Jump to content

Talk:Assemblies of Yahweh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anon is Back!

[edit]

Sad to say, the anonymous has resurfaced. I reverted the Obadiah page to remove past graduates names. If this road is allowed to be followed, all of the dozens of graduates histories must be included, a path which has no place in a neutral article. Pertinent information only please. WEMUS (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WEMUS is Back! With Biased Views & Revisionist History

[edit]

Sad to say Wemus has resurfaced. Perhaps one of the many socks puppets that want to make Wikkipedia into an advertisement board of sorts. We need to clean up this article and the other articles that have been affected with the agenda in question. If we can create some kind of new baseline we can have a stable article to go back to if or when another sock appears. It's devilishly difficult trying to cherry pick through what to keep once a new sock appears. If we can restore the article now we may be able to maintain it. It is unfortunate that cult followers are trying to use this article for advertisements for their cult literature. It is very evident that what they are attempting to get a following from people who come here for unbiased facts, which you would expect from an encyclopedia. Their biased opinions, revisionist history and attempts at cover-up of the real facts is quite disturbing. In the originally article it stated that they were "controlling" and their actions here just goes to prove that. They have used this page as their personal play ground. This article at one time was accurate and they have made it into a cult advertisement. They continually try to distort the facts and remove the historical facts in it as well and replace the facts with their opinions. They have made this article into a link farm for their many websites, making this article into nothing more than link spam. Some of these "socks" have been banned, but they just pop up again under a new name. It is time that the administration of this encyclopedia do something about this far fetched fringe group and put a stop to vandalism here. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for advertising. The behavior of WEMUS Davidamos and others is really deplorable. The takeover of Wikipedia by fringe groups is not good. We need facts in here not opinions of fringe cults and their followers.


My name in a Headline-Totally Cool.
Any-who, We, except for the Anonymous who hacks it up, are making progress on this article. (An article which is about the Assemblies of Yahweh, and what they do, not the slanted ravings from the above author.) If the accuser who writes above would get off his Kuester and begin to work with Wikipedia instead of against this unbiased page would move forward. I tell you what, (bit o' advice) when you want to make a statement, chuck it out into the discussion and if it is proven by vetting with traceable, relevant facts, then it of course can be included. That's what Wiki-thusiasts do. Like the good book says, "for lack of wood the fire goes out".WEMUS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits 10/7/2008

[edit]

The Assemblies of Yahweh does not teach that only America will be receiving judgment and only by economic upheaval. It is taught that the whole world will come under judgment by many means as outlined in the Scriptures.

As to the "traditional" Jewish dating of "Rosh Hashana", this does not come under the meaning of worldly holidays here. Also it is not a general item as is ment for this section.Fctedt (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sacred Name Movement

[edit]
I added a topic for discussion in the Sacred Name Movement article which concerns the Assemlbies of Yahweh article. Comments would be appreciated.WEMUS (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The August 2006 issue of The Sacred Name Broadcaster includes an article avowing that the Assemblies of Yahweh are in fact the mainstream of the SNM and other groups are just on the fringe (tzitzit, maybe?). So why is my edit to that effect reversed?

I am looking at an August 2006 issue of the Sacred Name Broadcaster now. There is no such article. There is in fact an article stating that the AOY is not like the nominal SNM (see Hot, Cold or Lukewarm in said issue). Fctedt (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement. Why not read the Assemblies of Yahweh statement of doctrine? Davidamos (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - The Assemblies of Yahweh did not stem from the sacred name movement... why not ask for the "Back to the Roots" series, by Elder Jacob O Meyer? You can go directly to the site and ask for one there. If I can be of some assistance, give me a call :) . Davidamos (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you apparently weren't around in the 60's when Jacob O. Meyer started his group as many were, he IS and WAS a part of the Sacred Name Movement. Trying to deny it just shows how untruthful this group really is! It's time to end the deception and stop trying to rewrite history according to your distorted version. It is time to stick to the facts, not the made up false history that you are trying to present. Oh, by the way this information is available elsewhere, presented by those who know. And stop trying to edit my comments, it won't be tolerated.

I'm not sure who you are talking to, sorry. But, I can safely say the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the SNM. Davidamos (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you answer someone who will not listen to plain statements? I am also familiar with the Assemblies of Yahweh since the 60's and remember those "Namers" attending a service once in a while and bringing their diverse doctrines to Elder Meyer. When presented with Scripture, they wandered away again. Amid all this the Assemblies of Yahweh continued to grow and has been blessed to spread Yahweh's Way around the world.

So, how do you address this assertion that the Assemblies of Yahweh is part of the Sacred Name Movement? Since Wikipedia is able to be quoted in Wikipedia, reference the SNM article:

First Witness

Second Witness

The Assemblies of Yahweh has a Unity conference each year, The Feast of Tabernacles and does not attend the SNM's "Unity" conference. Amos 3:3.

The statement at the head of the Assemblies of Yahweh article must stand as written.WEMUS (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole question of whether the Assemblies of Yahweh is, or is not, part of the Sacred Name Movement is complicated by the way people inside and outside of the AoY conceive the SNM. How formally is a "movement" defined? For insiders, it appears to be a question of alliances, links, and fellowships with certain specific groups and people. For outsiders, being part of the SNM is marked by using Hebrew forms for Sacred Names. These two views, each using different criteria, seem to have led to editing and reverting on this point. Since Wikipedia is written to inform outsiders, I have a gentle proposal. Would it be acceptable to all sides if the article contained a sentence that said something like, "Though the Assemblies of Yahweh does stress the use of Hebrew forms of sacred names, and does celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles and other Levitical commands, (traits that are shared by many in the broader sacred name movement), it is not formally linked to any organizational Sacred Name Movement"? Would something like this be helpful and acceptable?? Pete unseth (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with that suggestion Pete. It wouldn’t be helpful at all. The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement and that statement is plainly put in the article. Apparently, in the SNM, a battle over doctrines exist, which is why the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of that movement. In Citer (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

They are those who keep claiming the Assemblies of Yahweh should use their own web page to present information about them. Perhaps they don't recognise the purpose of a encyclopedia:

The very reason why doctrines are presented on any religious page on this encyclopedia, is that anyone reading can see if the doctrines are accurate, and in accordance with the Bible. Now we're getting claims that they are a cult? It's the very reason why the doctrines are on the website, so all can determine for themselves what they are, and what they aren't.

