Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hostile sources

It must be kept in mind that most past authors and sources on this group are hostile reviewers. I don't mean this statement as a criticism or commentary, but it's just the state of affairs within the literature. The group discourages publication and analysis on theological matters and internal matters, so parties friendly to the group tend not to write or publish about the group. (The group leaders have generally encouraged or tolerated outside reportage and analysis of their events, as opposed to their theology.) So those who write about this group tend to be critical and hostile writers as a group. Anyone trying to defend the group or say otherwise to some of the claims made about the group, generally will have no sources or resources to back up their point of view. This is not a complaint, but a matter of fact, and has to be kept in mind in reviewing comments of 00Todd00 and other commenters on this page. The only alternative that more neutral and pro- commenters have is to refute statements which they feel are wrong, and demand better sources.Slofstra (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I support Slofstra's points above. In the interest of full disclosure, I myself am an ex-member. I've seen other other ex-members being very critical and hostile about the group in various places on the internet. I believe in the platform of Wikipedia in imparting factual and unbiased knowledge that would be useful to future readers. To that end I'm trying to offer my exposure and understanding of the group's mechanics to fill the gaps and hopefully sourced material will one day present itself to support the assertions. Regarding sources, I find that some of the books written about the group (which would all have been done by outsiders) fall into the same trap as perhaps implied by Slofstra. These writers can also be overly critical but because it is published it is acceptable to cite as sourced material. I find this a little strange but i suppose there is always room to indicate even cited material as biased by Wikipedia editors. 3knocks (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to pick on you, but I find your use of the terminology, "...done by outsiders" problematic. It indicates you see those who have never been members to be uninformed about how the church works and what it believes and, therefore, unqualified to comment or write about the group. It also seems to indicate you still see those outside the church to be the lost ("outsiders" is kind of subjective). Maybe I'm reading too much into what you've said. Winkelvi (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe reading just a little too much but i appreciate the comment. Using 'outsiders' was just to state a fact that those writing about this group would not be part of this group. I've read some of the published material many years ago and I found some of it no different from what can be found on web forums these days in the negative sense. Some of it is also very superficial just touching on very high level points and not getting into the nuances of the religion. Of course I haven't read all the material. 3knocks (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the commentators and writers have not acquired very much skill in academic writing or research. Many of the sources used are not really reliable sources as wikipedia defines it, that is, they are largely self-published by self styled expose journalists. After submitting various test cases for peer review, I have realized that the issue of reliable sources is a losing battle. Wikipedia did not get to be the size it is by relying solely on reliable sources. But no matter, the article isn't too bad, and certainly much better in quality than many of the sources that have been used. I also don't think that you can really "get" the theology/ doctrine as an outsider, unless you read a lot of the sermons. The most difficult problem for outsiders is that there is, by definition, no homogeneous, consistent analysis of Scripture as exists in most denominations, and is published by them. There are certain ideas that are very widely held, and those are ably documented within the article. Slofstra (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Funding is secret?

I'm not sure why this was changed from a clear statement on the absence of accounting of funds to the general membership. Is the funding secret? It isn't any secret to those who know, and it is secret from those who don't know. The use of the word 'secret' is judgemental. I suggest reverting this to the original wording. A parallel example is a private corporation, where most employees have no knowledge of the company's finances. Do they feel thus that this information is 'secret'? Well, quite a few people are shown the information, just not the employees. Slofstra (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Most churches have an annual financial statement available for all to see. That includes those outside the church. "Secret" probably does sound POV. Got a better way to say that the church keeps its financial information from pretty much everyone? Winkelvi (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think using the word 'secret' sounds judgemental as that is exactly what it is. To the the parallel of a company's finances, all shareholders should have equal access to the financial statements. With this group, very few of the friends know anything about the contributions or expenses of the group. I believe even many of the workers do not know what is happening, especially the more junior ones. I think it's more the overseers who have the knowledge. As an interesting side-note, I think one of the top-line expenses would be air travel. The workers do love being sent to various countries to attend the annual conventions.3knocks (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you would agree that "secret" is not only not judgmental but accurate? Winkelvi (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone can think of a better word. If the suggestion was to use the word "secretive" then i would agree that this word sounds more judgemental. Secret would be a statement of fact. "Hidden" and "confidential" wouldn't fit either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should use clear descriptive language and let the reader decide for themselves whether the level of disclosure is adequate. See where I'm coming from. The issue is not whether it's "secret" or "not secret". The issue is whether the word "secret" is offering judgement or not. I personally prefer a higher level of financial disclosure in a church organization, but that is not the issue. A better word is non-transparent, better yet to say that financial statements are not produced and finances are not disclosed to the members, and leave it at that. A public corporation has to legally disclose its finances to shareholders; a failure to disclose is secretive, information not disclosed is secret information. No legal and arguably no ethical obligation exists here. Saying "secret" does imply that something illegal or unethical is occurring and there is no basis for implying such. I wonder if you could be libelled for this, in fact. Incidentally, I liked most of your changes, winkelvi. Slofstra (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "secret" indicates something illegal or unethical, just sequestered away from the eyes of anyone other than those authorized to see it.. We have the "secret service", we keep things secret from others, and neither of those concepts are implying something is unethical or illegal. Even Webster's dictionary states that synonyms of the word are "secluded", "hidden", "confidential". I would believe it's safe to say that all three of those words apply in this usage of the word "secret". I propose it's time to get a consensus on this and leave the argument behind. Winkelvi (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) Personally, I think "secret" in this context does qualify as clear descriptive language. Some might take it as prejudicial, but, honestly, some might take any word as prejudicial. It can in some cases be seen as implying some form of conspiracy, but, in all honesty, there does seem to be, given the apparent refusal of the group to engage the media to any reasonable degree, some basis to think that even that intimation is not unwarranted in this instance. Also, it would be useful to see if the comparatively few independent reliable sources which significantly discuss this subject use the word. If they do, honestly, so can we. Just about the only independent reliable source of a roughly academic nature I know of on this subject is the book Sex, lies, and sanctity : religion and deviance in contemporary North America, whose second paper is "Christians in hiding : the "No Name" sect by Benton Johnson". Unfortunately, I myself don't have ready access to that book, and have yet to find anyone who does. If anyone here can get their hands on it to see what it says, that would be very useful.

Regarding the end of Slofstra's last addition at the end of his comment above with which I was in conflict, I am not myself sure of the relevance. Specifically, I'm not sure if there is a public corporation involved here - if there is, I might have missed it. There are a number of small entities, generally limited to one country, involved here, but no single corporation responsible. Also, honestly, having read what literature there is on the subject, most of the funding of this group is from individual members to individual members, like the preachers, and on that basis wouldn't even necessarily show up on any corporate records anywhere, even if there were a single overall corporation in change. I don't know how common that sort of arrangement is, but I don't have any particular reason to think it is particularly standard.

Regarding Wikilevi's comment, the source of my second edit conflict, I think it might be better to raise this as an RfC as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This page doesn't seem to be on particularly many watchlists, and getting the input of a borader range of editors from different fields would probably be very useful here. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that a public corporation has an onus to report; the f&w do not. Thus they can do what they do without it being a 'secret'. The 'secret service' also take active measures to remain secret. But, it's not a big deal in any case. I readily concede the floor on this one. Now, on your statement, "given the apparent refusal of the group to engage the media to any reasonable degree". Incidentally, John, workers are quite open to the media. That is, they have allowed reporters to report on and have full access to convention grounds, and to gospel meetings. There are numerous articles on the group in various local newspapers, some of them linked from this article. I never found the group to be "secret" in any way in my dealings with them. In that respect I find them no different than any other conservative Christian group such as the Brethren or Mennonites, with whom I'm also very familiar. All of these groups do prefer staying out of the limelight. Are Old Order Mennonite finances "secret"? Perhaps so. I think that Irvine Grey also found the workers to be open, insofar as his academic research.Slofstra (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the evidence of your comment that workers are quite open to the media. However, your personal opinions, one way or another, do not qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS. Feel free to peruse the archives here, and you will see that I did an extremely extensive reveiw, of several databanks, to find only a very very few sources on the subject at all. If they were as "open" as you say, it is all but impossible to imagine that there would be so little coverage. Also feel free to check WORLDCAT for any material on the subject yourself. There is, so far as I can see, only the book I pointed out above which qualifies as "academic" which discusses them at any length. The entries on the group in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and Lewis' encyclopedia also as I remember indicate the group seems to actively avoid media attention, and it is media attention which is most relevant here. Granted, any number of preachers will seem to be very open to members of the public, who generally don't check any sources to verify the statements they make and aren't in much of a position to make it public even if they were to find one. Most religious groups are "open" about the things that they have no particular reservations about discussing. Whether that qualifies as "open" or "non-secret" in the broader sense is another matter entirely.

