Talk:Sacred Name Movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed edit

The article stated (now corrected 9/18/08) that Elder Jacob O. Meyer of the Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel was a student of Traina. This is not so. This statement should be removed as it is not accurate.

The article stated (now corrected 9/18/08) that Elder Jacob O. Meyer studied with the Assembly of Yahweh in Holt Mich. This is not accurate in the sense that Elder Meyer was studying "under" the Holt group. The most that can be established is that he proposed to the Mich. group doctrines that are taught in the Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel PA. They where not received and Elder Meyer has never been a member or held any position in the Assembly of Yahweh (formerly Assembly of YHVH) of Holt Mich. (Added note as of 9/24/08- Elder Jacob O. Meyer has presented the doctrines of the Assemblies of Yahweh directly to several religious orginizations. That does not mean that he "leaves them" and goes and forms the AOY. Once again as stated above, Elder Meyer has never held any membership or position with this Holt Mich. group that he could leave.)

For these reasons it is proposed that these two statements be deleted without altering the remainder of the text. I will leave this in the discussion for about 10 days before doing so. (This discussion has been posted for some time now, since the beging of 9/2008)

(Note also the "Assemblies of Yahweh and The Sacred Name Movement" section on this discussion page near the bottom.)

Made proposed edits 9/18/08, 14 days after initial posting of this proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fctedt (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement

From researching the Assemblies of Yahweh, I would just like to reiterate that the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement, though the article may suggest it. See "Assemblies of Yahweh and The Sacred Name Movement" further down...Mod objective (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the article published by the Reading Eagle was pretty well balanced. Verifiable criticisms were included, but what does that have to do with this (SNM) article? Just because it (Reading Eagle Article) does not say what you want it to or is written differently than you would have written it means it should not be discounted.

We are not attacking anyone, but NPOV and accountability are standards of Wikipedia. Improper edits will be reverted. Do you realize that you (Anon), are the one not playing by accepted standards? Please read the Wikipedia guidelines. (Also, it would really help for you to educate yourself on how to edit by reading a bunch of other articles to see how they are written. Then you can pattern your edits after that.)

REPLY: And you accuse others of not "playing by accepted standards" the fact that you keep putting your link to your article in the Reading Eagle into the body of the article is NOT an accepted standard. Put your links in the link section, then maybe they won't get removed by Wikipedia. Why put an irrelevant and biased article from the Reading Eagle back into the article anyway? Before you wrote the article, did you interview everyone concerned about the turmoil in the group? And if so, why did you not put all that they said into your article? When people feel that they were "trashed" in an article, it is surely a sign of biased reporting.

Perhaps the Reading Eagle should send some out who is not biased to gather all the information that was never published and print an unbiased story. Personally, I really don't care what your paper writes, to tell you the truth, biased reporting is biased reporting!. However, when you are in here your should try to be unbiased and just print the facts and not the fiction that you have been posting. If you don't like the historical facts then go somewhere else, like the groups website, and write all the propaganda you want.

Accusing others of writing "attacks" while they are contributing the real facts is an attack in itself. Period. Maybe you should read the Wikipedia guidelines yourself, from things I see you and AOY followers putting in here. Writing opinion instead of facts is not the point of Wikipedia. An example of this is, "Assemblies of Yahweh is not a part of the Sacred Name Movement" and then you link to an article that lists them as a part of the Sacred Name Movement. If they are not a part of the Sacred Name Movement, then remove them completely from the article on the SNM! And BTW don't try to quote yourself as "proof" that AOY is not a part of the SNM, perhaps you should say, "They once were a part of of SNM, but now they now don't want to be a part of the SNM," or something to that effect.

The last time you were vandalizing the Assemblies of Yahweh article an anonymous editing-block had to be placed on it. If you refuse to be logical and productive we will need to appeal to Wikipedia. (All interested individuals please respond so we can get a consensus of how to move forward). Thank You :)

WEMUS (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: I did not write the original article, nor do I know who did. The fact that you and AOY don't want the facts out there, that they wrote about, is pretty obvious. You and AOY are the ones vandalizing the criticism section, it looks like you can't stand criticism that the original author wrote about.

