Talk:Universal Life Church/Archive1

__NOINDEX__

Stmichael1060
Somebody is determined to turn this article into a bland puff-piece. Sophie Wilder  13:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all that interesting. Looks like a copy-paste from somewhere.   14:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's mildly interesting is the appearance of this single-purpose account, not their boilerplate waffle. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for that user to get bored and revert. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit while trying to get the article in order, this looks like a pattern of shilling by representives of the "World Headquarters" version of ULC. See WP:talk:Universal Life Church, where the same thing has happened: ULCWHQ shills kept replacing the article on ULC with an article on ULCWHQ (which mentioned in passing that other ULCs exist). Same thing in a bunch of other places on the web. 19:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Response
The idea of Wiki pages is to be informative, not a marketing campaign. The old version is selling worthless Doctorate of Divinity degrees from a worthless well known degree mill. Perhaps I went overboard and I will correct that. But references to free this or $30 for that, there should be no place for that.

Just for the record, they say FREE ordination, of course it is free it is a sacrament. What they don't tell you is how much people pay for ministry credentials. It is the old bait and switch.Stmichael1060 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of thing we should we should be commenting on. & The fact that this church is a diploma mill is the whole reason why we have an article on it!  A rewrite that hides or downplays this aspect of the UCL's activities looks a lot like whitewashing.  14:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're gonna lecture folks on the idea of wiki pages, please pay attention to basic wiki-formatting, like not replacing section breaks with enlarged text. Thanks. 14:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there is several ULC's and you need to get your facts straight, if you think Bill Clinton wants his name affiliated with this degree mill church, be my guest? But remember you are the ones doing it. You are living dangerously. Be my guest. LOLStmichael1060 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The diploma mill church is the one we wrote an article about. If Clinton isn't associated with it, why did you even add this to the page?  17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, also, the one Clinton, Kathy Griffin et al were ordained by also appears to be a diploma mill anyway. It's very clear from the coverage that they were ordained specifically to officiate at a wedding, not because of some religious calling.  Plus the UCLWHQ's "Become a Minister" page makes it very clear that they welcome these kinds of ordinations, and that they borrowed the name Universal Life Church because of its existing association with fast-&-cheap ordinations.  18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) 1 Kirby Hensley founded Life Church in 1959, he incorporated in 1962 using Universal from his political "Universal Party" of which he ran for President in '64 and '68 receiving less than 100 votes in both elections combined. Universal comes from the Greek Language word katholikos, it is the origin first coined "Universal Life" by St Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD. This is why the Catholic Church is referred as the Universal Church and it is why the US Patent and Trademark Office refuses to trademark the name as it is proprietary to Christians or Catholics associated with the Roman Church.

Hensley is not the founder, he is the founder of Life Church and is only a user of the Universal Life Church Name.

Regarding the Monastery, it is the ULC Monastery Storehouse in Seattle, WA. The ULC Monastery is out of Tucson, AZ. and is still owned by Daniel Zimmerman. This Monastery Storehouse led by George Martin Freeman (Brother Martin) of Seattle operates out of UPS Store on Broadway and are operating in contempt of a 1985 Order from the Kings County Superior Court - http://www.tinyurl.com/themonastery

ULC.NET is operated by ULC Bookstore of Folsum, CA. it is authorized by Modesto to sell Ministry Supplies and it is a sole proprietorship operated by Kevin Andrews.

The ULC Seminary is not recognized by the ULC in Modesto or the ULC in Florida. Amy Long submits ordinations request through Modesto. Modesto calls it a "Known Website." Amy Long Smith is incorporated under the name of Quest Ministries.

If you need any citations on any of this, let me know. The Monastery website I provided is cited by Seattle Publication called the Stranger. In these you will see more insights on Hensley the conman. I hope this helps.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20052248-10391709.html?tag=strip

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-07/local/me-206_1_universal-life-church

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-618252.html

Stmichael1060 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Burn it!
The article is poorly sourced and poorly maintained - it has basically turned into a walled garden for User:Stmichael1060. I don't believe it can be fixed by simple reverting, because the previous version was crap too.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article poorly sourced, it is not a walled garden for yours truly, but rather it appears you take issue that there are other ULC's other than ULC Modesto. If anything it sounded as a promotion the Modesto entity with such reference to a $30 cost for degrees and free ordination. DMOZ is a reputable source for information. Perhaps it should be trashed, in fact Wikipedia has a similar notation on their article and it has been there since 2012. Is the Universal Life Church be it whatever location really worthy of being in RationalWiki all together? If ULC Modesto is allowed, than other ULC's should be permitted, the ULC Modesto actually started as Life Church. This should not be a source of promotion for any ULC and that is what I am attempting to fix, including a better explanation for the diversity in names.Stmichael1060 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "DMOZ is a reputable source" is a hilarious statement - hilariously dishonest or hilariously ignorant, you pick which one. And please don't remove the deletion template before the discussion is over. Its purpose is to inform that there is a deletion discussion going on on the talk page.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not about DMOZ, there is just not enough accurate sources to cite, because this entity is not worthy of article as such. There official website has not been updated in seven years, this coupled with the lack of credible sources make it impossible to put together a well written article. Wikipedia has tagged the article for a lack of citations and poorly sourced as well. I don't think any ULC should be on Wikipedia or RationalWiki, it is not credible it is not newsworthy.Stmichael1060 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you consider promotional? You don't just burn, nor do you make a claim without supporting it.Stmichael1060 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Roll back to previous version, circa Feb 2013.  It's an on-mission topic.  07:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Weaseloid. It's on-mission and the Feb. 2013 version is something we can work off of. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be deleted, the ULC in Modesto is pretty much out of business, there website ulchq.com which is the only official website has not been updated since 2006. Andre Hensley in the Modesto Bee states he just wants to be a Pastor. The ULC Modesto on the internet is being kept going by Ministers looking to make money, ulc.net which is proprietary to the ULC Bookstore. Regarding honorary degrees or degree mill any Church can issue these, the University of Notre Dame issues far more than any ULC combined. The bottom line is none of the ULC's are really worthy of encyclopedia type archive. Even Wikipedia has tagged the article to be better cited and updated. Even DMOZ has tossed ULC Modesto. Agree with Zooguard it should be deleted. Weaseloid sounds biased and loyal to this Modesto organization. Yes I've been adding information about the Monastery and World HQ because it is these two entities that are active. Modesto has been inactive since 2006. Check out their official website it still talks of an upcoming funeral in 2006 for Lida Hensley, www.ulchq.com I was only to fix it, but Zooguard is unbiased and correct. You can't fix something that is unfixable and ULC Modesto website that has not been updated since 2006, that is 7 years ago makes it impossible to fix. Stmichael1060 (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So why did you try to change this into an article about the Modesto organisation? 17:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making changes, but adding to it and correcting information attempting to make something out of nothing. Weaseloid you have loyalty to Modesto, but I'm sorry ZooGuard is right and so are the Wikipedia editors, because there are no real reputable sources. There are a bunch of garbage sources that were originated for simple self promotion, not any real iron clad sources because the fact the ULC Modesto is one big scam. None of this ULC stuff deserves a spot is the history books, all of it is a bunch a folks running around looking to make money. You have one that is Christian, one is not, it is all about how much money they can make? It is like MLM nutritional companies, they all want you to think they have a break through life saving product. You just can't find any legitimate sources or credibility to substantiate an article. Perhaps an article in National Enquirer. It is foolishness and nonsense. Zooguard is correct, you cite a source, by tomorrow the other ULC will modify it or destroy it. There is no way we could ever source credible information to substantiate an article, because it does not exist.Stmichael1060 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for rambling on, but this needs to be said. For over a year Wikipedia's article on the ULC has been tagged, sources are outdated and it needs better citations. This doesn't make Wikipedia look good. They have a dead end article that can't be fixed, why they just don't delete it is a good question? Some ULC old timers would rather have an outdated article that makes not only Wikipedia look bad, but the ULC as well. You need to take Wikipedia into consideration, combined with Zooguard and come to admit, there are no better citations or updated sources, if there was they would be updating Wikipedia. Stmichael1060 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How could I possibly have "loyalty" to any of these organisations? Again, you are the one who changed this from an article about ULC (generally) into an article about the Modesto version specifically.  Nobody else is supporting that change of focus, which is why I changed it back to an article about all of the churches.  As far as I'm concerned, they're all pretty interchangeable & trying to document the ups & downs of individual organisations is a waste of time.  But the subject itself is within this site's missions (which have nothing to do with Wikipedia's).  19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the subject can't be verified by quality neutral sources. The only thing that can be verified is that Hensley was a conman, the Church has had a history of legal issues and for the most part it is a money making endeavor. The only similarity with Wikipedia is any source is outdated, questionable and cannot be verified or cited by a neutral unbiased source. This is what Zooguard is saying. It is poorly sourced and you can't create credible sources when there are none.Stmichael1060 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Weaseloid I rolled back to zooguard's last revision, no agreement was reached to rollback to February. Like zooguard climbed on my butt for about removing the tag, you go out and do the same thing. This is a discussion about deletion. Lets discuss that before any decision is made. Like zooguard says, rollback to February does not resolve the problem. Lets not remove the delete tag again until it is decided to do so.Stmichael1060 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep On mission, except when it's in the Stmichael1060 version. Hipo crite 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

marriage laws in the states
The section on marriage laws here has false information:

"Some states require that a person have a Doctor of Divinity to qualify as a chaplain, to perform funerals, and other traditionally religious societal functions. The ULC and rival organizations offer honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees as well as ordinations, which legally satisfy the requirements of state laws"

This is not correct, and may be an attempt to make people think they need a Doctor of Divinity degree (cost of $50 to $500 from ulcnetwork.com) to perform various ministerial duties.

The truth is that the only ceremony a minister would need to register with state governments would be marriages; this is because of the tax benefits of being married. Further, an honorary D.Div degree is not a legal document nor a real degree. If one needed to register with a local government to perform a wedding, they would most likely need some kind of certificate credential or a letter confirming their good standing in the church.

Under no circumstance would one have to register with the government to perform a funeral or a baptism. The government is not involved in these ceremonies at all, save for the filing of the certificate of death.
 * Can you suggest better wording? Or, if you feel like you can, you could make edits and change the article yourself.  It sounds like you know what you're talking about.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 20:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

ulcnetwork.com does not charge for honorary doctorate degrees, they provide them absolutely FREE

ref: http://uniqueweb.cart32.com/cgi-bin/cart32.exe/ULCCOMMUNIT-store?catid=1054294160&prodid=1054020850

to do so it makes the organization a diploma mill. ulcnetwork.com charges $495.00 for degrees through an affiliate college, these are not honorary degrees it clearly states "Earned Degrees"

ref: http://uniqueweb.cart32.com/cgi-bin/cart32.exe/ULCCOMMUNIT-store?catid=1054017550&prodid=1054136390

But you are correct other than that, except that some states require a Minister to be affiliated with a Church on that state or commonwealth's soil, secondly there are four states that do not recognize ULC Modesto ordinations because they do not have a doctrine of faith. (Virginia, Pennsylvania, parts of Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas plus others) Ref: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/diploma-mill/

According to 20 USCS § 1003(7), the term “diploma mill” means “an entity that--

(A) (i) offers, for a fee, degrees, diplomas, or certificates, that may be used to represent to the general public that the individual possessing such a degree, diploma, or certificate has completed a program of post secondary education or training; and

(ii) requires such individual to complete little or no education or coursework to obtain such degree, diploma, or certificate; and

(B) lacks accreditation by an accrediting agency or association that is recognized as an accrediting agency or association of institutions of higher education (as such term is defined in section 102 [20 USCS § 1002]) by--

(i) the Secretary pursuant to subpart 2 of part H of title IV [20 USCS § 1099b]; or

(ii) a Federal agency, State government, or other organization or association that recognizes accrediting agencies or associations.”18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: I changed it and added a citation - this should be sufficient.Stmichael1060 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Weaseloid This is not a promotional page
Weaseloid this is not a promotional page for ULC Modesto and a page for you to attack another ULC. Just like with Wikipedia this ULC Modesto attempts to use these Wiki pages for promotion. There is no need to highlight free this or free that and indicate who charges or who doesn't charge. You are attempting to turn into a Walmart. I added several citations from very reliable sources, Cornell University and Government Office. I suggest you read the laws regarding diploma mills.

This page really should be deleted but rationalwiki doesn't see it that way, they want us to work together. Lets stop promoting your favorite ULC. Tell Amy or Andre you can't be their pawn anymore.Stmichael1060 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't I know?
Why didn't I know about this place before? In just 2 minutes, I have made myself an officially ordained minister! 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. Just waiting on the official documents so I can go to the county clerk and get legal. Majintahu (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly written by the owner of the "Headquarters"
This page should be either re-written, or taken down. As far as my knowledge goes, there is no record ANYWHERE of Bill Clinton accrediting any of the Universal Life Church(s), and it packed with self promotion. And clearly, I am not the only one who can see that.
 * The self-promo version was removed; see dialogue above + article history. If you have a problem with the stuff about Clinton, why did you leave it in, & write his name a second time?  & Why take out the part pointing out that the "Headquarters" church uses a nominal creed as a legal loophole?  Highlighting the organisation's hypocrisy is relevant to our site missions.  Why would you think that content so critical of the church would be written by them?  00:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Afd
Kept per RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Universal Life Church. Sophie Wilder  18:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)