Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
It's pretty clear the whole thing about 'nontheist friends' is from some tiny splinter group as the source can barely muster a badly designed webpage to show for itself. That's fine, but the prominent location of this discussion in the introduction to the article would strongly suggest to the casual reader that quakerism is beset by a huge secularist contingent... for all appearances that's far from the truth - if anything it appears to be the exception that proves the rule.
In typical wikipedia fashion the most outspoken seem to be writing the history out of all proportion to their numbers, years precedent, or authority of their claims. One supposes every major group has some hangers on that claim affinity for it despite the puzzling incoherence of this view or it being taken less than seriously by the group itself, but rarely are they given such a place of primacy in the discussion. By way of example the article on Roman Catholicism doesn't start out with a mention of the four Lefebvrist bishops and it would be a crazy distortion if it did. If there's any reason for this to be retained one supposes it should be in a seperate article or a seperate section, something along the lines as 'recent secular groups identifying with quakerism'.
Nontheist Friends are indeed a small segment of the general Society of Friends, but they are far from insignificant. Their voice is heard in many ways and the contributions they make to the ongoing conversation about Spirit, faith and meaning in Quakerism are important. See the Nontheist Friends page and its collection of resources[1] for more information. Jaybird vt (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Non-theism IS important to Quakerism--at the meeting I'm involved in, it makes up quite a few of our members. The point of keeping the non-theism is to show (I believe) that Quakers are very diverse in their belief systems, that though rooted in Christianity, it's not a religious movement tied exclusively to the elect. The inclusivism does not sit well with conservative forms of Quakerism, but for more liberal forms it fits nicely.
In regard to the example for Roman Catholicism, I would argue that there's far more per capita diversity among Quakers than there is among Roman Catholics. It's important to take note of that diversity with a religious movement that is small (despite it's international residence). I do think we could clear this up with a notation about conservative/liberal ideologies, which is what I believe the author intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.3.167 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Due to some edits made today, this article is very long, and the number of exceptions and qualifications has made it a bit cumbersome and tedious. I am not criticizing the content of the additions. I think that the editor who made them has added some interesting and important details. I think that it is time to break part of this article into a new one called Quaker Beliefs and Practices. We can keep a summary in all the relevant sections here but move probably one-third of the present article over. Anyone else? Logophile 06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I did spend a bit of time on this article, and have made it longer. I suspect the main reasons for this are:
That said, I am willing to work in a more systematic way through the article, with someone.
Several things to keep in mind:
All of these and many more, taken together, paint a rather complicated picture.
This perhaps accounts for some of the differences above between people's different experiences with "pastoral Friends." Some monthly meetings (we need to cover the importance of language to Quakers--so many have gone to prison over its use) are almost indistinguishable from Conservative Baptist, ECLA, ECNA or Christian Church--Disciples of Christ congregations.
Other meetings, even Evangelical Friends meetings, are actively working to rediscover what living out the Quaker Testimonies means. For example, the new Superintendant of Northwest Yearly Meeting just stepped down as clerk of an organization called "Right Sharing of World Resources." This group is dedicated to addressing the huge (and sinful, even) gaps between the wealthiest and poorest people. Hardly what one would expect from a card-carrying evangelical leader.
I have discovered, through working to plan worship activities with Friends from throughout the World (though mostly from US) that we don't even mean the same things when we say "pastoral" or "programmed". That is, a meeting that is "pastoral" in one part of the country would be considered "unprogrammed" in another.
Meanwhile, I have good [F,f]riends working at the core of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting who have experienced what they report as "personal Salvation, as a gift from Jesus". There are many different ways in which these varied perspectives can flourish within even a single Monthly meeting.
Unlike most religious organizations, no one is empowered to speak for anyone else. Here in the Pacific Northwest there are two Yearly Meetings which come into surprisingly little contact with each other. One is very evangelical, the other is socially and theologically liberal. The two might both work on behalf of a third entity (to promote peace, for example) and not even know the other is involved. So what could you say about the Religious Society of Friends here???
. . .and this area is rather simplified. There are some areas of the US (in the Midwest, in particular) in which as many as six yearly meetings are involved.
There are not any one set of "Quaker Queries," regardless of what any one individual from any one particular Yearly Meeting might have experienced. Some Quakers do practice water baptism. Some Quakers "support our troops" with displays of the national flag on the dais. Some Quakers believe from the depths of their being that other Quakers are doomed (whether in this life or the next, depending on the theology).
Some Quakers express resonance with Jesuits, others with Wiccan practitioners.
We don't even share the same umbrella organizations. There are many from which to choose. Oh, and to make it more complicated, still, the Bolivian Yearly Meeting is training missionaries to go to India and Africa--especially to places where "Westerners" are not welcome. But generally speaking, they are much more conservative than are the "evangelical" meetings in the States. I await eagerly the arrival of the first missionaries from the Bolivian Yearly Meeting to the United States!
There are already evangelical Friends from Guatemala who regularly meet with immigrants from Guatemala in Philadelphia. Oh, and their meetings each week in the heart of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting are programmed. . .mostly.
My own monthly meeting has one group of 10-20 who meet in unprogrammed worship. Then we have a programmed service of from 160-200, following. We have 54 kids at last count, including adopted children from seven countries (I may not have all of them accounted for). We could very well be the most diverse collection of folks at a church/meeting in Oregon.
Oh, and the town of Newberg here has about 20,000 people and six separate Friends meetings (one of which regularly tops 900 in four services and another rarely sees 50 attenders). Are they "the same"?
Just about the time I give up on "Quaker" as a useful distinction, I am reminded by some endeavor, past or present, that "feels like home" to me.
So what can I say other than "this is perfect for a Wikipedia endeavor?"
And that as you can see from this "discussion" post, I very much need an editor to work with, to help with word-bloat and topic-creep. I would, however, prefer a "dictionary definition" entry for "Religious Society of Friends" over an entry that would dismiss as irrelevant entire groups of fellow seekers after Truth.
I do apologize where I have violated norms and expectations about length of post or topic, or format. I truly do not mean to offend, just to offer meaningful help. There are so many poorly written or provincial accounts of Friends out there, and yet so many other well-written books--participants in the ongoing dialog that is "the Religious Society of Friends."
This article was beginning to look rather provincial to my (admittedly jaded) eye. I recognize the need for parsimony, but recognize the usually dreadful job that traditional encyclopedias usually perform upon "us Friends."
I moved this comment from the article to here, which seems more appropriate:(TedTalk/Contributions 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
"Indeed, more information is needed on this site about the experiences and views of these often unheard Quaker voices from the Yearly meetings outside Europe and North America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.161.209 (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2006
Quick question to make sure I'm right here. I just updated the page to put FWCC to be Friends World Committee for Consultation. It's the only FWCC I'm familiar with, and a quick Google search for "Friends World Christian Council" (in quotes) came up empty. Am I missing an internation body, or am I right here. If they are a Friends body, someone please point me to toward more information about them. --Ahc 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind responses to a newcomer.
After reading the responses to my (long) post, I re-read my post and I'm afraid I didn't do a particularly good job of painting the picture of the forest by drawing individual pine needles.
I agree that most of what I wrote has been covered, even in this article.
I also agree that an Encyclopedic entry cannot cover the whole--it needs to function at a much higher level of abstraction.
If an encyclopedia entry paints an overall picture that is entirely foreign to the real-world inhabitants of the entry's topic, there is a problem.
In other words, where the article is headed now strikes me as being confusing. Not as a result of intent or inattention, but because the diversity present in the area staked out is so complex that no matter where you slice life in order to take your samples, you are going to end up suggesting that the community(ies) discussed are very different than they are.
So how do we proceed?
I am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia culture and argot to speak with confidence here, so I will make "a newcomer's plea" for gentleness on the issue of form.
Perhaps the entry on "Quaker" or "Religious Society of Friends" should be not more than a couple of decent paragraphs. In this entry we would work to point all sorts of different directions to entries covering a host of specific issues or communities.
The challenge would rest in crafting the entry so that the overall feel is of a concept that is closer to "biodiverse" than it is to "mixed-up jumble."
So the gentle reader would then be pointed to entries covering structures (monthly, quarterly and yearly meetings) umbrella organizational expressions such as American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Five-years meeting, FUM Friends United Meeting, EFI Evangelical Friends International, EFM Evangelical Friends Mission, FGC Friends General Conference, and FWCC--which I believe should be "Friends World Committee for Consultation" (although it's name does get jumbled around because it *is* a world structure, complete with Regions called "Sections"--here in the US (where I am) we belong to the "Section of the Americas." There are also Sections of Europe and the Middle East, Africa, and Asia and Western Pacific. The Section of the Americas just finished--I believe it was in Guatemala this year.
Probably also an article about Quaker-affiliated organizations (typically arranged around a theme or a concern).
Certainly an article on the history of Friends, probably tracing the geographic moves (which are a "must understand" if you are to make any sense of how things are today.
An article about "contributions of Quakers" would probably be good--not just a listing of individuals who happened to be Friends, but rather the individuals and groups which responded out of a sense of calling from their monthly meetings, or from some other group of Friends. Right off the top of my head I could see sections on peace testimony, human rights (including South Africa confrontations, counseling and support of consciencious objectors--people still don't know, and most would be surprised--, treatment of prisoners--Some Quaker women leaders actually went into British prisons to expose the conditions and push for reforms, poor, sick and other groups--including current work on sanctuaries for undocumented people from Latin American countries, Several of these, such as Lucretia Mott, are already part of Wikipedia.
Perhaps an article of the theology of Quakers.
Maybe an article covering "Quakers gone bad. . ." Well, that's probably not a great premise, but we really ought to cover folks like Naylor, who ended up being branded a heretic (almost certainly an accurate charge) who then repented and worked for reinstatement. This might be framed in terms of the communal decision-making process of Friends. Sometimes it does go astray.
It would be helpful, in an article on Quaker governance, to point out the important distinction between "consensual" decision-making processes and the Quaker desire for "unity." These are not the same, and especially now in the US, it is difficult for folks to understand there are possibilities other than "voting" and "dictating". This is one of the core issues that often span the theological stuff. However, Quaker decision-making practices were clearly born out of theology. In a sentence or two, Quakers do not require unanimity. But there is a strong ethic of not rushing into decisions, of giving people time to work things out and plenty of time even for those not quick on their feet and aggressive in their debate skills to have their words heard and considered. Theologically, in that Quakers believe that there is something of God in each person, and that each individual has direct access to God. Thus, if there is an important decision to be made, we should take care to be sure we each hear God's direction. If we are all committed to hearing and obeying God, then we all should end up hearing the same message. This is the context within which the "standing aside" makes sense. It happens that sometimes I might think a plan is a mistake, but I do not have a clear word from God about it. Then after sufficient time for those seeking God's will to be able to set aside their own preferences as different from God's leading, it might be that this individual can't support the decision out of conviction, but cannot stand in the way of the decision out of conviction also.
There really should be an article(s) about the Friends' approach to missions. The belief that each person has access to God without needing to go through a priest or some other gatekeeper, dictates that any missionary work needs to start with a goal of establishing an independent yearly meeting. Thus Bolivia Yearly Meeting is completely independent now. They even have established ways to conduct their own leadership training.
Quakers and language would have to be included. The practice of not distinguishing among people of different (human) social ranks was what led to the Early Friends' use of "thee" and "thou" to everyone. Non-Quakers used one form for nobility and others of higher rank, and another form for those lower in rank. It is therefore tied in directly to "hat honor."
But Quakers also insisted on making a verbal distinction between the "Church" as God's body of believers and the human organizational structures and the physical building. So while most Protestants, and quite a number of Roman Catholics, have used "church" for all three things, Friends have been quick and careful to keep the distinction. We tend not to have the "in your face" aggression of Fox (who called even Baptist pastors "priests" and the ornate buildings "steeple-houses") many of us do still refer to the buildings in which we meet as "meetinghouses" and the organizational structures "monthly meetings", "quarterly meetings" and "yearly meetings" based on how often they met for business.
