Talk:Destiny Church (New Zealand)

message: Make sure you keep a neutral point of view when editing this page and not try to promote or demote the Church Mexaguil 10:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A quick note as to why I have altered Danomatic's changes.
Two quotes from the cited sources: 
"Just after noon thousands of men dressed in black T-shirts marched, rank in file, down Lambton Quay shouting "enough is enough" and punching the air with their fists."
From the Dominion Post article also cited: 
"Frankly I feel like I'm at a Nuremberg rally," transgender MP Georgina Beyer said as she watched a sea of black-shirted protesters.
Cleary more people than the participants in the haka were wearing black shirts according to these two reliable sources. A quick butchers through the earlier discussion on this page shows why we need to cite sources rather than our own unverifiable experiences or beliefs and not misrepresent what those sources say. 
I also removed "conjoured" as IMO it is a weasel word but made explicit reference to the media's comparison of the marchers with Nazis. That seems fair enough. For the same reason I also reverted Danomatic's removal of the comment regarding strict culture which struck me as highly partial given that there can't be a church under the sun that doesn't advocate adherence to its teachings. The point is that Destiny Church is out of the ordinary in this respect, but to avoid any doubt I dug out another reference.
I have also reinstated references to concerns that Destiny Church displays cultlike characteristics. It seems a very, very, VERY partial bit of editing to remove them. They do not claim that Destiny Church *IS* a cult.The Angel of Islington 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough is Enough (again)

message: I notice that someone changed "church" to "cult" the top of the article, and thankfully this was quickly reverted. I assume this was drive-by vandalism to make a point, but if not, I point out that  "cult" is a flexible term and should be used with care. Destiny's control of its members, and the concerns raised by this are discussed in the article and in the attached references. Labelling Destiny as a 'cult' is not helpful.
If anyone feels there is anything wrong with the article in this regard, kindly have the courtesy to discuss proposed changes here before making them. The Angel of Islington 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an emotive term that could easily be seen as POV, and the user DID offer reasons, which you have not responded to. Reverting again ~~ Ropata 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult?

message: A couple of quibbles about this section of the article:
"New members decide to become so by following certain criteria based on biblical principle.."
"Members are taught the biblical principle of the tithe of 10 percent of their income"
The above come close to POV comments, and say both too much and too little. Churches sincerely differ on the formulation and application of biblical principles, and Destiny can fairly be said to be out on a limb with much what they say. With respect to the former, why not simply state how new members join the church "in accordance with the the church's interpretation of biblical principle". I'm sure there must be a couple of Destiny members around to flesh out this detail. In the meantime, I suggest deleting this sentence.
With regard to the latter, I suggest the following: "Members are taught to pay tithes in accordance with the church's interpretation of the Bible". 
If no one objects to these changes in the next few days I will make them. The Angel of Islington 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: comments to 210.55.9.65 (a partisan of Destiny Church):
*you can't call it a "large" with only 10,000
*it is not possible for the 2004 march in Wellington to have had 10,000 marchers
if the whole church does not have alot more than 10,000 and obviously they don't all live
or would travel to Wellington.It is more like the reported 5,000
*this is the second time you have hidden the fact that Destiny's support is very small. Mexaguil 11:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough is Enough march

message: The article states the following -- ".....Destiny TV was pulled from air in late 2004 due to the governments nervousness of the open promotion of the bible and disagreement with the normalising of homosexual acts". That's a big call, and if no-one produces evidence for it, I will delete it. Moriori 20:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment, was the loud reply, OK, I'll remove it, and if anyone replaces it then they will need to provide evidence of its efficacy. Moriori 21:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite or reference?

message: I have never, since I first found out about Wikipedia when it first started, ever seen as bias an article as this! It appears only one person is heavily involved in writing or commenting on this article and I emplore you follow the NPOV that this site is based upon! --60.234.154.177 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well hopefully it's a bit better than it was back then. - Papeschr 04:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: "This is a biblical principle for one who oversees a large number of pastors - which total 28. [4]" 
This does not make a lot of sense. The writer is obviusly trying to justify Tamaki basically having had himself enthroned, since there is no-one in the church higher than him.--Hugh7 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think you'll find that Bishop Eddie L. Long has distanced himself from Brian Tamaki and the Destiny movement, which was painfully obvious with his absence from the last Labour weekend conference.202.14.107.1 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishopric

message: This article is seriously unbalanced. I see it has a link to it's entry at cults.co.nz but has no info on it's similarities to a cult inside the article itself. I hope to ammend this, but in the meantime I am tagging it POV. Glen Stollery (My contribs) (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good Glen, have you been to a Destiny church yourself? I ask because I haven't, most of my additions are based on gleanings from the news, from the Web, and from Tamaki TV. A report from a mystery worshipper is here. I hesitate to call the church a cult, but it has many of the same attributes of one: larger-than-life dictator in charge, high-pressure tactics, isolation from the community, strict control over members, but the thing that appears least Christian (from my POV) is its focus on money and apparent lack of grace.Perhaps a new subsection could be added to the article discussing this stuff. Unfortunately the church has played a vocal part in some divisive issues, so NPOV may be a challenge. Cheers, - Papeschr 04:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I personally know a pastor who attended this march - he said the police called this march, and the one Family march in Ackland in March 2005 (and wrongly labelled a "Destiny" march as they only participated in it), very well organised and disciplined.  The real people haters were the gay community of Auckland who slashed effigies of Bishop Brian Tamaki and invaded the march for traditional family values with nudity and foul language (i was there!). These so -called "blackshirts" do look very mean indeed - many are, after all, saved out of a hard life of violence but to see their spirit-filled discipline in the face of homosexuals shouting abuse inches from their faces, was amazing!
Only in little insulated New Zealand would anyone call such a church and their message a cult. Most modern, free countries now have churches bigger than 5,000 members and it really is no big deal. New Zealand government is very domineering and high handed, despite looking very liberal, and they have a massive homosexual agenda so they have personally been behind much of the attack on Destiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: 210.55.230.123 on May 28 06 at 10:16
:I think that you have been mislead.  In Wellington, the pro-Civil Union marchers were surrounded by Destiny marchers and many were beaten.  Destiny marchers would come among the GLBT people and punch, push and spit on us.  They were very violent and intimidating, and there are lots of photos, including some published in the GLBT media, or Destiny marchers engaging in these acts.  In Auckland, the few GLBT people that counter rallied were pelted with eggs, abused and insulted.  The very fact that the march in Auckland was to denounce our very existence is provoking and intimidating; GLBT people do not hold rallies against Destiny (unless Destiny have started one themselves).  To see homosexuals beaten, belittled, dehumanised, spat on, defaced and defiled by thugs who claim to be closer to God than us is so anger provoking I'm surprised that gays and lesbians didn't retaliated more than we did. 
:The fact that you speak of a 'homosexual agenda' shows what a nasty little ignorant bigot you yourself truly are.  
:In future, sign your posts. Enzedbrit 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not in Auckland - many of my friends were.  I take their word and the report of the media over Destiny any day.  I can also attest to the disgusting display of misinformed young people supporting Destiny, the appalling and insulting heckling of MP Georgina Beyer, having been in Wellington, seen the violence, seen the bruises, and of course, the results of the thuggish Destiny churchers later that night as they went fag-bashing on Courtenay and Cuba.  There was a counter rally in Auckland, at which Destiny supporters and loveless "Christians" turned up to preach that homosexuals are sick, degenerate.  These people were not harmed in the slightest.  One forgets that after centuries of violent oppression, legalised discrimination, and in many countries the death penalty, GLBT people have every right to be angry and in New Zealand compose themselves immacuately considering what we still experience.  Destiny is currently the biggest provocator of hatred in this country and has been for quite some time; a violent and dangerous ideology that misleads thousands, preaches a false Christianity, mocking other forms as being impure whilst at the same time embracing pagan Christmas and Easter, and filling the coffers of Bishop Brian.  I suggest to you rather that you get your facts straight.  And sign your postings. Enzedbrit 05:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: in light of the disputed nature of this article, i have identified two statements that need citations, or deletions. feel free to point out more. if no citations are forthcoming, they will be deleted. Xcomradex 10:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is attribution, see:  Wikipedia:Attribution, and I quote from that page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments". If I find material that can verify the facts relating to the march then I shall add references, but we need to get this clear first. The Angel of Islington 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hearsay

message: Why not just Destiny Church? It redirects here anyway, and there is no disambiguation note. Richard001 09:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Destiny Church used to be a disambig page listing other "destiny churches" but this is the only one with a wikipedia article. Maybe there should be a Destiny Church (disambiguation) ?? ~~ Ropata 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "other" Destiny churches are mainly in the British Isles, but are apparently blissfully unaware of Destiny NZ. The Brit versions have no wikipedia articles that I know of, but they are probably bigger than Destiny NZ. I reckon just keep things the way they are, until someone puts together an article about the British churches. Cheers. ~~ Ropata 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Who is the person who removes all the bad news about Destiny Church, it seams that some is trying to protect the church could people please leave changes to the text in place and stop trying to make destiny out to be a normal church. 10% is what they ask of you from your every day wage and Brian Tamaki has a lot of money. That is fact. It is also a fact that the tithe is only a portion of what they expect their members to give. On top of the tithe, they expect offerings (that which you freely give) and firstfruits, which is like a tithe for the increase coming in the next 12 months.202.14.107.1 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE, and you'll understand why your changes are reverted.-gadfium 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gadfium Amit@Talk 10:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers Please

