Talk:Universal Life Church

External links and Google search results

A Google search turns up three different URLs for the ULC:

• http://www.ulc.org ;
• http://www.ulc.net ; and
• http://www.ulchq.com, which is the World Headquarters website listed in the Wikipedia article but which doesn't seem to have been updated since early 2007.

Given the ULC history with The Monastery, are there people willing to sort this out and update the article? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ULC Monastery seems to want to separate itself from the original church, so I have added them in a |separations= parameter in the {{Infobox}}. To "sort this out" would require the input of somebody who understands the history of the church's troubles. That is certainly not me. HairyWombat 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ulchq.com is not the website for world headquarters references thereto have been removed http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/location/ is world headquarters Thecatholicguy (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There are at least THREEB ULCS!

Maybe article should be revised at least THREE Different ULCS!BUNKIA (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are three and the respective organizations should be referred to by there legal names. Just for example with the Universal Life Church Monastery, there are two, however the one in Seattle in accord with the Secretary of State is known as the Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. Furthermore referring these Churches as "Separations" is not a reality because they were never a part of another Universal Life Church, they are independent non-profit organizations.

Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. in Carrabelle, Florida Universal Life Church, Inc. in Modesto, CA. Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. in Seattle, WA. Thecatholicguy (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

References to the Universal Life Church Monastery, Inc. incorporated within the State of Arizona. or the Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. incorporated within the State of Washington should not be made without citation or use of their name of incorporation. The law requires Corporations to utilize their full name to avoid confusion. As of today's date both of these corporations are active and in good standing regardless of what one or the other state.Thecatholicguy (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

References to Kirby Hensley, Hensley is not founder of Universal Life Church, he is the founder of Life Church in 1959. In 1962 he simply incorporated under the Universal Life Church name. The Universal or Universal Life Church name by an ecclesiastical definition comes from the Greek Language, with the word universal meaning katholikos which is Christian or Catholic. Universal or Universal Life is what early Christians referred to as the first Roman Church. Kirby Hensley cannot be founder of both Life Church and Universal Life Church, not when has been well documented for 1000's of years. This is common knowledge. Thecatholicguy (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

However, Hensley founded an organization that is widely known as the Universal Life Church. Accordingly, it is correct per WP:MOSNAME to refer to it on Wikipedia by that name.

Further, this article is about Hensley's organization. Other organizations named the Universal Life Church or similar should only be mentioned here to the extent that they relate to Hensley's organization. If they are notable separately, they can, of course, be discussed in their own articles. In that case, it's likely that Hensley's organization would be deemed the primary topic and keep the basic Universal Life Church title; the other articles would need article titles that disambiguate their articles from this one. —C.Fred (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Hensley was founder of Life Church, not Universal Life Church. He only incorporated in 1962 using the universal name. How could Hensley be founder of a Church who was in existence in the 2nd century. Hensley's reason for using the Universal name was political, due to his involvement with the Universal Party. The Hensleys attempted to trademark the name and such was denied because the name is proprietary to Christians and the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church who is viewed as the founder of that name. The ecclesiastical definition of universal is catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Universal Life Church, not necessarily Kirby Hensley's Universal Life ChurchThecatholicguy (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

universal-life-church.com

I removed this reference because it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS and WP:CITE. It's very biased from what I read. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

I removed this from the article because I honestly do not see how it is relevant to mention that a newspaper in a mid-sized American city wrote an article about the subject that was later published on a website that posts lots of articles. We don't see the same thing about other articles or churches. (For example, on Southern Baptist Convention.) My edit was undid without comment so I would like to discuss it here. Kansan (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Church was profiled by the The Modesto Bee in an article, Universal Life Church Still Churning Out Ministers, by Lisa Millegan. This article, which profiles the Church during its transition following the death of its founder, was later republished by Belief Net, a website owned by News Corp."

