Talk:United Pentecostal Church International/Archive 1

Archived June 5, 2006, September 1, 2006

Welcome to talk:United Pentecostal Church

This talk page is kind of crazy and you MUST have ADHD to be able to follow along with any of the convo strings, so here's a word to the wise and those that wish to be...sign all comments by typing four ~'s or just click the button at the top of the edit area that looks like a signature. Also when starting a new line of thought, give it a title and place it in between to 4 = signs, 2 on each side. Also if you are replying to someone else's comments please do so at the end of their entry, please don't split there entry 50 times just so you can rebuff each statement or sentence, this is called ettiquette. Also as it seems that everyone that posts here is very PRO or very ANTI UPC. There is a little thing called NPOV that MUST be followed. Violations of NPOV are taken very seriously and repeated violations will result in having your IP blocked from editting WikiPedia. I'm going to "hopefully" spend a little time cleaning this talk page up, than maybe turn my attention to the article itself. I will be looking into the history of the posts and listing them in chronological order based on topic. Icj tlc 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC) One more thing, I will also be removing comments that can be viewed as an attack one person or persons based on their beliefs whether PRO or CON. They don't belong here.

I agree with you. This "discussion" is more like an chaotic shouting match. I've attempted to organize it a little bit, but with all of the emotion and accusations flying around, it may prove to be impossible. Dcmcgov 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm (*cough*)...Dcmcgov, take the beam out of your own eye... [Unsigned comment by User:209.12.74.106 on 28 April 2006]

Try Sudafed. It always helps me with those nasty, throat-tickling coughs. And if you're referring to the discussion, if it is wrong to point out someones repeated innacurracies and counter someones blatantly unfounded attacks on good people and a good organization, then I guess I'm wrong. By the way, this is your last warning. Sign your comments or I will delete them. Dcmcgov 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) It's not rocket science. And you call us "anti-intelligent"... geez.

Is The UPCI One of the Fastest Growing Churches in North America?

"Fastest growing church in North America"? What a crock. The UPC General Conference in 2005 was SMALLER than the UPC General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas in 1975. The UPC is not nearly keeping up with population growth. Its legalism and anti-intellectualism is causing it to lose relevance AND members daily. [Unsigned comment by User:207.191.102.215 31 January 2006]

Wow, what an incredibly hostile, vindictive and irrational assertation. Would you care to site your claim that GC was smaller in 2005 than in 1975? Keep in mind, GC 2005 in Richmond, Virginia was held at the Richmond Coliseum which seats 20,000 people. The coliseum was full to capacity every evening and morning session. With 5 evening services and 4 morning services, the total attendance was somewhere near 180,000. You sure you want to stick by that claim? Dcmcgov 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me. Are we estimating attendance by combining ALL the services?? That's ridiculous. You know as well as I do the vast majority of people attended more than one service! I attend a church that averages 6,000 on Sundays. Would it be fair for me to say that my church has 312,000 people because that's how many attended in a year?? [Unsigned comment by User:209.12.74.106 on 28 April 2006]

Oy, vey. Bro, we are talking about CONFERENCES, not a local church assembly; look, you are so confusing, you cant even keep up with your own posts. This is a subject that you attempt to rally a half-baked point around (your claim: "General Conf. Fort Worth '75 bigger than GC in 05") , but you cannot even pretend that you possess any qualifying knowledge about either. Let me give you a hand: Conference attendence is always recorded by tallying the total attendance from each event over the course of the Conference, then adding each event together. For instance: 2 million people visited the Los Angeles Auto Show in January: was that the average of each event? No. That was the total attendance for the week-long CONFERENCE. So, now that you've been educated, let's try this again. You claim that GC in 75 was bigger than GC in 2005 (Total attendance for GC2005: roughly 180,000). Would you care to qualify your claim? Or, as I suspect, are you content to continue fabricating unqualifiable statements and arguing semantics. The UPCI is alive and well, thriving and growing and having tremendous revival. WITHOUT YOU. I know you hoped it would crumble when you left, but it didn't. Get over it. You attend a "church of 6000", so why dont you go spend your time trying to be a valuable addition to that congregation rather than lambasting the UPCI over a greivance with a local church or pastor. Dcmcgov 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am speaking about the Global UPCI where they have churches in more than 142 Nations. Do you know anything about the Pakistan UPC? India UPC? African UPC?. This is an international UPC article. If you have any greavience againist UPC, talk in a blog or forum. I feel wikipedia discussion page should not be used in this way. [Unsigned comment by User:61.246.60.188 14 January 2006]

Speak about international churches all you want. I'm disputing the phrase "The UPCI is one of the fastest growing denominations in North America". That is clearly erroneous and dishonest. I agree that Wikipedia is not the place for grievances, however it is also not the place for embellishments or exaggerations. [Unsigned comment by User:199.227.153.154 19 January 2006]

The United Pentecostal Church International has been among the fastest growing denominations in North America since it was formed in 1945. From 617 churches listed in 1946, the UPCI in North America (United States and Canada) today lists 4,358 churches (which includes 4099 autonomous and 258 daughter works), 9,085 ministers, and reports a Sunday School attendance of 646,304. Moreover, it is also located in 175 other nations with 22,881 licensed ministers, 28,351 churches and meeting places, 652 missionaries, and a foreign constituency of over 3 million, making a total worldwide constituency of more than 4,036,945. This is neither erroneous nor dishonest, and is neither an embellishment or an exaggeration. It is fact. Deal with it. Dcmcgov 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How can they say this is one of the "fastest growing"? These types of organizations are declining in favor of non-denominational megachurches. Nothing about UPCI is "fastest growing". There are only 2 UPC churches with more than 2,000 in attendance on Sundays -- a figure unchanged in the past 10 years. Clearly people who assert that UPCI is "fast growing" know nothing of fast growing churches. [Unsigned comment by unidentified user 20 December 2005]

What has been said above is not True. I think the commentator has very little knowledge about the UPCI. This denomination is one of the fastest growing denominations in North America. The term "fastest growing" is considered on the matter of increasing number of new churches, increasing number of new members and new ministers. No one is saying the UPCI is the only fast growing denomination in North Amercia, but it is certainly one of the fast-est growing. There are many United Pentecostal Churches with more than 2,000 in attendance on Sundays. The figure is increasing every year. [Unsigned comment by User:59.144.33.199 8 January 2006]

My question is where are you gathering your facts? "There are many United Pentecostal Churches with more than 2,000 in attendance on Sundays," is factually inaccurate. There are 2 churches that average more than 2,000 -- The Pentecostals of Alexandria in Alexandria, LA and Christian Life Center in Stockton, CA. Certainly large churches are not indicative of a denomination's value or biblical consistency, but let's be honest here! [Unsigned comment by User:199.227.153.154 9 January 2006]

Exactly. Let's be honest here! Only somebody associated with the UPC in the 70's would make the claim that there are only 2 megachurches (over 2000) in the UPC. You obviously cannot speak with "honest" certainty to this matter, so, in the spirit of honesty, I will give the attendances of North American churches in the UPC that average over 2000 in weekly attendance. (I'll leave out the churches in the Phillipines and Ethiopia that average over 50,000 in weekly attendance) Dcmcgov 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Christian Life Center, Stockton CA

Pastor Kenneth Haney, avg, attendance 6000 (with over 12,000 in satellite congregations)

