Jump to content

Talk:Universal Life Church

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Subgen (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 4 December 2007 (→Split with the Monastery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Outdated information about Maryland?

I believe that the statement about Maryland in the "Authority to solemnize marriage and other rites of the church" section may be outdated. I found this link: http://www.northernway.org/marriagelaws.html#MD which states that the rules for performing marriages in Maryland has changed as of 2005.

The text of the actual code from Maryland Family Law Section 2-406 (2) (see http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gfl/2-406.html) appears to confirm this.

I am no lawyer, so I do not completely understand the impact of the new code on ULC ministers officiating marriages in Maryland. Can someone more knowledgeable weigh in?

Rocklob 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why exactly your asking here, but a ULC Minister can still solemnize marriages in the State of Maryland since they squarely fit in to:
§ 2-406. (a)(2)(i)  any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony

[[1]] is the official state statue page.

JDBlues 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i seen what you were talking about and removed that line of text. JDBlues 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article has different information

The Sunday New York Times of August 5, 2007 ran a story [2] entitled Great Wedding! But Was It Legal?.

In it, the author (Devan Sipher) asserts that Connecticut, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee and other jurisdictions, including Las Vegas and some suburbs of New York City, do not authorize ministers to perform weddings unless they lead active ministries. Various officials quoted in the article indicated that prosecution was unlikely but that some such weddings could be challenged in the event of disputes following divorce or death. The article mentioned a case in Suffolk County, NY where a marriage and prenuptial agreement were invalidated by an appellate court. The case is apparently Ranieri v Ranieri, which is cited twice in the reference section of this Wikipedia article but not in the main text.

I am myself a ULC minister and have performed about ten weddings (none in the named jurisdictions). Nevertheless, I am a bit uncomfortable seeing a Wikipedia article with information that (if Sipher is right) may be one-sided.

Larry Tesler 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the article. Just make sure to cite sources. GreenJoe 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to remember that none of the people cited in that article actually have the authority to invalidate a marriage or even say who is legally able to solemnize a marriage. Who can and can not solemnize a marriage is determined by State Statue and Case Law. Even Office of the Attorney General Opinions are not legally binding unless upheld by Case Law.

JDBlues 04:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conn law: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap815e.htm#sec46b-22.htm

Sec. 46b-22. (Formerly Sec. 46-3). Who may join persons in marriage. Penalty for unauthorized performance. (a) All judges and retired judges, either elected or appointed, family support magistrates, state referees and justices of the peace may join persons in marriage in any town in the state and all ordained or licensed clergymen, belonging to this state or any other state, so long as they continue in the work of the ministry may join persons in marriage. All marriages solemnized according to the forms and usages of any religious denomination in this state, including marriages witnessed by a duly constituted Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is, are valid. All marriages attempted to be celebrated by any other person are void. (b) No public official legally authorized to issue marriage licenses may join persons in marriage under authority of a license issued by himself, or his assistant or deputy; nor may any such assistant or deputy join persons in marriage under authority of a license issued by such public official. (c) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not more than fifty dollars. (1949 Rev., S. 7306; 1951, S. 3001d; 1967, P.A. 129, S. 1; P.A. 78-230, S. 4, 54; P.A. 79-37, S. 1, 2; P.A. 87-316, S. 3.) History: 1967 act specified validity of marriages witnessed by Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is; P.A. 78-230 divided section into Subsecs., deleted reference to county and reordered and rephrased provisions in Subsec. (a) and substituted "may" for "shall" in Subsec. (b); P.A. 79-37 authorized retired judges and state referees to perform marriages; Sec. 46-3 transferred to Sec. 46b-22 in 1979; P.A. 87-316 applied provisions to family support magistrates. Annotations to former section 46-3: Minister who solemnizes marriage must be "settled in the work of the ministry." 2 R. 382. Ordained deacon performing usual duties of minister held to be authorized. 4 C. 134. A clergyman in performing marriage ceremony is a public officer and his acts in that capacity prima facie evidence of his character. 4 C. 219. Proof of celebration of marriage raises a presumption of its validity. 85 C. 186; 93 C. 47. In absence of proof of authority of justice of peace, marriage void. 129 C. 432. Our law does not recognize common law marriages. Id. Marriage, deficient for want of due solemnization, voidable. 163 C. 588. Annotations to present section: Former section General Statutes (Rev. 1949) S. 7302 cited. 182 C. 344, 348, 350, 352.

See the bolded sections. It states basically that being ordained only is not enough. You must be active in a ministy without defining what they consider a ministry.

