Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Links to utah Mormon content

While I understand that members of The Church of Jesus Christ may not particularly like the links to articles that also pertain to utah mormonism, links of some sort are required. If someone would like to make an article on the Quoroum of the 12 historically, feel free to do so, right now, the articles being linked to cover that historical topic, and people who are reading this article will want to know what the Quoroum of the 12 is, so a link is required. It's essential to an understanding of the Bickertonite claim to authority. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Right now, I'm going to see what I can do to make those links better. McKay 14:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to other Beliefs

McKay, While I understand the need for linked material you are obviously missing the point. First of all the pages you are trying to link are POV pages. The difficulty with that time period is that there is no sure understanding of exactly what was and what happened. Each restoration group has different claims. The linked pages are POV pages that only show the LDS POV. That is NOT concurrent with TCOJC beliefs and therefore does not explain to readers what we mean when we use those terms. You cannot link the pages unless the page contains the beliefs of the TCOJC accoring to WP:UNDUE you must give some weight to all sides of the issue. So untill there is information on the linked page to our beliefs you cannot link the page. So I am removing the link to all sides can be satisfied. JRN 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, what you call POV. Those pages are not POV pages. For example, those pages don't say "Only the apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receive direct revelation from God and therefore we should listen to everything they have to say." While I may believe that statement, it isn't a verifiable fact, and doesn't belong on that page. The article says the 12 are the governing body of the LDS church, which is a verifiable fact, something which members of the bickertonite faith believe. It is also a verifiable fact, that Brigham Young was a member of that same group. Specifically the original group foudned by Joseph Smith. Your faith believes that Brigham Young was a member of original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The content located at First Presidency doesn't mention much historically, but it does show the early first presidencies under the direction of Joseph Smith, the President of the 12 article is similarly partially historically based, but does also show early presidents as you believe also. User:JNicklow recently removed those two, and I think that that might be appropriate, leaving the 12 link intact. This is not a matter of WP:UNDUE, because the history here isn't in dispute, you just are unhappy with linking to articles that are primarily about the LDS faith, regardless of your historical association with them.

I have also been asked not to edit this page. Such a request is against the purpose of a wiki, and against the purposes of Wikipedia (a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit). While my beliefs may not be yours, I think it's important to have both sides of the view present, to have an independent contributor. I may not know your beliefs as well as you do, but I can help prevent POV on this page. Also, I believe I have helped this page out substantially, particularly in adhering to wikipedia policy. McKay 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, one could argue that you don't quite even belong on this page, because your editing appears to be a violation of WP:COI. It appears as if I have more of a right to edit than you do. I'm not asking you to leave. I'm just asking you to follow policy. McKay 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You continue to keep editing this page regardless of what you edit is correct or not. I didn't ask you to stop editing altogether, I merely asked you to stop editing UNTIL you became more familiar with The Church so that you didn't keep making mistakes. Your current revision of the stand that we are not affiliated with any other churches will be reverted. Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated by the LDS church therefore severing all ties and affiliations to the church. As he was not affiliated with the LDS from 1845 on anything he did after that is not affiliated with the LDS church. Although we share 14 years of history from 1830-1844 after that point there is no more affiliation because of Rigdon's excommunication. Please do not continue to make edits that are unsubstatiated. If you do not know what you are talking about then please don't make changes. 205.149.71.152 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

conflicting information

McKay's Version:

The Church of Jesus Christ is part of the Latter Day Saint movement. It is a Restorationist church. The Church claims no associations between any other churches, including other Latter Day Saint sects. Generally considered the third largest of the organizations emerging from the 1844 succession crisis, 

Current Version:

The Church is not affiliated with any other churches, including other Latter Day Saint sects. Generally considered the third largest of the organizations emerging from the 1844 succession crisis,\

the current version is incorrect and appears contradictory. It claims to come out of the 1844 succession crisis, but isn't afilliated (in any way) from other Latter Day Saint sects. I propose that my version *is* correct. It correctly shows them as being part of the Latter Day Saint movement (specifically the 1844 succession crisis), and states the churches statement of affiliation in an NPOV manner. McKay 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, my edit was construed as vandalism, speicifcally that it didn't cite sources. The version reverted to also did not have sources. McKay 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version does not contradict itself because 'general' opinion is not the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ (bickertonites). The Church believes it holds the authority restored to Joseph Smith, jr. Other groups consider the Church as the third largest breakoff. No contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.103.109 (talk • contribs)