• Pentecostals of Alexandria, Alexandria LA

Pastor Anthony Mangun, avg. attendance 5500

• Revival Center UPC, Modesto CA

Pastor Randy Keyes, avg. attendance 5000

• Life Tabernacle, Houston TX

Pastor James Kilgore II, avg. attendance 3500

• Truth Tabernacle, Fresno CA

Pastor Vaughn Morton, avg. attendance 3500

• The Apostolic Church, Auburn Hills MI

Pastor Stephen Warman, avg. attendance 3000

• Calvary Tabernacle, Indianapolis IN

Pastor Paul Mooney, avg. attendance 3000

• Durham UPC, Durham NC

Pastor Johnny Godair, avg. attendance 2000

• Landmark Tabernacle, Denver CO

Pastor Billy Hale, avg, attendance 2000

• First UPC, Raleigh NC

Pastor Wayne Huntley, avg. attendance 2000

• East Valley Pentecostal, San Jose CA

Pastor Johnny Nelson, avg. attendance 2000

• The Anchor Church (formerly Revival Tabernacle), San Diego CA

Pastor James Larson, avg. attendance 2000

• The Rock Church, Sacramento (Elk Grove) CA

Bishop Nathaniel Wilson, Pastor Miles Young, avg. attendance 2500 Dcmcgov 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt (because of where I'm from) that the Pentecostals of Alexandria does NOT average 5,500 in attendance. In fact, your figures are wildly exaggerated in all cases. Furthermore, only someone incredibly unaccustomed to large churches would assert that any denomination whose LARGEST church has a questionable 6,000 in attendance is a "fast-growing" denomination. [Unsigned comment by User:209.12.74.106 on 17 April 2006]

Question: Exactly what bearing does a denomination's largest congregation have on the growth of the denomination as a whole? Answer: little to nothing. You obviously have an axe to grind with a local church and are intent on grinding it against the UPCI as a whole. That's fine, but at least try to be reasonable. What in the world does being "incredibly unnacustomed to large churches" have anything to do with knowledge of organization growth? The 6,000 is "questionable", because that is merely the weekly attendance at the CLC sanctuary. Add in the CLC satellites all over the Stockton area, and the attendance is well over 12,000 per week. I know this "beyond a shadow of a doubt because of where I'm from" (I assisted in the ministry at CLC for a few years, sorry to burst your bubble). And "in fact", the figures are estimates based on personal knowlege, but hardly "wildy exaggerated". "Furthermore", it is not I that have "asserted" the UPCI is a fast-growing organization. Go to the article, and follow the citation link to view FACTS about the UPCI's growth over the past 80 years. You can argue with me all you want, but you cant argue with the facts. By the way, have you ever considered following Wikipedia's guidlines and signing your comments? Dcmcgov 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem slightly defensive. Have you considered therapy? [Unsigned comment by User:209.12.74.106 on 28 April 2006]

It certainly is damning when the "evidence" for "fast growing" comes directly from the UPCI's own website, with no citation or reference. UPC likes to dwell on numbers, I've found, and this assertion is not to be trusted, especially when the only corroboration is coming from within UPC. [Unsigned comment by User:209.12.74.106 on 28 April 2006]

Let me help you. Use four of these: ~ Like this: Dcmcgov 17:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) See, it's actually quite simple, kind of like your simple minded and vindictive comments. I'm going to start deleting your comments if you don't sign. "Cough"

Using Wikipedia to Criticize the UPC

I feel that this article places too much of an emphasis on what Pentecostals are not allowed to do. That does not represent the religion in an honest way. I feel that someone should rewrite this article in a more open way that gets more into what we believe and not just how we dress. [Unsigned comment by User:66.68.43.87 25 June 2005]

I concur. I am a full-time UPC minister and have updated the page, deleting people's politics regarding our doctrines. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where you can find unbiased informative facts regarding different topics, places, people, organizations, etc. This is not a forum to voice personal greivances against whatever local church you may have affiliated yourself with. The United Pentecostal Church is an organization, not a person. If you have issue with a pastor or a local church, start a blog, but you cannot use this site to lambast an entire organization. Dcmcgov 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If you take a look at every other page on Wikipedia, you will find that they all have a Neutral Point Of View. Just because you disagree with someone's politics regarding your doctrine doesn't give you the right to delete their comments. You have to leave them there. If this page only shows the point of view of persons like yourself, it will be very one sided and by no means neutral. Also, there are people mentioned in the prominent persons affiliated section that aren't and haven't been affiliated with the UPCI organization. Elvis was raised a Pentecostal, but not a United Pentecostal. The Presidents listed were not affiliated with the organization either, you need to list references for this, both Bushes are Episcopalian, Reagen was Presbyterian, not sure about Clinton. David Robinson attends a non denominatinal church pastored by Max Lucado. Honestly the entire section should be deleted, because the only "prominent" people listed aren't involved in the organization. The other people are only prominent within the organization. I won't be the person to make that decision though, wouldn't want to be accused of "voicing my personal grievances"...again! --Icj tlc 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page so biased? I doubt you can find another page about a denomination that is presented as unfairly as this one. it's obvious the author has some kind of bitter vendetta against the UPC. [Unsigned comment by User:Wbelac7 20 December 2005]

The beauty of Wikipedia is that we all have the freedom to edit it. If you think the UPC is being shown in a biased light on this page, you can edit it to make it more objective. Dcmcgov 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I too feel that the information provided is quite dogmatic in its tone. I'm a 30 year old, 3rd generation UPC lady and am personally glad of some of the "restrictions". In an era where the line between genders has been blurred dramatically and sometimes completely erased, it is refreshing to be able to be instantly recognized as a lady - notice I did not say woman, for there are many young and older women that leave no doubt as to their anatomy.

While an encyclopedia can never expect to put the "real face" on a subject, the basic facts are correct. However, unless you experience Pentecost for yourself you will never know the true joy of a reltionship with Christ. While some UPC'ers may not like this - You don't have to attend a UPC church to experience Pentecost. God is pouring out His spirit on all flesh as He promised in the book of Joel - and I am THRILLED that other denominations are coming to experience my Lord and Savior in the fullness of His glory and holiness.

I urge anyone that is looking for a change in their life to seek out a local church and come to know Christ - He really loves you! [Unsigned comment by User:199.103.111.69 August 2005]

I agree with the above (August 24) person. I am also proud of the fact that I keep myself, as a man, properly dressed. I delight in the fact that when I marry an apostolic woman, I know that I will be the first person she has given herself to! I know that she glorifies God in the way she chooses to live her life! I think that we should use the NPOV, in that we do dress ourselves in a manner that isn't consistent with the rest of the world. On the other hand, our dress is not the basis of what we believe, and shouldn't be put in front as if it is our foundation. Rather, that salvation is repentance from sin; full immersion, water baptism in the name of Jesus see Oneness_Pentecostal; and the requirement of the infilling of the Holy Ghost Acts 2:38, with evidence of speaking in other tongues as The Spirit gives the utterance. [Unsigned comment by User:69.1.135.85 5 October 2005]

