Talk:Quakers/Archive 2

message: Which is the source for 
"The Testimony of Unity with Creation (recent)/
The Testimony of Living In The World (recent)" quoted in the wiki entry? Thx
:I'm not entirly sure.  I dug back through the article's history and found they were added by karl in 2002.  When I did a massive edit/reorgnization of the article earlier this fall I left them there since I didn't want to step on toes be deleted anything more then I already was (there was lots of duplicate information at the time), but I didn't really know if they were refering to something from a particular yearly meeting so when I started the subsections for the traditional testimonies I left them out (I could guess at what they refer to, but to flesh them out I'd be making stuff up).  Since in the months that have followed no one seems inclined to add to them it might make sense to remove them.  They certainly aren't part of the general lexicon among Friends (although they hint at ideas that often are), but that doesn't nessasarily mean they should be removed.  --ahc November 19th, 2004
::My understanding is that testimonies are documented in the books of Faith and Practice (also known as books of discipline to some) published by the various Yearly Meetings.   For instance, Pacific Yearly Meeting's F&P of 2001 documents six testimonies beginning here.  This document also contains several sections of quotations, some of which deal with the traditional testimonies.  Among these, there is a section relating to the testimony of harmony with nature.  The F&P's of other Yearly Meetings will, presumably, document other emerging testimonies.  --Eric Forste 04:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern then is do we add testimonies that are new, at all.  Since Friends are currently so divergent itis hard to call a new testimony something that belongs to the cannon of Friends theology.  The other PYM (Philadelphia) has not (to my knowledge) added any similar testimony (although care for the environement is certainly mentioned in F&P). Perhaps the discussion of testimonies should be adjusted and the list made the reflect "tradinional" testimonies among Friends. --Ahc 14:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for recent Testimonies? 

message: Since this has come up twice in the past few days I'm hoping to get some clarification.  Being a US Friend, I am very familiar with the organization of YM's in the US.  However, this shouldn't be an article about the US, so would someone with knowledge of non-US organization enlighten me. Twice now the organization section has been updated to reflect what now is clearly a non-US perspective I missed. First to include reference to large numbers of meetings that are not Monthly meetings (which is not the case in the US), then when I tried to find a middle ground statement (badly apparently) the text was altered to state it was the US structure.  Do British or other European Friends (I say that since there are so few unprogrammed Friends outside the US and Britain, so any large numbers would be there) use a different organization of the bodies within the yearly meeting?  If so, I'd like to know about it, and the article should reflect that.  I didn’t mean to be near sighted, but I clearly missed something in my travels among Friends. --Ahc 05:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: :Still other Friends rejected (or began to neglect) the Christian Bible altogether; hence among some liberal (usually unprogrammed) Quakers one will encounter Sufi, Buddhist, Jewish, nontheist and otherwise non-Christian Friends."
In my experience—which is limited to a single meeting—this is an extreme understatement. I have been told that 90% of our meeting is non-Christian. --Goethean 16:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, maybe the "some" should be changed to "many". But your experience is only typical of FGC Friends, although even in many FGC meetings there are many Christians. As for other braches, all FUM and Conservative Friends are "Christian" (leaving aside what Christian means), and I think Beanite meetings often have a high percentage of people that identify as Christian in some sense. ("Christ-centered universalism"). Zach 18:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By number most Friends are not from the more liberal and univeralist branches of Friends.  These pockets tend to be quite dense for a variety of reasons and quite loud when larger groups of Friends come together.  I think "many" is fair, but we need to make sure we avoid "most". --Ahc 04:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Altho it depends on what we're talking about -- some/many/most liberal unprogrammed Quakers, or some/many/most Quakers period? "Most unprogrammed Quakers..." might be justified (tho I'm not sure), but "Most Quakers..." definitely wouldn't here. Zach 13:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience (equally limited), despite the fact that we're a pretty damn "liberal" meeting (Princeton, NJ) there is plenty of Christ- and Bible-talk. Just want to add my two cents in -- liberal and unprogrammed does not mean "non-Christian". Sdedeo 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  understatement? 

message: I was looking at the article, and I think we could use a better explanation of "plain speech" and plain dress. Perhaps it could be its own subsection in the Beliefs and practices section? School just started back up for me, so I don't know when I'll have a chance to work on this myself. Zach 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be part of the testimony on simplicity section.  I'll try to work on something in the next few days/weeks on this.  Sounds like a couple editors are about to get busy for a while, so others of us should step up more to keep things moving.  --Ahc 04:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plainness 

message: As someone who considers himself an engaged buddhist and someone who was quaker roots and has gone to more than a few unplanned meetings as well as quarterly meetings I have to admit that I find some aspects of this article misleading. I have always understood, that at least among unplanned meetings, proseltization is considered taboo. There is no formal process of confirmation of conversion so to speak of. You simply decide that you are. Having been to these meetings I have not met anyone I would describe as new age, a universalist, or even someone else such as myself who would describe themselves as buddhist. I should also mention that I have never heard a single one of those terms mentioned. This is simply my personal experience. When I figure out why my account wont work and/or decide to create a new one I will make adding to this page one of my priorites. I think there are many points worth mentioning that are not discussed. I have to confess ignorance of what the society of friends is like outside of the United States and Canada but I supsect this article is more charactersitic of British quakers.~~
:Having traveled a good deal among North American Friends I can safely say I have meet Friends that I would discribe as Universalist and some as new age (although that's a sticky terms as many people take it as an insult).  I certainly have talked with Friends that describe themselves as Buddhist-Quaker, or Jewish-Quaker.  So, yes they are accurate to include here IMHO.
:The issue of proseltizing is a point of some disaggreement among Friends in North America.  Most Friends from the more liberal backgrounds (generally associated with FGC) are very uncomfortable with any form of proseltizing, while Friends from more conservative backgrounds (particullarly those affliated with EFI) feel called to share their relationship with God through every means avialable.  I suspect that there are similar breakdowns among Friends world-wide, but I don't know for sure.
:We have been working over that last few months to deal with some problems with the article being too North American centric, and we've been making adjustments to take European and Austrian Quakers into better account.  What we're still lacking (in my estimation) is a good understanding of African Friends.  Friends in Africa are numerous, but here we make almost no real mention of them (I suspect because like myself, few of the editors know much about the particulars are African Quakerism, which I understand is somewhat different from Friends elsewhere). --Ahc 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelical and terminology 

message: I am not a Friend myself, but I do not believe that these latest edits are needed or helpful in the article.  I would like to see a source for them, as they definitely sound more credal than Friends actually are.  Logophile 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they were already removed, I'm not in a big rush to look it over.  I'll take a look when I have a few minutes and see if there is content that should be included or if cropping it all was a good idea.  --Ahc 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits--Nature of God, Trinity, Eschatology