Talk:Plymouth Brethren

Too detailed?

I felt this article was becoming too much involved with differences between Exclusive and Open. I realize that such discussion is unavoidable but perhaps some it can be moved to their respective pages. Furthermore, I felt the article was organized wrong. I felt the info should funnel from broad to specific. Econmists

Cultish?

Some branches of Plymouth Brethrenism exhibit "cult-like" (in the negative sense) behavior. As a rule the Brethren are religious separatists. They tend to view the mainstream of Christendom as "defiled" by unscriptural practices and beliefs. Hence, there is a tendency among some Plymouth Brethren to close themselves off from fellowship with other Christians.

Another cultish characteristic is the extreme admiration among some Brethren for the writings of John Nelson Darby, an early and influential leader of the movement. Darby was a scholar with knowledge of German, French and Italian, and over the course of his life managed to translate some or all of the scriptures into those languages. From his notes he also compiled a translation of the Bible into English, called the "New Translation." Darby himself intended his work to serve only as a study tool; however, in many Brethren assemblies the Darby translation is the preferred one for reading during worship. His copious writings, which fill over 40 volumes, are elevated by some to a status nearly equal to that of the Apostles.

One of Darby's closest associates was James Butler Stoney, who distinguished himself as a Plymouth Brethren mystic. Some of Stoney's ministry (geared to the subjective side of Christianity) led to perfectionistic tendencies among some Brethren. One of Stoney's disciples was Frederick E. Raven, a teacher who held heterodox ideas regarding the nature of Christ and of eternal life. Raven's teaching essentially denied the true humanity of Christ (Apollonarianism) and focused on a deeply mystical search for experiential eternal life. Some Brethren assemblies who followed Raven's ideas (heretofore known as "the Jims," after one of their leaders James Taylor Jr) have since become a cult in the sense of exercising tight control over the lifestyles and associations of their members. Most Brethren, however, repudiate the practices and teachings of the Raven-Taylor sect.

I think it would be fairer to say that Raven "was alleged to hold" heterodox ideas. His ministry shows that he did not deny the humanity of Christ. Horis 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent schism

In the early 1990's a schism developed among some exclusive Plymouth Brethren over the moderate teachings of several leaders in the Netherlands (among them publisher Henk Medema and creation scientist Willem J. Ouweneel). The "Dutch Five," as these leaders came to be known, advocated cooperation and communion with other Christians outside of Brethrenism. These more "liberal" leanings were firmly resisted by Brethren in Germany, who called upon other assemblies worldwide to separate from those associated with the Dutch leaders. Around the same time, a group of American Brethren sympathetic to the ideas of the "Dutch Five" met at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, to draw up a manifesto calling for similarly moderate practices. These "Lake Geneva Seven," the Dutch Five and the assemblies under their sphere of influence were summarily excommunicated from world-wide Brethren fellowship. In the aftermath many who sympathized with these leaders left the Plymouth Brethren to join mainstream Christian churches.

Cooperation

It should be noted that many current and former Plymouth Brethren have been at the forefront of cooperation in Christian evangelism and other forms of ecumenical ministry. Among these include biblical scholar F.F. Bruce; evangelist and Moody Church pastor Harry A. Ironside; missionary martyr Jim Elliot; and popular radio evangelist Tony Evans.

As an intriguing aside, a couple of notable celebrities who spent their formative years in Plymouth Brethren assemblies include Garrison Keillor, host of National Public Radio's "Prairie Home Companion" show; and Aleister Crowley, a major luminary of Satanism.

A few comments.

• "in many Brethren assemblies the Darby translation is the preferred one for reading during worship" --> should read some Brethren assemblies. Most Open Brethren assemblies use the King James Version, the New International Version, or some other mainstream version.
• Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren also grew up in Plymouth Brethren backgrounds. Myles22

1990's US Open Brethren schism

First off, I have never used this feature of Wikipedia so bear with me if I make any major errors. Considering all of the discussion about splits in the brethren down through the years, I wanted to inquire (I hope this is the right place to do so) about a "schism" that took place in the Open Brethren in the mid-90's. I have only been able to find one article on this fairly major split --> http://www.ctlibrary.com/555. From this article I can gather that Stewards Foundation sued Stewards Ministries and then dropped the lawsuit. I am seeking any information on this split, specifically what the lawsuit was about, as it has had a significant impact on the Open Brethren in the US & Canada. Thanks eveyrone ShawnCuthill.com

F E Raven

Having read, at some time, all of F E Raven's ministry I do not think that there is any basis for the suggestion that he denied the humanity of Christ. To quote on discussion recorded about 1 John 4: "J.S.A. What would you think is the force of the test given here? F.E.R. Jesus Christ come in flesh. He is not simply the Man Jesus, but Christ come in flesh. It is the advent of a divine Person. W.M. To say that about a mere man would be absurd, because he could not come in any other way than in flesh. F.E.R. Quite so. The point is faith in the pre-existence of Christ, and that He became man. J.P. The very form of the expression involves that. F.E.R. It is the truth of the incarnation. J.S.A. 'The Word became flesh.'" As for his view on eternal life the point seems to me to be that it is practical and not mystical.

People or Men

A recent edit of the article substitutes the word "people" for "men" when describing who participates in the Lord's Supper service. It has been my experience that only men are allowed to participate. Women are to be silent, in accordance to scripture. If this is not the case, then the edit should stand. However, if it is the case, the edit should be retracted. If there is not any discussion of this within the week, I will be retracting the edit.The Dogfather 30 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)

Hi. I didn`t mean to be controversial. But I attended a Brethren church in Bristol, England (which is near Plymouth) where female contributions were valid, in spite of Paul`s comments. As this is the only Brethren church I have attended, I am unsure how typical or untypical this is. Incidentally, many years ago my English teacher forced me to read `Father and Son` by Edmund Gosse which is not exactly kind on the Brethren. I mention it as you were discussing famous Brethren above. Andycjp 1st July 2005.

I hope some others will weigh in on this topic. I have only been to two different Brethren churches and both were very specific that women were to be silent in Church.The Dogfather 1 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Hi, Dogfather. I am an elder in a PB assembly in Massachusetts, USA that recently encouraged women to participate in the Lord's Supper service. We based this decsion on the obvious participation by women in the meeetings of the local church in I Corinthians 11 (praying and prophesying with their heads covered...). A number of assemblies in our area permit the participation of women, while a number do not. Most assemblies in this area leave the question of head covering up to the women, though in a few assemblies, there is a significant amount of "peer pressure" if not outright teaching, to conform. The lack of uniformity clearly demonstrates the autonomy of the local assembly and the lack of a single denoninational standard. There certainly are some who through their preaching and their publishing efforts seek to establish and enforce a single standard. - S DuPlessie. October 2005.

Hello, Dogfather and others, I am a member of a Brethren church here in Michigan. There are several in the Tri-County area. Women do not participate during breaking of bread, only one of the elders will speak. As far as head covering in the following paragraph, we do cover our heads, but some do not. It is stated to do so after you are baptised, as the little girls do not. We do not believe that it is a sign for the angels, it is believed here that the woman's hair is adornment and we must reflect on the Lord and not ourselves. Also we do participate in the Lord's Supper, and we are allowed to teach Bible classes, etc. Cadjaynie 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Jayne May 2007.

Head covering

I belive something could be said on head covering here as it is expected that women cover their heads as a sign for the angels. I am not brethren so may have their reason wrong. I belive women are allowed to pray and break bread but not to teach, I could be wrong. --130.36.75.21 15:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Kent, UK

Mention should be made that women are expected to wear the head covering but it is generally accepted as truth that should be adhered to by the woman's own conscience. In some PB circles the woman can be put on discipline (ie: not allowed to break bread). Open Brethren differ on strictness. Rey

As per the PB, women are allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper in this respect: praying silently, reading silently, singing corporately, breaking bread and drinking from the cup. They're not given authority to stand up and request a song, or lead the congregation in prayer or open up the Scriptures to teach out loud. So it should remain as "people".Rey

In most assemblies, women are not allowed to pray aloud, read aloud, or preach aloud during meetings. In a few assemblies, however, this is not the case - women have the same privileges as men do. Myles22

Isn't this vanity or promotion rather than information?

The following seems to be a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article. I have moved it here for comment. Dabbler 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When I put it up, I didn't mean it as vain. I was trying to show that the Plymouth Brethren are still around and on the web and embraced by (some) of the young crowd and not as an Emergent. Maybe you can help me out because I want to show that the Plymouth Brethren are still alive (in the US no less) and can be a presence online as well. Rey

Well why not just say that "the Brethren are operating X congregations in the US and some have also adopted the internet to promote their viewpoint, for example LINK" and put a link to your blog rather than have what reads like a self-promotional advertising blurb. Dabbler 08:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible Archive Brethren Blog: Reynaldo Reynoso

• Bible Archive: A Brethren Blog

Maintained by Reynaldo Reynoso, the Bible Archive is a web logging portal (or a Blog which focuses on bringing the attention on Christ. With daily Biblical studies or insights from the Plymouth Brethren perspective, Rey makes it a point to put enough meat for the average reader and enough references to follow up study on your own. He sees things from the Open Brethren perspective without having any problems in analyzing the Brethren. Rey lives in New York with his wife and child. Dabbler 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

This page seems to be fairly inaccurate. It seems that you've mixed Plymouth Brethren with another seperate unrelated sect of Christianity also sometimes known as Brethren that was started in Scotland shortly after the PB movement by a group of Scottish Christians. Several theological and structual particularities that have been assigned to the PB movement in the article are unique to one or the other movement, but not to both. It is not uncommon for the two to be confused as the beginnings of the Brethren movement are fairly obscure compared to the PB movement, while both movements are quite similar in their present state. Still, gives me faith in Wikipedia as an accurate source of info!

This comment is interesting but confusing. Just what in particular in the main article is not accurate about the Plymouth Brethren? You have just caused confusion by saying it is inaacurate but not specifying what is in question.I have lived my entire life within the Open Brethren and find the article quite accurate. If you can identify particular information that is incorrect, you are very welcome to edit the main article in the Wkikki tradition with proper source documentation, or at least list list the corrections here for discussion. - S DuPlessie

--

Hello!. A problem with editors from these article is: Closed Brethren are NO same people as Exclusive Brethren,and it are no same as Exclusivists. Encyclopedia Britannica says clearly there are 8(eight) branches from Brethren. And Closed/Open are NO same as Open/Closed Communion Brethren-another entirely different division-. But every reference to differences between closed and exclusives is deleted. And as usual you depends exclusively from USA sources. By example in Latin America,Open Brethren had more characteristiques similar to Closed,but no gives any role to Darby. Dispensationalism is no mentioned in the article.

--

Here's an example of inaccuracy (under History): "Despite the disparate nature of the movement, adherents to the Plymouth Brethren are often generalized into two main categories: Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren." Such generalisation is only by the uninformed. The Exclusive Brethren, for example, whilst admiiting their ancestory in the Plymouths, would not consider themselves a category of them. Personally, I think that, unless the Plymouths continue to exist as a speatate entity (I do not know of such an organisation), this article should not try to cover both sects. (Open and Exclusive) except as a referrring link to separate articles. Without such distinction being made, Wikipedia will not be a reliable source of information on either group: it is more likely to just encourage The Edit Wars. 203.173.3.110 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)drw

Women and men in the assembly

I edited the part about women speaking in the Lord's Supper meeting before I had read the comments here. I have never heard of a meeting where women are allowed to speak and still refer to them selves as an "assembly". Usually, if a church moves that far away from what the mainstream brethren are, they will call themselves "Non-denominational". If this is incorrect, please undue the part I emitted. - Andrew

I was raised in the Plymouth Brethren religion at Greenwood Hills Gospel Chapel in Fayetteville, PA (south central PA). We were an open assembly (yes that is what we called ourselves) and we associated with other open and "closed" assemblies in the U.S. (most on the East Coast and Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa). Greenwood Hills is an active Camp and Conference Center for those that are interested in learning more. Most of what I have read here is correct. Women are not allowed to speak during the Lord's table and headcoverings must be worn. Please go to greenwoodhills.net for it is my generation that has brough the brethren on-line. Unfortunately the strictness and backwardness of the church has caused many young people to leave.207.59.85.190 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I was also raised in an Open Brethren assembly and had a few friends in the Closed. I tried a few times to combine youth from our chapel, the closed chapel and a Baptist church in our area and each time the Closed refused, or we had to hold it as an unofficial event for them to attend. I'm not sure what you mean by backwardness, however I find that while many of our young people leave the brethren churches, they remain within evangelical churches. Other evangelical churches seem to have higher rates of youth who leave the Christian faith altogether. - Andrew

