Wikipedia

Talk:Universal Life Church/Archive 3

< Talk:Universal Life Church
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Panda317 in topic Iam a Minister of he ULC. Also a D.D.(Doctor of Divinity) Have been asked if my"Dr." is real though!
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

NPOV dispute

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The content of the initial summary is inappropriate and NPOV because it focuses entirely on the ease of becoming ordained by ULC. The summary should, at least, include some mention of ULC's creed, history, and membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.155 (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

added some of the above requested information. source is various ULC literature. JDBlues (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

the new version is satisfactory 76.85.197.193 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again, another round of an outcast ULC church trying to spread its propaganda on this wikipedia. "Teacherbrock" removing NPOV material from the wikipedia. When it clearly is appropriate to this article, and is a very true statement. Teacherbrock is a revisionist through and through. Wikipedia should enforce guidelines on when users can post on certain articles, so trolls can't keep creating new accounts like this church is doing to try and revise history.

Brdennis (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Brock, you need to start following the rules on Wikipedia. I noticed you've broken and been warned about the 3 revert edit rule before. Ill say it again, quit reverting edits without discussing it on the talk page. You have a history of breaking the rules.
You do not understand the content of the article you are making edits on. The section you are editing has nothing to do with religions recognizing other religions. It has to do with traditional churches, such as those that actually have a physical church in real life. And not just on the Internet recognizing the degrees, ministers, baptisms and other services offered by an Internet church. The universal life church is predominately run only by churches who exist on the Internet. Which is the source of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the degrees, and ministers of the Universal Life Church. However, the ULCHQ does have a physical church.
However, as the article stated before you reverted it. The degrees, and ministers are generally not recognized by other churches because you do not need to go through any training or academic studies before being granted the title of 'Minister'. You just buy the titles. They will ordain anybody.
Now please stop making edits to this page. If you wish to make an edit please consult with the other editors on the talk page first.

Brdennis (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Teacherbrock's statement that no churches recognize each other's degrees is untrue. There are numberous multifaith seminary. Harvard Divinity being one of the best known. Additionally Epsicopal Priest can transfer to the Catholic Church without re-attending seminary. JDBlues (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

cite sources. GreenJoe 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is common knowledge but here is a news article discribing a Episcopal to Catholic switch. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBlues (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

here is the harvard link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Divinity_School JDBlues (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Can't we all just get along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.201.151 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdated information about Maryland?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that the statement about Maryland in the "Authority to solemnize marriage and other rites of the church" section may be outdated. I found this link: http://www.northernway.org/marriagelaws.html#MD which states that the rules for performing marriages in Maryland has changed as of 2005.

The text of the actual code from Maryland Family Law Section 2-406 (2) (see http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gfl/2-406.html) appears to confirm this.

I am no lawyer, so I do not completely understand the impact of the new code on ULC ministers officiating marriages in Maryland. Can someone more knowledgeable weigh in?

Rocklob 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why exactly your asking here, but a ULC Minister can still solemnize marriages in the State of Maryland since they squarely fit in to:
§ 2-406. (a)(2)(i)  any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony

[[1]] is the official state statue page.

JDBlues 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok i seen what you were talking about and removed that line of text. JDBlues 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cant we all just get along?

New York Times article has different information

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The Sunday New York Times of August 5, 2007 ran a story [2] entitled Great Wedding! But Was It Legal?.

In it, the author (Devan Sipher) asserts that Connecticut, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee and other jurisdictions, including Las Vegas and some suburbs of New York City, do not authorize ministers to perform weddings unless they lead active ministries. Various officials quoted in the article indicated that prosecution was unlikely but that some such weddings could be challenged in the event of disputes following divorce or death. The article mentioned a case in Suffolk County, NY where a marriage and prenuptial agreement were invalidated by an appellate court. The case is apparently Ranieri v Ranieri, which is cited twice in the reference section of this Wikipedia article but not in the main text.

I am myself a ULC minister and have performed about ten weddings (none in the named jurisdictions). Nevertheless, I am a bit uncomfortable seeing a Wikipedia article with information that (if Sipher is right) may be one-sided.

Larry Tesler 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then edit the article. Just make sure to cite sources. GreenJoe 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is important to remember that none of the people cited in that article actually have the authority to invalidate a marriage or even say who is legally able to solemnize a marriage. Who can and can not solemnize a marriage is determined by State Statue and Case Law. Even Office of the Attorney General Opinions are not legally binding unless upheld by Case Law.

JDBlues 04:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conn law: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap815e.htm#sec46b-22.htm

Sec. 46b-22. (Formerly Sec. 46-3). Who may join persons in marriage. Penalty for unauthorized performance. (a) All judges and retired judges, either elected or appointed, family support magistrates, state referees and justices of the peace may join persons in marriage in any town in the state and all ordained or licensed clergymen, belonging to this state or any other state, so long as they continue in the work of the ministry may join persons in marriage. All marriages solemnized according to the forms and usages of any religious denomination in this state, including marriages witnessed by a duly constituted Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is, are valid. All marriages attempted to be celebrated by any other person are void. (b) No public official legally authorized to issue marriage licenses may join persons in marriage under authority of a license issued by himself, or his assistant or deputy; nor may any such assistant or deputy join persons in marriage under authority of a license issued by such public official. (c) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not more than fifty dollars. (1949 Rev., S. 7306; 1951, S. 3001d; 1967, P.A. 129, S. 1; P.A. 78-230, S. 4, 54; P.A. 79-37, S. 1, 2; P.A. 87-316, S. 3.) History: 1967 act specified validity of marriages witnessed by Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is; P.A. 78-230 divided section into Subsecs., deleted reference to county and reordered and rephrased provisions in Subsec. (a) and substituted "may" for "shall" in Subsec. (b); P.A. 79-37 authorized retired judges and state referees to perform marriages; Sec. 46-3 transferred to Sec. 46b-22 in 1979; P.A. 87-316 applied provisions to family support magistrates. Annotations to former section 46-3: Minister who solemnizes marriage must be "settled in the work of the ministry." 2 R. 382. Ordained deacon performing usual duties of minister held to be authorized. 4 C. 134. A clergyman in performing marriage ceremony is a public officer and his acts in that capacity prima facie evidence of his character. 4 C. 219. Proof of celebration of marriage raises a presumption of its validity. 85 C. 186; 93 C. 47. In absence of proof of authority of justice of peace, marriage void. 129 C. 432. Our law does not recognize common law marriages. Id. Marriage, deficient for want of due solemnization, voidable. 163 C. 588. Annotations to present section: Former section General Statutes (Rev. 1949) S. 7302 cited. 182 C. 344, 348, 350, 352.

See the bolded sections. It states basically that being ordained only is not enough. You must be active in a ministy without defining what they consider a ministry.

Alabama law:

Section 30-1-7 Persons authorized to solemnize marriages. (a) Generally. Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which the minister is a member; by an active or retired judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court, or any district court within this state; by a judge of any federal court; or by an active or retired judge of probate.

(b) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. Marriage may also be solemnized by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules ordained or custom established by such society. The clerk or keeper of the minutes of each society shall keep a register and enter therein a particular account of all marriages solemnized by the society, which register, or a sworn copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the fact.

(c) Quakers, Mennonites, or other religious societies. The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations, may solemnize marriage according to their forms by consent of the parties, published and declared before the congregation assembled for public worship.


Tenn, NYS, and VA are already discussed in the article with Tenn only being an OAG opinion (not legally binding), while NY and VA have case law that clearly shows that ULC ministers that are just merely ordained by the ULC can not solemnize and North Carolina is at best unclear of where or not the curative law only covered up to the specified date or infact included beyond. JDBlues 04:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This link is relevant to the article

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Just because I'm anonymous doesn't mean my edits should be disregarded

Universal Life Church Monastery is totally relevant to the article as it points to one of their branches. I looked over the policy and saw I was not in violation of anything 68.239.144.138 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monestary isn't affiliated with the ULC. GreenJoe 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Besides, if we list this one, we have to list them all and Wikipedia isn't a links repository. GreenJoe 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, it's not a particularly notable branch of the church; therefore, the link doesn't warrant inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As GreenJoe pointed out the ULC Monastery is not only not a branch of the ULC, it is it's own organization with it's own leadership and independent ordainment process and record keeping. This make's it far differant then say www.ulc.net or www.ulcseminary.org that both fall under the ULC for ordination and maintaining the records of those ordinations. Yet neither of those are linked becuase Wikipedia isn't a links repository. If anything the ULC Monastery would qualify for it's own article provided it is notable enough and has enough infomation to provide more then just a stub. JDBlues 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be something in the article to explain what the ULC Monastery is - because it's REALLY unclear from the web sites of the organizations what this split is about, and what the difference between the two organizations is. Neither seems to be willing to discuss the other, so this must have been some sort of split on differences. Maybe the Monastery needs its own article, with a "see also" here - but something needs to be done to explain the differences between the two organizations who claim to be the Universal Life Church. I can't make the change, as I don't know the answers - but someone here must. XeroxKleenex 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on this. I too don't know what it's over. However, it needs to be verified if added in. GreenJoe 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[3] this link might explain it as well as the current lawsuits between the two folks claiming ownership of the ULC Monastery [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBlues (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The link to the monastery is relevant per WP:EL what to include #1. If this section of the article is about the monastery, its website should be included. Move it to the moastery section if that would be a better placement, but stop deleting it. 216.6.230.148 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still not relevant. If you want that link somewhere, submit it to the Open Directory. This article is on the main ULC church, not the monestary. GreenJoe 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ky OAG opinion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While the law was infact repealed in 1996 proper source, the linked OAG opinion is still valid and historically correct. The section does not denote current laws, but opinions issued by various OAG's in regards to the ULC. Further, the OAG opinion further defines what it feels a minister is in context of KRS 402.050 which has NOT been repealed.

JDBlues 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Monastery info needs clarification

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

George Freeman did not take over the ULC Monastery in a bloodless coup. The real ULC Monastery continues to exist in Tucson, Arizona, and per AZ Secretary of State records, is still presided over by Daniel Zimmerman. Freeman did steal his domain name and coopted the name ULC Monastery and site design elements, and is making obvious efforts to confuse site visitors into thinking that it is the same place as well as giving the impression that it is the actual ULC (through the use of meta tags, pay per click adverstising, and statements made on the home page.

Zimmerman has sued Freeman in federal court and has made several criminal allegations against him as well. The case won't likely reach trial until at least 2008 however.