• You are all full of it, I grew up Pentecostal and I know both the fore side and the back side of it, I know what goes on in the board rooms and what goes on in the motels at Youth Conventions. I know that to you apearances are more important than a true relationship with Jesus Christ. Read the above for reference, the first idiot's remarks include the phrase "my Lord and Savior" what happened to OUR Lord and Savior? She didn't even leave a signature so that those of us that were damaged by organized religion can respond. That is the problem with Pentecostals they believe that only they will be saved. The rest of us are going to burn in Hell, if you don't believe me, ask one. Ask if Catholics, Lutherans, or Presbyterians will be in Heaven. Why is it that neither of you bigots left a signature. Read a Bible and learn about love. Better yet, learn about the history of the church, when did Jesus ever say, you must repent and be baptized and speak in tongues? He didn't. All he said was believe. Here's my email address for any of you that have a problem [crsmith@lsi.fnf.com]--Icj tlc 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel badly that the above person has had a bad experience. It just goes to show that only attending a church does nothing for a persons relationship with God. Pro 27:19 As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man. When asked, Jesus said that to see the kingdom of God, you must be baptized. [mauger@gmail.com] [Unsigned comment by User:Mauger 19 October 2005]

I did not have a "bad experience", a bad experience is when you go out to eat Sushi and get a bad catch and end up having your stomach pumped. The UPC ruined my entire life for a very long time. Give me scripture, if you are referencing his conversation with Nicodemus, he sayed, "unless a man be born again, he can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven," he coninues to say, "unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Everywhere in the New Testament where someone is specifically talking about baptism it is called baptism. No where does Jesus say baptism, and anyone that says he did is putting words in His mouth, also known as "adding to or taking away" from the Scriptures. If you want to get into a biblical debate that's fine, but lets continue it in email. Not here. I am not disagreeing with UPC doctrines, what I disagree with is the thought that only "they" will be saved. I know alot of people that were involved with the UPC for a long time, and due to this attitude and belief have left, almost all of them, with the exception of my 75 year old grandmother, believe that the UPC should be considered at least cult-like if not a full blown cult. By definition a cult is a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox, a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective. By any description of the UPC, it meets these criteria. I feel bad for those that are involved in the organization and pray daily that they will be delivered.--Icj tlc 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC) PS You don't need to feel badly for me, a result of my experience with the organization has led me to a more relevant and wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ. I just wish that everyone could know Him like I do. PSS I Timothy 4:10 In fact, we labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is Savior of everyone, especially those who believe. (Emphasis mine)

It is not so much what you said that leads me to believe you are not a Christian but your attitude and the way your words come across. If I am wrong I apologize please forgive me. Mauger 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You might have Grown up in the UPC but by the way you talk you were not a part of it. Read your Bible, you tell me what bieng born of the water is. John 3:5: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Mauger 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what did I say, that leads you to believe I am not a part of the Church. Also by "part of the Church" do you mean the UPC? Or do you mean Church as in the body of Christ? PS If your going to make comments regarding what someone said, the least you could do is sign your name, buddy! As I said before, I'm not arguing UPC doctrine, what offends me is the attitude that only UPC members will be saved. Also the comments of the above gentleman that is so delighted that he will be the first man his wife has ever been with. My wife had a child when we married. When I met her, I looked at her the way God would, as someone that had made mistakes, but had been forgiven. Here's another example, we have an elder lady in our church that has recently converted, she has a number of health issues that do not allow her to be submerged in water, so she was baptized in the "Catholic" method, sprinkling; is her baptism null, because it wasn't "full emersion"? Exatly what is more important here, following the letter of the law? Or the heart of the law? Her baptism was a symbollic act of dedication that meant as much to her as my baptism meant to me. By UPC standards, is she saved? Can someone please answer that? In the UPC's efforts to be removed from the world, they have created a world unto themselves, and they have made themselves irrelevant to a dying and lost world. We are supposed to be "in" the world, but not "of" the world, we are supposed to be the salt and light. How can christians be salt and light if they are totally removed? Maybe things have changed since we left the UPC, if they have I appologize, but when I was in, we weren't allowed to do anything that had been deemed "worldly" including going to a roller rink unless it was an organized church event that wasn't open to the public. This doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going to post on this page anymore because it seems to upset people, so if any one would like to get a hold of me, my email is crsmith@lsi.fnf.com or Icj_tlc@hotmail.com. I love you all! And I will rejoice with you someday! I apologize to anyone that I may have offended, as I said I was hurt very badly by the organization and I guess I let that pain come through. As Christians, we should all be working together instead of against each other. God bless you all in all of your endeavors. Icj tlc 16:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a theology debate with you, as you have made it very clear that you know where we stand (the "foreside" and "backside" I think you said). However, I will say that I'm very sorry for whatever happened to you at whatever church it was you were affiliated with. The problem with the church is, and always will be, the people. Whatever they did to you obviously hurt very much, again, I say I'm sorry. I too have had horrible experiences with some people in our organization, and I too feel frustrated with those of us who believe that we're the only ones saved (as if the UPC has a monopoly on Heaven). No exceptions or qualifiers, just wanted to tell you I'm sorry for what's happened. It's a shame. I'm glad that you've moved on and feel you have a more relevant and wonderful relationship with The Lord. I hope you don't take this wrong, but I do find it a bit contradictory that you lecture about God's Love and learning how to love, to the same people that you have labeled 'bigots' and 'idiots'. The love of Christ is about loving those who are the least lovable to us. Perhaps in all of this, God is speaking to you about learning how to love everybody, even those of us in the UPC organization. Don't feel bad for those involved in the organization. I've traveled all over the country in this organization and have found it to be comprised of mostly decent, honest, people-loving and Christ-centered people. Feel bad for those in the organization who use thier positions to manipulate and bemean (as happens in all organized religions), for they are the modern-day Pharisees. "Vipers", John the Baptist appropriately called them. (Dcmcgov 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

I don’t understand the hatred here. There are many Christian churches that teach they are the only ones that will be saved (Jehovah Whiteness, Mormons, The Church of Christ and even the Catholic Church (the church doctrine do’s say that all other doctrine is heresy) and many others UPCI is not one of them. If you don’t like the doctrine of the UPCI just leave and don’t look back. Find something that you will be happy in be a part of it and live life to the fullest. But please leave the bitterness behind. [Unsigned comment by User:209.214.216.60 8 April 2006]

Lack of Criticism?

It seems there is no critical view within the article. I thought UPC has some rather vocal critics? joshbuddy 06:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Sections

If you have a problem with the way a paticular section is presented, please list it here:

Section: "Prominent People Associated with the UPCI"

From above: There are people mentioned in the prominent persons affiliated section that aren't and haven't been affiliated with the UPCI organization. Elvis Presley was raised a Pentecostal, but not a United Pentecostal. The Presidents listed were not affiliated with the organization either, you need to list references for this, George Bush and George W. Bush are Episcopalian, Ronald Reagan was Presbyterian, not sure about Bill Clinton. David Robinson attends a non denominatinal church pastored by Max Lucado. You can find this information by following the links in there names. Icj tlc 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak of the others, but Rev. Mangun of Alexandrea has had a personal and strong friendship with Bill Clinton from before he was President.--Mauger 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Friendship with a particular minister does not qualify as being "Affiliated." I have friends that are atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims; that does not make me an atheist, Buddhist, or Muslim. Icj tlc 16:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[The following comment was deleted by Dcmcgov 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) because there was no signature]

• • I agree with the pp... There are also a zillion "prominent" people out there with all sorts of "associations", that doesn't impress me. I also find it odd that only two sentences in the article specifically mention anything about hair, dress, etc., yet that seems to be the biggest bone of contention here. I noticed that mindframe even when I was in the UPCI (for 10+ years, but now belong to another Pentecostal denomination). It's like the whole UPC world revolves around how people are dressed. When someone leaves the church, and you saw them walking around "out of standard", the whisperings about how they had "gone to the devil" began. In the beginning, I was so happy to have found the baptism in the Holy Spirit, that I really never cared one way or the other what people wore. I went along with the dress codes because I believe that one shouldn't cause discord in a congregation by being rebellious. But after a few years, I found myself going along with the others and starting to judge other people based on their style of dress - even within my own congregation! That's when I knew something was horribly wrong with this picture... I sought the scriptures & Romans 14 stood out like a beacon. Judging anyone based on such trivial matters is WRONG. The Bible has NO doctrine that states anything spiritual can be gained or learned about anyone based strictly on appearance. In fact, the opposite is taught - that only GOD sees the heart, man can only see what's on the outside - so we should NOT judge based on what we see! With that, and the very disturbing tendency of Apostolics to twist cultural and historical facts to fit their theology, I knew at that point I had to get out!