I made a change to the discussion about the ULC Seminary. The ULC Seminary is one of the largest ULC sites and should not be left out. The seminary is affiliated with headquarters and has states so very clearly. This wiki states that that the ULC Seminary specifically is theistic and I stated that it does not say that and quoted the statement of beliefs that verified that statement.(http://www.ulcseminary.org/statementofbeliefs.php). Both were removed with no comment and the previous incorrect information was left up. And I agree that the article mentioned above is irrelevant. Ulcseminary (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)ulcseminary

The ULC Seminary is not recognized by any Universal Life Church as an authorized or official website. The ULC Seminary is not a registered corporation in California, it is a fictitious name. The real name is QUEST MINISTRIES OF THE UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH & ULC SEMINARY, INC Thecatholicguy (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

japan

in the notes you list that japan is very open about the ministers then in the next group you list that japan is similar to europe and does not allow them to sign off on marriages, it has to be one of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.58.162 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer/distinguished-from text

Thecatholicguy (talk · contribs) has added the following text to the article to distinguish this Universal Life Church from other similarly-named entities:

To avoid confusion resulting from multiple entities known as the Universal Life Church. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. is a separate entity from the Universal Life Church, Inc. of Modesto, CA. (Founded as Life Church in 1959). The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. has never been a part thereof and unlike the ULC in Modesto, the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., has a Traditional Doctrine, whereas ordinations are performed within the Christian Doctrine of Faith.

My concern is that it's off-topic. He's not demonstrated the confusion exists. Further, Universal Life Church World Headquarters does not appear to be a notable organization, so this seems like an attempt to slip coverage of that organization into this article.

I don't entirely object to a paragraph noting that other similarly-named entities exist that are not related; I do object to it being at the top of the Overview section or in the introduction. I'd like to hear what other editors think about the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you object at the top of the overview, that is the most logical place? This article before revisions was filled with solicitations, including links to ebay, price references, free promotions and etc. This is not a promotional page for any one ULC. This is a page regarding the history of the Universal Life Church. The name is actually proprietary to the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical definitions and the US Patent and trademark office will attest.

Hensley founded Life Church, not Universal Life Church. Other ULC's such as the Monastery in Tucson or the Monastery Storehouse with proper citation should also be included at their discretion.

This page is not proprietary to the ULC Modesto, you need to consider in a more unbiased way, you appear biased to Modesto, rather than seeing this with an open mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolution if this paragraph should remain at the bottom of the overview, than the overview should be revised. This whole article sounds like a solicitation. It is contradictory, how can Hensley be the founder of Life Church in 1959 and founder of Universal Life Church, simply because he incorporated this does not make a founder, nor does it give Hensley trademark to the name.

You cannot deny other Universal Life Churches to be a part of this article. Hensley has no legal claim to the Universal Life Church name. Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Any given article should be about one topic. This is about the organization legally titled the Universal Life Church that was founded by Hensley. That organization is the topic of the article, not other organizations that share the name. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with C. Fred. This article is about the Church that the others derive from. If they're notable enough, they should have their own articles. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, even if other churches existed before this entity named the Universal Life Church, the other churches are not the subject of this article. Frankly, I don't think they should be mentioned at all in the article. If they were notable, then a hatnote along the lines of "Not to be confused with Universal Life Church World Headquarters" would be warranted at the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the same problems. There is no need for disclaimers, hatnotes, or high-prominence "clarifications", by whatever name, on articles where there is no other notable subject with the same name. On the topic of notability:

• It seems clear enough to me that when the news media or public refer to the "Universal Life Church" they are talking almost exclusively about the organization/system founded by Kirby J. Hensley in 1959 as the "Life Chuch" and incorporating as "Universal Life Church, Inc." in California in 1962. News and books often refer to Hensley and his family by name when talking about the ULC, and others refer to Modesto, California, so there's zero room for ambiguity there.
• There appears to be no notability to the organization/system involving Michael J. Cauley and incorporating as "Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc." in Florida in June 2011. (I didn't say "founded" here because, apparently, this Florida organization is playing coy and claiming lineage to 100 AD instead of revealing when or whether this specific ministry was established prior to incorporation.) All the references I found were press releases.
• There are other organizations with more coverage than Cauley's organization (yet still not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability): for example, "The Monastery" (which also uses the name "ULC Monastery" and "Universal Life Church Ministry", who apparently broke with Hensley's organization in Modesto around 2006, and now hides behind Domains by Proxy; the "ULC Seminary" in Elk Grove, California that incorporated as "Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church & ULC Seminary, Inc." in 2004 by Amy E. Long and appears to be affiliated with Hensley's organization in Modesto.
• There have been at least 21 corporations in California that appear to have been religious and had "ULC" or "Universal Life Church" in their names. Most of them are defunct. There are no less than 26 of them registered in Florida; most of those have dropped off the face of the Earth as well, after lasting longer than the Cauley corporation has so far.

The only conclusion I can see from all this is that:

1. The Hensley organization in Modesto is the only one that meets Wikipedia:Notability.
2. The others aren't even close, and specifically, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Cauley's organization is any more important than the other 40+ corporations registered just in California or Florida alone, let alone however many there are in the other 48 states or elsewhere.

Also, I think it's pretty obvious that, based on the language used, that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest considerations are relevant to Thecatholicguy (talk · contribs)'s edits — visit the Cauley website and it will become clear. In addition, these kinds of edits indicate something other than Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• He seems very concerned about some sort of "confusion" that didn't appear to exist on Wikipedia until 48 hours ago. And his solution is to remove organizations that have no affiliation with Helsney's organization, while at the same time repeatedly re-inserting an even lesser-known 2011 corporation, that also has no affiliation with Helsney's organization, and a comparison that just so happens to imply that the 2011 corporation is more legitimate. Sometimes this has been added in bold text to make it more prominent than the rest of the article.
• Also, he keeps deleting words like "free" by saying it is a solicitation to say something is free, and replacing it with strange phrases like "Ordination in the ULC is easy to ascertain". (Again, while inserting said lesser-known 2011 corporation comparison repeatedly.)
• He advances uncited and what appears to be unsolicited legal "advice" to Wikipedia editors in the article itself, such as "to suggest otherwise would be an infringement of an individuals rights afforded to them by law".
• He uses misleading edit summaries: e.g. "spelling correction" with the main effect of bumping his preferred organization to the top of the article in bold again; and "grammar correction" that removes an entire (albeit unsourced) sentence.
• He removes maintenance tags from obvious weasel words and uncited claims of "confusion".

Wikipedia is not a directory of all the possible non-notable subjects that might have similar names to a subject whose notability far outstrips any other with similar names. This article is about Hensley's organization, which was already famous throughout the 1960s and 1970s, long before any of the entities being inserted into the article popped up. There is no evidence that any other similarly-named organization is the subject of any notability. --Closeapple (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this about Cauley's Organization, you've single one individual, sounds like you have an issue. What about Daniel Chapin, Chapin with the same organization is the longest current tenured officer of any Universal Life Church and he has chosen to align himself with world HQ.

It sounds to me like this is a personal grudge match between one ULC and this Cauley individual. Regarding References to 100 AD, the first Universal Life Church was in fact the Roman Church, it is where the Catholic Church derived its name from.

Hensley is not the founder of the Universal Life Church, he founded Life Church. He simply incorporating using a name from his political party with Gerald Green, using a name that had been a long time in existence with another church for his incorporated Life Church. The ecclesiastical definition of Universal is Catholic.

