Talk:Quakers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject notice

Hello, if anyone is interested, I just started a Quaker WikiProject, which can be found at WP:WQ or Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Zach 00:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The WP:WQ link no longer directs to our project. It goes to Wikiquette. How do we rectify this problem? Logophile 16:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Back in July User:Duncharris redirected the shortcut saying: (point this to wikiquette which is where it should go instead of to a silly wikiproject) If someone wanted a different shortcut I'd suggest either using: WP:RSoF or just including the template places you want links from. --Ahc 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Large Edits September 2, 2005

Last night I went over a printed copy of this article to try to removed some of the reduancy and resolve some organizational problems I found. I know I've cut some things that people are going to feel were too far, but I don't think I cut anything that belongs in this article. Some of the blocks below may be better placed in some of the related articles. I also spell checked the whole thing in Word while I was at it. The large blocks of text I'm removing as I enter these changes are below, so they can be replaced if other disagree:

From Egalitarianism:

This equal status extended further into the social realm, and Quakers often ignored the social distinctions of the seventeenth century. This translated into several behaviours which offended those of high rank: Friends refused to doff their hat to those of higher status ("hat honor"), and also addressed high-ranking persons using the familiar form of "thee", instead of the respectful "you".

From Oaths and fair-dealing

Instead, Friends giving testimony in court, or being sworn into governmental office, "affirm" that they are going to tell the truth; the U.S. Constitution guarantees this option for anyone sworn into office in the United States. As an expression of the Quaker belief that one should mean exactly what one says at all times, Quaker businessmen did not haggle over prices, believing that to ask for a higher price than one was willing to accept was dishonest; this was contrary to common practice of the time. Instead, they offered a firm, fixed price for their goods or services.

From Testimonies:

It was John Woolman (1720–1772) who made it his life's work to convince other Friends of the evil nature of slavery. Another example relates to peace. Although Friends have always opposed violence, a number of Friends fought during World War II, feeling that the reasons for fighting outweighed the Peace Testimony in this instance. Despite the inner struggles and conflicts that Friends face in regard to living out the Peace Testimony, all Friends believe in peace as an ideal.

From Quaker weddings:

At the close of worship all of those present at the meeting are asked to sign the wedding certificate as witnesses that the wedding took place and acknowledging their presence at the service. Often these certificates are hung prominently in the homes of the couple throughout their married lives as a reminder of the vows they took, and the people with whom they shared that moment of their lives.

--Ahc 16:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Separate Religion ?

This is a request for help. I've recently been involved in a discussion on the List of founders of major religions page about the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). The issue of whether Quakerism is a separate religion from Christianity has been raised. I'm not a Quaker, so don't have the "insider" perspective. Do Quakers think of themselves as of a separate religion from Christianity, or do they think of themselves as representing one stream (a "denomination", if you like) of the Christian tradition ? Any help, particularly from Quakers, would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. WMMartin 21:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I posted a comment there, hopefully I was helpful. --Ahc 00:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Code of Conduct"

I am planning to delete the additions on September 15, 2005 to Beliefs and practices of Friends. It seems to me that "code of conduct" is misleading and could make some readers think that a code is imposed upon Friends. It also adds nothing new of significant to the article, which is already long enough. I am posting this warning, so that the editor who added that paragraph can respond first. Logophile 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, so why wait? The following text has been removed:

Quakers follow a basic code of behavior that revolves mostly around the concepts of plainness, equality, and fair play, based on the three testimonies.

The Testimony of Simplicity-

The Testimony of Equality-

The Testimony of Integrity-

—Ahc 14:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

featured

Logophile asked me what I think the article needs before it could be featured, so I'm answering here.

1. References. Major facts need specific references. (It's a requirement of FA status.)
2. Pictures. The 2 pics are great, but we need more, and need them spread out throughout the article.
3. Some short sections can be expanded or combined. "Quaker organizations" and "Some Quaker organizations" is an obvious choice, but there are other organizational problems. Should "Decision making among Friends" be a part of "Quaker worship", for instance?
4. If you list this on Wikipedia:Peer review, you're likely to get tons more useful help.

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thou

Do Quakers speaking languages that maintain the T-V distinction (French, German, Spanish,...) avoid the respectful pronoun for the plainer one or was it just so among English speakers? --Error 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Error -- I believe in France they began by tutoyering everyone, but then things got complicated and now apparently French quakers lean the other way, towards vous: [1]. In a sense, "plain speech" does not mean "use the less respectful version", but rather more something along the lines of "do not create distinctions where there are none" — i.e., do not designate one person as more deserving of respect than another when all are equal in the eyes of God.

