Talk:Restorationism

message: There is debate on the talk page to Seventh-Day Adventist Church as to whether that church is Restorationist or Protestant. The Restorationist article says that the Seventh-Day Adventist church was created by Restorationists. I am confused about what the classification should be. Is there anyone who can give a explanation on this topic? 
After all, this religious database: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm clearly states that Seventh-Day Adventists are Restorationist. Rob.saberon (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is incorrect.  It also refers to earlier movements within the pre-reformation RC church. Fremte (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Seventh-Day Adventism

message: These require fixing.  The listing at the end of the article shows that these are incompletely formatted.  Also, it is unclear why a sequence of so many references is required.  Can this be shrunk to a few, and properly formatted please.  Have a look at Template:Cite book for info.  Thanks! Fremte (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References within 7th Day Adventists

message: Restorationist groups frequently consider themselves to be historically unrelated to other branches of Christianity, except prior to that juncture at which the Great Apostasy is thought to have taken place.  This belief is depicted for example by the dotted line of the graphic that appears at :Category:Restorationism and treating it as a separate "branch", distinct in some sense from Protestantism, is also widely conventional throughout the wiki.  
What is the best way to express this explicitly but very briefly, in the introduction, without introducing an over-generalization? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this I've noticed there are two 'category' articles with this diagram.  One is called :Category:Restoration Movement, the other :Category:Restorationism. There is only one arrow on the diagram though, so this is quite confusing.  Either have two arrows, or one category. I would suggest one category will be much clearer. If Stone-Campbell don't want to be lumped in with the other groups, find another way to do that.Slofstra (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that there's value in distinguishing between the principle or tendency of "restorationism," which has been expressed in different ways at different times and places throughout the history of the church, from the "Restoration Movement" which was a specific instance, at a particular time, of a movement motivated by the desire to "restore" primitive Christianity. EastTN (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate branch 

message: Sorry, I don't have time to read all this today - I will later - but it does looks unappetizing.  I would just submit the idea for your consideration, that the whole series of articles under 'Restoration' -ist, -ism, Movement, etc. is now quite a mess. It appears that various camps are fighting to 'own' the word.  If you've come up with something that appeases everyone that might seem good, but clarity has been the cost.  I submit the following for your consideration.  The word Restorationist/ ism/ or Restoration Movement, using the word Restoration without a modifier, should only appear in wiki once, one article.  Any other article making use of the word should contain a modifier, e.g Stone-Campbell Restoration, Mormon Restoration, Restoration in the Middle Ages. Slofstra (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my readings of church history, the idea of restoration crops up repeatedly ever since folks realized that the mainstream had been diverted in the first centuries.  Thus, I find your suggestion, Slofstra, to be very good. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A camel is a kind of a horse 

message: That's not quite an accurate description of Joseph Smith Jr.'s position. Using this as a title is like saying vegetarianism is "A Protest Against McDonalds". What do you all think? --BenMcLean (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, it was just bad language period and I have changed it. The section clearly explains that all Restorationist movements rejected all previous churches and their doctrines. --StormRider 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter Day Saint Restorationism not a "Protest against Protestantism" 

message: There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with Restorationism, among others,  here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed work group 

message: Jehovah's Witness is mentioned in passing, but nothing more.  Aren't they big enough to deserve a paragraph? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree - they have roughly as many members as LDS or 7th Day Adventists. Mish (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witness 

message: In the section, "Disagreements with Established Churches," I found the following sentence:  "Some even claimed the Bible suffered from ancient corruption, which required correction."  I think this statement is far too vague.  Throughout the so-called "restorationist" movements and other sorts of Christians, there have always been discussions about whether certain English translations of the Bible might be in need of revision.  Even the Roman Catholic Church, which could be considered the antithesis of the restoration movement, has periodically issued a variety of translations.  If the statement refers to this sort of thing, there is no reason for it to be in the article.  But if the article refers to something stronger, like a unique belief in the deep corruption of the Bible text, the only example I know of this is Joseph Smith, who produced his own edition of the Bible with additional material which he believed to have been lost over the centuries.  If this is what we're talking about, why don't we just make the statement specific and name him.  Mitchell Powell (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key word here is "ancient". The belief is that the Bible was corrupted long before an English translation was thought of, for example by adding Trinitarian statements into the 'older' manuscripts. Your statement about Joseph SMith is not quite correct. His writings are not simply "his own edition of the Bible with additional material". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the Bible 

message: This article has seen a series of edits that have de-capitalized the names of a variety of well-know historical groups and movements.  The edit comments refer to the Manual of Style.  The section of the manual that's referenced says:
:"Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation."
I believe these edits misunderstand both the manual of style and the nature of the literature on these movements.  The statement "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter" is qualified with "unless the name derives from a proper noun. . . or has become a proper noun . . ."
The sources cited in this article consistently use terms such as "Protestant Reformation" and "Restoration Movement" as proper nouns.  So, for example, lowercase "reformation" can be used to refer to any movement that tries to reform an existing church or other institution.  The upper case Protestant Reformation (and often just the "Reformation") describes a particular reform movement from the 16th century.  Similarly, many religious movements have had restoration of the primitive church as a goal, and can be described as "restoration movements."  But the upper case "Restoration Movement" (a.k.a. the "American Restoration Movement" and the "Stone-Campbell Movement") refers to a particular movement that originated around the turn of the 19th century.  Lower case "reformation" and "restoration" are both doctrinal topics rather than specific events; the "Reformation" and the "Restoration Movement" are both specific movements originating in a particular time and place.  Both terms are used as proper nouns in the histories that deal with those movements.  This is exactly parallel to the example from the MOS of using lower case "republican" to describe a particular type of political thought, and upper case "Republican" to describe a specific party or ideology.
Bottom line, I believe that the standing, consensus usage of capitalizing these terms in this article is fully consistent with the manual of style because it reflects the use of these terms as proper nouns in the academic literature that studies the related movements. EastTN (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: East, you are correct or at least my thinking aligns with yours. --StormRider 17:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of Movements and the Manual of Style 