I have observed Plymouth Brethren, was informed as to prohibitions re cell phones, radios, computers,etc. yet I find there is an official Plymouth Brethren web cite. Car phones are Kosher yet not cell? It is a most pecular sect. Numerous rules in place to make it not of this world, yet the people are earthy. Hipocracy is the coin of the realm.-joseph —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightonbeach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Hymnbooks

I've just mentioned Little Flock in the music heading. It may be useful to list all the various other hymnbooks commonly used among the Plymouth Brethren. DFH 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggested headings for further information that would be useful additions to the main article: DFH 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Origins and early history (more detail)

Brethren Archivists and Historians Network 2007 Conference

This event (BAHN 2007) is scheduled at Liverpool Hope University, 5-7 July 2007.
Details and call for papers are posted here. DFH 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Rholton Vandalism Edits

The editions from user Rholton are absurd. Him posted introduction requested citations,and deleted it when I posted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliecer (talk • contribs) .

• The problem with your edits is that you are causing problems with the formatting and, in two cases, completely duplicated the artcle. Please see the message I left on your talk page. I tried to address some of the involved formatting problems. At any rate, when you completely duplicate the article and create lots of links that are incorrectly formatted, it doesn't create a great place to start from and leaves little choice but to revert. BigDT 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Some work needs to be done with regard to POV

This article makes it sound like Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren have only minor differences. Exclusive Brethren makes it sound like the Exclusive Brethren are a cult. Open Brethren makes it sound like they are the only real Plymouth Brethren. This article posits that the Closed Brethren are something other than just another name for the Exclusive Brethren. Really, the three articles aren't much more than POV forks.

From reading the links on this article, I'm inclined to believe that the Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren articles (POV problems with the latter aside) are correct and that this article has some issues. BigDT 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From my own experiences in the early 1970s, there were huge differences between the Taylorite Exclusive Brethren and other Darbyite brethren groups, herein referred to as Closed Brethren. Because of the leadership scandals, some people left the Taylor meetings and joined meetings of the Glanton Brethren or Kelly Brethren, etc. A lot of these earlier divisions among Closed Brethren were healed in the later 1970s. DFH 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT, it's this Plymouth Brethren article which was the most POV of the three and which also required a lot of cleanups as regards errors of fact, as well as style & format. DFH 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a lot of corrections to the main overview which I hope will be acceptable. This section seems to be dealing with differences between Open and Exclusive whereas I would have thought that could be put lower down in the article with an account of the early history of Plymouth Brethren should come first as this will contain references the things which all PBs have in common. I am not much good at these mega changes so will leave that to someone else.

The terms Exclusive and Closed are interchangable and the variations need not really be discussed in this article since they are addressed in more detail sub Exclusive Brethren. What is of interest is the differences between Open and Exclusive both in ecclesiology and theology but also in worship styles etc as it seems clear from both Shuff and Grass that there is a wide spectrum of practice and doctrinal belief in both groups which often coincide. However I can't help thinking that a few more headings would be helpful.

The meeting my parents attend is an Ex Taylorite EB meeting which at one time was looking to be drawn into the Kelly Lowe Glanton group. However it is now a mix of Open/Exclusive and new Brethren and they have had to learn to get on with and learn from each other and so far it has worked. The doctrinal differences though quite significant are not crucial and make for very lively readings. The cultic differences are more marked.

