Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 2

Editorial Commentary?
 It needs to be pointed out, however, that when people are in the midst of abusive relationships - including those perpetrated by churches - they are quite unable to see the truth of their situation. What this means for the Potter's House is that if there is abuse going on, then regular members are unaware of it - even if they are the victims. The fact that many members of the Potter's House are enthusiastic about their faith and happy with their church relationships is therefore not proof that abuse is not occurring. On the other hand, it is also not proof that abuse IS occurring either. I inserted that paragraph because I wanted to make it clear that the argument "I'm a member of the Potter's House and I haven't seen/experienced any abuse, so therefore abuse doesn't happen" was invalid. The article records that abuse has happened in the church, but, as I found out to my own chagrin, there are people who would use their own personal experiences to try to remove that record. --One Salient Oversight 06:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand where you're coming from ;-) But even without this paragraph, people are not permitted to insert their own personal experience into the article: the policy of No original research (NOR). I think this paragraph is too much of an opinion/commentary to be included, and we don't need to preempt POV/NOR-violaters in this way. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries, I won't dispute. --One Salient Oversight 01:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OSO Why dont you stick to facts and figures, This is supposed to be an encyclopedia type article not a putdown platform. you do seem to be the only one pushing the cult group barrow, and yet you do not know, nor have you researched the truth. I acknowledge your prowess at article grammatical editing, but rebuke your one sided effort at trying to prove that the Potters house is a cultic and manipulative group. I question your motives in this wikipedia article. Are you putting your emotions before the truth? --Truth over Relationship 13:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (sigh, more abuse from the "church") If you can't say anything properly and within the accepted rules of Wikipedia commentary and article debate, then please refrain from making comments. --One Salient Oversight 23:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes to be made


On the article page - somehow these facts should be inserted

Main Points needing correcting or adding.
 * 1/ Potters House is spelt without the apostrophe (Not Potter's but Potters)
 * 2/ The Potters House Christian Fellowship is a world wide Christian Fellowship Organisation. Not Australian only. It was in many other countries earlier.
 * 3/ The Western Australian Perth Beechboro Church is the Australian Mother Church.
 * 4/ The New South Wales Parramatta Church is the East Coast Head Church.
 * 5/ If we include Australia then we should include each country for Head church’s.
 * 6/ There is over 100,000 Regular Church attendees (It is highly unlikely to be exactly 100,000) and there is no membership to the church only regular attendees and persons in ministry.
 * 7/ The Potters House supports all and everyone of its missionaries financially (in most other churches the missionaries themselves have to raise the funds.
 * 8/ The Potters House only sends out Married Couples as Pastors to missionary works.
 * 9/ The Potters House is not into any Charity Type Operations except the winning of souls to Christ.
 * 10/ The Potters House does not send any other type of ministry out into new missionary works except the Pastor and his wife and the occasional Visiting Evangelist for Revival meetings.
 * 11/ The Potters House will not unite with any other churches for the sake of Ecumenicalism under any circumstance.
 * 12/ The Potters House believes wholly in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture. And the imminent return of Christ.

If a seasoned article editor would like to attempt these insertions and additions please go for it. If not I will attempt over the next week.

If there is objection or alterations to any changes or additions please list them here. --Truth over Relationship 23:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing these. (One minor style point is to avoid capitalising things like "Married Couples" or "Charity Type". Good style is to capitalise only proper names and nouns, like "Potters House" or "Christ".) It's also good practice to be able to provide sources for these facts, for example, the number of regular attendees of the church (point 6)? Or for typical church practice (e.g., 8, 9, 10, 11)? Or for church doctrine (12)? If you have sources, these all look fine to me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes to be made soon
Please list future changes here first, so as discussion or contesting can take place here first.


 * 1)  Remove non referenced / Invalid source - Criticisms - 30 Days
 * 2)  Remove Dead Links - 30 Days (This gives time, should the websites re-emerge)
 * 3)  Improve the layout
 * 4)  Add some pictures of
 * 5)  Pastor Mitchell
 * 6)  A typical church service - pentecostal style

Thanks to all who don't vandalise and discuss first the changes to be made.
 * CFM Kev 11:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was removed from the Main Article but retained here for those confused.


 * I put it there in the first place and have put it back for obvious reasons - many people may think the two are related somehow. I don't see why it was necessary to remove this information. --One Salient Oversight 10:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Is there a source for these claims about the fellowships origins?

"Current church statistics"
Is there an independent source for these statistics? I'm not sure that the CFM itself classifies as independent in this regard. Plus, the reference simply directs to the CFM main page, which contains no statistical information.

"Church activity"
"These events are used to win the unsaved to Christ." This appears to be a non-neutral point of view (the Pentecostal view of salvation). Perhaps "These events are used to evangelise to non-members."?

"Church doctrine"
"There are Biblical standards for ministry and the fellowship believes in teaching by discipleship." As to whether the standards are "biblical" or not is debatable. Either way, the claim expresses a particular point of view. Perhaps: "There are specific standards for ministry and the fellowship believes in teaching by discipleship."? "Much of the official Potters House doctrine stems from The Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, written by two Foursquare ministers, and published by L.I.F.E. Bible College, LA." Can the author of this paragraph provide an actual link to this text? Is this it? "This book is the most comprehensive book on Pentecostal theology to date." This expresses a particular viewpoint. I'm sure there are people that disagree with the claim that it's the most comprehensive book on this subject.

"Origins of the church name"
"The Potters House is a church-planting New Testament Church." This states a particular view i.e. as to what constitutes a 'New Testament' church and to whether the Potters House fulfills these criteria.

"Church conferences"
Is there a source for these estimates?

"Criticism of the church" and "External links"
These need to be tidied up, esp. "Criticism of the church". I'll focus on these after the aforementioned charges are completed. GuyIncognito 12:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

T.D. Jakes
T. D. Jakes, or "Bishop Jakes", is an American Pentecostal preacher who pastors a church in Dallas, Texas called "The Potter's House". Both Jakes and the church he pastors are unrelated to the Potter's House Christian Fellowship.

