Talk:Creflo Dollar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's Get Rid of Dollar's Official Bio[edit]

It's practically lifted word-for-word from his ministry's Web site. I think that's unfair to the reader. There are general things that can be agreed upon from his page and others that can elaborated upon, but particularly the end of the first section was absolutely a shill for him and not very objective.


In the opening bio it reads "Dollar received a BS degree in education in 1984 from West Georgia College in Carrollton, GA. His website claims that he has a master’s degree in counseling and a doctorate in counseling, but there is information about when or where those degrees were earned.[1]" This reads rather awkwardly. Should it be "but there is no information..." or "but there is information at ..." and then cite the reference? Greenbomb101 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. comments[edit]

The second sentence is not a sentence. What is it supposed to mean? It is only a noun phrase. It might as well read "Moon Pies and Coca-cola." Which we all known is a profound statement of causal complexity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.114.125 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the nonsense printed as so called information concerning Rhema Bible School, Kenneth Hagin, and the Word of Faith Movement, I sincerely expected to see much more criticism on Dr. Dollar's account. It is obvious that Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for factual information but is used purposely as an anti christian tool. However, as a Holy Spirit filled christian I am fully aware that the world could never understand an all powerful God capable of miracles and full of a love for all mankind that he would be impartial in giving such healings and wealth to all His children. I am greatly disappointed that one of God's annointed ministers such as Dr. Dollar has not gained your anti-faith based attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.11.8 (talk • contribs) 19 Feb 2005

One Love..

Can somebody please leave the annointed men of God alone!God says we as christians should not live like this world,we are different,and Please even if you claim to know dr Dollar don't do what u have already done again. the bible says 'WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE ONE ANOTHER' and next time don't play with fire by trying to embarass the annointed of God because you embarass yourself. Think clearly before you throw stones to someone without looking at yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.232.250.51 (talk • contribs) 4 Oct 2005

The anonymous user immediately above at IP 155.232.250.51 also deleted a comment (from a different IP address) from May, 2005 from the talk page entitled "Fools." It can be viewed by looking at the May '05 date in the talk page history. -- Lisasmall 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for this or for some of the comments below. If you want to rant, get a blog or find an appropriate newsgroup/forum or make your own website. I'm a Spirit-filled Christian as well and your feelings for the mentioned so-called ministries are at sharp contrast to mine, but Wikipedia is a place to convey knowledge, not to set up soapboxes. Wordbuilder 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this is the place for these types of comments. This page is the "discussion" page. And regardless, look at the other Wikipedia articles and you'll see there are thousands of pages filled up with these types of debates. Creflo Dollar is a poor example of a minister if he drives around in a Rolls Royce. The Bible clearly does not promise material prosperity. What about all the starving Christians in Sudan? Is Creflo Dollar somehow more in touch with God than they are? He should sell one of his Rolls Royces and give the money to the poor. --208.22.45.148 14:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)SCW[reply]
To help alleviate the confusion as to the purposed of an article's discussion page, I added the "talkheader" tag above. The purpose of this page is to discuss improving the article. It is not to express your opinions on the subject matter. --20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

VfD debate link[edit]

This article has been kept due to lack of consensus at this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creflo Dollar has been used by God in a powerful way. Just because people do not understand some of his beliefs does not mean he should be persecuted. Many christians did not support the civil rights movement or the abolition of slavery because of their false doctrine that did not leave room for other 'interpretations' of right and wrong. His congregation of over 20,000 people speaks for itself. Leave Creflo Dollar and the God of Creflo Dollar, Jehovah, alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.248.249 (talk • contribs) 8 Feb 2006

Regardless of whether Creflo Dollar is right or wrong, you have to be out of your mind to cite the size of his congregation as proof of God's favor. Jim Jones convinced nearly 1000 people to commit suicide, and there are well over 20,000 Jehovah's Witness's out there. Does the size of these groups also speak for itself in terms of being in the right? --208.22.45.148 14:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)SCW[reply]


