Talk:Two by Twos/Archive6

Semi-itinerant

The opening paragraph contains the statement that the ministry is semi-itinerant. I think this should be replaced by an accurate statement about the homeless character of the ministry from an RS. I do not yet have Melton, but I know some of you do.RSuser (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying that some ministers don't live in rented quarters? If not, then the word “homeless” is overly broad. • Astynax ^talk 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they do live in rented quarters sometimes. Especially in the third world, or other areas where there are no meeting homes to stay in. I'm not sure why they are not 'itinerant' because even workers in the Third World do not rent the same place for long. I guess the most precise is to say, "They do not marry (usually) or own a home, staying in members' homes whenever they can, and renting accommodation when ministering where the church/movement is not yet established." You could say 'generally itinerant' above and provide the detail below. What does Melton say? RSuser (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with itinerant? Semi-itinerant is a lot like semi-pregnant. I'm making this change. Go ahead: I've strapped on my Kevlar vest. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If they were itinerants, then there certainly are sources to back up usage of that word. However, I think those usually point back to the original ministers, not to the situation today. Although all the preachers 100 years ago operated that way, there are at least some who do not fit that definition today. Instead of wandering, peripatetic preachers, there seem to be many who do little or no preaching ("resting" or assigned to other non-traveling duties according to the worker list I mentioned before), and many others who only "travel" within severely circumscribed territories, mostly visiting with members, with only one or two actual preaching venues - not so very different than ministers in other churches (or people with other jobs) who are not described as “itinerant.” • Astynax ^talk 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not pregnant. I'm not too concerned that there's shades of gray among their clergy, or that, as among many other denominations, some clergy stretch the envelope of acceptable behavior. Is there really a reason to over-split this hair? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be contentions over this point (not here, but in conflicting claims I've come across), with one side arguing that itinerancy derives from an apostolic example, and others arguing that the itinerants are not following the apostolic example. Seems to me that the argument is over something (“itinerancy”) which doesn't exist: i.e., that on the one side itinerancy isn't observable in this group to any degree which would distinguish it from other churches, and that on the other side there doesn't seem to be an Biblical command to be itinerant (so how can they be accused of failing to observe it?). “Semi-itinerant” was just trying to find a middle ground by acknowledging that there are elements that could be described as being itinerant, but others which contradict that term.

The controversy escapes me as to why it is important to describe them as “itinerant” on one hand, and to attack them for failing to uphold “itinerancy” according to the Bible on the other. I'm wondering if perhaps it wouldn't be simpler to drop the term and only mention that they minister in pairs? If anyone can find a source which explains this point more exactly, then it would be better to more fully describe that further down under the Ministry heading. • Astynax ^talk 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy aside (of which I wasn't actually aware before you pointed it out Astynax), I think the homelessness of the preachers is a significant enough distinguishing point that it should be included in the article.

The practices as I experienced them (to be qualified by someone who can do the research):

• Within a region, each preacher usually has a somewhat stable mailing address which is the home of some particularly dedicated member(s). They will live at this address during their "rest" period of the year, but it's not really a permanent home and can easily change. I don't think this is typical in all that many churches though it once may have been so, back in the evangelical Victorian times.
• New members are sometimes described as "opening a new house for the servants" (for their itinerant usage), especially in "new fields" like China, Russia or Mongolia where converts are few and western religion isn't well established.
• Members can be contacted by the preachers at any time and basically be asked if can (in reality, be informed that are to) stay at their house for some temporary period.

I'm happy to be corrected, but this does seem like a distinguishing feature. Donama (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed from many sources (that I now keep having to read as a result of these discussions) that the "Go" part of "Go-Preacher" was a determination to keep their clergy on the move. I'm not surprised if the ideal has been somewhat modified in practice. Welcome to the darned World. However, that it was a driving motivation at the group's inception, and that it continues as an ideal today is worth noting as Donama says. I'm going to look into the Roman Catholicism article to see how they handle a "celibate" priesthood.

--OK. Just looked at that. They sort of lay out that celibacy as ideal, note exceptions to the Church's rule (i.e. currently married men can become priests in some instances), note the rules and practices related to homosexuals becoming priests, and hint that not everybody manages to live up to the ideal.

For this article, which is pretty skimpy, there really doesn't seem to me a good case to lay out a too much granularity about mailing addresses vs permanent residences vs "rest" locations, etc., etc. It seems on its face that this group expects its clergy to be prepared to sacrifice a permanent home in the typical sense of the word. I've known a number of clergy from Episcopal, Presbyterian and UCC (formerly Congregational) denominations whose sole job was to be temporary pastor at churches between permanent pastors. These clergy were on the move all the time: but they had mailing addresses, home phones, furniture, etc. in a manner that suggested that when the current stint was over, that was the place they'd go back to. They had roots. From sources and Donama's description, I get the impression that the CCers like to keep their clergy rootless. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to watch you all try and sort though this using the limited published information available, if you have any questions about how it works in real life just ask. (*smile*) BTW the ministers don't have "income" in the normal sense of the word (like a fixed income or paycheck), support is given as a non-tax deductable gifts.

Nemonoman, it's not that us CCers "like to keep our clergy rootless", it's what they are moved to do in the spirit of the 12 and 70; and "foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head."; and "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."

Jesse Lackman (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you find my expressions to be offensive or otherwise incorrect in tone. Also I suggest that it is a bad idea to quote scripture at me: I'm all too likely to start quoting scripture back. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Donama, as mentioned at the top of this section, pairs of ministers frequently do rent an apartment rather than staying with members. And in the case of at least a few Overseers, they have had houses - I'm recalling a footnote somewhere that mentioned William Carroll, Jack Carroll, James Jardine(?) and perhaps another. I think modifying it slightly to say “most” makes your point about this not being about home ownership, while allowing for those exceptions. I think that something along the lines of the list you gave above would be good added to the article as background, perhaps more general as Nemonoman suggested and reduced to a sentence or two. I do not recall sources, but I haven't been looking for anything along those lines (and there are a few references that I've yet to read through).

JesseLackman, I'm wondering how those quotes apply/support which features of the ministry today? If there is an underlying rationale, then I think the article could point to those passages as a reason the group gives. I just haven't figured out how it connects, or to exactly what. • Astynax ^talk 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed to "with occasional exceptions", since this description seems more apt than "semi-itinerant" (especially as semi means half), and even more than mostly itinerant (which suggests a kind of simple majority). I sincerely hope this brilliantly chosen and suitably apt phrase will get us past this particular nit. Also please consider that there is scarcely a rule in the world that lacks occasional exceptions, and the near-universal pervasiveness of occasional exceptions to a rule is so practically in itself a rule that my rule of thumb is to simply omit "with occasional exceptions" as tacitly implied and explicitly redundant.I would remove the phrase if it were up to me. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman, you have not offended me at all, and you probably will not offend me even if you deliberately tried to. *smile* To me this is just another page on the WWW, nothing more, nothing less.

Astynax, the majority of workers have left houses, or brethren, sisters, fathers, mothers, lands, the reality of a wife and children, for Jesus sake, and the gospel's. In so doing they have received an hundredfold (with the exception of wives) in the spiritual family they are a part of. It's similar to what you read in Acts and the letters, and what is written of the Waldenses "it is said that a traveler from Antwerp to Florence could lodge everynight with some Waldensian brother or sympathizer." [page 312, History of the Christian Church (1879), W.M. Blackburn]

I'm curious about the word "frequently"; "as mentioned at the top of this section, pairs of ministers frequently do rent an apartment rather than staying with members." What's the source of that information? What percentage of worker pairs would be renting apartments instead of staying with others?

Jesse Lackman (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly news. As RSuser mentioned previously, ministers in third-world countries and in areas with no (or few) members will rent an apartment. And a good percentage of workers on the last worker list I saw were assigned in third-world nations. There was also a significant number listed as “resting” (not going about preaching). As I said before, as the Apostles returned to their homes following the crucifixion, and as Paul lived for years in his own rented quarters, there is certainly nothing wrong with workers doing the same. However, any statement that suggests that none, or few, of the workers have a home/fixed address/place to lay their head, is incorrect. • Astynax ^talk 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to cite for that last sentence Astynax? thanks. Jesse Lackman (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't been looking for one, since I've never heard of anyone deny those situations where ministers rent apartments or otherwise have a fixed address. But I'll do so as I have time to revisit the materials. • Astynax ^talk 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Astynax, I'n not in any way denying that the workers sometimes rent appartments and live at fixed addresses, I'm wondering about a reliable source that states that happens frequently, i.e. with the majority of the workers in the big picture point of view. Jesse Lackman (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed section

This is the material that was removed:

• Both John Long and William Irvine studied Matthew 10 together, discussed the content, and collectively questioned if this was how the ministry should still be.
• John Long had documented his thoughts on Matthew 10, not that they saw it as a commandment, but that they considered the aspect of going by faith, as the disciples were sent in Matthew 10.
• Despite what is mentioned above the year of studying Matthew 10 was 1898.
• William Irvine was encouraging John Long to join the Faith Mission, but John Long asked God for direction regarding this reading of Matt 10, and was convicted to go out in faith rather than join the Faith Mission as William Irvine expected. John Long was the first to go in faith (Matt 10) and William Irvine joined him in this years later.
• William Irvine was not dissatisfied with Faith Mission precepts as mentioned above, and continued to enjoin people to the Faith Mission Prayer Meetings, and ministry, beyond 1897.
• Contrary to what is mentioned above, William Irvine was struggling to win converts until he preached in a mission that had been organised by John Long, with Goodhand Pattison.

I would welcome seeing references for the above material from reliable sources that meet WP:RS requirements. If and when we do, then there would be no objections to including the information, although, as has been stated above, it would have to be clear that, where the above information runs contrary to what is included in other reliable sources, there would have to be an indication of that disagreement. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also welcome support for anything there, and there are other references for a meeting with John Long (Parker and Parker mention it). But I'm not sure how much of what was removed is valid or adds much. I personally think that John Long's memoir does contain some fascinating details. However, at the risk of boring everyone by repeating some points:

The narrative speaks only to what Long personally recalled. He and Irvine were in contact for brief periods at best. These guys traveled all over Ireland. Long was occupied at the time preaching in Methodist churches and selling Methodist literature. Cooney was preaching in various churches while travelling on behalf of his family's business. When their paths crossed, each was capable of noting what he saw, but are hardly witnesses to what Irvine may have done elsewhere, with other people. For all I can determine from reading it, Irvine could well have already decided upon Matthew 10 as a pattern, and in 1898 may have been leading Long to study Matthew 10 again, and suggesting further implications. The year could also have been misrecalled at the time written, or be a simple mistake (as Long elsewhere did date the origin to 1897). What is certain from Long's journal is that he didn't buy into the interpretation of Matthew 10 to the extent Irvine had done, even at that time.

The sources put the founding of the new mission in the meetings at Ashmount (the Gill family home), in September-October of 1897. It was there that those involved decided that the established churches were wrong, and to embark on a new way. That date is attested to by Irvine, by McClung, by Cooney, by newspaper accounts, and by other sources.

Some of the material removed seem to be novel hypotheses:

“Despite what is mentioned above the year of studying Matthew 10 was 1898.”

Again, that may well be the date John Long recalled studying the chapter with Irvine. It is a leap to assume that it is the first time Irvine had studied the passage, or that he had not already drawn conclusions regarding it.

“William Irvine was encouraging John Long to join the Faith Mission, but John Long asked God for direction regarding this reading of Matt 10, and was convicted to go out in faith rather than join the Faith Mission as William Irvine expected. John Long was the first to go in faith (Matt 10) and William Irvine joined him in this years later.”

John Long did not join the Faith Mission, but neither did he immediately give up his source of income as a Methodist colporteur. Nor did he give up his affiliation with that church at that time. Some accounts have Irvine already having his Faith Mission funding cut off, though they kept him on their rolls (he did, after all, keep sending them new pilgrim workers). So the meaning of “go out on faith” seems very subjective.

“William Irvine was not dissatisfied with Faith Mission precepts as mentioned above, and continued to enjoin people to the Faith Mission Prayer Meetings, and ministry, beyond 1897.”

That is speculation. The sources say that, by the time he met Long, he was already dissatisfied with the Faith Mission (All in Good Faith, pg. 322-323) - not particularly for their missions or prayer meetings, but rather that Faith Mission saw the job of their pilgrim workers as being to get people into existing local protestant churches. The Secret Sect (pg. 2) puts it: “Irvine became discontented with the Faith Mission for several reasons, his primary difficulty being his personal dislike for the churches. He was disturbed when he found that his converts lapsed, and 'were lost among the clergy'.”

All in Good Faith notes on page 323 regarding Irvine's 1897 independent mission: “It is important to note at this point, that in joining Irvine's movement, all these people were not becoming members of The Faith Mission, of which Irvine was still a member. They were, in fact, becoming followers of Irvine himself and under his leadership would later be regarded as the first members and nucleus of his new movement. The names of all are not known but those that are, included some who were later destined to play an important role in the future of the movement and in the life of the founder, William Irvine. This first visit of Irvine to Rathmolyon is historically regarded as his first independent mission and marks the initial point of his eventual departure from The Faith Mission.” John Long also wrote the editor of Heresies Exposed (pg. 73, footnote): “He [Long] declares that the movement dates from 1897.”

My problem isn't with the material in Long's memoir, it is the interpretation/spin that was put on it to suggest that the material contradicts the article and other sources. • Astynax ^talk 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

John, you said;

"If and when we do, then there would be no objections to including the information, although, as has been stated above, it would have to be clear that, where the above information runs contrary to what is included in other reliable sources, there would have to be an indication of that disagreement."

Are we talking "information" as in a plethora of objective stand-alone facts, or information as in personal interpretations/subjective opinions based on few facts? Facts do not run contrary to other facts, but personal interpretations can and do run contrary to other's personal interpretations. When a conversation runs contrary it's a sign that it's at least partially rooted in personal interpretations/subjective opinions. Read my comments in the "William Irvine may not be the founder" section, and here; [1].

Astynax, you said;

"My problem isn't with the material in Long's memoir, it is the interpretation/spin that was put on it to suggest that the material contradicts the article and other sources."

If there's contradiction there's personal interpretation/spin involved, and on one or *both* sides. What side it's on is subject to personal interpretation. That's a problem inherent in citing sources that contain a high percentage of personal conclusion/interpretations based on very, very, few facts. [2] [3] It's not much different than the myriad of personal conclusions/interpretations people have about the Bible itself. My problem is when another's personal interpretation of my personal interpretation is --> spin! Even if I don't say so it just might be that feeling is mutual. *smile*

Jesse Lackman (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who published Long's memoir? If it wasn't published by a reliable source, then there is serious question as to whether it is a reliable source. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like a year ago I commented in this discussion page as to the distinctive 2x2 practice of opposing TV use. So strong was this aversion to TVs in the fields with which I had inside-peering-out familiarity -- namely in Louisiana, North Carolina, & Maryland -- that laity would refer to deliberately disconnected TVs as monitors. It was a common theme in testimonies at conventions & meetings that "the lord's people" were unaware of much that the outside world knew in the way of "celebrity culture". My brother, who had a meeting in his home, left the sect because of disagreement between the workers and him about a TV in his living room. I feel like a former Rastafarian who has written in to note that an article on Rastafarianism makes no mention of ganja or separatist racialism! For cult members, the absence of TVs means that there is little chance of "Babylon" or "the world" entering one's head; that is how I remember its being explained by "workers" and "friends". When one considers the various ideas & images saturating TV watchers it behooves us to consider the jealousy which one cult might feel at the efficacy of another cult's device or technique. When "friends" (laity) do not watch TV, their "TV" -- that is, in a general sense, a rolodex of repeating images & ideas -- is in effect that which is dispensed by other friends & by participation in the various meetings. There is much interesting information in this article. I only hope that it will not by some blind spot omit to mention such a core practice. I suspect that TV use is so ubiquitous in our civilization now that many of the editors of this article... might not even consider the possibility that a sect chose to limit its members' exposure to TV for social reasons of its own. There is something about, for instance, the way that some sects will oppose all technology, that is more accessible to the contemporary mind than the absence of this item in particular, which might be so incomprehensible as to attain to invisibility. Hopkins Disease (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than a few notations that televisions (and radios in some areas) are severely discouraged, I don't recall anything that goes into much detail as to the why or effects of this.

