Talk:Lord Our Righteousness Church

Discussion
I've done the math several times in my head... 481 + 1516 = 2007? Not exactly...

Didn't the Protestant Reformation begin in 1517 with Martin Luther nailing his Thesis' on the Wittenburg door? -lesserbrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesserbrother (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lesserbrother, your math is off... adding 490 to 1517 brings you to 2007. The Strong City page detailing the 490 year prophecy can be found here IAMSatisfied (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just about as nutty as this guy Bent... Proxy User (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This guy is a freakshow. He's Warren Jeffs with a beard. I happen to live in Sandpoint, Idaho and was also raised an Adventist (although I left that church for my own reasons) and I have many friends that are. I was never a member or follower of his but several of my friends were in the beginning of his 'ministry' and I have met him. I found him at the time to be a slightly strange person, but figured he just had an angle I wasn't privy to and he wasn't the type of individual I wanted to hang with so never got to know him well. While I, as most people here, privately believe he started this cult for his own earthly emotional, sexual, and financial gain, he's probably now convinced himself into truly believing he's Christ. We've all seen it before. Perhaps the reason his followers 'seem' to integrate well into the normal society is because most people are not aware of what goes on out there in Strong City. I know many of Wayne's disallusioned former members who tell tales of his sexual misconduct with members even while here, so find it hard to believe his statement that it all took place "after he became the 'son of God'" shortly after his move to New Mexico. One persistent story was his habit of having all the women stand and bare their breasts in church to 'show support' for him. Since I did not ever attend his 'services' I cannot verify other than to say I have heard it from multiple past congregants and judging by his own statements and those of his 'virgins' on their own website it seems plausible. (He seems to have a fixation with breasts, and perhaps has a 'biblical' reason known to himself.) I found it interesting he has the 'education' he claims as his actions don't strike me as terribly educated or coherent. Child abuse (whether penetration or fondling) should not be tolerated by anyone regardless of their personal religious conviction. At any rate, we are glad he is now New Mexico's problem.Happycarnut (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happycarnut, your effusive rant is based entirely on hearsay. Repeating false rumors, stories and allegations doesn't constructively add to the discussion. Please stick with referenced & verifiable facts. IAMSatisfied (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're kind of a jerk. I don't see much discussion here. He might as well rant. 71.68.17.81 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I think this article is new Wikipedia's been aware of this guy for quite some time. See Articles for deletion/Michael Travesser & Articles for deletion/Michael Travesser (2nd nomination). Sometimes people gain i notability/infamy in the interim.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

sex with son's "ex-wife"
It appears from mister Bent's own writings that he was the one who "dissolved" the marriages of his believers. If this is so, on whose authority was this done? He does not appear to have the legal authority to do this. And if this is the case, then "Christiana" (or whatever her name really is) is likely still married to Jeff which would not make her his "ex-wife" (as Wayne and Jeff contend) but in fact his wife still which does make him guilty of adultry. While I don't much care who he beds down with as long as it doesn't break any laws, it does make him seem rather hypocritical. Also, according to Wayne's statements, to be "married" to him would require what he calls physical consummation. I am assuming that his view and mine of what constitutes physical consummation are identical. If this is so, apparently he is gay as well since his male followers, including Jeff, refer to him as "lover", "friend", and "husband." I don't give two cents for whether they are or not, just seems to contradict what I know of what mister Wayne says. 72.84.6.123 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell there are no secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V that state that Bent's son ever obtained a legal divorce from his wife. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bent says that he is JESUS CHRIST! I think it is time to realize and wake up for everybody on this planet. I know nobody else with such credibility and righteousness like Wayne Bent/Michael Travesser. I believe he is Jesus Christ!! And as Bent says himself, hardly anybody is realizing it.. In what a sad world are we living?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.32.79 (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Bent states..." and other biased editing
These statements were added by an anon. Unfortunately we can't use unsourced quotation from people. If Bent has been quoted in a reliable source, or if he makes a statement on a website, then we'd be able to use the material. In the meantime I'm going to undo the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bent states that the documentary lied. He was given the date to mark the day of judgment and not the end of the world.  Bent states that the documentary makers knew this.
 * Bent states that he has never said anything like this. He states that the former member lied concerning this.  "The man, John Sayer, refused."  Bent states that the man John Sayer lied also, because he is with a group that wants to destroy the Lord Our Righteousness Church.   Bent states that the actual facts of in the case are clearly stated on the church's Web site.
 * But has asked Wikipedia to cease posting articles about him "if the encyclopedia cannot get the information right, but must always post libelous and outright false information." 
 * The IP belongs to this ISP. Location: Des Moines, New Mexico - population: 177 (c.2000). A locality of the same place listed in the article "near Travesser Park, Union County, New Mexico" - population: 4,174 (c.2000). Some ISPs, like mine, whose subscribers living in the same city ALL geolocate to the same address -- A tiny office building (to return or exchange equipment, and pay your bill type of stuff - no techs but only two cashier types), and is actually miles from where I live or work. Though my city's population is over 330,000.KGBarnett (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly could be a member of the group. Even if that were so we can't have people just writing in to assert that someone says something. WP:NOR and WP:V. If Bent would like to make a statement then I'm sure members of the press would be interested. If not, then he could make a blog and make his statements there.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User 'eididfy' who made edits on 12th Novemebr 2009 may also be sympathetic to the group? See history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripple1983 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

okay, someone vandalized the section where it talked of his conviction. It was obviously someone who supports him, as they did simple phrase inserts such as referencing him as an "and innocent man of God "wrongfully convicted with malicious intent" and similar. Please review this to make sure you agree. Might want to consider a lock as it is not evident vandalism unless you read the full article. Thanks admins... -wikifan 64.139.224.105 (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.224.105 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Convictions
I think the statement in the Conviction section is incorrect, but I'm not sure. Currently it reads "He was found guilty of a second charge" but should it read "He was cleared of a second charge" or something similar. I watched the special and read the two references. From what I gather he “faced” two counts each of criminal sexual contact and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but was only “convicted” of one count of the sexual contact. I thought he was cleared outright of the second count, but I'm not sure if the jury hung on that count. That would make it possible that he was convicted at a later date, as the statement may suggest, but I have not found any reference to that scenario.
 * It's been almost a day with no response. Since I spent alot of time looking for the correct information and the citations already in the article say he was "Acquitted" of the second charge, I'm going to change it under the belief that this was an error caused when the Vandalism was corrected.  However, if I'm wrong, and he was later convicted of the second charge, but I have been unable to back that up, please fix it and supply a citation. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Call for an update
Most of the documents regarding this group are almost ten years old now, the most recent one is three. It would be interesting to know if the group has dissolved or simply found an other "prophet".

If you have any knowledge of the REAL condition of this group please contribute to this page.

As a very personal comment, forgive me if I digress, find it most fascinating that a group of normal good willing people end up loosing everything by following a more than questionable "leader". Social psychology really is an under esteemed discipline.

Also, I would like to mention that it is useless to argue with cult members. Being in a cult is full time training: they know that they know, and they know that you do not know... You arguing is the mere proof of that.

69.159.204.81 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistency in cult v church
There is a mixture of the use of "cult" and "church" in this article, with the lead simply calling it a "religious community". The "cult" usage seems to be confined to the "UK media coverage and documentary" section, but I do feel like there needs to be consistency. In truth neither are used all that often (half a dozen each) so I suppose we could just leave things as-is, but there seems to have been a push recently to make "cult" the primary word to use, so I would like to get a better idea of where folks stand. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)