Talk:Church of Christ (Assured Way)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church of Christ (Assured Way) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetic/Polemic debates. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetic/Polemic debates at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

I will work on locating some better, third-party sources for this organization. As a rather small and relatively new denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement, there's not a lot out there on it, beyond John Hamer's reference to it in his book Scattering of the Saints, which I do not have and am currently trying to procure. I am hoping that when Steven Shields releases his new edition of Divergent Paths of the Restoration (largely considered to be the top reference on this subject), he will provide some information in his book, as well. For now, this is the best I can do, at the moment (though I'm still working on this!) - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Adherents.com reference, which, from the 1996 date, must have referred to the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Inc., not to the Church of Christ (Assured Way) which is the subject of this article. I've also added a clarification tag on the issue of acceptance of messages, in that both this church and the 1929 grandparent church have 120 messages on their websites. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri state incorporation documents

In the interests of providing SOME kind of "reliable third-party source" for this church, I did manage to find it's official record of incorporation in the State of Missouri--can't get much more "reliable" than that! See the article for the appropriate reference. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidestar (which lists all IRS recognized churches, public charities, and private foundations) http://www2.guidestar.org/ had no listing for the church. This is not unusual. Churches are not required to file form 1023 (request for recognition of tax exemption). However, having a letter of determination from the IRS helps to establish credibility. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the IRS site, and they didn't appear there, either (although you've explained above why that might be so). However, I would say that having an official certificate of incorporation on file with the appropriate state governmental agency authorized to issue such certificates establishes credibility enough, don't you think? I understand this whole "third party" thing, but sometimes in the case of small organizations like this, there just isn't a whole lot out there. In this case, I believe an official certificate of incorporation listing the full church name on file in the MO Sec. of State's office should be proof enough--at least in my opinion. I went there in person, took the photo you see in the article, and spoke to Leonard Draves myself--but, of course, all of that is "original research," and inadmissable. However, I still believe even one solid reference, such as I've given, should be enough (at least for now, given the dearth of stuff out there on this church). But again, that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Certificate of Incorporation and the photo of the church is sufficient to prove that the church is not a hoax. I hope that this page is not deleted as was its predecessor. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help

Hearty thanks to each and every one of you who contributed (pro or con) during the recent debate over deletion of this article. I think that with John Hamer's recent generous contribution of material and information, the article has finally made it "out of the woods". It's definitely been an eye-opening experience for me, as I've never been through anything like this before, and I'd like to think I've learned something from it! I deeply appreciate everyone's comments, input, and especially support from those of you who weighed in in favor of keeping it. And for those who opposed, your opposition inevitably helped to improve the article too, and I thank you, as well. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to John Hamer's resources. That really helped this article tremendously. It may be valuable for other LDS related topics too.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research deleted

I've deleted some WP:OR, which raised the (interesting) theory that there was theological debate about "Message 108" in 1990. I also removed reference to a legal dispute in 1996 which clearly didn't involve THIS organisation. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are We Back Here Again?

An editor named IsmSchism has just proposed this article for deletion, barely eighteen months after it survived an identical proceedure--and this without one word of explanation, either on this article's talk page, or on that previous delete proposal's talk page. I, for one, would like to know why this is so, please. Mr/Ms IsmSchism, would you care to elaborate??? - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]