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

message: 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)
thread_title: Questions/comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why Always the "A" Word??? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Rigdonite Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Succession

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Yeah, I totally agree, which is why I moved it to earlier in the paragraph. McKay 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V]]erifiability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: oh, it looks like you're already there. good job then :D McKay 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: do you like the nauvoo temple better? McKay 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, simply because all groups associate somehow with it.  I thought it was a proper change.Jcg5029 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree Link 

message: 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:
:my stuff. more my stuff.  McKay 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Placement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Affiliated/Unaffiliated 

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