• A quick look at Fortt (1994) gives this on page 179: “The workers have always sought to isolate the members from ‘the world.’ Two-by-Twos are not to have television sets. This seems to be on the verge of changing, as many Two-by-Twos have acquired sets and even VCR's in the last few years. These are kept more or less hidden, as this prohibition is still generally observed. Radios were also banned, although they have been tolerated in most areas for the past twenty years or so.”
• And this on page 49 regarding self-denial: “Even where success may appear in this effort, it is deemed worthless unless that person is within their exclusive group. E.g., I do not own a television. But since this is not a result of adhering to the workers' concept that it is sin, and because I am not a member of their ‘church,’ my choice not to own a television is deemed a ‘dead work.’ (I personally place absolutely no ‘work’ related value upon it whatsoever, nor do I view owning a television as sin.)”
• Eileen Barker, who had studied the group, did mention the group in a sociological paper about technology-averse religious groups. But I recall the focus there being on the Internet. Since many ministers and lay members now have Internet access, I'm not sure that could be stretched to cover television.

If this is an important feature, as you seem to be saying, then go ahead and put something under the Doctrine and practices section regarding this. • Astynax ^talk 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will put a brief reference. It was just such a major part of my upbringing -- in addition to the only aspect of growing up in the 2x2s for which I am actually grateful -- that it comes as a surprise to find it absent. 125.237.85.234 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There. I've made a conservative change stressing the existence of field variation. My other edits were in a similar vein, tending for instance to stress the particular privileges of members who have undergone particular initiatic stages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.85.234 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I did move the sentence regarding television to the Unpublished Doctrine section along with other group standards. Those additions add clarity (at least I think so), and do fit within the citations already in place. • Astynax ^talk 05:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished doctrine section

I've made an attempt to cite the material which was there, plus added a few items that I've had sitting here without a place to put them. I did leave out 2 points for which I could not find any citation...

• “The church believes in personal salvation by free choice. Each adult member is responsible for his or her own standing with God.”
  I was never quite clear as to what was being said here. I assumed that it was saying something about belief that there is a requirement to “work out one's salvation” as opposed to doctrines such as salvation through predestination, or by faith only, or redemption as a result solely of God's favor.

• “The practical effect of this belief, is to create an atmosphere of general respect for each others' opinions. Members with doubts are often urged to pray for guidance and read their Bibles, rather than seeking a definitive answer from an authority.”
  This sounds like a reasonable conclusion, but I've yet to find a source which states anything in support of this. Doesn't mean that there isn't one out there, and if so, then it should go back in.

The items inserted crop up again and again in the reading materials, so I plugged them in. • Astynax ^talk 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look today. The first part of the article is not bad at all. The Unpublished Doctrine section is still strongly biased IMO and strong POV based on mainstream church or evangelical theology. I've decided that personally it doesn't matter and is not worth the pain. No one takes wiki seriously anymore. That is, people use it, but they know it can not be trusted. Have a good summer. (Still lots of Fortt and Daniel nonsense.)RSuser (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing the doctrine link to a link to Sola scriptura would probably be a good idea. That might help make the rest of the content of that section a bit clearer as well.

Bot GA suggestions

See here.

Thanks for posting that. I wish I had other images, but those from more recent newspaper clippings/books are under copyright. I could probably get a pic of a hymnal, though (might give a visual break in the last half of the article). Nice cleanup job Neonoman and Donama - great to see better consistency! I've added more links to Wikipedia articles, which should help addressing the bot's point in that area. • Astynax ^talk 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sweating these standardized items as requirements, but I am reviewing the article and adjusting based on refreshed awareness of items to look for. The thing about a GA is that it needs only to be a good representation of its subject. If there aren't any more images, there aren't any more images. Etc. This article will never be an FA for that and other reasons. But GA is an achievable goal [theoretically]. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even an image of some form of meeting would probably be acceptable. I think the existing 6 references to works with "Encyclopedia" in the titles might be a bit of a problem, but I might be wrong. The second to the last paragraph of "Consolidation" is unreferenced and, maybe, a bit obscure. Some indication of who succeeded who, if it can be referenced, might be useful. Also, if there is a reference to their apparent aversion to modern communications technology, and if it includes cameras, as is mentioned above on this page, that might be relevant to include as well, particularly as it might help might indicate how images, presumably photographic, might be really hard to come by for this group. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen recent photos of conventions with members and ministers. I could borrow one or two to scan, but have no way of getting releases. That would prevent them from being accepted by Wikipedia. As members always have pictures of their favorite workers, I doubt that cameras are a particular problem.

I added references to the paragraph you've noted. As for the succession of Overseers, that's an interesting subject. I know that those who succeeded the original group of Overseers did not inherit their authority, or their entire spheres of influence. But I haven't come across a source for who succeeded to which parts of those domains. If someone knows of a source, I agree that this would make a good addition. • Astynax ^talk 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "encyclopedia" titles (primarily Melton's) in the references: those were added as backup. During discussions, it was alleged that some statements were not adequately supported by a single source, so backups were added. • Astynax ^talk 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of references to the Encyclopedia Brittanica or similar would be worrisome: 6 references to a specialized Encyclopedia of Religion is not so concerning (considering especially the dearth of other Reliable Sources).--Nemonoman (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent review

Lots of good ideas. I don't know what to say about the excessive number of references to Irvine as founder, except that they are an attempt to validate by numbers a fact that is vigorously disputed by current church members, for reasons not altogether clear to me. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The review is a joke! I read it; those editors have no idea whether what is here is correct or not. RSuser (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the suggested abbreviated citations. I'm still trying to figure out how s/he is saying to format the newspaper articles. More often than not, they don't have an author byline, and I cannot find a shortened citation template that illustrates newspaper articles without authors. Figured it out and done. • Astynax ^talk 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No founder

The "no founder" talk has been there since at least 1909 and likely before that. "The Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Salvation Army sects were never invented by God, but by Luther, Knox, Wesley, and Booth, respectively. The Pope professes to follow Christ, but he does not. The Protestants were likewise. Here Mr. Cooney challenged anyone to stand up for the clergy, and, as none accepted his challenge, he called them all mean, low, contemptible people, selling their souls for self and £ s. d." ...
"‘We did not start this Jesus way,’ he declared, ‘it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and if you go any other way YOU WILL GO TO HELL. We love you and we want you to turn from your own way.’"
Edward Cooney as per Impartial Reporter August 5, 1909. RSuser (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please identify the "Impartial Reporter", specifically as to the name of the source used and, if possible, the identity of the author of the piece. And, in general, all churches which claim to be restorationist which first became apparent significantly after the time of Jesus, as well as those churches which trace their origins to the 1st century or so, say that they were founded by Jesus. I'm not sure if he's officially "listed" as the founder of each of those groups, though, or whether we take the position that the person who first initiated the activity of the group as we can now identify it is listed as the founder. I will have to check on that though. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically you have secular and religious interests fighting over a word. That would be nothing new. The issue was put to a vote on TMB, and the result of contributors (members and non-) was "originator". It would seem that the originators of these restoration movements wish to deprecate their own importance as much as possible. At least this one did.RSuser (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[4] is my source. TTT has transcribed all the Enniskillen Impartial Reporter news articles, but original author not mentioned if indeed it was even in the paper since most of these are editorials. I believe Astynax likely has the newspaper reproductions that were made and are available, judging by the photo on the page.RSuser (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As to "The issue was put to a vote on TMB" allow me to resurrect an archived discussion found here:

The founder discussion starts here with a poll in which 11 persons voted and 9 agreed that Irvine was the Originator of the movement (as opposed to Architect, author, creator, Father or inventor of the movement, which names all received 0 votes, or the Entrepreneur or Maker of the movement, which names received 1 vote each). Although the topic of the poll and subsequent messages is "Founder" the term "Founder" was not included as an option on the poll.

This message thread is 20 pages long -- 556 messages. So long in fact that a second thread called Founder part II was started. That thread is 1750+ messages long. More than a dozen is an understatement: 20 unique posters appear on the first two pages of part II.

Even a cursory reading, however, shows that a consensus has not been reached. As late as yesterday this message appeared. It's pretty clear that the same faith-inspired contentiousness evidenced by Members who are editing this article is reflected on TMB as well even now. RSuser is disingenuous to assert that a consensus exists on TMB which should be reflected here even if it contradicts documented facts.--nemonoman (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am getting rather weary of this. It's getting hard to stay civil. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is what it is, no more no less. Don't project something I did not say. The context of the poll was "what is the best alternative word?" and good of you to point that out. Anyone who looks at TMB can take or leave anything there as it has no particular authority other than reflecting opinions, but it can be useful in expanding from the very small thought pool that exists here. I mention it when a controversial issue being discussed here has already been discussed there. TMB includes every different faith group, atheists, current members of the group, but mostly ex-members.RSuser (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

9 total people say the best alternative to describing Irvine as "Founder" is to say that Irvine is the "Originator" (provided "Founder" is NOT an available option), and you're giving us grief, again, for not accepting that as some sort of mainstream consensus, again, after the issue was raised a month ago. I'm not at all sure that you are pointing to a thought pool that is any larger than "the very small thought pool that exists here". As for "TMB includes every different faith group" I can tell you from here that it doesn't include mine, nor I'm willing to bet User:Redtigerxyz's. Not that that matters, but you're the one suggesting TMB is some sort of ecumenical think tank. It's not. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Who cares? Any more hissy fits today?RSuser (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The "no founder" view is already stated in the Doctrine section. As we've discussed ad infinitum, that is a matter of faith, not of record. In any event, Cooney's statement seems to be talking about "the way" (a doctrine or method), not necessarily making a claim about the organization and movement of which he was then a part. Indeed, and as has also been discussed, he later gave sworn testimony (quoted in the same newspaper) which indicates otherwise. In answer to a justice's question: “Were you the founder of this sect?” Cooney answered: “No, William Irvine was the first, about sixteen years ago.” ("Go Preachers Awarded Damages," The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal. Enniskillen, N. Ireland., December 18, 1913, p. 3.) • Astynax ^talk 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the doctrine section is not bad, but IMO does not accurately capture what Cooney is saying here. Someone could take from your statement that Cooney and others were preaching succession. What I find interesting here is that Cooney would have known there was no succession based on his sworn testimony, and still preaches "We did not start this Jesus way". I'm pretty sure those early workers did not preach succession as they knew their church history very well, and only later workers introduced succession talk. RSuser (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Another useful peer review

by the aptly named 'Finetooth'. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke. He has no knowledge of the subject, so how can he say "seems factually accurate and verifiable". What is 'seems'? He doesn't know? Imagine writing an essay in college and the prof says "seems like a good essay". There's a bunch of footnotes, some pictures and not too many spelling errors. I will give you an "A". How can you 'peer review' and not test accuracy? And no knowledge of the subject, not even in general. RSuser (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from offering your own critique as a peer review. I'm not sure that saying "It's a joke" every time someone other than a member of TMB offers an opinion is being part of the solution. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being part of the "solution", given that I know what the "solution" is, a boy/ girl scout club for amateur writers with "reward" badges. RSuser (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Therefore it's harder and harder to take your concerns as worthy of consideration. I'm trying my best to get this article -- which apparently is meaningful to you -- into the kind of article that Wikipedia can and should be proud of. I'm just hearing sniping from the peanut gallery from you. Other editors are giving it a real shot. I invite you to critique it as carefully and specifically as the other peer reviews. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it sniping if you will. The doctrine section is still largely made from SPS. It takes a lot more effort to refute a lie than to tell one so until the article is actually based on reliable sources I won't waste my breath. Needless to say the doctrine section is woefully inaccurate because it is based on some mainstream theology and SPS. The history is and always was pretty good. Anyway, I really don't care about my "concerns" since no one trusts wiki anyway. Wikipedia has nothing to be "proud of". It is a handy source, but no one in the world trusts it.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are going to so much effort to raise your concerns with this article if you don't think this article is of any importance because "no one in the world trusts it". The reality is that this article, to me at least, is the best source for my partner, friends or anyone else without knowledge of the church to get a grip on what the church is and does, etc. I would be really happy to see you improve it further, especially the doctrine section, but there's just a dearth of reliable/verifiable sources. Can you suggest some? Donama (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, Donama, I have been around here for a few years. I would much rather see NO article than just a re-hash of the rubbish floating around the Internet, which is what this article has become. Please analyze the sources that are being used and prune out the rubbish. There is no need to have a Doctrine section at all. At the present time this article is NOT a good resource, and I will get the word out every way I can as I had endorsed it previously. And other things I read have also made me lose confidence in wiki, but this is not the place for that.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some more work on the recommendations of the peer reviews, but didn't have time to go through the whole article. Happy for any of it to be reworked because I wasn't sure how to do certain things -- particularly, the footnote about collection. Not sure that really needs to be so detailed, even in the footnote, in this articles. Any suggestions? Donama (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Two by two"

I thought "Two by two" was in Matthew 10, but it's actually from Mark 6, verse 7: 7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

It's basically the same quote as Matthew, but Mark gets no credit for the 2x2 line? Comments?? --Nemonoman (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That passage should definitely be mentioned in relation to the "Two by two" name. The Matthew passage looks more like the source for the early "Go-Preacher" name which appears in the old newspapers. • Astynax ^talk 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember this?

Other details to consider

• Both John Long and William Irvine studied Matthew 10 together, discussed the content, and collectively questioned if this was how the ministry should still be.[24]
• John Long had documented his thoughts on Matthew 10, not that they saw it as a commandment, but that they considered the aspect of going by faith, as the disciples were sent in Matthew 10.

Everywhere you look (see for example TMB), Matt 10 (not Mark 6) gets all the glory and I MEAN ALL: but apparently -- maybe obviously -- Mark 6 also played in. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'faith lines' idea of John Long is in Matthew 10. The term 'faith lines' is no longer used. But Matthew 10 describes how they were to go forth, especially with 'no scrip'. Mark 6 and Luke 10:1 mention how they went, two by two. Luke 10:1 is the more commonly used reference since it mentions the seventy. RSuser (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the seventy to CC? --Nemonoman (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The workers are not disciples or apostles, but there were 70 others sent out by Jesus. These would be more like workers. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine references

Many of the doctrine references are from 1982 or even earlier. Things change. No one preaches like the above quote from Edward Cooney, for example. What is the church preaching today? RSuser (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to tell us where to look so we can find out? --Nemonoman (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my position is clear. Don't publish crap. Which is why I think wiki is a joke. It is a bigger crap pile by the day. And you guys are hypocrites. You want reliable sources when you disagree, but any source will do for pushing your POV.RSuser (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been over my concerns along these lines too, I wish the reviewing editors would read all the discussion archived. The article looks like a good match with the cited sources but is not a good match with reality in a few areas. Friends and workers who see this article will say "what" with a roll of the eyes because of the mismatch with reality - everyone else won't see it. It is interesting how much of the published sources cites use the same primary source material (Impartial Reporter Articles, Heresies Exposed, etc,) with their own bit personal opinion/interpretation mixed in. That's exactly what those primary sources did too, and is the reason why parts of this article do not match reality. Is that what wiki wants? If so, so be it - I can live and let live. Jesse Lackman (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, like it or not, we can only go on the basis of the reliable sources we've got. If there are no more contemporary reliable sources, we've got a problem. It might be possible to say that, based on the fact that there is no "imposed" doctrine that anyone can see, that it is hard if not impossible to say what the doctrinal statements of any individual "ministers" might be, past, present, or future. I don't know how to phrase it for the article, nor do I know if there are any sources to that effect, but particularly in this case it seems to me that maybe such a statement might be called for. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. WP:V. I don't want to fill the article full of BS. So assuming it's BS, why isn't there someplace I can look to find a citation to fix it? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because we 'by design' do not have a written doctrine. It is reasonable to document practices. For example, the article states, "The use of television and other communication media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity is discouraged". And not surprisingly this is from Fortt's "Worker's Words Exposed". This is nonsense. It is the view of someone outside looking in and slanted. Workers do not preach against television. In 30+ years I have never heard the word TV or television in a sermon. And yet very few members have one, no elder has one, for sure. The best you could say is "Members do not have televisions in their homes". That is a true and verifiable statement. The reason why is surmise. It could be - social pressure and conformity, OR the leading of the Holy Spirit, depending on who you talk to. Since no one has done a study on why members do not have televisions it's speculation to say why. As far as a source for that statement the way I put it, it should not be difficult to find. RSuser (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the friends and workers themselves do not publish anything on doctrines and practices. Others have done that though and when those primary sources (Impartial Reporter, Heresies Exposed, etc.) are personal interpretations made 80-100 years ago get used later by sources like The Secret Sect etc. how can the objectivity and accuracy in the CC article be fixed? I don't know. Jesse Lackman (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We could try to find more recent sources. I know James R. Lewis has an entry on them in one of his books, but he doesn't break down the bibliography section group by group and I haven't yet found any sources directly relating to this one. I know that there is a template which says something to the effect that the sources used here may not be great, but they're the best we've got. I guess we could add that template, if I could find it. Alternately, if anyone is a member of this group, they could try to get something published in some reliable source which we could include. I wish there were better answers, and I kinda hope there are, but I don't know of any right now. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems highly presumptuous to try to prepare a written doctrine for a group that desires not to have one. RSuser (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we have a source which says that they desire not to have one, that would definitely merit inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but then you would have one. (Just kidding). No worker or any member would presume to write doctrine for the entire group. RSuser (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Check this page - [5], then search "June 11, 1982" which nets an article from a Walla Walla newspaper. It states "And there is no set doctrine in the group, he said."RSuser (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, search "August 20 1983" article from Bellingham Herald, "no written doctrine".RSuser (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A highly biased account from a lawyer in a child custody case, [6] complains "have no written doctrine or records, you can't get a straight answer from them".RSuser (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Walla Walla paper might be useful for these purposes, particularly the phrase "set doctrine", if it can be traced to the paper independent of the website. Unfortunately, I've been in discussions elsewhere where policy was pointed out to me that we can't take a quote from a non-reliable website about anything. That discussion was specifically about the "original" translations of Justin Martyr among others by the Jehovah's Witnesses. But if we can find it on say the paper's website, in print, or somewhere else that would definitely be useful. There would probably need to be some clarification about some things if it was used. How can they be a group and function like a group without some basic agreement as to what they do as a group? Granted, that isn't about "doctrine" so much as about "practices", but if there are any statements somewhere about whether the practices are or are not "prescribed", that would probably at least imply a form of practical doctrine. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What I keep hearing is that if anything is to be added, it has to be reliable, and yet the article content is not reliable as it stands. Sounds hypocritical to me. I don't see how using Fortt or Daniell (SPS sources as far as I'm concerned) is any different than a website.209.162.236.195 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are no 'prescribed' practices. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That Walla Walla article is quoted in the article already. Pretty much every published newspaper article has been compiled by the SPS web site people.209.162.236.195 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is no published doctrinal statement does not mean that no doctrines exist, are not maintained, and cannot be described. As stated in the article, the lack of a published statement does result in some variations. This is no different than for other non-creedal groups, for which Wikipedia describes doctrines and practices. • Astynax ^talk 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They do exist as you say. I don't see how they could be described without proper academic research. Most efforts I have seen are not characteristic of preaching today.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortt and Daniel