This is necessary to understand the whole issue behind "programmed" and "unprogrammed" meetings. While those groups which tended to de-emphasize the need for teaching theology (now we tend to think of them as "liberal", but the distinction is far from accurate)followed Fox's lead in refusing any sort of paid clergy, many (but far from all) of the more theologically-concerned felt the increasing need to have "messages" delivered weekly to be based in a life of study.
So many of these started "releasing" some of those who demonstrated "proclamational gifts" (mostly preaching and teaching) from the financial obligations of an outside career. Many of those who are deeply embedded within a "programmed" tradition still are uneasy about the move. In most "programmed" meetings, the expectations of the "pastoral staff" are watched carefully, so that a meeting does not become lazy--relying on paid staff to perform the sorts of ministry that bind a body together.
If I was to point at a particular set of reasons for the move of some meetings to a "pastoral" model, I would say that two carried most of the weight: first was the hurtful and harmful divisions that occured between groups of Friends whose meetings had "drifted" apart to the degree that even monthly meetings were ripped in two. (Just a few years ago, I was giving a ride home to a woman, probably in her 80's, from an evening lecture in Philadelphia. I was amazed and somewhat entertained by this "sweet little old lady's" violent accusations against "those Hicksites"--even going so far as to warn me away from their "corrupting influences." Yes, these divisions were deep!)
The other factor, and probably a weightier one, was the North American trend to longer work weeks and climbing expectations--especially of those who were in careers that involved study of complex ideas and processing of information. I would say that this came about as a key factor in the mid-1800s at about the time that our "modern" paradigms of leadership were diverging wildly over even a couple of decades. This was also the time frame in which many of the Protestant denominations were "professionalizing" their clergy. The "circuit-riding preacher" was being replaced by the seminarian.
Now throw in the factor that the more theologically conservative tended towards the "young turks" in the meetings and it is not hard to see how the conflict in expectations and world views became a "rich-fuel environment" in which the divisions spread quickly. The younger families tended to be the ones who moved west (still referring primarily to the Friends in the USA, here) and it is not difficult to see how Quaker communities tended to spring up in places like Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and California. It is also not too difficult to understand how the groups just named tended to be the more theologically conservative.
I'm hoping this isn't too awfully boring. . .but it is a complex topic.
One more example of the importance that Friends placed on language comes in the naming of days and months. Friends tended to be writers, and readers, and so words and the etymology of words is perhaps more sensible in that frame. Yet Friends were so deeply committed to avoiding participating in language which tended to "obscure the light within" that they would not "just go along" with the crowd and the culture.
Early Friends witnessed against the names of days and months, pointing out that these names came directly from idol worship and human arrogance. They said "we don't worship the Sun, or Odin, or Thor, or Saturn, so we shouldn't use these names in honor of these false gods." So in the tradition of "plain speaking" Friends referred to "First day (Sunday)" and "First month" (January). This was so radical (and the approaches and methods of some Early Friends was so abrasive) that people ended up in prison because they refused to say the names of the days and months. In another example of how textured these layers can be, ironically those monthly meetings most likely to retain the day-naming are also the meetings most likely to include pagans, wiccan and atheist members.
As I mentioned before, those Friends who did adopt some sort of clergy ended up needing some sort of distinction. Many early Quaker weddings were not recognized by the civil authorities because Friends would not have a clergyman perform a wedding ceremony. Quakers, in turn, stated that marriage was a religious and not a civil affair. Instead a couple would come before a meeting for worship and announce their intent to be married. The "ceremony" was a significant period of "waiting before God" in the silence. Then as various ones felt led by God to speak, they would speak to the meeting about the union, whether it was "of the leading of the Spirit" or not. The ceremony would end by the unified meeting stating their support of the couple and pledging their support for the relationship. Everyone present would sign a statement of witness that the couple was married.
We find it disturbing now, but Quakers have in some times and places, believed that the guidance from God as discerned by the body of believers gathered there was all that was necessary to trigger intervention by "weighty Friends" of the "overseers." In some places, the sight of the approaching line of simple carriages holding Quakers of serious countenance was enough to send chills down the spine of anyone who might fear their home was the destination of this "visitation."
And Friends were "read out of the meeting." It was an action taken by the entire meeting, but its consequences were severe--from what I can tell, it was an analogue of "shunning" by some other groups. Different offenses seemed to rise and fall in popularity, but "marrying outside of the meeting" was frequently a sufficient offense.
Quaker education is a must (still a rich and healthy network of secondary and boarding schools, especially in the East coast states, and of colleges and universities (in addition to the extant eight or so Quaker post-secondary schools in the US) Quakers were behind the formation of Swarthmore, Haverford, Bryn Mawr and Johns Hopkins, among many others.
Civil disobedience by Quakers was a significant and continuing contribution. It was the Early Friends who spoke of "Speaking truth to Power." By this they meant disregarding any worldly barriers, honorifics, social prestige, etc. in order to directly and plainly tell those in positions of responsibility they needed to change their behavior. This part of the Friends' Witness was not so popular with the civil officials, no doubt! Yet this is the precept that guided much of the reactionary work on behalf of the poor and abused segments of society.
Role of Women in Quaker movement. Quakers recorded Women Ministers from the beginnings of the movement, and in many meetings is still a clear distinguishing feature of Friends.
There are, no doubt, other topics. Perhaps our best course lies not in the direction of having one entry for "Religious Society of Friends" that paints with broad brushstrokes and points to more specific articles all over the place.
Roy 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Roy Gathercoal
Roy 06:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gone over the whole article this evening. In places where I made significant cuts that I'm not suggesting we move to other articles I'm including the text here incase others want to replace it. I didn't include all text I removed, just parts I thought people might care about. Text I recommend to be worked into other articles can be found in the talk pages of those articles. I marked the edits with references to those articles so editors that don't watch all those pages will know where to look.
