Talk:Living Church of God

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Living Church of God article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Binitarianism

Wouldn't Ditheism be better? They don't believe in the Oneness of the Father and the Son in the traditional monotheistic sense. 72.192.122.148 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about a book entitled "Britain and America in prophesy ",that my Dad has told me about. I would also like email news sent to me and to know more about your church,and where it stands with Israel. Also looking for you on Facebook, to follow. Thanks Michelle huffman (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs editing

This needs to be edited for objectivism. Things like this, "The Global Church of God became a refuge for those not able to bear with the apostasy of the Worldwide Church of God." show a particularly strong slant. (posted by 80.58.5.237 Mar 13, 2005; originally unsigned)

I have spent quite a bit of time editing this article which appeared to be the work of a supporter. Hopefully the current NPOV end result and expanded article which includes a very brief, no names mentioned account of the recent shooting, is what you had in mind. MPLX/MH 01:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The user above had complained about the article before I had made my additions to it, so he was not objecting to naming the gunman. If you don't want to mention names, that's fine, but I've restored the source link you deleted and removed your implication that the gunman was acting because of "dissent" with the church's teachings; authorities have a variety of motives now that they're trying to work through. Cheers. --BaronLarf 05:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am a LCG supporter, and just 12/26/05 edited some information for readability, plus statistical accuracy. COGwriter.

This page is not objective. It sounds like an advertisement for the Living Church of God. Some simple Google searches on this church yield some controversial results. Wikipedia should at least be as good as a casual search through Google. This topic is not objective; not because of what it says, but, because of serious omissions. --71.111.130.210 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This pages is an ad for a church - not objective - does not belong in an encyclopedia.

This page is religious advertising (propaganda for what supposedly is "the only true church"), and not objective in any way. It does not belong to an Encyclopedia.

By all means, then, please help us improve it. This article is on my watchlist because of my interest in other Armstrong-based churches (Worldwide Church of God, United Church of God), but otherwise I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article at this time. That's why your edits would be most welcomed. -- SwissCelt 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like an advertisment

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an on-line "encyclopedia". Is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to give the reader un-biased information on a subject, allowing them to form their own opinions, and draw their own conclusions free from the often bias opinions of others? That is exactly what this seems to be doing. It simply states the beliefs of this Church, (the information about it), and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions about it.ğ—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.204.84 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Seems exactly like an advertisement

...because it omits other important information that an objective writer would include. The omission--or "deletion" since it was in an earlier version--of the Wisconsin shooting incident is like writing an article on Jim Jones and the People's Temple without mentioning Jonestown, or an article on the Catholic Church which did not mention its controversies. The listing of doctrinal summaries is pertinent, but there are no footnotes. We don't know if these are accurate statements or the writer's loose interpretation and possible distortion. The references need to be there for verification and further review. This reads more like a religious tract than an objective article on an organization. And isn't this group the THIRD largest Armstrong offshoot after Philadelphia and United, not the second largest? 130.132.83.44 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References?

Almost nothing is substantiated. And a listing of their doctrinal statement? Anybody ever heard of a link? Wilburweber 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) you are absolutely right- it is 3rd largest and does sound like an ad. I grew up in WWCG and currently subscribe to no organized religion. This was the only article I read about the different branches of WWCG that used Bible verses to defend itself- You don't have to defend an unbiased topic.[reply]

Edit conflict

Hey, slow down, will you? :-) You don't have to save every two minutes....--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I know enough about the Worldwide Church of God and Living Church of God to help you edit your article about Living Church of God. I was a member of Worldwide from 1986 to 2003, and know a lot about Orthodox teachings and sabbatarian teachings, etc. Your article is fairly good, but it needs some correction. I can elaborate. Thank you.

Seth Massey sethsart@yahoo.com

70.110.87.29 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tithing

The section on tithing is slightly innacurate. The first tithe is 10%, the second tithe is also 10%, but that isn't sent to the church (except for the tithe of the second tithe); it is for feast expenses. (However, the church encourages members to send in anything left over.) The third tithe is for widows & orphans, and is 10% every third year (except the 7th year is a "jubilee" year). So it is really closer to 23%.

Overall, the article has improved considerably... Voting is forbidden (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this section is very inaccurate, and even the 23% is wrong. The tithe for widows and orphans is not income collected for the Church. It is used for the exact purpose stated, for widows and orphans exclusively (Deuteronomy 14:28-29 & 26:12-13). And even then should first be used to support widows or orphans within our own families first. The fund for this tithe is set apart and not used as income in any way. The second tithe is never even seen by the Church, it is kept by its own members to use at annual feast days for food, accommodations & travel expenses (Deuteronomy 12:5-7 & 14:22-23). The only actual tithe that supports the Church and can be figured as income (freewill offerings aside) is the strict 10% tithe, also called 1st tithe (Numbers 18:23-24 & 18:20-21). http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/gods-people-tithe As a result of this information, and the facts provided in their own booklet on the subject I am going to edit the article to maintain accuracy. There are those outside of these splinter groups with their own ambitious purposes who like people to believe it is 30% but the simple and Biblical fact is that it is not. It is only 10%.

Also, apologies for taking several edits with it - it's been awhile! lol -=Darkwolfe=- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfe 73 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814013514/http://www.thejournal.org/archives/cgtimln4.html to http://www.thejournal.org/archives/cgtimln4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929161149/http://www.mundomanana.org/paginas/construccion.htm to http://www.mundomanana.org/paginas/construccion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that were adopted"

"other traditional Catholic or Christian holy days that were adopted by the Catholic Church (and some Protestant denominations) later in history." partisan. Perhaps could read "other traditional Catholic or Christian holy days that were adopted by the Catholic Church (and some Protestant denominations) later in history, according to Armstrong" (or whoever). While perhaps no Christian claims that Christmas was celebrated from the time of Christ on, they do claim that Easter is apostolic. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Colosse"?

the section "other beliefs" seems to be original research and opinion. and in some cases, like the word "Colosse", fantasy. 142.163.195.117 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]