Most of the doctrine section is based on quotes from two books. One (Fortt) is subtitled "The Workers' Words Exposed" and the other (Daniel) is called "Reinventing the Truth". So we have a doctrine section based on two self-published polemics from writers who want to "expose" the group or show how the group "reinvents" the truth. Yeah, I would lift statements verbatim from those sources. Much better than nasty, tricksy web sites. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, attempts at sarcasm and insults could be taken as violations of WP:CIVILITY. While it might be possible that the publisher of the books is not reliable, your opinion that they are self-published would need substantiation as per WP:SPS, which I suggest you read. Like I said before, there is a template somewhere which says something like "these are the best sources we've got", and it might make sense to add that. But, if you want to challenge the reliability of those sources, the place to do so would be WP:RSN. I doubt those would be the only sources discussed there is discussion were to take place, though. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, check above where I was called a liar. Is that WP:CIVILITY. That didn't bother you.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I already did that, and got nowhere. The proof is in the pudding. Your little kangaroo panels are jokes. I made a complaint and Tigger here (nemonoman) was all over me calling me names and accusing me of lying to the panel. Sorry but I don't need that kind of crap. That incident destroyed any respect I had for wiki. Wiki is a joke, no question, but I am here to try to stop the lies.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion going to the panel is worse than not going. I suggest checking reviews on amazon.com and you will see how good these books are.67.43.136.72 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

False, and utter nonsense. The material in the doctrine section includes a goodly percentage which YOU (under your XXXXX ID) pasted back in from EddieTor, and which you regarded as reliable even though unreferenced and obviously PoV.[7] If there is quoting going on, then I haven't seen it. Yes, the EddieTor material was rearranged, because pasting it back in caused a lot of duplication, and a new editor added the bit about televisions. But statements which were once OK don't automatically morph into some sort of PoV "expose" just because they are rearranged or referenced. • Astynax ^talk 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about all the Fortt and Daniel references. Note the heading of this section. This is a continuing and highly annoying tactic to take a point that is non-germane and refute it.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't reveal my personal data. I have asked this before.67.43.136.72 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To 67.43.136.72: I assume you are RSUser editing without logging on by that username. But since you choose to edit anonymously, I'm forced to address my concerns here rather than on your IP talk page if I mean to make a difference.

My login times out very quickly. No need to log in. I plan to work anon forthwith.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncloak as RSuser, and I will move this discussion to your talk page where it belongs.

I'd prefer no talk page.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is too much. Please be helpful or at least civil.

• I do not see any incidence above or below of you or anyone being called a liar. Please elaborate.

"RSuser is disingenuous to assert that a consensus exists on TMB which should be reflected .... " In the context of what follows in the sentence, disingenuous is clearly an accusation of lying.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see no incidences me or anyone "calling me names and accusing me of lying to the panel". Please show when and where.

You (or at least RSuser) have made numerous broadbrush accusations against me in the past, and have promoted your views by characterizing relatively benign statements with the harshest and most extreme interpretations possible. An example would be where you on several occasions accused me of readying to "lock" this article against future edits -- a virtual impossibility, but that didn't stop you.

I am growing weary of your quick descent into uncivil talk whenever you fail to get your way. You have gone beyond deprecating the editors most concerned with this article. Two editors did very good and likely time-consuming peer reviews of this article.

They are fine individuals; the problem is they are over-worked and do not know the subject. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I do get my way. Not always but enough. I am patient and persistent as you can tell. I can give some examples, but maybe you can think of them.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't wait to call their efforts "a joke".

Yes, the efforts are a joke; as people they are not, thanks for allowing me to clarify. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You and I have developed history: You have accused me of various biases, various inexcusable behaviors, various bigotries, and so on, in public and with flimsy evidence, if any. So I've come to expect your tactics. I just put up the umbrella against the shitstorm I expect whenever I cross your perceived lines.

Tit for tat. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But it never ends. It NEVER ends, and now it's going escaping past the boundaries of this "kangaroo" panel.

If anyone, ANYONE, had removed cited material you liked from this article, you might have cause for anger. If you had ever, EVER, listed reliable sources that this article ignored, you might have cause for anger.

You have taken your concern over self-published sources to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and when you were unable to bend them to your precise will you insulted them as well. You continue to call sources unreliable because you don't like them, even though they have been accepted by this article's editors and by the RSN, and you continue to demand that any information that uses those sources for citations be removed -- EVEN INFORMATION YOU HAVE ADDED where citations were added later to backup your unsourced statements.

Not insulting anyone, just critiquing the result. As a matter of fact, I was happy with the judgement but it was not put into practice. This means that there was no point in going to that board.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite continual and sincere pleas, you have not offered a single new source to support any view that diverges from this article's current content. Instead you accuse and accuse and accuse and accuse. You bring up old grievances and old grudges and accuse some more.

You should not simply make up stuff when reliable sources DO NOT EXIST.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. You, or RSuser, or XXXXXX, or any editor I even THINK might be you: I'm done with you. And I advise the other editors of this article to consider whether there is any improvement to be gained by giving your concerns any attention whatsoever. Just to be clear, I won't be doing this. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your promised silence. I hope you stick to it this time. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth reference 95 identifies Lloyd Fortt as a former member. [8] Jesse Lackman (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I navigate there from the link provided? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It should go straight to an image of the article referenced footnote 95. Look in the lower right of the image.

Reading a few of these linked references gives additional insight; [9] Fortt believes the friends and workers to be a "destructive cult" [10], I haven't read his book so I'm not sure if that opinion affects other interpretations and conclusions. Jesse Lackman (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of X'ing out RSuser's last name above. Pls see WP:OUTING.

Eddie Tor

Astynax took a shot at Eddie Tor's writing. Eddie Tor was a fine writer, but one of probably 20 or 30 that contributed to the article pro- and con- Here is how I see what has happened. The article before was choppy and messy and unsourced and had biased statements. But it had no consistent bias. If you read through it you got a pretty good feel for the group and some of the perceptions that existed about the group pro- and con-. As well, some of the controversies around the group. Here is what you have now. Everything that was there before was removed and replaced wholesale. Now the article has a consistent bias. If I would describe it I would say - how things look from the Presbyterian seminary school. It's a classic case of sub-optimizing the problem. That is, I suspect, wiki has put some kind of program or policy in place to improve the articles, but no one understands the principles involved. They do know how to make things "look". Everybody gets more barnstars for picking up their socks and the editorial minds at the top are happy. But what you are doing is getting something that superficially looks better, but the integrity has gone way, way down. It looks like the thought police are taking over wiki, at least in this section. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias of the Week #1

Each week or so, as time allows, I will take one statement from the article, and analyze it for bias. The first sentence in the doctrine section states, "Church leaders publish no list of their tenets or statement of faith;[67][68] they hold that the Bible is their sole doctrine".

The main problem I see is that there is a fairly coherent body of doctrine but it is entirely oral, no one has written it down. The statement implies that the Bible is the doctrine. But if that was the case why would we need workers.67.43.136.72 (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement is written from a mainstream Christian church point of view. For example, in an article on Confucianism would I see a sentence that "Confucian leaders publish no list of tenets or statement of faith..." There is an implication that such a list or statement should exist. I think it would be better to describe what the group does do rather than what it does not do. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems. The source is Sanders' Cults and isms. In this book, Sanders states, for example, "seven reasons why no Bible-believing Christian can intelligently be or become a Roman Catholic." Obviously a critic's point of view based on an antiquated theological and mainline Protestant-centric notion of cult-ism. I'm sure that the statement "the Bible is their sole doctrine" which has been attributed to 'the group' has been made by some leaders, but the idea of doctrine could be better expressed and has been by other movement leaders. So who actually said it, and when, is important to understand context in the overall heterodoxy. IMO, a book with an aim as stated must be viewed with suspicion when making general sweeping statements. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A better line from Melton is coming. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

POV in Reference Titles

JesseLackman's peer review comments bring up I think a reasonable concern: that the TITLES of some of the references are heavy with inference. Easy example: Enroth's "Churches that abuse". That phrase is pretty loaded, and although the question of abuse is NOT raised in the article text, abuse IS sort of raised just by the title of a cited book, and what's more the book title sounds pretty conclusive: as if CC is one of the abusive churches that has been examined tried and found guilty. I don't know that this is the case one way or the other, but the book title doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it.

I do find this troubling...while I'm not so troubled by 'The Workers' Words Exposed' as JesseLackman is, or some of the other titles he mentions, it's a reasonable point to consider. Although Irvine's own 'Heresies Exposed' is sort of provocative. I'm raising the item and asking for comments and guidance. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Churches that Abuse, the section on the "Two by Twos" consists of a brief overview, followed by sociological material (probably accurate, though I'm not sure what is said rises to an "abuse" label). So, I can see where "guilt by association" might creep in there. Titles seem to be often used as marketing tools, and so many books I've read have been much less sensational than their titles. "Abuse," "Heresy," "Cult"—not to mention "Sex, Lies and Sanctity: Religion and Deviance"—might sound PoV, but does PoV really come into play from titles in a list of references? Highly respected and academic publications, including some here, are not at all free from such terms in their titles.

On the other hand, I cannot think of any resource or any title that would be acceptable to some members. Take the word 'Sect' used in so many titles: this church finds that term highly offensive and reflecting an anti-them PoV. Then there are people who are offended by words like 'Religion.' It has even been argued here that the word 'church' is found to be offensive and PoV by this group. So, where to draw the line?

Stepping back, should an article on a Native American culture remove references which have titles which include terms seen today as offensive (e.g., should titles including euro-centric "slurs" such as Eskimo, Squaw or Indian be barred)? At some point, requiring resources (even titles) to be neutral becomes the equivalent of book-burning: good, even essential, resources are lost. Drawing that line requires a firm rationale, which is not my forté (my mind reels at intended and unintended consequences).

I personally assume that no source is free of PoV. Even those which seem unbiased today will be found slanted in the future, and some which seem PoV today may seem even-handed tomorrow—it happens so universally over the years that it seems arrogant to assume that humanity has somehow finally escaped this trait of expressing a viewpoint. Keeping it out of an article's content is one thing, but does that extend to barring resources? So, saying all that, it comes down to not having a good answer to a good question. • Astynax ^talk 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable point of sensitivity for JesseLackman and probably other group members, and I also have no good answer. It probably has carryover and resonance with other topics. How does "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" influence people reading the Robert Ford article? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have referred the matter to the NPOV noticeboard -- which is how I got involved in the first place. See here.--Nemonoman (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Deleting the external links section was not a good move, I feel. There are two or three very good web sites, one of which (TTT) is a reliable source in my opinion. Also, some of the further reading references make a pretty poor substitute. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue with 00Todd00

This section was moved to archive after only a short time, so I will quote and reply to some of the comments here.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonemo on 'Irvine as founder': "this is the generally accepted view of historians". This is simply an untrue statement. No accredited historian has made any such statement - at least that I have seen. No such statement has emerged in the debates here, that is certain. I challenge you to come up with such a statement from an accredited historian who has analyzed the early days of the movement. The only accredited historian who has studied the group, that I know of, Cornelius Jaenen, Ph.D. in history, has an entirely different origin statement as I have repeated ad nauseum. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Melton is the closest to an "Irvine as founder" statement that I have seen, but Melton is a tertiary source, not a historian. He also avoids the word 'founder'.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
John Carter: "Quite frankly, a website which uses the word "I" in its page about itself, ... makes it clear that it is entirely the work of one person", in reference to the TTT web site. Although the TTT web site is against the movement and does have an "ax to grind", the researcher, Cherie Kropp, has a reputation for meticulously presenting and checking her materials. This site is one whose materials I would trust. I would dare to suggest that if you reject TTT as a source, you should reject all SPS materials in this article. Rejecting SPS on such a basis would introduce a stringency beyond my wildest dreams.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Binksternet: "the big problem with this page is with too many self-published and not enough reliable sources" Right on; there is some hope for wiki yet. However, at this time the policy is being used as selective gatekeeping, to keep only pro- movement quotations out. See Carter above. I'm sure this is not a conscious strategy on anyone's part, but that is what it amounts to, quite indeliberately.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro77 states that the following argument cannot be used, "Irvine wasn't the founder because they returned to 'true' Christianity and Jesus/God was the founder.". Jeffro77, if you read over the quote from Edward Cooney here, you will understand that the word 'founder' in the context of the 2x2 religion has a special meaning. A claim has been made since the early days that this movement would have no founder. So I would suggest a reference to the Cooney comment with this counter- view. OR just use a less loaded word like originator. Incidentally, the anti-movement side wants to prove there is a movement founder, in order to debunk the statements that were made by men like Edward Cooney, and that have become part of the core beliefs of the group. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If the use of the word founder was dropped, the question of just who is the originator remains, but the question becomes much less interesting from an ideological point of view, let's just say.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Challenge to find better sources

I have repeatedly been asked to find better sources than what this article uses. What rankles is the implication that if a reliable source is not available, then any source will do. This is unfair to the movement, first of all, because of the misinformation circulating on the Internet. Second, I believe this kind of attitude undermines wikipedia's efforts. It is simply too onerous to have to refute all these unreliable statements and argue each one out. Basically, it becomes a "true until proven false" situation, and it is much more economical to work with "false until proven true". I sense a struggle between the "need to write" and the "need to be right", and I hope the "need to be right" wins the day. I am extremely skeptical though that it will.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The other point, that no one seems to be getting a grip on, is that if the group has no published doctrine, you cannot publish one for them. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can publish doctine, whether the group has a published doctrine or not, if reliable sources say that such is part of their doctrine. All that is required for any information to be included in wikipedia is that it is included in reliable sources. There have been several churches, the Church of Scientology among them, which have refused to officially make any sort of statements regarding certain matters, which is published in wikipedia anyway because multiple outside reliable sources have mentioned it to a rather dramatic degree. This includes Xenu and the whole matter of incidents, as Hubbard described them, in history. So, if it is reliably sourced, whether it has been confirmed by the body itself, by numerous previous discussions regarding this matter it can be included in wikipedia so long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE. With a body which has never actually said one way or another that something is or is not true of them, and a group which has no published doctrine or designated spokespeople can't say something isn't part of their doctrine, then determining how much weight is undue weight becomes particularly problematic. My guess, based on previous experience with sect/denomination articles, is that most have some fairly extensive sections regarding their beliefs and practices, and content of similar proportional length, provided it is reliably sourced and includes a statement to the effect that the group has no official doctrine or spokespeople who can confirm or deny any of it, would probably qualify for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