It looks like that you don't want people to know that you are not the "only ones" in this movement (which you claim that they are not a part of-- how ironic or perhaps moronic). Or perhaps that you don't like the fact that so many left this organization and you don't want the "new recruits" to find out and ask "Why"? Many have read the rogue website that this group has maintained and how it attacks others (especially other SN groups) that they don't like, anyone with any amount of objectivity can see what they are trying to do. And interestingly I have documentation right here, that shows that Meyer was a part of the SNM and in his own words! So why keep lying about it and vandalizing these articles??

And another thing, you were asked to put your objections to each statement of this article that you object to and explain why on the discussion page, but I see you refuse to do that. Perhaps you don't have a leg to stand on?


Productivity is marked by advancement. Please (Anon), follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Your slanderous attacks are not in the best interest of Wikipedia, this article or humankind for that matter.

If I am an individual sitting in my basement in Wisconsin or The "Blasted" Elder Jacob O. Meyer himself in Bethel, it is irrelevant-if the facts are correct, which yours are not. If you dispise him so, why are you fighting to claim him as your own?

When I referenced this article dealing with the attacks that the Anon was perpetrating on the Assemblies of Yahweh article it was with severe trepidation because I suspected that his attention would now been diverted. Well look at that, I was right.

Please, let's start to become productive. WEMUS (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: First of all, Rebecca VanderMeulen, a good reporter will ask at least five questions: Who? What? Where? When? and Why? It seem that you like to write a lot about "who" and "what" but never about "why?". For example you like to leave in the fact that there was a "split" but you don't want to give the facts about "WHY?" I wonder why that it is? Is there something that you are trying to hide? If so, why? And you continually use the Meyer "duck for cover" tactic of trying to address everything as an "attack". Are we to assume then that the COURT records and other sources (including his own statements) are "attacking" poor Mr. Meyer or his followers as you suggest? NO ONE IS ATTACHING ANYONE, THEY ARE JUST PRESENTING THE RECORD OF FACTS FOUND IN VERIFIABLE COURT RECORD, PERIOD! I have been around this movement for many years and have the facts, including the fact that Meyer has been around the Sacred Name Movement, which you try to deny. What exactly is you game? You call this an attack? No, Rebecca VanderMeulen no one is "attacking" anyone, they are just supplying the "Why?" which you will not. Many have worked many hours trying to supply and VERIFY facts before they are put in here, even though they came from a reliable source. So WEMUS or Rebecca please stop vandalizing these articles. If you can supply one statement in these articles that is UNTRUE please do so, by stating the exact quote and why you think it is untrue. We will then agree to remove it, if it is unverifiable. I sincerely do not believe that there will be anything removed under these guidelines. If I have put it in I will verify, I NEVER put things that I think are not true or are unverifiable. However, I did not write most of these articles and these things were already there, you and other follower of the Meyer group have tried to whittle them down to nothing or remove them completely as you have the criticism section on another article. Why? Are you embarrassed about your distant relative or the behavior or his followers? They say they are following the scriptures, does child molestation qualify as following the scriptures. Why don't you do your job and look up court documents while you are at the courthouse and ask you distant relative about charges of Child molestation filed against his members/and/or family? It is not the job of a journalist to write pretty little stories, but to write the facts even though they may not be pretty.

I guess you have read my comments on your vandalism and now you think that you are a prophet, by making comments after the facts.

AGAIN, Reccab (WEMUS) we ask you to PLEASE stop vandalizing these articles, unless you have facts that can back you up! And Please stop attacking the writers who are only trying to present the historical facts here, this tactic is very childish and smacks at Meyerism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.65.95 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Anon is back at it. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines of NPOV and relevance.WEMUS (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The tags were added because of the lack of information on key areas.

anon - august 2006

I'm still a bit new to the protocols and practices of Wikipedia. Please be patient. I have added several more Sacred Name groups to the list, and WEB links to most of those. I also moved two groups to the bottom of the list, as neither are considered mainstream within the movement. The group with which I am affiliated is left somewhere near the middle.

