Talk:Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Kansas City (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri and the surrounding Metropolitan Area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Book of Abraham[edit]

Does any one know if the Church of Christ believes in Book of Abraham?

I believe they do to some degree, howver, you may want to ask User:John Hamer a Non-LDS historian who is familiar with many of the various sects. Drop him a line on his talk page. He'd know better than most. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

The church believes the Bible and the Book of Mormon and only a few modern revelations. The church publishes a concise form of their beliefs in an "Articles of Faith and Practice," and they hold to it closely. They publish the Book of Commandments, but are quick to point out that this is not scripture, but simply a collection of revelations, each of which must be read carefully to determine its origin. You may find a member here and there who reads and accepts such works, but not as a whole.

The Church of Christ does not believe in the Book of Abraham in any way, nor in any other portion of the Pearl of Great Price. Generally, the Temple Lot organization only accepts the Bible and Book of Mormon as doctrinal standards; all other revelations, say they, must be judged against these two books. In their 1917 "Agreement of Working Harmony" with the RLDS church (Community of Christ), the Temple Lot organization specifically repudiated the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's "King Follet Sermon". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a copy of this online as of yet; it is printed in the Outline History of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), by Temple Lot apostle B.C. Flint. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem?[edit]

The recent edit claims to be from a publication from said church. This looks like a copyright problem. Val42 July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

So you should have done something about it. Reverted to previous. -- Cyrius| 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a faction of the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message[edit]

Church of Christ with the Elijah Message talks a lot about this group, and mentions the Article of Faith and Practice. How are these two groups related. It is not clear from either article. Bytebear 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the Fetting Groups; Otto Fetting was an Apostle who was excommunicated about 1930 due to a controversy concerning the exact design and location of a proposed Temple. Fetting led off a splinter group. This group is an extension of one of the splinters led by W.A. Draves. Both Draves and Fetting were visited by the resurrected and glorified John the Baptist (Elijah) in person who dictated messages to them. Dab295 Dab295 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Otto Fetting actually left the Temple Lot church in 1929 because he was "silenced" in a dispute over rebaptism of new converts to that organization (his infamous "twelfth message"), something that the Temple Lot church did not sanction at that time (but does now). He claimed that the Temple Lot organization had apostatized by rejecting this message and his "messenger" (whom he claimed to have been John the Baptist), and that his Church of Christ (Fettingite) was the true continuation of Granville Hedrick's organization. Mr. Draves' church, the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, later split from Fetting's organization (circa 1939) after Fetting's death in 1933, when Draves claimed visitations from the same "messenger". His organization, like Fetting's, claims to be the sole legitimate continuation of Granville Hedrick's original church, which in turn claims to be the sole legitimate continuation of Joseph Smith's church established in 1830. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

David Whitmer[edit]

The article is difficult to word and source properly, especially the section regarding David Whitmer's enormous, almost exclusive influence on the Church's theology. I keep having to go back and edit my own work, because every nuance is important, and should be stated properly. Doniphan 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like some good information was lost in this edit. Would someone who knows this topic particularly well mind figuring out what has been taken out that should be reincluded? The Jade Knight 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
(I moved your query here instead of under a subsequent heading 'recent additions/deletions'). The edit was made by myself, I only forgot to log in first. As I explain, "I [kept] having to go back and edit my own work..." Doniphan 12:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to "anti-Mormon rant" as it is not NPOV. According to Wiktionary 'rant' (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rant) has pejorative connotations and can be defined as " A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation." or "An exposition written, or more often oral, where emotionality supersedes rationality." Whether one agrees with Whitmer's claims or not, he does present arguments with supporting passages from the Book of Mormon and Bible and with references to historical events. A link to the text of the pamphlet can be found in the references section of the article on David Whitmer. The second reason is that it adds nothing to the article which already makes clear that David Whitmer was opposed to the LDS and RLDS churches.

Tctwood (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Membership numbers?[edit]

This Temple Lot-ers article specifies 5K members, and 12K Elijah-messagers. The Succession crisis article specifies 12K Temple Lot-ers and an unknown number of EMers. Anyone able to reconcile those numbers? Thx. -- TheEditrix2 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Church burning incident[edit]

The identity of the vandal of the 1990 burning of the church on the Temple Lot has been given as [name redacted] by a number of sources, which I have added. There's been a history of attempts to quash inclusion of this name here in the past, which have led to edit blocks, and any further attempts to do so by reversions will be duly investigated. Snocrates 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For my reply (and an explanation of why I changed Snocrates' slanderous heading) please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Jordan_Smith_as_Civil_Rights_Activist

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Please. [The man] was convicted of arson. There was no intent to slander, only represent facts gained from sources. Snocrates 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just restored the information Snocrates deleted on December 3, before citations were added. In other words, Snocrates mistakenly(?) deleted "facts gained from sources." If the article names the protester, it should also mention that he pleaded not guilty to those particular charges "on First Amendment grounds" and the article should also state that he claimed the incident was a protest: Verifiable facts which are described or alluded to in the existing citations. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the information was purposefully removed because it was uncited. The current edit's cited reference does not say the First Amendment was argued. The entire article reads:

"A 26-year-old man has been convicted of breaking into a historic church in Independence and setting it ablaze. A Jackson County Circuit Court found [name redacted] of Independence guilty Wednesday of second-degree arson and second-degree burglary. Jurors recommended that [name redacted] serve four years in prison on the arson charge and one year on the burglary charge. Sentencing was set for March 1. [name redacted] earlier testified that he torched the 88-year-old Church of Christ (Temple Lot) on New Year's Day in 1990 on an apparent directive from God. He said his dreams the night before convinced him that God wished him to make a public point. 'At all times, I felt I was obeying a higher power,' [name redacted] said. He said he used a cigarette lighter to ignite parts of the church. Officials saved many church documents and artifacts, but the structure was destroyed."

Also, the quote that says the protest involved the claim that "war is coming to America" does not appear in any of the 4 sources that are cited. A reference is needed for it; I've added a {cn} tag. Snocrates 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The watchman.org article contains a detailed explanation, read the part which refers to the biblical book of Ezekiel. Gee whiz. And I told you already, PLEASE DON'T POST QUOTATIONS FROM POORLY-RESEARCHED ARTICLES INVOLVING MY NAME HERE WITHOUT FIRST POSTING YOUR NAME. You are harrassing me, plain and simple. Please stop, now. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The watchman does not include that phrase, which is included in quotes. If you want to cite the watchman, then it needs to be rephrased to have it not look like the article is quoting a source. Don't edit my own comments again or I will report you for vandalism. I am not harassing you; I think we happen to have the same pages on our watchlist and are both actively engaged in editing and commenting on the articles. There is a difference. Snocrates 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
hm....I hadn't quite thought of it that way, and maybe I should...my chief concern is that some others besides yourself will come in, and sabotage what we've accomplished so far. And soon, I won't have as much time to watch the page and make edits and corrections, etc. I'm realizing that if you can keep an eye on the page, or ask another experienced editor or administrator to do so in your absence, then I can probably rest easier. P.S., the quotation marks around "War was coming to America" is because that's a paraphrase, not because it's a direct quote. The more exact quotation(s) were expressed on multiple occasions, including in a private meeting with the Church Representative, December 5, 1989. The ridiculous misquote about 'communists invading Missouri with chemical weapons' was a result of that discussion. The man who supposedly said that (to the Kansas City Star reporter), recently told me he did NOT say that...& that to his knowledge, the reporter had misquoted every single comment made to her. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

URGENT RE: SECTION DELETED[edit]

As per advice from several relevant authorities, I have deleted the offending paragraph in the Temple Lot article, and the identical one at 'Church of Christ Temple Lot.' I am not doing this as an amateur Wikipedia editor, but as the private citizen who is being 'outed' and defamed in two Wikipedia articles (so far). I have been advised to delete the offending passage, and then wait and see who exactly restores it. That person (unless it is a SmackBot, an automatic revert), will in turn be 'outed' and 'named' as the subject of a criminal investigation. Yes, this is a 'legal threat,' and I don't appreciate various inept Wikipedia administrators threatening me in order to dissuade me from complaining to law enforcement about a crime which is being committed: the willful invasion of privacy, and defamation of a U.S. Citizen, in contravention to numerous local, state, and federal laws, as well as in contravention to numerous strict and explicit Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion of a person's name in a Wikipedia article. The following excerpt is just one example of Wikipedia guidelines which have been willfully, persistently and openly ignored and defied by Wikipedia editor after Wikipedia editor. Again...whoever restores the defamatory passage which includes my name--or ANY paragraph, sentence or article which includes my name--will be investigated and [hopefully] prosecuted for doing so. In other words, I WILL PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES against the perpetrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are so many cited media sources which state his name, I can't justify removing omitting it against consensus.. however, we should consider that this sort of situation is what the Privacy of names portion of WP:BLP was intended to address. While I can see both sides of the argument here - I have to think of how I'd feel if it was me, who many years ago whilst in my own little corner of the world, did something that was against the law and happened to get a bit of press coverage, and now many years later I come to discover it is memorialized for eternity on a top 10 website. Despite the legal threats, for which I've blocked Jsmith_51389 - please consider omitting the name from the article as a courtesy to another human being in the digital age, who must support himself & his family - despite things in his past. --Versageek 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

title of article and link[edit]

It is a pity that when I typed "Church of Christ - Temple Lot" (i.e. instead of "Church of Christ (Temple Lot)" into the Wikipedia search machine I got "no article with this title". Perhaps someone who knows more than I do could fix this. I found this article by accident after looking for it for some time. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Try now: Church of Christ - Temple Lot. It's just a matter of adding a redirect to the actual page name you typed in. See here on how to create these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

insanity 1898 or 2009[edit]

Reviewing the page history and discussion pages, I find insanity evidenced not only in W.D.C. Pattyson's rationale. Do I understand correctly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot)#URGENT_RE:_SECTION_DELETED and all the frothing-at-the-mouth banning of jsmith51389 and his other "sockpuppets" that the reason he and his contributions are banned is because he insisted that you guys actually comply with WP:BLP? It looks to me that all of you guys wanted to keep posting his name in the article and on the Talk Pages for both Temple Lot articles, and also on the talk pages of several prominent administrators or noticeboards, and yet now you all condemn him for....supposedly trying to post the real names of you guys on the same Talk Pages in which you repeatedly mention his name? And do you guys honestly regard an anti-Mormon author a "reliable, credible, unbiased" source of information about any aspect of Mormonism? 70.246.255.131(talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for many reasons, among which included legal threats. I have blocked you for 48 hours because I suspect you are another of his sock puppets, if you are not I suggest that you not start out with accusations and provide clear reasons why you think the changes you have proposed need to be made. I note that there is no BLP issue, if there ever was one, in the article and BLP does not protect information on a talk page that were disclosed by a contributor about himself under the GFDL. However, under common courtesy, many contributors and admins will help a user remove information they wish to withdraw. --Trödel 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of 1990 arsonist[edit]

In response to:

Given that there are so many cited media sources which state his name, I can't justify removing omitting it against consensus.. however, we should consider that this sort of situation is what the Privacy of names portion of WP:BLP was intended to address. While I can see both sides of the argument here - I have to think of how I'd feel if it was me, who many years ago whilst in my own little corner of the world, did something that was against the law and happened to get a bit of press coverage, and now many years later I come to discover it is memorialized for eternity on a top 10 website. Despite the legal threats, for which I've blocked Jsmith_51389 - please consider omitting the name from the article as a courtesy to another human being in the digital age, who must support himself & his family - despite things in his past. --Versageek 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. Whatever were Jordan Smith's reasons for setting fire to the 100-year-old church, this incident is very noteworthy to those care about the subject of the article, he was the one who burned the church, and his name is part of the public record. The Temple Lot is more than just Mr. Smith's "own little corner of the world" - it's the Jerusalem to the worldwide multi-church Latter Day Saint movement. It's sad that the digital age makes it hard to put our past fully behind us, but an encyclopedia has a responsibility to give relevant information about a noteworthy subject. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That information can be easily enough found by anyone wishing to see it. Given the intensive edit wars that have raged over this subject in this article and the Temple Lot one, I think it's best to leave the article as it was. A concensus of sorts seemed to have emerged between all parties in this dispute that the previous version of this article (previous to User 24's edits) was acceptable to everyone, and I for one would like to leave it that way. I support Middle Name's reversion of this article to its previous rendering. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ecjmartin. There has been enough wikidrama over this, with the arsonist making legal threats, getting banned, using countless sockpuppets, etc. We need to let the issue rest, and most everyone has seemed content to omit the name but to include references that are easily accessible on the internet where the person is identified by name. (eg, [1], which is currently footnote #11.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)