However, I also acknowledge that it is possible that things have changed in recent years, or that you might have encountered some preachers who are more open to the kind of inquiry reporters give than others. If that is the case, I myself would love to see an interview on Wikinews of such preachers, as that interview would be among the few independent media pieces on them. I've been thinking of trying to do a few interviews with clergy/ministers of other smaller groupings for a few months myself, and I would very much be willing to assist in preparing material for a public interview. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. The workers do not publish any doctrinal material so why would you expect to find any? That's a different matter from a local reporter wondering who has set up tent on the outskirts, or who are the people who come into town every year for convention. There are plenty of that kind of article kicking around. Ask astynax. In any case, it isn't me that is describing them as 'secret'; it's you. I'm not sure why you think I need RS when I'm not writing anything.Slofstra (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And if there are no RS, then what are the several dozen different sources used to compile this article? Not RS by your own admission it would seem.Slofstra (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for consensus on use of word "secret"

• Keep: I do not believe that using the word "secret" in relation to how the church operates financially nor that it indicates something illegal or unethical, just sequestered away from the eyes of anyone other than those authorized to see it. We have the "secret service", we keep things secret from others, and neither of those concepts are implying something is unethical or illegal. Even Webster's dictionary states that synonyms of the word are "secluded", "hidden", "confidential". I would believe it's safe to say that all three of those words apply in this usage of the word "secret". I also believe using the word "secret" in relation to the church's finances is appropriate and not POV. Winkelvi (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: As a response to John Carter's suggestion we take this to RfC rather than use consensus: my feeling is that if we are unable to reach consensus, RfC would be the next step. Winkelvi (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The group is rather secretive in general, and has been regarded as such by sources. Also, the word "secret" does not necessarily imply that there is any sort of evil conspiracy, although some might take it as such. But, well, some people can spin any word any which way, and I don't think that the comparatively small chance of readers overreacting to the word here is so great that using it, one of the clearest and least ambiguous words available, is counterindicated. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Discard - The article should not just be a precis of counter-advocacy material, but should work to a higher standard, neutral, unbiased language as much as possible. The goal should be to provide a warts-and-all description, but any sympathizer or follower of the group will reject the article out of hand, if too many inaccuracies, and a high level of biased language creep in. Anything with a negative connotation requires an extra level of support, and I don't see any active conspiracy to keep financial dealings secret from those who need to know.Slofstra (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Simply regarding the last point, that "any sympathizer or follower of the group will reject the article out of hand," honestly, those are not the people we really expect to come to wikipedia to learn something about the group. As a Catholic, I know very few Catholics who come to us for information on that body, none in fact, and I have every reason to believe that the same holds true for any other group of individuals who have a preexisting POV regarding the topic. And, honestly, I still don't see how the comment above addresses the matter under discussion, or even how much of it actually relates to this topic at all. I very much believe that filing an RfC on this topic is probably the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I just stated above in my note re: RfC, let's wait and see what consensus brings. Why bring others into it unless we are unable to attempt working together first? In regard to your comment that Slofstra's comment addresses the matter: I don't think it does, either. For what it's worth. Winkelvi (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to go along with the majority here. I felt I should state my opinion for the record, but as is so often the case here, people who actually know something about a subject are of no significance to wikipedia, compared to ironclad references from ex-members that have a hate-on for the group.Slofstra (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment and accusation regarding former members is really inappropriate and should be stricken. I don't know how many among us in this discussion are former members of the church, but I know I'm not one of them. I'm here because I stumbled upon the article and happen to know some former members as well as current members. Accusing folks here of editing in a biased manner because they are former members of the church is really out of line and unnecessarily creates an adversarial atmosphere. I hope you will reconsider those comments and do the appropriate thing. Winkelvi (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The editors here are fine. I'm disparaging some of the sources and my characterization of these sources is both accurate and widely held. That includes hostile reports from the Impartial Reporter, writers such as Fortt and Daniel, various screeds from the CCM and books such as Heresies Exposed. Now please strike your inappropriate comment from the record.Slofstra (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I will further add that the selection from those hostile sources has been by and large, judicious, in this article. But they are hostile sources just the same. Now please re-read my comment so you understand what I mean. I mean, let's not get carried away thinking we have good reliable sources. I don't find much fault with the article, but there are a few sticking points that still make me cross, particularly the Trinitarian thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Slofstra, because I was curious as well as alerted by your passion in regard to this article's subject, I looked back on your editing history. It seems that you are what I've seen called a "Single Purpose Account". While you've edited a few other articles, the majority of your Wikipedia edits have been at this article and those associated with the subject of Two-by-Twos. I could be wrong, but this tells me you might be a little too close to the subject to be objective. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia, surely you can find another subject and article to become interested in? I'm not saying you should leave this article completely, but I think you might get a different perspective on editing in Wikipedia if you tried another article or 20. Especially articles that have nothing to do with the church. I can see now that what it looked like you were saying about those editing this article isn't what you were saying. Perhaps if you look back on what you wrote from an objective perspective, you can see what I saw something else. It was your wording that threw me off and made your words sound like something you didn't mean. There were better ways for you to explain what you really meant, though. And I'm finding your attitude to be increasingly hostile and subjective. We understand that you don't agree with "secret" and the Trinitarian stuff. Christianity back to Constantine has been largely Trinitarian. The 2x2s do reject the Trinity, even if you don't like the wording and many members would see that terminology as foreign. All the more evidence that the church doesn't teach or accept the doctrine/theology of the Trinity. You usually don't teach that which you reject. If need be, we can start a consensus on the Trinitarian stuff, too. Winkelvi (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be an element of promotion/advocacy outside of the interests of building an encyclopedia to be considered a "Single Purpose Account" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account). This is also my main reason for making contributions to Wikipedia given that there such a lack of objective information out there. Asyntax keeps reminding us that personal experience etc is not relevant and I understand that concept I think - books, journals generally would have gone some peer review process to check for errors etc. Unfortunatly I'm not that confident on the materials written on this topic in other books etc. This topic has so little unbiased and objective writings out there that there seems very little option but to at least hear what people have to say to perhaps find useful information to convey to readers of Wikipedia. 3knocks (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I definitely have a bad attitude toward wikipedia, but let's not even go there. I do have a very wide range of interests in general, but I'm pretty soured on the wiki experience. Your last statement, "that the church doesn't teach or accept the doctrine of the Trinity" is correct and for the sake of precision I would add, "particularly as defined by the Chalcedonian creed". Several of us have vetted the Nicene Creed informally on the discussion board and most friends have little problem with it. On the question of Incarnation though you do find a variety of opinions. I am off topic on this question of "secrecy" though, so please bear with me.Slofstra (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On the question of the finances being secret, I am in favour of retaining the old wording, which stated simply that finances were not released to the members.Slofstra (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: The word is amply supported by ironclad references. There is support for even more direct language (e.g., "That the occasional movement which seeks and claims to avoid all monetary transactions quickly becomes involved in deception is well illustrated by the history of the late nineteenth century Christian sect known as the Testimony movement (also known as Cooneyites)." Bryan R. Wilson and Eileen Barker in Understanding Social Change (2005), pg. 299. Personal views, experience or research have no place in articles as a matter of policy. • Astynax ^talk 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the quote and perhaps that is what you should use. The statement is accurate. The movement does seek to avoid "monetary transactions" in the sense of any kind of Accounting system, and although I'm not sure where specifically this has led to deception, there are documented cases showing a lack of fiscal prudence, and bad money management. There is no insinuation by Barker of a systemic attempt at shady dealings, and I myself think the problems are more those of imprudence. Of course, imprudence leads to error which can lead to deception. She appears to have an understanding in this sentence of how new religious movements actually work, although she does not indicate exactly what she is thinking of when she speaks of 'deception'. I believe she is referring to specific incidents, rather than systemic behaviour. Also, there is debate as to whether there are any more irregularities than when an Accounting system and proper oversight is present, in general.Slofstra (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit more, and having just glanced at Barker's work, I think the issue is like this. The friends would think they are above any requirement for the publication and review of financial statements, auditing, and financial controls. That's for "organizations", not for them. They can run on trust, and besides the finances are not complicated since the worker live just like the sparrows in the field. Occasionally, that kind of simplicity and trust does come back to haunt them, especially in dealing with the assets on convention grounds, but those incidents are not publicized; some might call those specific incidents a kind of deception. Hope that helps. You should understand that there is no cooking the books, or funnelling of funds for anyone's personal gain. Only one such incident has ever been documented in the history of the group.Slofstra (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Not sure where exactly to show my support but that's a 'yes' from me. Wording such as perhaps 'non-disclosed' would be too neutral as it nearly sounds that there might an option of sharing the information which there is definitely not. I would say there is some (strong) intent to not share that information which the word 'secret' would perhaps convey to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "that there might be an option ...". Could you elaborate?Slofstra (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Discard - The word “secret” suggests that there is something that could be disclosed if they decided to. It seems like people are comparing this to any other business or religion, that produces a financial or P&L statement. This is nothing like any organization or religion. What you need to remember is that these are donations made by random people, if and whenever they feel like it, and it is not the right of the receiver of that donation to disclose how much was donated, or who was donating. It is also not possible for the “organization” to have any idea how much money is sitting in the pockets of the people receiving the donation, and I don’t know myself, but I doubt that they even calculate how much of the leftover money is past into the many bank accounts of members in trust. And then there is the issue of asking someone how much money they get paid or how much they have in their bank account. Obviously it is never ethical to disclose this information, and it is not the right of anyone to reveal this even if they wanted to. Another issue that we are contending with here is that this is real Christianity. It is not some manmade religion run as a business, regardless that the many authors have tried to portray it that way. So in real Christianity, there are concepts such as “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth”, and these things still happen. These things aren’t in the bible as some fancy words to make people dream of how good it could be. These things are real and still happening today. The left hand not knowing what the right hand does. One person not knowing how much another person donated. One person not knowing how much money another person has been given. The next verse following the one I quoted above starts with... “That thine alms may be in secret”, so yes, the word secret is in there, but if we really are going to use the word, let’s be clear about where the secret is being held... it is by the person giving the alms that is doing it in secret, and it isn’t for anybody else to produce any form of statement indicating who money is coming from, how much they are giving, and who they have given it too. Long have people made the mistake of assuming that this is just another run of the mill religion, and based on that assumption, they make other poor assumptions which end up leading to a conclusion that is so far from the truth that anyone within the group reading this article is going to think, wow, not even close to the mark. 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, Todd. If the word 'secret' is to be used, it should be noted that the group believes that alms are to be given in secret, and that strict confidentiality is maintained on all giving. Mind you, there are ways to achieve confidentiality than how they do it, but that's a side issue. It shouldn't be difficult to find a RS on this point.Slofstra (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal experience