There is also another church in the US that is called "Potters House Ministries" which is not affiliated with "Potters House Christian Fellowship" 220.233.86.223 9 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Slam the Door Group - Closed
It appears the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slam_the_door site and about half a dozen other groups run by the same people have been permanently shutdown by the owners due to the exposure of it being a sham and a few users puppeteering - this group has done much harm to "The Door" and exaggerated itself as being 900+ memebers but only about 15 real members could be traced and only less than 5 were operating 300+ Alias Id's between them, the Slam the door group was running for about 5 years and was set up as a trap for unsuspecting new christians attending the Potters House Christian Fellowship and The Door Church. Most links and source information on the net at large has referenced the group as a bonafide source of 100's of ex members of the CFM, which is now found to be untrue and most of the so called abuses were non existent or at best exaggerated. When the dust settles and all is exposed it is expected an apology to the Potters House Christian Fellowship will come. Editors please do not put any links or content that has its origins or source from the above group, If your not sure follow the links and see if slam the door is mentioned.

Below is from a Yahoo group that has info on the IP SCAM and puppeteering from that group. What is Puppeteering? See :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet and http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SockPuppet

In May 2005 the ex-CFM groups were exposed as a handful of people using multiple aliases on many chat sites to look like a large group of disgruntled, backslidden Christians who no longer attended the Potters House Fellowship churches. This group also ran the “Slam the Door” website which was voluntarily shut down by themselves upon their exposures. It was found that conversations were going on between multiple people all to be the SAME PERSON. One of these conversations is between “TRUEHEADSHIP” & “MANUVGOD” to a woman named “WHITEAZSNOW” and reference is made toward “KAREN” all which were found to be the same MAN!! This conversation is bizarrely questionable to say the least, especially when you know it’s all being done by the same person.

Referenced from

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pottershousechurchcfm/ 220.233.86.223 9 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)


 * It's not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to judge the credibility of criticisms. Please don't purge the article of all information from the critical point of view &mdash; this is not appropriate, and looks particularly suspect since you are a member of the church in question. (And I thought you were meant to be busy blocking 25k Australians from using Wikipedia?) &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But if the main criticism web site has been closed down for fraudulent reasons then - where is the validity in referencing to this site. This site has done much damage for 5 years from a vendetta against a church from a handful of hostile people puppeteering and arguing with themselves pretending to be someone else using 100's of ID's - I am sure Wikipedia wouldn't approve of that on this site. Facts are facts and the fact that the criticism stem from a confessed small yahoo group whose motives were to bring down a church and cause people to leave the Potters house Christian fellowship and “The Door” church. They have at their own will volunteered to shut down all sites that they were puppeteering on and we have seen at least 6 sites completely gone. The sad thing is that any other sites out there that have been using them as their main source of information, have not all yet modified their sites, I believe the majority will, but a few now unmanaged sites may leave traces of these sites false articles for years. One of the puppets even said they had written over 100 different individual testimonies of abuses and mismanagement, to try to add credibility to the lies that were posted on slam_the_door yahoo group. They did over 72,000 posts for over 5 years of lies - now that’s just nuts, and Wikipedia does not need to quote them as the valid source whether criticism or pro PH. As an admin do you still think that reporting the false criticisms is the right thing to do? - or just hang the truth and promote lies and confusion on a Christian church that has over 100,000 people attending it and is in almost every country in the world. Now if it were a cult you would think that at least a few countries would ban it from their country, but NO it is a valid Pentecostal Christian Church. I now, only hope that the perpetrators will repent and get themselves right with GOD.


 * Lets also look at the Wikipedia articles on the Assembly of God Church and other Christian churches, do you find the same attitude of opposition splashed all over their Wikipedia pages, NO, and the Potters House is very similar to these churches except for the discipleship stand which is very plainly written on the main article site. Yes I do attend the PH and Yes I am sold out for Jesus, and I am passionate for the truth, but I don't look for, or stalk, or try to manipulate other churches or organisations Wikipedia article pages, I only report the truth here on this one article, that I know about. Please consider all the above and lets start citing valid references Pro's and criticisms, Hey I know there is no perfect church but enough is enough on this cult thing - if your not into Pentecostalism then fine, put that down or explain the bad points for criticisms but don't put unfounded rubbish on the article, or you might find that you are promoting vandalism and non creditable sources, because those who see someone getting away with it might think it's the norm on Wikipedia, and what a shame that would be. Please understand the tone I am writing here, is not that of anger, but of trying to make you aware of the facts and pleading to stop the Lies.220.233.86.223 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I can, of course, understand why you would want to remove unfair criticism of your church. But Wikipedia is NPOV, and this makes our lives a lot easier: we don't have to debate whether these criticisms are valid or not. We only need to report all relevant opinions about a topic. If there's a substantial amount of criticism about your church (and this would appear to be the case ), then we should report such criticisms in the article, regardless of whether they are justified criticisms or not (and as long as we don't present the criticisms as truth). &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (Note that it would be quite acceptable to add something along the lines of "Potter's House advocates argue that much of the criticism has been falsely manufactured by a small group" or whatever.) &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Surprise Surprise, Follow the links on your above external site, and they source from the closed slam the door yahoo group.CFM Kev 12:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, indeed, that page does contain a link to the Yahoo! group, but it's not the only source they mention. I repeat, there seems to exist notable criticisms of the church, and (regardless of whether they are valid or not) we should include them in the article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Slamthedoor is still up and running:

http://www.slamthedoor.org

The discussion page is up again at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slamthe_door/ Will they atleast be honest this time?

My reverting
Sorry if I managed to wipe away some people's minor edits and links and whatnot. The problems was that I needed to revert the article back into what I saw was the best shape. Since then the article has become very biased towards TPH, and the stuff I wrote about critiquing the church - which was written in a very neutral way - was missing again.

This article seems to have become a battleground. It is NOT, however, a battle between those who love the church and those who hate it, but between those who promote the church and those who just want a truthful article. I have been to the anti-potter sites and there is no way that the reasonable critiques contained in this article can be compared to some of the rantings of these anti-potters - and I say this as neither a pro nor an anti.

