Talk:Church of God (Restoration)

message: danny layne and his so called followers are a discrace to man kind. and will all burn in hell!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.115.249 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

message: I have done a lot of reading about this Church of God group, both from the Rick Ross Institute mentioned in the article and from their own sources. I have worshiped with them and I cannot accept the finding that they are a cult. I am not a member of this group and, in the foreseeable future, I don't see joining them.
They are loving, kind, and very family oriented. Lots of children. It's also the first mixed race Chruch I've been to for a long time. 
I will say they are eccentric, but who isn't. They dress in a modified style from the Mennonites or Old Order Brethren, but they wear mustaches. I do not wear shoes. Who's to say I'm not a little eccentric? 
I was well received by the group.
I'd like to see a little more information about the Rick Ross Institute and what motivates them to call a group like the a 'cult.'
Brian Daniels
Have you looked up what the definition of "cult" is?   There's your answer...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.77.68 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  loving, kind, and very family oriented 

message: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will then want to explore one man's experience with this Cult at ScrewedKenoshaStyle.com
If there ever was a cult the Church of God restoration is it! At the following site you will get all the info you need,in order to know why this is a caged in cult to stay away from .....Go to www.factnet.org type in Daniel layne or Church of God - Chilliwack, BC / Aylm.....
Our families 18 year experience with this group in both its conceptual and present form was very negative. 
They practice an extreme form of legalism. It is one thing to choose  personally to follow a certain lifestyle. It is another thing to be told that if you do not obey this groups eccentric and sometimes dangerous set of rules, that you will be rejected by God and go to Hell. 
This group teaches from a hyper- Armenian view point, which says you can loose your salvation by committing one sin. 
If you do sin, you must "get saved" again. As sin they include drinking caffine, watching tv, reading unapproved books,women wearing pants, jewelry, or cutting their hair. Also listening to unapproved music,decorating your home, using any type of lace even on womans underwear,wearing fragrance,or not attending their frequent campmeetings are things that are deeply frowned upon, 
and for which a person will receive severe reproofsand warnings.
   They spank their infants and children harshly, for even such minor offenses as having to go to the bathroom during 
their 2-4 hour long church services. The young men and especially the young women are not allowed to attend post-secondary schools. 
Married women are not permitted to work outside the home. 
They require unquestioning obedience and submission to the ministry. 
They also teach against using any type of medical intervention or medicine, even if you are sick unto death. 
Several people have died of relativily minor illnesses that only needed some medical intervention for the person to survive ie abdominal hernia. They allow babies to die during homebirth because the mothers refuse c-sections. ( Homebirths using their own self trained midwives are the only type permitted) 
Children are not permitted to have their innoculations. There have been rumours of sexual abuse by the ministry, but as of now, no legal charges have been brought.
I attended Wellspring Retreat  (www.wellspringretreat.org)  for a two week cult recovery program. This is what helped me to be able to see clearly what this aberant church actually is, a destructive mind-control group.( search Robert J. Lifton- Mind control; also Margaret Singer's writings )  Wellspring estimates there are up to 5000 of these type of groups in the USA and Canada.
Both new converts and seekers need to thoroughly research this group. Countless lives and families have been damaged by their contact with Church of God Restoration/The Gospel Trumpet.
 
Elizabeth A. Redington Libby-at-home 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there ever was a cult the Church of God restoration is it 

message: Looking at the Church of God from a distance seems harmless. For the the ones that don't see a threat, I challenge you to search the many errors out diligently. Spend just a few minutes on my web site www.screwedkenoshastyle.com , and maybe you will learn things that will alter your opinion. Read my article "Forked Tongue Derailment", and listen to the several audio sermons and songs of their services. I also have their own "Gospel Trumpet" literature of theirs on there. It is one thing looking at rat poison, it is another thing if you partake of it. I can have a whole lot of opinions looking into the arena, however the opinions are validated only if you spent some time actually inside the pen. The cult broke up my marriage because I didn't follow their rules.(see site) After you searched out my site, it is linked over to the factnet site, search that out too. Only after you search that out will you get a vague idea of what it was like in the bullpen. I would rather meet the beasts that kill the body, than a ministry that kills the soul with mind control. Bernie Tocholke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKS victim (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People perish due to lack of knowledge. 