From the intro:
From Sacraments:
From Plainness:
From Programmed Worship:
From Programmed vs Unprogrammed:
From Quaker Weddings:
From Decision making among Friends (Note: it probably makes sense to create a meeting for business article of some kind):
From The Peace Testimony:
From Testimony of Equality:
--Ahc 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It to me seems that this section should become its own article. Over time I think we'll be more and more inclined to include details of how a meeting for business functions, so it probably justifies it's own article. What do others think? --Ahc 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
71.111.86.3 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Roy (but I still don't get all of the clever codes and secret handshakes. . .apparently there are different norms for the page discussion site than for the program/topic discussion site, and for a third sort of discussion place (which I haven't really assimilated in a coherent manner, yet. . .)
I think I messed up again! I looked up after several hours editing and discovered a little message telling me I wasn't logged in. Is there any hope I will ever "get it"?
I went through the entire article again, trying to polish and tighten the prose. I made some changes, especially regarding Evangelicals, but I don't think I substantively changed anything. Of course, there have been many disputes that began over something one thought was important and another thought of no special concern.
My own experience writing has been that subsequent edits may further tighten the style, resulting in a more readable text. (perhaps it is because I am so incurably "-use"--either abstruse or obtuse, depending on how much you agree?)
I believe it is coming together as a cohesive article. ahs, I appreciate both your deletions and your practice of putting them here. I will try to go through it one more time in the next few days to see if I see anything that seems worth discussing. . .
Again, thank you, all. Roy 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Geographic dispersal of Friends
As I went over the newly edited sections covering some of the various Quaker splits, it felt pretty good: relatively concise, (mostly) not too condensed for a reasonably intelligent newcomer to understand, and balanced. (The evangelicals are not totally ignorant cretins, just some of us 8^))
It did occur to me that there is another piece that would be handy for anyone trying to understand Quakers around the world. This relates to the various migrations/jumps.
For example, it would probably be instructive to understand that the meetings around Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, were started by some folks in the mid 1700s, apparently apart from the work in Pennsylvania (or was it?) and West Jersy. Woolman visited here, anyway.
Iowa Yearly Meeting spawned the Oregon (now NWYM) Yearly meeting (I think: or was it Ohio (now ER)? I need an encyclopedia to check it!--no, it was Iowa, but with a couple of ministers from London--was this the North Pacific/NWYM writing on the wall?)
I believe there were some Quakers from Chicago, including a businessman named Aquilla Pickering, started things in California in 1886, but I may also be mistaken there. . .the city of Whittier and Whittier College were both named after the Quaker artist; Whittier College (whose alumni includes Richard Nixon) has as its mascot "the Poets" (!). . . while attending an FAHE conference there, we visited the John Greenleaf Whittier pub!
Anyhow, I realize that this is not the forum to try to write a comprehensive history of anything. (One interesting site with lots of dates is at http://www.quakernet.org/Discipline%201974/brief_history_of_iowa_yearly_mee.htm, just in case you need a second source to check something.
Yet even without a detailed history, it seems that we would greatly assist our readers in understanding the current differences/divides among Quakers if we could add a paragraph or two covering the geographic movements, including those in Latin Ameerica, Africa, and Asia. (How did there come to be Quaker meetings in Tokyo and South Korea?)
71.111.86.3 09:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Importance of "facing bench" and other accountability practices?
It seems that a mention of the "facing bench" might also help in understanding what Quakers are about. I realize that the practice has mostly disappeared among PYM meetings (does this match other's understandings?) but it is still a feature of many meetinghouses, and is critical for understanding Quaker governance.
Maybe a brief section covering the facing bench, role/use of queries, being "read out of meeting", and basically "when the Quaker method didn't work to avoid problems within the meeting".
It seems to me that the (perhaps apocryphal?) account of George Fox telling Penn that he could wear his sword "as long as the spirit allows" is significant.
What about Naylor? Without going into gruesome details, it seems that this incident was a foreshadowing of later aplits among Friends. (Did Fox *really* offer his shoe, instead of his cheek or even his hand, for Naylor to kiss when Naylor tried to reconcile after his trial, conviction on heresy, boring and branding and expression of penitance?)
We might be rightly accused now of being a little too "Pollyanish" about Quakers, in that our wonderful accounts of how well Quakers got along and all could be seen as representing a serious disconnect with history. Quakers did split, some grew apart, and some are now not even talking to one another.
(sadly and somewhat embarrassingly, I must note that NWYM just last month discussed whether we should even continue any sort of affiliation with FWCC) I wish it were not so, I have long worked for more understanding and better opportunities to understand our common ground, but there it is. It did happen, and will be discussed again next year.)
I'm not sure that a read of this article so far would give an indication to a reader that such deep divisions--way deeper than style of worship--could continue among reasonable people.
Roy 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Divisions among Friends, especially across very different cultures.
Unfortunately, I fear the divisions will reappear, possibly in a most uncomfortable way, as the newer YM from south of the equator become more visible and come to expect their own place at the great Friends' table. Much of the work of NWYM missionaries in Peru and Bolivia, especially in the later years, was devoted to attempting to show people the way away from legalism and ultra-conservative cultures.
It is difficult for most Aymara people to accept the idea that women might be able to teach men in any situation. There is sometimes an uncomfortable dynamic between the Aymara and Quechua people. And discussions of hierarchy are sometimes most difficult.
My conversations with several friends from Kenya have left me troubled. More than one have expressed the idea that one of the reasons behind the many divisions among Friends in Eastern Africa is the adherance to a rigid hierarchy in which the men assume responsibility for making the really important decisions.
Several years ago I had the wonderful opportunity to sit and learn from several Kenyans who were among the leaders of a couple of the yearly meetings there. At one point a woman (who frequently pointed out that she was speaking boldly when they were outside of Kenya) stated outright that the divisions among the Friends in Kenya would go away if the men left things to the women.
Again, this is not a desire to air our dirty laundry, and is certainly not an attempt to use this project to fight any sort of battles. Yet the fact remains that most of the people who call themselves Friends in the world today have very little in common with any of the US/UK meetings.
There's more of us there than there is of us here. . .
At what point do we say "this used to be what Friends are about, but in the 21st century most Friends are hierarchic, patriarchal and extremely socially conservative?"
