Talk:Exclusive Brethren/Archive 1

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Exclusive Brethren
 * ''The Exclusive branch of the Plymouth Brethren are considered as a cult by most other Christians, and non-religious observers as well.

Request for explanation
new to this but could some one please explain the cults beliefs and goals ? What do they want ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Beliefs of other Exclusive Brethren (non-Taylorite)
I have not visited this page in a while, but I do see it has changed from the last time I looked at it. I think someone suggested that the Taylorite description at the beginning needs to be moved to its own section as one of the offshoots of the exclusive brethren, and I agree. Let me first admit my own possible biases. My mother is a member of the exclusive brethren, and I have attended meetings in several states with her (we were a military family). I am not a member. Even so, they do not require me to sit in a special area as this article suggests (maybe they are talking about only the Taylorites, but it isn't clear). Furthermore, the Luddite stuff cannot be accurate because I distinctly remember playing a little handheld videogame with some kids before a meeting in the late 70's. We were sitting right in the meeting hall. I do know that voting is considered a "wordly activity," but many brethren do indeed vote regardless of many, maybe most, in the group considering this something you should not do. I love wikipedia and rely on it a lot for information, and this article is very disappointing because it calls into question whether I can trust this as a source. Garrison Keillor, a former member, has said he holds a special place in his heart for these people because he thinks they are really good people. I have no idea if he was open or exclusive, but I feel the same way about them. I would edit this myself, but perhaps I am not "neutral" enough either. Before coming back to this article I read the Quaker article because I saw an episode of Six Feet Under that depicted a Quaker meeting, and it reminded me of a Brethren meeting. That article seemed to have been written by someone sympathetic or admiring of the group, as I am of the Brethren. Would anyone like to comment on the appropriateness of me editing?? I am not a member, and have no plans to ask for fellowship.

H. Hoblit


 * Dear H.
 * Since you obviously come from a Non Taylorite branch of the exclusives you would it seems to me be ideal a person to edit the page in a non emotional fairly sympathetic way. The Taylorite material can be gathered together under the existing heading that it has already. Garrison K was obviously brought up in one of the Non Taylorite groups probably Grant/Stuart or Tunbridge Wells grouping. Somewhere there is an inverview with David Brady which may be of some help in answering that particular question. I have tried to make a summary at the bottom of this discussion page as a start but my ignorance of the non-Taylor groupings is quite comprehensive! Nevertheless you can use what you find helpful in it.
 * Ta
 * Greg Morris

Whisky

 * From 1960 JTJr consolidated power by surrounding himself with bright young men from the English-speaking world, and introduced an increasingly "hard line" of teaching. EB meetings ceased to be old men raking over their biblical knowledge, and took on a more gladiatorial atmosphere. Young people found this much more interesting. JTJr's teachings took people away from the comfort and laxity of post-WW2 society by banning membership of associations, banning eating with non-members, and eventually separating families into members and non-members who could not even speak to each other ever again. The JTJr era resulted in a huge increase in alcohol (especially Scotch whisky) consumption among EB. Twentieth century inventions that were encouraged rather than proscribed were: good cars, travel by jet aeroplanes and international telephones.

Some of this does not appear to be supported by cited sources. In particular, the assertion about a "huge increase" in whisky consumption caught my eye. I've searched for a reference, but haven't found it. Do any editors know where this material came from? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence for heavy whisky consumption in EB circles is very strong, but not very public. I have witnessed it, and have spoken to numerous others who have also. All such wish to remain anonymous because of the vengeful nature of brethrenism. I note that somebody writing as "Fisherman" on the peebs.net website in appalling English says:


 * "Prior to the 40's and 50's-brethren were either teetotal or used alcohol sparingly-and then pretty much confined to beer and wine with dinner.'The use of Spirits or whisky was largely unknown in brethren circles-and any overindugence frowned upon."