message: I tried to neutralize and clean up some "trivia".  The lists of outreaches was deleted, as the group does not limit its outreach to certain areas, and continually changes.
The section discussing divorce was deleted as it would become a long discussion to list all the differences between Warner and the COGR.  Perhaps that info would fit better on the Warner page.
There seems to be a difference of opinion about whether spouses are encouraged to separate from non-member spouses.  I have heard "second-handedly" that they are encouraged, but that does not give me enough "evidence" to say so in the article.  Is there any source information for this? Mikeatnip67.142.130.17 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my edits 

message: An explanation of some of my edits.
1.  I removed some of the links and comments about Rick Ross.  In my opinion, the best place to discuss him would be on his page.
2. I reorganized some of the information about the teachings.  I think it will be more readable this way.
3.  I added back the links giving "opposing" viewpoints.  With every group, there will usually be at least one person that is strongly negative.  However, with this group, the "negative" (i.e. "cult") view is more than one disgrunteld person.  It is a widely held viewpoint among many ex-members and others.  Is that the correct viewpoint to have?  The reader can decide after he sees both sides.  But it is a WIDELY HELD viewpoint that the researcher would want to know about.  At least I would want to know about it if I were researching a group that I did not know personally. 4. I removed the link about music, as it is within the site already linked —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.16 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my edits 

message: I will continue to delete the link which attacks the Church of God Restoration even though I do not fellowship or agree with most of their doctrines but I do not feel this is the format to take out issues with Danny and his boys. This discussion format is perhaps the place for the links and charges of misconduct that you wish to air. But the unproven links within Wikipedia should not be continued behavior as it is counter productive. This link is not informative or useful, it is only a way to slander the Church of God and the beliefs of D.S. Warner. Since Wikipedia has certain criteria that it uses to determine if information is valid I do not feel it would be equitable to the Restoration or to D.S. Warner to allow this information of which cannot be confirmed to be slanderously spread in a format like Wikipedia. I understand some frustrations however the personal attacks that are not BIBLICALLY based should not be put into the site. It is childish. I have issues with their tactics also and some of the things that I heard personally preached over their pulpit but since they continue to cover it up one would have to assume that God is going to expose them as he will all of Babylon in his time. I would suggest that you build your own webpage publishing your issues with the Restoration as they call themselves. The doctrine of Holiness is correct. So in your fighting with them you die in your sin, you will not go to Heaven. You may have a different viewpoint, that is your right to do such. However their is only one road to Heaven and that is a Sin Free Life. As to the Restoration, I would not classify them as a Cult in the sense of Jim Jones for I feel that 99% of the people are God fearing folks. However, they do use mind control as  
did Jesus. The only difference is that Jesus was correct. I am sorry, Restoration but it is true. Jesus did not advocate that everyone had to dress alike, in black and white with beards. As a matter of fact, in order for Jesus to be betrayed he had to be kissed by Judas so that the Jews would even know who he was. I would suggest that perhaps if your were dressing the way that you do so that you could win the Amish, then I would say Amen. But to make it a law of God without a solid scripture foundation? Another standard that they teach is in Divorce and Remarriage. They believe that if you have ever been married, either approved of God or not, you can never remarry. They lied to me and my family and told us that they teach the doctrine "Just Like D.S. Warner", only to find out a while later that "sorry, thats not true". Go to Daniel S. Warner in Wikipedia. You will be able to access his teaching of Divorce and Remarriage from there. There is a real good website entitled www.dswarnerlibrary.com that has over 250 books of the Reformation if you are interested in more information concerning the true teachings and doctrines of D.S Warner and his associates. Sorry so lengthly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.156.25.183 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Deleted Links 

