Talk:Council of Fifty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 

Untitled[edit]

Just a suggestion: You might want to add a section talking about this in the context of the present day LDS church. Does the church officially even recogonize its existence? Do official church histories mention it? Do modern lay members have any awareness of it? 69.71.166.93 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned in the six volume history of the church. Any church member has access to them. As it is a historical body, there is no context for the modern church. It is like discussing how the the present day context of the second high council in missouri affects the modern day church, or the existence of multiple apostles outside of the quorum of 12 affect the church today. -Visorstuff 06:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a reference in History of the Church 7:213
"The Council of Fifty.
Elders W, Richards and George A. Smith met in Council with Elder Taylor at his house. Bishop George Miller and Alexander Badlam wanted them to call together the Council of Fifty and organize the church. They were told that the Council of Fifty was not a church organization, but was composed of members irrespective of their religious faith, and organized for the purpose of consulting on the best manner of obtaining redress of grievances from our enemies, and to devise means to find and locate in some place where we could live in peace; and that the organization of the church belonged to the priesthood alone." Bochica 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Format of References[edit]

I might suggest changing the format of the references in this article, using <ref>Reference</ref> by the statements, and <references/> 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 <references/>, 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)

Separation of Church & State[edit]

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)

William Law as thug[edit]

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)

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)
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)