Alabama law:

Section 30-1-7 Persons authorized to solemnize marriages. (a) Generally. Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which the minister is a member; by an active or retired judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court, or any district court within this state; by a judge of any federal court; or by an active or retired judge of probate.

(b) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. Marriage may also be solemnized by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules ordained or custom established by such society. The clerk or keeper of the minutes of each society shall keep a register and enter therein a particular account of all marriages solemnized by the society, which register, or a sworn copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the fact.

(c) Quakers, Mennonites, or other religious societies. The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations, may solemnize marriage according to their forms by consent of the parties, published and declared before the congregation assembled for public worship.


Tenn, NYS, and VA are already discussed in the article with Tenn only being an OAG opinion (not legally binding), while NY and VA have case law that clearly shows that ULC ministers that are just merely ordained by the ULC can not solemnize and North Carolina is at best unclear of where or not the curative law only covered up to the specified date or infact included beyond. JDBlues 04:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link is relevant to the article

Just because I'm anonymous doesn't mean my edits should be disregarded

Universal Life Church Monastery is totally relevant to the article as it points to one of their branches. I looked over the policy and saw I was not in violation of anything 68.239.144.138 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monestary isn't affiliated with the ULC. GreenJoe 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if we list this one, we have to list them all and Wikipedia isn't a links repository. GreenJoe 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, it's not a particularly notable branch of the church; therefore, the link doesn't warrant inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As GreenJoe pointed out the ULC Monastery is not only not a branch of the ULC, it is it's own organization with it's own leadership and independent ordainment process and record keeping. This make's it far differant then say www.ulc.net or www.ulcseminary.org that both fall under the ULC for ordination and maintaining the records of those ordinations. Yet neither of those are linked becuase Wikipedia isn't a links repository. If anything the ULC Monastery would qualify for it's own article provided it is notable enough and has enough infomation to provide more then just a stub. JDBlues 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be something in the article to explain what the ULC Monastery is - because it's REALLY unclear from the web sites of the organizations what this split is about, and what the difference between the two organizations is. Neither seems to be willing to discuss the other, so this must have been some sort of split on differences. Maybe the Monastery needs its own article, with a "see also" here - but something needs to be done to explain the differences between the two organizations who claim to be the Universal Life Church. I can't make the change, as I don't know the answers - but someone here must. XeroxKleenex 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you on this. I too don't know what it's over. However, it needs to be verified if added in. GreenJoe 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] this link might explain it as well as the current lawsuits between the two folks claiming ownership of the ULC Monastery [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBlues (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ky OAG opinion

While the law was infact repealed in 1996 proper source, the linked OAG opinion is still valid and historically correct. The section does not denote current laws, but opinions issued by various OAG's in regards to the ULC. Further, the OAG opinion further defines what it feels a minister is in context of KRS 402.050 which has NOT been repealed.

JDBlues 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery info needs clarification

George Freeman did not take over the ULC Monastery in a bloodless coup. The real ULC Monastery continues to exist in Tucson, Arizona, and per AZ Secretary of State records, is still presided over by Daniel Zimmerman. Freeman did steal his domain name and coopted the name ULC Monastery and site design elements, and is making obvious efforts to confuse site visitors into thinking that it is the same place as well as giving the impression that it is the actual ULC (through the use of meta tags, pay per click adverstising, and statements made on the home page.

Zimmerman has sued Freeman in federal court and has made several criminal allegations against him as well. The case won't likely reach trial until at least 2008 however.

While all of this is probably too much information and confusing to those unfamiliar with the case, the facts as they are presented in the article are incorrect. The Seattle incarnation of the ULC Monastery is something entirely different from the Arizona Monastery, just as it is separate from the ULC itself.

Nikita24 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita, as cited about the coup was bloodless, Mr. Freeman was a member of the Board of Directors of the Tuscon Based ULC Monastery and the Board did vote to remove Mr. Zimmerman from the Presidency and the Board and filed it with the State of AZ.

Below you will find the minutes of this meeting:

The AZ Corporation Board had for a period accepted this document and made Mr. Freeman the President, but later reversed thier postion as " "accepted in error" and re-enstated Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Freeman upon gaining control of the Tuson based ULC Monastery, moved it's official location to Seattle. Further Mr. Zimmerman is not currently in good standing with the ULC Monastery in AZ. It is a true and correct fact that Mr. Zimmerman has several lawsuits pending against Mr. Freeman as noted in a link above and in the sources listed below.

Given the above, it was infact a bloodless coup. The legality of said coup is still pending legal action.

