Talk:Fifty nine Particulars laid down for the Regulating things

To my knowledge, this Statement of Particulars is not ever referenced in other Quaker writings; (if someone has such knowledge, please add your commentary to this discussion.) If referenced by other Quaker writers, its authenticity would be less suspect.VINCETL 12:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any good reason to suspect its authenticity in the first place, considering that it is referenced by mainstream secular and Quaker scholars (see note 2 in article) from 1950 to the present. It at first sight may seem strange that it is not refenced by other Quaker writings, but for one thing, the early Quakers didn't quote each other much in the first place (unless they were defending each other), and if it hasn't been republished until four years ago, it's not surprising later Quakers never quoted it -- especially considering that Friends after 1660 were trying to become respectable (largely to stop persecution), and more controversial works were regularly censored by (e.g. by the Second Day Morning Meeting). Zach 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read George Fox for 25 years, almost daily, I can say that the Fifty-nine Particulars and the Addendum letter are written from a much harsher spirit than his Journal and his 410 letters. While the information is mostly compatible with his other writings, there is less gentleness throughout these. I conclude they were written by a different person, well versed in Fox's doctrine, but who stretched some concepts to be extreme and radical. 68.125.54.56 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but Quaker writings in the 1650s are generally more harsh and confrontational than later writings anyway; the Journal was written decades later, and the Epistles as you know were written to Friends, not their enemies, so there's no reason to expect them to be harsh in the first place. Concluding that it must be written by an impostor, and that somehow no one noticed at the time or since, is a bit outlandish, and suggests that you have other motives for casting it into doubt – e.g. you don't like the use it's being put to by QUF. Zach 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved paragraph to main page.VINCETL 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Particular to remove gold lace collars and sell them by legislation is laughable. Fox never suggested anything like this. His concerns with government were only to stop persecution and allow people to worship as they pleased, including people who didn't believe like he did. Forcing people to do something they didn't want to do would only prevent them from hearing the message the Quakers were preacing; this legislation, while parroting many of the Quaker concerns for persection, has several radical proposals which are totally contrary to the whole Quaker philosophy.--69.105.239.99 09:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because Fox never said anything like this elsewhere in his writings doesn't mean he didn't do so here. And he actually did elsewhere rant against what seem to us be silly things to rant against: his pamphlet "The Vials of the Wrath of God upon the Seat of the Man of Sin" was "mostly a condemnation of football and wrestling which Fox thought ought to be banned along with plays, pictures, horse-racing, bell-ringing, ballad singing, joke books and anything which would 'feed people’s pleasures'" . Zach 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced material moved
The arguments of the IP and the one-week single-subject reg'd user above are of interest to editors, but not verifiable material for the article. I haven't investigated whether this is the "Moved paragraph to main page." material:
 * Some people have criticized the editorial interpretation given to the pamphlet (in its QUF reprinting) by the introductory material reprinting of the pamphlet, or even questioned the authenticity of the pamphlet. There are not, however, any known scholars who have questioned the text's authenticity, and the fact that it was not reprinted for almost 350 years is not surprising when one considers the widely-known fact that post-Restoration Quakers were seeking downplay or censor their controversial writings in order to become respectable and lessen their persecution.

"Some people..." statements (which are unencyclopedically vague, needing replacement by something falsifiable in order to be notable). For related reasons, besides violation of the spirit of WP:SELF, articles do not make reference to their talk pages, either as "(See...)" or as footnotes. WP covers established knowledge, including that about verifiable controversies, but it does not cover the opinions of our editors, anonymous or not. Find credible refs (more substantial than blogs or sites created for the purpose) that can be referred to show there is controversy that can be verified as involving more than us talking to each other, and there may be reason to cover that controversy. --Jerzy•t 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Images & unknown tongue
I couldn't make out the train of thought here; needs to be clearer logic:
 * ... nor did he ever instruct Quakers to remove images and paintings from their homes and properties; nor did he ever suggest the forbidding of speaking in an unknown tongue.
 * The principle "Let no man speak in an unknown tongue" highlighted one of the fundamental criticisms that radicals of the period had toward the half-hearted measures of the new regime. Dealing with legal matters often required the use of Latin, either phrases or sentences, and hence separated the mass of people from the system.  When Fox called for prohibiting anyone from speaking an unknown tongue he siding with those who wanted legal affairs to be conducted in the language of the people.

--Jerzy•t 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead lk
I removed
 * He instructed Quakers to stay out of the restless spirit of government's affairs.

The lk redirects to the error page http://www.hallvworthington.com/gfsection16.html#government, and googling
 * Quakers OR friends "restless spirit"

is a real scattershot ("1 - 10 of about 12,400") while
 * "stay out of the restless spirit of government's affairs"

gets only one hit: the WP article. In a fit of unwonted generosity, i consulted the Nickalls edition of the Journal at Chapter XVI, and found that the dates correspond mostly to Chapter XIII of the Rufus Jones edition. Its Chapter XII ends
 * And a great care being upon me, lest any young or ignorant people, that might sometimes come amongst us, should be drawn into that snare, I was moved to give forth an epistle[152] as a warning unto all such.

and that "152" lks to a footnote, beginning
 * This epistle begins: "All Friends everywhere keep out of plots and bustling and the arm of flesh."

And Nickalls, at p. 357 (which is headed "1659" and "A Warning for Troubled Times), has at pp. 356-357 (a few pages before the end of Chapter XV)
 * And a great care being upon me lest any young or raw people, that might sometimes come amongst us, should be drawn into that snare, I was moved to give forth the following epistle as a warning unto all such:
 * All Friends, everywhere, keep out of plots and bustling and the arm of flesh,...

[All punctuation, sic in the corresponding sources; the italics are mine, to note where the texts differ.] I have gone to this length for three reasons: --Jerzy•t 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Not to have to walk away having zip nothing nada to show for my recent effort.
 * 2) To suggest that, whether "He instructed Quakers to stay out of the restless spirit of government's affairs." is a PoV paraphrase of the dead lk's language, or a direct quote from yet another editor's liberties with the original sources, at least some Quaker scholars have created significant pitfalls for non-specialist scholars.
 * 3) To offer a passage that may help point the way to making the point intended by what i removed to this section.

I'm not a Quaker scholar, just a user who was trying to fix a quirky link I stumbled across. The wikisource link for this page goes to a soft redirect, because the wikisource version has been moved to "Fifty nine .... Regulating OF things (emphasis added). I don't know which is correct, the "OF" version or the version from this page.  Either the wikisource version needs to be moved back so the self-referencing wikisource link will work or this page needs to be moved to the "OF" version as well. LifeIsArt (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)