And, of course, this article is just another example of how Wikipedia is just unable to police itself properly. The only time I ever got seriously threatened online was by some Potter's House contributor to this article - and he never apologised either.

--One Salient Oversight 11:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To One Salient Oversight, After reading back through archives he did threaten you, but only with exposing your identity which you made freely available on your personal page, and he was going to expose you for spreading lies about the PH. Hmmmm. I would say that you are not as nuetral as you say above, and your respect for Wikipedia is apalling, as they do a very good job at policing and mediating in hard circumstances, give everyone a break and think before you attack in your editing. Please. Merry Christmas.

--CFM Kev 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

One Salient Oversight - Your reversion to such a long way back is not the right thing to do, please just do individual edits allowing others to interact, the article has been reverted to the last edit by 23:04, Agentsoo, 14 December 2005. No one remains nuetral and from your edits I can see you are very anti - the wikipedians who edit this article over a period of time work hard and just hate it when some one like you comes along and just wipes it all out with a revert of over 6 months. Just play fair, I'm done here. Merry Christmas to all Wikipedians.

-- CFM Kev 10:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

One Salient Oversight - this article is not about explaing cults or anything else except the church and its practices, However if you think the church sacrifices babies then find a credible source, not hearsay, nor bias from other churches who dislike pentecostilism - please keep to the topic here.

--CFM Kev 14:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Although not a member of this church, I belong to another Pentecostal denomination (Assemblies of God), and I consider that One Salient Oversight has written as neutral as possible an overview of the denomination. Personally, I think the section on whether or not the church is a cult should stand.

A word to User:CFMKEV: welcome to Wikipedia. One thing that takes a while to understand (at least, it took ME a while to grasp it) is that QUOTING a viewpoint is not the same PROMOTING a point of view. Our neutral point of view policy REQUIRES us to quote all points of view fairly - including criticisms. Quoting the criticism does not mean that we AGREE or DISAGREE with it, merely that we ACKNOWLEDGE that it exists. That's what our NPOV policy is about, and I think One Salient Oversight's version meets this criteria. Removing the section, on the other hand, goes against the spirit of NPOV, in my opinion. (I'm rushing out to a new year dinner now, will come back later and say more)David Cannon 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

OK then - so if I put the same info on the Assemblies of God article - it would be OK, provided I scoured the internet for some references to some flakey complainers, of course. But I don't do that so don't worry - I only research the truth, and in nearly all cases of so called abuse that I have researched the stem from one site and 2 to 5 people - Wow thats a real MANY out there. How can one person have 100's of testimonies, that would be a contradiction then wouldn't it be.

By the way I have read your page and it is very impressive - well done for all you have done and worked for here at wikipedia - I might suggest that as a member of the Assemblies of God church and with your experience that maybe you could rework and update that article, as it does seem a little limited. CFM Kev 03:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Observation of one site critical of Potter's House
The site I'm referring to is not listed in this article, but one site listed does use it as  the source of much of its own information. On this particular site, one page has a list of letters, newspaper articles, and some videos over the years showing complaints and allegations of abuse within the organization. If one views the list, it's easy to conclude that this whole denomination must be rife with abuse. Yet, that is where one could be misled. When I stepped back and looked at it again from another angle, I considered a few things. I looked at how long the group had been around, how many churches it currently has and ever had, how many pastors it has (current and former), and where the churches were. What I quickly realized is that considering the size of the organization, its age, and how many people have been in and out of it, it's quite possible that there were some cases of individual abuse, but it doesn't mean that abuse is common within it. Putting these individual cases onto one page can lead someone to this very conclusion. If one were to publish a list of all the problems of and allegations made against an individual church over its history, one could easily (and erroneously)conclude that that church has an abusive history. It takes more than simply publishing a list of individual allegations to demonstrate a church or denomination really is abusive. This same principle doesn't only apply to religious groups. It applies to any organization or individual.

NPOV Problems
The entire article reads almost like an op-ed defending the Potter's House. I can't even begin to list all the sentences that do not adhere to a neutral point of view. Much of the claims sound exaggerated in favor of Potter's House; there are few sources cited, and the ones that are cited are heavily biased; the criticisms section is little more than pro-Potter's House apologetics; much of the descriptions use very subjective Christian language, instead of an objective observer's point of view; and where multiple interpretations of events are possible, only the one that best reflects on Potter's House is chosen. The whole article reeks of bias and needs to be rewritten. Wje 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This site has been continually atacked by about 5 people who atack anything "Potter's House," this is not a new thing as yahoo staff know, and the links in the article show. If the same article were to be written by them (the few) entirely, people would think the Potter's House to be like a Satanic cult! Because of the zealots who have slandered and lied about the Potter's House, many Potter's House believers on the net feel that they continually have to justify basic Christian practices, which when magnified by the few who hate us, are fueled by arguments which go against logic. A Pastor becomes a manipulator, a sermon becomes brainwashing, prayer a new age mantra, the great commission and church plating becomes a pyramid scheme, etc. They use words like control, manipulation, hurt, shun, etc, which if you used these same words to describe a soccer coach you dislike or an old boss, you could make them out to be monsters. Instead of the "boss was a jerk, and ignored me" it becomes "the boss was using mind control and shunned me!" This type of bias may have been an influence on the attitude of the article, as we have tried to continually defend basic things from being distorted, so it may seem biased, but I want to make it suitable for wikipedia.


 * I attend the Potter's House Church and have never seen the type of things that the few claim. I have also been lied about by them and they currently run a yahoo group pretending to be me and have made out that I am mentally unstable and am a homosexual etc, which demonstrates they type of people we are dealing with. I have been personally threatened and warned by some of them. I feel that it is like trying to create a neutral site about Israel when Hammas are continually changing the facts and distorting the truth. Just look at the Wayman Mitchell history and you will see their hatred. So instead of just saying the article is biased, please state where, we at the Potter's House want people to know more about us, because we know that the more truth is revealed, the more people will see that the few have an anti Potter's House agenda, which is easily dispelled once you attend a Potter's House, or you find out the other side of the story from someone like myself. You said: "I can't even begin to list all the sentences that do not adhere to a neutral point of view," I challenge you to please name a few spots to clean up and I will do my best to neutralize it.


