Talk:General Assembly and Church of the First Born

Initial

I am tempted to delete every sentence in this article that say "citation needed" after if but that would get rid of the entire article. If anyone reads this who actually has information on this church I recommend you find sources for your information and put them in the article. p.s. If you want some of your work to stay you might want to wait a few days until the pharyngula herds stop attacking this article. (Aug 28 2009)

Well I for one do have verification for EVERY point I have inserted into the article, I added many of the references requested, though I believe we need to use a better bibliographical system in the article. I have been collecting information for nearly 30 years on both the GACF and the related Follwers of Christ, much of my family for several generations have belonged to these groups and I am nearly related to many in the article. There is much diffficulty in finding written documentation, because they are loosely confederated without any official headquarters, and keep their baptismal records within their family bibles.~~elprofesordemente

This information is incorrect. The Church of the Firstborn is not Pentacostal. They do belive in the origina sin. Some prohibit doctors, most do not and they existed long before 1907. (There is a record of the Church of the Firstborn recorded in the rare books library of the University of Texas call number 826 G389P Volumes 1 & 2 published in 1702). (The Church in Delta, Colorado has existed since 1904; Elwood Indiana since 1900; Indianapolis, Indiana since 1896; Hobart, Oklahoma since 1902; Homestead, Oklahoma since 1895; Olympia, Washington since 1898). There are currently atleast 121 assemblies in the United States (2006 Directory of Churches General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn). 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The information in the article is from the reference cited. It's possible the article and the group you are thinking of are different, since the source is quite clear it is a Pentecostal church and that it began in 1907. You should start a different article for the churches you are researching. Snocrates 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a librarian at the University of Texas, and we cannot identify the book mentioned in the first paragraph. That call number does not correspond to any book among our collections. Does anyone have more information about this volume? Ransomer (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but much more likely that the reference source is inaccurate. There are several similarities between the church described and the church of the firstborn which i am refering including the washing of feet, laying on of hands, and prohibition against physicians. The groups are all loosely organized and have no paid ministry. Too similar to be a different group. But definitely inacccurate of the origina sin issue and date of begining. I have the 2006 directory of churches which states the founding of each group. Many going back to the 1890s. Many of the churches do have long hair and wear dresses and would appear like a Pentacostal to a casual observer. Just because the source calls itself an encyclopedia it is not necessarily accurate. I appreciate your contributions and I do not mean to be a pain, but would like to see accurate information about the Church published here. Thank you. --Shanetoland (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of second-guessing sources that otherwise have all the hallmarks of reliability—that would be WP:OR. The church is specifically classified in the section on "Pentecostalism" in the citation, so the sources are likely referring to different groups of related but separate groups. Snocrates 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I created a new article and it has been suggested that it be merged. This article should not be merged. The group discussed below has existed hundreds of years prior to the Pentacostal group mentioned under the General Assembly and Churhc of the Firstborn, does not share the beliefs of the Pentacostal group mentioned therein and has over 120 congregations, not 30 as the Pentacostal group desribed. It is possible that the author describing the Pentacostal group was incorrect and was referring to this group. But, the information contained about the Pentacostal group does not describe the group below.--Shanetoland (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To me they don't sound at all like the same group. It's possible the Pentecostal group is a break-away from this other group. How would the group you wrote about be described, i.e., what type or branch of Christianity would it be classified as if not "Pentecostal"? Snocrates 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn, I can tell you that it does not fit any classification I know of; it is unique... or, to borrow from the bible, we are "a peculiar people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirVenom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems by what you are suggesting that there are two groups with the same name? Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be. It wouldn't be entirely surprising considering the name is taken from the Bible. Snocrates 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

what type of group

The Church of the First Born that I am speaking of has no affiliation with the current Pntecostal movment which began in the late 18th century, long after the Church of the First Born. There are some commonalities. There are also commonalities with Baptists, but it is not a Baptist church either. I would describe the Church of the First Born as being a seperate classification from Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostal, Lutheran, whatever. Many have not heard about the Church of the Firstborn because of the small size. --Shanetoland (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstborn Variety

Wow, it's great to see so many different articles on the different types of Church of the Firstborn. My father gets those same directories but I didn't know there was one out for 2006 yet. I usually find the General Assembly: Church of the Firstborn buildings tucked away in small towns and growing up in that church, there are some congregations that won't go to doctors due to scriptures stating that when others are sick they should seek the elders of the church and have them lay hands on them and pray to heal them. No worries though, I grew up going to doctors all my life. It was a few of my childhood friends who weren't so fortunate. If you want some reading material, try to google the name and check out all the cases of dying babies and mothers that are from Cushing, Oklahoma. Talk to ya'll later! Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am nearly certain that you are from the same church. I know people from the Cushing Church as well as Perkins, Trion, and others from Oklahoma. I don't care if they put up the stuff about the Pentacostal group, but I believe that there really is no Pentacostal group and the man that made the book which referred to the Pentacostal group was really talking about us. There are just too many similarities. --Shanetoland (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I misunderstood the concept of merging earlier. I believe that "Genral Assembly and Church of the First Born" and "Church of the First Born" should be merged into 1 wikipedia listing.

I do want to make sure that it is understood that if there really is a Pentacostal group started in 1908, that it is not confused with the much older group that is not Pentacostal. --Shanetoland (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Firstborn is a disambiguation page that directs readers to different articles that have this or similar names. General Assembly and Church of the First Born can't be merged into that page. Each page has to have its own unique name. See WP:DAB for more info on disambiguation. Snocrates 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn(GACF), are definitely not pentecostal. J. Gordon Melton promulgated that misconception in his sincere effort to classify the group, and he had very little information to work with. The GACF is an unorganized group and consequently keeps no records. Even the name itself is only one of several that have been used. Common names early on "followers of christ" or "True followers" , "true vine" or "viners", "the kissers", "peculiar people", and around Arkansas City, Kansas in the 1870s they were even termed, "McDonaldites", though the group should not be confused with the presbryterian sect of New Brunswick, Canada. In fact there is another Wiki article on the "Followers of Christ" and that article could be merged with this one on account that it is a related group. With nearly identical doctrines, and strong blood ties, as well as the same spiritual lineage, they are closer to the GACF than any other group. The group at Homestead, Oklahoma put on record at Washington D.C. the "articles of faith of the Church of the Firstborn known as the followers of Christ" on September 14, 1918. The Indianapolis church had done nearly the same thing about 1914, at the commencement of WWI. Though the group had used this name in different areas it was mainly chosen because the state department would not accept "True Followers of Christ" as a name at that time. The affiliated churches on the western coast did not follow through with the "official" name change until the next world war.Elprofesordemente (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)elprofesordemente

Note to the board. I am new to this site and am not quite up to speed on how to document everything, however, I do have docs and sources with plans to add them when I have a moment to figure this out.Elprofesordemente (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)elprofesordemente

Physicians

I have deleted the last part of the sentence in the second paragraph which read ",but it does not believe in seeking medical help from physicians." Some members choose faith healing over seeking medical attention, however this should not be confused with doctrine of the church. Alynn05 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Alynn05

You need a source. This is what it says in the source that is already provided. Snocrates 09:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not read in your source "they do not believe in seeking medical help from physicians" It is not doctrine and should not be published as though it is. Alynn05 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Alynn05

Yes, it is in the source if you would care to look it up. It says: "The group makes use of all the gifts of the Spirit and holds the Lord's Supper in conjunction with footwashing, but does not seek the help of doctors." There has been some confusion about multiple churches with the same name. It's possible you are referring to another non-Pentecostal church of the same name, in which case you should edit an article about that church, not this one. This article has been written with reference to a reliable source, which is a requirement on WP. If you have a source which discusses the non-doctrinal nature of this belief, by all means, make edits in conformity with the reliable source. Snocrates 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can testify that the church of the firstborn in agra, oklahoma uses Physicians. Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Directory of Churches, one could go on forever listing the ones that do not believe in seeking medical attention, and also spend some time the other way. The problem is that some of the churches in the Directory are radically different from the others, and should not really be considered the same church. That's the way many in the church see it, anyway, not that I have any written source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.121.7 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been in recent times some groups of The Church of the Firstborn who have yielded to the state in regards to faith healing. However, historically, the group defined itself by the five signs that followed the believers. I can also testify that the church in Agra, as well as the one in Perkins, have had, because of this issue, a stigma attached to them for over 30 years by the others. Elprofesordemente (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)elprofesordemente

Not surprising that this church would want to gloss over the fact that many, many children have died due to neglect http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news0208f.htm 86.181.163.112 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Relax, I am here and a Firstborn Minister.