In rereading some of my comments, I notice that a common response is "personal experience" has no place in the article. Please note that I'm not trying to write the article. I am merely pointing out mistakes, and trying to provide a more accurate picture. That effort is not based on personal experience, so much, but extensive reading, and discussion with friends and ex-friends alike. You don't have to listen to me, but I'm quite confident that what I write on this discussion page is more accurate and balanced than the sources used to compile the article, on those specific topics. I have had a view from inside for many years, but then also have traded information and insights with others in the know who inhabit discussion groups on the 'net. I'm not sure why someone who feels sufficiently motivated to compile their experience and opinions into a self-published book is any more reliable than what I would offer by comparison. Again, I fully realize that nothing I say here can be compiled into the article, but at the same time I can make a contribution in critiquing what is contained in the article. By necessity, that is a negative approach, but there is no way to contribute positively to the article because workers do not publish, and even the secondary sources are based on very scant evidence. So while personal experience cannot be used ni the article, certainly it can be used as a guide to which reliable sources are, in fact, reliable, and through the power of persuasion perhaps cull or sharpen the statements that are made.Slofstra (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Slofstra, you make a very good point here regarding the exact same frustration that I faced when trying to enter into discussion with Astynax. When I would try to discuss the real facts and truth about this group, which he knew very well was the truth, he would refuse to discuss the content of what I was talking about, and continually replied with something along the lines of, "you can't put personal experience in the article" (as you can see from his abrupt reply to me at 00:08, 16 January 2013 in the special meetings section). And this is despite that often in discussions he uses his personal experience. I have often thought I could provide a more balanced a real view of the group, but Astynax makes it virtually impossible to enter into any rational and logical discussion, and I have had to give up discussions and editing. I have also made mention to him that I will not be editing the article with my personal experience, but just discussing facts, but his refusal to even discuss these things is just one of the many tactics he employs to prevent other editors from fixing his article (yes, HIS article... but more on that later).

It is my belief that Astynax is not a suitable person to be involved with this article, and if I am the only one that feels this way then I have no problem leaving him to continue as he is, but maybe there are others who feel the same way. If that is the case, I would consider asking for a review of his behaviour, because the type of things he does here is surely not be welcome on Wikipedia. For an example, here are some things of note in his behaviour which I have talked to him about a few times...

• Getting back to the ownership of this article that I alluded too... He has almost 3 times as many edits as the next biggest editor, which in itself tends to indicate that he spends a lot of his time here, and considering that 300 of those edits are actually reverts, this indicates that he is also very protective of “his” article, and resistant to other editors making changes.

Yes, actually 90% of non-minor edits are his or nonemoman's. My own edits were all minor and long gone. Eddie Tor's non-minor edits are long gone. So it is a one person article, no question. Slofstra (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The “source” that he was so possessed with regarding the “special meetings” pluralisation was hardly what you could call a very real source. The link says “This list of meeting types follows the list given in Daniel 1993, pp. 13–15.”, yet it is barely even recognizable as the same list. The heading is different, the names of some of the gatherings are different, and although it has “special meeting” instead of the plural, there is certainly no adherence to the pluralisation of words in the list because there are all sorts of differences between them. Be passionate about plurals if it is really that big of a deal, but be consistant. It obviously isn’t a big deal to follow the “plural/no plural” of the list because he wasn’t a bit concerned about the other gatherings. No, this is nothing to do with what the source says. This is Astynax displaying his very strong point of view, and picking and choosing what info he allows into his article, and what he would rather hide.
• In attempting to discuss some roles that John Long played, he asked for a source for the “extraordinary claim” I was making, so I gave him one, and copied some sections for him to read. After more than once simply trying to discuss these facts with him, his argument ultimately come down to... “The quote is not on her site, and her final book has yet to be published (I checked).” Now, this is fair enough, and one would accept that it is reasonable to ask that an editor use a published source.... except for the fact that this very book he is suggesting is not a suitable source, IS on the article as a citation, and it was HIM that added it... here. This adds to the ownership issue that Astynax has over this article, because not only is he the overruling authority on what is, and what isn’t a reliable source, he also decides when it is, and when it is not, a reliable source. And this is also why it is impossible to engage in rational discussion with Astynax.