 * Nick.


 * www.forumsau.com
 * That's fine. I've already listed changes under "Changes to be made soon" above.  They have been there about a week so I was intending on implementing them because I had not heard any challenges.  If you disagree with them then please note that.
 * GuyIncognito 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I deleted the Kingsville link because thier home page is not showing. It may be showing on there server but not externaly. It is a shame because it was one of the better sites. I tried to search for other pages but to no avail.

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

The question about the church stats, I can't think of any other place to get this info, the numbers come from the pages themselves i.e. http://www2.christianfellowshipministry.com:6500/CFM/intllist.php http://www2.christianfellowshipministry.com:6500/CFM/uslist.php etc. I can't see why the fellowship cannot be the source. The info provided on the site is enough to varify the information, names adresses. etc. It is like trying to find an independant source for all the teachers who attend Brighton Grammer Boys School. I feel that they themselves would be best qualified to give that info, and that there wouldn't be any other way to aquire that type of satistical info from any external source.

See also http://www.cfmau.com/ for Australian stats

Nick.

www.forumsau.com
 * I think that it would be best to phrase it as a claim rather than as a statement of fact so as to remain neutral as to the truth of the content. So, for example, we might say "The Church of England has x amount of members" and then refer to some independent third party source such as http://www.adherents.com/.  Whereas if we only had the Church of England's internal statistics, we would write "The Church of England claims to have x amount of members" and then site the source where they claim such a thing, such as their own website.  It's not that the Potters House is assumed to have made the statistics up, it's just that all the information is stated as a set of conclusions with no evidence as to how they were arrived at.  They may have used to some unusual or unorthodox form of accounting for example.  We just don't know, so it's best to make the statement in the form of a claim, and leave it at that.
 * GuyIncognito 08:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed an internal link to L.I.F.E. Bible College, which is in wikipedia. I have noticed some dead links on that page though, perhaps that could be cleaned up.

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

I added:

"These events are used to evangelise to non Christians. While the Potter's House welcomes those from other churches, it does not activly partisipate in proselyting, but rather in conversion of non believers."

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

As for the citation need for the claim: This book is the most comprehensive book on Pentecostal theology to datethis comes from:

To our knowledge, there is not another textbook of Pentecostal theology as comprehensive as this.

- From the book cover See: http://www. logos.com/products/details/2473 perhaps you could do the citation here as I am not sure how to link it to go to the exact point of the citation on the external page.

As I tried to save this it came up with this:

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The page you tried to save was blocked by the spam filter because it contained a link to a blacklisted website. If you didn't add the link (see below), it was probably already in the current version of the page. Alternately, it might have been added by spyware on your computer.

You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

If you believe that the link should not be listed on the spam blacklist, or that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, please leave a request on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www. logos.com

I will space bar between the www. - logos

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

I put the link http://www.pottershouse.com/ after Perth Western Australia in the intro. It looks messy though, I will try to clean it up. later

Nick.

www.forumsau.com

Detailed changes
I'll note the changes I've made to the page and why I've made them and if anyone disagrees, please at the very least note here why you disagree and why you altered anything.

Introduction
I've slightly rearranged the introduction. The word planted has been substituted with established. "Planted" is a peculiar word and should be substituted for a more broadly used one.

Current church statistics
I've deleted the links because they do not substantiate the claims being made. There is no mention of church attentances etc on the sites listed, as far as I can tell. Put a link to a website that shows the exact statistics that you are quoting. People need to be able to verify the specific information you quote.

Church doctrine
Ive changed the sentences to indicate that a claim is being made rather than a fact stated. I've deleted the thing about the book being the best because that is a statement of opinion not fact. If you have a website where someone says its the best book then say "Mr X believes that this is the best book on the subject" and then reference it.

Church conferences
These figures need to be backed up with specific verifiable data. Where did they come from?

Church culture
Terms like "testify" and "delivered" have particular religious connotations. Try to phrase things in a secular way. I've done this to this subsection of the text.

Criticism of the church and External Links
The criticisms of the church section is in need of revision. I'll re-write it at some further point and place it here for comment before posting it. At the moment it just isn't up to standard. The external links section also needs to be made more professional. Things like "Shows the Slam the Door group as a fraud", "Slam the Door group used mutiple usernames" and "Examining the so called Potters House "Cult Buster" himself" come across as opinions rather than neutral descriptions. This kind of thing taints the whole article. Come up with a neutral description. Something like "Evidence for claim that Slam the Door website was engaging in fraudulent behaviour" or better yet, delete it completely..

Overall
The article still has a lot of work to do. It needs to be clear and consise. At the moment it comes across as part-Potters House apologetic and part-rushed school homework assignment. The peculiarly religious terminology, such as 'saved', 'planted', 'outreach', 'testify', 'testimony' etc need to be removed and replaced with neutral terms. As it stands, even with the latest edits, it's still sub-standard. GuyIncognito 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck Guyicognito. Just make sure that your name and address are not available on the internet since some of these guys will publish it if you make the article too "anti-Potters house" (also known as npov). I'm serious. It happened to me here. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to detailed changes
You said "I've deleted the links because they do not substantiate the claims being made. There is no mention of church attentances etc on the sites listed, as far as I can tell.  Put a link to a website that shows the exact statistics that you are quoting.  People need to be able to verify the specific information you quote."

It is hard to get this statistical information. Basically I put up some links that go to the church directory. At the top of the directory pages they have a number. Basically there is no particular site that has the info written here verbatim, but it is self explanitory. If you count the pastor in the directory you will come up with the numbers. I this is still not good enough perhaps I will make a site with this statistical info on it and link to that, if that is cool with you.


