Talk:Ernest Angley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Ohio, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ohio. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

To Modusoperandi: Faith healing is widely understood as healing through one's own faith, whether that be faith in a power or one's one power or chi. Ernest Angley has said publicly and in print that he is not a faith healer as most people describe it. He has no faith in his own power, but just prays for people in the name of Jesus and it is Jesus who gives the healing. The words "faith healing" have taken on so many definitions and have been associated with those in the 1800's that did not use the name Jesus in their prayers for others. These would claim that they personally are the healers. Ernest Angley has never claimed to heal anyone, in public or print. You can read many articles that he has written at http://www.ernestangley.org . Furthermore, the blog that you have submitted for discussion was reviewed and it is obvious that you wish to discredit Ernest Angley based on your own beliefs or disbeliefs. Wikipedia articles are not meant to reveal an editors beliefs, but just the facts about a person, place, thing, event, etc. Therefore, your discussion was removed. This Wikipedia article is based on the facts about this individual's life and we, the readers and editors, should not include our beliefs, intents to discredit or defame an individual. I hope you'll be understanding.

"The article you mentioned at beginning was inverstigated and found based on lies and removed." Can you(user:shogun7?) site the proofs that led to the removal? If the pamplet (that read in part, "Lame walk! Deaf hear! Blind see! AIDS & other Death Diseases Healed!") was a fabrication then why does his own website specifically mention "There's a person: You have AIDS," discerned the man of God. "I'm not going to point you out. But you're a man, healed right now, saith the Lord, of AIDS"/"You never thought it could happen to you; you thought you would die from AIDS," said the man of God. "In fact, you came tonight for something else, but you're now healed of AIDS."?

Whether it is, or is not faith healing is not my opinion, biased or otherwise. Semantics and opinions aside, it is faith healing. OED defines "faith healing" as "healing acheived by faith and prayer as opposed to conventional medicine". I'd link the OED site, but I'm using the paper edition as the online one appears to require a login.

I'm trying not to appear biased, originally I found some info not mentioned within his article and posted it here hoping to get confirmation or denial (coloured with comments of my hopelessly biased opinion, as I thought at the time that "talk" meant "speak freely". I have since been corrected on that matter). Instead the whole post got bumped as biased, so I self edited it and posted again. Again it got bumped, this time as biased and based on lies. So I'm trying one last time, no bias, questions only. I understand that the blog I linked was biased, I have yet to find anything that mentions the pamphlet or his trip to Africa neutrally (the closest to a neutral stance article I found was one on his 747). If the pamphlet was "based on lies", why are do the promises on match those of his website?

I'd just like, if possible, to get the whole story; siting proofs of the counterfeit nature of the pamphlet now would be a good start. Siting them before editing out posts would have been more neighbourly. Modusoperandi 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's now more obvious to me that you and I have a misunderstanding that I wish to correct and I apologize for not being more clear. When I stated that the blog article was based on lies I was not refering to the crusade announcement pamphlet that was used to advertise the Ernest Angley service in Lesotho. I was refering to the biased blog comment that you referenced. It was from a person who doesn't believe in God healing anyone and was seeking to discredit Ernest Angley. After investigating who the blogger is and other associated articles it was found that he was not an eyewitness to the Ernest Angley services nor did he interview anyone that attended. I did interview many who attended and was not able to prove that the Ernest Angley's claims in the pamphlet were not in fact true. There were people in Lesotho a year ago that had been diagnosed with HIV and who, after attended Ernest Angley's service, went back to the hospital and HIV was no longer found in their body. Futhermore, I believe the blogger stated that Ernest Angley was just there to take money from "these poor Africans" or something like that. It is widely known even among government officials that Ernest Angley doesn't take money out of the countries that he visits. In fact, the king of Lesotho even invited Ernest Angley for a personal meeting for the second year in a row and has made a statement that he will personally attend and speak at Ernest Angley's next service when he returns to Lesotho. That certainly doesn't sound like the same reaction that the blogger had. I wasn't going to mention any of this because I'm not trying to bring testimonials into this article or discussion since that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. But, to try to clear up our misunderstandings I felt I had to divulge this information about my own investigations. I admit, I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to evangelists, but when it comes to Ernest Angley I haven't found anything to refute the evidence of his proclamation of miracles. Having stated all this, I still believe it is best for editors and readers to not present our own views (negative or positive) in regard to any person that is included in Wikipedia articles or discussions, nor should we include others opinions such as the blogger who obviously doesn't care for Christian proclamations of miracles. His beliefs or disbeliefs have no place in a discussion about Ernest Angley, but should remain on his own blog. Shogon7 22 April 2006

It's okay. The problem with comms by text is that humans are visual beasts so, when keyboarding (not a verb, I know), we end up missing any visual clues that denote emotion or emotional response to emotion. I too, tried to find neutral, unbiased accounts of Mr. Angley's travels, but failed.

