Talk:"I AM" Activity

message: This is a copyvio from  despite that the contributor cited the metareligion site, there's no evidence that the text has been released under a suitable license. Matt 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyvio have been deleted and replaced by a rewrite. --Sherool (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: I think that the group isn't notable enough to have 2 pages. One would be sufficient to achieve encyclopedic breadth of the subject and it will counter having 2 mid quality articles. Lincher 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: The charge of plagarism which I tagged  needs a specific citation at that point.  Thanks. Wjhonson 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
Yes, I've also encountered in, in my general background reading, as only being called the "I Am" movement.Wjhonson 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, their website never says The "I AM" Religious Activity of The Saint Germain Foundation. Please show me where it says that. --AW 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here? — goethean ॐ 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have "religious" in it. --AW 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Yes, I've also encountered in, in my general background reading, as only being called the "I Am" movement.Wjhonson 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: *The full name is: The "I AM" Religious Activity of The Saint Germain Foundation. Aburesz 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, their website never says The "I AM" Religious Activity of The Saint Germain Foundation. Please show me where it says that. --AW 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here? — goethean ॐ 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have "religious" in it. --AW 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Can someone explain "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters and the Individualized "I AM" Presence of each person." for a layperson. I think both of those terms should be explained - ascended masters and individualized i am presence --AW 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think a brief thing would be useful in the beginning. It doesn't mean much to a random person on this page. Something like  "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters, who are... and the Individualized "I AM" Presence, which is a type of... of each person. --AW 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added the definitions as requested. Aburesz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is confusing 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.flexi.net.au/~perovich/Ballards/Psychic%20Dictatorship%20in%20America.htm
** In "I AM" Activity on 2007-07-05 19:57:30, 404 Not Found
** In "I AM" Activity on 2007-07-16 00:56:17, 404 Not Found
The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: . --EchoBot 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I've made substantial changes to the article.  The previous version had serious WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NOTABILITY problems.  An extensive newspaper search (via Lexis Nexis) and Google Scholar search turned up very few reliable, independent sources covering this organization/movement.  It is most notable for it's involvement in Ballard v. U.S. (1944), a First Amendment Supreme Court decision.  The article therefore should present this movement in that context.  The details of the movement's doctrine themselves do not appear to be notable, and so they do not warrant more than a gloss.  Fireplace (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making "substantial changes to the article" without discussion or reaching a consensus is not the best editing technique on Wikipedia. Small changes such as grammar or punctuation corrections do not need to be discussed. However substantial changes should be discussed and a consensus reached. Arion (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold is an appropriate way to tackle articles with substantial NPOV and reliable sources problems, especially on articles that are not widely watched, and especially on walled gardens such as this one.  Fireplace (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: * The use of the Los Angeles Magazine April 1, 1997 smear article by Fireplace to engage in a POV attack on the reputation and legitimacy of the I AM Activity is disgusting. Even after I have pointed out that it is full of factual errors and language that shows the author's contempt for the subject, the tag team of Fireplace and Adam Cuerden have been reverting my attempts to rectify the situation. The author of that Los Angeles Magazine article obviously knew practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and was obviously only interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject, using derogatory terms like "two-bit alias", "a bizarre rite", and "one of the kookiest cults"
* Just some of the factually incorrect statements from this article which should never have been used as a source document:
** "claiming to be a reincarnation of St Germain" - Ballard never claimed to be a reincarnation of Saint Germain
** "the words expressed love for the devoted audience members and hatred for their numerous enemies" - there never were words of "hatred" expressed
** "beseeching their gods" - this group does not "beseech" "gods" for money, but believes in a concept of "decrees" (positive affirmations, spoken with accompanying thought (law of attraction) and feeling aligned with the words (somewhat similar to Science of Mind and Religious Science)
** ""a witch's cauldron of the inconceivable" - another attempt at derision
* The landmark Supreme court cases should be included, but only briefly (with links to the text of the Supreme court decisions). These should not occupy the first half of the lead and 75% of the article, as it does in the current version. This creates the impression that the founders were convicted criminals that were guilty of some type of wrongdoing. The facts are that they never served any probations nor were required to pay any fines, and their so-called "convictions" were overturned by the United States Supreme Court. That six year period (1940 - 1946) out of their 75 year history was an example of one of the worst abuses of the U.S. judicial system to engage in blatant religious persecution that is not allowed under the Constitution of the United States of America. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper use of a "Los Angeles Magazine" article that is full of factual errors