In fact, John Carter commented above that there are few reliable sources. That made me wonder what the dozens of sources Astynax has used are supposed to be? The problem here, in general, is that wikipedia has a very lax view on sources, and in fact, a 2000 word article on the Strawberry Alarm Clock would not be possible if reliable sources had to be depended on. So the wiki rules on reliable sources are a chimera. And perhaps this approach is just fine, as long as no one pretends wiki- is anything else than it is. But I do find it ironic to see astynax insisting on reliable sources, when he has used quite a few newspaper articles and self-published books to compile his article. John Long's journal is not to be used? Come on, this is the ONLY first person account of the early years extant, and even the generally considered reliable sources, like Heresies Exposed, and even Melton's article, are based on hearsay and generally do not document their primary sources. Secret Sect is an exception and does document its primary source, but Long's journal was not available to Parker.Slofstra (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• When I mentioned some roles that John Long played, Astynax mistakenly thought that I was trying to tell him that John Long was the founder. This was his subconscious acknowledgement that these facts are very huge, even to the determination of who was the founder, yet he then proceeded to pass these off as merely “factoids”, that would not have any impact on the balance of the article. This guy is seriously hiding something here. He knows very well how big this is, and he knows very well that this information is well researched by historians and accepted to be the truth. This is yet another reason why I do believe that Astynax is not a suitable editor of this article.
• Another tactic Astynax employs (for editors like me who don’t share his point of view), is to demand that your edit be perfect straight up, otherwise it gets reverted. Wikipedia suggest that you don’t have to get it right the first time. It is a work in progress. Not so under Astynax’s reign. Your citations have to be bullet proof too. Fair enough... Wikipedia expects this. The trouble is though, that Astynax ultimately decides what is a good source, and has already decided that it isn’t. This recently included his decision that some additions to the article which were cited from a published hymn book, widely accepted to be used by the group, was actually not a reliable source...See here. It is getting quite ridiculous when a published, used, accepted, available, book of the group (hymns old and new), can’t be used to indicate the group’s belief. Not good enough says astynax... He will tell you what they believe... not their own book.

So, there is my evidence that it is impossible to discuss article content with Astynax, and edit warring gets a person blocked. The only other alternative is if Astynax no longer edits here, and I would assume from his passion for this topic (which could well be in all good faith), he would need to be banned. If I am the only one who feels that his behavior is unsuitable to the attainment of a good article, then I am happy to accept this, and leave him to his deceptive method of control over this article. If in fact that this behaviour is unacceptable to most, I am happy to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to either improve his behaviour (noting that I have already tried to reason with him over his behaviour), or have him removed from editing this article.

Sorry that I got a bit of topic here Slofstra, but getting back to your point, I guess what I am saying is that without one particular difficult editor, I think the majority of editors here can be honest about this group and actually create a real and true article, which is ultimately what Wikipedia wants, despite the Wikipedia policy that gets used by some as a tool to prevent this exact thing from happening. Totoro33 said it well in the opening paragraph in the special meetings section above, that it is better to have accurate rather than inaccurate unsourced information, and I am certain that we can achieve that once we are able to discuss the real facts and content, rather than continue to fall into discussion about personal experience not being allowed. We all know that even the published sources are also personal experience, and based on the fact that a large majority of the authors want no part of this group, this makes their view a very unbalanced and biased representation of the group, compounded by the fact that Astynax doesn't allow reference to the one book (Hymns Old and New) published by the group and reflecting their very own beliefs, and is also very selective about who he lets use the reliable sourses that he uses. 0oToddo0 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are concerns about personal behavior, that is best addressed at noticeboards, not here. Honestly, the above statement seems to me to be very much a personal attack as per WP:NPA on one editor, and I very very strongly urge all those involved from refraining from such commentary here. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that previous consensus on use of sources was to admit a wide range of sources. I can't understand now why John Long's journal cannot be used, but the autobiographical and unsourced work of the anti-friends community who all know each other, and self-publish as a group, can be used. And I don't understand why the hymns cannot be used to back up certain points of doctrine, since the hymn book is really the only widely used and generally accepted instrument published by the friends themselves. I just believe we need some level of consistency here. Again, I have found past wiki- tribunals on this to want to let in a wide range of sources.Slofstra (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to add the perspective that most of the article, at least 90%, maybe more, is quite accurate.Slofstra (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I very much question the relevance of this whole thread. It seems to me that someone is basically saying that we are obligated to assume that the alleged personal experiences of one editor who has never declared his or her own position is somehow something worth considering in determining the content of this article. If that individual can demonstrated somehow that he qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RS, then I would agree that he is right. Otherwise, the relevant guideline would seem to be WP:POV. Particularly regardidng this, remarkaably poorly organized group, there is no way for any individual to determine either that their own personal experience, based on their own contact, which is almost certainly with a comparatively small group of people and generally limited to a small area relative to the group as a whole is either seeing things in a neutral way or whether what they perceive is also true of other locations. Most groups which have any interest in hiding things have gotten fairly good at not only hiding things, but also in making statements which do not indicate that things are being hid, and in some cases explicitly saying "they aren't hiding anything".

So, in large part, we cannot accept what some editor of unknown identity says is personal experience as being any more neutral or reliable than any other hearsay. I don't think anyone would ever think it would make sense for someone who was friends with Catholics in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to say that their personal experience of Catholicism in that one location does not agree with what the article on that body says, and on that basis challenge the content. I have no reason to think the same should not apply here.

I think it would be in the best interests of everyone if all involved were to review talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. It can be, and sometimes is, the case that individuals lie or misrepresent their personal experiences for POV pushing reasons, and on that basis we cannot use such personal experiences to determine article content. This, unfortunately, applies to me as well, even though I actually served as Pope of the Catholic Church for about 30 years, and know it better than most anyone here. What, you don't think we have wi-fi in heaven? ;)

Regarding John Long's journal, I guess the best thing to do would be to demonstrate which independent reliable sources consider it a reliable source, by, for instance, its inclusion in their bibliographies. While there are not that many truly independent reliable sources out there, the original basis of our RS guidelines, in summary, was that the sources that are used by other independent reliable sources, like reference works, would qualify as reliable sources here. Having looked at Melton's work, and a few other reference works, I find that some of the sources whose reliability I would generally question are included in their bibliographies, and on that basis believe that they would qualify as sources here as well, in the absence of more clearly independent reliable sources. This particularly includes some of the more clearly critical material. If Long can be shown to have been regarded as worthy for inclusion or discussion by an independent reliable source, I would think that we could probably use that work in much the same way that they did, but we would need to see what sources use Long and regarding what specific statements.