message: ::::::::::Oppose rename from 'Restorationism (Christian primitivism)' to 'Christian primitivism'. Frankly, it seems very odd that my earlier unambiguous opposition (also written plainly as Oppose) would be interpreted as "nobody really opposes renaming the article". "Restorationism" as a term is far more WP:V than "Christian primitivism". Alongside 'Catholicism' and 'Protestantism', 'Restorationism' (not 'Christian primitivism') is typically cited as a major branch of Christianity.
::::::::::* Faith & philosophy of Christianity by Maya George, Gyan Publishing, 2009, page 12,14, "Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into five main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Restorationism. ...Restorationism is compiled of various unrelated churches that believe they are restoring the original church of Jesus Christ and are not reforming any of the churches existing at the time of their comprehended restorations."
::::::::::* Encyclopedia of death and the human experience edited by Clifton D. Bryant, Sage, 2009, page 193, "There are five major branches of Christianity--Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, and Restorationism--and over 34,000 Christian denominations."
::::::::::Plainly, the term "Restorationism" enjoys superior WP:V (the term Christian primitivism is much less verifiable). Furthermore, the article titles "Restorationism" and "Restorationism (Christian primitivism)" were stable for more than EIGHT YEARS. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I've reverted the recent rename; the article title is again Restorationism (Christian primitivism).--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012 Revert move

message: Though offhand it seems to me "Christian primitivism" is clearer, I am convinced by the source arguments that "Restorationism" is more widespread overall. However, the posts that rightly objected to the synonymy (see e.g. WP:AND, WP:PRECISE) have not been answered. Further, this article is the WP:PRIME topic for the search term "restorationism", and all the other topics there (if they are not subtopics here) are secondary. The WP:WPDAB solution is clear: move "restorationism" to "restorationism (disambiguation)", and move this page to "restorationism". The first half is noncontroversial and nonadmin so I did it, and then requested a technical deletion to ensure the second half can be done. The concerns in the above thread are, according to standard practice, sufficiently addressed by the routine hatnote that already appears on this page. In short, this would be undoing the 2010 move because it "solved a problem that didn't exist". Questions, comments, smart remarks? JJB 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move again

message: I question the wording in the lede that Restorationists believe Christianity  "should be" returned to a purer form. It is key to many of the groups mentioned that a purer form of Christianity has been instituted, and that they are it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have made an edit to reflect this thought. Maybe you should check it out to make sure it flows properly. I did not try to indicate that each thinks their group is the actual restoration of the primitive church, but that might be a further addition to the lead. --StormRider 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to back off of this a bit.  The sources we're citing talk in terms of restoring a purer form of Christianity as being the goal or vision of Restorationism.  Some groups believe they've pulled it off, but groups with Restorationist tendencies vary in the extent to which they believe they've been successful - and most would say that it's an ongoing effort. I'll take a stab at trying to add this nuance.EastTN (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be/has been 

message: Looks good Wesley.  I could say much more, but I don't want to dominate the article. :-D  The intent of this article seems to be in line with the dominant theme of early Mormonism.  A key meme of early Mormonism was that "angels had visited the earth again" "to restore the ancient faith", and that all "the gifts and powers" of "the primitive church" had been "restored to the earth".  The articles of faith say "we believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church."  So your additions are certainly appropriate.  Thanks for being familiar with the issues.  You're a good soul.  Tom Haws 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism

message: Quoting the article: "This movement is called Primitive since its followers believe their movement to reconstruct the earliest forms of Christianity. "
There must be a word or two missing from this.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Missing 

message: There are several points in this article where the wording seems odd.  This may be due to my lack of background, though I don't think it is entirely due to that.
This sentence, from the end of the article, is especially puzzling.  Can someone please reword it for clarity?
"The primitive observances are relegated to secondary status in observance of progressive revelation, much as mainstream Christianity is said-to-have changed the appointed times such as fourth commandment obedience."
Thanks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Restorationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216104645/http://peebs.net:80/maint.html to http://peebs.net/maint.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://philippinenews.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=586e5943f3ab9a2049e883c382ca1842
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Restorationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101090223/http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm to http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518150855/http://brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm to http://brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://peebs.net/maint.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716102721/http://www.churchofgod.net/media/messages to http://www.churchofgod.net/media/messages
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com/Worshipping%20Christ%20Original.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Restorationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160418155804/http://www.gladtidingsnl.org/articles/emilley1.pdf to http://www.gladtidingsnl.org/articles/emilley1.pdf
*Added  tag to https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstream/2104/5343/1/Cassie_Yacovazzi_masters.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070323001317/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/LUTHER.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/LUTHER.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207112358/http://pnavce.tripod.com/brethrenhistory/id2.html to http://pnavce.tripod.com/brethrenhistory/id2.html
*Added  tag to http://localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified