Talk:Living Stream Ministry

message: For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Living Stream Ministry
This page is biased. It doesn't discuss the controversies surrounding this movement.
10:21, 10 April 2007 Patrick
What movement? This is an organization. Please be reminded that wikipedia is not an apologetic board.
Pehkay 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Debate (Sep. 2004)

message: :Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg

message: I see there has been significant edit warring the past few days.  Please discuss and reach consensus.  I'm on a phone call now, I'll post more in a bit and warn the relevant users.  GRBerry 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried reaching consensus with users HopeChrist and JRCarter, however these users feel it necessary to bully and threaten comments on my talk page rather than participate in intelligent discourse and make use of intellectual discussion to resolve issues regarding Living Stream Ministry's associations with cult status. This sort of behavior is immature and demonstrates the lack of intellectual thought by these editors.Angrygirl (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to see that you are now starting to use talk pages.  Please be aware that "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."  Now that you are using the talk pages, you can begin to discuss and attempt to reach consensus.  Collectively, we have been trying stronger and stronger steps to get you talking with the editors of the page, so that we could stop spinning our collective wheels and make forward progress.  HopeChrist has used indivualized messages, I've mixed individualized messages and templates, and John Carter has used templates.  The next step up from that is stronger templates, followed by blocking.  Your beginning to engage in dialog has gotten us off that escalator.  A true dialog, of course will include reasoning, explanation, and reference to sources, rather than taking any one individual's opinion as the truth.  I remain optimistic that collectively the editors of this page will do it - I know from long experience that John Carter can, the other two of you are new to me.  I will continue to monitor, and if need be protect the article again if the edit warring continues.  Protection time is intended to be used by the editors to discuss and reach agreement despite the fact that the article is temporarily unchangeable.  GRBerry 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: User pages for HopeChrist and JRCarter indicate that these individuals are obviously a part of the Living Stream Ministry (LSM) organization and Lord's Recovery "local church". This means these users are UNABLE of writing an unbiased edit in favor of LSM.
:This is the User:HopeChrist's User:Page - please look and judge by yourself. The above comment is an "overt POV" or "an original research".HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The allegations regarding me, or at least I assume she means me, are ones I would like to see substantiated in some way. Personally, in all honesty, I don't think I had even heard anything about this organization before I saw a request for input regarding it on my user talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe and Praise God that this is the true occupation of any sincere Christian. By the way (in real occupation) I am  a full time student of "EE" at North Dakota State University. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Believers (with all short of backgrounds) around the globe use this term "saints" in love and true biblical pattern, if not brothers and sisters in Christ! But I affirm that I very much agree with the truths and church as described in the article local churches. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: None of these above mentioned quotes point anything valuable and informative regarding the disputed matter and towards my "action" of reverting some of the edits or regarding the article "Living Stream Ministry". HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: True. I agree. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The above mentioned statements are false. Please tag your source. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would be the end of all disputes. HopeChrist (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: How do you know our mission? I don't know JRCarter, nor I know my own mission. I simply contribute to the Wikipedia. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please do it as you have described above. And then discuss. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The matter of fact is the other way around. Ironic! HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read, go through, and reply, and discuss to the "Facts" put above. Please prove your points in NPOV (without any original research) and with reliable sources. I believe everyone will appreciate it very much. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I am very happy that we all are participating now on the article's talk page. It will be a lot easier now, for all the editors of this page to resolve the disputed issue. Thanks to all. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of comments made on me has nothing to do with the facts or the article Living Stream Ministry. Please discuss the facts and not someone's "User:Page". Just one click can navigate anyone to someone's "User:Page" but facts have to be presented. So let's please bring and put those. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The Harvest House as a publisher and the book "ECNR (Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions)" and their authors are two separate matter. No one party or person is responsible and legally liable for other's views and actions. But the disputed statements inserted again and again in the body of the article has no source tags yet. Please show it (or quote it) from any reputed source. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users: HopeChrist & JRCarter BIASED & do not write from NPOV -- resort to edit warring and undue article censhorship 