->Most sects/denominations publish stuff. Ours doesn't. I know of no academically sound work that has been done on church doctrine, other than Jaenen's book, and you also previously mentioned a thesis cited by Melton from "Keith W. Crow, The Invisible Church, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, M. A. Thesis, 1964" but this is now 45 years old. My concern is that the heavy lifting to produce reliable statements about church doctrine has never been done. To attempt to do that here seems like OR to me.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet has stated: "Self published sources are sufficient for noting information that does not conflict with better sources." This is SO WRONG. Binksternet, would you support this statement on the WP:RS talk page? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion to move things forward

I would suggest as a starting point, that an attempt to identify reliable sources be made. For one thing, all interested parties will then know which sources to purchase in order to contribute to the article. It is very difficult to critique when highly obscure sources are used. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For starters, are Fortt and Daniel, RS or not? I assumed from the noticeboard that they were not, but I see the decision has not impacted the article.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a very real question whether the website is a reliable source. If it is not, then no material which is gotten from it which the website states are from other sources can be counted as reliably sourced either. Websites have been known to alter material from original sources, and if the website itself does not have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy, then the real at least possibility exists that such changes to original sources could have been made, making that websites "version" of material found elsewhere unacceptable as a source. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these web sites have been photographing primary sources. So if a photograph of the primary source is also available? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a photograph on that website, unfortunately, no, because digital alteration of photographs ain't that hard. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus of the RS:Noticeboard was that RIS was SPS and not a reliable publisher based on their web site. Does that mean their books are also unreliable (e.g. Daniel and Fortt)? I would infer that the judgement is being made of the PUBLISHER not of the work. That is if we suspect the publisher of not doing fact-checking, libel issues on the web site, then how can we NOT suspect that any printed works would have those issues. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is the additional matter of whether the author is reliable. There have been (rare) books by good authors which have been published by unreliable publishers, generally because of either newness of publisher or, very occasionally, obscurity of subject. If there were evidence that this were such a case, and the authors were reliable, then it could probably be included. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Will buy that. But in this particular case does the burden of proof rest to make the case for reliability or the case against? In the case of Daniel and Fortt, what are the academic credentials? what else have they written? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

{::::No idea, actually. As is probably already apparent to most everybody, I know very little about this subject. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I raised the Noticeboard question, (go to WP:RSN and search "one topic"), and was wrt to books and publications of RIS, not just the web site. I made this VERY clear in the opening question. Please read it. Later, I was accused of misleading the editors on this point and asked to apologize. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Generally, I've found that sources which reliable sources used can be counted as reliable. On that basis, I think the sources Melton used, outlined above, would qualify for inclusion. Other sources which count as reliable could, reasonably, be included as well. I note previous discussion regarding religioustolerance.org has indicated that is not a reliable source here, although I've found the likes of Melton and Lewis citing it as a source, so I have some question myself whether or not the outcome of the previous discussion was a reasonable one. My guess would be that for material which isn't controversial, it probably would be, although determining whether something is "controversial" about a body which never says a bloody thing about itself about anything might be kind of difficult to determine. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I can think of which might work would be to create a list of the sources which we do find in other reliable sources and then see if there is any way to get them. WorldCat might also have some copies listed which individuals might be able to access. I'm going to assume, as is standard, that things like local newspapers, etc., are a given as reliable. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they are primary sources, so good for facts, but not for conclusions, and easy to get into OR. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, are Fort and Daniel reliable sources?209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Best answer to that I can come up with is to determine whether they are used as sources by other sources generally considered RS's, and, if they are, they probably at least qualify as marginally reliable. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my burden of proof question. Is there a burden of proof on the person using the source to make a case for those authors. And please, excuse me, but we have only two known RS's at this point, correct? I know for a fact neither one uses Daniel or Fortt. Come on, John, seriously, look at the books on Amazon.com. Look at the weak case made in favour of the books on WP:RSN. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the burden of proof question. I didn't see it. Regarding amazon.com, any comments made there are no more reliable than anywhere else, as any comments made are self-selected and are themselves, by definition, not reliably sourced and do not necessarily reflect the broader academic opinion. Right now, James R. Lewis book and Gordon Melton's book I know would be counted as reliable, as would presumably those which they used as references for their books. Any books from known "reputable publishers" would probably be included by default as well. And it is more or less incumbent on those seeking to add information to indicate the reliability of the source. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do a find on 17:22. But I see the last sentence answers my question. Also, amazon does tell you things like the publisher name, the look of the book, and other clues to its quality. I mean, there is no RS that will tell you whether a book is RS, correct? So you have to use other clues, don't you? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Look" of a book is not necessarily a criterion to use either, nor are necessarily any other such "clues" which generally require some form of interpretation, particularly as amazon is independent of the publisher. Like I think I said, the best thing to do would be to try to find a reliable source, generally those in most university libraries would probably count (although that isn't always necessarily the case - some real trash gets donated once in a while to try to establish credibility/notability) and try to use them and any other sources they specifically cite as references in their books. Even there you have to still view some of the material somewhat critically, but it's probably the best start of finding sources. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically, Melton, Stewart, the 1964 dissertation, Secret Sect and that's it. Keep in mind, my goal is to delete stuff which is untrue. There are lots of people willing to add information so I am not needed for that. I assume that if the source is not a reliable one then I can delete the statement accordingly.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the listed refernces look good. Concordia, despite being a publisher tied to a seminary, has a fairly good rep. Oxford certainly does, Zondervan while probably not exactly neutral has a rep for accuracy and fact checking, and a lot of the others, while not necessarily being at that level, are from publishers generally accepted here. Lulu is a vanity press and unless the writer is really, really reputable (and I can't see how that would be) anything cited to that should go. Some other books, if they received favorable reviews in academic presses (I forgot to mention that early, sorry, but that tends to be grounds for inclusion as well) would probably be acceptable as well. I'm tied up delivering a project newsletter a few weeks late today, but will try to do what I can to review what I can see at least by the weekend. Sorry for the delay. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much in the article came from Zondervan, Oxford and Concordia. I was surprised there was anything though. The Concordia is a doctrinal statement circa 1932. I'm in no particular hurry. Perhaps I could decompose where I see the problem areas, but again likely next week. I'm only concerned with stuff that is untrue. If Oxford thinks we are nondenominational, or 'Churches that Abuse' says we don't do financial statements, no problem.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the Zondervan book has four paragraphs on the group, and they can be read here: [11]. Do a find on this line: "One common discipline is to expect children to eat everything on their plates, to train them for the task of being in the 'work'."209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Doctrine Section

If we must have a doctrine statement at all, could we resist the tendency to describe the doctrine in terms of mainstream theology. In this post-modern world does it make any sense to describe one mode of belief in terms of another? I'm thinking especially in terms of the Christology section but also the tone of the entire Doctrine section. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

Neutral Point of View:

• Wikipedia articles must be neutral in their point of view.
• The sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not required to be neutral.

Reliable Sources

• Sources cited in Wikipedia articles must be reliable.
• However, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

To summarize:

1. Article content must be neutral, but not necessarily "true".
2. Sources must be reliable and verifiable, but not necessarily "neutral".

As Casey Stengel used to say: You could look it up. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this disclaimer could be put somewhere in the CC article? Thanks, JesseLackman 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what the standard is saying is that 'truth' is not enough. It must be verifiable and true. Generally, false things are not verifiable from reliable sources. But many true things are also not verifiable from reliable sources, and the policy speaks to that.67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The real difficulty has been to establish what are reliable sources for this article.67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article had been based on reliable source, esp the Doctrine section, I doubt we would have so many issues.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos for article

As you know, I'm trying to get this article to GA quality, and one of the peer review concerns was lack of images. Based on UserX's numerous comments and recommendations of that site, I had a look at tellingthetruth.info.

The site has whole photo gallery here. I contacted the site's webmaster about including some in the WP article. Problem, of course, is permissions. She suggests we find a few candidates for the article, and she'll verify the permissions, and if we're in fair-use territory, will upload to Wikimedia for inclusion in this article.

I don't believe I have enough familiarity with the topic to make good selections. God knows there are sore toes everywhere, and I've proven I can stomp on them. But I'll gladly take the lead on followup if we can agree on 3-5 good candidate pictures for inclusion in this article. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that there are albums for Carroll and Walker, and for U.S. readers, later pics of Jack Carroll and George Walker might work in the Consolidation section. A convention picture might work for further down in the Gatherings section, though most seem to be older pics—perhaps the aerial pic of the Maroota convention (in the Places/Australia album) would be less likely to look dated over time? • Astynax ^talk 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that many recent pictures floating around the Internet are from people's personal photograph collections, and often releases have not been obtained from the subjects. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why GA is important

GA status is mostly important because it provides an aura of stability. This article is being worked over pretty hard by some pretty conscientious and feisty editors. Some of us will drift away, etc. So it would be a good thing if the article had the GA status to prevent unwarranted, wholesale changes -- and I'm thinking here mostly of "anti-" type changes, guys -- and so they can be reverted with some authority.

So getting to consensus, getting to quality, getting GA status is a worthy goal. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Since the SPS sources are being left for now, could we have some kind of label on the article to show their presence? Once we determine which sources are reliable, perhaps both Jesse Lackman and myself could obtain those resources in order to ensure that the Doctrine section is correct. I'm pretty sure we can get something satisfactory if we stick to reliable sources. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias of the week # 2

The second example of bias is found in the second sentence of the 'Doctrine' section. "Actual standards and practices vary, however. For example, in some areas alcohol is forbidden, and in other areas fermented wine is used in Sunday meetings; in some areas people who have divorced and remarried are not allowed to participate in meetings, in others they may.[77]"

"Standards and practices vary" - so what? What group does not have some degree of heterodoxy. The kind of heterodoxy in our group exists because of the decentralized nature of the ministry and no published doctrine or Catechism. We feel there is quite a degree of consistency when it comes to principles, however. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also take exception to the 'passive' voice that is found in so many sentences in the article. Note here for example - "alcohol is forbidden". Who is doing the forbidding? The article does not say. I'm not denying there are restraints on the use of alcohol, but the passive voice indicates that the author does no really know or understand how those restraints function. He's guessing. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The passive voice in the last sentence is not as problematic, because meeting participation is directly under authority and control of the ministry, so obviously the ministry is the subject of this sentence.67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization issues. The paragraph seems like a random omnibus of policies all under the rubric of policies that vary. Well what doesn't vary? 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Each week we'll look at another factual or bias issue in the article. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And such actions would be a waste of time. If the IP has any specific arguments, it would be in everybody's best interests, including his/her own, to have them raised at once, particularly as several of them might be related. However, if such is to be done, it would also be in everybody's best interests if specific relevant policies or guidelines were indicated, otherwise, all such edits would be would be, basically, a waste of the IP's time, and probably of the time of anyone who might choose to respond to them, although it is extremely unlikely that any would be responded to, given the IP's stated intentions. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. As I've said before it takes much more work to refute untrue, unverified statements than to ensure that statements made are verified and true in the first place. I don't have time right now to go through every single statement and indicate the problems. I hope to show the POV bias by looking at one statement at a time. John have you read any postmodern theory on how language wires in bias? The 'founder' debate is a good example of this.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what are my 'stated intentions'? They are honourable. However, if you are going to 'circle the wagons', especially after Nonemoman's recent invective laden and profane outburst against Jesse Lackman on his Talk page, go ahead.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John, my copy of Melton, 5th edition arrived today and he backs up what I have been saying all along. More later, when I get home.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems: The source [12] does not apparently mention either alcohol or marriage and divorce problems in any general way. It documents an incident 26 years ago where a divorced and remarried man was told he could no longer attend meetings. I believe this happened as described. I'm not sure how you get from that to what is stated in the article.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Challengeable material

I am creating this section of the talk page so that interested editors who have specific complaints regarding the sourcing of specific content in the article can indicate that they view that section as needing to be either better sourced or potentially removable, preferably including all "challengable" material at one. I have to think that acting in this way would be more effective than any other way. Also, while I am here, I have to question the current name of the article. Based on my own hitting a few databases this past weekend, I have to say that it seems to me that "Two-by-twos" or some rougly equivalent title seems to me to be a better choice, because that name or variations on it seem to appear much more frequently in the sources I found over the weekend. Also, in at least some of the sources, there seems to me to be some difficulty in determining in at least a few cases whether the article was talking about the CC or the Cooneyites. My own intention is to try to first find sources which specifically address some of the individual concerns raised in this section, and then later to propose adding any additional material. But I do have to think that trying to get all the points of contention in line first is probably the most rational way to go. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John: I'm with you. Re: the name. There's history:

Naming discussions in Archive

You might wish to review:

• Talk:Christian_Conventions/Archive_1#Name_of_the_group.3B_Is_it_a_cult.2C_sect_or_denomination.3F
• Talk:Christian_Conventions/Archive_1#Two_by_Two_vs._Two_by_Twos
• Talk:Christian_Conventions/Archive_1#Criticisms_of_the_cult.27s_wishes_on_naming_preferences

--Nemonoman (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cooneyites. Cooneyites is a synonym for CC in almost all references. CC is still called Cooneyites in the UK and Ireland. All references to the word Cooneyites until Cooney left (1920s) are to CC. CC were most commonly called Cooneyites just after the movement began.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But I do have to think that trying to get all the points of contention in line first is probably the most rational way to go
I'm sorry but I don't have time. I will continue as I have been; it is the best I can do. I am adding sourcing issues to each topic as I introduce. I would have thought it better to determine what are Reliable Sources and then rewrite. But I will work as best I can.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that Reliable Sources once identified may take months to acquire and provide a proper review. I haven't found anyone providing Secret Sect for under $100, for example. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consider using WorldCat and interlibrary loan, depending on where you are. There aren't any locally to me, and right now I'm having a little trouble proving to the outside world exactly who I am, with my wallet and ID having been stolen, so there is a limit to what I can do in that area myself for at least a while, but I think there's a good chance that if you live in North America (I know nothing about what IP is where, I'm afraid) you should be able to get one comparatively easily. It lists what copies can be found where here. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So sorry to hear about your wallet loss. Not fun. Does this mean that you will be working anonymously on wikipedia from now on? (Weak attempt at humour). Thanks for reference. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not there when article was named, but believe the decision was made out of 'political correctness'. (I'm largely pro-PC, BTW, so that was not meant to stigmatize the decision). I think it was a pretty good decision, because anyone searching 2x2 will find the article anyway, and also learn how to talk about the group in a non-pejorative way. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential new sources and material

All material here is derived from infoweb.newsbank.com, which is a subscription service which is paid for by my local public library, which leads me to think that it is very likely an accurate reflection of the original statements.

