Talk:Daniel Sidney Warner

Untitled
Hi, your Wesleyan link goes to the Wesleyan Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism." Feel free to pipe it to something else if I mis-interpreted the usage. --Asbestos 01:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

General Organization
This article is not very organized yet. Perhaps we can work to clean it up a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tigerboy91 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

clean up
I agree that this page could use some reorganization. Some of the info could use some neutralizing, especially under the heading "The movement that followed". Remember, this is Wikipedia. I say this, not saying that I disagree with the conclusion, (because I actually do agree), but because unbiased searchers should find objective information on these pages, not personal opinions. Use the links section as a place to direct readers to for personal opinions, and please do not delete those links that disagree with yours. I added a link that I personally do not agree with, but it gives the reader a chance to "hear all sides" and form his own opinions. I may clean up the text on this page as time permits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.25 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Links
Hello all. I agree with the above. I will continue to delete the link which attacks the Church of God Restoration even though I do not fellowship or agree with some of their doctrines. This link is not informative or useful, it is only a way to slander the Church of God and the beliefs of D.S. Warner. Since Wikipedia has certain criteria that it uses to determine if information is valid I do not feel it would be equitable to the Restoration or to D.S. Warner to allow this information of which cannot be confirmed to be slanderously spread in a format like Wikipedia.

slander? or disagreement?
Please do not continue to deny the objective researcher access to viewpoints that may not match our own. Is the "Inside Look..." slander or disagreement? It is simply a research that brings out aspects that some may disagree with. All of the historical information in it was taken from the web and published articles and books. It touches areas that the author agrees with, and disagrees with. It is, admittedly, a different perspective than the "usual" in some points, but that is what research is all about. To bring out a point about another person or group one disagreees with, is not necesarily slander, or else D. S. Warner himself was a slanderer of the worst sort, as he continually spoke out against against what he deemed to be errors in other groups of Christians. And he (and I and everybody else) has the right to do that, if we do so in with a constructive spirit). The link and information about the COG (REstoration) definitely belongs on this page, whether we agree or disagree with it. It is not an insignificant group. 67.142.130.16 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is an Encyclopedia, Not a Pulpit"
Warner did not slander. He spoke the truth. So even if Warner were alive, it would be improper if he used WIKIPEDIA to erase links that were not pertainging to his beliefs for the simple reason that WIKIPEDIA is an Encyclopedia. It is not the best "format" to promote ideas or beliefs. All that one can do is to assist in giving information that pertains to the subject of the article. Any other information is not needed.

RE:Disceptive Link
It was good to see that whoever posted the link changed the title to from DSWARNER to NEW TESATMENT TEACHINGS on Church government. I hope that this honest behavior continues for the benefit of all. Tom Wingate

Nuetral point of view
Please consider the following Wikipedia guidelines:

Religion

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Please Consider the Links of the Books written by D.S. Warner
For some reason someone insists on deleting links to books written by D.S. Warner. It could be that they do not believe in what he taught so they wish to put their own spin on his teachings instead of allowing the Wikipedia reader the opprotunity to find the books online so that they can read what he taught if they wish rather than a condensed view that has been spun as a clever politician spins the "truth" to his vantage point. An Encylopedia is a place to find out the truth or what is believed to be the truth. So D.S. Warner were alive, I believe it would be safe to say that he would like for his teachings and beliefs to be within a click of his article! That is a safe belief especially for a man who gave his life, his marriage, and his time, talents and his whole soul to the spread of what is contained in his writings. If you disagree with his teachings, that is fine. However, it is clear that this is an encylopledia, a place to learn. For those who desire to learn, go to DSWARNERLIBRARY for a complete library of his writings. T.W.


 * I deleted them as I commented on your talk page. The main reason was you hit a few larger pages such as [Christian] and [Mennonite] and a bunch with your precious link. If you had stayed focussed, they wouldn't have looked so spammy. I reverted some of them, but not the one on the larger pages. A page as large as [Christian] can't have links to everyone who ever wrote about Christianity... Jebba 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jebba, I understand why you feel the way that you do since you have probably only a basic knowledge of Christianity as a whole. I cannot understand however who should or even can for that matter make the determination of who should be in the larger pages such as Christian and Mennonite. The link has over 2000 years worth of writings from "Christian" and Mennonite writers, Methodist, Catholic, Anabaptist, Reformed Church of England, and Church of God. A unique collection of books so say the least. One of the titles is, Is the Negro a Beast. A Christian book that was written in 1905 by a Church of God writer, a White man nontheless, who defended the rights and humanity of the Negro Race a long time before the Civil Rights Movement even existed. This book is unknown to most "Christian" authors and if you have your way, they will never know about it. It is signinficant in the History of America, the History of the American Black People, and Christian Church History. But since of course you would have no knowledge of this "ONE" book out of probably 300 other controversial books, you could not possibly make a proper judgement on if the WIKIPEDIA reader would like to know about this website. I understand that you are trying to do your job, however I also recogonize that no one individual, including myself, has all knowledge. It takes knowledge to make an informed decision. Why can't the Christian page have everyone who ever wrote about Christianity on it? Tom

Biblical Eldership Evidence
Here is some of the evidence that you requested. It is abundantly clear that D S Warner and the early pioneers of the church of God taught and practiced biblical eldership as was presented in the eldership presentation on the referenced website. They did not practice the modern day hierarchy governing model, such as exists in Catholicism, Protestantism and nearly every 7th seal congregation of the Church of God (as well as the other splinters). Be open minded and study their early writings and you can see for yourself: Read D. S. Warner, Elders and Deacons, Gospel Trumpet Article, Aug 15, 1886

“When Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he addressed all the saints, "with the bishops and deacons." He did not say with the bishops, elders, and deacons; but recognized only two classes of officers —bishops and deacons. A plurality of elders were ordained in "every church." Acts 14:23. Therefore Paul terms these elders, bishops. Bishop and elder then is the same in Scripture. But two classes of officers in the church at Philippi: bishops —the ministers of the word of truth, and overseers of the flock-and deacons—the ministers of the temporal affairs of the church. '''I emphasize! Anything more than this is apostasy.”''' -- The Cleansing of the Sanctuary, by H. M. Riggle & D. S. Warner

“All the ministers of the Gospel are elders, and then there are chosen of God local elders to take an oversight over each local congregation of the Church of God.” -- D. S. Warner, August 15, 1885 issue of The Gospel Trumpet.

“The authority of a true gospel elder is not the creature of his ordination to the office, but is the direct result of those gifts, which qualify him for the eldership. Babylon officers have their authority wholly by virtue of their office; but scriptural elders have their office by virtue of their authority. The first is beast power given by the dragon, the second is Divine authority conferred by the Word and Spirit of God. The first exercise lordship over God’s heritage, the later rule by a holy example and by the power of God’s Spirit, and Word in their hearts.” – D. S. Warner, August 15, 1885 issue of The Gospel Trumpet.

“The only coming out that we teach and that God wants, is simply a return from all human works, and unscriptural governments, and authorities, and standards, and rules, and managements to the Mighty God; to His likeness, His holiness, His cementing love, and to His all-wise control. Not setting aside any of the gifts and offices He has set in the body, but recognizing them all, but not acknowledging any lords over God’s heritage.” --D. S. Warner I suggest that you provide evidence from D S Warner that supports the governing model of one pastor per congregation, who is the "shepherd" of the "sheep" (flock). It simply is not in Warner's writings nor was it his practice, and it definitely is not found in the New Testament. It is a deep rooted tradition coming from a spirit of apostasy. It is foreign to New Testament teaching or practice.

OBSCURE SOURCES?
I noticed that someone had thought that the website dswarnerlibrary is an obscure website so therefore the sources cannot or may not be accurate. The Wikipedia editors could verify the statements within the article by ask them if the books within dswarnerlibrary Evening Light Part I are writings and beliefs of the Reformation Ministry.

