Christ. Especially considering that there are several different pages for each of these organizations, I really dont see where your arguement is coming from to change it to the COJC-LDS. It really doesnt make any sense considering what this organization claims. CSG 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Just a quick follow up to my comment previously too. I believe to my best knowledge is to create an accurate article for Wikipedia for each article on here. If we are to maintain the most accurate picture of this organization to the world, it is important to understand where this organization is coming from. The paragraph is simply stating where they 'claim' to gain their succession. CSG 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Is that what is important, or is it to represent the body that they broke from in historical fact? I think we're interpreting the purpose of the box differently. An organization can claim all sorts of things, but the facts as understood by historians might say something completely different. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Rigdon never "broke" from the organization. Rigdon continued on in what Joseph Smith was doing. They both faltered after the initial restoration of the gospel (1830) adding in doctrines as they saw fit. They only difference between Rigdon and Young were that Young was a polygamist and once Young took the group out west he officially split from The Restored Gospel when he rebaptized everyone in Utah under his authority and not the authority of Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ believes it is a true succession from the 1830 although Rigdon began to falter, William Bickerton began to slowly fix what had been created by the false revelations of Joseph Smith 71.61.86.233 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's one POV. But our goal is to strive to be NPOV, not to advance the claims of one religion. A neutral POV would suggest that both Young and Rigdon "broke" from the church Smith had been the head of. To argue which church is the true continuation of Smith's is (1) ultimately unresolvable and (2) riddled with POV. Thus, neither should be represented in fact as being the continuation of Smith's church. Thus, both this article and the one on the LDS Church should state that the churchs' immediate institutional predecessor was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that is, the Church of Christ under its 1844 name. Anything else is sacrificing objectivity for the sake of advancing a church's own POV perception of what it is. The LDS Church's info box states this now and this one should too.

The concern about confusion resulting with the LDS Church is minor, but largely unavoidable. The link will redirecto to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), so it's largely attenuated. With so many Latter Day Saint denominations sharing such similar names, you're bound to have some confusion result. It's the nature of the beast; but that's one reason we provide links to other articles. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I keep reverting the name in question back to what it was when this discussion began. Reaverdrop mentioned this in his/her original posting in this discussion, but can various editors please stop changing it until a consensus develops to change it? That's typically the way things work when there's a naming dispute in WP. Thanks. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be Church of Christ for one main reason. The Church of Jesus Christ claims it's continuation of authority from Joseph Smith to Sidney Risgdon to William Bickerton. The doctrine (re)established by William Bickerton were those of the 1830 Church of Christ. Although the name was Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints after the change in 1834 until Rigdon left in 1844 we claim no part of that church. Our doctrines and beliefs did not come from that time period. They came from the 1830 church. The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that it's parent church was the 1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Rich Uncle Skeleton seems to be confusing the line of authority with the parent church. They are two seperate things. Although Rigdon did things that were contrary to the will of God, according to the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ, we don't feel he lost his authority. Thus when William Bickerton was baptized and ordained under the authority of Rigson it passed to Bickerton. William Bickerton did not continue on with Rigdon but re-established under the precepts of the 1830 church, also known as Church of Christ. I don't see how you can argue that historically. I think it would be suitable for parties involved to have more of a background in The Church of Jesus Christ before trying to make edits to the page. It seems unethical to make edits to something that you have very little knowledge of. Thanks JRN 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making assumptions about my level of knowledge? You know nothing about me. I am quite well-versed on this church and its history, thank you. If anything is "unethical", it is making edits or suggestions about edits concerning an organization that you are intimately involved with: see WP:COI. (You say "we" and "our", leading me to assume you are a member or a representative of this organization.) It's also "unethical" to make personal attacks in WP, and it's all the moreso reprehensible when it is based on limited knowledge of the person you are attacking.

I am not confusing the line of authority with the parent church. What I am saying is that from a historian's perspective it makes no sense to say that the parent church was the Church of Christ when that institution was not named that when the "line of authority" broke off from it. Historically (not theologically) speaking, no church can rightfully claim to be a branch off from the Church of Christ unless it branched off pre-1833, when the church was called that. I understand you and your church's desire to portray itself as the successor to the Church of Christ—that's your prerogative as a member and for all I know it's theologically true—but your theological views can't be incorporated into the WP article in this way if it conflicts with the manner in which most neutral historians interpret the church's development and history. Sorry. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I made no claims to the rightful succession of Church of Christ. I am a member of the said organization and believe I do have a right to edit this page. I have not been in a WP:COI just because I am a member. I have not tried to use this to promote or advertise and have made no gains from it. I am here to simply make sure that the page is correct and balanced. If you want to make claims of WP:COI then you will have a long road ahead of you stopping every on wikipedia from editing pages about their religion. I made no personal attacks on anyone. I just get angry when individuals make edits with seemingly little knowledge about what they are editing. I never called anyone out by name (including you). Thanks JRN 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you have a right to edit the page and wasn't suggesting that I was going to "turn you in" for violating WP:COI; I was merely pointing out to you that before accusing others of unethical behavior (which you clearly did, whether or not it was me), it's helpful to examine your own behavior and make sure it is above-board. :) The reason I made the comments about you or the church being permitted to believe any theological theory of succession that you want is because of your statement above: "I think it should be Church of Christ for one main reason"—and then you proceeded to back up your assertion with reasons that are fundamentally theological interpretations as opposed to just a mere recitation of historical events.

If you weren't accusing me of being unethical, then whose edits were the ones "making you angry"? Or was this a purely theoretical spate of anger based on the potential that someone with little knowledge could edit the page?

Anyway—to get back to my point, stop making changes until a consensus develops. One clearly hasn't risen to the surface yet. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

Since there is disagreement on the issue of the "parent church", I'm willing to propose a compromise. How about including both Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It could say something like "Church of Christ (theologically); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (historically)" or something similar. Perhaps "Church of Christ, which was renamed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838"? Either of these would succeed in acknowledging both viewpoints. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because this would be two links to the same page. It would be against Wiki Manual of style guidelines for internal links. Do you feel the Church of Christ was a different church than Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?? If you feel they are two different organizations I may have more sympathy for your arguments. If you feel they are the same church with a different name, as all historical records agree -- MOST of the time with the name varying depending on the autobiography -- then why not make sure there is no disambiguation dispute? Feel free to discuss below. Jcg5029 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This was an attempt at a compromise because we had reached an impasse. It's OK to deviate from rules in such situations. See WP:IGNORE. If you're worried about the double linkage, there's nothing that says one can be linked and the other one not linked.

We've been over your position, and it's clearly not condusive to reaching a consensus. Let's try and move on and come up with some innovative solutions that can satisfy what everyone's looking for. Merely rehashing old arguments will not do that. If you disagree with my proposal, you need to come up with an alternative compromise, not just restate what others have stated and has been rejected. My position has been clearly stated above where you can read it; since it too was rejected, there's also little sense going over it again.

And so—I restate again—what do others think of my proposed compromise? If you disagree, please propose something else that represents some sort of compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is incorrect for the same reasons as jcg5029, and I agree with his proposal. You briefly stated in previous discussions that accidental association with the L-dS organization was unavoidable, but jcg5029 has just made a proposal that completely avoids that association and still links to the correct organization. Plus it follows the wiki guidlines. 146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It avoids the association but has the unfortunate side-effect of being somewhat historically misleading—according to one POV, I might add. There's nothing wrong with compromising and listing both. No wikipedia policy is violated if only one link is included. Let's show a little give and take here and come up with a compromise that can gain consensus instead of just beating the same old dead horse. Why am I still the only one who has proposed a compromise? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

In order to support Wiki Manual of Style for internal links I suggest the following. This is because leaving the term Latter Day Saints will leave a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah. Nobody could argue this assumption will not be made because they have 13 million people. Compared to the few hundred thousand in the old church -- thats a big difference. Plus many don't understand the Succession Crisis, etc of the era. So, in order to maintain Wiki guidlines which state, 'However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.' If the title remains Latter Day Saint there is not a clear understanding of what that link will be.

Just brushing aside wiki guidlines would not be proper procedures.

My proposal is to rename this link Church of Christ since...

• It was the original name of the church in question
• It follows all wiki guidlines
• It is the simplest solution to the naming conflict

Now, the original title before all of this dispute was Church of Jesus Christ. Because arguments have been made to NOT change the title until there is a clear consensus I will return the article to its original condition. That way neither side in this argument will be completely happy until this gets resolved. That way we can work together to get a good conclusion to the naming dispute. Jcg5029 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, that proposal was already on the table, and has been for awhile now. We were getting no where with it, and I definitely oppose it. See my proposal above for a compromise position. In situations like this, it's OK to invoke WP:IGNORE in order to reach consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Only you opposed it that I have seen. Feel free to not ignore wiki policies and please explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Jcg5029 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reaverdrop also opposed it—see very top of the discussion. Your reasoning is not "incorrect"; it's just that your proposal has already failed to gain consensus. Please submit a proposal that suggests a form of compromise so we can come to an agreement. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, see notes for rejecting compromise. 146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a student who makes edits in between classes from a computer lab and currently am too busy to make a name, etc. Thank you for assuming good faith. 128.118.148.63 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It does get a bit confusing when your IP address shifts around and changes. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place compromise proposals on parent church and related discussion here

For clarity, here are some of the compromise proposals I'm putting forward. If anyone else has a compromise position to advance, you can include it here. Don't include a proposal that doesn't entail some sort of compromise. There are others that could be proposed, but that's a start. If everyone performs a little give and take, it shouldn't be difficult to come to an agreement on some sort of compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed compromises

1. Church of Christ (theologically); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (historically)
2. Church of Christ, which in 1838 was renamed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but claimed to be a continuation of pre-1833 Church of Christ
4. Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion [one name for the 1840s Rigdonite church]
5. Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion; claimed to be a continuation of Church of Christ
6. Nothing: Don't specify a "parent" church at all, thus avoiding the issue.

[edit] Discussion on compromise proposals

• I would be happy with any of 1–5, and would consider any other compromise positions. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• And to respond to Skeleton's proposed compromises: in #3, "but claimed..." doesn't sound very NPOV, and in #4 and #5, that seems less informative since it was a passing name in an intermediate phase of the church's lineage; but something along the lines of #1 or #2 would work quite well. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• #6. Why do we even have to specify any church from which the CoJC branched? There's no law that says we have to specify a parent of any particular religion. For example, we don't say that the LDS Church "branched" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, even though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't incorporated until 1851, and other churches claim to be that Nauvoo church. Why not just totally avoid the issue here. That sounds like a good compromise. COGDEN 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)*
  • On #6: the LDS Church article does say "Branched from: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", and I think it's useful and appropriate in both articles. The infobox gives lots of the most basic relevant information at first glance. This information is true and highly relevant for the subjects of both articles. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess it does, doesn't it. I think I have a problem with that, because the LDS Church considers itself to be a continuation, not a branch. COGDEN 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I could perhaps go along with #6, though it may not be ideal. (But a compromise by its nature probably never is.) My conceren would be that it would be misleading not to include anything—it seems to suggest that TCOJC just sprung up out of Bickerton's imagination. I suppose the text of the article would clear this up, for the most part. How would this correspond with including 1830-04-06 as the date of origin on the template? Not a problem or would it change to 1862? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also as far as parent church, it should be the Rigdonites. That is the most accurate. -Visorstuff 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to agree with Visor on this issue; Rigdonite was a common term and recognized in the period and afterwards. I aware of what this group views as offensive, but I advise strict adherence to academic standards. We can make it very clear that the group views it as offensive on theological grounds, but it is deceptive to claim they are a direct offshoot of the 1830 church; that position obscures a great deal of history and fact. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree with VisorStuff. When reading their literature, they make a big deal about being the "true" church by tracing their authority through Rigdon. At least they did way back when I first learned about the Mormon Church. I would, however, make sure the article mentions that they believe they are the true church and their "line of authority" -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I got edit-conflicted with Skeleton's work above. I was writing:

This church explicitly claims to trace its authority back through Sidney Rigdon to Joseph Smith, and looks to Joseph Smith as its first (latter-day) prophet; this church regards the Book of Mormon as scripture. Given all that, it is more confusing not to indicate that its parent church is the original LDS church, which Smith often referred to as "the Church of the Latter Day Saints" from practically the beginning, than only to give a name that is arguably technically applicable but is no different than the modern name and gives no indication to someone casually glancing at the infobox any information other than what is already in the title of the article. It just isn't true that mentioning "LDS" as a "parent" group would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah" specifically; rather, it would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ [stems from] the 1844 Latter-day Saints", which is what this church itself teaches. As I noted above, Bickerton himself still referred to this church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in 1855 at least - so the former string of groups that this church claims succession from identified themselves with the "LDS" moniker from around 1838 to at least 1855, whether or not it was also known as "The Church of Jesus Christ" in 1830.

So basically, throwing in some indication of "(Latter Day Saints)" to identify the parent body is the only really accurate and informative choice, and omitting it would be uninformative to the point of wilfully coy.

It does seem odd that the IP number ahead, other than one edit almost three years ago, has suddenly become interested in this article and its talk page, after this debate began.

It seems from the church's official website and its denial of ever having been known by another name, which is transparently not true, and which contradicts Smith, Rigdon, and Bickerton, that they have a PR goal of discouraging associations with the larger Utah-based LDS church, but a private group's public relations agenda is not relevant to criteria for how to provide information on Wikipedia. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I spoke above I am a student at a university who cannot afford his own internet access, so I use labs to make any edits here on wikipedia. If you would like my autobiography I'll send you an email. Until then assume good faith people. 128.118.148.63 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I wondered why your IP number's first edits in years were several on this one article, but I assume good faith. On the other hand, there's no student so poor that she can't use the free internet access on her school's computer to select a Wikipedia username. I waited three years to do that, but it is handy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HAHA so call me poor and lazy. 128.118.148.63 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With your insults (see section below) and strange behavior, you credibility is sinking like a stone. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about poor and obstinate? Just go ahead and register; you can use "laxypoorboy" for your password and thus would never forget it and have no excuse for not using a registered name. This seems like a very simple request and if you are going to desire to have any credibility on Wikipedia you will need it. Here is to a better reputation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. Jcg5029 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More concerns on chain of succession as presented in article

As Skeleton says, we can suppose all readers are going to move past the infobox and start reading the article. I have concerns about that too though. The early part of the article mentions only the succession crisis after Joseph Smith's death and this church's claim of succession through Sidney Rigdon. However, you have to read through much more of the article before you gain any hint that there was what was apparently a second succession crisis as Rigdon's church disintigrated, and Bickerton emerged to lay claim to be carrying on where Rigdon had fallen away. Not much info if there were any other significant competing claimants in that succession.

And further, you have to get most of the way down before you find out that there was what seems an awful lot like a third succession crisis, when Bickerton goes out west, and then there are simultaneous church presidents in the East and West, though this is all presented in what seems like a euphemistic style... "During this later time period, the First Presidency appears to have taken on a lesser role within the church...", and William Cadman enjoys strategic passive verbs on his way to finding himself "the president of the whole church" opposite a guy who had just been ordained to that position by Bickerton... with the only reference being to the victor who wrote the history, a book by Cadman himself!

I mean no offense to anyone who has faith in God having successively called Bickerton and Cadman to be His spokesman on Earth. But for purposes of objective history, this article is in serious need of some referenced sources independent of the apparently competing claimants within the church. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are problematic and need to be balanced by some third-party studies. That may be hard to come by considering the size of the organization. Perhaps we could consider adding some sort of tag to the article notifying editors that we are in need of more sources? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding between WH Cadman and W Cadman is almost as great as your lack of understanding of this organization. 128.118.148.63 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's not nice. Try to remain WP:CIVIL. (Do you hide behind an IP address so you can be rude at will without consequence?) They are separate people, but it is clear that they must be related somehow. Reaverdrop's overall point still stands—the sources are not neutral in their examination of the events in question; they may be presenting a POV based on family affiliation or religious dedication or belief. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to just say 1) College student - please tone it down. It is uncalled for. 2) If anybody would like to research and cite information to this page you are welcome, but lets cut the credibility questions and lack of faith in general of this organization. This groups history book is perfectly valid as are the rest of their sources. Tagging would be uncalled for completely, but researching is welcome. This is speculation from wiki editors against an organization and I also believe that to be uncalled for. Jcg5029 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would a tag requesting more sources be "uncalled for"? A neutral article about an organization cannot just use sources produced by the organization. We would suggest the same for any organization and this one is not being singled out for questions of "credibility". It's all a matter of NPOV, which an organization or its officers cannot maintain when writing about themselves. Isn't that basic—and self-evident? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not question the credibility of the L-dS History because it was written in a large part by Joseph Smith, Jr. In fact, I think it gives the history more credibility. I would never question that source like I would never question The Church of Jesus Christ's official History book as written by WH Cadman. And the Volume II was published in the last five years - has editors reviewing every section. Jcg5029 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, some do, including me. A person closely involved with an organization cannot be relied upon to provide a NPOV of events involving the organization. I would also be skeptical of a page related to the L-dS church that only cites Smith's writings. The very fact that Cadman's book is referred to as "official history" should cause pause. I hope what I'm saying is clear to you and that you understand why an organization's own history of itself is not sufficient to meet WP's NPOV standards. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to say that it wasn't a dictatorship in writing. That is one of many sources. Plus the history was approved by the general priestood of The Church of Jesus Christ. And you are dismissing two points.