Maybe we could put the bickering aside and not be merged with a domination? 12.97.0.66 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC) well they arent true firstborns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.60.16.115 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the church

I agree with not being merged with a denomination, as a member of the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn we are like no other denomination, we might be classified as similar to Pentecostal but we are not. My family has been in the church for a hundred years and the information in this article is close to the history that I have read about and been told about from the older members. We do teach that faith in God is what will get you to heaven, we do and have for generation called for the elders of the church to pray for our sick. We do have members that do use doctors and that is between them and God, but the original church teaching is the belief in faith healing or trusting in God to care for our every need. As with other churches over the years there have been those that have broke with the original church doctrine and have separated themselves from the original church to follow after their own doctrine, of which Agra,OK and Perkins, OK as well as others are examples. As for the book the "Post Boy" and the description of a Church of the Firstborn (I have photo copies of the original book) I am not sure where the actual book is located, and I am not sure that the church described in the book is the Church of the Firstborn of today. The Articles of Faith that was put on record in Washington DC (of which I have a copy with the original signature), was for the purpose of having the US Government recognize the church as an established church for the purpose of exempting the members from bearing arms in the war. Many of the church assemblies had been in existence for years before that record was every filed in Washington. 166.128.55.167 (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed

The article relies heavily on apparently unverifiable documents, letters (unless someone can provide ISBN for these?) and references to ancestry.com. None of these meets the guidance of reliable sources. I have tagged the article for improvement but unless verifiable sources can be added, unsupported text should be deleted. Fæ (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Letter

The article reference mentions a 47 page letter form an elder of the church, which myself being new to wiki, I assume this does not meet the guideline for a reliable source. However, having a personal knowledge of the Followers of Christ Church, for which there is another wiki article, the 47 page letter references history in common with that church. I would like to see a link to that letter.

Cally2 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In line with RS and V, I have removed references to unverifiable sources. Please discuss on this talk page in order to reach a consensus before adding these back. Fæ (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

The church that is in questions official church name is "The General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn" while some shorten it to go by Church of the Firstborn. Some refer to the group as "True Followers of Christ" as well based on the idea that they are true believers because they place their faith on God's hands instead of relying on man for healing. Outside of a Wikipedia article, there is no documentation of the other names listed above. They are similar to Pentecostal and Southern Baptist but do not belong to either and do not have a denomination but recognize affiliation by the name of the church. <ref>"https://www.google.com/maps/place/General+Assembly+and+Church+of+the+Firstborn/@35.9921861,-96.0947028,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x87b6bdbc5743ebc9:0xee57fb05aa44d336!8m2!3d35.9921818!4d-96.0925141"<ref> If the churches some of you are referring to have a different name, they are not the same church. They may be similar but that does not mean they are the same one on this article. There are a lot of different churches that share some beliefs but differ in other ways, hence different names. Hence "Faith Assembly" is not the same church; they do not believe in divorce at this assembly but I cannot find any written proof to verify but have researched and spoken to church some of the church leaders. Below is the scripture they follow in regards to faith: James 5:14 Context 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. 12But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. 13Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. 14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

That being said, any church leader can leave a church and start a church of their own and can decide on the name themselves so this does not mean that there are not other churches with the name that are not a part of this group. The name comes from a verse in the Bible. <ref>"https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-12-23/"<ref> Here are links to other churches with the same or similar names: <ref>https://gacfb.weebly.com/ http://www.thegeneralassembly.org/about-us.html https://www.thechurchofgodofthefirstborn.net/ http://www.thechurchofthefirstborn.org/about/ http://cofbsa.org/pastor-letter.html<ref> ~lizzy1989~

