Talk:Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.214.105.144 (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reverted to June 2009[edit]

Wow, I laughed and cried while going through the history here. unencyclopedic color commentary on a cut&paste copyright violation, and of course this.

I'm restoring a version from June 2009. That version isn't great either, but it's a better starting point, assuming the sources are valid (I didn't check them.)

Good luck. Kilopi (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

It is common for any teaching, especially of a religious nature, deemed controversial to be attacked by those opposed, in manners often downright vicious and slanderous. Wars have been fought and Inquisitions conducted for this same reason.

At the same time, any neutral presentation of this teaching is very difficult, since it calls on the receiver to accept the possibility or at least a statement that they have been wrong about commonly accepted doctrines, such as that the Resurrection of our Savior was in a physical body, not as a life-giving spirit. And since Wikipedia is so easily edited, the controversy will certainly continue until Wikipedia simply eliminates the page entirely.

"Don't ask my neighbor". Go to the website, IDMR.net, then attend a class; it is free. Then judge for yourself.

Geraldpkent (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Too much lecture not enough facts or information. Also, far too many caps. Hardly an entry worthy of an encyclopedia. Highly fallacious. Should be reworked.

-47329

====July 2009====

IDMR

I am a minister in The IDMR.I am no official journalist. I kept the references, as they mean little if one does not visit a branch school.I included absolute truth, considering the last author printed a malicious lie with no recant, or without ever visiting a branch school...His explanation is as follows:

"I just created the IDMR page with only a brief explanation of the group. I added a religion stub to the main page and a WPReligion Banner to the talk page. I rated this article as a stub since the article was just started with the little information that I added based on a few newspaper articles. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

-Imbornone

Last edited at 02:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research. 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/20061219154106/http://www.plim.org/Sacred%20Names%20Article.html to http://www.plim.org/Sacred%20Names%20Article.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worth keeping?[edit]

This article is so short, it says nothing. I suggest it be deleted. Pete unseth (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]