While all of this is probably too much information and confusing to those unfamiliar with the case, the facts as they are presented in the article are incorrect. The Seattle incarnation of the ULC Monastery is something entirely different from the Arizona Monastery, just as it is separate from the ULC itself.

Nikita24 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nikita, as cited about the coup was bloodless, Mr. Freeman was a member of the Board of Directors of the Tuscon Based ULC Monastery and the Board did vote to remove Mr. Zimmerman from the Presidency and the Board and filed it with the State of AZ.

Below you will find the minutes of this meeting:

The AZ Corporation Board had for a period accepted this document and made Mr. Freeman the President, but later reversed thier postion as " "accepted in error" and re-enstated Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Freeman upon gaining control of the Tuson based ULC Monastery, moved it's official location to Seattle. Further Mr. Zimmerman is not currently in good standing with the ULC Monastery in AZ. It is a true and correct fact that Mr. Zimmerman has several lawsuits pending against Mr. Freeman as noted in a link above and in the sources listed below.

Given the above, it was infact a bloodless coup. The legality of said coup is still pending legal action.

Sources


JDBlues 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Monastery is nothing but a fraud, all they want is your money. It should not be a non for profit organization, that is just a way for Mr. Freeman to get more of a profit. "Support the ULC Legal Defense Fund - Make a Donation" Dont give them a penny, they are nothing but con artists. They want to raise money to help keep the theft of the organization from going back to Daniel Zimmerman.

Haloblack 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

once and for all

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So i have research many ULC churches

So one email from a well known one - that was recieved . goes forth as such

Okay. Let's see if I can cover this. ulc.net doesn't speak for the church, but they are authorized to sell all of the church's materials. We are not 'authorized', which means they won't sell us their materials at wholesale.

What it takes to be authorized is that headquarters agrees.

They are hesitant because there was such a problem with the ulc.org site. And yes, headquarters will accept all ordinations sent to them, but I put it in there because a lot of people don't understand it as well as you do. I got a lot of emails about whether our ordinations are sent to headquarters, so I put it in the faqs. The only legal material provided is the credential and that's sent from headquarters. The rest of our materials are not 'legal', but are valid in that the certificates meet the requirements of certificates in the different states and the rest of the materials are also just fine. People have asked, so I'm confirming for them that the materials are acceptable.

hmmm the ulc.org site used to speak for the church, the ulc.net is a bookstore, the ulcseminary.org is just trying to follow suite... So every other site is just a copy everyone else, so heres a list

complimets of the dmoz (which is just a fraction of the sites out there !)

Angel Goddess Ministry - The Church of Ju-Jitsu Janissaries of Saturday Saints - The Church of the Good Life - International Council of ULC Ministers - Officiating Weddings - PanZen Ministry - Pastor Jack J. Stahl, D.D. - Progressive Universal Life Church - Rational Universal Church - The ULC Jedi Sanctuary - Universal Life Church Minister's Association - Universal Life Church of Great Barrington, MA - Universal Life Church of Michigan - Universal Life Church of the New Age - Universal Life Church WebRing - Universal Life Chutch Seminary - Universal Ministries - Universal Natural Life Church - Yahoo Group: The Universal Life Church -

So to end all arguments just include every ULC site on the internet in this wiki, as they all are a part of the Universal Life Church, they are all ULC, the creed of the ULC is to do that which is right?! Right? assuming that from every website that stamps the word ulc on something...Since by doctrine, headquaters MUST authroize all ordinations sent to them!! And well you just might not get them to give you a "wholesale deal on the products they sell"

Since the fundamentals of being ULC minister give you the right to start a church, marry people, do all that a "minister" is legally able to do. Why is it that there is so much controvery over all this anyhow. Seeing as how there is no real head of the church, every branch is equal, there is no head master, there are no deacons, there are no bishops there are no popes!!!

go out side, calm down, take a valium or two, jesus!

Subgen (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am failing to see your point. J (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
my point is that is if you want to use this wiki as a definition of what is the ULC, then you should include every website that is apart of the "Universal life church" umbrella! As any edit made to the main page is instantly reverted back, it like there is a strangle hold on even including any link to any other site but the ulchq.com “which isn’t even the head quarters because there is no "REAL" headquarters. It’s an open religion, not like the Vatican or a religion that has a central location. As a minister of the Ulc, I can start my own church, which falls under the "universal life church". Would my website be included in this?

J - im sorry that you dont understand what im saying, Perhaps i shouldnt feed the trolls on this one. I should just ask for page protection when any edits are made? The wiki should not be Monopolized for anyone single editors personal needs or goals. Subgen (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The ULCHQ, of which there is actually one, can and does refuse ordination request on a regular basis. Further they also refuse to take ordinations for specific sources (like from the ULC Monastery). Further, it is against Wikipedia's policy to just list every website WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Much like any other denomination, the Catholic, Baptist, what have you page does not list ever church that is aligned under it or operates as a similar church with a similar name like the Independent Catholic Union for example. They list the history of the main organization. Just as the ULC Wiki currently does.

JDBlues (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Subgen. We can't list every ULC member congregation or every organization that uses the ULC name. There are simply too many of them, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of links. The best we could do is to link the dmoz category that is related. The article details with the "main" ULC because they're certainly notable. The others are not, and there most certainly is a HQ, that's who keeps records of everyone who has been orained.
Hope this helps. J (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Latest comment: 15 years ago35 comments7 people in discussion

So I understand that this page is for the ULC HQ only, that fine then why does the main page reference the split with The Monastery?

That is not a relevant topic as you so clearly point out with you previous entry.

That topic has no basis on the Universal life church, since you say that this is not a Wikipedia isn't a repository of links. Which I agree it should not be that information is not at all relative to the topic at hand.

Therefore if there are no objections it will be removed.

Further more to back this future edit: the records in Arizona show that Zimmerman, Freeman, and Chaplin, were the original incorporators of the Monastery and that they have been board members since 1999.

Since no single person can own a not-for-profit corporation! It could not be stolen! Freeman directed the website from Seattle.

“the minutes of this meeting: “ posted in this page clearly shows that Freeman and Chaplin, under the emergency powers granted to all corporations removed Daniel Zimmerman for criminal conduct and behavior. Simply put - The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann.

So why even mention Freeman or even better, why are you demonizing him in the wiki? WP:EQ

The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann, thus removing him from the board, that is not a bloodless coup. Thus making the selection of split with the Monastery a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK

Subgen (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Monestary event is notable. If it isn't neutral in tone, feel free to edit it. J (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.....lets talk criminal shall we ? Maybe we should bring up the person making criminal allegations against one another, and see if hes credible.
http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=389414
Mr. Monastery owner arrested in '00 for Indecent Exposure. Or maybe http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=387940 Arrested for driving on a suspended license. Or maybe http://publicinformation.seattle.gov/cpi/smc.publicInformation.search.action.case.caseNumber.action?caseNumber=340286 Charged with obstructing a public officer.

As somebody who used to work for the fraud that is "The Monastery". I can safely say Mr. Freeman is one of the biggest con artists I've ever met. And to his office staff who I know will be reading this. Why don't you wake up, and look why hes hired you. He only hires young attractive people. Further more hes told me personally he would have sex with all of you. If he wouldn't have sex with you he wouldn't hire you. Thats how he runs the "non for profit" corporation that is "The Monastery". It is very sad that he is able to exploit peoples religious beliefs for profit. Brdennis 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Brdennis When was the last time you went to a resturant and saw an ugly server? People are hired all the time based off of looks. How about we throw in your crimal record to? Perhaps explain to people why you were let go? Your personal bias toward Mr Freeman have no basis here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subgen (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah you see. Subgen here works for "The Monastery". Which is something we already knew. I'm not the biased one here, I don't get paid by George like you do to sit here on Wikipedia and defend him. Which is something he pays people to do, and discussed with me. As somebody who used to edit Wikipedia for George I know how this game works Subgen, why don't you ask Lane Rasberry about Geroge, and all the lies and criminal things he saw him do. You are so blinded by his charsima you don't see the truth. And yes, I have a felony on my record from when I was a juvenile, I'm not hiding that fact. I'm also not running a "non for profit" corporation. George has a mile long record of legal battles that dates back to the 80s. And bringing up the server thing, is just laughable. There is no public relations person, no front office to "The Monastery". In fact, he hides the address of where the "office" is because its his personal residence. He uses a "Suite" at the post office, aka a mail box. To hide the location of the "office". I've got nothing to hide here, George has everything to hide about his exploitation of religious persons to make a profit.
I'm available to tell the truth to you Subgen, If you want to listen to me. Why don't you stop listening to George for a second and think for yourself. Instead of having him do it for you. 83.233.181.104 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad, as i see it, yes i work for George, however, that is irrelevant when speaking of facts. Which NO ONE here seems to be concerned with FACTS not opinions. I have seen documents from the state of California and Arizona, which back up my statement, i am not a puppet. My facts are in order, and I can prove what i have stated, and i full stand behind them. That is not being blinded by anything, i am not BLINDED by my own personal anger towards anyone... as with my own eyes, everything that i have stated, Which can all be backed up with documents. I dont give a crap about your record, georges, or anyones. That has nothing to with this article, there are many people in power and people who run business that have records. BIG DEAL, and you know as well as i do that i am right on that point. So i care less about about Georges record, and even less about yours... So for you and the other editor of this page who are disillusioned to think that you own this article. You dont! nor do i. I just want to include information that is NOT BIASED / slanderous / or derrogitory. i dont want to cause vandalism, remove out information from the page, or remove the other links to the sites, leave them in, say what you want. However blatant slander i dont think falls within the WP:EQ The facts that i have presented are real. if you are going to say that George is exploiting anyone. You cant forget all the other ulc churches !! Where as what you are saying is hearsay, personal opinion and biased.if the shoe were on the other foot I would defend you, based solely on facts, i you have facts to back up your words, i would back you up as well, hell i would defend anyone that was being slandered.

You DONT OWN this page Subgen (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are getting paid to edit this Wikipedia article, specifically to support one persons view point. That violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV. I've not said anything that isn't true, therefore it is not slander. I have yet to see any proof of anything so far you've claimed. I'm not going to continue discussing this matter on Wikipedia, because it is getting too far off topic. But nothing I've said isn't true. Why do you think George removed my post about his criminal record, within 12 hours of myself posting it. He's hiding everything, and censors everybody who disagrees with him. This isn't his personal page, we speak the truth. I personally think you should be blocked again from editing for Wikipedia for now admitting what we already knew. You are violating Wikipedia's NPOV. And should not be allowed to post on this article.

