Talk:World Mission Society Church of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Korea (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 


Recent changes: August 2013 regarding church's founding/history[edit]

Someone who has not been signed in as well as a few other editors have made drastic changes to this page that completely contradict the history that the church lists on their official website as well as various other news articles that were written from a neutral point of view - neither from members affiliated with the church, nor people who have a negative view of the church, such as the following article [1] . It does not make sense to list such information that contradicts even the church's history as listed on their website and seems to be a vicious attempt to slander and defame the church. Please refrain from listing this information and reverting edits from the previous objective page until a 3rd Opinion has been reached regarding this.Watts9595 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last major edit that was made by Sam Sailor. Instead of blanking a page common courtesy and manners would dictate addressing each issue separately and arguing why one feels that info should not be included so that others could argue their points as well. Although you might disagree with some of the references being used, you cannot arbitrarily delete information and simply sight that it has a negative POV or because you don't personally agree with what was written. Argue your point. Take the time to go after each point individually. There may be some validity to what you or somebody else has to say. Asking for a 3O on an article with dozens of references is just not reasonable and likely won't be taken on by anyone. It's too much of a bear and too much work. Asking for 3O for individual bullets/references is a lot more reasonable.
As for people not signing in, nowhere in the guidance of this site does it say one must sign in.Superfly94 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to argue each point separately - the references for the previously written article already serve as references but don't have a negative tone - no need to repeat it all. Superfly94, what is your motive in being on this site? Your name seems to pop up a lot here. Watts9595 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, if the previously written page already explains the history from a NPOV, why do you insist on finding and digging for contradictory, negative, false information that completely contradicts the other references? Is it so offensive to you if the article does not include people's negative opinions and slander who just want to give the church a bad name with false labels? Watts9595 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want a fair, balanced and informative article that does not read like an advertisement, you DO need to address each point separately. As for questioning my 'motive in being on this site' that is a red herring attack that reminds me of another user who was here not long ago...and sometimes didn't sign in as well. You'll also see that I have had absolutely no input into this newer version of the article so please don't throw your accusations at me. Superfly94 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reading like an advertisement, it's stating what the church believes and the history of the church - it doesn't say anything about it being correct or right or better than another church. If it were reading like an advertisement it might say things like "Come to this church!" "This church is great!" "This is the true church!" but it says no such things. It simply states their history and what they believe. There's no reason to include such negative and untrue information. I think you are using the names of many users, including Peter, Sailor Sam, etc. so it is at you. You don't want to share your motive? Why not? Watts9595 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

disregard I found my old edits and they are for a different article under ahnsahnhong. one of the unsigned may have been me, I cleaned up a bit of "strong" language that implied more than the WMSCOG actually believes. I'm having a difficulty providing wiki-approved sources however, since I have colossal amounts of collaborating evidences backed up further by surveillance tapes, but its all "primary" source. Not interested in edit wars, just to bring attention to pieces; most of you have already showed sound judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.170.223 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 reference deleted[edit]

I made a login here this ip is me — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGospel (talkcontribs) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 reference deleted, it was not and is not held as a church-wide belief. 1. Small groups misinterpreted that prophecy, and cannot reflect the WMSCOG as a whole. Myself an example. 2. google "the truth of the world mission society church of god" for link to supreme court evidence that 2012 was not end of world prophecy and that people have lied about this before, I can't link it directly for some reason. recommending to prove the fact empirically. For a number of reasons, the truth itself first and foremost; the 2012 "end of world" was not the "end of world". It was a prophecy of the completion of the temple, which, after being read, contained a couple more paragraphs of events which happen afterwards. This is the problem with taking such a snippet out of a single source, it neglects the benefit of the full prophecy.. Not the end, merely a sign. As in Ahnsahnghong's writings he also states we will not know the date, thus the end date prophecy is just a sign. This can be definitively proven with a simple date-checking of church opinions, before, during, and after, the issuing of the prophecy, and the fulfillment of the prophecy. The majority of the WMSCOG, and the head church itself, has remained consistent with 2012 not being the end but a sign. All sources to the contrary are not only dissident minorities, but have had their authenticity thrown into question, if not outright disproven. Since to explain this I rely on hundreds of thousands of first-hand witnesses and blogs, I can't include it in the WIKI, but I hope that the authenticity of these "facts" in the future are held to a higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.170.223 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV requirements[edit]

They actually seem to be a lot better now, at least nothing concerning enough to warrant flags.

As long as people represent questionable sources with ambiguous language such as "claims" or "assumes" I think all is well. Any further controversies or "heresy" can be elaborated on in subsections. JohnnyGospel (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Uninformative and uncotextual general tone, specially on introduction[edit]

I wish to leave a simple note concerning the general tone of this article. The first 3 paragraphs of the article completely ommit the essential fact of several characteristic teaching of this "church".

Describing this religious denomination as a simple "church" is blatantly ommissive to say the least. This is a new religious movement religion, filled with anachronistic and original teachings unlinked to any traditional religious denominations, christian or otherwise. All of this should be appropriately explained on the first section paragraphs. If no sources can be found, call on higher up editors to write the appropriate paraghaphs. Of course it should be from a neutral standpoint, but any editor complaining this is not a new religious movement is being disengenious. Every other of the major christian denominations would consider sabatarian and claims of reincarnation of Christ of the religious leader teachings in this religion to be a new religion. Even the Adventists from which the founder splinter from.

I wont do this myself because this page feels like already have very partisan users editting it. And I suspect my attempts to do some editing including sociological or historical context would probably upset someone trying to promote this religion.

And after these scant 3 paragraphs, with simplistic and one-sided assertions of it being a vhurch and following the Bible, it starts with a schematic historical timeline and doctrinal points. All of which also lack context, even with other wikipedia articles.

This religious denomination's founder article is also ridden with these problems.177.133.165.194 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=200903100002&ctcd=&cpage=1