Talk:Church of Jesus Christ in Zion

Categories
The category of Category:Scientology was removed because "This article does not define Scientology", demonstrating a misunderstanding of how the category system works. If every article had to "define" a category in order to belong in that category, few articles would be in categories at all. It's really very simple:


 * An article belongs in a category if it is relevant to that category, unless...
 * its relevance to that category is entirely described by a sub-category of that category, in which case it belongs in that sub-category, unless...
 * it happens to be the article which defines the sub-category, in which case it belongs in both.

Thus, because the Church of Scientology now owns the name of "Church of Jesus Christ in Zion", it is relevant to Scientology. No evidence has been presented to show that any controversy has arisen over that ownership, therefore Category:Scientology controversy is hardly appropriate. The question of whether it "defines" the category doesn't even enter into it, and wouldn't unless this article was in Category:Church of Jesus Christ in Zion, in which case the article would belong in whatever categories that category was a subcategory of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)


 * Antaeus, stop wasting your time and mine trying to explain things. I no longer consider your POV as rational. Here is what Wikipedia policy states about this:"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio. Categories, lists, and series boxes"If you choose to misinterpret, that is your problem because every instance will be added to the RfC about you: Requests for comment/Antaeus Feldspar --AI 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)



Deletions by Firewriter
Firewriter has deleted the bulk of this article several times without any explanation. As far as I know, based on the church's former website and information provided by a believing member and in the press, the material deleted is factual. Please discuss the reasons for your deletions. CO GDEN  03:04, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The deletions have now been picked up by User:WatchDog:WatchDog. I don't know if WatchDog is the same person as Firewriter, but these deletions need to be explained. It's not appropriate to just keep deleting material without an explanation. CO GDEN  06:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Submissions by COGDEN Not Factual
The official web site of the Secretary of the State of Missouri confirms that the dates submitted by COGDEN in this article are not correct. (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?675571) I was personally one of the participants in the non-denominational group that was founded in 1989, and therefore, know first hand that we did not believe or espouse the doctrines stated.

The "Church" was not associated in any way with any businesses as falsely stated by the article.

I do not have first hand information about the Church of Scientology, but have compiled the information included in the new draft of the article from the State of Missouri web site. (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?652181)

I really want this and all articles to be factual. I am not the same person as the WatchDog, and do not know the reasons for that user's actions. Firewriter 06:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

By the WP:NPOV policy, we have to list both versions of this group. COGDEN, can you provide the URL for this group? If it isn't valid now, it may still be in the wayback machine. Firewriter, do you have more information than the filing? It's a start, but a description of the group would be useful. Nereocystis 15:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. The old website was www.churchofjesuschrist.org, but that is no longer valid. The page that included a summary of their organization, however, was permanently recorded by web.archive.org at this url.


 * Unfortunately, I have a bit of a conflict of interest concerning this page, related to my personal connections. I've had a discussion with someone who was a long-time member of the group, and I've agreed only to serve as a moderator on this article. A statement I made on another page can be interpreted as implying that my "source" had verified or endorsed some of the information on this page, but this is not true, and the "source" strongly disagrees with the original contents of the article.


 * One thing that was explained to me was that the church as an official organization was dissolved in 1997, but that the website, and the transmissions by Roger Billings continued much later, while the group was in a more informal state (he called it something like a "discussion group"). The person who operated the group's web site was operating unofficially. References in the site to the church referred only to the informal group, and not to an actual formal church organization. This "source" also denies strongly that anyone in the group ever practiced polygamy, in any form.


 * While I'm going to be careful about my involvement in this article, for personal reasons, what I'd like to see is that the article contain verifiable sources. I would hope, once again, that Firewriter or someone else would step forward and continue to add factual, verifiable material that is presented in a neutral point of view, which does NOT mean that it contains the objective truth, but that it contains all notable viewpoints on the issue, whether in favor of the church, or against it. We also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia's official policy is that all information must be verifiable. CO GDEN  18:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Notes Regarding Latest Posting

 * The not-for-profit Missouri Corporation name the Church of Jesus Christ In Zion was officially dissolved in 1997 as I have previously reported, and as documented with a link to the official web site of the Secretary of the State of Missouri. I have witnessed the entire episode from start to finish.  I remember when the not-for-profit Corporation was formed.  It was never a church in the context of a denominational group like the Mormons.  The forming of the non-denominational organization was to encourage the free exchange of ideas, and encompassed participants of many denominational backgrounds.  Participants of the group still get together when the opportunity arises, to share thoughts and opinions.


 * The statement by COGDEN, that the "1997 date is demonstrably untrue" begs reason. There was no church facility for him to tour!  I spoke with his "close relative" who explained that COGDEN spent about 30 minutes touring the facilities of the International Academy of Science in Independence, Missouri where the relative was, and still is employed.  The tour was of a University research facility.  What he saw was hydrogen cars and computers -- nothing to do with any church, and especially nothing to do with whether or not this "Church" was dissolved at the time.  I definitely need to understand what it was about his visit to the Academy that provides any basis for his conclusion.  (As an aside, his "close relative" has corroborated the fact that the date of dissolution was as stated.)  For COGDEN to claim that touring a school is proof that an unrelated church still exists certainly requires some explanation.


 * As far as the web site is concerned, it was paid years in advance, and continued to be online until it was put up for sale on eBay earlier this year. A residual web site is no proof of a legal entity.  As a Lawyer by training, one would expect COGDEN to understand that a legal corporate entity no longer exists, after it has been dissolved.


 * COGDEN's reference to "The Pitch" article is especially interesting. In the first place, "The Pitch" is a weekly tabloid newspaper circulated free at bars and roadside stands that advertises strip clubs and romance telephone lines -- hardly a reliable source of information.


 * Even so, "The Pitch" article corroborates that the Church was not a "Mormon Sect" but rather non-denominational. The most amazing thing that COGDEN failed to mention about "The Pitch" article is that the source for much of the information in the Pitch was taken from this very article in Wikipedia -- the one we are correcting.  What better confirmation of the need to get it right!  It is not an acceptable research method to use a "circular reference" as a reliable source of information.  I also know first hand that much of the Pitch article is completely false.


 * I have attempted to include a substantial volume of accurate information regarding the topics that have been raised. I will appreciate reactions.  Perhaps it is too much?  At least it is accurate.


 * Finally, I will respond to the question by COGDEN about plural marriage. There are no plural marriages by any of the members that have participated in the discussion group.  To claim that a person is guilty of plural marriage is to say that person is a law breaker, since statutes exist prohibiting such practices.  That is a very serious and defamatory charge.  I have addressed the specific basis for the "polygamy rumors" regarding Billings in the article.  He was uncomfortable with the LDS position on polygamy which was one reason that he chose to leave that church.  He does not espouse polygamy nor does he practice it.


 * When I spoke today with COGDEN's close relative, purportedly the "first hand" source of his information, I asked him if he was aware of anyone that participated in the discussion groups who was involved in plural marriage at any time. He told me that he was not.  I know for a fact that Roger Billings is happily married to his one and only wife of over 30 years.  I will not say that he is a Saint, because he and I often disagree, but he is not a polygamist.  When you understand the effort that he is making with his hydrogen car, and the impact that his success would have on the world wide oil cartel, it is not hard to understand why there are some that would fight him and his reputation at every level.

Who posted this? @fishmr Fishmr (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Concern
Finally, I have a serious concern about CODGEN's NPOV. Posted today in "Firewriter Talk", COGDEN said in part:


 * "I'm don't want to reveal the identity of my "close relative", because I don't want to involve this person. While I have an academic interest in the group, and am fascinated by its unique brand of Mormonism, there's a delicate family situation I have to be mindful of, and I don't want to drag my family into this."

