Talk:Félix Manalo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Please cite your sources where this article is based so we may measure it's accuracy. I have not heard Mr Manalo claim he founded the Iglesia ni Cristo. Thank you. (elantaran 3/30/05)

Actually and obviously, he is. If not, who else? Santa Claus? (mike, 4/7/05)

Contents 1 Source not cited 2 Unauthorized 3 The burden of proof is on the detractors 4 Neutral disclaimer 5 Added footnote 6 Apostasy 7 Sympathetic sources 8 Question for Ironbrew - Revert or Edit?

[edit] Source not cited

• The source for this article is not cited. Factual accuracy of information not verified. Emico 19:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please provide source for the following: Biography section

1. "also to fortify his ministry, the name Manalo meaning 'victory' in Tagalog."
2. " Others claim the change was an attempt to leave obscurity, Manalo being a more prominent name than Ysagun'""

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emico (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 June 2005.

• Both accounts were taken from Fernando Elesterio's book, "Iglesia ni Cristo: It's Christology and Ecclesiology," footnotes on page 8, citing Kavanagh and Alonzo, as well as interviews with Manalo's nephews and neices.

[edit] Unauthorized

• The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention and motivation for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation. Emico 19:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Emico 15:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Felix Manalo never founded the Church of Christ. Christ founded this church, with Felix Manalo as his instrument in re-establishing it in these last days. Look in the church's official magazine "God's Message"

• That is NOT a neutral source.--Onlytofind 05:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • To the claims of "unauthorisation" I must respectfully say, "So what?" The article on Stalin is hardly authorised by him or by his estate, nor is the one on Mother Teresa. An encyclopaedia is hardly a compiliation merely of "authorised" entries; many "authorised" biographies, for example, are full of lies and misrepresentations and many "unauthorised" ones are closer to the actual truth.

Also, it should be noted that most founders of Christian denominations have stated that they are re-establishing or attempting to re-establish Christ's original church, not a new denomination, but this something that is generally accepted only by their converts and not everyone in general. That Felix Manalo claimed such is neither surprising nor unique; the purpose of an encyclopaedia article is not to establish the validity of such a claim, nor to disprove it, but rather to establish facts about its subject. That Felix Manalo claimed to have re-established Christ's original church in these "last days" is indisputible; whether he succeeded is an article of faith beyond the scope of this or any other encyclopaedia, as is whether or not these are truly the "last days". 'Let's stick to the facts.' Rlquall 00:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Is this rephrasing more acceptable to both sides(I 'm neutral and 'not' an Iglesia member )?:It claims that it is both organizationally and doctrinally the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ, a claim shared by the Eastern Orthodox Church and disputed by other Christian groupings. (copied from Catholic Church )--Jondel 07:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)article)--Jondel 07:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The burden of proof is on the detractors

• With no authoritative outside sources on the life of Erano Manalo, it is up to the detractors of this article to show specifically what is wrong and not factual. If not, then making up false claims of unfactuality is akin to vandalism. --Onlytofind 05:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• "with no authoritative outside sources", you said it! Then where did you get all of this information? How factual is it? Emico 16:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• You tell me. After all, aren't you supposed to be an expert on the Iglesia ni Cristo? I wouldn't criticize too hard though, as I'm not the one who has been found guilty of breaking Wikipedia rules.--Onlytofind 21:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's leave it to the rfc page, please. I'm tired of repeating myself. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}

Because there isn't a dispute over a specific part of this article, only it's lack of sources, who feels the {{DisputeCheck}} template should be used instead? This template reads: "This article requires attention because it may contain inaccuracies. A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for accuracy. Currently there may not be a specific dispute, but the content may need discussion on the talk page." --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}

• Yes, I think that would be suitable.--Onlytofind 03:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The tag fits exactly the status of the article. I agree with LBMixPro. Ealva 04:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • And the absolute authority for it's accuracy is the subject of the article. --Emico 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not again... Read the rules.--Onlytofind 20:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral disclaimer

[edit] Added footnote

To clarify the role of Mr Manalo. User:TheoClarke, we may need you here to prevent an edit war. It's the same old subject matter. --Emico 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, someone not claiming something does not necessarily mean that someone isn't. Even Bill Gates does not explicitly claim that he founded Microsoft, and that doesn't change the fact that he did. What may be worth mentioning is that it is in fact a doctrinal statement of the INC that it explicitly say that Felix Manalo is not the founder. There is a difference between a founder "in fact", and founder "in doctrine." Felix Manalo is the founder in fact but in doctrine, he is not. At the same time, "not claiming" is different from "claiming is not." One is passive, and doesn't say anything substantial, versus the latter, which is active, is an explicit denial. I have edited the wordings so you may see the difference.Ipso-Facto 06:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