1) There is a cited second edition - not written by one man 2) If you feel this article needs more sources you are welcome to add them, however, your disbelief on their published records does not constitute a need for a tag. Tags are for article without citations or with incorrect citations. Find something besides speculation before adding a tag. Jcg5029 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the LDS church article and some of its main related articles include references to non-member, unorthodox member, and excommunicated member sources, including D. Michael Quinn, Sonja Farnsworth, Todd Compton, Fawn Brodie, Richard Van Wagoner, Egon Mayer et al., etc. Certainly not the sources President Hinckley would select if he were asked to write the Wikipedia article on the LDS church from scratch. But they're better for it; those sources are needed for a well-rounded set of information. This article isn't any different. Tags can just be for additional sources; we just haven't had the opportunity to gain much academic information on the subject of this article yet, but we will try. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute but there is no need for a tag -- check out volume 2. Jcg5029 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive about the tag? It's simply a heads-up and an assist for editors. It adds the article to categories so those interested in researching for sources can help find them. It's nothing to be afriad of. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are asking why an article with accurate citations needs a tag about needing accurate citations. That is my reasoning. enjoy your research as I continue to research with you. Jcg5029 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It would not be a tag about "accurate citations". It would be one that indicated more citations are needed; i.e., ones not written or approved by the subject of the article. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And see, Jcg5029, you are insisting we take for granted that sources gained only from family members of the recent church's leadership must be accepted ab initio as an infallible authority on the matter. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just referring back to a comment made initially in this discussion. If sources with strong connections to the organization are considered POV, then how can the TCOJC-LDS use any sources that are written by people belonging to that organization? I would claim that the statement made is simply rediculous. It is like saying that in an article on biochemistry that you cannot site a source written by a biochemist because of POV concerns. I simply do not understand where the solidity of this idea comes from.CSG 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

It's just the simple idea that multiple sides of a story have to be presented. I never said sources connected with the article couldn't be used, but only using them is POV. Your argument is also venturing into a WP:WAX-style argument, which is not great. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As we discussed, the LDS church articles have lots of sources from within and from outside the church. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad on the style arguement. It was just to bring up a point. CSG 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Hey, guys, I think researching is great, but a tag is not needed -- until a consensus is reached on applying a tag do not apply it again. 146.186.44.179 11:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag is a note that helps alert editors about what is being worked on re: the article. It casts no aspersions on the article or its subject. It's simply a WP housekeeping thing to help fellow editors out. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Folks, rather than going back into the discussion, I'll give my two cents here, but I beleive the way is clear to move forward. I'm not sure why there is so much discussion on this on when it seems clear cut.

We have a few precedences. When we outlined Mormon-ish naming conventions and the style guide on the Wiki in the early days of Wikipedia we decided to use the academic terminology as much as possible. That is why we use the term Latter Day Saint in so many cases rather than Mormon, etc. The academic term used is Bickertonite, I believe (Rigdonites are considered a defunt group by Mormon scholars, aren't they?). The second presedence is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite). We should adopt the same here. I realize that both the Strangite and Bickertonite appellations may be offensive (as is Mormon to LDS), but we are treating these from both an academic and historical perspective, and the page should reflect this. Therefore, I would suggest (The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I would then emphasize that the statetment in the lead paragraph that this appelation is not sanctioned by the church - similar to another presedence at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where it states "widely known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church." You'll aslo notice that Commmunity of Christ is also included in some (Mormonism) articles although they do not like it, but it must be from a historical and segmentation view point. That is the job of us historians - to lump them together in groups, even if there are a couple of exeptions here and there.

To be honest, the presedence on Wikipedia is clear, and this should be in line with LDS manual of Style and naming convention documents. I also know this is controversial, but it is the most NPOV thing to do - we follow academic norms. none of the above suggestions are academic, or sourced, so do not pass WP:Verify. We cannot make up our own term, but must use an existing one - and we should stick with the academic name. Thank the non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps for this, as it is a wise course of action. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support a renaming to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). It is clearer and if you check the literature on the Latter Day Saint movement it is clearly the most common name used there. I realise the name can be offensive to members of the church—yes, I have seen the uproar you created in the archives—but I think it's time such a proposal is put forward. Mind you, a move to The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton) was proposed not long ago and "no consensus" was reached, though only 5 people voted and 3 of the opposed votes were from editors who are membrs of or otherwise affiliated with the church. After examining the archives and previous discussions, it's clear, however, that the page was moved to its current place without consensus, so I don't think it's current name has any claim to appropriate permanence based on past consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never divulged any association to this church, but do find it interesting so many people are willing to oppose their membership here. The naming dispute was very recent, as Rich Uncle Skeleton is fully aware. The page currently conforms to the naming policies for Latter Day Saint denominations. An administrator concluded in concurrence with a previous vote that the name should be The Church of Jesus Christ. Other names were demonstrated at the time to be offensive to the organization. We could battle this a long, drawn out time or just respect the organization and keep the name as it now stands. Jcg5029 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposing anyone, including the membership. Why does this have to be personal? I've never been on a talk page before where every comment is somehow understood to be a frontal attack on a church or its members.

To restate my position: The vote was only participated in by 5 people. That's hardly a representative sample of WP, regardless of religious affiliations or pre-determined opinions. "Offensiveness" to a church is not a good reason to avoid terminology, especially when it's common in academic literature. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich Uncle Skeleton, you made changes previously without concensus and argued back to me that since the discussion opened up after you made the change then you change was valid. I don't understand why you are suggesting a name change now, but I am adamantly against it. I oppose any name change as it has been sourced to be offensive to The Church of Jesus Christ. I don't want to get in another discussion here. There has been no issue with this for months until you brought it up again. As I see now you are the only one who is for any change.

Visorstuff, maybe you cuold clear up for me what your suggestion is. I had a hard time understanding your comment. Are you for or against a name change? JRN 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose it, Visorstuff did. Maybe you didn't get that as you found it difficult to understand. I point out that a lot of name changes have occurred here without consensus, so I don't think any name for the article has a valid claim to one chosen "by consensus". I understand you are opposed to the name change because the one I mentioned offends you or members of the church, but that's typically not a good reason to avoid the name. There's probably a lot of stuff on WP that offends a lot of people, but it doesn't stop things from going forward. This being said, the name change has not been formally proposed yet. We are merely discussing the possibility of so proposing. When proposed, you'll have ample opportunity to present your view. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Visorstuff has corrected the discussion and is right, though. Compromising between standard academic terminology and a private entity's PR agenda is not seeking consensus, it is waffling, and it doesn't have a place here. The academic standard is well-grounded and needed, simply because the currently official name of the church has a high tendency toward confusion, and runs counter to Wikipedia's mission to provide useful information. It is typical for the phrase "church of jesus christ" to be used in many applications that have nothing to do with the subject of this article. This isn't anything against this church; the same reasoning applies equally to any other subject, as Visorstuff indicates with reference to the LDS church. The proper course is to move the article to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) as Visor indicates. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. To Visorstuff's comment "(Rigdonites are considered a defunt group by Mormon scholars, aren't they?)", it seems they are indeed as a factual matter, since Bickerton started up his group with a substantial break in continuity in time and place after the disintigration of Rigdon's group, while Bickerton laid claim to continuity through the Rigdonite group. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is ample precedence (as cited by Visorstuff and Reaverdrop) to proceed. Merely arguing "it's offensive" or "we don't like it" are not good arguments to oppose, and I have yet to see a convincing argument against changing the name of the article. I also know "The Church of Jesus Christ" is the org's official name, but it's so ambiguous as to be practically useless for a layman, especially when the name used here in WP differs from the name used in academic sources. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above which lays out all the points as to why this page will not be moved. It is perfectly in accordance to all wiki policies for naming. Bickertonite is an offensive term to many in this organization. Using that term would result in a direct opposition against that church and would be clear POV - as stated in the naming convention section. Feel free to review and understand how this came about. Jcg5029 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it, thanks. But I would not claim that (1) using a name that's inherently ambiguous and (2) using a name that is different from the name used in academic literature to refer to an organization would be considered "perfectly" in accordance with WP policies for naming. I would be interested on opening it up and getting more input. Specific policies, as the one found at WP:LDSMOS, can change, particularly when they're not terribly consistent with what's used in the rest of the world. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Jcg5029. I would also remind all involved with this discussion that there has also been a Wikipedia administrative decision regarding this issue. Please refer to the above archived discussion if you have any questions regarding this decision by the Wikipedia administration. This article is in compliance with all wiki policies regarding naming. POV is not a part of that decision by the administration, it was simply a matter of being the most compliant with these existing policies. CSG 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

When a decision is made it doesn't mean it can never be reopened again. You guys need to brush up a bit on your WP policies and rules. It seems there are some fundamental misunderstandings here about the "permanence" of WP. Things change here—it's the nature of the beast. If you don't like change, buy a copy of Britannica. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich is correct; policy and earlier decisions are hardly written in stone. I find this current situation to be POV. There is not factual history of being a sect of the 1830 church, rather there was/is a desire to return to it. I strongly support following academic standards while clarifying the church's position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - appeal to higher authority is, to say the least, not the most effective form of debate in Wikipedia. Besides the fact that User:Visorstuff is just as much a WP administrator as your man behind the archive curtain (which doesn't mean much of anything), and he doesn't seem too keen in your defense. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been work done to change that page's policy. It has been very difficult. If I remember my interaction with the administration, they made the decision they did so that the current policy could be followed. Until the policy changes, this site is in compliance with wikipedia policy. CSG 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

There is anothter issue with all of the naming issue. The LDS church wants the word "The" capitalized in refererring to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for doctrinal reasons (see quote below).

We declare it to all the inhabitants of the earth from the valleys in the tops of these mountains that we are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not a church but The Church -- and we have the doctrine of life and salvation for all the honest-in-heart in all the world. JD 12:173.

However, Wikipedia overruled this for the church's page in favor of naming conventions. I realize that it was controversial, but it is the easiest way to navigate. I'd even be willing to compromose and have an appelation on every latter day saint movement denomination article to help disambugate through the succession crisis - including (Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (Brighamite), even though most LDS will find this more offensive than the term Mormon. This context could be helpful.

I've read through the discussion above, and the poll was of six people, and not a clear consensus NOT to move, but a small consensus not to move to The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton). I also agree that it shouldn't be moved to that page, but that does not prohibit it from being moved to something that is more in line with style guides (such as this specific one), etc. I'd be more than willing to have another vote opened properly with the style guide used. -Visorstuff 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic decision. We can finally get some consistency throughout WP by avoiding the use of articles on the names of organizations. This just creates all the more reason to have the name of this church include a disambiguation -Bickertonite, since there are many "Church of Jesus Christ"s out there. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[I must have misunderstood what you've said. I see no change to the naming conventions here. Where can we find where "WP overruled [the church's wishes] for the church's page in favor of naming conventions." Isn't the article still at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)]

Please review the above discussion. This is the largest organization that specifically uses the title The Church of Jesus Christ without any disambiguation. Please review the above discussion. 146.186.44.191 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "the organization" uses when seemingly everyone else in the academic world does otherwise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have regulations against directly opposing the view of any organization. While I am sure the use of the B-word has been used by many historians in the past -- The Church of Jesus Christ has made strong efforts to explain that the term itself can be offensive to its membership. That being said, using that disambiguation term would be against Wikipedia policies. That was why many people have requested the new editors to review the discussion. The only person opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ before was one individual who sought it to change to another name. SESMITH has previously also desired it to move, until he understood it was in direct opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ. I would kindly ask all editors here to refrain from using an offensive term on the talk page. Jcg5029 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not convincing when it's in wide usage by neutral academics. There is no consensus among them that it is "offensive", and I have yet to see a neutral source (or any source, for that matter) state that it is an offensive term. It's no more offensive than "Mormon" when applied to the Mormon Church, or "Josephite" to describe the Community of Christ, or Hedrickite for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). If you are personally offended by the term, that's your prerogative, but we're not going to stop using it or suggesting its use as a term of disambiguation when it is in such wide usage with the neutral sources that do exist. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ do not have those terms in their title, but actually in their introduction paragraphs. It is because those organizations do not use the terms even though many (in the case of Mormon, most) neutral people use the terms. If WP:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) or naming conventions for all the groups get universally changed -- this one will probably be changed as well. It will take those changes to the guidelines, which are considered standards for all editors to follow, to make the change here. Now, some organizations do use common terms and those are properly applied in their article title name. Jcg5029 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure about some of your statements; for example, it conceivable that the guidelines could change for one denomination but not all others. There's no a priori reason a rule or standard cannot differ between denominations. But anyway, it's clear we see things differently. When the proposal to change is made, everyone will have their chance to have a say. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When this issue came up last year, my main point was that The Church of Jesus Christ is the organization's official name, as well as the name it calls itself. Thus, under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns, that weighs two to one in favor of keeping the article entitled The Church of Jesus Christ. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is also arguably implicated, because there are a couple of other entities that use that name. However, those entities (I think it was a church building in some former Soviet country and some sort of obscure internet church in the Deep South) aren't notable, and don't have their own pages. Thus, there's really no need to disambiguate. As to the thought that sometimes the LDS Church is called by that name, that's not a problem, because the LDS Church already has its own name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there's no need to disambiguate. There's also no need for a "(Bickertonite)" parenthetical when there is no other article titled "The Church of Jesus Christ" (yet, at least). COGDEN 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi COGDEN - to reply in regard to the factual matter of how many competing entities among which there might be a need for disambiguation, the Ontario government's religioustolerance.org website indicates that there are at least 20 different religious organizations in the U.S. alone that have adopted the name "The Church of Jesus Christ". [7] That is far more than one entity in Russia and one in the South. There's no indication I've seen that the church referred to in this article has a reasonable right of exclusion on the name - they have had it registered as their corporate name in Pennsylvania since 1941, but that is just one state.

It's interesting to note that they also applied just in April of this year for a federal trademark on a stylized logo of the name, and the application is still pending, but a first Office action was issued from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office just last month. It included a refusal to register the mark on several grounds, including likelihood of confusion with several prior registered trademarks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and because it is merely descriptive. I've reprinted a section of the Office action under a new section heading at the current bottom of the talk page, below.

Of course, the Patent & Trademark Office's action isn't determinative here, but it is probative on the issue of likelihood of confusion and need to disambiguate within the context of Wikipedia. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. I am no expert to the logo situation, but from my understanding the issue was not the name, but the appearance. The Church of Jesus Christ owns its name. All other groups with use of the name are so much smaller, typically only one branch, that demographically and often numbers wise there is no disambig issue. Once again I agree with COGDEN. Jcg5029 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the statement "TCOJC owns its name" just isn't true - TCOJC has its name registered on the corporate registry of the state of Pennsylvania. That doesn't amount to "ownership" of the name. And, if you'll read the passages from the trademark examining attorney at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, you'll see the discussion has nothing to do with the logo appearance, and everything to do with likelihood of confusion of the name itself. I have been finding more instances in publications where authors use "the Church of Jesus Christ" as a short-hand for the LDS Church. I think this is fairly common practice for LDS writers, who strongly prefer that short-hand to using "the LDS Church" and definitely to "the Mormon Church". - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that such use by LDS Church members is generic. When LDS apologetic writers refer to the "Church of Jesus Christ", they are referring to "The Church": the only true church established by Jesus Christ. It refers not just to the LDS Church organization, but the early Christian church and the Nephite Christian church. It's used in the same way as apologetic writers refer to "The Church", which in Wikipedia actually refers to a band: The Church. This is because the The is significant, and when used with a capitalized The, it almost always refers to the band, not the LDS Church. Maybe there are a few aberrant uses of "The Church" to refer to the LDS Church, but the LDS Church's rare useage is not significant enough to require The Church to add a disambituator to the end of their name. COGDEN 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The most prominent of the 20 organizations mentioned at religioustolerance.com are listed here. Reviewing this list and searching for any groups with that name I can find, the only arguably notable ones I've found are:

1. the "Bickertonites",
2. the "Cutlerites" which refers to themself by that name, thus making it easy to name them, and
3. a Tennessee organization of Holiness movement churches established by M.K. Lawson. This organization does not have a Wikipedia article yet, and I'm not sure it is notable. If it ever does get its own page, it might be possible to disambiguate them by calling it "The Church of Jesus Christ Organization", which they use on their website.
4. a Tennessee-based group whose website is here, which is probably a breakoff from Lawson's Holiness group. I can't tell. It looks like they have four congregations in the midwest, and they are almost certainly not notable.

