Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

False impression

The information contained in this article, as well as several others concerning "LDS denominations" is inaccurate in it's explanation of the "crisis of succession". When Joseph Smith was murdered, the procedures by which the next prophet and president was to be ordained were already established by revelation. The organization of the First Presidency and Quorom of Twelve Apostles followed the correct process, and by inspiration and common consent the Lord directed Brigham Young to continue the work.

These articles give the false impression that Brigham Young was leading a "secret faction" and that he essentially assumed power by misleading the entire church membership into voting for him. This could not be further from the truth since Young, along with the rest of apostles, actually adhered to church doctrine and followed the correct procedures after the death of Smith.

During this time there were several men who took it upon themselves to become the next prophet in opposition to everything that had been previously organized. These men left the Church and decided to disregard the approved process. They forgot that prophets are called by God through revelation, not by the personal desires of men who covet power.

The Bickertonites, Strangites, etc. all decided to seperate themselves from the Church based on what they thought should happen rather than simply following the proper procedures.

These articles paint the apostates as heroes while Young and other church leaders are denigrated for doing what they were directed to do by Joseph Smith himself.

Being LDS, I totally understand your view, but this view is only that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and does not reflect the view of other Mormon denominations. Because of Wikipedia policy, we have to make sure that articles present a neutral point of view. COGDEN 21:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I was being neutral. Can you tell me how to improve?

It should be pointed out to the writer above that Brigham Young created a new church when he had all members who followed him to the Great Basin baptized, thus rejecting the authority of God restored through Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and creating a new authority based on Young.

With regard to the above, no church members were rebaptized into the Mormon church of Brigham Young vs the Mormon church of Joseph Smith. Do you have a reference for the claim?

With regards to references and disputes above, check out the LDS Church History from 1844-1860 as well as writings by Paul Peterson and others. Rebaptism is an undisputed LDS Historical fact, even though many Utah Mormons are unaware. With regards to earlier historical issues from 1844 listen to the facts. Brigham Young was not placed in the position of the First Presidency until 1847. It seems odd he would claim any sense of leadership of the Church before that. As to Rigdon's true leadership, he was the only member of the Church who was still in the leadership position of the First Presidency -- which had ALWAYS governed the Church for the past fifteen years. Young took a less than majority vote (5) to replace Rigdon -- Rigdon's claim was to be a 'governor' for the Church during this time period of crisis until order could be restored. The Church requires a majority vote from the 12. If you don't believe me check out Church history and Rigdon's biography. Either way clearly The Church of Jesus Christ(Bickertonites) have as fair a claim as any other organization.

Questions/comments

The article states, "Church members always greet each other with a "holy kiss" (following New Testament precedents)."

A holy kiss is an interesting concept and should be explained in more detail? What does it entail? A simple kiss on the cheek? An Eastern kiss? More detail on this would be nice to explain. Also a reference to the D&C on washing of the feet (or something similar) would be useful cross referece.

Speaking of the D&C, what are the Bickertonites scriptures? is it just the bible and book of mormon?

(Speaking as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ headquarters Monongahela PA, The scriptures that are accepted are the Bible, and Book of Mormon. None of Joseph Smiths other writings are accepted.)

"Hymns through a single sister" The entire last paragraph of the hyms section needs to be re-written - it is difficult to understand. Who is the single member? Is she married? Is it the same she as is referenced in the next sentence? Etc.

Just a few suggestions to make this better. -Visorstuff 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that the procedures were already in place for selection of the next President of the LDS Church after Joseph Smith is entirely wrong. Eeven after John Taylor (the 3rd President) the succsssion order had not yet been established and it was nearly 3 years before Wilford Woodruff becaame the 4th President and it was with his Presidency that the succession order was established forever for the future of the Salt Lake City based LDS Church.

Not NPOV

I realize that when one deals with religion it is very difficult to remove a point of view, but the quote from the article "The songs are quite beautiful and filled with the Spirit of God" definitely is not NPOV.

Agreed. This article in no way shape or form follows the NPOV Policy of Wikipedia. The article mentions how elders aren't called by "Father" or "Reverend" as they are volunteers and not paid (as according to Scripture)! I don't think it is an article's purpose to tell the reader what is and isn't scriptual. There are changes that are easy to make such as replacing the "as according to Scripture" with "as according to the scriptual interpretations of the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite).",etc

NPOV

"as according to scripture" is a NPOV. We are not interpreting scripture just merely stating what scriptures says. When Christ said "freely ye have received, freely give." He is clearly showing that payment for the Gospel was not in Christ's holy plan. When he said "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven", Christ clearly states to call no man your father. These are tenants of our beliefs founded upon scripture, not interpreted how we want to. Thus, statements "according to scripture" are NPOV.

and just for any future references there scriptures are found in the KJV as that is the version used in The Church of Jesus Christ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JNicklow (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

RE:NPOV. I'm sorry, but you are interpreting those scriptures. It may seem obvious to you, but some might claim that in the first case, you're clearly supposed to give everything you receive. It says nothing about the price of the Gospel in what you've quoted. You're putting more intrerpretation than a literal one. In the latter case, you're putting less than other people might, some might say that you're not supposed to call anyone your father, not even your biological father, or some might think that he's just speaking figuratively to emphasize that your Father in Heaven is your *real* father, and that while you may call others (like a pastor) your father, the word should always remind you of your Father in Heaven. WP:RS mentions that Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47, interpreted literally, advocate the removal of ones eyes.

In order to be NPOV, one must state the scripture, and how the church interprets it. E.g. "the bible says to call no man your father and members of this church believe that this scripture advocates not calling ecclesiastical leaders 'father'." But note that while that statement is NPOV (because it doesn't state that the usage of "father" for a pastor is inappropriate, it states that the belief of the church is that it is inappropriate to call a pastor "father"), it lacks attribution. So it should be specked with stuff like: "the bible says to call no man your father<ref>KJV 4 John 42:119</ref> and members of this church believe that this scripture advocates not calling ecclesiastical leaders 'father'<ref>Doctrines of the Bickertonites, James Earl, 1776, p.16384</ref>.". Otherwise, such a section shouldn't be placed on this page. McKay 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Always the "A" Word???

Excuse me, but IN CONTEXT, it should be clear to anyone with even the smallest mental capacity that this article is about The Church of Jesus Christ and its position on points that separate it from the rest of the Restoration Churches in the Latter Day Saint grouping.

I dispute this comment:

"When Joseph Smith was murdered, the procedures by which the next prophet and president was to be ordained were already established by revelation. The organization of the First Presidency and Quorom of Twelve Apostles followed the correct process, and by inspiration and common consent the Lord directed Brigham Young to continue the work."

This is NOT borne out by the facts. There was confusion and Smith left a number of possible succession models behind. There was no "one" procedure in place, but several possible succession models.

Not only was there no procedure in place but such did not happen until after the death of John Taylor, the 3rd President of the Salt Lake City LDS, when it went nearly 3 years before it was decided up Wilford Woodruff. It was not until this time that the procedure to be used forever forward in the Church was approved and sustained by the Twelve.

There was no policy that the Second Quorum succeed the First. That was the position taken by the faction of the church that eventually followed Young to Utah.

Since Sidney Rigdon was STILL alive, his position was as valid as any. You have to remember that what we see now as "obvious" was not so obvious back then.

The story about Sidney Rigdon being rejected by Smith has been shown to be an oft-repeated myth that was constructed later AFTER Rigdon and the Twelve went their separate ways. See Samuel Taylor's "Auntie Mormon" recap of the actual events, among others. So, while TRUE that the relationship between Smith and Rigdon was very strained at the time of Smith's death, it was not so bad that Ridgon was not part of the First Presidency as some haver falsified.

Brigham Young may well have felt right in his position and he did carry the vote of the majority as the Second Quorum was sustained in their calling. Rigdon's suggestion that he be appointed as guardian was rejected, partially on the strength that Young advanced on no one being able to replace the Prophet.

Rigdon was later excommunicted and he, in turn, excommunicated the Twelve.

At the time, he was denouncing the Twelve for POLYGAMY and POLYANDRY and he was called a liar and an apostate for doing so. Recall that a faction in the Church was practicing these at a time that BOTH the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon SPECIFICALLY denounced these abberations.

Young later re-instituted a First Presidency under less-than-full quorum conditions.

History has also shown that the LDS have been by far the most successful branch of this movement. That does not, however, give it exclusive rights to the claims of the movement!

"These articles give the false impression that Brigham Young was leading a "secret faction" and that he essentially assumed power by misleading the entire church membership into voting for him."

I think Brigham Young was an able and skilled leader. He believed in what he was doing. He exhibited the Alpha Male behaviour at times in doing so.

He was NOT universally accepted by all in the original church.

You Utah LDS have a right to claim to be PART of that history, but so do the others of us. We are NOT your "apostates" any more than YOU are ours. All of the resulting churches at the dispersion of the saints at Nauvoo have a claim to this legacy!

"This could not be further from the truth since Young, along with the rest of apostles, actually adhered to church doctrine and followed the correct procedures after the death of Smith."

I beg to differ.

The point that has been obscured by revisonist history is that it was but ONE of MANY possible "church doctrine and ... correct procedures" Smith left behind. Michael Quinn, formerly of your church, wrote an article that defined the 8 (as I recall) models of succssion Smith left behind. You may want to read it.

"During this time there were several men who took it upon themselves to become the next prophet in opposition to everything that had been previously organized. These men left the Church and decided to disregard the approved process. They forgot that prophets are called by God through revelation, not by the personal desires of men who covet power."

Now who is slipping in OPINION as fact? The above is the Utah LDS view. If we "Bickertonites" agreed with you, there would not be an issue, right?

"The Bickertonites, Strangites, etc. all decided to seperate themselves from the Church based on what they thought should happen rather than simply following the proper procedures."

Again easily demonstratable as OPINION.

"These articles paint the apostates as heroes while Young and other church leaders are denigrated for doing what they were directed to do by Joseph Smith himself."

