Talk:World Mission Society Church of God

@Penlite: With your statements, it is hard to believe that you are making edits in good faith and in efforts to help the project. Have you done any research through small-town and larger newspapers and news sources on all of the positive and good deeds done by the charge? Why are you persistent in finding only controversial evidence when there are hundreds and hundreds of articles about so many good deeds that members are doing while volunteering their time and helping other people on a grand scale, internationally? Why don't you look up those articles and list them on this page as much as you are spending time looking up controversial topics? The fact that you consider People magazine as a credible source already says a lot. The journalist's article in People magazine was based off of an ex-member's opinion yet was referenced as if it were credible and factual information. There was also a personal connection to encourage that article to be written by that former member and much ill-intent and drama behind it. Can you really conclude that is a reliable source and professional, fair journalism? Writing about one sour person's account?^[1]

This article seems to deviate slightly from the WP:RNPOV policy. Currently, this article is primarily written from the perspective of established religious groups that evaluate this religion critically, which may introduce bias. In contrast, there is a lack of encyclopedic information about the religion, such as its origins, beliefs, and current status. This kind of article could potentially turn Wikipedia into a tool for religious discrimination, aimed at undermining the beliefs of minority religions. I believe that just as Wikipedia articles should not be used for promotional purposes, they should also refrain from promoting negative perceptions. I would like to suggest writing this article more encyclopedic. Spfvera (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is about the word 'cult' in the lead. WP:NPOV stems from reliable sources first, and editors second. Since multiple reliable sources mention this, intentionally downplaying that by removing it from the lead would make the article less neutral, not more.

Additionally, Massimo Introvigne is not a reliable source for various reasons (not least his own use of sock puppets to spam Wikipedia in the past). If you know of specific sources, please propose them. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. I thought the issue was merely about changing the sources. I certainly agree that various Christian organizations refer to this group as a cult. However, I believe you are well aware of the issues inherent in the term 'cult.' Generally, 'cult' lacks a clear definition and is often used as a pejorative term based on subjective judgment. Although there have been many debates on how to define orthodoxy and cults, there is still no clear definition. So, recently, religious scholars tend to use the neutral term 'new religious movement' instead of 'cult.' Since the lead already mentions 'new religious movement,' which is a neutral term, I moved that content to the Criticism section. However, I do not want to insist on my opinion and argue about it. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors as well. Spfvera (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The term cult, in the way many people change things on this page to, is almost always a used as a pejorative . Calling someone or something a cult or cult-like, has a very negative connotation and public image associated with it. As any religious group can be called a cult, it is best to use a neutral term to describe a group or person that is different than what some may consider the norm. A neutral point of view is often best when giving information. Lordkhain (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to summarizes reliable sources from a neutral point of view. This does NOT mean that Wikipedia needs to avoid unflattering language, because that would not be neutral, it would be partial. The article is not saying that this organizations is a cult in Wikipedia's voice, it is summarizing that other organizations (not just Christian organizations) have described it as a cult. This is information that a disinterested reader looking for a summary of this as a topic would reasonably expect to find in a neutral Wikipedia article. To downplay this would be a form of public relations, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding this section to note a concerning major rewrite by @Spfvera and @Newjptp that seems very pro-WMSCOG. Every source that criticizes the church has what it states described as "claims", and a number of sections have been entirely rewritten to minimize content that reflects negatively on the church. The fact that it is widely described as a cult was also removed from the lead by an anonymous IP editor, which was likely unrelated (I added it back). I also made the choice to move the 1988 doomsday prophecy back into the History section: it was changed to present it as a claim needing to be attributed to the heresy researchers stating it, giving them essentially equal weight as to the church itself. I think this is false balance: I don't know of any particular reason they would make that up, or that the church should be treated as reliable as them on this fact.