 * (F E Raven was a whisky drinker. At the Quemerford conferences in the 1890s upon returning to his hotel for 'refreshement' he said to the young evangelist J T Mawson,'Its part of some people's relgion to abstain from drinking this stuff.' But Mawson declined to drink any whisky. J Revell fell from favour because of alkohol abuse and was excluded. But, when JTsr declared whisky a creature of God and was seen using it himself, he set in motion a terrible legacy-the results which are still with the brethren today .Over the years there have been terrible and tragic accidents involving alcohal-and the brethren unfortionately have a well earned and deserved reputation for overindulgence-even to be seen carrying liquor bottles into the meeting room.


 * "While JTsr himself was not known for overindulgence - the groundwork for acceptance of strong drink was laid - culminating in the sad debacle of his son,JTjrs Aberdeen incident-which was a public exposure of the mans' weakness-he as not,as the brethren stoutly maintain a pure man - there was no mystery about it - merely the ravages of alcoholism that had gone on for years and finally affected the mans mind, robbing him of any sense of judgement or propriety.


 * "Today, the brethren are still reaping the terrible harvest. Little seems to be done even after another accident involving alcohol - you'd think it would be a wake up call, but the brethren seemingly overlook these things.The young men over the last 45 years have been encouraged to demonstrate their manhood by consuming whisky - and that has resulted in a terrible legacy-the tragedies continue-and no one raises a voice."


 * I do not know the identity of Fisherman, but he is well informed. Perhaps he had the benefit of an EB education! -- anon.


 * It is obvious that Fisherman was an EB at some stage. It is also obvious that he has some malicious agenda, as while appearing well informed, his statements are twisted, biased and very out of date.

Very unscholarly and defamatory...
I would seriously recommend someone who is qualified to write on this subject rework the "Recent Developments" section. This section is written in an absurd and blatantly defamatory manner.

--Hirenny 04:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed now, thanks Hirenny.

NZ
I have changed the bit on NZ to say the possibly unaware National Party. The fact is, we don't know if National had any idea or not. They deny but there is insufficient evidence eitherway to say what National did or did not know. Perhaps rework it to say National denies they were aware if necessary but in any case, I think it needs to made clear we can't be sure.


 * Hi, Don Brash now amits that he did know. Onco_p53 02:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, I missed that. The original text which I modified said the unaware so I added the possibly. Personally I had expected they had been aware although I didn't expect them to admit so, so fast especially after Brash pulled out of the press conference yesterday

The official EB website
I've looked through the official Exclusive Brethren website, and I haven't been able to find any contact information. The domain was only registered 5 months ago, and it's administered by a law firm somewhere in Canada. This doesn't surprise me given who they are, but I was wondering if there's actually any evidence that this is their official website. Otherwise, perhaps we should point out that it's possibly a hoax, if only because there's no verification available that it's not. If the Exclusive Brethren really are so exclusive of the rest of society, they might not even know about it. Izogi 03:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard from anyone about this, so I've just edited the article to indicate that it's unverified as official. If anyone has something to cite to indicate otherwise, by all means change it back. Izogi 22:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Very Unscholarly and Defamatory
Unfortunately much of this article is written in an unprofessional manner, with research poorly undertaken. It appears that this group have a lot of vociferous detractors who are very bigotted and unfair in their attempts to deride these people. Most who know them find them fair and godly persons who live clean, happy and fulfilling family lives. They seem to be able to care for their own and are not a drain on society. Even a cursory examination of the infamous "PeebsNet" site will demonstrate how intolerant some people can get about this group and (other religious Christian groups). The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 85.10.200.202 on November 2005.


 * I don't really know anything about this church/cult/whatever, but the above commenter probably has some point about the article being unscholarly. It sounds like people biased against the group have written this article, rather than neutral observers. The group has been in the news in Australia quite a lot recently so this article is getting some attention I guess. It took me a while to realise the group is connected to the Plymouth Brethren which most Aussies probably would have heard of. So I added a note on this in the intro. Beyond this though, the article still sounds suspiciously like it probably has several sentences that are written with a non-neutral point of view. Anyone who knows something about the topic, please check it over to help it conform to the NPOV policy. Donama 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit by BeadyH on 24 March shows just how disgusting some of these unbalanced people have become in their attacks on defenceless people dead for 36 years and unable to defend themselves.


 * Removed "erect vessel" from the Aberdeen incident section. Academically inappropriate and plainly little more than insult. - Unregistered User

Moved from article
User:58.166.68.248 wrote: "It should be clearly noted that this article has been written by some of the most ardent haters of the brethren and reports are presented in a way that will arouse unjustified resentment against them."

Maybe.. but I have personally witnessed and experienced the pain, through various means, that members of this group have inflicted on defectors. The anger and resentment that is so obvious comes from that pain. If this group split your family apart and had such a hold over your own children that they would never talk to you again, wouldnt you feel agrieved? My Guess is that you are actually a member or are employed by them and on a "damage limitation" exercise.

Those who write here
It is true that parts of this article have been written by those who dislike the EBs. Now who would those people be? The majority of the world knows nothing of the EB and cares less. So those who write must be those who actually have knowledge and experience of EBism, ie those who have been members. So the article is actually written by those who KNOW what they are talking about! How dreadful!

There do seem to be some apologists for EBism who break EB rules and try to sanitize this article - but double standards are normal for such people. Why somebody even deleted my remark that the "man of god" raped the "bride of christ"! BeadyH 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrible! How unfair for EB apologists to try to set the record straight!


 * It is quite OK for differing views to be presented here. It is to be encouraged. What is WRONG is the EB hierarchy publically condemning the internet in their meetings and then slinking around behind the backs of the faithful and creating and editing web sites. This is a DOUBLE STANDARD. But then most religions practise double standards ...  BeadyH 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the EBs
In his addresss to the Westminister Fellowship of Ministers on 19 June 1963, entitled 'Consider Your Ways' The Outline of a New Strategy, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones included the following:

"Another reason, upon which I am not going to dilate, concerns what has been happening among the Exclusive Brethren. I am myself very deeply impressed by this, as I know many of you are.  I feel that it creates a new situation for us.  Here are numbers of people who have come out of the bondage in which they have been held for so long, and they are scattered all over the country, not quite knowing what to do or where to turn.  They are a body of people who in many respects have unique qualities, and I feel that it is a challenge to us to determine our relationship to them." ((p.166 in Knowing the Times, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth (1989) ISBN 0851515568.))

It is clear from these remarks that MLJ regarded these former EBs as fellow-believers, and that he wanted to help them. DFH 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved this piece to the "Where are they now" Section as it demonstrates that not all who left were in fact seen as damaged, warped or in fact adversely affected but were seen as Christians with something valuable to contribute to the Christian community at large. 81.137.208.199 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm POV issues?
Isn't a bit POV to start it by flat out saying they "are a secretive Christian cult?" They might be a cult, what little I know makes it sound plausible. However Aum Shinrikyo and the Branch Davidians are just called "a religious group" in the first sentence of their articles. The word "cult" apparently doesn't even appear in the first paragraph of either article. The article on the Church Universal and Triumphant doesn't even mention a leading member stockpiling weapons and dismisses any cult allegations way down the line and in quick fashion. So considering all that I don't see why this group gets called a cult right off the bat. Are they like killing and raping people en masse? And if it is so clearcut that they're a cult shouldn't they be in Category:Cults?--T. Anthony 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The opening still mentions cult allegations, but I took the word out of the first sentence.--T. Anthony 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Outs since 1970"
I have tried to summarise the general trends and events amongst those who departed from James Taylor Jnr in 1970. I am aware that in some cases there is some simplification but I have generally had regard to what BWBurton says in his very biased and quite unacceptably unobjective additions to "Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth" ie "A further review of the Recovery to the Truth and its Maintenance (1827-1997), and to generally circulated material which is on public record at the John Rylands Library in Manchester. Greg

I should add that the Opening Paragraph is a bit of a mess. We should consult Dr Shuff's excellent new book and define Exclusive Brethren in its widest sense as a "connexional" group of Brethren as opposed to "independent" ie OB a division that has been in existence for over 150 years in practice. Material on the Taylorite branch could then be moved to the section which deals exclusively with that branch of the Raven Taylor Movement. It is wholly unfair that EBs generally are tarred with this brush - some of the more sensational material in that first paragraph does not take account of the breadth of the Exclusive Brethren Movement outside the Symington Hales group. The EBs are indeed very diverse in doctrine and in practice but have nevertheless some striking common ground which should be summarised in the opening paragraph.

