Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Two by Twos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

How do we get rid of this silly project banner? Who cares about your importance/ class rating? If you want to include this article then just include it.

I think the above banner is important as it is in the entire Wikipedia. Wikipedia is public but then this is also a project. This is not someone's inheretance. In short, this is a Wiki policy as well. A banner like this gives a user, some insights on how much to take things from the article as encyclopedic. Also, how much to trust the information and the overall quality. On the other hand, I agree that not all FA or GA class articles are great but then it is somewhat important to be rated for the sake of NPOV. For ex. the article Jesus is a GA class. But Is the real Jesus explained (/presented) in that article - No. However, this opinion is mine personal believe and may not represent the overall consensus among the editors of that article. So, just some thoughts. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The 'start' class rating. This article is rated 'start class' because of a lack of reliable sources. But then there are NO reliable sources, so how can the article ever rise above 'start class'. Slofstra (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

2. The 'importance' rating. This reeks of mainstream people deciding what is important and what is not. This article is important to a certain audience. Maybe, very important to them. How do you assess what is "important"?

I think it's fine for these people who like to rank stuff, but I'm not a ranker. Not everything can be ranked. So how do we get out of this project. Did any editors of this article ask to be in this project? Slofstra (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as alleged, there are no reliable sources, then the article should be deleted on the grounds that it fails both WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The only question is whether or not it needs to go through AfD, or a simple Prod would suffice. jonathon (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This article falls within the scope of WP:Christianity. Whilst an article can request to opt out of a project, typically this only done when it is blatantly obvious to all and sundry that the subject matter of the specific article falls outside the parameters of the project.jonathon (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It won't fail WP:RS. I tried a test AFD on the 'Cooneyites' article without success. You'll find editor consensus is quite different from what you read in policies like WP:V and WP:RS. Slofstra (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rather spurious to go around ranking different churches don't you think? Slofstra (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The importance scale is a reflection of how important the article is, to understanding the generic subject of "Christianity". The quality scale is a rough guide to how well the specific article covers the specific topic. Neither scale is a per se ranking of different churches. jonathon (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not 'per se' I realize, but as far as articles about denominations, in what way would the importance of the subject be different from the importance of the denomination? Maybe, I am being too hasty. Perhaps there are merits to this 'Project' I am not aware of.Slofstra (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to organize the page chronologically (thank you). I've just added this note to indicate that all newer material is at the bottom. Please endeavour to keep that way. Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Added note on Vandalism and page protection Slofstra (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Please see discussion I added today to the Names section. We need to do something here. Slofstra (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The name of the institution: "Two by Two" is not the official name of the sect/church so let's only use it if we have to (such as in the case of the article). Where possible it might be more encyclopaedic to simply not use the name and just say the sect or the church (which leads to the next point). Note: If we are going to use the shortcut term "2x2", we ought to use 2x2 instead of 2x2's (which makes little grammatical sense and is a confusion of the normal use of the possessive apostrophe).
2. The type of institution: Also, this article refers to a sect in the correct sense of the word so "the group" is perhaps not such a good term and even "the church" is confusing but would be acceptable in an explanatory context.
3. Members of the institution: Members ought to be called Two by Two members or members of the sect rather than "2x2s" which is again confusing, especially when the apostrophe is included.

What do you think? Could we agree on some naming conventions here? Donama 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the need for naming conventions. I agree that the possessive use of "2x2's" is incorrect. If the apostrophe is not included (2x2s) it makes more sense, but is not as readable as "two-by-twos". "Members of the sect" is a bit wordy. It's much easier to identify members of any group via the use of a single word (catholic, methodist, baptist, etc). --Ilylo 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What do others think? Is it okay to use the term "two-by-twos" when it appears this is a term by which members of the sect would never actually identify themselves? Donama 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Members of the sect will never identify themselves as such sect (using the argument that they did not give it the name), much less agree to a term by which to identify them.--Ilylo 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest that the term Friends and the like, be explained very early in the piece and subsequently italicised as if a foreign/loaned word. I think this would be most in alignment with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They should be considered loan-words, as they have particular meaning which is not embodied in common parlance. I don't see there is any point in concocting any new terms to apply to the sect members. Surely member is sufficient in the context of the article? Jonathan

Again, I agree with this. It's a potentially confusing label but likely the best approach to take. Thanks for your inputs on this! Donama 08:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree it's a problem. I often find myself using "Fellowship" as in "Two-by-Two Fellowship". It avoids any misunderstandings or negative connotations of words like "sect", "group", "denomination" or "church". Thus, "members of the Fellowship". I think 2x2 is a very useful abbreviation. And as above, if Friends is defined early on, this can be used as an abbreviation for "members of the 2x2 Fellowship". Just my tuppence worth! --Alikia 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the overall thrust of the article is to point out differences to mainstram (orthodox?) Christianity while missing that there are many similarities? GeoffC 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

2X2 is NOT accepted by members of the group. As someone who has been raised as a member of this group I would like to point out that I have never heard the members use the term 2X2, or two by two. As an adult I am not a practicing member but I do attend meetings weekly with my family. I have attended meetings, special meetings and conventions in the Western US, Western Canada, Northern England, and Southern Scotland and never heard this term used by the group to describe itself. It was only when I heard a "worker" (the late Lowell Stidolph) mention that "it is not 2X2, it is two AND two" that I became aware of the term. I believe he was referring to the biblical references Mark 6:7 and Luke 10:1 in the King James version. So my observations (over 30+ years averaging 2 meetings per week = ~3000 meetings) attending fellowship meetings is that the 2X2 term is only used by "outsiders" describing the group. The members of the group (at least in the places I have been) usually use the term "The Friends" and would probably have a slight preference to a label similar to that. This is a difficult task - to "name" a group who has the tradition of not taking a name.

Thank you all for your good work. This wiki article is helpful to many and overall it is very accurate and does a good job of maintaining a NPOV. --Dbrouse 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)--19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)~

I'm not advocating changing the article name, I'm advocating correct English. Tomer^talk 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed most references to "Two by Two"s altogether, since circumlocutions are easy enough to write clearly. IMHO, the article should refer to these folks as seldom as possible by this name, since it is a label given by non-members, former members, many of whom seem to have a bone to pick with the group, it refers primarily to the ministry, and is seen as "equally offensive" by many members as labels such as "the no-name church" and "the black-stocking religion". Tomer^talk 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this point, but why was "Two by Two" chosen in the first place? Would there be any alternative names for the article? Donama 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why "Two by Two" was chosen to begin with, all I know is that the name is not any more legitimate as a moniker for the group than "The Black Stocking Religion" or "The Tramp Preachers". There are probably legitimate alternative names (Christian Conventions comes to mind) which are less offensive, but technically, having the article at Two by Two is (without too much exaggeration) analogous to having Jew listed at Kike (which you'll note, is not a redirect to Jew, but rather an article about the racist epithet). Tomer^talk 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Request moving this article to "Christian Conventions" leaving a redirect from "Two by Two" in place to the new article title in perpetuity. Please indicate your opinion on the proposed move by stating support, oppose or neutral below. I think there is no hurry here. We could allow up to a month for comments and votes on the move request. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support: This is the only name the church has used to officially self identify. Two by Two is a nickname popularised by former members, making it somewhat biased to continue its use. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• slightly more than weak support: I really don't know what would make a decent name for sure... the fact of the matter is that it's only been registered in the US (with the draft board) as "Christian Conventions", and even most of its membership wouldn't recognize it by that name. That said, at least a non-polemical source (i.e., the US Gov't.) can be found to actually support such a name. Unfortunately, "Christian Conventions" is not the only name the group has ever used to officially self-identify...it has been registered with draft boards in other countries under other names, which I don't recall off-hand... Tomer^talk 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not just in the USA. I seem to recall it's been used in other countries. For example, in this PDF you can see the church is registered in Western Australia under this name. Admittedly it's difficult to see much less verify how widespread this is. Donama 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We could, but as it seems, there's no opposition. Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Annual conventions are a relatvely unique trait all members and most non-members will probably have at least some familiarity, thus Christian Conventions is an appropriate title, with no offensive connotations. Jonathan 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, aside from the hackles raised at the insistence that the Workers have registered the Church with the Gov't. Admittedly, I don't know what course dialog regarding "the truth about the Truth" has taken in the past 10 years or more (the last time I was in a meeting was about 10 years ago)...so hopefully this article name is the least offensive of all potential candidates. I still have family in "the Truth", but we generally avoid discussing religion in too much depth...especially taboo seems to be the subject of how the early history is being discussed today. (I found out about it in the late '80s, and no, that had nothing to do w/ my decision to "return" to Judaism...I was already well on that road by then... :-p) All of that aside, if someone can find citable information on the effect of the internet age on the Truth, that'd make a good addition to the article (in my humble opinion). Cheers, Tomer^talk 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have one complaint regarding this decision that was made long ago... the article only comes up on a google search for "Christian Conventions." How many people know that this is the official name of the church in the USA? On the contrary, how many people have heard the group referred to as "the two by twos", and how many have heard members refer to their fellowship as "The Truth"? Would this change if the article was renamed "Christian Conventions: commonly known as The Truth or the Two by Twos" (or some such)? Or is this too big a name for a wikipedia article? Eddie Tor 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous proposal as a name...there are now links to the article from the two by two, truth and the Truth disambiguation pages. Cheers, Tomer^talk 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The group claims to have no name This is a false statement held by the cult. The term cult most accurately describes the group because it is classified as a cult by the Christian Community.

Response: Cult or Christian, who can say? Paul said that true Christians would be called a 'cult' by mainstream religion. (Acts 24).Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The group's most common name is 2x2. Simply to a google search on "2x2 cult". This is why they don't like the name 2x2 is because that is how everyone knows them. Please do search on "2x2 cult sexual abuse". Here's another link *Sexual abuse covered up

Response: Every denomination contains pedophiles, so does every religion. I have not read this article but truly feel sorry for anyone victimized in this way. It is a shame that you would use this for political/ religious ends. There are police forces and courts of law to deal with these issues, and I can say from personal experience that workers and friends alike support them fully. (See my full response on this issue below.) Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The founder of the cult, William Irvine, claimed to have had a special revelation from God and preached that "And every church was a monument to the power of the Devil over the hearts and lives of men...It was the clergymen who were filling hell", read page 7 of The Secret Sect book by Doug and Helen Parker about the offensive preaching of this group. There are numerous quotes and notes of the meetings in this book.

Response: This book by the Parkers was written when? (More below).Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Response to Slofstra's enquiry as to when a book was written: Slofstra, the book has been posted numerous times, but I'll be glad to look it up for you. Perhaps you would like to get to know the people who did all the research and based their statements on interviews. They're nice folks and would be glad to talk. The Secret Sect, 1982 (ISBN 0-9593398-0-9); MacArthur Press Pty. Ltd, Sydney, Australia Available from RIS, RAS, POC Doug & Helen Parker, P.O. Box 92, Vincentia, NSW Australia 2540 Trv6983 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The cult has no statement of faith and no consistent teaching.

Response: If that is so, what are they brainwashing people with. Slofstra (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Response to Slofstra not knowing what they brainwash people with: They brainwash people with inconsitent/contradicting teachings that they refuse to publish. Not one overseer or worker will provide a statement of faith.Trv6983 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Further response: Please think about this. You said, "They brainwash people with 'inconsistent/contradicting teachings that they refuse to publish." How would I then know what I have been 'brainwashed' with. Whereas, I suppose, repetitively reciting the Apostle's Creed every single Sunday is NOT brainwashing, in your estimation? 209.162.236.194 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The leaders of the group claim to be led by a "spirit" and teach things that contradict each other.

Response: You're entitled to this Point of View. No claim is made in the article of the opposite, since it is a matter of faith, not fact. Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. While the cult claims to have no name, they call themselves "The Truth" or "The Way" which is blasphemy in the Christian community because Jesus himself is "The Truth"and "The Way". The cult chooses to use names from the Bible to form the appearance of being Christian. Christians do not recognized the group as a truly Christian church or even a sect. The 2x2 movement was a break-off from the Irvinites. And the Cooneyites were a break-off from the 2x2s.

Response: And the Christians were a break-off from the Jews, and Satan was a "break-off" from God. So what? Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Slofstra: If you don't understand how sad it is that Satan is a break-ff from God, then you seriously need to seek help. Christians were not a break-off from the Jews. They are a continuation of of those who put their faith in God. Please read New Testament in Bible how salvation comes by faith in God, not by nationality, joining a cult, skin color or language you speak. Trv6983 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't know what a 'break-off' is. 209.162.236.194 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The cult excommunicates member who are not in agreement with the cults fundamentals which by behaviour can be seen as "agreeing with the overseers" which are held in higher regard than God.

Response: I can't even imagine anything "higher than God". I can't even imagine "God". You on the other hand have a very good imagination. Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Slofstra on my imagination: Thanks for your compliment on my imaginatin.Trv6983 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The excommunication is held outside the Bible's common commandments of bringing issues before the church and many members are excommunicated over the phone.

Response: Why am I laughing? Slofstra (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC) You're probably laughing because people who are members of the cult call people who follow the commands of God "mental" and describe them as having a "fixation on the scripture". But please, tell us why you would laugh about people being excommunicated and very hurt for being lied to and abused?Trv6983 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right; what you say there isn't funny; what you said above, is. Slofstra (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The cult also has strict information control, forbidding cult members to attend Christian churches unless they are leaders trying to entice away ignorant with little to no understanding of the word of the kingdom. It's almost comical to note that while the group likes to name itself, and also claim "no name" it refuses other names like 2x2s of which they are most commonly known.

Response: Gee, I never thought of that. Everyone calls us '2x2s', we should just take that name. I will suggest to a worker the next time I see her. Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The fact remains that the cult likes to hide in obscurity, withhold information, brainwash it's followers and deceive others through misinformation and misleading insinuations as documented in The Church Without a Name by Kathleen Lewis.

Response: This doesn't sound like a 'fact'. It sounds like a summary statement by a prosecutor who neglected to present any evidence. Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. If the cult wanted it's beliefs known then it would name it's particular interpretations of the Bible, give a statement of faith and take up the challenge by Christians who have offered $100 to overseers for listing a measley 10 doctrines they actually agree on.

Response: I really have no idea what this really means.Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. For the above reasons, Christian's will never call the cult "The Truth" because that is reserved for God and not a cult. It would be the same as calling heretics "God" They are called 2x2s because that is the name by which Christians know them best. Trv6983 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: You speak for all Christians do you? That is quite a mantle to bear. Slofstra (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Trv9683. In all seriousness, I read this and here is what I come away with: 1) There have been individual incidents of abuse of power, sinful acts, and even criminal acts by members of the group. Welcome to humanity. 2) You have religious differences with the group. You are entitled to begin, belong to, and describe your own group. Why don't you do this, instead of using us an 'other' in the process of forming your religious identity.

Summary: Slofstra. Thanks for being serious. There are many individual incidents of abuse of power, sinful acts, and even criminal acts by members of the group. So many in fact, that is is the pervading characteristic of the group. My faith is in Jesus Christ and am not defined by what I'm against, but rather what I'm for. God loves you and understands what you've been through. I hope you come to know God and have compassion towards those abused and defrauded by the cult and understand that it is not good to "toss your hat in" with that group.Trv6983 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You said, "So many in fact, that is is the pervading characteristic of the group." I strongly disagree that criminal acts (to cite one characteristic you mention) are a pervading characteristic of the group. If that was so, the papers would be full of documented evidence, and this article would contain proper citations to newspapers articles and accredited books instead of scurrilous insinuations based on self-published materials. The incidence or frequency of criminal acts is certainly no greater than that of the population at large. My personal experience is that the frequency is far less. Slofstra (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do some research, the term sect cannot be attributed to this group. It really should be referenced as a denomination in its own right. The term sect refers to an off-shoot of an existing, established denomination. The Two by Twos clearly aren't that, as the group was started from scratch. That the group is smallish and relatively unknown is irrelevant. That some consider appropriate the weirdo connotation that comes with the term sect is also irrelevant. Thus, by definition, the current opening line of the Two by Two article, "...is one of many colloquial names given by outside observers to a Christian sect founded by William Irvine in the late 1890s." is incorrect. It should perhaps read, "...is one of the colloquial names given by outside observers to a small Christian denomination founded by William..." Jonathan

Strongly take your point, Jonathan, especially considering this naming convention is applied in analogous Wikipedia articles. I agree it should be changed. Donama 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. The "group was started from scratch"? Hmmm. How scratch was scratch in this instance? Irvine was of Presbyterian background, and working for the Methodist Faith Mission at the time he launched off in his own direction. His lieutenant John Long was a Methodist colporteur. Much of the methodology and even jargon was taken from the Faith Mission (eg. "workers"). Wikipedia itself gives useful definitions for sect and denomination (A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well established religious group). I tend to think sect is more apt, certainly than denomination. --Alikia 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So Two by Twos are a sect of which denomination then Alikia? Presbyterian? Methodist? Faith Mission? To quote Wikipedia on Sect; A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. How established do you think Faith Mission was after less than 15 years? Compare with Christian denomination, A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body, organization under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.

Identifiable religious body? Yes. Common name, structure, doctrine? Yes. Denomination? Methinks so, but you decide. Jonathan 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, 'Two by Twos' are a sect of protestantism if you like or the Church of England. Having thought about this more carefully I think it is inconclusive as to whether 'Two by Two' be considered a sect or denomination. It is open to opinion as to whether there is an "identifiable religious body". Due to denial and lack of any official recognition there is no common name and the common structure and doctrine may exist but is not verifiable and certainly not standardised as in typical Christian denominations.

Possibly neither "sect" or "denomination" are appropriate words and this should be noted in the introduction, along with the reasons we've all put forward. Donama 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also... Let's note that the few published resources on Two by Two tend to refer to it as a sect or a church, which seems to lend weight to Alikia's position on this. Donama 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "denomination" simply cannot apply to this group, particularly because not having a name is a central point of their doctrine. Moreover, they describe themselves as non-denominational. Postxian 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

'Two by Twos' are considered a cult. Encyclopedias list it as a cult as do many books. They certainly have a cult following. Published judgments base continuation within the group as that people must agree with them and their decisions. See article on "Telling the Truth" website showing picture of leaders decision on fellowship picture of the letter. The group is not based on faith. If someone says it is based on faith, then I ask "Faith in what?". People are forbidden from recording meetings held by it's leaders. No one has listed what they put their faith in. As a former worker I know that there nothing that we (Randy Russel or Craig Jacobsen) taught to have faith in other than "meetings in the home" and the "2x2 ministry". But faith is "the substance of things hoped for" and so how could we teach people to have "faith" in something they already had? The group was started by William Irvine in 1890's and yet it seems so odd that people keep deleting information about the founder of the 2x2s in this wiki article.Trv6983 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Two by Twos" are also a sect by virtue of the split which occured in 1914. There was no "excommunication" of Irvine from a "main body" - rather it was an actual split. Although conventions controlled by various overseers agreed to exclude him from speaking, Irvine continued to have many followers who never abandoned his leading. A remnant of these continues to this day. For many years after 1914, Irvine's followers continued to include some prominent "workers" (such as May Carroll), and there continued to be communication between Irvine and various elder workers from the main 'Two by Two' group for decades, including those workers making treks to visit him in Jerusalem.Astynax (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has gone through the entire article and inserted the term 'Christian Conventions' in many places, as if it was the name of the group. This is incorrect usage. 'Christian Conventions' is the name of the article, NOT the name of the group. Just use 'friends' or a similar self-referential term in the body of the article as this works just fine. Slofstra (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording of this section is awkward. This article needs to be a lot shorter and should not get bogged down in what I consider ideological warfare. First, everyone recognizes, I think, that the group wishes to not have a name. But there have been two major criticisms of this desire. First, that the group is trying to pre-empt use of the word 'Christian', claiming they are the only true Christians. Second, that in fact, the group has in certain situations registered this or that name for specific purposes. Critics want to emphasize that in these cases the group has not lived up to its own standard. The problem with all this is that this kind of information (e.g. how the group was registered in Alberta, for example) bogs the entire article down with historical trivialities. Personally, I am not troubled by such "shocking revelations". But an encyclopedia entry should, above all, be concise, and I know if I personally touch any of these items that have become touchstones for ex-member's, I'll be accused of attempting a whitewash. So what can we do here, folks? Slofstra (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Slofstra, I must disagree. The "Name of church" section is presently way too short. I'm not obsessed with names, but the section in its current form explains exactly nothing. The section title is overly long as certainly as the amount of information it gives is short. There is, for example, no discussion of the pejorative names by which the group/sect/church is known by "outsiders". There is no mention of why the article has the name it has. There is, in fact, no discussion of why the membership refers to themselves and their fellows by the terms "Christian", and the group as "The Truth" and "The Way". You seem to want a short section, but for a group who insists on "namelessness" it seems particularly incongruous that its desire to remain nameless, a goal it has failed at spectacularly, is so little developed...and without justification other than your personal desire for a "short section", it is not only inexcusably short, it's unencyclopedically short. The assertion that discussion of the name unnecessarily bogs down the article in trivialities is, frankly, a matter of your personal opinion, hardly an acceptable basis for editorial policy. That said, rather than start an edit war about the proper form of the section, I would like to commence a discussion of every section of the article, for the purpose of improvement according to the goals of the Project, here on the talk page. The "Name" section seems like as good a place to begin this discussion as any. Regards, Tomer^talk 10:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't really disagree with where you're going with this in terms of the Names section. My response above was to a specific edit that listed a dozen names, none of which had currency. In trying to be useful as possible to the curious the first section should include any names that have common currency. There is a disambiguation link from 'Two by Twos' for example. I see no point in listing names that were in use in 1905 in a few counties in Ireland. I have no way of knowing which names other than 'Two by Twos' are widely in use. The only one I can think of personally is the Friends. Suggestions? Slofstra (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As to why the group is nameless. I think that kind of thing is theology and gets into non-neutral POV area. Best left out of the article, esp if you want to avoid edit wars. That's an opinion, and I know it's arguable.Slofstra (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding length. The article should be as long or short as it needs to be. My feeling is that if you apply how I understand wiki principles to work, see User_talk:Slofstra, the article as a whole will be short though. But I don't see that we should specifically try for a certain length, as long as wiki policies are followed.Slofstra (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your stmt "The assertion that discussion of the name unnecessarily bogs down the article in trivialities.." I never meant to assert that generally. I was speaking of the content of the Names section at that particular moment in time. Regarding POV affecting editorial policies: I don't set editorial policies. I understand wiki's policies and try to enforce them here. I've started a policy discussion on my User_talk:Slofstra because although I've studied the policies no end, there are some areas that are unclear. If you review every edit I've ever made here, (and I know I've made some people sore); every revert or undo has been made because of a serious breach of one or another wiki policy. And if I'm shown to make a mistake I'll fix it.Slofstra (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The final issue with names is to have proper citations. That's really important here, because you could throw around dozens of names and confuse people with trivialities, as I said.Slofstra (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am changing the adjective "Protestant" in the introduction to "Restorationist" with a link to the wiki article on Restorationism. Perhaps that categorization "fits" this church better. Note that there are links on the "Restorationist" page to the whole "Protestant" movement and that the article discusses the "difference" between the two movements. Jaenen identifies his church as a "restorationist" movement. Any objections? Eddie Tor 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work on that one. I would be curious how you found that article. The Restorationist article also seems to be having their share of NPOV problems.
Perhaps I could also mention the minor edits I made (sorry, logged only under my IP and I could not fix it later) removing the reference to "way", and "fellowship". I think it's misleading - these terms are used but not as names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

An editor a few days back adjusted the figures of 2x2 membership from 40,000-80,000 to 400,000-800,000? Does anyone have any sources for the figures. 100,000 plus or minus 50,000 worldwide sounds like a likely figure to me. What do you think? Donama 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GeoffC: There are listed about 400 conventions. These vary from 50- 2000 attendees, perhaps averaging 300. There's multiple attendance in some countries, which probably cancels out those that don't attend, so 400 x 300 = 120000. I'd venture to say that there could be 100,000.

400 conventions listed? Where is such a list? --Ilylo 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

GeoffC, perhaps you could scan it and put it on Wiki commons as a source. Donama 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to a list of conventions for 2002/2003 is http://home.earthlink.net/~truth444/BRG5-2ConvWW2003.html I didn't count these exactly, but there's about 400. Geoff C

I count 424 on that list. Not bad for a church that isn't "organized." --Ilylo 00:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not holding it up as anything remotely "authoritative", but back in [I think May of] 1989 I got a packet on the 2x2s from Cult Awareness Network (from before it was taken over by the Scientology loonies) that contained a hand-scribbled addendum to its US estimate of 80k-120k for the US indicating "as many as 600,000 worldwide". That is, of course, going on 19 years ago now... I know I've heard anecdotal talk of reduced US attendance at Conventions in the past 5-10 years, but that's no indication that the Church hasn't seen growth elsewhere. I can also cite a plethora of anecdotal "evidence" of the Church's strength in various countries, Barbados and New Zealand come immediately to mind, where the concentration of adherents is so high that one meeting's prayer time has been punctuated by the trailing end of neighboring meetings' starting hymns, and sometimes having their prayer time being accidentally upset by the beginning of other neighboring meetings' commencement of post-prayer hymn-singing. This, of course, as with every other aspect of this article, is plagued by its reliance on anecdotal, rather than documented, evidence.

While it's now been over 10 years since I've been to meeting, I am still in frequent contact with close family members from whom I receive updates on the progress of the workers [and consequently, the sect] overseas. (I also hear constantly about how so-and-so from whereëver is Jewish, and has "professed", including, apparently, some lady worker now from Ohio, etc. For whatever reason, apparently the supposition is that other Jews' apostasy should lead me back into apostasy, I dunno. As a complete, and arguably irrelevant aside, I have long since concluded that the 2x2s were, at least in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere in the upper Midwest, successful in gaining early converts among disaffected Jews, or Jews who wanted to be identified as Christians without having to embrace the more blasphemous tenets of Christianity found in other Christian religions, leading to the predominance of certain Jewish families in Wisconsin, among the "faithful", the Kutlers, Nussbaums, Katzes, etc.) Back to the subject at hand, however, I know of Conventions in the US w/ over 2000 attendees, but the last time I was at Convention in Puerto Rico (admittedly, as a 3 year old in 1975), there were only about 100 of the faithful there. Also, some people at least in the US take their vacation time to go to Convention elsewhere, including their own "home" Convention, making the numbers of attendees subject to some measure of "double counting" (of course some people don't make it to Convention at all, so...). Another factor is attendance at Special Meetings, especially in the Spring, when, for example, where I live, as many as 700 people come to the Spring Special Meeting, but there are only 4 regular meetings in town (i.e., fewer than 100 regular attendees at Sunday Morning Mtg.)

All of this to say, the idea that you can judge the number of adherents based on the number of Conventions, worldwide or even in the US, is pretty flimsy. What support can be cited for an "average" number of attendees as "300", and what statistical evidence can be cited to indicate that this magical figure of "300" is arrived at w/o double counting, or under counting? Cite numbers cited by citable sources, that's fine. Coming up with figures based on independent supposition, however, falls outside the acceptable bounds of WP:NOR. Tomer^talk 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything in the article on this subject. Slofstra (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. It's been replaced with a list of countries. At this point it would be more informative to list the countries where the workers aren't active, than to have the list that's there. Tomer^talk 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. :) But someone keeps 'touching up' that list, even recently, so it must be important to that person. For the life of me I cannot figure out why. If there's a past edit that was better, or you suggest something else which will accurately reflect the scope of the movement, be my guest. I can always go toe to toe with you on the details but anything would be an improvement at this point.Slofstra (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the following three edits, for the reasons outlined. I don't want to provoke a flame war, but some of these changes appear to be pro-Two by Two, and an attempt at reducing NPOV. We can do better than that. Jonathan Rabbitt 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted in edit 04:31, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

The lack of any official history or documentation, combined with the doctrine ascribing the begininigs to Jesus' Apostles, has caused and continues to cause much controversy and angst amongst members and ex-members.

I'm not sure quite why this needed to be deleted. This is the lead-in paragraph for the controversies section. Perhaps it could be made less encompasing by changing much to another word with less emphasis. Please comment.

Added 04:34, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

Obviously there are contradictions even between the paragraphs of this section. Most present-day members would disagree strongly with paragraphs two and three especially.

This addition seemed ambiguous to me. I could not work out which paragraphs were being referenced. Certainly if the context was within the History controversies section, it did not make sense to me. Please comment and clarify.

Added 00:12, 7 January 2006 81.154.91.221 (→Membership and geographic spread)

In recent years there has been an increase in ex-members using the internet to distribute information. This is in some cases impartial, but in others aimed at fulfilling their cause, and make as many leave this Christian fellowship as possible.

This sentence is not relevant to the section it is placed in. It also reads like a bit of defensive flamebait statement intended to discredit the internet as a source of information (which is ironic, on reflection). I can't see that this sentence adds any value to the joe-average reader, but perhaps some discussion here could shed light on the intent and value.

I think what you did was fine. All content in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and this assists NPOV. Also, original research is theoretically not permitted on Wikipedia. Of course, Two by Two has a real lack of published resources. We aim to upload a lot of scans of documents and other Two by Two related material to Wiki commons very soon so hopefully this should assist. For now, we can make a real effort to maintain a coherent structure and pointing out where there is more than one point of view. It would also help if we can use a login accounts to make controversial edits. Donama 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Jonathan Rabbitt's reversion. Thanks! The changes were hardly neutral. And supporting Donama's suggestion, if anybody reading here has copies of original documentation or sermons or diary-entries that relate to the 2x2 Fellowship, please contact Donama or myself and we'll see that they're archived for posterity in Wikisource. --Alikia 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (pending applicable copyright laws --Donama 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The Cooneyites are people who followed (willingly or by force of excommunication) Eddie Cooney after his 1928 (I think?) expulsion from the work. Those who followed Irvine after his expulsion in what, 1917(?) are a much smaller group called something like "The Testimony", which is not mentioned at all. The fact that Cooney was expelled long after Irvine was should feature a bit more prominently in the lead, IMHO, since it's apparently deemed important that the Cooneyites' association with the "black stocking religion" be mentioned there... Tomer^talk 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general misunderstanding that the term "Cooneyite" was not used until after the 1928 division. I believe the reality is that those in the "2x2" fellowship were often referred to by on-lookers as "Cooneyite" many years before then - perhaps early in the first decade, while Irvine and Cooney were still the most prominent leaders. John Long notes in his journal that it was Cooney who first began organizing converts in home meetings, in 1903. Cooney also apparently had much to do with the first Convention at the Wests, wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper, and sued when a mob smashed their organ. Elizabeth Jamieson tells in her testimony of being called "Cooneyite" by a Plymouth Brethren man on Vancouver Island - and that was early in the 1920s, I believe.Eddie Tor 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This phraseology ignores the fact that there was (in 1904 or 1908, I don't remember offhand which) a huge paradigm shift—from an exclusively itinerant proselytizing force (the workers) to an acceptance of "settled folk" (what are now called "the friends"), who have long since made up the overwhelming bulk of the "membership" [to coin a term]. Tomer^talk 07:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to rework it. By the way if you know of any other published sources on this, please add them too. Donama 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section near to the bibliography for the hymnal of this group. I am not sure how to enter a bibliographic reference to this book, however. There is no ISBN as far as I know. I did find a page at Amazon for it (two used copies). Also there is a lot of info at this link:

[1] Postxian 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be an awful lot of generalisations that have collected on this article. This is neither scholarly nor fair to either side of the controvesy. Take statements like this, for instance:

More and more members are rejecting this claim as a historically unsupportable statement

There is no evidence either for or against this claim, and therefore it should be cut out. I have gone through the first half of this article and culled all statements of this kind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.56.175 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea who wrote the entry under the subheading "friends" but it must account for one of the most biased, shoddy, unscholarly, and unverifiable ad hominem statement I have ever encountered on Wikipedia - and that includes pages under construction. Not only is it obviously partisan (and how does that boost Wikipedia's credibility, might I ask?), but it is completely muddled with bits about meetings, workers and other irrelevant material jammed in between a quasi-explaination that does not actually explain what a "friend" is, how one becomes a "friend" or what obligations a "friend" has.

Because I do not want this abysmal example of bad text to go missing, I have reproduced it here:

There are certain conditions that one must meet to become one of the "friends". You must profess when meetings are "tested". The idea of "testing" a meeting is not found in scripture but is useful to the workers to find out who is "for" them and who is "against". Those who are for them receive favor and have the so called privelege of allowing the workers to stay in their homes. The workers often refuse to work and require others to provide their food, shelter and clothing. This some members do happily and others grudgingly. Usually they limit their stay to a day or two depending on how they get along. You are not required to confess or forsake your sins when you profess. You are required to agree with the overseers current doctrines and be in descent standing with the workers in the field. Doctrines and workers change yearly and so it requires a bit of flexibility on the part of the followers faith. Often times this turns into apathy to the point that even relatives will not care if someone is disfellowshipped and for what reason. They try to stay out of some business like that to avoid being marked by the workers as a trouble-maker. Also as one of the friends, it obligates you to giving your "testimony" at Sunday AM meetings.

Points to make for anyone else attempting to hijack the mission of Wikipedia to push their own views, perspectives, hostilities or preferences:

The idea of "testing" a meeting is not found in scripture but is useful to the workers to find out who is "for" them and who is "against". Unverifiable claptrap. How can one claim this article is encyclopedic in nature, and include omniscient ramblings like this?

Those who are for them receive favor and have the so called privelege of allowing the workers to stay in their homes. The "so-called privledge"? And how does testing a meeting allow workers to gauge "favour"? What is "testing" a meeting? (I have explained this in my revision of this text). This is not impartial writing!

The workers often refuse to work and require others to provide their food, shelter and clothing. Where is the verifiable evidence for this sweeping claim? It makes most of the workers sound like worthless parasites. I have deleted this big time. It is completely unnecessary, does not explain what a "friend" is, and serves no purpose but for someone to push their own hostility into "so-called" scholarly text.

Doctrines and workers change yearly and so it requires a bit of flexibility on the part of the followers faith. Eh? Just how biased can you get?

Often times this turns into apathy to the point that even relatives will not care if someone is disfellowshipped and for what reason. They try to stay out of some business like that to avoid being marked by the workers as a trouble-maker. More sweeping baseless accusations. In encyclopedia articles, hard as it is to believe, the authors need to be firstly semi-literate (i.e. string a coherent couple of sentences together), and they need to be impartial. You can't go around making unsubstantiated attacks here on Wikipedia! This is not an opinion forum! There are plenty of those elsewhere. Go and post on those if you can't be bothered to READ what Wikipedia is all about, ADHERE to the rules of Wikipedia, and actually write decent text that is fair, balanced and scholarly in tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.61.94 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it was poorly written by whoever wrote it, and also sounds highly dubious. I agree with your fixes.