Now, could we please have tolerance of all faiths on this encyclopedia.

REPLY: You have been tolerated way to much. Your endless removal of the factual statements of the original article are deplorable. You continually try to change the real facts and present a distorted view of the historical facts. Aren't you proud of your groups teachings? Like the fact that your organization has for years proclaimed that "Jesus Christ", "God", and the "Lord" are pagan deities? You continually try to remove this fact from the article. Perhaps your doctrines have been proven to be "kook religion" by Biblical scholars and you don't like it? It appears that you are running for cover! And as for Assemblies of Yahweh status as a cult, you maybe should check this list of cults out as found on google:

Perhaps you should check with groups like Yahweh's Philadelphia Truth Assembly and people like Don Mansager and perhaps Jacob O. Meyer's very own sister, Mildred Deck and his brother, Carl Meyer, and several of his children, like his daughter Rachel, who left the Assemblies of Yahweh... get your facts straight before you come in here and start whining.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.161 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I communicated within the last year to the President of YPTC, Don's grandchild, Mildred and Rachel they seemed to be very cordial speaking in reference to the Assemblies of Yahweh and Elder Jacob O. Meyer. Go figure! Maybe it's just me though. WEMUS (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca VanderMeulen (WEMUS) has never been a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh and is therefore no expert on the subject. Meyer has said that she is distant relitive. This only shows a propensity for biased reporting, not only here but in the Reading Eagle as well. Case closed!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.65.95 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, can certainly say I am proud of the teachings of the Assemblies of Yahweh. Firstly however, I think you may have got a few things wrong. You claimed that "Jesus Christ", "God", and the "Lord" are pagan deities, in the view of the Assemblies of Yahweh. The Assemblies of Yahweh does not use these terms because they are pagan surrogates. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever, for using the Latinised form, a Greek Substitute (Jesus) for the authentic Semitic Name of the Messiah, our saviour (Yahshua). The Assemblies of Yahweh stand for truth, therefore they rid from their lives (and language) the things which are polluted.

I don't need to check the lists of cults out on google. As far as I understand, all three major religions have been referred to as cults throughout history.


BTW - There seems to be some criticism against the Assemblies of Yahweh because people have left. Relatives and so on. What can anyone say? Those who left voluntarily did so by their own will, those few who were forced to leave, did so because they were not following the Scriptures as they should of been, as a member of the Assemblies fo Yahweh. Unlike most groups in the world, the Assemblies of Yahweh does have a standard by which they live. This is sometimes used against the Assemblies of Yahweh, and yet, if they were to reject this moral standard, the Bible, they would only become like any other religion. Consequently, this is why some people have left. Obviously the intention of the Assemblies of Yahweh isn't to have people leave, but if people do not want to live up to the biblical standard, they will undoubtedly be convicted, and leave and those who arn't convicted will be forced to...Davidamos (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert Encyclopédie. University of Michigan Library:Scholarly Publishing Office and DLXS. Retrieved on: November 17, 2007

Footnotes

[edit]

I'm new. Is it possible and acceptable that I add footnotes to this page, it would really help. Davidamos 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There was one note already present, whcih I've made visible. More can be added according to Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Tikiwont 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also check WP:CITE for the reference formats. --Tikiwont 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HalleluYah. Thanks for that. Could you tell me also how to upload pictures? It would be greatly appreciated. Davidamos 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would start at Wikipedia:Uploading images and try to avoid getting in Copyvio trouble. --Tikiwont 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Thanks a lot. Davidamos 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV

[edit]

There sure is a lot of disinformation on Wikipedia isn't there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.142.89 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to address the COI, POV, and organizational issues of the article by adding referenced content then by all means, go ahead. --NeilN 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While much of the information in this article is interesting, a great deal of it is phrased in a biased manner. Could there be a way of rewording the removed material (now in "history") and perhaps reformatting it into "AOY rules," "AOY criticism," etc.? --TurabianNights 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please stick to the facts and do not add religious tracts here. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX --NeilN 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bunch of info to this article. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! --WEMUS —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an anom that is editing this article and placing false information into it (Ref: some unnamed website). When I edit it back, he undoes. Is there a way to address it with an anom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This anom has now backed up all the edits done by me, Acroterion and NeilN. All the work we did is now reverted. What can we do? WEMUS 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. The Assemblies of Yahweh questions the term "God" for use as the name associated with the heavenly father. Would it be out of line to change the word God in the article to something that is more general, such as heavenly Father or Creator, or some other term that someone would come up with? We could add a sentence that says they disavow the term God? May explain the Assemblies of Yahweh's belief better? WEMUS 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about the AOY rather than by he AOY, my feeling is to use the more general and succinct term. By the way, I think I'll put up a request for comment on the article to get more eyes on it. If I request page protection it will end up fully protected, and no matter what, it will be the wrong version [1]. Acroterion (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion makes sense.I reread the article on the Name Yahweh and they state it just about exactly like you did. (I hope that the RFC page yeilds results. The way it was completely reverted doesn't give a lot of hope that the anom will respond though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind the RfC is to involve a wider portion of the community to gain a consensus. Protection just freezes it somewhere until the warring party(ies) give up and go away, which usually isn't productive. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. The Assemblies of Yahweh site has a lot of substantiation behind what is quoted in this article. Is it correct protocol and NPOV to put reference-links back to the subject of the article's site? Thanks! WEMUS 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]
The RFC below used the main article title as the section name, but the section is actually "RfC". The template has been corrected. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that Wikipedia if used correctly will be an area that educates individuals on a subject. My issue with the article in its present state is that there is little information about what or who the Assemblies of Yahweh is. I hope it can be remedied. WEMUS 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page is a lot better now, but could still do with some more information on it's good reputation. Also, would it be acceptable to change the term "god" to Yahweh? sorry forgot my signature Davidamos 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See our discussion immediately above about terminology. Thanks for the input, and remember to keep a neutral point of view. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I've changed one minor part in the document which ws inaccurate. It commmented on a former member and different religions, as if thye was still part of the Assemblies of Yahweh. ""Yahweh's Philadelphia Truth". Another is Jacob C. Meyer who is pastor of an Assembly in Frystown, Pennsylvania." "Frystown Assembly"" Davidamos 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