message: www.churchofgodrestorationexposed.us   is owned and edited by ex-members of this group who are very well aquainted with the origins of this group, and with the the head ministers. This group meets all of Robert J Liftons criteria as a totalistic mind control cult. This is not simply another CoG DS Warner split-off It is a dangerous, manipulative, and abusive group. Be warned before you visit or contact this group that you are putting your children, spouse and close friends and family in danger of being coerced into a very dangerous "church"  www.churchofgodrestoationexposed.us  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.252.211 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not simply another CoG DS Warner split-off 

message: ive met the siants and they are extream like jesus was and they are extream because the bible says to be like jesus ,they are very nice and have always been there for me when i needed them. WWJD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexferrand1991 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  they are very nice 

message: Under the main doctrins I removed this (Sanctification or Baptism of the Holy Ghost) and replaced with the real doctrin of the COG Restoration of Total Sanctification.
After reserching there entire statment of faith or Beliefs I relised the orginator or editor of the statment here was confused on the termanology and simply thought it was the same thing, but it is two very diffrent things. we need to be carfull and not write about things we don't understand or have a good grasp of. 
The Reason I did this is becuase the COGR is oposed to and always has been to anyhting Pentecostal Especialy the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.118.114 (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made one Change to this page 

message: The COGR does believe that sanctification and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are one and the same experience. The term Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a term used exclusively by Pentecostal groups. Wesley didn't teach Entire Sanctification and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit were the same, he used the word sanctification to mean growing in grace, and he use Entire Sanctification to mean a instantaneous 2nd work of grace where your heart was purified by faith from the carnal nature.
The COGR typically uses the work sanctification to refer to the 2nd work of grace but will use entire sanctification also. While D.S. Warner in his book "Bible Proofs of the Second Work of Grace" taught God's people under the OT experienced Entire Sanctification but the COGR teachings it is an experience that is only received post-Pentecost.
Personally I don't think it is a big deal to remove the "or Baptism of the Holy Ghost" but you are incorrect in your statement that the COGR doesn't teach they are one and the same thing.
Bible Proofs of the Second Work of Grace by DS Warner
bobmutch (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Made one Change to this page 

message: I added a section to the COGR page called Restoration dated in prophecy.  If anyone has points on how to improve this section feel free to post them here. bobmutch (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration dated in prophecy section added 

message: I don't feel like the following information is relevant to the Church of God (Restoration) article and would like to get the views of others before removing it.  I think in the past this has been removed by a Restoration member and readded by a ex-Restoration member a number of times.  I think this type of information would be more relevant to put in an article about the person than about the movement they started.  I am not saying I am supportive of putting this information on a person page for Daniel Layne I just don't think it is relevant on this article.
"According to his booklet, he attempted to commit suicide numerous times, one time by allegedly attempting to cut off his arms with an ax."
I plan on giving 30 days for people to respond with their views and then if at that time there is no objections I will remove the above text. bobmutch (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on removal of personal information concerning Daniel Layne from the COGR article 