• • I have changed the Word "Associated" to "Connected" I am a UPC member. I hope this change solve the problem. On each name, it is written in a understandable english how that person connected to upc. [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

No it's not, written in understandable english or in any other language, how these people are "Associated" or "Connected" with the UPCI. Nor does it show how or why they are Prominent. Other than David Robinson who, as it's been pointed out before, is NOT a member of the UPCI or any UPCI affiliated church (he attends a nondenominational church pastored by Max Lucado), there are no people on this list that can even be considered remotely prominent to anyone outside of the UPCI. Also as mentioned before please sign comments. It's not hard. Icj tlc 17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC) See!

• • I have removed the Dispute Sign. I have carefully checked each person presence in the UPCI. Yes they are prominent People to UPCI. Previously, Few foremer Presidents names were removed from this section. Now we can only find the list of people are so close related to UPCI. I don't understand why this section should be still under dispute. It doesn't make sense at all. Pastorlinu 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Section: "External Links"

The site apostolicsingles.net is not realy associated with united pentecostal church. I wonder how this link can be added here? [Unsigned comment by User:61.246.60.188 14 January 2006]

In the light of correcting MANY errors on this page...the external links listed in this section are to individual churches and organizations related to the UPCI. The purpose of External Links is to provide sources and other points of reference related to the topic. None of the listed websites do so, they are all adverts for the individual churches and orgs associated to UPCI. Fail to see how these are usefell in educating people about the organization. Icj tlc 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This page should not be an online church directory. I'll start deleting. Dcmcgov 20:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On External Link I Made Two Division seperating UPCI official Links and UPCI other Links. I hope this will tidy up the link section Pastor Linu 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved Sections of Discussion

The following sections have been moved to better fitting areas of the discussion page. 69.224.126.153 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism?

This paragraph has been moved to the "Criticism" section Dcmcgov 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

why I left the upc faith

This section has been moved to the "Greivances" section Dcmcgov 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

UPC distinctives

This section has been moved to "UPC Doctrine Discussion" Dcmcgov 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

UPCI Doctrinal Discussion

UPC and the Trinity

The UPC belief in modalism regarding the Trinity should not be considered minor. If the second person of the Godhead, the Son, had a begining (born of Mary), as UPC teaches, then the Son is clearly not divine. Christianity itself stands or falls on the nature of the Godhead--Trinitarian or modalistic. Since orthodox Christianity has always accepted the Trinitarian view, it can be considered highly debatable if UPC can even be labeled Christian in the traditional sense. Also, I've read where Oneness churches tend to believe that salvation is through faith, non-Trinitarian baptism, and baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues. If so, then it clearly embraces a work-centered salvation doctrine, again contrary to orthodox Christian teaching. When deciding whether or not a church is actually Christian, its core teachings must be examined against the core teachings of the Christian faith. If even one of its core teachings contradicts the core teachings of orthodox Christianity, then that particular church should not be regarded as Christian, no matter how much it may resemble a Christian church. What are the core teachings of orthodox Christianity? Here's a list: Trinitarian nature of God; deity of Christ; virgin birth, sinless life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; atoning work of Christ's death for all sinners; humanity's inherent sinfulness; conscience after life for all people either in eternal presence of God (Heaven) or eternal separation from God (torment in Lake of Fire); salvation by grace through faith apart from works; and the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God applicable to all humanity for all time. If a church teaches even one of these beliefs incorrectly, then they're simply not orthodox Christian. Each of these beliefs is inseparable from the others. If one is not true, then none of them are true. That's why they're fundamental to the faith. [Unsigned comment by User:Jlujan69 8 March 2006]

(whichever moderator is claiming that I wrote the above paragraph is incorrect. I moved it from "UPC Distinctive" to where it belongs; in a section discussing the UPCI doctrine. It would help if everybody would sign thier remarks. It seems I am the only one doing so.)Dcmcgov 21:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not member of UPC or any other christian denomination. But I've litteraly been travelling all over the world, talking to all the people I could find (including a "prophetesse" I met on the street today)and read any book on church history I have come across to find out what the TRUTH is. I'm still left with a lot of questions, and I'm not very impressed witht the answers of some of the UPCI critics - like the guy with the 7 point list of orthodoxy. You say UPCI is unorthodox because they regard baptism as a requirement for salvation? So does the oldest, and biggest denominations in the world: The Roman Catholic and the Greec Orthodox Church. The Lutheran Church traditionally does too. When it comes to the Trinity doctrine, even advocates of this docrine hold that it was gradually developed/revealed. The word "Trinity" in itself doesn't exist in the Bible, and can you criticise a Bible-believeing fundamentalist, as both UPCI and "orthodox" claim to be, for not wanting to add it? The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian to describe the Godhead in ca 250 AD. Does that mean that all the christians in the 250 years before were not orthodox because they did not profess the trinity? Furthermore, did you know that the very same Tertullian left the "orthodox" church for the heretical Montanist movement? One of the reasons he gave was that the "orthodox" didn't speak in tounges anymore. The Montanists were speaking in tongues and prophesying like crazy, they withdrew from rest of Christianity and expected Jesus/The Kingdom of Heaven to physically come back any day (similar to UPCI). The theologiac definition of the trinity continued to develop even through the Middle Ages, and according to the present form of the dogma even Tertullian's trinity is Heretical!! Different conceptions of the Trinity was also the formal reason for the schism between Byzantine and Rome in 1054. So what is trinity anyway? Another fact that many are unfamiliar with is that Trinitarian christianity was loosing ground to the Arian version of Christianity even after the Council of Nicea. The Barbarian tribes that invaded the Roman empire were all converted to Arianism. At one point Rome was the only city in western Europe that was under Trinitarian rule! It was only thanks to a Catholic lady who married a French King and converted him to Trinitarinaism that made the tides turn. By the sword (not the word of God now) they managed to win back territory for Catholic Trinitarianism. So who are you to make a list that excludes UPCI from orthodox christianity? If you take a second look you might as well find that the list excludes you. [Unsigned comment by User:Autofire 14 March 2006]

Speaking In Tongues

Anyone that believes in "speaking in tongues" needs mental counseling..

Hmm, Ok, following your logic the following people need a shrink: The Apostle Paul, Peter, James, Phillip, Andrew, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John the Baptist, Silas, everyone in the Upper Room, and the entire early church from the book of Acts and the entire New Testament just to name a few. That's alot of "mental counseling". -OR- Perhaps you just need to study the scripture. You also need to sign your comments! Dcmcgov 20:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox?

