Jump to content

Talk:World Mission Society Church of God/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Church image

User:Nancyinthehouse I know you want to change the photo to a more modern one but the one you have is just way too faded and not very good, which is probably why it was changed back before Wikipedia:MIQ. Do you have something that's a bit better quality? Superfly94 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a free image from their promo video. It wasn't change because of the quality but because of their copyright. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Court cases

Not to get into a huge debate or anything, but it seems like a matter of public record that the churches underwent a split. While I don't read Korean (and, as a result, don't have the language skills to do a public records request in Korea), it seems like a court case from 2005 in the Northern Seoul Regional Court found that the church was actually split right after the time of Ahnsahnghong death. See Church of God World Gospel Association v. Ji Won Tak (Korean) (English). In the Tak case the court granted the equivalent of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment on the claims that the church had brought against Tak seeking damages for "false accusations" he made in part of a publication he had written on the church, specifically sections in which he detailed the history of the church. Once again, while I can't read Korean, the English translation states, "after the death of Sang Hong Ahn, the church was indeed divided into the New Covenant Passover Church of God based in Busan and the plaintiff church based in Seoul which was the result of these two sects’ argument over making Gil Ja Chang the spiritual mother." The court dismissed the church claims because they found that the information contained in Tak's publication to be based in reality. While a thorough explanation of the church split may not be necessary, wholly taking out a relevant section of the group's history seems at best uninformed and possibly even biased. While I'm not one who has authority on this group, I believe that relevant information about it should be allowed in an impartial information bank like Wikipedia, and frankly, when it comes to factual determinations that are made in judicial, public record, you would be hard-pressed to find much stronger, objective information from any other source. I would also like to add that it would be pertinent to have a section on this page involving controversies about this group. There seem to be enough critical sources out there to warrant the inclusion of information about these controversies--and, I hate to say it, but from what I've read--i.e. the hearing transcript from World Mission Society Church of God v. Colon (of particular note, see page 30 where the Trial Court Judge discusses the claims inside a WMSCOG publication that the world is imminently ending, corroborating information contained in Tak discussing the group's various failed predictions of the end of the world)--the exclusion of such sources, particularly at the request of affiliates of the group seems to be nothing more than an attempt to bias what otherwise is objective information. 63.225.159.78 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That http://www.examiningthewmscog.com/ is an unreliable source and court documents cannot be included as a source. Been going over than for a long time and we all concluded with that issue. You can read through the talk page how everything got sorted out. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
63.225.159.78 - The history reflects the church site. It's a reliable source. Please discuss before editing. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, 63.225.159.78, for your interesting input. I agree with you. Looking at the history of this article, the 28 March 2013 version shows to what degree this article has been white-washed by church affiliates. The court case you mention, 2003 Gahap 6020 Damage Compensation (2003가합6020 손해배상) is RS and provides a lot of valuable information, especially because it cites a secondary source in details: Researches on the New Religions of Korea 2002, Collection I (subtitled, Self-Claimed Reborn Jesus Christ of Korea) [한국의 재림주들(2002 한국의 신흥종교 실태조사 연구집 1)]. Let me try to break it down for those who do not have the time to read the whole thing:
  • The Korean Ministry of Tourism funds an outsourced scholarly study of Korean new religious movements. One of many is WMSCOG.
  • The outcome of the study gets published as Researches on the New Religions of Korea 2002, Collection I (subtitled, Self-Claimed Reborn Jesus Christ of Korea) [한국의 재림주들(2002 한국의 신흥종교 실태조사 연구집 1)] Book store
  • The part that is about WMSCOG (pp.145-68) among several other things state the scholarly opinion that the church is a cult insisting on "clearly pseudo-religious heresies that can only be accepted by someone with little knowledge about Christian beliefs". I also gives details about the how Ahn's church, Witnesses of Jesus Church of God (founded in 1964) was split up after his death in 1985 into two sects: New Covenant Passover Church of God and Witnesses of Ahn Sahng-hong Church of God. World Mission Society Church of God is a rebranding of Witnesses of Ahn Sahng-hong Church of God after the church again failed to predict the end of the world in 1999.
  • The WMSCOG files a lawsuit against the publisher of the study, (it looks like they have filled numerous, we'll look into that), and in very broad terms they want their name cleared, e.g. for being labeled a cult.
  • All claims made by WMSCOG are dismissed by the court. It is an acceptable fact that the scholars describe them as a cult. As are the historical facts, which can be found summarized on the publisher website Information Network on Christian Heresy
I think what this article needs is attention from more editors to get NPOV back in the text. I will investigate what tools are available to accomplish this. Best, Sam 🎤 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information Sam. Nancy: the site itself is not the issue, but rather the fact that the files hosted on the site are third party records not authored by the site author himself, and, therefore don't involve the same presumptive bias that a blog or personal site would have. I asked over at Teahouse and the general answer that I got was that when using court cases, because they are primary sources citing them is to be done with caution. The guidelines that you reference about court documents specifically state "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Note that it does only reference living people. Further in the guidelines it does however state, "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." Here, since this page is not a biography of a living person, nor is their any question of Ahn's death in 1985, the material contained in this case doesn't get the same treatment as let's say a case about an actor or actress who is still alive. Furthermore, as applied to the religious group, the guidelines specifically state, "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons." While there still may be a presumptive caution regarding the use of these cases, I believe that the analysis Sam provides is quite helpful in determining that this appears to be a readily credible, and even citable, when used with caution, source. I know that you seem to like to characterize any information critical of this group as being "disruptive," but please, think about it for a second, trying to silence any sort of negative criticism has exactly one result, a biased page that involves no neutral, objective information. Please be constructive about giving an objective viewpoint rather than condemning any links to information critical of your religious group. 204.73.55.74 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues

  • {{POV-check|date=May 2013}}
  • {{Refimprove|date=May 2013}}
  • {{more footnotes|date=May 2013}}
  • {{primary sources|date=May 2013}}

An editor has expressed concern that the article has not addressed these issues. From some of the discussion it appears the article has changed considerably over a period of time and may need reassessment by project members and other experienced editors. Please improve the neutrality of the article as much as possible. Improve the references by checking them against Wikipedia standards for reliable sourcing. Be sure and understand how to use primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources and add inline citations to any claim or statement that is likely to be challenged.--Mark 19:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists

This article is basically a list of points, many of which seem self-promotional although my experience of religious-oriented articles is not great. I removed one section that appeared to be just a list of news stories. Perhaps some of those stories are in fact worthy of a mention but if so then please could someone turn the list into prose form. As it stood, it had the appearance of just being trying to cram stuff in here for the hell of it. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No so much...yes the history and affiliations are lists, however the other topics are paragraphs explaining the beliefs and doctrines of the church. That's what the church is about. Watts9595 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

President's Volunteer Service Award

The article claims WMSCOG in 2011 received the President's Volunteer Service Award from U.S. President Barack Obama.

First, this award is not awarded by the incumbent U.S. President. That sounds like an attempt to puff it up, and has been deleted. The award "is issued by Points of Light Institute and the Corporation for National and Community Service on behalf of the President of the United States" but to Certifying Organizations, who buy them, and then gives them to a volunteer. President's Volunteer Service Award FAQ Do we have a source that states which Certifying Organization gave these awards?

Second, the self-published reference here currently claims that 3 awards were received in June 2011,

  • (a) 2 President's Volunteer Service Awards, 1 each for the Church and for Kim Joo-cheol (General Pastor of the Church), and
  • (b) 1 President's Call to Service Award, the highest level of the President's Volunteer Service Award, for 4,000 hours of volunteer service in her lifetime to Zhang Gil-Jah, the woman refered to as Mother, Heavenly mother, or God the Mother.

