Talk:Union for Traditional Judaism

Not a denomination

The vast majority of UTJ rabbis see themselves as Orthodox, they frequently collaborate with Marc Angel and Drisha, and have Orthodox speakers at their center. They do not see themselves as a denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.215.131 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction/Chronology

When did the UTJ begin? The introduction lacks any dates. As a Gentile reading this article for the first time, I wasn't even sure what century it began. For the same reason, a date is also needed in Conservative_Judaism#Schisms. I did find two relevant dates in the Halivni article: "Halivni left JTS in 1983." "The Institute of Traditional Judaism was established in 1990."^[1] Mdmcginn (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction was somewhat lacking in describing the UTJ - material therefore was added. Text more relevant to the origin of the UTJ was moved to the origin section and combined with extant text.Rachas 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goldman, Ari (March 10, 1990). "Religion Notes". New York Times. Retrieved 3 January 2011.

Material being removed from article

Some anonymous IPs are removing material from this article, claiming it represents "factual errors." The material is sourced. If editors can find a reliable source they are welcome to do so but sourced material cannot be removed on an editor's say-so that it is anomous. I'm going to go over the sources for the each of the claims being removed here briefly, then I will protect the page. I ask the IP editors to propose edits deleting this material here. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halivini responsum material

Halivni wrote a responsum for the Conservative movement authorizing ordaining women rabbis. The source is: .[1] Footnote 44 of this source cites (and the source itself describes and quotes a few passages from) the following manuscript:

David Weiss Halivni, On Ordination of Women, manuscript pp. 9-16, included in the unpublished 1979 collection On the Ordination of Women as Rabbis: Position Papers of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America which was later published as the volume edited by Simon Greenberg, without Halivnis paper. The 1979 collection is available in the Jewish Theological Seminary Library, BM 726.J48 1983.

Note that as this source indicates the manuscript was never published and hence this citation cannot be used directly. But the paper which quotes it WAS published, and it IS a reliable source for the existence and contents of the unpublished Halivni manuscript. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the paper was never published - this belongs on Rabbi Halivni's biography page not UTJ's. The official UTJ position since its inception was not to ordain women as rabbis see Liberman in Tomekh kaHalakhah v.1, 1986. Please correct.Romabers 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Halivni was a founder and key figure in the UTJ and the rabbis who broke away from Conservative Judaism to found it did so over the process the Conservative Movement used to approve women's ordination, I believe HaLivni's position is relevant. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his autobiography "The Book an The Sword", published by Westview Press, 1996, page 105, Rabbi Halivni clearly says that the paper he wrote while still at the Seminary was later withdrawn. Rabbi Halivni is our teacher, mentor and the greatest Talmud scholar today, but Rabbi Halivni in not equal UTJ and UTJ is not equal Rabbi Halivni. This clearly belongs on his biography page.Romabers 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following reliably-sourced sentence is very relevant to a neutral historical view of the UTJ's origins and belongs in and should be restored to the origins section:

Rabbi Halivni had written a responsum supporting the ordination of women as rabbis, although by a more gradual process than the one approved by the JTS faculty.[2]

I understand there is no dispute here as to the factual existence of the responsum, the only issue is whether mentioning it is relevant to the article. Because per WP:NPOV the article cannot be limited to UTJ official positions and and UTJ views of its own history, I am asking the neutral third party for a review opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight concern that the citation for the Halivni citation is not sufficient since it is from the CLJS which has its own agendas about how they'd want to portray pre-existing responsa. However, the existence of the responsum is not disputed and I have trouble seeing the CLJS quote it so far out of context as to it matter much in this case. Since Halivni is the founder of UTJ, Halivini's earlier opinions are relevant and should be included. JoshuaZ 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Romabers in that R' Halivni's positions prior to the founding of the UTJ are more appropriately referenced on his biography page. Insofar has the Halivni paper, which was written for the Law Committee of the Conservative movement, and was later withdrawn, in the context still of the Conservative movement; when combined with the original position of the UTJ which did not permit the ordination of women, would tend to suggest that this discussion should be associated with R' Halivni directly. Or, perhaps, in the article on the Conservative Movement, or on Women's issues in Judaism, or some such. I am concerned that inclusion here obfuscates the point of the origin of the UTJ - the dispute was not over the 'subject' (women's ordination), but in the 'method'.Rachas 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership minyan

