Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Archive 3

message: As Skeleton says, we can suppose all readers are going to move past the infobox and start reading the article. I have concerns about that too though. The early part of the article mentions only the succession crisis after Joseph Smith's death and this church's claim of succession through Sidney Rigdon. However, you have to read through much more of the article before you gain any hint that there was what was apparently a second succession crisis as Rigdon's church disintigrated, and Bickerton emerged to lay claim to be carrying on where Rigdon had fallen away. Not much info if there were any other significant competing claimants in that succession.
And further, you have to get most of the way down before you find out that there was what seems an awful lot like a third succession crisis, when Bickerton goes out west, and then there are simultaneous church presidents in the East and West, though this is all presented in what seems like a euphemistic style... "During this later time period, the First Presidency appears to have taken on a lesser role within the church...", and William Cadman enjoys strategic passive verbs on his way to finding himself "the president of the whole church" opposite a guy who had just been ordained to that position by Bickerton... with the only reference being to the victor who wrote the history, a book by Cadman himself!
I mean no offense to anyone who has faith in God having successively called Bickerton and Cadman to be His spokesman on Earth. But for purposes of objective history, this article is in serious need of some referenced sources independent of the apparently competing claimants within the church. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The sources are problematic and need to be balanced by some third-party studies. That may be hard to come by considering the size of the organization. Perhaps we could consider adding some sort of tag to the article notifying editors that we are in need of more sources? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, that's not nice. Try to remain WP:CIVIL. (Do you hide behind an IP address so you can be rude at will without consequence?) They are separate people, but it is clear that they must be related somehow. Reaverdrop's overall point still stands—the sources are not neutral in their examination of the events in question; they may be presenting a POV based on family affiliation or religious dedication or belief. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would a tag requesting more sources be "uncalled for"? A neutral article about an organization cannot just use sources produced by the organization. We would suggest the same for any organization and this one is not being singled out for questions of "credibility". It's all a matter of NPOV, which an organization or its officers cannot maintain when writing about themselves. Isn't that basic—and self-evident? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not question the credibility of the L-dS History because it was written in a large part by Joseph Smith, Jr.  In fact, I think it gives the history more credibility.  I would never question that source like I would never question The Church of Jesus Christ's official History book as written by WH Cadman.  And the Volume II was published in the last five years - has editors reviewing every section.  Jcg5029 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, some do, including me. A person closely involved with an organization cannot be relied upon to provide a NPOV of events involving the organization. I would also be skeptical of a page related to the L-dS church that only cites Smith's writings. The very fact that Cadman's book is referred to as "official history" should cause pause. I hope what I'm saying is clear to you and that you understand why an organization's own history of itself is not sufficient to meet WP's NPOV standards. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to say that it wasn't a dictatorship in writing.  That is one of many sources.  Plus the history was approved by the general priestood of The Church of Jesus Christ.  And you are dismissing two points.
1)  There is a cited second edition - not written by one man
2)  If you feel this article needs more sources you are welcome to add them, however, your disbelief on their published records does not constitute a need for a tag.  Tags are for article without citations or with incorrect citations.  Find something besides speculation before adding a tag.  Jcg5029 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to note, the LDS church article and some of its main related articles include references to non-member, unorthodox member, and excommunicated member sources, including D. Michael Quinn, Sonja Farnsworth, Todd Compton, Fawn Brodie, Richard Van Wagoner, Egon Mayer et al., etc. Certainly not the sources President Hinckley would select if he were asked to write the Wikipedia article on the LDS church from scratch. But they're better for it; those sources are needed for a well-rounded set of information. This article isn't any different. Tags can just be for additional sources; we just haven't had the opportunity to gain much academic information on the subject of this article yet, but we will try. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to contribute but there is no need for a tag -- check out volume 2.  Jcg5029 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you so defensive about the tag? It's simply a heads-up and an assist for editors. It adds the article to categories so those interested in researching for sources can help find them. It's nothing to be afriad of. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are asking why an article with accurate citations needs a tag about needing accurate citations.  That is my reasoning.  enjoy your research as I continue to research with you.  Jcg5029 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It would not be a tag about "accurate citations". It would be one that indicated more citations are needed; i.e., ones not written or approved by the subject of the article. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And see, Jcg5029, you are insisting we take for granted that sources gained only from family members of the recent church's leadership must be accepted ab initio as an infallible authority on the matter. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just referring back to a comment made initially in this discussion. If sources with strong connections to the organization are considered POV, then how can the TCOJC-LDS use any sources that are written by people belonging to that organization? I would claim that the statement made is simply rediculous. It is like saying that in an article on biochemistry that you cannot site a source written by a biochemist because of POV concerns. I simply do not understand where the solidity of this idea comes from.CSG 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just the simple idea that multiple sides of a story have to be presented. I never said sources connected with the article couldn't be used, but only using them is POV. Your argument is also venturing into a WP:WAX-style argument, which is not great. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A tag is a note that helps alert editors about what is being worked on re: the article. It casts no aspersions on the article or its subject. It's simply a WP housekeeping thing to help fellow editors out. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More concerns on chain of succession as presented in article 

message: As a side issue——why is it that these editors keep popping out of the woodwork on this page to make comments. They haven't made any edits since May, and then when discussions pick up here, they are suddenly keen to register their vote. ... Hmmm. Assuming good faith—Assuming good faith. But it is kind of funny. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, speaking of assuming good faith, where did you come from too? Watch what you are willing to claim.CSG 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is so nice that this server is incredibly slow! Just watch what you are willing to claim.  Remember Wiki:Civ is all I'm saying. CSG 02:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I only edit on topics that I have a good base of knowledge for.  I've been working to improve this page for a while and being a graduate student in college I don't have time to devote hours to different topics so for now I'm limited to what I can edit and this page is what I'm sticking to for a while.  JRN 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also curious as to which editors you are referring to as "coming out of the woodowork">User:Rich Uncle Skeleton? JRN 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSG, specifically. I was not referring to you. See discussion above. S/He seemed to know I was referring to him/her as s/he responded to my comments. It was a side observation and I considered it closed between me and CSG. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well then please use this page as a discussion board to improve the page and not to make general statements and accusations of people.  You are just detracting from the discussion.  JRN 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, O noble swami/boss of the talk page. Somebody piss in your cornflakes? As I said, the issue was closed until you brought it up again. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long-dormant editors coming out of the woodwork

message: I'm trying to gather some material from new sources, to move beyond theoretically discussing the possibility of gathering new material. It's worth noting the first Google hit on William Bickerton is to the Government of Ontario's religioustolerance.org website, under the heading... "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". It starts by explaining the need for the naming convention: "There are at least 20 different religious bodies in the U.S. which have adopted the name: 'The Church of Jesus Christ.'" It also includes several sources - including Cadman '45, and some apparently non-ingroup sources.
I also, on Google Scholar, found a PhD thesis on "The Mormons" from 2002, from an Italian university, in Italian... we'll come up with better sources as we keep looking. But it's worth noting this PhD student introduces us to some heterodox takes on the info so far presented in this article, in a few paragraphs on "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". Pardon my Translator - as I said, we'll find more sources, I am just starting - but it's worth contrasting what our Italian friend reports (emphases and interjections added):
::"Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
::"Origins: William Bickerton was between the Mormons that, to the dead women of Joseph Smith, the authority of Sidney Rigdon accepted and they followed him in Pennsylvania. Because of the continuous trsferimenti [?] and of the rather inconstant behavior of Rigdon - notwithstanding his abilities to theological reflection - Bickerton was found again in Pennsylvania lacking in a point of reference and therefore he joined, even if for short time, to the Mormon Church, [!] that congregation to West had one Elizabeth [?]. Refusing some doctrines, among which polygamy, and after a divine vision, Bickerton in July of 1862 founded a new church which they joined a good number of followers of Rigdon. Bickerton subsequently moved to Kansas; although that very soon emerged of the contrasts inside of the congregations of the new church fate is in Kansas that in Pennsylvania [?]. Bickerton was removed from the church he founded [!] (was riammesso single in 1902 [?]), while William Cadman had been elected president (a position that would occupy until death, sopraggiunta [?] in 1904). In 1907 and 1914 the Bickertonites endured ulterior schisms, that they had only a short life.
::"Doctrines and organization: The Bickertonite Church has its center puts into effect them [?] to Monongahela in Pennsylvania, and missions in numerous deliveries [?] of the world. It is the only minority denomination mormons to have completed an effective effort missionary in Italy, where it has succeeded to establish but one small active congregation. Polygamy always it has refused; the characteristics of the bickertonite creed send back to the doctrine of Joseph Smith with some peculiar interpretations that derive from Sidney Rigdon: celebration weekly magazine of the supper of the Getlteman [?], practical [?] of the lavender of the feet and the “kiss of the peace”. The church is governed from a president, two councilmen, a secretary, a secretary financial and a treasurer. A Conference Anniversary elects several the leaders."
Like I said, more information needed. This is from just one (poorly machine-translated) PhD thesis, but if anything it reconfirms the need for more, independent sources. Working; - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a tag as a note that third-party sources are needed for the article since almost all the footnoted cites are to sources affiliated with TCOJC. For the love of Pete, let's not have an edit war over this. It's just a tag. It's just a helpful tag. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to help all of our editors as they review and search for sources - Bickerton did in fact visit the LDS and some other groups of the Latter Day Saints at the time of Rigdon's abandonment of the church.  It was at this time in which he received his experience.  He never joined another organization of the Latter Day Saint movement even though he visited the organizations.  Hence why he states, "I found myself alone."  In fact, Bickerton was kicked out of a L-dS meeting because he opposed re-baptism and polygamy.  The 1855 meetings included a mix of Latter Day Saint people.  It was a time when many weren't sure where to go or what to do.  Bickerton was in that situation.  I thought this was fairly well explained and cited, but should some of this be added, etc?  Jcg5029 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think historical sources are good for citing history, not current membership numbers. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: His father was and Alma B Cadman (brother) was a farmer.  To be honest I am not sure about WH Cadman but I'll look into it.  146.186.44.182 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material from new sources 

message: The February 9, 1927 New York Times has an article entitled "Miners Pick Wage Board", about a miners' union having selected a committee to meet with the mining companies to negotiate wages, and one of the people selected for the committee is a William Cadman from Pennsylvania. Any idea if "our" William Cadman from Pennsylvania would have been a coal miner and labor union activist? (This would obviously be William Cadman Jr., i.e. William H. Cadman, not the dad, if it is the same guy at all.) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His father was and Alma B Cadman (brother) was a farmer.  To be honest I am not sure about WH Cadman but I'll look into it.  146.186.44.182 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on another source for a "William Cadman" of Pennsylvania

message: Archive 1 of this talk page is currently red-linked. Is this intentionality or an oversight? -- 159.182.1.4 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my fault.  I was learning how to archive and that was part of the result.  It didn't delete any discussion that I am aware of -- I just was learning how to archive the old discussions.  Jcg5029 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Archive 1 is redlinked 

message: In my researching I found a reference to a William Cadman (I'm sure a different and unconnected one) that I found ironic, given the circumstances.
The December 12, 1895 New York Times has a brief article entitled, "A Remarkable English Polygamist". It notes that a William Cadman was convicted in London of polygamy for being married to seven wives. He was sentenced to seven years in prison - one year for each wife, maybe? He had 23 children. Here's a great line: "Some of his victims were rich when he married them, but did not long remain so."
Lots of William Cadmans out there, anyway, and each with a story. Now back to arguing over a rarefied academic debate on the nature of sources and NPOV. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are two different people, lets try and just focus on individuals relevant to the topic.  Jcg5029 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic William Cadman reference 

message: See this edit. Confusion! Maybe a clarification in the article will help keep people straight. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Famous people to call one of their own. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has never been a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ, but he certainly does have a family history in the church.  Jcg5029 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No article capitalized.  Jcg5029 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a significant barrier to confusion. Nor has TCOJC been historically rigorous about capitalizing the "The". Indeed, even W. H. Cadman's two volumes of history of TCOJC use lower case "the" for TCOJC in the titles.  - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That practice is not common at all in my experience. In nearly all cases where Mormon writers refer to "the Church of Jesus Christ", they are using it in the descriptive sense to mean any of the various True Christian churches from the New Testament, Book of Mormon, or modern times. Even that is pretty rare. Most often, Mormon writers will call it "the Church", or "the Gospel". I see usage of "the Church of Jesus Christ" as almost exactly the same as Mormon use of "the Church". Both are used merely descriptively, yet The Church refers to a band, and we don't require The Church to add a disambiguator merely because many LDS writers use the term to refer to the LDS Church. COGDEN 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church should probably be a disambiguation page too - who knows how many subjects it might refer to under the Milky Way tonight.  - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Evidence of Confusion of Churches 

message: Hey everyone, I think the research is great and we are really working together to improve the page.  May I suggest doing these same edits to the history page.  I think this page should have a condensed history with the expanded version on the history site.  Check out the L-dS page to see what I am talking about.  Sound good?  Jcg5029 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- the history page was actually deleted without much discussion on the matter.  After all the work is completed I propose making that page and abridging this section.  There is certainly enough info to account for its own page in the future.  146.186.44.182 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Why is there such an extended discussion in this section about why the LDS Church's First Presidency under Brigham Young was invalidly constituted? If this article is about this church, why the focus on explaining why another church's succession claim is flawed? I can understand a short comment or an explanation in footnotes, as it used to be, but this is quite lengthy and detailed and seems to me to be distracting from the overall point of the section. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just currently reading over the same section to try and better it.  My thought is to just remove that section altogether as it deals mainly with the lds church (post 1844) and not with TCOJC.  Any thoughts JRN 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the earlier version (a couple weeks ago before all of the discussions and edits)  the section in question was much clearer and to the point.  I would recommend making it more like that - the one now is too many words over a small topic about another group.  I think the material should still be included, but in a manner like the old page a few weeks ago.  Jcg5029 01:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—it's interesting and helpful in some ways—and I don't think the information is available elsewhere on WP and I don't know of an article where it would better fit (maybe the generic Quorum of the Twelve article?)—but I think if it were in a footnote here it would be more than sufficient. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and change it back then to a more suitable solution.  Jcg5029 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, let me try and restructure a little bit, I changed it back because it has lost some of the core information and got wordy.   Jcg5029 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First transition in leadership: Smith ---> Rigdon

message: At President_of_the_Church#Presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ, it lists Alexander Cherry, the 5th TCOJC president, with question marks for his birthdate. Anyone have more information on him? (And on the other presidents after Bickerton?)
I did a little looking around - there were only a few Alexander Cherrys in Pennsylvania; the International Genealogical Index (IGI) lists one who was born in June 1857 in Roscoe Township, Pennsylvania. Roscoe is only 11 miles from Monongahela. The 1880 U.S. Census has an Alexander Cherry born in PA at the same time, who in 1880 is living in Jefferson, PA, 21 miles from Roscoe (and working as a miner). President_of_the_Church#Presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ says Cherry died on August 31, 1921, which would make him 64 at his passing away, if this is the same Roscoe from IGI and the 1880 census. I'm going to look into it further, but can anyone confirm or contradict this? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Alexander Cherry, William Cadman's successor as President of the Church 

message: This article so far has little to no info on the church history after the 19th century or on any of its leaders after that time. It would be helpful to fill in some of that info. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get some info on here but I think it would be extremely beneficial to have a history page to cover this information more throughly and try to keep this page a reasonable length.  Thoughts???  JRN 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be one.  It was deleted without reasoning.  Jcg5029 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not correct. The reason was (and still is) provided at Talk:History of The Church of Jesus Christ. The contents of the article was an exact duplicate of the historical material here, so I redirected the page here until the historical information here gets too unwieldy and a separate article can be justified. The WP policy I cited was "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand." Deletion had been suggested, but as Jcg had opposed this, redirection until needed seemed to be the more amicable solution. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops!  Sorry I didn't realize it was a redirect.  I am hoping we get enough info to justify it having its own page, maybe when some more modern history gets added?  Jcg5029 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and more info on later church presidents and history from W. Cadman onward would be helpful 

message: The current page has well over 10 direct citations from outside sources.  I hope even more sources are added, but there is no need for a tag at this time.  Could we all agree to that?  Jcg5029 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 10 sources currently that are from outside TCOJC. Of those, two are from pre-1844 church sources, and not really "independent" sources. Of the other eight, at least 2 are from sources associated with the post-1844 LDS Church, 1 is associated with the CoC (formerly RLDS ) church, and 1 is the Pennsylvania state corporate registry. Some more sources have been mentioned on this talk page and will presumably be included in future writings. It's not a whole lot of independent sources yet, but it's going in the right direction, so I will agree with Jcg5029 on taking down the sources tag. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAG 

message: At the request of some editors I am planning on adding more current history to the page soon, as my course load allows.  The caveat is there is very little recent information that I can add that is sourced outside of the organization.  This is due to one main reason: For the past 100 years there has been little done that would warrant writers from the outside taking any interest.  The reason stated before that so much outside information available for the lds page is because of the enormous amount of controversy that surrounds the organization.  Unfortunately (or fortunately) that is not the case with the TCOJC so most sourcing will come from in house sources.  I am actively seeking out good outside sources and would invite the input from some of the good editors here.  I just want this to be put this out as to open a discussion and make sure there are no misconceptions about my actions.  Thanks JRN 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from and I think adding modern history will really contribute a great deal to the site.  There may be some outside sources on more modern history, but it is true for the most part in house will be the overwhelming majority.  There are some really interesting facts that have occurred that should be content on the site which I hope to help you with.  Like, for example, Apostle Penn (cerca 1910ish maybe later? I would need to go back into the history books) was the first African American member ordained an Apostle for this organization and possibly the entire Latter Day Saint movement.  Truly remarkable considering at the time there are some serious conflicting views from other LDS movement groups against African Americans in the ministry.  Its actually a hot topic on some of their pages on wiki from time to time.  Not to mention the segregation and other very racist views many Americans had at the time.  It is not to discredit another church, but a credit to this organization.  Hopefully great content is added soon.  Jcg5029 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah John Penn was the first ordained black apostle from any lds movement church I believe.  Of course I cuold be wrong, but that was defitenely part of the information I was looking to add to the page.  There's alot of great information like that to be added that can really help the page.  JRN 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think JRN is right that we need to work with what is available to editors right now. Using sources produced by the org. to get the history more up-to-date is better than not having the information in the article at all, in my opinion, and I would have no objection to an initial development along those lines. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more recent history 

message: FYI, I went through and made a couple modifications to the recent changes by User:JNicklow to characterize a couple things a little more accurately, though I thought most of his recent changes added more information and clarity, such as this one for example. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid the edits because I added the reference for one that you said needed an edit and also the other one was incorrect because it was not decided by members in the east but by the general church and it wasn't because of "cadman's leadership" although he was the leader at the time.  Your edits made it sound like a competition between the east and west when it wasn't and that dissention ended after 1880 when Cadman became president.  The headquarters was moved east under direction of the general church and was approved by the members of the church.  Make sense???  JRN 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war! (just kidding.)