 * That's a good idea. Put the statistics on a website of some kind and then link to the website as a reference.
 * GuyIncognito 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You said "Ive changed the sentences to indicate that a claim is being made rather than a fact stated. I've deleted the thing about the book being the best because that is a statement of opinion not fact.  If you have a website where someone says its the best book then say "Mr X believes that this is the best book on the subject" and then reference it."

The source was on the book cover which I linked to, but if you leave that out that is fine. It's a non issue.

You said: Things like "Shows the Slam the Door group as a fraud", "Slam the Door group used mutiple usernames" and "Examining the so called Potters House "Cult Buster" himself" come across as opinions rather than neutral descriptions. This kind of thing taints the whole article. Come up with a neutral description. Something like "Evidence for claim that Slam the Door website was engaging in fraudulent behaviour" or better yet, delete it completely.."

I will try to make these links neutral.

I agree that this site needs a major overhaul. It was put up in a hurry and now we are building upon a skeleton that is all over the place. I will try to do as much as I can to make it more readable.

One Salient Oversight said:
 * Good luck Guyicognito. Just make sure that your name and address are not available on the internet since some of these guys will publish it if you make the article too "anti-Potters house" (also known as npov). I'm serious. It happened to me here. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the articles you have written, you seem to have beef with any type of Pentecostal denomination which is why you experienced such exposure last year. It hinged upon where you were getting your sources from. Most of the info on the net about the Potter's House was written by 5 people who claimed to be over 900 on a yahoo group, and the same people on some other message board with different names, this is not accurate information. They have their own anti cult web page which is bogus, because these people are not believers at all, and hate all forms of Christianity. I think that what defines a good critic is someone who has been part of the church and is willing to at least give their details of what they are doing now. Most of those who attack the church remain anonymous for a reason, i.e. they are atheists, or they are homosexuals, or they work in brothels, (all these are real cases) which when you understand the churches stance about these things you can understand people remaining anonymous. Many people have an axe to grind, especially against us narrow minded "bigoted" people. We attract opposition from all sides. You attend a Baptist church which is fine with me. I know many great Baptists. Perhaps because there has been so much stuff written against the Potter's House, by so few people, i.e. approx. 5, which has then been parroted all over the internet, it was necessary to expose those few, which has happened. Perhaps to expose you in the way my friend did was over the top, but because I know who did it personally, and I know the zeal we both had at the time to expose anything anti, it seemed justified. Things have cooled down now, most of the 5 have gone and we can now get on with writing factual articles.

A few little changes
I've added a link for disciples. You can check the link to see if this definition of disciple conforms with what the Potters House understanding.

I've added a 'piped' link for inerrancy.

I've added a link for doctrine.

GuyIncognito 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great
I will try to define some specific doctinal points also.

Nick

www.forumsau.com

Draft to replace 'Criticisms of the church'
I've deliberately left this short and have tried to make it as neutral as possible. I have no interest in pushing the cause of either the Potters House or its critics so I hope both are satisfied (or equally unsatisfied). Keep in mind that someone who loves an organisation and someone who hates it are unlikely to agree on the same description. So please assess this by asking yourself whether it, at the very least, presents your own side (not the other's side) realistically.

Here it is: Criticism of the church

Among the most vocal critics of the Potter's House is Rick Ross of the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, USA. Ross characterises The Potter's House, and all other Christian Fellowship Churches, as cults. Other 'counter-cult' organisations make similar claims: see Apologetics Index, Center for Freedom of Mind , and MacGregor Ministries for example. Some alleged ex-members (The Cracked Pots and Life After Potter's House) and an alleged ex-Pastor (Escape from the Fellowship) describe the fellowship as abusive and un-Biblical in its practices. The Christian Research Institute gives a more measured critique. A variety of newpapers and television stations have reported on the group over the years.

Potter's House advocates dismiss these claims as unfounded. They suggest that critics are both non-credible and small in number. Rick Ross, for example, is a contriversial figure and has attracted criticism . Further, supporters of the Potter's House argue that some critics have alterior motives and have engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate their apparent numbers on the internet. They suggest that the church's militancy and outspokeness, which are not in and of themselves improper, are partially to blame for the negative reactions of those not used to such methods.

Potter's House sermons are available online for download and individuals can sample the preaching style for themselves.

GuyIncognito 06:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been about a week so I'll make the changes. If anyone is unsatisfied, please discuss before reverting.  If you can't resist, then at least consider adding to the above draft after you have reverted the main article.


 * --GuyIncognito 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks good, thanks for your efforts! &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

External links section
I am going to go ahead and alter this because some links are dead (e.g. the 'Slam the Door' site has been down a while), some are wrong (e.g. the CFM site reference is wrong - it's www not www2 - or at least it is now), some are redundant because they have been referenced in the 'criticisms' section (e.g. the puppeteering controversy) and some are irrelevant or superfluous (e.g. its unnecessary to have so many CFM links when a prudent reader can find all this readily available on the CFM main site - if you disagree just imagine how long the links section of some of the larger churches, such as the Anglicans, would be if we followed this methodology consistently across articles!).

I've altered this without consulting here for two reasons: one is that there isn't much frequent interaction here - it would take months of back and forth to alter it - plus people can alter it back if they feel strongly about it, and secondly the section is hardly a major one on the article.

--GuyIncognito 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be??
This link was filtered as spam, therefore it has been deleted.

Well, our very own Wikipedia has made it to Rick Ross's site. Does he really see Wikipedia as being cultic?Jlujan69 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Links
How come most of the new links are critical of the Potter's House. Most of these articles are back yard jobs. Like you stated above, Rick Ross has an anti Wikipedia forum! How can a guy like this be seen as credible? How come when I want to put one critical link on Rick Ross' page on Wikipedia, it gets instantly deleted and I get told that it is not going to be on that page by wiki staff, but on this page here, there are many new links that are anti Potter’s House of which have much less credible material on them than the anti Rick Ross page I linked to?

Is GuyIncognito really one of the anti Poter's House few? Can I get some info on who you really are, because the references you have linked to are very negative and numerous, compared say to the AOG (asseblies of God) wiki page. I think that there is bias here!

