Talk:Mosaic (church)

Untitled

this page has been modeled after several other non-profit subjects. What exactly is this site advertising?

I agree. This article covers a multi-decade history of a non-profit organization in Los Angeles.

There are conflicting stories about Mosaic (Church) migration from Church on Brady. The history section needs citations to back up the claims. --JohnAdams1984 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

rescued for the moment

Don't mind the wording of the messages. They're standard forms. But it will surely be nominated for deletion once again, unless you provide third-party sources, printed or web, but not from a blog. Has there been any newspaper or TV or religious magazine coverage? This is now the most important factor for new articles here. If you can show that, all religious denominations are considered encyclopedia worthy, & the article can & will be defended. I regret I've not the time to help more personally.DGG 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

this article needs a complete rewrite

it is very poorly written, poorly sourced, and linking to blogs of original research is inappropriate--71.156.166.51 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to "apostolic" leads to a disambiguation page with many possible articles on apostolic. This is unhelpful. It should go to the appropriate article depending on the meaning of "apostolic" within the context of Mosaic Church. I would fix it but I don't know which article on "apostolic" would be the right choice in this context. - Mark Dixon (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

deleted external links in violation of wiki policy

deleted two external links that linked to blogs that are not written by a recognized authority

see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/External_links

Links normally to be avoided

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority--71.156.166.51 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

mosaic is southern baptist

Mosaic is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. See www.SBC.org and do a search for "mosaic". The church on 1539 E. Howard is the church in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.58 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually verified by phone that SBC thinks Mosaic is a part of the denomination. So it looks like Mosaic pastors and small group leaders are expressing views at odds with the SBC. 4.15.244.235 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Mosaic is a registered church of the Southern Baptist Convention. See www.sbc.org and do a search for "Mosaic-La."--JohnAdams1984 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The church is listed at its Hollywood address now on sbc.net. This seems current: https://churches.sbc.net/church/mosaic-hollywood/ YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Mosaic Cult Information Suppression: Third Party Mediation Called For

Okay, so I don't edit Wikipedia frequently, but there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting Mosaic has practiced cult-like activity, and evidently there are a bunch of Wikipedia editors trying to come up with every argument possible to suppress these many testimonies from not only personal blogs, but a blog called MosaicOfPainContinues.blogspot.com, and two other blogs, one of which is by a published Christian author-ministry and the other which is a long-established Christian ministry.

These are credible sources by a consensus of wide-reaching popular opinion that deserves some credit or mention. And every time you have a cult, like Mormonism, you have these pushbacks to getting information out there that the audience needs to know. Cults actually hire and organize teams of editors. When the so-called Church of Later-Day Saints did this, Wikipedia made an editorial judgement to halt this manipulation by the cult. And I think that's what needs to happen here.

I'd really appreciate it if a third party could assess the various claims Web-wide that Mosaic is a cult, on the grounds that it defies scripture or orthodox Christianity, and has a large chorus of the general public crying out that they have been hurt or at least emotionally abused by Mosaic.

This would be my formal request for third-party intervention in what is turning into a war of disruptive vandalism deletion. The fact is people who were trying to add information about Mosaic's cult accusations were not "disrupting" Wikipedia. It's real, it's on the internet in both published Christian sources which have been included in the article and then deleted, and also in independent sources representing a variety of real people. And whoever is suppressing this information needs to stop, in the opinion of this editor. 4.16.24.107 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are simply not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPS. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, StAnselm, Thanks for engaging on the talk page to explain your blanking. You said, "Blogs are simply not allowed as sources on Wikipedia." First off, you deleted more than a blog. You blanked a quote from an interview with published source in which the Senior Pastor gave to a reputed religious online publication in which he personally admitted that his church has been accused of being a cult. That meets both Wikipedia's verifiability terms regarding "the type of the work" and "the publisher of of the work." It's not a self-published source, and it's a direct quote attributed to the senior pastor of the organization in question. What is more credible than that?

But it's not as simple as all blogs not being allowed as sources. Again, we have to consider "the author of the work." Now, granted, it looks like in some of the previous revisions to the article, there were some legitimately unreliable sources. And it looks like in subsequent revisions, the thoroughly unreliable sources have been removed.

But again, StAnselm, we need to consider type, creator, and publisher of the remaining sources which you blanked out, including a current Christian online magazine citing the Senior Pastor of Mosaic. That's undisputed credibility.