Let's face it though -- even if we can try to avoid bias, it's tough to do without verifiable resources and there are only two published pieces about the church so any other verifiable resources about this would be good. — Donama 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. And now someone has gone through and massively edited the article again, this time from a "pro" position, and equally unscholarly and apparently oblivious to WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Argh. Tomer^talk 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A response to the 'facts' in the article is necessary as the group keeps no history, is not concerned with history, and in fact, tends to erase its history because of concerns with the authority of spiritual 'text' other than the Bible. If this response is not put within the article, AND you apply your journalistic pedantry to this article, you should erase practically everything in it. I for one do not want to be linked to William Irvine, who has nothing to do with MY personal history. So if you, as a non-believer wish to create/invent or revise a history for me that is fine, but the countervailing viewpoint and attitude of the group to its historicity (its relationship to its own history) must be considered in the article. Slofstra 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In further defence of my changes, I would add that my editorial change, if anything, has made this wiki entry more supportable, not less. I changed William Irvine from founder to initial adherent. William Irvine as founder - where is the citation? 'Initial adherent' most would agree with. If you call for a citation for this, then my preference, actually is that you delete the entire reference and references to William Irvine, please. Put him somewhere else in wikipedia, because he has nothing much to do with the home church which I worship with. Also noted, not all recent 'pro' changes (your term) were mine. Slofstra 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My criticism of your edits was far more concerned with their poor style and non-adherence to WP policy. Your personal views are completely irrelevant, and insisting upon inserting them into the article is in direct violation of WP:NPOV, and, by your own admission, WP:NOR. Dismissing my objections as "pedantry" is incivil and does nothing to build consensus. Furthermore, your track about William Irvine is a violation of WP:NEO and seems geared toward a violation of WP:POINT. If you want to include that William Irvine has little to do w/ the modern church, that's fine (although that was in the article already before you started editing it), and I'd support it, but wanting to excise him from the article altogether, and calling him "initial adherent" is "bad style" on the one hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other. As an aside, the bit about my being a non-believer, which you seem to think is somehow relevant and worthy of mention, is a red herring...but I suggest that perhaps it gives me a better grasp on approaching the subject from a perspective far more neutral than yours, at least such as it's been expressed thus far... Regards, Tomer^talk 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My original rather long-winded response to this, if anyone is really interested, is here: in yellow. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by all this now, and my only defence is that it's too easy to edit 'wikipedia': I should have read the manual first. Slofstra 15:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have editted my original comments to be more NPOV. There are still quite a number of NPOV statements - not mine I hope. I think a deeper discussion of NPOV as applies to this article is warranted. Since the facts are not citable, it might be best to have a section which describes the beliefs of members as generally agreed by all parties, i.e. that are uncontestable. No-one disagrees with the statement that members worship in private homes, for example (yet even this statement is not verifiable according to the standards of wikipedia and thus strictly speaking shouldn't be in this article.) Then following the uncontestable section, a section on history (with the preamble I inserted), then a section on Controversies which would typically state a pro and con (without debate or attempt at resolution!!)

Finally, I have in mind to add a few internal article links - i.e. to other sections or sentences in the article -- but don't know how to do this, so I apologize for that at the moment. Perhaps on my next attempt. Slofstra 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A great number of potentially slanderous and unsubstantiated statements have been appearing in this text. I have found claims that some of the workers are probably homosexual, that members "brag" about not missing meetings, that "some elders" call blacks "niggers", that some workers "refuse to work", etc, etc, etc. All of these statements are excessively biased, and if the user continues putting them into the text, I am going to ask Wikipedia to freeze this article as a result of ongoing vandalism. These kinds of accusations do not belong in scholarly text. If you want to make these kinds of statements, visit an opinion forum - PLEASE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.46.53 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

This is a draft rework of the Doctrine section... It is incomplete

This faith has no published doctrine, other than what can be extracted from the books of the New and Old Testaments. This situation lends itself to regional and generational variations, more so than many other faiths. Much of the propogation of the Two by Two doctrine occurs during Convention gatherings. During these events, the visiting preachers from other countries goes some way to homogenising the doctrine.

There are two core beliefs which, together, characterise the doctrine of this faith. These are:

• the need for an un-salaried ministry (preacher collective) of celibate, unmarried persons (generally arising from Matt 10:9 and 1 Cor.7:5-7).
• conduct of Sunday worship by small groups in designated members' homes (The Acts 17:24)

There are other beliefs, which have influence within the faith, but which aren't readily apparent to outside observers:

• profession of belief at mission meetings as a first step to conversion.
• the need for regular attendance of Sunday fellowship meetings and other meetings for a significant period prior to being accepted for baptism.

There are also traditions, the extent taken being more governed at a personal level, such as;

• modesty in personal appearance, including long hair worn in a bun and dresses for women members.
• declination of broadcast media (tv, radio), secular music, commercial entertainment (movies, video)
• (incomplete list)

They believe that church-owned buildings, except convention ground facilities, are an unnecessary addition to Biblical Christianity, and conduct their fellowship meetings in the homes of believers.

They believe that (some of) Jesus' instructions to his apostles in Matthew 10 - go from village to village, preaching in pairs, not taking any worldly possessions, but relying on the hospitality and generosity of the villagers - are the only acceptable pattern for Christian ministry.

The group was fairly progressive regarding the role of women in the church, with women workers first commissioned to preach in 1901.

A controversial teaching, presumably originating with the founder Wm Irvine, was that of the Living Witness Doctrine (first recorded mention being in a Convention sermon by Joseph Kerr in 1903). This was derived from a statement by a contemporary of Charles Darwin that "only something that is living can reproduce life". It was concluded that only through the preaching of a 2x2 preacher (a "living witness") could one be saved. As a consequence of this doctrine, there was a significant exodus from the church at this time.

I think you should separate issues of 'principle' from those of 'practice' in your discussion. 'Principle' is inviolate, 'practice' is somewhat more arbitrary. For example, a principle is 'modesty in dress', a practice is 'long hair'. (The Bible as doctrine, contains both principle and practice, but tends to principle.) I also suggest pre-ambling this with your point of view and credentials. There is a huge problem with you doing this, you realize. Since the faith has no published doctrine, as you indicate, and since they espouse only the Bible as a source of doctrine, as soon as you attempt to write a statement of 'doctrine' you break this credo. You break rule 1 of the doctrine, which says the Bible is the only doctrine. After that what else can you write? It might be better to position your writing somewhat differently. e.g. Principles and Practice, perhaps? Certainly to write about 'practice' is merely noting your observations, and less problematic, I think. Slofstra 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible as doctrine itself is not what would concern this article. Rather, just as for other groups, it would be notable interpretations of the Bible which are held as doctrine. It is fine to include those as "doctrine." Indeed, the group does not publish, or even speak of, many of its doctrines directly outside of pronouncements by its ministry "from the platform." However, good source material does exist in the form of letters by workers, a great number of convention notes though the years distributed by group members (despite calls to destroy these), and published interviews. Nor are statements by former members always prejudiced against the tenets of the group, as many of them cling to some or all of the precepts which they were taught while members - in fact there is wide agreement as to what is taught in various regions. Be that as it may, the list does seem to be missing (glaringly) some important information, such as the group's unitarian stance on Christology, its requirement for baptism by immersion performed by one of their minsters, its regional attitudes towards divorce and remarriage, the authority of the spoken word delivered by its ministry (and the hearing thereof), the necessity to be in fellowship with their ministry, etc. The list as it stands does not sufficiently distinguish this fellowship from many similar groups.Astynax (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten vast portions of this article because some it has been too biased for words; bordering on adolescent manipulation. I have reverted all the changes made on 23rd January 2007, back to the version from the morning of 23rd January, because of the following vandalism that actually compromises thee reliability and impartiality of the text. Consider some of these gems. I have highlighted the worst among the bunch, although they are all pretty bad:

• They prefer to receive money under the table and in large part don't pay taxes.

• ...distributing donations of money into overseas bank accounts

• Many of them refuse to work, preferring their followers to support them.

• ...homosexuals in the church.

• They also ignore the fact that pants or trousers are not solely men's clothing.

• However they do allow braided hair which goes against what Paul taught.

• Also some workers enforce their opinion that men cannot have mustaches or beards. This varies from worker to worker with no doctrine being followed.

• Workers are the church's leaders in place of Christ...

• They are paid under the table through donations and are forbidden to marry...

• However their work involves preachinc once or twice a week and socialize the rest of the time.

• The overseers make the decision based on physical appearance, their standing in the group, perceived sexual preference, education, wealth, gender, and race.

• Elders are responsible for calming down disagreements and for the appearane of unity in the group.

Some points ought to be made here. Firstly, a lot of these comments are opinions - eg, workers are the leaders not Christ - and not verifiable facts. Does the writer of this garbage even know what the word "bias" means? Does he or she know what "impartial reporting" is? Or did they not graduate from grade school. Because this is juvenile at best, and puerile at worst. Secondly, a lot of this text is not even grammatically correct!

I have run an IP trace on the user responsible for inserting these comments and have identified their exact whereabouts in the United States (Washington State). If this vandalism continues, I will be contacting Wikipedia and asking for the IP address to be banned, and will be contacting the person's internet service provider to see if they have a policy on their service being used to promote religious intolerance.

The vandal has a barrow to push. They want the text to show:

• Workers as worthless, moneygrubbing, lazy parasites
• Head workers as money launderers, depositing sums in overseas bank accounts
• Rampant homosexuality in the ministry
• Elders and leaders as racist ("calling blacks niggers")
• Workers being worshipped rather than Christ (an opinion big time)
• Virtual Darwinian selection in who gets into the work and who does not

These views are ALL opinions. The writer makes his views universal (eg. head workers as a generalisation, implying that this kind of behaviour is global). The writer does not show any effort to qualify his remarks, find evidence for his remarks, or even the remotest effort at impartial reporting.

Wikipedia is for REPORTING IMPARTIALLY the FACTS. Not OPINIONS. If you want to post OPINIONS go to an OPINION board. Don't try and mask your bias in scholarly-sounding text.

I promise to take action if this happens again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReligiousHarmony (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

ReligiousHarmony, yes you are right about the bias and unscholarly nature of these anonymous edits. I also was a bit surprised by them. You won't be successful getting the editor who made these edits banned though because they were "in good faith". There are no verifiable resources whereby we can establish if statements like "some workers are homosexuals" are true or not, and probably never will be. But banning is only done for vandalism or consistently violating the wikipedia 3-revert rule (WP:3RR), not for adding unverifiable content. We can just remove the content, that's all. — Donama 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And keep removing it. Keep WP:3RR in mind tho. Also, if this kind of editing becomes an identifiable pattern, the person can, and will be blocked. Unfortunately, because of the workload of admins, all of whom are volunteers just like everyone else on WP, the best way to make a case to get disruptive editors blocked or even banned, is to keep track of their disruptive edits, and then present them at WP:RFC. If the bad guys violate WP:3RR, report it here (with relevant diffs, please, and make sure it really is a WP:3RR violation, or you risk creating the impression that you're the problem, ch"v!). For severe incidents of persistent vandalism, go to WP:AN/I. Keep up the good work. Kol tov, Tomer^talk 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "external links" section re. "anti"-sites the statement: "The veracity of the content of these websites may be debatable." This statement could be said for the "pro" sites as well, and should be applied to both sides, not to one only. For that matter it can be said for ANY website.Eddie Tor 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed or changed the following statements in the "History" section of the article:

"These characteristics [destroying documents] make it difficult to form a history with any accuracy and certainly an official history with proper citations is an impossibility."

This is certainly not an "impossibility" as it is evident that workers have kept records through the years of who was in the work and where meetings were held and at what times. Also, there is plenty of historical evidence still in existence regarding the "first days" of the work in Ireland - newspaper articles, testimonies of early workers, excerpts from the Bright Words monthly publication. It is not so much a matter of possibility as it is willingness to be open, honest, and detailed about "what happened" in the years 1897 and on.

"A reasonable attempt has been made by Cornelius Jaenen." This is a value judgment. From what I remember of what I have read in Cornelius' book, he does not give ANY details about the "first days" of our fellowship. This is strange considering how much detail he goes into in describing earlier groups such as the Waldensians.

"The present movement coalesced in Ireland in the late 1890s under the leadership of Scottish evangelist William Irvine (1863-1947), John Kelly, John Long and others. Irvine and Kelly had previously been associated with the Faith Mission." This statement is taken verbatim from Cornelius' statement of about 30 years ago, entitled "Following Up the First Century Christian Church," in which he claimed that there was a "remnant" of "original Christianity" that migrated from Eastern to Western Europe over the course of time from the First Century to the 19th, and that the ministry that began in 1897 was an "eruption" of this "remnant." I have corresponded personally with Cornelius regarding this statement, enquiring what his sources were for making these claims. This is what he wrote in reply:

"Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:02:38 -0500 (EST) From: cornelius jaenen Subject: CHRISTIANS

I have the E-mail; that was forwarded from the History department at the University of Ottawa where I am an Emeritus Professor long retired but active in graduate and post-doctoral studies, etc. I have noted carefully your research and thoughts and will confess there was a brief period when I too thought there was an unbroken apostolic succession of "workers" from the first century to our day. One of the workers who disabused me of that idea was Stanley Lee, our overseer in Manitoba at the time. Of course, I then paid much more attention to the teaching given by Jack Carroll, George Walker, and especially Wilson Reid. The write-up under my name you refer to is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation. I encourage you to read carefully, in short sections at a time or it becomes undigestable, "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship..." that sets out from documents the nature of the early church [not always what restorationists have imagined] and a "chain of witnesses" of efforts over the centuries to restore, regain, reconstitute, renew, retain, etc. the original faith. There was no unbroken consistent line of "workers" from the first century to our day [even the Roman Catholic succession is tenuous at times] but the Spirit was always working in the world to retain faith until Jesus returns. And so there were almost certainly "true believers" in every age and century somewhere but not in the sense of a constant visible community or fellowship. I have tried to formulate from the mediaeval documents the characteristics of such a spiritual people and tradition. "Hold fast the tradition you have been taught." Faith expresses itself in an ideal, a life-style, not always through a visible institution and hierarchy such as our fellowship at present since 1897. We are grateful that there has been this full restoration in our day, but our faith is not based on our organization or an unbroken lineage. We and what we believe is not the Way - Jesus is still THE WAY and He is THE TRUTH. Warmest greetings and good wishes, Cornelius J. Jaenen"