Gregory Morris, St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just made some attempt to cleanup the history section, which was rather a spagetti junction. The reason I removed F. Roy Coad from this section is that he was much later in time than the men who started the movement. There is still much more to be done to bring this article up to Wikipedia quality standards. DFH 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Having changed the first paragraph in this section to list format, it should become clearer (to the experts) which of the names in the list were truly among the founders, and which should be moved to a separate section about people who contributed to its later growth. DFH 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry A. Ironside should be removed from the founders. Though he was certainly a dispensationalist he was not actually in the Plymouth Brethren, was he? DFH 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was Ironside's parents that were in the Brethren, so I have deleted him from this page, and moved the external biographical link to the page for Harry A. Ironside. DFH 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I began editing this section, it had the phrase "was made prominent by" rather than "founded". This section is supposed to be about the history of the Plymouth Brethren, not an account of who made them more famous in later periods. Would someone else with more historical knowledge please check the other lesser known names in this list, and take the necessary action. DFH 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a bit more cleanup in the list, but there is still more to be done with it. DFH 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word assembly

Whereas the Open Brethren are usually quite content to use the word assembly to refer to their local gathering, Closed and Exclusive Brethren mostly avoid using this term. This arose out of Darby's extremely dispensational doctrinal theory of "the ruin of the Church". They prefer instead to just use the word meeting. DFH 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to do some rewording to reflect this. "Assembly" is only used by most EBs to mean the whole church ie the Bride of Christ. Both OBs and EBs use the term "meeting".

Gregory Morris, St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

US Library of Congress classification of Brethren

I recall reading an article in Journal of the (erstwhile) Christian Brethren Research Fellowship (CBRF) during the early 1970s which made reference to the US Library of Congress classification of Plymouth Brethren groups by over ten different Roman numerals. Anyone have more details? DFH 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Six of these groups are described in the New Catholic Dictionary, but with inadequate details; viz:

• Brethren I — "formed in the United States in 1885."
• Brethren II — "who entertain a wide variety of views"
• Brethren III — "they represent the extreme high-church principle of the Brethren ...."
• Brethren IV — " the result of a breach in 1890, when controversy arose regarding the subject of eternal life ...."
• Brethren V — "formed by dissenters from Plymouth Brethren III on the question of discipline ...."
• Brethren VI — "formed by a separation from the 4th branch in 1906 over ecclesiastical matters, neither doctrine nor practise being involved."

--DFH 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From another source,

• Brethren IX is a small circle that withdrew from Brethren VIII around 1949 [1].

--DFH 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Hymn?

"They also sing they hymn "Man of Sorrows" quite often; it is commonly recognized as the official brethren hymn." This is patently ridiculous; This entire article needs some serious work. REY

Try to keep this article focused on the Plymouth Brethren as a whole

Please aim to keep this article focused on the Plymouth Brethren as a whole, rather than on matters appertaining only to either the Open Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren. This main article is not the most appropriate place to add detailed references to the political actions of a small number of Exclusives, when the page about Exclusive Brethren now includes a stuctured section about the Politics of some of them in various countries. DFH 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History

I just inserted a level three headline for Early beginnings in the History section. This is because the subsequent history is not yet included in the article, which is a significant omission. Though some details are to be found in the articles on Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren, the History section of this article needs considerable further expansion. DFH 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

External links - not SPAM

Most of the linked sites in the external links section contain notable information that could be of interest to someone wishing to learn more about the Plymouth Brethren. For the most part, they are definitely not SPAM. They have been added by a number of editors over a period of time, mostly be people who have some detailed knowledge of the subject. They should not be summarily removed, least of all by an editor who has no expert knowledge of the Brethren movement and its history. DFH 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Booksellers & Publishers section which is complete with addresses and phone numbers. This is a huge spam magnet and has become a link repository which Wikipedia is not. That whole section could be deleted without losing encyclopedic information. JonHarder 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete the booksellers and publishers sections as spam. The links to this article need to be narrowed down to five or less! --Banana04131 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to do so. My other concern is with the "bibliography", we have a "< references / >" section, so what's biblio for? 68.39.174.238 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Members

On 19/20th February 2007 I added John Bodkin Adams, John George Haigh, and Aleister Crowley. References from publications were provided, and their own Wikipedia pages state they were at some point members during their lives. Unfortunately on February 20th user 70.112.30.244 decided 'notable members' was a synonym for 'members good for Brethren PR purposes'. This is not the case nor is it Wikipedia's policy. Articles should be neutral and balanced. These names should therefore be reposted. I will do so soon if there are no objections. Malick78 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I object. After browsing the articles, there is no evidence that any of the three were "PBs" as adults. ^rossnixon 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles on John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh may or may not state they were adults but the publication I cited does. Therefore those two should stand. The fact that Crowley was brought up by Brethren parents is noteworthy - hence should also be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry on Brethren.Malick78 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This page states John George Haigh ceased attending a Brethren church at the age of 25 - http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/famous_criminal/38/home/1/John_Haigh_The_Acid_Bath_Murderer.htm