Furthermore, it's not as simple as "all blogs are bad." Self-published blogs are bad- at least generally. . Because not all blogs are bad- particularly if they're not "self-published," like who has been acknowledged by one of the foremost anti-cult Christian ministries of our time, Christian Research Institute. It represents one of America's foremost Christian traditions, and so Ken Silva is an acknowledged historical Christian authority who authored this source. http://apprising.org/2010/09/11/erwin-mcmanus-the-mouth-that-roared/

Let's look at another author of the remaining sources you blanked. http://falsifiedministries.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-is-erwin-mcmanus-doing-at.html Who's the author? Vincent and Lori Williams. Who the heck are Vincent and Lori Williams, you ask? Well, they're published authors. They wrote a book called "Falsified," published by Thomas Nelson and written about in some of the most credible online Christian publications of our time, most notably the Christian Post .

That leaves us with the http://mosaicofpaincontinues.wordpress.com blog. And yes, it's a self-published source. But it contains a wealth of information with sources and minority views. Not only does it reference Erwin McManus interviews in official sources, but it provides, in addition to its bias, inclusion of minority viewpoints from pro-Mosaic sources in defense of Mosaic as not a cult. For instance: "I'm curious and would like to humbly to pose this last question: what is the goal or mission statement for Mosaic of Pain? In my opinion that is where the conversation should go next in order to try and predict where this will end up and what the consequences could be. Thanks for taking the time to read my entry. Feel free to contact me at Godsrn@aol.com or phone 323-481-8322 to respond or just to say hello. " So what you have published here on Mosaic of Pain is a viewpoint that challenges the author's viewpoint, and has been allowed to stay on the page of Mosaic of Pain. Furthermore, it's from a Mosaic insider. Someone actively serving at Mosaic.

And again, you can argue that yes, this is self-published. But again, this is not just another self-published blog. It is reflecting an open-mindedness to criticism by allowing posts from a Mosaic insider challenging the author.

But another reason this blog is special is that it is actually kind of a time capsule. It is long-standing, and the fact that it has survived so long adds to its credibility by virtue of its age. It appears that the last active post on the blog was back in Thursday, September 2, 2012. That was four years ago. So this is a real part of Mosaic's history that belongs in the history section if not the cult section.

This blog is called "MosaicofPainContinues" rather than "Mosaic of Pain" because it is actually the continuation of a former blog that somebody tried to suppress by removing from the Web, and this particular author deemed that the content was worthy of reprising in another blog.

Which begs the question, why are there so many people with first-hand experience who commented from another era regarding this historical blog devoted to exposing the pains of Mosaic attendees? Which brings us to another consideration.

Previous vandalism blankings before yours of this article were based on an accusation that this Occult Accusation section which you blanked based on the premise that the Occult Accusations are merely a fringe theory. And that's why this historical blog also reveals a significant element of truth very relevant to Wikipedia's terms and conditions.

Accusations of Mosaic practicing as a cult, or occult theology or sociology, are NOT a fringe theory, even within Mosaic's own relevant community "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Mosaic of Pain Continues is an exceptional source, in that it represents a chorus of "relevant community" people, including people serving Mosaic, who attest to or at least acknowledge Mosaic's cult-like activity along with the undisputed Senior Pastor interview. And so if nothing else, this source, mosaicofpaincontinues.wordpress.com demonstrates that within Mosaic's "relevant community," there is some sizable and historical consensus that Mosaic practices as a cult.

For the above reasons- the very credible, undisputed interview of the Senior Pastor of Mosaic himself, along with the blogs of published and well-documented authors within the relevant Christian community, as well as the relevant Mosaic local community, and attending community, the indisputable fact of Mosaic's repeated insider and outsider cult accusations deserves a place in Mosaic's history. 4.15.164.42 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. However, you have clearly misunderstood WP policy on self-published sources, especially as they relate to BLPs. I agree that Segment Mag could in some ways be used as a source, but to repeat a third-hand remark like this one is surely a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. It seems to have an anti-Mosaic POV that you are pushing. Moreover, your reference to people "vandalising" the page by removing your additions doesn't help matters. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How is a direct, published quote gossip? And isn't suppressing information presenting a bias the other way? And how is this a biography? 4.15.244.235 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the direct quote was a second-hand report that someone thought the church was a cult. As for BLP policy, it applies to all articles that impinge on living people, bot just biographies. StAnselm (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Public figures Policy shortcuts: WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." The "public scandal" is evidenced by the wealth of independent blogs attesting to it. I need to ask you and the Wikipedia administrator who helped blank this section to refrain from bias in favor of this organization and help present a clear, balanced article that does not cover up the negatives based on your bias and potentially that of the wiki editor who blanked the page. I kind of see the concern, which in the case of living people is mainly privacy, but this is a direct quote, in which the person's denial of the organization's cult activity is implicit in the direct quote, and nothing is altered in what he said. It is very clear that the Senior Pastor is not claiming to run a cult, but is relaying that someone else accuses the organization of which he is head of operating like a cult, to a rational wikipedia reader, and in the quote is the reason that the person he is quoting has accused it of being a cult, so it is not misleading. The direct quote contains all the context for a rational person to discern exactly what was said and why it was said. If you want to go ahead and clarify that the senior pastor is denying that Mosaic is a cult over concerns for his privacy or well being, or to make sure that even the negatives of this organization are painted in a positive light, that's fine. I think it's self evident within the fully explanatory direct quote from the journalist who did the interview with McManus. And again to be fair, not only is this a public figure, which makes this person open to public criticism - but those accusing mosaic of being a cult are accusing mosaic. Not the person, specifically. So this is really a non-issue. It's about Mosaic, not the public figure. Unless you want to make it about McManus, in which case, we oughtn't make it about him any more than it's due. He's just the person whose lips this telling direct quote came from. So again, let's stop blanking information that's biasing this article one way over the other. 4.16.24.107 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources, so they cannot be included for this content. This would still be true even if this wasn't a BLP issue, which it is. If actually reliable sources comment on this... vague accusation (which is unlikely if those three blogs are anything to go by) then this could be considered, but it would have to be much, much more carefully handled. The quote is a cherry-picked to make a point, which is unacceptable, and is far too weak for the claims you are trying to insert. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Those aren't reliable sources so leave it out. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Multi-Site Church/cult?

Mosaic has been in the same building for a few years now. Is it still a "multi-site" organization?

And before answering- is this article about the other mosaics beyond the Hollywood Blvd building, like Mosaic San Diego? Does it only include the Mosaics commissioned by this one organization on Hollywood Blvd. in LA? Or does it include any guy who starts an organization called Mosaic- including some potentially legit churches- which has been done. What's the scope of this article? One organization, or the Mosaic "denomination," or emerging church ? 205.154.244.58 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mosaic (church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205105937/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re/us_rel_super_bowl_ad_megachurch to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re/us_rel_super_bowl_ad_megachurch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosaic (church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216223330/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22546 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22546
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mosaic.org/about-hollywood

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"non-denominational multi-site"

What is exactly the difference between a nondenominational multi-site church and a denomination?

Could the Roman Catholic Church be described as a non-denominational (no one giving orders to its head pastor!) multi-multi-multi-multi-site church? ;)

This kind of labeling, or self-labeling, is itself problematic since "nondenominational" involves the concept of "not being part of an organization", while "multi-site" is related to the concept of "being an organization". -- 79.16.246.139 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Layout order

@TechGuy213: When I came to the article a few days ago the layout was a problem. An unsourced beliefs section was first. That was followed by a campuses section, each campus had its own section, but that section was barely a sentence long and MOS:LAYOUT is the guideline. The former format creates unnecessary depth (four levels) and they're terribly short section. Having on section for all the campuses is reasonable. I'm not sure what the short sections in the cultural topics is for, but they too are one or two sentences and can be in one section, but I don't even think they're necessary. Finally, the history was after all of the promotional content. I have placed history first, because that's what most people are coming to an encyclopedia to read about. The rest can be found on the church's own website. I place the unsourced beliefs section next, but that's a doctrinal statement and doesn't belong here at all, unless it's for analysis, which is absent. One short section for each of of the campuses and cultural topics are next. The music sections are essentially unchanged. Also <br> do not belong in the article as they are unnecessary.

Please explain 1) your layout concerns without continuing the edit war, and if you have an association with the church, could you please declare it? You've edited very little else on Wikipedia so I suspect a potential conflict of interest. For my part, I had never heard of the church until you added a link to an article I watch and so I came to see what this new band was about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I was not the author of the current content in the beliefs section, so I cannot speak to it being unsourced. The order and layout were primarily based on alphabetization and relevancy. I would disagree in that most people come to an encyclopedia looking to learn more about the topic, not just the history of it. I truly do think that the page becomes unreadable/impossible to follow when you remove all the headings. However, perhaps there's a way to reduce the number of headings instead of removing all of them? As for the conflict of interest claim, I started looking into Mosaic a few years ago. I try to keep up with churches who have a creative approach. Mosaic has always struck me as the leader of that, and when I first began editing the page 4 years ago, there was hardly any content about Mosaic, which is why I focused on editing it vs editing other pages. TechGuy213 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the different versions, I agree that the many tiny sections are unnecessary and make the table of contents needlessly long and cluttered. The campuses can be included as a bullet point list in a single section. Ltwin (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What about the order of the sections? History, first or toward the end? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think in most of these articles the history section is first. The belief section at this point is not good at all. There is no meaningful substance to it. It's all mission statement language. Also, the history section could be paired down due to lack of sources. We have quotations with citation needed tags. Ltwin (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)