" When Paul Allen and I founded Microsoft in 1975", Bill Gates, "U.S. v Microsoft:We're Defending Our Right to Innovate", The Wall Street Journal, c1998. You should do a little research before you make claims, even for something as widely known as Microsoft and Bill Gates. Your carelessness in making unfounded claims cast doubt on all your post.
In view of this, can you cite your sources related to your claims about Mr Manalo? --Emico 14:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• According to a Pasugo biographical acount of Felix Manalo on his centennial birthday

(May-June 1986), Erdy was quoted to have said:

"All the power and the glory which the church is enjoying result from the fact that when I assumed the position, the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. The Church is now enjoying the fruits of his vision, his sufferings and sacrifices, his love and fortitude. Above all, everything is happening according to the will of God."

That same Pasugo quotes a protestant author without disputing what he said:

A Protestant author, Dr. Arthur Leonard Tuggy, attributes the Iglesia ni Cristos fantastic growth to, among other factors, Dedicate laymen eager to spread their message and an effective deployment of ministers. "And behind all this," he notes, "was the continuing charismatic leadership of its founder-head, Felix Manalo, now firmly anchored to a doctrinal base as Gods messenger for the Philippines..."

This is explicit proof that is in fact the founder in deed, though it is not in doctrine. BTW, I did some corrections on my earlier statements, I meant to say the doctrine explicitly says otherwise. And sorry about the Bill Gates thing, I meant to say that even if he explicitly states he is not the founder, it doesn't change the fact that he did.

• You chose to misunderstand the statement, if what you posted is indeed a direct quote. And even if it is a direct quote, it can still be gleaned from it that it is talking about the success of the mission of propagating the church not the founding. How can one assume the position of founder?

You again misunderstood the next paragraph. You choose to see what you wanted to see(the word "founder-head"), and not the subject of the statement("fantastic growth"), which was why it was not disputed.

I still wonder why you insist Mr Manalo founded the INC, when he and his successors say otherwise.

Bill Gates explicitly stated he is the founder of Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, you have not proven your claims concerning the INC and her founder, and I consider this discussion over. --Emico 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• The distinction of being founder does not depend on what someone has said, rather what someone did. Bill Gates did not become the founder because he explicitly said so. He is the founder because he is the one who laid the foundations of Microsoft, not because of what he said in court. Even if he denies he is the founder, it doesn't change the fact that he did. And if some other person will say he founded Microsoft, it doesn't make him so. It was Bill Gate's deed, and not his statement that made him so. In the same way, whatever the successors say doesn't change the fact of what Felix Manalo did. In fact, it was quite clear from Erdy's statement (foundation laid by the late Executive Minister) that it was Felix Manalo who founded (i.e. laid the foundations of) INC. There is no dispute. As I've said, what is worth noting is that even if it is "in fact," it is not so "in doctrine" because the INC doctrine says otherwise, and that the doctrine explicitly say that Felix is not the founder, but merely an instrument of re-establishment.

• You have not addressed the facts I pointed out, that you misunderstood the statements you quoted, and you are now merely repeating yourself. If your misunderstanding of these quotes are your basis for claiming to know the INC founder, then you are wrong in your claim.
  Do you mind posting the title of the article from which quotes were taken from? --Emico 16:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Whether I understood the statements which I quoted does not change the fact that Felix Manalo founded the INC. INC was founded in 1914 ([1],refer to the phrase in 1948, or only three decades after its foundation in this press release), and it was Manalo who did that. No other person to point to. Other references say it is so, like the Library of Congress account of INC [2]: Founded by Felix Manalo Ysagun in 1914, or the encyclopedia account on Encarta [3]:another Filipino-founded church.

- It is an accepted fact that the role of Felix Manalo is founder of the INC. If it is different in the doctrinal statements, then that is what should be noted. - BTW, the article in the Pasugo Centenial of Felix Manalo issue (May-June 1986) is entitled Felix Y. Manalo and the Iglesia ni CristoIpso-Facto 03:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I've stated, you are absolutely wrong in your claim. You used the quotes you did not understand as your basis to your claim that Mr Manalo was the founder of the INC.
  Now, you are abandoning your previous quotations and using others that are still not factual. --Emico 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tell me how the quotes were misunderstood. I did not make any personal interpretation. The quotes speak for themselves. I cited encyclopedia and Library of Congress articles. Your edits are surely no more reliable than they are. And total apostasy is totally POV. Great_Apostasy Ipso-Facto 11:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• You're sounding like a broken record, read my response 2 post back. But one thing is clear, you have no understanding of who the founder of the INC is.
  See my reference. --Emico 14:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • • The article is quite clear. Erano Manlo said the late Executive Minister laid the firm and solid foundation of the Church.

