Talk:Quakers/Archive 1

message: First, I find this page a great discussion of quakerism. 
In the hicksite (liberal) meetings with which I am familiar, including my own, the clerk is responsible for, in essence, recognizing the will of the meeting.  That may sound odd, but that's the clerk's primary function in essence.  She/He will also function as the primary contact for the meeting, and as a de facto central individual.
The committee of ministry and council, or in the case of my meeting, the overseers, will be the prime contact for spiritual or religious issues.  We have a committee of ministry and worship (analagous to the ministry and council) who guide in religious issues, but the closest we have to spiritual guidance (which is still very loose unless it is asked for) is the committee of overseers.  Of course, there are the trustees, which handle our property and assets, but that's another matter!
: In my experience (in medium-sized Hicksite meetings) the clerk's role is to facilitate communication - reading announcements, dealing with correspondence, and most importantly moderating the business meeting and taking the minutes thereof - rather than guiding the meeting in any other way. Ministry & Council (a.k.a. Ministry & Oversight) deals with spiritual guidance and assistance to members, and may read queries etc. during Meeting for Worship and/or choose topics for outside discussion. A worship service can certainly take place with neither a clerk nor any M&C members being present. Both clerks and M&C are volunteer positions, generally nominated for their status as well-respected or "weighty" Friends, and are periodically rotated out. If this all makes sense to all here, shall I make the edit, being sure to acknowledge the wide variety among Meetings? --Hob 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding clerk vs. ministry and council (vs overseers) 

message: I'm afraid it is a bit simplistic to state "The Peace Testimony is the closest thing to a static testimony. It is also the best known Quaker testimony. In its short form it reads:"
The quoted passage is from the declaration to Charles II in 1661.  At the time the Quakers were trying to dissociate themselves from the English Civil War, and specifically from the 5th Monarchists, who were advocating a violent introduction of Christ's kingdom on earth.
While this was in it's beginning a simple statement by several leading Quakers, including George Fox, in quickly became a generally accepted Quaker expression.  It is not a "short form" of anything, however, as that would imply a creed or static position.  The Quaker peace testimony has evolved significantly over the years.  In it's early stages, it was a rejection of violence on a personal level, while recognizing the existance, and in some cases, the necessity, of violence in the world.  Early Quaker writings, in Barbados, Rhode Island (during King Phillips war), and elsewhere encouraged the magistrates to do their duty, which may include violence.  Through the years, this has evolved to a general rejection of violence on all levels.  There is much work to be done investigating this evolution of the quaker peace testimony. 
I have a page studying the Quaker Peace testimony through quotes, at least as I see it.  Reference http://www.folsoms.net/peace.shtml
I apologize for not appending my name to my previous post regarding clerks v. committees of ministry and council.  I am:
Al Folsom  alan@folsoms.net
:Since you seem to be knowledgable on the subject, I think it would be best if you made some changes to reflect that. Please, improve the page. Be bold. --MadEwokHerd 12:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Testimony 

message: "   In the midst of this split, the "Beanite" or independent Quakers, who sort of resemble an alloy of Hicksite and Wilburite Quakers, some adopting the label of "Christ-Centered Universalism".   "
:This is a sentance in the article found at the end of the section here. It is ungrammatical, but I can't fix it easilly, since it appears to be lacking some information and I am only now learning in depth about this topic. Assistance from a capable source would be appreciated :) Sam Spade 02:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've tidied up the grammar. How factually correct it is I cannot say. Shantavira 17:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar 

message: I don't want to move lots of stuff without asking, but the transition from "History" to other sections looks wrong to me.  I propose to move the second half of the History section, starting with "Early Quakerism was full of a sense of spiritual egalitarianism", to go after the Testimonies section, under a new heading, "Other Practices" or something like that... since the testimonies describe basic principles from which the specific practices are derived.  The "Historical Business Meetings" section should probably be merged into that too; it's a bit confusing where it is.  I'd like to flesh out the History section some more but right now it's an awkward mix of historical narrative and other things. --Hob 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold! But don't delete if at all possible! Sam Spade 05:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll do this when I get a chance - btw, the stuff you restored just now hadn't been deleted! I had just added a paragraph before it; I guess the wiki diff didn't see that it was the same para, because there were slight textual changes too. So now we've got two of the same paragraph - I'm deleting one of them now, please don't restore it! --Hob 15:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: where is this then, pray tell? Sam Spade 19:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like it's the fourth paragraph in the History section. older≠wiser 19:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right right, didn't see that for some reason, carry on, thanx. Sam Spade 19:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed reshuffling from History 

message: I noticed that someone has added brief descriptions to the list at Religious Society of Friends. While there is not a hard-and-fast rule, It seems like we normally don't add such things, since they tend to be uneven (by their very nature) and can be a source of minor conflict, and that infomation should generally live in the appropriate article. I'm proposing that they be removed. What do people think?
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unheard of in "list" articles, e.g. List_of_ministers_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany, but note that in that article the descriptive text is specific to the subject of the article & shows how it applies to each person listed... which isn't true in this case. So I'd support removing the descriptions - but I'd also support moving the whole list to a separate "List of Quakers" article. The RSOF article is getting pretty big. --Hob 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Quakers