Below are is a list of the Books from the Gospel Trumpet publishers from 1880-1915 or so that are on this OBSCURE website:

Shadow of Good Things RR. Byrum

Biblical Proofs of a Second Cleansing R.R. Byrum

Were the Apostles Regenerated Before Pentecost R.R. Byrum

Secret of A Happy Life Smith Hanna Whitall

Faith Healing- an Important Factor in Soul Saving By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Bible Proofs of the Second Work of Grace By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Must We Sin? By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

No Unity Without Holiness By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Salvation D. S. Warner

Solemn Covenant By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Trial and Expulsion By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Warner's Life (Excel .xls)

What is the Soul By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Holy Wisdom in Soul Saving By: D. S. Warner

Sanctification by D.S. Warner

Entire Sanctification What is it and can it be obtained in this life? DS Warner

Marriage and Divorce By: D. S. Warner (.doc)

Immersion a Prerequisite to Church Fellowship? Daniel S. Warner

Decided by the Bible B.E. Warren

Life Sketches of Mother Sarah Smith

Birth of a Reformation By: A. L. Byers (.pdf) or (.doc)

Bible Humility By: Jacob W. Byers (.pdf)

Parent and Child By: J. W. Byers (.pdf)

Sanctification J.W. Byers

Travels and Experiences in Other Lands 1905 E E Byrum

False Doctrines By EE Byrum

Ordinances of the Bible EE Byrum

Riches of Grace/ By: Enoch E. Byrum (.doc)

How John Became a Man By: Isabel C. Byrum (.doc)

What Shall I do to be Saved E.E. Byrum

The Poorhouse Waif/ By: Isabel Byrum (.doc)

Five Kinds of Religion By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

Heart Talks/ By: C. W. Naylor (.rtf)

Singing Heart/ By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

Meddling With The Scales C. W Naylor

The Redemption of Howard Gray By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

Victorious Living By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

What it Means to Trust the Lord By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

Winning a Crown By: C. W. Naylor (.doc)

Thy Children Are Gathering Home

Every Hour For Jesus

The Last Reformation F.G. Smith

Evolution of Christianity F. G. Smith

What the Bible Teaches F G Smith

Eternity H.M Riggle

Man: His_Present_and_Future.pdf H.M. Riggle

Christ's Second Coming By: H. M. Riggle (.doc)

The Kingdom of God By: H. M. Riggle (.doc)

The Sabbath and The Lord's Day By: H. M. Riggle (.pdf)

The Government of the Church By: H. M. Riggle (.doc)

The New Covenant and the Law of Christ By: H. M. Riggle (.doc)

Justification By H.M. Riggle

Christian Church Its Rise and Progress Riggle

Two Works of Grace By: H. M. Riggle (.doc)

The Ordinances of the Bible By: William G. Schell (.doc)

Is the Negro A Beast? By William G Schell 1901

The Double Cure By: D. O. Teasley (.doc)

Rays of Hope By: D. O. Teasley (.doc)

The Holy Spirit and Other Spirits By: D. O. Teasley (.doc)

The Kneeling Christian By: Unknown (.rtf)

How I Got Faith By: Willis M. Brown (.doc) From Infidelity to Christianity Willis M. Brown

The Debt We Owe D.O Teasley

Harvest Time Barney E. Warren

Reigning in this Life D.S Warner, Joseph C. Fisher

Odors from the Golden Vials C.E. Orr

Helps to Holy Living C E Orr

Food For Lambs C.E. Orr

How to Live a Holy Life C E Orr

Instruction of Youth in Life C.E. Orr

The Christian Life: How to Find It C E Orr

Abundant Life C E Orr

The Gospel Day C E Orr                              "