Of the other entities using the name "Church of Jesus Christ", with no prefix or suffix, none of them are notable. For example, this church, which is just one actual church building in North Carolina. There's also Orthodox Church buildings with that name in Belarus and Russia, a church building in Rochester, NY]. There also appears to be a tiny Restorationist group in Jackson, Mo. COGDEN 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-dormant editors coming out of the woodwork

As a side issue——why is it that these editors keep popping out of the woodwork on this page to make comments. They haven't made any edits since May, and then when discussions pick up here, they are suddenly keen to register their vote. ... Hmmm. Assuming good faith—Assuming good faith. But it is kind of funny. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, speaking of assuming good faith, where did you come from too? Watch what you are willing to claim.CSG 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

What do you want to know? I edited as an anon for a few months until I realized I had no credibility until I registered. So I did. Now I'm registered, and I continue to edit on a variety of articles. Not just this one when the talk page kicks up. Anything else? Now it's your turn. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is so nice that this server is incredibly slow! Just watch what you are willing to claim. Remember Wiki:Civ is all I'm saying. CSG 02:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

I was being civil. I just thought it was funny. If your lack of editing variety is a sore spot with you, I apologize. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being civil means not accusing. Rich Uncle feel free to assume good faith. 146.186.44.179 11:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I only edit on topics that I have a good base of knowledge for. I've been working to improve this page for a while and being a graduate student in college I don't have time to devote hours to different topics so for now I'm limited to what I can edit and this page is what I'm sticking to for a while. JRN 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious as to which editors you are referring to as "coming out of the woodowork">User:Rich Uncle Skeleton? JRN 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CSG, specifically. I was not referring to you. See discussion above. S/He seemed to know I was referring to him/her as s/he responded to my comments. It was a side observation and I considered it closed between me and CSG. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then please use this page as a discussion board to improve the page and not to make general statements and accusations of people. You are just detracting from the discussion. JRN 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, O noble swami/boss of the talk page. Somebody piss in your cornflakes? As I said, the issue was closed until you brought it up again. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material from new sources

I'm trying to gather some material from new sources, to move beyond theoretically discussing the possibility of gathering new material. It's worth noting the first Google hit on William Bickerton is to the Government of Ontario's religioustolerance.org website, under the heading... "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". It starts by explaining the need for the naming convention: "There are at least 20 different religious bodies in the U.S. which have adopted the name: 'The Church of Jesus Christ.'" It also includes several sources - including Cadman '45, and some apparently non-ingroup sources.

I also, on Google Scholar, found a PhD thesis on "The Mormons" from 2002, from an Italian university, in Italian... we'll come up with better sources as we keep looking. But it's worth noting this PhD student introduces us to some heterodox takes on the info so far presented in this article, in a few paragraphs on "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". Pardon my Translator - as I said, we'll find more sources, I am just starting - but it's worth contrasting what our Italian friend reports (emphases and interjections added):

"Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

"Origins: William Bickerton was between the Mormons that, to the dead women of Joseph Smith, the authority of Sidney Rigdon accepted and they followed him in Pennsylvania. Because of the continuous trsferimenti [?] and of the rather inconstant behavior of Rigdon - notwithstanding his abilities to theological reflection - Bickerton was found again in Pennsylvania lacking in a point of reference and therefore he joined, even if for short time, to the Mormon Church, [!] that congregation to West had one Elizabeth [?]. Refusing some doctrines, among which polygamy, and after a divine vision, Bickerton in July of 1862 founded a new church which they joined a good number of followers of Rigdon. Bickerton subsequently moved to Kansas; although that very soon emerged of the contrasts inside of the congregations of the new church fate is in Kansas that in Pennsylvania [?]. Bickerton was removed from the church he founded [!] (was riammesso single in 1902 [?]), while William Cadman had been elected president (a position that would occupy until death, sopraggiunta [?] in 1904). In 1907 and 1914 the Bickertonites endured ulterior schisms, that they had only a short life.

"Doctrines and organization: The Bickertonite Church has its center puts into effect them [?] to Monongahela in Pennsylvania, and missions in numerous deliveries [?] of the world. It is the only minority denomination mormons to have completed an effective effort missionary in Italy, where it has succeeded to establish but one small active congregation. Polygamy always it has refused; the characteristics of the bickertonite creed send back to the doctrine of Joseph Smith with some peculiar interpretations that derive from Sidney Rigdon: celebration weekly magazine of the supper of the Getlteman [?], practical [?] of the lavender of the feet and the “kiss of the peace”. The church is governed from a president, two councilmen, a secretary, a secretary financial and a treasurer. A Conference Anniversary elects several the leaders."

Like I said, more information needed. This is from just one (poorly machine-translated) PhD thesis, but if anything it reconfirms the need for more, independent sources. Working; - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag as a note that third-party sources are needed for the article since almost all the footnoted cites are to sources affiliated with TCOJC. For the love of Pete, let's not have an edit war over this. It's just a tag. It's just a helpful tag. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources:

• About a page on the church in The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization by Jeffrey S. Kaplan & Heléne Lööw, 2002, Rowman Altamira, p. 84. ISBN 075910204X. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Vol. 2, J. Gordon Melton, ed., McGrath 1978, has an entry on "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" beginning on p. 19.
• Handbook of Denominations in the United States Frank Spencer Mead, Abingdon Press 1990, ISBN 0687165725, discussion of William Bickerton starting p. 134.
• The Latter-day Saint Experience In America, Terryl L. Givens, Greenwood Press 2004, ISBN 0313327505, discussion of William Bickerton starting p. 249
• Kansas; a Cyclopedia of State History, Embracing Events, Institutions, Industries, Counties, Cities, Towns, Prominent Persons, Etc., (Slow down partyboy!) Frank Wilson Blackmar, Standard Publishing Co. 1912, discussion of Bickerton & St. John, Kansas colony on p. 735

More on the way. Working... - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to help all of our editors as they review and search for sources - Bickerton did in fact visit the LDS and some other groups of the Latter Day Saints at the time of Rigdon's abandonment of the church. It was at this time in which he received his experience. He never joined another organization of the Latter Day Saint movement even though he visited the organizations. Hence why he states, "I found myself alone." In fact, Bickerton was kicked out of a L-dS meeting because he opposed re-baptism and polygamy. The 1855 meetings included a mix of Latter Day Saint people. It was a time when many weren't sure where to go or what to do. Bickerton was in that situation. I thought this was fairly well explained and cited, but should some of this be added, etc? Jcg5029 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another useful-looking source found:

• Dale L. Morgan, "A Bibliography of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Bickertonite)", Western Humanities Review, IV (1950), pp. 45-70

- Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TO CONSIDER: In your research you may find slightly smaller numbers on TJOJC's membership. I would accept the numbers as they currently stand because recently the church has boomed in some foreign areas like Africa. I would doubt any historical source would literally be that up to date, but the records are accurate. Sound good? Jcg5029 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think historical sources are good for citing history, not current membership numbers. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on another source for a "William Cadman" of Pennsylvania

The February 9, 1927 New York Times has an article entitled "Miners Pick Wage Board", about a miners' union having selected a committee to meet with the mining companies to negotiate wages, and one of the people selected for the committee is a William Cadman from Pennsylvania. Any idea if "our" William Cadman from Pennsylvania would have been a coal miner and labor union activist? (This would obviously be William Cadman Jr., i.e. William H. Cadman, not the dad, if it is the same guy at all.) - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

His father was and Alma B Cadman (brother) was a farmer. To be honest I am not sure about WH Cadman but I'll look into it. 146.186.44.182 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Inscrutably Controversial "More Sources Needed" Tag

I love the sources you guys are comming up with but I removed the tag. Until a consensus is reached do not apply the tag again. Your friend, 146.186.44.179 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the tag because it means we are making progress on this page which is what we've been working at for quite some time now. I just am a little confused at WHAT kind of information we are looking for. I think the page has enough information historically on it right now, so are we just looking for more 3rd party sources to back up the information. Just as a note of warning, if we are looking it will be extremely difficult because little has been written by people outside of the organization who really understand it. I am still all for looking to improve this page however we can. JRN 12:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply an objective fact that almost all the sourced material on this page is from sources within the church - for example, the first 8 listed references include six in-church sources used for 23 citations.

Beyond that, there are pretty clear indications, as covered above, that additional, highly relevant facts are known that are not adequately covered by the current article - so this is not just a matter of picking out a few independent sources to confirm what is already there.

This is just a tag for more sources. It is needed. It does not mean we won't consider whatever other sources and information we come up with with due care. Finding more factual information should not be a source of controversy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

JRN warns: "... little has been written by people outside of the organization who really understand it ..."

Isn't this just another way of saying that writers who are not part of the organization don't conform to my/the organization's POV on the issue? If an academic is writing on something, I think we generally trust that they have done their homework and know what they are talking about. Otherwise no one could be cited as an outside commentator on anything that they were not intimately involved with. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The research will greatly help the page, but the tag is not needed. The sources are credible. 146.186.44.208 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources tag casts no aspersion on the credibility of the existing sources. It merely reflects the need for additional ones. Once the sources tag is up, there should be a presumption that sources need to be added or consensus otherwise reached that it's no longer needed before it's taken down, not a presumption against it being up. This really should not be an issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the fist to admit I opposed the tag, but part of that was previous experience with editors who have applied tags to pages I have worked on. Sometimes those editors would apply a tag and then ignore the page (which obviously did not help to resolve any of the issues). I am in favor of the tag so long as we all work to getting more sources on the page. It appears those who placed the tag are working diligently to view and add sources which I think is great. As far as editors quoting and misquoting other editors. I believe that JRN's comments should be taken with good faith. I believe his intent was to explain how a randomly published website, or something of that sort might not fully understand the actual history of this church. I think it was a good reminder to be sure the sources which we are trying to dig up are in fact both recent and credible. I am sure nobody would dispute that observation. Jcg5029 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the concerns you express here, Jcg5029, except for the need for sources to be "recent" - primary sources may be old, yet deemed credible and valuable after careful evaluation, and indeed may be more valuable than only relying on recent sources to document long-past events. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, please use all sources which are accurate. I would take 2004 over 1950 because of the accuracy of modern historians, but then again Bickerton's testimony is crucial with its word for word -- and its older than the bunch. Obviously its first hand insight is of no small importance. I agree with you. It is such a tough subject for this organization - from my studies - because the organization officially organized in 1862. We can put a lot of history before that, but that history really concerns where the organization comes from. Does that make sense? Their roots are in the beginning, so their history is early, but their actual organization is a little later. It makes the research and third party sources harder to find that way because they aren't the earliest organized Latter Day Saint movement organization. So most third party stuff is brief at best. That is why other sources haven't been directly cited (yet) :). Jcg5029 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - obviously the testimony of Mr. Bickerton is a prime example. And true too that external sources with any detail dating back to those earlier periods seem to be rare. And while you are bringing up the official organizing in 1862, I have also seen references to the church officially filing a corporate registration in Pennsylvania in 1941. I take it this was simply a corporate registration? Which may not be that significant, since the LDS church has not even bothered to register the church as a whole as a corporation for the past 100+ years... Anyone know of any other significance to the 1941 date? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding two things happened in coordination - both of which are already cited within the page unless they have been edited out without my knowledge (in which case lets get it back in quickly). First is the name change from Church of Jesus Christ, Green Oak, Pa - Thats a little off its from the top of my head to its current name. This name change was done so that the church would not be associated with only one location as it started to expand internationally, which is #2. I am double checking that this is in the article now. Jcg5029 04:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a note, upon doing more research at the lds page, it seems that probably 95% (approx. so don't murder me) of the references on the lds church page are from in house sources. I think the source tag is appropriate for that page also under the same context as it being appropriate here. I just fear a large backlash from putting it up there. Are there any editors with more sway than I in favor of such a move or must I go alone. JRN 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the tag is very appropriate here. For one thing, the tag references a policy that isn't actually a policy. The primacy of primary sources is currently being debated and is under mediation (that very fact itself means it's not a true Wikipedia policy). Other sites such as the LDS Church site includes primary sources with no problem. It's totally appropriate to cite the church itself as to what the church's official positions and doctrines are. There's no better source for what someone's positions are than the person or organization that holds that position. COGDEN 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In-church sources are undoubtedly valuable, and irreplaceable when it comes to explaining the beliefs of the church at the time of writing of the reference. And, the LDS church page could certainly benefit from some additional out-of-church sources. There is a fundamental difference I still see though, which is that the LDS church page has been pretty thoroughly vetted, including by Wikipedians outside of or even hostile to the church; and further, we know that many controversies related to the church are adequately covered, such as polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the succession crisis, etc. It happens that because of the amount of material on the LDS church, much of the relevant material exists in branch-off articles, such as dedicated articles on each of the three controversies I mentioned above, and much of the out-of-church references appear in those branch-off articles.

In the case of this article though, there seem to be issues with a reasonable susceptibility to revisionist history but that haven't had the attention from out-of-church Wikipedians already well-familiar with the church's issues, as is the case with the LDS church. It is in such cases that my concern for out-of-church sources, such as by academic historians, is most applicable. I give a concrete example in a new section, below. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OKAY, over the past few weeks a few sources have been added. No information has come from these other sources to dispute the History of The Church of Jesus Christ and their other published documents. Because they have stood up to the test, I believe it is time to remove the tag with continued emphasis on further sources and added information. I would consider the History section right now verified (although not complete). 146.186.44.182 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] /Archive 1 is redlinked

Archive 1 of this talk page is currently red-linked. Is this intentionality or an oversight? -- 159.182.1.4 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This was my fault. I was learning how to archive and that was part of the result. It didn't delete any discussion that I am aware of -- I just was learning how to archive the old discussions. Jcg5029 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Weighs In: Likelihood of Confusion

Following from the discussion above under the section heading "Article name", it turns out TCOJC filed a federal trademark application in April of this year and got a first Office action last month from the Patent & Trademark Office, denying their application, in part for likelihood of confusion with prior registered marks of the LDS church. This isn't determinative of the issues related to disambiguation in Wikipedia, nor is it even a final resolution of the trademark application, but it does have probative value for the discussion here. So, I've reprinted a relevant section of the Office action below. (Note, no copyright applies to this Office action because it is a government-produced work.) (This can be looked up under the trademark application number 77159757.) Note that the trademark examining attorney also refuses to register the mark under the grounds that it is merely descriptive - which is relevant to the common usage of the term "the church of Jesus Christ" in a generic sense to refer to the unitary church in the time of the New Testament or to Christian churches in general. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

... The applicant’s mark, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST is similar to the registered marks, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and THE ENSIGN OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, and will lead to consumer confusion.

The applicant has applied to register THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST for “Publication of books” and “Counseling in the field of religion.”

The registered mark THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 1757271) is for “genealogical research library services” and “personal and family counseling services.”

The registered mark THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 1864725) is for “newspapers for general circulation, general feature magazines, posters, postcards, photographic prints and stationery; textbooks for drama and music production; instructional manuals for obtaining physical fitness, parenting, performing sports activities, producing dance, drama and musical performances, teaching disabled individuals, researching family history, providing nurseries for children, scouting, conducting hymns, gardening, basic food preparation and food storage; pamphlets featuring financial management, welfare services programs, recovery from social-emotional problems, safety precautions, babysitting, preventing child abuse, family history research, military service.”

The registered mark THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 1980319) is for “textbooks for religious instruction and seminarian studies; instructional manuals for teaching gospel, scriptures, priesthood courses and church doctrine, missionary services and administering church welfare; pamphlets featuring church teachings and writings.”

The registered mark THE ENSIGN OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 2111571) is for “religious magazines.”

The registered mark THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 2133843) is for “newspapers for general circulation, general feature magazines, posters, postcards, photographic prints and stationery, blank, printed and partially printed forms, engravings; textbooks for religious instruction and seminarian studies, drama and music production; instructional manuals for teaching gospel, scriptures, priesthood courses, and church doctrine, missionary services, administering church welfare, obtaining physical fitness, parenting, performing sports activities, producing drama and musical performances, teaching disabled individuals, researching family history, providing nurseries for children, scouting, conducting hymns, gardening, basic food preparation and food storage; pamphlets featuring church teachings and writings, financial management, welfare services programs, recovery from social-emotional problems, safety precautions, babysitting, preventing child abuse, family history research, and military service.”

The registered mark THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (Reg. No. 2135319) is for “eleemosynary and social welfare support services for needy families and individuals in the area of providing food, clothing, and medicine; ministerial services; missionary services; and personal and family counseling services.”

The respective goods and services are similar because registrant’s “counseling services” are similar to applicant’s own. Furthermore, consumers may believe that registrant’s magazines and textbooks emanate from applicant’s “publishing of books” services. Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2 (d) based on likelihood of confusion.

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes the subject matter of applicant’s goods and/or services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq. ...

Applicant’s mark, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, is for “Publication of books” and “Counseling in the field of religion.” It can be assumed that the subject matter of the books that applicant publishes and the religious counseling services that it provides is in the field of a church that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. The mark is therefore descriptive of applicant’s goods and services.