Brdennis (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

it is notable in that "The Monastery" was in communion with the ULCHQ up until the recent split. Additionally given the confusion even with in the mainstream media outlets as to which site is the real (orginal) ULC, with many incorrectly citing ulc.org and "The Monastery" as well as claims on "The Monastery" website that are deceptive in nature as to thier orgins and standing within the the ULC. Some of these statements include using Kirby Hensley's name, the name ULC, as well as dates and data associated with the ULC HQ as thier own.

JDBlues 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again that is not a notable event as there is no mention of any other churches that were involved with the ULCHQ.com. or as you so put it the (orginal) ULC. As previously stated, there is NO HEADQUATERS, us the left over second corporate after the first one went bankrupt! The second corporate that they opperate under is NOT the one founded by Kirby, so it is not the (Original), Please double check your facts before you post, absurd information. : As under the CREED of the ULC, any one may start a church. All of Kirby's material may be used by anyone, as well as using the name of the ULC. The main stream media has nothing to do with anything here. As cited on their website, they do say that:
Brother Daniel and his staff continued the fight for religious liberty even to the point that only his motivation and the Grace of God relieved his ailing personal health and postponed his retirement. In August of 2006 Brother Daniel received wisdom to recognize that the church at ulc.org had become the nationally-recognized vanguard of religious rights’ preservation, and that his part in ULC history was complete. The church is now managed by an elected board.

The headquarters for the Universal Life Church Monastery in Seattle legally ordains more persons in any given month than any other church anywhere in the world. Furthermore it has directed the legal ordination process of more persons than any other church in history. We are poised to champion the underdogs and the oppressed just as church legacy would dictate. There simply is no other national church with the proven history of devotion to ministers for the sake of their own ministries; we want to meet your needs now and bless your calling, whether you intend to change the world or to simply officiate a wedding for your loved ones in your capacity as a legally ordained minister.::

As I have proven my point, the Split with the monastery, I will remove as it is not related or is it notable. Subgen —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing material is vandalism, and I will be giving you a warning. There is a HQ, the one currently operated is the one that Kirby used to run before he passed away. Remove the material again, and you will be blocked. GJ 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a HQ, it is in Modesto, California, run by Kirby's son. The Monestary is notable for their split. End of story. GJ 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear GJ obviously you dont know what you are talking about, the so called HQ that is in modesto is a DIFFERENT COPRORATION, it is not the ORIGNIAL COPRORATION. THE ORGINAL CORPORATION HAS SINCE BEEN DISSOLVED. CHECK FOR YOUR SELF. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615122o Lets add that information into the wiki as well since obviously you are the ruling dicator here. As you have not responded to any of the request that i made saying it was not notable, you are commiting vandalism. Thus i must report you.*GreenJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Removing that information was not an act of vandalism, as it was a good faith edit. As they the information presented is a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK

Subgen 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the HQ is the "real" ULC that accepts ordinations under the ULC banner. You need to learn to assume good faith. I see you doing nothing but attacking me. GJ 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GJ I am not attacking you, i do assume good faith, as i have posted numberous times that i was going to remove that content. There was no response. Once done, you call me a vandal. I am making no attacks on your person. As the information, that you are so heartily trying to keep here is not notable nor is it realvant. PEROID.

The board of directors FIRED Daniel Zimmermann, thus removing him from the board, that is not a bloodless coup. Thus making the selection of split with the Monastery a null and non valid point for it to even be noted here. Along with the residing foot notes that are just personal and slanderous attacks of character. WP:ATTACK HOW many times must i say that.. That is fact. Subgen 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the only ULC former congregation to make public news in their split, thus it's notable. It may not be a bloodless coup, if you have better wording, rather than remove the entire statement, edit it. However, make sure whatever you put in is neutral. GJ 03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GJ Does this statisfy neutral? Subgen 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Split with the Monastery

Previous to the removal of Daniel Zimmerman from the Board of Directors,[1]in a phone interview with By Rev. Kara Mueller with the ULC representative Br. Daniel Zimmerman,Stated each individual and Universal Life Church is an entirely separate entity from the original Universal Life Church in Modesto, California and is responsible for its own affairs.[2] Due to Daniel Zimmerman's fraudlent activities he was removed from the Board of Directors[3] During the summer of 2006 Daniel Zimmermans was removed from the board of directors and The Monastery. The Board of Directors appointed George Freeman to run The Monastery.

As the reason for the split was that the IRS denied Modesto’s church tax exempt status in 1969 and again in 1970 on the grounds that the Hensley family was engaging in activities outside the religious activities contemplated by IRS’s 501©(3) [4]. They were buying and investing in real state in violation of federal law. The IRS’s revocation action was based on the fact that the net earnings of the Modesto “Church” were privately benefiting the Hensley family who now run the private corporate enterprise called (Universal Life Church Inc. & its website). The federal government held that the activities of the church and affiliated organizations were conducted to privately benefit the Hensley’s “church” insiders. Further, that the Modesto church engaged in advising its members on how to tax evade taxes which is why Zimmerman was sentenced in a 35 page criminal indictment to 8 yrs at Leavenworth see, [5] At that time the Hensley’s were “investing church funds” in the operation of a residential construction and varied real-estate business deals. As a result they failed to pay $6 million in back taxes. It is not common for a church to be a “business corporation” as the ULCHQ is now. The IRS doesn't seem to think it is neither. This is why they IRS removed Modesto's status as a non-profit corporation. Modesto is a business, they are not a church. [6]

It's less neutral than I would hope. If you're going to sling mud, you can't forget George Freeman himself and his misdeeds. Your statement could be a lot more neutral. GJ 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Its neutral, the facts presented are real, and they are verifiable, unlike stating it was a bloodless coup. Which is just a matter of opinion. Subgen 04:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It conveniently leaves out Freeman's own criminal record. GJ 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It also slings a lot of mud at HQ rather than presenting the facts in a neutral tone. It's pretty biased. GJ 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What does Freemans record have anything to do with the ULC? The information is not mud slinging, it true. If you want to include the split, then the reason behind the split should be listed as well.Subgen —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Beside that the WP:EQ say that we are to Argue facts, not personalities.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at wp:NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy. Subgen 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Freeman's criminal record has everything to do with the Monestary, he runs it now. You can't pick and choose with "facts" to conveniently include or not. You're violating your own rules. That entire "section suggestion" is your own soapbox and your own vendetta. I'm going to take a break from discussing this now. GJ 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Take your break i understand this is making me upset as well. The section that i suggested, was just because the this wiki page is being used as a link repositoy, there are no other links to any of the ULC churches, as they are all a part of the "ULC" but in that they are their own seperate entity, as you should know. The only mention of any other church, is the monastery, because you say it is notatable. I mentioned them as they are also noteable, as they are part of the ulc. In the topic split with the monastery it leaves out that daniel was actually removed from the board, and FIRED. It is your own personal bias statement in keeping it at "it was a bloodless coup." When i removed it because it was negitive and a bias statement you call vandalism, revert it, and then warn me. :
as stated FREEMANS record has NOTHING to do with the ULC. The legal facts of what i presented about the OLD and New ULChq are completely related, the corporation was dissolved, and they started a new one. Which is not mentioned. IF you can not see this then there is nothing else i can do except request for moderation. WP:RFCU

Subgen 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I sense you are very biased, and blinded by Freeman. This is expected. But why is it that the Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't recognize George as the PRESIDENT/CEO ? Why did they reject his paperwork huh ? If everything was on the up and up, than why did he immediately transfer ULC.org to a new domain and remove every mention of ULC.Org on the site and direct his employees to and I quote "ulcorg ULC.org should never, never never appear on the cite..Change all to themonastery.org" Direct from Mr. Freeman himself.
I will tell you why Mr. Freeman's paperwork was rejected, and to this day Daniel Zimmerman is recognized as the CEO/President. Because on 02/28/2006 Daniel Zimmerman and the Corporate Secretary removed George Freeman as the Vice President of the "Universal Life Church Monastery". Therefore, he had no power to hold the board meeting and vote out Daniel Zimmerman. That is why he is not recognized by the Arizona Corporation Commission, and that is why they rejected his paperwork. See for yourself.

http://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dwispart2plpp3.jpg

Seems like you dont know the facts.

Brdennis 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Subgen, well your way off base with the ULCHQ material. While much if it is factual, it was in no way the reason for the Spilt with the Monastery. As to the use of the bloodless coups is entirely accurate in the corporate take over of the Monastery. It was a coup d'état which is defined as "The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority." and was bloodless since there was no acts of violence to do it. As Br Dennis points out, there the ACC does not recognize Freeman as the legal president and there are several ongoing court cases between Zimmerman and Freeman over control of the corporation.
Now on to your claims about the ULCHQ having been 2 seperate corporations. Again that is not true in the least. The Church was founded in 1959 and then incorporated in 1962, it has been the same legal corporation since that time [7]. JDBlues 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In the ANNUAL REPORT filed in AZ. on: 04/09/2001 [5]shows that Zimmerman, Freeman and Chapin were the original founders of the AZ ULC/ULC Monastery Inc Corp. No one “owns the Monastery. Hence, under AZ law, one must be informed of his removal by “NOTICE”. This was not done. Further, Mr. Zimmerman in July stated to the WA State Corp Div. that Freeman was a VP and COO of the AZ Corp. Rev. Chapin was and still is, an active corporate officer in both Corp.’s’ Rev. Chapin’s authority to convene an emergency meeting was not taken into consideration at that time. Mr. Dennis is incorrect on this issue. The AZ Corp Div. has no statutory authority under AZ law to decide the legitimacy of corporate matters they are only an active record bureau. Such designations are the sole jurisdictions of state and federal courts.

In re; the factual evidence of Mr. Dennis’s slanderous allegations are simply untrue and legally actionable. All of the assets of the AZ Corp including the domain “ulc.org” were legally placed in our Washington State Corp. on the advice of legal counsel and accountants. ULC.org is just one of the hundreds of active domain names our church owns. Brdennis was terminated because it was brought to our Board's attention by our staff of his unabashed claims to have previously hacked other websites and his suggestions that he could hack competitive ULC sites. We invite you to visit his prior inaccurate self motivated posts on this site prior to our terminating him last spring where he supports the Monastery. We did not hire Mr. Dennis to spend time on these pages. He was hired to do optimizations and meta tags and redesign the forum... all of which he failed at. Mr.Dennis's online rants of fraud are exaggerated in the following arenas he has visited and also claimed "FRAUD" [6]; [[7]]; they are offered to portray his lack of credibility to submit true facts to this discussion group. We are also forwarding all copies of Brdennis’s e-mails to our attorneys for resolution, in that his postings here appear to be slanderous and actionable.