My understanding is that both Kim Joo-cheol and Zhang Gil-jah are Korean citizens. If that is correct, how can they have received an award that is only given to American Citizens? 5.103.57.97 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If it was an award that is only given to American Citizens, foreigners wouldn't even have been chosen for selection. But they did. It's awkward that you are complaining here instead of complaining in the White House. Rather, it's polite to show some respect for the church that has received awards for their volunteer services. Just seems that you just want to criticize, because you are obstinately mentioning about the qualification. Which is off the requirements of WIKIPEDIA. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, is your point here that this award is effectively akin to a degree for sale? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The Award criteria state: The President’s Volunteer Service Award is the premier volunteer awards program, encouraging United States citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents of the United States through presidential recognition to live a life of service. Just below that it says the following: With the highest honor of recognition comes the highest responsibility of upholding the integrity of the office of the president of the United States, the PVSA and all your fellow PVSA recipients. Our nation has always depended on individual citizens having the courage to do what’s right. If you suspect program abuse or fraud, let us know. This comes straight from here. As was stated above, The award "is issued by Points of Light Institute and the Corporation for National and Community Service on behalf of the President of the United States" but to Certifying Organizations, who buy them, and then gives them to a volunteer. President's Volunteer Service Award FAQ So all one has to do is request these awards to be issued within their organization. It would seem to follow then that Kim Joo-cheol and Zhang Gil-Jah either don't actually have them or were given the award in error by the organization that acquired them. Superfly94 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If you believe so, complain this to the White House about this Superfly94. http://english.watv.org/awards/index.asp --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what I believe. As you like to say over and over, Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions.
The facts are:
  1. Eligibility for this award can only go to US citizens, lawfully admitted permanent residents and US organizations. It is up to the certifying organization (the one who orders the awards) to ensure the recipients qualify;
  2. The President does not present these awards personally;
  3. These awards are paid for by the presenting organization.
Looking at the facts, one can thus determine one of two things. Either the website for the church is wrong, or these awards were presented fraudulently. Just following the facts. Not making accusations.
By the way, your link is down. As for reporting it, I am not a US citizen so would likely not get much attention. Superfly94 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way http://english.watv.org/awards/index.asp the link was alive. If they are fradulently presenting these awards, everybody has rights to sue them. Go ahead. :) Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the FAQ page, it is only the Certifying Organization that has to be legally established in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or one of the U.S. territories. The recipient is simply judged off of the logged volunteer hours. http://www.presidentialserviceawards.gov/tg/pvsainfo/dspfaqs.cfm#_Toc114369863

And just for reference, the certifying organization for the WMSCOG is the Corporation for National and Community Service. Brojoe73 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for no login, just for consideration: 1. In the sense that the president is commander in chief and responsible for the administration, regardless of second or third parties involved ultimately it can be factually stated that it came from him, as it is his administration. 2. It may benefit to mention second or third parties involved, but that does not detract from any legitimacy. 3. The award has already been received and that is also a factual statement. If the legitimacy is in question, than I absolutely recommend reporting it to the proper authorities, but wiki is not the presidential award police, nor has an official judgment on the legitimacy of the award been made. If someone thinks otherwise, they may want to remind themselves that they are not a presiding honorable "judge".

References that are all UNRELIABLE SOURCES

HDJONGKYO, GOOGLE BOOKS, KYOBOBOOK

"HDJONGYO 현대종교(Korean)" is a publishing company that rejects Korean cults. It's not a place where they scholastically research or announce, but rather a place with no objectivity.

The "RULING 판결문(Korean)" and the book are very problematic.

In order to receive a verdict of not guilty for the book that they have published, false informants were mobilized in the trial, and they were all found GUILTY. You can see on this site http://wmscog.org/index.php/699/ about this controversy. It's inappropriate to use sources with controversy in Wikipedia.

GOD THE MOTHER

Though they mention about their beliefs of Female of God, her name is not mentioned on these resources so it's vague.

Check out the grip and grin photo here in which they refer to the woman being Mother and the welcome page of the International We Love U Foundation here. They are the same woman. If you prefer, we could use both these sites as reference to her? I'm sure there are others. I wasn't searching that hard. Superfly94 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

KNCC.OR.KR, FREEDOMOFMIND.COM

These are JUST opinions made by the religious sects belonging to the National Council of Churches in Korea 한국기독교교회협의회(Korean). We cannot say that their opinions are from the whole churches in Korea. The subject says "List of Christian Cults and Religious Pseudos and Reporting Religious Discrimination" 기독교 이단 사이비 종교 명단과 종교차별 신고(Korean). The characteristic of this post(to eliminate other religions and has a hostile attitude towards other religions) has no objectivity nor does it have any neutrality, which is inappropriate to be used in Wikipedia.