The Union for Traditional Judaism supported a Partnership Minyan -- [3] See the September 29, 2004 article "Gay Rabbi in New York Gives Sermon on Rosh Hashanah - Synagogue Loosing Support" and note the passage "The Union for Traditional Judaism is pulling its support from the Montauk Minyan, which featured Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg as one of its speakers during the holiday, the New York Jewish Week reported" Here's the Montauk minyan's announcement of it's Shira Hadasha style services: [4] --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The support from the Montauk Minyan was pulled off more than a year before it went the "Partnership" style from the dates of the same articles you've referenced. Please correct.Romabers 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bulletin article from the Jewish Center of Teaneck, NJ, the synagogue of the UTJ's headquarters, explaining its Shira Hadasha "copycat" minyan in detail including women's aliyot and all the rest: [5] (See "Shira Hadasha: It's OK to be a copycat" on p. 5). I understand the Teaneck Jewish Center membership voted this past summer to put a mechitza in its main sanctuary, end its prior three-minyan approach which had included a Conservadox non-mechitza and a Shira Hadasha style service, and continue with what had been its standard Orthodox minyan style as its only service format. The Partnership minyan format may no longer be an acceptable option in UTJ, but the fact that UTJ congregations embraced the Partnership minyan format when it first came out is relevant. --Shirahadasha 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here (Romabers) and elsewhere (below, see Electricity), the basic assumptions here are incorrect. See Romabers comment. Also, the Jewish Center of Teaneck is NOT the synagogue of the UTJ's headquarters. The UTJ synagogue in Teaneck is Netivot Shalom. The entire basis for this section is not factual. Please remove references to the Teaneck Jewish Center and all comments about Partnership Minyanim. They are not relevant to the UTJ. Rachas 12:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is possible the Montauk Minyan may have changed its format between the time that the UTJ withdrew its support and the date of the source indicating it was a Partnership Minyan. Withdrew the statement for the time being but am asking neutral administrator to give this a second look. See below re Jewish Center of Teaneck. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your corrections. A quote from the article cited above [6] "Montauk Minyan will be trying a new format for the service" and that's at the end of 2005, while the support was pulled off around High Holidays in 2004.Romabers 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Center of Teaneck

This 2007 source [7] agrees that the Jewish Center of Teaneck recently described itself as "independent Traditional" and not affiliated with the UTJ. This source [8] does say that Netivot Shalom was the UTJ's flagship synagogue in 2001. It also indicates a Morasha rabbi became the Rabbi of the Teaneck Jewish Center. It is possible an editor may have assumed that describing itself as "Traditional" plus hiring a UTJ rabbi as its rabbi implied UTJ affiliation. --Shirahadasha 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we have a source that the UTJ is not affiliated and don't have a clear source indicating it is. Removing material here for the time being. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Center of Teaneck, NJ, historically was a Conservative synagogue which did not have a mechitza, hired a UTJ rabbi in 2001 [9] and described itself as "Traditional", and introduced multiple services including ones with and without, [10] including a Shira Hadasha-style (Partnership minyan) service [11] and in 2007 described itself as "independent traditional" and not affiliated with the UTJ and moved to mechitzah-based services [12].