A Hive of Busy Bees, by Effie M. Williams

1) The Anderson College has a book written by Meryl Strege, Tell Me Another Tale....and he clearly shows the differences between the early part of the Reformation COG and the present COG(Anderson)1-800-542-3594

2)Call Park Place Church of God, and ask to speak to the presiding Minister, and ask him if the Anderson COG still teaches the doctrines of DS Warner and the Reformation brethren. 765.642.0216

3) Call any Anderson Church of God and ask them http://www.CHOG.org or call (866) 778-0804

4) Contact Reformation Publishers, http://www.ReformationPublishers.com, the largest independent publisher of Church of God books

5) Contact Faith Publishing House http://www.FaithPublishing.com or call Minister Willie Murphy; 1-800-767-1479

After contacting all of these seperate sources, one could concur that although one may disagree with Warner or the teachings of the ministry from 1880-1912, all would HAVE to agree that the site dswarnerlibary has the largest set of books on the internet that are accurate and informative. Perhaps one may disagree with the other content and other pages of the site. But this does not disallow the content that dswarnerlibrary has in its pages concerning Warner and the Reformation ministry.

What is being disputed in the Article?
I see a statement across the top of the article and I was wondering exactly what part of the article is being disputed as not being neutral! Can someone from Wikipedia clear this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Still wondering what is being disputed in the Article?
SEPT 12, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.157.148 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Over a Month
It has been over 30 days and no response as to the dispute and the problems with the article. I guess Brother Warner was forgotten about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Absalon
As this article clearly shows, please do not try to use WIKIPEDIA to place a billboard for the COG Anderson. After all, the COG Anderson, clearly rejects most of Warners teachings and would not allow him to preach or teach his doctrines, you would vote him out. The COG Anderson has its own Wikipedia site, so please keep your billboard on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage, but I will attempt to address). I am in no way trying to join an arguement about Church of God (Anderson) and Daniel Warner. I am instead attempting to consolidate the articles related to the Church of God. Since Warner is listed as a founder of the Church of God his article would be considered a related article. Sorry if you disagree. I would encourage you to register an account and we can discuss any issues you have. Be blessed. Absolon S. Kent 13:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolon, Warner would tell you that he is not the Founder of the Church of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Movement that Followed
I am requesting a Subject Matter Expert to review this portion of the article and rewrite with appropriate references.Absolon S. Kent 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

17 January update
Please do not remove the SME request until this issue has been reviewed and resolved or appropriate references have been provided. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

SME Recommendation
Absalon, I've reviewed this section but made no changes because I recommend that it be merged with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) for proper disambiguation. The present article is about Warner and his beliefs, while Warner's successors (E.E. Byrum et al.) began to revise and dispute his teachings immediately after his death. Most of the breakaway movements claimed they were attempting to return to Warner's original teachings when in fact they were trying to return to Byrum's, C.E. Orr's, or F.G. Smith's teachings. I think a researcher should expect to find a clear presentation of Warner's own teachings, based on his writings in the Gospel Trumpet and the books he published, when consulting this article. If you agree with this rationale, I propose to: 1) Temporarily remove "The Movement That Followed" from the "Daniel Sidney Warner" article. 2) Finish providing appropriate citations for this biographical article on Warner. 3) Draft a rewrite of "The Movement That Followed" with references, merging it with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), then submit it to you and the writer of that article for review. 4) If you and the other writer approve that draft, incorporate it into the other article. If not, restore it to this article. A few words about my credentials as SME: I've been an ordained minister of the Church of God (Anderson) since 1980 and have served as pastor of Church of God congregations in Indiana and Michigan. I was Managing Editor of Vital Christianity at Warner Press from 1975 to 1978, Coordinator of Publishing for Church of God Ministries from 2004 to 2013, and Director of Curriculum for Warner Press from 2014 to 2015. Earlier this year, I self-published the book "A Life Sketch of D.S. Warner," a compilation of articles by John A. Morrison and me published in Vital Christianity.Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert?
Who is the "Subject Matter Expert? Are you a member of the Anderson COG, or do you attend a Anderson COG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage and unsure what my current membership would matter. I'm requesting a review by someone with a better knowledge of the topic. Absolon S. Kent 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Membership Matters
Where we attend church matters. It matters for the simple reason that it will affect the way that we view history. If you were a Muslim then you would maintain a favorable viewpoint of the current situation and issues pertaining to murder suicides that happen on a daily basis around the world. If you are a Roman Catholic, you would deny the 70 million individuals (= or -)that were killed during the "Dark Ages". So since you attend a "Anderson" church it would be justifiable to understand that you are defensive in this matter of "The Changes that Followed" in the Church of God(Anderson) article. We do not try to hide from the truth, but rather try to explain the changes that followed Warner with the scripture. Perhaps you should add a heading as to explain why Anderson no longer espouses theses teaching anymore. After all, this is a place to learn and to understand what has happened in the past, not a place to "rewrite" or "change" history.

