Talk:United House of Prayer for All People/Archive 1

False Information
This article contains false information!!!! Thank You!!! The United House of Prayer was not Founded in Charlotte, NC. It was founded in Massachusettes. Also, The United House of Prayer is an Apostolic Faith Organization!

Birth year
Grace's profile on this page suggests he was born in 1884, but other sources seem to suggest 1881 (e.g. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/daddy_grace.html). Can someone clear up this discrepancy? Is his birth year simply not known? Thanks.--GregRM 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The birth year for Bishop Grace is 1881 and is the date on his mausoleum in New Bedford.Manfree 17:51, 06 Auguust 2006 (EDT)

Wow,this article has been greatly expanded!Good!My only suggestion would be to include a picture of God's White House(Headquarters House of the UHOP)at the top of the article,if possible and portrait pictures to accompany each individual entry about the UHOP Bishops.Other than that,a picture or two of ANY of the Beautiful United House of Prayer Mother Houses would be an excellent addition as well.They are all VERY picturesque, though i am partial too the mother House/Cathedral(my word)in Charlotte-it is exquisate to behold.`Adowablk

Dania's house of prayer love daddy!!!!!

dania's house
Dania love daddy!

1,2,N NOW 3 BISHOPS GONE. GONE 2 HEAVEN WERE WE ALL CALL HOME. A PLACE WERE JOY WILL NEVA END. A PLACE WERE WE ALL WANNA BE SEND. THERE'S A TIME 2 B HAPPY. N A TIME 2 B SAD. BUT 1 THING I NO WE WILL NEVA 4GT DAD. ITS HARD 2 LET GO. BUT SO EASY 2 REMEMBER.ALL THE PAIN WE ALL WENT THROUGH. BUT I NO I WILL GT OVA IT. BECAUSE DAD WILL B DA LIGHT OF MI DAY. GUIDING ME THROUGH EACH N EVERY PATHWAY. HE SAID don't LET IT BOTHER U. IT WAS JUST HIS TIME 2 GO. NOW WE ALL IS setting HERE WONDERING WHO'S DA NEXT BISHOP that's GOING 2 WALK THROUGH THOSE DOORS!!!!!!!!

BY, JASMINE WILLIAMS

Editing Conflict
I made some changes just now, removing some references that are not encyclopedic and someone has reverted them. I am not one to start edit wars so I would ask that the editor who reverted my edits respond and lets try to work together to resolve the issues with this article. Thanks.Ltwin (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes are false
This is to LTWIN. It's interesting that you use one source the Britannica 2008, which by the way contains false information, than use what is on the "OFFICiAL" website for the Church. The information previously written about him can be obtained from the "OFFICAL" website under the history section. Whether you agree with what the United House of Prayer has written about these men is not releveant. If the leaders of the United House of Prayer posted the biographies of these men on their website, then at least out of common courtesy to these men state what the United House of Prayer Leadership has said about these men. If the Catholic church or any religious institution post information about their leaders, would you dismiss it because it is not encylopedic information. I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfree (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Manfree I see that through my edits I removed citations from the officail site. I have place citations in the article again so that people can see that the information does come from the official site. After reading your post more closely, I have to ask you this: Are you suggesting that I should have left the article word for word as the official site out of courtesy to the church's leadership? This article is about the church itself and that is why I removed alot of the biographical information of the bishops before they assumed the bishopric because it only added an understanding of the life of these men and did not add to information about the church and cluttered the article. I also removed words and prhases that, while appropriate on the church's own website, were not appropriate for wikipedia. And to answer your last question, if the catholic church posted non-encyclopedic information on its website I would dismiss it because wikipedia is an encyclopedia.Ltwin (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Manfree most of the article comes from the official site, I've added information from other sources because any organization's official website is going to say nice things and can't be relied on to be non nuetral point of view WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that this article shouldn't have information from that site, it should and again most of the information is from the official site. Encyclodpedia Britannica is a respected reference work, if you disagree with the information find a source that refutes it. However, its interesting that you talk of me only using one source when before my edits the entire article read word for word as the official site. There is no rule on wikipedia that an official site should be given more weight than a third party source, in fact it's probably the opposite, as I've said before an organization's website is not WP:NPOV. What is the issue with not stating what the offical site says? From what I read, most of the information comes from the official site. If this was a Catholic church article of course I would use information from the church itself. It's important to know how they see themselves. However, if I were writing on the Catholic sex abuse cases, I would not rely on the church's on publications alone. I would need to look at third party sources to get a more accurate view.Ltwin (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see you put the citations back in. Good. Second, there is a difference between disucssing "Catholic sex abuse" and writing biographical information concerning deceased men.  Deceased men cannot speak.  It is okay to talk about their doctrinal belief and what is said and not said.  It is another to take and use biographical info from sources that give "skant" information. If information is not readily avaiable from other sources, then YOU MUST use the information from church literature and cite the source. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID.  As you are aware there is very little written about these men in the newspaper, etc.  So the only thing you can do is repeat the same stuff. For instance, your citation 1(last sentence) under Bishop Grace is an opinion of some writer that has been perpetuated and is contrary to what I know.  If you notice, under the history of Bishop Madison, it is not as thorough as what i wrote.  I pulled Bishop Madison's information from the obituary that was posted on the website, but now has been removed. I pulled from there website what they have deemed information that is open to any to read. I did remove some sections and re-worded things a little, but i kept the same meaning without changing any of their information. Not many people know how the previous Bishop's rose through the ranks of the organization.  That is important stuff to mention and i don't think any religious organization would lie about how their leaders were chosen.  I did not add the information on Bishop Bailey and would have preferred that to be removed, but the deceased Bishops have everything to do with how that church was built and what they teach and believe. If you notice there is NO OTHER website anywhere that has this type of information and that is why the current encycolopedia's, such as Britannica re-hash the same stuff.   Also, if you want to know about Bishop Grace and you don't want to ask the Church Leadersip, then i suggest you get a book called Daddy Grace, A Celebrity Preacher and His House of Prayer" by Marie W. Dallam".  It is a well researched book that presents un-biased information that contradicts alot of what many have posted on the web concerning this organization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfree (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are contradictions between what the church says about Grace and what other sources, Britannica or what have you, then we must show both sides. I have no problem believing that information from the church itself should be put in this article, but you seem to suggest that every other source beside the church is inaccurate and that the church’s version must take precedence, when in reality facts from all sides must be given to let the reader have all the information he/she needs to make their own decision. So if one source says one thing about Grace’s life and another one says something different then we must state that. I’m ok with putting that information from the church back into the article. I have no problem with some biographical information of the bishops, but we must be careful not to overdo it. If this happens it can dilute the article and make a reader lose interest with so many minor details. I would suggest that each bishop or at least Grace, he would easily satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements, have their own article linked to the main one. This way the bishops’ lives can be explored in detail and the main article can stay focused on the major historical events of the church. I didn’t remove the biographical information because I thought it was a lie. I removed it because I thought that including so many of those facts took away from the overall comprehension of the article and the main issue-the history of the church. When I came across this article my main concern was the inappropriate language used in the selections from the church’s website which was not changed to reflect an encyclopedic tone. I think I have done that. My only concern is that whatever is added to the article is written in an encyclopedic tone.Ltwin (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Beliefs Section
We need to expand the Doctrine section as all that is there now is a very brief summary of the beliefs outlined in their creed. Looking on forums and stuff thier seems to be a lot of controversy on what this church actually believes. It would serve the article better to go in detail of the beliefs of the church. For example, the history section is very large compared with the rest of the article, so we need more information in the beliefs section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not going to find any additional information that is readily available. Most if not all the information concerning this organization that has been reported in the Encyclopedia's and internet IS FALSE.  If you truly want to learn information about this organization you need to get the book i reference in my previous post.   The writer did a thorough unbias research on Bishop Grace and this organization.  I quote what she said about her sources: "Sources for this project have been many and varied, and most of them were buried under piles of dust up and down the East Coast. I trust there are many more to be uncovered by the next researcher, and i wish him or her the best of luck in unearthing things that will help us better understand the rich complexity of Daddy Grace and the United House of Prayer."  Another quote from her(Ms. Dallam's) book that shows the difficulty that one will have in explaining the doctrine is found on page 44:"The United House of Prayer arose within the matrix of Holiness, Pentecostalism, and Nazarenes, and its theology must therefore be placed in the context of these other religious developments."


