Talk:Rick Joyner

message: November 2006 - Rick Joyner was in my home in 1972 and from that day to this I know of no stain against his name.  If people do not agree, that is a valid opinion, but it is only opinion.  Truth must be based on something more substantial.  If Rick's teaching or behavior does not suit  - go to church elsewhere - it is that simple.  
Furthermore, one man's cult is another man's established religion.  In China if you practice Christianity outside of State-imposed guidelines, you can be jailed, tortured, or worse.  There is some good advice in the Bible on this topic.  Gamaliel, a well-known Jewish teacher said that if someone was up-and-up, he (or she) would endure, and if not, they would quickly evaporate from the scene.  Always give truth time to validate itself one way or the other.  By Headguerilla.
Rick Joyner's church has yet again changed its name, this time to "Every Nation". I would suggest we need to make more of a comment about the cult accusations surrounding this 'movement'. --144.138.162.221 03:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia article should be unbiased, but I agree a mention of the cult accusations could be acceptable in this case. Does anyone know about this enough to add something to the article? Malachi456 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:144.138.162.221 might be confused.  The Every Nation website  has no mention of Rick Joyner as its founder.  There is a comment on this by another wikipedia user (see below).  --Nathaniel 05:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi focus ... Actually, the reason Joyner has given for opening his own publishing company was because most mainstream publishing houses would not let him insert as much scripture into his book as he wished to.  If you read his books & articles you will see that they are FILLED with scriptural references that back up his revelations and teachings. He also teaches that no revelation can contradict scripture.
I agree. Unless there is any evidence it is quite an allegation to say that a mainstream church leader ran a cultic group. As suggested I have put up a neutrality warning sign
Ah, "neutrality disputed" seems a little tricky, when we are discussing issues involving Christian ministry, where belief systems must come into play. Do we think there can be neutral ground?
There are people who will be pro and anti all Christian ministries, and I think it is acceptable to present these arguments if they are prefaced with "Critics say..." or "Followers claim..." etc, and still have an article with a NPOV. Malachi456 09:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cite your sources, attribute your statements, and I think you will be ok. Even if a particular Christian disagrees with a particular doctrinal statement (God is X, Joyner is Y), they would be hard pressed to disagree with a bracketed statement (Tom Brokaw says "God is X",Time magazine says, "Joyner is Y"). Citing sources and attributing statements makes controversial statements more neutral. This from me, someone who knows almost nothing about Joyner. MPS 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi! I would like to chat to someone about Rick Joyner. I am currently reading The Vision by Rick Joyner and finding it a blessing, and am open to believing that his prophetic gift is real. If anyone is interested, please email me or reply on my talk page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chat 

message: I hardly know where to begin. This article violates so many policies and standards it practically needs a re-write, if it even qualifies as being notable. For now, I only have the time to insert the relevant tags.  Jim Reed (Talk)  03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, he's notable now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/republicanlinked-religiou_b_4031453.html Kortoso (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues 

message: In his books Rick mentions his difficult beginnings as a pastor. So much so, that he quit and went back to being a pilot, starting his own business in the presumption that if he ever went back into ministry he would never need to ask for an offering (God, however was not amused).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.119.89 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Ministry /Aviation 

message: The guy's notable, the article just needs a deep revert, which I'm about to do, to remove the tons of spam.  He got a ton of coverage in real newspapers over the last two years for buying Jim and Tammy's old theme park, tearing stuff down, and suing everyone in sight.  Also other coverage from before that.  He'd pass an AfD easily I believe, although you'd certainly not know it from this article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, local newspapers don't really demonstrate the kind of notability that would guarantee passage at AfD, but the article does look  presentable now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Charlotte Observer isn't a local newspaper.  It's the paper of record for both the Carolinas.  You might as well call the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, e.g.,  a local newspaper.  The Winston-Salem Journal is also a major regional paper.  We're not talking about local papers, which I intentionally didn't use.  Try to make the argument that the Charlotte Observer doesn't demonstrate notability at AfD and see how that goes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  contest prod 