RE: Current Membership Matters
The discussion pages are provided for article improvements.

Absolon S. Kent 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
I have made some major changes to this article. It can still use some help, of course. Some of my changes include: There are probably more things. I have worked at this for a couple of hours, so my thoughts are blending together in my mind. Let's see if we can keep improving this article. One thing should be made clear, if anyone knows for certain. Was Daniel's middle name spelled Sydney, or Sidney?Mikeatnip (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed a couple of individual congregations from the list of church groups. This list should only include links to groups of churches, not individual congregations.
 * I took off most of the links to dates in the biography section.
 * I reorganized the information in the biography section, and added a few more details. this section can use some more info specific to his life
 * In the list of books by Warner, I only kept books that were written BY him, not about him, or the link to the whole library.
 * I did not mess too much with the Movement that Followed section. This section could use some more information about the movement as pertaining to the Church of God (Anderson) as this is the largest part of the movement.  As it stands, the uninformed reader could begin to think that all the splinters make up the mass of the movement when in fact they are the minority.

Tom Wingate
Tom Wingate

I've heard of you before.

I would like to speak with you. I have many questions about the Church of God!

I am new to Wikipedia how can we communicate?

Jonathan Duncan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdunc04 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Restoring article
I have worked briefly at restoring the integrity of the article. Please do not make this article propaganda for the 7th-seal movement. The Movement that Followed section needs more work to include a broader encyclopedic view of the movement. I removed the blog links, as blogs are not generally considered good Wikipedia links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of article concerning 7-th seal
Could we have a discussion concerning the continual insertion and deletion over the 7-th seal movement. Generally speaking, Wikipedia discourages links to blogs, so the link to the 7th seal blog should be left out. On the other hand, the 7th-seal churches are a derivative of Warners movement and should be left in the list. If someone want to create an article specifically on those churches, then he/she should go ahead. Concerning the insertion of the word "repented": This is an encyclopedia, and if there is verifiable evidence that Slacum himself said he repented, then that could be included with a reference. Otherwise, it seems to be too subjective of a comment for an Encyclopedia. The above are my views on the article. I have worked on it over the last year or two, trying to keep it NPOV. My reversions are not based upon the fact that I agree or disagree with the material added, but just trying to keep the article from degrading. It still needs some help. Let's work together to provide objective material. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest reversion
On Sept. 21, 2011 I reverted this to the version previous to an editor that made broad changes to the article. The changes moved the article away from a NPOV and degraded the encyclopedic quality of the article. A few details in the edits were probably good, but it was easier to start over than try to fix the many changes the took away from the quality. I may try to add a few of those details back in. Any discussion on these edits can take place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Spammy material
Hi User:dimaberg! I will add this here (instead of more at your talk page, where I had previously left a message) so other editors can read it as well and comment.

Adding a whole book to a page is "spammy." Even though the book you are adding has some information about D. S. Warner, most of it is only coincidental information about him. You may consider it "important information," but that is a POV. Wikipedia strives to be WP:NPOV. You seem to be deleting material and links that you do not personally like, then adding material that is important to your point of view. Remember, this is an encyclopedia.

