Template talk:CoCfirstpresidency

Latest comment: 12 years ago by ARTEST4ECHO in topic Merge Discussion

Merge Discussion

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No one seems to care, so it seems to be uncontroversial, so I have done it. -- --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

With the exception the CoCfirstpresidency template basically has all the same info as CofCpresidents, since the Prophet Presents are members of the "first presidency". Additionally, I have added some options that remove the councilor information if desired.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Y Merger complete. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Community of Christ template

edit

I've also reverted your taking Joseph Smith, Jr. off the lists of presidents of the Community of Christ. To do so is POV. Smith was never the president of any church except one called the Church of Christ, which was later renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This church doesn't exist anymore, and instead we have hundreds of schismatic churches, each of which argues it is the original church or rightful successor to Smith's church. Thus, every single one claims Smith as its first president. So he either appears on all the templates, or none of them, and it better reflects what the churches themselves claim to have him on all of them. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Joseph Smith received a revelation on April 26, 1838 indicating that the name of the church would be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/115/3-4#3). --Eustress (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
He did not spell it like that. The LDS Church has changed the original spelling of the revelation from "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". It was Brigham Young that first spelled it "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", with the capital "T" on "The" and the small "d" and hyphen on "Latter-day". This was in 1851, when the church incorporated in Utah Territory. See Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) for some background history on this. As I said, each church claims Smith as their own, including the LDS Church. I respect that the LDS Church does this, but you also need to respect other churches that do the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I still disagree. The spelling stuff is trivial, but the name reflected in the revelation is no where close to "The Reorganized Church of...". I think it's pretty clear that the original church Smith started was the LDS Church, then other churches branched out after his martyrdom (see Succession crisis). The CofC may claim him to be their first prophet, but this template is for presidents of the CofC (RLDS Church), which J.S. never was. Isn't that logical? --Eustress (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it's pretty clear that the original church Smith started was the LDS Church. That's pure POV; I'm sure any LDS Church member would agree with you, but neutral historians or members of other Latter Day Saint denominations would find it ridiculously biased. You need to research the RLDS Church and their beliefs. In short, they believed that after Smith died, the church fell into disorganization. In the 1850s–1860s, a number of members sought to "reorganize" the church, which they felt was disorganized. Thus, the church was reorganized under the name the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but they believed and taught it was the same church as the one Smith organized. In reality, Smith was never the president of the RLDS Church or the LDS Church, since both were legally established well after his death. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply