Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 3

message: IP editor 72.81.218.211 and72.81.247.125 (and maybe also edited from 71.127.159.171 and 155.104.37.17). What is there to say?  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected and cited. Removal or reversion of this cited material will be reported as vandalism by me. Add other POVs if you must, but the current version is verifiable and would pass a FAC. -- SECisek 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Episcopal Church

message: "The full legal name of the national church corporate body is the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America"
I'm unconvinced by this.  It seems pretty clear from Canon 3 that this is the name of a separate organisation, with the same membership as the church.  "The Constitution of the said Society, which was incorporated by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, as from time to time amended, is hereby amended and established so as to read as follows".  Can anyone offer a justification for the assertion that this is the proper name for the 'corporate body' of the church itself?  TSP 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to rely on, other than an interpretation of the canons, but the DFMS is the legally incorporated nonprofit organization, while the Episcopal Church is purely ecclesiastical. The presiding bishop is the president of the DFMS and every member of the church is a member of DFMS. Are they separate organizations? I suppose, but only in that one is a legal corporation and the other is not. I think to say that DFMS is the "corporate body" of the Episcopal Church is correct. --InkQuill 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if the name of the DMFS was instead "Episcopal Church Inc." if it would raise the same question? Maybe, but that's basically what it is. --InkQuill 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reading of the sitation is that the TEC is an unincorporated body; and there also exists an incorporated body, the DFMS, with the same membership.  The canons seem quite clear that they are defining a body called the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, also known as The Episcopal Church; taking time out in Canon 3 to also amend the statutes of that separate society, the DFMS.  To me, it's a little confusing to say that DFMS is "the full legal name of the national church corporate body"; it's a full legal name attached to a corporate body with the same membership as the unincorporated body that is the TEC, but legally distinct.  Either body could in theory cease to exist without the other doing so.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, though.  Perhaps it's just that I don't find 'corporate body' an especially clear term.  TSP 02:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If the DFMS ceased to exist, the Episcopal Church would have no legal status. It would still be an ecclesiastical body, but could not operate as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Episcopal Church ceased to exist, the DFMS would have no reason for being. It would be a legal corporation without a purpose. --InkQuill 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: InkQuill knows of what InkQuill speaks! :-) --InkQuill 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the sentence in dispute which came about because a long gone editor insisted that DMFS was the name of the church. Full stop. Took a bit of effort to realize one name was simply the incorporated body and TEC is the name which the church for at least a generation has chosen to call itself. Anyway, it seems fine to me. Someone should e-mail the PR people at the TEC and have this posted on their FAQ page. It would make all of this nonsense go away...except for the conspiracy theorists and those who don't know their patron saint from St. George. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get it. After the above discussion, in which SECisek agreed that it is correct that DFMS is the legal name of the corporation otherwise known as the Episcopal Church, SECisek then makes a bunch of changes, changing the agreed wording to say that "the Episcopal Church" is the corporate body! What's going on? --InkQuill 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks to me like Secisek inadvertantly reverted to an earlier version of the page while making a minor change.  I've reverted the edit for now.  Certainly some bits of the edit (changing an image from an SVG to a JPG, uncommenting a reference to a deleted image) seem to clearly be mistakes from a purely technical viewpoint.  TSP 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this even the place to discuss the corporate body?  I have never even heard of outside of here? -- SECisek 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society 

message: I removed the following as unhelpful:
List of colleges and seminaries affiliated with the Episcopal Church
I created its own article. Thoughts? --SECisek 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listcruft

message: An anon has posted some data for 2006, I've reverted initially, mostly becuase the link they had posted was broken (though I have managed to track down what they were trying to put in).  Also the way it was included ratehr messed up the existing referencing, by adding the calculated drop on to the figures previously reported in the Chrisitan Century report, without adding new references to that para, which is rather misleading.
The doc they were trying to reference was this http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91421_ENG_HTM.htm which itself references http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/GC_2006_membership_and_ASA.pdf and http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2005-2006_Statistical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church.pdf what's really confusing me though is that the 2005 figures given in all these documents (2,372,008), from which they've derived the figures for a further major fall (mostly due to events in Virginia) don't correspond to the previously published figures for 2005 (2,369,477) which we already have in the article.  Anyone any ideas as to how we can reconcile them?  David Underdown 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership 2006

message: I question the statement about Massachusetts Bay Colony 1620. It seems to forget about the Plymouth Colony, which was settled in 1620. Massachusetts Bay came later. Massachusetts   Bay annexed the Plymouth Colony in 1691. clariosophic 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always be bold. -- SECisek 19:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editor clariosophic, I thought the puritans who landed at Plymouth had left the Church of England - as opposed to those puritans who did not and fought the English civil war - so would it be fair to place their history into the history of the TEC. I can see it in the history of the Church of England, though. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What I said was that the 1620 date is wrong, because it is the date of the Plymouth Colony and as we all know they were nonconformists. The Massachusetts Bay Colony did not exist until 1629 or 1630. The question is when did the C of E become established in Massachusetts? It certainly wasn't 1620 and probably wasn't even 1630. I do know that Newton, the Boston suburb I grew up in began in 1664 as a Congregational theocracy with the minister and elders constituting both the religious and civil governments. See East Parish Burying Ground. King's Chapel, 1686, was the first Anglican church in Boston and probably in Massachusetts. I am growing tired of being bold because when I am someone tells me I have a POV. clariosophic 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History: Church Establishment in Colonial America

message: I am again adding the ECUSA Province Template with links the 9 provinces. There seems to be some controversy over why it starts with Province 1. There are 9 templates and they are all interlinked. I could put in all 9 in tiers as they do in Great Britain and Ireland. Isn't it simpler just to have one template? Which one it starts with is immaterial, so why not do it numerically starting with 1. Without the template, there is no easy way to navigate the provinces from this article. Please do not delete again without some discussion and a consensus. clariosophic 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this template is somehow the best one.  I think the natural reaction of a reader would be to question what it has to do with the article itself.  Why not just create a template with links to all the provinces?  I've not been following this particular conflict, so I don't know if this solution has previously been proposed or not.  Still, it seems like a much better idea than just linking randomly to one of the provinces. Esrever 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These templates are the only ones. There is no umbrella template. They do work. If you notice each template has the dioceses in its province at the top with links at the bottom to the other 8 provinces. As I said I could tier all 9. If you would like to see tiering in action, see Church of England clariosophic 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now there's a template with all the provinces in it (I know this because I just slapped one together).  What do you think of it? Esrever 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great. Many thanks for your creation. clariosophic 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECUSA Template 

message: I undid a revision to the second sentence of the intro which added: when it was forced to break with the Church of England on penalty of treason. No reference was given. This statement seems to assume that all Anglicans in the 13 colonies were Loyalists and not Patriots.
Please do reinsert this language without further discussion and consensus. clariosophic 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not all members of the congragtions would have been loyalists, but clergy would certianly at some piont have sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown - this was what caused the difficulties. David Underdown 14:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll provide references but the statement is true. The Oath of Allegiance to the Crown was treasonous. The Church of England in the American colonies were treasonous. There really were incidents where the militia were in Church of England churches with bayonets menacing the congregations. There is a recorded story of Charles Inglis when he was rector of Holy Trinity New York prayed for King George III while George Washington was in the congregation and the church was surrounded. Anyway, I'll provide the stories with references to liven up the narrative. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the intro is the place to get into all of this. Why not put it in History: The Church in the American Republic (1789–present)?  clariosophic 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the text in the body of the article no problem. However, the treasonous bits should go in the lead. It makes the TEC seem more exciting...like a real Western church :-)   Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organized after Revolution.-POV 

message: Could someone please repost some of the waning membership information on the discussion page?  I realize the large quantity of comments on the page needed to be archived, but the reality is that when people want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy, they look to the discussion page.  Right now, all I see is a comment or two from a few people who seem extremely dedicated to concealing information they deem controversial. Hectard (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you're right. No one attends TEC churches anymore. Within months it'll all be gone. Please, we are trying to write an encylopedia article on the TEC, not further anyone's agenda over recent events. No one is concealing anything but neither are we promoting anything. All the past discussion is but one mouse click away: see top of this page under 'archives'. Wikipedia is an all volunteer project: no one is the boss of anyone. Common sense and the actual time and effort of an editor determines when archiving happens. Why not write an article about the TEC from 1783 to today in about three thousand words that encompasses the church's history, doctrine, controversies, successes, failures and contributions across that entire span of history with good and reliable citations? In other words, write the ancyclopedia article that should be here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an organisation has to play games with membership figures, then we all know what that means!  Seriously; how can an article not indicate the major facts about an organisation of this kind; how many actually belong to it, who many did belong, and what the trend on that is, where it matters?? Roger Pearse 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T REAL EC