Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Archive 2

message: Does someone know how to properly post Apostle Paul Palmieri and the World Conference Center on the site??  The pictures looked great but they need proper citation.Jcg5029 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the pictures are the same ones as those on this church's website, and the website specifically states that the items on it are under copyright. If the website were to state "everything on here is under public domain" then that would suffice. McKay 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because a download is free doesn't mean that we can use it on the encyclopedia. If they own the copyright, they can copy it as much as they want, and distribute to as many people as they want, so even though I can look at it, I can't further reproduce it, because I don't own the copyright. Consequently, Wikipedia as an entity can acquire a copy of the image, but because wikipedia doesn't own the copyright, they can't reproduce it and put it in their encyclopedia. McKay 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks I didn't know.  I thought since my computer automatically copies them and places such pictures in the temp internet files that it would be okay for the pictures.  Lets face it, every computer does that same thing thus somehow violating a copyright??  I understand your point though you are right.  Thanks for the info.Jcg5029 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By visiting their site, The Church of Jesus Christ, as copyright holder, has authorized you to look at the image. Fair use stipulates that you can store that temporarily to look at that image, but you do not have rights to upload that to a different website to share with others. Similarly, if you go buy a CD from the store, you have acquired a copy of the music, and you can listen to it. Fair use stipulates that you can use the CD on your computer, (even though technically, it first makes a copy of the music, buffers it onto the CD-ROM drive's buffer, copies that again across the bus to the RAM, makes a copy in the RAM, in RAM makes another copy as it translates it to a format playable by the speakers, then translates that across the bus again to the sound card, where the sound card copies it again and buffers it to play out the speakers). But none of that means that you can put the music up on your website, because you don't own the copyright. Does that make sense? McKay 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can probably remedy this pretty easy.  I will probably see Paul this weekend and I'll just take a picture of him myself and use that to post.  As far as the Conference Center I can do the same when I am home in two weeks.  I'll just swing by and take a good picture of it to use and post.  That should solve any problems JRN 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that it isn't enough to give permission to use on Wikipedia, but it must be licensed under a free license, like Creative Commons or GPL McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I think great progress has been made on this page in the past couple weeks.  I think that it is now coming together as a much better page.  Will all the arguements on the name in the past week much hasn't been said about more revisions of the page.  How does everyone feel about the page; Are there any other areas that we need to specifically address? Any new categories or headings that we feel need included?  Let's try and get a good concensus and move forward so this page can continue to improve.  I would also to like to thank everyone for their input.  JRN 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to have less points, howabout a Faith and Doctrine Heading and a Ordinance??  See what it looks like and throw in thoughts!Jcg5029 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: There should be a William Bickerton page.  I will volunteer to start it up!Jcg5029 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Bickerton 

message: Some unidentiied user has been making some good edits to the page lately, but he/she has changed alot of wording withing the intro paragraphs.  I feel that the new paragraphs are very awkwardly worded and have lost the flow.  Does anyone have any good suggestions to clean it up.  I know the first paragraph has been touchy so I wanted to open it back up so we can have a concensus JRN 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I'm working on the sources for this article, and I would like to get a copy of "Valenti, Jerry (1986). "Volume 56", Welcome to The Church of Jesus Christ. Bridgewater, MI: Gospel News, 9." how would I go about doing that? McKay 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: After referring to WP:Manual of Style, can it be agreed that apart from quotations we should be referring to "the church" rather than "The Church"? There has been an small "edit war" re:this and I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Thx.-SESmith 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine with me, I didn't realize it was an issue.Jcg5029 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take blame for that as I must have misread that a while back.  I thought it was ok to reference as "The Church".  I was incorrect and should have rechecked the WP:Manual of Style before reverting. I have brought up the use of "The Church" as a shortened reference to The Church of Jesus Christ on the manual of style (LDS) page to try and find a proper shortened for of the name for use as one doesn't exist now.  Please feel free to go there and comment and make suggestions.  Thanks - JRN 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, -SESmith 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Church vs the church (Name revisted)

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# My reasons are above, as I started the requested move. McKay 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change to Undecided : I believe both sides have strong arguments and am taking no position here on what I think should be done, because I can't decide myself. It's a tough call. -SESmith 11:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # My reasons are above, as I started the requested move. McKay 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change to Undecided : I believe both sides have strong arguments and am taking no position here on what I think should be done, because I can't decide myself. It's a tough call. -SESmith 11:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose  - I don't understand why this was made but I am directly oppose to the change for many reasons
#* Church of Jesus Christ has a disambiguation page for the "20 organizations that use Church of Jesus Christ".  
