Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 6

Removed sects

The Brighamite Church of Christ

I moved the following from Brighamite factional group

| The Brighamite Church of Christ | Nephi Smith | 1891 | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | 6500 members. Headquartered outside of Keokuk, Iowa. | Practices plural marriage and the law of adoption. Continues use of the Deseret Alphabet for most church documents. |-

I wanted to give Nauvoosaint a chance to cite his addition.

Unfortunately right now I think this group is another "Fake" group that get added here all the time. Shields, Adherents.com, yahoo, and Google show no such group or church founder called Nephi Smith in 1981.

First: Considering the claim of data of founding and "6500 members" that makes this group older than all "fundamentalist" groups and larger then all of them except the FLDS church, yet nothing can be found on this group.

Second: Nauvoosaint was created only to put this group on the list.

Unless Nauvoosaint, the person who put it there, can give some citation it should be removed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Christ: "Of Latter Day Saints"

The Church of Christ: "Of Latter Day Saints" by Abinadi Smith and its name changes (“Latter day Church of Christ: With Signs and Wonders.” and “The Holy Cathar Church of Jesus Christ.”) has been on this list for quite some time (At least 2 years). I would think that this group would exist since no one has removed it, but I cannot find anything on this group. A fundamentalist group in Indianapolis is interesting so I would hate to have to remove it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one can't cite this sect, I have removed it. If anyone can cite it please put it back.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this move. The article was deleted in a PROD because no sourcing could be found on it: [1]. It seems to exist in someone's mind at least, since blog posts and a website run by some of the the purported group's members have existed, but nothing in secondary sources exists that I can find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. No source, no listing. It's the right move to make here, at least in my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you all agree. The reason I cited all the other sects is so that we all could removed these "Fake" churches that get list all the time (ULDS and Brighamite Church of Christ come to mind as an example). Given that I kind of feel forced to remove The Church of Christ: "Of Latter Day Saints", since I can't cite it. However, I am hoping that someone will be able to cite a source in the future. I find the idea of a fundamentalist group formed in Indianapolis independent of the Utah Church very interesting. It would add to this list, however, again I can't find anything about this sect, so until then it should be removed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed regarding “Reform Mormonism”

After alot of searching, I have been unable to cite “Reform Mormonism”, except for the unverifiable/self published church website, a few blogs and a few websites that get there information directly from the Reform Mormonism website (all of which fail WP:Verifiability). Since this sect has been on this list a long time and I think it's removal may be controversial, I would like a consensus on what to do from those of you that know more then I do about this subject.

The wikipedia page for this “sect” has been deleted twice (1, 2) because the existence of this sect cannot be shown while meeting Verifiability guidelines. I also found a reference to this group in a blog (also falling WP:V) stating it's founder is a “Anti-Mormon advocate who created the idea of "Reform Mormonism". This hints at the idea that this isn't really a "Sect" per se, and that it may infact be a hoax, like the United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ was. At minimum, I think this fails for inclusion on this list for the same reason that The Brighamite Church of Christ and The Church of Christ: "Of Latter Day Saints failed, and those groups were removed. I am not arguing that this group dosn't exist to some people, just that it can't be proven using a Verifiable source. (note: I did let User:Keraunos know of this discussion as he was the person who added “Reform Mormonism” to this list) --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Remove for reasons above, I don’t think this group qualifies for inclusion, unless someone else can come up with a good citation.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Remove Reform Mormonism is already mentioned at Cultural Mormon. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Remove for reasons given above. Can be replaced if (and only if) we get a reliable, non-self-published website. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. However, if User:Keraunos, or someone else, can come up with a non-wp:SELFPUBLISH source, by all means add it back.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nephite Church of Christ

Is there any independent documentation about the Nephite Church of Christ other than Patrick Saucer's self-published books and the church's website? I think that to merit inclusion here, the sect ought to be discussed by at least one independent source. For all we know, this sect could just consist of Saucer himself. There are several other known Mormon sects that are not included here because there just isn't enough reliable, verified information about them, and maybe Saucer's new sect falls in that category. COGDEN 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the sect to answer your question, but I do recall that was a topic of discussion on the talk page before. A couple of the archive pages seem to have some relevant material here and here. Also agree that some independent sourcing would be a good addition. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since having changed our name to the Nephite Church of Christ, articles bearing that name are slowing appearing in the Internet. http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/07/diverse-latter-day-scripture at http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4509 Sister Elizabeth Barton, one of our founders, is becoming popular among anglicans http://www.anglicancatholic.org.uk/church-of-st-augustine-of-canterbury/. And Since the NCC started in England, some people confuse it with the Anglicans. The anglican church made it known that it is not in communion with us. [2] The NCC is also known as the Tarish Rite Apsotolic Church. The NCC is headquartered in Dothan Alabama. There is a seperated branch in Texas. [3] Of course, there are small groups in England. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the church have an Adherents.com entry? That might be a helpful addition, but I am not finding an entry under either church name. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no entry with Adherents.com. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize that the citation for this Church was a self published book. I'm glad COGDEN caught that. However, I was thinking, Couldn't the [4] be considered independent? Since this comes from By Common Consent and involved "Steve Shields" a name we all know. I would consider these Verifiable sources, but that just my opinion. However, went ahead and change it, but if you guys don't conceder these page as "independent", I will agree we need to find one.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

These three additional sources, which may or may not meet WP standards, shows that there is some interest in us. Mormonmatters.org [5] Confetti Antiques [6] & [7]Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is the level of interest in the religion. For Wikipedia purposes, the main concern is to make sure we are following the reliable source guideline. I don't want to precipitously delete the entry if it's at all possible to establish a "reliable" source. However, it's important that we find at least some independent source of information about the religion, which is not ultimately and exclusively derived from self-published sources, so as to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity for Wikipedia.