• As for John Bodkin Adams, he regularly attended P. B. meetings with his mother up until her death when he was 44. See page 610 (amongst others), of "A Stranger in Blood: the Case Files on Doctor John Bodkin Adams", P.V. Cullen, 2006. He probably continued to attend Brethren meetings till his death since he left money to them in his will. I presume they qualify now?

• As for Crowley, yes he rebelled at an early age but his P.B. upbringing influenced his philosophy and life course. How about a new heading - "Notable Apostates"? Would that be more appropriate?Malick78 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really appropriate. This article is about PBs, not people who used to be PBs. Would you call Charles Darwin a notable Unitarian?. That article does not include a list of notables or apostates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

• The fact that two serial killers and the world's most famous occultist were at some point P. B. is highly notable since it is such a small church. This would therefore be of interest to the casual reader wishing to find out about P.B. history. I suspect those opposed to their inclusion have ulterior motives. Malick78 08:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• A quick check of List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists shows that Charles Darwin had been there since the page's inception in 2002. No Unitarians have complained. Since your own example, Rossnixon, backs my case, can I assume you agree to the inclusion of John Bodkin Adams, John George Haigh and Aleister Crowley now? Malick78 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Darwin was a bad example...I had assumed that he lost his religion early in life - apparently not.

It would not help a person, as you suggested, help a reader find out about P.B. history! None of this is PB history. If any of the three people had piano lessons as a child, would they be notable pianists?

I have just read the Adams article. Sounds like he would qualify as a PB. Did you describe him as a mass-murderer? I note that he was found innocent in court. Perhaps you could call him a suspected early practitioner of euthanasia instead? ^rossnixon 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there Rossnixon, "suspected early practitioner of euthanasia" would come under weasel words. He was found not-guilty but the trial was prejudiced (see article). The Home Office pathologist found 163 deaths which were suspicious - as in murder not euthanasia. Therefore I think "suspected serial killer" is more apt. Critical consensus favours this view too. But I'm glad you agree he was a member, is notable and deserves inclusion in a non-biased article:)

• As for John George Haigh, the article (and all articles on the internet) state he was a P.B. Few bother to mention his musical talents or lack thereof. Therefore it is noteworthy too:) Malick78 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable with performing any edits on this hotly contested page, when I have no new information to add and little Wikipedia experience. However, I do see a far-from-Neutral POV in the "Notable Members" section. It does appear to have been "cleansed", as if bad examples are not to be tolerated.
  • Why are Dr. Edward Wilson and Richard C. Mongler notable persons? I am not up-to-date on Wikipedia requirements, but a short description, link, or qualifying statement would help. All the others listed have such amplifying information.
  • On the issue of John Bodkin Adams, his membership appears to have been a significant part of the duality he lived. If John Bodkin Adams is not notable, then Arthur Rendle Short is probably not notable either. (Since Short is best known for encouraging a famous suspected serial killer and convicted fraud to practice medicine.)
  • After browsing the articles, I find there is no evidence that Garrison Keillor was a "PB" as an adult. If that is the standard, someone please remove Keillor from the list.
  • Francis William Newman went on a mission with some PBs, but his views evolved into something outside the PB realm. I do not find that Newman was a member of the Brethren (in my limited search). Can somebody find evidence that he was a member? Since a print encyclopedia had information about Newman, I suppose he qualifies as Notable.
  • I find that Jim Elliot died while on a mission with some Brethren, but I do not find that he attended assembly or claimed to be a part of Plymouth Brethren.
  • Perhaps the name "Edward Alexander Crowley", the name that Aleister Crowley's parents gave him, would better serve on the list of notables? Crowley's Wikipedia entry explains the contrary effect his parent's Brethren teachings had on him.