message: Please add the following to the image's caption:Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: In regards to Dominion Theology, the former author had posted this definition: “the involvement in and eventual takeover of civil government by Christians.”
According to the source that was referenced, Wagner, Dominion Theology means “Christians are expected to infiltrate social structures at all levels, and once there, use their influence to inculcate biblical biblical values throughout their society.” See http://books.google.com/books?id=ZnIWSLhkZtgC&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false
A “takeover of civil government” sounds like a military maneuver. The words infiltrate and influence are the accurate wording used in this article and should reflect on this page. If the former editor can find a source for Dominion Theology referencing Christian’s taking over the government, please cite WP:V.MrsRainbows (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, but you left out the "infiltrate" part in your edit, and you seem to be ignoring the author's long quote from Peter Wagner about Dominion theology: "Our divine mandate is to do whatever is necessary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to retake the dominion of God's creation which Adam forfeited to Satan in the Garden of Eden.  It is nothing less than seeing God's kingdom coming and His will being done on earth as it is in heaven."  The author states that Joyner would express himself similarly.  Now, we can't quote the entire statement from the source, and yet we must somehow get across the idea, clearly supported by the source, that dominion theology advocates for Christians to "infiltrate social structures at all levels and, once there, use their influence to inculcate biblical values throughout their society" and that this process is an attempt to "retake the dominion of God's creation."  Furthermore the same source goes on to note that followers of dominion theology adopt the "Calvinistic concept of divine sovereignty that was to be exercised over state, society, and church...The de facto establishment of God's dominion was considered imperative."  How does that not support the characterisation of dominionism as including "a takeover of civil government"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, I think you're dodging the question of the fact that the source cited says that dominion theologists consider the de facto establishment of God's dominion to be imperative.  Also I think that your sentence makes very little sense, and I think that your idea that we should "stick as close to the terms that are mentioned in the text instead of contextually trying to understand them ourselves" is pretty much a failure to understand how Wikipedia is written.  The source is very clear in saying that dominion theology includes a takeover of civil government by Christians.  Do you actually deny this?  Should I add some of the zillion other sources on this subject, like e.g. , , , and so on and on and on?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology Section 

message: Edit aims were to establish a more standard structure of the article, to make clear where new materials should be added, and then to begin to improve the quality of sourcing of the article. Progress was made on both accounts, though for now, the addition of sections makes clear how absolutely lean the article is with regard to sourced, encyclopedic content. In the editing, I removed a recent mobile edit that added month and day of birth, but did so without a source. This is in part what I mean, when I say the aim is to set the stage for additional encyclopedic edits. Inexperieced editors tend to follow suit, and so I have tried to create patterns of improved citations, so the article does not become a place for text dumping, by mobile or other edits. Finally, in importing information from the Todd Bentley article, the aim was not to introduce any bias or perspective. I have none on the matter. I was simply struck by the length of material mentioning Joyner at that article, and noted that none of it was mentioned here, and so I summarised that much longer material, from the Bentley article, here, importing and checking and correcting those sources. The result is well sourced material added to the article. 
If I knew how, I would add a tag to the opening of this article that provides the tools that appear in , because what this article needs is attention from a good, general biographer, using new published sources to fill in the background on this notable/newsworthy figure. Finally, see also next new section. Cheers, and bonne chance, joyeux Noël. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this date

message: An earlier edit war from an apparent pair of sock puppet editors associated with the title subject's ministry resulted in a period of editing only by admins, and reversion of all the added information, which was all unsourced, or from non-independet (self-published) sources. One potential loss from this—there are others, as the title subject's colleagues may indeed know better things about them, for instance his DOB and the years that the individual served in the US Navy—was the list of his published works. I reproduce them here—see also here, as a source for checking and addition, slowly to the article, in the section I created earlier to do so. (I will try to add one before I take holiday.)
There is every reason to suspect this is in largest part an accurate list. (As a published scientist, I know my published work better than any other person—who else really cares as much?) But what must be done, is the publications must be independently verified. Hence, placing them here allows for that process to take place. I urge editors who care about this article, to consider this material, and other material removed in the reversion, here, for other elements, which might, with research, result in sources and further quality additions to the article. Cheers, joyeux Noël. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Published works

message: The subsection 'Confusing Theology in Rick Joyner's Books About His Visions' in the 'Controversy' section claims that these books contain statements that are confusing or mix new age thinking with christian theology. It the provides a list of quotes "to inspire discussion". While the individual quotes in the list are sourced to the locations in Joyner's books, where the list as a whole comes from is not sourced. There is no description of how or why these quotes mix religious doctrines or references to such, rather "it is up to readers to make their own personal opinions about this". The composition of the list and the criticism appears to be original research, and without further explanation of the criticisms or a reference to such criticisms it's not fit for an encyclopedia. JanKanis (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Theology subsection 

message: Hi I would like to be the best man at Benjamin Roys upcoming wedding please let me know what Next for me and the plan of my life I am truly grateful to the Lord 2601:19C:5280:1C50:7492:2E97:29CF:B673 (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Roy marriage