I'll let you in on a secret; unbiased accounts of anything are just about impossible, the best that we can hope to do is get (and present) both sides of the story. Perhaps criticism would be appropriate for something under the title of "criticism"? There were pages that were less biased, but that was the first one that I found, and none were unbiased. Plus (warning! my opinion follows!) saying that one is not a faith healer when one clearly faith heals, semantics aside, irks me. It would be (warning! terrible analogy follows!) like me, from my cubicle, saying that I'm not an office drone.

It would be good if we could afford a good scientific double-blind test of Angley's work; no matter the outcome, we'd at least have a period to put at the end of the sentence.

Perhaps we could put The Amazing Randi, and a documentary crew on it? (Nuts! My skepticism has reappeared. I'm sorry, it's just that Popoff soured me on the whole concept. That Popoff is still in business sours me more. Sigh). Randi would get to the bottom of it, though...heck, I'd see Angley in person, but the worst thing I have that could use curing is male-pattern baldness (and there's no way I'd risk wasting a miracle on something so vain). Modusoperandi 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "faith healer" denotes that the person is a "healer". This article simply states that Ernest Angley doesn't claim that title as a healer or faith healer. He has never claimed to heal anyone. So, since the article is simply stating what he doesn't identify himself as a faith healer, that isn't wrong in itself. It's simply stating his statement and this Wikipedia article is about him, not me or you. You can believe whatever you want about what makes a faith healer a faith healer, but to be "irked" by someone elses belief in an article about that person is a bit odd to me (sorry if you're offended, I'm not saying you're odd). Furthermore, a discussion that you and I or anyone else should attempt to prove or disprove whether God is healing anyone at any of Ernest Angley's services really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but rather in a religion forum on another site. This Wikipedia article (or stub) about Ernest Angley is not a place to share our own beliefs or disbeliefs. It is an article about a Ernest Angley, HIS belief and HIS mission in life. Whether you or I agree with his doctrine or not makes no difference in this article nor should it in this discussion. Shogon 7 23 April 2006

I see your point. Checking out other Wiki articles on people I found all of them to be historical context only, no criticism or outside views (talk pages excluded). Only pages that are about subjects that are "bigger" than one person seem to contain sections with views other than those of the subject of the article. I understand now that if Randi were to prove or disprove Ernest then it would be okay to discuss here.

My point that one who faith heals is a faith healer is valid however, Ernest's opinion on the matter notwithstanding.

This is part of why I leave the article pages to the experts and ask questions on the talk pages; I learn about things on the article page, then get answers to questions on the talk page. Sorry if I come off as a pest. Modusoperandi 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment in response to Modusoperandi and his comment about Popoff: Yes, it irks me too about people like Popoff that are conning people, but I personally found out for myself that Ernest Angley is a whole different type of person. My wife and I sat in the very back of his auditorium in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio at one of his services one Friday night. We had never discussed my wife's tumor at the base of her brain with anyone, not even with her own parents. No one knew the agony she was suffering and she wanted to keep it a secret. Well, to our astonishment, during the service after Angley had preached, he pointed right at her and told her exactly what was wrong with her right down to very specific symptoms she was having and that he knew that God was healing her of the tumor. That night I reached around to the back of her head (where the tumor had originally expanded to pushing out) and it was completely gone. She is still cured today and that happened a number of years ago. So, of course, I am a believer that God does perform miracles. There are a lot of fakes in this world, but Angley isn't one of them. I'm thankful there are some good people still in this world that are helping people find faith in God and not trying to get rich. A newspaper reported what Angley's salary is and I make more than he does (I'm considered middle/lower class). I think a lot of us have been mistaken about this man, based on stereotypes. If my comments are considered too bias then go ahead and remove them, but I thought I'd share this to help us all realize we should be careful not to judge people too quickly. Let's try not to be skeptical of everything, but keep an open mind. May 3, 2006 TruthSeek (newly registered)

You're right, he is different than Popoff. How much different is, however, a matter of debate. Apparently James Randi did investigate him, at least that's what Randi (or an acceptable facsimile thereof) said in a reply to an email I sent to Randi.org querying who was investigated in The Faith Healers. How it turned out, I don't know, as I spend way too much time working or editing on Uncylopedia and not enough time making my brain do work by reading books. I hope to pick up a copy soon (soon being, unfortunately, relative).