If there are details in the book that you keep adding that would add to the article, by all means add those details at the appropriate place. But to maintain the integrity of the article, other editors will need to keep removing the book you keep adding. I do not delete this material because I disagree with it. I personally feel that the Anderson churches are compromised. But this is Wikipedia, not a pulpit for me or you or anyone to push a personal agenda. We have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, or find another place to publish our point of view.

Thanks for your efforts, and may we continue to work to better this article. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you're the original writer of this article, so I'm sharing with you the comments I just sent to Absalon Kent RE: his request for a review of his material:
 * Absalon, I've reviewed this section but made no changes because I recommend that it be merged with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) for proper disambiguation. The present article is about Warner and his beliefs, while Warner's successors (E.E. Byrum et al.) began to revise and dispute his teachings immediately after his death. Most of the breakaway movements claimed they were attempting to return to Warner's original teachings when in fact they were trying to return to Byrum's, C.E. Orr's, or F.G. Smith's teachings. I think a researcher should expect to find a clear presentation of Warner's own teachings, based on his writings in the Gospel Trumpet and the books he published, when consulting this article. If you agree with this rationale, I propose to:
 * 1) Temporarily remove "The Movement That Followed" from the "Daniel Sidney Warner" article.
 * 2) Finish providing appropriate citations for this biographical article on Warner.
 * 3) Draft a rewrite of "The Movement That Followed" with references, merging it with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), then submit it to you and the writer of that article for review.
 * 4) If you and the other writer approve that draft, incorporate it into the other article. If not, restore it to this article.
 * A few words about my credentials as SME: I've been an ordained minister of the Church of God (Anderson) since 1980 and have served as pastor of Church of God congregations in Indiana and Michigan. I was Managing Editor of Vital Christianity at Warner Press from 1975 to 1978, Coordinator of Publishing for Church of God Ministries from 2004 to 2013, and Director of Curriculum for Warner Press from 2014 to 2015. Earlier this year, I self-published the book "A Life Sketch of D.S. Warner," a compilation of articles by John A. Morrison and me published in Vital Christianity.
 * Obviously, this change is subject to your review and approval as well! I share your desire to make this article the best it can be.Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hoosierwriter131, I did not write the article originally, but I did do a major rewrite at one point probably 8-10 years ago. Thank you for the input you have been doing. When I saw your recent edits and the source of your book, I immediately bought a copy of the book. It has some information in it of which I was not aware previously. For example, I always wondered what happened to Warner's son. Your book has a photo of him in his later years! On the matter at hand, I think your plan of action sounds good and that you are certainly qualified to do the initial work. The rewritten part should be linked to this article if it is moved to the other page, but a link should take care of it; the full text can stay over at Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). I think that you, being inside the Anderson church group, and myself, being from the more conservative (Guthrie, etc.) groups can provide a balanced view. Of course others can chime in as well. Through the years Absalon (whom I do not know personally) and I have tried to keep this article from being hijacked by a couple of people who wanted to make Warner fit their particular agenda. I don't do much writing on Wikipedia anymore for lack of time, but I do patrol some pages. By the way, I am a "Hoosier writer" as well; I grew up at Hartford City, IN, although I have lived umpteen other places and currently reside in PA. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Clean up of dead links
I have removed all the links to the dswarnerlibrary site as it appears to have been hijacked and no longer conatins the information past editors were trying to convey. If there is a newer site to reference, that complies with the external link requirements, please add it somewhere. DoctorG  (talk)  21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Sidney Warner. 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/20070823234641/http://www.churchofgodeveninglight.com/articles/From_the_Diary_of_Daniel_Sidney_Warner.htm to http://www.churchofgodeveninglight.com/articles/From_the_Diary_of_Daniel_Sidney_Warner.htm

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) 08:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)