Why do so many of you Utah LDS like the "A" word??? Is that your BEST answer to the legitimacy of other Restoration Christians? Why can't you just love us and let us love you back?

We were together for a mere 14 years and have existed APART for 161 years. We have ALL survived and we have disproven each other's "dire" predicitions of each other's failure.

Can we move on?

Why can't we do as Community of Christ President Steve Veazey suggests towards other Restoration churches and "be good neighbors"? Part of that process would eliminate the use of the "A" word and the ability to accept that there ARE legitimate reasons for other latter day saints to follow variant positions without name-calling. ..

Hi Anon, you are correct. Please feel free to clean up some of the POV that other editors have introduced.

Often the edits are not meant to be malignant, but are done with the best intent. Please be patient with the other editors, whether they are Brighamite or Bickertonite. I also believe that other Bickertonites have edited this page in the past, so you may want to see who introduced those edits and engage in dialogue with them directly. We all have a very rich history, and as part of the Latter Day Saint movement, I don't think we realize how influential we can be when we work together. -Visorstuff 20:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In both Bibilical and Book of Mormon scripture, it is clearly outlined that "by their fruits, ye shall know them". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints clearly fits the description, and any break off from the true restored church of God, separates itself from living revelation.

Proposed Rigdonite Merge

Whoever proposed this merge doesn't have a clue about this Church or what it represents. Yes, William Bickerton converted to Mormonism under Sidney Ridgon's influence, but Bickerton broke with Rigdon in 1846. The Ridgonite Church went on to other parts of Pennsylvania while Bickerton remained behind in Monongahela. Bickerton was largely a self-taught (autodidact) Mormon and founded his own Church completely independent of Rigdon. Therefore, this suggested merge is ridiculous. The two Churches are entirely separate and independent of each other. StudierMalMarburg 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Sorry for any confusion but the church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ" and not "Church of Jesus Christ" so I had to add "The" to the name according to WP:NCD. Thanks

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)

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[1] 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, our 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)

Maybe you'd be better just writing a basic doctrinal section rather than constantly comparing with other LDS sects? McKay 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We did have a doctrinal section but it was too long and wordy so I will be working on one that is more concise and better cited. The Church has an official "Faith and Doctrine" and I will use that as my source, but I will make it more concise.

JRN 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability

Okay, Feel free to keep working on later sections, but I'm going to request a little more work on the head section. While I think the content is appropriate, I think we're going to need some additional sources for the verifiability of the intro paragraph. Don't misread the tags I'll be putting on the intro paragraph as malicious, I think the content is fine, I'm just trying to adhere to another core wikipedia policy of WP:Attributability. So feel free to leave the content present, just get the material sourced. McKay 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it may look a little weird, but I requested a source on the Joseph Smith not being a choice seer part, even though it's got a book of mormon reference. According to wikipedia policy, you can't use books of scripture as a reliable source, because different people interpret it differently. If your church believes that Joseph smith is not the choice seer refered to in that verse and you believe a Native American is, that's fine, but we should get a source on that. McKay 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay , I don't think the verse was intended as a citation as much as it was a clatification of the verse in which the choice seer is mentioned. Although wiki policy does not allow citations for scripture, I think using scripture to allow readers to further understand is ok. I will find an appropriate citation for Joseph Smith not being the choice seer. JRN 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree, which is why I moved it to earlier in the paragraph. McKay 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tree Link

Does anyone else think that the "tree link" added to the bottom of the page is

a. not an external link and therefore needs to be moved and...

b. done poorly as it only represents 6 of the 106 factions that came from the split

I think it should be removed JRN 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed it. It would probably look nice at the Latter Day Saint movement page. Maybe whoever added it should place it there. Jcg5029 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another issue that should be addressed here concerning pictures attempting to portray the Latter Day Saint movement. The box on the stated issue contains a picture of Joseph Smith kneeling before two figures. This is a picture describing accounts by Joseph Smith and others. I am not here to argue with the validity of those writings. There are other accounts found written by the hand of Joseph Smith -- see Personal Writings by Joseph Smith claiming only one personage (that of Christ). This is a hotly debated topic for many within the Restoration and Latter Day Saint movements. Such a hot issue should not blatently be on display showcasing one (the Utah Mormon) opinion of the subject. That would be a POV issue, not that I am an expert on the WIKI policy. Clearly the controversy should not favor one side and all groups should be treated with equal respect. Maybe no picture should be there, or some other picture like one with different group's printed Book of Mormon. That way all groups are represented in a non offensive way within the box on the right hand side of the Links to the Latter Day Saint movement. Jcg5029 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as well versed in the controversy, but if you think that that picture is a POV picture in the Latter Day Saint movement, then you should bring that issue up on the template's talk page: Template talk:LDS. McKay 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

oh, it looks like you're already there. good job then :D McKay 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

do you like the nauvoo temple better? McKay 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, simply because all groups associate somehow with it. I thought it was a proper change.Jcg5029 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!

Why is nothing being shown past scriptures? Why did the category box disappear??

if you're using ref tags to reference previous ref tags without a body, you need to make the tag self closing:

<ref>my stuff</ref>. <ref name="foo">more my stuff</ref>. <ref /> McKay 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to other articles

I have re-added links to those other articles. If you note, all of those links actually have sections covering Bickertonite structure..., with the one exception of First Presidency which isn't referring to Bickertonite beliefs, but is referring to the historical position of Brigham Younch, of which First Presidency covers clearly. McKay 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay I will agree with you on the First Presidency link because it is more of a historical link but the links for president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, elder, and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles all have introduction paragraphs that refer to the as a calling in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well as many other points of doctrine inconsistent with those of TCOJC. Also the President of the Church is written mainly from an LDS POV and again is not consistent with the beliefs of TCOJC. I am fine in keeping the First Presidency link but the others need to be removed. Also it needs to be stated that nowhere in those articles did I find even a mention of TCOJC, or "Bickertonite" as you say, beliefs on the subject. I'm sorry but the other links must be removed. The beliefs stated in those links are not consistent with those of the page.

By the way I thought we already went over this and decided until SeSmith went and added them in again. I thought this issue was resolved JRN 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It also needs to be stated that in TCOJC we do not have aaronic and melchezidek priesthoods as in other LDS denominations (whish is in the opening paragraph of the elder page). Our term elder is is completely different from that described on the elder page. I think if this continues it may be an issue of WP:COI because it seems that the TCOJC page is being used to promote the beliefs of other denominations JRN 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some very accurate descriptions of the various offices in dispute above found on wikipedia. They were linked. Clearly linking the current office of elder of The Church of Jesus Christ to the Utah Latter Day Saints shows only ignorance and a very biased POV. Its sad that these POV's and COI still exist, but reasonable observations will show that the current links accurately represent what this site is attempting to portray. Jcg5029 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles with the appendage (Latter Day Saint) are intended to apply to the whole Latter Day Saint movement. You have to keep in mind that WP is a work in progress and is by no means complete on every topic. If there is only information in a "(Latter Day Saints)" article about the thing as it applies in the Mormon Church, that is because no one has added content from any other Latter Day Saint denomination. In Elder (Latter Day Saints), you can legitimately add a section to the article that discusses what an "elder" is in The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) or the Community of Christ--whatever. Or, if you have a lot to say or think it is different enough, you can make a new article and call it Elder (Bickertonite). Articles that are intended to apply only to the LDS Church have the appendage (Mormonism). There is absolutely nothing incorrect about adding a link from this page to Elder (Latter Day Saints) until a page is created that is entitled Elder (Bickertonite). Just because an article is bad or tragically incomplete re: a specific denomination is not a valid WP reason for not linking there.

And yes, I realize that some are disputing that this church is not a true part of the Latter Day Saint movement. But I think anyone using NPOV would disagree (i.e. only members of the church would make that argument).

Best wishes, -SESmith 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again SESmith, with unequaled ferocity, you continue to display your ignorance for the whole wikiworld to see. If a page says xxxx(Latter Day Saint) and then the intro paragraph says xxxx is a calling in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then it should not be linked to a page for The Church of Jesus Christ. Not matter how much you think it should. Linking this page to a page with different beliefs is unethical and can be an issue of WP:COI if you continue to do so. The page for The Church of Jesus Christ should not be used to advertise the beliefs of YOUR religion SESmith. You clearly have your own agenda here.

Best wishes JRN 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know what to say, but I think that this is getting out of hand. If you think that the XXX (Latter Day Saints) article doesn't reflect well on your beliefs. Change it. We need better context than the ones you're providing. If anything *you* are the one with the WP:COI problem. This page shouldn't be used to advertize the beliefs of the Utah LDS faith, but note that the purpose of this page also isn't here to advertize your beliefs either. the purpose of this page is to provide an encyclopedic context about your faith. People may want to know what First presidency means when looking at an article about your faith. Particularly in the historical context. Hmm, can we discuss *all* changes before incorporating them into the article? Is that too much to ask? We've got a nasty edit war brewing. and I want this to stop. McKay 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I restate my above statements and agree with McKay. If you don't like the articles with (Latter Day Saint) appended to them--FIX THEM!! Update them!! Don't just complain about them!! You obviously haven't read the WP style guide for the Latter Day Saints movement. You are obsessed with separating this article from that group, which is not NPOV. I am a professional academic scholar of the Latter Day Saint movement. What are your qualifications? -SESmith 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with SES, (fix the articles if you have a problem), a statment of qualifications isn't really worth anything. What matters here is adherence to wikipedia policies. McKay 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I don't quite understand what you mean when you are saying "that the purpose of this page also isn't here to advertize your beliefs either". Are you talking about the beliefs of TCOJC or *my* beliefs??? If you are talking about my beliefs then you are incorrect. I was informed of this site by another member of The Church and upon reading through it found many inconsistencies with what was said and the truth. I'm am just trying to make sure that what is on this page is not opinion of anyone but the belief of The Church. I'm not hear adevertising my beliefs and I think you would have an extremely hard time trying to prove any WP:COI on my part. I am simply hear to correct things that are wrong. I am not putting my opinion anywhere in this article, simply the belief of the church

You are correct, your personal beliefs are irrelevant here. What I was saying is that the purpose of this page isn't to advertize the beliefs of TCoJCwHiMP, the purpose of this page is to present information about said church in an encyclopeidic manner. This may or may not include the beliefs of that church, but be sure that the beliefs of the church are not the primary purpose of the page. This isn't a page for preaching. Some of the things on this page may or may not put that church in the light it desires. We're looking for a neutral point of view of the church.. McKay 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I asked that if you had objections to what I edited earlier that you would state it before making any changes. I am not opposed to making changes to better the page, but I'm just trying to be civil about all this. I was hoping discussions could be made and we could come to a concensus, but apparently you don't care. So if that is the way you feel then so be it.