It seems that, in the cases where authorities (or conventions) were demanding that some people be addressed with more than due respect, Quakers rebelled and used tu for all; on the other hand, when authorities (or conventions) were demanding that others be addressed with less than due respect, they rebelled and used vous for all. In both cases, they were making explicit their opposition. Just one thought. Sdedeo 05:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(Just added some of this info to the simplicity testimony page.) Sdedeo 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer as a native-speaker of any language with that distinction, but I can tell you that as a Quaker I maintain it when I speak to people in other languages (in my case, Spanish and Russian). I was curious as to why, traditionally, Quakers used the informal for all instead of the formal for all; the explanation I got from another member of my Meeting (so bear in mind this is anecdotal) was that early Quakers believed they were speaking to that of God in the person, which is a very intimate relationship (for example, I belive most if not all languages with the formal/informal pronouns use the informal one in prayer...I know this is the case in Spanish). --aFriend.

RECAST

I just removed a section entitled RECAST from the Britain YM section of basic divisions. The text follows:

There has been suggestions made of a new system, under the name of RECAST, to rearrange the structure and to try to reduce some of the bureaucracy that the current system is prone to cause. RECAST was discussed at Britain Yearly Meeting 2005 were it faced a lot of criticism as well as a lot of support and it is still uncertain whether or not RECAST will be put into practice totally, partially or not at all.

My basic thought here is that until this is a settled issue within BYM is probably isn't something that should be included. Once the process is done, then it would clearly make sense to replace the description of the YM structure, and in the history section of the yearly meeting. In my mind while this may be a critical issue to some members of BYM, it is not a critical issue to someone coming to learn about the basics of Quakerism through an encyclopedia article. --Ahc 19:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Logophile 08:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I must admit I had some doubts about putting that section in the first place. Although I agree that it may not be of any great concern to someone wanting to learn about the society, I would maintain that it's still worth noting. I'll put in what I hope to be a comprimise. Paul Carpenter 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Carpenter, I could accept the compromise, although I would like to note that Wikipedia generally doesn't include knowledge of what might happen. Logophile 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but disscusion of RECAST definately has happened. Glad this got sorted. Paul Carpenter 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Update I've put detail about RECAST in the BYM article where I hope it'll be more apropriate. Paul Carpenter 21:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job. BTW, I'm afraid your edit to the Isaac Penington quote was not accurate. I reverted it and provided a link to verifty the correct quotation. Logophile 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

CONTRADICTION

Is it just me or do these two comments contadict each other? "Unprogrammed worship is the more traditional style of worship among Friends and remains the norm in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and much of the United States." and "Programmed worship arose in the US in the 19th century in response to large numbers of converts to Quakerism during the national spiritual revivalism of the time. Worship at a Friends Church resembles a typical Protestant worship service in the United States. Typically there are readings from scripture, hymns, and a sermon from the pastor. Most Friends outside of the United Kingdom and the North Eastern region of the United States worship in this way."

So the majority of Quakers outside of Britain and the North East US attend both programmed and unprogrammed worship? Obviously a contradiction there. Any Quakers can give us some insight into what the norm is? We've established that non-programmed is the usual in Britain and parts of America, but everything else seems to be a big unknown. LupusCanis 17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear that there is a major issue here, since broad sweeping terms are used. In the US unprogrammed worship is more common in the north east, parts of the north west, and parts of Florida, which is "much" (not most, but much) of the country. Unprogrammed worship in the US is concentrated in the North-east, although it is present in most of the country to some degree. We could swap "much" for "parts" and it might be slightly clearer.

I don't read these parts as causing confusion about suggesting 2 styles are present in any one congragation. Maybe I've just read it too much. --Ahc 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I see his point. There's no such thing as too much clarity. Paul Carpenter 21:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another point, which only makes the issue less clear, is that some Meetings offer both programmed and unprogrammed worship. Some offer both services each Firstday and others alternate between programmed and unprogrammed from week to week. And there is also the issue of semi-programmed Meetings for worship. I am writing from my experience which is mostly limited to North Carolina YM. SCarter Carterponds 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oatmeal

Guys you need to put in some info about the oatmeal. Lots of people who visit must be wondering about it and you should probably address it in some way. Mcasey666 04:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no actuall affiliation between the Quaker Oats company and the RSoF. For infomation on why the Quaker Oats company choose thier name, see there article. I'll try to get some clarity into this article. Paul Carpenter 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the link to the dissambiguation article should suffice. There'll be no point writing about oats, tyres and parrots when people have come to read about the society. Paul Carpenter 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Standing Aside and its Alternative

In the "Decision Making", the seldom used (but one used by myself) "standing in the way" is totally excluded but implied. I'm thinking through a way to not just imply that it happens, but to describe the process. After all, many Friends have "stood in the way" and either prevented something beneficial or something deleterious to happen. I know of a Monthly Meeting that was not laid down and its meetinghouse wasn't sold off because of one man standing in the way. Artsygeek 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, add something to the article about it ! Doovinator 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it already state that Friends can express oposition in a buisness meeting? Is that what you were refering to? Paul Carpenter 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm referring to, and I'm mulling over a way to express that such opposition can at least "slow down" the process of something happening...At times that expression of opposition can get people to rethink their positions and then move forward in a manner that is more fair. Artsygeek 04:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please include something about "turn one's back on" as this does still happen in GfM. It is uncommon, being as it is a physical expression of disagreement to the point of refusing to consider another's "ministry" but it does happen.