[edit]
  • The Outreach section needs to be trimmed and summarized as it's now looking to be a listing.
  • The Criticism section has been neutered by removing the associated explanation. I think the wording should be put back --NeilN 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dissenting Opinion-We are forced to stick, by Wikipedia standards, to facts/sources so we don't end up with a soapbox article. If the Critisism section can list, as you have asserted, associated explainations, than by the same standard, full explanations can be placed in the doctrine section as to their beliefs. WEMUS 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty misleading. The doctrine section has a full introductory paragraph and the accepted beliefs have full sentences, not one or two word points. --NeilN 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about citation, with a few words of explanation, instead of just a link? Also, I am willing to concede on the Outreach section and try to narrow it down to mainly ways of outreach instead of listing. All this is dependant of course on this anom getting bored. WEMUS 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've reverted back to your last version. --NeilN 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now semi-protected, since the main problem appears to be a single IP editor. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Sir (Or Ma'am) for working in the best interest of this article. WEMUS 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can I just say the page is much better. I appreicate everyones work. I deleted a small bullet point claiming that the Assemblies of Yahweh had been accused of Pharisical attitudes. This is clearly wrong. The Assemblies of Yahweh enforce the need to be spiritual people through keeping of the commandments. Thank you. I'm willing to discuss further. Davidamos 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, would it be possible to stop users from changing this page to the really bad versions? WEMUS page is good, yet someone kkeeps trying to change it! Davidamos (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adbot has changed the page back to an older and worse version, that is inaccurate and that most concluded, was false. Would the moderaters please ban or at least, prevent adbot from making such changes? Davidamos (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

[edit]

I have placed the notability tag on this article. There's nothing in the article that indicates significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sources, mainly from past history but some are quite critical. Royal Lineage (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverted to previous edit

[edit]

Reverted (11/17/2008) to previous edit by Jayjg to keep more streamlined.

Inspiration and Greek New Testament

[edit]

The current statement of beliefs states that the AoY reject inspiration of the Greek New Testament. It would be helpful to me if the belief was stated in the positive, in a more informative way, stating that AoY believes that the NT was inspired in Hebrew, Aramiac, or Syriac; or that it was not inspired at all. As it is, it wells what they do not believe, but does not tell what they do believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think concern has already been raised about introducing too much information of wikipedia about the Assemblies of Yahweh. The Assemblies of Yahweh do not believe the New Testament was originally written in Greek, nor do they believe in any such thing as an Inspired translation, since all translations are the work of "fallible man". They believe in the Inspired Scriptures, but not in a inspired translation.In Citer (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

[edit]

I'm pretty concerned on congratulating someone for removing almost all the article's references, as well as the {{reflist}} tag and the interwiki that is still valid, even if it's out of grose negligence, I don't think such a person should be rewarded as an article's "watch dog". --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a newer user than me! I don't really understand where you are coming from. Fctedt (talk · contribs) has been around for almost two years it seems and has done a really good job in maintaining the article. When he pointed out his problem with my edits, I checked his own history and realised, no one had even so much as thanked him for all his effort in preventing the vandalism against this article. Whether you like it or not, I would say that's worth a barnstar. I have awarded a barnstar to another user also. If you are concerned about awarding a barnstar, then why don't you take over as a patroller? In Citer (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm just a reader and I prefer staying that way. I don't see where you're comming from either, with this rough tone against me, actually. I would however think you should be a little more temperate and try to explain nice to me, in stead of lashing to my throat.
My main and only problem is that someone that makes an article so little in content, makes it so it's pretty easy now for anyone to take it on a successful AfD (as the tag proves it) and removes technical information (the tag reflist) and an interwiki that is viable (the one twoards the hu wikipedia), not to mention reducing it from over 20 sources to 3 that he makes sure, either out of incompetence or malice, so they appear either, is a very concerning point for me. That fact that such a user is considered a protector of an article, while leaving it without sources, makes me concerned as an editor.
The fact that I have to dig up through the history page to find consistent and cited information doesn't fall too well with me either. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of recent reference box

[edit]