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. ...

I don't think this is very probative yet. I don't personally file trademark applications, but I file patent applications, and I've never had an application that wasn't rejected in the first office action. It happens almost as a matter of course, even if it's a slam-dunk application. Examiners want you to make a positive argument in favor of your application. We can wait and see on this, but really I don't think this is the determinitive factor anyway. Whether or not The Church of Jesus Christ owns the trademark for that name is less important than the fact that it's the only notable organization that (1) calls itself by that name (including the capitalized "The", and (2) is the organization's official name. While there is an argument they are most likely to be called "Bickertonites", according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the first two factors way in favor of the title The Church of Jesus Christ. COGDEN 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to get a patent application allowed on the first action (which I think is good, because otherwise you don't know what broader claim scope you might also have gotten allowed), and I've done a little trademark prosecution and had similar experience - but I think the analysis in the office action here is significant of itself, independent of the prospects for prosecuting the application. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More objective information needed on Cadman's succession after Bickerton

Here is one example of what I see as the need for more objective sources for this article. By the article's own text as currently written, there's no indication that Bickerton ever acknowledged that Cadman should be his successor - in fact, it indicates that Bickerton ordained a different fellow to succeed him. But there is also no indication that this might be an issue subject to questioning. Instead, it seems to indicate that Cadman became the next church president through little more than Bickerton's absence and the magic of passive verbs. The justification provided includes indicating that the First Presidency (led by Bickerton) "appears to have taken on a lesser role within the church" while the Quorum of the Twelve (led by Cadman) became more important - though this seems to run precisely counter to the argument on which this church's original succession is based, i.e. that the only authoritative succession was through the First Presidency (in the form of its First Counselor, Rigdon), and not through the Quorum of the Twelve (i.e. Brigham Young and his supporters). This logically suggests itself as a potential controversy, but is entirely glossed over as the article is currently written. It's easy to see how, if the current church traces its authority through William Cadman, it might not want to emphasize facts that don't tend to support a clear succession of Cadman. But what happened to Bickerton and his group in St. John, Kansas? One of my sources I found recently says the COJC also founded a second colony in Comanche County, Kansas, 75 miles south of St. John, in 1909, that it was led first by Charles Tickhill and then by an A. B. Cadman, and that it disintigrated in 1928 after a string of disagreements and misfortunes. Where is that information, and how does it fit in? It's things like that I'd like to see better explained, and that are going to need out-of-church sources to do so. The article in its current state describes the COJC's history with an air of apologetics, of glossing over facts that a believer wouldn't find "faith-affirming" - in the same sort of way that official LDS publications like Truth Restored by Gordon B. Hinckley gloss over anything about LDS church history that its believers wouldn't consider "faith-affirming". The Wikipedia article on the LDS church though is much more objectively rigorous and academic in nature, which is what I'd like to see here. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately although I'm sure you feel you are being neutral your comments are quite POV. First almost all the information you mentioned is covered in thenut 2 volumes of the church history. The only thing that isn't well covered in there is when Bickerton was suspended from the church. From what I've read he was taken to court over what would consider a "domestic dispute" now and was removed from fellowship for his actions. He was later acquited in court and was reinstated in the church sometime between 1903-1905, I believe. Unfortunately I have found very little mentioned or written about this. All the other facts your mentioned are well covered in the church history. The only thing is that information was not added to the page yet. Not out of "glossing over" or to try and "affirm faith". The fact that the information is all in the church published history book should quell that POV arguement. As a note the church does not affirm any of it's faith through men, which is why your arguement holds no ground. It traces the priesthood lineage through men, but if our faith was based upon men then we would no longer believe the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith was a man of many faults and vices as well as many writers and men of the bible (solomon, david, jonah, peter, to name a few). The faith is founded wholly upon Jesus Christ. So please don't accuse us of "glossing over" to affirm our faith. The lds article may be one of the most POV articles on wiki. I can tell that you are mormon, but don't let your bias fool you, there is pleny of subjective material throughout the lds page(s). I just don't have enought time in the day to try and correct it all. JRN 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out faults with the article on the LDS (Utah) Church is not a good way to defend this one. (It's like a WP:WAX argument—never convincing.) What is in the LDS Church article is, frankly, quite irrelevant to what we're doing here. Reaverdrop's point was that some of the more controversial events in church history seem to have been treated in this article with an apologetic POV, which I agree with as I get into the research. He's not impugning anyone's personal beliefs. Let's try to stay neutral researchers here—if you take offence to every criticism of the article as it is currently written, you probably should not air them all on the talk page. This page is for discussing the development of an encyclopedia article, not for proclaiming our faith Christ or men or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who brought the lds article up I was refuting Reaverdrop's WP:WAX argument using the lds page as the best example of all pages on wiki, of course I guess you couldn't read for yourself and see that. I wish that you were just stop trying to argue everything I say. You have shown complete bias in just about every issue brought up here and are even borderline WP:MeatPuppet

"I'm starting to question the good faith of some of the editors there, which I know is wrong, but when the opposition is so persistently and apparently POV, you have to start to wonder. Hopefully soon we can get a move proposal for the Article Name and have a real discussion about it and we can see the true shallowness and unconvincing nature of their arguments. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" The use of we insinuates you acting as one entity to try and make changes to this page.

I suggest you just worry about yourself from now on and try to keep a NPOV. JRN 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ditto. You have clearly demonstrated WP:COI, and that doesn't seem to faze you, either. The reason it appears to you that I have "complete bias" is because I have been responding to what you say. Hmm. Wouldn't that suggest maybe that YOU have shown "complete bias" too? As for your flimsy Meatpuppetry accusation, Reaverdrop and I have nothing to do with each other and I didn't even know of his existence until very recently. This is the only page we consistently both work on. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Skeleton, are you trying to insinuate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the Savior of All Pasta? I hope you can find a way to live with yourself. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no—I too have been "touched by his noodly appendage." Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

JRN, don't make simple assumptions about my beliefs - some of the frequent editors of the LDS pages (or my contribs history) can tell you I had more than my share of skeptical critiquing of them as well. If you think the LDS Church article is one of the most biased in Wikipedia, you should feel all the more urgent need to spend a little of the time you're logged in at that article pointing out its most egregious errors. Yes, my discussion here is POV, because it is a discussion, not an article, and people have points of view when they discuss. My aim in doing so is to work together to get a properly informative and NPOV article. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the argument here, this church does not have a First Presidency. Jcg5029 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the whole point, Jcg5029 - the article makes the point that the succession to Rigdon depended on the inviolability of his First Presidency authority versus the Quorum of the Twelve - then later when the First Presidency is in Kansas and Cadman is on his way to being the last survivor of their Quorum of the Twelve, it applied some passive verb magic about how the First Presidency really wasn't important anymore, and they were fine with tracing their authority through the Quorum of the Twelve instead, a reversal defined by the sampling bias of the fact that it is the organization descended from the Quorum of the Twelve partisans that survives today - and is well motivated not to bring up the topic of a First Presidency again, even though, like I said, it was their whole claim to succession in the first transition. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a source here (an academic thesis on Latter Day Saint schismatics) that mentions some of the schisms from TCOJC. First, there was a temporary break-off in 1873, that was led by George Barnes. (I'm not sure if this is the same as the Bickerton–Cadman schism of 1875 mentioned in the article...I haven't read up on it yet). Second, it states that in 1907 some apostles from TCOJC left the church and founded the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ". The split was over "the nature of life in the millennium". Third, in 1914, the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ was established by James Caldwell and other members of TCOJC. My source says they rejected the First Presidency as the legitimate governing body of the church. They also accepted the Book of Mormon but not Joseph Smith's First Vision. The Primitive Church and the RCOJC later merged.

What is the source because I have never heard an academics use the term "cadmanites". I would be interested in reading it. JRN 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it in detail yet, but it appears to refer to TCOJC followers as "Bickertonites", and then post-schism refers to those who stayed loyal to TJOJC as "Cadmanites", precisely because Bickerton had not agreed with Cadman's succession. I'll add these mentions of schisms to the article with a citation.

I think there may be more history to be discussed than just the blunt statement of the current situation—"this church does not have a First Presidency". I too am researching and hope to find more. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to help your research, William Bickerton died a member of The Church of Jesus Christ. Jcg5029 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic William Cadman reference

In my researching I found a reference to a William Cadman (I'm sure a different and unconnected one) that I found ironic, given the circumstances.

The December 12, 1895 New York Times has a brief article entitled, "A Remarkable English Polygamist". It notes that a William Cadman was convicted in London of polygamy for being married to seven wives. He was sentenced to seven years in prison - one year for each wife, maybe? He had 23 children. Here's a great line: "Some of his victims were rich when he married them, but did not long remain so."

Lots of William Cadmans out there, anyway, and each with a story. Now back to arguing over a rarefied academic debate on the nature of sources and NPOV. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are two different people, lets try and just focus on individuals relevant to the topic. Jcg5029 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Evidence of Confusion of Churches

See this edit. Confusion! Maybe a clarification in the article will help keep people straight. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Famous people to call one of their own. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He has never been a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ, but he certainly does have a family history in the church. Jcg5029 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another example: See this article in the FARMS Review, third page (p. 261). The authors introduce "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and later abbreviate it to "the Church of Jesus Christ".

This is just one example I happened to come across of what is in my experience a common habit for LDS Church members at least - who tend to abbreviate the name of their own church not as "the LDS Church" or "the Mormon Church", but as "the Church of Jesus Christ". More evidence for the likelihood of confusion in the article name. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No article capitalized. Jcg5029 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a significant barrier to confusion. Nor has TCOJC been historically rigorous about capitalizing the "The". Indeed, even W. H. Cadman's two volumes of history of TCOJC use lower case "the" for TCOJC in the titles. [8] - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That practice is not common at all in my experience. In nearly all cases where Mormon writers refer to "the Church of Jesus Christ", they are using it in the descriptive sense to mean any of the various True Christian churches from the New Testament, Book of Mormon, or modern times. Even that is pretty rare. Most often, Mormon writers will call it "the Church", or "the Gospel". I see usage of "the Church of Jesus Christ" as almost exactly the same as Mormon use of "the Church". Both are used merely descriptively, yet The Church refers to a band, and we don't require The Church to add a disambiguator merely because many LDS writers use the term to refer to the LDS Church. COGDEN 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Church should probably be a disambiguation page too - who knows how many subjects it might refer to under the Milky Way tonight. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schisms

From the restoration up until today many people have left the church and tried to either found their own church or joined with another organization. I don't think it's necessary to cover all of the "schisms" just because people disagreed and left. You seem to be making a big deal about everything and trying to find faults with the church so that you can feel substatiated in your arguements that we have "glossed over" because it would hurt our faith too much to know that someone who lead the church was a man and had faults. It's your assumptions and not mine that are detrimental to the discussions here. I hope you can see the hypocrisy in your arguements.

I don't feel the need to correct the lds page because personally I would rather do something more productive on here, but thanks for the offer. JRN 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's a compelling need to provide basic information on a schism where the group that split off and left the leader through which authority is claimed is the group that resulted in the subject of the article. That is a bit of a difference from just covering people who left the organization covered in the article. What I said was glossed over was the transition where Cadman, a leader through whom the subject of the article traces its authority, effectively broke away from the authority of Bickerton, the previous leader through whom the subject of the article traces its authority. I characterized such glossing over as possibly being motivated by a motivation to keep the narrative in a "faith-affirming" perspective out of analogy with the LDS Church, which has done precisely that, almost constantly, to gloss over non-"faith-affirming" facts about its controversies such as polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc. (although for a refreshing counter-example, see the article on the Mountain Meadows Massacre in the current Ensign). Motivation to maintain a "faith-affirming" narrative seemed like the least unlikely explanation for the slippery state of the description of the transition between Bickerton's and Cadman's leadership as the article stood a week ago.

Let me try and explain something here. Now this is obviously POV but this is one of the areas where we differ greaty from the lds church. The authority does not come from Bickerton. The authority comes from God. Joseph Smith was given the restored priesthood authority by the angel of the lord. When Sidney Rigdon was baptized and subsequently ordained under JS he was given the priesthood authority from God through JS. When Bickerton was baptized and ordained under Rigdon he also received the same priesthood authority from God by Rigdon. As well as everyone else who was baptized/ordained under those men. The reason we feel that Brigham Young and his followers "fell away" was because Brigham required a rebaptism of all his followers during the mormon reformation. The Church of Jesus Christ views this as a removal from the true authority and a baptism under the authority of Brigham Young (man's authority not God's). When all disintegrated under Rigdon and Bickerton was left alone, he was the only one (that we know of) still with the priesthood authority. As he baptized and ordained new converts they receieved the priesthood authority. Now the big difference is Bickerton was not the figurehead of the church that JS was. He had no more power or authority than anyone else. Thus when he made a mistake and was accused in Kansas and subsequently suspended from the church the continuation of authority continued even though he was no longer and official member of the organization. He later came back into fellowship and died a member of the church but there was no real schism. It was just a suspension of one member, unfortunately who, at the time, held a position of high natural leadership. Does this make any sense?

I think what happens alot, and is what I warned of previous, is individuals who don't understand the organization and have a different point of view tend to not be correct in many assumptions made about the organization. Which as you can see we are quite different than most "lds movement" church's, and also being a smaller one and less covered one makes it harder to find valid correct information, unfortunately. I hope this helps you understand better JRN 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But of course anyone whose faith depends only on the Lord and not on men should feel all the less anxiety about exploring whatever facts may be relevant to the history of the church and its mere mortal leaders, and all the less need to express offense to someone else engaged in exploring such facts. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I added the requested information about Bickerton and Cadman. If you want to take pot shots at me at least try and do it well. The only thing worse than a bad editor is a bad editor who can't even make good personal attacks. JRN 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack is a "good" personal attack and the way to repel a perceived one is not to engage in one yourself. Pot, kettle, black—you get the idea. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one person leaving the church is definately a schism. I would just be careful -- if groups leave and start their own organizations that is one thing, but if people leave, etc over time that happens with any group. It might not all be entirely significant for the wikipedia history. Jcg5029 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hey everyone, I think the research is great and we are really working together to improve the page. May I suggest doing these same edits to the history page. I think this page should have a condensed history with the expanded version on the history site. Check out the L-dS page to see what I am talking about. Sound good? Jcg5029 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- the history page was actually deleted without much discussion on the matter. After all the work is completed I propose making that page and abridging this section. There is certainly enough info to account for its own page in the future. 146.186.44.182 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First transition in leadership: Smith ---> Rigdon

Why is there such an extended discussion in this section about why the LDS Church's First Presidency under Brigham Young was invalidly constituted? If this article is about this church, why the focus on explaining why another church's succession claim is flawed? I can understand a short comment or an explanation in footnotes, as it used to be, but this is quite lengthy and detailed and seems to me to be distracting from the overall point of the section. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just currently reading over the same section to try and better it. My thought is to just remove that section altogether as it deals mainly with the lds church (post 1844) and not with TCOJC. Any thoughts JRN 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the earlier version (a couple weeks ago before all of the discussions and edits) the section in question was much clearer and to the point. I would recommend making it more like that - the one now is too many words over a small topic about another group. I think the material should still be included, but in a manner like the old page a few weeks ago. Jcg5029 01:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree—it's interesting and helpful in some ways—and I don't think the information is available elsewhere on WP and I don't know of an article where it would better fit (maybe the generic Quorum of the Twelve article?)—but I think if it were in a footnote here it would be more than sufficient. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and change it back then to a more suitable solution. Jcg5029 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Corresponding to the comment above, Jcg5029 has done a major rewrite of this section - but it does not reflect the desired changes from the discussion here. See the rewrite in its current form here. It again includes a long discussion of matters relating mainly to the LDS Church (post 1844) and not to TCOJC. It also repeats itself two or three times about many statements within the first few paragraphs.

And, it jumps out of chronology, something that the earlier rewriting had improved on - that is, in the middle of the discussion of the events after Smith's death, it suddenly becomes a discussion of the viewpoints of TCOJC today, and goes back and forth without clarification. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have a separate section on TCOJC Interpretation of Succession, sometime after the History section.