• The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia, on July 25, 2001, ran an article entitled "Secretive sect leader dies" written by Tanya Giles about how the leader in Victoria of the two-by-twos/go preachers/nameless house sect/the way, herein also, unfortunately, called "Cooneyites", John Evans Jones, died of natural causes at the age of 91. It says that the group first came to prominence in 1994 after two children, Narelle and Stephen Henderson, committed suicide rather than attend a four-day convention. Their note said "To whoever finds us, we committed suicide because all of our life we were made to go to meetings. They try to brainwash us so much and have ruined our lives." The director of Cult Counseling Australia, named Raphael Aron, is quoted as saying that such meetings can strip one of their personality and reframe the way you view the world and people. A former member of the group told the Coroner's Court (when isn't indicated) that nervous breakdowns were not uncommon in the group because of the enormous pressures put on members by the "fanatical doctrines of the sect". The group is said to ban "worldly" activity like television, dancing, competitive sports and listening to pop music. Women are expected to dress modestly, avoid makeup and jewelry, and wear their hair long.
• Stephen J. Lee wrote an article "A Quiet Faith - Women Ministes serve church with no name" which appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on November 3, 2002. The article states that ministers aren't paid and live totally on the road, with no home of their own, living a few days with one member, then a few with another, and so on. The group is said to live so quietly and with so little reaching out to outsiders that little is known about them. The ministers travel in pairs, although in this case they were both females. The ministers in question had each worked with other "partners", with one taking the position of older mentor to the other. Members of the church were said to have given the ministers a car and provided them with money. The women all have long hair put up in various kinds of buns, in obediance to a NT verse. The two female ministers interviewed both said they hadn't had a hair on their heads cut since the day they were born. Both ministers were unmarried, although one said that if something were to happen, presumably including getting married, it would be OK to withdraw from the ministry. The group has no theological schools or seminaries. Workers start out teaching the Bible, learning from older workers and overseers, who are in authority over them. Their preaching generally takes the form of a few songs with a sermon. The sermons were theologically similar to those of mainstream evangelicals, but sounded more old-fashioned. The ministers made no attempt to look or sound contemporary in any way. They had no printed text of their sermons, and one said they had no written sermons, preferring to speak from their hearts based on their study of the Bible. The group emphasizes that it has no specific name, although it has registered with the US government as the "Christian Conventions" to allow members to qualify as conscientous objectors in the military. The name is based on the fact that the group holds annual meetings in each state or region. One such meeting has been held at a farm near Hunter, North Dakota every year since 1931, according to the owner of that farm, with 950 attendees. Other meetings have been at Eagle Bend, Minnestota every year since 1931, attracting about 2000 people a year. A meeting in Meridian, North Dakota draws about 1,000. Members of the group meet weekly at designated homes, with the services led by the "man of the house" or workers in the area. Members said there were a half dozen such houses in Fargo, one or two in Grand Forks, and a dozen or more in northeast North Dakota. There are perhaps 100,000 members in the US. No one seems to know the official terms, except's the groups leaders who don't disclse the data. The group is reluctant to talk about its history, rather emphasizing that they are part of a tradition dating back to Jesus. Its first leader, William Irvine, was ousted and otehrs took over. Irvine is not acknowledged much by current members. Critics say the group has unorthodox teachings, is not open about its history and is secretive about its inner operations. One member said that the lack of discussion of the groups history is because "details of a century ago aren't that significant for current members", and that the main point of the group's history is that Jesus did send out disciples. This same person, Mark Richtsmeier, has said that he has traveled to other countries, specifically Japan and Spain, and "can always find others of his faith", despite its low profile. Members avoid tobacco, alcohol, and television. They don't celebrate Easter or Christmas, which they consider pagan holidays. Most children are sent to public schools, and an increasing number are going on to college. Critics and former members of the group say that they were taught that only those who hear the gospel from a worker can be saved and go to heaven, although one of the workers interviewed said it wasn't her job to decide that, that that was between the individual and the Lord.
• In another article for the Grand Forks Herald, "Many Amish cousins live in N.D., Minn.", dated October 21, 2006, Stephen J. Lee says the "two-by-twos" live a separate but devoutly pietistic Anabaptist life, but are also comparatively more integrated into the rest of the world than maybe the Amish and others. They largely go unnoticed by society. Their annual meetings can have hundreds or thousands of attendees, but because they don't live communally, they aren't as visible as other groups. They are said to share many of the "austere Protestant religious teachings" of the various traditions begun by Menno Simons.
• In "Capital Region week in Review - Albany County", in The Daily Gazette of Schenectady NY, August 17, 2003, it is said as many as 800 members of the group were expected to attend a four day meeting in a farm near Guilderland, NY. The group was founded by William Irvine after he had grown increasingly critical of organized religious institutions.
• In 'Way' Ministers gathering souls by Jody Snider, The Virginian-Pilot, June 19, 1991, the following information can be found. The group has no written church creed, no formal name, no headquarters or real property, no incorporation status, and no elected officials. The ministers travel in two, receiving no salary, just cash payments given hand to hand. One of the ministers quoted in the piece said that churches have become a monetary burden, and that there is wisdom in not being burdened with large buildings. Both of the ministers in this pair are male. Alternate names given the group during Irvine's time include "Tramp Preachers" and "the Damnation Army". No jewelry other than wedding rings or watches in worn.
• Another article, "No-name church: Mysterious cult-like sect discourages questions, criticism" written by David Staples, Edmonton Journal, February 17, 1996, refers to a book written by former members of the group, and details the experiences of John and Shawna Mitchell, also recounted there. The ministers are refered to as "the Workers", regular members as "the Friends". It says that after Irvine's excommunication, the new leaders of the group decided Irvine's involvement would no longer be discussed, and that new members would be told that the church was based on the teachings of Christ, then the Apostles, and that it lay dormant until it revived with the Workers. The sect is known for strict rules. Members are not supposed to smoke, drink, play cards, or dance. They are not to have TVs, radios, or may books. Women should not wear pants, but rather long dresses and long hair done up in buns, which has caused some ex-members to call them "Bunheads". The church has no publications and few records. Ex-members say the group practices mind control, that its doctrines must be accepted without question and that the Bible carries less weight with the group than its own unwritten rules. In their essay, the Mitchells describe what happens when you ask a Worker about the beliefs. "If you try to get an honest answer from a Worker in regards to reasons for certain beliefs, the result will usually leave your head spinning. You will also feel like your spirit is less than right for asking in the first place. It is a good way to discourage questioning!" Despite asking several other Workers and Friends questions, they were not answered, and the other members began to seem smug to them regarding their belief that other Christian sects are evil. Their conversion away from the group was facilitated by the Internet, whose intellectual free-for-all contrasted dramatically in their eyes with the rigid, unexplained rules of the sect. To quote John, "Our minds had begun to close to other views, to the notion that other people might have a valid way of looking at life." They shortly thereafter withdrew from the group. I acknowledge that this source, which seems to be primarily a collection of recollections from those who left the group, could be counted as being other than objective, but could be included potentially with a "former members say..." qualifier.
• Farm Plays host to a low-profile sect by Kim Martineau, The Times Union (Albany, NY), July 14, 2000. The groups numbers rival those of the Moonies or Rajneeshees. There has been an annual convention on a farm near Milford every year since 1921, with around 800 attendees. After the group initially spread quickly, Irvin began to argue that the end of the world was approaching and ministers should stop converting new members. Benton Johnson, a retired sociology professor from the University of Oregon who has studied the group, says the key to the group's survival, and the most fascinating point about it, is its refusal to be named or identified. Members dress conservatively, but not in a way that draws attention. Johnson says the refusal to take a name has helped it avoid some of the publicity and problems that other, similar groups, have faced. Members believe that the only way to achieve salvation is by earning it, through simple living and following the teachings of a minister, that one can't be saved on one's own. Ministers are called by their first names, and places its emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew. While the group has some of the characteristics of a cult, scholars say it is basically passive regarding developments in the world and nonviolent. Annual meetings in the are include Guilderland, NY, and Milford, New Hampshire, among about 85 in the US. One former member, Gene DeVoll, who left the group in 1996 after a divorce, reported code violations at the Guilderland farm where meetings are held. He stated regarding the ministers, "These men are very controlling... They hide their money. They wear $600 suits and have $20,000 credit card bills. And yet they stand up and preach 'I have nothing to my name.'" The farm was at the time of the writing being worked on by members to bring it up to code in time for the next meeting.
• Sect alters ways to comply with codes, The Times Union of Albany, August 20, 2000. After receiving a notice for a former member of the group regarding safety violations at Knaggs Farm, the members of the CC came into compliance with state health codes and did not sleep in the farm's structure, use the kitchen facilities until they were updated, or drink from the well. Doing so did however reduce the size of the meeting from the predicted 800 to roughly 475.
• Christian 'Two-by-Twos' worship quietly - U.S. faith, known as 'The Way', keeps low profile - Deseret News, September 16, 2000. Members are encouraged during weekly meetings to get back to the Bible, and use it in their efforts to get through the difficulties of life and the temptations of the devil. They practice adult baptism, like Southern Baptists, advocate simplicity and tranquility, and have a heavy emphasis on the Bible. Their low profile stems from an early schism between members of the group, some of whom believed the world was about to end and stopped bringing in new members. Members have since come from many ethnic groups and the group has an almost cultlike following. Children attend public school, but receive instruction at home regarding how the schools disagree with their own religious teachings. The Guilderland meeting during the year of the article above was catered with huge tents of warming trays, more expected of an outdoor wedding than a religious gather. There were no musical instruments used during the meetings.
• I think that's all of the articles from the printouts. Others are available on Google. Google news returns these articles, Google books this material, . I'll check there as time permits. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The most comprehensive list of newspaper accounts can be found here [[13]]. If you find it on this list also, it's certainly about the 2x2s. Why are you copying this information out? Mind you the report of Grand Forks Herald is relatively bias free. Compare: "Members avoid tobacco, alcohol and television." True. Wiki states: "alcohol is forbidden". Not true. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I'm writing out the majority of the potentially useful information in these articles because I have copies of them, presumably from a website which is counted as a reliable reproducer, and as such they can be used as sources. Because I myself don't yet know which material is being argued for sourcing, I can't know which items need sourcing, so I am giving an idea what information is in them in the event the current source (if there is one) is challenged, or, if the material isn't included, that information on that exists and can be at least potentially used. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that my main concern since early June has been the Doctrine section. I also had four complaints about the Introduction but they have pretty much been addressed (1) "semi-itinerant versus itinerant" was addressed, (2) "publications misstatement" was addressed, and the remaining complaints (3) "all the names in the Intro" is a minor editorial placement concern, and (4) the founder question, an issue of terminology. I had hoped editors would just pull the badly sourced material in the Doctrine section, however once you see Melton's take on Doctrine of the group (5th edition), we might make some progress. I speak only for myself. Jesse and 00Todd00 might have different opinions.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to change the alcohol statement to the better one you provided, and also change it's placement. Can I go ahead? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: If "avoid alcohol" is to be edited in citing the The Grand Forks Herald as a reliable source, I'll be adding "Members consider Easter and Christmas to be pagan holidays" -- the sentence that follows immediately after.

It's all part of my willingness to sacrifice truth on the altar of opinion, to sacrifice honesty and integrity on the altar of situational ethics. Part of my blanket endorsement of the policy of using "verified but false" information,--Nemonoman (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily mind the change to the alcohol content myself, although I'm not sure whether any of the other articles I've got say anything stronger yet, so that could potentially be a problem. Regarding the alternate names, it does seem to occupy a rather large section of the lead, so I can understand that, but, at the same time, it is as I remember standard procedure to include them in the lead. Maybe creating a separate section immediately after the lead which says that the group itself chooses not to take an official name as a whole, but that, out of legal concerns, it has taken certain names in certain countries, might be acceptable. I also note that not all the names are yet included. I've seen "black stockings" listed in some articles. I haven't got a clue where that name comes from, or what it's supposed to mean, but it should probably be included as well. Part of the problem regarding the doctrine section is the extant problem of determining what is and is not good sourcing for this article. Considering just how low-profile this group is, there aren't a lot of ways to determine what is and is not reliable. Basically, I've been in other discussion regarding sourcing elsewhere, like the Preity Zinta Featured article candidate discussion here, and it seems to be the existing consensus that if a source is counted as having a good enough reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be used as a reference in other sources, then it's a reliable source. In that discussion, there was a looong discussion regarding a SPS website in India. The discussion ultimately boiled down to the site being considered reliable enough for the purposes for which it is used in the article, but maybe not for much more beyond that, and it took rather a lot of rather dedicated work to determine that. So while in some cases it is fairly easy to determine that a source is reliable, in other cases it can take a lot more work, but still be done.

My one reservation about the TTT website, which might strike some of you as weak, is that given the academic credentials which the site's owner seems to have, it seems to me to be very likely that he tried to have the material regarding the possible alternate origins of the group published in some sort of journal, as material in such tends to not be questioned as much. This leads me to think, possibly wrongly, that his material was turned down for inclusion in various journals, and, if that's true, makes its reliability a bit questionable. So far as I can tell, the only real source for the alternate origins ideas is the book of the other claimant, which doesn't seem to have gotten much contemporary attention or subsequent attention until recently, and thus at this point can't necessarily be said to be reliable itself. It may or may not be true, I don't know, but there also doesn't seem to be much written material one way or another to substantiate or deny it, possibly/probably because there isn't much written material about this group period. But, without that substantiation, I'm thinking academia would consider the statements in it at best inadequately sourced, and reject the publication of pieces on that idea on that basis. Although it is unlikely that the owner of the website has altered any of the content therein, I've seen a few websites where such has been done, and so we can't rule that possibility out, particularly as the owner seems to be rather committed to his idea. We'd need some sort of proof that it isn't to use it, or extant references to it in other sources, and there don't seem to be any yet. This may or may not reflect some form of "rejection" by the outside community, though. It might simply reflect the opinion I said above:maybe it's true, maybe it's not, we don't have enough external information to determine, but we can't really at this point say it is because of the lack of contemporary independent documentation. If that is the case, it is far from being the only time that sort of thing has happened, but there's not a lot we can do about it. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John. To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "I say whoa ...". First of all, TTT is one of the strongest proponents of the 'Irvine is founder' premise. Second, the researcher is a woman, and an ex-member of the group. The reason I personally endorse TTT is that although I disagree with some of her conclusions, her fact-checking is unimpeachable, her sources are non-selective to the point of posting non-supporting material, and she has the most comprehensive range of sources on her web site. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're confusing TTT with Cornelius Jaenen, a Ph.D., eminent historian and member of the fellowship, who has written a book tracing Restoration efforts throughout history. Jaenen's book has scarcely a dozen pages on CC; taking a much broader focus. Jaenen's origin statement which you seem to be referencing disagrees only in involving more men as 'originators' of the movement. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be adding .... If you notice, Nonemoman, in the article those statements are prefaced by 'Critics say ...'. They do not represent the viewpoint of the author. What happened to the vow of silence? I was sure enjoying the respite from superfluous argumentation. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John, I wondered about some of those articles as sources having read a few of them in the past. They are more objective than many other sources probably because the authors include the viewpoints of the members themselves. That gives those sources balance some of the other sources don't have. BTW it's Mandan, North Dakota, not "Meridian".

There's more to the story in the first article here -->> [[14]] Notice the comments of the father who's not a member.

JesseLackman (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are few more;

[15][16][17][18]

JesseLackman (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the Virginian-Pilot article, and some of the others I've only seen partial text from Google. Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm not as good as John Carter at typing from copies brought back from the library, but I thought the Sydney Morning Herald (30 June 1984, p. 37) article contained several interesting statements:

"Secrecy is stringent. Rank and file members believe that their movement is not merely the early Church restored (a view common to many religious groups) but that it actually dates back to the Apostles, whose heirs are the movement's current leaders.

"A natural reluctance to talk to outsiders is matched by an obsessive desire to shield from members, including senior personnel, the knowledge that the movement is, by religious standards, modern.

"By current standards the sect is not particularly anti-social, the main accusations centring on dubious financial procedures and the creation of a programmed, narrow way of thinking, fostered by a partial or total prohibition on the ownership of books, TV sets and other means of popular communication, participation in sport and (until recently) access to tertiary education.

"Its most astonishing features are the reluctance to revere or even acknowledge its founders—a reversal of the usual stand—and obsession with secrecy. The refusal to take a name, and to identify themselves as a group, has created difficulties in such matters as exemption from military service. In such cases members sometimes say they belong to 'The Conventions' or 'Christian Conventions'.

"According to Professor Ben Johnson of the University of Oregon Sociology Department, who has studied the movement in the U.S. 'These people are unique in that they have no records to speak of, no printed matter. Their theology is not particularly way-out, they're not politically dangerous, they don't kidnap people…what is unusual is their low profile and what looks now like a deception the leaders are practicing on their members. A lot of members would be blown away if they knew the things their leaders were keeping from them.'"

The article is very long and the remainder deals primarily with Irvine's role in founding the group, and its later development. If anyone needs the whole thing, it will take some time for my old fingers to type unless it is available online somewhere. • Astynax ^talk 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the alcohol and remarriage issues, this is what the article says...

Actual standards and practices vary, however. For example, in some areas alcohol is forbidden, and in other areas fermented wine is used in Sunday meetings; in some areas people who have divorced and remarried are not allowed to participate in meetings, in others they may.

I see nothing wrong there, as the statement notes that this is not universal. Certainly there are multiple references about various, albeit unwritten, rules—including alcohol—which bear out the editor's statement. Is there actually some source which says that alcohol is universally not forbidden, which would contradict the sources and the editor's statement?

