Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Categorizing the sects

Reorganization of Article

I took the liberty of reorganizing this article by subdividing the "Prairie Saints" and "Rocky Mountain Saints" sections into subsections based upon the provenances of the various organizations (back to one of the original sects that arose during the "Succession Crisis" of 1844). I felt that subdividing these lengthy sections would do more toward helping readers understand each group of sects and where they "fit" in the overall Restoration Movement picture.

I tried to do my best in classifying each sect as "Brighamite," "Josephite," "Strangite," etc., but anyone disagreeing please feel free to move the sect in question appropriately. I also eliminated the "Other groups" section by folding its contents into appropriate subsctions of the "Prairie Saints" or "Rocky Mountain" sections, as each of those churches could legitimately fit in one of those subsections (confusing, isn't it!!).

One word more: usage of "Brighamite," "Josephite," etc. is strictly for convenience; no derogation or other insult is intended by my use of these terms. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Brighamite

I don't get the division of Fundamentalists from Brighamites. Scholars use Rocky Mountain Saints vs. Prairie Saints. And only Prairie Saints use the term Brighamites to distinguish themselves from the Utah saints. And aren't all Fundamentalists Brighamites, since he was a polygamist? Bytebear (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the confusion and don't get it. Fundamentalists would be Brighamites insofar as they recognize Young as a legitimate prophet or leader. Almost all fundamentalists do recognize Young as legitimate, so isn't fundamentalism a sub-type of Brighamite rather than a different group altogether? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you folks entirely on the Fundamentalists. I only listed them separately because (a) they may be distinguished from other Brighamites by their adherence to polygamy, thus establishing them as a sub-group (as you say) of the main Brighamite group, and (b) because are enough of them that listing them separately seemed to be justified, with an explanation (as given in "categorizing the sects") that said why they were being listed separately as well as indicating that they are still Brighamites (which I endeavored to do; maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point, but I tried to be!). I think the incorporation of "Brighamite" into the "Fundamentalist" sub-group name by another editor (can't remember who right now, was it one of you??) was an excellent way of reiterating this point.

In regard to why any subdivisions at all: yes, many scholars use "RMS vs PS." But within the Prairie Saint group, you have factions that trace their origins to the RLDS church, some to Strang, some to Cutler, some to Granville Hedrick, etc. Each of these groups of sects shares a common history and certain basic beliefs that they do not share with any of the other "PS" sects; for instance, most Strangite sects are Sabbatarian, whereas Josephites and Hedrickites (with one exception, that I know of) are not. Hedrickite sects all reject the offices of President of the church and High Priest, while sects in other groups mostly do not (with a few exceptions, but you can see my point, I'm sure). Steven Shields, perhaps the most notable scholar of these smaller sects, uses a subdivision scheme similar to mine (in fact, almost exactly like mine, if I remember right, though it has been a few years since I saw Divergent Paths of the Restoration) to break down the "PS" groups further so that sects of a similar provenance might be distinguished from others with a different pedigree. When I first saw the two rather long lists that made up this article, I thought (and still believe) it would benefit by a similar subdivision, while at the same time preserving the "RMS" and "PS" primary divisions.

As far as grouping them by date within those subdivisions, I agree with that, too, and had planned to do that before work on another article got my attention. I have taken care of that, now. Does any of this help at all in regard to the questions you both raised? - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

“Part of Mormon fundamentalist movement”

I think the "Notes" statement “Part of Mormon fundamentalist movement” (hear after called PofMFM) mostly in the "Polygamist factional groups" has been miss applied, or is at least is confusing. However, I’m not sure what if anything should or can be done. So I wanted to ask someone people who probably know better then me what if anything should be done.

The first “Church Name” listed in "Polygamist factional groups" is Mormon fundamentalist movement by Lorin C. Woolley. Later several groups refer to being “Split off/Continuation of” of that specific group.

