Talk:Unamended Christadelphians

message: There are a number of issues on the page, as it currently stands, that are in need of change or investigation. I will list them here as time allows me to make them. 
The page currently says "This change pitted Roberts (in favor of the amendment) against Williams and Andrews; all had been former allies against Turney's teachings." 
John James Andrew's name is misspelled on the page. It was John James Andrew, not John James Andrews
The claim is made that Williams and Andrew were "former allies against Turney's teachings". The way this is written it sounds like Williams and Andrew worked together against Turney's teachings. I am wondering on what basis this claim is made. 
Best I can tell, Williams was immersed Sunday January 15th 1865 by William Lainge, the associate of George Dowie: Mumbles, South Wales from The Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom. By 1866 there was a movement at Mumbles away from George Dowie and William Laing by the ecclesia at Mumbles. When you read accounts of the problems during the early years at Mumbles it seems unlikely that Thomas Williams would have been prepared to deal with Edward Turney's teachings only a few years later 1872/1873. Not impossible but it seems unlikely.
I did a search on "Thomas Williams" in The Christadelphian and his name occurs one time in 1872: when he moved from Mumbles South Wales to Chicago. There is no mention of "Thomas Williams being an ally against the teachings of Turney or of any work he did against Turney's teachings in concert with Roberts and Andrew. Again, one mention of Williams in 1875 where he reports ecclesial news; and two mentions in 1880. The Christadelphian Advocate did not start publication until 1885 so he could not have been an ally through The Christdelphian Advocate Magazine. Perhaps there is documentary evidence that he participated as an ally with Andrew, but I am wondering what that evidence is.
I do not doubt that he never accepted Turney's teachings. What I question is the claim that "all had been former allies against Turney's teachings" seeing that Williams was not involved (as far as I can tell) in the controversy.
The article says, "Practically, this change made a belief in the “enlightened rejector” a requirement of fellowship." The article does not mention that the belief in the "enlightened rejector" had been made a matter of fellowship already in a number of documentable ways:
The North London ecclesia who's statement of faith was drawn up largely by J. J. Andrew had made the ER a test of fellowship -J. J. Andrew's 1887 statement of faith.
The Christadelphian, in 1883 (still well prior to the Responsibility Controversy) notes on page 241; withdrawal "from ten who are not able to see that unbaptised and knowing rejecters of the truth are responsible" (1884, p. 190), and this action upheld by Roberts (1884, p. 382).
Those who changed the SOF in 1898 stated, ""We reaffirm Proposition XXIV.. in the following amplified terms and we fellowship only those who hold the same doctrine: '.. the responsible (namely those who know the revealed will of God and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient...' ". In other words, their view, and the view of the majority of Christadelphians in the world who adopted the modified language was that the BASF explicitly said was the BSF said, but in clearer language. Whereas in 1909 when "the BUSF was revised and clarified" (eg. "amended") its changes were more significant including the dropping of doctrine that had hitherto been a test of fellowship (isp given on history) 15 April 2007
13 Jan 2010 -Shame that 15 April 2007 hasn't been back here since these seem to all be well supported observations. I yesterday fixed the second and third (it's 2010 now after all) and think the first is fixed, but am going to check again. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 April 2007 suggestions 

message: It seems to me that there is a huge duplication of material in this article with the main Christadelphian article.  It might be  a good idea to transfer some of the common points to the main article and keep this one to what distinguishes the Unamended body from other Christadelphians--Wogiftm (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jrvest, can you please insert (in article) give refs to those "general and religious encyclopedias"? I am sure that is in the USA only, not "all other" since Wikipedia takes a worldwide perspective. What is normal on Wikipedia appears to be a denomination per se - Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist - having a large header page Christadelphians, and then having subgroup pages which do not contain unneccessary duplication. In the case of the USA we have 3 subgroups/subcultures compare Amended Christadelphians Berean Christadelphians Unamended Christadelphians. Those 3 USA-specific pages already have page top links to the main Christadelphians page, so anyone wanting the main page will not lose information by tidying up. Again as Bryan R. Wilson notes the subgroups do not consitute distinct churches/denominations because the criteria for "group identity" is Christadelphian-defined baptism, which the 3 US groups interrecognise. Again, can other contributors please input. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge Duplication of Material with Main Christadelphian Article 

message: I edited the latest version to remove a couple of statements on current reunification efforts. First, the statements " However the situation is complicated by the presence of a large part..." were removed as vague and not necessarily true. The NASU aggreement was voted down by a majority of ecclesias and a lot abstained. There is a "large part" but how large and the phraseology certainly implies the majority. However, having said, reunification efforts or current fellowship should not be ignored. Maybe under their own section? Jrvest (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Adjectives are subjective, I agree; therefore a justifiable edit would have been to remove the adjective "large" and just leave "part", rather than delete the entire paragraph and return to what (previously) gave (and now gives again) a misleading and inaccurate presentation of the reality. 2. I also think that the paragraph as restored gives too much weight to Lippy's North American perspective of what constitutes the borders of a "fellowship" in the Christadelphian community, wheras Bryan R. Wilson's UK study has definitions and boundaries of Christadelphian "fellowships" = sub-denominations sharing the same baptism, will check Lippy's book to see his definition. 3. The article title is "Unamended Christadelphians" not "the Unamended Statement of Faith" + many Unamended Christadelphians don't use BUSF, just as many Amended don't use BASF, so we need a group/social description of the people, not a theoretical description of a reality (a perfect match up between a creed and a group) which doesn't exist. 4. However, this is a collegiate process, I'm going to work with your comments changes, and do what you request, a new section, PROVIDED that accuracy can be added in the earlier sections. What I propose we do is call several of the other active contributors to this page here to adjudicate on how to fix the problems in the earlier sections. Thanks for your input In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jrvest :), I've put in a new section as you suggested and moved some of deleted content to it. On balance I think yours was a good idea and occassion for dropping some dead wood and adding greener wood with refs. I've left your changes to the upper sections as is, waiting other contributors. I have however reverted 2 minor changes you made. 1. I restored the wikilink to Charles Curwen Walker, presumably that was an attempt to rename. When renaming a link use an upright divider = Charles Curwen Walker | C.C. Walker (which is what I've now done, per your change). 2. I reverted your 2 changes on "ecclesia", that was itself a revert of earlier incorrect information and have inserted 2x refs to support. Thanks again for you input.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Issues among Unamended & Reunification efforts 

message: Hi Jrvest. In order to 'bump' progress on the above I have restored:
:In general the following description of doctrine is also true of all Christadelphians worldwide. The particular clauses relating to the nature of Christ "condemned nature" and to the effects of baptism are more distinctive to traditional Unamended Christadelphian positions in North America, though these are not held by all Unamended Christadelphians. See section below Reunions and Unity Efforts.
* It would help to sort out what in the doctrine section is distinctive.
In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrine - what is distinctive?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unamended Christadelphians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930105942/http://www.christadelphian-advocate.org/qbox/qbox26.html to http://www.christadelphian-advocate.org/qbox/qbox26.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified