Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Irvine not the founder

The early workers consciously and actively did something quite different from the mainstream denominations of the time. They eschewed all creeds and formal doctrines and stated openly that they would not be founders like John Wesley or Martin Luther. Also, they, quite uniquely, produced no written doctrine other than upholding the Bible.

You can if you wish say that William Irvine is the founder of this movement, but that will always be a counter-claim to the teaching of the movement. I don't think that the workers would ever say "William Irvine was our founder". I think it is wrong to try to get them to admit that.

This isn't a question about the role of William Irvine; it's about who gets to claim control of the meaning of the word "founder". When we say Jesus is the founder of our faith, we don't want anyone stepping on Jesus' toes. That's what the early workers are on record as saying.

For example,

"We did NOT start this Jesus Way...it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and we are NOT starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..."Edward Cooney ( 2x2s minister) Impartial Repo rter" 10/7/1909.

To claim anything different about the movement seeks to misrepresent and distort what the friends and workers movement is all about.

At the same time it is true that denial or erasure of the actual movement history has been a problem within the movement. For critics of the movement, the remedy proposed is that 'William Irvine is the founder'. This is not constructive and tries to place the movement in an impossible position. Of course, putting the movement in an impossible position is precisely what some of the foes of the movement would like to see.

This is why I favour an alternative wording as an origin statement of the movement in 189x. Such a wording is more constructive, and allows the movement to accept and then move on from the issue of the beginning of the movement. The problem with the statement "Irvine is the founder" is that it conflates issues of religious belief and history. 207.34.161.133 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at great length in the archives. An encyclopaedia is supposed to objectively describe things and to describe Irvine as the founder is just and objective statement - i.e. he behaved like others who would be described the same way with regard to religion movements they initiated. The fact that it's part of the doctrine of the church that he didn't want to be called a founder is different - still should be mentioned but doesn't alter the objective fact. Please read the archived discussions on this if you're still unsure. Donama (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"he behaved like others who would be described the same way with regard to religion movements they initiated". No he acted quite differently. Produced no book, no written doctrine, only preached the Gospel directly from the Bible.207.34.161.133 (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear how he "behaved like others" who founded movements. In what way or ways? Again, he produced no book and no written doctrine; he only preached, and he was not the only one who did so. 64.7.151.77 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the founding section indicates that Matthew 10 was the basis of William Irvine's new message, shouldn't it also include that John Long was also at that reading of Matt 10 and equally considered the prospect of going out in faith, and not only that but that he actually prayed about it and was convinced that he should do that instead of joining the Faith Mission as William Irvine was encouraging him too. If the Matt 10 revalation is the founding, that makes John Long more correctly the founder than William Irvine.

Another thing of note is that the reading of Matt 10 that prompted these thoughts of going by faith didn't happen until 1898 which conflicts with the founding date of 1897 if in fact the founding was based on the reading of Matthew 10 as indicated by the article.

One more thing... The passage from Matthew 10 which has had some things left out of it, describes instructions for the disciples that weren't followed by John Long and William Irvine after reading it, and still aren't followed today (eg. only to the lost sheep of Israel, healing the sick, no purse, not two coats, no shoes). The article gives the impression that they followed Matthew 10, and espesially the part that is quoted, but this isn't the case.

Anyway, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. The only reason you would bother with the truth is if you were writing an encyclopedia ;) 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While John Long records his own enlightenment as to the interpretation of Matt. 10, it does not necessarily follow that Irvine's views and new mission did not precede Long's. Rather it appears that Long simply adopted Irvine's preexisting viewpoint on the subject. While Long, in his capacity of Methodist colporteur, helped Irvine obtain preaching/revival venues in Methodist churches, Long's journal makes it clear that he and Irvine had only sporadic contact before and after studying Matt. 10 together (a year after Irvine's first independent missions in 1898, as you noted, though even Long himself dates the beginning to ten years prior to his expulsion, i.e., 1897). Long's knowledge of Irvine's other activities would obviously have been limited.

Long's journals, compiled decades later and available on the TTT site, don't present him as being the founder. You may want to re-read that. John Long was a Methodist colporteur at the time, and continued selling Methodist publications for some time after that mission, only becoming a full-time worker in Irvine's new movement in 1899 (according to the 1905 workers list). He was hounded out of the church in 1907 during the Crocknacrieve convention of that year for refusing to condemn Methodism (as noted in a press article), and returned to his work with the Methodist church.

How far the first workers attempted to follow Matt. 10 is speculation at this point. Certainly they claimed to be following it. And John Long mentions experiments with other aspects, such as healing the sick.

Regardless, you should find a source claiming that Long was a co-founder before including this and similar assertions or disputations in the article. • Astynax ^talk 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, are you trying to suggest that William, a man who was being supported by the Faith Mission, at the same time has somehow had a revelation and is also going out by Faith? Desn't make sense. William Irvine actually wanted John Long to join the Faith Mission at the time of John praying and getting a revelation that he should be going out in faith. Could you please explain how it appears that John Long adopted Irvine's preexisting viewpoint on the subject?

Regarding John Long's journals and whether they present him as the founder, and your insistence that I find a source claiming that John Long was a co-founder, how about going directly to John Long himself. Maybe you have ignored the parts where he said thngs such as "William Irvine and I separated, we being the two instruments used of God at the origin of that movement", and various other aspects that expressed his believe that he was as instrumental in the events of that time as Willam Irvine was. And if you are going as far as looking at what they said, William Irvine actually said that he wasn't starting anything new. So, you shouldn't be so blatantly choosing to uphold some parts of history, while ignore others, because we should be attempting to keep POV issues out of the article.

As far as the workers following Matt 10, what the article doesn't explain is what they exactly got out of Matt 10 that they claimed to be doing. As I said above, the part of Matt 10 that is quoted in the article was evidently not followed then, and isn't followed today so it is completely misleading, because they never ever intended to do such things as raise the dead and so on. Obviously I understand that there will always be false accusers who want to write misleading information such as this, but this is suppose to be an encyclopedia, so if something has never happened and never will happen and was never intended to happen, whatever is it doing there? Don't use a trusted encyclopdia to mount an attack on a group of people or express your own POV. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussing your points might be more appropriate to TMB or similar discussion groups. No doubt that John Long regarded himself as an "instrument", though not only in the development of your church—if you go on reading, you'll find that he continued in Methodism both then and later (he wrote the journal over a decade after leaving the CC church). As to Irvine having a pre-existing "revelation," as I've said, Long shows himself providing the venue for the first independent mission. Long gives a date for the group's beginning as 10 years prior to his being hounded out of the church in 1907 (i.e., 1897 as the other sources say). Later, in 1898, Long studies Matthew 10 with Irvine and that sparks his personal conclusions, again not inconsistent with other referenced sources. Long also writes elsewhere that 1897 was the date of the founding, with William Irvine as the original leader, which also fits with other resources. So Irvine started the movement prior to the 1898 study with Long. You and others have gone around and around trying to deny and/or reframe Irvine's role, but all the paths lead back to the various resources which point to him as founder being accurate and based on a very firm footing. Thus, you need to cite resources which make a clear contrary statement to support your dispute. Despite your interpretation, I haven't read in Long's journal anything which stands in opposition to Irvine being the founder.

As to Matt. 10 (and Luke chapters 9 and 10) being used as the rationale for the CC church's method of ministry, that is simply what resources state. There are plenty of statements in early materials to show that this isn't something newly invented. If you have resources which detail a different rationale, then that could certainly be added to the article. • Astynax ^talk 22:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, your words in italics...

Discussing your points might be more appropriate to TMB or similar discussion groups. Astynax, what exactly are you afraid of? It seems you don’t want me here. Why is it not perfectly appropriate to be discussing the founder on the discussion page of an article containing such information?

No doubt that John Long regarded himself as an "instrument", though not only in the development of your church—if you go on reading, you'll find that he continued in Methodism both then and later (he wrote the journal over a decade after leaving the CC church). He may well have regarded himself as an instrument in other aspects, but that doesn’t change the fact that he regarded himself instrumental to the beginning of the group, which contradicts what you were saying about him not presenting himself as founder, and whether he was instrumental in other aspects of life is completely irrelevant, and I guess you are trying to avoid acknowledging the truth by diverging?

As to Irvine having a pre-existing "revelation," as I've said, Long shows himself providing the venue for the first independent mission. Doesn’t this give you some sort of hint here?... John Long... organized... THE FIRST... INDEPENDENT... MISSION. Hmmm... I wonder what it was that William did that makes people think it was him?

Long gives a date for the group's beginning as 10 years prior to his being hounded out of the church in 1907 (i.e., 1897 as the other sources say). Later, in 1898, Long studies Matthew 10 with Irvine and that sparks his personal conclusions, again not inconsistent with other referenced sources. Long also writes elsewhere that 1897 was the date of the founding, with William Irvine as the original leader, which also fits with other resources. So Irvine started the movement prior to the 1898 study with Long. This is the most illogical argument I have seen in a long time. You are trying to prove that William Irvine had had the revelation about Matt 10 in 1897 by using the very assumption that I am contesting. I have said that John Long and William Irvine were together studying Matt 10 (1898) to indicate that the Matt 10 revelation wasn’t the beginning, as the article indicates, but then you are trying to say that William Irvine must have had the revelation earlier because John Long has stated the beginning in 1897. I might be stupid, but not even I am going to fall into that one. You and I know very well that William Irvine had no revelation about going in faith in 1897, and he was still very much supported by the Faith Mission. Even though it is possible for William Irvine to have had such a revelation in 1897, to make that assumption and then add it to an encyclopaedia article to prove a particular point of view is wrong, especially knowing that William wasn’t following Matt 10 by any of the means noted in the section from Matt 10 which is quoted in the article. If you want to blatantly make stuff up, here in a respected encyclopaedia is not the place to be doing that, and I acknowledge that you have added lots of references (all from sources who have a clear bias against the church by the way), but those references have used the same poorly constructed and shrewd reckoning to come up with a way to launch an attack on these people. Obviously, because the article is heavily laced with references from websites and books with a negative view, the article also takes on that flavour, and therefore, because these reference documents are trying to prove that the church has been/is lying then that is what the article suggests. They attempt to prove the church is lying by the use of arguments such as you have used above, but unfortunately a closer look at the facts reveals so many contradictions and lies in the details, including wild and unconfirmed assumptions like you have done above in suggesting that William Irvine had started his “going by faith” church in 1897. He certainly wasn’t going by faith then, and all the hype about Matt 10 came from the study that John Long and William Irvine had in 1898, so don’t try to take a bit of fact and change it slightly to make it sound like William Irvine actually had a revelation about it prior to their study.

As to Matt. 10 (and Luke chapters 9 and 10) being used as the rationale for the CC church's method of ministry, that is simply what resources state. There are plenty of statements in early materials to show that this isn't something newly invented. If you have resources which detail a different rationale, then that could certainly be added to the article. I guess I have said most of what I need to about this, but again, you and I know very well that the resources don’t state that William Irvine was going in faith in 1897, and he certainly didn’t only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, I haven’t heard that he healed any sick, and surely he didn’t raise any dead or we’d know about that, and he must have had money of some kind, and my guess is that he had a couple of coats (not that I really know) and he likely wore some shoes. For all this reason, don’t you think the article is either deliberately misleading or has irrelevant information there? So, you can either uphold the attitude that you currently have of “that is simply what resources state” which you currently have, or you can choose to accept the truth and acknowledge that all your resources are doing whatever it takes to attack and defame, even though they lie to do so. It’s your choice, and I hope that you use common sense and maturity in considering these things, but please don't continue to repeat to me as many others have done, that it is simply what the resourses state because you and I both know that, like this article, lots of misleading and false information is being upheld and portrayed as the truth.

I have much more to dicuss regarding this, though will make this do for now, but in the mean time, as there is a dispute about the details of the founding section, it is approriate that you leave the dispute tag there to alert others who may like to either consider the different sides for themselves, or join the discussion. In all kindness... 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

0oToddo0: "Why is it not perfectly appropriate to be discussing the founder on the discussion page of an article containing such information?" Please see the notice in the header at the top of the page. It is fine to discuss new sources which may add to the article, but it isn't OK to use your synthesis of a source to once again raise your church's disputatious viewpoint regarding the founding, which the article already notes. John Long's having helped Irvine obtain permission to get the use of a local Methodist church for meetings a year after its start hardly qualifies as anything like originating the movement, though it might be regarded as "instrumental" to where those particular meetings in Neagh took place. As to 1897 being the year Irvine founded the movement, John Long explicitly says so in a letter to the author of Heresies Exposed which is quoted there. Nor does that contradict either John Long's journal, or other sources. 1897 was the year (All in Good Faith, p. 323) in which the Carroll's had invited Irvine to preach at the Church of Ireland school in Rathmolyon, in which Long was not involved at all. And as for Irvine's continued association with Faith Mission, it isn't at all clear that he (or workers who followed upon his "independent lines") used that for anything other than obtaining preaching venues. Nor is it I who am making any claim about Matt. 10, but rather sources, which include statements by those early workers themselves. Again, if you have a resource which connects the dots which you seem to see in Long and agrees with your conclusion, then you might have a basis for adding new material to the article. What you do not have is a basis for defacing the article by throwing up dispute tags for amply cited sections and statements within the article. • Astynax ^talk 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, your words italics...

Please see the notice in the header at the top of the page. It is fine to discuss new sources which may add to the article, but it isn't OK to use your synthesis of a source to once again raise your church's disputatious viewpoint regarding the founding, which the article already notes. I have seen the header at the top, and as I am discussing the factual accuracy of the article, this is the perfect place for doing such. I don’t know how you can call it a “synthesis of a source” when I have only been quoting from John Long’s Diary. Can you please explain why you would say such a thing?

John Long's having helped Irvine obtain permission to get the use of a local Methodist church for meetings a year after its start hardly qualifies as anything like originating the movement, though it might be regarded as "instrumental" to where those particular meetings in Neagh took place. Boy, don’t you change the history around, Astynax. It wasn’t that John Long helped Irvine obtain permission for the use of the meeting place... John Long single handed did it himself... He sure was “instrumental”. By the way, this was not a year after the start. This was 1897. Also, this happened to be at a low point for William Irvine as far as “spiritual laxity” amongst people he was preaching to, and John Long was having some success far out in the country and this encouraged William, so, encouraged by this, William followed John Long’s lead and himself went out into the country and had good success. John Long also tells of William being out of an opening at this time, and this is when John Long arranged that mission. Now you tell me, who was following who here at the start of “the revival”?

As to 1897 being the year Irvine founded the movement, John Long explicitly says so in a letter to the author of "Heresies Exposed" which is quoted there. Nor does that contradict either John Long's journal, or other sources. 1897 was the year (All in Good Faith, p. 323) in which the Carroll's had invited Irvine to preach at the Church of Ireland school in Rathmolyon, in which Long was not involved at all. I am not denying that the start was 1897. I think you are getting confused because the Matt 10 study happened in 1898. What I am saying is that William Irvine wasn’t going out in Faith in 1897 like the article suggests. It is not me saying it started in 1898, but the article. So the article is wrong, and it is quite appropriate that we are here discussing it to make it right.

And as for Irvine's continued association with Faith Mission, it isn't at all clear that he (or workers who followed upon his "independent lines") used that for anything other than obtaining preaching venues. Why is it that John Long so often mentioned the point about no salary, and getting money given to him, in connection with faith lines? It seems quite logical to me that turning away from joining the faith mission as William wanted him to, and going according to his revelation, meant turning away from regular monetary support. It seems like that was the case to me, but then, I’m not trying to distort history like some people here ;o).

Nor is it I who am making any claim about Matt. 10, but rather sources, which include statements by those early workers themselves. I am not denying that Matt 10 was studied, or mentioned after that. In fact I have mentioned it quite a few times above. Are you trying to avoid the truth? What I said about Matt 10 is that the workers never intended to go raising the dead and so on, like the article appears to suggest.

Again, if you have a resource which connects the dots which you seem to see in Long and agrees with your conclusion, then you might have a basis for adding new material to the article. Why don’t you also find some resources for things you have been saying, such as that William’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happened in 1897? I have been talking about things directly from John Long’s diary purely for your sake, and you have to hide to say this.

What you do not have is a basis for defacing the article by throwing up dispute tags for amply cited sections and statements within the article. The tag is not defacing the article. It is a tool provided by wiki for the very purpose I have used it for. The article's factual accuracy is disputed, and that is exactly what the tag says. It is ideal. Stop touching it already.

Now, I would be happy for you to respond to anything above, but if nothing else, at least respond to the below points. Yes or no answers are fine.

1. Did William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happen in 1897 at the beginning (or prior to)?

2. Do you (or any sources) believe that the revelation that they got from Matt 10 included that they should only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils... without shoes on?!?

3. Are we in dispute?

0oToddo0 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

00todd00: no, you are not in a Wikipedia dispute, at least not as regards the accuracy of this article. You may think I am wrong to say this, but please hang on a moment and give me space to explain.

Your concerns may be valid, but it is quickly becoming clear that they really shouldn't be discussed here. In doing you the favor of explaining why your concerns don't rise to the level of a Wikipedia dipute, however, Astynax has himself turned this page into a discussion of the topic rather than a discussion of the article, in contradiction to Wiki guidelines. So please, you two, cool it.

You have provided snippets of John Long's diary, and then proceeded to interpret those snippets. You point to questions raised by the snippets, you process those questions through numerous assumptions, and you conclude (I think I have this right) that Irvine didn't start the movement, because (I think you're saying) either because John Long did, or at the very least because John Long, who ought to know, doesn't come right out and say so. That seems to be your point, but I may have got it wrong.

It is quite reasonable for you to form an interpretation of the truth that differs from the facts presented in the article. What Astynax is saying however is: your interpretation is not water-tight. Your interpretation is open to discussion. Your intrepretaion does not rise to the level of self-evident fact. Your interpretation, therefore, represents your only interpretation, however true it may appear to you or others, but it is not a verifiable fact in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term.

You and Astynax have gone beyond discussion of facts to be included or removed from the article and have gotten into a discussion of interpreting ambiguity. Your discussions have passed the point of relevancy to this talk page.

Find a verifiable source that says John Long started the movement, or Joe Blow, or whoever. Add that fact to the article with a reference: "However, according to John Doe, the movement was actually started by Joe Blow <ref>John Doe, The true origins of the Christian Conventions, Highly Respected Source vol 22 page 33</ref>

That will end any suggestion of dispute. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nemonoman. Nice to see that you are still around. Your words are in italics.

00todd00: no, you are not in a Wikipedia dispute, at least not as regards the accuracy of this article. If you look above you will see that I have been disputing the factual accuracy of the article. I am disputing on Wikipedia, so I guess that would mean I am in a Wikipedia dispute wouldn’t it?

Your concerns may be valid, but it is quickly becoming clear that they really shouldn't be discussed here. My concerns are about the accuracy of the article. Where do you say I should discuss this?

In doing you the favor of explaining why your concerns don't rise to the level of a Wikipedia dipute, however, Astynax has himself turned this page into a discussion of the topic rather than a discussion of the article, in contradiction to Wiki guidelines. Hmm... how do you think we could discuss the accuracy of information about a topic without discussing the topic? Wouldn’t that be impossible.

So please, you two, cool it. Are you using these words here because we are disputing... on Wikipedia? I thought so.