message: Why has the Church of God so many followers of German/Russian-Mennonite origin???--84.168.240.227 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to the fact that in its beginnings some of the first adherents were from that background and these first converts evangelized among their own people. Also, the COGR would have many similarities in practice with the Mennonites. (personal opinion here from what I know, not an official study) Mikeatnip (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally eliminated the Controversies section. The book by Bernie T. is not a peer-reviewed publication, but rather one person's personal view. Then someone added a negative comment about the author. Obviously this is a personal dispute, not encyclopedic information with a NPOV. My elimination is not based on whether I agree with Bernie T.'s assessment. It may or may not be correct, but it is a personal opinion that other people are disputing. If the book does have value it could be listed in the references section (with perhaps a one sentence overview of the contents). There is no need to give it a review in the article, nor for any countering negative points about the author. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  I reverted the removal since there is quite a bit of citable material about that episode. It was an interesting time of internal soul-searching for the movement and resulted in the group compromising its position in the face of persecution for its beliefs. Also, the YouTube may be an interesting watch, but it is only indirectly related to the COGR. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Mikeatnip for pointing that out- although I replaced it with a reliable source Washington Post vs Rick Ross.   I do have a question.  How is the video podcast not relevant?  It is about the only video you can find online of anyone representing this church.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of the debate is not about the COGR and its particular beliefs, per se, but about general topics that many other church groups also agree with. For example, we would not use a video like that to represent Baptists or 7th Day Adventists, even though both Baptists and 7th Day Adventists would take the same side of the argument as did the COGR. In other words, the debate was not about particulars concerning the COGR, but about other topics the COGR happens to uphold along with many other church groups. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In general the Wash. Post would be more reliable. However, I would be of the opinion that the Rick Ross link has many other links that bring in more aspects of the situation, and therefore relevant. I am minded to put it after the WP link as a second source for a broader view. What do you think?Mikeatnip (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is better to go to the original sources.  I recall a number of discussions over the years where Rick Ross has been determined to not be a reliable source for Wiki. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be linking to the page because of Ross' info (his information would tend toward the biased side). Rather, his site does provide a very nice list of links that go to many other sources that talk about the COGR and the issues they had with the civil authorities. All those links could be placed individually, but that would make an overlink.Mikeatnip (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I breezed over the page quickly. It could use some cleanup. The beliefs and main doctrines sections could be merged. The long list in main doctrines section could be expanded from a list to a paragraph style. I would say this talk page could be cleaned up and all the debating about whether the COGR is a cult could be deleted, but I don't know if Wikipedia guidelines are against deleting materials like that. The talk pages are not supposed to be forums debating issues, but talking about the editing of the page. Feel free to add material that is NPOV and encyclopedia material in nature. Don't take my reversions personal. :-) I don't have a lot of time to add material but just patrol 100+ pages trying to help see that the articles upgrade rather than degrade. Personally, I think Wikipedia has improved very noticeably in the ten years I have been around it, because lots of editors are watching the pages for spam and such. I don't know who all patrols this page, but maybe other editors have suggestions for improvement. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are some good suggestions.  Thanks! I would like to see some pictures too. Oh also- nothing personal taken. :)  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

text: The fact is that this sect is relatively new in history, about 2 decades old. In such a short time very little scholarly type sources will not have been published, especially for a group of people who are so small and insignificant (in terms of universal humanity). If this were some large, popular movement (say like a political movement such as Antifa), one could expect secondary sources to weigh in even though it is a new movement. As such, the information in the article comes from 1st-person sources, both from the group's official website itself and from former members. If the article were to be pared down to solely information that is verifiable by secondary sources, the information would be so sparse it would not even be worthy of having an article. Therefore, it seems to me that the article should stand with the information it has, and the information only be removed if new verifiable content disagrees. The article truly lacks real encyclopedic status, but I don't know how that can be remedied. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I should add that in earlier discussions on this page I considered his site as somewhat valid, but reading about his deprogramming abuses in the past and the continued abuse of the term "cult" for all kinds of people and groups, Wikipedia will be better served with more neutral links. Mikeatnip (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that Rick Alan Ross seems to be perceived by some as an authority on the topic, do you think it would be appropriate to have a: "according to Rick Alan Ross..." type thing? CT55555(talk) 18:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhetorical question: "Why does Rick Alan Ross have any more 'authority' on the matter of who is a cult and who is not than Joe Doe or Jane Doe?" When you consider the other side of Ross's views, such as in the book , then Ross is no more of an authority than anyone else on who is a "cult." It boils down to this: the accusation of "cult" gets slung at anyone who is outside the slinger's standard of orthodoxy. We need a better definition of "cult" than that to be objective. Which is why Wikipedia needs to present verifiable facts about beliefs and practice of religious groups and let the reader decide if he/she wants to put them in the "cult" category or not. Mikeatnip (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You said rhetorical, but it's weird to not reply. Generally, I think we might mentioned Ross's views because he is a notable commentator on the topic, while the Jane and John Doe are not. We need to consider WP:DUE but my question about "do you think it would be appropriate..." was sincere and not rhetorical. CT55555(talk) 19:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not doubting your sincerity, but rather trying to get the point across that Ross's work is not like a peer-reviewed article, published by a long-standing organization, that has input from others who may critique it. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mennonites 