Overall though, this still needs a lot of work. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let me try and restructure a little bit, I changed it back because it has lost some of the core information and got wordy. Jcg5029 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official TCOJC publication says Bickerton "joined the Utah Mormon Church" for a short space of time

The article has been changed back and forth a few times between saying Bickerton "joined" or merely "visited" or "investigated" the Utah LDS church at one point, with some edit comments saying he never joined that organization. However, if you read the reference that has been given for this statement, it says, speaking of William Bickerton, "He then joined the Utah Mormon Church for a short space of time until he heard the doctrine of polygamy advanced, causing him to separate himself from that group." [emphasis added] The statement is in the middle paragraph on p. 116. This document was written by V. James Lovalvo, at the time a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of TCOJC. The document includes a header page saying it is "Approved by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ", with a listing of the names of the 12, followed by the statement "Also endorsed by the ministers of The Church of Jesus Christ at the General Church Conference" in 1985, and that it is published and copyrighted by TCOJC itself. It is also still posted on the church's official website. This seems to make it a pretty authoritative statement at least of what TCOJC believes to be the facts of its history. With that in mind, the article should probably not be edited to remove the statement of Bickerton having joined the Utah LDS Church, unless someone can present convincing evidence why TCOJC's official document might be in error. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the wording means, by joining I think it means participating in meetings, etc. There is no William Bickerton in the LDS Church historical records. Also, every other publication approved by The Church of Jesus Christ seems to clarify this issue as Bickerton visited (written by VJ as joined) the organization. Once again multiple sources and LDS Records show he never joined through baptism that organization. Including 'joined' makes it confusing -- probably why you thought this should be added -- that he indeed joined the LDS Church through baptism. All records show that simply is not the case and we are misinterpreting the statement. 146.186.44.182 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have said might indeed be the case - but if so, I'm sure you'll be able to find and reference one or more of these multiple sources and records to the effect that Bickerton visited and investigated but never "joined" the LDS Church.

For the moment, though, we have a document currently published on the TCOJC website, written by a TCOJC apostle and approved by the entire TCOJC Quorum of the Twelve and endorsed by the ministers of TCOJC, that says Bickerton "joined" the LDS Church, and the only authority we have to contradict that is a comment from IP address 146.186.44.182, which made its debut on Wikipedia today. Until we get some other, contradictory references and can agree here on the talk page that they indeed "clarify" that the earlier document promulgated by the TCOJC Twelve Apostles was not quite right, the article should follow the authoritative source we have, for the time being. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some research today while viewing this discussion. The second volume of The Church of Jesus Christ helps to clarify that Bickerton in fact associated with the L-dS Church without joining it. In fact, the association is smaller than we might think. He simply met with them on a few occasions. He never joined (by joining I mean was baptized, etc) in their church. He joined them, as stated by V. James Lovalvo in the fact that he associated with them. This should help to clarify what was meant by Lovalvo in his Dissertation. Now, using the word 'joined' would probably make most people, like Reaverdrop, assume it meant actually officially becomming a member in that organization. This simply is not the case and we should avoid the term to avoid confusion. Jcg5029 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Joined" may not have meant the same thing then and now, and the requirements were probably different. This is speculative, but since Bickerton had been baptized by Rigdon (or whoever), he probably felt (and possibly the LDS Church leaders felt this as well) that he did not need to be rebaptized to join with the LDS Church followers. In those days, I don't think it was yet clear-cut that Rigdon had headed a church that was entirely separate from the LDS Church. The dispute was more over who had proper leadership authority, no?—both claiming to be the rightful continuation of the original Latter Day Saint church. In other words, the understanding may have been that Bickerton may not have needed to be baptized by an LDS Church member because he had already been baptized by the Latter Day Saint priesthood. There are other nineteenth century examples of former Rigdonites and followers of other Latter Day Saint denominations moving to Utah to join the LDS Church, and they were not rebaptized until the Mormon Reformation, when many people started to be rebaptized. In those days, he could have "joined" the LDS Church by simply meeting with them in united worship services or discussions. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since all this is speculative without a source, we need to stick with what the source says. If the source says "joined", WP should use that until another source reports otherwise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your speculation and hope that my citation makes an accurate conclusion to this issue for the modern reader. Feel free to read what I cited and address what I discuss before automatically reverting from your own speculation. Jcg5029 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I did "revert[] from [my] own speculation". My own speculation would suggest that "joined" is an entirely appropriate phrasing to use, given the time and circumstances. Re-read above. I can't read the citation because no page number is specified. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, you misinterpret me. We are writing the history for modern readers who would probably misunderstand that statement. you may be an expert, they are not. Jcg5029 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a time frame on how long he "associated" (or whatever) with the LDS Church? It just said "short", which is monumentally unhelpful and not even worth including as an adjective. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A cite has been added to a book, but without a quote or a page number or anything. (And without the author - which I fixed.) What does the Cadman source say? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is page 36 of volume 2 History. Cadman states, "William Bickerton attended a meeting (LDS Church) in Allegheny City, now North Side of Pitt, Pa, when a decree was sent there from Utah to the affect that all who accept polygamy would receive divine approval from God..." That is page 6. This was when he went on record about polygamy and never associated himself with the Utah group from that point forward. I would say it appears all he did was attend a few meetings. Jcg5029 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cadman clarifies he visited for roughly ten months from Mar 25, 1851 to March 10, 1852 in page 6. Jcg5029 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that does not contradict the other source we have, saying he "joined" - the fact of his having attended at least one meeting, and moreso for ten months, is hardly exclusive of his joining them for a brief period. Unless the Cadman source has more specific contradictory information, I don't see that this passage would suffice to overrule the wording used by an official church document. But this more specific information and cite would also be useful to include. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you because saying association we have concluded means the same thing, but joined could be misinterpreted. Until there is a consensus on the issue lets stick with the TWO history books of The Church of Jesus Christ. Jcg5029 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find a L-dS Church clarifying that he did indeed join their organization lets stick with The Church of Jesus Christ's official church history volumes 1 and 2 which are in agreement on the wording. Jcg5029 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think if "joined" were subject to misinterpretation about the actual facts, the TCOJC Quorum of Twelve Apostles would probably have corrected that wording before all approving the document to which that statement cites, and I don't think it's the job of Wikipedians to overrule the judgment of authoritative sources on the subjects of the articles. In saying "join" we would not be failing to stick with the other history, since it doesn't contradict the statement. But omitting to say he "joined" would definitely contradict the official document of the church. Nor do I see the need to corroborate the Lovalvo statement with an LDS source. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to argue between three sources which are all accurate. Two of the three use the wording 'associated'. The two are both the official histories of this organization. If significant other sources trump this usage then lets stick with the most commonly used term. I for one am arguing that a majority of readers will consider joined incorrectly -- Note I am not saying the word is incorrect, but it can easily be misinterpreted. Earlier discussions have included outside sources that misinterpreted this statement to him actually joining the Utah LDS Church, (and by that word I mean participating in ordinances, etc). The word can be misinterpreted and so I have applied a MORE COMMONLY USED TERM to apply to the statement. Jcg5029 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did the "two" books come from that say "associated"? You cited Cadman's History vol. 2, which is 1 book... and I don't see the word "associated" in what we've seen of that reference either, nor has it been shown to be "more commonly used" than the wording of the official document. Again though I have to say, what impression are you so anxious to avoid in this article, that was not a concern to the TCOJC 12 apostles when they officially approved of the document that said he "joined"? It doesn't say he engaged in ordinances - but neither did the article, at any point. It said only exactly what the official publication says.

I would like to look at the Cadman source further, but my local major university library doesn't have his book, so it'll have to wait. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to read the two History books, they can be purchased at The Church of Jesus Christ's website I think, anyways its how I got my copies. I am trying to accurately portray Bickerton during the time period of 1851-1852. Both books use the term (associated), Cadman multiple times, and certainly those are the official historical Volumes accepted by this organization. Why would you so anxiously force this term (joined) into use when it clearly could be misconstrued by the common reader? Do you have a POV issue on this subject? The word I have added is used in the history books and is perfectly applicable. There is no reason not to use the term. Not using another term doesn't make it wrong, but just gives clarity to the sentence. Jcg5029 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how it could be misconstrued. His participation with the LDS Church seems just like any other person from the Latter Day Saint movement at the time that left one denomination and went to another. It certainly wasn't rare in those days for people to come and join with the LDS Church from other Latter Day Saint denominations—none of them were necessarily baptized again. They may be said to have "joined" with the LDS Church, so why not Bickerton too? To me, it sounds like you are engaging in confirmation bias to have the word mean what you want it to mean. The Italian academic thesis that Reaverdrop mentioned above and did some basic translation from also sounds like it says Bickerton joined the LDS Church, so it's not an uncommon view, obviously. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich Uncle Skeleton, why don't you read sources and figure out on your own. You apparently have no knowledge on this subject and are refering to sources that you have never read. If you want to make credible edits on your own you need to KNOW something about the subject. So instead of arguing every little thing. Like how long is "short" (and for you information the citation you keep refering to as official that states he joined also states "he joined the Utah Mormon Church for a SHORT space of time") So please read up before you try and argue anything. It would help your credibility. JRN 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL anyone? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you as stated multiple times above and will continue to reference the history volumes on this one to be as accurate as possible. Jcg5029 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't get much more "accurate" than using the exact word chosen by the church to describe an event, which is exactly what Reaverdrop did. You're exceptionally hard to please—when a non-official church source is used, you're upset because it's not an official church-sponsored document. When the exact wording of a church-sponsored document is used, you are still not satisifed. One would almost begin to suspect that you're choosing what to include and when based on whether it conforms to your own personal perspectives. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Lovalvo document is officially approved by the Twelve and endorsed by the ministers of the church, and hosted free for all the world on the Church's website to this day. There's no indication that the Cadman book has been given the same official stamp of authority - or that it contradicts the Lovalvo document. Given the facts we have, it seems like it would be an NPOV-vio biased against TCOJC to purposely avoid the wording of its own official document. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to clarify the statement. Bickerton was never baptized and whehter or not you want to use "joined" or "associated", I think it is important to clarify to the reader that he was not baptized. This is not "choosing what to include", this is including the correct information. Now I have no problem with using joined as long as it is clarified that he was not a member, because he never was. I prefer associated as more official sources use that word but if you want to cry about it then I will just include a clarifying statement as not to mislead the reader. Because I'm sure the other editors here don't want to mislead the reader at all. JRN 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What "more official sources"? The Lovalvo document is the one that specifically says it was approved by the church's quorum of the 12 and endorsed by its conference of ministers. "Joined" was good enough for them, after what we have to assume was due consideration before approving this document. They've had another 20 years to reflect further on the document, and they still have it posted on their official website to represent their views to all the world. We don't have any indication of a source that contradicts this, certainly not one with a weightier official stamp of approval from the church. I don't know why you want to accuse the leadership of TCOJC of "crying about it" or "misleading their readers" or why it should be so important to try to contradict their statement, but maybe if you're this concerned about exactly how closely Bickerton involved himself with the LDS Church in 1851, you should take it up with the TCOJC's twelve apostles and ask them about revising the Lovalvo document for their official website. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More official sources was refering to the other volumes of Church history that were both written and approved by the apostles and ministry. Not in reference to them as being "more official" but as other official sources. Sorry about the misunderstanding of the wording. Also I am not contradicting the statement. I am merely stating that he was not baptized and that needs to be clarified. I don't see why you are so furious about providing correct information. Again the only reason you wouldn't want them to get the correct information is if you had an agenda you were trying to push. Arguing that the interpretation was different back then is not a valid reason. Bickerton came from a different organization (post 1844) under the leadership of rigdon. He would have been baptized to be an official member. THere are not sources of him being baptized so I want to make it clear to the reader that he was not baptized. What is your probelem with that. JRN 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with what JRN has clarified. I agree with his reasoning. Jcg5029 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Alexander Cherry, William Cadman's successor as President of the Church

At President_of_the_Church#Presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ, it lists Alexander Cherry, the 5th TCOJC president, with question marks for his birthdate. Anyone have more information on him? (And on the other presidents after Bickerton?)

I did a little looking around - there were only a few Alexander Cherrys in Pennsylvania; the International Genealogical Index (IGI) lists one who was born in June 1857 in Roscoe Township, Pennsylvania. Roscoe is only 11 miles from Monongahela. The 1880 U.S. Census has an Alexander Cherry born in PA at the same time, who in 1880 is living in Jefferson, PA, 21 miles from Roscoe (and working as a miner). President_of_the_Church#Presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ says Cherry died on August 31, 1921, which would make him 64 at his passing away, if this is the same Roscoe from IGI and the 1880 census. I'm going to look into it further, but can anyone confirm or contradict this? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and more info on later church presidents and history from W. Cadman onward would be helpful

This article so far has little to no info on the church history after the 19th century or on any of its leaders after that time. It would be helpful to fill in some of that info. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll get some info on here but I think it would be extremely beneficial to have a history page to cover this information more throughly and try to keep this page a reasonable length. Thoughts??? JRN 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There used to be one. It was deleted without reasoning. Jcg5029 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. The reason was (and still is) provided at Talk:History of The Church of Jesus Christ. The contents of the article was an exact duplicate of the historical material here, so I redirected the page here until the historical information here gets too unwieldy and a separate article can be justified. The WP policy I cited was "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand." Deletion had been suggested, but as Jcg had opposed this, redirection until needed seemed to be the more amicable solution. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry I didn't realize it was a redirect. I am hoping we get enough info to justify it having its own page, maybe when some more modern history gets added? Jcg5029 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestion on article name, from source with TCOJC cooperation

Here is a new suggestion for the name of this article, to get around the issues of both confusion and offensiveness.

Take a look at this conference program for a conference last year of LDS/Restorationist organizations hosted by the John Whitmer Historical Association. Obviously this was an occasion in which it was important to prevent confusion among different organizations with a common background and similar names; and one in which TCOJC itself cooperated, with two apostles and its official church historian attending.

Take a look at how the conference program refers to the different organizations:

• Community of Christ

• The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania) [emphasis added]

• The Church of Jesus Christ (Alpheus Cutler)

• Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

• Church of Christ "The Church with the Elijah Message"

• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (James J. Strang)

• Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

• Independent Restoration RLDS Branches

• Principle Voices (Mormon Fundamentalist Advocacy Group)

And, TCOJC repeats this reference for themselves, on their own official website.

This appears to show that TCOJC approved of this format for referencing themselves, in a setting in which there was a need to avoid an otherwise likelihood of confusion - a condition that also holds in the article titles of Wikipedia.

I think the best choice would be to move this article to the title "The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania)", with other shortcuts as appropriate (such as the current shortcut TCOJC, and maybe one like The Church of Jesus Christ (Pennsylvania)), and use the page titled "The Church of Jesus Christ" as a disambiguation page. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That name has been suggested before. But it's not clear to me that the church actually approved the use of that particular name. It might have been introduced by the John Whitmer Historical Association. One thing that makes me think this is that the name given to the Strangites and the Cutlerites is something I've never seen before in quite that form. I wish John Hamer were still around so he could comment on this. He may have even written this page. COGDEN 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John Hamer did contribute a substantial amount to this page in its earlier days - though the person who wrote the original page was a certain COGDEN!

It struck me though that the JWHA likely got everyone's approval for the names on that page, one, because it doesn't refer to anyone as "-ites", i.e. "(Alpheus Cutler)" and "(James J. Strang)" instead of "Cutlerite" or "Strangite"; two, because though they identified some groups by their founders, e.g. Cutler, Strang, they departed from that pattern for TCOJC, instead of making any reference to Bickerton; three, TCOJC repeats the same exact wording of The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania) on their own website, in reference to their involvement in the conference. It doesn't seem like something they would do if they were at all unhappy about this method of disambiguating themselves. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There has yet to be evidence for a need to disambiguate. Lets keep the name the same. It is way more commonly used than any other name suggested in this section. Which means we should probably take your suggested rename and just make it a redirect to this page as it is currently named. Jcg5029 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "this page", I was referring to the JWHA website page. That's funny, because I didn't realize that I started this article. That was a long time ago, when there weren't many Mormonism-related articles, and I think I went through and created a lot of stub articles.