Nick.

www.forumsau.com


 * Nick I'm not 'anti-Potter's House' at all. Please don't jump to conclusions like that about me and I will not jump to conclusions about you.  You are perfectly entitled to say that you perceive bias in the article, and I want to work with you to make sure that everyone can be satisfied.


 * Rather than give you my life history, Ill tell you my views. I have one friend in the Potters House and he has grown magnificently and loves the organisation to death.  He is a better person in many ways because of his involvement.  I also have another friend that is bitter and angry at his involvement and feels that they did him wrong.  I think that the Potters House do make many claims that I disagree with but I also think that the 'anti' PH people are hardly that credible either.  I don't trust Rick Ross and I think that many of the claims that the 'Slam the Door' and 'Cracked Pots' people make are exaggerated.


 * I personally was going to delete all the 'anti' websites from the external links section (because they are already mentioned in the 'criticisms' section) but it says in the raw code that if anyone does that it could be classified as vandalism and they could be banned so I didn't.


 * As for the criticisms section, I think I've done a reasonable job of presenting both sides. The point is merely to show that claims have been made, not that the claims are true or false.  That applies to the Potter's House as well as its critics.  I simply stated that these guys have made these allegations.  I also stated that the Potters House has made replies.  That's it.  I think I gave both sides equal consideration.


 * To adopt a neutral stance means that you don't 'defend' one side or the other. The additions made by Jlujan69 are clearly attempts to negate the claims being made my the other side.  They will have to be seriously modified or removed.  They essentially say that the cult claims are false and that fraud was found.  Unless a court has ruled on these matters then they constitute non-neutral claims.  I think the term cult is thrown around too easily, but the fact is that a group of people believe that the PH has cultic attributes.  I may not agree with them but I am not going to structure my summary in such a way that I essentially say "X made a set of claims... ...and they are wrong for these reasons".


 * I am not sure why the AOG article doesn't have any criticisms section. Perhaps you should flag it as non-neutral?  There are people that disagree with it so I don't know why it doesn't have any.  As for not being allowed to add links to Rick Ross's article, I find that curious because the Rick Ross article on wikipedia is very harsh against him.  Most people reading it will probably conclude he is a nut.  Maybe the site you intended to link to was libelous or something?  I know that the website that claims he is a homosexual is going a bit far - who cares if he is or isn't?  I still linked to it here as you can tell, even though I disagree with him.


 * Well write back and tell me what you think. I am sure that some satisfactory compromise can be achieved.  Please tell me what exact sentences you think are biased and why.


 * Thank you.


 * GuyIncognito 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Bogus groups linked to
There is new links on the page that only people who are very anti Potter's House know about, that is why I am suspicious of you. There is a link to a group run by (removed). (removed) also runs a group where he is pretending to be me. When my group name was cancelled by yahoo for threats to expose peoples IP addresses, my group was shut down. (removed) then proceeded to use the name once it became available on yahoo again. He pretends to be me claiming that I have left the church and am now a homosexual.

If you notice on this group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lokispottingshed/message/4299 it says:


 * "From: "teajay1974" 

Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:11 am Subject: Potters House Wikipedia Article  teajay1974 Offline Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360º

At the moment I am in the process of revising the Potters House Wikipedia Article. The URL for this page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship

As someone else has pointed out, the article has some NPOV problems ie it doesn't express a neutral point of view. There is a discussion going on about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship Please feel free to contribute to this discussion. I have put up some of my intended changes so if you disagree with the impartiality of any of them, now is the time to say so.

Thanks"

This is a group that is purely anti Potter's House. The founder of the group has recently admitted that he no longer believes in God, and has left yet another church recently, and has very close ties with (removed) who is pretending to be me, and is saying that I have left the church and am a homosexual. That is why I am suspicious of you. To dispel my warranted paranoia, please disclose who you are with some details proving that you are who you say you are. I also think that it is very biased that the AOG site, and many other bible believing groups, have almost no critical links whatsoever. This is religious discrimination.

For the reason stated above, i.e. (removed) stealing my identity, I MUST delete all links associated with him and his group. (removed) ran a group pretending to be a Potter's House member and used numerous names and I.d.’ s, he was proven a fake and his group was deleted by him as soon as he found out that people knew his I.P. address. He was caught talking to himself on many occasions in his yahoo group, pretending to be both for and against the Potter's House. The person who runs Loki’s Potting Shed, agrees with (removed) almost 100% and has never stood against the unfair treatment of Potter's House members from such obvious deception.

Also to add fuel to the fire I am positive that one of the links is run by a man called Neil Taylor. I exposed Neil in similar fashion as (removed) was exposed. Neil has pretended to be my ex girlfriend on Loki's yahoo group, has lied about me, and has set up bogus groups about me, just as (removed) also has. Neil was a pastor in the Fellowship but became embittered when his wife left him to become a #######. He is no longer a Christian. Neither is Loki who claims to be also Perry Barile. He has only recently claimed to be a non believer. (removed) is also an agnostic. These three have conspired together against the Potter's House and against myself. Their personal attacks have been so harsh that I have been threatened to be bashed at Perth conference on their former group. Although I understand that you want critical view points on this article, I feel that you are "muckraking" and are not providing adequate thought in your choice of links. I will begin the deletion process, not because I am afraid of the truth, but I must protect myself from such blatant slander against my character.

Nick

www.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pottershousechurchcfm/


 * I am sorry that you feel this way about me. I have given you as much information as I am willing to give over the internet.  There are plenty of reasons for this, and hiding some kind of bias is only one possibility - I have no fear of having my neutrality assessed but I do have a fear of my personal information being placed over the internet.


 * I have looked at a large number of websites because I believe that it is incumbent upon me to do so so that I can broadly determine the scope of the controversy. That is why I know a bit about the issue.


 * And I think it is disgraceful that people would allege that you are a homosexual and other things of that nature. I am sure that hurts.  I'm sure that they find that funny but I don't.  I have not directly linked to any site that alleges such things Nick, nor would I.