That it worked for you and that he's not in it for the money are two huge check marks in my good column. I'm still skeptical, and probably always will be (even if I saw him and was healed of whatever ailed me I'd still be wondering about the how and why. Truthfully, I hope to never test this theory; I wouldn't wish disease on my worst enemy, nor would I do so for myself; the first would be petty, and the second, silly.).

Although others may chafe at your (or my) bias, I believe that the "talk" pages are about talking. Good discussion is the tasty icing on the filling cake of the article page (see Talk:Theodore_Roosevelt or Talk:Homeopathy for good examples of sometimes wildly biased, but civil, dialectic). Modusoperandi 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I admire Randi for his work in exposing psychics and such as frauds, when it comes to trying to disprove God's existance or disprove that God performs miracles through good people who aren't out to get rich, I must say Randi and those like him are like those that Jesus spoke of in Luke 16:30-31. Some people will never believe in a supernatural force or supreme being even if someone rose from the dead. Randi would have been one of those in Matthew 16:1-4 that were desiring a sign from Jesus. You can read what Jesus said. On a seperate thought, I like the "tasty icing" analogy - good one. TruthSeek 4 May 2006

I'm no master of english, but I'm pretty sure that the antonym of faith would be skepticism. 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I agree that we should not be bias in our editing or discussion.

I completely agree that we as editors have a responsibility to make sure our additions and discussions do not include our own bias. There are way too many articles throughout Wikipedia that are filled with people's own opinions (positive and negative) about individuals that it has really discredited Wikipedia as a whole.

[edit] Why would Hetar remove the photo of Ernest Angley?

To Hetar: Why in this world would you remove a photo of the person that the article is about? Have you not seen his website which shows a photo of him. It is Ernest Angley, therefore the photo was reinstated. Did you just not like it because he was holding a Bible? The man is a Christian minister so the Bible is certainly appropriate to be within the photo. Some people just shock me at their editing procedures. That photo can be verified by watching TV, looking at his website, seeing him in-person, etc. 3 May, 2006 Shogon7

I now realize that Wikipedia needed the photo source info so they wouldn't be violating any copyright laws, so the source has been provided, but the source info may still not have been placed in the right area so that the image is considered sourced. Can anyone help with this? I will check with the Creative Services Dept. at his ministry headquarters. 10 May, 2006 Shogon7

[edit] Who is he?

I once asked Ernest what his real name is, and he told me that was his real name. I asked for his birthdate, and he refused to answer. I asked his specific place of birth, and he refused to answer. I asked for his educational institutions, his seminary, and he refused to tell me. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know either. Do any of you? If God can heal people through his hand, why do we need hospitals and funeral homes?

To whomever posted the above question: It sounds like you may have come across to him as rude and undeserving of the answers you were seeking. I don't know what country you are from or who you are, but it's considered rude to ask a person their age and personal information. It's sounds like you were just trying to give him a hard time. Yes, that is his real name, why would you doubt that? I suggest that you get his autobiography which may answer a lot of your questions. As far as your question about healing, many people including Ernest Angley believe that medicine, doctors, nurses and hospitals are one of the ways that God has given mankind healing. God put healing in nature and wisdom to those in the medical field to use medicine to help us. There's also divine healing which takes place without man's help. As far as death, it comes to mankind because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. God gave them a choice and the wrong choice they made meant death entered the human race and all their decendents. But, according to the Bible, God has given all of us a second chance at eternal life by accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made when he died in our place. Our souls can be redeemed, but our bodies will eventually go back to the dust of the earth. This isn't the perfect world that God had intended us to live in. It's not His fault, but our own for making the wrong choices, starting with Adam and Eve choosing to disobey God. Thank God that he has had mercy upon this world or he would have already destroyed it. I'm sure it grieves Him everyday to see death, murders, violence, etc. upon this earth. He didn't want robots to serve Him so he gave mankind free choice and He now only intervenes thru prayer. Hope this helps answer your question. There's a lot more that Ernest Angley gives in detail in His books that has helped me understand more about God and the Bible. TrumpetGirl, 20:10 12 July 2006