As to Mr. Freeman’s arrest record all of the arrests involve one S.P.D Ofc. Keith Swank See; [8]

As to; 340286 1 No OBSTRUCTING A PUBLIC OFFICER NG DM MTG 11/04/1998; S.P.D Ofc. Keith Swank is the same arresting officer who pulled a switch blade knife on Freeman when a black man robbed the Broadway Market in 1999 . Again it is Ofc. Keith Swank who is involved in this incident that Mr. Dennis raises above. Freeman sued Swank, the SPD and ran for City Counsel in response to their vendetta against Freeman. These are not new issues nor are they related to the ULC MONASTERY. Notwithstanding, The City of Seattle moved to dismiss all charges prior to Freeman's lawsuit. As a result it took Ofc. Swank six (6) yrs.and protracted court litigation to be promoted. [9]

Gentlemen, we are represented in ULC v. Pennsylvania by; Davis, Wright & Tremaine in national litigation on behalf of all ULC Ministers. We sent a request only to our PA ministers regarding our Legal Defense Fund which is earmarked solely for our national ULC campaign and not for The Monastery's control litigation in Arizona.

We are incorporated in several states. And represented by DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. in Tucson, AZ We also have local Seattle counsel and hire the services of two accounting firms. We ordain and minister to the needs of more people than all ULC sites put together.

We take note of the ambiguities presented on this page regarding the status and findings in USDC Modesto; US v. Universal Life Church, Inc. No. 8-93284 Filed 1/30/89----Closed 6/27/01 and the current active corporation of; US v. Universal Life Church, Inc No. C0432091 Filed: 5/2/1962. This week we have requested a records check to resolve this question. We will post the results.

Our good works include the issuing of housing grants, food assistance to the needy, and donations to The Leukemia Society and a national college fund programs hosted by Weyerhauser. Our forthcoming winter grant is designated to the Seattle Children’s Hospital through a matching grant from our local Home Depot employees. Again we invite you join us or just to look in on us time to time and see if we are meeting our Ecclesiastical Proclamation and goals as mention 12 months ago on The Road to Jericho. We have been very busy lately and apologize for not personally appearing here prior. You are always welcome to send your queries to; webmaster@themonastery.org

A humble Jedi Warrior,who is still fervently traveling the road to Jericho. Universal Life Church Monastery Headquarters 1425 Broadway Ste. 67 Seattle, WA 98122 Fax: (206) 285-7888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.106.253 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


As I said prior to George Freeman coming on this board as President/CEO of a corporation to defend himself personally, I stated "Why do you think George removed my post about his criminal record, within 12 hours of myself posting it. He's hiding everything, and censors everybody who disagrees with him." Now having been threatened by George Freeman himself I stand by what I said, and it goes to show everybody here to the degree of accuracy my statements are. Ask yourself why the President/CEO of a non for profit corporation would come onto a Wikipedia page to defend himself against a former employee on "lies". Within the few days I've posted on this board, regarding the monastery I am already being threatened legal action. That seems very odd, considering im just "lieing". What I've said speaks for itself, I'm not going to continue engaging somebody who is making lies about me.Brdennis (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to employee subgen's obviously dead wrong facts, I introduce a little more hypocrisy that is the Universal Life Church Monastery STOREHOUSE!. Not the universal life church monastery inc. Take a look at this : http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=starts_with&name=universal+life+church+monastery&ubi=

Click on the 2nd link, and you'll notice that the original corporation in the state of Washington ULC Monastery Inc is inactive. Which means they are doing business in a new corporation, which is not the "original" monastery. It seems very hypocritical in contrary to the employee here who thinks that the current ULCHQ is under a different corporation other than the original one. Which isn't true in the slightest. Yet he has the nerve to come on here, and make that false claim. When his own "church" is operating under a second corporation that they formed.

Let me remind you.
"The second corporate that they opperate under is NOT the one founded by Kirby, so it is not the (Original), Please double check your facts before you post, absurd information." - Subgen
Need I say more ? Also, I wonder whatever happened to that "forthcoming winter grant" that george freeman was talking about ? What happened to it ? It is actually behind closed doors called the "forth coming do nothing grant, designed to make it appear as tho we do anything charitable" You mean to tell me you are going to do a winter grant AFTER Christmas George <sarcasm> ? Because thats usually what fund drives are all about during winter....uh the birth of Jesus ? Or in this case Yoda. The Wise master of the Force and teacher of Jedi. He'll just wait till summer rolls around, and everybody forgot about his non existent "winter grant" and call it the "summer grant".

Brdennis (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.goddessmoon.org/Clergy/north_carolina's_position_on_ulc_ordinations.shtml {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "North Carolina's Position On ULC Ordinations", 12.03.2006, retrieved September 14, 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=158700 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9615122o.htm
  5. ^ (USA v. Daniel Zimmerman et al, CR-86-5, 8/8/1986).
  6. ^ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615122o {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C0432091 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Can't we all just get along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.201.151 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls

Lets make all the editors on the same page and everything clear to everyone, Bradley, you work for Daniel Zimmerman [AZ District court: # CV-07-209-TUC-DCB: Disclosure Statement), thus you violate the WP:NPOV as well. So it seems you go from one side to the other. So don't even talk about WP:NPOV and biased judgment, as there are a deal of posts that show your favor for The Monastery. I guess you only like them when your getting paid! : side note, its my personal option that anyone who would even bother to edit anything on this topic works for one of the churches in some mannor. So im not going to feed you anymore Consider this my last post to anything you would ever say. Subgen (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't work for any of them. That said, failing to discuss edits in good faith can be grounds for being blocked. I urge you to reconsider. GJ (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I wont say everything I want to say Justin. But your punctuation gives it all away. Maybe you should fix your punctuation errors on the websites you design, as well as the forum :) If you bothered doing your job correctly.

Brdennis (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

GJ, i have made numberous attempts to make "good faith edits" yet they seem to constantly be reverted, if not by you them someone else. Lets work on something that everyone can agree upon. Ive yet to hear any other suggestions, except that what i suggest is not neutral in tone. Please lets compromise. Subgen (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to make a compromise when your own version is worse than what is already up. GJ (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Monastery section

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

According to WP:DR, and instead of going for mediation first, it suggests that editors discuss the problem, and get an outside opinion. There seems to be no response for outside opinion here, and there aren't that many people involved here in these pages, from experience I know getting a consensus on the 'neutral' party is near impossible. I am going to put a request for comment here, as well. Lets all try to sort this out, with as much factual and verifiable information as we can. First though, I will point out the areas of policy I am concerned with here:

  • Nutshell: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but with everything they should be kept to a minimum of those that are of merit, notable, accessible and appropriate to the articles topic and subtopics."
  • We should try to avoid undue weight on particular points of view: "On subtopics that will have multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. We should add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates an informed opinion, that should be represented as well as other points of view on informed opinions "
  • Links to be avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research." -- note that the relevant part of the Reliable Sources page says "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution."

I have been rude, it ends now, I will try to cultivate a more considered tone, assured that what I extend out is given back.

  • The changes I made were to ensure that there was an opportune to express an equal numbers of ULC links.
  • Other Editors want to include more critical links of "The Monastery". Further, these are minority opinions, and some of them do not constitute reliable sources according to the policy cited above.
  • There should not be a Section that details the "Split with the Monastery" as it is not a notable event in the ULC history, there have been many churches started by ULC Ministers, those that are "authorized and those that are sanctioned" yet there is no mention of those Companies. Further more, the number of anti Monastery links should be equal to the number of pro-monastery links. They should be represented strongly in a "Further Reading / Learn More about other ULC churches section.
  • I say that is not the case, that two of the editors express anti-Monastery views (and acknowledge this). I also point out that the distribution of links etc. should basically accord with the majority opinions about this whole affair. And basically all academic / religious sources should be properly cited, To say that "What is right or what is wrong is not the case, --just trying to present the most bare-bones account of history and verifiable facts. There are other issues, like some authors disagree with and make negative remarks about "Who is the real or Who is the Headquarter". I am just talking broadly, there under the entire creed of the ULC could never be a headquarters, there can never be one person / company / church that can says what is or isn’t a valid ordination. That goes completely against the basis of the ULC and its creed.
  • I dispute listing links depicting a negative view towards the monastery, some of which are not reliable sources, and all of which are demonstrably minority opinions. All this violates wikipedia's policy on External Links, some parts of which I have highlighted above

I think I have pretty much addressed where I feel the issues are. Now I want to leave this open for comments. Also please note that I hate doing all this just for a few links, and three sentences! It would have been much better if it could have just sorted this all out without resorting to all this. That is a bit disappointing. 66.235.38.134 (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)}}

I'm going to disagree with you. I think it is important enough to be included. The question is, how can it be neutral enough? You brought up a good point about third opinion, so I listed it on WP:3O. Please register. GJ (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I assert that it is notable in that "The Monastery" is the ONLY group actually removed by the ULC Headquarters. While you hold the opinion that there can be no headquarters. Your opinion is not fact. The ULC Headquaters is the only repository of ULC ordinations. All other sites either foward thier ordinations to the headquarters in Modesto (just like "The Monastery did until thier removal) or have broken off to form a seperate church of thier own accord and without being removed by the headquarters. Subgen's sole purpose is to provide advertizing and good propaganda for his employer "The Monastery". That in itself is clearly a conflict of interest and looking at his edit history a clear violation of the WP:SPA. JDBlues (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JDBlues. The statement he made about "there can be no ULC headquarters" comes directly from the mouth of his boss. He's just repeating everything hes been told. And it shows.

Brdennis (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the hypocrisy that is the Universal Life Church Monastery. The employee here Subgen has stated that there "can be no ULC headquarters". Which is the opinion of the owner of The Monastery. Yet....If you go to there website it says "The headquarters for the Universal Life Church Monastery in Seattle " Under about us. And refers to the monastery as "Universal Life Church Monastery Headquarters" Does that make them hypocrites or just idiots ?