 * The links on the message boards were placed there so that when the article is completed, they can't complain that they were left out of the process. Unfortunately for them, it only seems that me and you are interested.  They won't be able to complain if they think it's biased because they have had every opportunity to participate in the articles formation but have refused.


 * I also thank you for pointing out the lack of a 'criticisms' section on the other pages. This should be remedied.  After we have come to a finish on this one, I will do some research and make a note of any criticism that exists against AoG etc and propose adding a paragraph or two to mention the criticisms.


 * As for the links, I am trying to remain as neutral as possible. Both sides are alleging all sorts of things against each other, but I have treated you with respect the whole entire time.  I disagree with the way you have stated some things.  For example, on the Born Again Christian Forum you described Rick Ross as a "Christ hating Jew" and "a homosexual". Regardless of how much you disagree with someone, that sort of thing is inappropriate and I think that after reflection you would agree with me.  If I disregard your potential for bias I have to be consistent and treat your critics in the same way.


 * I am going to focus on the claims you make, not on your character. To do otherwise would be to commit the logical fallacy known as ad hominem.  Will you treat me with the same respect?


 * I don't think that you should delete those links simply because you personally believe that they are 'biased' or 'fraudulent'. If we can't have some basic degree of agreement on this then I will be forced to flag this for adjudication and you know what will happen then.  It will be out of both of our control.


 * I hope that we can work together on this. Given it seems that only us two are doing it, you have a great opportunity to show what rational and disciplined people the Potter's House produces.


 * Thank you Nick.


 * GuyIncognito 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you state that my description of Rick Ross is inappropriate. If you read the article I have done on Rick Ross http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 you will understand why I have come to the first conclusion. I assume that it is because I used the term Jew that I am now being viewed as anti-Semitic in your eyes. To put in more politically correct terms I should have said, Rick Ross is a man who actively supports Judaism and hates Christ and Christianity. I neither hate Jews nor Rick. The definition of Jew must be made clear. Rick supports the type of Judaism that actively attacks and belittles born again Christians as my article shows. Also the fact that Rick is a homosexual is described on this page http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/homosexual.htm I don't know if you are a believer or not but much opposition towards Christianity comes from homosexual groups. In the bible homosexuality is condemned as an abomination. We have reformed homosexuals in the Potter’s House and we welcome anyone to become a Christian, but while unrepentant, a homosexual displays from his/her lifestyle that they are in opposition to the teachings of the bible. If I said that Rick Ross was a "Christ hating Islamic" and a "Polygamist," I doubt that you would see that as inappropriate.

Secondly you said "I also thank you for pointing out the lack of a 'criticisms' section on the other pages. This should be remedied. After we have come to a finish on this one, I will do some research and make a note of any criticism that exists against AoG etc and propose adding a paragraph or two to mention the criticisms." While I feel that all you are trying to do is have a neutral article, I think that by attacking the AOG just for the sake of it is unwarranted. Although I don't agree with everything the AOG does, I don't feel that focusing on the minor elements and negative reports will give a balanced view. Also I think that any link should be from a credible source. That is why I am trying to discourage you from using the Slam the Door sites, i.e. Escape from the fellowship, Loki's Potting shed, Slam the door on the Pottershouse, etc, because these are run by the same frauds who were exposed last time. I know of pages that are anti AOG, but the sources are not credible, therefore I dismiss them.

Thirdly you said "I am going to focus on the claims you make, not on your character. To do otherwise would be to commit the logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Will you treat me with the same respect?"

This would be much easier if there was some information about you available. Anonymity has been the key for all lies, gossip, and slander, against the Potter's House and me. You firstly stated "I am sorry that you feel this way about me. I have given you as much information as I am willing to give over the internet. There are plenty of reasons for this, and hiding some kind of bias is only one possibility - I have no fear of having my neutrality assessed but I do have a fear of my personal information being placed over the internet" That is fine but can you understand with all that has happened in the past on the Yahoo Groups why I am suspicious? They have zealously attacked the church for about 5 years every day on Yahoo Groups, and have also attacked me for about two years now. They pretended to be over 900 people and also a Pro Potter’s House group. Place yourself in my shoes, would you trust after all they have said and done? That is why I think anonymity is so dangerous on the net. If we are all open and honest, we have nothing to hide. But it is your choice, and I resect that, but that does not quench my distrust unfortunately. But I am still willing to work with you, what other choice have I got? Perhaps you could contact me personally @ nick@goyebooks.com.

Fourthly you said "I don't think that you should delete those links simply because you personally believe that they are 'biased' or 'fraudulent'. If we can't have some basic degree of agreement on this then I will be forced to flag this for adjudication and you know what will happen then. It will be out of both of our control." I am not deleting them because I "feel" they are wrong, but because they have been proven wrong. I will put it in a more practical demonstration. (removed) who runs the group "escape from the fellowship" that you linked to also runs this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thepottershouseclub/messages which is a bogus group about me. If you join this group you can go to the members section. You will notice that (removed) is a member and also has a crown above his name, symbolizing that he is the administrator! Read all the posts for yourself and then decide if he is a credible source! I have documented this on my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potters_house_club/message/7