Please note most specifically that Cornelius himself admits that his "Following Up..." statement "is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation." We should remember that even the most learned and professional scholar still has his or her bias, and that historical "facts" can be selected and presented in such a way to support any hypothesis. If Cornelius is the "foremost authority" on the historical question, as another editor has written in the article, we should recognize as he himself has stated, that our present fellowship does not date back before the 1897 start date. He calls our fellowship a "full restoration" and not a "continuation." Eddie Tor 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these additional insights on Jaenen. I've read at least the last half of the book. It can be slow going. I must comment on the 'possibility/ impossibility of history' question mentioned above. The key word here is 'official'. Of course, there's all kinds of historical evidence, but unlike every other denomination I'm aware of the movement makes no attempt to maintain official records. Everything is anecdotal and peripheral. But I agree with your insight and perhaps an amendment is in order. I've noted that you didn't actually delete or amend the statement in question, so I may borrow some of your verbiage if you don't mind. (Or amend further as you see fit). Slofstra 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point out in my comments above that to a great extent "official" records HAVE been kept, in particular of which workers started in the work in what years, and which workers worked in which fields in which years. I have seen a list of one field in particular, which showed which workers worked in that field each year from the first workers who worked there. As far as individual meetings (home meetings, gospel meetings, special meetings, convention meetings) records probably vary in detail and consistency, but I would not doubt that much of it is recorded and kept on file by senior workers. So, IMO, the real problem with making an "official" history is not that this information does not exist, but that for the most part this information has never been made public.Eddie Tor 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Worker lists are hardly a history! If I want to understand Catholicism, I'll read Augustine, and Merton. Protestantism - Luther or Calvin. Mennonites base their belief on the writings of Menno Simmons who never even knew what he started. Then there's John Henry Cardinal Newman, and on and on. So what makes up the intellectual history and thought evolution of THIS movement? Many or most denominations sanction the authorship of extensive narratives on their internal history. Anyway, I did amend my comments somewhat, so hopefully they do accurately represent the state of affairs as far as you're concerned. It personally does not bother me to see publication or release of either personal testimony or letters or photographs. After many years of reciting the Apostle's Creed, I DO have an issue with non-Biblical liturgy. But the fact of the matter is this: there really isn't much citable source information available to disinterested parties or historians. You intimate that this condition is artificial; that may very well be. What sources are available have come mostly from ex-members. I stand by my original comments.Slofstra 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you or anyone else is free to present whatever knowledge or evidence you have that would shed light on the historical events of this movement. If I saw such evidence, I would certainly retract my statement. What I do see here is spurious and anecdotal, and when you strip the wheat from the chaff, very sketchy. Let me ask a basic question. Which worker or workers were most influential in the first part of this century? What do you have in your history that would provide a basis for answering such a simple question. I personally suspect that the person with the greatest influence at that time is someone unheralded and now unknown, because such is the character of the movement and its men and women. When you see an old picture of dozens of workers, which one would you single out? The answer will depend on who you ask, because the lives of many different individuals have been affected in deep and abiding ways by many, many different workers. I think that the nature of our struggle is deeply personal and cannot be written in history books. This movement is not centred on any single individual or individuals other than Christ. But I stand corrected; let's see the case then. Slofstra 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read most everything on the TTT site at least twice. This is the most comprehensive and freely available collection of historical documents regarding the church. While it is presented from a decidedly "anti" POV, Ms. Kropp has done an excellent job of presenting the facts. So if you really want to "see the case", perhaps you should start there. Personally, I once "believed" that the church had "always been" from the days of the first disciples, but I cannot believe that anymore, due to the overwhelming weight of historical evidence. I have also had extensive correspondence with George Gittins, an older brother worker in Manitoba, Canada, who seems to believe that Irvine "received the Truth" from a previous generation. He has a story that supposedly Robert Darling told him along that line, but so far as I know George's is a singular testimony, even of "what Robert Darling said." I wrote to Ireland over one month ago to ask for confirmation of George's story, but so far have received NO REPLY at all. And, as I have detailed above, I have corresponded with Cornelius Jaenen on the historical issue, and you can read for yourself what he wrote in reply. I personally do not regard Irvine as our "founder" nor the church as "just another religion started by a man" (this is the main argument of TTT). However, it is clear that the form the church follows today is very similar in so many ways to the earlier Faith Mission; that the "movement" did not begin until Irvine was sent to the South of Ireland with the Faith Mission; that he preached in affiliation with the FM for a few years there; that he for the most part began working independently of the FM; that he officially severed his ties with the FM in 1901; that several FM workers separated from that society to work with Irvine in the new independent movement; that the ministry was established FIRST and THEN the meetings in the home, and NOT VICE VERSA; that this new "movement" was a result of a RETURN to a form of ministry and worship as seen in the New Testament and not a CONTINUATION of the ministry seen in the NT as far as being "handed down from generation to generation." I will not go into the details here as they are freely available on TTT. But those are my conclusions. Sincerely, Eddie Tor 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that site a number of years ago when first put up. I don't have an issue with the 'facts' per se; but with how they are put together. I think the approximate sequence of events (from Jaenen, though): Irvingites (early 1800s) -> Faith Mission -> Irvine -> other workers, etc. But the narrative on TTT or VOT seems to be arranged around the idea of Irvine as founder in order to refute the ideology of succession. It would take some work to critique or unravel TTT and I have better things to do; if someone wanted to attempt to summarize their findings and introduce that on wikipedia with citations; this would be interesting. And as you know, I'm dubious that it would amount to much. Still you reference some intriquing ideas above. For example, you mention that workers existed before home churches, which raises many interesting questions. What was the specific sequence of events? Who decided they'd be a good idea? Where was the first one? and so on. But the progression, given the purpose of the Faith Mission, which was purely preaching, seems a natural one doesn't it? But where did the 'home church' idea come from? Could itinerant preachers have stumbled onto 'home worshipping' Christians? That does happen. For some reason the workers at some point broke off with Irvine, and they also seemed to explicitly eschew - perhaps this is a kind of anti-intellectualism - the kind of power structures and intellectual discourse which have put many churches off track. (As you know, the friends aren't anti-intellectual, per se, but refreshingly, intellect is not a prerequisite for a fulfilling spiritual life). Perhaps this particular restorationist movement (Jaenen's term, for lack of a better one) really began when some workers decided there wasn't going to be a founder other than Christ, and that was the end of Irvine and Cooney. Just a hypothesis. As far as true apostolic succession back to early days, I did hear that claim from workers and a few friends many years ago, but have been disabused of that notion for some time. I think the unravelling for me, has more to do with my thoughts on my relationship with God before I professed or went to meetings (it was the same God dealing with me then, I believe, and the unravelling of the necessity of succession follows from that thought). When you ask yourself whether the church 'has always been', ask yourself what it would take to start a church beyond the Word (Bible) and the Spirit and two or more gathered in the name of Christ? If there's nothing else, then the church 'has always been', hasn't it? And always will contiune. Still a succession of restorationist worship practice (home churches, as one aspect) can't be disproved either, and is an intriguing prospect. Didn't the Irish preserve Christianity when Europe slid into the Dark Ages? Anyway, my critiques of the wiki article are based on the use of language; for example, the word, 'founder', should be reserved for Christ, and in terms of the facts (or absence thereof) as I see them presented here. I hope you get the idea from all this speculation that there just aren't the 'facts' to fix a singular narrative in place. Cheers Slofstra 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is really on those who make such bold claims as "the church goes right back to the first apostles" to provide historical evidence to support their theory, which for the most part no one has done. Instead many of the friends and workers accept that notion "in faith." Since "succession" has never been PROVEN in the first place, it IS just an "ideology" and it does need to be refuted.

You yourself gave George Walker's letter its own section in the article - the two paragraphs that deal most specifically with the "foundation" of the church state quite plainly that the ministry was established first and then the church gatherings in homes. He could have reversed that order if he had wanted to. He called it a "return" to practices seen in the New Testament and an "effort to follow the early Christians" - not a "continuation" or "succession" of the same. The idea of having church in the home was nothing new by any means. The Carrolls' uncle was an exclusive Plymouth Brethren, a group that was well established long before 1900, and is characterized by meeting in homes. The Methodists held various types of services in homes. The practice of "family prayer" was more common than it is today - where the family would gather together and the father would read a portion of scripture, expound on it, say a prayer, and the family would sing a hymn. (Or variations of such practice). According to John Long's journal, Eddie Cooney was the first worker to begin organizing converts in home churches, in 1903 - although he likely was not alone in his efforts. Also according to Long, this practice, as well as separation from all other denominations, and baptism of converts, was not made the "established practice" of the Testimony until the 1905 convention. Yes, it is possible that itinerant preachers "stumbled onto 'home worshipping' Christians" (that is similar to George Gittins' story). But I have yet to see any historical evidence that such a thing ever happened. Even if there were such evidence, it certainly would not "prove" that those Christians were a "remnant" from the first century.

Your hypotheses regarding the reasons behind the divisions of 1914 (Irvine) and 1928 (Cooney) do not seem to be consistent with reality. As far as I can see, there were legitimate reasons why each would have been asked to step down from their position - not because the other workers decided they did not want to recognize any "founder" other than Jesus.

In my experience, some of the friends and workers ARE anti-intellectual - one prime evidence of this is the widespread acceptance of King James Only doctrine and scorn of any scholarly writing regarding the Bible.

This church does have a "power structure" although I would argue that it is highly democratic (within the ministry - no one overseer or regional overseer has ultimate authority as they are generally responsible to their fellow overseers. I do not say that there has never been any abuse of power but that the structure is such to avoid that as much as possible.)

I agree with the thought that "the church has always been" but the error is made when we claim that THAT church = the CC church. For the purposes of this article I believe we are dealing with a fellowship of Christians who has for the most part attempted to pattern their ministry and worship after the earliest New Testament days - and this particular fellowship did not begin until 1897 and thereafter. Whether the people in the church are truly part of the "church that has always been" should be left for the reader to judge.

What exactly do you mean by the statement: "Didn't the Irish preserve Christianity when Europe slid into the Dark Ages?" As far as I know, Ireland was Catholic from the time of St. Patrick.

My description of Irvine's character would be that he was extremely anti-clerical, he was a zealot, a radical, an egotist, a controller, a legalist. To what extent he was the "founder" is reflected in the extent to which these aspects of his character are still evident in the church today. Based on the historical record, I believe that if we will not call him the "founder" we at least need to call him the "first leader" of the movement. How would the movement have begun if Irvine had never been sent by the Faith Mission to the South of Ireland? I feel that the direction he took later in life was unfortunate. But we need to give credit where credit is due.Eddie Tor 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I find little to disagree with here. I did have another look at TTT - it still reads like a smear site; the evidence is bent somewhat to fit the premises of the site. But it is the only site with historical source material on the movement and some is quite interesting. Your statement "that this new 'movement' was a result of a RETURN to a form of ministry and worship as seen in the New Testament and not a CONTINUATION of the ministry seen in the NT as far as being handed down from generation to generation" as specifically stated is irrefutable. Suppose we hypothesized that there was a remnant in Ireland predating 1890, that the new movement had knowledge of or continued from, then the new movement still differs in kind and in degree, for example, in the hymns that were authored and sung, the number of workers, annual conventions, and so on. It is a certainty that many aspects of the movement's practice are a recent manifestation of the "church that has always been". Further, I would agree that some members and workers have been overly zealous or even misleading when making claims regarding the church going back to Christ. If one is to say "our church goes back to Christ and the apostles", that can be interpreted in various ways. Somehow a mythology of succession has developed around that statement, probably as an antecedent of the Living Witness doctrine. (Another statement often made, "there is only one true way", I personally accept, but I don't accept this statement in the way that some individuals understand it. But that's another topic.) Anyway, a few quibbles: 1) I put George Walker's letter in a subsection to keep it out of the historical narrative which was clogged by it; I don't know where it came from originally. 2) Regarding 'burden of proof', well someone could make a hermeneutical argument for succession purely from Scripture; I personally have never seen any necessity for it in my belief. 3) Regarding my Cooney/ Irvine hypothesis; still I wonder if their charismatic emphasis became a point of friction that formed a background motive for their expulsion. There seems to have been a fundamental shift in character in the movement around that time and also, there is even less source material available as we move forward in time. 5) I am intrigued by the question of why the succession issue has been put so strongly by some, and the extended discussion of 'Living Witness' on the TTT site is the most plausible. 6) Within a faith group, strong, overly zealous statements are often not refuted even when they don't represent the majority view. 7) If the TTT statement that there were 500 workers by 1907 is correct, the reasons for this sudden rapid growth would be interesting to know. 8) The first workers were: Walker, Long, Cooney, Irvine and a few others. Really, the most interesting of these men is George Walker. 9) Is it not strange that the Faith Mission letters state that Irvine started the 'Cooneyites'? 10) I am wondering if the practice of no tracts or creeds has been pushed somewhat to an extreme with somewhat damaging results. Perhaps the practice can or will be altered while keeping the principle intact. Certainly when I see some of the source material on the TTT site I think something in a much more positive vein could be made of it. 11) Regarding St. Patrick: At some point going back we were ALL Catholics. Slofstra 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A few answers to your "quibbles":

2) Many HAVE made "hermeneutical arguments for succession purely from Scripture". And there are several passages of Scripture that would seem to support the thought that there have always been "true believers" on the earth. Where folks get themselves in trouble is when they attempt to "prove" that one particular church of the present day is the sole "heir" of this succession. I don't think that those who disagree with them do not believe that there has always been a "seed" of faith in the world - just that that seed of faith is perhaps not quite as limited as some believe it is. I suppose that the most commonly quoted verses in support of "succession" could be quoted in the article with some disclaimer as to the opposing views.

7) Perhaps the most logical reason why there was such a great number of workers start out in those first years is that almost everyone was encouraged (urged) to go in the work if at all possible. This is evidenced by the fact that some couples even left their children behind and went out preaching (Bill and May Carroll). Also, while I have no documentary proof of such, I believe that in "old days" it was common for young folks to be strongly encouraged, if not "expected" to go in the work. Some parents were very strong on this. I know one old preacher who was the result of such a case - his parents expected their children to go in the work. When his older siblings did not go, he felt it his responsibility to do so. He preached for many years while never really feeling the "call" to do so. I suppose the motive for such strong encouragement could have been either genuine (a great zeal and concern for souls) but it could have been partly from human pride (the status of being POWs - parents of workers)

8) Each of those early workers were fascinating characters. Yes, George Walker probably had a great deal of influence. At the same time, Irvine, Long, Cooney, and others also had a great deal of influence. One wonders how things would have ever happened if Irvine had never been sent to the South of Ireland with the Faith Mission.

9) The term "Cooneyite" was the most common name given to the new group by observers as Cooney was one of the most prominent early leaders. He and Irvine worked very closely together. But as far as I know Cooney was Methodist up until the time he met Irvine, and probably for a while afterwards. So the fact that they were called "Cooneyites" does not necessarily mean that the movement was started by Cooney - just that he had a very influential part in those days.Eddie Tor 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist adding to your response to point (2) which opens to the possibility that this particular movement is not the only manifestation of the true and living way. My own take on this is that "the way" is not a particular set of beliefs but a life process (in the sense of being reborn in Christ). We should never confuse the two. If we look at a 'set of beliefs and practices', per se, then my belief is that, doctrinally, there is only ONE correct set of beliefs and practices in important matters. (Take baptism as an example; God is not the author of confusion). But, no-one, as an individual or as a group, can claim to have sure knowledge of what that set of practices is, in entirety. Nor does one need to know; you just do the best you can. God judges by what is in men and women's hearts. My favourite example of this is the widow who threw two mites (all she had) into the temple treasury. Yet, Jesus came to destroy the temple. One could argue that the funds were misdirected, but it was her intention that counted with God. Second, Romans 1 indicates that even those who lived in pre-Bible days had responsibility for their own salvation; i.e. their responsibility was based on a knowledge that did not even include the Bible. Finally, I must add that I have found nothing better than this movement and the workers to encourage spiritual growth and life. Slofstra 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm making some changes to this section. Mostly removing verbiage such as 'he went on and'. I've taken out the word 'excommunicated'. This word has a specific connotation. In Protestant denominations there is, or was, official liturgy, service and process for excommunicating members - which is misleading in this context. I have no idea what really happened, so perhaps someone could further improve my wording. I've also removed some apologetic comments that someone inserted to soften the blow - e.g. 'Unlike the church's quiet activity today'. I don't disagree, but these are judgement calls.

I've taken out this sentence: "The lack of any official history or documentation, combined with the doctrine ascribing the beginnings to Jesus' Apostles, has caused, and continues to cause, much controversy and angst amongst ex-members." I can't improve it, because it lacks clarity. I don't agree or disagree, just don't see what is being said here. Perhaps if someone clarifies this we could put it back.

The following paragraph is now almost entirely redundant. It does add something - so I leave it here if someone would care to re-edit. "Amongst the membership today, the broad consensus is still that the church originated from the time of Jesus first calling his disciples at Galilee, and has been continuous since that time. This position has been preached explicitly and widely in the past. Presently, this line tends not to be preached in the explicit terms used in the past." It might add something but needs to be sharpened.

I've also moved the paragraph "Ex-members often report ... " to the section reporting ex-member's activities.

Finally, gave George Walker's letter its own subheading. Slofstra 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think George Walker's letter should be quoted in its entirety within this article, let alone have its own section. While his statement is a powerful "proof" regarding "how the church began," I also consider it unfortunate that he failed to mention ANY previous work (i.e. the Faith Mission in Southern Ireland - although I would forgive give him if he had not mentioned that society or any individual preacher by name), and instead appears to attempt to create or maintain the impression that the church began as some sort of "spontaneous revelation." In doing so, he failed to tell the "whole story." So maybe just the most important parts regarding the "history of the church" should be kept in the article. I may edit it in that way. Eddie Tor 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I think we should move 'Living Witness' doctrine, which seems peripheral to me anyway, to the Historical Controversies section.
2) The Former members section still contains too much apologia. I'd like to remove the apologia, if no-one objects. I suggest that this section be a precis of ex-members concerns - not consist of back and forth debate. Probably the content of this section should be largely provided by ex-members, given the heading.
3) I'm ill at ease with the Terminology section recently added. Yes, members do use certain terms, and they definitely eschew much standard Protestant/ Catholic terminology. I think this has been done explicitly in an effort to use only Biblical language and structure. (Try to find 'archbishop', 'classis', 'synod', 'reverend', 'excommunication', and so on in the Bible). There is an unspoken and unappealing suggestion behind defining a list of 'Terms' that any particular alternative terminology is unwelcome in the fellowship.
Slofstra 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to point #3: In creating the "Terminology" section I did not mean to imply that this was the "only kind of terminology accepted" although it would generally be the case that this would be the only terminology recognized by most in the fellowship. I recall distinctly that as a child I did not even know what the word "Christian" meant. The main intent of the section was to supply some idea of what the most commonly used terms mean to a reader who knows very little about the group. I figured that would be helpful throughout the rest of the article, so that when words such as "field" and "worker" were used the reader would know what we are talking about. But perhaps there is a better way of presenting or introducing that information. Eddie Tor 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I'm more comfortable with the terminology section, although I'd like to see a preamble to that also. I'll put it here in discussion first to see what everyone thinks. Slofstra 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am condensing the letter in the "History" section of the article to its "historical" components, and am posting the full letter here for reference. Eddie Tor 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that this letter is best placed in 'wikisource' or 'gutenberg' and then cited from the main article? Slofstra 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following statement of the church's history was made by George Walker, a senior worker in North America, to the Selective Service System in 1942. It was widely circulated among believers in the United States at that time.

In accordance with the suggestion made to us at our recent interview in the Office of the Director of Selective Service, Washington, D.C. that a further statement be submitted outlining, in greater detail than has heretofore been given, certain facts regarding the foundation, belief and activities of the Church we represented, as Ministers - this for the purpose of enabling the Local Draft Boards to correctly classify Ministers of this Church throughout the United States who are subject to the Selective Service Laws.