Similarly, disputing particular wording (such as "fundamental belief") which is supported by the source(s) cited, and which most members are quite aware are valid statements, come across as disingenuous at best. An unwritten doctrine is a doctrine nonetheless. It is just easier to deny or disguise—as Parker and Parker put it referring to deceptive statements on doctrine (p. 103), "It appears that the sect's theological position on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and man's justification before God never has changed, yet at mission meetings and in private discussions with people whom they successfully proselytized, preachers gave the misleading impression that their church was evangelical, and that in no way did it deviate from basic Christian beliefs." This was observed in the early news accounts, where workers would give the impression of agreement with various churches to gain access to their facilities and members for missions. So that compounds things. But I'm not sure that no published doctrine negates the observations of those who have delved into the doctrine, though it must make it more difficult. • Astynax ^talk 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, astynax. What is your source for alcohol being 'forbidden'? Also what is your source that "ministry without a home, meeting in a home" is a 'fundamental belief'? Are there no other fundamental beliefs according to this source? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Biblical passages

I don't know that I've ever seen a section like this one before. Is there some particular reason the material in it can't be integrated into the existing text somewhere? It looks, at least to my eyes, very much odd and perhaps out of place at the end of the article. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw it in some Eschatology articles that I got dragged into over NPOV. It seemed like a good idea. There's lots of talk about Matthew 10, yet only the other gospels mention Two by Two, so a person, for example me, who looked into Matthew 10 and didn't see any reference to the all-fired Two by Two paradigm, as I didn't, might get confused, as I was, and wonder what all the 2x2 stuff was about. The similarity of the passages of the synoptic gospels is quite clear, and it is in them, apparently, that the group found additional justification for its doctrine, which doesn't exist. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It does exist, but cannot be verified.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I really liked that you put that part in the article, Nemonoman, and appreciated your comments about it in talk. JesseLackman (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to John Carter

I very much appreciate your work at the library on behalf of this article. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC) IMO, first person interviews, especially with ex-members, should be treated with care.67.43.136.72 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Melton on Doctrine

I obtained the American Encyclopedia of American Religions, 5th ed, today. Here are a couple of comments by Melton on CC doctrine.
"The Two by Twos originated not as a doctrinal movement, but as a response by young Christians to follow the example and admonitions of Christ in their life."
Melton reports of charges of an evangelical false front put on to disguise complete heterodoxy. Of such charges he states, "because of the difficulty in gaining authoritative material about the group, and the contradictory reports of its normative beliefs, no assessment of the doctrinal issue is possible."
I'm just wondering if Melton can't find enough authoritative material to assess doctrinal issues, why wiki thinks it can.67.43.136.72 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I can tell you personally that I had worshipped for 25 years with the group and thought it's doctrine thoroughly orthodox. I was raised in the Christian Reformed church and still have extended family there including clergy. I was a young man when I left, and had taken classes in the Heidelberg Catechism, so my knowledge of doctrine was not superficial. And my knowledge of CC is not local. I've been to conventions and meetings in 5 countries, too many states and provinces to count. I always attend worship meeting when I travel for business or pleasure, and that is one of the joys of the fellowship. Now for some strange reason I never figured out that we rejected the Trinity, and that we didn't believe in salvation by grace until I started reading these anti-movement sites on the Internet. When I attended our annual convention recently I thought to myself, is this the group I was just reading about in wikipedia before I left home? I'm convinced that some ex-members are a lot like some ex-wives or ex-husbands when discussing their former spouses.
At the same time I do feel the article should give free play to some of the controversies existing around the group, such as incidents of Child Sexual Abuse.
And there are doctrinal issues some of which we like to discuss on TMB. I'm not trying to whitewash anything, but combined with my sense of academic rigor, I think we have to be much more careful than we have been.67.43.136.72 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Personally, I myself believe that any section which seeks to explicitly state that "X is an official doctrine of the group as a whole" might be misguided. However, that does not rule out the possibility that some stated beliefs might not be notable enough for inclusion, whether they are necessarily universal or not. One of the most obvious to me is the apparent exclusive use of the KJV, which I have found in several sources. That also, at least potentially, can lead to further apparent "doctrines", if the KJV in use contains imperative language regarding any given subject, of the "thou must" or "thou shalt" variety, as any group of the King James Only movement, which seemingly this might be counted in, would be more or less bound to such interpretations. If there is a clear imperative in the King James, and if there are outside reliable sources which indicate that belief in something based on that imperative is part of the CC, then it could reasonably make sense to include it. However, I do think any and all such statements should be preceded by a statement to the effect of the church having no official doctrines which can be known by outsiders, and that any claims of a more or less absolute nature regarding beliefs should take that into account. I also regret to say that one article I found, referring to "overseers", if accurate (and I think we have to assume that it at least could be), could imply that there is some sort of formal policy instruction for ministers of which non-ministers would not necessarily be aware. Right now, I have only one reference to that idea that I've found, but there are additional sources out there, and they might go further. Based on that single source that has been found, I can't say that there is reason to include it, but more sources might add more information later. And, sadly, regarding your personal history with the organization, I hate to say that none of that can be used to influence content. I have no doubt of the accuracy of what you have said, but, unless you've been published somewhere, your opinions and personal knowledge of any subject cannot be used on its own as a basis for determining content. The same thing applies to me and any other editor out there. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would submit that the kinds of statements that should be included are observable and verifiable by observations. And sourced, of course, also. But if you have a statement that is observable, verifiable through observation, and reliably source, you'll have a good statement. Thus .. use of the KJV in worship meetings. Not a universal, not mandated, but generally held true through observation and absolutely should be in the article. (And BTW at the last Sunday meeting, one young man used an NIV, and the use of the KJV may change over time).67.43.136.72 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding worker instruction. Of course you're probably correct. It's not complete heterodoxy, and the preaching is quite consistent. Workers have their own conferences and meetings, and you're right, most members including me, receive no communication on what they do.67.43.136.72 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy would disagree with you on your first point. WP:OR among others say that all we can base information on is what is found in verifiable sources. I can't honestly know that you are who you say you are, so neither can I know that anything you say is honestly true about you. Neither can you know that anything I say is honest, and, to be honest, I basically lie every time I sign anything because my real name is nowhere near being "John Carter". None of us can know that any personal statements the other makes, and this includes their observations, are reliable. We avoid facing that unpleasant reality by saying that we can't use ourselves as sources for anything, but only what is found in sources that meet WP:RS standards. Therefore, any individual's observations, which are themselves inherently subjective, as most people overlook some information which is visible to them, is also less than objective. Please feel free to ask any relevant noticeboard whether they would support you on this point; I would have to say they almost certainly would not. Again, however, it might well be reasonable to say something to the effect of, "The group produces no official documents of any kind, so it is impossible to say that any belief is an "official" belief of the church. However, sources have indicated that the following beliefs, while not perhaps universal, are often found within the movement:" and then detail them. That would I think be a reasonable compromise. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand completely. I said observable AND verified in reliable sources (and I went back and bolded this). That's quite a different thing. Many of the problematic statements have been sourced, but are not observable. And non-observable or untestable kinds of statements, such as those characterizing preaching, for example, are contradicted by Melton's statement that "no assessment" is possible. I'm not proposing this as a test, just a helpful thought.64.7.157.40 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I read KJV only article and we are not such a movement. Everyone reads alternate versions, but since all members both participate and travel, KJV is 'de facto' standard for worship practice only.64.7.157.40 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if my own first person testimony is invalid, are single person interview subjects in print any more valid? I can't see how they would be.64.7.157.40 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Because an editor or publisher reviewed them before they were published for accuracy and reliability, and policy, as per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc., fairly clearly say as much. If you want to question fundamental wikipedia policy, please feel free to do so, most effectively on the relevant policy page or noticeboard, but don't necessarily expect many people here to agree with you. And, I regret to say, any reliance on personal input from editors in wikipedia is a violation of WP:OR. We are exclusively, according to policy, a site which repeats the statements of others. I cannot personally know that your statements of your observations are themselves neutral, and you couldn't know that about anything I or anyone else said either. There are other sites where such material is acceptable, and we occasionally link to them in our content, but this site is not itself one of them. Again, I would suggest that, if you honestly believe your position is in accord with policy, that you raise the issue on the relevant policy page or noticeboard. But I wouldn't expect many, if any, people to agree with you. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are saying this unless you think I'm a complete idiot as I already know this. Please read what I actually wrote above. I even put in extra bolding just for you.64.7.157.40 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me put my thoughts in a little different way. Because there is no published doctrine, a reliable NPOV source such as Melton sticks to statements that are demonstrably true and observable. A less reliable source with an ax to grind will use conjecture about doctrine in the absence of a clear statement of same, in order to build a case. Does it make more sense that way? That is the kind of statement I want to excise.64.7.157.40 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from unsubstaniated allegations and assumptions regarding the motivations of others, such as those you have fairly clearly indulged in above. Melton, for all the quality of his work, has a difficulty in the books he publishes which we do not. Specifically, he has space limitations. For us to assume that he has omitted information which can be found in other sources which seem to meet the basic WP:RS standards because he finds it questionable would itself almost certainly be judged to be a violation of some policy or guideline, probably WP:OR, unless he has clearly and explicitly made statements to that effect regarding those specific statements. We cannot assume that his omission of data is necessarily because he finds it questionable. It seems obvious, based on the text, that the group does in fact have fairly clear "doctrines" regarding certain matters, specifically regarding matters which it seems to see some sort of mandate in the Bible for. Like is true of virtually ever other religious group of any size, this does not necessarily mean that all members of the group will necessarily always adhere to those standards. There are things like "sin" and "disagreement with authority", both of which are found in most religious groups of any size in the world, and both of which can and do cause people to individually not behave in accord with certain principles. This does not necessarily mean that there is no doctrine, simply that it isn't always necessarily observed.

Now, having said that, it does seem reasonable to me personally to say that it may not necessarily be the case that any and all statements found in seemingly reliable sources as per WP:RS who would seem to logically have a limited direct focus, like local newspapers, will necessarily always present statements which are valid for the larger group. The source I found referring to the CCs in its area as being "anabaptist" could well, reasonably, be seen as basing that observation on the individuals there, who exist in an area where anabaptist beliefs have a rather strong hold. People in that area may well have behaviors and specific beliefs which are anabaptist in nature, even if those beliefs are not themselves necessarily based on doctrine. Saying something to that effect may well be reasonable and relevant, and, based on my admittedly imperfect memory of the article at this time, could probably be said based on that article with no policy or guideline difficulties. It would also reasonably be included in a "Beliefs and practices" section, if phrased in something to the effect of CCs in a largely anabaptist area, the Northern Plains, have been observed to exhibit some anabaptist tendencies. I myself would favor "Beliefs and Practices" as a better section title, because "Doctrines" is more 'official' than "Beliefs", and the former seems to me to be drawing conclusions regarding the content which may not necessarily be substantiatable. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument was not: Melton didn't include it so it's questionable. My argument was: Melton himself indicates that he had trouble getting a handle on the doctrine, not at all because of space limitations, but as he states in 5th Edition, "because of the difficulty in gaining authoritative material about the group, and the contradictory reports of its normative beliefs". That makes me skeptical of sources like Fortt and Daniel who claim special ability to "uncover" or "reveal" this doctrine. If Melton can't do it, why can they? I don't see how space limitations come into this as Melton has 3x the space (I did not measure) on 'local churches', a much smaller group than ours.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth the Local Church Movement is a much more outgoing organization which likes printing books and doing other media that has recently been involved in multiple lawsuits regarding whether it is or is not a "cult", so its profile is much higher as a result of the controversy and it could be seen as having rather more cause to have material on it, because of the recent controversies regarding its possible cult status. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, perhaps we should all go work on 'their' article.  :) 5th edition came out in 1996 so the 1980 lawsuits are mentioned only, if I recall. But mainly as you indicate, there just is more RS on doctrine for 'local church', even a web site. I'm very glad you decide to take this to RSN, as a great weight has been lifted in my having to advocate a particular POV against much resistance.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And further my argument is that known non-reliable, SPS sources like Fortt and Daniel will tend to 'fabricate' or 'restate' CC doctrine in unflattering ways.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there 'is' doctrine. You can read below concrete examples of how I think specific doctrines should be handled. If we deal with specifics in the Doctrine section perhaps we can avoid some of the issues at an abstract level.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy I like wrt to these issues is - WP:LTRD. I definitely agree on your proposed heading "Beliefs and Practices". 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful about newspaper interviews with ex-'s. I will look later today for WP on how these should be treated.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you've made between belief and individual transgression or variance is quite salient. This is why I take exception to words like 'forbidden', because everyone recognizes this difference.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But even beyond that distinction, IMO the character of the stringencies are somewhat of an open-ended and individualized ascetism. Although the practices of the group are quite stringent to many people's way of thinking, these practices are 'free will'. That is preached, but the anti- sites do not quote those kinds of sermons. Specific practices are rarely preached about these days, or treated as 'dangers' as opposed to don'ts. TTT calls them 'unwritten rules'.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Care with newspaper articles

On reading WP:PRIMARY and also WP:SYN I'm of the mind that special care must be taken in making general statements about Beliefs and Practices (or Doctrine) purely using newspaper accounts. A reliable secondary source would be necessary to make such a statement. The guidelines particulary caution against building or making a case for a doctrine out of multiple accounts. I have trouble visualizing a situation where a doctrine could be reasonably inferred using a newspaper account. I believe John Carter captured this thought above. I propose this here to see if anyone has issues with it and to pre-empt going off track in my detailed evaluation below. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt we will take as much care regarding the content of newspaper articles as we will with other potential conflicts, such as editors who may be seen as having a WP:COI regarding this material. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, do you think members of the group would have a COI? (It strikes me not, just an interest). 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

John, I had read but never perused this article until today, and I found this line positively prophetic in the Old Testament sense:

If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This quote would be a good motto for wiki. :) 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Doctrine Section

Extrapolating from Melton's comments I would change the Doctrine section as indicated below, striking the statements which are labelled contentious and correcting the remainder.

Basic tenets

The group's fundamental belief is "The church in the home, and the ministry without a home."[72]

• A universally accepted interpretation not "the" fundamental belief.

Sourcing issues: Remark made by Jack Carroll but he did not say it was the group's fundamental belief. TTT refers to this as a "frequently used slogan". [19]
Suggest: Move this to the ministry section and retag as 'frequently used slogan'.

Insistence on an unsalaried, homeless ministry and meetings being held in members' homes, rather than church buildings, has been a constant theme from the group's earliest years.[73][74]
Sourcing issues: The statement focuses on the preaching about this subject. The two sources provided do not prove this is a 'constant theme' in the preaching from then until now.
Suggest: The movement owns no church buildings, and its ministers do not own homes or draw a salary, relying on free will offerings from members.

Doctrines
Church leaders publish no list of their tenets or statement of faith;[75][76] they hold that the Bible is their sole doctrine.
Suggest: The movement publishes no doctrine; all doctrine or teaching is oral and based solely on the Bible with no supplemental aids or literature.

Actual standards and practices vary, however. For example, in some areas alcohol is forbidden, and in other areas fermented wine is used in Sunday meetings; in some areas people who have divorced and remarried are not allowed to participate in meetings, in others they may.[77][78][79]
Sourcing issues: I don't find support for the word "forbidden" in the sources.
Suggest: Members avoid alcohol, cigarettes and television. In some areas people who have divorced and remarried are not allowed to participate in meetings, in others they may have limited participation, and in unique situations, full.

The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made "alive" through preaching of its ministers.[80][81][82][83]
Sourcing issues: This is an exegesis made by antagonistic sources, e.g. "Christian Truth and Religious Delusions". The fact there is more than one is not indicative as these books are compendiums that 'gather' info from other sources. Another source is Lutheran.
Suggest: Oral doctrine already treated in statement above. Remove.

The extemporaneous preaching of the ministry is considered to be guided by God,[84] and must be heard directly.
Sourcing issues: Antagonistic exegesis made by Fortt.
Suggest: Remove.

Significant weight is given to the thoughts of workers, especially more senior workers.[85]'
Sourcing issues: Analysis by Fortt.
Probably somewhat true, but not because they are senior but because of the efficacy of preaching which tends to be greater in senior workers. But it does not follow by necessity.
Suggest: Remove or elaborate.

Beyond this point, detailed sourcing analysis is still required. Salvation is achieved through willingness to uphold the group's standards, by faithfully following in "the way," and by personal worthiness.[80][86]

• Contentious.
  

Doctrines such as predestination, justification by faith alone, and redemption as the sole basis of salvation are rejected.[87]

• Contentious.
  

Members are encouraged to attend meetings, and to speak at them.[88]

• See - order of the meeting - yes, in outline it is universal.
  

The use of television and other communication media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity is discouraged; the emphasis a given field places on discouraged media depends on the stance of the relevant worker pair and the overseer or overseers above them.[89][90]

• Workers do not 'discourage' behaviour to my knowledge. I wonder what is meant by discourage. There is a clear sense of separation from the world, the degree of attainment of which is not regulated.
  

Other standards include modest dress and avoidance of other activities deemed to be worldly or frivolous[91][92] (which can include activities such as smoking, competitive sports, motion pictures and theater).[93][80]

• There is a clear sense of separation from the world, the degree of attainment of which is not regulated.
  

Church buildings are seen as inconsistent with biblical Christianity, and are strongly denounced.[94][95]

• See above on 'church buildings'. There is no need to denounce them as there aren't any. The vehemence against other denominations from earlier days has disappeared although theoretically there might be pockets.
  

All other churches and all other ministries are considered to have departed from the one true way, and are held as being false religions.[96]

• This is no longer preached, but there is a palpable sense of exclusivism among many members of the group.
  