Brdennis (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There is no reason to exclude one or two links to reliable criticism. Links to unreliable sites should always be removed. If there are different reliable sources that disagree on a subject, both sides should be addressed with a NPOV in proportion to weight. As for the split, what evidence is there to support the contention that it is a non-notable event in ULC history? Are there reliable sources that discuss the split? If so, then it's notable and appropriate. Phyesalis (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening summary problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article seems to be a landmine of viewpoint issues (and it seems to be written and maintained and guarded by insiders). In any case, let's start with one paragraph and see if we can improve it. I won't make any changes until I hear suggestions.

The Universal Life Church has no traditional doctrine, believing as an organization merely in doing "that which is right." Each individual has the privilege and responsibility to determine what is right for him or her as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. They do not stand between the member and their God.

Sentence 1 -- "Traditional doctrine" assumes that this is a well-defined space. Perhaps it should read "traditional Christian doctrine" or "formalized doctrine." "Merely" carries with it various connotations; which is intended, I cannot tell.

Sentence 2 -- This sentence is written as a fact, not as representing a specific opinion. It needs to be rephrased to indicate the intended viewpoint.

Sentence 3 -- This sentence is also written as a fact, not as representing specific opinion. In addition, the sentence uses the word "member," which has not heretofore been defined. Is this an ordained minister of the church, or a separate "member"? Or does it mean a generic individual? I think I understand what "stand between" means, but it needs explanation and probably doesn't belong in the summary.

OK, that's a start for now. For a better wikipedia...

WaltRiceJr (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentences in question are pretty much straight from the ULC doctorine. JDBlues (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the COI tag because there's no conflict of interest here. You haven't even shown any evidence. GreenJoe 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links.

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

We've been over this subject many times before. Wikipedia is not an link link repository. And linking to The Monastery violates numerous guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. Such as rule #5 of the external links that should be avoided : (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

It also violates rule #2. That states you should not link to misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

There is absolutely no basis or merit in linking to a website just because the title of the church is mentioned in the body of an article. Brdennis (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interestCOI as a former (and rather disgruntled) employee of the Monastery. You attempted to cite "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. " rule which is no applicable in this case as the site is 1. the official web presence of the organization being discussed, 2. that organization does not have it's own wikipedia (it has been deleted) there by leaving and external link as the only mention to allow a article's viewer to learn more about the organization being discussed. Most importantly the site's primary purpose is not to sell a product or service but to offer an online form for requesting ordination, training materials, forums, various other documents, as well as produces that members of the organization may need. JDBlues (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here from WP:3O. The guideline (WP:EL) states, External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. Assuming the content of the paragraph is not disputed, it would seem appropriate to avoid the external link in the article body, but include the link in the External Links section. In my view neither point #2 nor point #5 of WP:EL guideline directs us to avoid this link. Whether the linked-to site is misleading the reader seems disputed, and in such cases I prefer to let the reader decide, as called on us by WP:NPOV policy. It also does not seem to have as its primary purpose to sell a product or service (or at the very least, an accusation that that is its primary purpose would be disputed). As the linked organization claims to represent the ULC, and is indeed referred to as part of a "split" of the Church in the article, its inclusion (in the External Links section) seems appropriate. Blackworm (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My thought on it is that it would be poorly placed if put in the external link section due to it not being a member of the organization being discussed as well as it starting the appearance of becoming a repository of every church and site related to the ULC (WP:NOTREPOSITORY) as has been a problem in the past. Maybe a change to a WP:IC?JDBlues (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I know very little about this topic, so I may need help understanding the relationship of The Monastery to the ULC. The article claims that the Monastery "split" from the ULC, and the M's web site seems to claim to represent the ULC (or at least be a "branch" of it). Thus it does seem to be quite related to the ULC (if not a part of it outright, which seems disputed). My understanding of External Links is that they must be relevant to the topic and potentially of interest to the reader, and these two criteria seem to be met. There are only two links there now, so I don't see this addition as problematic from a sheer "number of links" point of view, especially since this particular organization is discussed at some length in the article. Finally WP:IC seems to be an essay in development, and not an established guideline, thus a change to it would not seem necessary to implement this change.
Again, I offer my comments here in hopes that the disputing parties here will come to agreement. I'm not going to push for this change to any degree. Blackworm (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ULC.net vs. ulchq.com

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Last edit reason: "ULC.net is just an authorized site, ulchq.com is the actual HQ." Ka'Jong wonders if this is an actuality. The ulchq.com does not appear to have been updated since 01/2007. In the store/materials sections, not all the items appear that the Church sells, unlike at ULC.net. The net site not only appears to be more updated but also offers more assistance to its members, like Prayer Requests and On-line Confessions. Please review sites; Perhaps the Church could be e-mailed in regards to which is the actual "HQ" site; Perhaps both should be listed as both provide information about the wikipedia article. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


The owner of ULC.net, Kevin Andrews, will tell you upfront that ulchq.com is the actual site for the Headquarters of the ULC founded by Kirby Hensley. All one really has to do is do a whois search on the domain names to find out which one is based at the HQ.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/ulchq.com http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/ulc.net

Heck even ULC.net states on it's front page the address of the HQ. It's a pretty cut and dry issue.

JDBlues (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ulc.net/support/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=28&nav=0

FAQ on ULC.net that states that ulchq.com is the website of the actual HQ. 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)JDBlues (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for looking into this. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Article! Have been a Doctor of Divinity ULC for years.Wonder if a list

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great artyicle been a member of Universal Life Chiruch and Doctor of Divinty for years! Wonder if theres list of "famed" persons who beloing to the universal Life Church? Maybe mention in artyicle? Thanks! (Dr.Edson Andre')amwed04080921stcentdecd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreisme (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian denominations, unions, and movements established in the 20th century

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

how the hell can this be a "Christian denominations" when they don't believe in anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.18.39 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

universal-life-church.com

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed this reference because it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS and WP:CITE. It's very biased from what I read. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

japan

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

in the notes you list that japan is very open about the ministers then in the next group you list that japan is similar to europe and does not allow them to sign off on marriages, it has to be one of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.58.162 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A Google search turns up three different URLs for the ULC:

Given the ULC history with The Monastery, are there people willing to sort this out and update the article? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The ULC Monastery seems to want to separate itself from the original church, so I have added them in a |separations= parameter in the {{Infobox}}. To "sort this out" would require the input of somebody who understands the history of the church's troubles. That is certainly not me. HairyWombat 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.ulchq.com is not the website for world headquarters references thereto have been removed http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/location/ is world headquarters [1] Thecatholicguy (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed this from the article because I honestly do not see how it is relevant to mention that a newspaper in a mid-sized American city wrote an article about the subject that was later published on a website that posts lots of articles. We don't see the same thing about other articles or churches. (For example, on Southern Baptist Convention.) My edit was undid without comment so I would like to discuss it here. Kansan (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Church was profiled by the The Modesto Bee in an article, Universal Life Church Still Churning Out Ministers, by Lisa Millegan. This article, which profiles the Church during its transition following the death of its founder, was later republished by Belief Net, a website owned by News Corp."

I made a change to the discussion about the ULC Seminary. The ULC Seminary is one of the largest ULC sites and should not be left out. The seminary is affiliated with headquarters and has states so very clearly. This wiki states that that the ULC Seminary specifically is theistic and I stated that it does not say that and quoted the statement of beliefs that verified that statement.(http://www.ulcseminary.org/statementofbeliefs.php). Both were removed with no comment and the previous incorrect information was left up. And I agree that the article mentioned above is irrelevant. Ulcseminary (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)ulcseminary

The ULC Seminary is not recognized by any Universal Life Church as an authorized or official website. The ULC Seminary is not a registered corporation in California, it is a fictitious name. The real name is QUEST MINISTRIES OF THE UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH & ULC SEMINARY, INC [2] Thecatholicguy (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There are at least THREEB ULCS!

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Maybe article should be revised at least THREE Different ULCS!BUNKIA (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are three and the respective organizations should be referred to by there legal names. Just for example with the Universal Life Church Monastery, there are two, however the one in Seattle in accord with the Secretary of State is known as the Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. Furthermore referring these Churches as "Separations" is not a reality because they were never a part of another Universal Life Church, they are independent non-profit organizations.

Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. in Carrabelle, Florida [3] Universal Life Church, Inc. in Modesto, CA. [4] Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. in Seattle, WA. [5] Thecatholicguy (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

References to the Universal Life Church Monastery, Inc. incorporated within the State of Arizona. or the Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. incorporated within the State of Washington should not be made without citation or use of their name of incorporation. The law requires Corporations to utilize their full name to avoid confusion. As of today's date both of these corporations are active and in good standing regardless of what one or the other state.Thecatholicguy (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

References to Kirby Hensley, Hensley is not founder of Universal Life Church, he is the founder of Life Church in 1959. In 1962 he simply incorporated under the Universal Life Church name. The Universal or Universal Life Church name by an ecclesiastical definition comes from the Greek Language, with the word universal meaning katholikos which is Christian or Catholic. Universal or Universal Life is what early Christians referred to as the first Roman Church. Kirby Hensley cannot be founder of both Life Church and Universal Life Church, not when has been well documented for 1000's of years. This is common knowledge. Thecatholicguy (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

However, Hensley founded an organization that is widely known as the Universal Life Church. Accordingly, it is correct per WP:MOSNAME to refer to it on Wikipedia by that name.
Further, this article is about Hensley's organization. Other organizations named the Universal Life Church or similar should only be mentioned here to the extent that they relate to Hensley's organization. If they are notable separately, they can, of course, be discussed in their own articles. In that case, it's likely that Hensley's organization would be deemed the primary topic and keep the basic Universal Life Church title; the other articles would need article titles that disambiguate their articles from this one. —C.Fred (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hensley was founder of Life Church, not Universal Life Church. He only incorporated in 1962 using the universal name. How could Hensley be founder of a Church who was in existence in the 2nd century. Hensley's reason for using the Universal name was political, due to his involvement with the Universal Party. The Hensleys attempted to trademark the name and such was denied because the name is proprietary to Christians and the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church who is viewed as the founder of that name. The ecclesiastical definition of universal is catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Universal Life Church, not necessarily Kirby Hensley's Universal Life ChurchThecatholicguy (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer/distinguished-from text

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Thecatholicguy (talk · contribs) has added the following text to the article to distinguish this Universal Life Church from other similarly-named entities:

To avoid confusion resulting from multiple entities known as the Universal Life Church. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. is a separate entity from the Universal Life Church, Inc. of Modesto, CA. (Founded as Life Church in 1959). The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. has never been a part thereof and unlike the ULC in Modesto, the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., has a Traditional Doctrine, whereas ordinations are performed within the Christian Doctrine of Faith.[6]
  1. ^ Secretary of State, State of Florida, non-profit corporations
  2. ^ secretary of state, California
  3. ^ Secretary of State, Florida
  4. ^ Secretary of State, California
  5. ^ Secretary of State, Washington
  6. ^ Doctrine of Faith, Lineage and Succession from webcitation.org

My concern is that it's off-topic. He's not demonstrated the confusion exists. Further, Universal Life Church World Headquarters does not appear to be a notable organization, so this seems like an attempt to slip coverage of that organization into this article.