We talk about the "European/North American bias" and say we don't want to be responsible for it, but how do we handle things now that we are technically in the minority?
Or should I just be quiet and sit down for awhile?
````
Last bit for awhile.
It also seems to me that we are lacking an account of the Friends as "Publishers of Truth." I have heard many presentations by college and university English professors about how early Friends were so markedly different in their attitudes towards the written word.
Many have cited "journaling" as one of the most important contributions, and one of the key distinguishing practices, of Friends. To some extent it goes along with education, but not really. Even now, the Friends' frequent practice of composing elaborate, pleasing, and even literary minutes: of appreciation, as record of significant gatherings, and as cross-yearly meeting communication.
It is not an accident that Thomas Paine was a Quaker. His written pleas for God-given principles of liberty and equality came straight out of his Quaker meetings in England.
There is Whittier, of course, but even now it seems that Quakers tend to respond in an especially open way to those who write from their centeredness. (oops, I think we managed to avoid even mentioning "being centered"--did we?)
And this is one of the main reasons the Queries resonated so deeply with Friends. They are written examinations--not straightforward proclamations--that to a large degree depend upon the skill of the writers to effectively draw the reader into a place where the reader willingly examines some deep-rooted motivations and actions.
````
I've been bothered by the numbers put up recently, so I took a couple minutes to check on FWCC's site for their count. They do not reflect what Roy's been concerned about recently, so I've updated the page again (with reference now). Roy, if you have another source for your numbers I'm all ears, but I quick check of EFI's site suggested they have 36,000 members in Africa (FUM site didn't have numbers I could quickly check) so I'm inclined to stick with the current numbers I just put up. I don't want to blow off your concerns of late, and I still think we have a bias problem in the article, but I don't think it is as bad as you've been feeling of late. --Ahc 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that the Friends are not listed in the Christianity portal. Might it be acceptable for me to include the name Quaker in the portal? If not, then what might a good link-name be? Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (I am putting a Watch on this page to learn the answer. Alternatively someone might put a link in the Portal and make this question moot.)
Someone has amended
"The Religious Society of Friends (commonly known as Quakers) began in England in the 17th century by people who were dissatisfied with the existing denominations and sects of Christianity. Traditionally George Fox has been credited as the founder or the most important early figure"
by adding
"but some credit is given to William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, who preached against the Church of England in favor of the Quakers in 1682. "
I do not think this addition is appropriate, as Penn was not "an early figure" . According to the WP William Penn article, Penn was not convinced until around 1664. He did make a very significant contribution to the growth of the RSoF, but not in the early period. Perhaps this could be recognised by an amendment to the section on America.
If all of the first generation of Friends were credited in this articile, it would be very long indeed!
I have added a link to the WP article "Valiant Sixty" in:
Experiencing God
George Fox and the other early Quaker preachers believed that direct experience of God was available to all people, without mediation (e.g. through hired clergy, or through outward sacraments).
and hope that this is in right ordering.
---Vernon White 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The following article has appeared:
Social nudity and Christianity have been practiced together for as long as Christianity has been in existence. Christian naturists or nudists are followers of the Christian faith who practice naturism or nudism. A visit to any of the Christian naturist sites listed below will clearly reveal membership from almost all denominational walks. Many have studied the Bible extensively and find no conflict between its teachings and naturism, as noted by the quotes of some of our Christian leaders listed below, including the late Pope John Paul II, RC Sproul and others. Even today, Quakers are known to encourage and enjoy nudity at their Farm and Wilderness camps.
I have added a {{Fact}} tag to the reference to Quakers. Somene who has edited this article has added red-linked individual called "Martin" to the List of Quakers, describing hm as "Active Quaker Naturist". ===Vernon White (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now deleted both the reference in the article and the listing of Martin. ===Vernon White (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has recentlyhad the category "Category:Pro-Choice Religious Organizations" added.
Is it the case that all Quaker Yearly Meetings are "Pro-Choice"?
Pro-Choice is not a specific "Testimony" of Britain YM, I believe. If the RSoF WP Article is to be in this category, then a statement with citation needs to appear in the text.
=== Vernon White (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I simply deleted it. It is a newly created category and was sparsely populated (two entries: Quakers and Humanists). I can't imagine getting this sense out of quaker-dom as a whole. If someone wants to survey the yearly meetings in all countries, that is about the only way to add something like this. In fact, it would be an intersting study to look at minutes from monthly meetings & yearly meetings concerning this — but it isn't there now. TedTalk/Contributions 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a great picture on the French version of this article. I tried to put the image into this article, but a different image came up. How do I get the picture from the French version to here? Logophile 06:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
On 21 Nov 2006, User:81.149.190.174 wrote:
"Many Quakers feel their faith does not fit within traditional Christian categories of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, but is an expression of another way of experiencing God. Technically in the theological sense Quakers are not Christian as they reject the infalability of the written word of God (the Bible), and other key doctrinal positions of the historical Christian faith tradition that defines "Christianity".
Sorry to be controversial. === Vernon White (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this morning that someone has created an article: Quaker Faith and Practice, that seems to be intended to cover the BYM F&P. I wonder if others might chime in on the article's talk page about thoughts on article scope. --Ahc 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this paradoxical bit of history, please?
This testimony appeared to conflict with other testimonies when Friends engaged in systematic law-breaking by participating in the "Underground Railroad" in the United States before the mid-nineteenth century. While the participation of Friends is widely celebrated, other Friends of the time held that they could not do anything that would mislead even a cruel slave owner seeking the return of an escaped slave. These Friends cautioned against deciding for ourselves what truth should be, rather than simply stating only what we know.
=== Vernon White (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across a quaker wikia that has been started. Seeing it almost empty, I've been writing on it for six months. I'm not sure how it relates to the main wikipedia. http://quaker.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page --Paul Klinkman, psychware a t y a h oo d o t c o m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.130.202 (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Someone has categorised the RSoF article as "Category:Syncretic Faiths". Unless someone can give a good reason for this categorisation, I will delete it in 24 hours. === Vernon White (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Weighty Friend: a Friend, respected for their experience and ability over their history of participation with Friends, whose opinion or ministry is especially valued.