Sources


JDBlues 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monastery is nothing but a fraud, all they want is your money. It should not be a non for profit organization, that is just a way for Mr. Freeman to get more of a profit. "Support the ULC Legal Defense Fund - Make a Donation" Dont give them a penny, they are nothing but con artists. They want to raise money to help keep the theft of the organization from going back to Daniel Zimmerman.

Haloblack 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once and for all

So i have research many ULC churches

So one email from a well known one - that was recieved . goes forth as such

Okay. Let's see if I can cover this. ulc.net doesn't speak for the church, but they are authorized to sell all of the church's materials. We are not 'authorized', which means they won't sell us their materials at wholesale.

What it takes to be authorized is that headquarters agrees.

They are hesitant because there was such a problem with the ulc.org site. And yes, headquarters will accept all ordinations sent to them, but I put it in there because a lot of people don't understand it as well as you do. I got a lot of emails about whether our ordinations are sent to headquarters, so I put it in the faqs. The only legal material provided is the credential and that's sent from headquarters. The rest of our materials are not 'legal', but are valid in that the certificates meet the requirements of certificates in the different states and the rest of the materials are also just fine. People have asked, so I'm confirming for them that the materials are acceptable.

hmmm the ulc.org site used to speak for the church, the ulc.net is a bookstore, the ulcseminary.org is just trying to follow suite... So every other site is just a copy everyone else, so heres a list

complimets of the dmoz (which is just a fraction of the sites out there !)

Angel Goddess Ministry - The Church of Ju-Jitsu Janissaries of Saturday Saints - The Church of the Good Life - International Council of ULC Ministers - Officiating Weddings - PanZen Ministry - Pastor Jack J. Stahl, D.D. - Progressive Universal Life Church - Rational Universal Church - The ULC Jedi Sanctuary - Universal Life Church Minister's Association - Universal Life Church of Great Barrington, MA - Universal Life Church of Michigan - Universal Life Church of the New Age - Universal Life Church WebRing - Universal Life Chutch Seminary - Universal Ministries - Universal Natural Life Church - Yahoo Group: The Universal Life Church -

So to end all arguments just include every ULC site on the internet in this wiki, as they all are a part of the Universal Life Church, they are all ULC, the creed of the ULC is to do that which is right?! Right? assuming that from every website that stamps the word ulc on something...Since by doctrine, headquaters MUST authroize all ordinations sent to them!! And well you just might not get them to give you a "wholesale deal on the products they sell"

Since the fundamentals of being ULC minister give you the right to start a church, marry people, do all that a "minister" is legally able to do. Why is it that there is so much controvery over all this anyhow. Seeing as how there is no real head of the church, every branch is equal, there is no head master, there are no deacons, there are no bishops there are no popes!!!

go out side, calm down, take a valium or two, jesus!

Subgen (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am failing to see your point. J (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my point is that is if you want to use this wiki as a definition of what is the ULC, then you should include every website that is apart of the "Universal life church" umbrella! As any edit made to the main page is instantly reverted back, it like there is a strangle hold on even including any link to any other site but the ulchq.com “which isn’t even the head quarters because there is no "REAL" headquarters. It’s an open religion, not like the Vatican or a religion that has a central location. As a minister of the Ulc, I can start my own church, which falls under the "universal life church". Would my website be included in this?

J - im sorry that you dont understand what im saying, Perhaps i shouldnt feed the trolls on this one. I should just ask for page protection when any edits are made? The wiki should not be Monopolized for anyone single editors personal needs or goals. Subgen (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ULCHQ, of which there is actually one, can and does refuse ordination request on a regular basis. Further they also refuse to take ordinations for specific sources (like from the ULC Monastery). Further, it is against Wikipedia's policy to just list every website WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Much like any other denomination, the Catholic, Baptist, what have you page does not list ever church that is aligned under it or operates as a similar church with a similar name like the Independent Catholic Union for example. They list the history of the main organization. Just as the ULC Wiki currently does.

JDBlues (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem, Subgen. We can't list every ULC member congregation or every organization that uses the ULC name. There are simply too many of them, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of links. The best we could do is to link the dmoz category that is related. The article details with the "main" ULC because they're certainly notable. The others are not, and there most certainly is a HQ, that's who keeps records of everyone who has been orained.
Hope this helps. J (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

So I understand that this page is for the ULC HQ only, that fine then why does the main page reference the split with The Monastery?

That is not a relevant topic as you so clearly point out with you previous entry.

That topic has no basis on the Universal life church, since you say that this is not a Wikipedia isn't a repository of links. Which I agree it should not be that information is not at all relative to the topic at hand.

Therefore if there are no objections it will be removed.

Further more to back this future edit: the records in Arizona show that Zimmerman, Freeman, and Chaplin, were the original incorporators of the Monastery and that they have been board members since 1999.