Like SES said, things can change. If you wrote something that no one initially had a problem with, that doesn't mean that someone else can't make it better. McKay 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything has gotten completely out of hand on this page. Let it just be known that I am sick and tired of individuals from the LDS church bring their POV to this page and acting like they know everything about the resotoration. JRN 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing out accusations, and WP:AGF. I'm doing my best to keep an NPOV and execute wikipedia policy. If you think I could do better, please tell me how. McKay 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JNicklow just made a change to the article. I'm fine with such a change, but we have discussed approving changes before they are made. Can we agree to do this? McKay 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I thought all discussion was closed and accepted on the first paragraph??? Unless somebody wants to add something to the discussion DO NOT change a statement without a clear reason. That discussion had ended before please to NOT change entire statement on this site without listing a reason SESMITH or you will be guilty of vandalism on this site. When discussion ends do not wait a week to rechange your opinion on this site. Thank you. Jcg5029 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a page is your pet project or the name of an organization you belong to doesn't mean you own it. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. There are no hard and fast rules that state you must invariably read the discussion page before making a change. If you don't like a change, you change it back without making baseless charges of "vandalism" against other users. It's usually helpful to contact the person on his or her talk page and express your concerns before making threats. It's called assuming good faith. You might try it. -SESmith 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: editing and discussion in WP is never "done" or "closed" on any topic. Where are these ideas coming from? -SESmith 05:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion on the head paragraph to Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Intro. Please meet me there. McKay 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Placement

I think that the sections on "Joseph Smith" and "Role of The Church" are out of place. I think maybe they should be moved toward the beginning of the page. I think it breaks up the flow of the page. What does everyone else think? JRN 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree flow is very important for The Church of Jesus Christ's site and changes could always be made to improve.Jcg5029 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Affiliated/Unaffiliated

I took out the sentence that everyone has been editing and re-editing and insert one that was clear and concise on the subject of affiliation. At the point of the succession The Church believes that Rigdon was correct in what he did and thus his excommunication ended the affiliation between TCOJC and other latter day saint denominations. I believe the statement is NPOV but please feel free to change some wording if you feel free, but I would ask to leave a message explaining why since this sentence has been so hotly debated recently. Thank you JRN 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

it may have ended an official or legal affiliation, but it did not end a historical affiliation. Is that clear? Regardless of whether or not The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania likes it, they are a Latter Day Saint church. McKay 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS or not

There has been a question raised several times, by me and others, and I would like it answered. Though it's been asked, I think they've been skirting about the issue. I don't think we can get everything resolved until it has been answered. So I'm making a special post just to ask it, Does The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania or it's members believe they are a part of the Latter Day Saint movement? We've seen links to that be removed on several occasions. It appears as if they resent the designation. Is that where some of the problems are coming from? McKay 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had answered this but I must not have directly stated it. We consider ourselves part of the movement historically. There is no confliction there. But what seems to be the idea here is that the historical movement also includes many doctrinal practices. That is where the church disambiguates itself. Many practices entered into different church's after the succession that have been attributed to either Joseph Smith or the whole movement. Our church was differentiated in that in didn't agree or believe those revelations came from God as many of them disagree with Book of Mormon and Biblical scripture. The problem is that while we historically belong in the "Latter Day Saint" movement or doctrines are vary different. That's why many of the links have been removed, because they are not concurrent with beliefs. While wikipedia should not be used strictly to convey doctrine, It is extremely important that if doctrine is conveyed that it is correct. So far that hasn't always been true. Does this make sense to you? I hope you understand the issue better. I am not trying to disprove anything here but if doctrine is attributed to The Church I am in authority to make sure it is the right doctrine. I have nothing against anyone here. I hope this explains better. Thanks JRN 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So, to sum up, you are a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, because you share a history, but (like every other church in said movement) your beliefs are different from most others? McKay 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes our beliefs are different, such as your church leader and icon Brigham being a confessed Polygamist, which the Book of Mormon denounces, and then when pressured by the US Government the Leader of the LDS church has a revelation that polygamy should end (I'm sure those aren't at all related). That's just one of the many wonderful differences. JRN 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking the question with the intent to be accusatory, I was asking the question as a confirmation that I had assumed right. If you'd like to discuss the finer points of LDS doctrine, I'd love to do so, but this isn't the correct place. Feel free to drop an email. McKay 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is just like comparing Catholicism with all other Protestant traditions. Yes, they have the same historical lineage. That is simply where it stops. Most of the time, they want nothing to do with one another doctrinally. The same exists here. The Church of Jesus Christ may have come from the movement that also lead to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and many other groups of people and churchs. We as a Church have really tried to remove any association with any of the other "Latter Day Saint groups" as you call them. History is nothing that can be denied in this case, however it is important for all to realize that we are a separate Church and want that to be evident to all on Wikipedia. CSG 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that the churches are seperate. That there is no official or legal association. But you have to admit that there is a historical association. It is wrong to say that the church in question has no association with the other LDS churches, becuase it has an association, namely a historical one. Feel free to say "it has no official association" that is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

Membership

Is it necessary to include the total membership of The Church? It is not a piece of information that is widely published and is not one that I think we are going to be able to cite. Let me know what you think. CSG 12:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, the problem is many of the current publications are out of date. When a group is small like The Church of Jesus Christ and they are growing at a rapid rate like they are -- it makes official number difficult to remain up to date. General Church Conference minutes might contain totals, but somehow I doubt it and doubt their useage on this site would be completely appropriate.Jcg5029 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then would it be appropriate to eliminate that piece of data as it cannot be correctly cited and would be difficult to keep accurate? CSG 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no real need to eliminate it as it is just an approximate number and is actually useful in helping individuals understand the size of the church. JRN 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My only concern was in proper citing of the page. That was all. CSG 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After searching a bit, I found a wikipedia site that contains this information. It is the article involving the 1844 sucession crisis. It is located at the bottom of the page. Take a look at it and see if it cant be cited so that the membership number is properly taken care of. CSG 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly if its not cited on WIKI I would have a hard time trusting it. Expecially since The Church of Jesus Christ's name was even written wrong and uncited before previous editing. We need an outside source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.118.246.192 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Name

I thought changing the name to The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela) was good as it incorporated the legal name of The Church. Also the Bickertonite part was covered in the opening paragraph. Can we come to a concensus before making anymore changes to the name so that we can limit reverts and arguements? JRN 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, as that is the official name of the church. People going to The Church of Jesus Christ will find it via the disambiguation page.

I believe it should be "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" for the following reasons.

• Recognizability : We have to look at the issue in relation to the average WP reader and WP as a whole, not just this article (or, at least, the WP articles on the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole). Due to the size and prominence of this organization, probably 99.99% of people would not recognize The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela) or The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, whereas the level of recognition would tick upwards (how much is anyone's guess) when "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" is used. For instance, I feel that I am fairly well-read in books,Jcg5029 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) etc. on all aspects of the Latter Day Saint movement, and whereas I would instantly recognize a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), I would probably have had to have thought for a few minutes to figure out what The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela) meant (prior to having this discussion, of course). Everyone editing this article probably knows the fine distinctions between official church names of most of the Latter Day Saint churches, but the average Joe does not and needs as much help as possible.

• Coincidence with [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)|WP Styleguide's recommendation for unidenominationalJcg5029 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) articles in Latter Day Saint movement]] : These guidelines recommend that if there is an article that only applies to this church and not other Latter Day Saint denominations, the title Bickertonite should be used in the title in parenthesis. E.g., an article specifically about The Church of Jesus Christ's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could be Quorum of the Twelve (Bickertonite). I would have thought that keeping this name in the title of the article of the church itself would reduce confusion and lead to consistency for the untrained reader. I understand that the term Bickertonite may frowned upon by the members of this church, and I think that perhaps this should play a role in determining what terms to use. If it is truly an offensive term, I am concerned about why the WP Style Guide would recommend this name to be added to articles that apply only to this church.

• Tradition : all scholarly work on the Latter Day Saint movement that I have ever read has used The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) or Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) or simply the Bickertonite Church. I have never seen The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela). I have only rarely seen the full legal name of the church used but usually only in an article that says something like, "the legal name of the Bickertonite Church is ...." and then it is never referred to again.

As I stated above, I understand the concern members of this church have about the use of the term Bickertonite if they view it as somehow offensive. However, WP guidelines also point out that we must be very careful in making any edits to organization that we ourselves belong to, because it's nearly impossible to overcome our personal biases. I don't consider the term Bickertonite to be offensive, and I don't think the average reader would think twice about it. Using the term in the title will help the reader better remember what he read, especially when he encounters the term used in writings in the future. If the church is making a strong effort to disassociate itself from the term Bickertonite I may reconsider my opinion.

My second choice would be the full legal name of the church. If it became the title of the article, I would argue that The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) would need to be mentioned in the first sentence. I think The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela) is an abomination (as a title, not as an institution--heh).

-SESmith 05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SESmith, I had never looked at the Latter Day Saint naming conventions site before. Generally I believe its goals are to properly represent all Latter Day Saint movement groups. Lets start out with the first guidline...

1) Use accurate titles and terms.

The term Bickertonite is offensive to many within TCOJC and it is entirely inaccurate. Now, with that being said the majority within the Latter Day Saint movement refer to TCOJC as 'Bickertonites' so this is an issue that should be of high concern to all of us as editors at Wikipedia.