Also, "Standing aside" is a physical action done during a Friend's ministry, this is also unusual (although more common than turning one's back on) as it is indicative of disagreement based on either that the current ministry is not "inspired by the light" or the current ministry is strongly oppositional to one's own experience. "Standing aside" as a physical action during someone's ministry as indicates disagreement but willingness to allow the other's witness unlike "turning one's back" during someone's ministry which indicates a refusal to accept or otherwise tacitly condone said ministry. "Standing aside" is a murky issue that is not taken lightly during ministry but "turning one's back" is even serious and thus rarely done. Both actions signify a Friend's belief that the current ministry is not acceptable as is to the extent that the standing Friend implies the current ministry to be "of the light" Given Friends' consensual nature and committment to tolerance and equality, "standing aside" as well as "turning one's back" is tantamount to stepping beyond the borders of Friends' acceptable expression of faith.

As well, "Standing in the way" can be metaphorical, or it can be physical but the same danger presents itself to the Friend who chooses to take such action -one is defying the very foundations of Friends' organization: consensus and recognition of the "inner light in all".

71.56.51.92 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) smibbo

References

I've been working tonight on building up the references in this article, so that existing references are formatted properly, and so that other items that should have references get them. As I find questions/problems that I need help with I'll post them here. --Ahc 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. In the creeds section it currently says: George Fox dismissed theologians as "notionists". The problem is that after a bit of searching online I can't find any place Fox actually says this. I found references by John Burneyeat and Edward Burrough, but not Fox. Anyone have ideas about where this is from? --Ahc 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't ring any bells, why not just change the sentacne to Burneyet dismissed...? Paul Carpenter 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are three examples from the journal:

• GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography, CHAPTER V.

[2] After a while there came a priest to visit him, with whom also I had some discourse concerning the Truth. But his mouth was quickly stopped, for he was nothing but a notionist, and not in possession of what he talked of.

• GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography CHAPTER VII

[3] After the meeting the pastor of the Baptists, an high notionist and a flashy man, asked me what must be damned. I was moved immediately to tell him that that which spoke in him was to be damned. This stopped his mouth; and the witness of God was raised up in him. I opened to him the states of election and reprobation; so that he said he never heard the like in his life. He came afterwards to be convinced.

• GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography CHAPTER VI

[4] Thence I went to Ulverstone, and so to Swarthmore[75] to Judge Fell's; whither came up one Lampitt, a priest, who was a high notionist. With him I had much reasoning; for he talked of high notions and perfection, and thereby deceived the people.

Logophile 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Logophile, I forgot to thank you for these the other day. The research is most helpful. --Ahc 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Inner Light in the Introduction

I recently made an addition to the discussion of the Inner Light in the Introduction, intending to make it a little more accurate and to document early Friends' usage of this concept with a referene to a statement by George Fox. My addition has now been removed, I think by [Logophile] in an effort to condense and rearrange the introduction. I plan to reinsert it, but would welcome discussion of whether the addition is legitimate.

Prior to my addition, the part of the text in question said "The central concept among Friends is that of the Inner Light, which is a guiding force within each person."

I amended this to read: "The most central concept of all is the Inner Light. Some contemporary Friends speak of the Inner Light as a guiding force within each person, almost as if it were a part of the individual human personality, but early Friends beginning with George Fox identified the Light with Christ (See, for example the opening paragraphs of Fox's Some Principles of the Elect People of God In Scorn Called Quakers. They emphasized that the Light comes from God and is given in order to show people how to live in harmony with God's will."

I feel that this version is more accurate because it avoids implying that all or most Friends would agree that the Inner Light is "a guiding force within each person," a formulation that would leave many Christian unprogrammed Friends (both Hicksite and Conservative) unsatisfied and might seem completely off the mark to many programmed Friends. I believe there are even some Evangelical Friends who reject the whole doctrine of the Inner Light entirely, but still consider themselves Friends, so it could be that even the claim that the Inner Light is the central concept of Quakerism needs to be qualified.