+ ;Elder: a weighty Friend + ;To be eldered: a mostly outdated term meaning to be censored by meeting elders or leaders
I don't think these definitions adequately explain the role of "Weighty Friends"` in Meetings for business or the actions that Elders take when eldering. Does the anonymous editor mean "censured" not "censored"? Not all Weighty Friends are Elders and not all Elders are Weighty Frends. ===Vernon White (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)r
Source: Opening the door: Spiritual Hospitality Project Report (Meeting of Friends in Wales/Cyfarfod y Cyfeillion yng Nghymru 2003 ISBN 0-9530935-1-4)=== Vernon White (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC);Elder: Friend appointed to take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the meeting and its participants. Most meetings have more than one. To elder: To rebuke or admonish. George Fox advised that this should be done "not in a rough, light or upbraiding spirit . . . but in the power of the Lord , and the spirit of the Lamb, and in the wisdom and love of the Truth." Sad to say, this advice is not always followed.
In the "Quaker terminology" section, there's an entry for "Concern," but no definition. It seems to implicitly assume that the reader already knows the meaning. Also, there are no entries for "Meeting" or "Minute." Both are words that have specific meanings peculiar to Quakerism, and are used elsewhere in the article without definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Lordmetroid has a point (now reverted) in that the grounds for the persecution are not indicated and the refusal to swear oaths by Quakers made them very vulnerable to legal grabbing of their property (see Isaac Penington WP article and the ODNB article on him). It is difficult to understand now how provocative the refusal of hat-honour and the use of the second person singular (Thee/Thou) was, in those deferential days.
I think this clause is a bit absurd:
"(Anglicanism as we know it today was officially suppressed during Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of England). "
The pre-Commonwealth Church of England was a very different beast from the Anglican Church of today. As I understand it, the State-sponsored church continued, with protestant ideology, and non-compliant clergy were ejected from their jobs.
Quaker refusal to pay tithes undermined the power of the church, authorised by the State, to run local affairs.
The detailed account of the schisms among American Friends unbalance this brief summary of Quaker History.
Can we have briefer references to these splits, with links to the relevant paragraphs in the Quaker history WP article, please? Vernon White (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"After exchanging vows, ***typically writen by the couple***, the meeting returns to open worship and guests are free to speak about the couple"
Someone has added the starred passage. I do not think it is typical in Britain YM for the couples to write their own vows. Is it typical elsewhere? The standard Britain YM wording asks for "divine assistance", in keeping these promises, which may cause non-theist Fds some cause for thought. === Vernon White (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement that same sex marriages are not legal in the UK is debatable, as it has not been tested in court. The Marriage Act 1949 allows "marriage in according to the usages of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers". So if BYM now allows committed relationships, this Act may well apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.87.143.3 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"A member will rise and share a message (give "ministry") with the gathered meeting when they feel they are led by the spirit. Typically, messages, testimonies, ministry, or other speech are unprepared, and members are expected by the community to discern the source of their inspiration—whether divine or self. ***After a member has shared, other members should wait a few moments in silence before another person stands to speak***. "
It seems to me that this recent addition specifies a very *minimum* gap between vocal ministry. Can this be rephrased, please? === Vernon White (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change. I hope it doesn't sound pompous, now! === Vernon White (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why someone added and someone else deleted this link. When I dipped into the site I found a profound discussion of the views of Henry J. Cadbury on the need to live with difficult questions and not to answer them. === Vernon White (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I note User:Johntinker's revision of this section "Creeds - attempting to clarify discussion of (non) doctrinal issues)" and am unhappy with the outcome, both as a piece of encyclopedic writing and as an account of Freinds' history and current posture . We need a separate article on the Richmond Declaration and London Yearly Meeting's rejection of it. === Vernon White (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
All the faults in this article seem to only be apparent to those familiar with the subtle trends, tensions and divisions in the society. For an outsider planning to learn and gather factual information, I think this article would be simply brilliant. On that basis I don't think that it is really that far from achieving Featured Article status.
Looking at the old peer review the only flaws found were an excess of red links (which has been fixed) and the absence of a really good picture to go at the top of the article: this is yet to be done since what we have in way of images is thinly spread enough. If there were to be an image, of a meeting, event or famous Quaker that really suited going at the top of this article then I would not hesitate to nominate this article for FA status.
Quite what this killer-image should be, I'm not certain. What do other Wikipedians think?
--Paul Carpenter 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this article could use a section talking about Quaker influence in democratic governments; particularly their policies on freedom of religion in places such as Philadelphia. -swimguy112, February 18, 2007
Can any Quaker experts tell us anything about immigration to Britain during the nineteenth century? Was there any from russia or east Europe? I'm trying to trace my ancestry but there doesint seem to be much about this.
I just finished making several major edits to parts of the page. Paul also jumped in and made corrections as I worked so you the history contains both of our changes. One of my primary goals is that the article has gotten very long and bloated. I only reviewed the first 9 (or 18) pages last night, so hopefully there is more to come. If you want to review the complete changes I made (including Paul's initial corrections) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_Society_of_Friends&diff=112079811&oldid=111903349
--Ahc 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As I reviewed the article today to do the edits referenced above, I noticed that the external links sections has gotten a little out of hand. I feel that there are two sub-sections that lack clear purpose and I'd like to suggestion we remove them, but before I did that I wanted to bounce it off others first. To give some person context, I feel that links on this page should be useful to a general audience, and not either be for Friends, or for encouraging people to BECOME Friends.
The subsection labeled Quaker links seems to have no clear organizing principal, nor provide a great deal of information that would be valueble to non-Friends. Honestly it feels like a list of links that don't fit in other sections that someone wanted to include.
The subsection labeled Quaker books and writings feels to me like something that would explode if it were long enough to justify it's name. Most of the links are to publishers, not to books themselves; if we aren't clear to strike the whole section, could we rename it to be publishers and limit it to that?
Overall, I would like to reduce the number of external links. The Manual of Style section on External links recommends keeping links to a minium, and I think we're well beyond the minium (currently it's nearly 2 printed pages). I'd like to see if we could cut it in 1/2. --Ahc 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The current paragraph reads:
"In Great Britain
Friends in Britain have maintained a high level of unity throughout the history of the Society. In very recent years, however, small Quaker Meetings have come into existence which are characterised by a more avowedly Christian faith. See, for example, Ripley Christian Quakers and Arbroath Christian Friends. These meetings are not part of the organisation of the main body of UK Quakers, Britain Yearly Meeting.
The local Friends meetings are called preparative meetings. Several local meetings are part of a monthly meeting. Several monthly meetings are organized into a general meeting. Formerly, general meetings were called quarterly meetings, and, while they continue to meet up to three times per year, they usually play no direct role in Quaker structures. Monthly meetings are represented directly in Meeting for Sufferings, which meets in between Yearly meetings.
"
The schismatic groups are entirely insignificant in a brief paragraph on Quakers in Great Britain. As someone has unilaterally decided to delete links in this article to Yearly Meetings as beleiving that "the fewer links the better", the information about the current state of the Quaker Faith in Great Britain is most deficient. === Vernon White (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
How's this?
In the British Isles
Britain Yearly Meeting, has met each year since 1668. It is the body serving Quaker Meetings in England, Scotland, Wales and the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. Every 25 years or so, it reviews its book of advice and procedures, called Quaker Faith and Practice.
Friends in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland are served by Ireland Yearly Meeting.
Quakers in Britain and Ireland have not experienced large, long-term separations or divisions, unlike their bretheren in the U.S.A., despite major controversies in the 19th century (ref)Isichei, Elizabeth (1970) Victorian Quakers, Oxford Historical Monographs series, Oxford, O.U.P ISBN 0198218338: Chapter 2: Belief Divided – Three schisms(/ref). During this period, they had major influence: at one time, 14 M.P.s were Quakers.
In the 20th Century, British Friends suffered during the two World Wars, establishing the right of conscientious objection to military service. For their Relief work, after these disastrous onflicts, British and American Friends were awarded the 1947 Nobel Prize for Peace.
The publication in 1963 by a group of British Quakers of a pamphlet called Towards a Quaker View of Sex led to some fierce discussions and some resignations. Quakers emerged open-minded and free of extreme homophobes who populated the pews and pulpits of other denominations.Irish Friends have played some effective part, despite their small numbers in seeking peace between Catholic and Protestant communities in the North.
=== Vernon White (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Even longer – sorry – but we have a lot of history!
In the British Isles
Britain Yearly Meeting, has met each year since 1668. It is the body serving Quaker Meetings in England, Scotland, Wales and the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man.
Friends in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland are served by Ireland Yearly Meeting.
Unlike their bretheren in the U.S.A. , Quakers in the Britain Isles have not experienced large, long-term separations or divisions.
In the early days, James Nayler's downfall warned Friends against extreme views and behaviour. They contrived a detailed system of control, which disowned those who failed to meet rigorous standards or held unacceptable views.
Despite major controversies in the 19th century (ref)Isichei, Elizabeth (1970) Victorian Quakers, Oxford Historical Monographs series, Oxford, O.U.P ISBN 0198218338: Chapter 2: Belief Divided – Three schisms(/ref), London Yearly Meeting in 1887 rejected the proposed adoption of the Richmond Declaration of Faith. In 1895, the Manchester Conference and subsequent Summer Schools established the acceptance of modern scientific knowledge and biblical scholarship, without major splits (ref name=Allott)Allott, Stephen (1994) John Wilhelm Rowntree, 1868 – 1905 and the beginnings of Modern Quakerism, York, Sessions Book Trust ISBN 1-85072-137-8(/ref).
In the 20th Century, saw the acceptance by British Friends of the Arts as part of the religious life of the Quaker community, without a Puritan backlash (ref) 1960 Swarthmore Lecture: Kenneth C. Barnes Creative Imagination (/ref).
The publication in 1963 by a group of British Quakers of a pamphlet called Towards a Quaker View of Sex led to some resignations but no formal divisions. British Friends now accept divorced people and may arrange a Celebration of Commitment {NOTE: this is NOT a Marriage or Wedding, as stated above. It has no legal status.} for couples of the same or of different genders.
In the 1970s, there was a controversy between the New Foundation Fellowship and the Quaker Universalists. Two local meetings have established links to Rockingham Monthly Meeting of Ohio Yearly Meeting, in the U.S.A., seeking a more evangelical and orthodox Christian ministry than Britain Yearly Meeting provides (ref name=RipleyAndArboarth) Ripley Christian Quakers and Arbroath Christian Friends.(/ref)
The current national structure of Britain Yearly Meeting is going through a process of change. The ancient body called Meeting for Sufferings passed its governance role to a small group of trustees in January 2007. It still has a role in scrutiny, communication and providing long-range vision. The names and boundaries of the equivalents of “Diocese”=”Monthly Meeting and “Congregation”=”Preparative Meeting” are likely to change substatially in the next few years.Friends in Ireland have played some effective part, despite their small numbers in seeking peace between Catholic and Protestant communities in the troubled North.
=== Vernon White (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
new edit
referred to by some as "God within each of us"
Who are these some, please? I do not recall hearing this expression. === Vernon White (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put three images of an old US meeting house up on flickr (I took them, so putting them on Wikipedia wont be a problem). Before I load them into Wikipedia, I wanted thoughts about if they make sense, in this article or the Meeting house article.
--Ahc 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ach, it'd nice if you put these on WikiCommons or such like with an appropriate copyright tag. There is already a reasonable bunch of meeting house photos over there. --Paul Carpenter 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at Meeting Houses on Commons, and add to the gallery. MHM-en 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A colleague tells me he associates Quakerism with the avoidance of alcohol, and has been able to point me to web articles which apparently make the link. While moderation in all things is a Quaker policy, I'm not sure that being a teetotaller is one of them. Were there Quakers associated with the Temperance Movement, did it ever become linked to Quakerism and would the article benefit from any mention of this feature? TomRawlinson 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Many yearly meetings hold very strong testimonies against any use of tobacco or alcohol. Within Britain Yearly Meeting some Friends advocate total abstinence from alcohol, others counsel moderation. Those who smoke tobacco, drink alcohol or abuse other substances risk damage to their own health, and may hurt or endanger other people. Such use can deaden a person's sensitivity and response to others and to God. Consider whether you should avoid these products altogether, discourage their use in others, especially young people, and refrain from any share in their manufacture or sale. Maintain your own integrity and do not let social pressures influence your decisions.