The reason I removed the recent reference box was that most of the references did not relate to the AOY. I.e.: The article has already established that the AOY is not a Christian organization having Christian doctrines (see opening with AOY Statement of Doctrine reference). Most of the proposed references where for Christian organizations or other such material/organizations also not related to the AOY. I would have done the same to references of there being laws kept in Islam that appear similar or Islamic messianic references etc... or there being offices of "elder" in Mormonism and so forth. They just would not truly apply. I know that people like to compare one thing to another but it should factually apply. Also this AOY article has been hard to keep stable. A lot of people have wanted to assert opinions of what the AOY does or proclaims. The goal has been to keep this article streamlined and only state (briefly) some of the things that the AOY actually does or proclaims. Not what some one thinks or believes they say or do. Removal of this recent reference box was in effort to continue this. First, referencing an item from the AOY article to a Christian reference could be (even if well intentioned) some one's opinion. (As the AOY claims and exhibits itself as not being Christian such references would not factually apply) Second, such references in the past have led to battles of opinions. Third, streamlining is maintained by removal of non sequitur references. I realize that it is hard to reference this article to other sources. Hopefully this will explain my actions somewhat for now. If not, please continue the discussion. Fctedt (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now Template:The Assemblies of Yahweh, so I think further discussion should go to Template talk:The Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two users are discontent

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

They want the AOY article deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major policies here is to assume good faith. The fact that I simply asked for the specific users in question resulted in you believing that I want the article deleted isn't going to help. Attacking everyone who discusses this article is not a good strategy going forward. As to the article, most of my edits are getting the article in line with the Manual of Style. While technically not a consideration, I will say that I know that articles which seems to be "unique" in their formatting (like the strange coloring) tends to look poorly. The article needs citations for its information (preferably neutral outsider views) and if they aren't provided, the burden is on those who want to add information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky not helping

[edit]

A user admin called ricky, a christian, has made some ghastly changes to the article, removing images, paragraphs etc. My talks arent working. Any one else who feels these edits worsenify the articel, please say so. Ricky complains that he doesnt want a edit war but whenever some one changes the article, he changes it back with a really bad excuse. IMO: You are not improving the article. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you ricky whoever you are. I know nothing about this denomination, nor do i want to, but this article is aweful when various wikipedia policies are taken into account and has all the hallmarks of being heavily edited by folks with a WP:COI problem. It should probably stubbified soon. Have added it to my watchlist and will think about whether i can help improve this article. Thanks for brining this to my attention 212.103 etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"advertisement" tag

[edit]

This article is presented as what the AOY professes to proclaim. Most, if not all (I have not had time to review them all yet but have about 100) do this with out citing third parties as to what the religious organization itself professes to believe. What is presented in this article (AOY) is not an opinion of what the AOY publicly proclaims but is taken and referenced from the AOY's own publicly published statement of doctrine. As stated, this is the practice of articles of this nature (religious organizations) on Wikipdia. I have yet to see a call for the removal of all articles concerning religious organizations because of this practice. This is a commonly accepted practice for articles of this nature. (Except, for some reason, the AOY) Please see some of my other discussions on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_references_for_AOY_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:In_Citer#Thoughts_on_Assemblies_of_Yahweh_page_Doctrinal_Beliefs_section Other items in the AOY article are public (i.e. WMLK, radio, television and internet broadcast) or otherwise referenced (i.e. published books with library of congress catalogue numbers) Care has been taken to relate only what the AOY publicly proclaims to profess (as in the organization's doctrinal beliefs) or what is other wise publicly published. No discussions are entered into of the right or wrong of the AOY's doctrines. No opinions are given as to what the AOY publicly professes. None of the public activities (i.e. broadcast, publications etc...) presented are any one's opinion that these are done publicly. Because of this the AOY article is one of the more brief articles of a religious organization on Wikipedia. Effort will be made in the very near future (as of 1/2/09) to tighten up any other lose ends. Please discuss any ideas on this page's discussion or my talk page. Fctedt (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've retagged pending consensus found here. Still reads like a COI-riddled advert to me too. I have never edited an article like this before, so it's possible that notability is different in this area, though i doubt it. As it stands now, not a single independent source on this congregation. Will think on this some more.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fct, you seem to be of the mistaken impression that primary sources are prefered; they're actually seen as the least reliable for these sorts of things. Have a read of the following WP:V WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Should be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still looking at even more articles on religious organizations. Still am not seeing any third party references as to what the organization's themselves publicly proclaim. Please note also recent comment by an admin. on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fctedt#Assemblies_of_Yahweh Because of the nature of these type of articles I am not sure what can be done. It might be helpful if I could be directed to a religious organization's article that cites third parties as to what that organization proclaims. I have spent many hours looking and am not getting anywhere. Thank you for your time. Fctedt (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Roman Catholic Church is a good one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article before as this is one of the largest (if not the largest) main stream religion. If you take a few minutes to look at their references (and there are many) you will see that almost all of them quote their own publishings such as their "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and "Code of Canon Law" (i.e. see notes 28,29,33,40,56,63,75,84,85,91,98,100,105,107,113, 119,121,122,125,126,128,141,142,143,147,148,151,156,157,161,162, 166,168 and others). Note that most of the books quoted are from their own presses, and they have many (see i.e. from their reference list - SCM Press, Ignatius Press, Paulist Press, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Servant Publications, Scepter Publications, and others). You will note that almost all of the other books quoted are written by Catholic writers on self contained subjects. There are also references to the Vatican website (see note 152 for example among others) Some sections can be construed as opinion and would at least be contested by thousands of third parties. (see paragraphs where notes 17-23 are for one area of example) I have noted that there are no "notability" or "advert" tags on this article. I also do not contest that this article is what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Perhaps there is a better example or I am not understanding something here. Thank you for your time. Fctedt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fct, I try to look at what you write and this is what i see. "walloftext.walloftext.walloftext." This is probably due to a deficiency of mine. But as a favor, could you make your point simply and briefly? Of course, not all primary sources are thrown out and of course some primary explanation of what a church believes is good, but the question becomes one of verifiability WP:V via reliable sources WP:RS sufficient to establish notability WP:NOTE.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. The Roman Catholic Church article contains hardly any outside sources of reference. Over 90% of it (a quick but not far off estimate) quotes from 1. Their own doctrinal statements or their own websites. 2. Books from their own presses. 3. Catholic writters/representatives writing about their own church. 4. Some areas contain opinion only, not verified by anything. (The numbers here, 1-4, can be referenced as "bullet points" to the same numbered parts of the more detailed above message. In the above message (sec. 1.) the note numers (i.e. 28,29,33,40 etc...) refer to some reference notes in the RCC article given as example. Above in sec. 2. are some of the publishing presses (all Catholic) listed in the RCC article reference list. Sec. 3. Catholic authors other wise published may take more investigation of the RCC reference list but they are there. Sec. 4. refers one to the main body of the RCC article in the area of notes 17-23 (within the main text) as an example of opinion only in their article. The only things not referenced of themselves are mainly statistical material. (Mostly because of their size (even their head quarters the Vatican is considered a country) and the AOY article has no such material in it's article) Sorry for all of the text again but I'm trying to get this nailed down. In summary - I have found no religious organization article (including and perhaps even especially this Roman Catholic Church article) that does not violate in a far grander scale the same charges leveled at the AOY article. I hope you will have the time to more closely examine this example. Fctedt (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be where you and I are having a failure to communicate. I just cast an eye over the Roman Catholic article and I count at minimum 30 reliable secondary sources (the actual number could be much higher; but i'd stake my live on 20 there at present). Yet you write it contains "hardly any outside sources or references." This may be a problem I don't know how to overcome. I look at citations and see dozens of independent ones; you look and see "hardly any."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point them out to me soon. Even if there where 30 or 40 (out of 410) that still leaves over 90% self referenced material.(For a very large article) As for now I've got to go to bed. Thanks for your time (seriously). Fctedt (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a favor to you, i've looked over the Roman Catholic Church article citations. All of the following pass muster as per WP:RS - Woodhead; McClintock; the CIA; Aguilar; Barker; Black; Bokenkotter; Bruni; both Chadwicks; Collinson; Deak; Derrett; Duffy; etc... Ok, i give up. It looks like the preponderance of those sources are reliable and independent. Obviously, your faith is smaller and not as old, so it's not surprisign there's much less about it then the Catholic church. At the moment, the Assemblies of Yahweh article has one cite that looks like it might be RS, which is the one from the Reading Eagle.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Section