Lastly, I regret to say having looked in Melton's Religions of the World, this group isn't even mentioned in passing. That work is more or less organized on the basis of national, not tradition or denomination, and apparently this group wasn't deemed to be of such importance to any individual country or area that it was mentioned in that work. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument is that 'personal experience' is often what leads people to question a point. And then we find the sources are not actually reliable, or have a strong ideological bias, based on our own experience. It then comes down to why such sources can be used and whether our personal experience can be used to assess the bias of those articles. No one is suggesting using personal experience in the article itself. For example, the Impartial Reporter is clearly biased against this upstart movement. But let's not continue this, I just wanted you to be clear on my point.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Melton does have a good article in the Encyc. of American religions, but maybe you knew that. The movement is not all that significant in the big scheme of things.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to a separate work, which covers the religions of the world. I am well aware of the subject being included in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, and a few other sources, to various degrees, as well. As those sources meet the criteria for independent reliable sources, they are the ones favored for our use here as well. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you here (that's not my intent), but, it doesn't matter what other independent reliable sources have to say about Long's journal. His journal is considered a primary source, and primary sources aren't for use in Wikipedia as reliable sources. See WP:RS for more. Correct? Winkelvi (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You do make positioning moves in your text as an authority, a wiki policeman, that is. I don't call that 'talking down' necessarily. Long's journal really is a Rosetta Stone in understanding the early days of the movement, and of course, that is the opinion of just two people here at this point. But that opinion is shared. Perhaps we can show that in time, but I don't know anyone who is working in this area, such as Cherie Kropp, and some of the lesser lights, who have ever contributed directly to this article to offer an opinion. If you like I could get people to comment on the importance of Long's journal in another forum and link. Again, I am not suggesting it be used as a source, but dates and events in that journal do not line up with synthesis that has been made on or outside this article. I believe those points shown to be false should be removed or at least tagged as a result.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can find sources which support your claim that Long's journal is a "rosetta stone," that would definitely be useful. Otherwise, although I really hesitate to say this, it is possible that the Cooneyites in a broader sense might have been sufficiently discussed for their to perhaps exist an article on the history of the Cooneyite movement. I am the first to say that I haven't seen any evidence to this effect mysself yet, but I've been wrong before. Otherwise, honestly, even the statement that it is a "rosetta stone" might violate WP:OR. Like I said above, I would myself welcome finding any sort of independent reliable source on this subject, even if it were to mean that I might have to do an interview of a subject for Wikinews. I am not a good interviewer, by the way. But we are bound by our policies and guidelines to basically reflect the statements of independent reliable sources. It is, I suppose, possible that some local history journals, which often qualify as independent reliable sources, might discuss the early days of the movement in some detail, or perhaps some other IRS'es in other fields. I can check the Heritage Quest databank of ProQuest in the next few days for local history journals, but I would not be particuarly optimistic about the subject getting much coverage there. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Having checked the HeritageQuest databank, it only includes data on which articles discuss a topic, it includes no text itself. Also, unfortunately, the databank is more oriented toward family and regional searches, rather than topic ones. Relevant words did seem to show up in a few articles, but, unfortunately, that is all I can say as a result of the search. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing, not arguing and focusing on editors

It's been nearly two weeks since the article's been edited. Pointing our perceived flaws in the personalities of editors is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. If you think you have a legitimate beef against another editor here, take it to an administrator or one of the noticeboards. Better yet, how about we all just move on and away from the mud-slinging and accusations being thrown around on this talk page? Winkelvi (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if I do that, as I try hard to stay away from that kind of thing. I reserve the right to not buy into wikipedia as social ideology, however. Mean this kindly; it's just not for me.Slofstra (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, it has probably been two weeks because it is pointless editing this article as I and other recent editors have found. One particular editor (as his records show) has a bad habit of reverting edits. Add to that the fact that you and he tag team in edit wars, it is virtually impossible to make any ground in improving this article and eventually editors give up and don’t come back. No doubt your comment here was in reference to my concerns about the way that Astynax behaves on this article, and although it is unfortunate that a majority of the discussion has to be about him refusing to discuss certain points, or the way he dictates differing rules for different editors in regards to what sources they are allowed to use and even which editors are allowed to mention their personal experience on the talk page, or the way that he is dishonest about upholding what a reference indicates for example... this is his choice, and only he can do something about it. Once he changes the way he behaves on this topic, or removes himself from the ownership characteristics he displays, and his aggressive protection of this article, other editors will be able to do just what you are seeking here, and move on. This is not about mud-slinging, but (many) simple requests to stop playing little games here on the talk page, and get back to discussing article improvements. Can we not discuss the way this article is edited here on the talk page? I know that my actions have been discussed here. I raise these certain things in the hope that he will review his actions and do something about it. I am not interested in having any type of ownership over this article myself, and therefore not inclined to make an attempt to determine who edits here, and who doesn’t, because it needs to be a collaborative effort of many editors. For that reason I have not looked at the avenue of limiting his ability to continue as he has been, but feel free to tell me what notice boards or administrators would be interested if you like. Obviously I don’t want to bother an administrator if we can sort it out here between ourselves, and maybe with your help (I get the feeling that he respects you), assuming you are honest enough to acknowledge that there is a serious issue with the way he runs this article, we can get back to rational and productive discussions, which will ultimately lead to improving this article. It appears that we are both all for that. 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the pain that contributing to the main article would take. The synthesis on which the article relies, beginning with Heresies Exposed, has framed the movement as malevolent because it is outside their specific theology, which today is largely American evangelical Christianity. In addition, many of the writers sufficiently motivated to write about the movement have an antagonistic bent, admittedly usually with some justification. But that's too big a thing to fight, although I see progress. I post any information I have on the discussion page. Editors can decide if it is of any use to them. And people often read the discussion page so they can get more sides to the story.Slofstra (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but it would take a very long time to read through all the archived discussions on all the various points of contention on this article. I for one, will read an article with the assumption that all the hard work is already done to make it right. The only time I look to the talk page and read through the discussion is if I see a tag that says that some of the information is disputed. Try putting a dispute tag on this article though. Impossible, no matter how big the dispute is. You will be told that a dispute tag is not warranted, and be left wondering what the dispute tag is for, if not for disputes. I also prefer to discuss changes on the talk page first, but typically I have found that it is very hard to engage the other editors in the discussion while the article itself remains untouched. Adding a disputed tag prompts them to come to the discussion, but unfortunately it becomes a discussion about the disputed tag, and an edit war over the disputed tag, rather than on topic discussion about the article content. 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute tags about specific poorly sourced elements of the history, as well as the doctrine section, would be a good thing. I had forgotten about those. You're welcome to battle these people, 0oToddo0, but I actually came to this page for another purpose which I'll post when I'm ready, and got distracted. There are two problems you will face that are insurmountable. The biggest problem you will find is that the editors here all stick up for one another when push comes to shove. It's all about consensus, but some have more consensus than others. But you're welcome to try. The second problem is that much of the Christian world has been written, described and analyzed from a self-perpetuating ideology outwards. Ideology means power and control. Their ideological axe is clearly documented here on Wikipedia and it is how they analyze everything. Good luck with that one. My comments are made without malice. Peace.Slofstra (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From the header at the top of the page:

• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Two by Twos article.
• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Not an ideology, just pure common sense. I suggest you two (Slofstra and Todd), try it and then try editing the article. If you're no longer interested editing the article, then I suggest you find another article. Until then, all this arguing and finger pointing is pointless and wasting bandwidth. If you can't stop with the arguing and finger pointing, then take it to your own talk pages or even email. I've outlined the set guidelines for article talk pages. Please adhere to them or go elsewhere. Winkelvi (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this response. For example, I don't read 0oToddo0's comments as personal attacks, but very much to the question of the editing process. He has been admirably reserved given his frustration level, which I no longer share, incidentally. Surely, he should be able to explain his frustrations in not being able to place dispute tags, for example.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also interested in abiding by the wiki guidelines and making this a positive process. Sorry, but I don't see where I have broken any of the guidelines. I do assume good faith on the part of the individual editors, but perhaps you are bothered by my criticism of various sources. I should be free to make those kinds of criticisms, I believe, as they touch on the accuracy of the article. That is 'on topic' in my view.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, winklevi, I am wondering if it is you that should go elsewhere, and come back when you're not so upset and can be more rational.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear and to the point. If you can't see that your comments and Todd's comments on this article's talk page are in violation of those guidelines, then perhaps an administrator can help you see it. This has gone on long enough. The majority of your comments and Todd's comments on this page have nothing to do with editing the article, just general bitching about other editors. Do the right thing and make it stop. Taking it to your own talk pages or email is the best solution. I suggest you do it sooner than soon. Winkelvi (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I can't see it, and you are unwilling to provide examples. You also conveniently lump my comments and Todd's comments together, but I've personally never made any negative comment about any editor that I can see. I have made a number of positive comments about astynax's work and I think minor edits by other editors have also helped with the tone. Not sure why you've got your shorts in a knot.Slofstra (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Faith Mission role