I hope my comments do not lead anyone to vandalize other Wikipedia entries in an attempt to support the cleansing of the PB Notables. 69.30.97.248 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree: there are serious POV issues on this page. Most recently member 20.133.0.14 removed John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh, giving misleading information as to their removal. Presumably he did this without reading the talk page where their inclusion was previously discussed. Adams was a PB all his life (not just his parents). Haigh was a PB until 25, by which time he had already started criminal activity. These two should remain. Aleister Crowley would also be a valid inclusion, since his PB upbringing affected his later beliefs. I will add Adams and Haigh shortly, and Crowley if people accept the need to be objective (though I have little hope of that on this page). Malick78 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not Crowley. There is nothing in common between PB and his later beliefs. ^rossnixon 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess I was the person who removed John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh, and it is true I hadnt consulted this talk place. It was a reaction to the fact that Vine, Newberry and oher notable Brethren were not there and to my horror serial killers were there. In fact I felt that all the sections had an anti Brethren slant. Looking in the dictionary, notable means distinguished ie noble or dignified in appearance or behavior. Being a suspected or real serial killer or an occultist can hardly be construed dignified behavior. [BWG]

"Notable" has a wider meaning than that. It can mean "famous" or "worthy of note". This includes being well-known, whether for good or bad actions etc. (e.g. Clinton is a notable rapist.) ^rossnixon 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the "Notorious people associated.." sub-section since it is very obviously a biased point of view being intoduced to demote in importance people who in fact were full members. I would also like to bring up Crowley again: ^ross says "There is nothing in common between PB and his later beliefs" - but that is neither here nor there - his beliefs were a reaction to being brought up in a fundermentalist atmosphere. Therefore the relationship is relevant. Furthermore, we now have members uncontroversially included in the list such as Jim McCotter and Garrison Keillor, who left PB early in their life. This establishes a precedent for the inclusion of Crowley, who also left early in his life. Can we include him now?
• Oh, and John George Haigh returns - he was PB till he was 25, as stated earlier in this discussion page. Malick78 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Haigh, and put Adams back into Notorious. Firstly, there is no such thing as a member or full-member: there is no membership, just attendance. I will check out McCotter and Keillor. It is sheer speculation (original research) that Crowley was reacting to his PB upbringing, it may have been something else in his upbringing. ^rossnixon 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry ^ross but why have you removed Haigh? You give no reasons. Nor a reason for putting back the 'notorious' section. Please give reasons for this - so others can check you are not just acting on a biased whim - which I suspect you are. Also as I said above, why separate 'notorious' people? Why are they not just normal members? And you say there are no 'members' - well all the other contributers to the page are happy with the term - are you suggesting changing it completely or was that just a lapse on your part?

Finally, whether Crowley reacted or not... bla, bla, bla... to his PB upbringing, the fact is he was raised as PB - and others included in the list also fall under this category. Basically Ross, you are adding and removing based on PB propoganda criteria - anything that is good for PB stays, all else is whitewashed. This site is for those who want to find out info with a NPOV - please try to respect them and the integrity of the site. Malick78 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I answered on my talk page as you posted it there before I saw it here. In summary: I'm happy for them to be listed if their notoriety was achieved as PBs. Would you call Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican? ^rossnixon 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that controversial religious or secular characters can get to be added to the Notable Members section. Being born and raised in a 'Brethren' family does not constitute membership. Fortunately, Adolf Hitler did not have parents who fellowshipped with the Brethren for a few years, as no doubt, this would have been picked up by some people and added to the Members section. If the balance is lost in this section I will start adding further renowned 19th Century Men of God from this movement which are yet to be listed. I was also unhappy that McCotter and Keillor were added. Ask the vast majority of 'Brethren' folk whether or not they knew Keillor and McCotter once associated with the Brethren, I believe the answer would be a categorical no. In fact, personally, I hadnt even heard of these names until reading them here. Also as no proof has been offered that Keillor and some others on the list were ever in fellowship I believe they should be removed from the Notable members list. [BWG] 23 May 2007

• ^ross asked "Would you call Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican? ". Well, no, but that's because a list of a major denomination like Anglicanism is long enough without including apostates. If however we are talking about minorities like PBs, then I think it's worth mentioning more fleeting believers. Take a look at List of Scientologists for example - here they mention those who have left the religion (see the page's subsection - "Former Scientologists"). Furthermore, the List of Scientologist celebrities mentions those who were raised Catholic... before taking the faith. So, why can't we have such a free definition here? Or is it just the unsavoury nature of Adams et al that you object to (while I see the inoffensive Keillor is still here!).