Richquaker 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to address what you wrote point-by-point in order to simplify the discussion. First let me say that I appreciate the spirit in which you made your insertion and with which you explain it here. In no way am I against the general thrust of what you wrote or your reasons for doing so.

• The article itself is long, and the introduction was starting to get a bit long. I looked over some featured articles to determine a good length for an introduction. In general the introduction of a Wikipedia article introduces the article and previews some of the points that are coming up later in the article. Generally no point in the introduction is developed much until it is discussed later in the article. That is why I took out your explanation.
• A fuller discussion about the Inner Light is found in the article by that name, which I encourage you to edit. You probably know much more about the subject than I do, as you are an insider and I am only an interested outsider. If people who read the introduction need more clarification, they can keep reading this article, or they can go to the separate Inner Light article.
• If you feel that the sentence about the Inner Light in the introduction could be worded better, please offer an alternative. Go ahead and rewrite it, in fact. If you think it could use a qualification in a second sentence, then go ahead and add one. I just think that we need to keep it brief so that this article in general, and the introduction specifically do not get too long.
• I objected to the wording "most central concept of all" because the word 'most' is redundant, and 'of all' seemed to me to have nothing it referred to. "central concept in Quakerism" says exactly what is meant.
• I felt that the paragraph you edited lost its coherence because it went from Inner Light to Testimonies and then back to Inner Light. Whatever we do, lets keep things flowing smoothly in the article.
• I have worked on the article a good bit, and the thing that I have found frustrating is the many qualifications that have to be put in. We must remember that this is an encyclopedia article that will be read by people who are not Quakers and by people who may never have even heard of Quakers. I think it will get very confusing to keep delineating all of the specific differences between different Quaker groups. We have to do it some, but we need to make the article as clear as possible to anyone who will read it. I think we can agree that we can list some general facts about Quakerism, even if they don't always apply to every single Quaker group or individual.
• I would like you to explain further what your disagreement is about this wording: "The central concept among Friends is that of the Inner Light, which is a guiding force within each person." Even if you say that the Light is Christ, it seems that the statement is still accurate. As far as I know, even Evangelical Quakers believe that Christ still speaks to people, which is the essence of the concept described in the statement. But, as I said, edit away!
• I originally added the paragraph in question because I felt that readers need to understand right away what it is that Quakers beleive and what distinguishes them from other groups. If you don't think that the Inner Light is the central concept, I would like to see a suggestion of what is, so that people can understand what the core belief of Quakerism is. Otherwise, we aren't really telling them the essential point. Logophile 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for all the work of late on this article; I think we're getting close to having something good here. I aggree with Logophile that we need to keep the introduction short. The article as a whole is getting rather long, but I'm not sure how much else there is to ship off the other articles. While I'm not thrilled with the current language, I haven't been able to come up with anything better myself. Maybe we can find something between the current text and the Richquaker's proposed changes. --Ahc 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To address the response of Logophile:

The changes made by richquaker are more accurate despite the qualifiers. I agree that flow is important; and I understand that this is intended as an introduction. However, in order for anything to be accurate about contemporary Quakerism it, unfortunately, requires many qualifiers.

For example, for each assertion made about Friends, such as "The Inner Light is the central concept of Quakerism", there will be many Friends who disagree. Likewise, not all Friends refer to the presence of God withn as the "Inner Light" (a pretty new term amongst liberal unprogrammed Friends during the 20th century). In fact, the majority of Quakers, who are pastoral/evangelical throughout the world no longer hold to this central idea.

The main point: there is no central or key belief that unites all Quakers except for our common history. Richquaker's additions were meant to clarfiy the term's meaning both from a historical as well as contemporaneous perspective. Who knew that a term such as "the Inner Light" could be so "loaded" amongst us Quakers? :)

Please understand that the information about Quakers out on the Internet is substantially skewed towards liberal unprogrammed Friends. Recent small changes made to this introducation made by richquaker and myself (both of us from the liberal, unprogrammed branch of Friends) are meant to create a more balanced introduction as Richquaker explained in his question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joemg7777 (talk • contribs) .

And it rightfully is "skewed" towards "liberal" unprogrammed Friends (it should be noted that Conservatives, albeit small, hold to similar views as the Liberals), speaking from the augury of the demographics. Many of the Pastoral/Evangelical Friends are distancing themselves from almost all of the traditionally held Friends' Testimonies, such as the Peace Testimony; many are even dropping the term "Friends" from their names. Please understand that the reason it is "skewed" is because--with the exception of Kenya--programmed Friends are decreasing with the unprogrammed Friends, albeit at a faster rate; in the United States, Unprogrammed liberal Friends are on the rise in suburbia and urban centers, albeit not quite yet at the rate that membership and attendership is falling in rural areas. Artsygeek 15:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable accepting that "skew" so easily. We need to find some kind of balanace between having the whole thing full of qualifiers, and just accepting that some view points are ignored. For example, Artsygeek points out that the number of Friends in Kenya is growing. In fact as many Friends live there as anywhere else, but they are poorly represented in the article. This leads me to feel the article still has POV problems, not a sensible balance. One the other hand if we start qualifing everything to detail that we have in the introduction, I feel the article would become unreadable. I'm hoping to do another end-to-end edit in the next few days, maybe better language will come to me then. --Ahc 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that others have done, as noted by Ahc. This will not be perfect and there will always be quibbles. My intent was not to add to that, but to clarify the reason for Richquaker's change. However, I disagree with the assertions made by Artsygeek. Nothing justifies a "skewed" POV when it is in fact inaccurate. The opinion that you express is one held by some unprogrammed Friends that believe that we are "closer" or "truer" to "real" Quakerism, which is not necessarily the case.

I don't know which programmed Friends that you know, but the ones I am personal Friends with are very committed to being Quakers. Tis true that some pastoral Friends have moved away from the Testimonies, but so have liberal Friends for no longer believing that the Inner Light is Christ Jesus. As to growth: numbers are decreasing across all branches of Quakerism in North America. However, missional work in other parts of the world have flourished. Of the Friends I personally know from Burundi and Kenya, they clearly identify as Friends. Go figure. As this is not a place to debate but to clafiry and discuss this entry for Wikipedia, I will refrain from further posting about Quakerism, per se. Thank you again for all those who previously have worked on this entry. It shows and it is indeed appreciated!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joemg7777 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, I've tried again to rework the first few paragraphs. After reflecting on it a little, I've pulled the text on Testimonies. I think Friends views on God (Inner light, the Spirit...) are more important to draw attention to what make's Friends different from other groups. The testimonies are outgrowths of this belief, so I wanted to strength the focus. I also cut into the section on Mysticism. I think it was too verbose, and didn't really say much that wasn't better said elsewhere. As always I'm opening to disagreement. --Ahc 04:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Basic Divisions and Organization Section

I edited this slightly today. As it stood, this section was sub-divided into a discussion of the divisions and organization of the Society of Friends in 1) Great Britain; 2) The United States; and 3) Australia. I'm not sure this geographical approach is the right one anyway, but if it is it seems it should include East Africa, where there are more Quakers than in either Great Britain or in Australia and more than in any single Yearly Meeting in the United States. Unfortunately, I know only a little about these Friends, so I could contribute only a very sketcy paragraph. I also referred readers to the existing article on Quakers in Kenya. Note: there are also Quakers in South Africa - a topic I did not feel competent to even begin to address.Richquaker 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Organizations Sections

Does anyone have good ideas on how to improve the Quaker organizations section? If so, please try them. I tried once the other night, but I don't feel like I made a big difference. To my eye, right now that looks like the weakest part of the article, running well behind much of the rest. --Ahc 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life blurb in The Peace Testimony section

I removed this sentence once today. A third editor replaced it:

The Peace Testimony has also motivated many Quakers to have a pro-life view-point. [5]

I do not think this view, a minority view in most meetings as the cited source makes clear, is appropriate in a one-paragraph description of the Peace Testimony. I think it should be either removed or supplemented with this sentence which accompanies it in Peace Testimony:

The vast majority of Quakers are pro-choice, believing, e.g., that consciousness and mental accumen beyond that of a newborn is necessary for meaningful communion with the Spirit.

I completely disagree with this statement. I would say that many of the more progressive Quaker groups might mostly be pro-choice, but that isn't very descriptive of the conservative branches. (I mean, is "vast majority" more NPOV? My original sentence didn't say anything about majority/minority status of pro-life/choice among friends, but instead my statement was merely pointing out that it was used by many pro-life Quakers as motivation for their view.) Robotbeat 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments? Is there perhaps a better way to merge these opposing views into a coherent single sentence? --James S. 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed amendation. — goethean ॐ 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it out. The Peace Testimony blurb does not need to become a pro-choice/life debate. I'm concerned about the same issue in the main Peace Testimony article, let alone here. --Ahc 14:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any graceful way to reconcile the two, and no need to muck up the article. Since Quakers as a whole are ambivalent, keep it out. Doovinator 14:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section needn't be an abortion debate. I was just trying to show a different use of this testimony other than pacifism, etc. (I agree that this is much more appropriate in the Peace Testimony article.) Robotbeat 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth considering the diversity of opinions there are, both within the US but also the rest of the world. In Britain most Quakers seem to be pro-choice (but in the UK as a whole abortion is not so much a controversial topic as in the USA). I agree with Doovinator - since Quakerism lacks creed or religious doctrine no reference to Quaker stance on abortion is necessary, since it varies so widely, and is usually left to individual interpretation. JFT 11:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doovinator that it would muck up this article. An editor could put it in Peace Testimony, but for it to belong in Wikipedia, both sides would need to be presented--with sources. I doubt that it is possible to determine what most Quakers believe about abortion. Logophile 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too..Quakers differ extremely vastly on abortion. I also have serious issues with the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life"...but that's neither here nor there..Artsygeek 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife section