2)Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church.

Making the official wiki name of TCOJC as (Bickertonite) is opposing the views of the said Church. So the FIRST TWO sections say to use accurate terms and not to oppose the views of any Church.

Conclusions??? Obviously this is a very serious issue. None of us here desire TCOJC to be misrepresented at Wikipedia. Might I also say that most of the world considers the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as mormons, but that title is not officially the name of the site or within the name. Neither is Bickertonite within TCOJC's name. Now, since the majority of individuals within the Latter Day Saint movement do refer to TCOJC as Bickertonites, why don't the editors come to the obvious conclusion. That is the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania -- SHOULD BE THE TITLE of this Church's site. Now because so many refer to them as Bickertonites then YES please leave links to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) that redirect to the proper site. No person would be confused as to what group they were viewing and, in fact, the people may just learn the proper name of the Church and this form of misrepresentation might begin to be resolved.

What does everyone think??Jcg5029 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also recognizability is the 5th bullet point of the aforementioned site and the site explicitly says that the points go in order of importance. Clearly the first two points show that this site needs renamed in order to not offend and properly represent the members of The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, PAJcg5029 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Jcg5029

I think that the first guiding principle here should be NPOV, and if the appelation Bickertonite is offensive, then that is POV and should not be the correct title. Yes SES, your points are all valid, but regardless of what else, NPOV is one of the three guiding principles of Wikipedia, and it overrides virtually all other points. "The Church of Jesus Christ" is also a bad point because most people searching for that term won't be looking for TCoJCwHiMP. So that one shouldn't be used. "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" is never used so that's also out. That basically leaves "The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" which is by far the most accurate, and isn't POV. It's not as recognized or as traditional as Bickertonite, but that's offensive to some, so it should be exlcuded. I think that "The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" is the correct choice. In any case, there isn't a problem with all of the above redirecting to the article, wherever it may be. McKay 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I can get behind the full legal name, especially if the appellation (Bickertonite) is seen as offensive or POV. No problem with that, and I agree that it is somewhat important to use the actual legal name when it's possible and it won't cause confusion. I support the change if that is the consensus. -SESmith 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page has been moved, I have a question. Why the "dash" (-) in the name? Does the full legal name use the dash? If not, should it not be eliminated? Thanks. -SESmith 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I had tried to leave it without the dash but initially I was not allowed, it seemed the most logical alternative.Jcg5029 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Our general conclusion was that TCOJC should be titled here with its official name. I assumed the official name was The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, PA. This was because this WIKI site said that. I have just made a phone call to the General Church Trustee of The Church of Jesus Christ -- Joe Ross. The official name of this church is The Church of Jesus Christ. That is federally recognized and approved, US government stamped. So, in order to properly represent this Church with the official name. There have been legal attempts by the Utah Latter Day Saints to not allow The Church of Jesus Christ to keep the name. No attempt has succeeded and the official name remains The Church of Jesus Christ. I will fix the errors within this document and I recommend the name The Church of Jesus Christ because that is the legal name of this church, like it or not.Jcg5029 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing to keep in mind is that the "Cutlerites" (a very small group in Independence with a long history) also claim the name The Church of Jesus Christ, but they don't mind being called "Cutlerites".[2] We obviously still need a disambiguation page, but I think the "Bickertonites" could still forego the parenthetical with no problem. COGDEN 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the "Cutlerites" have an official name of Church of Jesus Christ (Note no article). Second, the above statement claims they do not mind the name commonly given to them. The Church of Jesus Christ has a different official name from the Cutlerites, that of The Church of Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ is offended at the many other terms given to them by members of the Latter Day Saint movement. In speaking to the General Trustee of The Church of Jesus Christ, it was clearly stated that the Church's legal name should be the name of the site, any other name would be a legal issue and improperly representing The Church of Jesus Christ. No other name would legally work. Jcg5029 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should make the change. COGDEN 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In searching online in US Government databases, this organization is registered nationally as The Church of Jesus Christ. If we are to maintain legality on this site, the name should be changed to its legal name. I agree with both of you. CSG 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this has gotten out of hand. The article will NOT be moved to The Church of Jesus Christ. Reason number one The Church of Jesus Christ. Popularity dictates it cannot be this article, according to WP:MOS. If WHiMP is not part of the legal name (can we actually WP:Attribute to those government databases?) then it will have to have a designatior, like (Bickertonite). So, I'm going to move it back to (Bickertonite), unless someone can show me via a WP:RS that bickertonite is offensive to members of that faith. If that is shown, then we have to go to something more obscure like "(Pennsylvania)", "(Monogahela)", "(Bickerton)" or something else. The rules are very clear here. McKay 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any name other than The Church of Jesus Christ is a legal issue McKay whether you like it or not. Naming the site anything else will, unfortunately, cause legal reprocussions. If you or another editor have issues with the change or doubt my phone call please feel free to email me and I will get you in contact with the General Church Trustees themselves. According to this site groups should be called what they refer to themselves. Protection of the group is of primary inportance. If you would like to talk to The Church of Jesus Christ's lawyer once again feel free to email me. No other name can even be considered at this time.Jcg5029 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just feel to remind everyone that this is to protect the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ and not an attack at any individual's POV.Jcg5029 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Church, we are can bring out our Church Lawyer into this matter if this cannot be resolved in the immediate future. The nationally registered name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ. This is not POV, this is part of a nationally registered organization. CSG 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think legality takes precedence over any other issues here. The legal name of The Church is The Church of Jesus Christ. Bickertonite is found offensive to some members of the said church. I don't see how this is an issue at all. Bickertonite is addressed in the first paragraph. What are the real issues here??? JRN 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WRONG! The legal name is not the most important issue. From a legal perspecitve, Wikipedia should state what the legal name of the church is, but the title of the article does not have to be the legal name of the church. For more information see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. There is more than one church that goes by The Church of Jesus Christ, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). Wikipedia:Naming conflict specifically states the 3 most important criteria. I'm going to look at them first with regards to where this article should be:

1. "The most common use of a name takes precedence" (which is Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Some have theorized that this might be offensive to some, but without WP:Attributability, we don't care. Even With attributabiltiy, we probably don't care)
2. "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names" (There is a conflict, so the common name prevails)
3. "If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves" (This doesn't apply because the common name is prevalent)

But we can also look at it from perspective of "Where should The Church of Jesus Christ point?". And using those same three criteria, we find that that should point to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see The Church of Jesus Christ) I think we're being more than generous having The Church of Jesus Christ be a disambiguation page. Though it techincally is against wikipedia policy. Maybe I will make The Church of Jesus Christ be a redirect to the Mormon church.

You should not be making legal threats. (See WP:NLT) Wikipedia has policies, and I'm executing them. McKay 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any naming conflict here, or any conflict with Wikipedia policy. The proper naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which includes the guideline: "Use the name(s) and termonology that the individual or organization themselves use", "Be as specific as possible", and "Where their is doubt, aim for neutrality". Although this church is commonly referred to in the literature as "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)", the parenthetical "Bickertonite" is not used as part of the name, but as an explanatory phrase. It's like back in the mid-20th century, when the LDS Church was often referred to as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church)". In general, articles on organizations should be titled by how the organization calls itself.

As to there being a naming conflict, I don't see it. Yes, the LDS Church refers to itself as the "Church of Jesus Christ" (with no "Latter-day Saints" appended), it's using the term not as a proper name, but as a descriptive name synonymous with "the Church led by Jesus Christ" or "the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ", etc. The church makes it clear that it's proper name includes the distinction "Latter-day Saints". Moreover, the LDS Church's use of the term is probably not neutral, and is never used by outsiders or in academic writing. Since the usage is so rare, nobody will ever type "The Church of Jesus Christ" hoping to locate the LDS Church. COGDEN 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on several accounts:

1. you said "In general, articles on organizations should be titled by how the organization calls itself." when wikipedia policy is based on what is most popular. (quoted several times already in this discussion)
2. There is still a naming conflict with the cutlerite church
3. according to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's styleguide "When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged" when you said they specifically discouraged it.
4. According to google (which Wikipedia encourages using to determine popularity of the term, and therefore a title) {{google:The Church of Jesus Christ}} links to the website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first. McKay 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Naming policy is not always about what is most popular. I see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) policy as an exception. The policy says that "considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used".
2. There isn't really a naming conflict with the Cutlerite church, because the Cutlerite church has no problem with the term Cutlerite, and if we were as you suggest to always use the most popular terminology, we would rename their article to Cutlerite. (We could not rename this church to Bickertonite, however, because some in the church find it offensive (much, I suppose, as LDS Church members don't really like Brighamite or Mormon Church).
3. I didn't say the LDS church discouraged the use of "the Church of Jesus Christ", I said they make it clear that their proper name includes "Latter-day Saints". Also, you'll note that the church press release did not capitalize the the in "the Church of Jesus Christ". The LDS Church does not intend that "the Church" and "the Church of Jesus Christ" act as synonyms for the church's proper name, independent of the church's real name. Otherwise, there'd be a naming conflict with The Church, too.
4. Google's linking to the LDS Church first is a result of the LDS Church being so bigger and more written-about, and the fact that the name of this church is a subset of the name of the LDS Church. Likewise, doing a Google search for Church of Jesus brings up the LDS Church first, even though the LDS Church never refers to itself that way, yet there are several organizations that use that name. Even a search of "The Church of" brings up the LDS Church second. Interestingly, in a search for simply "Church", the LDS Church website is the first non-Wikipedia result. COGDEN 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, thank you for your POV (don't care about wiki policies of WP:A. The site currently begins with a link to the disambig page so that other groups who call themselves this same name can find their site without any problems. There is no issue there -- its not like someone would get lost at all. I understand you are LDS and have a strong POV on this subject, but User:COGDEN is also a Utah Latter-day Saint and he was able to take a WP:NPOV on this issue. I suggest you do the same. You wanted sources, we cited them. "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". Feel free to check out the wiki policies you keep referring to before you make threats of your own. Its just not polite.Jcg5029 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks (WP:PA). Assume good faith. I'm not exerting a POV here, I'm quoting wikipedia policy! You quoted from the wiki policies, yes, I read that sentence, "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat" This is Not an issue of copyright infringment. I also didn't report you for legal threats, I'm again, just pointing out policy. "If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. " McKay 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, you continue to oppose everything that we try do to hear at this site. I am again stating that you have an agenda and are (mis)using wikipedia policy at your will. Legality is the final decider on this issue. Legally The Church of Jesus Christ is the only church allowed to use that name. PERIOD. No wikipolicy overrides the fact that if we want to use it as our title we can. No matter how popular the LDS may be. The LDS church has tried to fight this before and has lost so if you want to fight us on this now I'm sure you will lose. The change has already been agreed on and made by a third party. If you revert you will accused of vandalism and proper action will be taken. Thank you for your input JRN 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay the consensus was made and the site edited to the proper state by a third party. These legal threats were not made to be interpreted as such but rather and encouragement to assist in making this a simple change rather than one that is long and drawn out. We appreciate all that you have contributed to this site. This however, is how it will stay. CSG 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was *NOT* made. It was edited by a third party who was given incomplete information.

