Jump to content

Talk:Arthur A. Oakman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arthur Alma Oakman)

Untitled

[edit]

He is a big part of Church history.I fell that it should not be deleted because of this fact and there alot more to add to this page.He has alot of sermons,tapes,books, and cds.Herper55 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I have removed the notability tag as there was no discussion. Oakman was a prolific writer for the movement, not to mention a leader. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and it would appear Oakman passes the Google Test - lots of radio sermons, etc. However, it is correct that the page is sloppy and isn't referenced. I would commit to improving the article and hope other editors would do the same. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I shall do my best. Thanks.Herper55 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herper55 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your help guys/girls. But I did see some mistakes he was not apart of Community of Christ.He was apart of the RLDS church.Again thank you guys for all your help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herper55 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't those sections still currently in the CoC D&C? If so, we need to make sure the most current publication is used. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


They may be but I dont feel you should use them cause he was not apart of the COC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herper55 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am wrong than your free to change it.Cause I am not sure if I am. Again I thank EVERY one who helped out with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herper55 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I did not write the above anonymous comments, but I should perhaps mention that the Restoration Branches movement generally identifies very strongly with Oakman's ideology, and I'm guessing that the above objection against describing Oakman as part of the CoC is motivated by the idea that the CoC has largely abandoned said ideology. Traditional RLDS theology as expressed by Oakman and others like him is distinct from present CoC theology.

All this is hearsay however because I have not yet read/listened to Oakman for myself but I will soon. Perhaps I can help expand the article by citing him and describing his positions on various subjects at some point. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about it that springs to mind, is that I'm almost certain that all RLDS apostles were members of the RLDS Council of Twelve Apostles so the description, "an apostle and a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles" is redundant. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the encyclopaedic angle, the CoC remains the RLDS church. Sure things are different from Oakman's day, but so were things different in the 1870s from the 1840s, yet the RLDS organization by the time it was HQ'd in Lamoni claimed of course to be the original church founded in 1830. The CoC on a corporate level is the same church as Oakman's, with most changes having been endorsed by World Conference, the body the church has chosen to make decisions. Writing from a theologically-based position in trying to distance Oakman from the current CoC is POV. There might very well be a dozen things that can be pointed to illustrating the differences, but thaht does not take away from the fact that the CoC is the RLDS church of 2010. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to go back through time and retroactively describe everything from before the name change as CoC - that would be like saying the original Bugs Bunny cartoons were by Time-Warner. They weren't by Time-Warner, they were just by Warner. The CoC is not the only organization descended from the RLDS church of the 19th to mid 20th century. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But whether you, me or Wally B want to accept it, the fact is that CoC is the RLDS Church. The name change came through the legal channels of the organization itself, whether or not it was wrong, ridiculous, or whatever. Same buildings. Same texts. Same organization. In fact, CoC's legal name remains the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and why it remains affiliated with Herald House, Graceland, etc., etc., unlike all of the Restoration Branches. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the same texts. CoC leaders have said they don't really believe in the three standard books as really being true. And not really the same organization, as it's structure has been fundamentally altered over the past century.

After having heard some of Oakman's recorded speech from 1966, I can really hear both sides of the 1984 schism in his manner of speaking still together and not yet separated. On the one hand you have strong, unapologetic absolute support for the original doctrines and the three standard books. On the other hand, you have the beginnings of some vaugely humanistic ideas starting to form. The Restoration Branches stuck with the traditionalist stuff and the CoC has stuck with the humanistic stuff. Now the two sides are split and nobody talks like Oakman anymore, for they're either in the one camp or in the other. --BenMcLean (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of an encyclopedia, you are wearing your POV on your shirt. I happen not to disagree entirely with you - but for the purposes of Wikipedia, the RLDS Church became the CofC legally, in the same way that the Temple Lot and Kirtland Temple cases settled the legality of the RLDS being the legal successor to the pre-1844 church. On a purely corporate level - sad or not - World Conference majorities voted in the changes. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in '86 so I wouldn't know for myself but I am told by people who were there that the 1984 world conference was heavily manipulated and rigged and that there was no such majority. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur A. Oakman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_A._Oakman&oldid=1202807093"