Talk:The Brethren (Jim Roberts group)

Vandalism? Or not?...

I'm not sure if this article has been heavily vandalized or if it is just very awkwardly written. Most of it seemed to fall into the latter category, but then I got the the bit about bozo brothers and bozo sisters. (Things that make you go 'Hmmm...') I don't know doodley about this group, so I can't say one way or the other (but yet I still make comments that seem like I know what I'm talking about). PurpleChez (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Bozo is an actual term used within the group to refer to outcast members (but not excommunicated members). In addition to bozo brothers and sisters, they refer to bozo camps. Starshine08 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the group in 1996-97, I made edits to reflect what I experienced then the edits were removed and returned to what I think is a jaded outsiders view of the church. They make it sound cultish by how it is written. That is fine, but I remember when PBS used to keep their voice real monotone, in order to portray a passionless newscast, now wiki is just like them, all Alexi and dogmatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.210.68 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling for Roberts

I notice that the spelling used in the lead section is "Jimmy". Melton gives the spelling as "Jimmie" and I'm wondering if there are other sources with the "y" spelling? • Astynax ^talk 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Brethren (Jim Roberts group). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://godwillingmovie.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116205631/http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_fromdeanslist.htm to http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_fromdeanslist.htm

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) 17:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

At least two subtopics seem to be written by the church

Marriage and starting a church topics sound like sales pitches for and by the group 47.21.45.74 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

While the group has undoubtedly evolved, statements in the article should only be based upon and cited to reliable sources. Unfortunately, these are not the only additions and deletions that have occurred here over time. Any uncited material should be flagged to request citations (or in some cases the citation links fixed), and any obvious promotionalism tagged to show a basis in reliable sources. I've added a project flag to ask for input from editors who may be more up to date than I. • Astynax ^talk 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What is a cult?

I am removing the three links. These are all very subjective websites. Just because some writer at the Denver Post calls a group a cult does not make it a cult. The How Stuff Works article has a lot of wrong information (I know some people who are and also some who have been part of this church-that article is not accurate). And the Cult Education Institute writes off all kinds of groups as cults, such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses; essentially anyone who is not mainline Christian gets the "cult" label. If the Jim Robert's group is a cult because of their strict lifestyle, so are the Amish, Hutterites, all the Monastic groups through the last 2,000 years, the early Moravians, the early Waldensians, etc. The Jim Roberts group has a high standard of personal holiness and "separation from the world." No one is forced to stay in the group, but if someone does not want to live up to that standard they are not accepted: That is the way it is for all religious groups. The original definition of "cult" was "worship." Today the meaning has morphed into something like "any group that I think is too strict or has what I think is bad doctrine." If the people in the Jim Roberts group worship Jim Roberts instead of God, then they are truly a cult. If they respect/honor Jim Roberts as a god-fearing man, that is not worship and not a cult. I have not seen "worship of man" among the people that I know who are currently part of or have been a part of this group (a former member lives in the same house I do, and he has never said that anyone worshipped Jim Roberts or another man). I am not a member of the group and do not agree with everything the group says or does, but my disagreement does not make them a cult. The people in the group are simply trying to put to practice in a literal way what Jesus said, "Except a man forsake all that he has, he cannot be my disciple." Thousands upon thousands of men and women have tried to live that out through the ages, with varying degrees of literalness. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to add a bit more here: Read about men like Martin Luther and Francis of Assisi, whose fathers became enraged when they entered the monastic life. This is the same reaction that some parents feel today when their son or daughter takes up a lifestyle that they think is too radical. Luther and Francis are just two samples among tens of thousands whose parents did not understand their personal decisions. Because such lifestyles are rarer today, it may seem too radical and "cultish." It could be argued even that parents who try to "rescue" their children from a radical lifestyle are trying to impose "parent worship" upon their children. But we will let that argument rest; just a reminder that there are other viewpoints to consider in all this. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sociologically, this group does fit the definition of a cult, and some scholars and writers continue to use the term with that intent. In popular parlance however, the term "cult" has acquired pejorative overtones (particularly with regard to recruitment and retention methods), so I agree with removing that term here. The term more widely used today in scholarship to describe religious and quasi-religious groups that have not yet differentiated into more distinctly structured and/or open groups is "new religious movement" (or "NRM"). As for the citations you've removed, I'm going to disagree with your blanking those unless you have a more solid reason for their removal. • Astynax ^talk 19:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The blanking was a cleanup as much as anything. I removed some dead links along with a few sources that had no direct links, that seemed somewhat repetitive (in general content and tone) of those links that are left. I would even say that the list that is left is on the largish side, but that is okay. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of Dead Links tags seem commonly to be misunderstood. Their purpose (see WP:KDL) was never to mark a citation for removal, but rather to flag the link (only) therein as no longer active and/or relevant for further information. Even when they no longer point to the original information, such links can be useful, and if the material has been moved to another url or archived, can be retrieved manually or by a bot. • Astynax ^talk 16:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In cleaning up these external links more than one criteria moved me. 1. Too many of them. Further Reading guidlines suggests no more than six on average 2. Neutral point of view WP:ELPOV: The list was and still is largely negative. This is likely due to a lack of positive views that have been published about them (people with hurt feelings are more likely to be moved to speak up than people who are neutral or have a positive view), so that imbalance will be hard to overcome for this article. So in cleaning up, deadlinks seem an obvious first choice, then those with no links as second choice. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)