Orthodox is defined as "Adhering to what is commonly accepted" - in otherwords, based on popular opinion.

Truth is not defined by, nor is it dependent on popular opinion.

As such, I don't care about what is orthodox, but rather I will "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." [Unsigned comment by User:Dadonaldd 16 March 2006]

Awesome! So, like, you've done the historical research - read the ancient Greek and Aramaic scriptures, the various histories written in the first century about what early Christianity was like, maybe even helped to sift through the remains at archaeological sites in the Holy Land, to make sure that what you believe was once delivered unto the saints! That's truly admirable. Most UPC members I've known just swallow whatever their ministers teach them and they, themselves, read from some dead guy's translation - King James Bible. They don't take any meaningful steps to ensure themselves that they have the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 24.164.94.116 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss Greivances Here, Not in the Article

As with all religious denominations, there is great emotion involved with those who have left the UPCI. Please discuss whatever greivances or disagreements you may have here, and do not try to list them in the article.

Why I Left the UPC Faith

I am a 30 year old happily married mother of one. Growing up I had questions of why the strict standards more so on the women than the men. I too found myself judging backsliders who came crawling back and try to rejoin our club. I never thought I would be on the other side of that. One extremely prominent Louisville Ky pastor would not acknowledge that my husband had recieved the holy ghost during a revival and therefore would not agree to marry us. He also did not perform his baptism. The minister that did marry us from the same faith deeply displaced the seriousness and commitment of marriage and that he would have no laughing or jokes during the serious affair. A few years later his wife of 19 years got cancer and toiled not only with the fact that she had never bore him children but that now she prayed to be healed. That same pastor left his precious beautiful Godly wife for a blond women half his age. He divorced his wife and less than six months later she died. The first of the two mentioned ministers allowed the second, adulterous pastor preach at a revival meeting. The pastor I was raised under abandoned us when my mom went to him telling him of the things happening to my sister and I by my "Godly" father, and that pastor convinced my mom to go back to him and forgive him. It continued and eventually it came out to police. The same pastor stood in open court and denied knowing about it beforehand as well as denying counseling my parents on it. FYI both parents are still members of yet another local church who deems them as holy and precious although it is evident that evil had roots in our home. That current church has also defended another predator by allowing him to live above the church when he is forbidden from being near children until a court decides. I could go on about how all the local churches failed me. I was never allowed to ask my questions. One minister even told me that it was inappropriate for me to ask him questions and that if I have questions he will communicate with me through me husband to him. Asking his wife was out of the question too. I have been called out by another church for handling the household budget and not submitting to my husband. Well I am here to say that my husband and I are equal loving partners of a wonderful marriage and a strong friendship built on respect and kindness for each other. My marriage has lasted when 4 of the 7 local UPC churches have had ministers being adulterous inside and outside of a church. One wheelchair bound pastor left his wife and mother of 3 grown boys and grandchildren for a lady in the church. So who are these men to tell me what defines a good marriage. I have been moved by the glory of God and dwelled in a state of tongues throughout several campnight services. I know truth! I was baptised and raised on it, but I get conflicted when skirts and splits and hair up or down or pantyhose color or hair style or color of a barrette or heighth of shoe or obedience to a man are heaven and hell issues when there is a fungus that has poisoned our local chapters and it is widespread. The congregations are trying to stay in the upc way but when our shepards are away in ungodly ways it is hard to stay steadfast. Why do ministers get angry when asked about something? They feel their authority is questioned and feel indignant to answer to a heathen. But what heathen am I who has had the holy ghost since I was 11 and God has brought me through feelings that at one time consumed me. I too have been through the valley of the shadow of death and only God remained steadfast, all the pastors I sat under left me feeling isolated. I now wear pants and trim my hair to keep it healthy, I also wear a modest amount of jewelry being careful not to over do what is tasteful in my heart and that same God moves in me today. I will never go back to the UPC faith though it breaks my mother's heart, but she has equally broken mine by letting me know that she would rather I not have been born and her remain barren than for me to leave the church of UPC only to wind up in Hell. That's an actual quote. Well, she never told me that other religions experience the holy ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. I came across this board looking for a historical fact that was trivial and I found this site, so I wanted to put my story in to let you know that sometimes you want to be of them, but they don't care about you one way or the other. Doubt my story not. It is not my intention to slam individuals on a namely basis, but if you live in southern Indiana and Louisville Ky area you know what I say is truth. In closing, leaving the faith was what set me free and I have experienced God in large and profound ways. And I still stand by the idea of oneness although other faiths don't. I feel like if God deemed them worthy to recieve the holy ghost I will follow him. I send nothing negative out that is intended to offend, only to educate. -soulfire [Unsigned comment by User:Soulfire 25 February 2006]

A Tale of Two Sisters

I am a 40 year old mother of 2 boys. I was raised United Pentecostal in a Midwestern State. I can Very Much relate to those who say that Appearances are what matters to the Church. My sister and I "appeared" to be 2 pretty little blonde girls who were well taken care of. Nothing was further from the Truth. And it was our Church that closed in tight and made the Horror and Dysfunction possible.

My father was a Pedophile. My mother was addicted to pain medication and slept most of the time, giving him lots of Time to molest my little sister and me. We lived in near garbage house conditions. My aunts and uncles all knew what was happening. They would call my mom and scream at her---tell her that we needed to come to Church more---that my sister and I were going to become prostitutes if we didn't get saved. I was too little to know what was going on. I thought everything was "normal".

I told my dad to STOP at age 11. It felt Wrong. I was baptized soon afterward at my own insistence. I spoke in tongues for the first time at age 13 at Church Camp. I kept to the Holiness Standards and was persecuted at school for it. Around that same time, my sister told my mom "Daddy is touching me funny". My mom asked me if he had ever done that to me and I said yes. My dad went to church that Sunday and repented and spoke in tongues with all the elders of the church around him. He came home and told us that he had given it to God and we would Never Speak of This Again. We never did. I did tell my pastor. He said that these things happen and my father was forgiven.

But he kept molesting my little sister.

My sister has had continuing battles with depression and suicide and has been in and out of the psych ward too many times to count. She has 2 daughters of her own---and she married a sex offender.

I have found some Peace.

I have always been a Very Spiritual woman. But all of you in the UPC would think me the Whore of Babylon now. I still speak in tongues on a regular basis---and I consider it to be Prayer and Sacred. But it is in the context of sexual experience---when I am Open and feeling at One with the Being I call God/dess.

I sometimes feel my relatives praying for me to come back to the Church---it pulls at the edges of my soul like nagging neighbor who always needs to borrow money. It Won't Happen. Ever.

