Step2new

The only paragraph cited was the first paragraph no information control no abuse Kept titles of paragraphs that didn't have sources. If there are citations available please link it and reference it with numbers, step2new seems as a new user.

Page says that citations are needed.

Removed uncited information in brethren, but kept title available in case somebody finds reference.

Hi, Step2new the section of church government doesn't have citations - even 1 or 2 citations would be helpful. Originally the article seemed as if someone at one time performed original research or copied a section from one of Living Stream Ministry's book. A proposed solution would be then to list the articles and cite them but also provide links to people who analyze the policies and criticize them. Because topics can get controversial citing is best because it helps verify sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyuse200 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The church government section didn't have links within wikipedia that one can click to get a definition of an item. It sounds as if someone copied it from living stream ministry's books. Perhaps just a brief section about the local church and the subsections would be better on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.128.181 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope the person who keeps reinstated the unicited portions provides sources, the article says the uncited portions can be removed and changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyuse200 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV report

I cancelled your recent AIV report - on investigation, it appears to me that Anyuse200 is a good faith editor in recent times. Please feel free to re-report if you feel this is incorrect. However, please provide evidence of WP:VANDALISM to support your report. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Information Control and local churches

Hi Step2new,

I undid the revision made by you to the article "local churches" by putting "original research tag". Also I believe that the article "local churches" is not a great one as there are not so many good faith editors working on to improve it. Also the article is not so clear about what really the local churches is? and how is it Lord's Recovery? and other information about the believes of this movement. There is much to be written and expanded and made clear to both Christians and non-Christians alike. (I believe this is the purpose of wikipedia - all users could access trustworthy information.)

I am both leaving a note and writing to you because I believe that you felt that there is some kind of information control (perhaps by me) going on in the article "local churches". I don't know what is your resentment with the local church or members of the local church are but I do know that atleast I, user:HopeChrist is a full time student at North Dakota State University, which is in North Dakota, a big midwestern US sate and in the whole state of ND there are no local churches. Nor do I am a full timer from LC or a member of LC, but I study BioMedical engineering and am serious about the Lord and my studies but I'm not on any sort of Information Control or advocating falsehood or advertising LC on wiki. What I am doing on wiki is to put the facts and sourced informations on articles related to faithful servants of the Lord. I attended meetings with one of the churchs in recovery (Sep 2005- May 2007), so I have seen LC from inside and I know to a certain extent what it is about.

I do love to read books by Mr. Nee and I do have so many other books which I love to read from all sort of Christian authors (including Mr. Lee). I respect and love reading all faithful Christians, now whether he is C. S. Lewis or John Calvin. So I would like to just encourage you (if you are interested in the articles on local church) to cite more external sources if you could find those. Since there is not much outside serious evaluation of the LC besides done by "Fuller theological Seminary" and that is already linked on the article. Rest of the article has external sources but not as many as it should have. Please read the article with a clear conscience and knowledge about the materials presented in the article and let me know on my talk page or article's talk page if you find something err, biased, or not-neutral. Please but do remember that good things or bad things about something could be factual and not biased. I guess under the section "sites supportive of LC" you might have seen that. These sites are not from LSM or any any LC. These are independent sites (no doubt created by people of same faith); but then the information contained inside these cites are factual and correct; and not to deceive others. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If all the editors could place more weight on FACTS than to Good or Bad, any article could be made great. For example, there are many Christian scholarly critics of Local Church movement and doctrine -- > Factually true. So let it be. Now scholars accuse LC by saying they believe in the doctrine of Modalism ---- > Factually wrong, so tell this too. Another example, LC emphasize on being the Lord's recovery and both Nee and Lee were crucial in God's move----> Factually true, so let it be in the article. Some other say, LC is of Witness Lee ---> Factually wrong, as the history of LR or LC didn't say that. LC is different than other Christian denomination ---> Factually true, few difference in the ways meetings are carried can be seen in the article. Some say, so it is a cult ---> Factually wrong; cult? based on what parameters (a cult based on lawsuits, a cult based on defending herself by presenting the truth, ??), etc, etc ... so if we place greatest weight on the FACTS, all the readers of wikipedia will have some beneficial gain.Thanks