The evangelism section (I edited it somewhat to compensate for this) presented statements that they were not performing human trafficking to essentially attempt to refute and counterpoint other concerns about aggressive evangelism, which have been minimized in the article. Another section I added on aggressive evangelism has been entirely removed (although I may have accidentally cited the wrong source). Courts stating that they could not evaluate legally whether the group was a cult was also positioned as a counterpoint to the group's description as a cult in that part of the controversies section as well. In addition, the stained glass windows section has been entirely rewritten, replacing statements by a reputable news organization that they (at least at the time) replaced all stained-glass windows in their churches with apparently the fact that the church says that it does not.

All content involving criticism of the church in any way was moved into the Controversy section, which I have undone because Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent a fair balance between criticism and support with an eye to the facts: as described in above Wikipedia articles are allowed to reflect negatively on subjects sometimes. Tagging this article as having POV concerns. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent a fair balance between criticism and support, focusing on the facts. However, it seems that recent edits to this article prioritize critical perspectives by removing some reliable, fact-based positive information while emphasizing negative aspects.

For example, some universities have banned the church's evangelism on campus, but some university police have stated that there is nothing wrong with it. However, information reporting no issues has been removed, leaving only mentions of the bans. According to the New Zealand police website, the police stated that there has been no investigation into the church or the Elohim Academy concerning a report by ''Craccum''. Yet, this information was deleted, stating it as "original research." Meanwhile, a new paragraph was added that reiterated content from the ''Craccum'' article, even though it was already present in the controversies section. Moreover, information regarding two former members from South Korea suing the church for fraud was redundantly added to the 1988 section, despite already being mentioned in the controversy section.

Articles are allowed to reflect negatively on subjects sometimes; however, this does not mean that only negative content should be included. Spfvera (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, I mentioned two pieces of duplicate content that Mrfoogles added: one related to the lawsuit for fraud and the other cited from the Craccum article. On October 30, I removed the duplicated content about the lawsuit, but Mrfoogles reverted the edit, stating that it was not duplicate content and suggested that I propose any further changes on the talk page. However, I am convinced that the content was clearly duplicated, so I removed it again on November 11, providing an edit summary.

Later, on December 2, I removed the other piece of duplicated content cited from the Craccum article. Once again, Mrfoogles reverted this edit, restoring the duplicated content. In the edit summary, Mrfoogles noted that Mrfoogles did not see the duplication in the article and that I had deleted content cited from a reliable source. Additionally, Mrfoogles asked me to start a discussion on the talk page if I wished to delete it again.

I am somewhat confused as to why, whenever I removed duplicated content that Mrfoogles added, Mrfoogles reverted the edit, stating that it is not duplicate content and restoring it, while asking me to start a discussion on the talk page about what seems to be clearly duplicated content from the same source. Nevertheless, I am following Mrfoogle's request and leaving this message here. I kindly ask you to verify it.

I removed content B because it was a duplicate of content A.

• Content A: Craccum reporting

In September 2021, Craccum reported that the Elohim Academy was also conducting door-knocking evangelism campaigns in Wellington and Auckland, with an emphasis on recruiting young women. Members were expected to follow strict rules separating themselves from social media and non-church friends, attend masses and recruitment sessions, tithing ten percent of their income, avoid wearing jeans, reject music and masturbation, and lose weight to fit Korean beauty standards. Former members alleged that members including minors were shamed for not meeting the church's rules and standards and that members were ranked based on their recruitment rates. Church members were also reportedly shown graphic videos of Hell. In addition, pastors also arranged marriages between congregants.

• Content B: New Zealand member

An exclusive article reported claims from a former member in New Zealand. She alleged that members were expected to follow strict rules, such as separating from social media and non-church friends, attending masses and recruitment sessions, tithing ten percent of their income, avoiding jeans, rejecting music and masturbation, and losing weight to meet Korean beauty standards. She also claimed that members, including minors, were shamed for failing to meet the church’s standards and were ranked based on their recruitment rates. Additionally, she stated that church members were shown graphic videos of Hell and that pastors arranged marriages between congregants. Spfvera (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The NPOV tutorial suggests that when accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. And a common way of introducing bias is through one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view, while important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three policies (i.e., Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

From reliable sources, it has been confirmed that former members of the church have called it a cult. It is also confirmed that a former member filed a lawsuit against the church, which was almost entirely rejected by the district and appellate state courts. Therefore, to maintain neutrality according to the NPOV policy, both the accusations by the former member and the outcome of the lawsuit should be included. Spfvera (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has the following: According to Steven Hassan, an author and counselor specializing in cults, many destructive cults use small "fringe groups" to deceptively recruit members, of which the ASEZ is an example.

WP:FRINGENOT says that FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists. This should apply to theories not organizations.

Steven Hassan cannot use the scientific method to prove that an organization is fringe. This is his opinion about the organization. Evathedutch (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, WP:ASF, 'The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as facts. When a statement is an opinion, it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion.' In the section on 'Craccum reporting', it is unclear who made the critical statement regarding the church. Upon reading the article, it appears that the person used a pseudonym to present her opinion. Since a pseudonym cannot be considered the person's real name, and to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have attributed the critical statement to 'an anonymous former member.'

An official information request was made to the New Zealand Police in relation to the article, and a response was received from them. Following that, the wirter posted additional comments. I have included the information. Spfvera (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored the court ruling quote that was removed regarding the lawsuit filed by a former member and left this comment in support of the restoration.

The claims of former members and the court ruling should be treated in accordance with the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, ensuring they are handled with balance based on reliability and significance. This requires a clear distinction between opinions and facts, as well as the appropriate distribution of emphasis based on the importance of the information.

The claims made by Colon, along with those of other former members, are fundamentally based on personal experiences and opinions. Even if these claims were cited by multiple media outlets, if they were not verified through police investigations or court rulings, they remain subjective allegations and should be treated as supplementary contextual information with limited weight. In contrast, the court ruling is a public record issued by a third-party judicial authority after objectively reviewing the claims and evidence presented by the litigating parties. The ruling was based on the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom and an assessment of whether tortious conduct by the church existed. Such documentation plays a crucial role in understanding the resolution and context of the case.

The court ruling is a reliable primary source, and during the editing process, its key points were quoted verbatim, avoiding any novel interpretation. As such, this does not constitute a violation of the No Original Research policy. While the claims of former members provide important context in understanding the situation, the court ruling offers an objectively verified conclusion about the case, necessitating a balanced presentation that factors in its reliability and significance.

Deleting or minimizing the court ruling prevents readers from fully understanding the key issues and outcomes of the case. By disproportionately emphasizing the subjective claims of former members, this approach risks creating a biased understanding of the case. Such actions violate the NPOV policy, one of Wikipedia's core principles, and could also be seen as undermining the fairness and transparency standards outlined in the UCoC. Spfvera (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality is determined by sources, primarily WP:IS and WP:SECONDARY sources. Your comments here show a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia evaluates sources, specifically WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Your comments also suggest that this information was included with the intention of adding false balance, which is not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. If reliable, independent sources explains something, so can Wikipedia, and proportionality is determined by independent sources.

Further, Wikipedia editors are not expected to review primary court documents, nor are we presumed to be qualified to do so. Stick to reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Greyfell stated:

"If reliable, independent sources explain something, so can Wikipedia, and proportionality is determined by independent sources."

By this principle, quoting the court ruling is entirely appropriate. The ruling, issued by a neutral and authoritative institution, is a reliable, independent source that provides objective and verifiable facts about the case. Its inclusion aligns with Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy.

Reducing the portion of the court ruling contradicts this principle. If proportionality is determined by independent sources, the court ruling should be given due prominence. Reducing its inclusion undermines the balance provided by this authoritative source and creates an undue focus on subjective viewpoints. This inconsistency violates WP:UNDUE by prioritizing personal opinions over factual, legal conclusions.