We take this opportunity to state that during the closing years of the last century and the first years of this century a number of people in the British Isles and in America were exercised in heart and mind, through their study of the Scriptures, in regard to the methods of preaching and worship in the several churches of which they were then members. They were deeply concerned about spiritual things, and became fully convinced that there should be a return to the methods and purposes taught and carried out by Christ and His first disciples. This conviction led to frequent earnest conversations and studies on the subject, which in turn led to religious meetings, and in due time a number of these people went forth to devote their lives to the preaching of the Gospel according to the teaching and example of Christ as given in the New Testament, i.e., "two by two" and without salary or making appeals for financial assistance, putting implicit trust in God and His promise that as they "sought first the Kingdom of God" their natural needs of food and raiment "would be added to them".

As a result of this step, many people expressed their desire to be in fellowship with such preachers and this led to regular gatherings together of small assemblies in homes for worship and study of God’s word. The reason for meeting in homes was primarily because it is scriptural, the Christians during the first centuries of the Christian era met regularly for worship in homes, which fact is also borne out and supported by church history. Thus after serious consideration, the leaders were confident that in their efforts to follow the early Christians they should form church gatherings in homes; therefore no church property or real estate has been acquired by purchase or otherwise, and for this reason incorporation and registration under a denominational name has not been necessary. The meetings continue to the present time in homes and are under the guidance of local Elders. Baptism by immersion and the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is taught and practiced.

In the year 1903 Ministers of this Christian body began their labors in the United States and in the year 1904 in Canada. In these and subsequent years through the preaching of the Gospel, assemblies were formed in homes as already described. In the year 1906 the first annual conventions were held in North America, and from this beginning the number of Ministers in North America has grown to over nine hundred - about equally divided between men and women; the assemblies for regular worship to over three thousand; and the annual conventions to over one hundred.

One Minister in each field is the Overseer for that field - to whom the other Ministers look for counsel and from whom they accept guidance. In most instances a State constitutes a field.

Those who enter this Ministry must first establish very definitely their religious character and have fulfilled the other qualifications considered necessary. They must be upright and of high principle - having proven their ability to earn their living in an honorable way - and must have taken an active part in the Church meetings regularly attended. If and when they are considered to have qualified, they are then appointed and assist an experienced Minister in an evangelistic work and in ministering to assemblies of Christians. From the time of appointment, Ministers devote their entire time and talents to the work of the Ministry. If for sufficient reason anyone thus accepted later proves to be unworthy or unfit he cannot continue in this Ministry.

At the annual Christian Conventions arranged at suitable times of the year in each State - and which practically one hundred percent of the members are present all matters pertaining to methods of work, doctrine, discipline of members, local elders, ministry, etc., are fully considered and settled.

Definite fields of labor within each State are arranged for all Ministers by the Overseers to whom the Ministers are responsible. Names, addresses, and fields of labor in the Gospel of all Overseers and Ministers are available at any time.

Overseers, who over a long period of years have devoted all their time to Evangelistic, Pastoral and other activities of Christian service, exercise - in fellowship with each other - a general supervision over the Ministry and membership in the United States.

The undersigned is one of such Overseers, and would be glad to furnish any further information regarding the foregoing which may be considered to be helpful or desirable.

Signed:

George Walker

Reading through this, and we have a serious bias slant here. We have information that is stated as fact that is opinion at best, with no reference or proof. "This church began as a revival in southern Ireland in the late 19th century." and "Members of the movement have been fairly explicit in not maintaining an official history, rejecting any form of liturgy, and in many cases, even destroying correspondence and written records. Partly this behavior is an exigency of an itinerant lifestyle; partly a response to centering the movement on Biblical teaching with a strong bias to oral exposition. These characteristics make it difficult to form a history with any accuracy and certainly there exists no church sanctioned historical archive or records". I could cite more, but the more I read this page the less I feel you are trying to have a factual page here, and the more I get the feeling you are trying inciting anger, criticism, and mistrust. This page is filled with opinions, where is your proof? Is this an article of retribution, or an encyclopedia page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opoohwan (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello unsigned. If you are ever back here, please indicate what part of that statement you think is incorrect. Slofstra 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The main source of the problem here, I believe, is that the page is mainly the work of two opposing camps on one issue - one "for" and one "against" the church in its various aspects. (I recognize that I am not without bias myself.) As a result we have some making charges against the church and some attempting to counter those charges, and the article is largely the result of that. I have tried to advocate a "bystander" POV, one disaffected, someone not on either side, an "onlooker" or observer of the church and its various phenomenon. I have been working on expanding the "Biography" to include more somewhat-reliable sources; but even all of these as a whole do not contain a fraction of the information that is in the article. The wiki policy is that "all material must be citable but in practice all material is not cited." In the context of this article, since there are so few sources to draw on, I have interpreted this to mean that it is best to stick to general observations in the article, facts which no observer would dispute. Otherwise if it is in the least way controversial it is bound to be deleted. But there is much work to do to get the article to that state. Only then will the article become "stable." Eddie Tor 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eddie, I realize it's 9 months later, but I must take sincere issue with your presentation of yourself as a neutral bystander. Your editing and contributions to the discussion have a decidedly "anti" flavor. Just a FWIW...I'm duty bound to simultaneously commend you for not engaging in much editwarring on the subject. Tomer^talk 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't noticed that he's 'anti'; the Eddie Tor's edits seem NPOV and he avoids areas which might have a POV. Regarding edit wars, if it wasn't for strong measures this article would be a joke. I only participate because I'm still hopeful that wiki won't lose its tenuous hold on credibility over time, and just becoming more 'Net.Slofstra (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

After making some edits, and a few mistakes, and then reading wiki's policies, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions that might be helpful in this article. (I have not meant to replace reading wiki's policies, but drawing out those elements relevant here.)

1) Don't delete text. I made this mistake at first, but there are better strategies. Unless, of course, the text is hurtful, libellous or patently false. There are examples of that further below.
2) Consider making an incorrect statement into a correct one. For example, I changed 'William Irvine' from 'founder' to 'early adherent' and after an objection back to 'important and influential'.
3) Reposition or reorganize the text so there is less duplication. Consolidate the facts and statements.
4) NPOV (neutral point of view) in the context of this article does not mean 'objective'. We're dealing with people's beliefs after all. NPOV does mean 'balance'. So two or more points of view could be presented. i.e. There's more that could be said about the case for Irvine as founder, perhaps. In that case, there's nothing wrong with the article presenting two points of view. 'Wiki' policies state the article should NOT be a debate, so there is a fine line here.
5) Watch weasel words or qualifications that make a statement true. 'Members believe', 'Workers like'. Some of this is okay; but definitely if you don't need the weasel words, don't use them. 'Women wear their hair long' is better than 'Workers would like women to wear the hair long'. The latter statement confuses two separate facts, one of which is contentious. Weasel words can also be useful. 'Workers believe that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour' is prefaced by the qualifying phrase, 'Workers believe', in order to make what might be a contentious statement into a statement that is objectively and verifiably true. If you use qualifying words in this fashion, make sure that you're representing the group fairly; don't cast aspersions.
6) Don't remove text based on an evaluation of the writing style or vocabulary, unless egregiously bad. Something is better than nothing. If you're too lazy to improve the text, you've no right to criticize, and certainly not to delete.
7) Feel free to comment on these points. It's a tentative postion, and I've posted it in the interest of an improved spirit of collaboration.
Slofstra 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Something that should be added to this is that one should be aware that while the unity and uniformity of 2x2 practice is much expounded upon, many 2x2s in the US are shocked to learn that in Korea, women wear pants, not only in secret when out in public, but to meeting. The workers long ago approved this practice since the pants-like garment for women has an age-old history as women's clothing [i.e., not specifically as mens' apparel] in Korea. The lesson is this—sometimes what you perceive as bizarre or even "wrong" or "offensive" often isn't, if you bother to take the time to step back and try to figure out what's going on. Tomer^talk 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many variations in practice world-wide. Which is why I object to anti- edits of the form: In this movement, you must do 'x'. I'm not sure who your last sentence "The lesson is .." is directed at. Not me, I hope. Slofstra (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted changes made recently. Some of these changes would be appropriate in 'Criticisms of former members' section, if original poster wishes to move them. Slofstra 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever made the unsigned edits to the article from March 24th to 25th, 2007 - PLEASE read the wiki Neutral Point of View policy article (NPOV). I was tempted to revert these edits wholesale. However, perhaps close to half of them may be valid factual additions to the article. So I've decided to let those edits stand, even though it will take a lot of work to "neutralize" them. Personally, I believe the proper point of view for this article is one of the "onlooker" - that is, as far as possible, written by someone who does not have a personal interest in portraying the subject in either a "positive" or "negative" way. While encyclopedias are not without bias, they are intended to give an objective and general overview of their subject. Thus, I do not believe that the article is the place for proponents or opponents of the church to express the reasons for their positions. To be honest, if a zealous wiki editor got hold of this article there would not be much left of it as almost none of the information contained in it is from "reliable sources" according to wiki standards. Most of the article would be considered as "original research." In fact, about the only source that does meet those standards may be Jaenen's article in the Canadian Encyclopedia, "Assemblies of Christians." So it is perhaps best to stick to general, overall observations as much as possible. If people want more details regarding the criticisms of the church there are plenty of websites with that intent, and they are provided in the article. If they want all of the details on church history, the Telling The Truth site is a good place to start. Eddie Tor 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

After due consideration, I think that Eddie Tor's suggestions are the best way to obtain something useful here. Really, this article should be pretty short, descriptive, and not advocate or argue a point of view either for or against. Obviously, the "criticisms of ex-members" section will have a bias against, so if you're a believer I would suggest avoiding this section altogether. Ex-members are entitled to their point of view. The rest of the article should be free of any 'point of view', i.e. it should be very short. As such, it still needs a LOT of cleanup. Sometime in the next week, I'm going to start removing anything that is either not cited or that is not incontestable. Note the following wiki policies: "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about [specific] living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately.", and "Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing", and "Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material." Quotes from Citing Sources and Attribution. Anything that's not cited to wiki standards, and not held to be generally true, we have a duty to remove. Slofstra 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your intent to "clean up" the article is exactly what has been on my own mind, so you may have some help. Perhaps the following quote from Wikipedia:Attribution would be a good guideline as to what should be included in the article:

Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

My understanding of this quote is that information may be included in the article that is not attributed, but it is likely to be removed if it is in the least way offensive to any wiki editor. So, the article would be most "stable" if it stuck to objectively reporting observable phenomenon of the subject. For example, it is better to say, "workers generally work in pairs" and NOT to say, "the workers believe that you can only be saved by hearing a pair of them preach."

In sum, allow me to suggest three guidelines for the cleanup: 1) Keep the "voice" of the article "neutral" throughout (don't take any side) 2) Stick to attributable, general observations 3) Non-attributable statements may be included as long as they are generally held to be true and are not in any way "offensive" to anyone.

One major difficulty for this article is that there are so few "reliable" sources as per Wiki policy, which states that sources should be "peer-reviewed" in order to be considered "reliable," and that anything self-published is definitely considered unreliable. So, for example, the Parkers' book, and all of the websites, are self-published, and do not qualify as "reliable." However, several documents that are provided on those sites could be considered as citable sources. I am thinking of notes of Jack Carroll's sermons, George Walker's 1942 statement, John Long's journal, Goodhand Pattison's "Accounts of the Early Days," other testimony, and the several newspaper articles. Of course, all but the newspaper articles are "primary sources", and there are specific wiki guidelines for using them.

I believe that the "neutral" POV should be kept throughout: even the "Criticisms against the Church" section should be written from the "bystander" POV. It should state that "Critics and ex-members hold the following criticisms about the church:..." If it just consists of charges against the church it will continue to be written and re-written by the "two sides" and will never achieve any stability. Also, it should not get bogged down in details but should just give a good general overview of the main types of complaints (for example, "the workers are too controlling, the fellowship is too legalistic, too many restrictions on lifestyle, etc. and perhaps with a few examples (but not specific "crimes") for illustration - for example, "women are usually expected to adhere to a dress code including wearing dresses and long hair.") This section could include a few of the counter-arguments as well, but again from the "bystander" POV.

I believe there should also be a few new sections, including "the Faith Mission connection; church governance (and/or discipline); and church finance."Eddie Tor 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding unsigned edits of late March. There is the question of providing scriptural citations in this article as a basis of support for practices of the members. For example, to say: "This revival was based on Jesus' original commands to his first apostles to 'forsake all' and go out preaching 'two and two' together in his name." is correct in fact. It could be made more neutral by stating explicitly - "This revival was based on the worker's belief in Jesus' commands... etc.". I would suggest for several reasons that the entire statement not be included in the article, because it borders on doctrinal argumentation. The first problem is that this is an academic article, so an argument can be made that this has no place in 'wiki', even though the statement is factual. It is factual only because the argumentation has been quoted or appropriated to someone's belief. (Some tabloids, for example, print anything at all on the premise that it's newsworthy as long as someone thinks it's true; thus, stories on aliens, etc. but I digress). Some of this is okay; but a steady dose will quickly make the article seem non-academic. The second problem is that as soon as you use Scripture you invite counter-argument, perhaps not from members, but certainly from ex-members, and also from other denominations. Tit for tat; if we wish to remove their negative bias, we should also remove any proselytization. Finally, and most importantly, Scriptural based edits have no useful evangelical basis here. For example, I thought it might be worthwhile to add scriptural citations to the section on terminology; this could be easily done. But anyone with a concordance can search the Scriptures for her- or himself, which is far better; or they can discuss matters with a worker who can readily furnish the appropriate Scriptural passages for any question. In fact, there is even a risk this article could become a kind of Catechism if it takes on this direction.
I suppose that there is a natural impulse to defend the way from various attacks. For example, the terms used by members differ from other denominations, and so an argument is made that we are re-appropriating terms and trying to re-invent Christianity for some heinous purpose. Adding Scriptural sources would be a means of defending our point of view. After some consideration, I think it better to ignore such attacks rather than defend against them; at least in this article. First there will always be scoffers; that will not change. Second, some criticism may be legitimate and well intended; this is not the forum to give rise to or deal with controversies. As always my position on this is tentative, so please feel free to respond. Before beginning my planned edits, I will leave this paragraph a few more days; I may be missing something. I wasn't thinking of removing all Scriptural, doctrinal references - just tone it down. I'm also leery of simply deleting other's work; and of course, wiki remains editable so anything I do can be changed again.Slofstra 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever reads the wikipedia article, please note that it will never have a neutral point of view. It is heavily edited nearly weekly by current members of the group who wish to restrict information that is already published in books about the founding of the group by William Irvine who condemns Christian Churches as "of the devil". For accurate information, please read The Secret Sect by Doug and Helen Parker. It is well documented and includes many notes from interviews.Trv6983 (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, then the only tenable position you can take is to petition for deleting the article. Stop making edits. Jimmy Wales has stated that if no reliable references exist, the article should NOT exist.

Slofstra (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an Australian of Irish and English and German descent who was raised in this church, but never became a professing member. I have considered myself an atheist since the age of 8. However, I remain on good terms with my many relatives who are members, and occasionally attend church-based functions such as weddings and funerals. I still hear all the local gossip from my mother, and retain an affection for the church of my youth; it's the closest thing to an ethnic identity that I consider myself to have.

My edits are written as an attempt to give day-to-day life perspective, or "attitude" perspective, if you like. I have attempted to explain how members think, and have attempted to avoid judgement wherever I can. (Please forgive me the crack about the shellfish.)

The basic irreducible problem with attempting to document this church in any way--and where it will run directly up against Wikipedia policies--is that the church itself rejects history, verification, written doctrine, membership records, etc etc.

I can for instance state that my own father, when he was called up to fight in the Vietnam War, declared himself a conscientious objector, and brought along with him a local worker to his hearing, as an authority to assist in explaining the doctrines of his church. However, there's no record of that.

I can give the summary of many, many years of talking to members about what they believe and why - but there's no records for this. I could, and will, ask my mother if I might scan and put up on a website her collection of letters from workers which dates back at least forty years - but this would constitute a self-link.

It's quite a problem, and I have no real solution to it.

Anyway, I expect few will come to this page who have not heard of the church already, and at least half of those will come in pursuit of some agenda. I don't propose to defend the church--I don't follow it myself--but I don't wish to see it mischaracterized as things it's not. (They're not fundamentalists, for instance.) I therefore will attempt only to explain, and where it isn't actually impossible, to document.

I really do wish that we could all agree that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and not a collection of anecdotes or a forum for debate. In my understanding, an encyclopedia gives a good general overview of a subject with just enough details to illustrate the general concepts. This article has got very over-blown. Yes, by wikipedia standards much of the article should be deleted - at least, anything that could not be said to be a "general observation".Eddie Tor 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Umm, I'm not sure where my just-previous comment begins or ends, or what belongs to myself or to "Ashfallen" - or to someone else, for that matter. it seems that in rearranging this page in chronological order some comments may have got jumbled together. but no matter, the ideas are what are important, not the people behind them. Eddie Tor)

Just out of curiosity...have any of you ever read the entry for the 2x2s in third party sources? I'm thinking of Pieperkorn, for example or something I think is called the Encyclopedia of American Religion (I'd hafta go to the University library to be sure on the name...) Tomer^talk 08:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, there is an entry in J. Gordon Melton's "Encycolpedia of American Religions." i will reference it in the bibliography.Eddie Tor (talk)

i am of this church too and i find the above lies hurtful.however this source is the 1st on the internet which is 99% accurate.i am glad i am a part of a church which doesnt tithe people.jesus didnt tithe people to hear him so why should we?if we need something we provide it amongst outselves and our money its not wasted on earthy treasures like stained glass windows but given to worthwhile causes like charities and neighbours in need.when my county need a building another county in northern ireland gave us the money and helped us build it.Jesus Himself said not to worry about wealth or worldly things but build treasure in heaven instead.and yes,we do pay our taxes.whoever slurred us should be ashamed.poppy,ireland (PoppyDadswell 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)).