#*  None of the names proposed by McKay follow any policy of wikipedia including WP:A no original research which states original research "defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms".  As none of the proposed terms have been found with any type of common usage, Mckay is trying to introduce new terms and introduce new definitions of The Church of Jesus Christ
#* Although it may be walking the line of POV, The Church of Jesus Christ uses no other terms to describe itself as it finds other terms offensive.  Particularly those relating to men.  For clarificiation please see The Church of Jesus Christ under the category of Use of Descriptive Terms.  WP:NPOV clearly shows that the boas for or against the church's beliefs or views is POV.  Therefore using terms as "Bickertonite" "RIgdonite" "Monogahela" or such are directly opposed to views of the church
#* Disambiguation links have been placed at the top for Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation) and The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerites).  As the Cutlerites are a small faction of no more than 50 active members, I belive WP:D is satisfied in that "The Church of Jesus Christ" would refer to said church much more that it would refer to the Cutlertite Church. I believe this fulfills WP:D.
#* WP:NCON for latter day saint church's gives no alternate name for The Church of Jesus Christ other than The Church of Jesus Christ.  So creating an alternate name would be against WP:NCON.
#* I don't understand totally what this is for as McKay has stated that it is not a vote.  We have been discussing this matter openly for a while and I don't know what he is trying to accomplish. - JRN 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Yes, I have stated before that wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you'll note, this isn't just a vote, it's a survey. Opinons matter more than vote counts. This is part of a formal process to move the page. I've stated the arguments, and none of you are quoting policy anymore, you are just making POV statements, so I'm opening this up to the community because a formal discussion will show the following points:
#Adding something like (William Bickerton) to the end of an article is not introducing a new term, it is wikipedia policy. Take a look at WP:D for that policy, but look at :Category:Disambiguation for hundreds of examples of this Nightshade (disambiguation), they aren't creating new terms when they create articles like Nightshade (book), they're disambiguating, like must occur for this page.
#Most (if not all) of the arguments given by JRN show that he is ignorant of wikipedia policy.
#*His mentioning of WP:A doesn't apply
#*His mentioning of WP:NPOV is to introduce his NPOV into the article
#*and WP:NCON is to determine what should be used before the parenthesis, if that weren't so Mercury (element) would be in violation as well as tens of thousands of other articles that are disambiguated with parenthetical phrases. McKay 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget that that article IS Wikipedia Policy and any changes made would be in violation of said policy. CSG 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are simply avoiding the Wikipedia policy regarding the naming of articles that fall into the category of the Latter Day Saints Movement. I have quoted it and supported it above. CSG 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not ignoring it, You're referring to a newer version, one that doesn't have have consensus. this version had consensus, and supports calling your church "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I'm not saying that this policy shouldn't change, but that this policy shouldn't be changed in the middle of a discussion on where the page in question should be located. And then it should be changed only after consensus. I've McKay 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who made the change McKay?  I don't believe it was any one of us.  I tried to find out but I couldn't.  Do you know who it was? JRN 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move, yes or no?

message: This appears to be a difficult disambiguation problem, but maybe we're focusing on the wrong things. Can't we resolve this by making a distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ with the initial "The", which represents an organization, and Church of Jesus Christ, which seems to be a good candidate for a disambiguation page? I think including the "The" is very significant. There's no clear indication that any of the other organizations use the "The" as part of a proper name, and someone searching Wikipedia hoping to find out about the Christian Church wouldn't include the "The". I would analogize this to The Cure, which is about the band, versus Cure, which is a disambiguation page. COGDEN 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation and the "The" 

message: I added a lot of good, well known information into this site -- it expands it and I welcome other editors to help make it look awesome.  Also some later history not well known...Jcg5029 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: McKay has done excellent research to change the Cutlerite name to no longer include the article (The).  Because of this I propose and am changing the link to the Cutlerites - who can already be found though the other disambig page.  Plus see all the reasons why the disambig on their page to this one was considered by all editors as not needed.  Jcg5029 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig sections 

message: I added a ton of external links in the hopes of expanding the page and giving more information on church auxilaries and structure.  Jcg5029 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational Structure and Auxilaries 

message: I reverted back to the name of the parent church being "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", because that is objectively the name of the Church Sidney Rigdon belonged to and held a senior leadership position in at the time of Joseph Smith's death, and which Rigdon is believed to have been perpetuating, which is also what the modern Church of Jesus Christ claims its succession through.
Furthermore, even this article quotes the Church of Jesus Christ's council, in 1855, under Bickerton, as referring to their own church as "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..." This suggests this was still what they referred to themselves as. Is this wrong, or is there something I'm missing here? If it is true, this extends by many years the time in which the earlier stage of the modern church was known under the name I reverted to.
As an aside, the church's official website, as linked to in the article, also says "The Church of Jesus Christ is not affiliated with any other Church and has never been known under any other name"  (emphasis added), although this seems to be contradicted by the quotation from the church council under Bickerton in 1855 calling it "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...", even if not by the claims of descendency from the church Joseph Smith organized in 1830, which was also known by other names, and as the article also notes, the church's name was also legally registered at one early point as "Church of Jesus Christ of Green Oak, Pennsylvania". Not trying to be antagonistic here, just pointing out and asking about something I'm not too familiar with but that doesn't seem consistent.
And, we should probably seek consensus here before changing the "name of the parent church" in the article again. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my two cents worth...The Church of Jesus Christ does not claim to be the continuation of the Rigdonite Church.  What The Church of Jesus Christ does claim is to be the continuation/true branch of the Church of Christ as restored to Joseph Smith.  Now that name was changed over time, but its the original name that even the LDS Wiki page uses.  I suggest we stay congruent between pages.  I'll make the change.  Jcg5029 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the name of the page we are linking to, its the Church of Christ.  Why make it any different???  Jcg5029 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Church of Christ was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1844, and the split did not happen until then at the earliest. Saying it is are a continuation of the Church of Christ means it was a continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, unless you are arguing for a pre-1833 branch off. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree with the historical name, but there is a bigger issue.  Leaving the name as Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints is completely accurate for history at the time, but it is very confusing to many who may view this page that are not associated with the Latter Day Saint movement.  Lets be honest - most would assume that break off was of the Latter-day Saint church NOT the Latter Day Saint church.  And yes there is a huge difference.  So in order to not confuse the two -- it simply is easier to refer to it by its original name.  Jcg5029 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe that it is important to understand what this organization (The Church of Jesus Christ) is claiming. As far as my understanding is concerned, they claim to be the spiritual successor of the original organization that Joseph Smith, JR. set up initially. They do not claim any succession from any of the additional changes made to Joseph's initial organization. When Rigdon gained the presidency according to succession, and then Bickerton, they both tried to go back to what Joseph initially set up. The parent church of this organization according to practice and doctrine is The Church of Christ. Especially considering that there are several different pages for each of these organizations, I really dont see where your arguement is coming from to change it to the COJC-LDS. It really doesnt make any sense considering what this organization claims. CSG 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick follow up to my comment previously too. I believe to my best knowledge is to create an accurate article for Wikipedia for each article on here. If we are to maintain the most accurate picture of this organization to the world, it is important to understand where this organization is coming from. The paragraph is simply stating where they 'claim' to gain their succession. CSG 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that what is important, or is it to represent the body that they broke from in historical fact? I think we're interpreting the purpose of the box differently. An organization can claim all sorts of things, but the facts as understood by historians might say something completely different. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know Rigdon never "broke" from the organization.  Rigdon continued on in what Joseph Smith was doing.  They both faltered after the initial restoration of the gospel (1830) adding in doctrines as they saw fit.  