Talk:Community of Christ/Archive 1

Initial copyright issues
Most of the text in this article is the same as that found at http://kalamazoocommunityofchrist.com/History/history.html. An explanation is in order if the Wikipedian who placed this here wants to keep it here. --mav 07:53 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

Liberalism
In an exchange with an LDS layman, I was told that the LDS regard the Community of Christ as "extremely liberal", but he could not explain what this meant. Could anyone familiar with this group shed light on this perspective? Mkmcconn 20:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Your interlocutor probably is referring to the fact that unlike the Latter-day Saints, the CofC has become much more like mainstream Christianity over time. LDS, I guess, are much more legalistic in following its principles, while CofC has become lax about things like the Word of Wisdom, tithing, priesthood, etc. B 21:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The "liberal" label is odd all around. What would an LDS mean by that? Of course, on the face of it B is right...but "liberal" is such a slippery word....let's have a little fun with it! Is the Community of Christ theologically liberal? Well, using the definitions of what it meant to be a liberal Christian 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago....no, by and large it is not. A generally "high christology" generally was enough to knock a theological perspective out of the "liberal" corner. Today it is different, the Christian Right now defines for us what is meant by a "liberal Christian" and the label has very little to do with theology and almost everything to do with pet political and cultural concerns. So if I were a Utah Mormon, natural enemy of the Christian Right, I'd be very hesitant to label any denomination with a historically high christology as "liberal"--whatever the lax attitudes about the Word of Wisdom, tithing etc. When the LDS Church itself held lax attitudes and policies about the Word of Wisdom and tithing, was it then liberal, and then did it become "conservative"??? The question is silly. The answer is a resounding "No". --User:Aavans  13:19, 21 July 2005 As a Community of Christ member and former employee I believe what he meant by "extremely liberal" is that the World Church Leaders themselves are politically liberal and mostly Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndustryStandard (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the LDS Church membership has become increasingly conservative from its more libral underpinnings. Remember that they were primarily democrats, pushed suffarage civil rights and anti-slavery when the bulk of the country was against it as conservatives. That said, it has nothing to do with the quesiton of "extremely libral" above - I think they mean that the COC are much less dogmatic than the more conservative LDS church, allowing for change even of basic doctrines - which is more liberal and fluid than other Latter Day Saint sects. -Visorstuff 00:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, even if he was talking about purely-political liberalism. It's really a matter of perspective. I know lots of Utah Mormons who think the Girl Scouts are liberal, and to al-Qaeda, Hamas probably seems a bit liberal, too. I don't know any statistics, but I'd be surprised if the majority of active Community of Christ members, like the majority of religious American Christians in general, weren't rather conservative. CO GDEN  03:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The CofC is more socially liberal on things like the ordination of women and the participaton of gays in the Church. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance have a page on the Community of Christ and Homosexuality. They also have general page which starts off with a comparison of the two groups. Carolynparrishfan 16:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your interlocutor probably is referring to the fact that unlike the Latter-day Saints, the CofC has become much more like mainstream Christianity over time. - I'm sure that that is absolutely not what that means. In the 80s there was a split in the RLDS church between the liberal and conservative factions. the liberals became the Community of Christ, and the conservatives became the Restoration Branches --207.160.205.13 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
how is it possible that the Community of Christ owns the manuscripts and the copyright for Smith's work? I certainly understand that they may own the manuscripts, but how can there be ANY copyright on works over 100 years old?

By all standards I know of, these works _MUST_ be public domain. Am I missing somthing?????? Rick Boatright 03:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text of the Book of Mormon is indeed public domain. The only thing that the CofC and the LDS Church can have copyrights on is the way the book is presented, such as formatting, study aids, footnotes, etc. COGDEN 15:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It is also true that some manuscripts were never published during Smith's lifetime - in these cases, the copyright would be owned by the Church.

Community of Christ owns the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon which was later microfilmed. The original manuscript was divided between the LDS and RLDS, but was in poor condition, and only a few pages owned by the LDS remain usable. CofC also owns the manuscript of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible which had been kept by Emma Smith. Since it was not published until 1867 its copyright was maintained longer. --Blainster 23:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea of "liberal" here is in that LDS Christians are more dogmatic. "This is how is works and that is that", where as the CofC seems to say, "if that is what you think, that is okay". LDS looks to define doctrine, rather than make peace with people, or in other words; "God said" (LDS) vs "I say that God should say...." (CofC). (not to say that LDS as a people do not try to please people, and as a church they have, at times, they have pleased the govenment on verious occations, though their doctorine does command such action). When you do not define doctrine, you become liberal, in that man is liberated from God, allowing man to define God, rather than God defining Himself. Like in politics, where the right says that society should define you and the left says you may define yourself.

02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Irv==Comparisons== Could there be some information regarding the difference in beliefs between the CofC and the LDS? --Brookswilliams 22:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This should be its own article. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the part incorrectly comparing LDS Doctrine and Covenants to CofC. There have in fact been additions to it after 1844, and this isn't even about the LDS church.

I also would like to see what the difference is, and in particular what do the Mormons think about the Community of Christ? Do they view them as just another Christian denomonation? Or do they either feel a special kinship or have strongly negative feelings? Irv 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Emma
I removed the section on Emma Smith for two reasons. First, it incorrectly states Emma was not at the meeting when she and Joseph Smith III were accepted into the Reorganization. In fact, Emma accompanied her son to the Amboy meetings as Joseph Smith III detailed in his Memoirs and as noted in the minutes.

Second, it incorrectly gives the impression that Emma was not involvement in the Reorganization. In fact, Emma was asked to oversee creation of first hymnbook of the Reorganization (1861, Cincinnati) though her level of involvement is unknown. She supplied her husband's manuscripts that the Reorganization printed as Joseph Smith Jr.'s translation of the Bible. She also gave several interesting interviews for the Reorganization's paper, the Saints' Herald. (For more on Emma read Mormon Enigma)

In an case, I don't think her level of involvement was significant enough to even mention her in this short article on an entire faith movement.