===Vernon White (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
While the article mentions, in the summary, the idea of quakers who do not identify as christian (like myself), there seems to be no expansion of this, nor any mention of people who identify as quaker and as a specific non-christian faith (various or onspecific pagan, jewish, buddhist, etc etc).
Would there be objection to me expanding on this? I've found at least one source, albeit not a good one, but I'm sure I'll find more. SamBC 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"This acceptance of "affirmations" helped inspire the creation of a provision in the Constitution of the United States that allows an incoming President to "affirm" his or her loyalty to the Constitution rather than swear to it[citation needed]."
Suggest that, even if evidence of the truth of this statement can be found, the information would be better placed elsewhere, such as the Affirmation article. ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 08:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The religious tenets of Quakers forbade them from swearing oaths (because it was regarded
as sacrilegious) and an Act of 1696 had given them the right to make affirmations in place of
most required oaths (but not the parliamentary oath).from page 19
The current text in section 1.1 is ridiculous and offensive and really should be removed. I came to the article trying to find information so that I might better be able to discuss with my thirteen year old daughter her budding interest in attending Friends meetings. Needless to say, reading that section as it is, made me glad my daughter was not sitting beside me, reading over my shoulder. It is sad that a person would write such things.
--Beatnick chick 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about the specific elements in the Section 1.1 text that offend Beatnick chick, that she finds ridiculous, and what she believes would be more accurate. As the criticism currently stands, it lacks enough detail to understand the source of her discomfort and to be able to research how closely the text matches reality. Leslauber 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)leslauber October 22, 2007Leslauber 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, and very important, given the invaluable contributions the Society has made to making our world a better place. But with all due respect, the image at the top of the page is rather dull. Couldn't an image of a person (or a congregation) be placed at the top? I recognize that the hill is an important place, but as a design nerd I'd really much rather see a person in that spot. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have edited out a link to the Arbroath Meeting (Section on British Quakerism). This meeting has been laid down, and the link in the reference section is therefore dead.
81.187.36.90 (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ripley Meeting is part of a larger grouping of Christian Quakers known as the Greenwich - Ripley Group, which includes scattered individuals and a small worship group in Greenwich, London. There may also be a small worship group being settled in the north-east in the near future. This grouping represents Quakers in the UK who are working toward recognition as a constituent Meeting of Ohio YM (conservative). Small, but in my opinion, significant enough to be recorded here. 81.187.36.90 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
81.187.36.90 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
81.187.36.90 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Mysticism" the author claims, that mysticism includes the withdrawal from secular problems as political conflicts (for instance pacifism). I don´t think that´s right. There are a lot of counterexamples quoted in Dorothee Sölle´s "The Silent Cry: Mysticm and Resistance". One of these counterexamples in Sölle´s book are the quakers. I think that it is a one-sighted view to consider mysticism only as a purely individual thing. Is it possible to enrich this paragraph through a more distinctive view on mysticism? P.S. I hope that instead of my bad knowledge of the english grammar you can read my text without heavy problems. Stephen_Daedalus@web.de 12.05, 02.12.07, (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.189.141 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. As a Quaker myself I wouldn't say that this is true at all. Stefanjcarney (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I´ve tried to change the paragraph now. I think it´s content is much more balanced now. Nevertheless I´m not sure if it´s done gramatically correkt, but I hope. Stephen_Daedalus@web.de 23.15, 06.12.07 (CET)
These are "Testimonies", for Friends believe these important principles and practices should be expressed
That sentence sounds like crap. "for" needs to be changed to something else. Therefore, or better? That word sucks for this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesklyne (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the history section should be limited to theological question - the political involvement of Quakers (in particular in the movement in Britain for the abolition of slavery ) is very important 193.51.149.216 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that George Fox and Margaret Fell started the Society of Friends in Baycliff a small village in Cumbria UK. There is a long local history regarding the Fell family and at the rear of a local Farm on Birkrigg Moor is one of the original burial grounds for Quaker Folk. Due to persecution and one one notable occasion a Farmers wife stood up in church either in Baycliff or Bardsea, and castigated the Vicar for persecuting the Quakers and appropriating land belonging to Quaker Folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.123.253 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no citations für the quaker terminology, does anybody know of any books dealing with quaker terminology/language in particular? 85.177.5.173 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to see no information on early "communal" burials in this article, given the popular interest both in the discovery of new sites, e.g. Gruesome discovery made at cottage: Monday, 21 April 2008 and in the investigation and preservation of older ones, e.g.Woodbridge Quaker Burial Ground Project I would imagine that, as with all of the non-conformist denominations, burial in the traditional churchyard was either denied or purposely never sought. Additionaly, the fact that early meeting were held in private dwellings meant that neither was burial possible in any purpose-built graveyard. But this is all conjecture. I wondered if the Society Of Friends has or had strongs views and/or official policy on appropriate ceremony after death and whether of not this had significantly changed over the centuries. Would this article be an appropriate place to record such matters? Apparently, it is still an offence to "offer indignities to the remains of the dead", even after 300 years and of course regardless of their faith when alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for supposing that the artist who made this image had any reliable source for the picture. Why choose 1652? The text below says 1648. Vernon White . . . Talk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are to have a section of this article on education, it needs to say much more than the current wording and have explicit examples and quotes. Vernon White . . . Talk 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, and not an experienced editor of Wikipedia articles, and thus I will refrain from editing the article. I would, however, like to mention here that my previous web research has made me seriously doubt the article's statement "A very small minority of contemporary Friends have taken up the traditional dress once again,[14] but they are in the tens." - there seem to be far more.
77.9.103.22 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.