In good faith, I submitted well sourced comments on the role of the Faith Mission in the early part of the movement for discussion by editors of this page. I thought that was what I was supposed to do .. discuss major revisions before anyone edits the article. These comments have been deleted by winklevi. First, I get blamed for not editing (previous headline) and when I do suggest a major edit, I get blamed again.I can't win. Slofstra (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary when those comments were removed, the article talk page is for discussion of edits, not discussion of the article topic. Winkelvi (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? It's a significant edit, and contains almost no discussion of existing article content. It's not ready to be placed in the article though, as it represents a significant change in direction to the existing text with regards to William Irvine, but as an addition, not a refutation particularly. I wrote this a year ago, and it was extensively discussed and found extensive support on a discussion board I frequent. Both the influence of John Long and that of the Faith Mission are significant omissions from the existing article. I thought of placing this here when I saw 0oToddo0's remarks on the John Long journal. I suspect based on your action that you might be out of your depth on this topic. Is that possible? Are you knowledgeable on the Awakening in Ireland and Scotland and the Christian religion in the late 19th century in those areas?Slofstra (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't belong on the article talk page because it wasn't discussion, it was something that could be considered article content. I don't know how much more clearly I can state this: article talk pages are not for discussing the article's subject, it's for discussing changes to the article. What you put here belongs in a Wikipedia sandbox or perhaps your own talk page, not here. Winkelvi (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that indeed I was "discussing changes to the article". I'm not sure how you can discuss changes and avoid the article's subject. I don't think I've ever seen that, actually. Would you mind indicating what wiki rule you are referencing as I don't understand the distinction exactly, at least not the way you've put it. Maybe if I could read a more clear exposition I can put my suggested emendation in a more suitable format. But perhaps not, I don't know.Slofstra (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Not a forum and then read WP:Sandbox. Winkelvi (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I got WP:SOAP from your link. This entire section on the Faith Mission is written from a 'neutral point of view' and adds additional light and information to the subject. I'm not soapbox-ing here at all, it's not an opinion piece, although my comments in other sections tend that way. But I do want to be honest with editors such as yourself to understand my perspective, so my motive was honorable. You do realize I'm not in the movement, and have no particular axe to grind either pro- or con-?Slofstra (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Retracting previous edit. My link landed on WP:SOAP, but I see you are referencing the section above.Slofstra (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if you saw my previous edit, as I was getting frustrated with your explanations. I understand your criticism exactly now that I have read WP:FORUM. Please try and use such links in the future at the very outset, rather than your own explanations, as they are much more clear.Slofstra (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So, further, the information on Faith Mission, CIM and the Awakening is not 'new information'. It is new in relation to the synthesis that has occurred in this article. But the entire content of what I wrote is well sourced and commonly known to those who have some familiarity with the topic. If there is some novel synthesis on my part, let's tease that out, and I will withdraw it, as that is not my intention.Slofstra (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is often the case that proposed additions to the content of an article are placed on the article talk page first. However, I also acknowledge that these sometimes include proposed additions which in no way would even remotely qualify for inclusion in the article, with an artificial example being "I propose the lead be rewritten as follows: Rin Tin Tin was the best dog in the world. He was ever vigilant in pulling Timmy out of the well, despite Timmy's apparent psychological fixation with that well, and also frequently rescued people who probably shouldn't have been let out of their houses alone from the nearby woods. He was also cute, got along well with people, and had a great TV show."

Beyond that, I haven't checked to see whether the Faith Mission has an article on its own here yet. If it doesn't, of if that article is poorly developed, it would probably make more sense to develop a section of that article on its "Legacy" regarding other groups. But we try not to duplicate content across multiple articles here, except in short summary sections, and an article on the Faith Mission itself would probably be the more directly obvious place for such content. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to absent myself from wikipedia. I feel my general disdain and lack of respect for the various editors on this wikipedia subject is probably unduly colouring my speech, and John Carter has pointed out a couple of personal attacks I have made, quite unconsciously, but there it is. My sense of tact is not notable, especially when I get unwound on a subject, so I'll vacate the field for now. Uh, please hold your applause until I'm completely out of earshot.  :) Slofstra (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Christians in Hiding"

The one extant independent reliable source of a more or less academic type is the above named piece, which is reproduced, with the author's express permission, here. As per our guidelines, we are supposed to use highly regarded academic material as our first choices. Having said that, I have reviewed the article, and these quotations struck me as being among the most potentially relevant.

They do not even exist as a legal entity.

A lawyer or investigative journalist would find no trace of them by examining public documents, for they are not registered with state authorities or with the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt religious body. All property at the group's disposal is in the hands of individuals who are expected to make use of it for the good of the movement.

Assets are held in trust and no accounting is made.

.

A concern for public exposure may be the principal reason why the no-name sect has no newsletters or other publications even for its own members.  The lack of such internal documents makes it difficult for members to know what is going on within the group, but, as Simmel observes, the less the members know, the less they will be able to tell outsiders if they decide to talk openly about it. I[n] fact, most members seem unaware that a system of government even exists.

.

Crow and I learned many new things about the group from the Parker, whose little book, entitled The Secret Sect was published privately in Australia eleven years later.  Although the book was never widely circulated in this country, it was evidently sent to journalists in western North America, for in 1983 stories about the sect, in which the Parkers' book was mentioned, appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Bellingham Herald and several other newspapers.  During the 1980s two informative booklets were published about the sect (Paul, n.d.; Wooster, 1988) and Mary Ann Schoeff, of Seattle collected much valuable information. These and other materials are now available at the Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbara, California.

.

As Keith Crow noted, "there must be some means of assigning workers to geographical areas and making other administrative decisions, but this is never discussed" by the members (Crow, 1964: 13-14).5

.

The group does not have a systematic theology and doctrinal matters are rarely discussed. But certain beliefs are uniformly held.  In addition to the Matthew-based preference for the workers' way of life and the insistence on home-based Sunday meetings, members firmly believe that theirs is the only true path to salvation and that one cannot be saved unless one hears this truth from a worker. Simply discovering it on one's own will not suffice.  Moreover, no-names do not believe that Jesus's death on the cross will wash away the sins of all who accept him as their savior; salvation only comes through a life of sacrificial obedience to the instructions and examples of Jesus.  All recent authorities agree that the road to salvation for these sectarians is a hard one.  Carol Woster, who spent two years in the group, recalls that one long-time member she knew "seemed to see life as a grieving journey, where after the [Sunday] meeting, the next day she would 'take up the struggle' to go on...."  There is, she found, little "Christian joy or confident hope" among the no-names. (Woster, 1988: 10-11)

.

"I thank God for poverty and suffering," a young worker publicly proclaimed in 1903; "they are our hall marks and credentials." (Parker and Parker, 1982: 14)

.

Mary Ann School reports that Irvine once made the remarkable statement that "Hell is a place where everyone will be forced to serve God in the Jesus Way," which clearly implies that the path to salvation is a kind of hell on earth (Schoeff, n.d.).  An irreverent observer of an early convention remarked that "there was not much joyousness and lightheartedness visible on the faces of those who professed to have been digged from the pit of error and placed on the highway of truth." (Parker and Parker, 1982: 21-22).

.

The movement grew rapidly in its early days.  The first convention, held in Ireland in 1903, was attended by 70 converts.  Like all the early conventions, it was open to the public.  Six hundred attended in 1907, 1,000 in 1908 and 2,000 in 1910 (Parker and Parker, 1982: 12, 14, 18).  By 1913 he [Irvine] had been around the world seven times (Parker and Parker, 1982: 59, 47).

.

The Parkers report the outrage an impoverished and ascetic Australian worker experienced when he learned that his overseer had been seen at a bank, checkbook in hand (1982: 42).

.