That's exacltly my point. You shouldn't be making legal threats to encourage a change. "Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia" That's what I'm trying to do. Make a good encyclopedia. And I feel that the legal threat was in direct opposition to what Wikipedians have decided is good for this encyclopedia.

Legality is not the final decider on this issue. From WP:NCON: "Subjective criteria ... should not be used to determine usage. These include: ...Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? "

This page move was NOT done with any semblance of Wikipedia policy behind it. There is No wikipolicy supporting this change. McKay 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate User:COGDEN Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), includes the guideline: "Use the name(s) and termonology that the individual or organization themselves use..." Ample evidence has shown the official name to be The Church of Jesus Christ. If you doubt this is the official name feel free to research at www.thechurchofjesuschrist.com or to order any Church pamphlet on the subject. Please, McKay, there is no personal attack here. I have been given the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ and if you would like to entertain the same research I can provide you with the proper information. That was all I meant, no attack and please accept my apology if it was misinterpreted. Now the correct information was given by the General Trustees who clearly stated the church's stance on the subject. Obviously we want to represent The Church of Jesus Christ under the proper guidelines of wiki. The official name does that. The primary goal we all would agree with is the integrity of the site. This name gives the proper integrity and identification for this group. I have never seen a cited source say that the Latter-day Saints from Utah call themselves by this name. COGDEN explained as a member of the LDS this site would not hinder any member from another group from accessing their page. I fail to see the controversy here.Jcg5029 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no personal attack here, you're just stating a point.

I never said that "The Church of Jesus Christ" wasn't it's official name. All of my arguments in my prior post were specifically avoiding that point. I have on other occasions requested links to government sources to establish a "legal" basis, but that wasn't in that post. I was specifically referring to the policies at WP:NCON, because the church in question isn't the only organization to use "The Church of Jesus Christ". McKay 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how an agreement of four to one is not a consensus. CSG 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is techincally 100%. Consensus is basically when everyone consents to a certain action. Also, specifically when a group of several people are all of the same faith, possibly brought here by WP:CANVASsing, accusations of meatpuppetry might be called in as well, to reduce the numerical effectiveness of a crowd. More importantly is my claims of wikipedia policy, and specifically contradicting every single point of wikipedia policy that you're bringing up. McKay 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, even though you show no evidence that other organizations use the name I agree with you, McKay. Which is why the disambig page has not disappeared and is at the very beginning of the article. It was essential to keep the disambig page there. Your speculation of 'a majority' typing in The Church of Jesus Christ for other groups is unwarrented for reasons COGDEN addressed. You have yet to provide information or wiki policies that say the official name of an organization should not be used. The fact that the disambig page remains shows that nobody is playing favorites and all groups that associate with the name are represented equally, while the official name is represented in accordance to WIKI.Jcg5029 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Do you need a list, and sources of other organizations that use the name? Okay:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [3]
• The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) [4]
• Church of Jesus Christ-Christian [5]

I can cite sources, I haven't seen anyone cite the requested sources that I've been loking for. I discovered the PA registry stuff put in over the past 24 hours. Good job on that, but note it doesn't mean that another organization can't use the same name. It might I'm not familiar with PA law mean that another corporation in PA can't use that name legally though. It just gives us "official" context, not "popular" context as is required by wikipedia naming conflicts. McKay 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are playing favorites by placing the bickertonite article at this page. Wikipedia policy for name conflicts shows popularity should be the guide. McKay 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay your accusations of WP:CANVASsing are completely unfounded and ridiculous. Yes your point about legal status of a name being subjective is correct "From WP:NCON: "Subjective criteria ... should not be used to determine usage. These include: ...Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? " but it also says in WP:NCON a number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

I didn't actually accuse anyone of canvassing, but I think that it's possible. How is it that 3 months ago, virtually no one was editing this article, and now we have a handful of people from the same church editing like crazy. I guess it could be random chance, but the chances are very very slim. I propose that someone in the church made mention of it to other members of the church. McKay 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Also, specifically when a group of several people are all of the same faith, possibly brought here by WP:CANVASsing, accusations of meatpuppetry might be called in as well, to reduce the numerical effectiveness of a crowd"...you made accusations of canvassing and meatpuppetry. COGDEN made the change and not any of us. You are making WP:PA. All I am asking is your stop and try and be civil about this. COGDEN was asked in as he has a good history of work in the Latter Day Saint movement. HE MADE THE CHANGE. I understand you don't agree the change but that is gives no right to throw around accusations. JRN 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning possible meatpuppetry is not a personal attack. Mentioning possable Canvassing is not a personal attack. McKay 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations) - YES while not the first name on the list (LDS is first) it is the third which clearly shows common usage - NOWHERE does it state anything about being "the most popular"

Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) - YES it is the official name

Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term - YES it is the ONLY name we use to describe ourselves

All of those criteria are met. I still don't see what the problem is Mckay. I wish you would discontinue your accusations of meatpuppetry and so forth and WP:AGF as you so often quote to me. I am hear trying to adhere to policy while also trying to get the correct information on the page. Please stop the WP:PA and try to be civil. Going to other peoples pages and claiming a conspiracy is ridiculous. JRN 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of those criteria are fine and all, but the "The most common use of a name takes precedence" the bickertonite church is not the most common use of the name "The Church of Jesus Christ". McKay 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And the most common reference (and legal name) of the said church is THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. I think you have a weak arguement at best that the LDS church has the most common because of one google search that puts it one link above (1st LDS and 2nd TCOJC) The Church. The most common name for the LDS church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the most common (and only) name for our church is The Church of Jesus Christ. Again McKay what is the problem? JRN 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, please refrain from calling The Church of Jesus Christ the 'Bickertonite Church' as it is offensive to TCOJC's membership. I would recommend the official name for further usage.Jcg5029 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in a bunch of other places "The Church of Jesus Christ" is ambiguous, we need some way of making the distinction. Might I ask how you propose I should have phrased the sentance in which I used it? Also, why is the term offensive? McKay 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Within all of the states in which The Church of Jesus Christ is currently incorporated, the only name under which this organization is incorporated is "The Church of Jesus Christ" There is no other organization which claims this exact name at all. There is no arguement. The government of the United States supports the name of this organization. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is incorporated as such in all states in which it is incorporated. They dont even have a claim to the name under debate. Not even in the state of Utah (see the state departments website) has the LDS church registered under the name of The Church of Jesus Christ. There is no debate. Popularity is simply a POV statement. If we are trying to keep POV out of this entire debate, popularity cannot be used to determine the outcome of this discussion. That the biggest flaw in your arguement. It is as simple as that. Thank you again for your effort, but again there is simply no debate here. CSG 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked "what is the problem?" And I've answered it already, but it's been asked again, so I'll answer it again. Let me state again that I understand that the Bickertonite church's name is "The Church of Jesus Christ" legally officially everything. Might I also mention that the Cutlerite church's official name is also "The Church of Jesus Christ". Might I also mention that the Mormon (or should I say Young) church's name is officially "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but they also support the use of "the Church of Jesus Christ". No The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's article should not be moved to "the Church of Jesus Christ" or "Church of Jesus Christ" because they are more popularly known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There isn't a problem with that article at all in this context. The problem arises in that "The Church of Jesus Christ" is not ambiguous, so the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions both say that more than one organization should use "The Church of Jesus Christ". So we must use a different policy. None of those policies should be used for this discussion. There's a special policy reserved for conflicts like this -- Wikipedia:Naming conflict. And contrary to what all of you have been saying, popularity is what should be used for resolving such conflicts. 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another, better policy document is that of Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

"Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" (popularity)

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

The Bickertonite church is not used "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ".

