Jump to content

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Additional sources

This article definitely needs some additional third-party sources. It reads like I would expect a church website or publication to read rather than a neutral encyclopedic article. In looking at the few sources, most of them are from the church itself and I'm guessing the article was likely written by someone in the church based on the tone.

In explaining my removal of the mention of the LDS Church in the racial integration section, the mention is largely irrelevant. With all the various organizations that had some type of segregation, why is a well-known rival mentioned as the one specific example? Seemed to be more about trying to make a statement about the LDS Church than getting to the point of the section. Further, the issue of blacks and the priesthood was not really a segregation issue since segregation is more or less keeping the races separate (separate schools, seats, drinking fountains, etc.). There were many blacks in the LDS Church prior to 1978; they were not in separate congregations or put in separate classes or required to sit in different sections. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

I placed the cleanup tag in relation to how the article is written. About every sentence begins with the church's full name. Many sentences could be rewritten or combined to avoid this as well as using more word variation and general phrases such as "the church" unless the context is unclear. I will try to do some as I have time. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I removed the quotatation as the phrase Mormon being accepted in the past. First the page used in the citation was wrong and secondly the only mention of that in the pamphlet is: "Now we wish the public to understand that we do not feel at all reproached at being called Mormons" - however in context of the pamphlet the author already defined the term Mormon differently than is normally accepted and understood today. Essentially he created another term for the LDS church and redefined the word Mormon prior to making the statement. It would be too off topic to explain the context in this article, hence I removed it. I hope this better explains my edit. JRNicklow (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything we can say that can be cited about the church in more modern times not associating itself with the name "Mormon"? Does the church have a current position on this or is it never addressed at all? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about this with reference to the website FAQs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is far more mentioned in the pamphlet than the single sentence Mr. Nicklow quotes on page 3. On pages 11-12 Cadman overhears a bartender and some people talking about the doctrines of Mormonism, the bartender defending them and the customers attacking them, and often using the word "Mormon" as a slur. Then, after going to a meeting of that church, he is talking to a minister on a steamboat (pg 12) and defends what he calls "Mormon doctrine," which was the doctrines of the Bickertonite church he had been attending, and was baptized in, in December of 1859 on the same page. Additionally, on page 5, Cadman writes "Surely no person will disagree with me concerning the origin of this word [Episcopalian], and if they agree with me in that matter, and acknowledge its application to themselves, I shall consider them utterly foolish if they despise me on account of being called Mormon" (5.) Between page one, and the quote I included from page 5, Cadman discusses how people name religious denominations, often in an attempt to make insult people. Cadman makes it clear that he accepts the name Mormon, but does not take it as an insult. The part that Mr. Nicklow says that Cadman, "defined the term Mormon differently than is normally accepted and understood today" simply consists of Cadman saying that Utah Mormons (whom he calls "Utah Polygamists") should not be called Mormons because they do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, Mr. Nicklow's own quote shows that the former acceptance of the epithet "Mormon" is relevant to this Wikipedia article, because Cadman himself states that "Now we wish the public to understand that we do not feel at all reproached at being called Mormons" (4.) I emphasize the "we" as Cadman is therefore including the church and not just himself, and "the public," because he is clearly accepting the public's usage of the term term Mormon, and not some new definition that he has created. Thus it is by no means off topic, nor is whole the context of the article needed, to see the importance and accuracy of this statement. I will let Good Olfactory be the judge of the relevancy, as I believe he is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ and therefore more objective in the matter than Mr. Nicklow, plus he is a seasoned Wikipedia editor. I believe it should be added back in, and is both relevant and in context, although with a corrected citation of pages 1-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jude (talk • contribs)

In the future please refer to me as my username and not an incorrectly assumed name. And also please assume good faith, as you neither know my relgious affiliation nor why I am editing this page. Future thanks for such. JRNicklow (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Cadman pamphlet is quite dated and I suspect that it doesn't reflect current church thinking on the point? Just judging from the website, the current thinking appears to be Mormons=LDS Church memebrs and therefore members of The Church of Jesus Christ are not Mormons, even though they use the Book of Mormon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As OlFactory stated, it neither reflects current thinking, nor is it in context to what Mormon means today. Typically referring to the LDS church. On the 1st page of the pamphlet he defines the LDS church as Utah Polygamists and the term Mormon as a derrogatory term used to talk about those who believe in the Book of Mormon. That does not reflect it's current use today, and personally would just be too off topic to explain in the article. JRNicklow (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. Firstly, "Mormon" is a nickname, not an official name, and some people like it and some don't. (I know some folk who use it of themselves) Secondly, it is broadly used to refer to any church originating from Joseph Smith. It is, first, and foremost a nickname.

Incidentally, I have seen as example of the reverse phenomenon recently in an old copy of National Geographic I was leafing through. Members of the big LDS church were complaining on the letters page about the FLDS being designated Mormon in a previous issue. The implication was that the big Brighamite church was "Mormon", but the FLDS wasn't.-MacRusgail (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Ordinances" and "Racial Integration" sections

Hi, I am wondering why these two sections are included in the "Doctrines and Practices" section as subsections. "Ordinances" discribes doctrines unless they are unofficial practices that members of the Church practice. "Racial Integration" seems like a Church practice, although I can see why it would merit its own section.

I think it would be best to turn the "Ordinances" section into one or two paragraphs and place it as a subsection inside the "Doctrines and Practices" section. I am not sure what to do with the Racial Integration section, perhaps it should be expanded and have two large paragraphs instead of multiple small paragraphs? Fordx12 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of God

The Nature of God section is a little confusing to me. It tends to suggest that this group doesn't believe in the Trinity, making it a Nontrinitarian (like the LDS Church). However, it then goes on to say that "Jesus is viewed as both the Father and the Son", making it a trinitarian group. I'm sure I'm missing something, so it may be nice of someone could clarify this section. Is it a Nontrinitarian or trinitarian group?--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian religious denomination"

the article on Christian denomination says "Many churches with roots in Restorationism reject being identified as Protestant or even as a denomination at all ...." Does The Church of Jesus Christ here describe itself as a Christian denomination? What is the source for this desription? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Bickertonite)&oldid=1206688815"