Their headquarters (Seongnam-bundang, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) are NOT located 1 hour apart from Seoul. Some places in Seoul near Seongnam are 15 minutes apart, and places far from Seoul takes more than 2 hours. Inaccurate information cannot be used in Wikipedia.

HISTORY

"International Korean Christian Coalition Against Heresy" 세계한인기독교이단대책연합회(Korean) is an organization that DOES NOT plainly study about history of Christianity. They have lost their objectivity or neutrality, since they only insist that their own religion is right and other religions are wrong. According to the basis of the Policy of Wikipedia, we cannot use such information. Moreover, the information is written in Korean (Most of all of the listed references) which can be interpreted in various ways, which is highly controversial.

The "HDJONGKYO" and their publications has no objectivity. If you see the welcoming message on the website http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/int02.html, the publisher Tak Jiwon 탁지원(Korean), it says: "And so it is with the problems with Cults and Pseudos. We need to know about them in order to fight against them" 이단과 사이비의 문제도 그러합니다. 알아야 싸울수 있습니다"(Korean), "We will do our best taking measures for cults..." 앞으로도 저희들은 이단의 대책에 최선을 다할 것이며 (Korean). Tak Jiwon points out all other religions as cults(except for his religion). Since we CANNOT use information without any neutral basis that disregards others' religions, the HDJONGKYO parts must be deleted. These are all in Korean, which English users cannot prove whether this information is true or not. You cannot edit the article based on these sources.

Stated that 13 churches were established after he died in 1985, but those 13 churches were already present in Korea before 1985. http://mygodchristahnsahnghong.com/2013/05/31/prophecies-about-the-first-coming-and-the-second-coming/

REFWORLD.ORG

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=42df611d20

Do you have any LEGAL evidence that you "CANNOT TRUST"? For example: Samsung makes public of their annual sales of cellphones. If someone quotes that you "CANNOT TRUST" what the announced, does that make Samsung's information FALSE?

It's not right to confirm that it is "UNTRUSTWORTHY" only relying on words of an individual, without corroborative facts.--Galemw2 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reply, User Peter1007.--Galemw2 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this specific reference, it was already disputed some time ago using the 3O process and was determined to be reliable. After all, this is put out by a nation's government, and RefWorld is just the site that it was posted on. Superfly94 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why you're not mentioning all the awards and merits that the church has received from the Korean government. Why don't you start researching that instead of continuously looking for slander, "cult" information, etc. Watts9595 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94, you cannot consider someone's opinion to be factual. The users are using one single line about a Professor who has nothing to do with the religious movement. As Galemw2 mentioned above, that professor is Tak Jiwon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#HISTORY Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

However, this was already discussed way back in April here and was determined by an independent editor who had no ties to this article that it was a reliable source. Superfly94 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC) *if read and watch videos about it you'll see his own material relies on unproven sources and paraphrasing to the benefit of his argument.24.220.170.223 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
However, if some user disagrees with the edit, they have rights to talk about it.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter1007 please reply. It's been more than two weeks now. If you don't have any explanation, you can't use these articles. You don't owe these articles.--Galemw2 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a source is unreliable just because for you it is unreliable is not enough according to Wikipedia policies. Please quote which policy of Wikipedia these sources are breaking so we can discuss further. I believe all of the sources are well according to WP:IRS, please explain, based on Wikipedia, why they are not. Thanks, Peter1007 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Peter1007 thinks he owns this article"Star jds (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter1007 - Did you even read my explanations? I've clearly pointed out why the sources you've used were unreliable to support this article. (or even the article for Ahn Sahng-hong) Please reply according to each sections.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (NPOV).

- According to WP:IRS, it says: "articles should be based on reliable, published sources, with neutrality." However, HDJONGKYO is not trusted in Korea, to be considered as "RELIABLE." It rather caused many victims and had been sued many times.

http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ This site is an association of the victims of HDJONGKYO. The HDJONGKYO has no trust among Christians, and is an organization with biased information.

academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources

- According to Wikipedia, "most reliable sources are peer-reviewed publications." But even one author can publish in HDJONGKYO. And its publications are not considered, nor has any values as scholarly materials.