It could be argued by the google test I did above that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is used much more than any other usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ", it could also be argued that no term is used much more than any other when referring to "The Church of Jesus Christ" so either there should be no primary topic page, or "The Church of Jesus Christ" should refer to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". McKay 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, the sources are cited and the term is offensive. Please refrain from using offensive terms on this site. It is rude and very disrespectful. Now most people when looking for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They commonly type in mormons. That term is offensive and so the official name of that Church is used. Same situation here. If you are able to change that site's name to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) then you may have an argument. Once again please refrain from ignoring a polite request to stop using offensive names on wikipedia. It is not the place for name calling. 128.118.72.88 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again the General Trustees made the name calling very clear and the reasons were legal and an association to a person as head of the Church other than Christ. That is what I was told.128.118.72.88 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To further compliment what was just said, why is irrelevant because it automatically bring in POV. JRN has stated he is an Elder of the said Church if you have specific questions about The Church of Jesus Christ's Faith and Doctrine you should ask him. Please stop using offensive terms. You may refer to this organization as The Church of Jesus Christ if you have respect for the said church. Jcg5029 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate the problem. What I said was --

The Bickertonite church is not used "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ"

I have been asked to refrain from using the term bickertonite, and instead use the phrase "The Church of Jesus Christ". I understand that request and agree to follow it in most circumstances, but because multiple churches use the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" this doesn't work in all cases. In a case such as the one I'm referencing, it would look something like this:

The Church of Jesus Christ is not used "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ"

This makes no sense, because I'm trying to compare your church to other churches, and we NEED an additional way of distinguishing. No noone has cited anything saying that the term "Bickertonite" is offensive, but I'll attempt to refrain from using it in like manner. What I can do is use "(whimp)" to differentiate it. McKay 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if no one has a a problem with what I said, but just how I said it. I'll make the change I mentioned. McKay 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against the move as it is neither a concensus or a majority. The change was made and I think everyone here besides McKay is ok with it. The official name is the best name to use. There is a link for disambig. No problem JRN 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a close to this section by following wikipedia structure for naming conflict. When editors cannot agree to the name of a section a number of things are taken into consideration

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

   Criterion 	Option 1 	Option 2
   1. Most commonly used name in English
   2. Current undisputed official name of entity
   3. Current self-identifying name of entity
   1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

The most common historical name is bickertonite, but that term is offensive. Wikipedia strictly prohibits using a compromised name like (Monongahela) or whimp. The most current undisputed official name is The Church of Jesus Christ. The current self identitfying name is The Church of Jesus Christ. Clearly here the name should then be the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ. According to wiki rules when a common name is in question, which clearly is the case here than the official name should be the one used. This is the PERFECT example of that said case.

Now if McKay still has issues than it will come to a vote. That is how wikipedia closes disputed naming issues. All editors who have participated so far on this issue will have a vote so that there can be no lobbying. Once the vote is in then the naming dispute will be over. This is following wiki guidlines on naming disputes. I hope it does not reach this point, but so far the only person in favor of McKay is, well, McKay. This is not a dictatorship.Jcg5029 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, as I stated in my (20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)) post, this isn't as much an issue of Naming conflict, but one of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The policy there is: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." There is no such clearly dominant usage, so there is no primary topic page.

As an example of why the table isn't the correct course of action, let's look at James Smith (musician) following the table, all three say that he should have the article at James Smith, but the problem is that there are other people with the same name James Smith (political figure), James Smith (record executive), James "Bonecrusher" Smith and others. Because one isn't used much more than any other when saying "James Smith", James Smith has to be a disambiguation page according to policy. A similar example could have been made with Joseph Smith, or Dan Jones. McKay 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the proposal to close this section of the discussion as proposed by Jcg5029. If there is still a dispute, I suggest that we have voting from now until 12:00am EST, 27 April 2007. I would encourage all who have had a hand in working on the page to vote. Once this is done, the decision is final and we will all move on to more important issues regarding the improvement of this page.

Vote CSG - Keep the title as it exists.

CSG 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have quoted twice now that WP:NCON is not the issue here. I believe that if The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) were the only church in the world, that the article's title should be "The Church of Jesus Christ" That's what WP:NCON tells us to do about this article, but it would also say something similar about "The Church of Jesus Christ (cutlerite)". We need to follow the policies at WP:D. No one has ever countered my arguments about WP:D saying that the The Church of Jesus Christ page should be a dab page. McKay 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the use of The Church of Jesus Christ to refer to the LDS Church is a pretty obscure usage. The LDS Church will never adopt that title, and nobody I have personally known as a life-long LDS Mormon has ever referred to it that way in casual speech, even in church. I've also never seen that usage in a secular publication or newspaper. I might remember having seen it in one or two publications printed by the church, but only after the full name of the church is spelled out at the beginning. The fact that the church's official name has to be included at the beginning of the publication tells you that otherwise, a reader would assume The Church of Jesus Christ would mean some other church than the LDS Church. COGDEN 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that the LDS church be the page at The Church of Jesus Christ. I'm saying that policy dictates that it should be a dab page, the dab page we currently have at The Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation). McKay 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even still, I think the usage is so rare that it's not notable. Its only usage is to make a point that the church is run by Jesus Christ, which requires explanation anyway. Disambiguation pages are for the purpose of directing the reader, not for making an argument. Thats why we don't list the LDS Church in Church (disambiguation), even though the LDS Church recommends that people to call it "The Church" to reflect the doctrine that it is the "only true church". COGDEN 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to read my comment again? I specifically stated I do not think that the LDS church page be at The Church of Jesus Christ, I think it should be a disambiguation page. McKay 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First off McKay, you have nor suggested an appropriate name to change it to. Secondly in WP:D it clearly states that "When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top."...You want a counter arguement look no further. There is a disambig link at the top. What is the issue??? JRN 18:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IF The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) is going to be at The Church of Jesus Christ (which it currently is, but I disagree with it's placement), then there should be a friendly alternative link. Yes, the current article has that at the top. The policy you quote is currently being executed properly, but that is not the question here. The question here is regarding -- "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." I challenge anyone to show that The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) is meant "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ". That's the decision in question. Failing such demonstration, The Church of Jesus Christ will become a disambiguation page. McKay 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will counter it by saying no other organization refers to itself as such compared to The Church of Jesus Christ or otherwise. The Cutlerites refer to themselves as the Cutlerites. The LDS Church refers to itself as the LDS. Outsiders will search other terms that may not be politically correct like mormon, etc. For the extremely rare person who would type in all capital letters The Church of Jesus Christ in search for another organization -- this would be unbelievably rare, there is a disambig page. So there really is no issue and McKay has no point. Any other name being used would be an offense to the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ. If you doubt this McKay, you may contact the organization through the official website, through JRN, through any of the sources now cited on this page. You are asking for information already provided. Please stop referring to The Church of Jesus Christ by any other name because it offends the membership. No more warnings. If you continue arguing both LDS and other editors thus far we will vote and the discussion will be over. Look at Latter Day Saint denomination naming section which McKay, you have already referrenced.

1) Use most common name -- shown to be offensive 2)If not, use official name.

Sounds like we know what to do, the official name will continue as used.Jcg5029 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So far evidence and arguments have shown that the LDS Church does not refer to themselves and The Church of Jesus Christ and nobody else refers to them as such either. The Cutlerites and those who know them refer to themselves by the said name. The Church of Jesus Christ refers to itself, and those who have any knowledge about the organization only refer to it as The Church of Jesus Christ. Seems like we are lucky there is even a disambig page but I am all for what is there now.Jcg5029 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're all quoting the wrong policy. If there weren't any other churches with the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" then you could have the article, so WP:Disambiguation rules apply

I challenge anyone to show that The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) is meant "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ". That's the decision in question. Failing such demonstration, The Church of Jesus Christ will become a disambiguation page. second mentioning.

McKay 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to give any evidence for another church with the same name. Once again please stop referring to the Church by other names. It is rude and offensive. You are ignoring polite requests.Jcg5029 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jcg5029 here. You have yet to show any other organizations that refer to themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ. You keep telling us that you want evidence but you yourself have given none. There will be NO change to the page name. END OF DISCUSSION JRN 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I did: [6].

I challenge anyone to show that The Church of Jesus Christ (the one with headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania, which is what I mean when I say "(whimp)" which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mckaysalisbury&diff=next&oldid=125231034 used by JCG before I used it, and more or less sanctioned by CSG) is meant "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ". That's the decision in question. Failing such demonstration, The Church of Jesus Christ will become a disambiguation page, as per WP:D third mentioning.

McKay 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I used the term after you had used it and before 'with Headquarters in Monongahela, PA' was shown NOT to be the Church's actual name. Due to false info on THIS SITE!!! Since it has been shown to be offensive so do not use it again. You have yet to actually look at any of the citations or you would understand. It shows a lack of honest effort on your part. You have a strong POV, but it is irrelevant. The official name stays. Other Church's have names that are similar and so they are listed in the Disambig page, but no other organization has this as the official name and if they did they would be so small and obscure a Google search would show that they should just be on the disambig page.Jcg5029 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, read this again. You used "(whimp)" after you realized that that wasn't part of the title. Please assume good faith. I'm making an honest an effort as I can. I'm I'm sorry, there's so many citations everywhere, I thought I had been through all I could get access to. Could you please point out to me which citation shows that the "B" term is offensive? Assuming good faith, I've decided to trust your assertion that the term is considered offensive, and have decided not to use the "B" term, but I still would like to see the source. I'm sorry, you keep saying that my opinions are POV. Could you please show an argument where I've said anything to add a POV to this article? I'm trying to execute wikipedia policy. If you say that I'm being POV again without evidence that I'm being POV, I will take it as a personal attack.

Also, you keep mentioning how your church has it as it's official name, and how "official"-ness matters so much, but according to wikipedia policy (see my argument about WP:D below), just common references matter. McKay 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never sanctioned the use of any name for this organization other than the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ. The site will not be changed as per your previous reference. You are contradicting yourself now McKay! This is CSG on a different computer.

Sorry, how am I contradicting myself? What do you mean "as per [my] previous reference"?

And here's why I say he has "sanctioned" it:

1. CSG complains for McKay's use of an offensive term
2. McKay says he will use " (whimp)"
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mckaysalisbury&diff=next&oldid=126144555 CSG: "I appreciate your willingness to comply with my request"

I apologize if the apparent sanction was accidental. But we still need a way of disambiguating between other churches with this name. Without any further recommendations, I will use " (whimp)" when needed. McKay 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"between other churches with this name" - what other church's with this name. I have yet to see any evidence any any other church's with the official name "The Church of Jesus Christ". What it looks like to me McKay is that you dislike the change any for about a week now you have scraped up every piece of wikipolicy that you can find to try and substatiate that you don't like the change. You have stated that it was against WP:NCON and realized that was untrue, you switched your tactics and then went on further to say that you have quoted twice now that WP:NCON is not the issue here and you are now stating that it is a WP:D while there is a disambig link at the top for other church's who may use Church of Jesus Christ unofficially. You have also now stated that the onus is on us to make proof that The Church of Jesus Christ is "meant "much more than any other" usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ" while you have yet to give any other proof of Official usage of that name. How I see it is that you have some dislike of us or The Church of Jesus Christ. Wikipedia is not a place to hold or enforce vendettas McKay. Please show some proof of official usage or there will be NO change, as it is on you to show proof in order to make a change. JRN 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't really even respond to this because this is totally an ad hominim logical fallacy. You have no substantive comments in what you said.

Yes, I'll admit that I was a little confused betwen WP:NCON and WP:D. I'm fairly sure that WP:D is the policy that should be used for this problem. (as per my next paragraph), but I had read those policies quite some time ago. WP:NCON is to be used to determine what an article should be titled (unless there's a conflict, in which case WP:D comes into place. But, if you look at WP:NCON in reverse (which was the mistake I was making), trying to determine which topic belongs at a specific location, the policy is WP:D, i.e. which ever topic is most popular gets the title. I admit I was mistaken, so previous arguments referring to WP:NCON were flawed.

I have stated on several times that the Cutlerites have the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ" [7]. This is enough for the policy of WP:D to come into play. But also, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sometimes referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ". Also, sometimes "the Church of Jesus Christ" is used to refer to all Christians. As per WP:D "resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" Does anyone deny that this is the policy that should be used? McKay 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, you must not have read this...

      1. Naming policy is not always about what is most popular. I see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) policy as an exception. The policy says that "considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used".
      2. There isn't really a naming conflict with the Cutlerite church, because the Cutlerite church has no problem with the term Cutlerite, and if we were as you suggest to always use the most popular terminology, we would rename their article to Cutlerite. (We could not rename this church to Bickertonite, however, because some in the church find it offensive (much, I suppose, as LDS Church members don't really like Brighamite or Mormon Church).
      3. I didn't say the LDS church discouraged the use of "the Church of Jesus Christ", I said they make it clear that their proper name includes "Latter-day Saints". Also, you'll note that the church press release did not capitalize the the in "the Church of Jesus Christ". The LDS Church does not intend that "the Church" and "the Church of Jesus Christ" act as synonyms for the church's proper name, independent of the church's real name. Otherwise, there'd be a naming conflict with The Church, too.
      4. Google's linking to the LDS Church first is a result of the LDS Church being so bigger and more written-about, and the fact that the name of this church is a subset of the name of the LDS Church. Likewise, doing a Google search for Church of Jesus brings up the LDS Church first, even though the LDS Church never refers to itself that way, yet there are several organizations that use that name. Even a search of "The Church of" brings up the LDS Church second. Interestingly, in a search for simply "Church", the LDS Church website is the first non-Wikipedia result. COGDEN 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I read it, and responded to it elsewhere, I'll mention my concerns with this again:

1. Correct. We shouldn't refer to The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) as "The Bickertonite church" beacuse it is considered perjorative.

2. According to WP:D, because the cutlerite church is sometimes called "The Church of Jesus Christ", we need to apply the policy of WP:D.

3. I've said before that I'm totally willing to remove the LDS church from consideration as to the primary topic of the article The Church of Jesus Christ.

4. Yeah, Interesting. What does this have to do with this question? McKay 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to remove the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from this whole "popularity" issue '3. I've said before that I'm totally willing to remove the LDS church from consideration as to the primary topic of the article The Church of Jesus Christ' - McKay , then we must move to the next closest organization to The Church of Jesus Christ. This would be The Church of Jesus Christ - Cutlerites. However, using your own arguement, due to popularity The Church of Jesus Christ maintains the title (see all of the references to Google Searches). Your arguement simply does not hold water. CSG 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what McKay said:

• I'm totally willing to remove the LDS church from consideration as to the primary topic of the article The Church of Jesus Christ.

What he's saying here, is that he doesn't think that the "LDS church" should be the topic at The Church of Jesus Christ.

He thinks The Church of Jesus Christ should be a disambiguation page.

His argument is regarding WP:D. "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" can most certainly be associated with more than one topic. Similarly, the term Mercury and the term Milk can also also refer to more than one topic (as examples of all three cases: The church which has it's headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania, and a church that has it's headquarters in missouri; a planet Mercury (planet) and an element Mercury (element); a liquid Milk, and a song by Garbage Milk (Garbage song)). The disambiguation policy needs to be applied in all three cases:

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

1. Mercury

   Mercury means many things, none of them are meant "much more than any other", so there is no primary topic page. Mercury is a dab page.

2. Milk

   Milk also has many meanings, but the liquid is meant "much more than any other", so there is a primary topic page. the liquid is the topic at Milk

3. The Church of Jesus Christ

   has many meanings, and either one of two cases could be argued:

   1. None are meant "much more than any other"

      which means The Church of Jesus Christ is a disambiguation page

   2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is meant "much more than any other" usage of the term

      which means The Church of Jesus Christ should be a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To simplify the discussion McKay is willing to throw out the latter case. He isn't sure if this is what the right thing to do is according to wikipedia policy, but he's willing to give the members of the church in question an olive branch. He's willing to make that concession. McKay 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person????HAHAHAHA...oh my you are ridiculous!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.149.72.72 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

JRN, please be WP:CIVIL.McKay 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since clearly there is an organization who is commonly referred to by there official name, see any source listed, The Church of Jesus Christ. No other large organization uses this name. Since many groups can associate themselves to Church of Jesus Christ there is a disambig page. McKay maybe you did not see that there is already a disambig page made for such a case. A link has been placed at the top of the page for The Church of Jesus Christ. Thus everybody is happy and under wiki policy. I understand if you missed the link.128.118.246.192 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If the issue in question is the Cutlerites, officially titled Church of Jesus Christ *Note no article. They are so small official Independence, Missouri Church listings http://independencemo.areaconnect.com/churches.htm do not have them. They are most commonly associated not by an article, but by the term Cutlerites, which they refer to themselves as. This brings up a good point that their site should be moved to Church of Jesus Christ 'Cutlerite'. The article here is not their official name or how they are commonly called. Maybe a shortened version simply to Cutlerite is in order, either way the disambig page has them so all is well.128.118.246.192 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read my quoting of wikipedia policy. You're applying an imprecise metric to the situation. I'll quote the page again:

• "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic" (from WP:D).

Can the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" apply to more than one topic? McKay 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not refer to another topic. If a person mistakenly was looking for a group with the term Church of Jesus Christ there is a disambig page. Maybe you didn't see it.128.118.246.192 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:D what is there now is perfectly correct because no other organization is referred to as The Church of Jesus Christ more than The Church of Jesus Christ. If you have statistics in books or something contrary to that it may help your POV become an argument.128.118.246.192 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't belive you're being this way about this. So what you're saying is that you don't think anyone would ever under any circumstances say "The Church of Jesus Christ" and mean either the LDS church or the Cutlerite church? I personally think that the Cutlerite Church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ" I can't prove it, but you can't prove that they are officially "Church of Jesus Christ". But even still, you have to admit the possiblity that someone somewhere might say "The Church of Jesus Christ" and mean the Cutlerite church. Do you deny it? If you would like sources, I added a bunch of links to Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), some of which use the phrase "The Church of Jesus Christ" (capital and everything) referring to the cutlerite church. ([8] [9] to list two). Those two articles are empirical proof. There are people who use the phrase "The Church of Jesus Christ" and mean "Cutlerite" do you deny it? McKay 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Great points, What groups are referred to as The Church of Jesus Christ more than The Church of Jesus Christ. No group is referred to more or even close. For uses of Church of Jesus Christ there is the disambig page as well as a link from that to a disambig on Church of Christ. Clearly this composes all groups using these terms. Unless there are some mystery groups I have no knowledge of. Jcg5029 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The principle guidline for naming under the Latter Day Saints section of wiki is to use accurate terms and titles. That is what has been done and how it will stay. It is important to adhere to wiki guidlines.Jcg5029 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing making it an inaccurate title. Mercury (element) is not an inaccurate title, nor is Milk (Garbage song). Your argument is flawed.

Your silence on the actual issue (WP:D implies that you think the WP:D is the correct policy for this situation? Should I continue my logical argument or do you give up? McKay 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your silence on the actual issue, naming guidlines for Latter Day Saint groups I thought proved my point. I will not talk about'giving up' or any other POV thought. I am trying to represent the groups in the best possible and correct manner. You are ignoring the arguments proposed to you.Jcg5029 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My question remains, who refers to a group with the term The Church of Jesus Christ more than The Church of Jesus Christ. To make a WP:D you must have groups who actually use it. You are making a WP:D claim without any other groups involved. Are these groups outside of the already created Church of Jesus Christ disambig page, because that page already exists.Jcg5029 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:D "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic". The term in question "The Church of Jesus Christ". I present that there are at least two topics that can be associated with that term. One has it's headquarters in Monogahela Pennsylvania, and the other is informally called "Cutlerites"[10][11], so WP:D must certainly be used. Does anyone deny this? McKay 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who assosiates them just with the term The Church of Jesus Christ? They sure don'tJcg5029 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I provided two links ([12][13]) In each of those cases, someone assocaites the the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" with the cutlerites. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say they're more important than you are, I'm merely showing that the WP:D is the correct policy to apply. Does anyone deny it? McKay 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at those sites and both called them The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerites). Anyone who would search for this groups certainly would use that title. Certainly no person would search for The Church of Jesus Christ with a name other than the official name or an offensive term. I think the links above the two sites covered any questionable issues nicely. Now I personally cannot see any individual looking for Cutlerites without typing in Cutlerites. I think the question is would any person actually look for this group as simply The Church of Jesus Christ, I believe all sources indicate no. This would mean there is no issue. Would you argue against that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I forgot to sign, I was looking at WP:D and there are two ways to clear up an issue like this, one being when there are only two groups to make a disambig link at the top of the page, which we have already done using the most common, nonoffensive name for both groups. It appears even in WP:D the page is currently correct. The group who uses the term and is called as The Church of Jesus Christ is titled such and the Cutlerites have their page. There once again appears to be no issue.Jcg5029 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you are now admitting that WP:D is the correct policy to apply in this case? That's what I'm trying to establish at this point. Once we've established that, then we will discuss the finer points of the WP:D policy. McKay 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am saying the page is correct under every single Wiki policy as is right now.Jcg5029 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm currently contesting that. I'm trying to explain it so all can understand, but this is nearly impossible as no one will follow the logical argument I'm making:

WP:D "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic". The term in question "The Church of Jesus Christ". I present that there are at least two topics that can be associated with that term. One has it's headquarters in Monogahela Pennsylvania, and the other is informally called "Cutlerites"[14][15], so WP:D must certainly be used. Does anyone deny this? McKay 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree simply because everybody associates Cutlerites with the term 'Cutlerites'. Would you disagree? Remember, the Latter Day Saint naming page asks that editors avoid disambig pages within the movement.Jcg5029 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree for the same reasons that JCG. The Cutlerites refer to themselves as such, therefore they are already disambiguated. JRN 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't "do most people" it's "Does someone" say "The Church of Jesus Christ" and mean Cutlerites. I'm not asking yet if they are already disambiguated enough. I'm asking if anyone disagrees as to whether or not the WP:D policy should be used.