As a member of this movement since 1975, I should like to continue adding to this listing as an expert, with an eye towards objectivity. I know vast numbers of people in this movement. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Mbanak 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC) - Oct 19, 2006

The tag calling for an expert contributor started to bother me. I have been submitting material to this page over the last several mnonths, with no rebuttal. Perhaps may goal of objectivity has thus far been fulfilled.

That tag has been removed today. There is more to add and to refine, and I will continue to do that. But this Wiki page has provided a venue for publishing objective insights on this movement, without having to write an entire book.

One task that seems important is to provide reference links to other WEB pages, substantiating facts about practices and beliefs for groups and members in the movement. This can be tricky, because WEB pages often disappear, or else the URL is redefined by some new address, thus making a hyper-text link obsolete.

Over time, I shall do the best I can.

Mbanak 14:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to "Rjwilmsi" for fixing typos.

Special Notice for "Loremaster":

I must take exception to your inclusion of this article under Jewsih Christians.

Background: When I stumbled across this entry already up-and-running for the "Sacred Name Movement", I also noticed that it was long neglected and in need of refinement and further work. I have been building-up and refining that entry for some time. I havebeen a member of the 1ovement since 1975, and keep balanced relationships among the various branches of the movement.

I was both stunned and offended to find my work suddenly pulled into the "Jeiwsh Christian" realm. Members of the Sacred Name Movement would very likely join with me in objection to this development. Not only are we not Jewish, but it is rare that a Sacred Namer calls himself a Christian (though some few do).

But the greatest offense is that an image of Messiah (an historicaly flawed rendering I may add) is suddenly part of this reference page. Supppose that it's OK to offend me. That is, it's OK with Wikipedia to to cuase me to momentarily sin by glancing at it (using a Biblical Definition of "offense"). I still can't see how a categorization and and image, having nothing to do with the Sacred Name Movement, can be a justified addition to the entry.

Even more so, the groups which you mention as "Jewsih Christians" would never tolerate such imagery!

I had to remove this associate from the WEB page.

No analogy is perfect. But there is a famous painting, supposedly of the Almighty, bringing a nude Adam to life with the touch of his finger. Try putting THAT on the WEB page for Judaism, and you get a feel for how inappropriate this image is on the Sacred Name Movement web page.

For all I know, you are trying to be inclusive and informative. But I appeal to you to put yourself in our shoes, and not make a fuss over this. I certainly wish you my peace.

Mbanak 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On June 2, 2007 ....

I have been waiting for markups to appear on this page, and I see they were added by wikipedia watcher Dawn bard. And I happily note them.

I am gearing up to finish the section on the last of the Sacred Namer's feast days, "Tabernacles". Then I wish to cleanup an introductory paragraph, composed by someone else.

Then I wish to go back and do a more thorough level of referencing and sourcing for this page. One might argue, I suppose, that the material shold be sourced as it is composed. IN this case, I am struggling with the best way to do that.

Statements made in this material can be referenced by checking the WEB pages linked at the evry end. But that would require a reader to ransack those sources. So I am thinking of having embedded links to precise WEB pages with precise statements, which would support the narratives. However, Wikipedia standards seem to frown on that too, the embedding of external links in the compositions. In the course of referring to Wikipedia for another project, I found out how to do this. The embedded link should take the reader to a list of references at the bottom of the page. THOSE can then be external links.

OK. I trust that I will get to it in due course. While this work is in-process, I am delighted to see the tags and warnings applied to this page.