In my discussion today with COGDEN's "close relative" I learned that the relative's move to Missouri caused very bad feelings between him and COGDEN. If any of the motivation for these defamatory writings is the result of a "hidden agenda", it would be better for COGDEN to leave this topic to others or to at least publicly reveal his state of "bias".

The value of Wikipedia will eventually depend on our collective ability to make the record accurate. It is in that spirit that I submit these revisions. Firewriter 012:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hoped that my statements above would be the end of this, but I just have to say one thing before I shut up. Since we're talking here about "first-hand knowledge", I'd appreciate it if you didn't characterize my relationship with my "close relative" (which you have now revealed to be a "he", so I'll use that terminology, although I'd ask you, for his sake and mine, not to reveal him any further). That's just fair turnaround, I think. But to set the record straight (for those who care, or even know what I'm talking about), there were never any bad feelings between me and him personally. It's more of a family situation. He and I have always got along great, until Firewriter outed me. So, lets make a deal. I won't make comments about Firewriter's "hidden agenda" based on second-hand information if Firewriter doesn't make comments about mine.


 * Anyway, thanks for your revisions, and they are definitely not "too much". I'm sure we'll be hearing input from others, as well, and we need to make sure the information is verifiable. But not me, as I stated above, except to the extent of enforcing Wikipedia policies. CO GDEN  19:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Stepping in
I would like to offer my assistance in moderating issues - and have a couple of thoughts. Please document the source of information for all edits. If something shows up in a tabliod, please document first that the publciation is a tabliod, showing that people question its reliability, then second, provide documentation that it is wrong. Third, add in the correct informaiton and document where it came from. I'll be watching as the discussion progresses and offer help as I can. Also please remember the Three revert rule when editing. Cogden, I don't think you should recuse yourself from this article because of personal interest. Your insight is needed to make sure the article is neutral, just the same as we seek Non-or-Anti-Catholic help on Catholic pages, or Non-or-Anti-Mormon help on Mormon pages. This is been a good disucssion, it's just happened fast and heated up quickly. Keep going strong. Also, Firsthand accounts are not good enough. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research or firsthand accounts. It needs to be documented. (What Wikipedia is not) -Visorstuff 20:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Visorstuff. I'm not really recusing myself because of bias. I'm just stepping back out of respect for my relative within the group. For personal reasons, I'd rather not make any edits myself, but I now have direct email or telephone access to some of the members of the group, and I can relay information back and forth between the interested parties. CO GDEN  22:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

History rewritten?
I don't know what happened here, but apparently somebody rewrote the history of this sect and completely cut-out Roger E. Billings, who I understand was the Patriarch. You can see how things have changed if you go back on the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive. Apparently this David Eyre guy bought the domain name and rewrote the church's history in his own image. I guess it's Utah-based, now, rather than here in Missouri. MotherHubbard 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding the page
I'm gonna personally need some help rebuilding this page. A lot of these previous iterations seemed pretty well informed and documented. However, in it's current iteration, it's got a lot of false information and no sources. I need help figuring out which is the best version to revert to. Preferably a revision made by @COGDEN would suffice as he was well documented and accurate. In addition, @MotherHubbard seems to have a lot of contributions as well. I would appreciate some input- @Fishmr Fishmr (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning about Firewriter
Heads up, any revisions made by Firewriter, no matter how seemingly accurate, should likely be reverted instantly. He specifically has vandalized other pages related to this topic that I have worked on and is the current reason the Roger E. Billings page is needing repairs. He has too many conflicts of interest and, if you read his entire history of contributions, like I have, he contradicts himself on multiple occasions (for example, in the Roger page, he initially wrote the article mentioning his service for the LDS church. 15 years later, he claimed that Roger was never associated with the LDS church, despite this church clearly being an off shoot of it). Either way, he should likely be penalized, and therefore, we need to heavily monitor his contributions on this post. Fishmr (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)