Christology

Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.[97][98] Though members believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they have a unitarian view of Christ.[99][100] The Holy Spirit is held as an attitude or force from God. Jesus is God's son, a fully human figure who came to earth to establish a way of ministry and salvation;[101] godlike or "divine," though not God Himself.[102][103]

• This is news to me. The best way I would characterize some of the Christ meta-narrative as explained by workers is kenotic Trinitarianism, but I don't have a source as I made it up. I don't think you can say that the statements above hold generally. You can fairly state that the word 'Trinity' does not come up.
  

Baptism

Baptism by one of their ministers is considered a necessary step for full participation as a member in the group. Rebaptism is required of people who have been baptised by other churches.[104] Candidates approved by the local workers are baptised by immersion.[105]

• Non-members who attend a Sunday meeting may participate in the sacraments if they wish. It's suggested to them that they should not feel obligated to participate. (I saw recent instruction to this effect in one area and I think this would indicate how this is handled.) Let's be realistic; we don't get new members who wish to join the group without desiring to be baptized.
  

Church name

Today, few members are aware that the group has official[106] names, or that these names are used for church business.[107]

• Questionable. The registered names are not publicized. Official the church does not have a name, as is the case with other independent faith movements.
  

Registered names vary from nation to nation. Even so, the group today represents itself as nondenominational[108] and without a name. In 1995, controversy arose in Alberta, Canada, when part of the group incorporated as the "Alberta Society of Christian Assemblies" for unspecified purposes. This particular entity was dissolved in 1996 after its existence became generally known.[109]

• No general statement about non-, anti- demoninational can be made. Group members and ministry say that the church has no name. In fact, one of the names has become "The No-Name Church". The various registered names have not changed this.
  

Though overseers and head workers use these names for official business, most members do not associate a formal name with the church.[110]

• The overseers do not use the registered names unless required by statute to do so.
  

Instead, they describe members as "the saints" or "the friends." To reference their beliefs, they commonly use terms such as "the truth" or "the way."[111]

• Best to put this in a terms section. I 'm not sure why - "instead". It's not instead of anything.
  

Restorationism

Many church members hold to a long-standing view that the church has no earthly founder,[112][113] and that it originated directly with Christ during the first century AD.[114][115][70] However, members have begun to make more frequent statements that hint either at a beginning during the closing years of the nineteenth century[90] or at a notable resurgence around that time.[116]

• The two statements do not stand in opposition. I'd put this differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.136.72 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding changing the categorization of "restorationism", and presumably(?) not including the information verifiable from several sources regarding the group's being founded by Irvine, I would have to object to both counts. I wouldn't necessarily object to something along the lines of "The movement was founded by Irvine, based on the model presented in the Bible. Irvine later adopted millenarist views and was excommunicated from the church. Thereafter, the remaining members of the church have shown a reluctance to discuss these matters, and have instead focused their attention when the group's history is discussed on the fact that their movement is a "restoration" or continuation of the movement founded by Jesus when he sent out ministers two by two." This would allow for both the information on the founding of the group based on reliable sources to be included, which is more or less required by policy, while also including the information regarding the movement's own existing expressed opinion on the matter. I should also note that the phrasing I have used is, of course, itself more than open to discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally like the approach, but please remember that the desire to not have a founder did not emerge after the expulsion of Irvine, but goes back to the very beginning of the movement. See Talk:Christian_Conventions#No_founder My objection to the statement that was there is also very mild. For example, some members today would not object to saying the movement (not the church) originated with Irvine, but that the church was founded by Christ, seeing no difficulty in holding both points in view when put in this way. But this too has other inadequacies, I admit. In any case, I didn't see anything drastic changing here.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - John Carter asked for a more comprehensive evaluation and this has been done for the Doctrine section. However, I left off the Ministry and other sections which repeat some of these points.209.162.236.195 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I first made a quick cut analysis using my personal knowledge of the subject.

A second pass is being made to analyze each source in detail. I will try to do a few each day, and did the first 4 or 5 today. Keep in mind that these sources are hard to find, many are self-published, and/or out of print. Most of the newspaper reports are available on the web, either on TTT or by Googling.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I have made some changes which appear good to me; I know there are more suggestions but I am not yet comfortable with making those changes. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the changes you did make and feel they move much closer to NPOV. Good work. 64.7.157.40 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"known non-reliable, SPS sources"

I do not have a list of "known non-reliable, SPS sources." I haven't seen this list or heard of one. Can someone please post the list of "known non-reliable, SPS sources?" Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS>I only need the list that might be associated with this article, not the full list.

Since you asked, why don't you post your list, and I will add if I feel it necessary. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems a determined effort to shop doubts on the resources used. Nothing new. A look at the articles history, and the talks for the users involved, I see the same person has been doing this for a couple of years, leaving the article an uncited, self-contradictory, PoV—but somehow "more accurate"—mess. I believe the SPS and reliability issues have already been raised elsewhere over the last couple of months. Or perhaps there are other resources not dealt with then? • Astynax ^talk 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Astynax: Are you aware of a list of "known non-reliable, SPS sources" anywhere in Wikipedia? I remember quite well the effort of RSuser to get anything published by RIS declared unreliable: originally on the basis that the publisher was "Single-topic" publisher. Of course once the RS noticeboard group began to consider the effects of such a sweeping change in RS definition, that attempt failed.

When that approach fell down flat on its butt, RSuser expanded his anti-RS polemics because the RIS website had "POV" materials that were "Self-published". Once again, the association of a website to a publisher was not regarded as a prima facie reason to call published materials "Non-reliable".

RSuser tried a number of other approaches to get the RS noticeboard to judge that a number or sources that concerned him should be judged as not suitable for inclusion. In every case, the final decision of that group was that care should be exercised regarding their inclusion, but if care were exercised, there was no blanket reason to exclude everything from all of them.

Lately there has been an attempt to smear Fortt's book by smearing Fortt. Most recently with quotes from little-known letter an unpublished letter, so no one can check the case. Purporting to show that Fortt's book is non-reliable because Fortt writes with a point of view, and in his (unpublished and uncheckable) letter, called CC a cult. But as I have posted before: Sources do not need to be NPOV to be acceptable. Authors of those sources do not need to be NPOV, and so far as I know, the only one(s) currently calling Fortt an unreliable source is UserX.

Further, once JohnCarter began posting some recent news articles, UserX first enjoyed the idea of including them as reliable sources, but then began an effort to parse what was said: if the words "Critics say" for example, appeared anywhere in the article, or if ex-members were being quoted, or, or, or...You get the idea. Only SOME material is acceptable.

So as far as I know, there is no list of "known, non-reliable SPS sources", and certainly none associated with this article: I've checked.

If I had to present my OWN list of known, non-reliable SPS sources", I fear that it would consist only of UserX, and his many cloaking aliases. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I know by now that you like to blow a lot of smoke, I have seen it also with others, and so I am not going to waste my time and energy refuting your ad hominem attacks. If someone else impartial wishes to provide some perspective on your synopsis of events they may do so, and then I may rebut those points if I wish. I count at least 10 errors of fact above, and frankly I no longer have time or energy for your games. What I would suggest is that you stick to the subject. As you indicate above the RSN found "the final decision of that group was that care should be exercised regarding their inclusion". And I personally don't believe proper care has been taken. If you don't agree with my assertions then deal with them in-line where they are made.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is completely inappropriate for wikipedia and the IP has no right whatsoever to try to dictate where and how other editors will comment. I would urge the IP to engage in more civil conversation int he future. But there is, so far as I can tell, no good reason for comments such as the above. And I also have to question whether at this point there is any purpose in trying to use this page to determine what are and are not reliable sources, given the strong opinions on several sources displayed by several individuals here. On that basis, I am now myself contacting the RSN for their input. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the IP has no right whatsoever to try to dictate where and how other editors will comment. I apologize for trying to tell Nonemoman what to do. As you indicate he has every right to make his comments, and if you don't mind I will strikeout that portion of my comments, also so that a record is left. And thanks for contacting the RSN. I would like closure as much as anyone. I hope everyone understands that I defend principles I believe are correct, no other reason. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note on Fortt: His letter to Christianity Today is printed here [20], same link as above.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the link above, I'm assuming [veteransoftruth.com has made the RS cut. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no plan to put Fortt's letter in the article, so the question is irrelevant for me. If you want to use them, try WP:RSN. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, but not NPOV

From WP:NPOV

• A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. [21]

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:

• cited selectively
• painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate
• made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present
• subject to other factors suggestive of bias

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

My nature is to edit with a sledgehammer, and I need to remind myself of this helpful section. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also: WP:RNPOV:

• Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs.
• Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

I'm also including the following sections which seem useful to consider as we proceed [22]:

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. Try getting outside help from the NPOV noticeboard. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.

When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.

--Nemonoman (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I don't in any way mean to point fingers here, or to suggest that I am guiltless of the sort of unpleasant behaviors being described. If the shoe fits, wear it. Some of these shoes fit me all too well. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think focusing on the question of NPOV is a good move on your part. The POV issues emerge mostly in the 'Doctrine' section. Members are very sensitive to those issues being presented accurately (I say members because I have discussed this with a few members). Many moons ago, you stated that you personally could pick up bias, but I believe that bias cannot be seen by a neutral observers; it's detection is very much culturally and historically conditioned. Any member or ex-member will pick up the bias at the drop of a hat. Someone who just reads the text with no background on the religion will not see the bias without backgrounding themselves first. Let me give you an example. If I was to say, "Many former members are bitter about their experiences in the fellowship". Would you expect ex-members to be upset by that statement? Probably not. But the word "bitter" has been much overused to describe ex-members, often as "bitter ex"s. And the ex-members resent being uniformly characterized in this fashion, so any use of the term "bitter" is a hot button with ex-members. If I was to edit that sentence into the article the disinterested observer may not seethe problem. It's a small illustration. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: and so on.

Carter seems to have tried that on the founder question, and I very much endorse this approach.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs.

I think you will find that is likely not true of those who edit this article who have been in contact with the historical material for some time.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the bias issue concerns the use of terminology. We do not call our 'movement', a 'church', the word 'ministers' is seldom used, they are 'workers', and of course, we accept no 'founder'. Any thoughts on how to solve the bias issues introduced through the use of foreign terms? Remember historically the movement started as a rejection of both Protestantism and Catholicism, and so the workers began to reject all terms outside those used in Scripture. If the term is not in the Bible you pretty much won't see it used within the fellowship.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why if a theological term is introduced like 'Trinitarianism' it's best to indicate who is making the assessment. The workers seldom address the issue head on. But they will quote and speak about the verse (Matthew 28:19) mentioning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but never using the word Trinity since it's not Biblical. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As WP:RNPOV states further:

• ...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view..."--Nemonoman (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That certainly stands my point on its head. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I could get into an extended discourse on how the majority view is often used to suppress dissent. Keep everyone thinking and acting the same, nice and uniform. There are some interesting post-modern analyses of Trinitarianism purely on that basis, seeing Trinitarianism as an unsupportable, contradictory theory that grew out of political expediency in 300 AD and ever since has been used to stifle dissent and create a central authority within Christianity. But I don't suppose that would be productive, would it? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue here, but just to submit for your consideration. To me, the sentence is actually saying this. "Wiki editors should always use terminology out of sympathy for the majority POV and ignore any sympathies toward minority POVs." If everyone in our fellowship says 'workers' and every other 'church' says 'preachers', then preachers is the word to use. And it follows from this that readers have a certain conception of what a 'preacher' must be, when they see these so-called preachers, they'll surely agree that these are "Tramp Preachers", one of the early derisive names used against the movement. Everything about this movement will be just a little bit off, because it's being compared right down to the bone to mainstream Protestant thinking. Again, just something to think about.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal."--Nemonoman (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some members are arguing for their own version of terms and labels used for doctrine, at least some of which are at variance with other members. Keith Crow's (who was a member) thesis states that members refer to the group as "the Church" (p. 8), which usage evidently isn't used in other areas or has changed since. The same may be said for "preachers" (many references to members using that term), "ministers/ministry" (again, quotes from members using those words). Even assuming that we could verify who is a member or that they have an authoratative knowledge of the doctrine of the group, no one here is qualified to speak for this group: not members, not former members, not critics, not even an overseer if such would deign to comment here—that point has been made abundantly clear. For all we know, some editors are newbie or misinformed members who don't know as much as they think, some may be spreading lies to destroy the group, etc. That is why Wikipedia excludes OR and PoV. By all means note the group's terminology where its usage can be cited in sources—the article has a section for that. But expecting ordinary readers to grasp in the body of the article the parsed or unique definitions which the members (or subsets of members) use/don't use for various things is unreasonable. Similarly, matters of faith (including denial of any founder other than Christ) can be, and are already, noted in the Doctrine section where such matters belong. But visiting readers need not be given the impression that there is some doubt (outside some within the group) as to whether there is a founder, etc. when the sources say otherwise. • Astynax ^talk 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"no one here is qualified to speak for this group: not members, not former members, not critics, not even an overseer if such would deign to comment here—that point has been made abundantly clear."

The point is a majority of critics and former members have been "speaking for this group" via cited sources and editing of the article since it's been on wiki. Don't take my word for it, read the archives, research the internet, study the connections, and see for yourself. JesseLackman (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Astynax comments on terminology. I wondered if we could have focused on a deeper question first. And that is this. If generally church leaders are referred to as ministers, but our movement uses the term workers, then which term should be used in the article? I hope you do agree that 'workers' is the most commonly used term within the movement. So the deeper question I raise without prejudice is: whose terminology do you use, that of the religion under inspection, or the terms from the inspector's toolbox? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As to whether there is or is not a founder. Using Carter's formulation - "The movement was founded by William Irvine in 1897. But from the early days, movement leaders such as Edward Cooney [quote here] have preached that unlike every other denomination and even the Catholic church they have no founder, only Jesus Christ." How does that work for you?209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that I still wonder if "founded by William Irvine, Edward Cooney and others" wouldn't be more correct, but that question could be put aside until more historical research is completed.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

such as editors who may be seen as having a WP:COI regarding this material.

To address this point, I am only a member of this church/ movement, not a paid employee, minister or even elder. I am also not an author. Just in case I'm seen as having any conflict of interest. My interest is only in the accuracy of this article. Any critique I make lies in issues relate to the editorial quality and integrity in the article's formation, not out of any welfare for the church.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And a question, how can wiki possibly enforce COI when anonymous editors are allowed to make major editorial contributions? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I too wondered about COI too with so many sources being former members, and editors being anonymous and some clearly being former members. It's a reason why I try to refrain from editing the article itself, I am a member; a reason why I use my real name (search it and see if my attitude and objectivity here matches what I've written elsewhere). I've recognised former member editors in the archives, I've seen their work various places on the interent, writing that's so emotive and subjective COI is very obvious. In contrast members don't have nearly as many web sites and published works dedicated to criticisms of former members, or in defense of members, it's probably a 10-1 ratio. This is plain to see, just search "2x2s" or "Willaim Irvine" if you don't believe me.

So a case could be made that only editors completely devoid of any experience or connection whatsoever to the friends and workers be allowed to edit the article. Further a case could be made that only sources devoid of any experience or connection whatsoever with the friends and workers be allowed to be cited. That seems to be the only real way to remove COI from the editing and article. Former members, and members for that matter, simply will not be totally objective sources or editors, that's just the way life is. So how about anyone with any possibility of COI voluntarily step away from editing the article? Would that be reasonable? Then let the editors who are truely without COI determine which sources do not have obvious COI.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some notes on COI. The main concern of COI is people VESTED in the outcome of the article in a tangible way: Employees being driven to edit articles about their companies...like that. Many or most editors will have some sort of involvement with their subject matter. This is not conflict of interest certain...for the most part editors learn to adjust to WP's demand that they work together for neutrality and verifiability. The VESTED editor is more vested in seeking his PERSONAL OUTCOME than the best outcome for Wikipedia.

Some editors DEVELOP a conflict of interest...they start out cooperative and become vested. See -- WP:OWNER. On my 2 major contributions -- Taj Mahal and Meher Baba I am very much a candidate for evolving into this type of COI...I'm a pain in the ass, I'm controlling, I smarter than anyone else in the room, and I know how those articles ought to look. My personal exercise involves loosening up, working on other articles, helping startup editors, etc.

I am VERY CONCERNED that some of the editing to this article has been subject to this latter type of COI. And may yet be. So JesseLackman, I am very touched by your suggestion So a case could be made that only editors completely devoid of any experience or connection whatsoever to the friends and workers be allowed to edit the article. Further a case could be made that only sources devoid of any experience or connection whatsoever with the friends and workers be allowed to be cited. It suggests that you are making efforts toward compromise and objectivity, and are even open to questioning your own objectivity.

