Talk:Holy Order of MANS

[Untitled]
"of that period" - of which period? Doesn't say.
 * According to the later paragraphs, it was the 1970s. Astronaut (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Major revision
Reason for changes I made in this article:

I was involved with the Order 1969 thru 1976, from attending classes given by a Brother missionary (back when they wore gray clerical garb before the change to black) to being received into the Order as a Novice, experiencing the Initiation of Illumination, being transferred 1970 to the Chicago Order House under Master Philip McCaffrey and Master Marthelia McCaffrey, experiencing the Initiation of Self Realization and taking Life Vows, taking Priest Classes, being transferred to New Orleans, LA, 1970-1971, being transferred for training under Master Paul Blighton at 20 Steiner St. in San Francisco, CA and working in the print shop there, being transferred 1973 to the Brown Brothers of the Holy Light under the Order's Father Joseph Brown in Wichita, KS and sent out as a missionary first to Birmingham, AL, then to Huntsville and Tuscaloosa, AL.. Then after the year in the Brown Brothers, I was transferred 1974 to the Brother House in Nashville, TN, and then was transferred 1976 back to Chicago and placed on leave for 2 years. At no time had my illumination and self realization been called into question. Went back to Nashville for a few weeks then returned to Chicago and worked in a hospital. I met Yogi Bhajan (the Siri Singh Sahib Bi-Sahib Harbhajan Singh Yogi, head of Sikh Dharma in the West) and was received into 3HO Foundation of Kundalini Yoga under Bachitar Singh there in Chicago, but left when I read in their literature that "Jesus Christ died trying to spread Christ Consciousness". In 1976 I went back to Nashville for a month, then returned to Des Moines, and began working as a Nursing Aide. I petitioned the Privy Council of the Holy Order of MANS for permanent separation from the Order, and joined in succession two Wicca covens, Mirror then Silver Ankh. In 1978, after some profoundly spiritual experiences of Jesus, I took individual catechetical instruction under Deacon Loren Ritz and entered the Roman Catholic Church in November. (The psychic effects of illumination and self realization abruptly vanished.) I was confirmed by Bishop Dingman of Des Moines April 1979. I spent 4 months 1983 as an "observer candidate" at the Benedictine Monastery in Conception, MO, under the direction of Father Joel Dierks, then returned to Des Moines, joined the Carmelite Third Order and continued working in health care until June 2012. 1978-2012 I studied Catholic doctrine and pastoral care literature, and I have copies of the Documents of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which I have thoroughly read. Retired Feb. 2013 age 66. I am a Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus.

When I came across this article here, I noticed it was incomplete and that it had a few very minor inaccuracies. Some important details were missing. Compare the version I found with the current major revision this date 17 June 2013. For diff click here. I made the revision primarily because "I was there when it happened:". (I was not there when the Order dissolved—but I heard about it.) I hope this is satisfactory. (It was therapeutic for me.) I wish you well.
 * After a careful review and re-reading of the article, it became evident that some things had to be rearranged and some text rewritten. Also some important facts and relevant informative external links were missing. Among other things the intro lead was too long. So I went to work to make it more in accord with Wikipedia standards and style as I understand it. Some additional illustrative images also seemed necessary for clarification. Finally, it also needed more balance and improved NPOV. For diff click here. I trust this is satisfactory. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a break, then came back and reviewed it again. Checked the sources. The article was still not balanced and complete nor up-to-date (at least year 2002). All of us who had contributed to the article including myself had missed some important facts contained in the source material. In particular, some of the sources also contained claims by interviewed members and former members of HOOM that Blighton never actually said he was Paul, and that it wasn't an official teaching of the Order. I knew this wasn't true, because I heard the tape myself, back before 1976, so I was delighted to find that Holy Order of MANS.org had archived a transcription of Tape 804 with his own words saying, "I am Paul". The Motto of the Order had also been incorrectly quoted, and the actual motto is there in the transcription, same tape, so I corrected it in the article and cited the source (Blighton himself). The anecdotal account (HOOM magazine) of Kirpal Singh's encounter with members of HOOM quoted him as saying "Where did you get your attainment", not "Where did you get your light" as set forth in this article, but since the meaning is virtually the same, I let it go. I am finished with this article. I'm satisfied that it's complete and accurate and as up-to-date as possible with the sources available, and that it better reflects WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I don't doubt it will still be improved in the future (but not by me, thank you!) Thanks, all of you, for your patience. I'm done. Pax + vobiscum. I wish you all well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed all the "importance=top" assessments from the WikiProjects, for reasons that should be obvious. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Article condition
, who claims to be affiliated with the order (see this and previous edits at RFPP) keeps reverting the article back to an unacceptable state, this one--unacceptable since barely referenced and entirely not-neutral. The previous state of the article ("mine", if you will) wasn't all that great, but it was a pared-down version of the tripe User:Hermitstudy and his associates/socks left us with; see this version and the SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Paul Heart/Archive. There are sources available to write a decent article: Phillip Lucas, cited frequently in the previous version, has published on it. At any rate, Shawnsie's edits, though possibly well-intended, are not an improvement, and I hope other editors will have a look at it--, maybe you can have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just trimming it down and wanting to post here, when I found this., restored to the version you linked to. The version that I found was in a very sad state, written entirely from the POV of a believer. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Will work to bring this Article into a better condition
I see your point regarding the general poor condition of the present state of this article. From good Wikipediac standards (a level of citing and referencing I am not accustomed to writing) it has many gaps, missing elements, and references. You are right that there are good references to be had from Philip Lucas's publications. I also see from former edits from  that I can avail myself of and many more articles from the popular press to improve the history sections. I can also make reference to other existing web sites from Hoom off-shoot organizations, regarding the ritual forms and general philosophy and beliefs of the original organization. I am not an experienced Wiki creator (that's obvious, no?). But I will in the next couple weeks make real effort to improve the condition of this article and try to bring it up to a better level. Your suggestions are always welcome!

Personally I feel I really owe you an apology, as I over reacted when I saw you reverting the article from (what I saw as a more complete and accurate depiction of the Hoom) to your much pared down version. As I looked hastily through the history and the many edits (I had not realized it had been worked on so much since 2010), it looked like there was an effort to discredit the original article, and cast light on the organization as some disreputable new age cult. I saw you as one of the most recent editors and singled you out. I will attempt in the future to avoid digital finger pointing! Instead thank you so much for your comments and assistance! I see now I have a lot of work to bring this article up to standards and will endeavor to do so! Shawnsie (talk) 2:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted--no problem. But let me tell you one thing: Espresso's edits were thoroughly problematic, in part because they (and in this case it's really "they", not just "singular they") delved into an excruciating level of detail. I strongly suggest you go back to the pared-down version and add information based on reliable, secondary sources. That is the way to write good articles: sources first, content second. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree regarding Espresso's work; totally over the top in so many ways, not the least from a good Wiki article POV! And thanks for your advice on composing a better Wiki altogether! Shawnsie (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't undermine this effort to bring clarity - work WITH me, don't undo!
I respect your background, interest and personal experience, but i was ALSO there, 1972-1986. You obviously desire to frame the Order as a cult, and you have the right to that opinion. I have substantially edited this page because it was woefully disparaging, out of balance, and lacked objectivity. Drmies, you undid my many hours of work under the justification that published articles do not contain some of the information I have provided. You may be correct but wiki does not RULE OUT objectivity. It is not necessary to undo all of my edits to lend objectivity to this topic. Drmies if you want to help, please work with me to make the article better, don't totally undo it. Thanks. FGR54 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As Drmies has pointed out in several edit summaries to you, your personal experience is not a valid reason to edit this article as extensively as you have. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal first-hand knowledge. If there are inaccuracies in the article, please use this talk page to discuss them first, with citations to reliable sources to verify the inaccuracies. Since your changes have been reverted multiple times, any attempt to restore your changes would be considered edit warring and might result in getting you blocked. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @WikiDan61 A reading of drmies explanation of edits offered in 2014 includes detailed personal history information that quite clearly indicates the editor is a Roman Catholic and evidently has an "axe to grind" on this topic. Drmies' reversions consistently bring the article back to a derogatory tilt. I find this unacceptable and inaccurate. Objectivity NEVER can rule out first-hand knowledge. The edits I offered are not yet complete and there will further citations, but the process is time-consuming and requires knowledge of wiki's syntax that I am trying to learn but have not mastered.  Meanwhile, reversions to an article so deeply flawed as you have reverted is unacceptable, not objective, and everybody needs to follow the rules around here and slow down while the effort is undertaken to fix this article. Let my edits STAND and let comments about those edits be made on the talk, rather than undoing everything.
 * is a longstanding editor of Wikipedia and an administrator at en.wiki. I see nothing in his editing history on this page (either in the edit summaries he has left when editing the page or in the comments made at this talk page) to substantiate your claim that he has an axe to grind regarding this topic (or, for that matter, that he has declared himself a Roman Catholic, not that it would be relevant). He is approaching his maintenance of this page based on Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiability. Edits to the page must not attempt to contradict the published sources unless other published sources can be brought to bear to support the change. And if there are sources with conflicting information, both (or all) points of view must be fairly covered. Your point that "objectivity NEVER can rule out first-hand knowledge" is not in line with Wikipedia policies. Here, objectivity, base on published reliable sources, ALWAYS out-rules personal experience (see WP:NOR). Personal experiences is subjective, non-neutral, and completely unverifiable, and therefore has no place in this encyclopedia.
 * It appears to me that, rather than Drmies having an axe to grind, it is you who have come to Wikipedia to right the great wrong you perceive has been done in this article. So, rather than continue to argue your point by further editing, I urge you to argue your point here, on the talk page. And not with ad hominem attacks against other editors, but with actual citations to reliable sources to back up your preferred version of the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you . FGR54, I am a Roman Catholic? I have an axe to grind? I don't understand how you get that. You left the sources that call this group a cult, you just (mis)identified them as "conservative evangelical sources" without any justification for that classification. The problem with many previous editors on this article has been that a. they have inserted their personal experiences and b. they have removed or otherwise altered what came from reliable sources. Your edits do the same thing, and that's not acceptable. I will be the first to admit that the article is not in good shape--but denying (or editorially modifying) the claim that the group has been called a "cult", a claim that appears to have solid sourcing, is not the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @WikiDan61  With all due respect, I have made no ad hominem against Drmies - mistakenly am unaccustomed to wiki talk, and did not notice that it was "espresso" was a RC and member of KOC, and apparently not drmies. No matter. What I need from you and drmies is more help and specific guidance with this process since I'm not as experienced with wiki syntax and procedures. I don't see how my edits are unbalanced - no critique of the Order was left out, links were corrected, and amplification of the Order's distinctions including controversies were amplified but not fictitious.

I embarked on this project because the existing reverted article is derogatory from the outset and that's NOT balanced. What standard of WIKI does that comply with? For example the Spiritual Counterfeits Project cited in ref #2 is a Conservative Evangelical Christian group, and there is controversy about whether conservative evangelicals are "mainstream." Drug use is mainstream. Does that legitimize it? There is no controversy about whether the Order was called a cult, as seen in my edit. Further, 'According to Blighton, the Christ is returning now, in this new age, as the Golden Force—the vibration of the atmosphere of the entire planet is rising, and this action will cause violent reactions, including death, in those who do not know the God Self and have not mastered their body.[8]' is false and grossly misleading. The citation referenced states the _opposite_. Read for yourselves: http://www.gnostic.org/goldenforce/gold11.html In fact, the notion that "Christ is returning as the Golden Force" is NOT supported by this source. Rather the Source material states that the GOLDEN FORCE is a manifestation of intelligence that exists in the solar system. Whether that is a valid point is subjective. But the notion that Christ and Golden Force are synonymous as indicated in the wiki is incorrect. The article in wiki fails to cite distinctions in the Order's liturgical methods that I clarified. Meanwhile, we see in this wiki links to Rick Alan Ross' culteducation.com -- from a source who has a very controversial personal history himself that has somehow vanished from his own Wiki. Whether we like it or not, "Fact" is malleable due to different perspectives. I can work with you (both) on this article but if you can't help somebody make the wiki better, what's the point? Please reinstate my edits and make comments here about what should be changed if you have an objective reason.FGR54 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you linked (Chapter 11. The Blind Man Sees published by gnostic.org) uses the phrase "Golden Force" and "Christ Force" interchangeably, apparently referring to one and the same thing. If Wikipedia editors have misinterpreted this writing to mean that the Golden Force represents Christ, or Christ's force, it is due not to lack of understanding on the editors' parts, but rather lack of clarity in the source. As for your clarification of the Order's liturgical methods, these were based on your own observations, not on any reliable source, and so we cannot accept that as verifiable truth. Wikipedia editors are generally eager to work collaboratively to improve an article. But we can only do so based on reliable sources, not merely based on your subjective opinion that the article is incorrect as it stands. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blighton was no Shakespeare, granted but I see no evidence that the source text interchanges "Christ Force" and "Golden Force" as you claim. And why did you ignore the issue of the quote about death that I clearly indicated is patently false in the article? How have you kept the very standard you ask me to keep in providing categorical citations of issues or problems (in the rewrite I offered) in this TALK? I feel I am just getting pushback, not help. Why don't you reinstate the rewrite of the article as a work in progress (as is most of wiki), and allow me and others who have source material to augment and improve upon it? And, as for my section on Blessings given in the liturgy and their spiritual impact, if thousands of people participated in the services of the HOOM over the years how is this "personal observation" when the services were written into the Sanctuary Manual of the Order and practiced for decades? This all being said, i am happy to be communicating with you on this topic because I am convinced it will ultimately yield a better result. FGR54 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, it's better than NO NO that i read earlier. You stated above:

"You left the sources that call this group a cult, you just (mis)identified them as "conservative evangelical sources" without any justification for that classification. The problem with many previous editors on this article has been that a. they have inserted their personal experiences and b. they have removed or otherwise altered what came from reliable sources. Your edits do the same thing, and that's not acceptable. I will be the first to admit that the article is not in good shape--but denying (or editorially modifying) the claim that the group has been called a "cult", a claim that appears to have solid sourcing, is not the way to go. Thank you, Drmies"

I don't understand how you could state that the cult-identifying sources cited in the article are NOT clearly conservative evangelical groups. The language i found offensive in the first graf of the 2014 version was "mainstream" which I feel was biased and misleading. If I made a mis-step by dropping a source, I apologize. However the substance of my rewrite is accurate and factually valid, following wiki and journalistic neutrality and verifiability standards. I feel this rewrite was unjustifiably removed in wholesale fashion, and that it should now be reinstated so we can discuss the issues and problems it has point by point in the TALK and address them. The vast majority of the previously-accepted article is included in the improved piece. I am grateful that I learned today how to use TALK more effectively and to communicate with you and @WikiDan61, who I understand are only trying to help others, and I thank both of you for engaging on this. Let's work together and improve upon the edit I spent many hours compiling, and not just throw it out because it may have certain problems. My edit is far more demonstrative of neutrality and verifiability, more complete and more accurate than what preceded it.FGR54 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@drmies, @WikiDan61,  Before i sign off for this day, I wish to mention a couple of housekeeping issues that are stuck in my craw as I continue my effort to clean up this article. This first one matters, the second one is minor. The TITLE of the page is erroneous. "MANS" was NEVER correctly written as "Mans". MANS follows the convention of all acronyms - all caps. I don't know how to fix that. Also, HOOM never sounded like "HOME" - If the correct pronunciation of HOOM is important, the "OO" is as in ROOM.FGR54 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FGR54, if you want to do some housekeeping, go make that pronunciation edit right now, and you'll probably find that no one is interested in reverting that. As for MANS/Mans, sure--post it here, in a separate section, and PLEASE give some evidence. Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and do that, since I'm looking at America's Alternative Religions, which spells it with the caps. Speaking of which! Let us NOT have any more of this nonsense about these sources: "the cult-identifying sources cited in the article are NOT clearly conservative evangelical groups" is plain and utter BS. Ref #2 is this book, America's Alternative Religions, which is published by SUNY Press. The second is this, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, published by Taylor and Francis. Now, you may think that everything you don't like is "clearly conservative evangelical", but these are two books edited by academics and published by academic/reputable presses. If you continue to repeat the same argument, I am going to bow out of this discussion since, in that case, you clearly don't understand what reliable sources are, or what they mean. Now, as I said, I am going to move the article, since the obviously reliable source America's Alternative Religions agrees with you. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing, and, you may be interested in this as well, I just saw this (another clearly evangelical source! no, that was a joke). Unfortunately I can only see the first and the last pages in Google Books, but it seems highly reliable and very informative. It's books like that on which we build an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@drmies and thank you for the resources you linked. Stipulating that the matter of cult references which you have effectively put to rest, other contributory elements of my edit are valuable and far closer to to the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States (EOCUS) article in substance and neutral tone than the present wiki article is. What is the next step to bring more of what I contributed into wiki? - as you acknowledged, the article "has problems."

The EOCUS article you cite is detailed and valid in every respect so far as i personally know. Except for two details found on p.1123, 2nd graf: 1. What evidence exists that Blighton introduced Marian devotion as a reaction to the Order's potential reputation? - that's speculative. 2. The Order established two sub-orders, one for each gender -- that added a 1-year (temporary) vow of celibacy to the five lifetime vows and which focused on Marian Devotion & Missionary activity: Brown Brothers of the Holy Light (BBHL), and Immaculate Heart Sisters of Mary (IHSM). The BBHL had an Abbey in Wichita, and sent BBHL brothers out to many cities as missionaries. The IHSM initially had its HQ in Chicago and later in St. Louis, MO. The statement that the suborders had "abbeys across the US" in EOCUS is inaccurate.

The present wiki article as it stands does not address many of the details the EOCUS article mentions. Nor does the EOCUS article bring to light some of the elements I cited in my edit. Further development of the article is called for. What elements I brought forward in my edit CAN you support? Parenthetically, I just referred to the page and "Gizmo8888" whoever that is, has reinstated my edit. Such chaos!
 * FGR, it is not my position or my job to defend what all is published in that article, but I will tell you that it counts as a reliable source, and countering that will take more than personal experience. I am not focused on that big edit of yours since it was written the wrong way around, if I may put it that: we need to start with the sources and what they say, not with our experience and then find the sources to match that. So sure, there is much in the EOCUS article that's not in here, but I thought you'd appreciate that I tried to make some headway, using proper sourcing, in the process removing some of the verbiage you found offensive. (Personally, I do not find "sect" offensive, since I'm a medievalist, and "cult" for me has a very specific and very neutral meaning.) As for 's edit, it was highly disruptive, even foolish, and I am simply going to revert, since it undoes what we have been trying to do. Gizmo: such disruption is, in the end, blockable. FGR, my suggestion to you is that you go slow, piece by piece, each piece being well explained and referenced with valid citations. If, for instance, they established two sub-orders, you can add that if you can verify it., I am sorry to have to undo your last edit also; I know you spent considerable time and energy trying to clean up the mess that Gizmo made. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology unnecessary. I was tidying up the mess; you cleaned it thoroughly, which is always a better solution. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Section deleted
I have deleted the following text from the article:


 * ==Significance and Fragility of "Regular Members" Spiritual Attainment==
 * Despite the tendency of historical writing to focus on titular leadership, policy, and its consequences, Members of the Order themselves were the key to understanding this community. From an esoteric standpoint, it could be said that this particular group of souls possessed a "calling" of Divine Origin to perform an act of service together. To hear the singing and devotion of Order members was, itself, an awakening to many who witnessed the Order in its prayers and devotion. The fact that thousands of individuals attained high levels of spiritual realization and maturity by means of the Order's methods is a testimony that the Order's Teaching was not merely theoretical or mental. However, unlike spiritual movements that span the scope of history, the Order did not observe a clearly-defined DIETARY regimen. Dietary consistency in Judaism, Islam, and Eastern religions can be claimed to have a self-rectifying benefit on adherents. The Order's doctrinal emphasis on "what comes out of your mouth defiles the man, not what goes into the mouth" may have contributed to breakdowns in the Members' abilities to sustain their clarity, devotion, and responsibility.

This text can only be read as a personal testimony. It is unsourced and highly subjective, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@wikiDan61 thanks, no WorriesFGR54 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Source Question, please advise
@Drmies and @WikiDan61  Can I quote a non-published interview with living person who was in the HOOM as a PRIMARY SOURCE? 50.183.180.119 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not preferred at Wikipedia except under certain circumstances (e.g. if a person has stated in an interview that they were born on a particular date, you can probably trust that). What a religious group member has to say about an organization is not necessarily useful. Also, if the interview is not published, it cannot be used at all because there is no way for another editor to verify the contents of the interview. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Right--thank you WikiDan, you said it well. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)