Exclusive Brethren: Towards a more accurate Nomenclature
Just some thoughts rather fragmented: would be glad of some feedback

Definitions of Exclusive Brethren

‘’’PB’’’ Plymouth Brethren the name given for the whole Brethren movement. This divides into 2 groups. Exclusive Brethren and Open Brethren

‘’’EB’’’ Exclusive Brethren or perhaps more accurately “Connexional” brethren as opposed to Open or Independent Brethren. They are also commonly known as “Darbyites” after John Nelson Darby one of the early Brethren leaders who brought about the rift with Open Brethren. EB believe that there is a necessary unity of the assembly which has to be practically expressed. Matters of fellowship and church discipline are not merely a matter of local responsibility but must be taken account of universally: actions in one meeting are universally to be accepted in the others. There are common threads throughout all groups, eg the practice of household baptism and the centrality of the Lord’s Supper in weekly worship [NB Need Truth are connexional even though they are associated with Open Brethren”] There are two main branches of EB.

‘’’Raven/Taylor’’’ Brethren sometimes known as the “London” Party after their HQ at Park Street. These brethren accepted the ministry of Mr Raven particularly in respect of his teaching on Eternal Life and also the ministry of Mr James Taylor Senior with respect to the Eternal Sonship question and the ministry of addressing the Holy Spirit in worship. They are a diverse group today. Some of this group have modified or qualified their acceptance of or rejected the teachings of Mr Taylor Senior but generally accept that of Mr Raven perhaps with reservations in some cases. [Glanton meetings initially accepted, albeit with reservations, the teachings of Mr Raven but should not now be grouped with Raven/Taylor]

‘’’Kelly/Lowe/Glanton’’’ This group represents over 50 years of reunions amongst non-Taylor/Raven Brethren culminating in 1974. Whereas Reuniting Brethren would have been an apposite label, recent divisions have split the movement. This group is the largest single group by far of Brethren on the European mainland. In the UK they have absorbed many of the Tunbridge Wells meetings and sundry other smaller groups. Reunion with ex-Taylor meetings has been hampered by mutual suspicion and disagreement on the doctrines of the Eternal Son, Eternal Life and the matter of addressing the Holy Spirit in worship even though there is often a great measure of agreement in theory, in practice there is often not the liberty to differ.

They have the closest claim to be called "Darbyite as they do not accept the concept of "progressive ministry" by which the practices and teachings of brethren evolve according to "current light" or "current ministry". Neither do they accept the concept of "authoritative ministry" as being divinely sanctioned and binding on those in fellowship.

‘’’Raven/Taylor Divisions’’’ Generally speaking at present, the Raven/Taylor Group divide into 3 groups:

Taylor/Symington/Hales often confusingly called “Exclusive Brethren” Those who remained in fellowship with James Taylor Junior after 1970 have remained broadly undivided although they along with all other exclusives but perhaps to a lesser degree suffer from defections to other brethren, other denominations etc. They practice separation from the world in its strictest form among brethren generally and have generally ostracised those who have departed from them though they are quite happy to engage in business activities with those not under discipline. They have been the subject of quite widespread controversy and unwelcome publicity. As regards to doctrine, while not openly eschewing the ministry of “Men of the Recovery”, their public ecclesiological stance is at odds with the published writings of Darby/Raven/Taylor Senior.

Pre-Aberdeen Outs. These meetings left the Raven/Taylor group during the ministry of Mr Taylor Senior or Taylor Junior but chiefly as a reaction to the ministry of the latter. There has been some reuniting with some of the Post Aberdeen outs but the number of meetings is very small and many have joined other brethren and other denominations.

Post Aberdeen Outs. These meetings separated from James Taylor Jnr in 1970 in the immediate aftermath of meetings at Aberdeen. They have divided several times since then and are very fragmented. Some meetings have become de facto independents others have joined with Pre Aberdeen Outs. Some retain the concept of "authoritative ministry" and they have varying degrees of freedom to attend services in other meetings and churches. They have a wide variety of doctrinal viewpoints and practices having reacted to a greater or lesser degree to Taylorite teachings. The Kingston Bible Trust under the auspices of the “Croydon” group produces a selection of ministry in the Darby/Raven/Taylor category.