Electricity and Shabbat

Electricity and Shabbat. The UTJ's first book of responsa, with inherited Conservative positions, was in 1986. I understand the UTJ has essentially retracted this book and is no longer regarding it as its official view of Halacha. I believe the article needs to explain the history, including that it began with the Conservative position on these issues but later came to retract it. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a leniency, after all Shlomo Zalman Auerbach himself said it's permitted - unless we want to be consistent and include the same statement on the page for Haredi Judaism. For the summary of Halakhic positions see Jachter and Broyde [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.29.2 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2007

Moreover, "leniency" implies that there is some kind of a normative position - which appears to violate Wikipedia policy on the neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.29.2 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2007

You clearly agree that the UTJ permits electricity on Shabbat, the only issue is whether doing so should be characterized as a leniency or not. I'm changing the word "leniencies" to "positions" to address this. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Tomekh kaHalakhah vol.1, published by the UTJ in 1986 there is nothing of the sort - permitting or forbidding use of electricity on Shabbat. Unless clear and reliable reference could be provided please remove the the sentence. Please correct.Romabers 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this comment was initially unsourced and the only on-line source I could find for it is weak. My understanding is that UTJ congregations including the Teaneck one used microphones in their conservative-style services on Shabbat (at least previously) but there may not be adequate proof of this. I am further reviewing. --Shirahadasha 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a neutral administrator not previously involved in the article to review this dispute and check both the sourcing and relevance issues for these three points. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points - the UTJ affilated synagogue in Teaneck is Netivot Shalom, not the Teaneck Jewish Center. Netivot Shalom is an Orthodox congregation, and does neither permit the use of microphones on the Sabbath, nor have 'conservative-style services'. And even if Netivot Shalom did permit the use of microphones, that would not equate to a blanket permission to use electricity. Please remove the statements regarding electricity, and the references to the Teaneck Jewish Center. Rachas 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- After further review agree that source for microphone use on Shabbat is not reliable and hence have removed statement. --Shirahadasha 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Note: This [14] was the source for the claim that the UTJ permitted the use of microphones on Shabbat. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inherited positions

The way it was written does not make it any more clear what the UTJ is. What positions exactly were inherited from the Conservative Judaism which were specific to that movement? Any examples? References?Romabers 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [15] was the source for the claim that the UTJ retained certain leniences. Since we previously agreed it wasn't a sufficiently reliable source in the context of use of electricity on Shabbat, agree it also isn't a reliable source for claim regarding leniencies or inherited positions. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I have temporarily protected the page. Please discuss proposed edits on this discussion page. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make requested corrections. Why not just go to the source and contact UTJ directly with the questions about their purpose,practices and believes? They are on the web. Regards, Romabers 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the sources to support the statement that the page contains factual errors have been cited. So what's the reason to protect the page now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.96.143 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have unprotected the page. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to intro

The intro was recently changed to, among other things, add these statements:

Though officially non-denominational, the UTJ is understood[16] to have many components typically associated with a religious denomination, i.e. a seminary, an association of clergy, and a committee which has authority over religious issues. The UTJ is often viewed[17] as representing a denomination nestled between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism.

But we recently agreed that the shamash.org source was not a reliable source to support a claim -- specifically made in that source -- that the UTJ permits microphones on shabbat. A source cannot be selectively reliable, usable when it says things one agrees with but unreliable when it says things one disagrees with it. Under Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, either the source is reliable and everything in it is fair game (as long as an "according to..." is used for disputed claims) or a source is unreliable and nothing it says can be used. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the following from User talk:Shirahadasha#Union for Traditional Judaism --Shirahadasha 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B"H - Shirahadasha, Hello! Thank you for your comment about the shamash.org reference in the Intro section. I agree, it is a little conflicting - the reference was meant to give an example of opinion, not a reference of fact. I will find another example. All the best, kt - Rachas 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major terminology change: Conservative Judaism is not the Conservative movement

This may interest editors of this article. I propose that we need to make a subtle, but important terminology change in this article, and in other articles closely related to this subject. The Conservative movement is a very widely used term in the Jewish community for a subset of Conservative Judaism.