As to the parenthetical "(with headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania)", if the church is not generally opposed to the name, we might have to keep that in mind in case there is a need to disambiguate. I don't think we're there yet, though, because right now, the only other Wikipedia article about an organization that has the same name, including the "The" is The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)", which is (1) extremely small, and (2) fine with the term "Cutlerite". There are other organizations, as listed above, but they don't have their own article and might not be notable. COGDEN 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) was called "The Church of Jesus Christ" for a time? See B.H. Roberts (ed.) History of the Church vol. 3, p. 24, footnote. (And yes, Roberts capitalizes the article "The".) And then there's the whole sticky issue of the LDS Church trying to convince people to use "The Church of Jesus Christ" as a shortened version. (WP:OR alert: I had some Mormon missionaries come to my house just 2 weeks or so ago, and they said they were "missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ.") I think a disambiguator certainly would not hurt, and it has the potential to help immensely. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main failing of the arguement to change the name when it was brought up originally and no concensus was reached was lack of a need for disambiguation. What conflicts are occuring on wikipedia because of the name The Church of Jesus Christ? JRN 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comment directly above for a beginning of the list. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you asked them "Do you mean you are missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania)?" :) - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, I was thinking "Bickertonites!", but I didn't say it. They probably wouldn't have had a clue what I was talking about. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAG

The current page has well over 10 direct citations from outside sources. I hope even more sources are added, but there is no need for a tag at this time. Could we all agree to that? Jcg5029 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I count 10 sources currently that are from outside TCOJC. Of those, two are from pre-1844 church sources, and not really "independent" sources. Of the other eight, at least 2 are from sources associated with the post-1844 LDS Church, 1 is associated with the CoC (formerly RLDS ) church, and 1 is the Pennsylvania state corporate registry. Some more sources have been mentioned on this talk page and will presumably be included in future writings. It's not a whole lot of independent sources yet, but it's going in the right direction, so I will agree with Jcg5029 on taking down the sources tag. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for more recent history

At the request of some editors I am planning on adding more current history to the page soon, as my course load allows. The caveat is there is very little recent information that I can add that is sourced outside of the organization. This is due to one main reason: For the past 100 years there has been little done that would warrant writers from the outside taking any interest. The reason stated before that so much outside information available for the lds page is because of the enormous amount of controversy that surrounds the organization. Unfortunately (or fortunately) that is not the case with the TCOJC so most sourcing will come from in house sources. I am actively seeking out good outside sources and would invite the input from some of the good editors here. I just want this to be put this out as to open a discussion and make sure there are no misconceptions about my actions. Thanks JRN 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and I think adding modern history will really contribute a great deal to the site. There may be some outside sources on more modern history, but it is true for the most part in house will be the overwhelming majority. There are some really interesting facts that have occurred that should be content on the site which I hope to help you with. Like, for example, Apostle Penn (cerca 1910ish maybe later? I would need to go back into the history books) was the first African American member ordained an Apostle for this organization and possibly the entire Latter Day Saint movement. Truly remarkable considering at the time there are some serious conflicting views from other LDS movement groups against African Americans in the ministry. Its actually a hot topic on some of their pages on wiki from time to time. Not to mention the segregation and other very racist views many Americans had at the time. It is not to discredit another church, but a credit to this organization. Hopefully great content is added soon. Jcg5029 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah John Penn was the first ordained black apostle from any lds movement church I believe. Of course I cuold be wrong, but that was defitenely part of the information I was looking to add to the page. There's alot of great information like that to be added that can really help the page. JRN 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think JRN is right that we need to work with what is available to editors right now. Using sources produced by the org. to get the history more up-to-date is better than not having the information in the article at all, in my opinion, and I would have no objection to an initial development along those lines. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war! (just kidding.)

FYI, I went through and made a couple modifications to the recent changes by User:JNicklow to characterize a couple things a little more accurately, though I thought most of his recent changes added more information and clarity, such as this one for example. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid the edits because I added the reference for one that you said needed an edit and also the other one was incorrect because it was not decided by members in the east but by the general church and it wasn't because of "cadman's leadership" although he was the leader at the time. Your edits made it sound like a competition between the east and west when it wasn't and that dissention ended after 1880 when Cadman became president. The headquarters was moved east under direction of the general church and was approved by the members of the church. Make sense??? JRN 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move, take two

[edit] What is the consensus?

The article has undergone a few name changes since the recent straw poll closed, and it appears that nobody is sure what the consensus was. There were three alternatives posed:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
2. The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton)
3. The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania)
4. The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania) (An alternative posed in some of the comments)

Presently, the article is named something else: Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) (without the The), which was not one of the options. Moreover, the church's official name contains the The. If that's how we treat The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Church, and The Cure, that's how we should treat this church.

So, while there was probably a consensus to disambiguate, I'm not sure there was a consensus as to what the new name should be. I'm going to add the The, since there's no consensus for its removal, but I think we still need to discuss what the best disambiguation name should be. Here's the issue as I see it:

1. The parenthetical "Bickertonite" after the name has been most common historically, but that fact is probably changing, since it is offensive.
2. The parenthetical "with Headquarters in Monongahela" has been used by the organization itself to self-identify. It's also non-offensive.

Under the principles of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, I'd say that we should give preference to self-identifying terms, and should not use a parenthetical that is offensive to the organization. Any comments? COGDEN 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that members of the organization in question have said that 'any' parenthetical disambiguator is offensive (they specifically mentioned Monongahela as being offensive). Also, they have used both to refer to themselves, though only the location officially. I don't think "Monongahela Pennsylvania" 'is' better than "Bickertonite". McKay 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, though, because of the discussion above, where there is evidence that the church was okay with the use of a "Monongahela, Pennsylvania"-type disambiguator during a recent Latter Day Saint movement conference of several denominations. (See above.) COGDEN 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN whole heartedly. There is evidence of church usage and I would fully support a move using the disambiguator "Monongahela, Pennsylvania" or "Headquarters: Monongahela, Pennsylvania" JRN 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "The" for any organization's name is entirely superfluous in the name of an encyclopedic article, but that is probably a larger discussion about WP naming conventions that is much broader than this article. As for the disambiguator, "Bickertonite" is much more common and probably has wider recognition, which is one reason I favor it. The relevant categories also use "Bickertonite" and consistency in these matters is usually a good thing in WP, especially for a relatively obscure org such as this. As for it's "offensiveness", it seems to be a limited theological issue and it is not widely acknowledged by non-members to be offensive. The page originally used the DAB (Bickertonite) and it was moved without consensus, but that was a long time ago. Snocrates 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, it would be nice if those who move the article from here to there would fix the redirect pages to avoid double redirects. I've been trying to keep up with doing it but the frequency of it being moved kind of discourages one from doing to over and over. It is the mover who should be doing it. Snocrates 02:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, given the two choices, I would think that the one preferred by the organization itself should be the one used. That would, by the discussions above, be the one with the location of their headquarters. — Val42 03:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the page along with all of the categories should be moved accordingly to either (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) or (Headquarters: Monongahela), or something like that with PA also. I think the categories - plural because many were created under a poor name choice directly before the category and then this page was subsequently recommended to be moved - should be moved to the same disambiguation as the page itself. Categories are made to support the articles and help flow, not some twist the other way around. Jcg5029 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Given two choices, I think the one that is most well-known / well-recognized should be preferred, not necessarily the one preferred by the organization. The main purpose of disambiguators is to assist readers of WP in recognizing topics and their meaning, not to conform to how an organization prefers to present itself. All things being equal, we may be able to favor the one favored by the organization, depending on the situation, but in this case, "Bickertonite" is far more helpful to readers in identifying the specific church being referred to by the article title. All the references I can find use "Bickertonite" (with the exception of those produced by the church); some mention the location of the headquarters, but most do not. Snocrates 03:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you'll be starting a heavy lobbying to change The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Mormon Church. I look forward to your consistency. — Val42 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to see (Mormon Church) used as a disambiguator to the name of that article. The "The" is also superfluous in an encyclopedic article. Ideally, it could be "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church)". I don't work on that page, however, and my suspicion is that such lobbying would be met by resistance from members of that church in a manner similar to the resistance here. In any case, WP:WAX arguments are not terribly helpful and I prefer not to get into debates about other pages when discussing this one. Snocrates 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ has currently been placing a stronger emphasis for historians to refrain from using terms like Bickertonite. In response, many historians have actually complied -- and begun to use the location of Headquarters Monongahela, Pennsylvania. The John Whitmer Historical Association, for example, refers to this organization as The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered in Monongahela, Pennsylvania). This name was recognized by all churches who attended the conference, which included the Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strang) , Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independent Restoration RLDS Branches, and Principle Voices - part of the Mormon Fundamentalist group. It could easily be argued that The Church of Jesus Christ is much more commonly associated with a disambig of (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) than any other disambiguation. I am not arguing Bickertonite isn't popular, but it is outdated, unprofessional, and certainly not proven to be common use -- anymore. Jcg5029 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am referencing this. Jcg5029 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has generally recognized a distinction between common terms and proper terms. Articles about common terms are almost always given the most easily-recognized name. However, proper nouns referencing organizations or people are treated differently when there is a significant conflict between what people normally call them and how they self-identify. For example, as Val42 pointed out, the LDS Church article is not called Mormon Church, despite that term being by far the most common reference. We also have Unification Church rather than the far more common Moonies, and Religious Society of Friends rather than Quaker. Any confusion or searching problems can be handled by redirects, or by a separate article that discusses the pejorative or unwelcome term. Bickertonite can be a redirect (like Mormon Church and Quaker), or perhaps a short article explaining that the term refers popularly to the church, but the church discourages its use (like Moonies). COGDEN 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Where can we read the WP policy on this helpful information? Or is it just done ad hoc? Snocrates 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates, I went and looked up the Wikipedia policy that you referenced above:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this.

This means that what you have cited bears some weight, but it is not a deciding factor.

I realise that, which is why I included a brief description of my thoughts on the issue, just to indicate that I agreed with your suggested need for consistency. thanks. Snocrates 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your questions, "Where can we read the WP policy on this helpful information? Or is it just done ad hoc?" I would like to refer you to the link provided above, just before your question. So that you will have another link to it, I provide it here, again, for your benefit. — Val42 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry, I overlooked COGDEN's provided link. Snocrates 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm—that wasn't really what I was looking for or expecting based on COGDEN's comments. I was more interested in reading WP policy on a situation like this, where a commonly-used descriptive term is not used by an organization—like COGDEN's examples of Moonies/Mormon Church/Quaker. This policy excerpt deals with descriptive terms used by an organization, but not with descriptive terms applied by outsiders over the protest of the organization. If there is no WP policy on this specifically, it looks more like it has developed in an ad hoc way to me. Snocrates 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, with the lack of a policy, then consensus should be the deciding factor. The current consensus is currently going against your position. However, since it has been less than six months since this consensus was decided, I will personally oppose a change of the name (by consensus) until the six months have expired. (This is because in another article, the same person brought up renamimg less than a month after the previous renaming attempt failed, then did it again after that failed.) Until then, I will still look for a definitive Wikipedia policy.

However, I would support the renaming if the consensus of the given Wikipedia policy interprets it to apply to the naming of articles as well. — Val42 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I interpret Wikipedia policy as I described it above, based on the page and longstanding practice. But Wikipedia:Naming conflict page has been under a bit of flux, and the standard right might be a bit unclear and mushy. In the past, the policy page had a chart balancing three factors: (1) the official name), (2) any self-identifying name, and (3) the most common name. This is probably not the best formulation, and it was changed and made a bit more flexible. (If the old rule were applied, it would be a 1:1 tie, since there is no disambiguator in the official name) Now, there are a number of factors, including what the organization wants to be called, but no clear guideline on how to weigh them. Despite the unclarity of the present policy page, however, we can always look to precedent, which is why I refer to the Moonies, Mormon Church, and Quaker examples. Plus, when there is ever any doubt as to Wikipedia policy, the interested parties can always just make a decision, hopefully one that nobody is particularly opposed to and will not lead to edit wars. COGDEN 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. It's clear to me now what you were saying and what it was based on. Snocrates 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But there was no concensus on where the page was to be moved to and there was no WP (that I know of) that showed where the page should be. In fact the page title that was decided was not even one of the discussed choices and the rationale was that it just "made sense" to put this page at the same title of the category, yet there is no policy that states that is the way it should be. I just feel that the admin made a poor change and I think now there is a good concensus for a name. I don't see why the change should not be made. JRN 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the current consensus in this discussion, I think that the renaming that you are (implicitly) proposing would pass. However, you are free to try to convince me that this rename doesn't go against my personal policy about times between attempted renames. — Val42 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you have a "personal policy" regarding name changes. And for all intents I agree with your policy, which is why I asked the closing admin on his talk page how long I should wait for proposing a name change as I felt his decision was poor (he never gave me an answer). I think that on an individual basis it is quite clear that the name change was made without concensus and after what I thought was a good discussion and a concensus was made, the closing admin made his own decision. So even though you have a personal policy, I think that you can see it is clear this is not a case of "rename wars" but merely correcting a poor decision. JRN 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The personal policy is a pretty good one, I think generally it should be applied. Technically this page was decided to be The Church of Jesus Christ in May. If we all do the math that is less than six months. Now I am not saying it should be moved back, but this page was moved to a location without consensus. There was a consensus to move, but not where to move it. The administrator making the move has self admittedly used discussion from another page in making his decision. I think we can see that there may have been some issues in what possibly was a rash decision -- which is why this discussion is here. The previous discussion stated that there needed to be a move, but many mixed views about where. Most people in the earlier discussion just wanted the page moved more than anything else. This discussion brings out more of the reasons why to move where, drawing on policies, wiki history, historians past and present, etc. I don't see it as to rash to propose a change with all the reasons previously discussed. So, I agree with the personal policy in general, but I think there are a few extemporaneous and strange events that make this situation and this page expressly unique. Jcg5029 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear more of people trying to convince me that this is an exception to my personal policy, for personal reasons. However, this is not benefitting the article. I participated in the discussion to remove "The" from the article name (this article), but the consensus went against me. I also remember that there was no consensus on what it should be renamed to. So, if I don't count that move, then I'll be willing to not vote against a move if we wait until November, six months from when the prior move was. When was that first move anyway?

Also, I know that that prior move was done by a single person without consensus, but since it is only a month away, let's wait until then. This will allow a cool-down period, and allow people to firm up their arguments for and against.

I also suggest that there is no need to reply to agree with my proposal, but only to establish the date to next bring up this move. However, if anyone disagrees and wants to try now.... You may not like the discussion that results.

I don't have any more authority than any other editor. I'm just making some suggestions that will benefit everyone interested in this article. — Val42 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your personal policy is level headed and I think it is reasonable to wait one more month. I guess I'll talk to you again in november when this is hopefully reopened. JRN 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the recently-discussed "now or wait" proposal, but I support the current use of "Bickertonite" as a DAB term. It's far more helpful than using the location of the headquarters as the DAB. Using the name of the HQ location makes it sound like the article is about a church building that is located in Monongahela, Pennsylvania as opposed to an organization that is international in character. I believe DABs should be more helpful than that and to me at least, "Bickertonite" is most helpful as a descriptor of what exact organization is being referred to. (By the way, we should really archive some of this page. My Commodore 64 just can't handle loading it anymore.) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And the use of "Bickertonite" makes the church seem relegated to one man and is out of date and there are better terms used by the organization itself. hmmm JRN 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "better terms" used by the organization if "Bickertonite" and the location of the headquarters are both seen to be problematic. All th proposals I see either incorporate the name of Bickerton or a derivative or incorporate "Monongahela". Snocrates 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to see better terms please re-read Reaverdrop's multiple examples above (which I am not going to restate) from the church's official website. Use of "Headquarters: Monongahela, Pennsylvania" or some variation is in widespread use by the organization itself as a disambiguator. JRN 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Monongahela is not problematic. Some editors just prefer the offensive term. JRN 01:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic (or at least less than ideal) in the eyes of some editors, which was my point — that there is no magic bullet term that doesn't have its own problems. Please don't characterize my opinion (or others who disagree with you) as "just prefer[ing] the offensive term"; that's a gross mischaracterization of the opinions which have been set out above which happen to be different than yours. I don't think anyone's intent in this discussion is to offend anyone else, so let's assume good faith on this matter. Snocrates 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take your own advice and assume good faith. The term is offensive. I made no statements accusing anyone of using the term just to offend, so again try to assume good faith. I merely stated that there seems to be few "problems" with Monongahela, yet some people prefer to use "Bickertonite" (the offensive term). JRN 14:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole heart of the matter is that I disagree that the term is objectively offensive. You appear to be assuming that it is, and by so doing you are mischaracterizing the views of those who support using it. It's difficult not the take that position when you maintain without caveat that "the term is offensive". Perhaps it is to you personally, but that's a wholly subjective opinion that's not supported by many (if any) objective views of the matter. That is all I meant. :) Snocrates 20:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "objectively offensive" exists. Offense in itself is a subjective matter. Why would you be offended by something that you have no involvement or association with??? Your arguement is extrememly illogical. The fact that there organization made an official statement on their website saying that "Bickertonite" is considered offensive (it has since been replaced) means that it is offensive. Whether you agree or not. JRN 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By "objectively offensive" I meant usages for which there is a general consensus among knowledgeable, neutral observers (i.e. not those individuals who are being "labelled") that the term is offensive. I'm not interested in debating the matter further. Snocrates 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then you don't consider the John Whitmer Historical Association, Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strang) , Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independent Restoration RLDS Branches, and Principle Voices - part of the Mormon Fundamentalist group, as knowledgeable and neutral observers?! I disagree. Jcg5029 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see any statements from any of those that the term is offensive. As I said, I'm not interested in this debate any further and won't be reading / responding to future posts on this specific topic. Sometimes you just have to accept that others may view things differently and move on. Snocrates 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Its just a matter of having as much respect for The Church of Jesus Christ as the historical societies and churches listed above. We should show some respect on wiki and not use an offensive term that is outdated. You don't have to have the last word either, if you want to drop it drop it, but I feel it is important enough to properly represent organizations on wiki. Jcg5029 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning that seems very sound to me. Silly arguments abound in this discussion. I present this as a fairly complete description of the situation at hand.