You have provided snippets of John Long's diary, and then proceeded to interpret those snippets. You point to questions raised by the snippets, you process those questions through numerous assumptions, and you conclude (I think I have this right) that Irvine didn't start the movement, because (I think you're saying) either because John Long did, or at the very least because John Long, who ought to know, doesn't come right out and say so. That seems to be your point, but I may have got it wrong. Yes you have it slightly wrong. I have been presenting information from the various sources, some of which are ultimately sourced from John Long’s Diary, and putting it against the article and seeing contradicting information. I suspected that Astynax was thinking that I was only giving my interpretation, which is why I then decided to get his interpretation of history by asking a couple of questions at the end of my last post. I will await his answer before I load him up with further questions because I don’t want him to have a reason to avoid my point as he has done in the past. I expect him to be able to answer a few basic yes/no questions. Feel free to answer those questions also if you feel like it.

It is quite reasonable for you to form an interpretation of the truth that differs from the facts presented in the article. What Astynax is saying however is: your interpretation is not water-tight. OK, so I am happy to get his interpretation, and I will be asking for his interpretation of various different events and comments that are documented in diaries and history books.

Your interpretation is open to discussion. So let’s discuss it, instead of all this discussion about whether a dispute tag should be there or not.

Your intrepretaion does not rise to the level of self-evident fact. When John Long (and the other referenced authors) say that the Matt 10 revelation came in 1898, my interpretation of that is that the Matt 10 revelation came in 1898. This seems to me to be a self-evident fact. The article doesn't reflect this though.

Your interpretation, therefore, represents your only interpretation, however true it may appear to you or others, but it is not a verifiable fact in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. Ok so let’s stick to information that is written in documents such as John Long’s Diary and the like, which is mostly what I have been doing.

You and Astynax have gone beyond discussion of facts to be included or removed from the article and have gotten into a discussion of interpreting ambiguity. Your discussions have passed the point of relevancy to this talk page. Excuse me but, except for the fact that people keep bringing up the dispute tag thing, I have otherwise been specifically discussing things to be included or removed from the article. Read again and you will see that. You and I have now gotten away from things to be included in the article, but you started it ;o)

Find a verifiable source that says John Long started the movement, or Joe Blow, or whoever. Add that fact to the article with a reference: "However, according to John Doe, the movement was actually started by Joe Blow <ref>John Doe, The true origins of the Christian Conventions, Highly Respected Source vol 22 page 33</ref> I have no desire to go looking for sources to find out who founded it, nor am I suggesting it was John Long or Joe Blow. All I am interested in is that any information in the article is true. At the moment, that isn’t the case.

That will end any suggestion of dispute. OK, so let’s end this dispute by staying on the topic and working it out, instead of pretending there is no dispute, and subsequently disputing over that. Thanks for your input, and I look forward to now discussing the points of dispute only relative to improving the accuracy of the article.

0oToddo0 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are ignoring the content of my comments.

It is NOT enough that you believe the information to be inaccurate. You must provide sources that show different information.

Unless you have sources that differ, then you done no more that than state that your beliefs. Your beliefs may be entirely accurate. Wikipedia and I don't care one way or the other. The question is verifiablity. Wiki guidelines state: verifiablity not truth. This is why the question of whether this article uses reliable sources is being continually raised. Source reliablity has been and continues to be a matter of contention. The VERIFIABILITY of those sources is NOT in question..the quotes and citations reflect the content of the sources.

Based on the statement above, the ACCURACY of this article is not in dispute. The dispute tag is used for ACCURACY DISPUTES -- article says one thing, source says different.

Thus you have no grounds for an accuracy dispute in my opinion.

You have different INFORMATION (i.e., not just an opinion or a synthesis)? Then please edit the article with a fact from some reasonably reliable source (and I'll be the first to suggest that we must be liberal in what we accept as reliable when you do this -- since we have been liberal in this acceptance throughout.) If that fact gets removed, THEN you have something to debate.

In effect, your disputes currently all boil down to: I don't think so. You are fighting your battle using Original Research and Syntheis: both Wiki No-nos.

Based on the long discussions here, I am very sure that MANY, MANY people question the TRUTH of this article. Unless and until DIFFERENT CITED FACTS are presented, these concerns are moot and essentially meaningless.

Comments like this: I have no desire to go looking for sources to find out who founded it, nor am I suggesting it was John Long or Joe Blow. All I am interested in is that any information in the article is true. At the moment, that isn’t the case. tell me you have an opinion but neither the inclination or ammunition to raise the matter to a prima facie case of innaccuracy worthy of a dispute tag.

Dear Nemonoman (I assume it is you who wrote the above). Your comments in italics.

I am sorry that you are ignoring the content of my comments. I tried to respond to what I thought you were saying to the best of my ability, and reading back over my responces I really don't see how the content of you comments could be dealt with more directly and with the purest of attention to the content. Anyway, my appologies.

'It is NOT enough that you believe the information to be inaccurate. You must provide sources that show different information. And what is wrong with the source I keep repeating (John Long’s Diary) which is what many others have used in various ways to support the article? Why is it that you pretend I have never mentioned it?

Unless you have sources that differ, then you done no more that than state that your beliefs. Your beliefs may be entirely accurate. Wikipedia and I don't care one way or the other. The question is verifiablity. Wiki guidelines state: verifiablity not truth. This is why the question of whether this article uses reliable sources is being continually raised. Source reliablity has been and continues to be a matter of contention. The VERIFIABILITY of those sources is NOT in question..the quotes and citations reflect the content of the sources. Let’s take the year of the Matt 10 revelation as an example. By the way, I have decided to deal with one or 2 smaller issues at a time because it seems that people have trouble responding to my comments, especially if I put too much info in there. I will raise other questions for Astynax and anybody else who wants to enter in, once they find themselves able to answer the first few basic questions. Anyway, getting back to the Matt 10 revelation, I can reference a number of sources that quote the Matt 10 revelation being in 1898, and most of these trace back to John Long’s diary, which is why I figured it necessary to only reference that. And there you go... I have just referenced John Long’s diary yet again, in case you missed it. So, if so many others can use information out of John Long’s diary, why is it such an issue, and causes such a fuss when I do? Why do people start going on about “verifiability” and reliable sources, even when I am using the very same source that they are?

Based on the statement above, the ACCURACY of this article is not in dispute. The dispute tag is used for ACCURACY DISPUTES -- article says one thing, source says different. Please justify your comment here. The article says that the revelation was in 1897. The sources say it was 1898. Isn’t that an ACCURACY problem? If I was at work and programmed a machine to cut something 1898mm long and it cut it at 1897mm long, I would say that is an accuracy problem rather than the machine being accurate with just a different interpretation of what 1898mm meant.

Thus you have no grounds for an accuracy dispute in my opinion. The sources saying 1898 and the article saying 1897 is an accuracy issue, not just a different interpretation or however else you might want to pass it off as.