 * A couple false statments i will point out:  the 50,000 quote is ludicrous.  This organization has 131 places of worship and if you divide 50,000 by 131 you get approximately 382 people per house.  I can tell you categorically the National Headquarters has TWICE, probably 3 times that number(the 382). Second, the quote attributed to Daddy Grace about salvation is false. Marie W. Dallam addresses this topic in her book and her research reveals how this quote got twisted and taken out of context.  Bishop Grace did not say this statement.  Third, IT IS A FACT as attested in the book by Marie Dallam and my own personal knowledge that Bishop Grace built the 1st House of Prayer in West Wareham, Massachusetts.  This is why he was buried there.   Fourth, the statement concerning the success of the organization is very mis-leading.  I suggest reading Marie Dallam's book.  She writes on how the United House of Prayer grew to where it is today. You will probably be stuck with writing the same ole' recycled information, unless 1) the church leadership post information on it's website, or 2) you get the book and discover information that Ms. Dallam has discovered and reference her sources and informaton on this page.

Good Luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfree (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Manfree you mentioned this book many times unfortunately I do not have this book; however, if you have this book why don't you include this information in the article. However, I must tell you, your insistence on only including information from the church itself and this Mrs. Dallam is worrying for me. Whether the church or Mrs. Dallam is trustworthy or not is not an issue. It doesn't look good for editors to disqualify all sources but two because you he/she "knows" for a "fact" that it is all "lies". Someone could come on here and say the same thing about your two sources. The fact is that if there are two viewpoints of the organization presented by reliable sources then all views must be shown, the positive and the negative as long as both sides are presented in nuetral terms and cite reliable, verifiable sources. If you have this book please include information from it, but the information that you don't agree with should still stay in the article. http://www.nyupress.org/books/Daddy_Grace-products_id-5156.html http://www.bookrags.com/research/daddy-grace-eorl-04/ --Manfree (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I understand your frustration about the numbers. The source I cited from was Encyclopedia Britannica. I have seen places where the church has claimed millions, but in those places those numbers have been questioned and estimated to be considerably lower. One way we could solve this problem is that the church's official membership number be place in the article, noting that this is the church's official numbers. Then note that Encyclopedia Britannica puts it at 50000. I will try to find the official number from the church and look for other sources that may clarify the theses other sources when I have time. The reason some might doubt those numbers of a million or 3 million is that that would make it the same size or larger of the two largest Pentecostal denominations the Church of God in Christ and the General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States. It would in fact make it one of the largest denominations in America yet it doesn't have as much influence as those others.
 * 2) For the statements about Daddy Grace's views on salvation both sides should be presented as arguments, if the qoute in the article is wrong then the correct, original qoute should replace it, but the differing views on the context should be noted and fully and nuetrally explained. The explanations should be supported by verifiable sources.
 * 3) If it is a fact that the fist house was built in Massachusetts then state it and give a verifiable source. If the book by Marie Dallam provides this than cite it.
 * 4) For your information, churches are touchy situations, however they do get alot of criticism. If you have a substantial interest in this denomination then you may need to ask yourself if you are not being blinded to legitimate criticism of this organizations and its history. Even if you are not, you have to realise that Wikipedia is not based on truth. It is based on verifiability. All "facts" that are relevant to the topic and are backed up by verifiable sources can be included. This includes that which goes against an organization's version of history. This doesn't mean that everything has to be negative, just nuetral and verifiable. Ltwin (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. The reason i mentioned the book is because this is the only book that i have seen where the author has outlined in detail the sources for information. This book is 250 pages and has 3 full pages detailing how she went about researching the organization.  No other book or researcher has detailed as much as she has. She listed by names those that assisted her.  She visted Pale Library at Temple University, including the Urban Archives; Lamont Library, Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Loeb Design Library, Charles D. Cahoon Local History and Geneaology Room of the Brooks Free Library. This is ONLY A FEW items.  This is a book for sale so i can't divulge but so much.  Criticism of the organization doesn't bother me in the least, but recylcing of "old" information that is proven to be false/questionable makes this page of no use. --Manfree (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * About the numbers. You think that because you have not heard about them that therefore the 3 million cannot be true. The UHOP is one of the largest Black Pentecostal denominations.  Plz do research and you will see for yourself that this organization is very influential IN ALL the areas where they are located.  Here are some links http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040602312.html
 * You know how to use wikipedia, therefore, i know you know how to use google.com and i gurantee you will find so much information repeated a thousand different ways that you will not know where to begin. --Manfree (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean you can't "divulge but so much"? Summarizing statements found in a book is not violating copyright. If you have this book and it gives accurate information then we can use it in the article, but if there is a legal reason why we can't incorporate it in the article then there is no point in you referring to the book at all and no reason for me to buy the book as I can't cite it for this article. You also say that false information is in this article and you may change it but without verifying it with a source its not verifiable and cannot be proven. For example someone edited the organizations number from 50,000 to something in the millions;however, they did not remove the citation for the 50,000 and replace with a citation with their new numbers. Without their citations it wasn't verifiable and it couldn't be trusted so it was removed. If a source had been cited for that number I would not have removed it.Ltwin (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to summarize some stuff from the book. The organization doesn't list their membership numbers, therefore it will be left up to people to estimate.  The 50,000 doesn't cut it given the number of houses they have, but ~1.8 million(13,740 members per house) seems about right given the number of houses they have and it is also the number that is reported by the various news organizations.--Manfree (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Motives of those making changes
LTWIN, After seeing you last change and re-reading some of your comments, i must ask what is your interest about reporting on this organization. In your last post you removed "gospel of Jesus Christ" from Bishop Grace's bio as though you dispute that he did not preach about Jesus, YET every newspaper, book, and source that I have seen shows otherwise. You told me that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truthfulness. Right? Then, you made a statement about the fact that you never heard of this organization. These are your words or words that you believe '''The reason some might doubt those numbers of a million or 3 million is that that would make it the same size or larger of the two largest Pentecostal denominations the Church of God in Christ and the General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States. It would in fact make it one of the largest denominations in America yet it doesn't have as much influence as those others." '''  So how could one come to that belief in honesty; their last bishop died in April and by doing simple research one can see that almost ALL the major news organizations had articles about this organization, not only that, in the city I live in,DC, ALL the news channels had segments dealing with the passing of the Bishop.  Well, unless you have done any research, then of course you would not know or maybe you know it, but choose to diminish it.   If you have read info on the Church you know that they do no consider themselves a part of a "denomination". This is confirmed in the newspaper writings, their own literature, and the various academia writers who have researched this organization, but they are quite INFLUENTIAL.  So what is the basis of your belief. Isn't wikipedia about reporting about what can be verified and not about what one person may believe? I have not posted what I believe, i have posted information that is written about them and i have used various sources. Await to here your response.--Manfree (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I have not posted anything that has not been sourced, you may not like the sources I use but writing them off as "lies" is not proof that they are not truthful. The talk page discussion was a discussion on the talk page. Have I ever put that in the aritcle? No, of course not. Information in the article needs verification, but the opinion I put on the talk page is just that an opinion. I don't need proof that my opinion is right as long as I don't put my opinion in the article. I am not trying to downplay the influence of this organization, but what I can see is that while some estimates are in the millions other estimates are lower than that. And we need to have that in the article. I've read the changes and they are fine with me. I added to the place where you changed the membership numbers that other estimates are lower than that.