What are you talking about, precisely? To which "lies" do you refer? If only 1% of the article is "lies", surely you can list at least a couple of examples... Tomer^talk 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of rubbishy stuff has crept into the article again. I will delete in a couple of weeks. I marked a few examples with 'citation needed'. Here's an arbitrary example. "Most members associate socially with outsiders and allow their children to have worldly friends." I sense the writer is trying to be unbiased. But this statement and others like it are borne of limited observation and we all see the world through coloured glasses. The first signal of a problem is the word 'most'. It indicates that what follows is a generalization. This is an inference we're dealing with, not a fact about the movement. Even if the statement were true, how would you develop a test to prove it? You'd need to evaluate how parents control their children. You would need a statistically significant polling sample among members of the movement. And you would need a control group among various populations to show that your conclusions for this group differ from the population at large. You'd also need to filter out other influencing factors such as country and culture. Then you might have something that would resemble a fact. Whether intended by the writer or not, the sentence also has the draconian implication that some members do not allow their children to play with "outsiders" or to have "worldly friends". Those last two terms are also loaded with bias to a particular world view. So not only is this an uncited fact, it is likely unciteable, and not provable or falsifiable.
Really, any such statements about members, workers, etc. need to be deleted, as they are just one person's observations. Slofstra 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Amended Slofstra 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "Most members associate socially with outsiders" sounds like a "we're not completely cut off from everyone else", and "allow their children to have worldly friends" sounds like "not all of our parents are trying to raise us as weirdos". I know some of my extended family members have practically no "outside" social interaction [grocery shopping or paying the electric bill doesn't count], but I've never heard anyone actually advocate isolationism. As for "allow[ing] their children to have worldly friends", it sounds like a defensive statement made by someone whose parents don't allow them to associate with their non-professing friends as much as they wish they could. I know that, at the very least from my personal experience, no effort is made by 2x2 parents to prevent their kids from hanging out with non-2x2 kids...instead the reverse is true. Parents encourage their kids to make friends with non-2x2s, and to, in every way, find their way in non-2x2 society, while simultaneously encouraging them to learn how to integrate their "worldly" experience into their lives, as part of building up their understanding of what it means to not be "of the world" (i.e., to be "of the Truth") while being "in the world". Tomer^talk 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, I agree; esp "in the world not of the world" Slofstra (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is persistently vandalized by ex-members with an ax to grind. These edits are made anonymously or by false user IDs. I am thinking of applying for page protection and wonder if there are any other ideas. Slofstra (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slofstra, similarly annoyed by recent edits too. I couldn't tell whether they were pro or against, just that the edits were of poor quality but I was too busy to revert sensitively. Thanks for doing that (by the way I was the obsessive one who rearranged this talk page chronologically too since I couldn't read it otherwise!) I think that calling these vandalism is wrong though -- chances are these editors are making the edits in reasonably good faith. Still, the article is in a pretty reasonable condition (as in not hugely controversial, largely complete and well written) and edits by newer editors tend to detract from that, so I'd support a semi-protection. Donama (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Following from my comments in the above section, I would suggest two general changes which I think people sympathetic to the church might oppose.

1. Church finances: the point should be made that there is no transparency public accountability for any church finances. Of course this seems to be the case for many religious institutions but still worth pointing out.
2. The criticisms section is too long to read as continuous prose -- for readability it should be split into logical sections dealing with the criticisms one by one. I think some might oppose that though because it would be seen to be inflating criticism. My interest is purely in readability.

Thoughts? Donama (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Donoma. Thanks for supporting 'wiki' policies. I can use the help, as I'm still learning. I do agree with your statement about no transparency in church finances. To simply state this is quite correct. (Let's hope we don't get an argument about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing). The writer from Australia had done a credible job on church finances but seemed to reflect local knowledge. My experience is that there's no single way that church finances are run. As well things do change over time. So to simply state that there is no transparency of church finances and also no published or audited statements is indeed correct. Also to the best of my knowledge, no filing under a registered charitable number as many denominations have. Slofstra (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia DOES NOT publish original research and that includes private websites. Please see the Wikipedia policy: WP:RELIABLE#Wikipedia does not publish original research. The recent changes violate this constantly. The privately-run websites are useful only as external links at the bottom of the article, not as verifiable sources. I'd argue for a revert of all recent edits back to the last one by User:Slofstra. I'd also argue for any non-minor changes to be discussed here on the talk page first. Massive additions of new content which aren't citing verifiable published sources should be removed. Donama (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Trv9683, I'm sure it's trying for you to have your edits reverted. As per your comments, "Please do not remove valid criticisms against this church. If you want to exercise information control, do that within your group." I have no problem with proper wiki edits. We are trying to avoid having the page evolve into a flame war, where particular Points of View are argued back and forth. For example, if I recall you inserted a Bible passage about the role of women in the church. It is not the purpose of an "encyclopedia" to solve religious issues of this nature. If you have problems with the facts as stated, take one point and put it on the table here in the Discussion section. If the statement is not a fact, i.e. that everyone agrees to, then let's remove it from the article. It is better to retract the statement from the article than to insert an extended unwieldy and boring hermeneutic argument about the subject. Slofstra (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

your reverts are not along the line of proper wiki edits. It is the pupose of an "encyclopedia" to document facts about a topic. Time and again you have edited out valid articles documented by many books of people who are experts about the group, former workers who knew the inner workings and who have interviewed leaders in the group. You selectively remove factual information of church criticism and call it vandalism or "semantics". Please refer to a dictionary regarding "vandalism" and "semantics". Are you a member of this group? (Unsigned, but presumably by trv9683).

Response to trv9683. The onus is on you to cite your changes. Let's take a few of your comments here. "your reverts are not along the line of proper wiki edits." Which wiki policy am I breaking? "Time and again you have edited out valid articles documented by many books of people who are experts about the group, former workers who knew the inner workings and who have interviewed leaders in the group." You mean your edits? You must be joking. I don't see any citations to leader interviews in your edits. "Are you a member of this group?" You would rather make this personal than speak to issues.

Let's be clear. I'm perfectly within my 'wiki' rights to delete anything that is not properly cited from a scholarly or reliable source. Please read this in its entirety: Verifiability. I am not in the habit of deleting anything I know to be factual. Note: A self-published work is not an acceptable source for facts, except in specified rare cases; yours is not one of those specified.

Follow Donoma's suggestion and place your edits in the Discussion section, then others can review them, and I won't have to keep reverting them. If you keep posting your unscholarly edits, I will request page protection since a lot of work has gone into this page. Slofstra (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Response to Slofstra. I have put in the web link to www.2x2ministry.org over six times and you keep removing it. Are you claiming it wasn't cited properly? Are you claiming it isn't a valid weblink? Why are there so many undocumented things written about the christian conventions that aren't cited that you don't touch? Again, I have asked you "Are you a member of the group?" The reason for me asking is that it shows your vested interest in removing criticism's against the church.

{{editprotected}} Administrator, in the Weblink portion under External links Please add this website that keeps getting removed by Slofstra *Ministry to those hurt by the 2x2 group Please note that other websites are not touched and this is not a matter of scholarly or properly cited information.Trv6983 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to any external links being added including this one, in the designated section. In reverting the writer's many edits, I inadvertently missed a proper edit that this writer has made. Slofstra (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Administrator,in the Weblink portion under External links Also, Slofstra keeps taking the one website and multiplying it three links of From the Beginning, The First Christian Church, The New Covenant when it is actually only one site. I believe this is an attempt by them (who is a member of the group) to make it look like there are more websites for the group than there actually are.Trv6983 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never personally edited any external links. Slofstra (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My position has changed after looking at some of these links and reviewing wiki guidelines. See Talk:Christian_Conventions#Position_on_WP:SPS

{{editprotected}} Administrator, in the area under Criticisms against the church, Slofstra (which is a member of the Christian Conventions group) keeps removing quotes from leaders of the group. There are many criticisms against the group and these have been properly placed in the Criticisms against the group section to avoid flame wars in other areas of the article. For example, workers are employed by overseers yet do not pay taxes nor workman's compensation. Workers on average do not pay taxes. Items like this are removed because they don't want people to know that they don't keep the law. There are many such examples, including my quotes from leaders of the group, like Jack Carrol and William Irvine which should not be deleted because William started the group in about 1890 and this is documented in the Secret Sect book. Thanks for considering these edits. I feel horrible that all the quotes that I put up have been wholesale deleted by Slofstra. Please keep this page protected and only allow admin edits because Slofstra will continue to go through this article and purge criticisms against the church and reword them to make them look benign. Thanks.Trv6983 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will keep removing edits which are not attributed to reliable sources according to wiki standards. I have no objection to properly attributed criticisms. I do favour neutral wording. By the same token, it 'trv6983' feels there are 'pro' edits in the article which do not follow wiki policies, he or she is likewise able to delete them - along with an explanation. Slofstra (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing these {{editprotected}} requests, since I can't see any specific edit requested. Content disputes should be handled here, and if that fails ask at WP:Third opinion. If there are conduct complaints, add a note at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Gimmetrow 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry about the messy headings. Perhaps these can be cleaned up at a later time.) I prefer another editor have a look at trv6983 edits as this is getting a bit too personal for my taste. I don't want to even read these edits as the first section which I read is extremely offensive (up in the Names section). If no one responds, I will begin a critique, but it strikes me that a large degree of bias is self-evident in the proposed edits. I have no objection to trv6983 working in the Criticisms section only. But again the edits must still be NPOV, and Verifiable. From comments above I don't believe that author has read the 'wiki' policies suggested to him (or her). I still don't see any reliable references in her/his proposed edits. It may well be that an edit or two are of merit; but there are so many egregious faults that I have always removed all of this user's edits.

You still have not responded to whether you are a member of the "Christian Conventions" group. Of course you would like to limit all editing except by you. This egregious habit of avoiding pertinent questions to show conflict of interest and NPOV is disturbing. You have consistently removed website links that you don't like and still haven't answered as to why you word the Edit Summary to reflect something different. I would appreciate a wikipedia administrator to look at this article.

1. This "Christian Conventions" article is so different and heavily controlled by Slofstra that the article has remained far from neutral and unrealistic with respected published books by authors who are professionals in the areas of cults. Information control is common to the group. Churches that Abuse 1992, Zondervan Publishing House; (ISBN 0-310-53290-6) See: "Two-By-Twos;" Pp 133-135, 155.

I am disturbed that this writer thinks I need to address his personal questions; and this from someone who operates anonymously!! Nonetheless, I will reply to the effect that I have always had a short bio on my talk page. A little about myself beyond the bio. Although a member of the group I very much keep my own counsel and that applies to any work here. I am neither an elder or a worker. Most of the work on the page has been the work of ex-members, non-members and only one other member that I know of. Virtually none of the writing is mine. I've not wanted to be both writer and editor, so have put in perhaps 10-20 hours this past year as editor. I type and write quickly, and will expand my work on 'wiki' articles as time, interest and knowledge permits.

1. Please check out this newspaper article of a 2x2 worker having sexual relations with a ten year old and the result that the cult's forbidding to marry causes. The fact that marriage is forbidden by the cult has been suppressed by many 2x2 editors of this article. http://www.echopress.com/articles/index.cfm?id=52342&section=news

Thanks for pointing this out. Seriously, I mean it. Generally, workers are much loved, and hold a very high position of 'trust'. And if one of them becomes a pedophile, or worse, a pedophile uses the mantle of worker to gain trust and prey on young children; I can't begin to describe the intensity of my feelings to the man mentioned in this article. We know these things happen. Furthermore, I think this is a suitable subtopic: Incidents of Sexual Pedophilia within the movement. In the past the instincts of leaders of religious groups, churches, schools has been to deal with these issues carefully and privately. My own opinion is that such responses may be well-meaning but are wrong. Society has moved along, and so should our group. My personal opinion is that the group leadership in each jurisdiction need to advance a code of conduct, similar to that used in schools and other institutions - that would protect the reputation of workers and the innocence of children alike. But such a code is of limited value, and above all, children need to be streetproofed; and need to be told that this applies to teachers, babysitters, but also to workers and extended family members. (There are experts in this area who can speak to this much better to this than I can).Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A good resource here: http://wingsfortruth.info/ 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs)

1. So many coverups by the group have caused gross damage that many websites have sprung up listing the cult. But these site are consistently deleted by you. Simply to a google search on "2x2 cult". This is why they don't like the name 2x2 is because that is how everyone knows them. Please also see documentation of this group as a cult in Coping with the Cults Practical Insight for Concerned Christians, 1992

(ISBN 0-89081-940-8) Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR read about Cooneyites (Two by Twos)," Page 179 see also Cults & Isms, Ancient and Modern, 1962 Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 'See Heading: "Cooneyites," Page 166

Well, you need to look at the definitive criteria relating to cults and relate that to our group. I think you'll find they don't apply to us. But the burden of proof is on you to provide a link to such a reference. This area is of interest to me, esp in the manner that mainstream denominations use special terminology to marginalize non-mainstream churches. There are objective criteria of course that define cults as well, and I would suggest that you use these in your analysis Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've never deleted any links or editted the Links section. Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. To join the group as a minister, they require people must sell everything and give their money to them. These people live in their followers homes and take advantage of them and their kids. read also The Secret Sect by Doug and Helen Parker who document the 2x2 roots and how they told people they were going to hell unless they sold all and gave it to them and became a Tramp Preacher.

The question is whether the Parker's experience is indicative or idiosyncratic in relation to workers' experience in general. Unfortunately, faithful and true workers do not write books. Their experience and walk speaks much louder than words can - to me, anyway. So we have the testimonies in the lives lived of perhaps a few thousand workers on one hand and the Parkers on the other. Again, I'm not saying that their perspective is not valid. Every religious and political movement has its detractors. Slofstra (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the words 'take advantage'. Yes, workers and members are guilty alike of what the things that are perhaps anathema to you. I don't see anyone taking advantage as such. Slofstra (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also 'trv6983', almost everyone in this movement has dear loved ones who do not share their ideas or their love for "the way, the truth and the life." 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Their men workers take advantage of the women workers as seen in there own document. *Letter to overseers who were taking "liberties" with sister workers

I also read this, and it looks like an internal church matter that was dealt with to everyone's relative satisfaction. There were no criminal proceedings, and as these are living individuals, do you realize you are spreading potentially libelous information. Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia article, it is a shame that their members are allowed to suppress what the group really believes. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects and Cults 1993

Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., NY, NY; (ISBN 0-8239-1505-0) Read about: "The Two-By-Two's," Page 298

Sorry, I don't agree with you here. If the book actually uses the word '2x2's then I don't think it should be referenced on wiki, anymore than we would use Mark Twain as an authority on Afro-American history. Generally, these are cursory, short references to our group, but no systematic analysis. Previous discussions on this forum, preceding my time, have ploughed through the cult question. Have a read. Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find the syntax a little tortured. 'members are allowed to suppress what the group really believes'. I think that you are saying we have a hidden agenda. But above you said we had no consistent doctrine, so I am indeed confused as to what kind of picture of the group you are trying to present. Slofstra (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Here's a quote from the founder William Irvine, "The Devil's work was the building of churches with stone and lime throughout the world's history. And every church was a monument to the power of the Devil over the hearts and lives of men. ..It was the clergymen who were filling hell...No one could bellieve in a clergyman and get to Heaven..All educating of men as preachers is an abonmination. And we will be an abonmination if we follow the example of the Churches..." Quoted from The Secret Sect book by Doug and Helen Parker page 7 who have exhaustively researched the group doing interviews, traveling to the country where it started and researching hundreds of newspaper articles of the group. Trv6983 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about Irvine, and what I do know, don't think much of him, and he bears little relation to the group today; most members have no clue about him, but it does look like he got one or two things right. Those quotes are no different from what Luther said about corruption within the mainstream churches of his day. (It also looks like Irvine couldn't spell all that well.)Slofstra (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful that Slofstra came out finally and said that he is part of the group. It is not expected that members of the group will know much about it. After being required to sell everything and give it to the workers, and being in the 2x2 work for a year and a half, suffering from malnutrition and partial nervous breakdown and taking years to recover from the emotional, logic abuse and mind control, I'm thankful to God for patient men and women who helped summarize what went on in the cult and helped me piece together my memories and place my faith in God instead of them. It's obvious that Slofstra is still in the group and needs our prayers. I don't expect Slofstra to be able to tell the truth or even recount documented occurences. While part of the group, I could not either. Everyone is taught to lie to protect the "truth" because nothing matters but the "truth". ("truth" here being the cult) Everyone may read The Secret Sect by Doug and Helen Parker who interviewed many people and researched newspapers articles. "The Church without A Name" is published by a former member of the group who exited and has received hundreds of letters and emails from sexually abused women, men, former workers and former "friends" who who repressed and told not to talk about what went on. It was through their impartial writings that I began to see how emotional abuse, brainwashing and deprivation from normal childhood activities (forbidden to have a TV, not allowed to worship with Christians etc) stemmed from William Irvine's twist of the gospel. Fortunately, we have the internet, better access to books, email and better telphone communication so that more people can find out how they've beeen misinformed and how to receive help. Slofstra, I don't expect you to understand what I'm writing. It took me years of being slandered and abused by the workers, the "friends" and my parents before I became sick enough to get help. Once I realized how my experience was not of God, but rather of man, I was able to see what lies I had fallen for. Slofstra, I ask you to pray to God that he will help you to see what is going on. I have several contacts in Australia that are Christians who would be glad to visit with you. The typo in WI quote is my error, but the text is readable and the message clear. Praise God that you at least are attempting to reason. Reasoning was near impossible when I was in the group. Hopefully you will at least think about a few of the things written here. And Doug and Helen Parker's book documents dozens of people who were commanded to sell all and give it to the workers. I personally know of over 30 workers who did this. My first year in "the work" was spent with Randy Russell. He slept with a sister worker at convention and they both had to leave the "work" to get married. She passed away recently from cancer. There are so many stories of sexual abuse, coverups, lies, deceit, corruption, pedophiles, older workers molesting younger sister workers than you will never see until after you get out of the cult and talk to the people who have left. These people who left are the ones whom you have wondered where they went, were told they "lost out" or were "cast out" or were "unwilling." God bless you, Brad :) Helping people abused by 2x2 cult

