Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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". [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

/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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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 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)