You have different INFORMATION (i.e., not just an opinion or a synthesis)? Then please edit the article with a fact from some reasonably reliable source (and I'll be the first to suggest that we must be liberal in what we accept as reliable when you do this -- since we have been liberal in this acceptance throughout.) If that fact gets removed, THEN you have something to debate. I am just happy to wait for Astynax to respond to my question about what year the Matt 10 revelation was, and if he states a year that everyone agrees with, then I don’t have to bother tracking down more evidence and sources outside of what I have given.

In effect, your disputes currently all boil down to: I don't think so. You are fighting your battle using Original Research and Syntheis: both Wiki No-nos. Again, how can you possibly miss the sources that I have mentioned?

Based on the long discussions here, I am very sure that MANY, MANY people question the TRUTH of this article. Unless and until DIFFERENT CITED FACTS are presented, these concerns are moot and essentially meaningless. I am starting to wonder (though I could be wrong) if you are deliberately ignoring what I am saying because you don’t like the truth.

Comments like this: "I have no desire to go looking for sources to find out who founded it, nor am I suggesting it was John Long or Joe Blow. All I am interested in is that any information in the article is true. At the moment, that isn’t the case. tell me you have an opinion but neither the inclination or ammunition to raise the matter to a prima facie case of innaccuracy worthy of a dispute tag. It is nothing to do with my opinion. Again, you obviously missed the reference I used. Here it is again for you... John Long’s diary. The reason why I have no desire to go looking for further information is for the same reason that I have no desire to go checking whether William Irvine had a purple pet goat. I already have a good idea of whether he did on not, but seeing there is no information in the article about him having a purple goat, why go trying to prove it one way or the other even if I do have an opinion on that matter. But, as for any information in the article, if it is not true and I have a reliable source that says it isn’t true, that’s when I figure I might as well set it right. It is a trusted encyclopaedia after all. 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add a fact like "According to John Long, however, the date of Irvine's revelation was 1898<ref>some page of JLs diary</ref>, go ahead and do it, and be done with this. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, John Long is telling his own experience. No doubt he claims to have come to a realization himself of a meaning on Matt. 10 in 1898. It is unwarranted to assume that Irvine had not come to this and other conclusions earlier. Your pointing to this additional source doesn't necessarily contradict the existing sources, or to Long's other, published statement written around the same time. If you wish to quote a sentence of Long's about the 1898 study of Matt. 10, include that additional information, rather than throwing up a dispute tag on your say-so. As has been said, what you are describing isn't a dispute. There are other sources which support the existing statements. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, why don't we just use the date that the historians record as the time of the Matt 10 revelation? I have tried adding contradicting information to the article in the past and it was removed. That is why I am here to dicuss it, but it seems that no one is interested in discussing it, are ignoring the reliable source, and haven't even answered a few questions that only require a simple yes or no answer.

Astynax, as much as you don't want me to assume that William Irvine didn't have a revelation about Matt 10 prior to 1898, I also don't want you assuming that he did have a revelation regarding Matt 10, especially to the point that you would write those assumptions into an encyclopeadia article. Lets leave assumptions out of this, and I won't write in there that Irvine didn't have a revelation about Matt 10, and you don't write in there that he did have a revelation about Matt 10. Let's stick to the facts.

Why did you avoid answering the questions I asked you to answer? Here they are, and again, I would be happy for you to respond to anything above, but if nothing else, at least respond to the below points. Yes or no answers are fine.

1. Did William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happen in 1897 at the beginning (or prior to the beginning)?

2. Do you (or any sources) believe that the revelation that they got from Matt 10 included that they should only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils... without shoes on?!?

3. Are we in dispute?

0oToddo0 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is about what the sources say. The only other source you've pointed to is John Long, and I don't see John Long saying that Irvine received any sort of revelation regarding Matt. 10—he only claims that the meaning crystalized in his own (Long's) mind when he studied it in 1898: "While in Kilkee we had a Bible reading on Matthew 10. It was that Bible reading set me first thinking about going on Faith Lines." (entry for July 1898). Moreover, Long also notes that his own view of Matt. 10 differed markedly from that of Irvine, Cooney and the other early CC ministers (of course he was writing long after he had been expelled from the group, but he does seem to have maintained many of his Methodist ties, as those contributed to his being tossed out later). Regardless, Long's study doesn't contradict anything here or in sources. Find a resource which states the same as your contention before tagging the article as being disputed—or better yet, add that there is an alternative view and cite the source. • Astynax ^talk 08:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy for you to respond to anything above, but if nothing else, at least respond to the below points. Yes or no answers are fine.

1. Did William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happen in 1897 at the beginning (or prior to the beginning)?

2. Do you (or any sources) believe that the revelation that they got from Matt 10 included that they should only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils... without shoes on?!?

3. Are we in dispute?

0oToddo0 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

1. According to the cited sources, yes.

2. Astynax can answer however he sees fit. I hope he doesn't answer. It's clear the sources say that Irvine was inspired by Matthew 10.

3. A dispute, yes, but not a dispute that the article doesn't reflect the cited sources. You have a different interpretation of the truth, based on your interpretation and synthesis of information not currently cited in the article. So either place addtiional facts and sources in the article, and let us all deal with them as appropriately as we can, or lay off the dispute tagging. I will remove that tag consistently until you do.

Furthermore, I'm beginning to think that you are not acting in good faith, but are simply being disruptive, since you have done nothing more than repeat the same actions for the same reasons, despite clear consensus that this sort of action is not consistent with the consensus of other article editors nor consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually read all this, but I'm pretty sure that the above is probably a contest between what the writer wrote and what someone else (00Todd00) "knows". I'd like to add only that if the original article WAS actually based on reliable sources we would not have these kinds of issues. The article is clearly based on counter-advocacy sources as other senior editors have noted. If the article was reduced to what one finds in RS such as Melton, possibly Parker then much of the debate would be academic. As it is the dialogue/ debate will never end because it's essentially members' word against a precis of counter-advocacy writing. Neither are appropriate sources, IMO.RSuser (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (had used wrong login, sorry)

Nemonoman, thanks for your answers to these questions. Despite the fact that you gave very vague answers to the questions I will respond to what you said....

Question 1. Actually, it is a pity that Astynax hasn’t answered because I think he really knows the truth and can’t give a simple “yes” answer without feeling guilty. Regarding you answer to the first question, I guess there are some sources that either directly say that, or hint at that to mislead the reader to assume that. Here is Astynax's words to give you an example...

As to Irvine having a pre-existing "revelation," as I've said, Long shows himself providing the venue for the first independent mission. Long gives a date for the group's beginning as 10 years prior to his being hounded out of the church in 1907 (i.e., 1897 as the other sources say). Later, in 1898, Long studies Matthew 10 with Irvine and that sparks his personal conclusions, again not inconsistent with other referenced sources. Long also writes elsewhere that 1897 was the date of the founding, with William Irvine as the original leader, which also fits with other resources. So Irvine started the movement prior to the 1898 study with Long. You and others have gone around and around trying to deny and/or reframe Irvine's role, but all the paths lead back to the various resources which point to him as founder being accurate and based on a very firm footing. Thus, you need to cite resources which make a clear contrary statement to support your dispute. Despite your interpretation, I haven't read in Long's journal anything which stands in opposition to Irvine being the founder.