I don't entirely object to a paragraph noting that other similarly-named entities exist that are not related; I do object to it being at the top of the Overview section or in the introduction. I'd like to hear what other editors think about the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Why do you object at the top of the overview, that is the most logical place? This article before revisions was filled with solicitations, including links to ebay, price references, free promotions and etc. This is not a promotional page for any one ULC. This is a page regarding the history of the Universal Life Church. The name is actually proprietary to the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical definitions and the US Patent and trademark office will attest.

Hensley founded Life Church, not Universal Life Church. Other ULC's such as the Monastery in Tucson or the Monastery Storehouse with proper citation should also be included at their discretion.

This page is not proprietary to the ULC Modesto, you need to consider in a more unbiased way, you appear biased to Modesto, rather than seeing this with an open mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolution if this paragraph should remain at the bottom of the overview, than the overview should be revised. This whole article sounds like a solicitation. It is contradictory, how can Hensley be the founder of Life Church in 1959 and founder of Universal Life Church, simply because he incorporated this does not make a founder, nor does it give Hensley trademark to the name.

You cannot deny other Universal Life Churches to be a part of this article. Hensley has no legal claim to the Universal Life Church name. Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Any given article should be about one topic. This is about the organization legally titled the Universal Life Church that was founded by Hensley. That organization is the topic of the article, not other organizations that share the name. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with C. Fred. This article is about the Church that the others derive from. If they're notable enough, they should have their own articles. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, even if other churches existed before this entity named the Universal Life Church, the other churches are not the subject of this article. Frankly, I don't think they should be mentioned at all in the article. If they were notable, then a hatnote along the lines of "Not to be confused with Universal Life Church World Headquarters" would be warranted at the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the same problems. There is no need for disclaimers, hatnotes, or high-prominence "clarifications", by whatever name, on articles where there is no other notable subject with the same name. On the topic of notability:
  • It seems clear enough to me that when the news media or public refer to the "Universal Life Church" they are talking almost exclusively about the organization/system founded by Kirby J. Hensley in 1959 as the "Life Chuch" and incorporating as "Universal Life Church, Inc." in California in 1962. News and books often refer to Hensley and his family by name when talking about the ULC, and others refer to Modesto, California, so there's zero room for ambiguity there.
  • There appears to be no notability to the organization/system involving Michael J. Cauley and incorporating as "Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc." in Florida in June 2011. (I didn't say "founded" here because, apparently, this Florida organization is playing coy and claiming lineage to 100 AD instead of revealing when or whether this specific ministry was established prior to incorporation.) All the references I found were press releases.
  • There are other organizations with more coverage than Cauley's organization (yet still not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability): for example, "The Monastery" (which also uses the name "ULC Monastery" and "Universal Life Church Ministry", who apparently broke with Hensley's organization in Modesto around 2006, and now hides behind Domains by Proxy; the "ULC Seminary" in Elk Grove, California that incorporated as "Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church & ULC Seminary, Inc." in 2004 by Amy E. Long and appears to be affiliated with Hensley's organization in Modesto.
  • There have been at least 21 corporations in California that appear to have been religious and had "ULC" or "Universal Life Church" in their names. Most of them are defunct. There are no less than 26 of them registered in Florida; most of those have dropped off the face of the Earth as well, after lasting longer than the Cauley corporation has so far.
The only conclusion I can see from all this is that:
  1. The Hensley organization in Modesto is the only one that meets Wikipedia:Notability.
  2. The others aren't even close, and specifically, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Cauley's organization is any more important than the other 40+ corporations registered just in California or Florida alone, let alone however many there are in the other 48 states or elsewhere.
Also, I think it's pretty obvious that, based on the language used, that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest considerations are relevant to Thecatholicguy (talk · contribs)'s edits — visit the Cauley website and it will become clear. In addition, these kinds of edits indicate something other than Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
  • He seems very concerned about some sort of "confusion" that didn't appear to exist on Wikipedia until 48 hours ago. And his solution is to remove organizations that have no affiliation with Helsney's organization, while at the same time repeatedly re-inserting an even lesser-known 2011 corporation, that also has no affiliation with Helsney's organization, and a comparison that just so happens to imply that the 2011 corporation is more legitimate. Sometimes this has been added in bold text to make it more prominent than the rest of the article.
  • Also, he keeps deleting words like "free" by saying it is a solicitation to say something is free, and replacing it with strange phrases like "Ordination in the ULC is easy to ascertain". (Again, while inserting said lesser-known 2011 corporation comparison repeatedly.)
  • He advances uncited and what appears to be unsolicited legal "advice" to Wikipedia editors in the article itself, such as "to suggest otherwise would be an infringement of an individuals rights afforded to them by law".
  • He uses misleading edit summaries: e.g. "spelling correction" with the main effect of bumping his preferred organization to the top of the article in bold again; and "grammar correction" that removes an entire (albeit unsourced) sentence.
  • He removes maintenance tags from obvious weasel words and uncited claims of "confusion".
Wikipedia is not a directory of all the possible non-notable subjects that might have similar names to a subject whose notability far outstrips any other with similar names. This article is about Hensley's organization, which was already famous throughout the 1960s and 1970s, long before any of the entities being inserted into the article popped up. There is no evidence that any other similarly-named organization is the subject of any notability. --Closeapple (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


What is this about Cauley's Organization, you've single one individual, sounds like you have an issue. What about Daniel Chapin, Chapin with the same organization is the longest current tenured officer of any Universal Life Church and he has chosen to align himself with world HQ.

It sounds to me like this is a personal grudge match between one ULC and this Cauley individual. Regarding References to 100 AD, the first Universal Life Church was in fact the Roman Church, it is where the Catholic Church derived its name from.

Hensley is not the founder of the Universal Life Church, he founded Life Church. He simply incorporating using a name from his political party with Gerald Green, using a name that had been a long time in existence with another church for his incorporated Life Church. The ecclesiastical definition of Universal is Catholic.

This article the Universal Life Church, and it should be open to all Universal Life Churches as well as Hensley's Life Church. It is not a directory, no websites are being promoted except one for ULC Modesto and that not even be there in accord with Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatholicguy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  1. I moved the disclaimer to the bottom of the overview section.
  2. I removed that world HQ link. Let's leave all links to DMOZ. Which really is policy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You offer no explanation. You claim such be a disclaimer, that is not a disclaimer.. Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Two other editors disagree with you. So rather than constantly revert, you stop and discuss the issue on the article talk page. You may not think it is a disclaimer, but we do. Please read the policies that I have pointed you to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously biased toward the ULC Seminary, Andre Hensley says the ULC Seminary is not an authorized or official website. It is operated by Amy Long registered with the secretary of state as quest Ministries. The ULC had NO department of education. Quit trying to solicit degrees for ULC Seminary or ULC Modesto. Secondly the ULC Monastery, Inc., President Zimmerman is in Tucson, AZ. The ULC Monastery Storehouse of Seattle is a completely separate entity operating in contempt of a Court order out of the Superior Court of Kings County in Seattle. You are very wrong and incorrect on your information.Thecatholicguy (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your claim? If you do, I'll be happy to change it. For now the evidence is contrary. But if you'd rather remove everything but HQ from the article, I'd be agreeable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What claim is that? Secondly we are not going to get anywhere with you editing this, you are biased. You are looking to create a infomercial for your ULC. My suggestion is this, let us put in for dispute resolution of some sort, and have a freeze placed on this page for future edits.Thecatholicguy (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started a request for comment per the dispute resolution policy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Should other "Universal Life Church's" such as the Monastery be included in this article? Which links should be in the links section? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for; any church which RS indicates identifies with the ULC should be included, but the article needs some work. As for external links, those in the article should be moved to the EL section as much as possible (and pruned, if necessary, so it doesn't become a link farm). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Why should they be included if they're not notable? Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Notability is the requirement for the topic of an article; it is not the requirement for content within an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to article

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know I'm not the greatest for using the talk page. So in an effort to open a dialogue, I'm wondering a few things:

  1. What changes might be needed to the article?
  2. Are there reliable sources to back it up?
  3. Why are these changes needed?

Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

.org or .com?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The .org of ulchq.org seems to belong to the monestary. As for the .com, they seem to have forgotten to renew it.[10]. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinserting links to the re-registered .com is inappropriate, per Wikipedia:EL#What_can_be_done_with_a_dead_external_link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It isn't re-registered. It's in a pending delete state. Even if we don't put it back in, the .org isn't appropriate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you have now done three reverts in order to reinsert a false link to what is clearly not currently the ULC website. Why? Please undo that last revert. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Another editor removed it altogether, and I'm happy to let it go at that. Did you check the WHOIS link I posted above? It's not a false link. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The ULC does not currently own that URL; they may in the future, but so may someone else. The page it serves up is not run by the ULC. To mark that as their official website is a false link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave it blank. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Membership Claims Challenged

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The adherents link goes adherents.com which goes to a website which cites another website where on this website it states: "According to Andre Hensley, the church was issuing 4,000 ordination certificates monthly and had ordained 18,000,000 around the world by 2004 (Myers 2004)."

In accordance Modesto Bee article as cited Andre Hensley states: "A church service is held Sundays; about eight adults and nearly the same number of children spread out in the sanctuary and share Scriptures and thoughts, inspirational pieces and poems, as well as informal feedback and an occasional song from the kids, who otherwise play up on the platform. Flowers and a photo of Kirby Hensley sit in a place of honor on a table at the front of the pews." This is a far cry from membership claims of 18 million.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ordination of Ministers does not constitute membership. A memeber of the clergy is not a member of the congregation.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled title

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Me123567 if as you say; "And it doesn't matter if the Seminary is recognized or not. This website is in the main ULC church started by Hensley." Why is the Seminary being mentioned in this article and it does matter if they are legit or not?