...the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive MinisterIpso-Facto 09:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rather than perpetuate this deadlocked debate, I have changed the lead paragraph to a phrasing that I hope will be acceptable to both sides. Should someone have a problem with the redraft, please expalin it here in simple moderate language. —Theo (Talk) 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Theo, thanks for you patience.
I object because the definition of establish is to found. The revision as of 03:00, 14 August 2005 is the most accurate and is based on an INC publication. If detractors want to add their opinion, let it be a footnote. --Emico 16:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • To establish is to found, as much as foundation laid by the late Executive Minister means founded by the late Executive Minister.Ipso-Facto 09:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Emico: I understand your objection. It seems to me that you will object to any phrasing that can be read to mean that Manalo was the person who set up the Church in a stable form. This presents me with a problem because whichever words we use, the secular 'truth' is that Manalo arranged for the Church to exist in the Philippines. The Church now emphasises a doctrinal 'truth' that this arranging was a reestablishment of the 'first Church' and one way that it does this is to resist the assertion of the secular truth. An encyclopedia article that conforms to Wikipedia policies should include both truths. The sentence that you propose is: Brother Felix Y. Manalo, as members of the INC prefer to call him, is not the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo but rather the messenger of God commissioned to preach Christ's Church. I find this unacceptable because it asserts the subject of a belief as an objective fact. It says "Manalo […] is not the founder". A bald assertion. I am trying to find a formula that communicates "Manalo [word that means "set up the first form of the Church in modern times"] the INC. The Church believes that he was not its founder but rather the messenger of God commissioned to preach Christ's Church." I do not seek to belittle your Church; I want to create an article about it that is informative to non-members even if they do not seek to join. How may we reconcile our two objectives? —Theo (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Theo, thanks for you patience and genuine desire to be fair. I can live with your revision as of 03:57, 16 August 2005. You did it again! --Emico 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • I agree, Theo. As I've said earlier: There is a difference between a founder "in fact", and founder "in doctrine. What is therefore worth noting is that Felix Manalo is not the founder only according to the doctrines of the INC and the assertion should be limited to that fact. But I think the clearest indication that he was indeed the founder (i.e. the one who laid the foundation) is the quote from Erano Manalo as written in the Pasugo: "All the power and the glory which the church is enjoying result from the fact that when I assumed the position, the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. The Church is now enjoying the fruits of his vision, his sufferings and sacrifices, his love and fortitude. Above all, everything is happening according to the will of God."Ipso-Facto 09:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said before, you chose to misunderstand the quote. --Emico 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • What is there to misunderstand? The article clearly states that Erano Manalo said: the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. What is it except to mean that the late EM (i.e. Bro. Felix Manalo) laid the firm and solid foundation of the INC. Isn't that the same as saying that he founded the church? Is the foundation refering to the mission of propagation? Where can I find that? The foundation here refers to that of the Church, which is the subject of the statement. Am I not right, Theo? [Unsigned at 07:12, 17 August 2005 by 192.55.40.96]