This article the Universal Life Church, and it should be open to all Universal Life Churches as well as Hensley's Life Church. It is not a directory, no websites are being promoted except one for ULC Modesto and that not even be there in accord with Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes

1. I moved the disclaimer to the bottom of the overview section.
2. I removed that world HQ link. Let's leave all links to DMOZ. Which really is policy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You offer no explanation. You claim such be a disclaimer, that is not a disclaimer.. Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Two other editors disagree with you. So rather than constantly revert, you stop and discuss the issue on the article talk page. You may not think it is a disclaimer, but we do. Please read the policies that I have pointed you to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously biased toward the ULC Seminary, Andre Hensley says the ULC Seminary is not an authorized or official website. It is operated by Amy Long registered with the secretary of state as quest Ministries. The ULC had NO department of education. Quit trying to solicit degrees for ULC Seminary or ULC Modesto. Secondly the ULC Monastery, Inc., President Zimmerman is in Tucson, AZ. The ULC Monastery Storehouse of Seattle is a completely separate entity operating in contempt of a Court order out of the Superior Court of Kings County in Seattle. You are very wrong and incorrect on your information.Thecatholicguy (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your claim? If you do, I'll be happy to change it. For now the evidence is contrary. But if you'd rather remove everything but HQ from the article, I'd be agreeable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What claim is that? Secondly we are not going to get anywhere with you editing this, you are biased. You are looking to create a infomercial for your ULC. My suggestion is this, let us put in for dispute resolution of some sort, and have a freeze placed on this page for future edits.Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started a request for comment per the dispute resolution policy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should other "Universal Life Church's" such as the Monastery be included in this article? Which links should be in the links section? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for; any church which RS indicates identifies with the ULC should be included, but the article needs some work. As for external links, those in the article should be moved to the EL section as much as possible (and pruned, if necessary, so it doesn't become a link farm). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should they be included if they're not notable? Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability is the requirement for the topic of an article; it is not the requirement for content within an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to article

I know I'm not the greatest for using the talk page. So in an effort to open a dialogue, I'm wondering a few things:

1. What changes might be needed to the article?
2. Are there reliable sources to back it up?
3. Why are these changes needed?

Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

.org or .com?

The .org of ulchq.org seems to belong to the monestary. As for the .com, they seem to have forgotten to renew it.[1]. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinserting links to the re-registered .com is inappropriate, per Wikipedia:EL#What_can_be_done_with_a_dead_external_link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't re-registered. It's in a pending delete state. Even if we don't put it back in, the .org isn't appropriate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you have now done three reverts in order to reinsert a false link to what is clearly not currently the ULC website. Why? Please undo that last revert. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Another editor removed it altogether, and I'm happy to let it go at that. Did you check the WHOIS link I posted above? It's not a false link. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The ULC does not currently own that URL; they may in the future, but so may someone else. The page it serves up is not run by the ULC. To mark that as their official website is a false link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it blank. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church World Headquarters

There appears to be a concerted effort to basically delete this article and replace it with an article about a different organization with a similar name. May I suggest that the editors involved, instead of deleting this article, instead start an article about that other organization at Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Once that is in place, there are methods we can use to disambiguate that two articles, so that users can find the one they seek. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article in place at Universal life church world headquarters. I'd move it, but that article has been nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article was redirected by blanchardb at his discretion, it is outdated, it is not cited, the website http://www.ulchq.com has not been updated for seven years. On the front page of this website it speaks of Lida Hensley's upcoming funeral in 2006. I agree with blanchard, paster bodh1i and others, the Universal Life Church should be deleted.