It should be about only the Universal Life Church in Modesto. We are in agreement! Any references to the seminary or other Charter Churches should be removed.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

JordanFrancis (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Challenging History of Universal Life Church

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article contradicts itself, it states Kirby Hensley founded Life Church in 1959 and than in the next paragraph it states he founded the first Universal Life Church in 1959 as Life Church. This makes NO sense. He founded Life Church in his garage. In 1962 he incorporated adding Universal. Incorporation does not legally denote being the founder. In 107 AD St Ignatius of Antioch can also be credited with being founder of Universal Life Church too. To be perfectly honest Hensley was not founder of either Churches name, what Hensley was founder of was that he was the first person to ordain anyone and everyone as a non-faith based Minister. This organization has no trademark, they can claim originality all they want, but from a legal aspect he cannot be founder of such here in the USA if the US Patent and Trademark office does not verify registration. There are many Universal Life Churches. I challenge them to show proof from the US Patent and Trademark office as to proof of the claims to hold all rights and to viewed as the founder of the name.

I quote their website:

"The ULC was founded in 1959 under the name "Life Church" by the Reverend Kirby J. Hensley. He operated the church out of his garage.[3] Disappointed with the Pentecostal church, Hensley decided to venture on his own to find his religion. After five years of studying various religions, according to his own statements, Hensley concluded that the proper religion may differ for each man, and everyone is entitled to choose his or her own religion. No one should be criticized or condemned for wanting to practice the belief of his or her choice."

"In 1958, Hensley and his new wife, Lida, moved to Modesto, California. There, he founded the first Universal Life Church in 1959 as Life Church, later incorporating in California on May 2, 1962 as Universal Life Church with Co-Founder and (then) Vice President Lewis Ashmore.[3]"JordanFrancis (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If Kirby Hensley is going to be mentioned within this article, I believe it is imperative to mention the whole story of Kirby Hensley. Yes he started Life Church in '59, but he was also involved with the Universal Party with Gabriel Green, more commonly known the Flying Saucer Party. In 1962 when Kirby incorporated, his addition of Universal into the Church name was merely political for his Presidential election run in 1964 where he garnered only 19 votes. Kirby Hensley did not start the Universal Life Church in 1959, he started Life Church. The LA Times has detailed records including radio archives of both Gabriel and Kirby, speaking of how they wanted to set up ambassadorships for aliens from outer space as part of their political platform. Kirby Hensley was infatuated with UFO's. It is what drove him.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should be almost completely rewritten, and here's how.

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It's clear, reading this article, that it was written by members of the organization. Virtually none of it is cited, and the squabblings among various groups with the same name have rendered the whole thing unreliable and incomprehensible. Right now, there are two (2) sources that would meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, the Beliefnet article and the Modesto Bee article. Are these two articles about the same 'Universal Life Church?' Which official web site goes with the organization those two articles describe? My inclination is to take this article all the way back down to a stub, about that organization, using only the information in those two articles and linking to the official web site of the organization described by them. After that, we should all vigorously remove information that is added but not cited. Voila! Our article would be, if not long, at least accurate and clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fisherqueen the article is one in the same. I see you using the word "our article", if you are a Minister with this Church how do you propose being neutral?JordanFrancis (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is 'our article,' i.e., Wikipedia's article. I am not a minister with any church, and know nothing more about this organization than I can read in the cited sources, which makes me perfectly neutral and thus ideally suited to help rewrite it. I can't include material that isn't cited, because I don't know it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I support your suggestion for re-writing the article. A lot of stuff about the Monastery and stuff was added when it really should be about the core Modesto-run Church. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I support your revision theory and that is all I seek, because this article is outdated and intertwines with other ULC's. Also much of the negative information has been blatantly omitted. Including a recent 60 minutes and CBS news story that identifies this Church as a scam, and Kirby Hensley as a con artist. It also fails to mention the most recent by the IRS, stripping the Church of its tax exemption status for fraud. I would not categorize as such as our Wikipedia ARTICLE, BUT THAT OF ITS ORIGINATOR. We have an obligation to report the facts and the truth. This is my only objective.20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) JordanFrancis (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on a stub version at my sandbox. If I have some reasonable consensus from editors familiar with Wikipedia's rules and needs, I'll substitute it in. Jordan, please read the neutral point of view policy - a neutral article wouldn't describe any organization as a 'scam' or any person as a 'con artist.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen Read what I said, I did not call them a scam CBS News, 60 Minutes and Kirby Hensley himself refer to Universal Life Church in Modesto as a scam or Kirby as a con artist. Do not twist what I say. If you are going to do an article it needs to reflect the truth, not sugar coating the truth or covering it up. This article should be based on the whole story.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, words like 'scam' and 'con artist' are inherently biased; Wikipedia doesn't use those words. Not even if someone else uses them if expressing an opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I assert that the following header be placed at the top of the Universal Life Church WIKI page much as was done with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters Page to further clarify the differentiation between the two entities.

For the denomination based in Carrabelle, Florida, see Universal life church world headquarters.

173.22.26.53 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1173.22.26.53 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this, then? I have a provisional draft for a different version, which I wrote from the two sources cited in the article. It's in my sandbox. If anyone else wants to put it in here, they can. Or don't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church World Headquarters

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

There appears to be a concerted effort to basically delete this article and replace it with an article about a different organization with a similar name. May I suggest that the editors involved, instead of deleting this article, instead start an article about that other organization at Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Once that is in place, there are methods we can use to disambiguate that two articles, so that users can find the one they seek. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article in place at Universal life church world headquarters. I'd move it, but that article has been nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article was redirected by blanchardb at his discretion, it is outdated, it is not cited, the website http://www.ulchq.com has not been updated for seven years. On the front page of this website it speaks of Lida Hensley's upcoming funeral in 2006. I agree with blanchard, paster bodh1i and others, the Universal Life Church should be deleted.

(cur | prev) 14:40, 31 July 2012‎ Blanchardb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,003 bytes) (+428)‎ . . (Initiating an Articles for deletion discussion.) (undo) (cur | prev) 14:38, 31 July 2012‎ Pastorbodhi1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,575 bytes) (+9,540)‎ . . (Undid revision 505102293 by Blanchardb (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 14:19, 31 July 2012‎ Blanchardb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-9,540)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Universal Life Church) (undo)

NatGertler reversed this without any explanation. Furthermore in addition to the lack of citation, and the outdated website, this Universal Life Church page is promotional, it offers no accredited degrees, it offers only degree mill type honorary degrees because of a loophole in the law that permits Churches to do so because of separation of Church and state. This Universal Life Church page should be updated, cited or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler did indeed have an explanation, seen in the edit summary: "This severe edit has clearly not obtained consensus; take it to Talk page and achieve consensus before reinserting it." You may want to review WP:BRD and our consensus guidelines. As for your logic that the existing topic should be destroyed, it's not well founded (having an out-of-date website does not mean that a group is dead; a group being dead does not disqualify it from having an article. We have many articles on people and groups that have been gone for many centuries.) That its "degrees" are not "accredited" would not seem to be a criterion for including a church. I'm not sure what you mean that the article isn't "cited"; there are a number of references on this page. If you believe that a page should be deleted, there are a number of appropriate methods for seeking to achieve that goal, including WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD; deleting the existing topic and copying another page over it is not appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Universal Life Church" WIKI page already has tags showing that it is both outdated as well as illustrates need for expert attention and has outdated information. It should be deleted AND The wiki Page created "Universal Life Church World Headquarters" SHOULD BE APPROVED AND its' replacement. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI Page is factual, with citations and current information and should be KEPT! In any event, in summation the Universal Life Church & The Universal Life Church World Headquarters are Two VERY Seperate entities. Best Case Scenario here would be to delete the Universal Life Church WIKI page as in part it is using the Incorporated and Registered Non profit name of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and keep the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page. Case in Point as Well is that the WIKI page for the Universal Life Church has noone updating it and no credible, expert information Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)PastorBodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe NatGertler that you are incorrect, Wikipedia does not allow scams such as degree mills. The Universal Life Church has non accredited degrees. They are not accredited. This article is promotion. Let us see accreditation of their degrees. Let us allow the Universal Life Church a period of time to update their website. Right now as it stands, this article is promotional that it promotes non accredited degrees and ordination from a Church whose website has not been edited or updated for seven years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would allow articles about degree mills if they are notable degree mills. Notability is the general rule, not accreditation. Nor does the subject have to have an up-to-date web page to have an article. WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability are the guiding policies. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The very point I was about to make... but also it needs to be said that it's an odd and unsourced accusation, as I don't see anything here claiming that the ULC offers degrees or diplomas of any sort. They offer certiification of ministry, but that's not a statement of education (although some sects may require certain education to be a minister, it is certainly not a universal requirement); it's a statement of recognition of a position within a church, and no one but the church themselves is in the position to "accredit" that. But if you want to use those claims about Wikipedia policy and the ULC's relation to that policy, please start the AFD process appropriately (someone seem to have tried to start it by adding a tag, but unlike WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD, an AFD requires more to begin; see WP:AFD for details. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


The mention of ULC Seminary indicates alleged accreditation. The ULC Seminary should be removed. It is not legitimate, nor is it recognized by the ULC in Modesto. If it claims to be a Church Charter, than this should open the door for all Charters, not just the ULC Seminary. Accreditation does not come from the Church, it comes the State of California and/or acceptable acceditation agency. The law strictly states that such degrees must be stated as honorary and not valid.JordanFrancis (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a throw-everything-at-the-wall, consistency-be-damned effort; a couple posts ago, we had to delete the article because the ULC was giving unaccredited degrees, now you're saying that it's the Seminary that's giving unaccredited degrees, and that the Seminary is not part of ULC. Inconsistent... and neither justifies destroying the article about one group to put an article about a group with a different name in its place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler I was not inconsistent at all, as many do they tie the ULC Seminary inadvertently with the ULC, when I was speaking of unaccredited degrees it was regarding the mention of the ULC Seminary, the word seminary indicates an institution of accreditation. Simply because I did not specify seminary in my previous post, do not twist what I say. Any reference to the seminary should be removed.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Note there was already warnings on this page seeking input from an expert and questioning of the articles factual existence. It is time to satisfy these concerns or delete it. Either they can be satisfied or can't, you do not continue an article that may provide incorrect information. ulchq.com is outdated, input from ULC Seminary, ulc.net or anyone else is not what is needed. There is no reason why ulchq.com should not be updated. It has been nearly 7 years. By scheduling a delete it is only a push to address these concerns and providing a deadline to do so.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. It's about coming to a consensus, not trying to bully your point of view. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not bullying to expect cooperation with updating this page. This page is long outdated, with good reason, at the discretion the Universal Life Church in Modesto, it is obvious through their official website for whatever reason has opted to become inactive. Individuals updating this page are from the ULC Seminary, an entity not connected to the ULC in Modesto. President Andre Hensley says they are a known website, but they ARE NOT an authorized website.JordanFrancis (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back up your claims? And it doesn't matter if the Seminary is recognized or not. This website is in the main ULC church started by Hensley. I can honestly say you're probably a staff member or or volunteer for the "world headquarters". That said, to make a huge change like you want, we all (or mostly all) have to agree. That's how Wikipedia works. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

== This is where you are wrong Me-123567 you are assuming, editors do not assume, you base decisions on fact. This is not about competition between World HQ and this Modesto Church. It is you turning it into that, and your excessive postings or edits on the Universal Life Church page show a keen interest in the Universal Life Church - That is not an assumption it is a fact. You ask for proof, you are being vague, what do you want proof for - be specific.