A free DVD (perhaps cost of postage must be accounted for) "Jesus - Who is he?" - It's been around for a short time (mid 2007)- you can get it on www.trademe.co.nz - I got it - a home made DVD - it is specifically about this subject - very thought provoking


It is Feb 2, 2008. I have added the section on how Sacred Namers observe Tabernacles, along with some other, minor edits. I have been careful, in the compilation of this section, to make it clear that the facts documented could be verified by internet searches or by refering to the literature of these groups. In another visit, I will be attending to various cleanup issues, and finding ways to document and/or reference the information provided in my narratives, as required by Wikipedia standards. My intention is only to inform. I am consciously aware of the need to stay neutral, especially in a Wiki page covering a religious topic.

Also, I see a promotional item listed just above. I did not add it. I am not sure whether advertising promotions are allowed on the discussion page. If I find that this is forbidden, I shall have to delete the reference, below, regardless of whether or not i agree with its contents. Mbanak (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

May 2nd, 2008. I have changed two areas. A reference to the group in Cisco, TX, erroneously cites "early ties" to the group in Abilene Texas. This had to be corrected. Under the section on "Other Doctrines", I felt compelled to correct obvious errors in those assertions. Specifically:

- Spanking emphasis removed; Removed reference[4] {MAB: It was absurd to claim either Sacred Namers or Evangelical Christianity emphasize spanking. Further, to cite a work by Armstrong as evidence of Sacred Name theology is irrelevant.} - Reference to Quantum physics removed {MAB- Neither Sacred Namers nor Evangelicals have any doctrine about Quantum Physics; was this entry a gag?} - Refined position relative to Bible Scholarship - Removed "an aggressively pro-Israel foreign policy." {Sacred Namers do not influence foreign policy, and their opinions about Israel vary widely} - Refined relationship to Armstrongism. - Removed references [6] [7] [8], pursuant to the edits made above

It is my hope that the original author of the items, which I have changed, will accept these corrections in a spirit of goodwill. It would be very impolite to impute to these groups beliefs that are not theirs.

As I continnue to contribute to this page, I try to cover broad trends. The possibilitity of minutiae and over-analysis is all too real. The statements, which I have corrected, would apply only to a cross-section of this movement. But this applies to any religious movement. If we allow the beliefs of the few (or the non-existent) to enter this Wiki page, then we are compelled to render some qualifying statements or pecentages. And THAT calls for original research. I have known Sacred Namers for over 30 years. Believe me, it's not worth it.

Comments welcome. Mbanak (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh and The Sacred Name Movement

I have a question. Under the heading: Sacred Name Family Tree it states that the Elder Meyer split from the Holt MI. group. How can that be if he was never a member of them? Also, near the bottom of the same section the Assemblies of Yahweh is listed as not having ties with Holt. My remedy would be removal of reference to the Assemblies of Yahweh from this section or, maybe remove the "split" comment and maintain the last which would be historically accurate.

Also, Under the heading: Sacred Name Groups the Assemblies of Yahweh is listed although at the bottom of the same section is, and I quote:

"One way to identify mainstream Sacred Namers is whether or not they support the annual Unity Conference, or whether they have friends across organizational boundaries."

To comply with this definition the Assemblies of Yahweh must be removed because it has not and does not support the so-called "Unity Conference".

Thanks for your consideration and input.WEMUS (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been a lot of discussion about the involvement of Elder Meyer with the Sacred Name Movement, and questions about whether the Assemblies of Yahweh is part of the Sacred Name Movement. A movement, unlike an organization with a list of members (such as the United States Congress, the Teamsters, 1st Baptist Church) will have people with different degrees of involvement. Those closer to (what they see as) the center are likely to classify some fringe people as not being part of the movement. Those looking from outside are likely to classify some fringe people as part of the movement. Whether people are involved with the Unity Conference is not the single defining criterion for being part of the movement. I suggest we edit this article with a broader view of the movement, not arguing over details of specific people's status. Wikipedia articles are generally written for outsiders, so that they can quickly gain some understanding of a topic; insiders don't need to read Wikipedia to know about their specialty (whether it be a movement, or other topic). This is my view as an outsider, I suspect at least some insiders may disagree, but it would reduce the acrimony and increase the usefulness of the articles. Pete unseth (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine Section Edit

When I did extensive work on another site, an administrator chastised me for the "Doctrine" section. He said that you cannot use Wikipedia as an information tract but can just list what the belief is, not the supposed substantiation behind that belief. As you can see, this "Doctrine" section is extensive. I feel it should be edited down to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an atheist Wikipedian who has been doing some research into the Sacred Name Movement I would say that in my opinion it's perfectly all right to include extensive doctrinal information, it's just that the information really needs to have been published somewhere besides Wikipedia and needs to be properly cited. It's okay if the source of a citation is a primary rather than a secondary source - a pamphlet put out by a particular church or group, for example - as long as it's properly cited, so that a reader of the article can judge for himself or herself what kind of weight to give to the information. It's even better if you can do multiple primary source citings for the same bit of information - if you can show that several different churches / groups identified as being part of the Sacred Name Movement publish the same doctrinal assertions.
(Of course, ideally we would want almost everything to be from reliable secondary sources like academic publications from scholars of religion but I think it's understandable to be presenting information about the religious doctrine of a relatively small group based upon primary sources.)--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

The matter of external links is always delicate. Some links are seen by certain readers as slanderous or irrelevant, while other readers may see them as very helpful. There has been a sudden deletion of links, by editors (maybe just one) who only use numeric IP addresses (71.51.196.131 and 209.243.29.22), the records show these users having only made a very few edits, and only to a very narrow set of articles. I will reinsert at least some of the links. If these links do not accurately describe the Sacred Name Movement, let editors explain it.Pete unseth (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New edits by Mbanak: Speaking to topics posted above

I have purposely avoided editing this page for a while to allow the contribtutions of others to age. I have written much of the material herein. I am pleased with the overall thrust of edits made since my last visit. In some of my contributions to this page, I have been painfully frank. I would personally love to delete stuff that would be an embarrasment to me or my friends. But that's not the purpose of Wkipedia.

But I *am* particularly keen on deleting statements that shovel false things into the mouths of the innocent. The Wiki editor's nightmare hasn't occurred here yet, thank Heavens. I am particularly annoyed by the last external link (as of Aug 1, 2009), in which a former member finds errors in the movement. In his WEB page, he never manages to identify WHICH group it is that caused him so much personal grief. His bitterness is understandable, but it casts a slanderous pall over everyone else in this loosely-knit fellowship.

The issue of Jacob O. Meyer's relationship to the movement will seem odd to the outsider. The best way to explain it is thus: The Holt MI group was instrumental in starting the Sacred Name Movement. Then the beloved Jacob Meyer spun off and launched a nation-wide outreach, yes even internationally. Today he is on the outside of the Movement, claiming an exclusivity that is unappealing. Many still call him "Brother Jacob". But he will not reciprocate. That's OK. Life goes on. But it is impossible to discuess the SNM without mentioning Jacob Meyer's influence.

Please consider that, in many respects, the publishnig efforts of these groups in past decades (including Meyer's Bethel group) had a disproportionate effect on the emergence of the Hebrew Roots movement. Today, the SNM is just one part of the Hebrew Roots Movement they (unwittingly) helped start. My objective is to provide a fair insight as to who they are, and having read a lot of their literature, I feel qualified to do so. Just trying to fulfill the backronym: WIKI = What I Know Is ...

I agree that citations must be added. Now that this page has settled down, I should like to turn to that matter. Most groups in the movement have published their literature online. This makes for easy linking and citation. It will take some time, but that will be my focus on the next visit.