(cur | prev) 14:40, 31 July 2012‎ Blanchardb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,003 bytes) (+428)‎ . . (Initiating an Articles for deletion discussion.) (undo) (cur | prev) 14:38, 31 July 2012‎ Pastorbodhi1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,575 bytes) (+9,540)‎ . . (Undid revision 505102293 by Blanchardb (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 14:19, 31 July 2012‎ Blanchardb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-9,540)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Universal Life Church) (undo)

NatGertler reversed this without any explanation. Furthermore in addition to the lack of citation, and the outdated website, this Universal Life Church page is promotional, it offers no accredited degrees, it offers only degree mill type honorary degrees because of a loophole in the law that permits Churches to do so because of separation of Church and state. This Universal Life Church page should be updated, cited or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler did indeed have an explanation, seen in the edit summary: "This severe edit has clearly not obtained consensus; take it to Talk page and achieve consensus before reinserting it." You may want to review WP:BRD and our consensus guidelines. As for your logic that the existing topic should be destroyed, it's not well founded (having an out-of-date website does not mean that a group is dead; a group being dead does not disqualify it from having an article. We have many articles on people and groups that have been gone for many centuries.) That its "degrees" are not "accredited" would not seem to be a criterion for including a church. I'm not sure what you mean that the article isn't "cited"; there are a number of references on this page. If you believe that a page should be deleted, there are a number of appropriate methods for seeking to achieve that goal, including WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD; deleting the existing topic and copying another page over it is not appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Universal Life Church" WIKI page already has tags showing that it is both outdated as well as illustrates need for expert attention and has outdated information. It should be deleted AND The wiki Page created "Universal Life Church World Headquarters" SHOULD BE APPROVED AND its' replacement. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI Page is factual, with citations and current information and should be KEPT! In any event, in summation the Universal Life Church & The Universal Life Church World Headquarters are Two VERY Seperate entities. Best Case Scenario here would be to delete the Universal Life Church WIKI page as in part it is using the Incorporated and Registered Non profit name of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and keep the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page. Case in Point as Well is that the WIKI page for the Universal Life Church has noone updating it and no credible, expert information Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)PastorBodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe NatGertler that you are incorrect, Wikipedia does not allow scams such as degree mills. The Universal Life Church has non accredited degrees. They are not accredited. This article is promotion. Let us see accreditation of their degrees. Let us allow the Universal Life Church a period of time to update their website. Right now as it stands, this article is promotional that it promotes non accredited degrees and ordination from a Church whose website has not been edited or updated for seven years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would allow articles about degree mills if they are notable degree mills. Notability is the general rule, not accreditation. Nor does the subject have to have an up-to-date web page to have an article. WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability are the guiding policies. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The very point I was about to make... but also it needs to be said that it's an odd and unsourced accusation, as I don't see anything here claiming that the ULC offers degrees or diplomas of any sort. They offer certiification of ministry, but that's not a statement of education (although some sects may require certain education to be a minister, it is certainly not a universal requirement); it's a statement of recognition of a position within a church, and no one but the church themselves is in the position to "accredit" that. But if you want to use those claims about Wikipedia policy and the ULC's relation to that policy, please start the AFD process appropriately (someone seem to have tried to start it by adding a tag, but unlike WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD, an AFD requires more to begin; see WP:AFD for details. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention of ULC Seminary indicates alleged accreditation. The ULC Seminary should be removed. It is not legitimate, nor is it recognized by the ULC in Modesto. If it claims to be a Church Charter, than this should open the door for all Charters, not just the ULC Seminary. Accreditation does not come from the Church, it comes the State of California and/or acceptable acceditation agency. The law strictly states that such degrees must be stated as honorary and not valid.JordanFrancis (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a throw-everything-at-the-wall, consistency-be-damned effort; a couple posts ago, we had to delete the article because the ULC was giving unaccredited degrees, now you're saying that it's the Seminary that's giving unaccredited degrees, and that the Seminary is not part of ULC. Inconsistent... and neither justifies destroying the article about one group to put an article about a group with a different name in its place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler I was not inconsistent at all, as many do they tie the ULC Seminary inadvertently with the ULC, when I was speaking of unaccredited degrees it was regarding the mention of the ULC Seminary, the word seminary indicates an institution of accreditation. Simply because I did not specify seminary in my previous post, do not twist what I say. Any reference to the seminary should be removed.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Note there was already warnings on this page seeking input from an expert and questioning of the articles factual existence. It is time to satisfy these concerns or delete it. Either they can be satisfied or can't, you do not continue an article that may provide incorrect information. ulchq.com is outdated, input from ULC Seminary, ulc.net or anyone else is not what is needed. There is no reason why ulchq.com should not be updated. It has been nearly 7 years. By scheduling a delete it is only a push to address these concerns and providing a deadline to do so.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. It's about coming to a consensus, not trying to bully your point of view. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not bullying to expect cooperation with updating this page. This page is long outdated, with good reason, at the discretion the Universal Life Church in Modesto, it is obvious through their official website for whatever reason has opted to become inactive. Individuals updating this page are from the ULC Seminary, an entity not connected to the ULC in Modesto. President Andre Hensley says they are a known website, but they ARE NOT an authorized website.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back up your claims? And it doesn't matter if the Seminary is recognized or not. This website is in the main ULC church started by Hensley. I can honestly say you're probably a staff member or or volunteer for the "world headquarters". That said, to make a huge change like you want, we all (or mostly all) have to agree. That's how Wikipedia works. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