 * 2) I removed the reference to him preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ because that is a really ambiguous statement. There are hundreds of churches that teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and many of thier beliefs are incompatible with one another. I beleive it serves the article better to actually tell what he tought and the church teaches instead of making an empty statement such as this. For example, the presbyterians, catholics, southern baptists, etc. all claim to preach the "gospel of Jesus Christ". But they don't agree on alot of areas of doctrine.
 * 3) I wrote about them being a denomination, becuase despite what they think about themselves they are a denomination. Many churches say they are not denominations such as the General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States, the Association of Vineyard Churches. Inside those churches they would never be called a denomination. But because they fit the definition of a denomination, outside the church they are considered denominations. Ltwin (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing ambiguous about the statement. Who are you to decide that because their are different denominations and different churches that preach different things that it is not the gospel of Christ. This is your opinion.  Every source that i have seen has said that Bishop Grace said he is preaching the Gospel of Christ.  It is not for you or i to decided what is the Gospel of Christ for the organization.  Once again, i question your motives.--Manfree (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, your opinion surfaces. According to the their beliefs and according to interviews done with their Bishops and members, they do not consider themselves as part of some denomination(i.e. Holiness, Pentecostal...). I'm not comparing their organizations with others AS YOU, i am adding information that has been taken from interviews, books, news articles, research, and from their church literature.  I quoted straight from their own literature and Ms. Dallam confirms in her book that they do not use "church" as mainstream and neither do they consider themselves as being as part of some mainstream religous denomination.  WIKIPEDIA is not about presenting your belief or my belief, it is about presenting information that is verifiable. You do remember that is what you told me, yet you do not follow that standard in all cases.--Manfree (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My response to Manfree
 * 1) First off, the article said in a definitive way that he was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ--as if Wikipedia knows what is and what is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. If its put back in the article it should note that it was his interpretation, revelation, version, brand, insight, etc. of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In reality, that statement un-amended was very religious. It wasn't even needed. The guy was a preacher what else would he preach! Its a preacher who is being talked about in a christian organizations article. I think we know what he was preaching. If you want to put it back in go ahead but it should be changed to a nuetral pov. Remember, you and I may know that that statement meant that he believed he was preaching the gospel of Christ, but other readers may not think that and go away saying that wikipedia is religiously biased. Another idea is that you can put it in a qoute, that way you can phrase it exactly as they put it and not worry about breaching nuetrality.
 * 2) I get it! They do not consider themselves a denomination. The article makes that clear. However, how else should we define this group within christianity. We could say they are non-denominational, but if websters definition is correct a denomination is "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices", then calling what is clearly a denomination a non-denomination doesn't make since. If you object that much to calling this a denomination, then by all means find another way to convey to the reader that this is a christian organization that (correct me if I'm wrong) has a hierarchical governmental structure and a common doctrine but fills that denominational labels and divisions are unbiblical. The fact that I'm getting at is that if you don't want to call them a denomination don't do it, but the reader needs to know that the United House of Prayer is not a loose movement with no central structure but a coherent and united movement with a clearly defined governmental structure. This is what people understand when you say a denomination a coherent unified organized body of christians with each individual congregation apart of this larger group.Ltwin (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