• In a one article wikipedia, "The Church of Jesus Christ" would be the proper title for this article, but it isn't a one article wikipedia. It has been ruled that the article can't be at "The Church of Jesus Christ" (with the article). There are several different reasons for this. This is no longer the place for that discussion. If you have further questions about that ask me.
• WP:DAB (under "Specific Topic") provides 3 options:
  1. "When there is another word ... that is equally clear ... that should be used." That would be Bickertonite. That is probably the best according to WP policies and guidelines, but the term is offensive. Should this be used? Wouldn't that be a violation of PoV? WP:NCON is the guideline for this kind of discussion. It talks about POV in a few places, but never does it say that POV terms should not be used, except in the cases of descriptive names (like September 11, 2001 attacks). It does say "The most common use of a name takes precedence" Now, I'm not sure, but I think that the term "Bickertonite" is the most common usage of the name besides "The Church of Jesus Christ". The term is completely clear. I would not be opposed to moving the article to Bickertonite. I can see that some people don't like this, and I'm not saying that it's the only place it could go, but it is a compelling option. I should probably add that the LDS project does have a standard of "<offical name> (disambiguator)". It's not official, but it is common.
  2. "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses." It specifically mentions that we should use "class", "subject", or "context", this would be things like "(church)", or "(Latter Day Saints)" Which don't help at all. The context "Rigdonite" could technically apply, but it is misleading, and I think it's a bad idea.
  3. "Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." This is where something like "(Bickertonite)" or "(Monongahela)" would be used. The WP Guideline doesn't like this option, it prefers to rephrase. The rephrasing would be Bickertonite. Which is another reason why I think it's such a great choice. But, like I said before, some people don't like it because it's offensive. I don't think that they have any Policy or Guideline backing them up in that regard, but they do have the Latter Day Saint Project tradition on their side. If we were to do something like this, why not add "(Bickertonite)" to the end? It so neatly closes everything up for a number of reasons:
     1. It sticks with the LDS Project traditions
     2. It adds the phrase, which is not unfamiliar to people to the official title.
     3. This phrase also has the added benefit of being exactly how this particular church is commonly referred to academically. I've read through numbers of lists of churches that refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Parenthesis and everything!

If I had to pick a title, I'd either pick Bickertonite or The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I think the members of this organization would substantially prefer the latter, though they might claim that it isn't acceptable, and might be aiming for a different one, but I haven't heard a good argument for it yet. McKay 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you have not read the previous arguments. Currently there are five to six organizations which currently recognize this organization with its full name and a disambig for a location of the headquarters. If you can find something more recent than the 2006 Conference with many organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement, maybe Bickertonite is the correct and most commonly used term. Currently, with the sources presented in this argument, the most up-to-date name for this organization is its full name with the headquarters location. Do you have any evidence to the contrary??? Jcg5029 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The JWHA is one organization. It also appears to be the only one that uses this alternate method of disambiguation, and from what I have seen it is not consistent in its use of one over the other. (Your samples of their usages were very selective.) It's hardly authoritative when determining current widespread practice. A simple google search reveals about 375 usages of "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)", with only 10 for "Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" (some of which are from WP pages or its mirrors) and only 2 for "Church of Jesus Christ (Headquarters in Monongahela)", one of which is the church's own website, and about 8 for "Church of Jesus Christ (with headquarters in Monongahela)". It's not hard to figure out which one of the options is more widespread. Snocrates 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is wonderful because it just proves that the people who use Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) have very little if any knowledge on the subject. Church of Jesus Christ was not at any time the name of the church. It is The Church of Jesus Christ. Yes (Bickertonite) was a commonly used disambiguator for the group, but is offensive. Of course I guess these knowledgeable people and organizations who use Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) would know that the official name is The Church of Jesus Christ and not just Church of Jesus Christ, after all they are the ones that can determine "objective offensiveness" because they are all SO knowledgeable. While the organization itself and organizations and people who obviously know little prefer to use The Church of Jesus Christ (with some Monongahela associated disambig). hmmm JRN 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's recent. Recent means nothing. In fact, it's a great reason not to choose it. Wikipedia doesn't choose names because a new group of people started calling it that. Once it becomes an established or official name (offical, if the church started calling itself offically "The Church of Jesus Christ Monongahela" wikipedia would probably honor that, but that church hates such disambiguators), Wikipedia will refer to the standard, common usage. McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I left off the "The" is so that the search would find all usages of the phrase, whether or not the "The" was included. It is fairly standard in most encyclopedic or reference works to omit leading articles from the names of organizations. Leaving it off the search would find all usages, whether or not "The" was included. I didn't think I would need to explain this fairly basic google-searching methodology, but ... Snocrates 02:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

EWWW Cheap Shot. Civility warning #1 Soncrates. I suggest you try and stay civil from now on. It helps everything go a little smoother around here. Plus it's just good manners. JRN 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is failing to refer to a user by his proper user name also a civility issue? (And what's with the "warning #1"? Have you been anointed the civility cop for this page or something? I obviously haven't read enough of the archives...) Snocrates 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody loves cheap shots. Again you could try to be WP:CIVIL. JRN 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't be so enjoyable if you didn't set yourself up for them so perfectly. Humor is an important aspect of civility, and I enjoy engaging in it. In other "wordS", it's just a joke. I'm just razzing you. :) Snocrates 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, luckily for you I'm a dog and I don't care. JRN 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What an uncanny (or uncanine) coincidence! Snocrates 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As as for your WP:NCON arguement Mckay please read this from WP:NCON:

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations) Yes our friend above found numerous usages of TCOJC with a Monongahela disambig

Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) yes the official name is TCOJC

Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) Yes it is used on their official site to disambig themselves

Now if you apply (Bickertonite) to that it would only fulfill 2 of the 3. DING DING I think we have a winner! JRN 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? That we should use "The Church of Jesus Christ"? Sorry, that has been ruled as invalid. We must choose a disambiguator. McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the other usage ("Bickertonite") is far more common (hundreds of goodle instances vs tens), and the official name of the org. does not include any "Monongahela" disambiguator, just as the official name does not include "Bickertonite". Strictly speaking, both uses of the disambiguators could be said to fulfil only 2 of the 3, but "Bickertonite" is far more commonly used than "Monongahela" and is therefore more recognizable; thus it is the better choice—that was the whole point of McKay's post, I believe. Snocrates 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the google search again, this time pedantically including the "The", as it was suggested above that those who "really know" what they are talking about will include the "The". This doesn't, as I suspected, make a huge difference in the results trend:

Based on these results, I find it hard to believe that we're even debating which one is most commonly used and recognized. Excluding WP pages and the church's website, Bickeronite appears to be more than 27 times more commonly used than all of the other proposed options combined. Even when WP and the church's own website are considered, "Bickertonite" DAB is still used 17 times more commonly than all the other options combined. Snocrates 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Case closed? Does anyone have any rational (i.e. haven't already been ruled against by the policy of consensus) arguments in favor of anything besides Bickertonite? McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was no concensus as the name the editor chose was not even one that was voted on. That would be a non-concensus decision. See you in november McKay JRN 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kbdank71, an admin, closed the move discussion. He said, "It is apparent that this needed disambiguation" That is the consensus I'm referring to. That's his ruling on the subject. He also said "The question was just To what?." (I added in punctuation). since he said that we have been having a discussion on that very question -- "To what article title should the article be at?" We've shared opinions, and then some data. Snocrates then said "Based on these results, I find it hard to believe that we're even debating which one is most commonly used and recognized." the parenthetical remark mentioned in my previous post was specifically targetting the title "The Church of Jesus Christ" Consensus has ruled that that not be used. So, unless someone has better data/arguments to support something besides "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". Now would be the time to present it. McKay 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. See you when it reopens in november JRN 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When was previous rename?

BTW, either I missed it or no one looked it up, but when was the rename in May? Can someone please provide a reference? Now that I've made a stand on this ground, I want to know where the line is. However, if someone tries to sabotage the rename to get me to vote against it, I'll take that into account. I can look up other modifications, but I just don't know how to look up renames. — Val42 16:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to look them up either, but I remember about when they were. I'll see if I can find them for you. McKay 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. 31 Dec 2003 created as "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" (I think this is how it was created. That is unless I missed a move)
2. 10 Apr 2007 to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" added definite article (consensus)
3. 18 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" change of disambiguator (no discussion)
4. 19 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" changing disambuguator (I'm not sure but I don't think there was consensus)
5. 23 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ - with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" changed disambuguator (consensus under claim that this was the official name of said church)
6. 24 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ" removing hyphenated disambiguator (mover was told there was consensus, request was made to mover without consensus, [long discussion ensued with little input and no consensus reached, so page remained])
7. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Adding disambiguator (admin, closing discussion, consensus to add a disambiguator)
8. 5 Oct to "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" removing definite article (admin, thought there was consensus)
9. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania)" changing disambiguator (Jcg, no consensus)
10. 5 Oct to "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" revert
11. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Adding article (consensus)

If anyone has any questions about what was happening with each of the moves, feel free to ask me. McKay 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the links, and it does appear that the move to "The Church of Jesus Christ" happenned on 24 April. This means that six months will be 24 October, but I suggest that we give a little buffer time and wait until 1 November, one extra week. — Val42 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you saying? What's happening on 1 Nov? McKay 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We're going to start an official rename-this-article process. — Val42 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg

Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 25, 1851 -- March 10, 1852

Some discussion in the past and recent edits - one unsigned by myself - have been trying to correctly write what occurred with The Church of Jesus Christ and, particularly, William Bickerton between the above dates. At March 10th I just added an official statement of those Latter Day Saints meeting at Elizabeth, PA where all who signed, including Bickerton said 'we have left off all connection whatsoever to the Utah LDS Church.'

So, my question is for all who are interested researching with me - what happened during those ten months? Are there good credible sources saying indeed Bickerton was ordained into the Aaronic Priesthood as an elder of the Utah LDS Church? I have reviewed the current source citing this claim. It says the following:

"William Bickerton, who never knew Joseph Smith, had joined Sidney Rigdon's church in 1845. Left without a church by the disintegration of Rigdon's following, he joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints congregation at Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, in which he became an elder." - Encyclopedia of American religions by Melton, J. Gordon.

It should be noted that this author has been criticized by many scholars for having a Conflict of Interest in reporting some groups in this publication. I am not drawing any conclusions on whether or not this Conflict of Interest involves The Church of Jesus Christ or not, but it is notable enough when examining credibility of sources. He lists three references for his articles. His three sources are...

1. Cadman, W. H. A History of The Church of Jesus Christ. Monongahela, PA: The Church of Jesus Christ, 1945. 2. Cadman, William. Faith and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ. Roscoe, PA: Roscoe Ledger Print., 1902. 3. McKiernan, F. Mark. The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Sidney Rigdon, Religious Reformer, 1793-1876. Independence, MO: Herald House, 1979.

The first two are well documented sources on this page already and make no mention of Bickerton being re-ordained an elder. If fact, early documents of The Church of Jesus Christ record West Elizabeth as being led by William Bickerton on all counts and his leadership and preaching there eventually led to the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ. It records Elizabeth as the first branch of the church. The recorded statement of 1852 is found within this first history book as well. The third reference does not mention William Bickerton.

Any thoughts, comments? It seems strange to include a statement that Bickerton was ordained into the LDS Church if we cannot find any confirming evidence for it. Anybody with any information on this time period would be very helpful. Jcg5029 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As of now this will be acted upon like all unsourced material, with a citation tag. If it is not properly cited in a reasonable amount of time, it will be removed. simple enough 71.61.235.138 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing a completely valid citation with useful information, it seems far more reasonable to adjust the wording of the statement. Since the reference implies but does not use the exact wording of "ordained", just change to "he became and elder in the LDS Church". This completely gets around the problem of whether he was re-ordained in the LDS Church, which may be insoluble through reliable references. Snocrates 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT a valid citation as the works it cited for it's sources make no mention of the claims. Hence it is INVALID. Just because someone makes a claim and sources it does not make it valid, especially when the claim and it sources don't agree. It will be taken done until a proper source can be found and any more reverting will be vandalism. JRN (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I plan to rewrite this paragraph incorporating new sources I just found which are really old newspaper publications that include writings from both William Cadman and William Bickerton. It sheds some light on the subject. This will probably get done next weekish. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Look forward to your revision so this can get cleared up. JRN (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing Sources and replacing with {{fact}} tags is right out. If you don't like the source, find another one. If the source doesn't actually say that, state what it is it actually says. Adding sources is NOT vandalism. Removing sources usually is. McKay (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with McKay here. It's a valid source — a highly respected reference book on religion in America. As has been demonstrated it does not say he was ordained an elder in the LDS Church, so this has been changed to he became an elder in the LDS Church, which is what the source says. No reason at all to remove it. Snocrates 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Yes it says he became an elder, but the sources he used for his claim make no mention of him being ordained or "becoming" an elder (the same exact claim-different wording). I don't see the issue. If I made a claim and sourced it using information that did not back it then my claim would be incorrect. It is being removed. JRN (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So rather than deleting it altogether, why don't you adjust the wording to match what is in the source? But your complaint is misguided—the source says, "...he [Bickerton] joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints congregation at Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, in which he became an elder" (emphasis added). Do we need to use the exact quote, or what? I've included the phrase "of the Elizabeth congregation of the LDS Church" following "became an elder", so now there can't be any reasonable complaint about the wording, since it is virtually identical in content to what the source says. You say "yes [the source] says he became an elder" but then you immediately claim that it "make[s] no mention of him being ordained or 'becoming' an elder". "Ordained" and "becoming" are two different words which can mean different things and it does little good to try to equate their meaning here. Snocrates 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't become and elder without being ordained one. JRN (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You can if you were ordained in a church and then you join another church and the second church accepts the ordination of the first church. You've "become" an elder in the second church without having been ordained in the second church. Bickerton's first ordination in the Rigdonites is undisputed and not in question. We don't know if he was "reordained" or not, which is why we are saying he "became" an elder in the LDS Church. Snocrates 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to break it down for you because you obviously do not understand. Yes Melton claims he was an elder, and Melton uses secondary sources to back his claim. I happen to own all three sources Melton uses to back his claim and none make ANY mention of him being or being ordained an elder. Therefore I am calling into question Melton's statement because he makes a claim with incorrect sourcing. So no, adjusting the wording to fit what Melton said is not the answer, since what Melton said is incorrect. That is why I put a citation needed tag there, because a claim has been made without a proper citation. If you don't like it too bad, but you can't make claims without proper sourcing. JRN (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Jcg5029 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) You (both) seem to misunderstand how WP works with respect to the use of citations. We don't do WP:OR, which is what you are engaging in. To say "what Melton says is incorrect" is blatant WP:OR, which cannot be used to justify deletion of a reference unless you have another independent source which explicitly says Melton is incorrect, in which case both could be presented as alternative positions. Simply stated, we report what sources say and don't use our own "personal knowledge" to edit WP, even if we in fact know more about the subject that the source. You may see that as unfair, but it's a basic principle here and if you dislike it you may start your own website with more "accurate" information. See User_talk:Artbulla for another recent incident where someone felt cheated by WP because it was "misrepresenting" what he personally "knew" was correct, even though all that was happening was reporting of what the sources says. And yes, you can "become" an elder without being ordained one — for example, the LDS Church congregation may have deemed his previous ordination as an elder in Rigdon's church as valid and just let him slide into the leadership position in the LDS Church congregation based on that previous ordination. In so doing, he has "become" an elder in the LDS Church congregation but has not been "ordained" by the LDS Church. It's a possibility that takes a bit of nuance to see, something that's needed here. Snocrates 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was ordained, right??? I mean I'm not a genius but you did say "his previous ordination", so that means he was ordained at some point. I mean I just want to make sure I'm right here. JRN (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in Rigdon's church per what the article already says. We don't know if he was "re-ordained" in the LDS Church, but we do know he was ordained to be an elder in the original Rigdonite organization. That's the whole issue—was he "reordained" by the LDS Church. We don't know, and apparently neither does Melton, because the source just says he became an elder in the LDS Congregation in West Elizabeth. That may have been permitted based on his previous ordination. Snocrates 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally if you were to read about WP:OR which I'm sure you did, you would find that "If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight". But of course I'm sure you read WP:OR thouroughly before making any ridiculous claims. Again if you would read what I said before trying to argue everything, I AM CALLING INTO QUESTION MELTON'S CLAIM HE HAS NO SOURCES FOR HIS CLAIM. I believe I'm allowed to do that since in the world of academia making a claim without any sources is somewhat frowned upon. JRN (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He does cite 3 sources. Have you examined all of them? Snocrates 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you delete the Melton reference outright, you are wrecking all the future citations in the article that also refer to it. If you're going to change something, at least learn to do it without f'ing up the rest of the citation formatting. Snocrates 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) You seem to be missing the point. Melton has no citation for Bickerton's ordination. Nowhere besides Melton's book is this mentioned and the sources he sites for his claim don't mention it. There is no WP:OR conflict unless you are calling into question Melton's claims which would fit under WP:OR since what he is saying cannot be cited and is not common knowledge. None of this has anything to do with how I feel personally, as long as there is a citation for what is being claimed. Therefore until one is found it will remain tagged. Have a nice day friendly friend :-) JRN (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No where does Melton claim Bickerton was re-ordained in the LDS Church. It's undisputed that he was originally ordained in the Rigdonite organization. That is the whole point, which you demonstrate you don't understand by your second sentence. But Melton DOES provide references for his claim that Bickerton became an elder in the LDS congregation in West Elizabeth — they are listed above at the top of this section. Have you examined all three? Snocrates 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was ordained....I thought I was right :-). JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not necessarily by the LDS Church, which is the unknown fact in question. Snocrates 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I own all three sources. I said that before and in all your angry ranting you must have missed it. This goes all the way back to the original question. Melton claims that he was an elder and had a congregation in the LDS church yet none of his cited sources say that. That is why I want that source removed. It makes a claim without any supporting evidence (also called WP:OR, which you accused me wildly of with no logical reason). I don't see why you are throwing a fit about removing a source and trying to find another one. Instead of trying to argue with me what don't you just read back to the original question and try to find a good source since this one will be removed. Constructive editing is always better than waging an edit war friendly friend. JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And subsequently why are you arguing when you haven't tried to read Melton's references???? Wouldn't that just make sense if you are going to try and wildly argue against something??? JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm not "throwing a fit". Don't know what that's about; sounds like your own projection to me. (In any case, I'm not writing in all caps or using four consecutive question marks.) (2) I didn't say I hadn't read the sources. I asked you if you had examined them. I can find information in the sources that supports Melton's statement. (Yes, I have read them.) (3) I have logic behind my reasoning, you just fail to see it sometimes. (4) Constructive editing does not involve unilaterally removing sources. (5) You never said explicitly that you had examined the sources — you merely said you "own" them — which is why I asked if you had examined them. Snocrates 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to have strong feelings for the Latter Day Saint movement and this group in particular. I would like to bring this back to the original reason for the season. Do we know what actually happened in those ten months? Anybody with sources who would like to help me here would be great. That was the reason for the post. I think there is good info out there if we look into it on what happened, etc. Jcg5029 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets just stick to the original question. Since you have read all three sources you can tell that it is not clear in any of them that Bickerton's was 1. an elder in the LDS church and 2. headed a branch of the LDS church. So Melton's source will be removed. If you would like to be a constructive editor you can try and find a source to cite the statement. Have a good day friendly friend. JRN (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bottom line is that I disagree with your assessment of Melton's references and the information they provide. As I said above, I can see support for Melton's statement in the sources. I believe we are interpreting these sources differently. Since there is no clear "correct" view, it seems fair enough to include both the citation and a {cn} tag behind the statement until there is a larger consensus about what to do. Snocrates 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to cite something and then put a citation needed tag next to it. That's completely illogical. It will stay removed as none of Melton's sources say what he claims. I invite you to try and prove me wrong, but it would probably be more constructive to find a correct citation. JRN (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called "compromise" — I was trying to find one. You interpret Melton's sources as not saying this; others (incl. me) may disagree. You don't own the page. Wait consensus to develop before removing a source. I'll wait for consensus that the Melton source is sufficient before removing the {cn}. Snocrates 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, your edits are still mussing up the Melton references. I suggest you don't edit them until you figure out how to work them properly. Snocrates 00:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to make it right before reverting so I don't "muss" it up anymore. Also I will discontinue reverting your edits until you can mount some logical arguement to clarify why you disagree. JRN (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to compromise something that leaves no room for compromise, either the source is right or wrong. JCG made a very logical arguement as to why Melton's source is wrong. I checked the sources and agreed and removed the source. If you are going to continue this I suggest you come up with some sort of arguement as to why Melton's sources agree. Since you own and have read all three sources you should be able to cite easily where you feel Melton's sources verify what he has said. If I am wrong and you make a good enough arguement then the source will stay. Just saying that you disagree without any logical arguement is weak and is no reason to continue your edit war. I have asked you numerous times to try and prove me wrong. JCG made a very logical arguement and I agreed and removed the source. You have made no logical arguement and continue to disagree and revert my edits. Just saying "I disagree" is not an arguement and holds no weight in any good discussion. JRN (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read my posts above, I've presented argument, which have been outright rejected by you, so it's not worth the effort, because you've already made up your mind. That's why I'm heading towards compromise and waiting to hear from other voices. I'm simply not interested in discussing it with you. Snocrates 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think how it reads right now describes, to the best we know, what happened during those ten months and it includes all the sources appropriately. Does The Church of Jesus Christ view West Elizabeth as its first branch? Yep, it definitely was after its official organization in 1862, and most of its members make strong disassociation with the LDS Church as early as 1852. The extra citation is a newspaper publication in St John, Kansas, which helps to clarify what went on -- remember Cadman is writing this after Bickerton had been excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ. Does the LDS Church also probably view this as an early branch that eventually fell away? It definitely appears so. I think how it reads right now includes all sources and does not have POV issues on who was ordained what because we don't know. 71.58.63.246 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, its me. Jcg5029 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a peach. I like your edits. Snocrates 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