As to Matt. 10 (and Luke chapters 9 and 10) being used as the rationale for the CC church's method of ministry, that is simply what resources state. There are plenty of statements in early materials to show that this isn't something newly invented. If you have resources which detail a different rationale, then that could certainly be added to the article.

So, you can see here that Astynax knew what I was asking because of how he began the section above (As to Irvine having a pre-existing "revelation,"), but then he goes on to avoid directly answering, but (as per what is indicated in the article) tries to suggest that William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 came in 1897. Astynax says that CC’s began in 1897 and prior to the Matt 10 study, and I also agree that John Long indicated this. Astynax also asserts that Matt 10 has been “used as a rational” for the CC’s, and writes as if I think he has made up the Matt 10 story, but I also agree that Matt 10 was actually studied, and “isn’t something newly invented”. What Astynax doesn’t bring himself to say (because I assume he knows the truth), was that the Matt 10 revelation wasn’t in 1897, and did not coincide with what John Long is calling the beginning. He has made the assumption that it was in 1897, and many others have either made the same erroneous assumption or are deliberately misleading the reader to portray their own point of view. Any of the more professional researchers will tell you that the Matt 10 revelation came about in 1898, and by no means was William Irvine living or preaching according to any of the “revelations” derived from Matt 10. Although most sources I have read only try to mislead the reader into this false belief about Irvine’s Matt 10 revelation without saying it directly, if you have found one that directly gives a date and details about it, I would be interested to hear more details, but either way there is every chance they are lying because there are far more of the sources that indicate that the Matt 10 revelation came in 1898, and also describe a life of William Irvine that by no means portrays a man who has had a revelation about Matt 10. Obviously those who want to prove that the CC’s are lying would like it to be true that Irvine had his revelation in 1897 so that a few other facts would line up and make sense, so you can see how they want to pretend that it happened in 1897. If you read the article, even the article itself doesn’t really say that the revelation came in 1897 (again, probably because it isn’t true), but it is written in such a way that would leave a reader thinking that he started something at the time of his revelation. And I am sure you have read sources that are written exactly the same (because I have) whereby reading them gives you every indication that the revelation came in 1897. Unfortunately , other facts then don’t line up, which I will point out once I can first pin Astynax down to directly answering these questions one way or another. Question 2. Why would you hope that Astynax doesn’t answer? Are you starting to catch on that his answer is going to contradict his answers to further questions I have for him? Anyway, you haven’t even understood the question it seems, looking at your answer, so it is no wonder you keep also pretending that I am not citing sources for what I am saying. You keep ignoring the content of what I am saying, just like you ignored the content of this question.

Question 3. Again, you seem to not be able to understand me because of the fact that you have repeatedly said that I need to cited a reliable source, and then you go and say, “You have a different interpretation of the truth, based on your interpretation and synthesis of information not currently cited in the article”. What I have been doing is giving you the date of the Matt 10 revelation, which is not my interpretation, but it is directly indicated in the source, and I have cited that source. Not only that, many other historians show that in the sequence of events, the Matt 10 revelation was in 1898. Now, I am not about to go adding information to the article like you suggest because I have added contradictory information in the past and it got promptly removed. Interestingly enough, some of my work has been removed with the reason being that my source (Cherie Kropp) was unreliable, but just have a look at the amount of times her book has been cited (a book that is still under construction and being modified). Funny how it works isn’t it? Makes you wonder who it really is that is “not acting in good faith”, because that is downright discriminatory and biased. Feel free to question anything I have said that you don’t understand, and try to stop falsely denying that I am using reliable sources, as a reason to remove the dispute tag. Kind regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RSuser, just to fill you in a bit seeing you haven’t read it all... it’s not really a contest between what the writer wrote and what I “know”, but a contest between what is indicated in the article, and what the historians have recorded as the series of events around 1896 onwards. If you get to reading it all, you will see that I have disputed this because it disagrees with the reliable sources, not because it disagrees with my own interpretation as some are asserting. I obviously wasn’t around back then and can only go by what the consensus is regarding the historical events, documented by those who were there at the time, and because it is different to what is indicated in the article, I have disputed the accuracy of the article. I agree that the article is quite obviously based on counter-advocacy sources, and I also agree that there is no reason why a current member would have a better idea of what went on back then anyway. Having said that, although I do go to some meetings, I don’t really count myself a member of the CC’s, so would never consider myself a representative of the CC’s to the point of expecting that I am a reliable source, but I am purely advocating that the truth be told regardless of what that truth is, especially in a publication such as an encyclopedia. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing my name in your note, as well as the sigs on this page, as the old ID is defunct and this is the ID I had changed to. The old ID was my last name and I used to use it everywhere on the web but as there are now quite a few people active with that name they probably don't want to be confused with me. I forgot I had gone to RSUser when I logged in yesterday.RSuser (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look through the above hopefully this weekend and let you know what I think.RSuser (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the gist of this. When I read John Long's journal, I obtained the same impression that John Long was the "brains" of the operation while Irvine was the mouthpiece ... like Moses and Aaron. We remember Moses, not the spokesman, Aaron.RSuser (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources listed beside Founder: Irvine, are not reliable.RSuser (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One, Melton, lists Irvine as orginator of the movement, not as founder. This is a more accurate description of Irvine's role. For example, Irvine produced no written work that would indicate his role in determining the doctrine of the early days of the movement.RSuser (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a justification written in precis form, indicating why Irvine is considered founder. It is clear that by 1902 or so he was the major leader and was listed with his companion at the top of the workers' list. But what happened before points to equal roles for Long and Cooney.RSuser (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In Jaenen's history of restorationist movements, he lists 4 or 5 men and women as having started the movement.RSuser (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To all concerned, I am not out to nail who is the founder, nor define the roles of William Irvine or John Long at this point, but just fix up all of the inaccurate and misleading statements made by the article. It seems that it gets too confusing for some to discuss too many points at once, and they start making weird assumptions about what is being said, and not responding to the different points, so I have tried to bring it back to discussing and getting consensus on one or two points at a time. This is why I have reduced it to merely three questions, and primarily I decided to debate the “Matt 10” details.

As you will see above, I have never suggested that John Long is the founder but have been asked if that is what I am trying to say. If the facts that I have been expressing have indicated to you that it is more likely that John Long was the founder then that is your own calculation and not anything I have said, because at this point there is no reason for me to give my opinion about who is the founder, and I am by no means in a position that my opinion carries any weight. I am just telling the history like it is written in the books, and for example, the Matt 10 study was in 1898, not 1897 as it is portrayed in the article. I am finding funny that Nemonoman is insisting that he doesn’t understand what I am trying to say. I give details such as “The Matt 10 study was in 1898”, and he says, “I don’t know what you are trying to say... are you trying to say that Long was the founder”? No, Nemonoman, when I say that "the Matt 10 study was in 1898", what I really mean is that "the Matt 10 study was in 1898". Nothing else. Pretty basic really. It’s not really a surprise that he misunderstood one of the questions I asked, even though it is plain English. He is either pretending to misunderstand me to continue his attempt to prevent people from responding to my nicely listed out points, or he has himself so worked up that he is trying to read more into what I am saying than what I am saying.

Nemonoman, even if you don’t understand what I am trying to say, Astynax does because he has disputed the points I have made, including the details regarding “Matt 10”. Therefore, just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a dispute and you can remove the dispute tag. There could be 100 other people that understand quite well even if you don’t. There is a dispute, so the best thing you could do is start contributing to the resolution of some of the problems with the article. Kind regards... 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As requested by Nemonoman, here is the start of a list of disputed items.

1. The "Matt 10" event mentioned in the article was in 1898, not 1897 as implied by the aticle.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have if you don't understand, but try not to be too distracted by the tag that alerted you to this dispute. 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

• The article doesn't mention any "Matt 10 event" and the "event" in Long's journal only mentions how it affected himself, not Irvine or Irvine's message. Someone could equally well conclude that Irvine led Long to adopting some conclusion as to Matt. 10. If there is a particular quote from Long which says differently, then please give it, as it might make a good addition to the article. But since the article currently doesn't deal with the subject, you are disputing something that isn't there. • Astynax ^talk 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go and get all technical on me. Yes I know it doesn't say "Matt 10 event" in those words, but you know what I mean. It is going to be a long dispute if you are going to play games. Just to explain it in more detail, you are seemingly aware that Matthew chapter 10 has often been mentioned in connection with CC’s. This has been mentioned by everybody, right down to the critics who say that it is wrong to be going out according to Matthew chapter 10. What is meant by “going according to Matt 10” will be the subject of another dispute, but for now let’s leave it. I mentioned it earlier in this section but it seems easier to deal with one problem at a time. Anyway, knowing that Matthew Chapter 10, is often mentioned in connection with the CC, you may or may not know of the event that this hype about Matthew chapter 10 originated from, and more importantly, when that originating event was. It was not in 1897 as it would be assumed by reading the article, but in 1898, as per all respectable records of the sequence of events.

Now, this is probably going to reveal the games you are playing in pretending to not understand what I have been saying about Matthew chapter 10, but at one point you said “While John Long records his own enlightenment as to the interpretation of Matt. 10, it does not necessarily follow that Irvine's views and new mission did not precede Long's”, so it appears that you know very well what I am saying about Matthew chapter 10. Anyway, as much as it might be an assumption that Irvine didn’t have a conviction prior to reading it with John Long, it is also an assumption that he did have some sort of conviction prior to this. So, as much as we need to leave the assumptions out of the article, if there was an assumption to be made one way or another using what details we do know for a fact, all the evidence points to him not having a revelation about Matthew chapter 10 prior to their study of it in 1898.

So that I can understand what things we agree on, and what things we are disputing, could you answer the questions that I have previously asked you. Anybody is welcome to answer these so we can start looking for where we have agreement, and working ahead. I would prefer to not have an answer such as “according to the sources” because any of these sources could have used the same erroneous process of working it out just as you did earlier. Use facts and historical events to explain your belief if possible rather than blindly accepting what those sources (who are batantly biased) have said.

1. Did William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happen in 1897 at the beginning (or prior to the beginning)? 2. Do you (or any sources) believe that the revelation that they got from Matt 10 included that they should only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils... without shoes on?!? 3. Are we in dispute?

0oToddo0 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, your reasons given for adding a dispute tag deal only with things which are not in the article. Your comments indicate that you are aware of this, but you keep inserting the tag anyway. You haven't raised any new dispute, just tried to raise a tendentious argument unrelated to the article's content. Tagging in this way seems to be just another form of vandalism. • Astynax ^talk 17:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make this as simple as possible...

In the article (yes I am talking about things in the article) it would give the reader the impression that William Irvine, from the start (i.e. as part of the founding) "held that the manner in which the disciples had been sent out in Matthew chapter 10 was a permanent commandment", although, there had been no mention of this belief in association with the CC, until John Long and he studied in 1898.

I appologize for any confusion over what I was disputing about the article. For the consideration of editors who have spent time on this article I wanted to discuss this first, but I may just start to make changes, as Nemonoman has encouraged me to do. 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

0oToddo0, it isn't up to editors to figure out or speculate on what sources the sources relied upon for which of their own statements. Asking that Wikipedia editors back up the statements of sources is an unreasonable burden on editors that Wikipedia does not require.

Again, I haven't found any claim from Long as to what Irvine knew and when he knew it, and you haven't pointed to where Long makes such a statement. He seems to be speaking only for himself. To say that "there had been no mention" of something is speculative sythesis, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If some author finds it possible to examine all the material and finds corroboration and goes on to publish such a conculsion, there will then be a source to backup such a statement. Only at that point, could we insert that statement, referencing that author. If there is already such a source making that claim, then go ahead and provide a citation. Even if there is such a claim floating out there, however, there is no contradiction between what the article presently says and sources. • Astynax ^talk 17:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, I don't have access to the sources that are used in the article but I would be able find about 3 different other sources that show that William Irvine had this revelation about Matt 10 after studying it with John Long in 1898. Even though you keep saying it isn't, that IS a contradiction to what the article implies. Are you able to look at the sources mentioned in the article and tell me if they directly mention the time of William's revelation about Matt 10, or do they (like the article) only make an attempt to mislead the reader into assuming that his Matt 10 beliefs coincided with what they are calling the beginning. I have read one other source that seemed to indicate to the uneducated reader that it happened at the start, but it was worded very craftily to make it look like they were saying it happened at the start, without actually saying that, because obviously they didn't have a clue about any thoughts on Matt 10, until it became hyped up after studying it with John Long.

So, at this point we have plenty of sources that accurately and in detail, describe the date and the events surrounding the Matt 10 hype, and I guess we have sources also saying (although vaguely from what I have seen) that from the start 1897, William had a revelation about Matt 10. Add this to the fact that William was far from living according to what was derived from Matt 10, which sources do you think are specific and accurate, and should be used to write an encyclopaedia article?

