Talk:Divine Truth/Archive 1

Branch of the Bible Study movement?

 * While it is truth A J Miller was a Jehovah Witness, which is a branch of the Bible Study movement, I'm not sure if what he teaches is a branch. From what I've seen it includes of a lot of psychology of 'new age' ideas. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

non neutral language

 * In the paragraph entitled "Accusations of cultism", a lot of non neutral, attacking language is used.
 * I'll illustrate a number of problems with that paragraph:
 * There is no doubt whatsoever that Alan John [A.J.] Miller is the leader of a cult, and a dangerous cult at that. (opinion not fact)  Miller puts his followers in physical and/or emotionally disturbing situations (no reference or evidence), and attempts to reduce their problems, or issues, down to one simple explanation, which he will then repeatedly emphasise and focus on. Using his charisma, along with carefully planned routines, he gives his followers unconditional love [also known as 'love bombing'] and acceptance, along with a new unique identity within the group environment (factually untrue, no such thing as new identity). Miller rigidly controls the information his followers have access to (untrue, unsubstantiated), and keeps them isolated from friends, family, and the mainstream culture of the outside world (untrue). In short, he uses well known cult methodology to get vulnerable people into his cult and keep them under his control. He has set himself up as the leader of this cult, cut it off from the outside world, and given that he has made numerous doomsday predictions, most cult experts (who?) fear that his cult will end like numerous others, tragically.
 * In short this is a paragraph unworthy of encyclopedia standards, and basically a persons opinion containing a lot of unsupported claims that are in fact untrue. One striking fact lacking in this paragraph is that AJ Miller denies that what he does is in any way similar to (leading) a cult. For sources from AJ Miller himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFsfEkb4DzY&index=32&list=PLE-RF2VTnr9jwVXv7l2OX-mp3VVBh_MAW
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2AA72 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

for A.J. Miller:

 * You said: "Just because I am saying I am Jesus, doesn't automatically make me a cult leader."
 * That is right!
 * but if you look like a cult leader, if you speak like a cult leader, and if you act like a cult leader, then it is possible that a large fraction of the population will think you are a cult leader.
 * Moreover, if is possible, if you act as if you were a messiah, talk like a messiah, that a very small number of (fragile) people will see you as a messiah. That wouldn't make a messiah of you? Would it? However that would make you responsible for their well being in the face of the society (and God). Quite a burden... You dont want that, do you?
 * It looks like like this is an impossible mission for you.
 * I guess your best choice would be to become a "messiah in hiding"; not reveal your Holy status, and leave your followers go back into the real world.
 * Here is I the true will of God: Leave your followers in peace; away form you... This is your true heavenly mission on earth...
 * 69.158.173.197 (talk)

Divine Truth article needs to be cleaned up

 * Hi Lulifaber, I've noticed that you have made a lot of edits lately on the Divine Truth article, but you have not been providing credible sources for your edits. You need to go back and remove all information that is not backed up by reliable sources. Specifically, you need to use reliable secondary sources. Also please note that you need to write from a NPOV.  Thanks Exazonk (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Exazonk
 * This page was created several years ago, and contained very limited information about the spiritual movement Divine Truth. Recent adjustments have updated the page to contain detailed and verifiable information that is accurate and contains a complete picture of the spiritual teaching. It is not biased and gives a neutral and factual point of view. There are many other spiritual movements that are also on Wikipedia, therefore it is appropriate for this movement to also be on Wikipedia.
 * The sources cited are mostly primary, because as explained in the article the secondary sources, which are media articles, have proven to be unreliable. The primary sources have not been interpreted, but rather directly stated as facts, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The links give an opportunity for any third person to asses the primary source.
 * Thanks Luli amygdala 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

 * This page should not be speedily deleted because... This page was created several years ago, and contained very limited information about the spiritual movement Divine Truth. Recent adjustments have updated the page to contain detailed and verifiable information that is accurate and contains a complete picture of the spiritual teaching. It is not biased and gives a neutral point of view. There are many other spiritual movements that are also on Wikipedia, therefore it is appropriate for this movement to also be on Wikipedia. The sources cited are almost entirely first hand, as specified by the Wikipedia guidelines. --amygdala 11:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)


 * This page needs a major cleanup or a reversion prior to Lilifaber's edits as nearly all the references refer to material from the Divine Truth site and thus the information is not credible. Reliable secondary sources need to be used, eg Newspaper articles. Once again, please either clean up the article or revert it back. Thanks Exazonk (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources cited are mostly primary, because as explained in the article the secondary sources, which are media articles, have proven to be unreliable. The primary sources have not been interpreted, but rather directly stated as facts, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The links give an opportunity for any third person to asses the primary source. Luli amygdala 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs)


 * The reversion to the previous edit by Exazonk is not a neutral point of view. It only sources material from media reports, which have been disputed by the person who the article is about. The person who the article is about has stated that there are factual errors in the media reports, and therefore it is not reliable to only include the disputed information on an encyclopedia's page, since this is meant to be comprehensive in its coverage. By only putting forward one side of the information - the media sources - this is not neutral because it is only giving half of the information. In my edit both sides are put forward - the side of Divine Truth, as well as the side of the media. Therefore this is neutral. The edit by Exazonk also does not include any information about the content of the teachings of Divine Truth. This means that the article is lacking in important information about the topic and it is distorted through omission of information. It is a neutral point of view to include all information so that any reader can view all of the facts. If you disagree with me, Exazonk, I propose that we seek a third opinion to resolve the issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion). amygdala 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Luliamygdala 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulifaber (talk • contribs) --amygdala 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You must meet the criteria for reliable verifiable sources. Since the Divine Truth website is not one of these sites then you cannot use it as a reference. Please remove all references to Divine Truth and replace them with credible sources. Exazonk (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I contest that a website that is written by the people that the article is about is a reliable source on the people that the article is about. It is more reliable than third party reports about that person. I am going to submit a third opinion request to resolve the issue.--amygdala 04:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in with my opinion: With regards to explaining teachings and claims made by AJ Miller or Divine Truth, primary sources should be acceptable and preferable to secondary sources, where the chance of distortion is higher. K2AA72 April 18th 2015

For user with IP 176.27.61.178
To the user with IP 176.27.61.178, please do not make cult accusations about Divine Truth unless you can reference them with a good secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exazonk (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Exazonk. I'm the same user as 176.27.61.178 but I will probably have a different IP now (I'm sorry, my IP is not static, I have a regular router which changes IP if there's a power cut, for example) Thank you for your message. I don't wish to sound argumentative but the word "alleged" was used before the word "cult" so it wasn't an accusation against Divine Truth, at least not on my part. I was simply referring to the fact that Divine Truth is alleged by others to be a cult. I hope you don't think I'm attacking the movement. It may interest you to know that after I first heard about the Divine Truth movement, I watched around 20-30 hours of AJ Miller's teachings and although I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him in person, I really like the guy and what he is teaching people. I'm certainly not a critic or a detractor. As far as a good secondary source for the cult accusations go, there are all over the Internet but I'm still very new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning how to add references and how to provide content that follows the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Anyway, I didn't mean to write an essay so I will end this here :-) Nice to 'meet' you on here. God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.127.154 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and missing information in the article
Hi There,

I am 47 years, commercial engineer, grown atheist, non religious and scientific in character, from Brussels Belgium. I discovered about Divine Truth Teachings 4 years ago. I listened since then to many of the videos on the Youtube Divine Truth channel and FAQ Divine Truth channel, and eventually attended a few seminars and public events, and even met AJ Miller personally at a few occasions. I regret this article is missing to answer correctly the question "what are Divine Truth teachings?" according to his creator, AJ Miller, instead of just relaying some media's reports which are more interested about the sensational aspect of his claim to be Jesus than the true nature of what he teaches which is about God, love and truth. Also, AJ Miller has personally commented about what Wikipedia could say and what he calls the "the lies and inaccuracies contained about us on Wikipedia pages".

It is worth looking at the source of what are these teachings and what AJ Miller really claims to be and really does and teaches, to double check and correct what is inappropriate, inaccurate or missing in this article based extensively just on media's sources that, again, are especially interested in sensational news and readers more than the truth about AJ Miller and these teachings. This guy is completely transparent in everything he does and teaches, gives everything for free and makes even public his financial statements. Do you know many other public people, whether politicians, cult leaders, sportsmen or whoever doing it?

I just added 2 links to Divine Truth FAQ in the article but there remains many errors in this article but honestly, I feel it should be completely written anew to be accurate. Wikipedia wants to carry values of freedom and truth, but so it needs to properly quote the original source of Divine Truth teachings, what AJ Miller publicly teaches and answers to people FAQ, instead of just mentioning sensational media's report.

Pierre Joseph Pierrejoseph99 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What lies? It would help if you listed them here instead of linking to AJ Miller's webpage with 8000 words (Yes, I copied and pasted into Word 2010 and it says 8000 words). I am not going to read all that. The guy doesn't even state what these lies are. Whether he is transparent or not is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. Mentioning what the media reports about him is part of being an encyclopedia. We do the same with politicians, scientists, doctors, musicians and other cult leaders. You can add a few lines about what he teaches if you want, but we don't need an 8000 word essay here. 142.216.128.6 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Cult Accusation
The guy calls himself Jesus. He claims other people from the first Century have returned too. They claim to have their own memories, as he does, although his appear to have been more extensive. They all did not understand their few memories or experiences in the past. They do not live communally, but some people interested in Divine Truth teachings had moved to the Kingaroy area from other locations. Alan John Miller claims he didn't encourage or discourage this, as he claims to leave people free to make their own choices with their lives. He claimed many people moved to the local area out of "addiction". Later many of the people moved away again.

They do not preach the coming of Armageddon, as has been claimed by the media. Alan John Miller claimed that, from his understanding of God's Laws, he believes earth changes could result from unloving collective choices. He gave his personal opinion, which he said was his opinion at the time & formed in his discussions with friends in a "spirit world" or "dimensional space", and later he turned out to be wrong. He also says humanity's future could be very good, depending on collective choices made in or out of harmony with what he claims is "God's Definition of Love". He claims that predestination does not exist, as it goes against "God's gift of Free Will", so predicting the future depends upon human choices & habits, which can change.

The term "Cult" has a technical definition that is largely agreed on by many Cult Experts, which concerns the controlling behaviour of the person or group making spirtual claims. Cult Expert Steven Hassan uses the BITE Model, which can be found on www.freedomofmind.com

206.108.168.138 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, my paragraph has been removed. And I am sure that it will be removed again, but let try it again: Here is what it would look like (before someone removed it):

The guy call himself Jesus. He transformed his family and friends into biblical figures. They live in isolation... and we are not supposed to call this a cult. How funny! ;)

A cult is a cult is a cult. Period.

I wish yo the best. 69.159.206.242 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If it isn't a cult, then what is it? It is a cult because it is a case of a religious leader trying to be a messiah, trying to gain people's trust by claiming to be Jesus. I don't know if he is lying or he is just deluded, but he is playing the role. I have seen his videos. He dabbles in pop psychology. The people who follow him have psychological issues and were crying and trembling. Quite a few have divorced their husband or wives, again, probably because they have psychological issues. The followers believe he is Jesus and aren't there to play games. He marries a lady and tells her she is Mary Magdalene. That is bizarre. It looks like a cult to me. Vmelkon (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)