However, all but one (Church of the Lamb of God) of the groups who don’t trace there “line” threw "Woolley”, like Harmston, LeBaron and Abinadi Smith groups, say "PofMFM" and link to the same page as the "Woolley" group.

It appears that the list denotes the Woolley line as as a founding "movement" or "church" by "Woolley", then make the same statement “PofMFM" as a “general” term separate from Woolley line. On top of that, some of the groups that refer to the “MFM” page (like the Joel LeBaron and Abinadi Smith line) aren’t listed on the “Mormon fundamentalist movement” page at all. This makes it sound like all these groups come from the Woolley line, which I now know isn’t true, but when I first started looking at MFM pages I didn't, so this list made me think it was.

I’m just not sure what if anything can or should be done to make this clear to people who don't know anything about the different "lines", or am I way off base. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Made Changes

I made changes to how this was listed. However, this is only an attempt at improving things, so if a better way is found please, by all means change it. I ask someone people, who probably know better then me, what if anything they thought should be done, but unfortunately I was unable to get suggestions.

My thought process with the change I made was that both using "Mormon fundamentalist movement" as the “Church Name” as and putting "Part of Mormon fundamentalist movement"(hear after called PofMFM) in the "Notes" were confusing and inaccurate.

Since it appears that the Woolley line is referred to in a few places as coming from the “Short Creek Community” or “Pre-split Short Creek leaders” in several place (including in some of the references and links in this page), I chose “Short Creek Community” and added “(Early Mormon fundamentalism)” to acknowledge that VERY large part of the Mormon fundamentalism and its beliefs do come from this line or parts of this line.

By doing this, groups in the list that are PofMFM in General can appear as such, but not be lumped into the Woolley line (for example Joel LeBaron , James D. Harmston and Abinadi Smith line), especially since some of these groups aren’t listed on the “Mormon fundamentalist movement” page at all.

However, again if I way off base, I’m open to any and all ideas or edits.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Major kudos and thanks to those who engineered the recent revisions and redivision/renaming/re-subdivision project in this article. I think it's a vast improvement over where it was before, and having done a lot of the original subdividing work, I definitely know how hard you worked on it. Again, EXCELLENT JOB!!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Short Creek Community

I removed the "early Mormon fundamentalism" from the "Short Creek" name, as (in my opinion, at least), that column should reflect only the formal (or at least the most generally-recognized) name of the organization in question. But this is just my opinion; if there's a good reason to have that sub-designator in there, please relate it here and feel free to revert. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put it there. My thought process for using "early Mormon fundamentalism" is shown above in Made Changed. Originally the name was "Mormon fundamentalism". This was referring to the specific group that moved to the area now known as Colorado City, which most other broke away from. However, the problem I notice (which is why I changed it in the first place) was that in several other places that same term was used “in general” for group who espouse to fundamentalist beliefs but had nothing to do with that community. It made a connection that was not there. What I did was to change the name to "Short Creek community" and put "Early Mormon fundamentalism” to acknowledge that VERY large part of the Mormon fundamentalism and its beliefs do come from this line or parts of this line. I will admit that this may not be the best way to do it, so reverting it isn't something that I am willing to do right now. However, I'm not sure removing it and not mentioning anything at all is the best ether. Perhapes making reference of some kind in the "Note". I am more then willing to do something else or nothing at all after input from you and others.

I'm assuming that the above was written by "Artist4Echo". In keeping with my usual "be bold" editorial spirit, I made a change and addition to the notes for that entry, to reflect the information you mentioned here (which I agree is very important, and definitely belongs in that particular entry, somewhere!). Take a look, and tell me what you think; yourself or anyone else is of course free to edit, revert, or otherwise change the entry at will if you think of something better. I felt this would be better than putting it in the name box, as that box should (in my opinion, at least) contain the proper name for the organization, if at all possible. Take a look at the change I made, and tell me what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was written by me. My apologies for my forgetting to sign my comment. I think it works fine as you have written it. As I have always said, I am the first to admit that the way I did it may not be the best way to do it. Putting the information in the notes works dose supply the information and the name is limited strictly to the name of the group, as you desire.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated LDS Communities