 * The US Library of Congress classifies various Brethren groupings by means of Roman numerals. See Talk:Plymouth Brethren. DFH 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edit
Well I have bitten the bullet and begun to edit the Main Introduction to Exclusive Brethren. All material on the largest group identified with James Taylor Junior and his successors I have placed under their own heading. I have not really changed the substance of what is said about Taylor Brethren but have edited it slightly to weed out repetitions. I have for clarity's sake, moved the Kelly Lowe Glanton heading up into the main introductory section as it forms a major grouping in opposition to the Raven Taylor Group.

I have also added under the Kelly Glanton Lowe section a link to two papers which give some analysis of the recent problems and divisions of that group, and those who identify with the Raven/Taylor will observe that the problems are in fact endemic to Exclusive Brethrenism and mirror to some extent the travails of that system. The full spectrum of Exclusivism can now be observed in both halves of the EB whole. The two papers do infact suggest some thoughtful solutions to the dilemmas of Exclusivism and contain a good amount of historical resumé.

Greg Morris St Deiniol's Library Hawarden Flintshire CH5 3DF

Kelly Lowe Glanton Emendations
Would it be possible to have a more objective viewpoint on why divisions are happening among Kelly Lowe Glanton Meetings? The fact that there is disagreement on certain doctrinal issues is not at issue but it would be more helpful to establish the facts as to what the disagreements are rather than who is right! That belongs in another sphere not in an encyclopaedic one. "Liberal" is a rather relative term in this case but undeniably there is a liberal tendency. New Age perhaps needs a sentence to explain to those of us who are not au fait with it: do they accept Homeopathy? I have no idea but would like to know what the essential bone of contention is or was.

I am not very much au fait with the Dutch Teachers issue but presume it refers to the Geneva Conference and the procedings that came out from it. Perhaps it would be useful to have a link with that paper itself for reference's sake. If the main leaders of that party were named in a non-emotive way that would be very helpful.

As to infiltration of the Kelly Lowe Glanton group by an Oxted Meeting, I am not aware of the facts but generally feel that words like infiltration indicate a point of view rather than a fact. Perhaps the person making emendments would care to be more specific and make it clear what the actual issue at stake was. Was it the reunion of two local ie an Oxted and a KLG meetings that has caused subsequent difficulties? That would be a much less partisan and more factual approach which no one could disagree with.

I have made a few small emendation which I hope will lower the temperature slightly and removed "proper" as a preface to the Eternal Sonship of Christ since that is unnecessary to those like myself who believe it, and removes uncharitable imputations on those who either do not believe it in the same way as the writer, or believe it but would not use language which, like "Trinity", is quite correct but not techincally scriptural since it involves acceptance of subsequent credal accretions. At the same time I thought it as well to draw the readers' attention to the fact that none of the parties disagree as to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Disagreements between Oxted and KLG parties are within well-defined and well understood limits. If I remember rightly, at Haywards Heath when Oxted & KLG met on the matter of proposed unity in the 1980s there was no fundamental doctrinal difference. It would be interesting to know whether any notes were made of the occasion so that the actual obstacles to union could be identified. I have surmised at them in the main article but would be glad of some note as to KLG opinion on the matter and whether it was universally held.

Kind Regards

Greg Morris St Deiniol's Library Hawarden Flintshire CH5 3DF

Sub-sections
I have just altered the section levels to improve the article structure. However, I feel less than satisfied about the location of the Politics sub-section. Should this be moved out-with the main section on Taylorites ? DFH 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the politics issue is a valid one because of the Taylorite interest in Australian/New Zealand elections etc at the moment. But there is a problem since the Taylorites are at odds with the received wisdom amongst PBs which is basically Pietism if not Quietism! This other view needs to be given as it is the mainstream view from which the Taylorites very interestingly are diverting