 * It is obvious that she was involved in playing music, hymns, and attending meetings, however, it has been widely disputed if she was at the meeting where her membership was transferred without rebaptism. Many think that was added in to his Memoiors, when other historical documents of Colonel Bidamon's and Emma's seem to conflict and not allow for her to physically be at those meetings. However, I agree, it hardly warrants her beign in the article. At portions of the past century, an emphasis on her membership generated quite heated exchanges between scholars and historians of the two denominations. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leadership
I moved the bulk of the "Recent Change in Leadership" article to a new article on W. Grant McMurray.

Liberalism revisited
I used to be a member of the RLDS/CoC church until about 2 and a half years ago. It's true that the church has moved away from the far-right leanings it used to share with their Mormon brethren, but they do still maintain the typical conservatism that accompanies most maistream religion. --KoopaTroopa211 01:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This perspective is interesting. Actually most observers would describe the churches tradtitionally known as "mainline protestant" (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran, United Church of Christ, American Baptist, and Disciples of Christ) as  the most liberal American tradition, except for the Unitarian Universalist church.  The Community of Christ has more theological congruence with the "seven sisters" than others which are more usually described as conservative.  Also, the use of the term "far-right" as a descriptive label is more suggestive of a political than a theological category--Blainster 23:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For clarification, that the mainline churches are the "most liberal" Christians does not mean that they are politically liberal or even liberal leaning. My experience of the mainline is that they are not monolithically ANYTHING. The Local congregations tend to have their own particular views on things and may have political liberals and political conservatives worshipping under the same roof. The "liberalism" of the mainstream churches is in the Liberty sense; they allow their congregants and congregations to be politically liberal or politically conservative without punishment. MPS 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

JS III Letter
I need some help in clarifying something here - is the letter referred to the Hoffmann forgery? The date seems dubious.
 * (A letter, dated January 17, 1844, was discovered in which Joseph Smith, Jr., wrote concerning his son, Joseph Smith III: "For he shall be my successor in the Presidency of the High Priesthood and a Seer, and a Revelator and a Prophet unto the church which appointment belongeth to him by blessing and also by right.")

We need to clarify who owns the letter and if it is legitimate. I know there were two such floating around during the 80s. I'm going to remove from the article until this is resolved. I'm fine with it being included, but we need to confirm the source before adding it in. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is referring to the hoffman forgery also - I haven't heard of anything else on that date and a google search yeilded nothing. forgery info. Trödel| talk 16:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a forgery letter, see the book "The Mormon Murders"

Supreme Court decision
I removed the following sentence, Significantly, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is the original LDS denomination. It is unclear to me that the court decision indicated was rendered by the US Supreme Court. The article mentions later on that it was an Ohio court decision. The editor who added this statement needs to provide a reference. If it is verified, it should be placed in the appropriate section, not in the lead paragraph of the article. --Blainster 23:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is correct. The court decision in question was rendered by the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, February 23, 1880, not the Sumpreme Court. The standard historical interpretation of the court decision for the past 120+ years has been that it gave the RLDS/Community of Christ ownership of the Kirtland Temple and declared it legal successor of the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. A phrase from the findings of fact reads, "And the Court do further find that the plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the true and lawful continuation of, and successor to the said orginal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830, and is entitled in law to all its rights and property." It is only in the last few years with the detailed research of Community of Christ member, Kim Loving, that this misinterpretation has been realized. The findings of fact have no legally binding since the case was dismissed. Loving's research was published posthumorously by the Mormon History Association. See: Kim L. Loving, "Ownership of the Kirtland Temple: Legends, Lies, and Misunderstandings," Journal of Mormon History 30 (Fall 2004), pp. 1-80. --Dbolton 23:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance state "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the RLDS was the original church group." . Carolynparrishfan 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is misleading. Courts have also decided that James J. Strang was the rightful heir of Joseph Smith in Church-owned real properties (land and buildings) - and awarded him custody of the Nauvoo Temple (but after it was destroyed) and other sites. Prior to the multi-party fight over the Kirtland temple (sidney, strang, brigham, david, Joseph III, etc.), Strang basically was seen as the legal winner of the church - one reason why the LDS church changed its name to a hyphenated spelling (interesting taht the RLDS church kept the hypenated name when they "reorganized" and later changed in to be unhyphenated and back and forth). As a result of the multi-party fight, the Kirtland Temple was given to the RLDS based on the title of the land (this is what the Supreme Court ruled on). The LDS Church was given copyrights, etc. It is not as clear cut as that page makes out. Whitmer also was awarded some things as one of the founders and "presidents" of Mormonism. I would state that Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance has over-simplified this issue. -Visorstuff 17:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the RLDS was the original church group," is inaccurate. See my comment above.--Dbolton 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * However, wasn't the case appealed to the Supreme court who upheld the decision? -Visorstuff 16:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The defendants didn't even attend the first trial. During the 1880s they had other issues to deal with. There was no appeal of this court case. If you find (reliable) documentation about some other court case, let me know. --Dbolton 05:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two court cases being discussed here. The Kirtland Temple Suit (DBolton) and the Temple Lot Suit. The Temple Lot Suit is about a portion of the greater temple lot in Independence MO where the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)  headquarters are located. Information regarding this suit can be found at http://www.jwha.info/jctls12.htm.

Removal of proselyting link
The removed link described LDS, not C of Christ. The contributor is a new editor likely not aware of the distinctions. Furthermore, the link is just a missionary spam website, not a substantive discussion of any Mormonism topics. --Blainster 00:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of indefinate article
The preferred usage of the name seems to leave off the indefinate article ("Community of Christ" rather than "The Community of Christ"). The official web site does this (most) of the time.--Dbolton 19:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable revert
I wanted to call into question User:Wikibofh's revert of "edits by 198.101.43.83 to last version by 67.172.235.56" (See ). I didn't think the information was inaccurate, and certainly not vandalism.--Dbolton 05:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Demographics/Statistics
Number and distribution of CoC church members would be an excellent addition to this page. Does anyone have this information? --Piewalker 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2004 World Conference states a 2003 enrollment of 255,830. 20,844 of that are priesthood members, (10,836 Aaronic, 10,008 Melchisedec). According to Seekers and Diciples copyrighted 2001, The church is officially recognized in (if I counted correctly) in 34 nations, A significant church beginning has been made in 3 nations, a church foundation is being established in 17 nations. for a total of 54 nations where the church as of 2001 states the church is present. Since 2001 the church may be in even more nations, and may also be in nations where for the safety of members it can not offically state it is present. (Nations where Christianity is against the law...) If someone wants to include this information, feel free. I am not adding it to the article as I am not sure the best way to present it or where to place it. Also using specfic numbers is not a good idea since they may be in "constant" flux. So probably best to say something along the lines of: "Has a memebrship of over 250,000 in over fifty nations."-- 22:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Graceland University
The Article states that Community of Christ "operates" Graceland University. I find this to be misleading/inaccurate. Graceland is sponsered by Community of Christ, but to say "operated" seems to indicated more control over Graceland than what exists in reality.


 * The Graceland University Board of Trustees is nominated and elected by the Community of Christ World Conference and is owned by the CofC. Glenn4pr 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Only a portion of the Board is nominated and elected by Community of Christ. The rest I believe is elected by the Board. While the Corporate Body of Graceland University is made up of several Community of Christ denominational officers, it is a semi-separate semi-independent entity. (Though I have never seen the conference minutes nor resolution, I was told by a Latter Day Saint historian and at the time professor at GU (not sure if he still is) that the General Conference tried once to close down Graceland and the Board refused, which would indicate though Community of Christ has influence over, it does not operate it) Probably the only way to truly understand the relationship between Community of Christ and Graceland University would be to explore the articles of incorporation for Graceland. A quick glance at GU site, indicates Community of Christ is the sponsering denomination, but does not indicate ownership. Temple-theo

Melchizedek/Melchisedec
The C of C church spells its priesthood order "Melchisedec" following the spelling used in its version of the Doctrine and Covenents, even though the name of the biblical figure is usually spelled "Melchizedek". --Blainster 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Melchizedek" is the Old Testament spelling currently used by the LDS church. The New Testament book of Hebrews chapters 5, 6 & 7 (KJ Version at least) and the C of C spells the name "Melchisedec". The early LDS church may have used both, as lettering behind the east bank of pulpits in the large solemn assembly hall of the Salt Lake Temple is "Melchisedec Priesthood". I saw this in person on May 23. 1977 and can be seen in the old "Temples" magazines showing temple interiors. --User:Russel Lane 01:47, 08 December 2006

Former name
I think the former name should be included in the 1st paragraph as it is a name still commonly known in the US and historically very important. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good discussion point. This is an encyclopedia article. Clearly, there needs to be a way to deal with both present reality and history. The problem with this article in the past, was that it was almost entirely historical. It provided a very inaccurate description or account of the Community of Christ denomination as it exists today -- to the point of being misleading. To deal with this, the editorial approach has been to treat history and differences as sub-articles (we still need someone to write the differences article, Steve Shields are you out there?). They are clearly an important topic. Some aspects need to be treated in the main article, but how much?

I think that one reasonable test would be, how does the denomination itself deal with this question? Do they refer to previous names of the denomination. To me, this is the most important test -- and it is the one that will lead the article toward an accurate description of the preent day denomination. Clearly, the organization worldwide and in the US has opted for a complete break with former names.

Another reasonable test would be how do other articles deal with this issue? I looked for a parallel and I came up with "Accenture." No mention of Arthur Andersen in the first paragraph. However I found another parallel in "Monster Park" where the Candlestick name is inserted parenthetically in the first sentence. So I think another test, is: did the name stick? Aside from the official position, is it actually used by the membership and friends of the church? Here the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the new name. There is almost no lingering colloquial reference to prior names. But there is some, and thus your concern is deserving, for sure, of consideration.

The current state of the article is sort of a compromise between the viewpoints that the old name(s) should only be mentioned in a sub-article vs. the opinion that it should be in the main article. In the compromise, the name is mentioned in the Overview -- still very prominent, but not so prominent as to dominate and distort meaning.

A third reasonable test would be how do ecumenical/interfaith bodies to which the Community of Christ belongs reference the name of the church? I am only aware of references where they completely defer to the new name.

A fourth test is clarity. One viewpoint is that people who search under the old name need immediate reassurance that they have been redirected to the right article. On the other hand, if that reassurance creates a distorted understanding of the current state of the denomination and forces Wikipedia to describe the denomination in a way that it clearly does not want to be described... you see the problem. I think a lot of deference needs to be given by the Wikipedia community to the self-determination by the denomination. The history is there for anyone to explore, even if the denomination itself is spending less and less time on the matter. --Glenn4pr 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Navigational issues having to do with titles and redirects are more about readers finding information that they are seeking, than personal form and style preferences. We work together to build a good encyclopedia, and that means getting the info to the people.  The Arthur Andersen name you mentioned is in the second paragraph of Accenture, not the first, because Arthur Andersen has its own article—there is no redirect to Accenture.  A redirect should have its name in the first paragraph so readers seeking the article will not be confused.  That is standard WP procedure. CofC has made no attempt to hide its old name, just embrace the new one. The redirects enhance that process, they do not distort it. --Blainster 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Template
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the use of the Christianity template more accurately brings one to an understanding of this demonination than the use of other templates. By googling the official site of cofchrist.org, one can see only 18 references to "Latter Day Saint" vs. 555 hits for "Christian." This contrasts in reverse proportion to lds.org, where there were 697 references to Christian and 15,500 references to Latter day Saint and 120,000 to Mormon (vs. 203 on cofchrist.org). Further, the template really contains almost no relevant information that would inform the reader on Community of Christ topics, whereas the Christianity template adds the essence of what cofchrist is based upon.
 * By that logic the LDS church shouldn't have the template either becuase there are 447,000 references to Christ - 4 times as many as Mormon (119,000) - and 30 times more references than "Latter-day Saint" (15,400). -- Trödel 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for kicks I compared Christ (412) and Christian (456) to Baptist (712) on the [www.sbc.net Southern Baptist Convention] official site. And the comparison is IMHO disingenious - like saying the CoChrist should be called a "community" because it has 15,000 references - because both pages include the name of thier organization in the footer of nearly every page - so obviously "latter day saint" (which google treats the same as "latter-day saint") would get a disproportional number of pages since it is part of the name of the organization. -- Trödel 19:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good comment, I think you are right that the denominational names distort the statistics. However, this does not apply to the comparison of occurences of the words Christian and Mormon. Here the two denominations clearly part company and without any influence from the denominational name. And the web statistics are simply illustrative of that reality. A careful review of CofChrist literature shows the same pre-disposition towards identification with the broader Christian community and a lack of commonality with latter-day Saintism. For example, the Herald House frequently sold resources from mainstream Christian publishing companies, but never resold materials from the Deseret press. Glenn4pr 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again it is a question of self-determination. Cofchrist has determined for itself to be Christ-centered and does not focus on its brief shared history with the LDS church. To present the Latter Day Saint template so totally taints the meaning and understanding of the article as to take us away from accuracy. The history section deals with the topic in an appropriate manner. This simply reinforces the need for a comparison article that can meet the needs of those who want to compare denominations in this way. Glenn4pr 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Without the "brief shared history," minimizes a fundamental part of the CoChrist. One thing that makes CoC unique is, "The government of the church is by divine authority through priesthood."(Bylaws Art. III Sec 2)- which depends on the restoration of the priesthood through Joseph Smith. -- Trödel  19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The bylaws also illustrate the movement of the denomination even further away from any resemblance of the LDS church or the "Latter Day Saint" movement. The CofChrist bylaws make no reference to JS Jr, only JS III. And the CofChrist beliefs and liturgy are more compelling as a rich source of material demonstrating the denominations attempted move away from the "Latter Day Sain movement" and back into the Christian mainstream. The result is that CofChrist is no longer a Latter Day Saint movement in the sense that the template defines it. It is a Christian denomination in the sense that the Christianity template defines it.

Further, CofChrist missionaries do not, with some rare exceptions, make any attempt to proselytize on anything other than a Christian basis. In other words, CofChrist missionaries do not present the church as a part of the latter day saint movement. Why should this article. The current missionaty tracts of the CofChrist, are illustrative of this. In the "Core Values" pamphlet published by the Community of Christ, in the section called "The Centrality of Jesus Christ" it states that "Jesus' life, ministry, and teachings; his death, resurrection, and living presence are the foundation of our movement. Our scriptures and worship point to him; the kingdom he preached energizes our desire for transformation in the world."

I am not sure the templates are really necessary on this page anyway since they appear in the sub articles and can be easily explored. Glenn4pr 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we agree on most stuff - except for whether it should stay or not. Personally I think thier marketing efforts to distance themselves from the LDS movement shouldn't be controlling on wikipedia any more than the LDS Church's requests concerning vocabulary in their Media guide should control the use of the term Mormon. -- Also although the joint history was 14 years there was a long time of acrimonious relationships where both organziations in part responded to each other, particularly in the letters betwen BY and Emma. -- Trödel 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The text in the article itself and the sub-articles properly address the historical roots of the Community of Christ. The LDS template is so predominated by material that does not relate to the Community of Christ that it should not be used on the page of this article. Let the article speak for itself. The changes in the Community of Christ have been so thorough-going that they can hardly be called "marketing efforts." For example, the Transformation 2000 program, new bylaws, new viewpoints on the lack of historicity of the Book of Mormon (expressed by former Church historian, Richard Howard), entry into ecumenical movement, and many other changes are all substantive. The name change was necessary to reflect these changes. Glenn4pr 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems With Use of the Latter Day Saint template on this page
First, no one is suggesting that the Community of Christ (CofC) does not share a brief 14-year history with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). But it does not equate that because of this shared history, that these two denominations which have grown apart in history, doctrine and practice over the 162 years since 1844, are a part of the same "movement."

Therefore, use of the Latter Day Saint Movement template does not accurately portray the Community of Christ and should be removed to the history sub-article where it belongs -- but even then it is misleading unless the sub-articles are extensively rewritten, and I fear that would dilute their value and accuracy, trying to force a broad definition that can contain CofChrist in the Latter Day Saint movement is not accurate and even misleading. (Please do not take any comment below as trying to state what should be or who is right or wrong, I am simply aiming for an accurate article that communicates what exists today.)

This discussion reviews each element of the template and discusses to what extent the template articles give an inaccurate impression of the Community of Christ:

Glenn4pr 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Latter Day Saint movement This is not a term tha the CofChrist uses to self-describe itself. They occasionally, refer to the "Restoration movement." The specific atcile linked to in the template describes principles not associated with CofC. For example, see the reference to apostasy, a concept that is not taught in official CofC materials and has been rejected by its leadership for some time in favor of a tendency towards ecumenism and acceptance of other faiths.
 * Mormonism -- the term is rejected by virtually all members of the CofC. The Mormon conception of the Godhead is not taught by CofC and it in fact teaches trinitarian notions that "Jesus Christ is the living expression of God" -- a clear break from Latter Day Saint movement teaching and theology.
 * Latter Day Saints -- use of this term to describe CofChrist was specifically rejected by CofChrist when adopting its new name.
 * Latter-day Saints -- everyone agrees that this is only used in reference to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
 * Mormonism and Christianity -- this article obfuscates understanding of CofChrist, because most of the Mormon doctrine discussed have never been practiced or believed by the CofChrist. I think it is safe to say that most CofChrist members would identify with the "Christianity" label and would reject the "Mormonism" label. So again, this obscures understanding.
 * History -- portions of this article are useful in terms of representing accurately the early history, but compare it to the CofChrist representation of its history on Cofchrist.org -- night and day -- the dissocation from LDS movement is very obvious -- so much so that use of a template on Judaism would be just about as helpful in giving an encyclopedia reader an accurate perception of CofChrist.
 * The First Vision -- probably the one piece of history that the CofC still holds onto, but in a very simplified fashion and without any intention at all of teaching the doctrine of "apostasy" -- the Latter Day Saint Movement and CofC take this event and interpret its meaning and value in quite remarkably different ways.
 * Church formally organized -- CofChrist now refers to this period as "the early church" and no longer debates that it is the legitimate successor of the Church of Christ established in 1830. This teaching was a staple in the RLDS period until about 1970 when it began to fade, but is no longer emphasized by the CofChrist. The claim is never made in their website and has not been made in printed materials since the presidnecy of W. Wallace Smith when it went out of fashion. So once again, by lumping the CofChrist with other latter day saint denominations, a false impression is gained.
 * Succession crisis Useful, but only as an entry in the history article, not in the CofC main article.
 * History of Church of Jesus Christ of LDS obviously this diverges and leads to 162 years of unshared history.
 * Scriptures no problem
 * Holy Bible (KJV) misleading, as CofChrist almost never uses KJV and usually references NRSV and is historically the publisher of the IV.
 * Book of Mormon no problem
 * Doctrine & Covenants no problem
 * Pearl of Great Price misleading, not associated with CofC
 * Significant Leaders Veazey is too new to be labeled significant, Cowdery, Strang, etc. are far less relevant in a CofC context that McMurray or FM Smith.
 * Major Beliefs this is perhaps the most problematic portion of the template as the CofC position is completely overlooked and therefore the template basically does not apply at all to CofC, and applies only to the LDS church. The list fo related articles in the subcategory are virtually all inapplicable to CofChrist.
 * God & Jesus Christ a specifically Mormon doctrinal article not accurate in portraying CofC
 * Faith generic, therefore harmless
 * Repentance generic, therefore harmless, but in the CofChrist context does not deserve elevation -- "Faith and Beliefs"
 * Baptism links to an LDS only viewpoint, influenced by the articles of faith ant the four principles which are not illuminating of CofC belief
 * Gift of the Holy Ghost Once again, this is an LDS teaching, wrapped in the four prinicples. The term is not prominent in CofC teaching and nearly completely absent in written materials -- however, it is quite prominent in the LDS church.
 * Articles of Faith apply specifically to the LDS church and are not taught by the CofC, so again the use of the template confuses the reader
 * Great Apostasy this is, once again, an LDS teaching and is not taught by CofChrist today
 * Descendants of Jacob (Israel) A teching of the LDS rather than the CofC
 * Temples The article linked to does a much poorer job of describing the CofChrist temple than the actual Independence Temple article -- the dedication to the pursuit of peace is not even mentioned, and this again clearly dilutes meaning
 * Conflicts CofChrist is a church with a "peace" logo that is being described with articles about military battles carried out by another denomination.
 * Mormon War part of the shared history, belongs in the history section
 * Utah War not relevant, obviously
 * Nauvoo Legion I think it is safe to say that even in the JS III period, CofChrist disassociated itself with most of the developments in the Nauvoo period, this has published by numerous authors in the John Whitmer Historical Association.
 * Mormon Battalion no connection to CofC
 * Denominations I guess this is the root of the problem, virtually no one in the CofC today teaches that CofC is a part of a "Latter Day Saint movement" affiliated with the other denominations in this list. You will here and read occasional references to the "Restoration movement." This template, however, does not describe the CofC's conception of that movement.

While it is understandable that the various break off groups do not necessarily want to be identified as "LDS," for the person unfamiliar with LDS or any of the other groups I think it would not be unreasonable to include CofChrist with the other churches that claim to be decendents of Joseph Smith Jr. It is somewhat misleading to lable them or other groups except LDS as "Mormons" as this now primarily refers to LDS. Not sure how you could include them as part of Joseph Smith's movement, but it should be done somehow. Coolguy4522 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not unreasonabble to group the various denominations that trace their history to the organization of a church by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830 into a "category". And that category exists in Wikipedia and is called "Latter Day Saint denominations." The problem occurs when you call these various denominations a "movement." There is no collaboration between these denominations and many of them scarcely resemble one another today. Identifying CofChrist historical roots is fine -- but as shown above, almost all of the template does not apply to CofChrist. Which underscores the fact that these denominations are not a "movement." Glenn4pr 06:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the terminology is not perfect - there has been some discussion of this at WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement on how to address the issues of the different denominations. Primarily the concern has been to provide a proper NPOV terminology that is not to CJC centric. Here are some of the discussions at the start of the project, and a little while later. -- Trödel 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The LDS template has been moved to the Community of Christ history page since it only applies in the historical context, and even then very poorly (as described above). Glenn4pr 08:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint movement
I don't care about the Latter Day Saint movement template, but I think we need to settle firmly on some of the issues raised. I think it is inescapable that the Community of Christ must be categorized as part of a broader movement that includes other Joseph Smith-based religions. You can't really say that the CofC is an entirely different religion from the other denominations because they only share a "14-year history". That "14-year history" happens to be the period in which almost all the movement's new canon was created. This would be like saying that Shia Islam and Sunni Islam should not be categorized together as part of an "Islamic movement" because they only share a few decades of history after Mohammed. I think we can debate, however, what the Latter Day Saint movement is called. However, I think the present label is about as good as it gets. The term "Restoration Movement" is already taken. CO GDEN  20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of the article is improved by an appreciation of the difference between the history of this denomination and its present state. Using latter day saint movement as a "descriptor" of this church is inaccurate, using the term in order to identify historical origins is accurate. The article clearly states "the history of the Community of Christ has roots in the Restoration movement and Latter Day Saint movement." This is NPOV and factual and belongs in the article, and it is quite well-developed in the Community of Christ history article. However, statements such as "Community of Christ is a part of the Latter Day Saint movement" would be inaccurate. You can state that the Community of Christ "evolved" from the Latter Day Saint movement, as well. This is accurate. But the idea that a movement exists today, of which the Community of Christ is a part, is really inaccurate.