Since no single person can own a not-for-profit corporation! It could not be stolen! Freeman directed the website from Seattle.

“the minutes of this meeting: “ posted in this page clearly shows that Freeman and Chaplin, under the emergency powers granted to all corporations removed Daniel Zimmerman for criminal conduct and behavior. Simply put - The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann.

So why even mention Freeman or even better, why are you demonizing him in the wiki? WP:EQ

The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann, thus removing him from the board, that is not a bloodless coup. Thus making the selection of split with the Monastery a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK

Subgen (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monestary event is notable. If it isn't neutral in tone, feel free to edit it. J (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.....lets talk criminal shall we ? Maybe we should bring up the person making criminal allegations against one another, and see if hes credible.
http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=389414
Mr. Monastery owner arrested in '00 for Indecent Exposure. Or maybe http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=387940 Arrested for driving on a suspended license. Or maybe http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=340286 Charged with obstructing a public officer.

As somebody who used to work for the fraud that is "The Monastery". I can safely say Mr. Freeman is one of the biggest con artists I've ever met. And to his office staff who I know will be reading this. Why don't you wake up, and look why hes hired you. He only hires young attractive people. Further more hes told me personally he would have sex with all of you. If he wouldn't have sex with you he wouldn't hire you. Thats how he runs the "non for profit" corporation that is "The Monastery". It is very sad that he is able to exploit peoples religious beliefs for profit. Brdennis 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brdennis When was the last time you went to a resturant and saw an ugly server? People are hired all the time based off of looks. How about we throw in your crimal record to? Perhaps explain to people why you were let go? Your personal bias toward Mr Freeman have no basis here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subgen (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is notable in that "The Monastery" was in communion with the ULCHQ up until the recent split. Additionally given the confusion even with in the mainstream media outlets as to which site is the real (orginal) ULC, with many incorrectly citing ulc.org and "The Monastery" as well as claims on "The Monastery" website that are deceptive in nature as to thier orgins and standing within the the ULC. Some of these statements include using Kirby Hensley's name, the name ULC, as well as dates and data associated with the ULC HQ as thier own.

JDBlues 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again that is not a notable event as there is no mention of any other churches that were involved with the ULCHQ.com. or as you so put it the (orginal) ULC. As previously stated, there is NO HEADQUATERS, us the left over second corporate after the first one went bankrupt! The second corporate that they opperate under is NOT the one founded by Kirby, so it is not the (Original), Please double check your facts before you post, absurd information. : As under the CREED of the ULC, any one may start a church. All of Kirby's material may be used by anyone, as well as using the name of the ULC. The main stream media has nothing to do with anything here. As cited on their website, they do say that:
Brother Daniel and his staff continued the fight for religious liberty even to the point that only his motivation and the Grace of God relieved his ailing personal health and postponed his retirement. In August of 2006 Brother Daniel received wisdom to recognize that the church at ulc.org had become the nationally-recognized vanguard of religious rights’ preservation, and that his part in ULC history was complete. The church is now managed by an elected board.

The headquarters for the Universal Life Church Monastery in Seattle legally ordains more persons in any given month than any other church anywhere in the world. Furthermore it has directed the legal ordination process of more persons than any other church in history. We are poised to champion the underdogs and the oppressed just as church legacy would dictate. There simply is no other national church with the proven history of devotion to ministers for the sake of their own ministries; we want to meet your needs now and bless your calling, whether you intend to change the world or to simply officiate a wedding for your loved ones in your capacity as a legally ordained minister.::

As I have proven my point, the Split with the monastery, I will remove as it is not related or is it notable. Subgen —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing material is vandalism, and I will be giving you a warning. There is a HQ, the one currently operated is the one that Kirby used to run before he passed away. Remove the material again, and you will be blocked. GJ 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a HQ, it is in Modesto, California, run by Kirby's son. The Monestary is notable for their split. End of story. GJ 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GJ obviously you dont know what you are talking about, the so called HQ that is in modesto is a DIFFERENT COPRORATION, it is not the ORIGNIAL COPRORATION. THE ORGINAL CORPORATION HAS SINCE BEEN DISSOLVED. CHECK FOR YOUR SELF. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615122o Lets add that information into the wiki as well since obviously you are the ruling dicator here. As you have not responded to any of the request that i made saying it was not notable, you are commiting vandalism. Thus i must report you.*GreenJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Removing that information was not an act of vandalism, as it was a good faith edit. As they the information presented is a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK

Subgen 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, the HQ is the "real" ULC that accepts ordinations under the ULC banner. You need to learn to assume good faith. I see you doing nothing but attacking me. GJ 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GJ I am not attacking you, i do assume good faith, as i have posted numberous times that i was going to remove that content. There was no response. Once done, you call me a vandal. I am making no attacks on your person. As the information, that you are so heartily trying to keep here is not notable nor is it realvant. PEROID.