[edit]

Is there any reason to keep this section? There are no sources/citations. While if this church is going to have an entry at all, it should mention the books and magazines it publishes, that should just be a sentence or two under a heading like "publications and broadcast." The rest of the stuff in this section for which there are no sources/citations seems like non-notable stuff that most churches do (i mean, bullet points for the fact that it holds sabbath services and has a website?) Some of this stuff could be summarized elswhere. Taking a stab at this now.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to give it a shot some time very soon and will certainly be taking your suggestions into account. But for now, I've been on this all day and need to eat and sleep. Could I have a day or 2?Fctedt (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last question(s) for the day. Why are LCN's given for books not a good enough outside reference to list some of the books that are published by an organization? Also could there be some time allowed for discussion and consideration of more than just a few minutes before changes are made? Fctedt (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrines and beliefs

[edit]

I'm going to leave this alone for now, because it seems obvious to me that some of teh editors on this are members of this church. I understand this might be an important issue for them. But, someone, please, get rid of the bullet points about their doctrine and the bullet points on what is rejected as "unbiblical." Try to right, oh, about 200 words focusing on how they differ from better known congregations, or areas where they place greater and lesser emphasis. I'm sure a book could be written on this churches beliefs; but encyclopedia articles are just supposed to have the highlights. Please give it a shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I thought bullet points where highlights. For some time the effort has been to keep things brief. This article, for such a small one, receives constant pressure. I can not imagine the response if it where to increase and begin to have discussion within the article. For now I need to rest and absorb all of this and need a couple of days. Fctedt (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article may received constant pressure because it's promotional in tone and it's hard to establish notability without reliable secondary sources, of which there are very few. Somewhere up above you asked a question about the books - a list of self-published books of no demonstrated notability just seems like advertising; i left in the one self-published book that seems most important to the church (a book listed simply as "commentaries on galacians" or whatever doesn't leap up to the tops of the notability ranks).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent edits

[edit]

I have not complained with your major edits being done without discussion. Again you move before anyone can respond. If you are concerned about Wik policies please be concerned with all of them. I tried to work with you here. Hardly any thing was change in your personal edits. Please allow some time to discuss. You are beginning to appear as if you have an agenda. You don't have to attack before listening. Once again I'm trying to work with you here. PLEASE discuss.Fctedt (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an agenda? You are an SPA with an apperent WP:COI whereas I never heard of this church/sect/whatever until a week ago. I invite any uninvolved editor to review the changes i've made and see if they've improved this article or not. Do not attack my motives again. As for cuts, there have been very little -- just a cut down in redundant puffery like bullet points for "conducts ministerial outreach."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contending the over all edits. Only the rush to make changes without any apparent willingness to discuss, which I am trying to do. I made one minor edit (actually shortening the article further) on something that was not current (stating that I could not at this time find a reliable current third party reference). I did not try to change your re-write. Instantly without any regard to reading the message I sent you it was undone. This is all I am complaining about. I told you I am trying to work with you. I have thanked you for your time. As far as your "SPA" and "WP:COI" charges - I have always tried to maintain, openly on all of my discussions and actions, this article on this organization as one that was simply presenting what they themselves publicly proclaim. No pushing their beliefs, only that this is what they themselves proclaim, put out over the air and publish. As you noted (to another editor you where looking to get back up for a deletion of this article) this article draws a lot of extremes. It has been very hard to maintain with any semblance of sanity. If I or any of a few others have not done a perfect job in maintaining it this way it has been a mistake. I also admit that I may be overly sensitive to "agendas". (Although you may think I have an agenda, I assure I am trying to maintain this article in "good faith") As I have said, I am trying to work with this. I have tried to discuss thoroughly every step of the way. All I ask is the same. I really do not have a problem with the way the article is overall at this time. (except for the minor edit I tried and have put in discussion for a couple of days before any action). Also, please allow some time for some more third party references. I have a real life to tend to also. There are at this time at least a few and it is a very short article. Once again, Thank you for your time and I am trying to work with all of this. Fctedt (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific complaints? Any specific ideas to improve the article? Any specific reliable sources (read WP:RS) that we could use? If your intent here is to create an unvarnished reflection of what this church says and broadcasts, why bother? Their websites and broadcasts serve that function better then we ever could. As for you you are definitionally an WP:SPA and as i said you "appear" to have a conflict of interest WP:COI. If my presumption that you are affailiated in some way with this church is wrong, please correct me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not contending with you. (if you send me your address I'll even send you flowers!:) ) I completely accept your input on this. As far as what this organization publicly proclaims or broadcasts I have never inserted any opinion (or "varnishing"). These are matters of public record and that has always been my point. How these proclamations and broadcast have been received or the results of them are an entirely different matter that I have tried very hard to stay away from in my efforts on this article. My only suggestion for now, you can view from my last edit. (except now without removing the statistical info) Any forthcoming changes at least in the near future will be only for more third party references. ANY thing I propose to add or change in the future will be alerted by discussion prior to action. Fctedt (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be more specific about what is at issue. Eventually this will be archived and vague sections are of little help. I'm guessing it's about this dispute over its membership size. If so, let's rename the section heading and see what sources are there on its size. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all slow down and think gentle thoughts about how to proceed. It has been true that this article has contained some material that is more promotional than informational, but let's move slowly in major cuts. Wikipedia needs an article about this group, but the usual call for outside sources will be hard to fulfill. And let's all check our grammar & spelling. Pete unseth (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed minor edit

[edit]

A Proposal. A Discussion. I propose to delete some statistical information that was taken from a newspaper article that is now 2 years old. Numbers such as this change at least yearly. It is known that they are different now. I can provide no reliable sources for any updates at this time. The information is minor and takes nothing away from the main thrust of the article. In order to remove this from one of the sentences, the beginning of the sentence will have to be slightly re-worded for grammar without changing the rest of the sentence. A minor spelling correction will be made. The indicator PA will be inserted by the place name Bethel to clarify as Bethel PA. This location is indicated by at least 2 outside source references currently in the article. Nothing else will be changed with the article at this time. I'm not saying the newspaper article referenced is out of date, only statistical numbers that understandably change after a couple of years. The main story is relevant. I will leave ths discussion here for at least 2 days as of this posting before making any changes. If there is a consensus that the change is agreeable feel free to change it to my proposal. (the change will be back to the last fctedt change in the history) Thank you. Fctedt (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is the only reliable secondary source your church has -- and the single most relevant fact to a user with no knowledge of this church is an indicator of how big or small it is. Relevance, notability and verifiability should determine the thrust of the article. A user named ricky has specified the article was written in 2006 in the text, which seems reasonable. I don't see any controversy in explaining they're in Bethel "PA." Feel free to do any minor grammar or spelling fixes without seeking consensus (if they really are such). Do NOT remove the only reliable source this article has giving an indicator of this churche's size.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will hold with this. I did not note that edit by Ricky. I will now only propose the other minor edits from my first proposal. Please read and compare this edit and discuss before reverting. Thank you Fctedt (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I would rather have newer information but I cannot even find information on the church's website. We should have something. We typically follow a cycle of WP:BRD, which encourages people to be bold first and then discuss afterwards if there's an issue. Feel free to edit but if someone else reverts, then discussion makes sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here is are the edit details. (Of course they can be seen on the compares)- Meyer and Meyers (a miss-spell) to Elder Meyer per all published material and public broadcast. Per rest of current article and per these 4 third party nonreligious records: http://www.worldofradio.com/com0305.html http://www.totse.com/en/media/radio_free_amerika/anarc11.html http://www.textfiles.com/hamradio/anarc11.ham http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:YIs5YRqqfc8J:shortwave.org/news/NEWSLETTER_0606.PDF+elder+jacob+o.+meyer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=66&gl=us (May have to do a page word search to save time) Per having some semblance of decorum in light of these "pers". - "His" group to "the" group per all publishings and broadcast. Also referenced newspaper article always refers to "the" not "his". - "Assemblies" to full name (keeping clear) per practice of all other Wik religious group articles and uniformity with the rest of this particular article. (also added "as of 2006" wording as at beginning of article) Thats it for now. Fctedt (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposed references

[edit]

Would like to start a new section of discussion - "proposed references". Here is a reference for consideration -http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/DOC/NC_DOC_Religious_Practices_Reference_Manual.pdf Here is the home address of this document http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/links_NorthCarolinaCorrectionsInfo.htm It could be used as an additional reference for doctrines of the AOY in article. Possibly could add a line or two in the article to use this, but I personally do not want to add any more at this time. Would prefer to incorporate it in to support existent material. Any way, could/should it be used? (do a doc word search of "Yahweh" for ease of finding the material in manual.) Fctedt (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A North Carolina manual on what religions are allowed in prison? It will have to do. What text would you like to write that is supported by this citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to add any text at this time. The manual does describe doctrines and practices of the AOY from a definite third party of an officially recognized entity (NC DOC) . Maybe add it as a second ref with the SOD ref at the first sentence of the doctrine section? Or, could it just be placed as a general ref in the list just to establish some notability? If this, then perhaps there could just be a "notability" ref list also containing some of the 3rd party publications I see from the notability section below. Fctedt (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fct -- Do not be concerned that this article needs more citations to save it from deletion. This article will persist in some form, and it should. No reasonable person would contest that the Assemblies exist, so there's no need for sources that only mention the group trivially (and so confirm nothing more than its existence). Now, what form this article will take, what weight is given to various items, its length and general tone etc... are another matter and I believe many changes are needed. I think I now understand what the assemblies are -- they're a subset of a broader religious trend called the Sacred Name Movement; i would like to be able to frame the article in this way, but unfortunately my understanding at the moment amounts to original research which can't be used. Are there any reliable secondary sources that have addressed the nature of the Assemblies of Yahweh? If we can find them, those are the sorts of references that would help in improving this article.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will hold on to that DOC ref for now. Having the AOY as part of the "Sacred Name Movement" will become quite problematical. There are those who would try to make association for one reason or another (often in ignorance) and is for now another discussion. The AOY itself claims no association (see the intro to their statement of doctrine). Right now the "Sacred Name Movement" article on Wik makes no mention of the AOY in the "family tree" section and states that the AOY is not part of the SNM. (See family tree section in said article) This article though is quite problematical. The newspaper article ref in the AOY article is called "home grown" faith as it points out in the intro that the AOY developed independently from the teachings of Elder Meyer. Right now that's all I have off the top of my head. This thread is definitely another discussion and if you stay involved you will surely see the "fly paper" effect you spoke of in another post! Fctedt (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali, as to your recent edit of 16:59, 6 January 2009 - "... in order to understand the will...must be adhered to as infallible". I see from the 1st point of their SOD that harmony is spoken of in importance of understanding. I'm going to try adjusting the sentences here to incorporate both thoughts and add the SOD ref along with the one there. I leave the ref off the 2nd sentence of the section because it is covered under ref of previous sentence (np article) and by the SOD ref itself of the next sentence. Let's see what it looks like. Fctedt (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have obtained some good 3rd party refs and will be adjusting some text to reflect ref material and adding the refs in the next couple of days. Can someone keep an eye out and make sure the refs set right in the structure. (also see the ref I added on this date as far as being entered properly. Is it OK to double refs at a sentence or section? Thanks) Fctedt (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

[edit]

The AOY is notable: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&q=assemblies%20of%20yahweh&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by In Citer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) How can two established users like Bali and Ricky constantly claim that the Assemblies of Yahweh isn't notable, when they can be found mentioned on hundred of sites and in books with only a click of a button? Perhaps Ricky can tell? It took me 5 seconds to find these links In Citer (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a point to this or are you going to put up google links without a thought at all? Can you point to a comment here by me that this is in response to? Otherwise, is there a reason for all the hostility? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merger of Obadiah School article

[edit]

There has been a call to merge the Obadiah School article with this article. I would like to see both articles continuing separately. The Obadiah School article is still longer on persuasion than information, but I would like to see it improved rather than deleted. Pete unseth (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if enough can be gathered to warrant a full fledged article at this time. (At least by Jan 10) I am finding a few references on Obadiah School while gathering references for this AOY article. It should make for a good section in this AOY article to help flesh it out. (It is a part of what the AOY does) Can the Obadiah School article be archived somehow to draw upon later for inclusion into the AOY article? Fctedt (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with fct that here is the appropriate place. I've brought in the salient details already.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going to remove last sentence of 1st paragraph at educational section (concerning Obadiah school). Only says that Obd. Fraternity was before school. 1 ref was from 2002 and didn't address the statement. Not sure if the other ref was relevant either. Have a 3rd party ref that gives start of Obd. school as 1974. Paragraph already states that "Fraternity" started in 1973 and now "School" in 1974. Self evident that "fraternity" was before "school. Fctedt (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede

[edit]

Now, in a word, is long, out of sorts with policy, breathlessly advertorial in tone. Long, advertorial, painful. I'll chop into shape in the morning. This is just a heads up.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new opening paragraph I recently put up is almost quoted from hard copy books (and refed there) I have copied from the library. The main area I see now that needs major change is in the Obadiah school parts (not so well refed). I will trim some of this tonight and we all can see what it looks like. After that I not so sure slash and burn is appropriate at this time. Fctedt (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished with some trimming and structuring. Most of the material remaining is quoted from books or very closely paraphrased. Will continue looking for more refs, but at least there are several now for such a short article. Maybe some minor changes in days or weeks to come based on collating better the info in the available books or refs to come. Fctedt (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed work group

[edit]

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else interested in this? If so, how can we categorize groups that overlap? In Citer (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I've decided to merge the AOY articles I have created to the main page. After all, most of the AOY pages I created have been merged or deleted anyway. Might as way put all the references on one page so everyone can easily reference. That's my opinion. I'll get rid of the bad sources and try to stick with good ones that way. In Citer (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've changed the heading so it matches all the merger links. I disagree with mergers. Dalet School, WMLK and Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition seem fine as independent articles and probably could stay that way. Combining them would also make a complete mess of the categories (we'd have religious categories, school categories, radio categories and biblical categories all in one article). In fact, I really don't see why we should merge Jacob O. Meyer here. He is a separate individual and his biography is fine on its own. The problem is poor sources and that's just it. No need to combine references, just improve them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky. I've had a look for sources but haven't been too successful which is the main problem I have. I also had a look through wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it seems that a redirect would probably be best. (Edit: I don't have many third party refs anyway) Additionally, since the AOY articles have been reduced from 7 to 4 articles - the other 3 being turned in to redirects - I feel the main focus should be to make sure the AOY article can be redirected to. For example, at the moment the Obadiah School of the Bible article redirects to the AOY page, but not any specific part of it. Most of the previous headings on the AOY articles have been deleted and so there’s no clear structure for redirects. I'll see if I can improve it.