== This is where you are wrong Me-123567 you are assuming, editors do not assume, you base decisions on fact. This is not about competition between World HQ and this Modesto Church. It is you turning it into that, and your excessive postings or edits on the Universal Life Church page show a keen interest in the Universal Life Church - That is not an assumption it is a fact. You ask for proof, you are being vague, what do you want proof for - be specific.

There is NO ULC Seminary, it is a fictitious name. The real name as incorporated is "QUEST MINISTRIES of the Universal Life Church and the ULC Seminary, Inc." this can be verified through the Secretary of State. The ULC Seminary sells non-accredited courses, that people can Google for information and get such free. Daniel Zimmerman, George Freeman both told Ms Long they were not interested in offering such bogus courses. Long broke away and started the Seminary. Even Andre Hensley refuses to recognize her, he calls her website a "Known" site not an authorized site.

Furthermore, The Secretary of State of California requires that all references should be in their incorporated name. You do not refer to an organization by a fictitious name over and above what they have incorporated as.

This page is about the Universal Life Church in Modesto, CA. It should be limited to information from their official website or notable 3rd party sources. This article be about the main Church, not any affiliate, or Charter Church or seminary, etc and etc.

What kind of proof do you want? Google Amy Longs proper name go to the Secretary of State in California AND DO A SEARCH.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As a long-time editor of Wikipedia, I can tell you that the concern about fictitious business names is irrelevant, as Wikipedia does not only cover topics that have never violated a law; as a businessman doing business in California, I can tell you that the claim that fictitious business names are not allowed to be used is quite false. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler - Wikipedia is not above the law, when an organization is incorporated, they are required to use the name of incorporation. They are not entitled to use fictitious names in addition thereto. If Amy Smith Long was not incorporated under Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church and the ULC Seminary, use of a fictitious name is permisible by law, but since she is, references to ULC Seminary by itself without clearly noting that the name of the entity is that of its name of incorporation is strictly prohibited. All references must be and include Quest Ministries of Universal Life Church and ULC Seminary. The idea of editors is to adhere to Wikipedia policy and the law, not to deviate and to put anyone at risk of legal ramification including Wikipedia.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The law that you make up isn't actually the law that exists. California has registration for fictitious business names for corporations. And even were Quest Ministries required to list some other legal name, Wikipedia is not conducting business for Quest Ministries and would thus be under no such compulsion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled title

Me123567 if as you say; "And it doesn't matter if the Seminary is recognized or not. This website is in the main ULC church started by Hensley." Why is the Seminary being mentioned in this article and it does matter if they are legit or not?

It should be about only the Universal Life Church in Modesto. We are in agreement! Any references to the seminary or other Charter Churches should be removed.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

JordanFrancis (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Membership Claims Challenged

The adherents link goes adherents.com which goes to a website which cites another website where on this website it states: "According to Andre Hensley, the church was issuing 4,000 ordination certificates monthly and had ordained 18,000,000 around the world by 2004 (Myers 2004)."