Thanks for the discussion. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC

I would be able find about 3 different other sources that show that William Irvine had this revelation about Matt 10 after studying it with John Long in 1898. Then add this fact with the 3 references. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Won't that sound a bit silly if I just add that William had a revelation about Matt 10 in 1898, seeing it contradicts what is being suggested by the article already? What I am pointing out, is that the article is worded wrongly, so it isn't just a matter of adding more information. If you are ok with me fixing up the details of the Matt 10 revelation, I am happy to do that, but I am also willing to do it cooperation with other editors. 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the gospels describe the same events in Jesus's life differently. If there are different but verifiable accounts of the origins of the church, they should be included. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say when Irvine had his own revelation, so I agree that it would not sound silly. Other sources do claim that it was 1897, so if it is important to detail in the article, you'd have to include both sides, e.g., "Source A says Irvine developed his views on a ministry patterned after Matthew 10 in 1897, while Source B claims this only occurred during a later study with John Long in 1898." Long's journal itself isn't a source for dating Irvine's views to either year. Long only notes the point where his own study and personal conclusions regarding Matt. 10 took place. • Astynax ^talk 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Gospels do describe some things differently, but that is no excuse to be very liberal about documenting the truth and misleading readers if in fact you do know the truth. It is excusable if there is real evidence that William was living according to Matt 10, or there was a clear documented event to support that it happened prior to 1898, but I have not found that evidence, nor seen anything that clearly shows a particular effort by William to go according to Matt 10. Again, Astynax (or anyone else), could you please look at the sources mentioned in the article and tell me if they directly mention the time of William's revelation about Matt 10, or do they (like the article) only make an attempt to mislead the reader into assuming that his Matt 10 beliefs coincided with what they are calling the beginning. I have read one other source that seemed to indicate to the uneducated reader that it happened at the start, but it was worded very craftily to make it look like they were saying it happened at the start, without actually saying that.

There are the concise sequences of dates and events that show that William had no intention of living according to Matt 10 in 1897, but did so after the study with John Long, and then there are the vaguely written history documents that broadly say that William had a revelation about Matt 10 and leave it with the reader to assume that it was somewhere at the start, which they then claim to be 1897. This leaves the reader to assume incorrectly, which is not what they should expect of an encyclopaedia. So, out of both contradicting sources, we should be using the source that can clearly show the events surrounding the revelation, and if you really still think that these other sources are using legitimate information rather than pushing a particular point of view, then we can add “according to xxxxx” to detail the alternative view. Because all the evidence and most of the sources indicated a revelation about Matt 10 after the study with John Long, that is how he article should be written. It shouldn’t give equal weight to it being in 1897, seeing that there seems to be only casual reference to it being at the start which leads to the assumption that it 1897. Let’s try to make this article reflect the truth rather than the point of view of some crafty authors who attempt to make the reader assume it was 1897. Anyway, you may have sources that give evidence on why they think that William had a revelation in 1897, so I will wait to hear more about that. 0oToddo0 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are different but verifiable accounts of the origins of the church, they should be included. Period. You said you could find three references that support an alternative view, so put in those facts! Please! The current account comes from verifiable sources -- and it is sort of exciting to think that there there are sources that can verify a different account.

There is every reason to expect discussion about how to weight the presentation of verified facts, but in my experience these are not so contentious. We'll see! But I hope for the best once all the facts have been placed in the article.

You suggest that some sources are being quoted incorrectly. This should be easy to prove and easy to correct. Just point to a specific reference for a fact: Fact says "xxx", but source says "yyy". Like "The article says In 1896, William Irvine was sent from Scotland but the reference actually says William Irvine was sent from the Bronx. Or "...in fact the source never mentions Scotland at all!" Bingo.* The fact is no longer verified, and must be changed or removed. If you have issues with the 1897 date, the Matthew 10 revelations, etc., etc., help your fellow editors, please. There have been many citation challenges in the history of this article, and followup corrections.

The statements below make me think that you have verifiable sources you can cite:

• There are the concise sequences of dates and events that show that William had no intention of living according to Matt 10 in 1897
• I would be able find about 3 different other sources that show that William Irvine had this revelation about Matt 10 after studying it with John Long in 1898.
• all the evidence and most of the sources indicated a revelation about Matt 10 after the study with John Long

So please 00todd00, don't hold out on us. Please inform us about these sources, and then please include your facts and references in the article to make it better. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

* PS -- please note, however: while it's pretty simple to prove that the information in a citation is wrongly quoted in the article, and pretty simple to correct this, it is much harder to prove that a citation's information is "wrong" or "untrue" and must therefore be eliminated. Since your comments describe errors in the First category (incorrectly quoted), these should be identified and fixed easily and quickly. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As you might have read, I don’t have access to the sources cited in the article so I have asked what they actually say, and whether they give a specific time of the Matt 10 revelation. I have read sources that seem to deliberately leave the reader with the assumption that it happened at the start, without actually saying that it did or didn’t. I have asked a couple of times for someone to tell me what the sources actually say so that I know what to leave in the article if I leave those citations there. Otherwise, if I am going to edit the article, I can only cite the information that I have access to, and if it contradicts what is being suggested by other details in the article, then I will change it, because I have only read multiple reports of the Matt 10 revelation being in 1898. Any other sources have been vague references from a negative perspective, with a clear objective to push a particular point of view, even if they have to write in such a way that doesn’t actually say what they want the reader to think (because it is wrong), but leads them to make the wrong assumption. This is not the sort of thing that we should base an encyclopaedia article on, especially when there are clear and concise records of what really happened at that time. Anyway, I will wait for someone to show me the wording of the other sources, so that I know what to leave in the article, and what can be changed. 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to highlight again something that didn't get much attention... The question from a IP address at the top of this section (25 Sep and 31 Oct) about what Irvine did that he has been called founder... He preached the gospel, but had been doing that for some years... what did he actually do to "found" the CC's? 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax's talk copied from "Please put new discussions into new sections!" section...

There is no discussion to be held. Either you have references to insert some sort of proposed statement showing that William Irvine's revelation of Matt. 10 did not actually occur until 1898, or you do not. Thus far, you've only trotted out Long's journal, which makes no such claim for Irvine. • Astynax ^talk 09:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I would check first to see if anybody could show me if any of the sources used in the founding section showed a date of a Matt 10 revelation prior to John Long and William Irvine studying it in 1898. It doesn't seem like that is the case seeing I have asked for it a couple of times above and no one has offered any, so I will go ahead and edit the article to reflect the sources I have. From the way you were talking I actually thought you would have been able to quote from the existing sources, the specific details they have about William's revelation about Matt 10, but that's ok if that isn't the case. Either way, I do have various references to insert so I will edit the article to reflect them. 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)