They only difference between Rigdon and Young were that Young was a polygamist and once Young took the group out west he officially split from The Restored Gospel when he rebaptized everyone in Utah under his authority and not the authority of Jesus Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ believes it is a true succession from the 1830 although Rigdon began to falter, William Bickerton began to slowly fix what had been created by the false revelations of Joseph Smith 71.61.86.233 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be Church of Christ for one main reason.  The Church of Jesus Christ claims it's continuation of authority from Joseph Smith to Sidney Risgdon to William Bickerton.  The doctrine (re)established by William Bickerton were those of the 1830 Church of Christ.  Although the name was Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints after the change in 1834 until Rigdon left in 1844 we claim no part of that church. Our doctrines and beliefs did not come from that time period.  They came from the 1830 church.  The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that it's parent church was the 1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Rich Uncle Skeleton seems to be confusing the line of authority with the parent church.  They are two seperate things.  Although Rigdon did things that were contrary to the will of God, according to the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ, we don't feel he lost his authority.  Thus when William Bickerton was baptized and ordained under the authority of Rigson it passed to Bickerton.  William Bickerton did not continue on with Rigdon but re-established under the precepts of the 1830 church, also known as Church of Christ.  I don't see how you can argue that historically.  I think it would be suitable for parties involved to have more of a background in The Church of Jesus Christ before trying to make edits to the page.  It seems unethical to make edits to something that you have very little knowledge of.  Thanks JRN 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I made no claims to the rightful succession of Church of Christ.  I am a member of the said organization and believe I do have a right to edit this page.  I have not been in a WP:COI just because I am a member.  I have not tried to use this to promote or advertise and have made no gains from it. I am here to simply make sure that the page is correct and balanced.  If you want to make claims of WP:COI then you will have a long road ahead of you stopping every on wikipedia from editing pages about their religion.  I made no personal attacks on anyone.  I just get angry when individuals make edits with seemingly little knowledge about what they are editing.  I never called anyone out by name (including you).  Thanks JRN 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree because this would be two links to the same page.  It would be against Wiki Manual of style guidelines for internal links.  Do you feel the Church of Christ was a different church than Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints??  If you feel they are two different organizations I may have more sympathy for your arguments.  If you feel they are the same church with a different name, as all historical records agree -- MOST of the time with the name varying depending on the autobiography -- then why not make sure there is no disambiguation dispute?  Feel free to discuss below.  Jcg5029 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is incorrect for the same reasons as jcg5029, and I agree with his proposal.  You briefly stated in previous discussions that accidental association with the L-dS organization was unavoidable, but jcg5029 has just made a proposal that completely avoids that association and still links to the correct organization.  Plus it follows the wiki guidlines.  146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Um, that proposal was already on the table, and has been for awhile now. We were getting no where with it, and I definitely oppose it. See my proposal above for a compromise position. In situations like this, it's OK to invoke WP:IGNORE in order to reach consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Only you opposed it that I have seen.  Feel free to not ignore wiki policies and please explain why my reasoning is incorrect?  Jcg5029 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaverdrop also opposed it—see very top of the discussion. Your reasoning is not "incorrect"; it's just that your proposal has already failed to gain consensus. Please submit a proposal that suggests a form of compromise so we can come to an agreement. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal, see notes for rejecting compromise.  146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a student who makes edits in between classes from a computer lab and currently am too busy to make a name, etc.  Thank you for assuming good faith.  128.118.148.63 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for letting us know. It does get a bit confusing when your IP address shifts around and changes. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I also agree with VisorStuff.  When reading their literature, they make a big deal about being the "true" church by tracing their authority through Rigdon.  At least they did way back when I first learned about the Mormon Church.  I would, however, make sure the article mentions that they believe they are the true church and their "line of authority" -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I spoke above I am a student at a university who cannot afford his own internet access, so I use labs to make any edits here on wikipedia.  If you would like my autobiography I'll send you an email.  Until then assume good faith people.  128.118.148.63 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I wondered why your IP number's first edits in years were several on this one article, but I assume good faith. On the other hand, there's no student so poor that she can't use the free internet access on her school's computer to select a Wikipedia username. I waited three years to do that, but it is handy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: HAHA so call me poor and lazy.  128.118.148.63 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With your insults (see section below) and strange behavior, you credibility is sinking like a stone. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about poor and obstinate? Just go ahead and register; you can use "laxypoorboy" for your password and thus would never forget it and have no excuse for not using a registered name. This seems like a very simple request and if you are going to desire to have any credibility on Wikipedia you will need it. Here is to a better reputation. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with COGDEN.  Jcg5029 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent church = "...of Latter Day Saints", or no? 