In accordance Modesto Bee article as cited Andre Hensley states: "A church service is held Sundays; about eight adults and nearly the same number of children spread out in the sanctuary and share Scriptures and thoughts, inspirational pieces and poems, as well as informal feedback and an occasional song from the kids, who otherwise play up on the platform. Flowers and a photo of Kirby Hensley sit in a place of honor on a table at the front of the pews." This is a far cry from membership claims of 18 million.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ordination of Ministers does not constitute membership. A memeber of the clergy is not a member of the congregation.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Challenging History of Universal Life Church

This article contradicts itself, it states Kirby Hensley founded Life Church in 1959 and than in the next paragraph it states he founded the first Universal Life Church in 1959 as Life Church. This makes NO sense. He founded Life Church in his garage. In 1962 he incorporated adding Universal. Incorporation does not legally denote being the founder. In 107 AD St Ignatius of Antioch can also be credited with being founder of Universal Life Church too. To be perfectly honest Hensley was not founder of either Churches name, what Hensley was founder of was that he was the first person to ordain anyone and everyone as a non-faith based Minister. This organization has no trademark, they can claim originality all they want, but from a legal aspect he cannot be founder of such here in the USA if the US Patent and Trademark office does not verify registration. There are many Universal Life Churches. I challenge them to show proof from the US Patent and Trademark office as to proof of the claims to hold all rights and to viewed as the founder of the name.

I quote their website:

"The ULC was founded in 1959 under the name "Life Church" by the Reverend Kirby J. Hensley. He operated the church out of his garage.[3] Disappointed with the Pentecostal church, Hensley decided to venture on his own to find his religion. After five years of studying various religions, according to his own statements, Hensley concluded that the proper religion may differ for each man, and everyone is entitled to choose his or her own religion. No one should be criticized or condemned for wanting to practice the belief of his or her choice."

"In 1958, Hensley and his new wife, Lida, moved to Modesto, California. There, he founded the first Universal Life Church in 1959 as Life Church, later incorporating in California on May 2, 1962 as Universal Life Church with Co-Founder and (then) Vice President Lewis Ashmore.[3]"JordanFrancis (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If Kirby Hensley is going to be mentioned within this article, I believe it is imperative to mention the whole story of Kirby Hensley. Yes he started Life Church in '59, but he was also involved with the Universal Party with Gabriel Green, more commonly known the Flying Saucer Party. In 1962 when Kirby incorporated, his addition of Universal into the Church name was merely political for his Presidential election run in 1964 where he garnered only 19 votes. Kirby Hensley did not start the Universal Life Church in 1959, he started Life Church. The LA Times has detailed records including radio archives of both Gabriel and Kirby, speaking of how they wanted to set up ambassadorships for aliens from outer space as part of their political platform. Kirby Hensley was infatuated with UFO's. It is what drove him.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should be almost completely rewritten, and here's how.

