Talk:Grace Communion International

Update Beliefs and practices

As the beliefs of the church has changed alot, I don't think it is good to have outdated beliefs in place of the church's current beliefs. Armstrong's teachings can be found at Armstrongism so a large section in this article is not needed. I'd be fine with a small section on the most important beliefs no longer practiced, but leave the rest to what they teach and practice now. Ltwin (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Much of this article is currently a history of Herbert Armstrong, the person, and not the denomination. The two are of course intertwined, but it seems unnecessary to have such a wholesale duplication of content. Why not just have a link to refer people to Herbert Armstrong?64.208.29.126 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Grace Communion International and Worldwide Church of God should be different pages. GCI under Tkach and WCG under Armstrong are like two different churches. The teachings of WCG under Armstrong are of historic importance. WCG teachings still continues today as United Church of God, Living Church of God, and other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewilson777 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While there have been alot of changes, it is still the same organization. Ltwin (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a Sabbatarian church

Links at the bottom of the article refer to "Sabbath-keeping churches." This seems inappropriate since GCI is not a Sabbath-keeping church. (evidence can be seen at www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/) Further, it seems misleading to include Worldwide Church of God among the list of Sabbath-keeping churches (non-Adventist) because the WCG rejected Sabbatarianism in 1995. If the link has to stay, it ought to say "Worldwide Church of God (before 1995)."64.208.29.126 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Article May have been Vandalized

Check the most recent changes. I am not familiar enough with the subject to determine for myself. Zell Faze (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism and it's been reverted now. Ltwin (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

Re: “...the WCG under Armstrong had a significant, and often controversial, influence on 20th century religious broadcasting and publishing in the United States and Europe...”

1. If this statement is true, should the article be rated higher than Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale?

2. Does this statement need a reference?

Tithe of the second tithe (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a reference. This whole article is in fact very light on references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.1.157 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Related denominations?

the section RELATED DENOMINATIONS should have a different name since United Church of God, Global, Philadelphia Church of God, etc., have nothing to do with Grace Communion. While all of them have the same founder, GCI rejected and mocked Mr. Armstrong. Currently, I dont believe we are related to Grace Communion. Just a thought... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowabura (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too bad if you're embarrassed by GCI. The fact is, you (whoever you are, if your a member of one of these bodies) are historically related. Ltwin (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing error?

The first sentence of the fifth paragraph under "History" (i.e., "1956, Armstrong met Stanley Rader at Ambassador college.") appears to suffer from an editing error. Always buy quality! (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias pervades article

I've tried to correct a few subtle biases in the article but even the selection of content seems to have alterior motives like defending or attacking certain doctrines or people. Real citations would likely help.

I think this defensive tone of writing has also lead to an inconsistancy. Did Armstrong put dates on prophecies or not? The article seems to suggest one answer then another.Ballaurena81 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The bias is more than subtle, it is, as the title of this category says, pervasive. There also are numerous grammatical errors which undermine the authority of the article. This article should be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbarrett50468 (talk • contribs)

Dear Gbarrett50468: You probably need to be specific. When you say "bias," I assume you are talking about lack of neutral point of view. If so, your feeling that the article should be "flagged" for lack of neutral point of view might be premature. Generally, the rule is that we don't flag articles because an editor feels the article does not represent a neutral point of view. We flag the article when there is a dispute in the talk page about whether the article has a neutral point of view. So, you need to have at least two people disagreeing in the talk page first. Since you just posted your comment, there cannot possibly be a dispute yet.

I will take a look at the article right now. Famspear (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, the section on scandal is wildly non-neutral, with sourcing almost non-existent. I agree with user Gbarrett50468 that this article has serious problems. I've started to make some changes. Famspear (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Whew! What a mess! Some of the soapboxing had been added by an anonymous user at IP 62.102.211.110 on February 10, 2013. I've tried to preserve as much of this mess as I can. Someone even had repeated references to one of the characters as having survived a "fatal" heart attack. Famspear (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The deleted material included this hilarity:

This is the reason that when you sign onto 501c3 tax exemption, you must sign over your constitutional rights to be exempt under the U.S. Constitution and you sign an agreement to "Voluntarily" bring yourself, (and your congregation) under the Government Rule under 501c3 tax status).

When old folks complain that there is something desperately wrong with our educational system, it is blather like this that tends to make one conclude that the old geezers are right.

Earth calling, kids! There is no "constitutional right" of a church to be exempt from taxation in the United States. Were we asleep during that ninth grade civics class? When you "sign onto" a 501(c)(3) tax exemption, you are not "signing over" a supposed "constitutional right" to be exempt from taxation. Churches are exempt from U.S. federal income taxation because Congress has enacted a statute making them exempt from that particular kind of tax. Famspear (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

suggestion

ewgegerfewgre