message: Why do we need to use a fair use image here? Is this building totally off-limits to the public? If so could we not organize a spy-mission to take photos of it, possibly with funding from the Wikimedia Foundation? Richard001 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the fair use rationale does not appear appropriate. Any member of the public can take a photo of the exterior of the building suitable to illustrate the article. A spy mission is not required for this.-gadfium 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody in Auckland could go on a mission to take a free / public domain photo that would be great. The address is 18 Allright Place, Mt Wellington. The rationale is there because I can't do so.. Ropata (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image at top captioned "Destiny Church headquarters is a large auditorium in Auckland." 

message: From what I have observed of Tamaki he may be suffering from a malignant form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It would be interesting for the article if some sort of psychological observation could be added. There is bound to be a published thesis on his organisation somewhere.
The following quote is telling, with its undertones of control, the fragility towards criticism, the need for ever increasing amounts of narcissistic supply (adulation, grandiosity and ego stroking):"To you Bishop we pledge our allegiance, our faithfulness and loyalty. We pledge to serve the cause that is in your heart and to finish that work. Success to you and success to those who help you - for God is with you.”
This public persona has the appearance of someone lacking a healthily functioning ego. Someone doing political personality profiling is likely to conclude that Tamaki's public behaviour is indicative of a malformed or narcissistically wounded ego. From a psychological POV this is a common cause for an unrelenting and growing need for external validation. His form of narcissism appears to be malignant because it is getting worse. At some point such a personality is likely to implode because now that he is fancied as some sort of king or pope, where do you go from here? The reincarnation of Jesus Christ perhaps? But eventually that wouldn't be lofty enough so he might then need to become God himself. Maintaining such increasingly grandiose illusions is going to get more and more difficult and the usual result is some sort of melt down into narcissistic rage when the false-self (inevitably) feels punctured. 
This - of course - is speculation at this point, but there are plenty of precedents in other personality cults. See Jonestown as one such example.
I suspect followers will interpret criticism of Tamaki as some combination of tall-poppy syndrome and short-sightedness in the face of his visionary greatness/battler-saviour image. This perception is bound to be encouraged by the church, no doubt with an us-and-them mentality thrown in. 
121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all speculation and WP:OR. If you can find some references, go ahead and edit the Brian Tamaki article. ~~ Ropata (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPD (narcissistic Personality Disorder) 

message: To hide discussion on issues relevant to the article in a collapsed segment above appears to be censorship. It is not a BLP violation because it has never been a part of a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. I have noticed this obstructive pattern on Wikipedia before when dealing with with cult-like organisations. Scientology postings, for instance, are regularly purged by trolls. 
The section that has been hidden was never placed in the article, but was a discussion of (elephant-in-the-room) issues relevant to (but ignored by) the article with suggestions for areas where published research should be sought. Discussion of areas relevant to articles and what needs to be explored, evidence provisioned, etc. are by their very nature discussions not proof. 
Nothing written in that section is off-topic for organisations with Destiny Church's character. Finding published references is never going to happen if discussions are circumvented in the first place. But I suspect that is the whole point in 
eliminating material Destiny Church probably doesn't want elucidated. 
121.73.7.84 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not censorship since the section is still accessible. Wikipedia is very sensitive about any any possible BLP issues after the Wikipedia biography controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: There is already a number of references to the cult-like status of the church in the article. One of the links you provide is already in the article. Some of the other links that you supply are not considered to be reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia must use information that has already been published. We cannot do any original research on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of article hidden  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Destiny Church (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051230110751/http://www.bishoptamaki.org.nz:80/FAQ.htm to http://www.bishoptamaki.org.nz/FAQ.htm#A_Government_gone_Evil
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Destiny Church (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bishoptamaki.org.nz/Destiny-Church-Covenant-Document.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429020140/http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html to http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Destiny Church (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614123253/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/451171?format=html to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/451171?format=html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Far right? I don't think the 'World Socialist Web Site' is an impartial source. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/02/dest-j02.html And the other reference is all over the place and barely coherent. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/113929249/populist-and-farright-rhetoric-gains-currency-in-new-zealands-political-fringe Flexdream (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far right?