Comments welcome. Mbanak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Serious issues - risk of deletion

I have tagged this aritcle in several places. I tried to wikify it a bit. This has many serious issues, which are so bad as to merit discussion by the community at WP:AfD for deletion of the whole mess. Please help fix this article, or I will nominate it for deletion by the end of the month. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs lots of help, but please do not nominate it for deletion. The topic is too important. It's hard to find solid information on this movement (for movements are a collection of several smaller stream), but if editors who are knowledgeable would document more facts, that would be helpful to us all. Some editors are struggling with the Neutral Point of View concept, but we still need an article on this topic. Pete unseth (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the article has a number of problems but I think it would be inappropriate to delete it rather than cleaning it up. As noted in the article this sect is mentioned in both The Encyclopedia of American Religions and Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America; it definitely looks notable to me. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Leading contributor responds

I have written much on this page, and I am pleased with it overall, includng the corrections and additions of others. I understand that this is not my private page, and I like it that way. Some of the criticisms have made me scratch my head. Nevertheless, if Wiki wants no listing on this topic, it could be an answer to our prayers to have it deleted. We wouldn't want nowledge of these people to go out where the information would be misunderstood or misused. As indicated above, I really am trying to be fair in my contributions. I will strive to take the recmmondations seriously. Today, I want to experiment with attaching some references to the text, and see how it works. While this is the easiest part, it is also the most time-consuming. Nov 7, 2009 Mbanak (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Leading Contributor Suggests Deletion

I often tell my students, "You can demonstrate a point from Wikipedia, but you cannot prove it by Wikipedia." I believe that gives Wiki its correct place in a researcher's arsenal. It is simply a terrific starting point. I like the Wiki system. I have had several technical papers published, and I understand the importance of accuracy, rigor and discipline. I have tried to do all of these things in the course of my contributions over the last 2 years or so, knowing well that other authors would nibble around the edges, and even post things that I would find unwelcome, but nevertheless worthy of posting. No problem. Learning Wiki methods has been a new experience. It's just not the same as other publishing. Today I have dug into the rules and methods for adding references, and I see a moral and ethical barrier. I sincerely thought that it would be sufficient to add links to various groups, in support of the broad claims I make about them. For example, the fact that Sacred Namers are Sabbatarian can be easily demonstrated by offering links to 2 or 3 groups, on WEB pages where they make this assertion.

Well, I'm all wet on this one. The process I envisioned, (I have just learned), is nothing less than "original research". This is forbidden on Wiki. In fact, to make this article work, you need either a slew of primary references (Like the kind I erroneously envisioned) or else the publications of secondary sources, which are very, very scant in this field.

The most I could salvage, in good conscience, on this page are the opening statements, and the 2 secondary references already cited. Maybe a few external links would do, to give the reader a taste for what's out there.

On the whole, I think this page should be jettisoned. How can we possibly salvage this information if no one has ever wrote about it in-depth before? Even though much of Wikipedia has this problem, I cannot be a part of it.

One final note: The critique about "Peacock" language simply didn't register for me. I have to wonder what the critic was getting at. Help me see that. I am itching to find out whether it is something *I* wrote. Nov 7, 2009 Mbanak (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, that the article needs to be deleted or at least trimmed down to a very basic entry. But I have copied the current content over to a Religion wiki that appears to accede to original research. You may want to continue working on it there. It probably couldn't be used as a source for this article but it might be appropriate to link to it from here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Radically trimmed article November 2009

As noted above, I have made a copy of the article over to Religion Wiki on Wikia where I think the original research nature of most of the content will be more appropriate.

I have trimmed out almost the entirety of the article with the exception of the intro and the cited "History" section. (Which I added the citations to, for full disclosure.) Anyone should feel free to revert me, but I have done this because the article was severely in danger of deletion in its previous state. I'm really pretty surprised that it survived as long as it has.

But as I mentioned up above in this talk page, I do think that the Sacred Name Movement is a notable topic, it's just that the way Wikipedia works, what it says here needs to be backed by good sources. The article is much more likely to survive, and thus be available to people interested in the SNM, if it's trimmed down like this. Religion Wiki is a better venue to write the kind of stuff that was appearing here. So I think that those of you who were writing a lot here should continue over there.

