Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 3

Aaronic Order
The Aaronic Order article states that it is not part of the Latter Day Saint movement, but it's listed within this article as being such. This seems inconsistent. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been change in the past.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note Size
A thought. Shouldn't the Notes be limited to very brief statements? Maybe with the exception of the first "Church of Christ". After all the Name of the church is linked to its own article with all the information listed in the notes. Such large noted make the tables very long.

For example, "Perfected Church of Jesus Christ of Immaculate Latter-day Saints" lists the main beliefs, which are shown on its own article.

ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordering by date of founding
The sects need to be ordered within each category by the date of their founding like they were before. Keraunos (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I placed in order by date of founding the Brighamite sects. Does that mean I am the ''The One Mighty and Strong who setteth in order the House of Zion? Keraunos (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have to ask the question, it means you're not it. All the Mighty and Strong Ones just know that they are the one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've met or spoken with two or three "Mighty and Strong" ones, here in Independence, and I just wish I could know which was the one.... (LOL) BTW, I agree wholeheartedly on the dating issue you raised.  I intended to do that when I reorganized this article, but another article and some outside concerns (family, work) grabbed my attention and I just didn't get it done.  Sorry!  I'll work on that over the next few days, as I can. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. That went much faster than I thought it would! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint Movement Wiki
The Latter Day Saint Movement Wiki catalogs information on the denominations comprising the Latter Day Saint Movement. The following link http://ldsmovement.pbworks.com/ should be added to page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsaucer1958 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the link to the referecen section. It is a good link to have there, I think. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1
I have copied from Peer review/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1 the following. I believe some discussion of Finetooth suggestion for an edit is needed as this is kind of a big edit. He noted that "The Manual of Style deprecates lists that can readily be rendered as prose". I would like input from the editor also.


 * I have begun to implement your review (I was offline all last week). However, I need some clarification.  What do you mean by "The Manual of Style deprecates lists that can readily be rendered as prose".  I simply do not understand what you mean.  I have read  WP:MOS and still don't get what you mean.  It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand.


 * If it looks possible to me to use straight prose rather than a bulleted or numbered list, I try it to see if I can do it. It could be done in this case by writing "The Latter Day Saint churches can be grouped into several divisions and subdivisions. In the tables below, 'Before the schism' refers to Joseph Smith's original church and those bodies that broke with him during his lifetime. 'Rocky Mountain Saint' churches, sometimes called 'Brighamite' or 'Mormon,' trace their leadership to Brigham Young. 'Prairie Saint' churches reject Young's leadership in favor of some other claimant. 'Independent' churches do not trace their doctrinal or priesthood lineage to any 19th-century Latter Day Saint faction but still hold Latter Day Saint beliefs. 'Self-originated' branches started independent of any Rocky Mountain or Prairie Saint organization."

All of the other information in this list can be deleted because it's repeated in the tables. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you’re saying. That it's better to write this out like you would say them rather then have lists.  However, I don't think I agree that this applies here.  I think the way it is now has much more information as to how these groups are divided up.  It took a great deal of back and forth to get a consensus on how to divide up the groups and the list helps people know where to put new groups as they are found.  I will however, put this section onto the talk page in order to get comments as I do value your input and the input of other.  I am the first to admit I may be wrong..--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no one has given input here, I am going to leave it as is. This is the only item Finetooth mentioned that I don't really think works here.  Although I understand the desire to change this (as suggested by WP:MOS), I think that writing thing out a paragraph will only lose needed information and make it harder to know which group to put new churches into.  WP:MOS dose say ..." if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs".  I don't think it dose "read easily".  It is already difficult enough to figure this out as it is, and I think it will only be worse if changed.  However, if someone else wants to take a shot, by all means go for it.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Versions in the LDS Movement
Various sects within the Latter Day Saint Movemnt have published their own versions of the Book of Mormon: such as,

LDS Church - The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Community of Christ - Revised Authorized Version[1]

Church of Christ (Temple Lot) - 1908 RLDS Edition.[2]

Church of Christ with the Elijah Message - The Record of the Nephites.[3]