JesseLackman, Outside of WP, I have had no awareness or contact with the group. You know that I have been very concerned and in your case very bugged by some sort of hypothesis that I and maybe other editors are out to smear the CC, intentionally or not. I have no opinions of this group one way or another, and certainly am not out to get it, so it pains me to be painted as a bad guy because when I won't roll over for every suggestion a member has made.

I HAVE been a member of four other groups that have been criticized as being cults (one of which, so help me, is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in the US! -- it's like I'm DRAWN to cults!!), and I am very sensitive to how ugly things can get around misunderstood faiths. So I personally have no desire to paint this group badly.

I ask ONCE AGAIN for compromise and ease and the assumption of good faith. I can see by their history that several editors on the article like myself are sort of generalists. I ask for the one topic editors to CONSIDER making fresh decisions.

I have seen what happens to this article when the rats start gnawing at it. But if it can get to GA status, it will be more able to be protected from wanton sniping. But that requires stability, and to get to stability requires compromise. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman, Thanks for your comments. You personally are an editor who I would consider to not have a COI or vested interest in this article. I've never thought you were out to "smear the article", that is one reason I've tried to talk to you (not at you). Isn't it interesting how political and religious discussion/debate have a way of igniting even hidden vested interests? Case in point the extensive polarized web sites and books on the friends and workers. It's clear there's been a very significant investment of time and effort, in other words there's a vested interest there. I'm remembering your comments on the Impartial reporter graphic, do you remember them? Maybe there was a vested interest there too causing that tone - this line from the CC article seems to support that; "The emergence of the sect caused severe splits within local Protestant churches in Ireland, at a time of increased pressure for independence by the Catholic majority.[47] Because of animosity, they did not form a united front with other Protestant communities." Could it be that someone felt the need to protect vested interests? I commented on this in the last part of the "William Irvine may not be the founder" here. -->> [23]

We members do not have the equalivilant of all that, instead for the most part my experience is that in spite of all that is said about us we are a very much live and let live group of people. It seems that is an obvious fact that editors and source authors without a COI would recognise and be sensitive to - but might not be so for editors and source authors with an obvious POV and COI. You have stated you have had absolutely no previous contact, how about other active article editors making a statement as to if they have? Would that be too much to ask? JesseLackman (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to ask, but way off-base to presume anything about editors who choose not to answer. I'm personally disinclined to answer personal questions, but as I've stated as much in past posts: Not a member. Not a former member. No more or less vested interest than others here—no financial interest, though I certainly have friends and family on both sides (current and former members), and been exposed to the undercurrents and occasional waves going way back. So definitely I've had contact. On occasion, this has seemed more like standing between two angry bull elephants, which makes this WP article seem oddly familiar. On a few occasions during the past months, having those contacts has been useful and I have gotten reactions from both sides on some of the doctrine and practice objections raised here (none of which was used in editing the article, just confirming that sourced statements weren't out in left field as was seemingly being claimed). Do I have a PoV? You bet. Does that apply here? I hope not, at least not in ways which have been suggested. Editors, and I don't exclude myself, do need to be self-aware enough to keep their viewpoints from affecting the article, where NPoV comes into play. And that would also include those who make objections or suggest modifications based on personal views that are in conflict with sources. I'll also note that even some presumed members have made statements which members of my acquaintance have never heard, and which they find highly suspect and objectionable (such as that they accept a trinitarian view, or that a "restoration" took place at the end of the 19th century—their views are more in alignment with the sources, though they certainly don't believe that Irvine had anything to do with starting their church). There is another side from which we have barely heard during the last months, and that is from former members, who despite their adversarial stance, do have knowledge and an equally valid viewpoint with regard to this group. Yes, some of their statements are indeed in the sources, but it is wrong to assume that sources do not also contain statements from members or that statements from both aren't in agreement in many basic areas, however they might disagree on others. It would be easier were there a clear, complete, consistent and unambiguous published statement from the leadership, and the reasons given here for the lack of that make absolutely no sense to me, from the bible or from any other rationale. But, lacking that, this is hardly the only group with an article on Wikipedia which labors under that handicap. • Astynax ^talk 10:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I could point you to a couple of threads on TMB that discuss the Trinitarian but please ask me first as I got nailed for it the last time. I would think you would find it useful in the same way that talking to your acquaintances is. It is a subtle issue, and I would make a couple of observations. 1) The variation from orthodoxy lies not so much in Trinitarianism, but in the question of Incarnation and the divinity of Christ. 2) There seems to be more non-orthodox preaching on this subject in western Canada and the U.S. Everyone I've talked to who has encountered this kind of preaching or conversation was in that location. My thinking is that the movement is not highly doctrine-centric, or analytical in its collective Biblical exegesis. (Sorry for the $5 words, if I'm not making sense please let me know.) So,when Christological exegesis does occur, it's usually by senior workers, and might assume something of a regional character. Those senior workers will greatly affect teaching by younger workers under their tutelage. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Nonemoman's comments above. I think the process you describe of becoming emotionally invested in the outcome of an argument is palpable, but I wouldn't call that a developing COI. Remember that for a COI to exist the hidden interest must be a tangible one. Generally speaking those don't develop.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is out to 'smear' the CC. Let me say that originally I was quite pleased with the work I saw, and my frustration has been more with a certain intractability and defensiveness on even the most minor suggestion of a change. The other frustration, and I know I will sound holier-than-thou saying this, is a certain amateurish-ness in wikipedia generally, and a lack of understanding or empathy for the academic process, and how 'I' think things should be done. Admittedly my thinking is more and more at odds with how wiki does things, so do not take that at all personally. It is just the struggle I am having with wiki, and I have definitely lost my religion (see REM) as far as wiki is concerned. I don't generally think either of you have an ax to grind and are fair-minded in your analysis. However, I do find a certain Protestant, anti-cult movement bias in the writing on doctrine, the same as I find in much criticism of our movement. Personally, I do not think you can write on doctrine from a NPOV. That's because there is no "objective" reference point. Doctrine is completely socially constructed. With the history, you will note that I have never criticized anything that has been written, other than the ideological aspects of the founder question. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it?

No TVs? I keep hearing about no tvs? So what about computers. Lots of CCers out there on the interwebs. How does that fit?? Does that need a mention? Is there a source? --Nemonoman (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across a printed source with an explanation of how it fits. Eileen Barker did an essay on how various groups (including this one) might be impacted by the Internet and other communication technology, but it didn't specifically address CC's, so I didn't copy anything from it. I haven't checked websites looking for anything on that point, though I think I recall seeing on one of them something about most ministers having portable computers and Internet access. Not sure where that was, though. Surely if it's OK for the ministry, it wouldn't be condemned for lay members. • Astynax ^talk 10:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can answer that from my perspective. For starters the idea that the friends are automatons beaten down by whip cracking totalitarian worker-programmers is not really The-Way-It-Is. And the idea that the friends and workers are somehow technology adverse in a general way is absurd. That said there are huge and obvious differences between television and the internet illustrated by the fact something like Wiki and our conversations here simply could not happen on television. Television is a one-way passive experience for the viewer, and a one-way manipulative process for the producer. In other words the interent is interactive in a way television never has been and never will be. The internet's like a huge book, you read words, consider them, think about them, imagine, and you can even converse and communicate about what you've read, considered, thought about with other human beings on the medium.

For further reading notice how Roald Dahl absolutely nailed it in 1963; "Mike Teeve" quote from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; [24]

And; [Kill your TV [25]] [Television vs. Computers [26] ]

JesseLackman (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says: The use of television and other communication media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity is discouraged; and provides 2 citations. I'm clear that television is discouraged...but could I please get somebody with access to the references to either (1) quote the wordly message part, or (2) adjust the phrasing if the citations don't specifically support that conclusion? Tx...--Nemonoman (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman there's some discussion about that in the "Removed Section" section between Hopkins Disease and Astynax. JesseLackman (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a link??--Nemonoman (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Conventions#Removed_section

That's a link to the section, I don't know how to link to a specific comment. JesseLackman (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the passive voice in that sentence is misleading. It neglects to say who is doing the discouraging. We also are not told who is concerned about "disseminating a 'worldy message'". Presumably the same people doing the discouraging. The reader is lead to believe perhaps the doctrine, the preaching, and so on would discourage TV. But in fact none of these things actually do directly, at least not in the present day. As you know, following WP:LTRD I'm much more in favour of the statement, "Members do not generally own television sets", which is much easier to source.209.162.236.195 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation from Fortt is just his opinion and I would put no credence in it. He states, "The workers have always sought to isolate the members from ‘the world.’ Two-by-Twos are not to have television sets." So going back to the original citation puts us in even deeper doo-doo than we already were. Are you sure you wish to capture what that states? For example, if workers are seeking to "isolate the members" why do they not discourage computers and the Internet? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the phrasing to support the fact that some workers discourage TV; as I believe it's a long jump to say media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity, which places WP:UNDUE weight on Fortt. NOTE: in this instance...--Nemonoman (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think no one has really got to the nub of it yet. I don't think we'll be able to find references for what I'm about to say, but it's worth considering it to figure out how to include this info about TV/radio in the article.

I'd guess that the purchase of TV sets and watching of TV on any set was strongly discouraged, perhaps explicitly banned, by the workers (supported by elders) when the technology first became available to the general public. I wasn't around then to know. Since my living memory (early 80s) peer pressure within the group was enough to stop members purchasing a TV since the visible presence of it in a house would be difficult to hide. Still, members would assume that it was their own god-inspired decision not to buy a TV, rather than the result of peer pressure. Same goes for radios, except that the prohibition had started to wear off by my time. Even so, I recall sermons from preachers that were veiled warnings not buy or use radio/TV, just not explicit. I imagine the prohibition against TV will wear off too. Older members of the church will recall waxing and waning of rules which are probably a feature of many similar churches: prohibition against women wearing trousers, prohibition against women not wearing hats, prohibitions against men having long hair or beards. The wearing of hats is no longer observed, whereas the others are still usually observed, especially at church gatherings.

So what we have is an idea that started as something close to a prohibition voiced by workers, but now evolved into a kind of unwritten, rarely-spoken tradition perpetuated by peer-group pressure. That's why Jesse sees the idea of workers as "whip-cracking totalitarian programmers" as absurb. Still, I imagine it was once that way for the very-much-at-odds-with-the-rest-of-the-world tradition to be established. Of course this is all my opinion, but it's the kind of academic assessment of the issue I'd expect to find in proper WP:NPOV/WP:VERIFIABLE resources. Nemonoman, does that help you get it? Donama (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to quote the full Fortt p. 49 citation:

The workers have always sought to isolate the members from "the world." Two-by-Twos are not to have television sets. This seems to be on the verge of changing, as many Two-by-Twos have acquired sets and even VCR's in the last few years. These are kept more or less hidden, as the prohibition is still generally observed. Radios were also banned, although they have been tolerated in most areas for the past twenty years or so.

That book is dated 1994, so could be that things have since changed. The definition for "worldly" just refers to beliefs of those outside the group. So, unless it is referring to televangelists, I'm not sure Fortt explains what was meant by television being considered "worldly"—though I suppose there could be some new relgion out there which worships Brian Seacrest (or Eric Sevareid for my generation). The reference was included because it supports the editor's statement. Perhaps s/he (Hopkins Disease) will chime in to explain further. • Astynax ^talk 04:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax: Jesse's link above also pointed to the whole quote. As I said, media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity places WP:UNDUE weight on this quote by Fortt, and I'm not entirely sure that media which might disseminate a "worldly" message to the laity is 100% equal to "The workers have always sought to isolate the members from "the world.". Either way: I think the TV thing has by consensus been raised to acceptable content, and I think the current phrasing is reasonably NPOV. Also, it's now reasonably placed in context with other geographically-variable practices/prohibitions. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Donoma's post is very accurate. I sometimes like to call it 'group think'. 'Peer pressure' is another word for the same thing. Someone else might call it 'leadings of the Spirit'. I think if you want to explain it in a natural way, you should look to the psychology of group behaviour and sociology for explanations, and that work has not been done from an academic point of view.64.7.157.40 (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The distaste for television is still extremely strong, and I doubt that will ever change. Sure some people may hide them under their beds, which is just the exception (or sin) that proves the rule.64.7.157.40 (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording is a lot better as it alludes to the workers' leading through example. It's probably fair to say that the workers spoke against television upon its arrival in the 1950s (I've heard this said) and they haven't been seen since. But again the sentence is trying to connect the dots as to why there is no television, and if you understand what Donoma said above about 'peer pressure' you'll see that you can't do that validly. I can assure you that if there were NO workers, at this point in time, there would still be NO television in the movement. It's a very strong feeling within the membership, and to the best of my knowledge there is NO geographical variation.64.7.157.40 (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article from David Staples I referenced above also indicates that members aren't supposed to use TV or electronic communications. However, in some parts of the world, particularly widely separated areas of the Northern Plains, this isn't that practical with few other sources of communications, probably because of the potentially "morally corrupting" influence they may have. In fact, at this point, I know quite a few Christians of all kinds who've given up on TV. One other point, for what it might be worth. I just recently saw on another page that WP:RS doesn't actually say that what the sources state has to be seen by others as being factually accurate for it to be included in the article. I guess part of that would be that it might be a violation of WP:NOR or WP:POV for any editor to say that a source is wrong without an equally valid source saying that it is wrong. Exactly how much that might be relevant here I'm not sure, but thought you all might be interested. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be entirely happy to drop the TV nugget altogether, as it seems to have little relevance. In fact I'm thinking about bundling it with 'smoking, competitive sports, motion pictures and theater'.

In fact I'm not at all sure the sentence shouldn't read like this: Although standards of behavior for the group vary, in general they include dressing modestly and avoiding activities deemed to be worldly or frivolous, such as smoking, competitive sports, television, motion pictures and theater. And just kill the TV sentence in the last paragraph entirely.--Nemonoman (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just recently saw on another page that WP:RS doesn't actually say that what the sources state has to be seen by others as being factually accurate for it to be included in the article." John you don't need to go far to find that, I've said as much on this talk page. And a logical and rational as the information about TV and CC is from the sources who seem to have had personal experience -- it's NOT WHAT THE SOURCES SAY.

John: We're required to color within the lines: The sourced material cannot and should not be contradicted by unsourced material when we play the rules. I don't make up the rules, please note. That's the essence of WP:V But we CAN and SHOULD also be guided by WP:NPOV. So we must also

• avoid placing WP:UNDUE weight on specific sources
• avoid drawing inferences or conclusions not clearly laid out by sources
• avoid choosing words for the sole purpose of pleasing one interest group or another

And while we must also avoid accepting (unverifiable) personal experiences as facts, we can and should honor those experiences as we sift through murky source material.

There's that nice scene in the tunnel of the dam in The Fugitive where the Harrison Ford, unfairly convicted, tells the sheriff Tommy Lee Jones "I didn't kill my wife" and Tommy Lee Jones replies "I don't care." As the movie plays out, it becomes clear he DOES care, but he doesn't let his feelings overcome his duty: He plays by the rules. It's his duty "not to care", that is to follow through despite his emotions. In the movie, his rigid adherence to his duty allow the Sheriff to uncover the truth and finally establish justice: things he could not have done so well if he had "cared" and become an advocate.

We have a duty to follow the WP rules even if we don't necessarily agree with potential outcome of those rules. If we can't live with the rules, we need either to retire or change them. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 'And a logical and rational as the information about TV and CC is from the sources who seem to have had personal experience -- it's NOT WHAT THE SOURCES SAY.'

I know you're not going to like hearing this, but the obvious way out of this is that the sources are not reliable. Lloyd Fortt has an axe to grind, and everything I've heard from his book is rubbish. He is essentially a conspiracy theorist with pet theories to, as he himself states, "expose the workers' words". No reputable publisher would print that book. Fortt has written, "We weep as we watch them slip through our fingers, and turn from religion altogether in most cases, because of the brainwashing they got within that group." See [27]. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The CIA in WWII - a brief, hypothetical argument

The men and women who worked for the CIA voluntarily kept silence just after WWII and would not write about their covert activities. The only ones who did write about CIA activities were deserters to the enemy. The deserters wrote that the men and women working for the CIA were victims of the American system, and they had been forced and co-erced by their leaders to act as they did. When the wiki articles were written in 1950, these deserters were considered to have the majority viewpoint and were given the central position in the description of CIA activities. Much was written about how the CIA agents were forced or compelled to do what they did which served the foe's purpose in effectively demonizing the American leaders... (Facts have been changed in order to create a useful analogy).209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There were however, a few people who suggested everyone "consider the source" before using what was written ....209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)