Template talk:LDS sects/Hedrickite

I simplified the code for the footnote
...changing it to simply: " ." This way, no matter what article the template is used at, when the superscript note number is clicked, it will lead the reader to a note in the usual "reflist" section toward the bottom of the article's page. This avoids having to use the template's own "reflist," which, for example, would make for the problem of the notee appearing below the collapsed "navbar" at the bottom of many articles, when the template is used for that purpose.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, per Template:Template reference list, "ungrouped, "-type refs works just fine w/in templates. What errors are being referring to? (E/g: this article section has references within a template with no problems.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I came back to that template today because what you'd done had caused Category:Hedrickite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, to which the template in question is transcluded, to again start throwing ref errors (as, indeed, it still is, since you undid my changes). I'm not familiar with the use of Template:Template reference list (and I'm going to look into that for my future reference, because man, if that solves the reflist-in-template problem, I will be a happy bunny!), but as far as I know from my experience with plain reflists, non-grouped refs work fine within the template, but if the template is transcluded to another page, it runs a fairly high risk of causing that page to throw errors (because an article can only have one or, and if there are refs after the reflist - as would be the case if an article had "article reflist -> template -> template reflist" as the progression - giant red errors get thrown). If template editors are confident that this template will never be transcluded to an article/category that already has a reflist (perhaps it has very limited use, and the articles it's transcluded to are formatted to purposely allow a non-grouped reflist in the template), then they could switch it away from grouping, but in general, that tends to cause problems.


 * In short, it's possible that template reference list could work here (perhaps it's just a matter of fine-tuning? shifting the argument ordering around? perhaps it's only the noinclude that's borking things, now that you've switched to template reflist?), but it doesn't appear to currently be doing so, judging by the thrown error at Category:Hedrickite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, and templates need to work within articles and categories as well as internally. If you want to play around some more with tweaking your preferred format rather than just going with my admittedly-somewhat-kludgey fix, that's totally fine and I'll leave you to it (I only ever came to this template in the first place because it was in the throwing-a-ref-error-oh-god-someone-fix-this maintenance category), but please check your work and make sure that the changes you make don't cause errors to be thrown in places other than in the template itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "In short"? lol. The bottom line is: If the reflist is not in the template proper but in the noinclude part, there is no duplication. Thus the errors you speak of simply are nonexistent(!), such as at the example I'd pointed to.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the cat throws off some kind of error message, as you say, then. OK. Whatev. In any case, your fix produced a problem I mentioned. But the creator of the template fixed this problem and everything seems fine now.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like the error's gone now. Cheers! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events
I need a little Clarification on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events. I think it is needed in order to make LDS sects/Granville Hedrick and LDS sects a little clearer to those of use who don't know much about this breakdown.

I am not clear on how the two factions (Church of Christ (Restored) & Church of Christ with the Elijah Message) broke off from the original Church of Christ (Fettingite) (1929) and there relationship to the 1929 sect. The way it appears now may be wrong (because of my error). My questions: Making the breakdown more like this:
 * 1. Was it that Draves broke from the 1929 sect and created a his group. Then later in 1950 a new sect broke from the 1929 creating the "Restored". Theoretically that could leave three active sects.  This is how the breakdown is shown now.
 * 2. Was it that Draves took over the 1929 sect in 1943. Made a bunch of changes so the "Restored" sect broke with  Draves and "Restored" the original doctorine.  Theoretically that could leave only two active sects.

--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 What is the actual status of the "Church of Christ (Fettingite)" (1929). Is it defunct?
 * Artest4echo, user:John Hamer happens to be a Restoriation Studies scholar in real life. Perhaps you could put a pointer to this discussion on his talkpage or repeat your question there?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The sequence of events
I studied these factions myself for several years, and wrote much of the Wikipedia articles on the Fettingite fections. Here's how it unfolded (as I understand it):


 * (1) Prior to 1929, there is only one Hedrickite church: the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).


 * (2) In 1929, Church of Christ (Temple Lot) apostle Otto Fetting has his twelfth "message" rejected by that organization. Fetting leaves the Temple Lot church, and founds the Church of Christ (Fettingite), which he claims is the sole true continuation of the Temple Lot organization.  The only real difference between the Temple Lot and Fettingite organizations at this particular time is that the former rejects Fetting's "messages," while the latter accepts them.  Otherwise, their teachings and practices are the same, and both use the identical same "Articles of Faith and Practice."


 * (3) Four years following the death of Otto Fetting in 1933, a young elder in his church named William Draves claims that the same "Messenger" who had appeared to Fetting is now appearing to him. While the main Independence branch of the Fettingites reacts with cautious acceptance at first, a second set of branches in Louisiana and Mississippi does not; these almost immediately break from the main Fettingite church to form the Church of Christ (Restored).


 * (4) At this point in time, there are now three Hedrickite organizations: (a) the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), (b) the Church of Christ (Fettingite), and (c) the Church of Christ (Restored). All use the identical same "Articles of Faith and Practice," and apart from their stances on Fetting and Draves their beliefs and practices are otherwise virtually identical.


 * (5) In 1943, the Church of Christ (Fettingite) reverses its previous course and formally rejects all of Mr. Draves' messages (while retaining its acceptance of Fetting's); Draves leaves and starts a fourth Hedrickite organization: the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, which uses the same "Articles of Faith and Practice" as the other three churches. Even though the main Fettingite organization and the Church of Christ (Restored) are now "on the same page" with regard to Draves' messages (and otherwise), the schism between the two bodies is still not healed.


 * (6) In the 1950's, Apostle S. T. Bronson of the Church of Christ (Fettingite) introduces the Saturday Sabbath into that church; this doesn't lead to any splits (that I know of), as the whole Church of Christ (Fettingite) accepts this change. However, the chances of healing the schism between the Fettingites and the Church of Christ (Restored) are now significantly reduced, as the latter organization believes that Bronson is wrong to introduce this change.


 * (7) Following the death of William Draves, the Elijah Message church splits at least three ways: one of the new factions is the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (Assured Way of the Lord, Inc.). The Assured Way church, unlike other Hedrickite churches, believes in only one being in the Godhead, rather than the three posited by other Hedrickite churches.


 * (8) Today, the breakdown looks like this:
 * Church of Christ (Temple Lot): Accepts none of the "messages" of Fetting or Draves.
 * Church of Christ (Fettingite): Broke from Temple Lot church circa 1929. Accepts Fetting's messages, but not Draves.' Accepts a Saturday Sabbath.
 * Church of Christ (Restored): Broke from Fettingite church right after Draves' appearance, circa 1937. Accepts Fetting's messages, but not Draves.' Rejects the Saturday Sabbath.
 * Church of Christ with the Elijah Message: Broke from Fettingite church circa 1943. Accepts both Fetting's and Draves' messages.
 * Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (Assured Way of the Lord, Inc.): Broke from Elijah Message church in early 21st century. Accepts both Fetting's and Draves' messages.
 * There may be other Fettingite-derived factions (I think at least one more Elijah Message breakoff), but I know nothing about them.

None the above churches accepts any of the others (or any other church, for that matter) as legitimate. All of them are still extant, so far as I know. In terms of the mainling Church of Christ (Fettingite), I wonder about them, as I've been by their church several times on Saturday mornings, and never seen anyone there. I attended a service there about fifteen years ago, and there were only 6-7 people in attendance at that particular time. But there are more branches in their church, I'm sure, than just the Independence branch, so I can't answer as to the overall health of their organization at this present time.

Sufficiently confused, yet?!? (LOL) Hope this helps!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more then "Sufficiently confused", I'm thoroughly perplexed. However, I think I get the information that is needed for this in the particular setting or:
 * Church of Christ (Restored) broke from the Church of Christ (Fettingite) not the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message.
 * The status of the Church of Christ (Fettingite) is unknown, but theoretically there could be all three (Fettingite, Elijah Message, and Restored), with the appropriate break-offs from the Elijah Message sect.
 * Therefore, I think the current setup is correct. However, again, I am by no means sure about anything, so if you think there needs to be changes, please make them.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the template, and the date for the Church of Christ (Restored) needs to be circa 1937, not 1950. They broke off the Church of Christ (Fettingite) after Fetting's death, when Draves first appeared, before the Fettingite church formally rejected Draves and his "messages."  So you understand correctly about the CoCR breaking off the CoCF, not the CoCWtEM.  The CoCF broke off the Temple Lot circa 1929; the CoCR broke off the CoCF circa 1937; and the CoCWtEM broke off the CoCF circa 1946. I can't make heads or tails of the template editing, so if you don't mind, I'll just ask you to change the date on the CoCR entry to "circa 1937," which would be correct.  Otherwise, it looks fine to me!
 * Sorry about all the confusion!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault that this is a confusing subject. You seem to know this stuff better then I do, so I will change the date, but I wish to point out that this isn't what is reflected on the individual pages infoboxes nor on List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement.  This is what appears on the individual Pages infoboxes:
 * Church of Christ (Fettingite) says Origin: 1929.
 * Church of Christ with the Elijah Message says "Origin: 1943"
 * Church of Christ (Restored) says "Late 1930's" on it's page and both 1950's and late 1930s on "List of sects.."
 * So there is more editing to the dates that needs to be done if they appear wrong here.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the lead at Church of Christ (Restored) tends to lead the user to believe that it could have been late 1930's or even c. 1943 when the sect split.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion on your end (it's still confusing to me, and I studied it for awhile!). I've corrected the date in the list article to "circa 1937," and also rewritten the Church of Christ (Restored) article to eliminate most of the Elijah Message church references, and focus it more exclusively on the CoCR organization itself.  Take a look, and see if it reads better to you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion I had with Church of Christ (Restored) was this line, "The main Fettingite branch in Independence chose at first to accept these new missives (before later rejecting them in 1943), but various branches in Louisiana and Mississippi under DeWolf's leadership did not, leading to the split." I think it's just a matter of my not understanding any of this time line and my own misunderstanding with "before later rejecting them in 1943".  I understand it now and I would beat that it was just me who had this confusion.  I say leave it as it is, unless someone else comes along and says "hay I don't understand this".  Thanks for clearing it up somewhat.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are perfectly right: it's still confusing. Hence, I've completely gutted the opening paragraph to Church of Christ (Restored), and rewritten it from the beginning. Take a look sometime when you have a chance, and let me know what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I love it. I think I understood the lead as it was before (with your help), but as it read now, even if I was reading it without your prior help, I would understand it.  Thanks for the help.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. For my part, thank *you* for pointing out the difficult nature of the orginal wording; it was definitely in need of revision, and I probably wouldn't have ever known it unless you'd said something.  So thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)