Talk:Latter Day Church of Christ

15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * If you disagree with the information, cite sources to back you up. Alienus 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're the source, that counts as Original Research [WP:OR], which is not acceptable. You need to find sources external to yourself, preferably on the web.  If you can't do that, you can't change this page. Alienus 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How do we know you are speaking the truth? Sources settle all arguments. (You cannot be the source yourself) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting web articles
Since I don't know anything about the topic, but am unimpressed by the lack of any references I'm doing a dump here of interesting articles i find. i don't know if any of them are good enough to use in the article. I'll leave that up to you for now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * This one is well written and well referenced. See page 15


 * OK we have a misunderstanding here. Wikipedia doesn't report some sort of absolute truth. Wikipedia reports what can be proved with references. Some things - such as criminal convictions can be proved and so they can go in the articles. Somethings such as opinions can also go in the article as long as it's clear that it's someones opinions. "Blah blah of cnn reprts that blah blah" Unfortunately insider info, cannot go into the article because it cannot be proved with references. It's sad but that's the way it is. BTW typing four tildes ~ will sign your name automatically for you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kingston, Utah information is not correct
To the author and to whom it may concern:

As indicated in this article and other's The "Kingston Clan" resides in Northern Utah. Kingston, Utah, however, is located in Southern Utah and not affiliated. This article cites that Kingston was named for Thomas R. King. Hence, the name Kingston derives from "Kings' Town", not from any founder(s) named Kingston.

Furthermore, I was raised in Kingston, Utah. Even Utahns have asked me if I grew up near the Kingston Family due to the notoriety of the "Kingston Clan." I can say with certainty that Kingston, Utah; Kingston, Jaimaica; nor any other Kingston town nor city in my knowledge has any affiliation, whatsoever, with "The Kingston Clan." Nor is there even a person living there with the surname of Kingston.

I hope this comment clears up this discrepancy.

Brettm73 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Name
This page has been moved around a few times, but I am now moving this article to Latter Day Church of Christ (no hyphen and no "the"), which is the legal name of this organization. It was registered in the state of Utah as non-profit religious organization on December 27, 1977. If you want to look it up here, it's business entity number 689669-0140. -SESmith 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Category
I added the category "incest" on 17:59, 13 January 2010. Twunchy undid this on 13 22:17, 13 January 2010 saying that this was an "inflammatory POV category". I disagree, however, this is only my options and I am the first to admit I am still new at editing Wikipedia, and could very likely be wrong. Therefore, I felt that it should be discusses until a concusses is reached. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — There are three prime example of Incest in the "intra-family marriage" section. Article after article in the reference section refers to the insestual practices of this group.  Adding this category is no more inflammatory then listing there insestual practices in the article. The Latter Day Church of Christ uses theories of genetic "purify" to encouraged incestuous marriages of close relatives in order to "perfect" the Kingston bloodline. See  references 3, 12 and 13 or Polygamist Groups under "Latter Day Church of Christ, The Kingston Clan of Utah" link for examples.  I'm sure that every group and person in the incest category doesn’t want to be there.  It may not be pretty and people may not like the idea, but it is true, and therefore I think that this Category should be kept.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ridiculously Insensitive POV Category - Delete Immediately I will counter that the Kingstons don't view their practices as incest but as the purification of their bloodlines, from their point of view this category would be highly offensive. We don't go though and put Jesse Jackson into the category of Adulterers, just because it may be the case.  This is a case for sensitivity and tact, none of which is accomplished by labeling them as a church of incestuous people.  I am no admirer of many of these people, but have had interaction and intimate knowledge with many polygamous sects and strive to report what may be good or bad about all groups, but it needs to be neutral!  When one group doesn't think it's incest, but you do, and think there should be a category just to point out that one aspect of the group,...this is not what Wikipedia is about. Twunchy (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not include. I'm leaning towards thinking this is not the right way to use this category. The category should be used to categorize the topic of incest, not to categorize people or organizations that have participated in or condoned incest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is settled now, but the incest category has the scope note "that some articles in this category are merely 'alleged incest,'" and current usage certainly contains "people or organizations that have participated in or condoned incest." Not that that necessarily means it's the correct usage, but based on that standard, the categorization of this article there seems appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will yield to Good Ol’factory since I have seen his work and respect it. However, I do have to say that just because "the Kingston’s don't view their practices as incest but as the purification of their bloodlines", doesn’t mean it's not incest.  A person can justify murder, but it’s still murder.  If it talks like a duck...etc.  This group openly practices incest in the name of "purification", and its incest.  The 10-20 people listed in the Incest Category used the same justifications, "purity of blood" and that is why I included the Kingston’s in that category.  It had nothing to do with POV.  Wikipedia, in regards to NPOV, say that "It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common."  If you go to Google or yahoo news and type "Kingston Clan" the "points of view are most common" call this an incestuous group.   Putting them into the "incest" category is not an "Ridiculously Insensitive POV Category". POV is not a justifcation to ignore the facts.  (Wikipedia)"It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view."  There are many things that I dislike on Wikipedia when it come to my own religon, but if something is true, that dosn't jusitfy my removing it.  Additionally Jesse Jackson should be in the category of Adulterers. Since when is the "truth" something to avoid, just because one person or group of persons doesn’t like it.  ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's still incest; I don't think we avoid saying it's incest in the article if there are sources that talk about the church and incest (which there are). To me it's more of a question of how to use the category. I'm not sure it's being used properly right now, which is beyond the issue of just this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Church Establishment
I don't think I agree with the wording of the first line of the "Establishment" section. I also think that the issue is larger then we realize. I have started a discussion at List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. I think a minor "tweaking" of the words may be in order and I don't think removal is necessary, just rewording. However, I think that this rewording may need to wait until a consensus on what date is appropriate happens there.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)

