Talk:Ulf Ekman

Untitled

Nononononoo there is a big problem in the article. What kind of Wikipedia-like policy does 'blah blah blah is a controversial pastor' mean? The article is wayyy to negative, and there not enough 'substance'. It's just criticism... 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating the fact that someone is controversial is not POV. I don't see what's negative in the article. I think most people, no matter what they think about Ekman, would agree that there has been much controversy about him and Livets Ord. (Entheta 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree there. It's simply a statement of fact: some people love him, others hate him. However, the category "Cult leader" is definitely POV here. Jammycakes 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Noname actually had a good point at 11:37, 25 April 2006: there is not enough substance for the criticism. It's true that Ekman is a controversial figure in Sweden, but it would be proper to find citations for and against his teachings, in order to improve the article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying controversial: he

1. has attacked political parties declared them "demon powers",
2. has organised his church not as a church, but as a company,
3. has preached a message that many Swedish theologians reject.

The Swedish press has attacked his church and teachings, claiming (falsely, exaggeratingly or not):

1. its believers harassing handicapped, making membership in Word'o'Life a reason for being rejected from employment in social service (temporary, or just a debate allegation that never occured in reality),
2. its believers being manipulated to give all their property to the church, while their own economy collapses,
3. many believers in the fringe exhibiting cult-depressions.

Personally, I believe such things have happened, but aren't necessary an effect of sinister manipulations, but pretty much more stupid people taking a stupid theology much too seriously. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Restructure article

The article is still a stub, and it is motivated: it mixes the controversies with what Ulf Ekman labored for (BTW, his official home page honestly admit the controversies). The controversies should be in a separate section, otherwise they obscure the central work and teachings of Ekman. NPOV is the goal, whatever I may think about it. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed on pastorship 2000 or 2002?

You should check that out, because it says 2002 in this article while the year 2000 is mentioned in the article about the church Livets Ord.

I've checked that out but not gotten a clear picture from the sources. All sources I found said that he is still in full power, but maybe he have created an international pastorship, and left the Swedish to some under him. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2002 it was. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Sweden

The article refers to the lutheran church of Sweden. If this is supposed to be a label rather than an attempt to translate Svenska Kyrkan it should still point to the Svenska Kyrkan article Church of Sweden. This is what Svenska Kyrkan calls themselves at their web site, and that is the church he joined (and later left (or whatever it is called, I'm not a native English writer)). ElofTurtle (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

coherence and historical flow

The section on Theology needs to be rewritten keeping in mind his change to Catholicism in 2014. That event changes the meaning of his being "ecumenical", or publishing a Protestant journal, etc. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)