I Love Everyone---Even Those Who Have Hurt Me. And I Forgive Them. And when I worship in my own *special* way and feel that same *Glory of God* that I felt at the Pentecostal Altar---I feel Heaven---and All of Us are there---'Costals, Catholics, Lutherns, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans,-----Because the "Greatest of these is LOVE"

Ladyopinx 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Lady Opinx

Sorry, not to downplay your horrific childhood, but I'm just having a hard time figuring out why this has any relevance to the UPC page. This belongs on the "My Mom Should Have Done A Better Job Protecting Me From a Pervert" page. This is another classic example of a rough childhood being blamed on a religios institution. I guess if it makes you feel better... 69.224.126.153 23:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: This is the UPC "Talk" Page, is it not? I am here to talk. *smiles* So, you feel the Church has No Responsibility in reporting child abuse---especially sexual offense---once it has been made aware of the situation? -LadyOpinx [10 April 2006]

Yes, this is the UPC discussion page, that is exactly my point. This is not a discussion page of the paticular church in the paticular Midwestern state, but a discussion page for an entire organization. You have taken a tragic childhood and attempted to pin the blame on an entire organization. The pastor should have done more, without a doubt, but if your pastor should have done more, how much the more should your mother have done? 69.224.126.153 23:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is my hope that if my story is made known, that the entire organization will gain some insight into how to handle child abuse when it comes to the attention of the Pastor. My mom was raised in the church, and there was a deep instinct for "cover-up" so that the family and the Church did not "Look Bad" in the eyes of the World. She was not strong enough to act alone---she needed the support of a System that she could rely on. But when that System itself is concerned with Appearances, and will not contact outside Authorities to put an End to the Harm....that is not a Healthy Organization.

I would ask any Pastors that read this....Would you call the police and report child sexual abuse if it came to your attention within your Church?

Respectfully, Ladyopinx 12:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)LadyOpinx

Of course we would. And we have many times. What kind of silly question is that? Anybody in their right mind would report child abuse; but if a local pastor excersizes poor judgement on an issue like that, you cannot blame an organazation of 10,000 ministers and 4 million constituents. In a group of 10,000 ministers, there are likely to be a few that are bad apples. But the UPCI does not have a "deep instinct for 'cover-ups'". One of our prominent ministers was engaging in male prostitution, and he was turned in to the authorities. It was all over the news and certainly did not bode well for our "appearance", but our leadership did the right thing in uncovering it. Don't confuse this organization with the Catholic church, which spends millions in legal defense of thier pedophile ministers, or gives victims 10's of millions to keep their mouths shut, all the while denying anything wrong is happening.

First of all, I am glad that abuse is always reported promptly to the authorities by the Church. Secondly, as to what kind of "silly question" I posed to the Pastors who might read this---I was taught there were no silly questions. We are having a discussion, I am seeking knowledge, and the only way to gain that knowledge is to ask questions. Attacking the validity of my question gets us nowhere. Thirdly, the church I grew up in was not some tiny church in a small town. It was a Huge Institution in a Metropolitan Area that had a constant flow of UPC people from all over the country coming and going on a regular basis. It was influencial and influenced by the Entire Organization. That is why I assumed it was Not an isolated, local problem with one particular Pastor.

I would also like to add that I am not blaming the church for my life---I believe that we are all given what we are for a reason and what we do with it is up to us. One thing that I would like to do is to open up dialogue about child sexual abuse in regards to the UPC. That is my purpose for being here---Not to Blame or to Shame anyone. The individuals involved have my forgiveness. As I said, I have found Peace in the matter. It is others that may be at risk now or in the future that weigh on my mind.

What I saw as the problem was the "Repentance-Forgiveness" process. My father confessed his sins to our Pastor, Repented at the Altar to Jesus, "prayed through" to the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues with all of the male elders laying hands on him during the altar call that Sunday night---He was Forgiven. He promised he would turn away from sin. The Holy Spirit was supposed to give him that Power. So, No Need to alert the authorities in the eyes of the Church...??? If you are to go on Faith alone, that could stand, but with Pedophiles, the recidivism rate is about 100%. This is a difficult situation.

Again, Respectfully Ladyopinx 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)LadyOpinx

Small Stuff

How about an internal link at the first occurrences of the word Oneness in the article? Jasoninkid 4/16/06

Changes

I changed "The UPCI is the largest Oneness Pentecostal Political organization" to "The UPCI is the largest Oneness Pentecostal organization" This is not a Political Organization. Pastorlinu 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Removed the Dispute Sign - Reason mention in the Discussion section. Pastor Linu 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctrinal Changes: I have replaced the Paragraph with the actual Oneness view of UPCI as part of Doctrinal Changes. Pastor Linu 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed "formed by a 1945 merger of the Pentecostal" to "formed in 1945 by a merger of the Pentcostal" Pastor Linu 08:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the 'unsourced'Tag. Reason, This article is upto date. Sources are accurate. Don't find any reason putting a unsourced tag. You need to check with reffrence and source. Without looking at it, don't take the action. Pastor Linu 08:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Pastor Linu! Thanks for contributing to the cleaning up of the vandalism on this page. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that gives fair and balanced information about subjects, but the anti-UPC crowd has turned it into a hateful grudge blog. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a praise report; I dont know if you heard about the Azusa Street Centennial Crusade in Los Angeles over the past week, but I was there all week, and over 1,000 people were filled with the Holy Ghost and baptized in JESUS name at the Grand Olympic Auditorium in downtown L.A. It was tremendous. You can view the services at http://www.abnglobal.net - God bless and have a great day. Dcmcgov 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I have deleted the Text which was here in this place, since there was no sign in name or any information of the person who added that Text. Pastor Linu 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you deleted it, because I was about to. I like how the person had television listed twice, as if not having T.V. is a bad thing! Also, "no football in some communities"... what does that mean? This person obviously has no clue what the UPCI is about. Dcmcgov 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in Tongues

I found the following edit interesting. "The UPC does not agree with the "shall" in that scripture. The UPC teaches that speaking in tongues is the sign of receiving the Holy Ghost. According to the UPC, someone who has been baptized but has not spoke in tongues is not yet saved" was removed. But this was what I was taught growing up in a UPC church. With it removed, the only things a person has to do is repent and be baptized (receiving the Holy Spirit would be automatic once he repented and was baptized and speaking in tongues isn't required).

David L Ratigan believes that "The UPC teaches that speaking in tongues is the sign of receiving the Holy Ghost. According to the UPC, someone who has been baptized but has not spoke in tongues is not yet saved", but is oppossed to the statement that the UPC does not believe in the "shall" in the previous mentioned verse. That seems to be self-conflicting. If they believe in the "shall", then someone who never speaks in tongues is still going to be born again as the "shall" is not a "might sometimes". Speaking in tongues is the sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but it is not required to show evidence that the Holy Spirit is indwelling. [Unsigned comment by User:198.97.67.59 on 23 May 2006]

The statement The UPC does not agree with the "shall" in that scripture is POV because it is a matter of biblical interpretation. If you asked a UPCer, they would doubtless say they do believe that verse, but interpret it differently from you. David L Rattigan 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are presuppossing that they'd say they interpret it differently than I do. More importantly, I think your comment implies a bias towards implicit culture vs. tacit culture. [Unsigned comment by User:198.97.67.59 on 24 May 2006]

Please sign your comments with four tildes [tilde = ~].

Since UPC has a high view of Scripture (ie inerrancy), it is inconceivable that a United Pentecostal would agree with your interpretation and then say they don't believe it. If there's a tacit rejection of that scripture, the issue is far more complex than simply saying "UPC does not believe x". The statement is simplistic. David L Rattigan 13:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to oversimplify the statement and if you think stating it in another way would be better that's fine. But when they talk about taking the Bible as the inerrant, literal truth and basing their doctrine on all of it, it makes the points that they don't agree with significant enough to mention in the article.198.97.67.56 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Such comments would belong in a criticisms section, but I imagine that is to be found under Oneness Pentecostalism rather than here. A Oneness Pentecostal could just as easily turn the tables on orthodox Christians and say, Trinitarians do not agree with the scripture that says "the Father and I are one". Jehovah's Witnesses could turn the table on both Oneness and Trinitarian Christians and say that neither agree with the scripture that states "The Father is greater than I". But all those assessments would be simplistic, as the real issue is not whether they agree, disagree, believe or disbelieve, but how they interpret the scriptures in question.