The phrase Conservative Judaism refers to a rather broad religious movement within Judaism. Many statements by Conservative rabbis (especially Ismar Schorsch and Jack Wertheimer), academic Jewish scholars, such as Daniel J. Elazar and Rela M. Geffen, as well as many Orthodox rabbis recognize that Conservative Judaism is more than just groups formally affiliated with the Conservative movement. Schorsch and Wertheimer have repeatedly noted that most of Conservative Judaism's most recognized success stories involve people who choose not to formally join the Conservative movement. They include in this category the Union for Traditional Judaism, the Chavurah movement, non-affiliated traditional synagogues, and many synagogues which advertise as being "non-denominational".

The Union for Traditional Judaism is especially important to note: At the time that this group came into being, they clearly stated that they were still practicing Conservative Judaism; they simply were disaffiliating from the Conservative movement. Since that time they have not changed their halakhic practices or their theology. So how are they not still Conservative Judaism? In fact, they are still Conservative Judaism - and their synagogues still use Conservative siddurim and machzorim (e.g. the Silverman edition); they still use Conservative Jewish texts from JTS Press and the Rabbinical Assembly, and they still use Isaac Klein's Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. (This is why no Orthodox Jewish group formally accepts the UTJ as part of Orthodox Judaism.)

A good example of a non-affiliated chavurah that is recognized as Conservative Judaism is Kehilat Hadar, in Manhattan, NY. Most of its members even come from Conservative Jewish homes. A recent article quotes Rabbi Ismar Schorsch. Most interestingly, it quotes a Rabbi Elie Kaufner, who states that it doesn't advertise as being "Conservative" for membership purposes, not for theological or halakhic reasons!

"Hadar is interested in welcoming Jews of all backgrounds," says Elie Kaunfer, one of the congregation's founders and a rabbinical student at JTS. "If Hadar were to call itself Conservative, it would be harder for people who identify as Orthodox or Reform or identify as 'not Conservative' to come. The more you label yourself, the harder it is to cast a wide net."

"The question people are asking today is not, 'How do I become a Conservative Jew?'" Waldoks says. "The question is, 'Why be Jewish?'". Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of JTS, claims that the Conservative movement, which he heads, is the primary source for the religious energy of post-denominationalism. He points to Hadar as an example. "The Hadar movement could not be mistaken for anything but a Conservative synagogue: It's fully egalitarian and seriously Jewish. The ritual is neither Reform nor Orthodox; it's quintessentially Conservative," Schorsch says.

"The young people at Hadar are intellectually Conservative and they are ritually Conservative except they are advanced Conservative Jews rather than entry-level Conservative Jews. They wish to distinguish themselves from the materialistic, bourgeois synagogues of suburbia."

Jerusalem Post Magazine, Feb 11, 2005

http://www.kehilathadar.org/Aboutus/jpost02-11-05.html

Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, executive director of Mechon Hadar, in New York, sees the beliefs and practices of Conservative Judaism thriving even while the brand name of the Conservative movement, specifically its institutions, is in a period of decline:

Bemoaning the decline of Conservative Judaism misses the point. This decline is a problem for the survival of Conservative institutions that are supported primarily by brand loyalty. But if the true mission of Conservative Judaism is to foster an engaged and empowered Jewish community with a commitment to Torah and mitzvot, declining affiliation may actually be positive. It signals an age in which Jews care enough about their expression of Judaism to resist an ill-defined label. What is the role for Conservative institutions in this new reality? Three suggestions: Lose the “Label yourself Conservative” mentality. Try instead: We encourage Jews to seek meaningful, empowered engagement with Judaism. Wherever that leads, we trust them, even if it is outside the Conservative menu of options.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11511/

Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, is quoted in an article about the proliferation of supposedly non-denominational, and certainly non-affiliated minyanim and chavurot. What they have in common is that they are usually led by Conservative Jews, and their practices and theology are also Conservative Judaism. In response to this Rabbi Epstein states:

Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, laments the fact that many minyan participants come from Conservative backgrounds but find the movement lacking as they conceive of their adult prayer experiences. “I think people are really looking for an ideology, many of them, a practice that is somewhere in the framework known as Conservative Judaism, but they don’t find it in their Conservative synagogues,” says Rabbi Epstein, who urges the leaders of minyanim to hold their services in and otherwise affiliate with Conservative synagogues, rather than use the churches or community centers many choose.

Minyanim Grow Up, Turn Inward New York Jewish Week, 11/25/08

This article should recognize that the term Conservative movement refers to a well-defined subset of organizations and individuals that are within Conservative Judaism, such as the Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and all other organs within the LCCJ.

For a detailed discussion of this issue please see The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities, SUNY Press, by Daniel J. Elazar and Rela M. Geffen. RK (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not trying to "prove" that all of these movements (Chavurah, UTJ, post-denominational, etc.) are part of Conservative Judaism. In fact, no one can strictly "prove" that any particular group is "truly" Reform, or "truly" Orthodox, either! I have seen countless attacks on Orthodox groups and individuals by other Orthodox Jews; and the same within the Reform Jewish community. Rather, I am saying that we must describe the fact that these groups are widely recognized by both Orthodox and Conservative Jews as being part of Conservative Judaism, even though they are not formally a part of the Conservative Movement. Indeed, that is already what we for Orthodox Judaism: We don't pick one organizations structure (e.g. RIETS, YU and the RCA) and made that equivalent to all of Orthodox Judaism, and then label all other Orthodox groups as non-Orthodox. Rather, we have always defined Orthodox Judaism as a school of thought, with a range of theologies and practices, and then described in an NPOV fashion the groups that are widely recognized as Orthodox. Now we should do the same with Conservative Judaism. RK (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we want wikipedia to be a source of information and not rumors (i.e. what people unfamiliar with the subject say) we have to define first how we are going to pigeonhole organizations and people into one narrow box or the other. Without such hard, well defined, and agreed upon criteria against which all the movements can be evaluated there is no chance the information will be presented without bias and in an NPOV fashion. But I will be happy to hear the ideas of others.Romabers (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

My comments on the text removed:

The UTJ is widely viewed as a form of Conservative Judaism, although not as a part of the more narrowly defined Conservative movement.

As it is stated in the introduction the UTJ is not a movement. "widely viewed" is a slight exagreggation - it is a single opinion of user RK. According to the sources which were quoted (The Conservative movement in Judaism By Daniel Judah Elazar, Rela M. Geffen) p.63: "In 1990, the UTCJ broke completely with the Conservative Movement and later that year changed its name to the Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ), hoping to encourage moderate Orthodox rabbis to join its ranks." (emphasis mine)

Congregations and Rabbis affiliated with the UTJ followed interpretations of halakhah, and beliefs considered normative within CJ at the time they left the USCJ and the Rabbinical Assembly.

From The Conservative movement in Judaism By Daniel Judah Elazar, Rela M. Geffen) p.26: "...to become the Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ) in 1990 as a result of an effort to merge with the now-defunct Federation of Traditional Orthodox Rabbis (FTOR), a left-wing splinter group of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)."
As it is clear from the quote UTJ is a mix of people with different backgrounds, many of whom never left USCJ or RA as they were never members of said organizations.

Since then these practices and beliefs have not been modified. No Conservative responsa that they viewed as legitimate in the past have been rejected since.

A correct method to deal with responsum is to address the issues in the said responsum and not accept or reject it based on when and where it was published first. If there are responsa that would clearly identify UTJ as Conservative, please provide the sources. Romabers (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to siddurim, UTJ synagogues still use Conservative siddurim edited by Ben Zion Bokser or Morris Silverman.

Since the UTJ is not a movement and does not publish an official siddur (a prayerbook) the rabbis is left to use whatever the synagogue is currently using. The "choice" of siddurim is rather an evidence of where the synagogue came from when was taken over by the UTJ rabbi. Of the synagogues listed at the bottom of the page non is using the siddurim mentioned AFAIK.Romabers (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term Conservative Judaism doesn't refer to a narrowly defined movement or school of thought. Rather, the term refers to a broadly defined religious ideology with an overlapping range of beliefs and practices, which includes groups and individual prayer communities outside of the formal Conservative movement. Conservative groups in this broader sense also include Traditional-Egalitarian synagogues, and many non-movement affiliated synagogues, kehillot and chavurot. ^[1], ^[2]

Both references do not mention the UTJ. These text should be quoted within the discussion of the Conservative Movement and what Conservative rabbis think about themselves. Extrapolating someone opinion on a completely unrelated subject is stretching the truth.

