QUOTE
There are two origin stories. The word Waldenses means 'people of the valley.' This would then refer to those whose origin is from Antioch and then migrated to the vallies of the Roman Empire. Waldo changed his name after these people. They didn't begin in the 12th century. They were first noticed in the 12th century due to the fact that Waldo was forbidden by the Church of Rome to preach and he thus disregarded their order and began preaching. They held to the Bible as the authority on doctrine, not the pope. Thus, just because they were recognized in the 12th century, it doesn't mean they didn't exist before hand.
True, but the accepted view--both academically and by the Waldense Church itself--place their origin in the 12th century.
Mainstream academic origin story
The mainstream academic view, shared officially by the Waldense Church and the Waldense Scholarship, is that the Waldensians started with Peter Waldo, who began to preach on the streets of Lyon in 1173. He was a wealthy merchant and decided to give up all his worldly possessions, he was sick of his own affluence, that he had so much more than those around him. He went through the streets throwing his money away and decided to become a wandering preacher who would beg for a living. He began to attract a following. Waldo had a philosophy very similar to Francis of Assisi.
Preaching required official permission, which he was unable to secure from the Bishop in Lyon, and so in 1179 he met with Pope Alexander III at the Third Council of the Lateran and asked for permission to preach. Walter Map, in De nugis curialium, narrates the discussions at one of these meetings. The pope, while praising Peter Waldo's ideal of poverty, ordered him not to preach unless he had the permission of the local clergy. He continued to preach without permission and by the early 1180s he and his followers were excommunicated and forced from Lyon. The Catholic church declared them heretics - the group's principle error was "contempt for ecclesiastical power" - that they dared to teach and preach outside of the control of the clergy "without divine inspiration". They were also accused of the ignorant teaching of "innumerable errors" and condemned for translating literally parts of the Bible which were deemed heretical by the Church. It was not however condemned for translating into the vernacular, as there already existed vernacular translations. Thus, they were considered heretics because the clergy saw them as a danger to what they understood as the divinely sanctioned church hierarchy.
In 1207, one of Waldo's early companions, Durand of Osca, converted to Catholicism after debating with Bishop Diego of Osma and St. Dominic. Durand later went to Rome where he professed the Catholic faith to Innocent III. Innocent gave him permission to establish the Poor Catholics, a mendicant order, who continued the Waldensian preaching mission against the Cathars. The Franciscans and Dominicans later supplanted the Poor Catholics.
Waldo and his followers developed a system where they would go from town to town and meet secretly with small groups of Waldensians. There they would confess sins and hold service. A traveling Waldensian preacher was known as a barba and could be either man or woman. (The idea of a female preacher was novel, almost revolutionary in and of itself, for the era.) The group would shelter and house the barba and help make arrangements to move on to the next town in secret.
SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses
QUOTE
just because they canonized the book, it doesn't mean that the books themselves are wrong. If a catholic priest can read the scriptures and call for honest reform, then the scriptures aren't the problem.
You stated otherwise. When I informed you that the Church had nixed the Book of Revelation, you stated "How can anyone not believe in the BR and still believe in Jesus?" and "Why would I take the RCC's word on anything?" et al. So how can you believe anything this institution has to say--particularly about Jesus? Why do you embrace their religious texts and deity?
As for the BR ... Both Catholics and Protestants have nixed this Book. In fact, Martin Luther believed Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it".
So why continue to believe that the BR speaks of future events when both Christian institutions (scholars and theologians as well) say otherwise?
Sean
well we all know what happens with that 
its like chinese whisper's everyone adds a little bit to the 'facts'
) and decided not to create anyomre..instead let the two people he took no time to create to breed like crazy for nearly 1000 years LMAO thats so funny