message: This is a notice about the encyclopedic value of the section just added about Bernie T. This appears more like an advertisement. Also, others have written their negative experiences, although maybe not in a printed book. I would like to give some time for other editor comments before I revise the section. The controversies section could reference several sources that have negative experiences, and not appear so much like a sales pitch for a book. All religious/political groups have had people who have had negative experiences with the group, so the controversies section should not become a major part of the article. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally eliminated the Controversies section. The book by Bernie T. is not a peer-reviewed publication, but rather one person's personal view. Then someone added a negative comment about the author. Obviously this is a personal dispute, not encyclopedic information with a NPOV. My elimination is not based on whether I agree with Bernie T.'s assessment. It may or may not be correct, but it is a personal opinion that other people are disputing. If the book does have value it could be listed in the references section (with perhaps a one sentence overview of the contents). There is no need to give it a review in the article, nor for any countering negative points about the author. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New controversies section 

message: While it looks like conversation here has died down I want to share my observation. The whole conversation on this page is pro/con and has  very little to do with the available reliable sources. That being said I removed the legal issues section form the controversy section because there were no (and I looked as best I know how) reliable sources to support them. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted the removal since there is quite a bit of citable material about that episode. It was an interesting time of internal soul-searching for the movement and resulted in the group compromising its position in the face of persecution for its beliefs. Also, the YouTube may be an interesting watch, but it is only indirectly related to the COGR. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Mikeatnip for pointing that out- although I replaced it with a reliable source Washington Post vs Rick Ross.   I do have a question.  How is the video podcast not relevant?  It is about the only video you can find online of anyone representing this church.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of the debate is not about the COGR and its particular beliefs, per se, but about general topics that many other church groups also agree with. For example, we would not use a video like that to represent Baptists or 7th Day Adventists, even though both Baptists and 7th Day Adventists would take the same side of the argument as did the COGR. In other words, the debate was not about particulars concerning the COGR, but about other topics the COGR happens to uphold along with many other church groups. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In general the Wash. Post would be more reliable. However, I would be of the opinion that the Rick Ross link has many other links that bring in more aspects of the situation, and therefore relevant. I am minded to put it after the WP link as a second source for a broader view. What do you think?Mikeatnip (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is better to go to the original sources.  I recall a number of discussions over the years where Rick Ross has been determined to not be a reliable source for Wiki. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be linking to the page because of Ross' info (his information would tend toward the biased side). Rather, his site does provide a very nice list of links that go to many other sources that talk about the COGR and the issues they had with the civil authorities. All those links could be placed individually, but that would make an overlink.Mikeatnip (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation About Talk Page 