Although the conclusion drawn by 192.55.40.96/Ipso-Facto seems fair, I cannot be certain of this without seeing the full context of the quote. Emico's suggestion that Ipso chose to misunderstand is an accusation of malice that I find inappropriate. It does seem to me that INC's aversion to the idea of Manalo as founder has arisen in the past 20 years. On balance, I think that it is safe to say that Manalo is widely regarded as the founder although this is contrary to doctrine. Does anybody have a problem with this approach (even if the exact phrasing needs tuning)? —Theo (Talk) 10:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My choice to use the word chose means I've been through this argument before. When you been through it a few times, you know it's not because it was done innocently, but intentionally.
The doctrine has not change. Mr Manalo never preached that he is the founder of the INC. And although most think Mr Manalo is the founder does not make it so. Knowing that indigenous Americans are really not from India, would you still call them Indians just because most people do? Even if you know this labeling is not based on fact and offensive to them?
I can live with revision dated 16 August 2005. --Emico 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now reread this talk page and the discussion archives at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. It was not an uplifting experience. From my reading I can see no grounds for you to see Ipso's disagreement to be a deliberate misinterpretation of the source. I cannot comment on the validity of your belief that the doctrine has not changed; it does seem to me, however, that the people writing on behalf of the Church in Pasugo/God's Message have changed the language that they use about the events of 1914. Mr Manalo's non-use of the word "founder" does not mean that he did not found something; it does not even mean that he did not see himself as a founder; it is an absence. My mother never describes herself as an old woman; that does not make it wrong to describe her that way (although it may be impolite). Your question about Indians is too complicated to answer constructively here although I think that I understand the point you wish to make. The problem that has been identified with revision dated 10:42, 16 August 2005 is that "secular sources" excludes statements by non-INC religious sources. Can we say "Non-INC sources"? —Theo (Talk) 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding:
ipso's - I understand. Unlike you, I've gone through it so many times I can almost tell the next arguments that follows.
change language - you're only seeing snippets. and only the parts that the quoters wanted seen.
old woman - I can't believe it. I'm almost positive, at least once all mothers have describe themselves are old women. I know my mother did. Maybe you haven't heard it, but she did even. Just listen when she's getting up a chair or a plight of stairs.
non-inc - i don't have a problem with this right now. I even think it is better as it describes the source as only partially knowledgeable of the INC. thanks again for your efforts, Theo --Emico 19:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Theo, regarding my conclusion on the quote, thank you for noting my point. And thanks for noting the accusative tone in Emico, although I myself am not offended. It just seems very painfully frustrating that someone says I misunderstood when I have a fully defensible argument from which I base my conclusions. I believe you are a good arbiter on this regard. As I've forwarded you the website of the complete article from which I got my quote, I believe you can fully verify whether the quote was taken out of context or not. I also have an archived scanned copy which I can post here if there is a need to do so. You can also verify it from an actual copy of the Pasugo, of which date and article title I have provided.
    • Now for Emico, what do you mean by you can almost tell what my next arguments are? Is that not typecasting me into some of the prejudices you have against all those who disagree with your doctrine? As far as my efforts can bring me, I have conducted myself to be as objective as I can. I don't know what led to your conclusions that I misunderstood or chose to misunderstood the quote when the quote is very clear. Res ipsa loquitur. I have provided my source and you can verify whether I quoted it maliciously or not. With regards to the term "non-INC," I think it's not politically correct in that it generalizes and typecasts non-INC as a coherent group and isolates the INC from the rest of the human race. I prefer the term "widely regarded" or "widely accepted", since it is the objective truthIpso-Facto 04:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How about "He is often described as"? —Theo (Talk) 10:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Theo, I find no problem with "He is often described as".
        Ipso, we can argue this until we fill the server if you want. For now , I suggest we dont. Can you post here whatever info you forwarded to Theo? --Emico 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would agree to "He is often regarded as..." Emico, Here is info I gave Theo:

the Pasugo article "Felix Y. Manalo and the Iglesia ni Cristo" is written by Isabelo T. Crisotomo in the May-June 1986 issue, Manalo's centennial. You can find the article in one of the references in the Iglesia ni Cristo wiki article (Bible Student's site)[4] This is the cover of the Pasugo: [[5]]

[edit] Apostasy

• Ironbrew, can you explain your claim that apostasy is a personal belief? And who's personal belief is it? --Emico 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Added sub-section. --Emico 14:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To Ipso-Facto, Explain why you calim apostasy is POV.

• Follow this link Great Apostasy. It says that total apostasy is not a universally accepted fact. It is therefore a POV assertion.Ipso-Facto 09:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• If we follow your argument, then virtually everything is a POV to somewhere. Does not mean then that because it is not universally accepted, it did not happen? Absolutely not. The holocaust is not universally accepted. Even catholic popes, at one point denied that it happened. --Emico 13:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this here? Please confine the debate to improvements to the article or we will be archiving too frequently. —Theo (Talk) 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathetic sources

Emico deleted the word "sympathetic" that I had added. His edit summary was "Removed Sympathetic as editorial. Much as you won't label unsympathetic sources critical of INC". I accept that I may have been mistaken to state that sympathetic secular sources describe Manalo as the Church's founder. I was trying to communicate that the phrase is not simply used by hostile commentators. Upon reflection, this is not an important distinction. —Theo (Talk) 18:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Understood. And I appreciate your exerting of effort to explain what you meant. I'm sorry the summary sounded accusative, i did not mean it to be.
To me, the phrase sounded like the only people who had the least bit good thing to say about the INC are those who are symphatetic to the INC. I guess because the majority of the comments floating around are negative. Or maybe I just need another break from this article. Anyway, I think simply secular is good enough and includes all, not just hostile. thanks again. --Emico 18:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Ironbrew - Revert or Edit?

Can you tell me which revision of Theo you are reverting to? Your last looks to me as an edit, not a revert. --Emico 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)