Furthermore, Wikipedia’s preference for secondary sources does not exclude the use of primary sources. Concerns about the misuse of primary sources would be valid if the article interpreted the court ruling without secondary sources. However, the ruling is cited solely to present verifiable facts—such as the lawsuit’s dismissal and the court's reasoning—without adding subjective interpretations. This use fully complies with WP:PRIMARY policy. Spfvera (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the concern about WP:OR stems from this part:

Colon's lawsuit seeking damages for the tortious conduct of the church was almost entirely rejected by the district and appellate state courts, with the district courts citing the "religious freedom" element of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The appellate courts ruled that:

I suggest revising it to make it more concise:

Colon's lawsuit seeking damages for the tortious conduct of the church was almost entirely rejected by the district and appellate state courts. The appellate courts ruled that: Spfvera (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

A court document is a primary source, and is not independent of the court itself, which is the relevant party. We are specifically looking for WP:SECONDARY sources to summarize WP:PRIMARY sources like court documents. We do not rely on Wikipedia editors to summarize these documents for us, and likewise, we specifically discourage editorializing language in such summaries. Your interpretation of this primary source, ("almost entirely rejected" etc.) is original research, and your personal choice of quote is cherry-picking, which is a form of editorializing. Instead of edit warring to restore your preferred version (which can easily lead to being blocked) please step back and look at what other, more experienced editors, are trying to explain to you. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately waited about a day before making my edits. However, Greyfell's comments have made me feel intimidated and discouraged. That said, I believe there might be some misunderstandings, so I’d like to clarify my position.

The phrase "almost entirely rejected," highlighted by Greyfell, was not added by me. Although its exact origin is unclear, this wording has been part of the article since at least January 2020. My edits merely revised the existing content to make it more concise, as it seemed overly repetitive. A comparison of the two versions demonstrates this:

A. Version from January 5, 2020, and August 27, 2024:

Michele Colon, a nurse from New Jersey, claimed, in a civil suit filed against WMSCOG in New Jersey, in 2013, that the group is a 'profit-making' cult, and claimed it 'uses a number of psychological control tactics … to prevent its members from exposing its criminal and tortious behaviour.'

However, Colon's lawsuit was almost entirely rejected by the district and appellate state courts. Colon's claims, the court ruled, depended upon her claim that the WMSCOG is a 'cult,' not a 'church'—a determination that the courts ruled they were not allowed to make, by law. The courts, largely citing the 'religious freedom' element of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly the judicial church autonomy doctrine (forbidding courts to inquire into 'the facts and circumstances which intrude into church doctrine, affairs, and management'), the appellate court ruled that:

Each claim springs from Colon's contention that WMSCOG is a cult, not a church, and that she was essentially defrauded by this cult. The conflict arises from her disagreement about the manner in which the church implemented its doctrinal beliefs, managed its clergy and parishioners, and invested donations. Therefore, Colon's complaint necessarily required the court to examine the interior workings and structure of the church, a constitutionally unacceptable process.

B. Version after my edits on September 4, 2024:

"Colon’s lawsuit seeking damages for the tortious conduct of the church was almost entirely rejected by the district and appellate state courts.[74][72] The district courts dismissed her claims, citing the 'religious freedom' element of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[74] The appellate courts ruled that:[72]

Each claim springs from Colon's contention that WMSCOG is a cult, not a church, and that she was essentially defrauded by this cult. The conflict arises from her disagreement about the manner in which the church implemented its doctrinal beliefs, managed its clergy and parishioners, and invested donations. Therefore, Colon's complaint necessarily required the court to examine the interior workings and structure of the church, a constitutionally unacceptable process. Although a church may clearly be held liable for tortious conduct and obligated on contractual undertakings, neither existed in this case."

It seems Greyfell believes I added this content and that restoring it requires consensus. However, this content has been part of the article for years. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, deleting long-standing content actually requires consensus. I was simply trying to restore content that was removed without proper agreement.

Additionally, I am uncertain whether Greyfell’s statement, "A court document is a primary source, and is not independent of the court itself, which is the relevant party," aligns with Wikipedia's policy on independent sources. Spfvera (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I regret to say that I still disagree with @Greyfell's edits. Please allow the discussion to proceed according to WP:BRD. If I revert to the original version, it is likely to be reverted immediately, which could lead to an edit war. I do not want to engage in an edit war. Spfvera (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

In his 1980 book The Mystery of God and the Spring of the Water of Life, Ahn Sahng-hong predicted that the world would end in 1988. It is not what is written on that book Samaljitendra (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)