- Wikipedia states "particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" But only few people know about HDJONGKYO, and is very unfamiliar among Christians. They have also lost their civil suit for human rights violations and paid 80 million Korean won (seventy four thousand dollars) for losing the trial. See http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/668

HDJONGKYO cannot be considered as reliable source.-Galemw2 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. As I know, there are much evidence that HDJONGKYO's information doesn't come from a reliable source Angiebox7 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ and it's clear that the HDJONGKYO has bias against the WMSCOG. The article is nonnuetural, isn't it? The HDJONGKYO.CO.KR has caused many problems. You should use scholarly materials that has neutral perspective instead of calling this religious movement a "cult." Trekkerguy7 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes: August 2013 regarding church's founding/history

Someone who has not been signed in as well as a few other editors have made drastic changes to this page that completely contradict the history that the church lists on their official website as well as various other news articles that were written from a neutral point of view - neither from members affiliated with the church, nor people who have a negative view of the church, such as the following article [1] . It does not make sense to list such information that contradicts even the church's history as listed on their website and seems to be a vicious attempt to slander and defame the church. Please refrain from listing this information and reverting edits from the previous objective page until a 3rd Opinion has been reached regarding this.Watts9595 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last major edit that was made by Sam Sailor. Instead of blanking a page common courtesy and manners would dictate addressing each issue separately and arguing why one feels that info should not be included so that others could argue their points as well. Although you might disagree with some of the references being used, you cannot arbitrarily delete information and simply sight that it has a negative POV or because you don't personally agree with what was written. Argue your point. Take the time to go after each point individually. There may be some validity to what you or somebody else has to say. Asking for a 3O on an article with dozens of references is just not reasonable and likely won't be taken on by anyone. It's too much of a bear and too much work. Asking for 3O for individual bullets/references is a lot more reasonable.
As for people not signing in, nowhere in the guidance of this site does it say one must sign in.Superfly94 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to argue each point separately - the references for the previously written article already serve as references but don't have a negative tone - no need to repeat it all. Superfly94, what is your motive in being on this site? Your name seems to pop up a lot here. Watts9595 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, if the previously written page already explains the history from a NPOV, why do you insist on finding and digging for contradictory, negative, false information that completely contradicts the other references? Is it so offensive to you if the article does not include people's negative opinions and slander who just want to give the church a bad name with false labels? Watts9595 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want a fair, balanced and informative article that does not read like an advertisement, you DO need to address each point separately. As for questioning my 'motive in being on this site' that is a red herring attack that reminds me of another user who was here not long ago...and sometimes didn't sign in as well. You'll also see that I have had absolutely no input into this newer version of the article so please don't throw your accusations at me. Superfly94 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reading like an advertisement, it's stating what the church believes and the history of the church - it doesn't say anything about it being correct or right or better than another church. If it were reading like an advertisement it might say things like "Come to this church!" "This church is great!" "This is the true church!" but it says no such things. It simply states their history and what they believe. There's no reason to include such negative and untrue information. I think you are using the names of many users, including Peter, Sailor Sam, etc. so it is at you. You don't want to share your motive? Why not? Watts9595 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

disregard I found my old edits and they are for a different article under ahnsahnhong. one of the unsigned may have been me, I cleaned up a bit of "strong" language that implied more than the WMSCOG actually believes. I'm having a difficulty providing wiki-approved sources however, since I have colossal amounts of collaborating evidences backed up further by surveillance tapes, but its all "primary" source. Not interested in edit wars, just to bring attention to pieces; most of you have already showed sound judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.170.223 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 reference deleted