I'm still considering it so, thank you for your opinion so far. In Citer (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the truth is we've listing everything and those articles have stayed. Obadiah didn't survive because we couldn't find a source for it. What can we add if we didn't have a source at all before? Dalet school is sourced. WMLK has the FCC source (the rest I admit is a mess) and the Bible I cannot even figure out how it managed to survive AFD but it did. I don't see a reason to be concerned it's going to fall from 4 even less. Now, the main AOY does need to be rewritten so that it better includes the others, but I still don't think there's a need for a merger. We can however work on summarizing every other article in the main AOY one and then see if merger just simplifies things. I think we can all agree to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice, thank you. I would appreciate your help on summarizing the other articles on the AOY. Could we try to keep the summaries as brief as possible? I don't want to be accused of WP:NOTE again :) In Citer (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed to merge the article for Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition into this broader AoY article. I would plead for keeping the article on the Bible as a stand-alone article, though linked to the main AoY article. There are readers who are interested in the translation itself, but not so interested in the AoY and the larger context. Let them both continue independently. Pete unseth (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposed removal of tags on talk page

[edit]

Propose removing the "christianity portal" tag on this talk page. The Assemblies of Yahweh is not a christian organization. The article states this with third party reference. The AOY's own statement of doctrine that is referenced shows this to be the case. A brief search will show that christian groups reject the AOY for not holding core christian beliefs. Also propose removing the other tag as it is out of date and no longer relevant. (Tidy up the place!) Fctedt (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

middle name

[edit]

What does the O stand for in Elder Jacob O. Meyers middle name?I always wondered why he never mentioned that.Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.156.215 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AOY, Elder Jacob O. Meyer and the JW's

[edit]

Will be reverting the AOY article back to it's last "verifiable" form. As it was, there where verifiable third party reffs from available published books. There is absolutely no record of Elder Jacob O. Meyer ever having any involvement with the Jehovah's Wittnesses. The insertion of this inacurate information does not even make any sense with the previous surrounding text. It certainly does not match the reffs given. It seems like some personal agenda and is without any discernible merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fctedt (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SNM merging with the AOY

[edit]

There has been some speculation and discussion about the SNM merging with or under the Assemblies of Yahweh. I don't know if this is worth mentioning. I have a blog here from 2009 which addresses the issue dated Thursday, 14 May 2009. There have been a few discussions on the subject in the SNM (SNMovement) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to improve page

[edit]

The AOY article is in a stable condition but it could do with improving. I plan on attempting to improve this article in the near future. If anyone has anything to say about my edits, or have suggestions to how we can improve the page, please write it below. In Citer (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) The first thing I'd like to concentrate on is the WP:LEAD. I think it could be improved and made in to a more succinct paragraph describing the faith. In Citer (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the AOY article. I hope that the edits have improved the article. Before the edits, the article just seemed like a block of text with no formatting whatsoever. I was thinking of adding a quote box to the article with the first 10 points of the Statement of Doctrine included in it. Would like to hear other people's opinions on that, and the edits that I've done so far. In Citer (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering about the 'doctrinal beliefs' section if it's really necessary to state even some of the doctrines of the AOY. I'm considering just deleting the sections 'Doctrines include' and 'Doctrines exclude'. Let me know what you think In Citer (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC) The AOY do believe in creationism. I don't know if that should be mentioned in the article... In Citer (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor2020, just wondering why you deleted the 'doctrines exclude' section, and left the 'doctrines include' section. Thanks In Citer (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "Doctrines include" section has references. Editor2020, Talk 15:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at the references provided, they seem to be of very poor quality. I would probably mark for improvement, and delete if not provided in a reasonable time. Editor2020, Talk 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Assemblies of Yahweh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Assemblies of Yahweh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone remove this article from the Chr-stian denomination list

[edit]

So we have a big problem with this article. I know people would like to believe the Assemblies of Yahweh is a Chr-stian denomination, but it isn't. When you go to Wikipedia.org and type in the 'Assemblies of Yahweh' before you type enter it says 'Christian denomination headquartered in Bethel'. I don't know who put in this definition but it needs to be changed. The Assemblies of Yahweh are not Chr-stians. In Citer (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eshatology

[edit]

Hi Editor2020. Thanks for making the changes to the article. I disagree with the changes though. I feel what you have called Eschatology should rather be Outlook as it touches on just the two points: The Beast System and the Kingdom of Yahweh. Eschatology refers to the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. It makes sense then that this should conclude the article and be rather kept at Outlook which as defined in the dictionary is 'the view or prospect from a particular place'. I think this much better describes that section. I might re-edit what you have done and put it at the end of the article as is the case for other Wikipedia articles such as the one on Mormonism etc. In Citer (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Well I've moved it to the end of the article. Maybe if the section was longer and concentrated on other points like non-belief in an eternal hell etc, then it would make sense to call it Eschatology. I thought I should add the 'witnessing' heading and the 'outlook' heading because without it this page looked like a group from the SNM i.e. completely stationary and not actively seeking to bring in others or fulfil end time prophesy In Citer (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editor2020. Just looked through other articles like that of Jehovah Witnesses and I think Eshatology would be a better heading in the 'beliefs' section as per your edit, but I've reduced the paragraph down to only that which is supported by the references. Any problems with that, let me know. Thanks In Citer (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list

[edit]

I intend on going through this article and adding proper reference templates to especially the links. If I get time to do this, or someone else has time, feel free. Just having the link for a reference could be problematical. In Citer (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was able update several external links in the Witnessing section, but several of them are still nonfunctional. Please check and update them if you can. Editor2020 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about renaming this section to "Outreach"? That is what AOY uses and I think it is better.Editor2020 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assemblies_of_Yahweh&oldid=1199099888"