 * A reading of the WikiPedia article on new religious movements is informative. As you read the article, you will see that the Community of Christ today does not meet the definition of a new religious movement well at all. 1) The Community of Christ has entered into an ecumenical phase of its history (i.e. associating itself with others rather than seperating itself), 2)it does not engage in claims that it is the "only right religion" 3) it is not communitarian, 4)it is an established religious body and demonination, and 5) it does not meet most of the definitions of recency. Glenn4pr 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying, but the Latter Day Saint movement consists of many churches, as do other catagories such as the protestant movement, or Christian, despite varying beliefs. Latter Day Saint movement is not purely an historical for Community of Christ. It explains the use of the Book of Mormon, D&C open canon, lay priesthood, and many other elements that are very much a part of Community of Christ.--Dbolton 01:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of dab names
Disabiguation names are commonly used names that that redirect to a primary article. This is important for the way the encyclopedia works. It is a navigational aid, not an expression of denominational preference. If a user is looking for the RLDS church, they primarily want to find the Community of Christ, and this is where the redirect should send them. WP guidelines state that the disambiguated term should appear in the first paragraph close to the article title, so that the reader does not become confused by the redirect. The CofC retains its full incorporated name, and trademarked abbreviation, which remain properly descriptive of it, even though others may disagree with their position. --Blainster 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

French Polynesia
I removed: "It is the third largest Christian denomination in French Polynesia Religion by Location adherents.com webpage, retrieved June 17, 2006."

According to Demographics of French Polynesia there are 249,110 inhabitants, 30% Catholic, 54% various protestants). Someone reverted this indicating to read the reference so I did and here is what I see on adherents.com: The dearth of information on any other protestant religions is what causes me concern. Basically the inclusion alleges the top Christian religions in Tahiti are 1) Catholic, 2) CJC, 3) CoC. But that would have to mean that no other Protestant denomination exceeds about 5,000 members. So there would have to be at least 34 different denominations of no more than 4,000 members each for none to exceed CoC - I just don't think that is likely - in fact - it is more likely that another protestant denomincation exceeds CJC as well.

I am especially skeptical because protestant missionaries broutght christianity there - and it is unlikely they were not successful given that often Christianity was brought by force. see this site. Also reformiert online lists Advent, Sanitos religions as both exceeding 3.8%. Additionally, it is very unlikely that the Etaretia Evaneria no Porinetia Farani (Église Protestante Maòhi or Maòhi Protestant Church), which was established in the 1815 has failed to gain significant following (in fact reformiert online lists 95,000 members or about 2/3 of all protestants as belonging to this group. -- Trödel 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern is understandable. Good numbers on religious affiliation is always difficult to pin down. Your observations are interesting, particularly on the Maòhi Protestant Church.  However, the same page also states Burning issues for the Church today are the declining numbers in membership, and various attitudes... have drastically changed the religious scene in French Polynesia and given birth to dozens of different denominations and religious groupings. This would seem to make their 95,000 rather uncertain.  Also, the %Catholic-%Protestant comes from the CIA factbook which hasn't updated those numbers at least since 1991. Bearing that in mind, multiplying out the current population by those percentages comes  uncomfortably close to original research. One approach might be to qualify the CofC membership claim by stating something like "third largest Christian denomination listed by Adherents.com in French Polynesia", which would be a correct statement, though awkward, or to add date information which would mitigate assumptions about current status. --Blainster 10:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think stating "nth largest" or "one of the largest" is problematic for French Polynesia because there is no reliable source making that claim. Instead we are here doing original research to determine the magnitude based on the reference (i.e. we are making the claim - not quoting a claim from a RS). I think a statement like, "Thanks to the missionary efforts dating back to John Hawkins and others in 1800, the Community of

Christ still has a significant % of members in French Polynesia making up about 2% of the population." (assuming 200,000 citizens as of 1993 per Démographie de la Polynésie française - which is supported by some of the references that have been put here. Also the recent addition atributing the membership to Addison Pratt is misleading since he was not a missionary for the RLDS (CoC's predesessor) but Hawkins whom was introduced to restorationism by Pratt converted to RLDS is a better source of that impact. -- Trödel 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe adherents.com is reliable because it cites multiple independent attestations. I can't think of any reason why the BYU researchers would inflate the Community of Christ numbers/percentages, if anything they were lamenting the numbers. As for stating that missionary efforts date back to the efforts of Addison Pratt, that seems quite factual to me. Although there have been many missionaries since Pratt, and many of the early Tahitian "Sanitos" allied with the Community of Christ, the leader of the first missionary effort was clearly Pratt. The early date is also cited on the Community of Christ website, which states that the Community of Christ church was established in French Polynesia in 1844. See http://www.cofchrist.org/news/media/countries.asp Some members from the time of Pratt's missions were reportedly accepted without rebaptism into the Community of Christ, http://www.centerplace.org/history/misc/soc/soc34.htm Glenn4pr 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that adherents is a reliable source - if you will read the above you will see that I am not challenging the results or adherents numbers - I am saying two things 1) that adherents is not comprehensive, and 2) that to make a claim of nth largest is original research. Adherents.com reports others research in an unbiased manner. The problem is that there is not coverage of the other protestent groups that I can find. Adherents claims there are about 135,000 protestants - but the denominations are not broken down - to assume that no single denomination has more than 4,000 members when some have existed for over 180 years is not reasonable. Additionally, although declining, the Maòhi Protestant Church claims 95,000 members - even if you assume a 10% decline over 10 years that would still 33,000 members.
 * Additionally, to make the claim of nth largest is original research - we need to be able to reference something that says it is the third largest - but absent that - we are left to what we are doing here - original research to figure out the largest denominations - when what we should be doing is reporting the facts - not an extrapolation of the facts to decide upon a nth largest appelation.
 * Finally, no one is claiming that BYU is inflating thier numbers - only that the numbers don't support an nth largest claim, or even one of the largest - if the BYU researchers said one of the largest and it wasn't disputed then we would have something that is supported by a reference - as it is now we are making a conjecture based on the number 3,900 and reports on adherents.com that include only catholics, LDS, CoC and generic protestants.
 * PS - also this doesn't even account for any fragmentation due to the Restoration Branches break off from CoC -- Trödel 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Needed article improvements
If you are interested in improving this article, and related articles, here are several suggestions for areas that need improvement:

1. Leadership biographies. The articles on the past presidents of the Community of Christ are rather incomplete. W. Wallace Smith Frederick Madison Smith Wallace B. Smith and W. Grant McMurray are important and need further development. In addition, there is little or nothing that can be learned aout important leaders such a s current or past apostles, presiding bishops, and presiding evangelists, aside from brief aricles on Charles D. Neff and Roy Cheville.