It's clear, reading this article, that it was written by members of the organization. Virtually none of it is cited, and the squabblings among various groups with the same name have rendered the whole thing unreliable and incomprehensible. Right now, there are two (2) sources that would meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, the Beliefnet article and the Modesto Bee article. Are these two articles about the same 'Universal Life Church?' Which official web site goes with the organization those two articles describe? My inclination is to take this article all the way back down to a stub, about that organization, using only the information in those two articles and linking to the official web site of the organization described by them. After that, we should all vigorously remove information that is added but not cited. Voila! Our article would be, if not long, at least accurate and clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fisherqueen the article is one in the same. I see you using the word "our article", if you are a Minister with this Church how do you propose being neutral?JordanFrancis (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is 'our article,' i.e., Wikipedia's article. I am not a minister with any church, and know nothing more about this organization than I can read in the cited sources, which makes me perfectly neutral and thus ideally suited to help rewrite it. I can't include material that isn't cited, because I don't know it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I support your suggestion for re-writing the article. A lot of stuff about the Monastery and stuff was added when it really should be about the core Modesto-run Church. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I support your revision theory and that is all I seek, because this article is outdated and intertwines with other ULC's. Also much of the negative information has been blatantly omitted. Including a recent 60 minutes and CBS news story that identifies this Church as a scam, and Kirby Hensley as a con artist. It also fails to mention the most recent by the IRS, stripping the Church of its tax exemption status for fraud. I would not categorize as such as our Wikipedia ARTICLE, BUT THAT OF ITS ORIGINATOR. We have an obligation to report the facts and the truth. This is my only objective.20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) JordanFrancis (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on a stub version at my sandbox. If I have some reasonable consensus from editors familiar with Wikipedia's rules and needs, I'll substitute it in. Jordan, please read the neutral point of view policy - a neutral article wouldn't describe any organization as a 'scam' or any person as a 'con artist.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen Read what I said, I did not call them a scam CBS News, 60 Minutes and Kirby Hensley himself refer to Universal Life Church in Modesto as a scam or Kirby as a con artist. Do not twist what I say. If you are going to do an article it needs to reflect the truth, not sugar coating the truth or covering it up. This article should be based on the whole story.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, words like 'scam' and 'con artist' are inherently biased; Wikipedia doesn't use those words. Not even if someone else uses them if expressing an opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would disagree with the idea that we can't find sufficient reliable sources about this church. See [2], [3], [4], for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I assert that the following header be placed at the top of the Universal Life Church WIKI page much as was done with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters Page to further clarify the differentiation between the two entities.

For the denomination based in Carrabelle, Florida, see Universal life church world headquarters.

173.22.26.53 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1173.22.26.53 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this, then? I have a provisional draft for a different version, which I wrote from the two sources cited in the article. It's in my sandbox. If anyone else wants to put it in here, they can. Or don't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Ordination and ULC clergy" section

The third paragraph of this section was a mess, and so I just changed it from this...

Charter Universal Life Churches operate ministries and have sprung up that charge a small fee for processing of the ordination certificate, which is allowed by the Founding Church, or Headquarters, to cover advertising and overhead expenses of the Charter Church and which also helps to bring in needed revenue for the ULC Charter Church or individual Minister's Ministry. Ordination is offered via websites such as eBay and websites owned by Ministers.

...to this...

Many charter Universal Life churches have been launched which operate all manner of ministries, and which offer ordination via websites and on eBay, through which small fees for processing ordination certificates are often charged. Such small fees are permitted by the founding church's headquarters in order to to help cover the charter church's advertising and overhead expenses, and to generate revenue for its ministry.

...and I added the "citation needed" to both it and the paragraph above it because... well... it should be obvious.

This article does, indeed, have some serious issues, as others, here, have posited. I don't really even like the change I made, as explained above (hence the additions of the "citation needed" in two places), but at least it makes more grammatical and structural sense. And maybe if someone would clear the "citation needed" notations by actually citing something, it'll at least have more credibility.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Official Websites

For information about the ULC, people can check out http://ulc.net/ or http://www.ulchq.com/. I have used both as sources for some of the information in the article as they back up what was said in the article, and Wikipedia likes sources. Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As discussed earlier on this talk page, those websites are run by two entirely distinct organizations. ulc.net is evidently the official site of the church founded by Kirby Hensley in Modesto in 1959/1962, and as near as I can tell that organization is the primary subject of this article. (As argued above, it seems to be the only one of the many "ULC" groups out there notable enough for a WP article.) It sounds like ulchq.com is one of those other less notable organizations (which was directly addressed in the discussion above.) The best discussion of this given above appears to be Closeapple's long comment in the section "Disclaimer/distinguished-from text". --Steuard (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)