I'm really not sure what to say. This isn't an encyclopedia article, this is a bunch of disjointed schziophrenic rambling.
. One group referenced elsewhere on this sheet as COTFB also was known as Faith Assembly in Indianapolis (in Brightwood). The community where it was located "moved on" and now the building was abandoned last time I looked. My grandmother lived next door to several members ~ and reported they used "special undergarments" without crotches, and regularly remarried former partners since divorce was incredibly common in that group.
Seriously, what the heck? This article needs to be almost completely rewritten. And that might be too gracious - I'm not sure if there's anything salvagable in there. --79.218.44.90 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a point. I am puzzled as to what "Hamner, Violet "Legacy of Faith, Indiana Church of the Firstborn History" 1982" actually is. There appears to be no library in the world that stocks it so perhaps it was someone's self published newsletter rather than a reliable source. If reliable sources are not added or someone who cares about this article appears to explain how they are actively improving it, I shall nominate it for deletion on the basis of failing WP:V and WP:ORG. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more or less what I was getting at - the article is in a really sorry state when it comes to sources; in the rare cases where there IS a citation, the citation isn't verifiable. So... yeah, deleting the article and starting over (and this time working with verifiable sources) sounds like a good plan to me. --79.218.44.90 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Faith Assembly is not COTFB, the names are not even close. In reference to the special undergarments, again not the same church, I doubt they are missing the crotches, your remarks sound more like gossip than actual the churches actual doctrine. Better to learn about such things from an actual member, preferably leaders. <ref>https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-garments<ref> ~lizzy1989~

Hmmm...

To begin with, you should make it clearer whether this group is or isn't a Mormon church. Or even more fundamentally there's description of blood ties -- is this something like Judaism that is somewhere between a race and a religion? In other words, what percentage of the followers are converts? Is there an online resource that lays out their principal beliefs clearly, which you can describe here? Don't omit anything for being too "obvious" - for example, where would the group fall in List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality? You should look for WP:reliable sources as a top priority - any uninvolved third party publications about the group to show it is actually known by enough people that we can write something "neutral" about it. Nonetheless, the Draft: namespace is open for business, so even if you can't get any better sourcing, it would still be more useful for someone to explain what the group is and believes in a straightforward but unsourced way so someone can move it there pending confirmation, than to not have anything about it. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles of Faith of the COFB and the LDS churches are nearly identical.

I am surprised that no one has commented on the similarities of the Mormon church (LDS) articles of faith and the Articles of Faith of the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn (Followers of Christ).

The Mormon document was written in 1842 by Joseph Smith and the Articles for the COFB were written in 1918 in Oklahoma and a similar document by a California COFB church in 1944. The documents are almost identical.

The COFB Articles were obviously written later than the LDS Articles and relied heavily on them.

Perhaps, again, indicating that the churches are somewhat related or share a common history.

I can provide copies of both documents and considered adding them here, but wanted to keep my comments brief. COFB68 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The General Assembly and Church of the First Born appears NOT to be the same church as the one referenced in the 1701 book, The Post Boy robb'd of his mail.

The Wikipedia article on the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn states: "The General Assembly and Church of the First Born are known to have existed as early as 1701. A book, The post-boy robb'd of his mail, in the Harry Ransom Center Library of the University of Texas Call No. PR 3478 G3 P6 1706 by Charles Gildon, 1665-1724 published in 1706."

Many in the COFB believe this reference is to their church, but there is no evidence that it is the same church, in fact, the evidence is that it is NOT the same church, only the same name.

But I was glad to see that the correct Call Number was used in this citation. Previous copies of the entry that had been circulated in the churches for many years, used the wrong Title, wrong author and wrong Call Number.

The book is a collection of humorous writings, purporting to be lost letters. The premiss is that a bag of mail was lost or stolen and a group of men, like a jury, are reading the fictitious letters and make comments about them.

An interesting way to write a novel.

And it is interesting that the book is included in the University of Texas Library catalog as a work of "English, prose, fiction" and considered satire.

I don't believe that the church mentioned in this document is the current COFB for several reasons, even though it is possible that a church went by that name in 1706, just like some new unrelated churches today use that same name.

Where did this book come from? What was the Post Boy? Who wrote it? For what purpose? Does it truly describe the current COFB church?

Hopefully no one is using it to establish some kind of doctrine or unchallengeable history of the church and would require its members to agree that it is part of the COFB history.

Does the description of the church in this document describe the present General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn?

If we examine each line of the description, some of them could apply to many churches and are not unique to the COFB. And others statements do not describe the church at all.

It says, "Some call’em Visionaries, Revelation-Men, and Behemenists from Jacob Behemen whose tenants they follow in many things."