There is no apparent contradiction. If McKay understood what affiliation meant then he would see there is no contradition. An affiliation is an association or union. There exists no associations or unions between the churches. Even with a 14 year common history there is no affiliation because of Rigdon's excommunication. The Church of Jesus Christ is not affiliated with any other church or denomination. Please stop using wiki policy to try and prove your wrong or misguided conclusions. Again before trying to edit this page try to learn and understand something about The Church of Jesus Christ. The excommunication of Sidney Rigdon is in your history too. JRN 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if you do not understand what the definition is: [1] "a member of a group of associated things." Both churches are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. This is a verifiable fact. There *is* an association, also note that in my version, I say that the church is part of the Latter Day Saint movement (which it is), and I mention that the church says that it doesn't claim any association with any other sects (which is also true). What's wrong with what I've written? McKay 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay please stop vandalizing this site with your opinion. It would appear you as well have private interests within this site to promote your own Church. JCG

My edits are not vandalism. Please WP:AGF. Please stop these personal attacks against me. McKay 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, simply viewing The Church of Jesus Christ's official website at www.thechurchofjesuschrist.org clearly displays that The Church of Jesus Christ has no affiliation with other organizations. According to wikipedia, an affiliation is a term that in law describes a partnership. The Church of Jesus Christ is a distinct and separate Restoration Church. Not only this, it has no affiliations with either LDS or any other church group. To see wikipedia's legal clarification of affiliation please see affiliation. Clearly this proves that there is no contradiction.

The issue here is a controversy between social and legal. Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ has much in common historically with these other groups. Its claim, however, is that the other organizations split themselves from The Church of Jesus Christ. Now this is opinion of the Church...so what is the proper medium that would be appropriate and not contradictory for the website? McKay I respect your opinion and thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. The article you linked affiliaton is the "legal" definition of the term, you yourself said that "in law describes a partnership". If you would like to amend the statement to say "no legal affiliation" that would be more consistent. I'm saying that there is an affiliation, namely a historical one. Both churches are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. I think it's important to specifically state that in the opening paragraph. Most of the Latter Day Saint sects have this in their opening paragraph. My contributions are not vandalism. I have outlined what I think it should say. It adds additional information, and clarifies the position of the church without denouncing it. I'll ask again, "What's wrong with the version I proposed?" McKay 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the version you proposed is that it is not in sync with The Church of Jesus Christ' stance

Could you be more specific about what you think what I've proposed is out of sync with the church's stance? I don't see anything in the version I proposed that is not in sync with the churches stance. McKay 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"As a note of clarification, despite being similar in name, we are not affiliated with the Church of Christ nor with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormon Church."

I understand what is meant by that. In fact, the LDS church has a similar statement. McKay 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So whether you like the stance or not that's where it stands. Just because you don't agree with the stance does not mean you can delete it or claim it is a contradiction. Furthermore, you cannot use wikipedia policy to overide statements that you don't agree with. We know that as a member of the LDS church you do not agree with our beliefs, but I would ask you to stop using wikipedia policy to try and change what we believe. I have not gone on the LDS page and argued, deleted, and changed their beliefs simply because I do not agree. Right now you are borderline WP:COI mainly because you keep trying to use The Church of Jesus Christ to promote The LDS by continually adding links to another church with different beliefs. Accept that we are a different church, with different beliefs, and NO AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER CHURCHES. Again I would ask you to discontinue what you are doing and consider your malacious attacks and then intent of them. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNicklow (talk • contribs)

My problem is how it's worded. Yes you maintain no legal affiliation with any other church. I'm fine with that. I'm not trying to change that belief. I'm merely trying to add verifiable information and retain NPOV. I'm not trying to use Wikipedia policy to change your beliefs, but using wikipedia policy to have your church's article accurately reflect your beliefs in a clear, consistent and NPOV manner. Pleas stop calling my proposals malicious attacks. I assure you that there is no malicious intent. I'm really trying to help you out. Thank you. McKay 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with what is there now in your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs)