81.137.208.199 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have just tagged the main article as requiring some cleanup. Reading through the discussion page, it is apparent that some of the users are not that well experienced in composing good encyclopedia articles, and this article certainly suffers because of this weakness. The difficulty is in all likelihood compounded by the fact that those with the good inside knowledge of the various EB groups are probably not so well placed for writing about them disinterestedly and so keeping to a NPOV. DFH 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you have made the first section much more readable. I think that is needs a lot of sifting. Part of the problem is that in many minds Exclusive Brethren = Taylor Brethren so the strands have all got to be sorted out. The politics section is a case in point. It really needs deleting and starting again. and it is a bit of a battlefield by the look of it. The converse problem is that there is a surprising amount of bitterness between Kelly / Raven Sections from which the two main sections all spring and some discipline is required to avoid the temptation to score points and to give an historical resume which is factually useful. Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Any improvements I attempt will largely be to do with general readibility and structure/formatting. My own detailed knowledge about EBs is now somewhat dated&mdash;see the most recent section of my talk page. DFH 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some cleanup/hints for future work
I've gone through the whole article and tried to make it consistent. I've removed statements of obvious bias and shuffled content around a little. I think there's still a lot more left to do though. I can't do this myself as I know almost nothing about EB except for what I've read here today. Suggested improvments include:


 * I think it would help to mention that most of the time when the media talk about Exclusive Brethren, they're talking about Taylorite Exclusive Brethren
 * I may not have removed all occurences of EB, JTJr etc; these should be spelled out
 * Names should probably be put in full rather than saying "Mr Raven". What was his full name?  The honorific Mr might be better omitted
 * I'm confused about the London Brethren. At the start of the article it seems to be another name for Taylorite but towards the end it appears to be part of one of the groups' schisms.
 * The Taylor/Raven bit in the introduction needs work so that the article flows better. Perhaps it should go after the Kelly stuff
 * In the Kelly Lowe etc stuff some groups are mentioned who don't appear to have merged to form the reformed group. Did they do so, or not?
 * We seem to use the word Meeting(s)/Assemblies/group interchangeably. I think it would be good to pick one and stick with it.
 * It seems from the article that JTJr ran the Aberdeen meeting, caused a scene and then died. Is this the case or is the year of his death wrong?
 * Citations definitely need work.
 * Is there any evidence that we can point to that the EB treat those who are excommunicated in the same way that Leviticus says God's people should treat lepers?
 * There are some snarky comments in various parts of the article which need to be reviewed. For example:
 * The cult of personality has now reached the stage where God and religion have been largely replaced by references to "our beloved" who is either the current Man of God or one of his predecessors.
 * Students of history could see the similarity between this and the rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky which resulted in the latter's expulsion from the Communist Party and subsequent assassination
 * The "Man of God" increasingly filled the celebrity gap.
 * I suspect the article would flow better if "Exclusive Brethren" was replaced with "Brethren" for most of the relevant parts of the Taylorite section.
 * It would be good if the article detailed (or explicitly pointed to another page which covers) the EB tenets of faith and how they celebrate that. This section should also provide basic glossary stuff such as what the Elect Vessel and Man of God and Men of the Recovery are and what that means.  History is good, but I want to know more about what they profess to believe, how they act, how I might recognise one in the street...

Jarich 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Remaining work
I've done a fair amount of the above. The following tasks still remain


 * Names should probably be put in full rather than saying "Mr Raven". What was his full name?  The honorific Mr might be better omitted
 * In the Kelly Lowe etc stuff some groups are mentioned who don't appear to have merged to form the reformed group. Did they do so, or not?
 * We seem to use the word Meeting(s)/Assemblies/group interchangeably. I think it would be good to pick one and stick with it.
 * It seems from the article that JTJr ran the Aberdeen meeting, caused a scene and then died. Is this the case or is the year of his death wrong?
 * Is there any evidence that we can point to that the EB treat those who are excommunicated in the same way that Leviticus says God's people should treat lepers?
 * It would be good if the article detailed (or explicitly pointed to another page which covers) more of the EB tenets of faith and how they celebrate that. This section should also provide basic glossary stuff such as what the Elect Vessel and Man of God and Men of the Recovery are and what that means.
 * The External links section needs to be reviewed and perhaps split into favourable/unfavourable.
 * The history section needs to be considered for relevance. Think about why people are coming to this page and what they want to know.  Dirty laundry from 40 years ago may not be high on their list.  It's also confusing.
 * There's a bunch of interesting information in the Taylorite section which may be better moved up into other parts of the article.
 * If there is actually a requirement for women to cover their heads in public and at worship then that should be mentioned earlier.