Latter Day Church of Christ Establishment
There is some confusion on the establishment date of the Latter Day Church of Christ. Several different dates appear in various pages
 * 1) The list says 1977, 1941 and 1935
 * 2) In Shields, Divergent Paths, (pages 134-35) the Incorporation of the Davis County Cooperative Society occurred 7 February 1941.
 * 3) The Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office in the Primer (page 15) uses 1935
 * 4) mormonfundamentalism.com says New Year’s Day 1940
 * 5) This page uses the 1977 incorporation as its date of "Creation" for the Latter Day Church of Christ itself. I cannot seem to get the info the "References" the page suggest linking its creation to 1977.  It may be there, but I have been unable to find it.

One or more than one date may be correct, so which one should be use. Assuming the sources that say the Latter Day Church of Christ was "Incorporated" in 1977, this doesn't mean that the Sect was "Created" then. There has never been a "Incorporation" requirement for the "creation" of a sect that I have found on Wikipedia. If it had, I huge number of sects in the LDS movement would probably not be considered "Create". Also I not sure if a "Name Change" constitutes a "New Creation". Since Latter Day Church of Christ is just a "reincorporation" of Davis County Cooperative Society, why is the date of creation restarted?

I think some discussion is in order as I'm not even sure how to fix this.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2016 IRS Enforcement Raid
On 10 February 2016, there was a raid on a business, and possibly other businesses, associated with this particular group. KSL-TV reports this was related to the Kingston clan, and one business raided was at about 3200 South Main Street, South Salt Lake City, Utah. Later reports on Facebook indicated that they ran a company called 'Wakasha Renewable Energy' and that company had ads at Vivint Smart Home Arena, where the Utah Jazz play. A game was scheduled for tonight and reports were the ads for the renewable energy company were pulled early in the afternoon prior to the game played on 10 February 2016. Later postings to Facebook threadds indicated that the Washake name (or however it's really spelled) was seen in association with some movie theater location and screening room names in the Salt Lake City area.

KSL-TV story: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38458567&nid=148&title=irs-raids-sl-county-properties-with-possible-polygamist-ties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:500:D01:A0CB:61AD:F98:C6F9 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We could add a part of the article about the raids if we cite the KSL page, but Facebook posts don't count as reliable sources for Wikipedia. RCorvus (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Lacking commentary on this request from any other editors, I did my own Google search and found that 'Laatter Day Church of Christ' is much more widely mentioned. Even if we go by incoming links within Wikipedia, Latter Day Church of Christ has the lead. If you think it's likely that more commenters on this move could be found, I can change this to a relist. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ → Kingston Clan – While "Latter Day Church of Christ" is the official name of the church organized by this group, the group is far more well known as the "Kingston Clan". This is therefore the common name that should be used. The article contains information on the financial holdings of the group as well as information about the church organization. The financial holdings are not held by the church, but by the Davis County Co-operative Society, which is another organization that the group has established. Thus, "Kingston Clan" would also be a more inclusive, broader name, since it would be an overarching name for the group which has a number of organizations within it, including the Latter Day Church of Christ and the Davis County Co-op. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

clarification
Does this "and is referred by News Articles as the Kingston Clan, the Kingston Group" mean "and is referred to by news articles as the Kingston Clan or the Kingston Group"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latter Day Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127133628/http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf to http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018115400/http://mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/JohnOrtellKingston.htm to http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/JohnOrtellKingston.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latter Day Church of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021191226/http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/10141 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/10141
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021191226/http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/10141 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/10141

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

info box 'separated from'
if the LDCC separated in 1926 then it separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. --142.163.194.13 (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Really?
There's a section for "Member Assets" on this page and a paragraph for "Members' financial holdings" under the "Finances" section. How is this appropriate? I can imagine putting holdings of a church on a church's page, but not holdings of the members.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You need to be more precise on the reason the section should be removed. Quetstar (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost every contributor on this page has had an undisclosed conflict of interest. The intent of adding "member assets" to this page is so that certain members will receive harassment because of it, besides, member assets are not relevant to the church.

Nowhere on any page for any other church will you find a list of member assets? Why? Because it violates Wikipedia's standards of professionalism. Jspratt97 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Unattributed and false claims
I use Wikipedia as a reader only, so I’m not sure exactly what I’m supposed to say here, but I have to say something. There are numerous statements throughout this article that are factually untrue, lack attribution, and present harmful disinformation. If you’re reading this and you care about consent, coercion, or abuse, please fix this article! 2603:7000:4340:8B00:DC51:210B:6312:682D (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, can you provide a couple examples of statements that lack a source? S0091 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Charter school
I added the sentence "They run a charter school called Vanguard Academy." under the Establishment section. The reference is this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/19/utah-polygamy-sect-kingston-group-lawsuit The article says "The lawsuit against the group is not the first time it has faced media scrutiny or legal peril. In August, the Utah state charter school board mandated that the Kingston Group-run charter school, Vanguard Academy, replace all nine members of its governing board after various and repeated violations. Officials alleged that school leaders hired Kingston-connected businesses and paid them with taxpayer money, the Salt Lake City television news station KUTV reported. Vanguard Academy’s leaders sued state charter school officials in response, and a judge issued a restraining order that kept the targeted governing board members in their positions. The school faces a three-month probation during which it is required to rectify its issues or face closure." I believe this article supports the simple statement that I added. User:JTalong reverted my edit. Lena Key (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Page is prone to vandalism, one source removed entirely, another mis-stated
@Big Money Threepwood removed an entire post along with the source. Unless we feel Los Angeles Magazine, or the author Michelle Mcphee are not reliable sources, or the information is not relevant, we would typically revise the posting rather than remove it entirely.

Since I wasn't the original poster of the comment, I took the liberty to read the article thoroughly to try to understand the edit comments. The sub-headline, as well as paragraphs 1, 3, 5 of the article seem to support the original posters comments.

Please advise as to why this post is "disingenuous" or the logic behind removing the LA Magazine source.

I reverted the edit to restore the source, @Big Money Threepwood re-removed the source. JTalong (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You keep adding fringe content about a conspiracy theory that the CIA is involved in this church of cousin "lovers". That isn't true. The source doesn't say that. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not add the content you're describing as "fringe," and only first read the LA Mag source article after your initial deletion. I only reverted what I thought was vandalism after reviewing the source.
 * As a Wiki editor, I only have two questions about your deletion:
 * - Is Los Angeles Magazine a credible source / Michelle Mcphee a credible author?
 * - And, was the OP summary of the article an accurate restatement of the source?
 * I'm willing to wait for a second opinion on these questions before re-reverting your change. JTalong (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second opinion: I don't believe that the content in question is a neutral or encyclopedic summary of the source. The source has statements from Kingston's lawyer about how Kingston's associates were playing up their connections with law enforcement (including, allegedly, former CIA director Woolsey) in order to get protection money from Kingston. There's one quote from the lawyer that "Jacob believed that some of it, not all, was sanctioned by the U.S. government and the CIA", but taking that quote and turning it into "claims that the fraud was perpetrated with CIA backing" violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. That's not the thrust of the article, and the lawyer is obviously playing up anything that could be extenuating for his client. Jfire (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Jfire
 * Any suggestions on revising the OP content to be a neutral summary of the source? JTalong (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is detailed and wide ranging. It would be a good source for an article on the fraud more generally, if we had one. For instance we could use it as source for coverage of the non-LDCC co-conspirators. In an article about the LDCC, I'm not sure what aspects of it are due weight. Maybe something about the trial testimony regarding Desert Tech, since that has a direct relation to the LDCC. That could help balance the article, which has some NPOV issues in the section in question. Specifically, it gives too much relative weight to the DCCS statements attempting to distance the organization from the fraud, and the repetition of "mastermind" and "masterminding" (referring to Dermen) serves to minimize the culpability of the Kingstons. Jfire (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is WP:MANDY. No article should dwell on controversy, and removing expected denials helps keep things succinct. I agree with JFire that the CIA stuff should be excluded. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the article dwells on controversy and has since its inception. JTalong (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Finances section
This seems like an odd section title for a religious sect that isn't notable for its financing. A lot of what is here looks like news about the groups finances. Should we rework it into a history section? I think it could be combined with another section, and then flow better in general. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be re-titled "Business activities" and re-focused around that topic. Reporting on DCCS often notes the organization's business holdings, e.g. in this Rolling Stone article, From Salt Lake, the Order controls some 100 businesses spread out over the Western states, from a casino in California to a cattle ranch in Nevada to a factory that makes lifelike dolls in Utah. Over 75 years, the Kingstons have amassed a fortune worth an estimated $300 million, but the operation skirts the edges of the law. This book analyzes the group from the perspective that it is effectively a business organization. While the members of the Organization operate with a unified religious worldview, they describe the organization this way: "The Organization is not a church. It's cooperating. It's a business organization" (participant 22)... Not only do the Kingstons own a large number of businesses, but the Kingstons spend the majority of their time engaged in business enterprises and are expected to place their duties in the co-op ahead of their personal interests. Jfire (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another thing that is clear from Osmond's dissertation (1st reference in the article) is that LDCJC and DCCS are two distinct organizations, with different establishment dates (DCCS 1935, legal 1941; LDCC 1977), different areas of activity (one business, one religious) and different legal recognition. To say in the lead, LDCJC "OR" DCCS is inaccurate; also to say "in 1977 members of the DCCS organized legal recognition as the Latter Day Church of Christ" is inaccurate. They are two distinct organizations albeit organized by many of the same people. (Osmond) @Jfire
 * According to Foster (currently article reference #21), both organizations have different presidents. JTalong (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other than in its coverage of the founding history and legal status, I don't agree that the article should treat LDCJC and DCCS as distinct. Independent sources treat them as one and the same organization. For example:
 * Polygamy in Primetime, p. 39: The Latter-day Church of Christ, also known as the Kingston Clan, The Order, The Davis County Cooperative, and The Co-op Society, has around 3,500 members. They are led by their prophet, Paul E. Kingston. The church is based in Salt Lake City but has a branch in Davis County and settlements scattered along the Wasatch Front in Utah.
 * American Polygamy, p. 318: The Davis County Cooperative Society, or the Latter Day Church of Christ, is more commonly known by outsiders as the Kingston group and by insiders as “The Order” or “The Co-Op.” ... In 1977, Davis County Cooperative Society (DCCS) members officially incorporated as the Latter Day Church of Christ (LDCC). While a total number of members is not known, most of its members live in Utah and Idaho.
 * Osmond, p. 3: Though the nearly seamless integration of the business, family and religious aspects of this multifaceted, multimillion-dollar corporation almost defies description, we may conceptualize the Kingston organization as a "family firm" with a religious worldview.
 * LDCJC "OR" DCCS in the lead accurately summarizes this co-identification. Jfire (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm re-reading Osmond, and all I can say is this question is still a little blurred in my mind. Osmond, Chapter 5 title reads "Kingdom of God": The Davis County Cooperative Society AND the Latter Day Church of Christ". Foster lists the President of the Latter Day Church of Christ as Bill Stoddard. Also, the Establishment paragraph reads in part "On September 19, 1941, the community founded by Elden Kingston officially declared themselves the Davis County Cooperative Society Inc" which seems to contradict the statement in the lead ".. in 1977 members of the DCCS organized legal recognition as the Latter Day Church of Christ.''"
 * The official declaration in 1941 is filed with the state of Utah as articles of incorporation for the DCCS and the current Trustee-in-Trust of the DCCS corporation is Paul Kingston.
 * To the affirmative of your argument, Osmond describes many interdependent and intertwined portions of the organization(s) and their mostly shared membership, as well as the description quoted above as "the nearly seemless integration...." JTalong (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think using a tabloid like Rolling Stones as a reliable reference for an encyclopedic article is dubious at best. JTalong (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can read the Wikipedia consensus about Rolling Stone as a source here: WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE. I believe many editors would argue that this topic falls under the category of "culture", and thus Rolling Stone is fully reliable as a source. Nevertheless, I am taking a more conservative view and attributing content from them. Jfire (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back -- on review, I see that I overlooked the following section WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, and categorizing this topic as "societal" rather than "culture" is more appropriate. The cited reporting falls on the 2011 border of that consensus. For the avoidance of disagreement, I will remove this source, even for attributed content. Jfire (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)