Now... Back On Topic... Merge?[edit]

Since this discussion was supposed to be about whether or not to merge World Changers Church with Dr. Dollars history, I would add my own comment that that seems fine. It seems reasonable to me to include all related issues, history and accomplishments in his section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.244.182 (talk) 10 June 2006

I agree. Wordbuilder 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. -- Lisasmall 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need research on birth name[edit]

While he claims Creflo Dollar is his birth name there are numerous sources who claim otherwise. Information about this that I previously added to the article has now been deleted. The article needs accurate information about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.64.234 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2017[edit]

I was kind of wondering about this also... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr." Dollar?[edit]

Why does the article consistently use the title "Dr."? I see that Martin Luther King is also repeatedly referred to as "Dr. King", but Einstein and Jonas Salk do not have the title. I suppose that Dr. King was usually called "Dr." in the press and so there's some argument for keeping the title. Is that the same reasoning for Dollar? (Personally, I find it a bit distasteful when someone with an academic doctorate insists on using the title, but maybe it's the norm for some theological degrees?) Phiwum 13:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to the holder of the degree. Quite common among all walks of christian ministers to use the title, especially if they write books. 75.62.129.140 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Distasteful for people with PHD's to refer to themselves as Dr.? I'm not arguing about Dollar here when I say this, but that is absurd. If you have a PHD, you have just as much right to go by DR as a medical doctor does, if you want to. Now, obviously some take it too far but I strongly disagree with your blanket statement. katherinewelles 3:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Since my statement was clearly a matter of personal opinion, I don't particularly need to defend it. In any case, among academics, the rule is roughly that using "Dr." as a title is acceptable in an academic setting and not elsewhere. As a matter of fact, in most academic settings, seeing the title "Dr." is fairly rare (outside of, say, dealing with students and the like). You won't find the title in a conference proceedings for instance.
I never said anything about "as much right to go by DR" as a medical doctor, since etiquette doesn't have much to do with rights. Certainly, I have a right to use my title. Heck, in the US, I probably had the right to use the title "Dr." when I was still in high school, since the US does not tend to legislate things like this (as long as I'm not pretending I'm an MD, say). Nonetheless, I find it more than a bit distasteful when an academic PhD insists on using his title, particularly in non-academic circumstances. But it may be the case that in different disciplines (including theology), the tradition is different. Phiwum 13:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a WP:RS that he has a real doctorate? I see many websites that doubt he does. In Dollar's official biography[1] he says he has a doctorate, but does not give the school nor the year. In contrast, his honorary doctorate's school and year is mentioned.[2] Strange? TYie34 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go one further than that and delete the claim, since it is unsourced (and from my sleuthing, unsourceable). He wouldn't be the first televangelist to claim a doctorate where none was earned, but that doesn't mean that we should allow WP to act as his PR organ until someone can *disprove* something. If a claim is not properly supported by credible sources, it cannot remain here. Consequently, I'm pruning that claim out. Bricology (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the evangelical subculture it's not unusual for individuals with honorary doctorates from places like "Mumble Bible College" to use the "Dr." prefix much of the time. Those that have actual doctorates also regularly use the "Dr." prefix outside of an academic setting. It's an indicator of status in a milleu that values hierarchy and the signals of status. All this does not make the usage appropriate in secular settings including Wikipedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the reasons discussed above for removing the usage of "Dr.", the repetitive usage is promotional and moreover violates Wikipedia's guidelines on concision. Writing that Creflo received a degree is concisely sufficient. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those that hold a PhD are rightfully called doctors. Medical doctors are more accurately referred to as physicians, referring to them as doctors is more recent in history. Doctor comes from the Latin word docere, which means to instruct, teach, or point out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.242.119 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's manual of style advises against using academic credentials in most cases, WP:CREDENTIAL. The legitimacy of his doctorate does not have to be debated here. The article mentions his honorary doctorate. That's plenty. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of controversies section[edit]

I see that Jmaster1 has removed the controversies section entirely. This section seems important and relevant to the article, but included no citations at all. I assume this is why Jmaster1 removed it. In any case, it is a good reason to delete it.

