Talk:Rigdonite

message: This article misrepresents the actions of Brigham Young following the murder of Joseph Smith.  For example, the article claims that Young formed a rival faction separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and took control of Nauvoo.  
Young did nothing of the sort.  In conjunction with the other apostles (at least those remaining after a few decided to do things their own way and left the Church), Young followed established procedures for identifying the succeeding prophet.  When this process was complete, this governing body felt inspired to present Young as the successor.  He acknowledged this calling and asked for the support of the membership.  As the new prophet and president of the Church, Young continued to uphold the existing organization and the Church continued forward.
Several of the articles concerning LDS denominations mislead the reader into thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell apart after the death of Joseph Smith, and that Brigham Young was just one of several power-hungry apostates who sought to persuade others into forming their own groups.  In actuality, Young and the vast majority of church members continued to follow the doctrines and principles revealed through Joseph Smith and had nothing in common with those who chose to disregard them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.17.129.22 (talk • contribs)  19:48, 24 June 2005
Agreed Nrl103 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation

message: Can you please site the reference in which "Young followed the established procedures for indentifying the succeeding prophet".  This is POV and needs to be either cited or cleaned up.  Historical records show that Young was elected President under a vote of 5 representatives from the Quorum of 12.  The only procedure I have found historically is that the president must be elected under a Quorum majortiy, which would be 7.  Please clean up your POV.
The previous paragraph is not mine and was not signed by anyone.  Please clean up your POV that Sidney Rigdon was "arguably the most important and influential Latter Day Saint leader after the movement's founder himself, Joseph Smith, Jr. When Smith was assassinated."  This is POV and there is no fact in it unless you can cite a concrete source that doesn't cite POV.  
And in general, the article reads like an editorial.  Neutrality?
Brettholomew21 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

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 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with Bickertonite article

message: If McKay still does not accept the sources on this page, should the page be merged with Sidney Rigdon?  I feel it is notable in and of itself (and so does McKay but he still applied the tag).  But maybe I am wrong and the page should be merged.  Just figured I would throw it out there.  Jcg5029 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both Jcg and I think that the topic is probably notable. I'm unsure, but, according to WP:N, the article doesn't properly assert it's notability. I think there should be enough references out there to satisfy, but we don't have them yet. In any case, a merge with Sidney Rigdon doesn't seem like the best course of action. Maybe in part. I think a better choice would be to merge with Latter Day Saint movement, as the Rigdonite churches are a subset of the Latter Day Saint churches. McKay 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed changes and merge unless/until some further sources come to light in the future.  Jcg5029 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am basically of the same view—ideally I don't think any merge is appropriate. Maybe we should wait to see if anyone can come up with any sources? I say this being unsure of how long you've already waited, however. -SESmith 06:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, it's been about a month. McKay 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to waiting it out awhile, whatever everyone agrees on.  Jcg5029 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Everyone involves accepts that the topic is notable; the fact that the article does not or did not assert its notability means it needs to be improved, not merged when no one actually thinks it should be merged. Policy exists to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around; this would be an ideal time to ignore all rules. Atropos 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rigdonite. 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/20071026160327/http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=7229&filename=2340.pdf to http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=7229&filename=2340.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) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified