Talk:Council of Fifty

message: I might suggest changing the format of the references in this article, using Reference by the statements, and  under the references heading. This would make it significantly easier to track whether or not statements are sourced.  This could be used in combination with other references (just list ones that can't go in a certain spot under , or under a sub-heading of ==References== if you want to avoid the numbering problems that could result. —Shoreu 07:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of References 

message: Before I altered it, this article contained this statement, 
"After Utah became a territory, the Constitutional requirements of separation between church and state sharply diminished the Council's official role in government."
This statement is blatantly false in that there is no such constitutional mandate for the separation of church and state.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
FreedomWorks! (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Church & State 

message: The paragraph for Establishment seems to have loaded POV language when describing the William Law.  After giving theological rationale for the Council of Fifty, it is then contradicted ("However the actual organization of the Council of Fifty ... was due to a present danger rather than a millennial belief.")  The new reason given for the Council of Fifty was to facilitate JS conferring his authority onto his successors in the Twelve Apostles, settling his succession before he could be murdered by Law.  (Whether Joseph Smith and church leaders really believed Law was out for blood, the article needs strong evidence and sources before stating this as fact.  I didn't find a reliable source mentioning Law as a suspected murder conspirator.  Is this a fringe theory for the founding of the Council of Fifty?)
Is language warranted that Law was a "present danger", that he "was organizing a band of men to overthrow and murder", that every time his movement is mentioned it is as "conspirators"?  And when Law doesn't enact the murder, his Expositor is mentioned as setting in motion the murder of JS anyway.  As if Law still accomplished his evil oath, and all he had to do was get his printing press destroyed to enrage the Illinois mob.  That seems like a stretch.  ——Rich jj (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source used to claim that William Law was conspiring to murder Joseph Smith is unreliable. It is an official church publication written many decades after the fact and contains no substantiation of claims. "The Contributor" should be regarded as propaganda or at least heavily biased. The sentence alleging Law conspired to murder Joseph Smith should just be removed as there is no evidence backing up this allegation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.225.110 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources do not have to be unbiased. Do you have a reference stating that The Contributor piece is "propaganda or at least heavily biased"? If not then your statement is original research, and should not affect this article in any way. —Asterisk*Splat→ 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Law as thug