Talk:In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

[This article is tendencious, informing the user that "The Grail Message" is the truth. It need to be more neutral and only inform about the religion.]: Emmisgood (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Emmisgood (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Language has been removed or modified that states that "The Grail Message" is the truth. Emmisgood (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

There is a specific Wikipedia page that addresses the Grail Movement. The Grail Movement is not a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmisgood (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Pasted

Some of this article is copied-and-pasted from http://www.grailmessage.com/ILT_Page.htm Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the horse's mouth

EPILOGUE
Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen

IMANUEL,

the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.

Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!
— Abdruschin, In the Light of Truth. GRAIL MESSAGE. GREAT EDITION 1931

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. 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:

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) 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly edit war

The charge of the edit warring user is that Wikipedia spilled the beans about a fact... that is publicly known since 1931 from the work published by Abd-ru-shin himself. Isn't that silly? See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Haile Selassie have publicly denied that they were the Messiah. Abd-ru-shin has never done that, he has never retracted his claim of being the Son of Man, who brings to Word of God before the Final Judgment. He deleted it from his book, but that is not the same as a retraction: he has never apologized for calling himself the Son of Man, who restores WP:THETRUTH after the failed mission of Jesus Christ. In his opinion, the Word of God is Abd-ru-shin's own book, the Bible being thoroughly antiquated.

Il y a par exemple cette directive que l’auteur donna en 1937 à l’occasion du transport d’un stock de livres de la grande édition du Message du Graal, de la Suisse au Vomperberg en Autriche :
" Je vous demande encore une chose : avant l’expédition, faites enlever, dans tous les livres, quelque soit la langue en laquelle ils sont imprimés, la feuille qui se trouve avant l’Appendice et qui comporte l’indication au sujet de IMANUEL !
C’est très important, car, ainsi, le Message sera beaucoup plus facilement propagé et devra être considéré plus objectivement. Il sera alors intangible, pour les ennemis aussi. L’indication directe ferait surgir involontairement, chez tel ou tel lecteur, une opposition, parce que le genre de l’esprit humain est ainsi.
Si cette feuille ne s’y trouve plus, le Message sera reçu plus facilement. Mais il ne faut la retirer que dans les exemplaires qui sont vendus maintenant, parce qu’elle pourra, plus tard, s’y trouver de nouveau. "
La feuille dont il est question ici est intitulée « Mot de la fin ».

Copy/paste from fr:Discussion:Message du Graal#Une page "délicate" dans la grande édition de 1931.

So, even among Abd-ru-shin's believers there is a conflict between the loyalists of the great edition and the loyalists of the edition of last hand. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

@Johnthewhale: WP:BIGMISTAKE: WP:OR counts for nothing, WP:RS mean everything. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

There is irrelevant content in the synopsis. Firstly, the sentence "The cult leader (Bernhardt) announced an imminent coming of God's Kingdom on Earth, and his adepts were baffled why that failed to happen." has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the book and are a misfit for a 'synopsis'. Additionally, in the source you cited, it clearly implies that the coming of the kingdom is directly linked to the 'adepts' ability to spread and explain his work. The very first sentence states that: "Go forth, proclaim and explain my Word in the Light of Truth! So that the Kingdom of God may come to this earth". The manner in which you state it misrepresents the cited source by implying this was an expected automatic happening, which this very same source states is was not. Johnthewhale (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Johnthewhale (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnthewhale: Bernhardt thought he is the Second Coming of Jesus. Or, if you want to split hairs, Jesus was the Son of God, while Bernhardt was the Son of Man. So, he did not assign a year to the Apocalypse, but the Kingdom of God had to get established during his lifetime. His adepts were baffled by the fact that Bernhardt died, and the Kingdom still did not come. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. A source (A Refutation of the text “MILLENNIAL EXPECTATIONS IN THE GRAIL MOVEMENT” by Zdenek Vojtisek) cited on this same page explains that the author himself stated, "One thing, however, cannot be accurately predicted – the earthly time at which these revelations and promises find their fulfilment!”. How then can you say him or his adherents expected the Kingdom. (Especially considering that the very page you linked also states that it is beside and beyond expectations) Johnthewhale (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That paper is cult apologetics. We believe mainstream scholars, we don't believe the cultists. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

be that as it may, the statement has nothing to do with a synopsis. Johnthewhale (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the book is: the Apocalypse is imminent and Bernhardt is the Son of Man which makes it happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, the sentence "The cult leader (Bernhardt) announced an imminent coming of God's Kingdom on Earth, and his adepts were baffled why that failed to happen" has nothing to do with a synopsis. Johnthewhale (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can specifically cite any place in the book that says that Johnthewhale (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the task of Wikipedians to perform WP:OR. We WP:CITE WP:SECONDARY sources. You will have to do with that. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, surely you are aware that when writing synopses (i.e. summaries) of works, it is expressly permitted by guidelines to use the work itselfin whole as a primary source, and as the only source for said section. The community consensus has long held that this is an appropriate use of a primary source and is not WP:OR, provided the editor does not go beyond a plain summarization of the work and insert his or her own novel interpretations of the meanings thereof. While the guideline was written in reference to fiction, the same princple applies for ANY "synopsis" section of any article about any written work. Nonfiction works we just generally don't include synopses of, most of the time. But the Bible is used as a source for descriptions of various of its own books/chapters in their respective articles, and there's no reason that any modern cults shouldn't be treated the exact same way as established religions. 73.2.106.248 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to WP:PLOTSOURCE. I meant that WP:OR performed upon WP:PRIMARY sources cannot be used to debunk mainstream WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buying the book

Hi, Caeciliusinhorto, the 1931 edition is offered as free e-book, in several languages. So, there is no need to buy it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other RS

Copy/paste from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnthewhale.

Murmel, Heinz. "Gralsbewegung." Handbuch der Religionen. Westarp Science Fachverlag, 2023.

Just in case one wasn't enough for you Johnthewhale (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janson M. Beyond Religion: The Grail Movement and Eckankar. In: Crossing Religious Boundaries: Islam, Christianity, and ‘Yoruba Religion’ in Lagos, Nigeria. The International African Library. Cambridge University Press; 2021:154-183. Johnthewhale (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knepper, Claudia. "70. Todestag Von Oskar Ernst Bernhardt." Materialdienst, vol. 74, no. 12, 2011, pp. 468-471. Johnthewhale (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnthewhale, please provide some quotes for WP:V purposes. They have to explcitly contradict Vojtisek's claim that the book started a millenarian new religious movement. They also have to contradict his claim that Abd-ru-shin announced an imminent Apocalypse. They have to deny that he called himself the Son of Man. The last proviso is a very hard one, since he did call himself the Son of Man in the Conclusion (Epilogue) of the 1931 edition. So, denying that cuts no ice. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the things are so: the Grail Message, taken at face value, is about apocalyptic terror. The Grail Movement has evolved into a New Age spiritual growth movement emphasizing the long run. But they cannot prevent others from taking the Grail Message at face value.

And no, this isn't a new phenomenon: Jesus and St. Paul also thought the Apocalypse will come during their own generation. When the charisma got routinized, Christianity found a way to explain that away. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]