message: Since there is disagreement on the issue of the "parent church", I'm willing to propose a compromise. How about including both Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It could say something like "Church of Christ (theologically); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (historically)" or something similar. Perhaps "Church of Christ, which was renamed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838"? Either of these would succeed in acknowledging both viewpoints. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree because this would be two links to the same page.  It would be against Wiki Manual of style guidelines for internal links.  Do you feel the Church of Christ was a different church than Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints??  If you feel they are two different organizations I may have more sympathy for your arguments.  If you feel they are the same church with a different name, as all historical records agree -- MOST of the time with the name varying depending on the autobiography -- then why not make sure there is no disambiguation dispute?  Feel free to discuss below.  Jcg5029 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is incorrect for the same reasons as jcg5029, and I agree with his proposal.  You briefly stated in previous discussions that accidental association with the L-dS organization was unavoidable, but jcg5029 has just made a proposal that completely avoids that association and still links to the correct organization.  Plus it follows the wiki guidlines.  146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: In order to support Wiki Manual of Style for internal links I suggest the following.  This is because leaving the term Latter Day Saints will leave a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah.  Nobody could argue this assumption will not be made because they have 13 million people.  Compared to the few hundred thousand in the old church -- thats a big difference.  Plus many don't understand the Succession Crisis, etc of the era.  So, in order to maintain Wiki guidlines which state, 'However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.'  If the title remains Latter Day Saint there is not a clear understanding of what that link will be.
Just brushing aside wiki guidlines would not be proper procedures.
My proposal is to rename this link Church of Christ since...
*It was the original name of the church in question
*It follows all wiki guidlines
*It is the simplest solution to the naming conflict
Now, the original title before all of this dispute was Church of Jesus Christ.  Because arguments have been made to NOT change the title until there is a clear consensus I will return the article to its original condition.  That way neither side in this argument will be completely happy until this gets resolved.  That way we can work together to get a good conclusion to the naming dispute.  Jcg5029 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Um, that proposal was already on the table, and has been for awhile now. We were getting no where with it, and I definitely oppose it. See my proposal above for a compromise position. In situations like this, it's OK to invoke WP:IGNORE in order to reach consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Only you opposed it that I have seen.  Feel free to not ignore wiki policies and please explain why my reasoning is incorrect?  Jcg5029 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaverdrop also opposed it—see very top of the discussion. Your reasoning is not "incorrect"; it's just that your proposal has already failed to gain consensus. Please submit a proposal that suggests a form of compromise so we can come to an agreement. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal, see notes for rejecting compromise.  146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a student who makes edits in between classes from a computer lab and currently am too busy to make a name, etc.  Thank you for assuming good faith.  128.118.148.63 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for letting us know. It does get a bit confusing when your IP address shifts around and changes. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: For clarity, here are some of the compromise proposals I'm putting forward. If anyone else has a compromise position to advance, you can include it here. Don't include a proposal that doesn't entail some sort of compromise. There are others that could be proposed, but that's a start. If everyone performs a little give and take, it shouldn't be difficult to come to an agreement on some sort of compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also agree with VisorStuff.  When reading their literature, they make a big deal about being the "true" church by tracing their authority through Rigdon.  At least they did way back when I first learned about the Mormon Church.  I would, however, make sure the article mentions that they believe they are the true church and their "line of authority" -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I spoke above I am a student at a university who cannot afford his own internet access, so I use labs to make any edits here on wikipedia.  If you would like my autobiography I'll send you an email.  Until then assume good faith people.  