Can someone verify some or all of these deleted claims?

A Word of Faith teacher, Dollar is sometimes criticized for advocating a prosperity-oriented teaching held by most Christians to be a misreading of Christian theology [citation needed]. Many of Dollar's church members believe that his Rolls-Royce automobiles, which were given to him by the church, his private jet, and million-dollar Atlanta home and multimillion-dollar Manhattan apartment confirm the validity of his prosperity gospel teachings[citation needed]. + A Word of Faith teacher, Dollar is sometimes criticized for advocating a prosperity-oriented teaching held by most Christians to be a misreading of Christian theology [citation needed]. Many of Dollar's chur
Critics, however, believe his lifestyle is proof of nothing more than the generosity of his parishoners. Dollar has explained that prosperity primarily involves improved relationships with God, family, friends.
Dollar's church has amassed a fortune in real estate, mostly in College Park. Like other Word of Faith preachers, Dollar is often accompanied by bodyguards in public, and has stated, "I'm a part of the God class." [verification needed]
Creflo has also appeared in front of the World Dome in the 2001 rap video Welcome to Atlanta with rappers Ludacris and Jermaine Dupri.
On another occasion, Dollar donated money as a show of appreciation to law enforcement officers in Fulton County, Georgia[citation needed].
Many of his critics claim he was born with the name Michael Smith; however, his actual birth name is Creflo A. Dollar, Jr. after his father, Creflo A. Dollar Senior. A man by the name of Michael Smith held a few high-ranking titles during his 12 years of membership/service at World Changers Church, but they are, in fact, two separate people.

Thanks much. Phiwum 13:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the Welcome to Atlanta video appearance:

http://www.ottawamennonite.ca/sermons/dust-off.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onorland (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Swindler" vandalism[edit]

I don't like the word "swindler" in the first paragraph. Personal feelings aside, the article should remain objective.

No, of course "swindler" did not belong there. You corrected a vandalism that other editors had missed. Thanks much, but please remember to sign your talk page posts by appending four tildes. Phiwum 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*cracks the whip*[edit]

Oh, stop arguing and get to work. This article is a mess. I put some templates in and cleaned up the Controversy section a bit. Can someone work on all those [citation needed]s in the first section? Thank you! ComputerSherpa 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video request[edit]

Can someone post the video clip from one of the TBN broadcasts [a few years ago] where he said "Worship me! I mean worship God!"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.86.122 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really seem relevant to me. A simple slip of the tongue that signifies nothing much at all. Phiwum 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good News[edit]

Creflo Dollar owns a jet model "Gulfstream 3"...this could lead to a mis-understanding that he owns 3 jets. He also has stated in interviews that he does not own 2 Rolls Royces, he own's 1 and that 1 was a gift from his congregation. He states that he would never spend that much money on a Rolls Royce for several reasons.

It is said that the Atlanta church brings in about 70-80 million a year. Every year they pay $57,000 to have the church audited by Grant Thorton (the largest firm around) They give the members an opportunity to come into the accounting department to look at the books.

Thirty million goes into television, the church has a staff and sixty ministries. There is something called "The Joseph Project" that is designed to help men that are in and out of jail, in and out of drugs, in and out of marriages, etc. They have outreaches in Ukraine, Uganda, Cameroon and Brazil, providing shelter for the homeless and those in need. There were about a dozen houses being built in Brazil at one time. The church provides groceries for about 180 families per week.

It has been said that he does not use one penny of the churches money to pay for any of his lifestyle. He stopped taking a salary from the church a number of years ago. He owns businesses and invests in real estate, that's how he pays for himself and his family. He has invested 28 million dollars of his own personal money into the church.