"I am grateful that Slofstra came out finally and said that he is part of the group." Oh, I see, you needed me to say that so you could make your speech. That's fine, because you were annoying the heck out of me by asking that repeatedly when the answer has been in my bio for over a year. (Later edit: whoops it's not there, but should be clear from Discussion on my talk page. You're still annoying). Trv, I empathize with your history and your problems. I would not try to invalidate what you have experienced; I am sure everything you say about your personal experience is true. It does strike me though that your family experience has been a greater determinant of your problems than the religion, per se. I say that because I've witnessed the effects of terrible parenting, in this movement, in other denominations, in other religions, and also in non-religious homes. I would guess that your early adult experience goes back a few years, and that you were brought up by dictatorial, overbearing parents who used religion to control their kids. I really don't understand why you went into the work; well I do but it was completely the wrong thing for you. My wife and I have been in this movement for over 25 years, raised our children in it, and one child is working on his PH.D., another is in her first year at law school and the third is in the first year of a B.Sc. program. Two of the three are professing members. Things change. Not everyone's experience is the same. You should not translate from your personal experience as bad as it may be into everyone else's. In 20 years obviously I've formed a lot of deep, close relationships with friends, I've met friends the world over, and while I don't know everything about everything, I think I'm safe in saying that you are sadly projecting your personal experience onto many very ordinary well balanced individuals who do not have your issues with the group. And there is evidence of you doing this right here. You have accused me of "controlling" wiki content, for example, when I have done nothing of the sort. Generally, I've tried to maintain sensitivity to 'wiki' policies and to the thoughts of other editors of this article. But you need to think that there's some kind of draconian force at work, because of your sad personal experience. Trv, members of this movement run large businesses, they are teachers, lawyers, doctors, electricians, Harvard graduates, community college students, and many of them are workers, and many of the workers earned university degrees or learned a trade before hearing the call. All brainwashed? Is that your supposition? Do you think you're being Christian or charitable in attacking ordinary people who wish to do nothing more than raise a family, work at a job, and be left to worship freely and simply in small groups without all the superficial trappings of the established denominations. If people began to buy your arguments, trv, you could destroy people's lives; you could swing popular opinion against the movement; you could make things very difficult for members of .. the ... CULT. How do you feel about that? In "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill argues primarily for individual liberty to conduct one's life as one sees fit as long as no harm is done to others. And on the subject of religion, he argues that men and women should be able to live according to self-imposed austerity or subject to the dictates of a religion; and specifically Mill used Mormons as an example because in his day they were viewed as a cult; Mill argues that a religion in a civil society can make demands on its members as long as the members of that group can leave freely at any time, without unlawful duress. The key characteristic of a cult is that they will use force to retain their members. I can tell you honestly that people leave our group all the time; whether they wish to have a television in their home or get tired of church meetings, whatever the reason. Now, that's not to say parents don't sometimes put undue pressure on their children, especially young adults. But these days workers warn parents against coercing their children in this manner. There's a recognition that not every child will be willing for this way of life; the received wisdom is to let children decide to profess or to leave if they wish. Many children of 14, 15 stop going to meetings; and many do continue. I doubt that was the general experience 30 or 40 years ago when parents across all of society exercised more control over their children's lives. In some ways that was better; in many situations not. Incidentally, I don't live in Australia, I live in Canada. Also on my bio. Slofstra (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look at your website. I'm sorry but while your site is edgy as I expected, I see no evidence there that our group is a 'cult'. Brad, I wish you all the best. All I ask is "live and let live"; your version of Christianity is certainly not mine. Whereas you sat in 'boring' fellowship meetings, I was raised in a denomination where I heard all too much about the 'Trinity'. I personally have no objection to links to Church with No Name or to your site. But I will continue to resist your highly biased edits to other parts of the article. Slofstra (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad, in thinking about all you've written and your edits, I think you need to disengage. Admittedly, this movement and your particular situation have not been good for you. But I don't think that jumping to the 'other side' and engaging in a kind of ideological warfare is conducive to sound spiritual growth. You won't see me at the denomination I left behind putting leaflets on their windshields about how wrong they are. You have to let learn to let go. I would hope you are obtaining help and counsel along this line. If you can't let go, at least read and learn the 'wiki' guidelines. Slofstra (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Slofstra, your choice of who to refer to as to how to define a cult is interesting. It's also interesting that there is little if any documentation for what is currently posted about the 2x2 movement. There were many members of the Rajneesshes (sp?)The Bhagwan yet from my understanding of how you determine 'cults' they would not be classified as a cult to you? And thanks, I am living, have received much help through many books written by experts such as Toxic Faith by Arterburn and Felton, 'The School Of Biblical Evangelism' Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron website, Combatting Cult Mind Control Steven Hassan, Boundaries by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend and that's why I am able to write to you about my past. The beautiful thing is you cannot ban me from editing this or other wiki pages. I thank God for the privilege of witnessing to people about what I suffered while in the cult. The USA is a free (mostly) country. We can both live and let live. By informing you of the detrimental affects of the cults beliefs, am I keeping you from living? Asking questions and telling the truth is not Christain persecution. Rather, Christians love reasoning, learning and gaining understanding. If I say to a robber, "don't steal, don't lie", am I keeping him from living? Rather, life is more full when sound doctrine is eschewed. I can see that you know very little of the group (as I did while in it) because you've been taught little in meetings. Indeed I could sit for hours in meetings and summarize all by two sentences. By what you wrote of ministers being required to sell all and give it to the workers (some give it to poor before workers get to it), you haven't aske many questions of them. Indeed workers frown on people "doubting" as it were. But regardless of your beliefs of whether this is a cult, or other names, let's get down to knowledge and understanding (of which workers have little sense, they condemn education regarding the Bible esp. at seminaries etc). Please give your understanding of this one account Mat 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-27 Luke 18:18-27. Please note that this is the only situation in the Bible that workers have been able to twist to try to support their belief that people must sell all and give to them before they join "the work". Incidently, did you know the the cult only had "workers" in the beginning and you could only be saved if you were a "worker"? It wasn't until about 1908 that they started "house churches" The Secret Sect by Doug and Helen Parker page 25. And also because a group does not break the law (and this cult breaks many laws, for instance most workers in the USA do not file taxes and also keep their money under other peoples, usually elders, names, Canadian workers must now file taxes because they were getting healthcare from government and most all didn't pay taxes before) Slofstra I'm glad that you are educated. I pray that you would become educated about the groups origins and current beleifs. Since the group claims unity and unity of spirit, (at least in USA), what are the workers beliefs on the Living Witness Doctrine in Canada. I'll let this be all for now and look forward to your understanding of one account Mat 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-27 Luke 18:18-27 and your local workers beliefs on the Living Witness Doctrine and to why a person must sell all and give it to the workers to join their "work". And for those readers who aren't familiar with the Living Witness Doctrine, I quote page page 18 of THE SECRET SECT, So in fact William Irvine "became the original progenitor. He ws the Adam of our time from whom what is called THE FAMILY OF GOD sprang". It was believed that by sacrificing literally everything and by living by faith, they would carry out God's will and become partakers of the Divine Nature. Trv6983 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The verses are most generally taught, to my experience, as a lesson by Jesus against self-righteousness. Slofstra (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment: "The beautiful thing is you cannot ban me from editing this or other wiki pages." No, but you could get yourself banned if you keep knowingly breaking 'wiki' polices. Especially if you try playing games when I clean up your edits instead of using the Discussion page. Slofstra (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment: "Rajneesshes whatever". There's not much info at this link, as far as relating to Mill's point (not mine), but with all respect to the average Oregonian, the state is known to attract a lot of wingnuts. Slofstra (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment: "By informing you of the detrimental affects of the cults beliefs, am I keeping you from living?". Absolutely. I think I remember my mother saying something along the lines that if you don't have something good to say about someone then don't say it. If you wish to use newspapers, magazine and other reportage I generally don't have an issue. That is because they are professionally produced and know how to avoid libellous situations. Self-publishers do not. So any self-published material that mentions living persons can not be included, linked, or referenced here. Even with material published in newspapers etc you have to be careful insofar as living persons are concerned. Your own web site - from what I saw - is not an issue because it concerns you and you wrote it. However, any web site that names living third parties shouldn't be linked or mentioned here. Slofstra (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A subsequent read of Brad Lewis's web site indicates he does indeed defame numerous persons. I'm not interesting in stifling his story which I believe should be told, but perhaps Brad could find a way around the slander issues; I'm not qualified to offer advice on this. Slofstra (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also propose to add comment under a section of Common Beliefs of the group that the group believes that Christian churches buildings are the work of the devil and that present day clergymen are believed by followers to be leading people to hell, citing the quote in The Secret Sect by Doug and Helen Parker to which Slofstra agreed to earlier in this discussion page.Trv6983 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Heavily Documented Sexual abuse coverup in Ireland" link This link does not meet 'wiki' standards regarding Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Editors, keep in mind that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that many of the external links do not meet Wikipedia's BLP policy. This is because these links make derogatory comments about living persons AND are self-published. In the New Year I will delete any and all such references in both the article and discussion pages, as I find them, unless the external sites themselves remove all references to living persons. Slofstra (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the external link about the sexual abuse is not a biography, but a site that is not for the 2x2 group. While facts and first-hand witness about events and people my not be pleasant because of the nature of the people, it is not derogatory. Just because it is not a proponent of the 2x2 way does not mean it must be classified as a biography and to be deleted. Continued BIAS against other information that does not support the group is not advised. Please read WIKI policy regarding this

Response: The person deleting doesn't have to prove anything and he or she can be biased. You are providing the material, you have to follow wiki guidelines. It's the author and the text which has to be free of bias. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see Donoma's above post - The privately-run websites are useful only as external links at the bottom of the article, not as verifiable sources'

Response: External links are subject to guidelines. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks; those are the guidelines.

1. Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As such, the events recounting the sex scandal show know one contending them with any documents. Unless you can contend with sources any facts presented on the site, it should not be removed. Trv6983 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: I have bolded your last sentence, as that is utter nonsense. No countervailing sources are required in order to delete unsourced material. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that many of the external links do not meet Wikipedia's BLP policy. This is because these links make derogatory comments about Christian churches AND are self-published. In addition, three of these linked pages refer to the same site. In the New Year I will delete any and all such references in both the article and discussion pages, as I find them, unless the external sites themselves remove all references to Christian churches and promotion of heresies. Trv6983 (talk 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: Sorry, this makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose to remove the comment "gospel" from the section about "gospel meetings". The group does not share it's beliefs other than condemnation of Christians and yet claims it holds gospel services that are evangelical in nature. This should be deleted because it has never been documented. I propose this removal until documenation can be shown that the group has a "gospel" and what they think it is. In the New Year I will delete any and all such references in both the article and discussion pages, as I find them, unless the external sites themselves remove all references to Christian churches and promotion of heresies.Trv6983 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

About the section of Callings, they interpret these as classses. This contradicts the Bible grossly as to the scripture given. Citation is needed justifying the interpretation of this Scripture as to calling it classes. Jesus forbid creating classes and titles. Rather gifts and offices were given. see Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. This material will be removed promptly as recommended in Wikipedia's verifiablity section states It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. Trv6983 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: Violation of WP:NOR. These are just your own opinions. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the word "church" for the name of the group. While it is undisputably a group or movement, it cannot be classified as a church. Specific documentation needs to show that it is a church. There are no outreaches to the sick, the poor, no statement of faith, no public doctrine, the inner workings are kept secret etc. The church of God established by Jesus has no such features as this group has. Again this is a proposal to remove the word church from the article in refering to the group because there are not documents or sources for this group being a Christian Church. The group is classified as a cult by the Christian community (which the group hates and labels the present-day clergy man as people who are leading people to hell). It is therefore proposed as this is in connection with Christianity, that it is properly labeled as a cult, which it is by enclyopedias and books as aforementioned in this discussion page and aforementioned comments by 2x2s have verified. In the wiki page regarding CHristian church, it is used to describe : The church referred to by Jesus, is the group of persons that follow his teaching, to whom he gives heavenly and earthly authority (Matt 16:18-20) and is the group of persons that share two primary commonalities: Acceptance of Salvation through Jesus of Nazareth, that he was the promised "Christ" (Rev. 22:20). Obedience to God (Mark 12:13)

Response: This has already been debated thoroughly by editors previously. See above. You should take issue with those points. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of which there are no sources showing that they put faith in Jesus, rather as the article states hitherto, "profess, professing - to make or to be making or have made a public declaration of faith in the fellowship. Members are those who "are professing", and vice versa." Which shows yet again the group is more properly classified as a cult. There is no sources showing the group to put their faith in Jesus Christ. The wiki article regarding cults shows this however Cult roughly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label. 2x2 documented quotes on this page even show hatred of the (mainstream poplulace) Christian movement in whole for building buildings that are used in worshipping God.Trv6983 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: I have no idea what your point is. I'm sorry but I cannot respond as I have no idea what you are saying Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the terminology section about the overseer, it says that he has authority over the state. This needs to be verified. Last I checked, this belonged to the governor and elected officials within the United States of America. This sections needs documentation to show that an overseer has authority over a state or it will be removed. This area totally contradicts the government of the United States and will be speedily deleted unless documents can be produced showing the US law no longer prevails in matters of authority in the US. Trv6983 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: Obviously a wording issue. Just correct it. Clearly the writer means group members within the state, not the entire population. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on "dress" of the 2x2s has been deleted because for months no documentation or source has been forthcoming. This has been done per Wikipedia's recommendation of deletion of unsourced material.Trv6983 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: You should read 'Eddie Tor' and others ideas regarding establishing NPOV factual article without using sources. Otherwise there will be no article. The basic idea is to present a very short, descriptive article containing points to which all sides agree. I don't see how you could disagree that "women in the group wear their hair long". Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations requested regarding the groups claim to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Not documents are given, nor have been given and the statement that they are apostles of Jesus Christ yet believe clergy are leading people to hell is grossly errant. This section will be speedily deleted if sources regarding their claims AND proof that they are apostles cannot be provided.Trv6983 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: The purpose of the article should not be to determine who is or is not an apostle. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for speedy deletion of "The Lord's Supper". No sources have yet been given for this either. The Lord's supper was a full passover meal. Having been a worker in the cult for over a year and a half and traveled all 50 states and attending services held around the US including Alaska, Canada and HA, the Lord's supper was never held. Rather a piece of leavened bread (totally against the Lord's supper which was with striclty unleavened bread) and grapejuice which is call predominately by the group as "the bread and wine". Hence the allegorical reference by Paul to NOT be leavened, as they were to not eat leavend bread, God forbid, on the Passover.see 1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Surely the scriptures clearly state that this was a feast and not a piece of leavened bread passed around with grapejuice. See also more arguments against leavened bread especially in a house "church" in book ekklesia, To the Roots of Biblical House Church Life by Steve Atkerson ISBN-13: 978-0-9729082-1-4 and see also NTRF Trv6983 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: The purpose of the article should not be to determine whether the observances of the group are approved by God or not. The writer was merely attempting to provide a description of the weekly observance of breaking of bread. 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I request that a recognized, "authorized" representative of the group that incorporated it in Canada or in the USA post the bylaws and make public their "Goals and Ambitions" as a group.Trv6983 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that Christian Conventions does not have a representative, maybe an interview besides those in books could be provided by an overseer? Or is that too much. Such vagaries on policies and are annoying to say the least.24.21.75.147 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement has no source "Most members believe that the church is the direct descendant of the very first Christians" and has been speedily deleted. The group claims to have no records of history and the claim of what most members believe insinuates that it is known what most members believe. Trv6983 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Founder section which is redundant to material already in 'History' section. In addition any and all references to 'Secret Sect' should be deleted as publisher is listed on Amazon as follows: Publisher: D. Parker Date of Publication: 1982 Binding: Trade PaperBack D. Parker is also the author. Any and all references to this work should be removed from the page under WP:SPS. Slofstra (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Slofstra, Please read the reference you posted. It says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Please don't go deleting things that conform to wiki standards without first putting it in the wiki discussion. Are you claiming that D. Parker is not an established expert on the topic of Chrisitan Conventions since you've made the radical proposal of removing the book? Also, please check the book if you haven't read it yourself. After some breezing through, it appears to be sufficiently sourced with eyewitness accounts, photographs, newspaper articles and has many quotes. Unless you can find a better historical source by a more established expert in the field and can show the material in question to conflict with other verifiable sources I reccommend this SOURCE be kept as a reference per same WIKI WP:SPS . 24.21.75.147 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First 24.21.75.147, I've reviewed your edits and by and large think they're good quality ones. The article is still quite bloated, and more cuts still need to be made. (BTW, I think there's a typo on 'excommunicate' somewhere in the article; I don't have time this week to do much). There have been a number of 'pro' edits here and there over time that I don't think have served the article well.