Can a group of gentiles which accept Joseph Smith Jr., as a prophet, which accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture, which claims priestly authority by new visions, new revelations, and purported encounters with the Three Nephites, but which has no historical or legal connection with any LDS sect be considered part of the Latter Day Saint Movement? I am not asking for the inclusion of any such group in this article because that would be a conflict of interest on my part as I am part of such a group. I just want to know under what circumstances could such a church be listed here. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

This is strictly my own opinion here (I am a former [10-years] member of the LDS movement, but am no longer affiliated with any part of it), but I would say "yes" (pending, of course, a more detailed explanation/examination of your group, its origins and its beliefs, including a website or other source we could cite). I would imagine your group would probably have to go under its own heading, given that its provenance isn't linked to any of the preceeding groups (that, I think, would be required), but I can't see any reason to exclude it since you do believe in J. Smith and the BOM, which are two of the most basic requirements to be considered "Latter Day Saints" (of any persuasion). But that, again, is simply my own opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The website is www.nephitechurchofchrist.org The official teaching document is called The Nephite Order: The Code of Doctrine & Discipline of the Nephite Church of Christ. It was reviewed by the Association for Mormon Letters at http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4509 The Nephite Church of Christ which is known in England as the Tarish Rite Apostolic Church has received little attention in the press except for a statement from the Anglican Church stating that it is not in commununion with us. http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/990912/new_this_week.html Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New section and subsection

In response to the information contained in "Unrelated LDS Communities," above, I've created an entirely new section for this article, entitled "Independent churches," and a new subsection, entitled "Self-originated branches," which will contain those groups (such as Patrick Saucer's "Nephite Church of Christ") which originated entirely independent of the Rocky Mountain Saint or Prairie Saint churches. The term "self-originated" is not intended to be derogatory, but rather to reflect that (unlike RMS and PS churches) churches in this section do not ultimately trace their direct line of authority and historical lineage back to Joseph Smith's 1830 organization. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think this works. However perhaps instead for using "Split off/Continuation of" in the heading, since more then likely there wont be one, perhaps using "Claims leading to organization" or something similar. This will eliminate the need for using "None" all over the place. However, as this was not my creation and even if it is left as is I have no objections, I will leave it to Ecjmartin and Prsaucer1958 to decide if any actions should be taken and what will work.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Links

I am confused why links were added to Nephite Church of Christ section at the Self-originated section. They lead back to the main article of the LDS movement. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your asking so forgive me if I don't give you the incorrect information. Since I also don't know your level of WP experience, forgive me if I tell you something that you already know.

If your question has to do with the creation of the internal Nephite Church of Christ link. I created the page Nephite Church of Christ and used a #redirct to the Latter Day Saint movement since it has no actual page. However, this allows for the Nephite church to appear in various Categories, such as Category:Religious organizations established in 2008 and others. If you click where it say "(Redirected from Nephite Church of Christ)" under the main "Latter Day Saint movement" it will show you the page. I will admit that I'm not sure if that redirect is best given that I don't know anything about this church, so if you know of better places then please change it.

If you asking why I moved the Link to the Churches website down to "External Links" its because I wanted to use the "Wray, Kristopher S" article as a citation since it's independent of the Church. I was working to elimitate wp:SELFPUBLISH cites. However, not wanting to removed the link I moved it down since, according to Wikipedia:Peer review/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1, external links not cited should appear in an "External links" and not in the article itself.

