Talk:Inward light

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

Merge w/ Inner light

Can someone tell me why these are seperate? The Inner Light articles suggests they should be, but I have never heard them used as seperate terms. --Ahc 00:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty knowlegeable on the subject but not an expert. I don't think that the concepts are distinct enough to warrant separate articles, there should be a redirect, since both terms are used. I think "inner light" is a more common term than "inward light," at least nowadays, and should remain the article title. I think that the author of "Inner light" was trying to say that "inner light" refers to the light residing inherently within people as opposed to the "inward light" being a revelation from outside oneself. I don't know that early Quakers or many modern Quakers would make such a fine distinction, but I'm not an official Friend myself, so I don't want to be too presumptuous. Logophile 07:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't care about religious affiliation; in wikipedia (IMHO) it's knowledge and writing skills that should matter, not faith. So be bold, those of us who are "offical" can easily be just as wrong as anyone else (if not more-so as we have inherent POV problems). That said: as a life long Quaker, the only times I've seen Inward Light and Inner Light use they have been interchangeable. Inward, I've seen used as an older term (or a term used by those who want to sound knowledgeable), but since most Friends are not (and never have been) sticklers for theological detail, I've never seen a clear distinction maintained between looking for support from God within or without. The RSoF lacks the exacting vocabulary to keep such differences clear (note: I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing). —Ahc 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inner is more accurate than inward... Practicing Quaker for 43 years dsgncr8or (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inward light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inward Light

Inner light is the correct term, if I need to get citations I will dsgncr8or (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ reference and God references in regards inner light

The way it is written here is very much a Christian perspective and NOT a Quaker one dsgncr8or (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a historical perspective going back to Fox, and not showing a Quaker perspective now. A perspective now would have to consider the wide variety among Friends. Coming from [Britain Yearly Meeting] I would want a liberal perspective, and be unclear what the Kenyan view is. Abigailgem (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the fact that Dsgncr8or is referring to Quakerism and Christianity as being dichotomous entities reveals a lack of knowledge on their part. Quakerism is historically a branch of Protestant Christianity. Perhaps an extremely small minority might consider themselves non-Christian but the vast majority of Quakers are Evangelical. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit from a major revert

Looking at the article history, and having been a lifelong silent-meeting (Hicksite) Friend with extensive reading of Quaker literature and training at Pendle Hill (Pennsylvania), this article was far superior before user Anupam's many edits, which do not reflect Quaker beliefs but rather his personal opinions and Catholic / Pakistani background. Frankly, his edits are inappropriate verging on vandalism, but his user page shows signs of him being the sort of ultra-high-volume editor that engages in many, many long, soul-sapping disputes of the kind that drove me away from contributing to Wikipedia. There have been a number of later edits, some of which may be worth re-introducing. I'd like to get some support here on the talk page before proceeding. user:Enon 172.58.4.233 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment and think that the article is better now. There were hardly any references before, while the article now has more citations. Liberal Quakerism is in the minority in comparison to Evangelical Quakerism when taking an aggregate of total Quakers. You seem to want to remove the historical Quaker perspective propounded by George Fox and now held by Evangelical Quakers. If you reverse the improvements (all of which are reliably cited), your edits will be reversed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I do think the image of Holman Hunt's Light of the World should be removed as it is not a Quaker image and not exactly in keeping with the Quaker Testimony of simplicity - if there are different points of view, WP:NPOV says they can both be presented with refs to reliable sources WP:WIKIVOICE - so if the removed content is sourced, there is no problem re-introducing it alongside the new added content and have both in the article - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers don't do things by voting, 1990'sguy. While it does have more references, they were chosen by an editor who knows nothing about the topic, which is central to Quakerism, an editor who consults Google books and skims until he finds something that sort of fits what he wants to say, whether it actually supports his point or not. Favoring formalism and citations over truth and understanding is a pernicious affliction of Wikipedia which is entirely repugnant to Quakerism. Much has changed since George Fox, not least in the pastoral/evangelical schismatic branches. To say that the Inner Light (which is the modern term) is Christ rather than the Holy Spirit or a non-trinitarian expression of God, or that it is not "that of God within every man", or not the true conscience is simply insupportable. Quakers don't accept reasoning from authority, whether Fox or anybody else. That's pretty much the whole point of Quakerism, what distinguishes it from other creeds. Insofar as the evangelicals were to rely on written authorities without personal illumination of those texts by the Inner Light, (not saying they generally do, but it seems fair to say that of non-Quaker Anupam) then so far as that, they would not be Quakers but just another Protestant sect. But Anupam asserts that the Inner Light is just Christ and only to illuminate the Bible, whereas many with actual experience of it agree it is not only Christ, and serves to illuminate not just the Bible but all things. Religious articles such as this, on doctrines central to their religions, should not be dictated by members of other sects and cultures. talk 172.58.4.109 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like all others on enWikipedia, is dictated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Central to those is the tenet of verifiability, which is why sourced material will be allowed to stay and replacing it with what your actual experience says will not. --Equivamp - talk 04:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reminder. Of course, NPOV is an equally, if not more, important WP policy. "Verifiability" should not be conflated with selective citations to push a POV, particularly one which many would find incorrect and offensive. Given your user page, it seems unlikely that you support change from the version before Anupam's edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inward_light&oldid=721227969 to the ultra-conservative POV version today, which of course is also associated with hostility to your social views and causes, so perhaps you would volunteer to research some references for the article from a more NPOV? Enon 172.58.4.154 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight should be given to the concepts presented, which is currently the case. Most of the world's Quakers live in the Global South and identify themselves as evangelical Christians, adhering to the traditional concept of the Inward Light as taught by Fox. It is only a shrinking minority that might adhere to more liberal concepts, and that is already mentioned in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]