Talk:Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apostle Gerald Jones[edit]

Even overlooking the WP:SELFPUBLISH issue, I have found nothing on these pages suggesting any connection between this Gerald Jones (or any Gerald Jones) and the Righteous Branch. The pages linked to don't even make that claim. Unless a verifiable connection can be made between any Gerald Jones and the Righteous Branch and that this Gerald Jones is that Gerald Jones, then these links need to be removed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the cached version of the old Celestial Orb website, the contact information for that webmaster is the same (gcje.net or .com) is the same as that of the Desert Springs Lama website

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EqW2zjsJBHsJ:www.celestial-orb.com/gathering_era_of_the_root_of_jes.htm+gerald+craig+jones+gcje&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Another website on LDS Movements believed it to be Gerald Peterson, but correctly noted the same websites & the same person named "Gerald" from the Branch sending them emails.

http://ldsmovement.blogspot.com/2008/07/christs-church-inc.html

I am not sure what type of evidence will satisfy you. Desert Springs Lamas is OUTSIDE of Modena, Utah which is right next door to Paiquin. If you will read the GCJE website you will find a link to the no longer functioning Celestial Orb website. Please tell me what information you are looking for, I am confused as to why you are confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

I'm concerned about these links too, and I wish User:Mormonhobo would not remove the tags on them for the time being. There's really nothing to indicate that these are produced by an apostle of the church (apart from the correlative and slightly speculative research one could do as described above). What we really need is a page of the website which says it is published by Apostle Gerald Jones and that he is presenting this information not as his merely his own opinions but as church doctrine, or something to that effect. Even if it is Gerald Jones, it's theoretically possible this is all just personal opinion and not really "endorsed" by the church itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proof do you have that these are speculative? I have met GCJ, I have been to his Desert Springs Lama property & I know firsthand who he is. What proof do you want, please tell me?

These links are also mentioned by another as being a Branch website (maybe not official but clearly by a member of the Branch):

http://ldsmovement.pbworks.com/w/page/15644186/Christ's-Church%2C-Inc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

When I say "speculative" I don't mean that you are incorrect, I just mean that it's in no way clear to an outside observer who goes to the site that the site is written or maintained by an Apostle of the Righteous Branch church. He doesn't put his name/title on the webpage and he doesn't claim anywhere that I can see to be speaking on behalf of the church. The second one (the business website) just looks like a business website and per WP:SPAM doesn't belong on an article about the church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only other site that I know of which verifies independently his identity is from a website that you have also identified as spam. It is by a former member of the Branch. I tried posting a link to it as well, but you will not accept it as a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

We need sites to declare themselves what they are and who the author is and under what authority they speak. It can't be done through other sites. It's not that you are wrong, it's just that the information is not self-verifying for readers, so we can't include it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets look at the information we have & you tell me what is not "self identifying" (1) A man named Gerald Jones (2) His website says he is from Modena, Utah [hint not many people live in Modena] (3) He lives in VERY close proximity to the ranch at Paiquin [not sure of the exact mileage, but hell I'll look it up if it would honestly satisfy you] (4) On this website he refers back to the Celestial-Orb.org or dot.com & this is a known Branch website

I'll grant you it may not be "official" but that is as close as you are going to get. I am really not sure what else I can provide you, but if I find the "long form" birth certificate of Gerald Craig Jones I'll post that too if it'll make a difference... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

I can't really explain the same thing over and over and expect to get a different result, I guess, but what I am saying that if the site doesn't explicitly self-identify as being connected to the Righteous Branch church, a link to the site doesn't belong on the WP article about the church. Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth", and while I have no reason to doubt your claims, they are not independently verifiable by merely referring to the website with no other knowledge or assistance from other websites. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough how about this, do you agree that members of the Branch also refer to themselves as being members of "Christ's Church, Inc". That is the legally incorporated name of the entity which other links that have been posted demonstrate. Would this link

http://gcje.net/shepherd/bhacs.htm

Which identifies that pamphlet as coming from "Christ's Church Inc" & gives the same message that we know the Branch church teaches. Be considered POSITIVELY IDENTIFIABLE information, that this person IS a member of the Branch Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

On its face, I think that tells us that the information reproduced on that page is the intellectual property of the church. However, by itself it doesn't really say anything explicit about the identity of the website itself, though it suggests it could be an official website of the church—it's unclear whether the copyright notice applies to the text or to the entire web page. (Websites can be permitted to reproduce copyrighted materials with permission.) Look at other churchs' and organizations' official websites to get an idea of what I am talking about. For instance, on "the big" Latter Day Saint church's website, lds.org, there is a link at the bottom that says "Terms of Use". When you click on that, the page says stuff like "This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,' 'Liahona,' 'Book of Mormon,' and 'Mormon' are trademarks of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.", and so forth and so on. This is a particularly elaborate example, but my point is there is nothing about the websites on this page that helps a viewer know that it is an official website of the church. If it's not an official website of the church, there is no reason to include it in an article about the church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so can we at least agree that while it is not an "official" website of the Branch, but are you denying that the material is internally consistent with other known information about the Branch? Would you object to saying that the information while not official, does come from a reliable firsthand source? Or someone sympathetic with the KNOWN beliefs of the Branch church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

What the guideline Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided says about this under #11 is that we should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" This goes back to the problem of verifying whose site it is. If there was a notice on the front page or a link on the front page that said something like, "This webpage is written by Gerald Jones, and Apostle of Christ's Church Inc.", then we'd be very close to what this exception allows for. But without such a statement, it's very difficult to see how we could include it. For me, at least. Perhaps we should seek some third-party opinions on this issue.
The reason the second one should be removed is #5 on the same list: avoid "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have solicited an outside opinion on this issue since we don't seem to progressing much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

This seems like a classic case of synthesis - Gerald Jones is an apostle of the church, and the source in question is written by a Gerald Jones who may be involved with the church, but multiple sources are being combined to assert that the source in question is written by the same Gerald Jones who is also an apostle of the church. This can't be done, unfortunately. The source must stand on its own merits. If Gerald Jones were to alter his page to indicate who he is more clearly, then it may be suitable for inclusion, but not as it is now.

I've removed the request from the 3OR page. If you have any problems with the same issue, feel free to contact me for my opinion. Otherwise, feel free to make use of 3OR again, or WP:RfC if you'd like a broader range of community input.—TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any objection to referring to the page as unofficial Branch website given the agreement from the combined sources? Or would it be ok for me to refer to material cited on Gerald Jones' website as being from the Branch, & the other material as being his own, but use that material from the Branch "fair use" since there is no official Branch source to DIRECTLY cite from? What technical distinction would WP prefer that I make on this matter.

WP:SYNTH is clear that conclusions drawn from a combination of sources that aren't complete in each individual source is synthesis. You can refer to the material on the site based on information solely contained on that site, provided it meets other Wikipedia requirements. I have only skimmed the site myself but I would say that it comes dangerously close to being a self-published personal page which would not normally meet reliable source requirements.
Wikipedia values verifiability and notability over truth and general relevance. In my opinion, the minimum requirements to include a source such as this would be that the author should be a notable authority or subject matter expert (as established by reliable third-party sources), and his site should clearly identify that the author is indeed that same notable authority. As it is, I didn't find any information in the source that confirmed the identity of the author as the Gerald Jones, only as a Gerald Jones. This probably seems like nit-picking semantics but for verifiability the source really needs to be explicit on this, or we risk false attribution which reduces the usefulness of the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, at the moment, my interpretation of the relevant policies is that there's no way to include the source (in its current state) in the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well a simple Zabasearch revealed ONE "Gerald C Jones" living in Beryl, Utah (which is the address listed for his business Desert Springs Lamas listed on his website mentioned above). On the .NET site he reveals himself as "Gerald Jones", on the GCJE.COM they refer to their business partner as "our founder GC Jones". So putting 2 + 2 together, we know that Gerald Jones' middle initial is "C", so that narrows it down considerably from OTHER Gerald Jones', AND we know from those same websites his phone # which we can do a simple REVERSE LOOKUP & find the city & state he lives in.

http://www.zabasearch.com/maps/index.php?sname1=GERALD%20JONES&sname=GERALD%20C%20JONES&first=GERALD&last=JONES&middle=C&state=UT&address=8732%205600%20N&city=BERYL&zipcode=84714&&cm=03&cy=2006&phone=&int_var=3

Is that good enough for you? Probably not.

But you do agree that in LDS culture that an APOSTLE is an authority? So IF we can prove that this Gerald Jones is an Apostle in the Branch, that proves that he is an authority in that group. He may not be the FINAL authority, but his "personal opinions" would weigh the same as if it were an apostle in the LDS Church having a personal blog, it would be unusual to say that it was "just an opinion" in that context to won't you grant?

I have no subject expertise in the Branch or the Church in general. My 3OR commentary was with regards to the dispute between two editors regarding the inclusion of the link. At the moment, the link can't be included because it doesn't sufficiently identify its author as notable, nor as an authority on the subject.
The main hurdle right now for that source is to overcome WP:SYNTH and ensure that the source on its own identifies its author properly. This isn't something you or I can do ourselves, this is something only the site author can do by clearly identifying himself on that site. Whether or not the author is notable and an authority on the subject is a different set of criteria that I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer my opinion on - perhaps other experts in the Branch or Church may be able to help you with that.
If there's not enough input here, you should feel free to use WP:RfC or perhaps even leave a comment on the talk page of other Church articles to see if anyone knowledgeable in the area might be able to help you establish notability and authority. But regardless of any of that, WP:SYNTH must be overcome first and that's the biggest hurdle. Until the author of the site clarifies his identity, the rest is a moot argument.
Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen[edit]

It's been a long time, and it seems that http://gcje.net/shepherd/ has been on this page. However, nothing has changed. WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUBLISH make http://gcje.net/shepherd/ an inappropriate link to include. I think it needs to be removed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still agree. I kind of forgot about the issue, but I see not much has changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

http://gospelfullness.wordpress.com keeps getting added and deleted as an external link. Correct me if I'm missing something (I'm fairly new to WP) but this seems like a perfectly acceptable link to include. According to a year-old revision, it is "A blog by a member of Christ's Church containing articles published and copyrighted by Christ's Church Inc." I'm not arguing for its inclusion as a source, just saying that as an external link it looks fine to me. In reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links I noticed under "links to be considered" the guideline "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." To me this seems to apply here. The addition of this link was originally reverted by a bot, I think mistakenly. It was re-added, then it was reverted as a part of a large revert directed at the addition of unsourced information. Then it was added to the "website" part of the sidebar, where it was again removed by the bot. It was added to the body of the article, which was also not appropriate and was reverted. It was again posted as an external link, this time with the user asking for help, and the bot again reverted it. It was re-added with a comment that the link meets guidelines, but that was reverted with no explanation. Can we please discuss why this link does or does not belong? Tripleahg (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website is WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUBLISH. It keeps getting added back by an IP editor who is refusing to accept the consensus and 3rd opinion above. Please read above.
The guideline Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided clearly says under #11

We should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

This goes back to the problem of verifying whose actually runs this site. No where on this website is this website described as an official or even an unofficial website of this sect. Even if it was, we would never put a personal blog by a member of the LDS Church on the LDS Church page. The same goes here. It is a blog and blogs should not be linked, except under very special circumstance.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 13:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! I really appreciate it. I had scanned the above discussion for a mention of this particular link. I didn't see it, so I posted assuming the above discussion was limited to other controversial links and wasn't relevant. I should have read more carefully. Lesson learned.Tripleahg (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tripleahg: I'm sorry I didn't notice this replay before. No problem. I appreciate you asking instead of just putting it back and demanding we justify taking it off. It makes for a better Wikipedia.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of The Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

I am writing this in regard to another temple under ownership by the Righteous Branch. It is not listed in the article. Yes, The Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a temple out in Modena, Utah. That it does operate and use. Although there is a temple that they own out in Tonopah, Nevada. I have two firsthand sources pertaining to this. One from a source in The Righteous Branch itself.

Best Regards, Sky. Skytheslav (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple in Modena is not operational and not in use, it is currently undedicated. I have visited both of their Temples last month, and seen both inside and outside. I have some conversations with the Temple Matriarch if needed. FourthNephite (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Order[edit]

The Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has only barely been functioning around Modena for the last two decades (in an area they call 'Paiquin'. The group has almost entirely moved on near Tonopah, Nevada to an area they call 'Lower Smokey Valley'. How do I accurately source this? I have visited their United Order, spoken with their prophet, patriarch, missionaries and prominent members in person, I can provide email, phone, and in-person interview receipts. FourthNephite (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Righteous_Branch_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&oldid=1216435816"