If that is true, then we need to find out who was Jacob Boehme and what were his beliefs? If you read what Jacob Behemen wrote I suspect COFB members would be very uncomfortable with his writings and beliefs, and reject them.

According to an Wikipedia article,

"Jakob Böhme (/ˈbeɪmə, ˈboʊ-/;[1] 1575 – November 17, 1624) was a German Christian mystic and theologian. He is considered an original thinker within the Lutheran tradition and his first book, commonly known as Aurora, caused a great scandal."

He lived his life as a Lutheran and received the sacrament from that church on his death bed.

Now,let's look at what is on the document and see if it describes the COFB church.

"The Church of the First Born are the heirs of Salvation and they are above ordinances, and walk here as if they were above." (Does the current COFB church believe they are above ordinances and walk as if we are in heaven? Not that I am aware of.)

(From what little I do know about the author of The POST BOY, Charles Gildon, he personally did not believe that the The church of the First Born were the heirs of Salvation and he was not a member, he was at one time an atheist, then a Deist and then finally a member of the Church of England, Anglican, which he describes in the same book as the one true church.)

"Christ is so united to them that he is in them; their tenants are much the same with the preceding." (True, but not unique.)

"They meet at any house of their members," (True on occasion, like many small or newly established churches and churches in the Anabaptist tradition, with some like the Amish, it is a tenant of their beliefs and they still do it today, early Quakers, early Mennonites and others for a time. But it is not a tenant of the COFB faith. And most COFB churches own and meet in a church building.)

"where after a silent contemplation". (Like Quakers? And by the way many of his followers of Boheme's writings, became Quakers. But that is not a prescribed part of COFB worship or a tenant. Starting and ending a meeting with a song and siting in silent contemplation is not required, but does happen.)

"they break forth in Ejaculations of joy". (The present COFB does not do that, but other churches of that time did, Amish, Quakers and others did.)

"and Transport of the other Life; of their Communion with Saints and Angels in Heaven". (Does the COFB do that today?)

"and the privileges they enjoy here, where they are pilgrims and sojourners". (What privileges? It is True that everyone is a pilgrim and sojourner.)

"They hold themselves nearer related to them that are of their opinion than by any tie of birth". (yes, some do, like many churches and religions.)

"and therefore bestow the greatest part of their Estates on the former". (Really? Is that a tenant or tradition of this COFB? I'm not aware of it).

"Some call’em Visionaries, Revelation-Men, and Behemenists from Jacob Behemen whose tenants they follow in many things." (The COFB has no history or tradition of being called those names and I don’t think anyone would agree with his teachings, a mystic philosopher “in the Lutheran” tradition.)

"Their Divinity is about the most mysterious things explaining the Trinity". (What was their most mysterious things explaining the Trinity? Would the COFB agree with that doctrine? I think not.)

This is what Boheme thought about the trinity "the trinity as truly existing but with a novel interpretation. God, the Father is fire, who gives birth to his son, whom Böhme calls light. The Holy Spirit is the living principle, or the divine life?")

What did he/they believe about "the Nature of God (?)and Angels(?)".

There is much more written about his beliefs, but I'll spare you.

Here is what one article says about Jacob Boheme"

"If Signatura Rerum by the German mystic Jacob Boehme looks like a book you'd find in the library at a certain school of wizardry, you're not too far off. Boehme discourses at length here on one of the fundamental laws of Magic: the law of signatures, the concept that every object in the real world has some hidden meaning, and particularly how these signatures interact. At the core of Boehme's philosophy is a mystical Christianity. However, his beliefs were far from that of the Lutheran establishment, and he was persecuted his entire life. Boehme's view of a universe where a creative and destructive principle are in conflict was later repurposed by Hegel as the dialectic. Newton, Nietzsche, the Quaker George Fox, and even Phillip K. Dick have all been cited as being influenced by Boehme. "

Does this document (taken from the "Post Boy") describe the COFB that exists today? I think not.

According to some documents and church histories, the present COFB did not even go by that name until the early 1900's or during the First World War, 1918.

Many churches have probably existed with that same name as the COFB in the past. Some churches are called that today and have no relationship, fellowship, tradition or history as the current COFB church.

If someone believes that the document or the book, "Post Boy", is describing the COFB church that exists today and finds comfort it in, because it establishes a longer history for the church, there is no harm in it. But no one should be required to believe it. COFB68 18:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)