Thanks for signing, by the way - makes it a lot easier to follow! David L Rattigan 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its the same thing. Trinitarians (at least the Baptist minister who I spoke to) believe that the Trinity are three 'persons' with the same essence of deity (that is, the three both are and are not the same). Here'sa good description of the trinity concept. I believe they would agree with the statement that the son and the father are one - in fact, that seems to be half of the mystery of the trinity. Again, you are presuming what someone believes. On the other hand, UPC doctrine (at least as I was taught it growing up in a UPC church) holds that a person who dies without having spoken in tongues is not saved (except in very extraordinary circumstances - like dying shortly after water baptism).198.97.67.59 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know what exactly UPC is teaching about Speaking in Toungue, please reffer to this link. Pastor Linu 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits using the word "literal"

I understand the core belief by some people editing this article that the UPC's beliefs are the one true way to salvation and that it is the only salvation formula backed by Biblical verse and that there is no real controversy that can be made on this issue. Such an arguement is fundamentally not NPOV (neutral point of view). If you are unable to talk or write about your faith using NPOV, you shouldn't be working on this article.198.97.67.57 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The same principle applies to those who are critical of the UPC, and are unable to talk or write about it using a NPOV.68.111.150.81 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And All you wonderfull Men of God - Please Don't forget to sign in your after your comment. You can do it by pressing ~ four time. Pastor Linu 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

More on "literal":

[The qoute] "a more literal Apostolic interpretation of the baptismal accounts in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, where the Apostle's were recorded as perfoming baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or 'in the name of the Lord'" is not NPOV because it implies that UPC doctrine adheres more to the Bible than does other denominations. This is a position which I'm certain many other denominations would disagree with. Unless it can be proven objectively that it is more true to the original faith (something which I doubt most UPC preachers are able to argue since they tend not to be fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), the above statement doeesn't belong in the article. It can be replaced with the following, "The doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church embraces Acts 2:38 (where Peter states, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost') as its salvation formula" without in any way criticizing UPC doctrine.

"Peter put this in plain language for the early church in Acts 2:38 - 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost'." Again, not NPOV. It also implies rather strongly that UPC doctrine is correct and all others are wrong. The statement can be deleted without criticizing UPC doctrine.

"The word name is used here in the singular." Obviously, in -english- it is in the singular. But that raises issues of how good a translation it is. If you want to go into the ancient Aramaic on this, it would make your case far stronger. Without that, you have NPOV problems (because of the assumption that the KJV is priveleged).

"the UPCI holds to the original oneness view of God"and this is the core problem with all of these comments that I've removed from the article. The claim that the original view of God was oneness is not NPOV unless you can back it up a lot better than you have. It can be edited to "the UPCI holds to the oneness view of God - which it claims is the original view of God" without criticizing UPC doctrine.

198.97.67.56 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "literal" and "plain language" arguments are POV and should be edited. David L Rattigan 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems that someone needs a lesson on what Wiki considers vandalism. "Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki." As all articles on Wiki should be written with NPOV, deliberate persistant efforts to remove NPOV (and thus violate the NPOV policy) are an act of vandalism. Please stop.198.97.67.59 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the ~unreferenced sign~, because whoever put this sign does not mention the reason why?... Pastor Linu 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again removing {{-unreferenced-}}sign.. simply no reason mentioned Pastor Linu 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits to The Doctrine Page

It seems like some of you need a lesson on the purpose of Wikipedia. The doctrine section of the United Pentecostal Church article is a place to present (surprise!) the DOCTRINE of the United Pentecostal Church. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not, whether you were once a part of the UPC but left and now have a personal vendetta against it or not, whether you think you are an expert because you have a degree from Manchester or not, the doctrine section of this article is to present the doctrine of the UPC. This is what we teach, you do not have to agree with it, but to insert your own propoganda (for or against) is wrong, and will continue to be deleted. If you have a greivance with our doctrine, feel free to discuss it on the (surprise!) DISCUSSION page, but unless you have a significant contribution regarding our doctrine (and not just your personal thoughts on the matter), you will be deleted for vandalism.

I have written most of the doctrine section personally, and my qualifications include 26 years of studying, teaching, preaching and writing about this doctrine. You can save your anti-UPC flame throwing under the guise of the "NPOV" card - I know full well the true definition of the NPOV, and your edits are not it. Dcmcgov 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Hold off on the personal attacks. I have not attacked the UPC, and am interested in contributing to a fair, NPOV article. You are imposing your POV in your edits by presenting UPC doctrine in a particular light rather than simply stating objectively what those doctrines are. David L Rattigan 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition of doctrine is a set of ideas taught to a group of people as truth. These are our ideas - it is impossible to "present them in a paticular light" other than in the way we teach them. This is our doctrine, this is what we teach, this is a synopsis of what is written in our orgazational charter; if you dont agree with our doctrine - guess what: you don't have to agree - but dont accuse me of "presenting it in a certain light". The way it is being presented is the way it is taught - full stop - your personal opinions on the matter are not relevant to the doctrine, and need to be left out. This is like arguing over the color of the sky. You may not like blue, but the sky is blue, and the article on Wikipedia about the sky better call the sky blue, regardless of who likes or dislikes the color blue. The same principle applies here. Our doctrine is as such! You may not like the doctrine, but it is our doctrine. You are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information with your so called "NPOV" rants. Our doctrine is not interlaced with your opinions and interjections, and should not be presented as such. Dcmcgov 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[The following comment was deleted by Dcmcgov 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC) for the following reason:Comment was unsigned]

This edit back and forth isn't going anywhere and we aren't going to agree. I believe there is a way to make a general request for review to the editing volunteers on Wiki at large to provide input. Maybe we should make use of that option. [Unsigned comment by User:198.97.67.56 on 30 May 2006]

What do you see as the critical difference between saying "The UPC teaches that.." and saying "The literal interpretation of the Bible is X" when describing UPC doctrine? In other words, what exactly is it with the edits that we've made that you find so objectionable Dcmcgov?71.74.217.83 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of this article, I will report you. If you have an issue with this organization's doctrine, discuss it HERE. Do not remove fundamental portions of thier doctrine because of a personal issue you have. Doing so in the name of NPOV is especially ridiculous. Again, I will report your activity and have your IP address banned from editing. Dcmcgov 03:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the edits you had made were as minor as those you stated, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Don't try and spin this, User 71.74.217.83. Deleting Acts 2:38 from the article and stating that we don't really "scientifically" (?) speak in tongues are not minor semantical edits, but are acts of vandalism to a page that should present the UPC doctrine for what it is, and not what you think is wrong with it. Dcmcgov 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (btw, You should think about creating an account sometime soon, I feel like I'm talking to a number.)

The page needs to objectively describe UPC beliefs. The following phrases were very loaded with POV:

• ... embraces a more literal Apostolic interpretation ...
• ... Peter put this in plain language ...

Claims that a particular interpretation represent a "more literal" reading or the "plain" reading are POV. As for the Acts 2:38 reference, it is given in the intro, which is why I think it is being removed from elsewhere. I removed the tongues claim, as it was POV. The phrase "speaking in tongues" is fine by itself - it just describes a religious phenomenon and doesn't make any claim about whether it is really divine or "scientific". David L Rattigan 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been reasonably successful in balancing contrasting the different viewpoints on the article Jehovah's Witnesses with regards to presenting beliefs in a concise way, and also presenting criticism. It might be helpful, or give you some ideas about this. For instance, in this section on this article, you constantly have to invent phrases for "The UPC teaches/believes/holds/maintains/claims ..." I personally found these sorts of phrases tedious and redundant on the JW belief section, and opted for a different approach that eliminated them altogether. joshbuddy^talk 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tongues

Would it be NPOV if it were stated without the "obviously"? I can see in hindsight that that word does bring bias to the article. However, stating that there are no verifiable cases but plenty of urban legends of it is part of the etic description I think. [Unsigned]

Which statement are you referring to? I couldn't find "obviously" anywhere in the article. David L Rattigan 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously, there are no scientifically verified and documented cases of a UPC member speaking in tongues as it was done on the day of Pentecost - speaking an earthly language unknown to the speaker. There are many "urban legends", however, of members doing so."198.97.67.56 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see - it was your statement, and you'd like to know whether it could be replaced without "obviously" to make it NPOV? Understand now.

I don't think there's any need for the statement at all. I think it can be taken for granted that "speaking in tongues" refers to a religious experience capable of being interpreted in many ways. The statement would be as true of tongues-speakers in any religious tradition. David L Rattigan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What happened on the day of Pentecost was xenoglossalia. The UPC bases its belief in speaking in tongues on this act. They are either not doing what was done on the day of Pentecost or they are engaging in xenoglossalia. If they are engaging in xenoglossalia, then it is scientifically verifiable that they are doing so.

I know of no other religion who claim to practice xenoglossalia. So comparing how we should treat a religion who practices glossalia but not xenoglossalia to another religion which claims to be practicing xenoglossalia is comparing apples and oranges. The fact that it would not be as true of tongue-speakers in any religious tradition is, therefore, simply irrelevant.198.97.67.57 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for a UPC claim to xenoglossolalia in particular? Acts 2 is pivotal to all Pentecostal traditions, and usually the difference between glossolalia and xenoglossolalia is overlooked. There are also many anecdotal accounts of xenoglossolalia within Pentecostalism as whole, not just UPC. David L Rattigan 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Do you have a reference for a UPC claim to xenoglossolalia in particular?" Yes, [1]it is at the UPC website. It references Acts 11:15-17 (for the Gentiles) pointing back to Acts 2. Since Acts 2 describes xenoglossalia and the UPC basis its arguement on Acts 2, it must either be preaching xenoglossalia or be inconsistent with its Biblical support. Take your pick.

As for other forms of Pentecostalism preaching xenoglossalia, I don't see how that is relevant. [Unsigned]

Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~.

My point about other Pentecostals was relevant because you just claimed above that no other religion claimed to be practising xenoglossolalia, by which I assume you mean no one other than the UPC.

The link you provided mentions Acts, but doesn't claim UPC practises xenoglossolalia. I think the criticism that modern tongues is not like that in Acts 2 is one that probably belongs in the general Pentecostalism article rather than here, since it is a general comment on Pentecostalism in general rather than the UPC specifically. David L Rattigan 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"you just claimed above that no other religion.." Okay, the UPC is a denomination of Christianity which is a religion.

If the UPC teaches that what it practices is anything other than xenoglossalia, then it is in conflict with the Biblical basis for its practice. I see no reason why the fact that a central part of the UPC doctrine is non-Biblical can't be listed here as well as in the general Pentecostalism article.198.97.67.56 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's important enough to be included, I suggest you include it in the Criticisms section, rather than in the main body of the article, and provide a source. You would also have to phrase it in NPOV terms, as the view you expressed is a POV criticism based on a particular biblical interpretation. (Thanks for signing, by the way - makes the discussion a lot less confusing.) David L Rattigan 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Acts 2:38

I believe DCMGOV intended to post this here instead of in my personal talk space "Do NOT remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of the UPCI page again. If you don't agree with the UPCI doctrine, discuss it in the discussion page, but you cannot remove fundamental portions of the organization's doctrine simply because you do not like it." 71.74.217.83 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reply 1.) The philosophy of Wikipedia is against one person controlling the contents of an article by telling others what they can or can't or should or shouldn't post in it - only Wiki policy can do that 2.) My version of the article does not remove Acts 2:38 from the article

Reworking the UPCI article

Just wanted to post some notes about my recent changes to the Wikipedia article. Please read this and consider, before you revert. This is my first time doing major writing for the Wikipedia, so my NPOV my not be perfect. Please don't flame or revert, but an explanation of the offending language would be helpful.

I removed an in-text citation because it referenced a college level research project. It's probably too unreliable for something like the Wikipedia.

I'm endeavoring to secure primary sources for this article. I've started the process of citing the UPCI doctorinal stances, directly from the UPCI homepage. These are paraphrased and abbreviated, save some plagiarism on the part of others, which I will remove/reedit as I have the time. For the time being, I've begun expanding the doctorinal sections with more detail. I would also like to secure some tracts, manuals, and other printed literature, so that I can fill a reference section, above and beyond internet references.

Well done. You may be interested in joining the Charismatic Wiki Project - see link at top of page. Hasn't really got off the ground yet, but with a bit more interest it might. David L Rattigan 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was carefully Checking the Recent History of this Article. I appreciate "Firstdivider" for the Major Editing work he has done. But I just need an explanation, who you deleted most of the people from "Prominent People with UPC" section? Also please create a user Page of yours! Pastor Linu 09:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not me! Those people were gone by the time I first saw this page. I'll work on creating a user page :). I've edited the wikipedia before, but this is the first time that I've done it using my own account.

Recent changes: Last night I tightened up the intro paragraph by removing some off-target information. I'm also going to de-link all of the red topics. Firstdivider 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just de-linkified the red links in the article, and I also removed rendundant/irrelevant blue links. I've posted a list of the removed red links below.

Churches with no Wiki: Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, The General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies, The Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance, Emmanuel's Church in Jesus Christ, The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Church, Incorporated,

UPCI Affiliates with no Wiki: Christian Life College, Texas Bible College, Gateway College, Centro Teologico Misterial, Indiana Bible College, Apostolic Bible Institute, Northeast Christian College, Urshan Graduate School of Theology, Pentecostal Publishing House

People with no Wiki: Rev. Kenneth Haney, Daniel Seagraves Ed. D. Firstdivider 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Editing Finished

I've just finished alphabetizing and standardizing lists and links. I've also wikified/removed dead/broken links, as well as redundant links, or links which did not belong.

• Contains UPC position papers, beliefs and more
• United Pentecostal Church India website

I will probably put the first link in a section called 'criticisms of the UPCI' which I will make at some future point.

I removed the second link because it was dead, and also because it was not appropriate to put a regional organization under a heading for individual churches. I'm not even sure if links to individual churches should be in the wikipedia.

The schools and learning institutions are now properly linked, so I removed them from the list.

Firstdivider 07:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Moved

The actual name of the organization is the United Pentecostal Church International. In the interest of properly reflecting the true name of the organization, I've moved the page (the old UPC page is now a redirect).

Special Protected

I put a Special Protected sign due to so much vandalism and unwanted edit by anonymous people. 125.22.33.103 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)