message: No. 1: Please quote source(s) for the statements, (a) "The supreme court ruled against the LSM calling it a dangerous cult, lawfully."
(b) "To learn more about the LSM as a cult, please visit so and so sites."  -- please quote the reliability of the sites. HopeChrist (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two specific requests to [[User:Angrygirl]] 

message: It is not permitted by wikipedia policy to say something which the source itself does not explicitly state. I request information on exactly where in the source it is explicitly stated that the Supreme Court ruled it is acceptable to call this organization a "cult". It should also be noted that all content must be sourced. The use of the word "dangerous" as a modifier of "cult" would thus also have to be sourced. Please indicate exactly where it is explicitly stated that the sources say explicitly that the Supreme Court explicitly authorized the use of these two words regarding this subject. Thank you. The words "cult" carries an inherently prejudicial subtext to most editors, and is as such one we seek to avoid whenever possible. The word "dangerous" is even more prejudicial, and inclusion of such exceptional content requires exceptional sourcing. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court ruling 

message: It should be noted that the article is now fully protected, as per Wikipedia:Protection policy. I would encourage all those who wish to make any changes to the article to suggest them here first. Then, if consensus can be reached, we can request an uninvolved administrator to make the appropriate changes. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Come on guys. The LSM is not distributing the Bible, they are distributing their footnotes. Localchurch (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the lies. The Recovery Version Bible has every verse in the Protestant Bible. It is the Bible.Ryoung122 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether the footnotes make up the majority of the text, they are meaningless without the actual Biblical content, so I have to agree with Ryoung here. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think I entirely understand what you're trying to suggest. In my experience, most people understand that anything added to the text of the Bible aside from the verses themselves are not part of the original texts. Also, if you look at the Bible as a piece of fiction, for instance, it's very obvious that the footnotes are just the opinion of one or a few people, since all literature is open to interpretation. There's no reason that would be any different for a religious text. Anyone reading the Recovery Version should understand that immediately, so just listing what it includes here instead of pushing the negative point of view that it's all "systematic and institutionalized lies" should be sufficient and meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view rules, should it not? KhalfaniKhaldun 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes or Bible 

message: Please reference a site which actually verifies the "2nd largest" claim. I could not find it in the reference provided. Localchurch (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm not quite sure why that edit was reverted as "vandalism." KhalfaniKhaldun 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MinistryWatch statistics 

message: Basically, I saw a lot of duplicated content between Living Stream Ministry and Local Church controversies, so I sought to move the controversy/lawsuit related stuff to the controversies article, and left a short summary overview of the main issues with a "main article" link to Local Church controversies.  Please see my discussion post on that article's talk page:  Talk:Local_Church_controversies#Integrated_material_from_Living_Stream_Ministry.  Thanks! -- Joren (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved controversy stuff to [[Local Church controversies]] 

message: Reference 6 is a link to someone's personal website.  I refer to policy WP:SPS.  Remove?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juubaa (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 6, a self-published source. 

message: Living Stream Ministry started in USA many years ago, now the Living Stream Ministry well known as Bibles for America has become a ministry of lies and attacks against servants of God. They lie about Pastors, Leaders and as many servants of God that are on this earth, they believe and think that God has given them more power and revelation than other Christian groups, and because of that, if anyone doesn't agree with what they believe will be persecuted. Don't pay attention to their words, all they say against servants of God is a complete  lie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavalcas (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This is not the proper use of the talk page.--Theophilus144 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning against Living Stream Ministry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Living Stream Ministry. 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/20150716192409/http://ftta.org/visit-the-ftta/ to http://ftta.org/visit-the-ftta/
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) 10:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I need to translate the book The Economy of God by Witness Lee in Ao naga language and seeking permission copyright. Thanks Wati69 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  For copyright