I reverted User:Carrionluggage's section on Afterlife; the statement that many Quakers do not put emphasis on life after death is backed up by many sources, including (I believe) Friends for 300 Years by Howard Brinton. I'll check later this evening... DAllen\^talk 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the Afterlife section, attempting to expand and clarify the diversity of belief among Friends. I think a NPOV should say more than "Friends place a little or a lot of emphasis on the afterlife". This is one of the areas that has a wide diversity of beliefs among Friends. Unfortunately, I won't be able to check Friends for 300 Years until First Day. If somebody else has input from Brinton or other sources, feel free to put in an oar! DAllen\^talk 06:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Friends beleif in Afterlife, the society has its foundation in the New Testament. Heaven and hell, and the ability to determine for ones-self their destination, were interpreted literally from the teachings of the New Testament. During the 17th and 18th centuries this was a radical distinction that set Fox and other friends apart from the thinking of the time, especially the anglican church. While all Friends have been encouraged to build their own beleifs and follow their inner light, or voice; a belief in the afterlfe has always traditionally been a big part of the Friends beliefs. This is common in most Christian denominations today, but was a belief that set Friends apart until the great revival of the 19th century. Some Friends hold views that do not include an afterlife, but I do not wish the Society as a whole, to be viewed this way because of a minority of Friends that are exercising the freedoms that membership as a Quaker allows. I felt and hope, that by striking out one line and changing a few words would not infringe on the beliefs of a few while supporting the views of the majority. >I'm still trying to figure out how all of this editing works, so please don't mistake any repeated editing for stubborness. SCarter

(the previous unsigned section was written by Carterponds)

Welcome Carterponds! ...It seems there are a few revert cycles happening. In sequence in the last few days I've seen:

DAllen: Friends have a wide ranges of beliefs regarding what happens when a person dies. Some Friends follow a literal or metaphorical interpretation of Scriptures regarding heaven and hell, while some do not believe in an afterlife. Many Friends do not place a great deal of emphasis on knowing God's plans for the next world, instead preferring to focus on discerning and following God's plans for them in this world.

192.208.44.100: [up to last sentence same] ... Most Friends place a great deal of emphasis on knowing God's plans for the next world.

Carterponds: [up to last sentence same] ...a few do not believe in an afterlife. Most Friends place a great deal of emphasis on knowing God's plans for the next world.

Carrionluggage: Friends have a wide ranges of beliefs regarding what happens when a person dies. Most Friends concentrate on listening for God's leadings towards providing service to society in this life and pay little attention to questions of life after death.

It seems clear to me that if this section should exist in the article, it needs to be properly sourced. I can mentally picture parts of Friends for 300 Years that address this, but I don't have it in front of me. I'd sort of like this section to be in the article, but some of what we're saying is directly contradictory, so we have some work to do if it's going to pass muster as Neutral Point of View. More later; I have to go for now. DAllen\^talk 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please let's avoid continual reverts about tricky issues. Let's talk about issues here on the talk page and decide by consensus. Yes, we probably should mention Quaker views about the afterlife, as many non-Quakers will want to know about them. However, we need to keep trying to represent all Quaker views and not just some. Logophile 08:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have strong reservations with having hardly anything in the general article unless we can properly represent the extremely wide spectrum of views outside of the fact that Friends don't do too much talking about the afterlife. Perhaps it rises to the point of having another article just on Quaker views of the afterlife...I dunno. Artsygeek 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about an entire article on Quaker views of the afterlife, but I do see that the "Beliefs and practices" section is probably at the statge where it could become a separate article. Let's put some thought into the possibility and plan the best way to do it, if we decide to do it. Logophile 08:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

I gave this matter of "afterlife" (and similar issues) another thought. I think we should agree not to use the phrase "most Quakers". It isn't really possible to determine what "most Quakers" believe. As long as we try to present one view as normative, then we will always be stuck with POV and a potential for edit reversions. We can say "some Quakers," "many Quakers," "several Quaker organizations," and such things, but let's strive for accuracy and NPOV. Anyone willing to pledge to avoid "most Quakers" along with me? Logophile 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, excellent suggestion. I would even suggest refraining from using "many Quakers", as experiences of what "many Quakers" agree at a local (state, country or regional) level are not necissarily the same as what Quakers in other parts of the world think, and whilst we may each know what the feeling of our local or yearly meeting is, it is not always reflected worldwide. Of course, if the article relates to a specific geographical area (for example, Britain Yearly Meeting), then this will be less of an issue as the parameters of people holding the opinion are clearly defined, but in other articles, especially in the Religious Society of Friends one, where the views are for the whole Society, it might be better to not use "many Quakers", or preface it with "In Britain many Quakers believe..." or "Within Friends United Meeting many Quakers think...". JFT 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