The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann, thus removing him from the board, that is not a bloodless coup. Thus making the selection of split with the Monastery a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK HOW many times must i say that.. That is fact. Subgen 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only ULC former congregation to make public news in their split, thus it's notable. It may not be a bloodless coup, if you have better wording, rather than remove the entire statement, edit it. However, make sure whatever you put in is neutral. GJ 03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GJ Does this statisfy neutral? Subgen 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split with the Monastery

Previous to the removal of Daniel Zimmerman from the Board of Directors,[1]in a phone interview with By Rev. Kara Mueller with the ULC representative Br. Daniel Zimmerman,Stated each individual and Universal Life Church is an entirely separate entity from the original Universal Life Church in Modesto, California and is responsible for its own affairs.[2] Due to Daniel Zimmerman's fraudlent activities he was removed from the Board of Directors[3] During the summer of 2006 Daniel Zimmermans was removed from the board of directors and The Monastery. The Board of Directors appointed George Freeman to run The Monastery.

As the reason for the split was that the IRS denied Modesto’s church tax exempt status in 1969 and again in 1970 on the grounds that the Hensley family was engaging in activities outside the religious activities contemplated by IRS’s 501©(3) [4]. They were buying and investing in real state in violation of federal law. The IRS’s revocation action was based on the fact that the net earnings of the Modesto “Church” were privately benefiting the Hensley family who now run the private corporate enterprise called (Universal Life Church Inc. & its website). The federal government held that the activities of the church and affiliated organizations were conducted to privately benefit the Hensley’s “church” insiders. Further, that the Modesto church engaged in advising its members on how to tax evade taxes which is why Zimmerman was sentenced in a 35 page criminal indictment to 8 yrs at Leavenworth see, [5] At that time the Hensley’s were “investing church funds” in the operation of a residential construction and varied real-estate business deals. As a result they failed to pay $6 million in back taxes. It is not common for a church to be a “business corporation” as the ULCHQ is now. The IRS doesn't seem to think it is neither. This is why they IRS removed Modesto's status as a non-profit corporation. Modesto is a business, they are not a church. [6]

It's less neutral than I would hope. If you're going to sling mud, you can't forget George Freeman himself and his misdeeds. Your statement could be a lot more neutral. GJ 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its neutral, the facts presented are real, and they are verifiable, unlike stating it was a bloodless coup. Which is just a matter of opinion. Subgen 04:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It conveniently leaves out Freeman's own criminal record. GJ 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also slings a lot of mud at HQ rather than presenting the facts in a neutral tone. It's pretty biased. GJ 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does Freemans record have anything to do with the ULC? The information is not mud slinging, it true. If you want to include the split, then the reason behind the split should be listed as well.Subgen —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beside that the WP:EQ say that we are to Argue facts, not personalities.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at wp:NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy. Subgen 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freeman's criminal record has everything to do with the Monestary, he runs it now. You can't pick and choose with "facts" to conveniently include or not. You're violating your own rules. That entire "section suggestion" is your own soapbox and your own vendetta. I'm going to take a break from discussing this now. GJ 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your break i understand this is making me upset as well. The section that i suggested, was just because the this wiki page is being used as a link repositoy, there are no other links to any of the ULC churches, as they are all a part of the "ULC" but in that they are their own seperate entity, as you should know. The only mention of any other church, is the monastery, because you say it is notatable. I mentioned them as they are also noteable, as they are part of the ulc. In the topic split with the monastery it leaves out that daniel was actually removed from the board, and FIRED. It is your own personal bias statement in keeping it at "it was a bloodless coup." When i removed it because it was negitive and a bias statement you call vandalism, revert it, and then warn me. :
as stated FREEMANS record has NOTHING to do with the ULC. The legal facts of what i presented about the OLD and New ULChq are completely related, the corporation was dissolved, and they started a new one. Which is not mentioned. IF you can not see this then there is nothing else i can do except request for moderation. I too require a break from your bias.

Subgen 05:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.goddessmoon.org/Clergy/north_carolina's_position_on_ulc_ordinations.shtml {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "North Carolina's Position On ULC Ordinations", 12.03.2006, retrieved September 14, 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=158700 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9615122o.htm
  5. ^ (USA v. Daniel Zimmerman et al, CR-86-5, 8/8/1986).
  6. ^ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615122o {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Life_Church&oldid=175656672"