The same thing as before, the church appears to claim that it's unlike any other church. But it isn't, it has a claim of lineage from Joseph Smith like all the other Latter Day Saint sects. Almost all of the Latter Day Saint church articles have "is a denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement" or something like that in the opening paragraph. You all seem so opposed to that line. I'm wanting consistency, within this article, and within wikipedia. The general feeling is that you don't want to be a Latter Day Saint sect. Is that the problem? McKay 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to McKay's opinion, I have polled persons not assosiated with the Restoration in any form. I gave them no opinion of my own, but simply asked them to see if they found confliction within the first paragraph. They found no contradiction with the paragraph as it is written. Your personal opinions on the subject aside, the site does not contradict itself or conflict in any form.

It's not that The Church of Jesus Christ does not want to be a sect. Their claims are that they ARE NOT a sect. They are unaffiliated with any other Latter Day Saint Church. They are in no form a part of another organization and do not desire to be falsely portrayed as such. It is a case of identity. Your opinion is that this is contradictory, but your opinion has no place within The Church of Jesus Christ's site. The site is about what they believe and who they are. They claim not to be a sect or have any affiliations with other Restorationist groups. You may not agree with that statement, but the statement is true of The Church of Jesus Christ regardless with your opinion.

The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be the true Church restored to the world through Joseph Smith, jr. The reasons for such a bold claim are listed within the first section of the Church's page. No confliction. We aren't left hanging trying to understand why this small group of people make the claims they do. Now, generally many people do view this organization as the third largest from the Latter Day Saint movement. Nobody is disputing this opinion of others and it is listed in the first section. McKay, there is a clear distinction here made between others thoughts and the beliefs of the Church. There is no contradiction and the Church is linked to the Latter Day Saint movement within the first section like you desired. Feel free therefore to remove your false claim of contradiction within the initial section of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)'s page on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs)

It's not just the presence of the link, it's a very fine point that I think needs to be made. It's a question I've asked a few times, and it's not getting answered. I think I will make better progress trying to beat this point into your head by making changes to the article myself. Thanks for your help. McKay 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the church has no official affiliation with any other church. Also yes, in the public mind it is categorized with other Latter Day Saint denominations. This is true whether the church likes it or not.

The situation is similar to how the LDS tries to disassociate itself from "Mormon fundamentalists". Yes, there is no official affiliation between the LDS Church and the polygamous sects. But also yes, in the public mind both the LDS Church and the polygamists are "Mormons".

It seems ridiculous to not be able to acknowledge both facts. Just say it's a church in the Latter Day Saint movement but has no official affiliation with any other organization. Sheesh! - SESmith 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Succession

can you explain what is meant by the line "It claims true succession from all other Latter Day Saint sects." I think "secession" might be closer, but it can't have seceded from all of the sects, just the original sect. I'm confused by that statement. McKay 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Succession"—as in "succeed". To "take the place previously filled by." George W. Bush "succeeded" Bill Clinton as President of the United States. This church claims to be the rightful "successor" to the original Latter Day Saint denomination established by Joseph Smith. It could probably be worded more clearly. SESmith 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it couldn't have "Succeeded" from all of the LDS sects. That makes even less sense. The action you took on the main page looks like the right one. McKay 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get our terminology right--break out the dictionary if need be. A church can't "succeed" from anything. I think you are confusing the terms "succeed" and "secede". To be a "successor" means to take the place of. To "secede" means to withdraw from. This church does not claim to have "seceded" (withdrawn), but it does claim to be the "successor" church of the church Joseph Smith established (the Church of Christ). -SESmith 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites) does not claim to have left anything. It claims to be the Church as restored by Joseph Smith, jr. According to The Church, all other Latter Day Saint movements broke off from The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Here in lies your lack of understanding to the previous topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs)