I thirdly disagree. McKay, your POV on this subject has been countered at each turn. The page is in compliance with all policy. Even WP:D has been met without changing anything of political correctness and maintaining legality. This especially cannot be disagreed with because of the lack of offense associated with the term "Cutlerites". Even one of the sites that you cite does not refer to The Church of Jesus Christ by any other name than such. I also agree with JCG on the point that the LDS naming page asks for an avoidance on disambiguation and there is no other name than The Church of Jesus Christ that can be associated with this organization due to the reasons given over the past few weeks. The ability to hold water your arguements are lacking. CSG 01:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Countered at every turn? I'm merely trying to establish whether or not WP:D is the correct policy here. You guys all say something like "No it's not okay to use WP:D, but WP:D says we can do it this way." You're logic is full of holes and I'm trying to take this step by step because whenever it gets too complicated you guys get confused. Is WP:D the correct policy to apply at this point? McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So far the only person who has been confused about wiki policies has been you in previous arguments.

ad hominim logical fallacy.

That aside, I disagree that WP:D is valid in this case because there is already two disambiguations using the major distinctions of the two groups, another one would simply be irrelevant because nobody actually refers to the Cutlerites as The Church of Jesus Christ.

But I've quoted the section of the policy that says that it shouldn't just be used in the case of lack of disambiguation, it should be used in the case where the term could refer to more than one group. I.e. The Mercury (element) page could be moved to Mercury and there would be proper disambiguation, with no conflicts, but that would contradict the guidelines set forth on the WP:D page.

So the answer is no WP:D is not needed because the page is currently correct. There is nothing wrong, nothing needs changed on this name.

I'm saying there is something wrong. Stating that there isn't something wrong doesn't make it so.

The Latter Day Saint naming section refers to this page as The Church of Jesus Christ, it asks editors to name based on official names which has currently been done,

I'm not sure that that change was done with a consensus of the body.

it asks editors to avoid using disambigs when they are not needed. Like on this page, where a disambig is not needed.

I'm saying a disambiguation page is needed

So the page is currently correct with EVERY wiki policy. We are not taking one, picking it apart, but rather looking at all the policies and making sure the page is correct under wiki, which it is. Since it is currently correct I see no issue.Jcg5029 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim that it is correct with "EVERY wiki policy". I claim that it isn't correct according to the WP:D policy. I've presented the data, no one has refuted the line I've quoted on several occasions:

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

I claim that The Church of Jesus Christ (the one with it's headquarters in monongahela pennsylvania) is not meant "much more than any other" using a google test "The Church of Jesus Christ" as proof that it isn't meant more than at least one other. So therefore The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) should not be at the article The Church of Jesus Christ. Where is my logic flawed. This seems VERY clear. If you would like to present additional data feel free to do so. McKay 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is jcg5029 at another computer.

Did you know that you can sign on to multiple computers?

The Church of Jesus Christ does use the term The Church of Jesus Christ more than any other organization and it is its official name.

Can you verfify that fact?

The Cutlerites only use the term with Cutlerites added on and every single other site also uses it in conjunction with (Cutlerites).

Can you verify that fact? What if I found someone that doesn't? Would that be enough to disprove your claim?

How many sources are there (aside from your organization) that refer to you without the "(Bickertonite)" appelation?

There appears to be nothing that needs a disambig page. Plus the naming rules and regs for the Latter Day Saint movement are very clear that official names should be used and disambig pages only when necessary.

No, you can't use that as your defense, because we have a disambiguation page.

The disambig at the top of both pages of the Cutlerites and The Church of Jesus Christ clear what would even be the tiniest dispute. I have yet to see one source that does not use the term Cutlerites, but ONLY The Church of Jesus Christ. I have yet to see that information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.178.105.104 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

So, if I could find a source that called the Cutlerites "The Church of Jesus Christ" then The Church of Jesus Christ would become a disambiguation page? McKay 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, see everybody calls them, and they call themselves Cutlerites. So there is no disambig issue.Jcg5029 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading the policy: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." That's the policy. Care to explain? Also: "At least 20 independent religious bodies in the U.S. bear the name Church of Jesus Christ."[16] referring to "Church of Jesus Christ (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)" the quote reads: "The Church of Jesus Christ presently has a membership of about 10,000 worldwide. Approximately 2,600 members are located within the United States." In this case they aren't referring to the the church with headquarters in Monongahela Pn, but they don't use anything else in parenthesis. McKay 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that you agree what we have now is correct? I agree because the disambig page for Church of Jesus Christ already exists. I am glad we both feel it is necessary for these pages.Jcg5029 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately McKay you should check your links before you use them to make an arguements because Church of Jesus Christ (Pittsburgh) is actually The Church of Jesus Christ. For some reason the unintelligent fellow that made that page couldn't even get the correct information but according to the link in the box next to it "LINK* web site (1998): "Information on Latter Day Saint Movement (Restoration Theology) Religions " by David Bowie; "Quoting from a letter on The Church of Jesus Christ/General Church Correspondent stationery from ""Richard W. Lawson"", General Church Correspondent, dated 12 October 1994 ". Unfortunately for you I personally know Richard (Dick) W. Lawson and know that he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ. Make sure you know what you are citing next time McKay. JRN 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't claim to know everything. But there's still "At least 20 independent religious bodies in the U.S. bear the name Church of Jesus Christ." Yes theand like I said before, there should definitely be a disambiguation page, but the question is "where does it belong" accordigng to WP:D "Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." So in order for your church to have the article The Church of Jesus Christ you have to show "clearly dominant usage". McKay 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The church's you refer to have their disambiguation page. See Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation). You stated and linked yourself to "Church of Jesus Christ" and not The Church of Jesus Christ. Clearly this shows dominant usage as you have yet to show another "The Church of Jesus Christ". JRN 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I should have mentioned that he referred to your organization as "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" without the "The". So some, if not all, of those organizations would use "The Church of Jesus Christ" but you've said you didn't care about the definite article there. Okay, I'll go find one. McKay 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

McKay that is a weak logical arguement at best and those statements should not be stated unless they can be WP:A. Just because "A" church has been found incorrectly referenced as "B" church doesn't mean that "C" church is incorrectly referenced also. That is in direct violation of WP:A - JRN 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, McKay you should stop referring to sources that show false information like that and then discrediting them later. It is shady. The fact that The Church of Jesus Christ is titled The Church of Jesus Christ shows dominate usage, how could you argue otherwise? We are using proper naming guidlines from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) No other organization commonly refers to themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ other than The Church of Jesus Christ. No other organization uses this term commonly. Jcg5029 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I referred to the Adherents source because it mentioned that there are at least 20 independent churches that call themselves "Church of Jesus Christ". I discredited their lack of use of the definite article, because they include in that 20 the church with it's headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, which we all know uses the definite article.

You are incorrect in your statement, "No other organization commonly refers to themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ". First off, "Commonly" doesn't matter for the WP:D, but the church which is informally called Cutlerites, refers to themselves as "The Church of Jesus Christ" and has for over 100 years . Only rarely do they refer to themselves as "The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)" or similar formulations. Also The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently printed an magazine titled: "Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ" [17]. In order for the article about the church which has its headquarters in Monongahela Pennsylvania to be at The Church of Jesus Christ it must be shown that that church is meant much more than any other usage of the term "The Church of Jesus Christ". McKay 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) states that official names should be used or very commonly associated names.

Official Names can't be used because there's a conflict, very commonly associated names ("The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)") cannot be used because of POV, any other ideas?

Because of the relative size of the Cutlerites compared to The Church of Jesus Christ - there is no issue. The fact that their homepage refers to themselves as Culterites is enough of a source.

That is NOT wikipedia policy. You don't use the size of something, you use the WP:D policy to resolve conflicts. Stop making up policies and use printed ones.

The page is currently correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints).

That single page? Maybe, but there's been some non-consensus change of policy on that page, also, it doesn't override WP:D

You made a great point that there should be a disambig page for Church of Jesus Christ and there already is. See SESMITH's comments above as to why only the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ will work.

I don't know which comment you're referring to, SESSmith hasn't said anything "above" for several dozen k of text.

We are just following the rules of wiki.

No, you are not. Care to tell me how you're fully in compliant with WP:D, I've stated above there's a place you'ren't fully in compliance.

Since you are arguing against the majority it is on you to provide proof that this name is even an issue, you have failed to do so.Jcg5029 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have provided proof that the name is an issue, I cited a source which includes minutes from their organization. PROOF. The Cutlerite Church uses the same thing that you do in meetings. The Name is an issue.

Do you not read on this policy that disambig pages are discouraged for the Latter Day Saint movement. The fact that two already exist - one a link and one a separate page more than covers this issue. So there is no problem here.Jcg5029 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The LDS policy is to discourage dab pages. We have one, we must have one. The only question is where it belongs. Stop incessantly quoting that policy that doesn't apply. McKay 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, Dab aka disambig they all link to the same page.