Talk:Living Stream Ministry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Deletion Debate (Sep. 2004)

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Living Stream Ministry

This page is biased. It doesn't discuss the controversies surrounding this movement. 10:21, 10 April 2007 Patrick

What movement? This is an organization. Please be reminded that wikipedia is not an apologetic board. Pehkay 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, question the need for this article. Should it be a candidate for deletion? Cokoli 02:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is a perfect candidate to be on the wikipedia. No discussions are going on currently. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg

Image:Lsm banner-p1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss Changes Here First

Please discuss the changes made to the article here so as to not get involved in the edit wars and confusions and controversies. Today I reverted so many bad (Not Good Faith Edits) edits, please respect the Wikipedia policies. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

the related links section is useful and valid. 24.116.189.43 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact No. 1: (For user User:Angrygirl), Bibles for America distributes free copies of only "New Testaments" Recovery Version BfA, and not the Recovery Version complete Bible. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact No. 2: Living Stream Ministry is NOT a church.[1] It is a publisher of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Check out their website first. Thanks. [User:HopeChrist|HopeChrist]] (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact No. 3: Regarding the US Supreme court, there was "NO case" fought in the US Supreme Court, but rather a petition filed for "writ of certiorari" (from the local churches and Living Stream). The Supreme court denied the petition.
Here you have the references: On May 16, 2007 "the Local Church" and "Living Stream" petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 18, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition by "the Living Stream" and "the Local Church" [2].
So user:Angrygirl's comment that, "The Supreme Court ruled against the LSM, saying that it lawfully could be called a dangerous 'cult'" is a utterly biased and a false statement.
It's so sad to see the usage of the loaded words such as "dangerous" and "cult". Please be honest and do some cross checking and researching before commenting such a statement. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact No. 4: Another comment inserted within the body of the article under the section "Lawsuits" is also overtly biased. The comment inserted was, "To learn more about Living Stream Ministry and their criticism as being identified as a "cult", please visit [3] and the links given from this website were [4] and [5].
I believe, to learn more about Living Stream Ministry one should visit their website and not the above one sided arguments (which are even deceiving to some extent). I think, the best place however to include these links (if they are really helpful for the overall presentation of the article) are in the "external link" section. This article is about the "Living Stream Ministry" in both "general" and "specific terms" and NOT about their preachings and interpretation of some of the stuffs they publish and sell.
So, if there is a dire need to balance the article (if someone thinks that way!!) -- please either write a new article on it (for example "Living Stream's Interpretation of the So and So") or put few links with a small comment under the "external links" section. That should be fairly tolerable and positive in a constructive way for the Wikipedia . Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact No. 5: In Texas Judiciary Opinions
On January 5, 2006 the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued this

opinion.

The Harvest House statement is available here. The response to Harvest House Corporate Statement from the local churches is available here. And the other useful readings could be: Petition Filed with the United States Supreme Court, Liberty Magazine, and so on.
Also, please read how the book "the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions" was conceived in NOT a good faith, nor in a Christian moral but under "their" (Harvest House) self held propaganda. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I see there has been significant edit warring the past few days. Please discuss and reach consensus. I'm on a phone call now, I'll post more in a bit and warn the relevant users. GRBerry 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)