I would also encourage anyone who is a member of a Sacred Name congregation to try to get some tracts and statements of beliefs and practices formally published in your own community, so that such primary sources can be available in the future. You should read about things like the Creative Commons licensing so that things written can be freely redistributed.

And also, any historical writings that have passed out of copyright, like early issues of The Faith magazine if anyone can get a hold of them, would be good candidates to be transcribed and posted on the Wikisource web site. It's pretty likely that anything from before 1964 would be out of copyright. (The author would have had to file for copyright renewal with the United States Copyright Office for it to still be copyrighted, which very few authors did.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article needed to be trimmed or documented, but I am a bit surprised at the extent of the trim. Struthious_Bandersnatch challenges those in the movement to publish things. Actually, there have been things published for decades, Traina and Dodd and co. having printed pamphlets, articles, etc. It should be very possible to cite from the large quantity of publications, even if they are not "books", so that this article can perform a valuable service to the broader community, documenting a topic that is not well known outside of certain circles. Those who have access to such material, please help rebuild this article with more solid documentation. Pete unseth (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I was expecting that people would add the most essential bits back into it (and I'm not the best qualified to tell what the essential parts are.) I just wanted to strip it down to the absolute core to start off with, to obviate any attempt at deletion by other Wikipedians. I do think that what had been written was good, which is why I preserved it over at Religion Wiki; it's just the lack of citation / verifiability problem that has to be tackled.
Another note on citations: there's no need to re-write the article from scratch; as people come up with citations the relevant sections can be copied back from the article history or from Religion Wiki with the citations incorporated. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Name Bibles article

There has been a call to merge the article about Sacred Name Bibles into this one. I gently but firmly disagree. That article is mostly about translation and publishing (though some editors also use it to give their arguments for their positions), but this article is much broader. Also, the Sacred Name Bibles article is much better documented, and I would be disappointed to see it lumped into an article that is criticized for lacking documented sources.Pete unseth (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

After looking at that article and doing various searches for the term "sacred name Bible" I would be inclined to agree with such a merge. There does not appear to be any discussion of sacred name Bibles outside of the Sacred Name Movement; all of the occurrences in Google Books are in direct reference to the SNM or one particular related web site. So it doesn't appear to be a separate topic by Wikipedia standards - it doesn't receive treatment in independent, reliable third-party sources. It doesn't fit Wikipedia's concept of encyclopedic notability, which is necessary for it to merit its own separate article - though of course it's a personally and theologically notable topic to many people.
It might merit a separate article at the Religion Wiki, though, I don't know what the policies there are. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You are close to correct in saying that there have been no third party publications on Sacred Name Bibles. In that article, there is one: Bivin, David. 1991. The Fallacy of Sacred Name Bibles. Jerusalem Perspective Vol. 4.6: 7,12.
Also, I just heard from the editor of the United Bible Societies' journal The Bible Translator that they will publish an article on it in their July issue. So, there is and will be more reputable publications on the Sacred Name Bibles, both addressing the Bibles and translation issues, not the movement. Again, I gently call for keeping the articles separate. The Sacred Name Bibles article is much better documented, and I would be disappointed to see it lumped into this article that is criticized for lacking documented sources.Pete unseth (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If the topic of sacred name Bibles doesn't meet Wikipedia notability / independent article standards right now, it could of course be split off again if it became a topic given wider public attention in the future. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, another thing - if the Sacred Name Bibles article is well-cited then merging its content will actually improve the quality of this article. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