In The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities, Elazar and Geffen describe Conservative Judaism as a grouping made up of several different camps, including the chavurah movement and the Union for Traditional Judaism. The havurah movement is described as not breaking away from Conservative Judaism; they did not break away from the Conservative fold; rather, they are described as "no longer part of the dominant party of Conservative Judaism" ^[3], ^[4],

The UTJ is not a havurah movement. I just copy my comment above: according to the sources which were quoted (The Conservative movement in Judaism By Daniel Judah Elazar, Rela M. Geffen) p.63: "In 1990, the UTCJ broke completely with the Conservative Movement and later that year changed its name to the Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ),..." (emphasis mine). Romabers (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one claims that the UTJ "is a havurah movement". How strange for you to even rebut this...

References

^ Beyond Dogma, Jerusalem Post Magazine, Feb 11, 2005
^ Conservative Judaism at a Crossroads: Pulse of the People, Wed. Aug 29, 2007, The Forward
^ The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities, Daniel J. Elazar, Rela Mintz Geffen, SUNY Press, 2000
^ "Planning for the Future of the Conservative Movement" Daniel J. Elazar, Rela Geffen Monson, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1987

UTJ appears to no longer exist

In recent years the organization has ceased to exist.

No synagogues today is an active members of the UTJ

Their seminary no longer exists.

The UTJ filed for bankruptcy in May of 2010 after the economic downturn caused setbacks to several key givers and the organization's income plummeted by over 40%.

They were forced to sell their headquarters.

Their website won't list any affiliated congregations and the email function is broken. No one can contact them.

They had to auction off their headquarters http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/utjs-teaneck-building-to-go-back-on-auction-block/

http://jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/future_of_union_for_traditional_judaism_sale_uncertain/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Union for Traditional Judaism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help stop "fake news"

"please see http://www.utj.org. This organisation has never been defunct, and the first paragraph was written/edited with the strong implication that any relevant activity of this organisation was in the past, which is in fact untrue"

The UTJ NO LONGER EXISTS. The anonymous person editing this article is dead wrong. There are ZERO synagogues affiliated with the UTJ anymore, and their seminary closed. Former members have discussions on Facebook, but the UTJ absolutely does not exist anymore. The UTJ appears to no longer exist[edit] In recent years the organization has ceased to exist. No synagogues today is an active members of the UTJ Their seminary no longer exists. The UTJ filed for bankruptcy in May of 2010 after the economic downturn caused setbacks to several key givers and the organization's income plummeted by over 40%. They were forced to sell their headquarters. Their website won't list any affiliated congregations and the email function is broken. No one can contact them. They had to auction off their headquarters http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/utjs-teaneck-building-to-go-back-on-auction-block/ http://jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/future_of_union_for_traditional_judaism_sale_uncertain/

friends, this person seems to be lying. The UTJ network of synagogues is dead. They have zero synagogues. And their rabbinical seminary is gone. They have no teachers and no students. Their organizations exists only as a Facebook page and webpage. There is no UTJ movement or synagogue anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.232.57 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help: article is being faked

This article is being faked. How can I contact a moderator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.232.57 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[NYT-1] Goldman, Ari (March 10, 1990). "Religion Notes". New York Times. Retrieved 3 January 2011.

[2] Beyond Dogma, Jerusalem Post Magazine, Feb 11, 2005

[3] Conservative Judaism at a Crossroads: Pulse of the People, Wed. Aug 29, 2007, The Forward

[4] The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities, Daniel J. Elazar, Rela Mintz Geffen, SUNY Press, 2000

[5] "Planning for the Future of the Conservative Movement" Daniel J. Elazar, Rela Geffen Monson, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1987

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]