There is NO ULC Seminary, it is a fictitious name. The real name as incorporated is "QUEST MINISTRIES of the Universal Life Church and the ULC Seminary, Inc." this can be verified through the Secretary of State. The ULC Seminary sells non-accredited courses, that people can Google for information and get such free. Daniel Zimmerman, George Freeman both told Ms Long they were not interested in offering such bogus courses. Long broke away and started the Seminary. Even Andre Hensley refuses to recognize her, he calls her website a "Known" site not an authorized site.

Furthermore, The Secretary of State of California requires that all references should be in their incorporated name. You do not refer to an organization by a fictitious name over and above what they have incorporated as.

This page is about the Universal Life Church in Modesto, CA. It should be limited to information from their official website or notable 3rd party sources. This article be about the main Church, not any affiliate, or Charter Church or seminary, etc and etc.

What kind of proof do you want? Google Amy Longs proper name go to the Secretary of State in California AND DO A SEARCH.JordanFrancis (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As a long-time editor of Wikipedia, I can tell you that the concern about fictitious business names is irrelevant, as Wikipedia does not only cover topics that have never violated a law; as a businessman doing business in California, I can tell you that the claim that fictitious business names are not allowed to be used is quite false. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


NatGertler - Wikipedia is not above the law, when an organization is incorporated, they are required to use the name of incorporation. They are not entitled to use fictitious names in addition thereto. If Amy Smith Long was not incorporated under Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church and the ULC Seminary, use of a fictitious name is permisible by law, but since she is, references to ULC Seminary by itself without clearly noting that the name of the entity is that of its name of incorporation is strictly prohibited. All references must be and include Quest Ministries of Universal Life Church and ULC Seminary. The idea of editors is to adhere to Wikipedia policy and the law, not to deviate and to put anyone at risk of legal ramification including Wikipedia.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The law that you make up isn't actually the law that exists. California has registration for fictitious business names for corporations. And even were Quest Ministries required to list some other legal name, Wikipedia is not conducting business for Quest Ministries and would thus be under no such compulsion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Ordination and ULC clergy" section

The third paragraph of this section was a mess, and so I just changed it from this...

Charter Universal Life Churches operate ministries and have sprung up that charge a small fee for processing of the ordination certificate, which is allowed by the Founding Church, or Headquarters, to cover advertising and overhead expenses of the Charter Church and which also helps to bring in needed revenue for the ULC Charter Church or individual Minister's Ministry. Ordination is offered via websites such as eBay and websites owned by Ministers.

...to this...

Many charter Universal Life churches have been launched which operate all manner of ministries, and which offer ordination via websites and on eBay, through which small fees for processing ordination certificates are often charged. Such small fees are permitted by the founding church's headquarters in order to to help cover the charter church's advertising and overhead expenses, and to generate revenue for its ministry.[citation needed]

...and I added the "citation needed" to both it and the paragraph above it because... well... it should be obvious.

This article does, indeed, have some serious issues, as others, here, have posited. I don't really even like the change I made, as explained above (hence the additions of the "citation needed" in two places), but at least it makes more grammatical and structural sense. And maybe if someone would clear the "citation needed" notations by actually citing something, it'll at least have more credibility.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Two Official Websites

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For information about the ULC, people can check out http://ulc.net/ or http://www.ulchq.com/. I have used both as sources for some of the information in the article as they back up what was said in the article, and Wikipedia likes sources. Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As discussed earlier on this talk page, those websites are run by two entirely distinct organizations. ulc.net is evidently the official site of the church founded by Kirby Hensley in Modesto in 1959/1962, and as near as I can tell that organization is the primary subject of this article. (As argued above, it seems to be the only one of the many "ULC" groups out there notable enough for a WP article.) It sounds like ulchq.com is one of those other less notable organizations (which was directly addressed in the discussion above.) The best discussion of this given above appears to be Closeapple's long comment in the section "Disclaimer/distinguished-from text". --Steuard (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, my apologies: I was led astray by the names (and by the rather outdated content on ulchq.com). It looks like ulc.net and ulchq.com are both the same folks, given that ulc.net includes links to ulchq.com. Which "official site" link is the best to use? --Steuard (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

ulc.net is a website of the ULC Bookstore, operated by sole proprietor, Kevin Andrews a Minister with the Universal Life Church of Modesto. It is a business for profit.

ulchq.com is the only official website of the ULC in Modesto, yes it appears to be inactive since 2006. Since 2006 you've had Ministers ordained by Modesto, out to make a buck off the name, Amy Smith Long with ULC Seminary and Kevin Andrews with ULC.NET or ULC BOOKSTORE. Check whois.com DMOZ no longer even recognizes the ULC Modesto.

This article has issues and is outdated because the organization has been overtaken by vulture all looking to make a buck.Stmichael1060 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The one site is the official website for the church, and could be updated. The other is associated with the Church. However, there is still a question about adding sources, which I have done using both of thee official sites. As they are both official, and authorized, sites then they are legitimate for sourcing quotes. I will check into whether or not the official site from headquarters can be updated a bit, ablthough I doubt that the information really needs to be updated. Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My removal of part of the article that lacked sources.

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I removed " Many charter Universal Life churches have been launched which operate all manner of ministries, and which offer ordination via websites and on eBay, through which small fees for processing ordination certificates are often charged. Such small fees are permitted by the founding church's headquarters in order to help cover the charter church's advertising and overhead expenses, and to generate revenue for its ministry."

I have seen no sources Cited for this. According to Wikipedia policy we cannot allow information to be posted without sources.

The origional author perhaps mistook Themonastery.org (a separate organization not affiliated with ulchq.com). The monastery has bought many website domain names that promise online certification, but again are unaffiliated with what this article is about.

Also in regards to improving this article it might be worth mentioning that on the official website linked in this article its clearly stated "Please understand that there is no such thing as "instant online ordination." A computer cannot ordain you. Your request must be reviewed before your ordination can be done legally. You cannot be issued a credential automatically by a computer!" in complete contradiction to what I removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.0.83 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Universal Life Church has come a long way and has since is building the first seminaries and two other institutions for further learning. The Church like many others was split away from another church due to disagreements as has been the case with the others. If you have kept up with the Judicial system ULC has been recognized and the Title of Doctor of Divinity has been approved for use by those that hold the title. The purpose of those that I have come across within the Church has been no different then any other clergy in trying to bring a better life for all and a better understanding between other Churches. I have yet to hear them blast other Churches that minister the word of GOD.

As a retired Military man I'm glad that I had a part in protecting your and my right of freedom of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8085:1EE0:71E6:F028:FDE3:3C26 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Monastery, again

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone is again trying to refactor links from the ULC website to the ULC Monastery website. As has previously been discussed such places as here, the Monestary appears to be a different organization (it describes itself as a "descendant of the original Universal Life Church"). Unless there is some reliable source showing that the Monastery has now somehow joined with the Modesto ULC, it is not the group this article is about, and this article should not be refactored to be about them. (If there are sufficient sources about them, then there could be a separate article on the Monastery.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a separate organization when I read this page: http://www.themonastery.org/aboutUs They have to prove they are really separated, because everything converge. A page "about us" from the "monastery" page, giving the ulc link, it it's not a good source, what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B417:646B:5843:F6C3 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That page actually claims they are a separate organization ("the largest and most direct descendant".) And a group making aggrandizing claims about its relationship to another group is actually a poor source, in Wikipedia's eyes. It violates the first two tenets of WP:SELFSOURCE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Monestary

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Appparently an article had been created on the ULC Monestary. That article is now up on articles for deletion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Universal Life Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Universal Life Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal Life Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Official site

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found an anonymous IP change the official site to ulc.org I've chanted it back to ulchq.com Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Church?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since they include atheists, they aren't a "Church". That is like Vegan Society that includes meat-eaters. Is this a joke group like the Pastafarians, or are they irrational people who are dead serious about it?77Mike77 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 

They are not a tradiontal "Church" they beilieve in the well being of others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.226.228 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ULC is all-inclusive, and that includes atheists. Atheism is a religion, even if they don't believe in a god. It would not be right to exclude anyone based on their religion, or perceived lack thereof. ULC is a church, even though you say it isn't. Would you say the same about Scientologists? Catholics? Baptists? etc.? Are you basing this on your own view of religion? Is it possible you are biased? I personally accept all religions. I do not practice all religions, though. I only do "that which is right". Panda317 (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe calling ULC members "irrational people" or a "joke group" is detrimental, and mean-spirited. Panda317 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Iam a Minister of he ULC. Also a D.D.(Doctor of Divinity) Have been asked if my"Dr." is real though!

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Iam a Minister and Doctor of Divininty too of The Universal LifeChurch. Yet, though I inderstand (from The Universal Lfie Church) That I can legaly be addressed (at least in this State,Calfornia) as "Dr" .yet, I have been told this isnt so! Which is it? Thanks! Dr. Edson Andre" Johnson D.D.ULC> Eddson storms (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the editing of this article; it is not intended to be a place to get such questions answered, I'm afraid. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You can ask this kind of question of a general nature at the appropriate Wikipedia Reference Desk. John M Baker (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Who told you that you cannot be addressed as "Dr."? Who told you that you can be addressed as "Dr."? Panda317 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Life_Church/Archive_3&oldid=1137286459"