JFT, you make a good point. I suggested "many Quakers" as an option because we also need to avoid giving the impression that a particular view is held by a tiny minority. For example, it is true that many Quakers believe in a literal heaven, but it is also true that many Quakers do not. We will never know exact numbers on any of these issues. I definitely agree with the geographical and organizational qualifiers. So if no one objects, I would think that we could use "many" judiciously--when it is demonstrably true. Logophile 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good suggestion, although also a signficant challenge. Hopefully it'll bring greatly clarity to the article. --Ahc 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we respond to the deletion of userboxes?

Recently, the {{User quaker}} and similar userboxes, such as {{User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive/User agnostic}} have been deleted. Should we respond or is it best just to redo them individually on our userpages with a note that we disclose our points of view in hopes of obtaining a more neutral encylopedia? --James S. 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the issue of Userboxes is quite the point of discussion outside the 2 mentioned here. I think this is a better question to raise as part of the larger discussion, not as part of this article (and project. --Ahc 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is even a need to raise any objections at all. The userboxes may clash with the testimony of plainness. --James S. 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Questioning the Item on "Proselytization"

The item on "Proselytization" under "Beliefs and Practices of Friends" says in full 'Friends refrain from proselytizing. The many Friends who do public service or charitable work, or provide "witness" (demonstration, letter to the editor, or whatever) on peace and social issues, feel that their work may speak for itself.'

This seems not very informative and possibly misleading. It all depends on what one means by "proselytizing", and the term is not defined here. When George Fox said that it was his mission to "...to turn people from darkness to the light that they might receive Christ Jesus..." was that proselytizing? If so, then there has been at least one Friend who did not refrain from proselytizing. If it wasn't proselytizing, then why not? Does the fact that Quakerism started in England and is now quite strong in Eastern Africa have anything to do with "proselytizing" in former generations?

It's true that one often hears conemporary Friends say (sometimes with a hint of smugness) that "Friends do not proselytize". So I think the topic could well be addressed in some way. But if it is, some related questions should also be addressed. For example: If some Friends don't proselytize, Why don't they? Are they opposed to bringing in new members of their society? Does an opposition to proselytizing flow in some way from basic Friends beliefs (despite the contrary example of George Fox)? When did Friends develop the idea that they should not proselytize? Is this idea found in the Faith and Practice of any Yearly Meeting? Is it common to all branches of Quakerism (even the evangelicals?) or just to some? How do Friends distinguish between forms of outreach (if any) that are not proselytizing and forms that are? For example, is it proselytizing to try to convince people that war, capital punishment, social injustice, conspicuous consumption, etc. are wrong? Is it proselytizing to invite one's acquaintances to Meeting? I don't feel quite up to the task of writing a revised treatment of this topic right now, but I am hoping that someone will be. --Richquaker 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not like that portion either, mostly for the reasons that you mention. I'm going to delete it for now. If we ever create a new article on Quaker beliefs and practices, then perhaps we could put it a fuller treatment of this topic. Logophile 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a minute! Proselytizing I've always understood to be actively attempting to convert others to your own religion. That's different from discussing how you feel about war and such. In the meeting I attended, Quaker thought was never presented as religion, but as personal belief. Since one can never "convert" others to one's own personal belief, but only influence them, it not only was not done but was not even possible. One can invite others to meeting, but their belief is always going to be theirs and mine, mine. If there is no creed, there is no creed to profess. I hope this is clear (but I doubt it!) Doovinator 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Doovinator, that is your experience in your meeting, but this article is about the RSOF as a whole. It is also just one way to use the word "proselytize". Even inviting somebody to meeting could be considered proselytizing. PERSONAL QUESTIONS: If you don't think that your "personal beliefs" are actually true, then why hold them? If you think they are true, don't you want others to hold them as well? And if you belong to a group of people (meeting) who have the same or similar "beliefs", how is that different from a "religion"? Logophile 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the problem with "RELIGIOUS" Society of Friends. Perhaps it's time to separate "Society of Friends" from "RELIGIOUS Society of Friends"? I've always been uncomfortable with the term, because "RELIGIOUS" implies that I AM a part of a group of people who share X, Y, and Z beliefs, when as far as I'm concerned it's completely irrelevant whether I believe in X and Z but not Y and someone else believes in X and Y but not Z. A "religion", it seems to me, is a group of people who all profess to believe XYZ and ABC and GHI but not JK, while "another" religion is one who professes belief in XY, ABCD, GJK but not Z, H and I. Scratch the surface of either group and you'll find dozens who believe X, AB, and G but aren't so sure about Y, C, D, HIJK, Z or anything else. The whole point of the unstructured meeting is that everyone finds the light in THEIR OWN way. My beliefs are personal, and I don't feel compelled or even inclined to share or explain them to any but those who are truly interested. Even then it's not as part of "a group" that I share what I, personally, believe, nor do I have any interest whatsoever in attracting anyone to a meeting for any reason but what THEY, personally, believe. And as to what I believe, I'm not compelled to tell you, or anyone else, WHY I hold my belief as true, or even WHAT my beliefs are. I follow the light as I see it, but that's not and will never be my "religion". I don't proselytize because it's not possible; I don't have a "religion" to proselytize for.Doovinator 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you brought this idea up again, I took a little time to poke around with Google to see if there were new arguements that I've missed in the past. I looked over the first three pages for Google results for "Society of Friends" and I didn't find any sites that differentated between RSoF and SoF. What occurred to me was that all kept up the reference to Quaker. If you split off the article are you suggesting that RSoF or SoF is refering to Quakers? Which article should Quaker forward to? I believe you're back to discussing differences that are too small to be sensible in an Encyclopedia. Yes this is a debat amoung a few Friends, but in my experience not many.