He flies to New York every Saturday to preach in Madison Square Garden. It costs approximately $800,000 a year to rent it out and $85,000 to rent storage space nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalgem21 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Controversy Section[edit]

I decided to remove this section because it was biased and many threw out opinions rather than facts. For instance the user states that one of the reason whyh Creflo Dollar is controversal because he claims Jesus was God who came down as a man, which in fact is central to Christianity. Other negative things listed under the controversy section were simply made up and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfssoccer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the controversy section as it was. It contains two valid citations from reliable sources. It does not contain "made up material" as you falsely allege. Do not delete verified content on Wikipedia; you may be restricted from editing if you continue. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BITE. The bulk of the text was unsourced and constituted an unsourced controversial claim about a living person, which should be removed on sight under our biographies of living persons policies. Rather than blindly restoring libel, you should confirm that the text really is cited. I have added sources about the lawsuit and changed the language to reflect what the Tulsa World says about the amended lawsuit. I removed the Baptist criticism completely as it was unsourced. --B (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with your claim that "the bulk of the text was unsourced." Are you referring to this article or Hagin's? One middle paragraph of Baptist objections to Dollar was possibly verifiable (such objections are widely known and sometimes reported) but was unsourced and should have been removed; I certainly don't think it would have qualified as libelous. The rest was valid. I am fundamentally opposed to wholesale removal of criticism/controversy sections based on vague objections, thus the motivation for my restoration of these sections and warning the user about that and their disparagement aimed at me. Careful editing to remove unsourced material, with an explanation of each edit, should then follow. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in a criticism section needs to be (1) reliably sourced both in terms of the thing being criticized actually having happened and in terms of the criticism being levied, (2) specifically about the subject of the biography in question and not just in general terms about something relating to him, (3) significant and not just some guy's rant, and (4) really a criticism and not merely a disagreement. Every non-WOF Christian, myself included, disagrees with the "name it, claim it" theology of the WOFers. It's a terrible heresy, but that doesn't mean that every WOFer's article should be turned into a criticism of WOF. The statement "Dollar is known for his controversial teachings of Prosperity theology" is true, but it doesn't belong in the criticism section unless there is really an objective criticism to be levied there, not merely that we disagree with it. --B (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me exactly what you're flogging here. The statement "Dollar is known for his controversial teachings of Prosperity theology" satisfies all of your criteria: it's sourced to a New York Times article about Dollar that spends at least three paragraphs explaining that there are individuals and organizations in the field who object to what he does ("an "F" grade for financial transparency"), i.e. there is in fact a controversy here. Are you suggesting that some further evidence of controversy is needed? I think the Times article is quite sufficient. If not, the whole sentence, perhaps dropping the word "controversial" should be appended to the lede paragraph to further explain who Dollar is. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Creflo Dollar attending ORU be a controversial Issue? What's controversial about attending a university? Does these following statements not qualify as being an opinion? How do we know Creflo is known for controversial teachings? How is owning a Rolls Royce controversial? Pastors when they are finished teaching get paid by the people through what's called a pastor's offering which is taken after each sermon.

Dollar is known for his controversial teachings of Prosperity theology.[8]

He was a member of the Oral Roberts University Board of Regents and, along with four other board members, is named in a lawsuit against the university alleging wrongful termination, among other claims.[9][10]

Dollar is also known to have received a Rolls Royce from his church.[11] (Jfssoccer (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Being on the board and named in a lawsuit is inherently controversial. Being a WOFer/prosperity gospel/name it-claim it teacher is not and in order for that to belong in the controversy section, we would need a citation from a reliable source criticizing Dollar personally for something he did relative to his theology. Simply the fact that the vast majority of Christians disagree with his theology is not a controversy. As for driving a Rolls Royce, if he is taking heat in the media for his excesses, then yes, that's worth mentioning. If nobody outside of Wikipedia cares, though, then we shouldn't care either. As for the "pastor's offering", that's not entirely correct. A visiting speaker is often given a "lover offering" by the congregation, but that is usually reserved for someone who does not have a regular salary. In other words, if a visiting missionary came to speak at our church, we would almost certainly give him or her a love offering for his or her ministry, but if the pastor from the church down the street spoke, a love offering is not traditionally expected. I suppose that different denominations or areas have different traditions, but if he is on salary from his church and collecting love offerings for himself personally beyond reasonable travel expenses, then that's outside what I believe to be the norm. --B (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with him accepting a Rolls Royce from his church as a gift... he also doesn't get a salary according to an interview i watched. 94.192.129.91 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content you removed was referenced. Wikipedia is not censored. Ndenison talk 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we confirm his birthday?[edit]