message: In 1983 when the Saint Germain Press applied for copyright renewal on various titles, the Library of Congress responded with a new category in the cataloging process. It recognized the "I AM" Activity as a "religion", not a cult or sect. The distinction deserves consideration. A religious movement that endures long after the demise of its founder is defined as a religion. The significance is that the followers give reverence to the tenets of the teaching, not unquestioning adulation to a living leader, which is a cult. Emery (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you deleted from the article doesn't state that the movement is a cult, but that it has been called a cult by two prominent sources -- a fact which isn't changed by the label the Library of Congress uses.  The material is sourced to reliable sources -- please stop deleting it.  Fireplace (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Emery, the use of the word "cult" in that way does not belong in the article.  It's not NPOV to cherry-pick one word without context.   Looking at the sources: the LA Times article was not a fact-checked analysis, it was a fluff piece making fun of people's non-mainstream beliefs.  And  Justice Jackson used the word only in passing, not as an admonition. He also used the words "sect", "religious" and "faith" in that same opinion.   There is no NPOV reason to pick the word "cult" out of that document to mention it here.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed cult references

message: You guys engaged in edit wars on this article should be ashamed of yourselves, particularly you, Mr. Fireplace. 
This otherwise pretty good article has been marred by an absurd degree of dissent, much of which relies on legalistic interpretations of Wiki policies rather than a spirit of disinterested collaboration. The section headed Guy Ballard's Death is now nonsensical, due to material which has been removed. 
Either rewrite the section, or replace the removed material. 
In any case, Fireplace should be barred from further work on this article. 
Estéban (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty SAD 

message: That's actually the KJV version of Exodus 3:14 (as alluded to in the quote further down the article)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "I Am that I Am"

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.saintgermainpress.com/cgi-bin/web_store/web_store.cgi?page=teachings20.html&category=yes&cart_id=6856_17805
** In "I AM" Activity on 2011-05-20 21:14:38, 404 Not Found
** In "I AM" Activity on 2011-05-30 04:02:03, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: What was the fraud case about?  The reference to fraud needs rather more detail.
:The purported fraud was that the group had taken money from people to further propegate its beliefs when 1) its beliefs couldn't possibly true and no rational person could accept them and 2) those soliciting money on the group's behalf did not even actually believe them to be true themselves.  In his dissent, Justice Jackson said that it is utterly impossible for any court to determine the truth of any religious beliefs, let alone whether or not they are sincerely held by anyone, and that this case and all similar ones should always be summarily dismissed lest the courts become the site of persecution of all non-mainstream religions.  (My POV is that this is definitely the standard of today and the correct thought about this sort of thing, but Jackson was alone among the nine in expressing this view in the 1940s.)  
:The other dissent of Chief Justice Stone, joined by two other justices, had no real problem with the government investigating the claims of this sect or others, nor whether those in charge of it actually held to its stated beliefs.  The majority opinion, at least as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit to which the case was remanded, was that its was impossible to determine whether any religious viewpoint was sincerely held but questions as to whether it was objectively true or not were justicable.  (More POV: What could be more ridiculous? Major Christian doctrines such as trans/consubstansation; Original Sin, and the like are as unprovable as the purported teachings of the Ascended Masters, or the Pillars of Islam for that matter.  If questions as to whether matters of faith are true are justicable, then the First Amendment means less than nothing.)
:When the Ninth Circuit confirmed the fraud conviction on the grounds that the relgious claims made by the I AM Activity were untrue and those who contributed to it had therefore been defrauded, the case was returned to the SCOTUS, which then dismissed all charges on the grounds that women had been systematically excluded from both the grand and trial juries.  (Note: the practice of excluding women from juries was pretty common in this time frame.  I think that what really happened was that the Justices realized the slippery slope they had embarked on in their ruling and saw that the field had been opened to anyone who had lost their religious faith to bring suit saying, "I have come to realize that the things that my former religion taught are in reality patently and demonstrably untrue given modern standards of scientific verifiability and now demand that everything that I have ever donated to them based on their false premises be returned to me, with interest and additional damages."  Apparenly, (my best guess and not something verifiable or citable) when the Supreme Court realized that they could easily be called on to decide an endless string of religion cases, they determined, rather than directly reversing their holding of the previous term, to find what was then the thinnest of technicalities over which to overturn the conviction, with the implied message to current and future U.S. Attorneys being, "Don't bring any new cases on the grounds of a religion being fraudulent or its leaders or followers being insincere in their beliefs."
:This means I can tell you to help me in my ministry, which states that the Blue Rock Gods speak to me directly on a weekly basis through my socks, without fear of being prosecuted for fraud.  This is far better than the alternative of letting the court system investigate religion.
:This is different question than that of a religious group selling you, say, a time share in a nonexistent condominium in the actual, current world (per Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker).  It is very arguable, just not objectively verifiable or falsifiable, that Heaven is essentially the same thing in the purported "hereafter", but the existence of the hereafter and potential real estate holdings therein are a matter of speculation and faith whereas the existence or nonexistence of a specific condo unit in or near Ft. Mill, South Carolina can be objectively determined.  I hope that this helps whoever posted the question as to what the "fraud" purportedly was and is the correct interpretation of the SCOTUS holding and its implications.  75.200.151.103 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud 

message: What is this group called in academic sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ascended Master Teachings