Talk:Open Brethren

Edit history restoration
I've attempted to restore the edit history. This article was originally a "fork" of the Plymouth Brethren article. I reorganized both that article and this one a couple of months ago. Since then, I've learned that I should not have done cut-and-paste moves. I attempted to fix that today by merging the pages then splitting them again. That's achieved only half of what I intended: all the edit history of both articles is now intact on the Plymouth Brethren article, where 95 percent of them took place. I will look up how to restore them to this article also. I apologise for the messy job —I didn't expect it to happen like this. David Cannon (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Protestant?
I have never heard a person who followed the Plymouth Brethren way, call himself a "protestant." I think that most would deny that attribution. I think that most of their leaders consider themselves in a tradition going back through Church History, a tradition which was never under the papacy & thus never seceded from it, like the POV of James Milton Carroll: The Trail of Blood & the POV of The Light in Dark Ages by V. Raymond Edman. Should the "protestant" classification be deleted from the article? (PeacePeace (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)) I believe the whole point to these types of articles is historical truth therefore what individual Brethren might like to believe of their origin has little to do with reality. This particular group is a breakaway from Anglicanism (which embraced, to a degree, elements of Lutheranism), which inturn broke from the Church of Rome hence the Plymouth Brethren do infact fall under the umbrella of Protestantism. And for your own knowledge user PeacePeace 'The Trail of Blood' has been completely debunked, I wouldn't rely on this fiction for your historical reference.