I hope this answers your question.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it explains it. thank you. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on the churches webpage that it describes itself as also part of "Tarish Catholicism" movement along with the Latter Day Saint movement. Again since I know nothing of this group, if you think a redirect to Catholicism or elsewhere would be better, by all means change it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See under "Unrelated LDS Communities" section, above. This is how the "Independents" section was initailly created. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ecjmartin for your input. I already read the "Unrelated LDS Communities" section. I was offering Prsaucer1958 the option to decided where the "#REDIRECT" went to. It was a difficult call for me to decided where it went as I create the page. However, I wanted to allow the church to be listed under the "Self-originated sects in the Latter Day Saint movement" cat and other religious related cats.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My misunderstanding; my apologies. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

use of "ites"

I think that the addting of "Sometimes called "Brighamites"" to the "Rocky Mountain Saints" is a bit redundent After all the Categorizing the churches says "Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called "Brighamites" or "Mormons",..." However, I do trust you and the issue isn't a hugh point for me so I'm going to leave it. I think the IP editor is trying to push his own POV onto this list. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm going to revert the change; as I told him, maybe the thing to do would be to come up with other names to replace the "Josephite," etc. monikers in the "Prairie Saints" section, but personally, I think the list was just fine the way it was, as you said here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this IP editor is confusing where "Josephite" comes from. I think he thinks its JS jr., which some people think supports that groups claim of succession. At first I thought that way to, until I read the description at top. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but my idea is that he simply opposes the use of "Josephite", "Hedrickite", etc. without the corresponding use of "Brighamite" to describe the LDS. This mindset (if indeed this is his mindset, and I have no way of knowing that for sure; you may be right, after all) arises from the times when such monikers were used in a disparaging manner--but this is not the case on this list, as we've taken great pains to point out. Hence, I don't accept the argument for "Brighamite" inclusion that comes from that mindset. So why use "Josephite," "Hedrickite," etc. without using "Brighamite?" There are many different factions of Prairie Saints (I speak here of the Josephites, Hedrickites, etc. each as a self-contained whole, not the individual sects within each faction--or "Factional Group", as I prefer to call them), whereas all Rocky Mountain Saints are Brighamites, tracing themselves as they each ultimately do to the Utah LDS church. I think that given this fact, the list is arranged the very best way that it can be, and there is no need for "Brighamite" in the title. I had thought so at first, but I now disagree. It's not a perfect setup, but I still think (as you seem to, as well) that it's the best one we've got. But like I said, I could be wrong about all of this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that we actually agree with each other, but we discussing between us how to make an IP editor happy, who isn't part of the discussion. I just find it odd.

It is hard to know the mindset of an IP editor. I agree that there is "no need for "Brighamite" in the title. However, I'm all for removing "Josephite," "Hedrickite", etc. for a completely different reason. This was an issue during the FA process. The whole ‘this is not mean to offend’ stuff was at issue then, and left only because we couldn’t come up with something better. However, if we could come up with a better way, we could remove that stuff removing that issue. However, I'm stumped as to how to do it. The only possible way I was thinking of is to change the subtitles to the name of the very first "Church". Such as changing "Josephite" to "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day..." (NOT CofC), "Hedrickite" to "Church of Christ (Temple Lot)', etc. However, I'm not so sure about that.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this one out (see article changes); I think it's the best solution I can come up with, and I really do think it makes the article better, to boot.... Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to digest this for a while. To be honset, I'm not so sure about it, but I don't have any better ideas, so lets see how long it lasts.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the old way was better? I'm definitely open to any ideas you (or anyone) might have on this issue.... = Ecjmartin (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No it don't think it was better the old way. I don't think it's worst ether. I'm just not sure at all. The only thing I have noticed is there is still a difference with the Rocky Mountain saints area and between the RMS and the Prairie Saints section. One part of the RMS Saint is by Church name and the rest is listed by topic "Mormon Fund.", "Liberal.." etc. Then the PS section is based on leader followed. Beings that this is a Featured list, I just feel it would be better to have a consistent way of choosing the lists. However, I still can't seem to come up with anything better, which is why I haven't made any changes. Sorry I guess I’m not help at all. Perhaps I need a good Gibb's Slap. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5