There's a bunch of articles that link to Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). You can see which ones link there by this link: Special:Whatlinkshere/Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). If someone else wants to help me move them, that would be helpful. No need to move the ones outside of the english wikipedia namespace (i.e. don't worry about ones on talk pages...). McKay 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Like the tag says, trivia sections are not encouraged at wiki. Does anybody have a special connection to the section who would like it to stay? Jcg5029 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The section should go, but not the content. Since there is only one entry right now, it would be easy to simply rename it "Prominent adherents" or something like that and retain the content. Snocrates 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the content should stay -- I was thinking more along the lines of shifting it over to the Other section, which doesn't have much as it is and because Cooper was never actually a member he just has family ties. If enough famous people are members I would lean more for its own section. Just one guy and the Other section could use the beef. Jcg5029 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Snocrates 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Page

Certainly one of the longest and most detailed sections of this page is the history section. I attribute this detail and excellent improvement to the page in general to those associated in one form or another to the Latter Day Saint movement (although many editors may not be as well and their edits have also helped). I had made this suggestion before and because so many other heated debates were going on this got shut down without much discussion.

I am all for having a separate page on the history of this organization. This history section has gotten quite large, which again I credit all editors involved for their excellent work, but I feel it deserves its own page. I recommend leaving the early history about transition in leadership from Smith to Rigdon to Bickerton because thats what everybody looking at the page would likely be interested in. This would allow much more recent history to be added on the other page.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts before proceeding. Thanks, Jcg5029 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'v been considering that for a while myself. I think that it's an excellent idea. I would love to help edit and refine one if you would create it. I agree that the history section is greatly detailed and almost a little bulky for just this page. I think it would help this page out a great deal to take some of that bulk and move it to a history page where it would be better suited. Go for it. 71.61.235.138 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok great I'm glad you think it is a good idea also. Jcg5029 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed POV issue

An anon has made a couple recent changes to the page that s/he claims are POV and should be removed. S/he made a good change to the first pov issue (although I think it was fine how it was) and s/he has blanked a whole section based on alleged POV. IMO there is not POV issue because it is the church's stated mission. The anon seems to disagree with what is said and seems to have an agenda to remove what s/he disagrees with, according to his comments in his edit summary. I've made changes that I feel remove the alleged POV problems. How does everyone else feel? JRN (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In cases where it's the church's stated mission, including the material in quotations with a citation should be enough to resolve the problem. It can be seen as problematic if it is stated without quotes as it makes assumptions about things that are not uncontroversial, like Jesus being the Son of God, etc. Snocrates 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generally considered to be third largest ...

I added a "citation needed" tag to the following statement in the lead: "Generally it is considered the third largest of the organizations emerging from the 1844 succession crisis,...". It was removed by an editor, saying something like "just look at the membership totals". The issue is that this statement is phrased as if it is "generally considered" by some sources to be the third biggest. Also, the membership number of the FLDS Church are disputed, and some say it has more than 12,000 members once the Canadian members are included. I think we need a reference for this "generally considered to be the third largest" claim; otherwise it should just be deleted from the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but the FLDS did not emerge from the 1844 crisis. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true enough in a direct sense. The sentence in questions could be interpreted that way, or more broadly to mean any Latter Day Saint denomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not which churches resulted from the succession crisis, if it is "Generally considered" then there should be someone somewhere who has said it. If not, remove the text. We need attributability. McKay (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Way to jump in after it has been fixed...JRN (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pls, WP:CIVILITY. I don't think comments like that are appropriate when directed at an in-good-faith expression of opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the sentence that I took out because of JCG's comments. It is correct in context since the FLDS did not arise from the succession crisis. Also no source is needed because I have removed the "generally considered" wording and made it a statement of fact that can be quickly verified by looking at the membership totals. JRN (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the straightforwardness of the "emerging from the succession crisis" statement was disputed by me, as above, so it's not entirely fair to simply place it back in with no questions asked. It's fine if you want to include it, but like anything said in a WP article that is stated without citation, it's also OK to place a "citation needed" tag on it. Even something like comparing membership totals constitutes WP:OR unless we can cite a source that has done the comparison for us. We can't really have it both ways — either we can include it and request and seek out a citation, or we can just delete it entirely. If it's an important enough fact to include in the lead, then surely there's a source somewhere that states it. Since you seem intent on including, I'll add in the tag, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How much more straighforward can "emerging from the succession crisis be"? There is no wiggle room in that statement. Of all the churches emerging from the succession crisis it is the third largest. As for your compromise, I will look for a citation for that source. I suggest you do to since most times it is easier and takes less time to find a source that to argue over or add a tag. 157.182.87.253 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to consider wiggle room, just start considering how close temporally does the emergence of the sect have to be to the time of the succession crisis? and how close a connection to the actual leaders that emerged after the crisis? If I started a sect tomorrow with the claim that Sidney Rigdon visited me as an angel and said I was to start a church which would continue with me as his rightful successor, would I be making a church that emerged from the succession crisis? Taking the strictest form of the definition, it could be argued that even this church would not qualify, since it was (re)organized in 1862, which is a ways off from 1844. But these issues are irrelevant to our purposes, really — the point is that we need a citation for the claim, we can't just make up stuff from our own ideas, research, or ways of looking at things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You would have to consider what historians regard, which is TCOJC emerged from the succession crisis where as the emergence of th FLDS church was later temporally AND had nothing to do with the succession crisis. So there is no wiggle room. I never suggested it was an issue of chronological signigicance. Of course you can continue to argue if you feel it necessary but I would suggest you do some more research first. 71.61.86.100 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is that all I'm asking for is a citation from some source that says it's the third largest. The other issue that you seem to want to come back to is irrelvant, but in any case you seem to confuse me making an argument in favor of an alternative interpretation (which is not implausible) with some sort of "truth-claim". I know Latter Day Saints are into truth-claims, but this wasn't intended to be one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making yourself look like a fool by assuming that I am a latter day saint. I am not, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is a citation is not needed because the facts stand that of the groups that arose from the split the TCOJC has the thrid largest membership. You can see the totals and there is your citation. If you want a citation with the membership totals I can give you one. Other than that you are just making a completely illogical arguement. I mean anyone can look at membership totals and arrange them from largest to smallest...71.61.235.138 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I assume that you were a Latter Day Saint? I don't know anything about you apart from your IP address. The comment was made in the context of this being a Latter Day Saint church, not in any context of what you personally may believe, which I think is irrelevant. You must have just misunderstood the comment as being directed at you specifically, but it wasn't, so sorry if you got that impression. Still, it's best to avoid saying others are "making fools of" themselves; it's not particularly WP:CIVIL. A simple, "I am not a Latter Day Saint" would have accomplished the same thing. As for you argument that anyone can arrange the membership figures, see WP:SYN — it's pure case of WP:OR. Unfortunately, WP is not about "logic" or what you can deduce from numbers, it's about reporting what has been reported elsewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see, you were taking a shot at later day saint churches and not me. That's much better. 71.61.83.14 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not "a shot" at all. Why is saying someone is "into truth statements" a shot? It's not. It was simply a convenient way of differentiating what I was doing to what some Latter Day Saints are prone to do. You seem to have coloured my intentions with your own shades of looking at or treating the world. If you haven't started to, I suggest you begin to WP:AGF instead of assuming every comment is an attack on you or others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a complicated question. Since we are looking at splinter groups from the 1844 succession crisis we have essentially Stangites, Temple Lot, CoC (then RLDS), L-dS Brighamites, and The Church of Jesus Christ. No question the Utah Mormons have the largest group and the Church of Christ #2. Temple Lot has 5,000 members, less than half of The Church of Jesus Christ. Who else emerged from this time period with more membership today? This argument seems silly. Undisputed, The Church of Jesus Christ has the third largest membership base. Could we just include a citation for the Temple Lot membership total and The Church of Jesus Christ total?

Problem solved and according to Arnie, boom goes the dynamite. Jcg5029 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just engaged in classic WP:OR. Yes, you are right that it's probably correct to state what the article states about its relative size. It's in the article now. However, this does not obviate the need for a WP-style citation for this fact. That's why there's a {cn} tag on the statement. As you know, WP is all about verifiability and the reporting of what others have already reported; it is not about reporting everything that is true. If being the third-largest of the succession crisis denominations is significant enough to include in the lead few sentences of the article, then surely there's a source out there somewhere which states this. That's all that's being asked for. A few editors sound quite defensive (even aggressive, with snarky comments to others "do some more research first") about the {cn} request, which really is probably simply a symptom of the knowledge from someone who has done research knowing that such a citation does not exist. Oh well. The citation tag can and should remain until one is uncovered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree haha it is classic original research -- I just like a few round about citations for a true fact than an ugly need for a citation mark. By the book you are definitely correct. Jcg5029 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book to Use

Morgan, Dale L. "A Bibliography of the Church of Jesus Christ Organized at Green Oak, Pennsylvania, July, 1862." Western Humanities Review

Does anybody know where I could purchase this book? I couldn't find any online and figured someone on here may have a good idea. Sorry, its unconventional. Feel free to answer on my page. Jcg5029 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Humanities Review is a journal. Does that help at all? My local academic library carries it, but I'm not sure how widespread their circulation is to academic libraries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Big help, thank you very much. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lovalvo source

"However, it is also the belief of The Church of Jesus Christ that this restoration experienced some difficulties. After it was organized in 1830, the Church adopted doctrines that cannot be substantiated by either the Bible or Book of Mormon. Consequently, in process of time, God used a man named William Bickerton to again establish the church in its restored purity in 1962, at Greenock, Pennsylvania."

This contains nothing of Polygamy, and doesn't specify whether it was Joseph Smith, or Sidney Rigdon's church which introduced these doctrines. Find another source if you want to say that. McKay (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this source does use the placename "Greenock" but it does not say that it is the same place as Green Oak. That would be OR to say it is. (very minor issue) McKay (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They are the same, shouldn't be an OR issue its common knowledge. Also, I have every edition of the F&D will use 1897 edition to clear things up. Thanks for all your help. Jcg5029 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been gathering some sources that seemed much more appropriate. Thanks for being so a'cute' in your readings;)Jcg5029 (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I've seen, the new sources are better. Good job. There's still a couple more I want to get in and read, but I'm still looking. McKay (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession Crisis quotes

I have re-added the quotes for a few reasons.

1. It was said that the quotes are silly. That's not really a great argument.
2. On the contrary, I think quotes give a more encyclopedic feel.
3. the version that it was changed to could be considered plagaristic, as the entire first part of the sentence is a direct quote.
4. I think it is general consensus not to have that sentence in there to begin with. It is wrong. The church mentioned in this article did not originate from the 1844 succession crisis. But it has been the opinion of a single editor or two to insist on putting it in after it has been removed several times. Now it's actually got a source, So while I think that the statement is false (or rather relies upon incorrect assumptions, specifically that the church in question did not actually result from the 1844 crisis, but later), Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. So if somehow there's a source stating it. We should state exactly what it does state, and not elaborate any further, no synthesis of information, no rewording. Sure, succession crisis is what is meant? That change doesn't seem too far off. In order to remove the quotes, we'd have to reword the sentence, and I don't think that we should do so.

So, that's my opinion on the subject. I think it's a better one than "silly". McKay (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the quotes, and I agree that it should be clarfied that the "break" is the 1844 successions crisis, so I ultimately like the changes that you have made. However your assumption that the sentence is incorrect on the basis that the church did not result from the split is wrong. It did result from the split. I believe you are assuming that to result from the split the church had to be formed in relative chronological proximity to 1844 (such as 1844-1845), but that is incorrect. The church resulted from the split for a number of reasons:

1. Ideologically one of the reasons for the split was polygamy which both Rigdon and subsequently Bickerton denounced and which was one of the reasons Bickerton never went back to the LDS church.

2. Realistically if the split never occured there would be only one church today. Hence because the split occured there are dozens of church's under the restoration banner.

3. Bickerton was baptized and ordained an elder and evangelist under the church of Rigdon which, when Rigdon went wrong, was ultimately continued on under the leadership of Bickerton.

So truly it did, on a number or levels, result from the 1844 succession crisis JRN (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay the way it is now. The previous quote excluded 1844 and did not include anything about the succession crisis which was why I said silly, funny I was misquoted. I think it looks great right now. Jcg5029 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)