Given the credentials of Hamer and Shields, the "By Common Consent" post John Hamer might be a good source if John had done some kind of journalistic investigation of the religion, but his information is just a description of "The Nephite Gospel" found in Steve Shields' library, which is one of the self-published books. Thus, this might be a reliable source about the book, but not the religion. It's possible that Steve Shields has made some kind of investigation of the church, but I haven't seen anything written by Shields himself. In Kris Wray's book review, this is likewise a good reliable source about the book, but not about the religion, because Wray does not say anything about the religion other than what is represented in the book. I don't think the "Mormon Matters" link is reliable because it is an anonymous post to a blog entry, and in any event only seems to be quoting the church's website. The Anglicans Online site seems to just be a reference to the church's old website, with a note that the church is "not in communion", but no actual information about the religion. The PBWorks wiki entry, written by "Alan Unsworth", also doesn't appear to be the kind of source that would be relied upon by researchers in the field.

We have to stand in the shoes of an academic researcher preparing a manuscript for publication in a peer reviewed journal, or for a newspaper article. Would that researcher be able to rely solely upon the above sources, or would she need to do some more independent investigation to corroborate these sources? I think the above sources are not enough, and she would need to corroborate.

Maybe Mr. Saucer can get the religion listed on adherents.com, which I consider to be a reliable source about small religions. I think it's possible to contact the website and request inclusion, and I know the website sometimes does field research to verify membership numbers, etc. That process might take some time. It might also be possible to get the religion featured in a news article. Maybe a publicity stunt is in order (just kidding). COGDEN 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cogden mentioned that Sheild's reference and Wray's reference are reliable sources for the book - The Nephite Order. Would these two references be sufficient for a stub article about the book; such as, Book x is the official teaching document of the Nephite Church of Christ-a church within the Latter Day Saint movemnet. Even so, COI prevents me from creating such an article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When we start talking about creating entire articles on a particular subject, we have to consider the notability guideline. Most books do not meet that guideline. The single book review by Kris Wray would not be sufficient. It would take multiple reviews, and at least one discussion in a context directed to a general audience, before we could create an entire article about the book. Note, however, that the notability guideline does not prevent discussion of the book or any other non-notable subject within an article (such as this one) which is otherwise notable. COGDEN 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<-Move down

I do agree that the issue isn't the level of interest in the religion, and I understand COGDEN concerns. Sects that people “Make up” are commonly placed on this list, which is why, some time ago, went threw and cited each sect, so that the Fake ones could be remove quickly. I also agree that a better independent source is very desirable, but I don’t know if one will be available anytime soon

However, I think we are merging two issues into one here. There are real two distinct issues, which are:

• 1. Can we reliable show this sect exists.
• 2. Can the information in the notes section be verifiable shown to be accurate.

Addressing issue 1: The standard we are looking for is not actual information about the religion, but the simple fact that it exists at all. This is a list, not an article on individual sects. If the sect exists at all, it belongs on this list. So the real issue is can the “By Common Consent” link reliably show the existence of this sect? Given that Steve Shields, John Hamer, and “By Common Consent” (all reliable sources on LDS sects) are saying that this is a true sect, I feel that the supplied reference meet the WP:V requirements needed to answer “Yes, this sect exists”.

Addressing issue 2: WP:SELFPUB says: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as (listing 5 requirement). Since the notes are strictly information “about themselves” and I think that the reference meet all 5 requirement, I think they can be used within the Note section only. So Again I feel that the supplied reference meet the WP:V requirements needed to answer “Yes, this information on this sect meeting WP:V guideline.

However, I am the first to admit that I am not an expert on Wikipedia or the LDS movement, so if I delusional, by all means tell me and I’ll put my straight jacket back on. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source verifying the existence of the religion as a bona fide organization with members, a distinct doctrine, and some kind of institutional cohesion. The problem is that while we have a reliable source about the doctrine presented in the self-published books, we don't have a reliable source that this self-published book represents, or accurately represents, an existing religious body. To use a hypothetical analogy, suppose it were April 7, 1830, and we were considering including Joseph Smith's Church of Christ in a Wikipedia list, but our only source was a self-published copy of the Book of Mormon and a couple of book reviews based solely on the book with no investigation into the church itself. We'd need more than that--we'd need a reliable source, such as a newspaper article, verifying that the religion had been founded and that it had followers. Otherwise, for all we know, the Book of Mormon merely represents some hypothetical or fictional church with no real followers and no actual church organization.

It is not the case that Steve Shields and John Hamer have verified the existence of the religion--they have only verified the existence of the book. I don't question that Mr. Saucer does have followers and has established some kind of bona fide church, but we have no reliable source yet to verify that. COGDEN 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing "Independents" section and "Nephite Church of Christ"

Sorry, I've been busy lately and haven't seen any of this discussion until now. Since I was the one who originally put the "Independents" section into the list in the first place, with the "Nephite Church of Christ" entry, and given all the valid arguments raised against its inclusion here, I've gone ahead and removed that section from the article unless and/or until we can find a viable, independent source to confirm its existence (a newspaper article in a regular, independent daily with a feature about the church; a listing on Adherents.com, a mention in an official government source, etc.). If any of you disagree with this action, please feel free to revert and restore that section; I'm definitely not trying to be a dictator or "own" this article in any way. I just felt responsible, given that I put it there in the first place. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I will make inquiries with adherents.com. Is a Letter of Determination from the IRS which states that a group is a public charity considered an official government source? Our healing ministry has received IRS recognition as a public charity. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Opinions, anyone? Also, I would emphasize that I am totally in favor of restoring the previously-deleted section and entry, if a reliable, independent source can be found. I figure that goes without saying, but maybe it ought to be said here nonetheless. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained my option above. I think what reference we had were valid enough to prove this group does exist.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A Letter of Determination from the IRS is not sufficient in itself because it is not published, and therefore the information it contains is not verifiable. Is there some public government document or database that lists the Nephite Church of Christ as a public charity? It needs to be something citable and accessible to the public. I did a search for eligible charitable organizations on the irs.gov website and didn't get a hit.

It might be a good idea to put this issue up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the comments are, and see if anyone has any suggestions. COGDEN 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nephite Church of Christ has not filed a form 1023 for recognition because Churches are not required to do so. However, some parts of our church have applied for recognition. The Crimson Path Society, Inc[8]. which is our healing ministry, was granted public charity status by the IRS. In Alabama, counselors at Public Charities can provide limited couseling services without a state license (Code of Alabama Section 34-8A-3(a)(6)). Guidestar Report (which is a major database for public charities, churches, and foundations) [9] & IRS: [10] list the Crimson Path Society. Letters of Determination are the holy grail for organizations because they indicate to contributors and to the public that the organization exists and that they conduct charitable activities.[11] Letters of Determination are public govenerment documets.Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Letters of Determination are basically form letters. The information they contain are published in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Thus the infomration is verifiable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification of the existence of the Crimson Path Society, Inc. does not show that the Nephite Church of Christ exists as an institution with religious followers, and that's what we need here. We're close, from many different angles, but I just don't think we have a verifiable independent source showing that the church is an actual, existing and functioning church. COGDEN 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lafferty

Considering all the resent news about Ron lafferty and group, and Lafferty’s new "Death Row" trial, I'm surprised this group isn't on the List. However, I will be the first to point out, I haven't found anything as of yet to name this group or if it was a true "Sect", which is why I am putting this here. Dose anyone with access to Shield or other info on this group know if the Lafferty Groups as a "Sect" or just a lose group of M. Fund's?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No idea at all. Sorry! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have citations that show that they brothers are "Self Proclaimed" Prophets, Ron at least has claimed to be the "One Mighty and Strong". Example ({{Citation |last= Davidson, Staff Writer |title=Several Men Claim to be The `One Mighty and Strong' |url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8629/SEVERAL-MEN-CLAIM-TO-BE-THE-ONE-MIGHTY-AND-STRONG.html?pg=1 |accessdate=April 12, 2011 |date= June 28, 1988 |publisher=[[Deseret News]] |location=Salt Lake City Utah}}). I aloso have very very poor citations that say they had a sect called "School of the Prophets", however, none are WP:V, so I'm not about to use them. However, again, with all the legal stuff going on with Ron Lafferty attempt to not be executed and the extensive use of his history in the book Under the Banner of Heaven, I would think this would be an easy one to figure out, but I just can't. It's a bit annoying--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Book of Jeraneck and Marvelous Work and a Wonder group

I think it would be nice to be able to read his Book of Jeraneck online. So everybody can read that he is a false prophet. So I added a link to his book. Furthermore I added the Marvelous Work and a Wonder group, whose prophet translated the entire sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. I hope that the source is enough bacause I wanted to add this group because of their strange claims!79.209.44.172 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Identifying "false prophets" or revealing "strange claims" is not the purpose of this list. This list is meant to identify those LDS sects that have achieved notability. Unless I am mistaken, Wikipedia had an article on "marvelous Work and Wonder" which was deleted sometime ago. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. An article about the Book of Jeraneck group was also deleted, I think. These links can probably be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I concur. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Deleting assumed GF revisions by 79.290.44.172. - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous Work and a Wonder

This group has achieved notability. Look at Sealed Fate and at True Believer 79.209.65.155 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It can't be a sect if it has no followers and the reference you give (http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13162-sealed-fate.html) explicitly states "Nemelka says he has no followers". -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)