Improvements have been made by Nay Novelist. I think the page needs some pictures. Any ideas as to how to improve it? I honestly can't think of anything else apart from to add other groups involved in the SNM to the page. (SNMovement) 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) La Asamblea de Yahweh Nazarena “Casa de Restauración” es una familia espiritual que se fundó el 24 de noviembre de 1999. Comenzó como una congregación pentecostal desde febrero de 1997 hasta noviembre de 1999 donde ocurre una transición desde el Pentecostalismo cristiano evangélico hacia las Raíces Hebreas de la Fe Bíblica, hasta que finalmente se afilia a la AYIN (Asamblea de Yahweh Internacional) en enero de 2009 La Senda Antigua es un ministerio personal del maestro José Alvarez (conocido como Yosef), de Puerto Rico. Desde enero del 1972 continua publicando la revista La Senda Antigua y transmitir Radio La Voz de la Restauración. Esta revista tiene relación con dos movimientos a nivel internacional: La Asamblea de Yahwéh; y La Congregación de Yahwéh. Ambos movimientos son hermanos y se encuentran representados en muchas naciones del mundo, en diversos idiomas, desde las Américas hasta las islas Filipinas. Nosotros en Italia pertenecemos a la Asamblea de Yahwéh del Séptimo Día; http://www.yahweh7day.org/ que es una transición desde el Adventismo del Séptimo Día hacia las Raíces Hebreas de la Fe Bíblica, el Yahwismo. El primero de los movimientos, la Asamblea de Yahwéh, emplea un estilo conservador de adoración, con servicios apacibles, de meditación, oración y estudio como los elementos principales. Las muestras de alegría y alborozo se limitan a la celebración de las festividades. El segundo de estos movimientos, la Congregación de Yahwéh, es de carácter carismático, con servicios muy expresivos de alabanzas en alta voz y danzas. La Congregación de Yahwéh transmitir Radio Shofar-Sonido Celestial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.73.3 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting sacred name family tree

I'm thinking of being WP:BOLD and deleting the Sacred Name family tree until someone can provide sources for it. Thanks. In Citer (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting of Sacred Name Pentecostals section

This section doesn't provide any references. I am hesitant to have to delete it so if anyone has some sources to back this section up, then please add them to the article. Thanks In Citer (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Want to add this section in to article, but struggiling to find references

"They have extensive dealings with the mainstream Sacred Name groups listed above, exemplified by the fact that they host the Unity Conference every year. Their doctrines differ from mainstream Sacred Name doctrines such as using the vernal equinox to calculate their calendar, rejecting the pre-existence of Yahshua (commonly called Jesus) and differing views on what constitutes Sabbath rest and deviations from it."
I could most probably find a source on the Unity Conference they hold each year, but finding sources for the rest may be a little more difficult unless I go to each SNM group's website and refer to their Statement of Doctrine In Citer (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN, do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the information against them, and citing them.

Adherents

Sacred Name Movement adherents include the following groups:

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

+ It is pretty much an insurmountable bar to use any source other than the groups' own claims. Without a compiled list here contributed by many people, any outsider doesn't really have anywhere to find them to begin searching. 97.42.129.183 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition

Hi Editor2020 You reverted my edit here when I removed the SSBE Bible from the list of SNM Bibles. I removed it from the list because the SNM did not produce the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to remove this Bible from their list. In Citer (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It may not be accepted by all, but the term "Sacred Name Movement" is not a sharply delineated group. Therefore, it is hard to argue that the SSBE is not from the SNM. Some within the SNM may want to say it is not, some may want to say it is. But from the outside, it is reasonable to say that SSBE is from the (broadly defined) SNM. Pete unseth (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The SNM is a sharply delineated group which is why other congregations that use the name Yahweh like the Congregation of Yahweh and the House of Yahweh are not part of the Sacred Name Movement. You can do your own research. They are a number of groups that use the name Yahweh that are not part of the Sacred Name Movement. In Citer (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Since we are talking about a movement, there are always challenges in defining who is in and who is not. Some may claim that they are the core of a movement and that they set the boundaries. But people outside of the core often feel that a movement has much wider and permeable boundaries. It is unlikely that everybody will agree what ideas and which people are part of the movement. 23:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Should we merge the list of Sacred Name Bibles on this page to those at Sacred Name Bible? Editor2020 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sacred_Name_Movement/Archive_1&oldid=943483228"