Talk:Ahn Sahng-hong

Explaining a clean-up Effort
Reposted here because its relevant for the exact same reasons concerning 1988 and 2012 2600:1014:B002:1AB2:AC72:8CE1:24A4:6C73 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I made a login here this ip is me — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGospel (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 2012 reference deleted, it was not and is not held as a church-wide belief. 1. Small groups misinterpreted that prophecy, and cannot reflect the WMSCOG as a whole. Myself an example. 2. google "the truth of the world mission society church of god" for link to supreme court evidence that 2012 was not end of world prophecy and that people have lied about this before, I can't link it directly for some reason [on my smartphone]. Im recommending this to prove the fact empirically. For a number of reasons, the truth itself first and foremost; the 2012 "end of world" was not the "end of world". It was a prophecy of the completion of the temple, which, after being read, contained a couple more paragraphs of events which happen afterwards. This is the problem with taking such a snippet out of a single source, it neglects the benefit of the full prophecy. Not the end exactly, but an end sign. As in Ahnsahnghong's writings he also states we will not know the date, thus the end date prophecy is just a sign. This can be definitively proven with a simple date-checking of church opinions, before, during, and after, the issuing of the prophecy, and the fulfillment of the prophecy. The majority of the WMSCOG, and the head church itself, has remained consistent with 2012 not being the end but a sign. All sources to the contrary are not only dissident minorities, but have had their authenticity thrown into question, if not outright disproven. Since to explain this I rely on hundreds of thousands of first-hand witnesses or blogs, I can't include it in the WIKI, but I hope that the authenticity of these "facts" in the future are held to a higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.170.223 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The court case stated that


 * "Also within the church, there is another claim being proposed that the world will end in 2012."


 * I'm not surprised if WMSCOG later, when the world did not end, changed their mind and said something to the effect that "the end of the world was not the "end of the world", it was a prophecy of the completion of the temple ..." - that or something similar has been SOP for failed apocalyptic events for centuries. But I do not know why this is mentioned, as this article does not touch upon it at all. In any event, we do not rely on "hundreds of thousands of first-hand witnesses or blogs" or related opinion for the WP:TRUTH, we go with secondary sources. I see this article have suffered some anon POV editing the last six months, and I'll revert to a previous revision. — Sam Sailor 17:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahn Sahng-hong. 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/20150703194347/https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis removal Comment
I removed the content "The WMSCOG and the NCPCOG was agreed that Ahn Sahng-hong was God." in the "Complete the prophecy" section. This content is in direct conflict with what has been shown to be the reason for the split after the death of the founder. If these two factions have reconciled the sources need to support that information. I did not see any evidence in the NCPCOG site that definitively stated or advocated a belief that "Ahn Sahng-hong was God". The Witnesses of Ahn Sahng-hong Church of God split was because of a belief that Zahng Gil-jah was to be regarded as Heavenly Mother and "together with Ahn Sahng-hong be regarded as God." The WMSCOG likely also has this view but sources must show the NCPCOG also makes this claim to tie the two together. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Please read references first.--S59112024 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The conflict is also shown in the lead with "Both organizations claim him as their founder: the New Covenant Passover Church of God calls Ahn as a teacher; the World Mission Society Church of God calls Ahn as God." Otr500 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference provided is listed as being published by an anonymous "manager" and the validity has been challenged. The sourcing requirements of the English Wikipedia content guideline include:


 * Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content., that follows the policy on "Verifiability".
 * With 52 tabs opened, so an exhaustive search beyond what is needed, I could not corroborate the dubious source provided from independent or even primary sources that is required when a sources is questioned. Two sects are using the supposed teachings of one person and presenting this in one article has to be about the subject and not giving a bias slant one way or the other. Of the 52 tabs I opened, the sources ranged from a Google post "Church of God preaching the glory of Heavenly Mother", that links to the home page of the World Mission Society Church of God to 309 postings of this same anonymous "manager" The vast majority of sources were related to the WMSCOG that is not acceptable sourcing for a claim related to NCPCOG.
 * A better alternative to misapplying BRD and reverting the controversial statement and dubious source that screams REDFLAG would have been to join the discussion "first" not revert with "Please read references first". If there is a better source (see: Verifiability) then this needs to be presented so as not to appear to make this a "Tale of two churches" trying to advertise their side in an article that is not the topic of this subject. This type of editing creates clear systemic bias.
 * When reading "The WMSCOG and the NCPCOG was agreed that Ahn Sahng-hong was God.", backed by a WMSCOG primary source and a less than reliable supposedly primary source, it must be understood that readers would likely have also read The Second Coming of Christ and Elijah's Mission section that includes Ahn Sahng-hong also said that many false Christ would say "I am the Christ" now, just as Jesus predicted that false Christs would appear in the last day, however, salvation is found in no other name than Jesus, not only at His first coming but even in the last days.. Sources I have viewed that refer to the subject as "Christ Ahnshanghong" "Father Ahnshanghong" or "God Ahnshanghong" are related to the WMSCOG and become controversial when making the synthesis that both "churches" believe or teach the same thing but somehow "someone" is distorting the "truth".
 * I have no pony in the race so when article content contains these obvious issues and errors, either the content (one or both sides) needs to be removed or the sourcing needs to be improved. Since an editor has deemed that having the information is important by reverting the removal, I have added a "Multiple issue" with "Bias" and "Neutrality" tags. These tags are not subjected to the "rules" of BRD so a discussion needs to be started on any resolution before removal. Also, there becomes an issue of the article classification, that seems to have been prematurely promoted to "B-class", when it obviously fails more than one criteria. Otr500 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

 * Note: I think the extraneous content should be deleted or moved to the appropriate article if not already covered there. The two different churches were formed from an admitted "schism", that apparently began before the subjects death, but a split did not occur until AFTER the death of the subject. One group left and formed the Witnesses of Ahn Sahng-hong Church of God and subsequently the World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG). The other group that stayed but changed the name from Church of God Jesus Witnesses to New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG). The timeline shows 1985 which is "after" the subjects demise and any biased information from circumstances the subject surely cannot be attributed to being involved are a POV slant.
 * If I have not missed something then anything that happened up to the time of the subjects death, including balanced coverage of any controversy concerning Um Sooin (while the subject was alive) would be relevant but the wishy-washy battle of which is right or wrong has no place in the article of the subject (that had already died) creating an unnecessary battleground of which "slant" should be afforded more due weight.
 * If a discussion does not result from these comments I will likely seek alternate ways, that may involve others eyes looking at this for a neutral resolution, which may also involve a RFC. Otr500 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable
Article currently uses way too many primary, connected, or blog sources. Unreliable. toobigtokale (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)