2. Role of Emma Smith. In the Community of Christ history article, the early role and attitude of Emma Smith is not well-developed.

3. 2007 Community of Christ World Conference. Siginificant restructuring of the format for the 2007 World Conference is underway. This is not mentioned.

4. Differing views on Homosexuality. This has been a rather large issue in the church, and is not developed.

5. Community of Christ Reunions. The concept of the reunion and importance of camping is not well developed.

6. Youth organizations. Young Peacemakers Club and historical groups such as Zion's League, Orioles, Skylarks, etc. Also, the fact that the first Cub Scout Pack in America is associated with the Community of Christ in Lamoni, Iowa could be developed.

7. Significant World Conference actions. Could be added to history article.

8. Information on the Community of Christ in Australia, French Polynesia, England, Haiti, Latin America, Africa, India, Japan, Phillipines, etc., could be useful.

9. Art in the Independence Temple.

10. Community of Christ Hymns.

11. Independence Messiah Choir and its history, and the history of the broadcasts, etc.

12. Although there is a new article on Disciples' Generous Response, an article on historical development of Community of Christ stewardship principles and practices would be interesting.

Any help in developing accurate, referenced, NPOV articles in these areas would improve the quality of this set of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn4pr (talk • contribs)


 * This is an encyclopedia article about a rather small denomination. Some of these things sound like more appropriate topics for a magazine article in the Herald rather than Wikipedia.  Think about what someone unfamiliar with the church might want to know. --Blainster 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss issue of whether the Community of Christ doctrine should be referred to as a species of Mormonism.
I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism) revisiting the issue of how to refer to general theological principles established by Joseph Smith, regardless of denomination. In 2003, we arrived at using the term Mormonism. However, I know this is not a 100% NPOV term, and I'd like input from those knowledgeable about the Community of Christ, to see if it's possible to come to an agreement on a term other than Mormonism to which neither the CofChrist nor the CoJCoLDS would too strenuously object. CO GDEN  19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge article: Reorganized LDS Church
Article Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints created by disgruntled church member. It should be an obvious merge to this one. --Blainster 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pearl of Great Price
Hey do the Church of Christ not believe in the Pearl of Great Price? I'm just wondering, I'm not a Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.178.70 (talk)
 * The Pearl of Great Price was complied by the LDS church after Joseph, Jr's death. Sections contained in the Pearl of Great Price are contained in the Inspired Version of the Bible ("Joseph Smith Translation") used by Community of Christ, other sections are contained in the Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants. Not all of the Pearl of Great Price is in Community of Christ cannon, for example the Book of Abraham is not included.--Dbolton 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

bad cite
"is a Christian denomination known for its dedication to the pursuit of peace," cite is http://www.cofchrist.org/wc2005/Veazey-sermon.asp

You can't use the church's own claims about itself as a citation that supports a self-serving statement. See WP:V. I'm taking this citation out and leaving a request for a new citation in its place. Instead of supplying a reliable third-party citation, you could replace the phrase with "is a Christian denomination that asserts a dedication to the pursuit of peace" or something in that vein. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The citation provided is interesting but it is not a WP:reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, as it is hosted on the church's own website. Please, find some third-party recognition of the church's peace work, hosted on another website, that is itself a reliable source. Read WP:RS for more details. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I think you are mistaken. I just read through that, and the source Temple-theo put in does not seem to be invalidated. His/her source is a person who works in the field of peace and justice, video of this man saying it is available. Just because Community of Christ hosts the material on their servers doses not make it un-reliable. Thus I am placing his/her source back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.148.130 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I understand that this other person is supposed to have said it, but that will have to be cited from some other source than a CoC-affiliated website. Read Reliable sources and Reliable sources. I'm taking it out again, this simply does not conform to Wikipedia requirements. In any case, if they really are a recognized Peace Church, then it should not be difficult to find third-party reliable sourcing of that claim. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After a slight adjustment I just made, the article now says that the CoC is a Christian denomination that proclaims as its mission to "promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace," and I agree that this is accurate, as it makes clear that this is what the church says about itself. Thanks to Jmcachran who provided most of that language. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mormon" or "Latter Day Saint movement" in the lead
The lead paragraph (before the table of contents) should mention and have a link to either Mormon or Latter Day Saint movement, as neither of these are currently linked from the lead. It does mention that they were the RLDS, but this means nothing to a reader not familiar with LDS. So at least one of those terms needs to be in the lead and wikilinked. It's anybody's call as to precisely how to do this. I would suggest simply prefacing the word "Christian" so that it says "is a Mormon Christian denomination". This is pretty standard practice when mentioning Protestant Christian, for comparison. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personnel changes removed
News of routine personnel changes are not appropriate for coverage by an encyclopedia article. The proposed addition of a female to the presidency, however, would be notable to add once it occurs. --Blainster 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Focus drifting
As edits accumulate, the focus of several sections is drifting. It would be beneficial to try to edit more tightly. Another problem is the use of inside terminology or jargon that may not be understood by non-members. Please try to link or explain words that might be unfamiliar to the average person. --Blainster 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lay ministry
Community of Christ clergy (priesthood) are primarily lay ministers, meaning that they are not professionally trained, though they are ordained. Don Compier, the head of the church seminary, used the term in this way in an online chat: " What percentage of your pastors are lay ministers?  99 per cent!. " --Blainster 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However in the context of the greater Christian church, lay specifically refers to unordained. many within Community of Christ have incorrectly used lay to mean unpaid. And some continue to do so. However others recognize this error and have for many years using correct terms of self sustaining and bi/multi-vocational. For example Apostle Luffman's 1992 doctoral thesis: Shaping bi-vocational preachers for evangelistic preaching : a preaching model for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and also the Co-missioned pastor Initiative (CPI) references.
 * When in ecumenical discussions the term "lay minister" refers to the un-ordained ministry. In Community of Christ, a tradition that recognizes that all are called to be ministers and some to ordained ministry and one that most ordained ministers are self-sustaining multi-vocational the continued misuse of this term happens ecumenicall understanding. It surprises me a bit that Compier, with as much experience he has in the ecumenically setting, continues to use this term in they way it has been misused by some in Community of Christ, that looking over your quote, I see he is not but rather is responding to someone who is and is just not correcting them. (perhaps to prevent misunderstanding, though in doing so possibly increasing the problem) As this is an encyclopedia and not a church publication the correct term and not a commonly misused with in the church term needs to be usedTemple-theo