Irvine never abandoned the notion that he was supremely endowed with an ability to discern the divine will and proclaim it as a charismatic leader.  Charismatic leaders seldom stop announcing new teachings after their first revelations have attracted the nucleus of a movement.  Joseph Smith continued to have revelations after The Book of Mormon was published, and William Irvine had additional revelations as well.  His first new teaching, which the no-name sect still accepts, was the Living Witness Doctrine.  According to this doctrine, announced in 1904, salvation is only available by hearing the truth preached by one of the sect's workers. Although Cooney and several others later claimed to have accepted the doctrine with misgivings, its announcement caused no crisis because it did not contradict Matthew 10:8-10 and in fact greatly strengthened the legitimacy and authority of the sect's leaders (Parker and Parker, 1982: 18-19).

.

Thanks to his new role as world traveler and convention speaker, Irvine's life style diverged sharply from that of his poverty-stricken workers.  Rumors circulated about his affairs with women in the movement.  Although no scandal developed, an old timer told Doug Parker that "There is no question that William had a weakness along that line and ... that he had fallen.  I know positively that there were women who have confessed to me of trouble with him along those particular lines" (Parker and Parker, 1982: 61).

.

William Irvine was deposed by his overseers, who were able to run the sect quite well without him. Irvine's mistake was to announce a new revelation and an entirely new program that, if carried out, would terminate the sect's original mission and destroy the authority of the workers and overseers.  As early as 1912, Irvine was exercising his charismatic imagination in ways that must have been unsettling to those in the movement with an interest in routinization.  In that year he told conventions that it might be possible to travel to the stars and act as saviours to them as Jesus acted for us.  He spoke of Christ's imminent return and referred to his movement as the 144,000 mentioned in the Book of Revelation.  The crisis came two years later, just before the outbreak of World War I, when Irvine declared publicly that he had been divinely chosen to proclaim the final message of Christ before the last judgment and that the age of grace would end in August 1914.  After that date, no one could be saved, which meant that there would no longer be anything for his workers and overseers to do but gather around him and wait for the Second Coming.  Irvine went on to reveal that Christ would anoint him as one of the two witnesses referred to in Revelation 10:1-13, who was to "have the power of drought and plagues" (Parker and Parker, 1982: 62).

.

This bold new revelation was Irvine's bid to restore himself as the sect's sole authority after a decade in which the responsibility for the day-to-day operations of his worldwide movement had effectively passed into the hands of his overseers.  Unfortunately for him, the overseers acted quickly and decisively to prevent him from preaching at conventions.  To justify their decision they spread the word that although Irvine had once been a true servant of the Lord, he had "lost the Lord's anointing."    They directed the workers to shun him and to avoid any mention of his name or his role in the movement.  In very short order they also destroyed Irvine's earlier stature as a charismatic innovator by explaining that the sect he had founded was actually a collective rediscovery of the earliest form of Christianity, which had existed as small, persecuted bands since the first century.  In effect, Irvine became a "non person" within his own ranks. (Parker and Parker, 1982: 64-65, 70).

.

The overseers' decisions laid the groundwork for the future stability of the sect that Irvine had founded.  But one more challenge had to be overcome before the new policy could be totally effective.  Edward Cooney, William Irvine's most prominent disciple, represented that challenge.  Cooney had sided with the overseers in 1914 but he was not an overseer himself.  Like Irvine, he was an exciting and flamboyant worker who traveled widely and often preached in public.  The overseers successfully brought most other workers into line with the new policy, but they had difficulty with Cooney, who clearly aspired to become the sect's new charismatic leader.  Cooney tried to undermine the authority of leading workers by publicly attacking them and the routinizing tendencies they represented.  He accused them of suppressing the truth about the sect's history, and he initiated a correspondence with the banned Irvine.  He denounced the Living Witness Doctrine and called for the abolition of conventions as unscriptural and unnecessary.  In addition, Cooney scolded the leading workers for handling money and dressing well, demanded the abolition of the distinction between workers and members and urged workers to resume the original practice of traveling wherever the spirit led them.  He expressed the tension between charismatic vision and the imperatives of routinization quite succinctly when he exclaimed, "I Thank God William Irvine wasn't an organizer."  "You can never organize a person led by the Spirit...." (Parker and Parker, 1982: 71-74)

.

By 1921 Cooney had become a thorn in the flesh of the British overseers, who tried to get rid of him by persuading him to travel abroad.  But Cooney's preaching created a sensation in Australia, where some of the leaders supported him for a time.  His pleas there for a return to the ascetic principles of Matthew 10 were exhilarating to many and were difficult to counteract without destroying the legitimacy of the sect.  But Cooney, like Irvine, made a disastrous mistake that provided his enemies with the accusation they needed to justify banning him.  In his zeal for following the instructions of Matthew 10, Cooney called attention to the explicit commands in a portion of the eighth verse that had never received much attention in the movement.  In that portion Jesus tells his disciples to "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out devils."  Irvine himself had never attempted to perform miracles, but Weber observed that many charismatic leaders, including Jesus, had done so; and while in New Zealand, Cooney vowed to do so too.  In a public test of his healing powers, however, he failed to fulfil the mission of Matthew 10.  Using his failure as their justification, his enemies immediately banned him completely from North America, his next preaching destination.  By 1928 he had been banned everywhere (Parker and Parker, 1982: 73-76).  Cooney died in obscurity in 1961 at the age of 93. After Cooney was disposed of, the nameless sect settled into the obscurity and stability its overseers had sought. No evidence of a cult of personality was permitted in the movement. The sect has persisted in this routinized condition for over 65 years without schism or notoriety and it could easily exist without major upheavals for another 65 years. If Irvine had kept control of the sect's finances or had founded a communal movement instead of a worldwide organization, or if Cooney had succeeded in healing the young woman in New Zealand, the movement might well have developed along radically different lines. Irvine, for instance, seems to have had some of the temperament of Jim Jones and of David Koresh, leader of the ill-fated Branch Davidians of Waco. If a group of followers had formed a commune with him in Palestine to await the apocalypse, Irvine might well have ordered them to accept death rather than defeat at the hands of an enemy. Irvine's successors, the Christians in hiding, live quietly among their neighbors and give them no alarm. They are deviant only in the sense that they hide their movement's existence from the public at large. In the interest of normalization and security, they have devised a risk-free form of deviance to protect themselves from a course that could have led them to fragmentation or destruction.

.

I certainly believe that the material discussed in these quotations merits inclusion in the article, in some way, but would welcome input from others as to how much weight to give them, sections and section headings, and the like. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the material, although any of it would need to be abbreviated somewhat. Although you are correct that most academic mentions of the Two by Twos are fairly brief and/or general, there are also other academic works cited in the article (including Wallis, Wilson, Hilliard and Calme-Griaule that are a bit more substantial and that may also contain statements with useful information. After the GA fiasco, and following the recommendations of uninvolved editors that commented, all disputed/controversial statements that were referenced to minimally RS references were removed or had their citations backed by better sources—notwithstanding attempts to create controversy without support and where none exists. There is undoubtedly some interesting information in the passages quoted that might be of interest to readers. • Astynax ^talk 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing

I've checked this article several years after I wrote substantial portions of it. I'm saddened to see so much of the earlier collaborative effort has disappeared as the article has evolved. Indeed, almost the only recognisable thing left is the structure of the article. As a historian, I am also surprised at the selection of references that are now used - virtually no references at all to the group's own published materials in the determination of doctrine, and in some cases, entire doctrinal statement rest atop 100 year-old newspaper clippings. I find some of the content to be decidedly skewed, but I gather the editing process has become beholden to an individual editor, and it is not worth the pain to contribute anymore.