message: I have been away for a while and came back to see that I had a several of the my recent edits reverted and while I understand why, I am left wondering how I can contribute to this article as I am interested in the subject of the Church of God.  I would appreciate people's thoughts on how this article can be developed further.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I breezed over the page quickly. It could use some cleanup. The beliefs and main doctrines sections could be merged. The long list in main doctrines section could be expanded from a list to a paragraph style. I would say this talk page could be cleaned up and all the debating about whether the COGR is a cult could be deleted, but I don't know if Wikipedia guidelines are against deleting materials like that. The talk pages are not supposed to be forums debating issues, but talking about the editing of the page. Feel free to add material that is NPOV and encyclopedia material in nature. Don't take my reversions personal. :-) I don't have a lot of time to add material but just patrol 100+ pages trying to help see that the articles upgrade rather than degrade. Personally, I think Wikipedia has improved very noticeably in the ten years I have been around it, because lots of editors are watching the pages for spam and such. I don't know who all patrols this page, but maybe other editors have suggestions for improvement. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are some good suggestions.  Thanks! I would like to see some pictures too. Oh also- nothing personal taken. :)  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else is there to work on in the Article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Church of God (Restoration). 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 https://web.archive.org/20080827165944/http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com/Worshipping%20Christ%20Original.pdf to http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com/Worshipping%20Christ%20Original.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church of God (Restoration). 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/20100716102721/http://www.churchofgod.net/media/messages to http://www.churchofgod.net/media/messages
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) 08:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All but one source for this article can be considered primary.  The one news source, the Washington Post, is just a passing mention.   Are there any sources for this article that do not come directly from the Church of God (Restoration)?  Vast sections of the article have no references at all and I would expect upon further examination, can only be found in primary sources.  The Ironic thing for me is that the article is much more informative than the organization's actual website.  The challenge is verifying that was is written here is true and correct. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that this sect is relatively new in history, about 2 decades old. In such a short time very little scholarly type sources will not have been published, especially for a group of people who are so small and insignificant (in terms of universal humanity). If this were some large, popular movement (say like a political movement such as Antifa), one could expect secondary sources to weigh in even though it is a new movement. As such, the information in the article comes from 1st-person sources, both from the group's official website itself and from former members. If the article were to be pared down to solely information that is verifiable by secondary sources, the information would be so sparse it would not even be worthy of having an article. Therefore, it seems to me that the article should stand with the information it has, and the information only be removed if new verifiable content disagrees. The article truly lacks real encyclopedic status, but I don't know how that can be remedied. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: I added a tag to the paragraph about Ray Tinsman being messiah, etc. These are some pretty strong claims. If this be so, please add a source or I plan to delete them. Mikeatnip (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for new material 

message: (Concerning deleting the cult education link) Rick Ross is an individual with an opinion, like we all have. He has been discredited with his Scott deprogramming flop, and appears to have started up again. Just because he thinks something is a cult does not make it one. This ties into the Christian countercult movement that writes off any group as a cult if it doesn't agree with the founder of the anti-cult group. In other words, if I want to become an anti-cult specialist, I describe anybody and everybody that I disagree with as a "cult." Let's try to keep the article neutral and let readers decide if they want to consider a certain group as a "cult." That term has become very subjective and gets thrown around quite easily towards anyone I don't agree with. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that in earlier discussions on this page I considered his site as somewhat valid, but reading about his deprogramming abuses in the past and the continued abuse of the term "cult" for all kinds of people and groups, Wikipedia will be better served with more neutral links. Mikeatnip (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that Rick Alan Ross seems to be perceived by some as an authority on the topic, do you think it would be appropriate to have a: "according to Rick Alan Ross..." type thing? CT55555(talk) 18:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhetorical question: "Why does Rick Alan Ross have any more 'authority' on the matter of who is a cult and who is not than Joe Doe or Jane Doe?" When you consider the other side of Ross's views, such as in the book , then Ross is no more of an authority than anyone else on who is a "cult." It boils down to this: the accusation of "cult" gets slung at anyone who is outside the slinger's standard of orthodoxy. We need a better definition of "cult" than that to be objective. Which is why Wikipedia needs to present verifiable facts about beliefs and practice of religious groups and let the reader decide if he/she wants to put them in the "cult" category or not. Mikeatnip (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You said rhetorical, but it's weird to not reply. Generally, I think we might mentioned Ross's views because he is a notable commentator on the topic, while the Jane and John Doe are not. We need to consider WP:DUE but my question about "do you think it would be appropriate..." was sincere and not rhetorical. CT55555(talk) 19:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not doubting your sincerity, but rather trying to get the point across that Ross's work is not like a peer-reviewed article, published by a long-standing organization, that has input from others who may critique it. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Ross