Malick78 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Keillor, as promised earlier. Looks like he was only a PB till about 18. That means he is not notable as a PB. Will delete. ^rossnixon 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked some sites about Cotter and his organization. His beliefs are indistinguishable from PB theology. On the Great_Commission_Association_of_Churches sidebar, it says origins Plymouth Brethren. Hard to decide if he belongs or not. ^rossnixon 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Ross; you seem to have deleted Keillor mainly because I was teasing you about your double standards - I'm not sure though that there really was a general consensus on the criteria that you gave for his removal. Judging by those included in the list - most people seem quite happy for people who were brought up PB but left it to be cited. I would therefore recommend Keillor's readmittance to the PB hall of fame, until you can show that a general consensus exists that he and his ilk should be removed. :) Malick78 13:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There have only been 3(?) people discussing the criteria - not enough for consensus. Need to find a similar article to compare. ^rossnixon 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Except of course that consensus to include those who grew up PB is implied by the fact that three people still on the list are said to have 'been'/'grown up' as PB. That doesn't include Keillor and Crowley, who others would like to be included. This therefore suggests a certain standard that should be respected. You however removed Keillor on your own initiative having decided he was unsuitable. Maybe all who have been PB should be included with caveats as to how long they were PB and when in their lifetime? Then the reader will decide for themselves how relevant they are. This would seem to be the fairest way would it not?

If you would like to compare other pages, I suggest List of Scientologists and List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists (which, as you remember Ross, even includes Charles Darwin as a believer without controversy!). The former even has a section for former members. To preempt a repeat of your 'Anglican' argument - the pages of larger denomination's are not appropriate since they do not have the space to include general believers, let alone more fleeting members of their faith.

So, now I have shown consensus to include apostates is implied, and that other pages uncontroversially include such people, can we replace Keillor and include Crowley. With caveats:)Malick78 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Crowley was never a member. He attended meetings in his youth but was never in assembly fellowship. If his name is added, a note ought to be made that he was never in assembly fellowship and his only association was that he had a Brethren upbringing. [BWG] 1 June 07

I agree with Ross with the removal of Crowley. For consistency, I think there are a couple of other names which should also be removed, not because of their goodness/badness, but because they were never members. There seems to be a misunderstanding, the Plymouth Brethren is not like the Church of England where membership starts at early life. The Plymouth Brethren generally do not practise infant baptism and although young family members are brought along to meetings, they may only enter into fellowship/membership out of personal faith and after being baptised as a recognition of their faith. I hardly think Crowley ever went through Christian Baptism as an adult believer. I did once add a section called "Notorious Characters Associated with the Brethren" but this was rejected. I think Ross is being more than fair in allowing serial killers to be listed, who were members. [BWG 11 June 07

• Would a PB child dying at the age of 5, for example, get a PB burial? I do not know the answer but if they would be, they are de facto considered PB by their community. Therefore someone who was PB as a child and changed (and especially in such a severe way (ie Crowley's extreme dislike of Christianity) - deserves inclusion - with an explanatory comment. After all, how can exact information be bad? And secondly, people keep adding Crowley independently of each other - so they obviously think he deserves inclusion.Malick78 09:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Remembrance Service

I think it should be noted in the latest edit to the Weekly Remembrance Service section has parts in it that, while typical, are not universal. I know because I go to a Plymouth Brethren church that doesn't practice quite that way. It is similar, but not the same. I'm not sure how to word it, though, to specify that. Admiral Memo 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tioeliecer's bad edits

Recently Tioeliecer has made radical changes which are to the severe detriment of the page: they are badly structured, unclear and read badly, lack citations and even repeat the 'Influence' section. Tioeliecer, please tell us of your proposed changes beforehand so we can advise you how to make them better. Malick78 09:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

o.k. malick

write the article as you want, but respect the link to reach out trust, it signals the clear differences between closed and exclusive brethren. there are 3 no 2 types from p.b.