It would have been nice to see that the article had evolved from what it was into an expanded or refined form. It appears to have been completely re-written from ground up, and then frozen in its new form. I think this highlights the weakness of Wikipedia, and the reason why Wikipedia is not, and does not deserve to be, regarded as a scholarly source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.169.86 (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to evolve. Its very nature is evolving articles. If an editor doesn't want their work removed, rewritten, paraphrased, or changed, then Wikipedia is not a good fit for them. You are welcome to edit the article and make your own changes or additions. If you expect your changes or additions to stay permanently, you will be disappointed. Perhaps that why you ARE disappointed? (as the section header you created suggests?) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

May we know what publications the group produces? Several editors have vociferously argued that the group publishes no materials. Has this changed recently? Verifiability and referencing standards may also have evolved substantially since you last edited. Generally, policy does not allow primary source material published by an organization to be used as the basis for statements in an article, though if the primary source material has been reliably published in quotes by secondary sources, they may sometimes be carefully and sparingly used to reference quotes containing claims that an organization makes about itself. Primary sources, however, may not be used as a point of departure to make an analysis or interpretation, to back controversial material, as references for editor synthesis or to dispute material given in secondary or tertiary sources. Articles are to be based upon secondary and tertiary sources. I'm unsure when you were editing, but most of the changes over the past few years have been to provide citations to support material already in the article. That said, I would welcome knowing more of any authoritative publication(s) by the Two by Twos, as whether they publish anything seems to be an open question in the reference materials. • Astynax ^talk 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree substantially with Astynax above. I've looked for reliable independent sources on this group, believe me. I've gone through multiple databanks, about all the reference sources I can find, and some other efforts as well, and I don't find that many sources out there. Self-published sources generally fall under WP:SPS, but, like Astynax, I don't know of many if any of them either, and I would certainly be more than willing to offer what input I could on what might be used from them if I knew what they were and how to get ahold of them. But, without sourcing, and there really isn't that much sourcing about this group generally, there isn't that much we can do, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I found this article excellent

Having been invited by a flyer to a meeting with an unnamed group, with a certain amount of difficulty - mainly via the hymn book - I found that this was the group I'd spent an hour or so of my life with. So for me this article perfectly served the purpose of Wikipedia in allowing me to discover what I needed to, with lots of references to pursue for further information! VERY interesting as is - don't make too many more changes. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of this doesn't represent common beliefs

A lot of parts of this article (most immediately notable, stuff about our supposed stringent trinitarianism, privacy and exclusivity of meetings, exclusivity of our 'doctrine', and a few details about the workers) don't represent common contemporary beliefs, with respect to the most of the (many) people I know from this congregation.

However, because the only references available were published a long time ago, these issues are virtually unfixable, since I have nothing to cite but ``personal research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.70.37 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is part of the problem with any article on the sect, to begin with. They have nothing published in their name, so what is out there already is what we have to go on reference-wise. Bringing in personal experience and knowledge without reliable sources to back it is, indeed, original research, and not allowed. If the Two by Twos want a more accurate picture painted by those outside the group, they should publish something or have something published that will correct the record. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes; otherwise, it boils down to your personal research versus mine. In this region, you can ask any worker whether they believe in the Trinity doctrine, and they will say 'no.' (Granted, it's usually the case that they misunderstand what the Trinity doctrine claims.) Also, I don't know what part of the world you found married workers. We haven't seen or heard of that for a LONG time. Totoro33 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whoere Totoro33 is located, but I can attest from my experience with this group, in which I was raised, and in which much of my extended family remains today, including a number of cousins, etc. in the work, and family members owning half the Convention grounds in Wisconsin and Illinois (although I've long since returned to Judaism), that when Trinitarianism is explained to 2x2s, generally their reaction is first disbelief, then horror, then understanding (of the "Ah yes, those pagans" variety). 68.113.225.4 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A further nonsequential addition to my remarks reflecting on Totoro's statement regarding the Trinity doctrine, to wit "you can ask any worker whether they believe in the Trinity doctrine, and they will say 'no.'" This is certainly true of most workers, but I recall in the early 1990s hearing a worker (Leslie White, if memory serves correctly), giving an impassioned speech endorsing full blown Trinitarianism, as an elder worker, from the workers' platform, at Menomonie Convention. It was one of the last conventions I went to, but as with so much about the 2x2s, my testimony is hardly a peer-reviewed source... 68.113.225.4 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The article states "the church has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity since its inception". That is in line with the article references and every contributor to this particular conversation (and I could add my own similar anecdote), so not sure what the consternation is about here. Sounds like the article might be correct on that point. As to the other supposed problems according to IP 98.127.70.37, try rewording problem sections with reference to the date of cited sources. E.g. "In the 1970s x described the typical Sunday meeting format as y". And tweak blanket statements that have become outdated if there's no recent reference to attest it so they are clearly dated. Like any social experiment, it is obvious that it changes over time. Donama (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly practices, such as dress standards or use of electronic media, change (however slowly or unevenly) over time. I have no confidence that doctrine has shifted, however much some workers choose to soft-peddle the basics in an attempt to make the group more appealing to outsiders and new or marginal members. I agree that if there has been a significant and obvious change to a practice or doctrine, with no recent reference available to support an obvious shift, using the date of the citation would serve to place the statement within a historical context. There have been developments over the past decade (such as court cases, a significant recent decline in numbers of conventions and published sworn statements from workers) that may be relevant for future updates as sources become available. • Astynax ^talk 22:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There really hasn't been a shift at all. It's not a group that changes with the times and they really aren't interested in converts but adherents, which goes with the territory when a group is so secretive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've heard some "rumors" of changes here and there over the years, but somehow they never seem to happen. When a change occurs to anything in the article, it will certainly be notable if it can be supported by a source. There was some doctrinal information in the Irvine Grey thesis already referenced (and since self-published in book form), but his survey tends to support existing sources. Apart from newspaper articles regarding the court cases, that would be the most recent overview from an academic regarding beliefs of which I'm aware. • Astynax ^talk 00:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits removed 30 Jul 2021

I've removed these edits for the reasons given below...

• The change to "one of the labels used to denote a nameless international, home-based new religious movement" in the article lead section does not reflect the body of the article in which are given many names under which the group is known, including several official names taken by the church's leadership over the years.
• The change to "current iteration of the church is believed to have been" in the article's lead does not reflect the body of the article which shows this church having been founded by William Irvine. There are no previous iterations.
• The change to "holds annual regional conventions and weekly public Gospel meetings in hired venues" in the article's lead section is not completely accurate. In few, if any, fields are Gospel meetings held on a regular weekly basis, and not all Gospel meetings are held in hired venues.
• The change of "later secretiveness" to "recent times" in the article body plays down the secretive nature that developed and which has been repeatedly noted in reliable sources.

The edits did point out some awkward phrasing, which I've amended and for which I thank you. • Astynax ^talk 00:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Citations in lead

There's not one single citation in the lead and this is highly problematic. This article needs massive improvements to the lead. AlanS^talk 05:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AlanS. According to WP:LEADCITE, citations are not absolutely required in the lead, assuming that all the information in the lead is presented with citations in the body of the article. However, if there are controversial statements in the lead, then citations should be duplicated there. Is there anything in particular in the lead for which citations are not provided in the body, or anything that you think is controversial? Indyguy (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Indyguy "These organization names are used only for registration purposes and are not used by members." I'd think that is a strong enough of a statement that it should have an inline cite. Organisations handling finances need to have some sort of registration in a lot of jurisdictions, whether unincorporated or incorporated. If there is some sort of strong claim otherwise that should be backed up. AlanS^talk 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

One could purport just about any statement out to be "controversial" with this group, as (based upon my reading) many members deny it is an "organization" at all. That the official names were taken by the group's clergy and/or upper echelons of its membership, rather being imposed by outsiders, is incontrovertible (they've signed the documents), and that the common names are used, even if by outsiders, is widely supported by reliable sources. I personally fail to understand how this would confuse readers, nor how repeating citations in the lead would be an improvement. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly an organisation, regardless its views. It has rigid, long-standing in-group and out-group rules, a defining characteristic of organisation. It considers all other Christians to not be Christians unless they are specifically baptised by its ministers and attend its services to the exclusion of others. It has specific social norms that its members strictly adhere to. AlanS^talk 06:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)