Nephite Church of Christ - The Nephite Gospel: The Final Testament of Jesus Christ.[4]

[1] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705333288/Revised-Book-of-Mormon-is-less-satisfying-2-Jerry-Johnston.html

[2]http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/default.htm

[3]http://www.elijahmessage.com/recordofthenephites.html

[4]http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/07/diverse-latter-day-scripture/

Would this information make an appropriate section for this article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not, but I think it would be good to have at Book of Mormon, if it's not there already. And the information should be included in the articles for the individual "sects". I don't think this page should get into detailed comparisons of beliefs or practices—it's pretty much just a summary list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Good Ol’factory that “This isn't really a detailed comparisons of beliefs”. For a while the notes got really really long because of a large about of details that were induced on the linked pages, that didn't belong here.  I'm not sure who, but someone took the time to remove that stuff, making a vast improvement. However, I also agree that it would be good to have at Book of Mormon.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with what the two previous editors wrote; this is not the place for that, but the Book of Mormon page and the pages for the individual sects would be. Also, the Temple Lot Church does not use the 1908 RLDS Edition as its official version; rather, it publishes its own edition--while it's identical to the RLDS 1908 in versification and content, it has a different introduction.  I used to own one, some time back. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Archival of talk page
Since the featured list candidate’s process is now closed (it is now a FL), and most the items in this talk page were related in some way to the process or were very old, I went ahead and Archives this talk page by subject. See How_to_archive_a_talk_page Bullet #1 why for why I did it that way.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty cool! Congrats on your achievement; you've definitely earned a "barnstar of perseverence," if there is one.  Think I'll take a look... - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep; found it (or one that will do!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Choice of the week at The Signpost
Dear colleagues, just to let you know that our guest judge chose this article as number-one FL promotion of last week. Congratulations. Tony  (talk)  17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! A well-deserved honor. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool, indeed. Thanks for posting the link.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangite vs RLDS issue
I would like to bring people's attention to my comment on File talk:LDS main branch timeline.svg as I think there's some problem with that picture which is used in this article. --BenMcLean (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

CoFirstborn
According to this source, in 1990, the Church of the Firstborn had members in Colonia LeBaron, in the Western U.S. (esp. San Diego, California) and Central America.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WaPo, "Ambushed by a Drug War: Mormon Clans in Mexico Find Themselves Targets of the Cartels," July 23, 2009: "The Mormon community based in Colonia LeBaron, numbering about 1,000...."
 * Janet Bennion, Desert patriarchy: Mormon and Mennonite communities in the Chihuahua Valley, Univ. of Arizona Press (2004): p126: "The sociopolitical structure of [Colonia] LeBaron is based on the rules and structures established in the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times...." p127: "The Church of the Firstborn grew quickly and established colonies in San Diego and Baja, Mexico.... p138: "The major rift that occurred during the 1990s between a liberal faction [...of the Church of the Firstborn] and a strictly conservative group, who moved down the road and continue to practice a more communal-based religious system based on the notion of a living prophet...." So, apparently, there is a "liberal faction" the CoFirstborn predominating in the village of Colonia LeBaron itself. [Btw, the CoF presumably also has members scattered about in Colonia Dublan and other Chihuahua communities as well as in other places in Mexico, the US, and Nicaragua.]--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This page, copyrighted by Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal, Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua in 2009, lists Colonia LeBaron's population as 1,137. Galeana (which includes LeBaron)'s population was 3,763 in 1996. The predominant religion was Roman Catholic, at 80.9% of the population of people over 15, with the remainder principally "Mormon" and "Evangelical."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll readjust the population estimate for the denomination.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It's proposed that Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) be merged with this list. Please discuss.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also posted an inquiry here on the disambig guideline's talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur. Looks like there's nothing there that isn't already stated here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I haven't decided whether I think such a merger would be a good idea or not. On one hand, a new section at the top of this article could be fashioned that would list sects whose name approximates "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." On the other hand, having a separate disambig page with these names listed does serve quite well as an efficient navigation aid, as well--eg, for readers trying to locate what specific group the term "Latter Day Saint" might apply to, in some particular context.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With the existence of an article on the Latter Day Saint movement already, not to mention this List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, I question the need for a Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) article in the first place. Not one of the sects or groups listed in that second article are not a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, hence, having a disambiguation article simply to list some of these groups all over again seems redundant to me.  My idea would be to simply redirect from Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) straight over to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, since there's not one thing in the former article that isn't contained in the latter, while the latter contains several additional items not present in the former.  But that's only my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - Even one person is a quorum on Wikipedia and we have 100% agreement between the two of us therefore I've done the merger.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolding of "Latter-day Saint"
It is common Wikipedia practice to bold the title of any given article, when that title first appears in the article text. Now the title of this article makes reference to "Latter Day Saint," not "Latter-day Saint," hence the bolding of "Latter Day Saint" when it first appears in the article text itself. It has been suggested that "Latter-day Saint," which represents an alternative spelling of this term, should also be bolded at the place where it first appears in the article, as well. I disagree. While the desire to bold the first occurrence of "Latter-day Saint" (the spelling adopted by the LDS Church in Utah) is understandable, and I fully accept and acknowledge the good-faith intentions of the persons advocating doing so, I believe it should not be done in this article, for two reasons:

(1) The title of the article, as I just stated, does not reference "Latter-day Saint", but rather "Latter Day Saint." "Latter Day Saint," as I understand it, is the preferred usage when used by academics or the general public to describe this movement as a whole--which is the focus of this article, as opposed to the Utah LDS church in particular (which has its own specific article, where "Latter-day Saint" is appropriately bolded).

(2) People are naturally drawn to bolded text, and in my opinion at least, the presence of a bolded "Latter-day Saint" in the section referencing the Utah LDS church could lead some to believe that this church (which contains 97% of the world's Latter Day Saints) is somehow seen as being more "worthy" of attention than the rest. I realize that this is absolutely not the intention of those proposing to italicize "Latter-day Saint" here, and as I said earlier, I give them full credit for their good-faith intentions. That said, I believe italicizing both names is better, and tends to a more NPOV, "equal" appearance in this particular instance. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * After discussion here and an examination of the actual guidelines in WP:MOSBOLD, I agree with that approach outlined above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Provenances
While I am honored that the work I and others did on LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist and LDS sects/Granville Hedrick has been added to here, personally, I don't like there use on this page. My reasons:
 * 1. Not all groups have individual tables.  One of the things that was clear to me in the moving of this list to "Featured list statues", was an Emphasizes on "Uniformity".  For example, all citations had to be the same format, all images had to have alt=, unless all sects had image then they shouldn't me in the tables, etc.  However, to create tables for each breakdown is problematic since not all are appropriate.   The "Pre-schism dissenting bodies" and "Followers of Joseph Smith III" are going to be just one box on top connected down to all the others right below it.  There would be no "New" information nor is it going to make anything "clearer".
 * 2. This is an "overall list". I think the original LDS sects was created to give a better overall picture of the sect breakdown then the Mormon denomination tree gives, which it dose.  However, the intent I had with the new tables was to allow those smaller sects, who didn't "Make it" into the LDS sects but who had a complex Provenances, to have provenances withing there own pages, since both LDS sects and Mormon denomination tree "neglect" them, so to speak.  My plan had been to figure out how to incorporated them into the overall LDS sects in a fashion that allowed the user to expand or link to the additional templates, without changing the LDS sects in appearance overall, but I lack the programing skills, and gave up on such endeavors.
 * 3. I think they just don't look good.  This page is already long enough, especially with the table expand.

I would like to remove them, but I think I may be in the minority here, so I didn't want to do it until some discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You've raised some excellent points. Not sure yet what I think on the issue of removing them; I'll need to think on that for awhile.  But on the issue of them being expanded, I can definitely say that they need to be closed, rather than open as they are now; if they're going to stay, then let the reader decide whether to open them or not.  I think this would perhaps be preferable to either the way it is now, or removing them altogether.  But I'm going to give the matter some additional thought... - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just took care of the collapsing part. This way, the tables are still available to interested parties to expand, while remaining "out of sight" for other article readers.  What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that, if they are to be included, then collapsing looks better then not. That would make #3 at list less an issue.  I agree that perhaps some more "Thinking" is needed, including on my part.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated all the information needed for this page from LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist and LDS sects/Granville Hedrick into LDS sects. I am therefore so I removed the two additional templates. That way there can be uniformity across the list.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the in-house style manual, the dual-purpose relationship table and navigation aid "Template:LDS sects" should be shown in its expanded state within its section within this article proper:"[...B]oxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not be used to hide article content [...yet, c]ollapsible sections may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes[, etc....].-- MOS:SCROLL"Since this is the article about the relationship between all constituent LDS sects, the template works as an illustration of these relationships and so should be expanded as part of the article proper; yet, sections and/or cells within a table or a sidebar navigation aid/infobox may be collapsed (for example, see the sidebar nav box at Civil war, with its collapsed sections), as well as when the entire, self-same template, when it is used as a navigation aid below the external links section in articles about constituent denominations. (As an example of another article that uses a dual-use template of the kind we're discussing, see Family of Barack Obama: the relationship chart for the extended B. Obama family is expanded in this omnibus but collapsed when used as a nav box below articles on whatever family members are notable enough to have separate WP biographies.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With the removal of the other two charts, although I personally think it looks better collapsed, it's not a big deal to me anymore. The issue I saw was with the number of charts (three) not the collapsed vs. expand.  It made an already huge list twice as long, and collapsing them was just an attempt at making the list more compact.  However, that is a moot issue now since the other lists have now been incorporated into the one anyway.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Artist4Echo--now that there's just the one chart, and it's located further down in its own section rather than in-between the lists, I have no objections whatsoever to it remaining expanded, in its current state. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events
I have some confusion on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events, and have started a thread at Template talk:LDS sects/Granville Hedrick. Since those who work on this list probably have a good understanding of the events, your input would be appreciated.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Split off / Continuation of links
Isn't it SOP to link only the first occurrence of an item to be wikilinked? I have never liked the fact that all. the "Split off / Continuation of" items are wikilinked even when they are the same all the way down the list. Since the "Church name" for the "Split off / Continuation of" is always above the listed sect, shouldn't all the "Split off / Continuation of" be non-wiklinked? I hate to make such a significant change without some input on this first.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Labels and section titles
Where did these section titles come from? I have never heard a LDS refer to themselves as a Rocky Mountain saint. I get the distinct impression these are not academic titles, but before coming to a conclusion I felt I should ask others that might know. - Storm  Rider  15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where these term originally came from, but if you read "Categorizing the churches" it dose mention describe the terms and I believe "Steven L. Shields" dose use these terms. This "List" original came mostly from Shields works, so the section titles probably came from there, hence the "Rocky Mountain saint" and "Prairie Saints" titles.  I also believe Shields even broke them down in sections like "Brighamites" and "Josephies", but at some point in the past they were "rename" to the current format.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that is helpful information. It does feel like the tail wagging the dog to me. I personally don't like the titles and have never used them. I am not sure it is something to fight over, but I would support a move away from them if others felt similarly. Cheers, - Storm  Rider  10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I gave you the wrong impression. I am more than open to a different format, if you can think of one that works better.  This is just where I believe they came from.  Personally I don't have a strong opinion, one way or the other.  This is just how I found the page the first time I edit it.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, RMSaints/PrarieSaints may/may not be wp:NEOs but nonetheless are fairly well known among Mormon studies scholars specializing in splinter sects--even if the two of expressions aren't used that much by most of 'em (hehheh - Seems like people come up with a new description each time they write a book!.. ) If u wanna come up w something else, I myself would be open to the idea. I'm sure anything you'd comes up with wd be descriptive without pushing some coinage on to the world via the encyclopedia--so it wouldn't hurt and might actually **improve** the article.. --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, in my opinion, Rocky Mountain Saints and Prairie Saints are very useful terms, they're not universally understood, so, in the spirit of wp:NEO, I've moved them from being used in their respectively pertinent section titles (which, by the way, are now in in "banner" form, as titles of sub-tables) to only these terms being referenced within the introductory sentence for each of the two sections and have replaced the two section titles with the more generically descriptive formulations (perhaps?): Lineage of Brigham Young and Other lineages.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

recent changes
While I like most of the recent change, I wonder why the "Sort" option was removed?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrt the sort function, ARTEST4ECHO, I think table headers make the page clearer to read but headers can't be used with the sort function. In any case, "sorts" only sorted items within a single table and not the entire page; yet, since the entries within each table are already chronological and the alphabeticization of church names is now accomplished with the new intra-wlinks index list, I figured the tradeoff improved the page. (I will add the names of founders later, so they will all be alphabeticized as well.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your comment. I only worry that making the tables "Sortable" was part of the "featured list" process.  If it was so important then it my be a mistake to remove them.  Also can you tell me the logic behind putting the blank line above each box (ie "| style="background:#gray;" colspan="6"|")? --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * U don't like the stripe? lol Iv a tendency to run a grey or palegrey scoring between subsections of a larger chart and in my mind, the whole page costitutes a single table with white spaces above some of it's subsections, in which there's an edit button (eg, there might come a time when it would be desired to include multiple subsections under a main heading and a subtle scoring would visually group all unscored subsections into the same compound section. That said, the table currently has only a single-degree of subordination, so the scorings are, um, just there, w/o any function wotsoev.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ARTRST4 ECHO, what I meant was that ' sort' is of especial use when it is used in a comprehensive list, an omnibus, as it were. Once the list is divided into many short sublists, not so much; hence the index as its substitute on the basis of the whole article.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ok I just went to help:Sorting  n it sez to create static, floating bars or columns (viz by piecing together multiple simple tables) IOT allow the sort functions to work in them. I'm of the opinion that a sort feature for a very short table is minimally useful, but if others think the option premium, we can certainly finagle their being reinserted. ( as for feature article status, a whole-page index is mucho times primo in comparison to merely being able to push a button and alphabetically sort only five names. eg a good nonfiction book has got a single index in its end pages, not separate indexes after each of the books chapters, whether there's 100 chapters or only a half doz ) --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I came back a little more refreshed and see that the sortable function actually IS quite useful, so, you're right, ARTESTECHO. I've put them back.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

William Smith, Lyman Wight and the Williamites?
Since this page is more active, and this could effect this page, I posted my comments here and will put notices on the other pages.

I'm having a problem understanding this two line on the Lyman Wight page and William Smith Page. How these events unfolded could effect several pages (i.e. Lyman Wight, William Smith, RLDS Church), List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, Template:Smith family lineal succession, etc.), so this really needs to be clear.

"Wight later recognized William Smith as the President of the Church (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) for a short time and served as a counselor in William's short-lived First Presidency. After 1849, Wight wrote and stated that he believed the prophetic mantle of church leadership should fall on the shoulders of Joseph Smith's sons."

"In 1847, Smith announced that he was the new president of the Latter Day Saint church and that he held a right to leadership due to the doctrine of lineal succession. He excommunicated Young and the leadership of the LDS Church and announced that the Latter Day Saints who were not in apostasy by following Young should gather in Lee County, Illinois. In 1849, Smith gained the support of Lyman Wight, who led a small group of Latter Day Saints in Texas. However, Smith's church did not last, and within a few years it dissolved."

Regarding the Wight page, the RLDS Church was not "Reorganized" until April 6, 1860, well after the second line "After 1849,.." of the Lyman page. This is even after Lymans death on March 31, 1858. I don't see how he could have been a counselor in "William's short-lived First Presidency for the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". This is not inline with RLDS History where Smith tried to become "Presiding Patriarch".

Regarding the Smith page, it make is sound like he joined or even took over the Wightite sect. The Smith page really doesn't make clear if he was trying to take control of the Wightite, the RLDS Church (before creation), or create his own "Williamites" sect. According to the image File:SmithFamily.gif Smith created the "Williamites", but there is no reference to go by.

Did William Smith start a different "RLDS" sects before 1849 or was he just making claims that never came about? Personally, I have never heard of that "sect', but I'm definitely no expert. If he did then the link on Wight page to the RLDS Church is incorrect and the Name of his sect should be included on this page and both the Smith and Wight page.  However, I'm no where near clear about this (more like completely confused).--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do know that William Smith founded his own organization, briefly (or at least that's the way I heard it; but nothing came of it, and it folded up. I also know that Lyman Wight had his own branch of the church in Texas, but I was never quite sure whether he saw it as a new organization, a reorganization, or a continuation of the original organization.  If I remember right, the Wight group practiced at least some of the Nauvoo Temple rituals, but I'm not sure of much else about their organization  I'm sorry, but I probably won't be of much help on this one!  I might suggest consulting Steven Shields' work, or else trying to get hold of John Hamer, who's another expert on this subject.  Best wishes! - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Tanners and the Church of Christ (Hancock)
Do the two cited references for the Church of Christ (Hancock) claim the tanners to have been members? I thought the Tanners were originally LDS and so clicked the link to their wiki page. That page's biography (which is weaker than I hoped it would be) indicates their membeship in the LDS church before leaving it to become Christians. It mentions nothing about membership in the Church of Christ Hancock. Is the assertion on this page accurate?24.32.220.119 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)JB
 * Yes, it is. The Hancock church was extremely tiny, and thus slips "under the radar" of many historians of the Latter Day Saint movement--this in spite of its unique status of being the first LDS sect to be founded by a woman.  Steven Shields, a recognized authority on the smaller Mormon factions, confirms their involvement with Hancock, as do the sources quoted in the article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Priestly Power Transference
How do many of these groups claim to hold valid priestly authority? Did dissenting priests (Melchizedek Priesthood) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ordained new priests without authorization from their bishops? Are such ordinations illicit but valid? Is the saying "once a priest, always a priest" hold true in Mormonism? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Section header changes
It's been quite a while since I visited this page; I stopped by today to add a photo of Alpheus Cutler (whose church I was once a member of, long ago) that I found on the internet.


 * First off, major, major kudos to whoever reorganized and created these new tables with differently-shaded headers, to differentiate between the different factions. That was obviously a lot of work, and it really looks nice!  All the recent work that's been done on the article looks great, and those who did it deserve a huge vote of thanks.
 * Second, I made some changes to the section headers; in the "Rocky Mountain" section, I eliminated the words "breakaway" and "breakoff", simply because I remember feeling very offended as a (former) member of one such "breakoff" faction (the Cutlerites) whenever I heard that term (also "splinter group") used to refer to us. I realize that those using such terms rarely mean anything offensive thereby, but I felt that "LDS-derived" would be more neutral in tone, and also more encyclopedic.  I also did the same thing under the "original church in movement" section, as well.
 * Third, I made changes to the "Prairie Saints" section headers; rather than "Restorationist churches" as formerly appeared where the Hedrickite, Cutlerite and Strangite (also Bickertonite) sections were, I replaced these with "Followers of... (leader)," followed by the common name of the factional group ("Hedrickites," "Cutlerites," etc.) in parenthases. This was more to increase clarity than anything else; if anyone disagrees with these changes, please let me know or feel free to revert.  Thanks again for all the hard work; the article really looks great! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Alpheus Cutler photo
Anyone who knows how to insert photos into the leaders gallery (I obviously don't, LOL!), please feel free to go to the Alpheus Cutler page and get the photo I posted there for insertion into the gallery. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be more than happy to help, but I think some discussion is needed on the accuracy of the image. When I found this image a long time ago, I was not sure it is him.  The image was named as other people in a number of places inculding, but not limited to, "John Alpheus Cutler" which I haven't been able to establish is him.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Let's leave it out, since we can't know for sure.  Another possibile approach, at least for the Alpheus Cutler and Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) articles (where I also posted this image) would be to captionize it with something like: "Image believed to be that of Alpheus Cutler," "Image sometimes identified as Alpheus Cutler," or something similar, since it's been id'ed as him in other places. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)