I think we agree that lay ministry refers to the level of training, not volunteer status. However, the use of the term is not as clear-cut in general use as you suggest, and this is made clear in the ecumenical reference I linked in the article. A good example is the Catholic church, who calls their ordained deacons lay ministers, a role very similar to that in the Community of Christ. --Blainster 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to re-read that article. As it expresses the same position I was presenting. It makes a distinction between clergy (ordained ministers) and lay ministers (the ordained baptized membership). Community of Christ ordained ministers do receive training, thus your argument for need of training is also met. Throughout the article it goes back and forth between the "un-ordained" and the "ordained" using "un-ordained" when referring to lay ministry and "ordained" when not. the area of disagreement it expresses in this article is if the lay ministry refers to a portion of the unordained, or the entirety of the baptized membership. In Community of Christ understandings it might even extended to non-members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temple-theo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

See also the article on laity which indicates the most common usage today is to refer to the non-ordained.Temple-theo

Argumentative passage on BOM removed
I removed the following passage: "His comments, however, were not an official declaration of the Church, nor representative of the Church as a whole, but rather the personal opinions of President McMurray, shared in an address he made to a particular audience, and did not alter the doctrine of the Church or its stance on the Book of Mormon." Stating what something "is not" is argumentative in violation of NPOV and original content. It would be more appropriate cite an independent minority opinion within CofC on the BofM than to simply add one's own opinion. The anonymity of the passage also sets this up for speedy deletion in my mind as it is difficult to solicit consensus. Hope no one minds, but this seems rather obvious as an NPOV violation. This is meant to be a reference article, not an opinion essay. Glenn4pr 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest attempt to describe this as a personal statement when in fact it was stated "on behalf of the Community" takes us into an area of opinion. It's okay to disagree with President McMurray's statement, but just not in Wikipedia. Let the facts stand and others judge them. He was speaking as the President of the church in an address in the Temple and published by the church on its website and claiming to say something "on behalf of the community." He acknowledges that not everyone agrees and that is noted. --Glenn4pr (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Membership
The membership of 200,000 was the figure given at the latest World Conference, see Community of Christ membership and field organization. The membership reported on the official website is 250,000. I guess it's an approximation. Anyone have some insight on the discrepancy? --Dbolton 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--Dbolton 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2007 World Conference Data does not report the full membership of Community of Christ, just the memebrship of the Mission Centers. If we look at the reports from the 2004 World Conference we find a total membership of 255,830 at the end of 2003. The 2007 Reports indicate a total of 2504 baptisms, 1314 deaths, 176 withdrawals, 12 reinstatements, when added and subtracted from 2003 equals 256,856. The number reported for membership in 2007 is 196,067 rather than than 256,857 and thus a missing unaccounted for 60,789 members. However if you look at the report you will see that after all the mission centers in 2004, the total is 203,680 and then an unknown category (which would include those whose location is unknown, are members at large, probably a lot of the Restoration branch members who have retained their membership in Community of Christ, and people who no longer active at any level fall in this category) with a total of 52,150 to get the total membership number. This unknown cattegory is missing from the 2007 reports. If use the 2003 total as a starting point and the 2007 life data reports, total membership of Community of Christ in 2006 comes out to about: 257,000 placing  about 62,000 members in that unknown category, and if duplicates were found and removed in that time perhaps a bit less.  (I've been wondering for a while about these numbers, and it was just now that I realized the "unknown category was not included in the data this time" Temple-theo 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section violates NPOV
Material was covered elsewhere. Labeling as criticism violates NPOV and clearly implies the author's viewpoint. The rhetoric was designed to persuade. --Glenn4pr (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I differ - if we don't allow users to include relevant, factual, verifiable citations on a subject, the next step would be to call this article POV in that a critic would say it is written by an apologist. In order for it to be balanced, 'official' information (information coming from the source itself) must be included along with news items, scholarly references, and anything else that isn't simply WP:OR. I agree that an attack, original research and unreferenced info must be purged, or at least edited to get rid of the POV...but a wholesale elimination of anything that appears 'critical' of the subject of the article is a different matter. You'll find criticism/controversy sections in many articles about churches (Seventh Day Adventist, Anglican Communion, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. By the way: I am not endorsing this criticism - if you check my contributions, I (like you) spend a great deal of time making sure the correct citations re: the history of the church are adequately preserved - however, balance is what keeps Wikipedia credible. If you disagree with the content or the title, edit it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to add to the criticism section of the article and talk about the fact that 64% of all the income of the church goes directly to administration costs and salaries of the leaders. Not to mention because of this policy, the church is 9% behind budget right now. 97.113.65.197 (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2009
 * That is fine if you have some reliable sources to support the information. Also, it would only belong in the Criticism section if those sources are criticizing the practice; otherwise, the information would probably belong under Organization. —Eustress talk 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eustress - as long as it is relevant and sourced, as well as placed in the right section. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Per capita income in 'Criticism?
There is an unsourced statement regarding per capita income of the church's members; it appears out of place as though it were added as an afterthought. If someone can source it and justify its presence (I fail to see how it constitutes 'criticism') then it can stay; otherwise, it should probably go. Thoughts? 134.84.96.19 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)