No, that's not the problem I have. I'm perfectly content with your claim that you are the church as restored by Joseph Smith Jun. That's fine. Such claims can remain on the page as claims. McKay 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SESmith has made changes to the page that I totally approve of. I like the version that's up there. His addition of "officially" really helps the point I was trying to get across. Do we have any other problems with the header as is? McKay 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The addition of "official" makes no change in meaning and is pretty much a ticky-tack change but if it shuts up McKay then I'm fine with it. 205.149.72.72 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was more or less fine without that, but I think it does make the wording a lot better. McKay 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

As it stands now, if this page is to stay in the "latter day saint movement" wikiproject then there needs to be major revisions and clarifications within the page. There is very little similar between the doctrines and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ and other restorationist churches. Beliefs on Faith and Doctrine, Priesthood, Texts, and many others need to be more fully explained and clarified so as to not confuse the majortiy opinion of other restoration groups with those of The Church of Jesus Christ. I am going to try to make the additions and clarfications and I hope that everyone can work with me in adhering to wiki policy and keeping a NPOV. I just ask that instead of blanking my revisions you would make suggestions for corrections to adhere to policy pn the talk page. I am not a programmer and will undoubtedly need help. Your patience will be appreciated. JRN 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay I think the initial page looks really good. Are we able now to remove the trashy symbol above?

Also there are two huge issues that should be addressed. When a person types in The Church of Jesus Christ on Wiki, they are already relinked to the Utah Mormon's website. Since this type has just as much relevance for our site, shouldn't search results be displayed?

The more important issue is The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, PA's name on WIKI. I understand and am content that many within the Restoration and others refer to us a Bickertonites. It should therefore be in bold and in the first paragraph, but shouldn't the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ be the site name??? I understand this will mean changing links and overall a large task, but I feel it is important to properly represent the Church. I am open to thoughts on the subject and know this is not a simple 'change the name' task. JCG5029

I agree. Legally this is an issue because the legally incorporated name is "The Church of Jesus Christ". From a legal standpoint there are no other organizations rightfully allowed to use that name without consent from the said church. How can we get direct link from a search of "The Church of Jesus Christ" to our page instead of the LDS page??? I know this may be a duanting task but would appreciate input from more experienced wikipedians. 205.149.71.236 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there away we could edit all the redirects to connect to The Church of Jesus Christ?? JRN 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the cleanup notice.

You've put a nice ultimatum there that doesn't belong. This page Will stay in the Latter Day Saint movement, becuase it's verifiably a part of it. If you want to make some changes, feel free. But like I mentioned before, don't put too much weight on faith and doctrine, without putting as much verifiable work into history, etc. If you need help, I'm more than willing to do so.

The problem with linking directly to here from The Church of Jesus Christ is that wikipedia's policys say that we should go to whatever most people think of when they hear the term. One of the best tools we have for that is the google test[2] Unfortunately for the bickerton Church of Jesus Christ, they play second fiddle in popularity for that term (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, does sanction the usage of the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" on subsequent references to it in a body of text). But I noticed that Church of Jesus Christ is a disambiguation page, so I made The Church of Jesus Christ redirect to Church of Jesus Christ instead of The Church of Jesus Christ. So this article can't really have The Church of Jesus Christ as it's title, because it isn't what most people will be expecting. It's not the size of the task that is the problem, it's the wikipedia policy. McKay 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with McKay. Placing a direct link only creates the same problem for a dozen other organizations. The way the search results show now are very relevant. So my question is slightly different, would it be possible to place the Church's official name first -- followed by the Bickertonite name and discussion? People who may at first think of The Church as 'Bickertonites' and click on the links would then see the official name clarifying the issue, but still understand this was the same Church they were researching...

I understand the need for verifiable history in proportion to faith and doctrine McKay, but also understand that the views contained in a vast majority of the links of the latter day saint wikiproject do not represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ so there is a need to further clarify points of doctrine that are distinct. The main problem with the page being in the Latter Day Saint project is that while our natural history may include us in there pur doctrinal beliefs do not, so we need to have a balance between the two and right now there is not a good balance.

Thanks for clarifying the wikipedia policy. I had nor come across the Church of Jesus Christ disambiguation page before as I always searched with "The" in the title

JRN 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)