128.118.148.63 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I wondered why your IP number's first edits in years were several on this one article, but I assume good faith. On the other hand, there's no student so poor that she can't use the free internet access on her school's computer to select a Wikipedia username. I waited three years to do that, but it is handy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: HAHA so call me poor and lazy.  128.118.148.63 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With your insults (see section below) and strange behavior, you credibility is sinking like a stone. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about poor and obstinate? Just go ahead and register; you can use "laxypoorboy" for your password and thus would never forget it and have no excuse for not using a registered name. This seems like a very simple request and if you are going to desire to have any credibility on Wikipedia you will need it. Here is to a better reputation. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with COGDEN.  Jcg5029 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Place compromise proposals on parent church and related discussion here

message: *I would be happy with any of 1–5, and would consider any other compromise positions. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also agree with VisorStuff.  When reading their literature, they make a big deal about being the "true" church by tracing their authority through Rigdon.  At least they did way back when I first learned about the Mormon Church.  I would, however, make sure the article mentions that they believe they are the true church and their "line of authority" -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on compromise proposals

message: I got edit-conflicted with Skeleton's work above. I was writing:
This church explicitly claims to trace its authority back through Sidney Rigdon to Joseph Smith, and looks to Joseph Smith as its first (latter-day) prophet; this church regards the Book of Mormon as scripture. Given all that, it is more confusing not to indicate that its parent church is the original LDS church, which Smith often referred to as "the Church of the Latter Day Saints" from practically the beginning, than only to give a name that is arguably technically applicable but is no different than the modern name and gives no indication to someone casually glancing at the infobox any information other than what is already in the title of the article. It just isn't true that mentioning "LDS" as a "parent" group would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah" specifically; rather, it would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ [stems from] the 1844 Latter-day Saints", which is what this church itself teaches. As I noted above, Bickerton himself still referred to this church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in 1855 at least - so the former string of groups that this church claims succession from identified themselves with the "LDS" moniker from around 1838 to at least 1855, whether or not it was also known as "The Church of Jesus Christ" in 1830.
So basically, throwing in some indication of "(Latter Day Saints)" to identify the parent body is the only really accurate and informative choice, and omitting it would be uninformative to the point of wilfully coy.
It does seem odd that the IP number ahead, other than one edit almost three years ago, has suddenly become interested in this article and its talk page, after this debate began.
It seems from the church's official website and its denial of ever having been known by another name, which is transparently not true, and which contradicts Smith, Rigdon, and Bickerton, that they have a PR goal of discouraging associations with the larger Utah-based LDS church, but a private group's public relations agenda is not relevant to criteria for how to provide information on Wikipedia. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I spoke above I am a student at a university who cannot afford his own internet access, so I use labs to make any edits here on wikipedia.  If you would like my autobiography I'll send you an email.  Until then assume good faith people.  128.118.148.63 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I wondered why your IP number's first edits in years were several on this one article, but I assume good faith. On the other hand, there's no student so poor that she can't use the free internet access on her school's computer to select a Wikipedia username. I waited three years to do that, but it is handy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: HAHA so call me poor and lazy.  128.118.148.63 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With your insults (see section below) and strange behavior, you credibility is sinking like a stone. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about poor and obstinate? Just go ahead and register; you can use "laxypoorboy" for your password and thus would never forget it and have no excuse for not using a registered name. This seems like a very simple request and if you are going to desire to have any credibility on Wikipedia you will need it. Here is to a better reputation. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with COGDEN.  Jcg5029 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response