I made a login here this ip is me — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGospel (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 reference deleted, it was not and is not held as a church-wide belief. 1. Small groups misinterpreted that prophecy, and cannot reflect the WMSCOG as a whole. Myself an example. 2. google "the truth of the world mission society church of god" for link to supreme court evidence that 2012 was not end of world prophecy and that people have lied about this before, I can't link it directly for some reason. recommending to prove the fact empirically. For a number of reasons, the truth itself first and foremost; the 2012 "end of world" was not the "end of world". It was a prophecy of the completion of the temple, which, after being read, contained a couple more paragraphs of events which happen afterwards. This is the problem with taking such a snippet out of a single source, it neglects the benefit of the full prophecy.. Not the end, merely a sign. As in Ahnsahnghong's writings he also states we will not know the date, thus the end date prophecy is just a sign. This can be definitively proven with a simple date-checking of church opinions, before, during, and after, the issuing of the prophecy, and the fulfillment of the prophecy. The majority of the WMSCOG, and the head church itself, has remained consistent with 2012 not being the end but a sign. All sources to the contrary are not only dissident minorities, but have had their authenticity thrown into question, if not outright disproven. Since to explain this I rely on hundreds of thousands of first-hand witnesses and blogs, I can't include it in the WIKI, but I hope that the authenticity of these "facts" in the future are held to a higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.170.223 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV requirements

They actually seem to be a lot better now, at least nothing concerning enough to warrant flags.

As long as people represent questionable sources with ambiguous language such as "claims" or "assumes" I think all is well. Any further controversies or "heresy" can be elaborated on in subsections. JohnnyGospel (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yang Xiangbin

Is anything else known about Yang Xiangbin (apart from Her being God)?

The Korean-originated church World Mission Society Church of God is accompanied by a separate article about Jang Gil-ja, who is God the Mother (as distinct from Ahn Sahng-hong (1918-1985), who is/was/might have been Jesus come again).

It would be interesting to be able to compare these two ladies, who seem to be the same (or much the same - there's still the God/Jesus dichotomy question ...) Person, incarnated separately but contemporaneously. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy Passover

I conversation I had with a man who came to my door was trying to tell me that the Christian church is not following the teachings of Jesus. He said that the time of day in which we celebrated Passover (communion) was essential to Jesus' teachings. With him knowing that I was a Christian, he was rebuking me for this "fatal" error. If someone were interested in finding an official source verifying this information, it might prove beneficial to add it to the list of differences between traditional Christianity and WMSCoG. Thank you.2602:304:B304:EE20:BC79:776E:849F:7BCB (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on World Mission Society Church of God. 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) 08:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Uninformative and uncotextual general tone, specially on introduction

I wish to leave a simple note concerning the general tone of this article. The first 3 paragraphs of the article completely ommit the essential fact of several characteristic teaching of this "church".

Describing this religious denomination as a simple "church" is blatantly ommissive to say the least. This is a new religious movement religion, filled with anachronistic and original teachings unlinked to any traditional religious denominations, christian or otherwise. All of this should be appropriately explained on the first section paragraphs. If no sources can be found, call on higher up editors to write the appropriate paraghaphs. Of course it should be from a neutral standpoint, but any editor complaining this is not a new religious movement is being disengenious. Every other of the major christian denominations would consider sabbatarian and claims of reincarnation of Christ of the religious leader teachings in this religion to be a new religion. Even the Adventists from which the founder splinter from.

I wont do this myself because this page feels like already have very partisan users editting it. And I suspect my attempts to do some editing including sociological or historical context would probably upset someone trying to promote this religion.

And after these scant 3 paragraphs, with simplistic and one-sided assertions of it being a vhurch and following the Bible, it starts with a schematic historical timeline and doctrinal points. All of which also lack context, even with other wikipedia articles.

This religious denomination's founder article is also ridden with these problems.177.133.165.194 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

and I would like to know why it is called a cult. I notice that the Unification Church is not called a cult, but a new religious movement. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of controversial comment

An IP user appears currently to be edit warring and removing references to controversy, with sources, from this page. Tacyarg (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: Thanks for watchdogging this. Always irritating at how unethical people try to purge embarrassing facts from Wikipedia articles about their political or relgious faction, cult, organization or enterprise -- or favorite issues or persons. Makes it hard to keep things honest. Great that you're watching out for it.
~ Penlite (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=200903100002&ctcd=&cpage=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God/Archive_3&oldid=1246390187"