Regarding Parker's book, there are exceptional circumstances where self-published information can be used. If you carefully read the sentence which you quote above, you'll see the words, "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Those words are there to prevent arguments such as the one you now propose, on what it means to be an expert. The adjective reliable also has precise and definite meaning under 'wiki' policies. If it so happens that Mr. Parker has previously produced peer-reviewed (i.e. by accredited professors of history) papers or has had articles accepted by known academic journals that establish his scholarly reputation on this subject, his later self-published work could be cited. If this is the case it should be a simple matter of producing a CV containing such references. (Jaenen's is the only current cited work that meets those criteria to my knowledge). Then, Parker could not be excluded under WP:SPS. But then there are ALSO other issues with Parker. By virtue of titling his book, 'The Secret Sect', and also that he left the group indicates a violation of WP:NPOV. And in addition, almost all of these works by ex-members contain original research, a violation of WP:NOR, and I'm sure Mr. Parker's is no exception. So you can see that Parker is excluded on three separate counts.
For these reasons almost ALL the external links should be removed from the article. (I noticed that you asked me to discuss removing Mr. Parker's references before removing them, then you removed the 'pro' links without discussion. I do delete any such links that appear in the main body of the article; I've never yet touched the external links, but that will definitely change. The tendency to top-post one's own self-published works is especially impudent.)
If you do not agree, we could refer this matter to WP:THIRD, since the question of using these various self published pieces is a crucial point to the future direction of the article. In my view the article should contain only facts accepted by members, ex-members and non-members alike. As much as you don't want the article to be a self-serving polemic for the group, I don't want to see the article as a repository for various personal grudges. And many of these seem to be grudges going back a long way. Consider also that the character of the group has changed over time. A lot of ex-members material bears on events of 40 to 50 years ago. The character of leadership in almost any group, but especially faith based groups, does change over time. Mistakes are made, and newer leaders try not to repeat the old mistakes, and it almost goes without saying, create new original errors of their own design.
Eddie Tor made the comment a year ago that the TTT site is pretty good quality, and my incursions into the site verify the same. The site does violate WP:NPOV but let's face it, almost any external site will, and I myself wouldn't reject an external link simply because of WP:NPOV. (But citations cannot be made to such sources). It's merely a question of the extent to which the site talks about living people, or promotes libel or slander. If the TTT author self-monitors to maintain those guidelines I see no issues with it myself. There are 3 or 4 links to the TTT site though, only one is needed. Again, this is a self-published work so it can NOT be cited within the main article. There are other links that DO make reference to living persons in a derogatory fashion; even one with a current workers' picture for which it's only good manners to make sure a release is secured for publication.
I also personally don't see a problem with links that want to argue Scripture, such as Brad Lewis's, if that is all they do.
The only other work that could be cited is that of Jaenen, who is/was a reputable scholar at the University of Ottawa, and I assume your edits on history are taking his work into consideration as there is considerable discussion above. If they don't I will change them back.
Do not take anything here as tacit agreement; I merely quote my opinion based on the information I have at this time. Slofstra (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Parkers' book was published by MacArthur Press in Sydney. Now even if it were a vanity publication, its existence is relevant as its publication caused a major controversy within the church. The publication was an event of note, and it does this article a disservice not to mention it. I think a separate subheading for "Controversies", as distinct from "Criticisms", would be useful.Ashfallen (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No issue there. Its publication could be mentioned in Controversies. As a source for the article there are POV issues. The author has an axe to grind.Slofstra (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed also that the authors of self-published material are filling up wikipedia with quite a large number of articles which are merely re-hashes of their self-published and original research. i.e. Almost everything under 'See also'. Please do not also contaminate this article with your research. Also, there is no need for a 'Bibliography' section, as wikipedia is not supposed to be just a repository of links. There should be a 'Notes' section followed by 'Further Reading' which breaks into published works and external links. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It has become the fashion to use inclusive and ordinary language in every sector of society, and I believe the friends are not different in that regard. The term 'overseer' is a strange one; I do still hear it used occasionally, but 'head worker' is much clearer and sounds less old fashioned. I know one person who innocently uses the term 'coloureds' to refer to visible minorities, with no ill intent, but I think we should avoid such anachronisms here. Please don't insert ANY terminology unless it helps to clarify the description. Initially, I was against the Terms section entirely as I don't see anything wrong with ordinary English. Also - the recent edits are a bit on the sloppy side - verb noun disagreement, and so on. And sometimes the odd paragraph is rewritten for the worse. Please exercise more care in your edits; I have let them stand and hopefully they'll be cleaned up as time goes on. Slofstra (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The terms 'doctrine' and 'founder' are loaded with controversy. It is not true that the group has no 'doctrine'. It is true that it has no 'published doctrine' and no 'liturgy'. The term 'founder' is a bad term because of course the movement always points to 'Christ' as the founder of the movement. So ex-members love to bandy the term founder around as kind of goad. Try to use neutral, plain language and stick to the facts. Slofstra (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A significant point raised by Brad Lewis and would seem to be a bugbear for him is the question of finances, esp insofar as new workers. I've temporarily removed the following statement from the article, "If accepted into the work, they [new workers] are required to sell all and give the money to the workers, head worker, close friends or poor." The problem is that there is such a wide range of options presented in this sentence as to say almost nothing at all. There are also a number of points raised by 'Donoma' above, about lack of transparency of finances. Someone deleted the entire section on Finances at some point in the last month, as well. Again what should the article say on this subject? Slofstra (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Donama, firstly thanks for your excellent job of organising this page, both chronologically and in topics. This discussion is a useful resource in itself. In regards to the need for reliable sources, we still have the jpegs of the original pages from John Long's diary, ca. late 1800s. We just need somewhere to deposit these. Any recent thoughts? alikia (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You could look into placing them in 'wikisource'. Sorry, I don't know much about this, but the method would be well-described in wiki's help. Slofstra (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slofstra, will look into it Alikia (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Slofstra, you are likely well-meaning and I apologize if so (of course, you believe you are, we all do :) Can we try to agree on the importance of having an acknowledgment up front about William Irvine's role? It's not to say true Christianity had a new beginning in 1897, simply an acknowledgment that WmI was with the Faith Mission, and left and started *something* that grew into the "fellowship" as it's known today. Of course true Christianity has an unbroken link back to the 1st C church, but that's not the topic of this article which is all about the form of church that began with WmI in 1897 (John Long's diaries provide ample proof, as do other sources).

Fair enough that we don't start a sentence with "It is generally acknowledged", it was just an attempt to soften a fact that some see as unpalatable.

Also in regard to the names used to identify the fellowship. "Christian Conventions" (the title of the article) is far more obscure than many of the other names that have been used in absence of an official title. I'm not sure that I would instantly recognize who Christian Conventions is referring to. In that sense, it's not a good title. However... it can remain so long as the various other labels are presented that have been applied to define a group unusual and somewhat frustrating in not having an official title.

Just as it's OK in the preceding para to state "Members often identify themselves as "Christians", "the saints", or "the friends"." (not all universally accepted names either amongst "members"), it's equally OK to give the various names that have been used (fact, sources include the Irish newspaper articles) by non-members as well as many members.

But rather than constant to-ing and fro-ing, I'm open to discussion and hopefully a reasonable solution that all can be comfortable with. Thanks! Alikia (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having the courtesy to post here on the Discussion page, as it provides an opportunity for me to discuss improper edits, rather than simply having to delete them. It will be helpful and save me much work if you would read over WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. The main problem with the historical questions and points you raise is that there are no sources you can use that meet academic standards. They are all self-published. I don't see how a detailed history can be included in the article as no legitimate work at an academic standard (other than Jaenen, possibly) has been performed on this subject. Most of what I've seen has a good deal of agenda pushing and the edit history bears that out. There is a bit of history included in the article; do you have a problem with it? I can't say I'm overly qualified in the area myself - my rejection is not because I disagree with you but because the edits don't meet wiki standards

I have had a look at the History section vis a vis Irvine and your comments, and I don't see where there is an issue in relation to your comments. Is there something there you disagree with? Personally, I don't like to see the Irvine referred to as founder, because he is not acknowledged as such by the present day group. Not only is he not acknowledged as founder (aside from the founder is Christ issue which you've demarcated), he's not even acknowledged! And I do object to placing some history in the header and then having another section called 'History'. It will make the article messy as various editors edit history in two different places. Perhaps the status conferred to Irvine in the description is not to your liking?

The question of title was resolved long before I discovered this article. What do you suggest? You might want to add your remarks to the lengthy discussion topic above. Regarding other titles I personally don't like pejoratives that marginalize the group. But if you can provide documented evidence of a name that is IN CURRENT USE - again see WP:SPS and WP:NOR in providing references. There is a cross reference from the common pejorative "Two by Twos". The disambiguation link lets you choose between types of lumber and churches. But other than that, I don't know where you'll find proper academic sources for the hodge-podge of pejoratives you wish to insert here. (And when I look up Netherlands, I don't see 'cheese-nibblers' and 'dike-stoppers', so you might want to use that as a reference point).

This article should be short, to the point, and contain only the slimmest of information that is universally agreed upon. If that causes you to be frustrated, I can't help that. Slofstra (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a point that I consider worth directly addressing, in the context of this article on Wikipedia. It is sprinkled with "citation needed"s and there is significant argument on the talk page over sourcing. However, the church itself deprecates record-keeping, and collectively operates with the intention of maintaining anonymity and no history. It is analogous to the "hidden tribe problem" of anthropology - how does one study a group that believes it should not be studied, even by itself, and (mildly) resists formal study?

It is inevitable, under these circumstances, that citeable sources will be few and far between, and the majority of information will come from the anecdotal recollections of past and present members. It is further inevitable that these recollections will be coloured by the biases of those who present them. However, the collective noun for anecdotes is data. Where members' and ex-members' reported experiences are universal, that ought to constitute, for this purpose, a solid fact. Where the experience is nearly universal, it ought to constitute a fairly-solid fact with some acknowledged deviation. Where the experience is that of a couple of people, it's still just an anecdote. But unless an anecdote (or a summary of the salient facts within, since this isn't a story-telling site) can be put up, and then "voted for" or similarly agreed to be true, it will never reach the level of a common experience.

So, I therefore propose that a section of the article be written to directly explain the effect of the lack of record-keeping on scholarly study, and that where "citation needed"s appear that are answered by this section, they be replaced by a note to consider the section. I further propose that any and all verified information be identified specifically as such. Ashfallen (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would edit items thought to be 'facts' with confidence. I don't agree with the idea of 'verifying' facts, however. Either information is sourced properly or it is not. If it is not, it's subject to challenge. Even if it is sourced it's subject to challenge. There is no process in place anywhere on wiki for explicitly flagging facts as 'verified', and that would be against the spirit of wiki, I believe. I do agree though that many of the cite tags can be removed, and that we can use a little common sense. Personally, I try not to challenge something I know to be true, even if not cited. In the case of 'anecdotes' seeking to be promoted to fact I think the discussion page is the place for that. Slofstra (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is 'likely' a significant amount of raw material that could be used to fill out the historical section of the article - at least up until 1910 or so. Attempts to introduce this material have failed because the spirit of those attempts has not been NPOV.

Slofstra (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in the 2x2s, and this article does not mention one of the most interesting aspects of 2x2 practice, and the only one for which I am sincerely grateful despite having left the 2x2 "second religiosity" (Oswald Spengler) system in my teens: the ban on TV's (which I credit with protecting my attention span).

I realize that the fields differ on points of doctrine and practice, but I never lived in a field where this rule failed to apply, or where TV ownership and use were not frowned upon. Some people would hide their TVs, or would disconnect the 'TV part' of their TVs so that only movies of an approved nature could play.

In light of the above facts, I have added a brief TV reference to the distinctive practices section of the article.

I would be most interested in the uncovering of statistics which compare the grades of 2x2 children with those of non-2x2 children -- due to the absence of TVs -- so this gradual interest in the 2x2s, with its attendant proliferation of material both scholarly and anecdotal, is interesting and encouraging. I would not be surprised if 2x2s had higher grades, on average, than their mainstream peers; a similar situation obtains with Mormons' life expectancies due, presumably, to their Word of Wisdom's prohibition on alcohol and caffeine. On a similar note, I wonder whether the Quaker-like oral sharing which mostly constitutes 2x2 meetings has the effect over time of selecting for a constellation of traits which would show up, perhaps, as a slightly higher than average score on the textual sections of tests.

(If taxi drivers brains visibly change to accommodate the particular demands made upon the brain by driving a taxi, then the process could extend to any system, especially a partially endogamous one, which could be expected to select particular traits.)

Now that the rotting log has been pried up, it is time to start dissecting the squirming creatures inside! Stand by for cataloging.

Hopkins Disease (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating points, Hopkins :) Donama (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an outright ban, but it's certainly true that no-one has one. The phrase 'frowned upon' leaves one asking 'frowned upon' by who? So I would suggest we just say, "Members do not own broadcast television sets." (As opposed to computer monitors, which many members do have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

George Walker, I believe it was, said that televisions were one of the greatest inventions of all time. The non-ban wasn't immediate, but I'm pretty sure it was universal. That said, there are a number of families who do have televisions, but they are kept out of sight of prying eyes, especially when there's company about. I also credit our not having had a television tho, with not only preserving my attention span, but also with causing me to exercise my imagination. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

After concern about copyright violations on some sites I began to clean up this list. What I ended up with is a distinct improvement, as the list was getting quite 'junky'. Basically, TTT has a very attractive and comprehensive external links page, so the thought - why replicate that list here. Any sites not on that page, or of sufficient importance can be direct linked here. Note- please see policy WP:ELNEVER before adding any new links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra

Cleaned this list up, and added back the deleted ones which seemingly were deleted via your own personal opinion, Slofstra. The entire list of external links are no good for Wikipedia, but keeping them all included til we can figure out how to still make them accessible to readers.Donama (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a personal opinion. You missed where I said that TTT covers all the external links. I will now revert to my original changes after waiting 3-4 days. Slofstra (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. Treat this as a 'zero-based' approach to links. We have lost nothing in accessibility as a 'complete' external links page is available on TTT and a link is provided here. Any other links added should obey WP:ELNEVER as far as copyright, and also contribute to the article as per WP:EL. Slofstra (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed someone is trying to add back links to sites that infringe copyright. Please note the following from WP:ELNEVER: Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) Sep 8, 2008

Slofstra, sorry some of that was me, mistakenly. Hadn't read this. I'm not sure this is the end of this, but happy to leave it as is unless there are new points raised here on talk page. Donama (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Byron54 wrote me a message saying he is "disputing the removal of the VOT link in External Links" because he thinks the charge that it infringes on copyrights is unsubstantiated. And as such he's re-added it.

My opinion on this is that we need to keep the ext links to a minimum and also avoid linking to sites that are poor quality and have an excessive bias (read: people ranting about their own opinions) as per the WP:EL guidelines and so I am happy for it to be removed. Given that the Prue Philip link is all about criticising VOT though, I think it's only reasonably to remove this one too. It keeps the links as minimal as possible while still giving readers a chance to explore (via the TTT - Links page). What do people think? Donama (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is very sensitive about copyright issues as you know after being sued a number of times. If you click on photos on the VOT site, there are recent photos (2000+) and I doubt they obtained releases from the subjects in order to publish these. That's for starters.Slofstra (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a direct copyright violation and you're just guessing, which sounds weird. ie. it's not obviously reproducing published work in a blatant manner. That is what the ELNEVER guideline is talking about. Donama (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's reproducing unpublished work which is even worse. e.g. Publishing private work without the writer's permission. I can privately give you more specific information about a situation in which I'm involved, but I'm not interested in playing that out in public. Rather, I would prefer you to look at that site yourself and make a determination. Since you don't know about these issues, obtain advice from other wiki editors if needed. Since my life's work is in intellectual property - e.g. developing commercial software, I know something of the principles involved. No-one can speak with absolute authority from a legal point of view because the Internet is a developing area. I think what you have to find out is what wiki will or won't tolerate. My sense is that that site would not be tolerated, but why don't you make a serious determination, instead of blowing smoke as you so obviously are doing. I'll tell you that you cannot go by anything Byron54 and cohorts say as my experience is that they do what they please and then invent their own rules to support their bad habits.Slofstra (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check WP:ELNEVER. I'm sure you have, but it refers to all copyright violations. There is nothing there restricting the policy to published works only. Slofstra (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I felt compelled to respond albeit briefly.Due to a death in the family, my post here will be delayed for a number of days.

However, rest assured, this issue will be addressed with full recourse as soon as possible. I appreciate your patience. Byron (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, get that 'full recourse' thing going there, Byron54. Slofstra (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to the other web sites, you should not have three separate links to the same site. Please organize your site so there is one main page, linking to the other pages. Also read Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, WP:EL. Slofstra (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged. Donama (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Control rests in the hands of a small group of senior male overseers; each oversees a geographic region. Under each senior overseer are male head workers who oversee a single state, province or similar area,[18][158] What does Chryssides actually say about hierarchy. "Control rests ..." sounds vague and could mean anything.64.7.157.139 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)