Finally when you said "If we can't have some basic degree of agreement on this then I will be forced to flag this for adjudication and you know what will happen then. It will be out of both of our control. I hope that we can work together on this. Given it seems that only us two are doing it, you have a great opportunity to show what rational and disciplined people the Potter's House produces." I think that flagging for adjudication is over the top. As we talk through these problems we should be able to find solutions. Just because sparks are flying doesn't mean that progress isn't happening. By saying "you have a great opportunity to show what rational and disciplined people the Potter's House produces" you are firstly implying that Potter's House people are perceived as irrational and undisciplined. Yet all the proof says that the arguments against the Potter's House have come from irrational people. If you look at this link http://www.tompapania.com/Accusations%20Against%20Tom%20Papania.htm you will notice that the same type of thing has been happening to Tom Papania, a minister of the gospel who fights against the Mafia of which he was a part of. Also if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Fenholt you will notice that the "Black Sabbath" conspiracy has dominated the article and his testimony, of which is powerful, is marred by such a trivial thing. It is like being accused of being insane, how can you prove otherwise? Especially when the accusers are mostly anonymous and others have been proven liars. I would like to know what has the Potter's House done wrong. Can you actually define what we are doing wrong, and once defined can you tell me the source of the accusation? You will find that 95% are from anonymous people on the internet. If you get down to the bottom of things and ask every individual - how were you personally violated, manipulated etc..., without talking about someone else or a rumor or something they read on the internet, you will find that the majority of people in the Potter’s House bend over backwards for people. I have been in the church for 11 years and have been treated so well that I cannot describe what a joy it is to be a part of the church. This is why I am so passionate for people to know the truth about the Potter's House, it has gotten a bad rap from a vocal few, and it creates doubt and confusion. I suggest that to dispel your doubts, go to a local Potter's House church and see for yourself. Listen to the online sermons preached by Potter’s House ministers. Talk to Potter’s House Christians about the church and decide for yourself. I cannot but think of the words of Jesus when he said in Luke 6:26 "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." If being spoken bad about is any indication of true believers the Potter's House seems to be winning hands down!

I am in the process of making the book An Open Door an e-book. I have two chapters done already and will place a link to it on the article here.

Good Night.

Nick

www.forumsau.com


 * I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot Nick. Everything is just so adversarial that often it puts us on the defence immediately.  I will try to be more cooperative and considerate from this point on.


 * For the record, I do not believe that you are anti-Semitic. I realise that your comment could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and I will accept the most charitable one, which is that your label was purely descriptive.


 * As for the 'criticisms' section, I am not sure why it has been included, but it appears that it is necessary to have it here because of the fact that if it isn't, people are just going to continually flag the article as non-neutral and add it themselves. At least if we construct a fair and neutral section together, they will be less likely to do so, and plus if we both agree with it, when someone changes it, we have at least two people, me and you, who will change it back.


 * My view of neutrality is that I must describe not what is true and correct, but what has been claimed. Even though I consider the sources to be wrong in many ways, I have included them because I think it is up to the reader to decide what is correct.  I don't want to substitute my view for theirs, so I merely equip them with the tools to decide for themselves what the truth is.  If I remove relevant sources, I have deprived them of the opportunity to assess the 'anti' side of the argument.  Given that I believe most readers are fair and rational, or at least, I presume them to be, mentioning sites like Slam the Door etc does not pose a problem because they will see whatever flaws these sources have and give it the weight that they deserve.  This approach also acknowledges that everyone has biases.  If I have an opinion that is subconsciously biased for or against The Potter's House, including relevant sources allows the reader to 'bi-pass' my own bias and get to the original claims themselves.


 * Thank you for providing your email address. I intend to write to you at some point to privately discuss these matters, but at the moment I am a bit busy.


 * As for (removed), I have read a number of his writings and I too believe that he is prone to polemic and exaggeration. I personally would not view him as a credible source.  But by the same token, I might be wrong.  I don't think that I am, but I could be.  So that is why I have cited him as a source.  Not because I agree with him, but because I believe that, if he is biased (and I think he is), others will see that by looking at his writings.  Perhaps we can create a wikipedia page on (removed) and write what we know of him, and cite several criticisms that have been made so that when people see him cited on this page they can click the link and get some kind of background?  Maybe that would be a good compromise so that we can include him as a reference on this page?


 * As for my own personal views on The Potter's House, to you I'm 'unsaved'. That is, I'm a baptised Catholic.  So my disagreements with the Potter's House, I guess, relate to ecclesiology and theology in general.  I have attended many times in the past, not as a 'spy', but because I was not practicing any beliefs at the time and was curious.  I was welcomed and treated with respect and found the atmosphere to be comfortable and accepting.  I enjoyed listening to sermons and the music.  But in the end, I found that I simply could not agree with the claims that were being made.  That doesn't mean I dislike them or am biased against them. I simply disagree with their theology.  I have a friend that is a member and he loves it.  I don't really see him that often or socially because he is so committed to the church, but whenever we see each other we are able to communicate without any troubles (as long I there is no swearing ;) )


 * I believe that an atheist, a Jew, a black, an Asian, a Catholic, an Anglican or a Mormon can present any issue in a far and neutral way, if they try. That is what I am trying to do.


 * I included the link to The Potter's House sermons online so that people can listen to them for themselves. If they hear all these criticisms and then hear the actual sermons and they don't match up, then they will see how much people can exaggerate things in the media etc.


 * Good luck in producing your book. I would love to have that kind of commitment, but I'd end up quitting after one chapter!  Maybe one day I'll be more committed and write on detail on one of my favoured subjects.


 * Speak soon


 * GuyIncognito 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the nature of the differences expressed on this page - and also the experience I have had with some more extreme editors - I'm going to seriously suggest to some administrators to lock the page and allow only registered Wikipedia editors to edit the page. --One Salient Oversight 10:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly I think that to lock the page at present is unprofitable and overreacting. Like I stated before, just because sparks are flying doesn't mean that there is no progress. I feel that the site is at a crucial transition period and to lock it now could hinder what could be a great article. Also Neil, I think that perhaps we do have allot in common. I also have read much about the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements and have found that there are many false prophets and false doctrines. I do class myself as a Pentecostal but gravitate towards people like David Wilkerson, Phillip Powell, Jacob Parash, Ray Comfort etc. I dismiss the claim that the Pentecostal movement is basically a movement that comes from Azusa or Topeka but from the Methodist movement. If you study Wesley's writings and do some research about the gifts and Wesley you will be surprised. I think Phillip Powell has a good balance when it comes to most issues about Pentecostals, he also is Australian and used to be AOG. His page is: http://www.christian-witness.org/actwelcum.html He also has a great book called gathering the faithful remnant, I recommend you read it.

Secondy thanks for the words GuyIncognito, I think we can provide a balanced view.

P.S. Any reason why John Lee Clary's wiki article is down?

Nick

www.forumsau.com