Thanks. Jarich 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Out" Taylor Brethren since 1970
this section is not clear, it begins with "they divided into 2 main groups" and ends with 5 points... Martious 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have just numbered the first two groups then listed subsequent splits underneath without numbering them
 * Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Endless Reverts
Whoever it is who keeps posting the assertion that "The Exclusive Brethren are a sinister, secretive and manipulative sect." may be right in part but s/he does not seem to understand that the term Exclusive Brethren is much wider than the Taylorite Brethren and embraces a wide spectrum of Christians. That is what the summary is trying to say in order to balance a widely held but erroneous view that EBs = followers of Jim Taylor, B Hales etc. The majority of EB meetings do not fall into this category. I am not an apologist for the Taylorites but at least if you feel that what you are saying is factual, insert it under the correct heading. It is very easy to post something that is emotive or sensational but much more satisfying to stick to the facts. Toodlepip Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put a message on what appears to me to be the main user's talk page. I'm not sure if it's a dynamic IP (the fact the user has made a number of changes to this article over several days suggests it may not be).  The user has made constructive edits recently too, so I'm sure this is a misunderstanding about what constitutes POV rather than vandalism. Chovain 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What photograph?
In the New Zealand Section-2.3.3-the following line appears in the fourth paragraph: Anti-feminist mens' rights and anti-gay campaigner Chuck Bird has claimed responsibility for the offending photograph. I can't figure out from any of the preceeding paragraphs what photograph is being referred to. R Duggan 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That comment came in with this edit. The photo they are referring to is explained in this ref, but not described in the article.  This article seems to refute the suggestion that he was responsible for the photo - rather that he got the photo from 'a contact', and passing them onto a newspaper.  I say we take out the sentence altogether unless anyone can piece together the news stories. Chovain 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Direction of Brash's National party
AGoon and I have discussed our recent edits on our talk pages (a full copy is available here).

To summarise, AGoon changed National's direction from "centre-right" to "right-wing" in order to be consistent with Labour's "left-wing" direction. I thought subtle POV was being introduced as Brash's stated direction is "centre-right", which is also how the media tends to describe National.

AGoon has suggested both Labour and National directions be changed to 'left/right oriented'. I think it is an excellent idea as it avoids using terms that have much stronger meanings outside NZ, yet reasonably accurately describes their policies, and does a good job of helping outsiders understand the situation. I assume AGoon will go ahead with the change. If anyone has anything to say about it, it should probably be discussed here. Chovain 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind :-) orientated looks a little stilted, so I've just changed Labour from left-wing to centre-left - now it looks like the Greens are centre-left too ... I'd better edit that ... :-) --AGoon 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I question the neutrality of the article. Need to state facts alone and avoid opinions or hypotheses. Difficult when emotional about a topic, I'm sure.

Comments like:

''James Taylor Jr built on the "authoritative ministry" doctrine to assert his views as dominant amongst brethren. He also filled a void in brethren's lives for a cult of personality. Exclusive Brethren were denied access to drama, cinema and television and so were largely unaware of the "stars" of stage and screen. The "Man of God" increasingly filled the celebrity gap.''

are very much a POV. Wikisuperfixer 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikisuperfixer. If you know something about this topic it would be good if you could help edit the article to help improve it. Feel free to rewrite with a neutral point of view or remove POV statements. -- Barrylb 16:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think this is a bit too much work! :-) Wikisuperfixer 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

POV nomination check
I've nominated the article for POV checks as I didn't feel it's neutrality was under active discussion. I believe that I've removed most of the non-neutral stuff, but I find wading through the history section quite irksome so I may have missed some stuff.

Jarich 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)