It's listed on this page as January 28. However, it is listed on his Who2 Biography page as January 15. It is also listed under the Births section of our own January 15 page (it is a duplicate of the entry in the January 28 page). Moobler (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was a kids tv show... damn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.252 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has External Link "Video Stream of Creflo Dollar on November 30, 2007" been hijacked?[edit]

"External links" item "Video Stream of Creflo Dollar on November 30, 2007 with remarks to the Senate inquiry" now points to "http://www.wisdomministries.org/".

Has this been hijacked? 

    Spydy (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

Considering all the previous Talk/Discussion Page topics, I think it is more than reasonable to add a tag expressing concerns about NPOV. At least that will clue readers in to the fact that virtually all the sources come from Dollar or his ministry's website and do more than point out a lack of good citations. Scrawlspacer (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE - W-2 FORMS? YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS[edit]

As a member of World Changers Church I can verify for myself that Creflo Dollar does NOT ask for W-2 forms for verifcation of salary/tithe percentage. Common day lynching. You can not be serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.132.66 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that much of a concern for you, please do not make such a loud fuss about it. Instead, you should use the established method for correcting errors.

Use the simple "edit" method
Provide reliable citations for the correct information
Have done with it.

And, if you are unsure how to do any of this for yourself, please ask here. I am sure that somebody will assist. There is no stigma attached to inability. 184.41.44.167 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creflo Bishop Longs Comment[edit]

A YouTube video of Pastor Creflo Dollar defending his "brother in the Lord," Bishop Eddie Long, is making its way across the blogosphere. In the video, Dollar addresses church members for turning their back on their pastor, who recently settled four sexual-coercion lawsuits, when he is in trouble.

Dollar likens Long's "troubles" to a "wreck," applauding the fact that Long had "insurance" -- i.e., Jesus. Dollar admonishes Long's followers who are looking for a new church home in his ministry. Dollar preaches:

"That [Long] is my friend, that is my brother in the Lord. If you came from there, you get on back over there where you're supposed to be and do what you need to be doing because he got insurance and Jesus paid the premium."

Seriously? We won't throw baby Jesus out the window with the bathwater, but these pastors who fail to acknowledge the level of duplicity allegedly exercised by Long is immoral and unacceptable.

As reports surface that Long's church attendance is waning, Dollar defends his friend, telling folks to go back. Likening a man who allegedly preyed on young boys -- plying them with gifts and trips in the process -- to a "wreck" is disingenuous at best and foul at worst.

Dollar is right; everyone makes mistakes, but trivializing an alleged misdeed like Long's scandal and criticizing those who would walk away is foul. We're taking it back to '88 and giving Pastor Dollar the gas face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgathers630 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Creflo Dollar. 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: 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) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Creflo Dollar. 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: 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) 05:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section?[edit]

Adding a controversies section to this article seems appropriate. Does anyone object? 24.63.16.140 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the existing article. There is already quite a lot of well-sourced information about aspects that are 'controversies'. Sales-driven newspapers and media like stoking "controversy". Please also read WP:CSECTION which discourages "controversy" sections in Wikipedia articles. So, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than a sales-driven newspaper, what would you propose adding or changing, and why? And what reliable sources would you use to present the various sides in the proposed items that you would classify as 'controversies'? And how would you support a case for making this an exception to that WP:CSECTION recommendation? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creflo_Dollar&oldid=1195373800"