To the direct question of proselytization, I have encounted Friends that proselytize in many different ways. Further, proselytization is usually but not limited to use in a religious context (see dictionary.reference.com), so even dropping the word from the title doesn't really help. I feel the paragraph is inaccurate, and therefore was proper to remove. --Ahc 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Doovinator, I'm sorry that I put you on the spot. My questions were simply curiosity, and I was wrong for asking them on this talk page. Do you really want a separate article called "Society of Friends"? In what way would it be different from this one? Logophile 07:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A phrase from my youth comes to mind..."DO WHAT?" I don't get the point of separating the two. They seem to be synonymous. And then there's the whole issue of duplicated content and the greater possibility of tampering with articles, as there'd be fewer eyes on the other article. Artsygeek 01:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really want to split them apart, and all that. However, they're most definitely not synonymous. I don't doubt some who call themselves "Religious Society of Friends" proselytize, in the religious sense, but in my circle we absolutely did not. Doovinator 14:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement about Friends not proselytizing is one of those cases where we speak with blinders on. My old-style dictionary speaks of proselyte as a convert of "one opinion, regligious belief, sect, or the like to another." [emphasis mine] Friends have been proselytizing since the beginning (think of the early American Friends and their testimony in churches at the time). Here in the South (US), John Woolman's ministry was definitely proselytizing against slavery. I also take the view that "speaking truth to power" has a measure of proselytizing. The sense of the word in my dictionary is that it is not simply religious conversion. If we mean to actively attempt to convert people to Christianity, then there is considerably less proselytizing. Even then, it is not always true. The Quaker tradition in the United States does include active religious conversion as well (there is nothing more interesting than a Quaker old-time gospel revival). When I was actively visiting FUM churches in my state, the majority of ministers were Baptist and interested in conversion. Even moreso were the Evangelical Friends in the state. I also disagree with your catorization of Friends meetings a non-religious, but this is not the forum for that. Ted 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New Footnotes

I have converted the article to use the new footnotes. The advantage to this is that the text of the footnote is kept with the text where it is used. This makes it easier to maintain adding and deleting footnotes. I used cut-and-paste of the actual footnote, so there shouldn't be a problem, but you might want to make sure. Ted 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating to the new footnote format. Just after I converted this article to the format you replaced I saw people start using the better format. I've never taken the time to fix it. Thanks for stepping up. --Ahc 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You did all the hard work. It took me all of 15 minutes to change it. Ted 18:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Quaker vs Friend

An editor just went through and changed all references from "Quaker" to "Friend". Is "Quaker" such a big deal? I've noticed in my own usage, that I tend to say both "Quaker" and "Friend" to other Quakers and only "Quaker" when I talk to non-Friends. For one, there is sometimes the confusion between "Friend" and "friend", while "Quaker" is nearly instantly recognized. I really don't care which way we use, although, I guess, I personally use "Quaker" -- "Quakers for Lunch" sounds somehow better than "Friends for Lunch" when refering to my weekly lunch with Quakers. It does raises a red flag when someone makes editorial changes like that (similar to people who simply can't let British/American spellings go unchanged). Ted 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Should have been discussed first; "Friend" is ambiguous, "Quaker" is not. Doovinator 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

so nice

It seems like such a pleasant religion.