=
===>Okay. I see what you are saying.--Manfree (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Manfree I reread you post I seem to not have one element of your argument. Are you saying that they should not be classified as Pentecostal or Holiness? I think this is a mistake. Every church fits somewhere, and from an interview that I heard from the woman you mentioned above, I will try to find the website where I heard this, they have Pentecostal doctrine.Ltwin (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

=
=====>They sort-of fit both. Pentecostal and Holiness. They believe in the gifts of the spirit, but they also believe in the Holiness belief in progressive salvation. They're like a hybrid of Pentecostal, Holiness, and Apostolic. In the earlier years of the organization, according to Dallam, Bishop Grace remained independent from other denominations, though he did 1 time describe his group as a "Pentecostal religtion" based on "the principles of Christ". But in my state, the organization list some of their Houses in the Yellow Pages under Holiness.--Manfree (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well from the way that wikipedia is set up, denominations are actuall organizations examples General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, and Church of God in Christ are all individual denominations that are that id themsleves and are id'd by others as Pentecostal. The Church of the Nazarene would be a denomination in the holiness movement. Also its not suprising that you say that The Unite House of Prayer overlaps between both. Its seems alot of Pentecostal groups originated from the Holiness movement for example the International Pentecostal Holiness Church listed earlier started as strictly Holiness but then when Azusa Street started they adopted added belief in baptism in the holy spirit. So that makes since. So essentially this is an historically African American church that was influenced by both the Holiness and Pentecostal traditions. Do you know if they were influenced by John Wesley and Methodism at all because the Holiness movement came out of the Methodist movement I beleive? I know John Wesley taught sanctification alot.Ltwin (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE::  Yes, they believe in the Baptism in the holy spirit as well as sanctification and holiness. I haven't read much about Methodism. --Manfree (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When you said they were like a hybrid and you metioned Apostalic, what exactly do you mean by Apostolic because that seems to have alot of meanings. I've read in some places where that was used to denote that a group is following the true Christian beliefs; in other places i've seen it used to refer to restorationist beliefs such as restoring it to the first century model of the church; and in some places its been used by non-trinitarian Oneness Pentecostal groups. Just wondering.Ltwin (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE:: Apostolic is another denomination that stresses their belief upon what the Apostles preached; one will notice that they trace their beliefs back to Acts.  So in essence, they believe in going back and doing the same things the way the Apostles did it; in a way like you said restoring worship back to the first century model.  For instance, at the House of Prayer they are open and have service everyday and they do this by showing through the Bible that this practice is biblical.  I haven't found one church that has service EVERYDAY; that's unique in this day and age. They are not Oneness. --Manfree (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing Clean-up tag
I am removing the clean-up tag as the article has been significantly improved since that time.Ltwin (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Yes I agree, your edits also have helped make this a well done article. My post above also brought other issues to my mind. I understand the structure of the House of Prayer as having episcopal polity since they have a bishop. I may not be correct and that is why I think this article needs to go more in depth with the governmental structure. Some questions I have that I really don't see the current article addressing is what is the relationship between individual congregations and the bishop, and how is the bishop elected? I will try to research this if I have time, just wanted to see if you had any information or ideas on how to further develop the article? Ltwin (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ltwin, i like some of your changes. I think those researching this organization will find this page very helpful as a starting point to learn about the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfree (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with mentioning them as a denomination, but when most people think of denomination they think of Holiness, Apostolic, Pentecostal, etc. They do not identify themselves as Pentecostal.  They have beliefs that are similar to beliefs from Holiness and Pentecostal denominations. You are right, the organization does have a structure. I will create a new heading.--71.127.60.145 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure
This does a good job of outlining the structure of the United House of Prayer! Do you know how local congregations are governed and if they own thier on property or if congregational property is owned by the bishop and general assembly?Ltwin (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE: Local congregrations are governed by the Minister, but all the congregrations are subject to the Laws and constitution of the organization. Any local rules or regulations for the government of any congregration must be submitted to the Bishop. They have this rule stated in their constitution.  All property, no matter who purchases it, is owned by the House of Prayer and the Bishop is designated as the trustee for all property. --Manfree (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)