Talk:The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Why entry moved to new title?
IZAK, it appears that you have moved the entire entry to a different name which is obsolete and inaccurate. The group no longer refers to themselves by that name, as there are many locations where there communities - brothers dwelling in unity. "The Twelve Tribes" is the name on all current publications and their website. Is there a reason why you felt that the entry should be moved to a new title?Timkroehler (t) 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know from elsewhere that IZAK is strongly Jewish and might be offended by an article about this religion being called "The Twelve Tribes" without qualifiers. Still I'll move it again, but this time in a way that will avoid confusion.--T. Anthony 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Checking it IZAK does consider it offensive for this group to use the name "The Twelve Tribes." I'm worried this move will offend him, but The Twelve Tribes will still redirect to Israelite as that really is the main usage.--T. Anthony 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can respect IZAK's concern that the primary usage of the term would go to the historical Twelve Tribes, the nation that came from Ya'akov's sons. The Twelve Tribes take its identity from Isaiah 49:6 and Deuteronomy 32:21. They wish him no harm, nor to any of the natural seed. They long, as he does, to see the promise to Abraham fulfilled in an enemy-free land. I did not think it proper to hijack an entry and redefine a group - especially because of a group's belief in and devotion to the promise made to Abraham. Such actions might be called anti-Semitic. But the way that the article and indexing stands now is fine with me, if IZAK has no objections.
- Checking it IZAK does consider it offensive for this group to use the name "The Twelve Tribes." I'm worried this move will offend him, but The Twelve Tribes will still redirect to Israelite as that really is the main usage.--T. Anthony 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-catholicism
T. Anthony, you added a statement that the Twelve Tribes may be anti-catholic because of its condemnation of the pope's position on capital punishment, as described here [1]. I don't really see how disagreeing with the pope about capital punishment is necessarily anti-catholic. Would you please elaborate, because as it stands I don't really see that it's necessary to include this line in the article?--Kewp (t) 13:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ooops, maybe I shouldn't have edited this. I'm new here and I don't know the protocol. T.Anthony, should I have asked you first before changing?
- I think the point of the TT paper was to uphold capital punishment as part of natural law, and so to criticize the Pope for his opposition to capital punishment for murderers. In the Guardian paper, the writer wrote about the pope to strengthen his point about the anti-semitism, not so much to say they were anti-semitic.
- I may be being subjective, but I am not aware of many people saying that the 12T are anti-catholic in papers, anti-cult places, etc. So maybe it should be removed? Timkroehler 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think it's all right to edit something that doesn't seem right, there's no real protocol. I think if anyone else wants to change it, we can discuss it further. I just wanted to err on the side of caution, which is why I wrote here first. If there are other provable reasons that the 12Ts might be labelled anti-catholic, then we can discuss it first.--Kewp (t) 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The tone in the "who does the Pope think he is?" line seemed a bit hostile, if they actually said it, but there are in fact many many Catholics who disagree with the current Popes on the death penalty. In fact opposition to the death penalty is not, despite what people think, a required belief in Catholicism. I don't think any Pope put it in an encyclical, which is unlike opposition to gay marriage or abortion. I'll take that part out as I think I misread it.--T. Anthony 08:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think it's all right to edit something that doesn't seem right, there's no real protocol. I think if anyone else wants to change it, we can discuss it further. I just wanted to err on the side of caution, which is why I wrote here first. If there are other provable reasons that the 12Ts might be labelled anti-catholic, then we can discuss it first.--Kewp (t) 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Racism
The article touches on the cult and child abuse controversies of the Twelve Tribes, but it doesn't mention the racism/segregation controversy. The Twelve Tribes website even has a page up about this (http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/racist.html), and all the news articles I see about them mention it. --66.81.116.63 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think they started in the South. I don't know much else. I just kind of started it, before I really knew much of anything of them, and didn't know quite what I was doing then. Others have improved it and there is a controversies section where you can mention this if it's not been dealt with yet.--T. Anthony 12:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm thinking we should have a separate "History" or "Origins" section, some of which is described in the Elbert Yoneq Spriggs article. Should it go before or after "beliefs and practices?"--Kewp (t) 12:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I added a section called "Origins" and tried to provide a brief history of the group. Most of it is from the Twelve Tribes website [2] and [3]. I'm not sure I've got the facts straight, in particular the reason for moving to Island Pond, VT? Will someone else look this over for me? --Kewp (t) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the "racism" charge often found in the papers is grossly misstated, oft repeated, and misunderstood. We believe that there is a purpose for each of the races, that all are created in the image of God, that all should treat his fellow man with respect and dignity. We have people of all colors of skin in our communities, and they have an equal status and equal appreciation. It is hard to summarize. The article on the TT website is accurate, but I do not think that this forms a significant part of the group's main teachings. If you all want to include it, I suggest including it in "Controversies" and give a response from the TT website. I think that would be fair but still mention the controversy.Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the article makes it clear exactly why the 12Ts is accused of racism and anti-semitism. Can anyone provide a source outside the TT website that contains one of these accusations? or as another option, the original quote from the TT that has allegedly been misinterpreted? (I can't seem to find it on their website).--Kewp (t) 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the "racism" charge often found in the papers is grossly misstated, oft repeated, and misunderstood. We believe that there is a purpose for each of the races, that all are created in the image of God, that all should treat his fellow man with respect and dignity. We have people of all colors of skin in our communities, and they have an equal status and equal appreciation. It is hard to summarize. The article on the TT website is accurate, but I do not think that this forms a significant part of the group's main teachings. If you all want to include it, I suggest including it in "Controversies" and give a response from the TT website. I think that would be fair but still mention the controversy.Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I added a section called "Origins" and tried to provide a brief history of the group. Most of it is from the Twelve Tribes website [2] and [3]. I'm not sure I've got the facts straight, in particular the reason for moving to Island Pond, VT? Will someone else look this over for me? --Kewp (t) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Original Changes to Article
I reverted the most recent changes to the article [4], because they seemed to "whitewash" criticism of the group, and violated Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think that the article as it stands may not be NPOV, but I think we should discuss any changes to the article here first, providing references for any information in the article. Thanks. --Kewp (t) 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wow. I created this thread a long time back, before I signed in as a member. I think I partly signed in as a member because of you, but I could be mistaken. Anyway because I did it before membership I lost track of what happened to it. Interesting history to catch up on. As for neutrality I think that's likely going to be hard when it comes to many NRM's. Speaking of which I think I'll categorize it as such. (I didn't know how to categorize back then)--T. Anthony 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I read an article by Susan J. Palmer in a book The politics of religous apostasy edited by David G. Bromley with the main thrust that the accusation are exaggerated. I don't know whether this is true, but I have to admit that the article looked well researched. I have the impression though that Palmer talked and stayed with members of the group and did not talk with ex-members. Andries 20:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Looking through the history I think the objections on neutrality were in versions that seemed to indicate they are right in all things. That there are credible sources which deem the allegations unfair or exaggerated I think was in it early on and personally I'd think that view should be in. A mixture of defense and criticism seems fair as this is not an activist site for either side. Things like the idea they truly are "the restoration of first century Christianity and our only salvation" or are just "sharing and loving people beyond criticism" should also be left out.--T. Anthony 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree with your comments and changes, T. Anthony. I think the problem with writing an NPOV article about New Religious Movements is that the only information about the groups comes from the group itself or from the anti-cult movement which both have particular POVs, and that makes it difficult to be objective.--Kewp (t) 04:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That is a problem. I think it might be far worse when the group has members under 18. I wrote a bit on the Aetherius Society months ago and finding fairly neutral stuff was surprisingly easy. (Especially considering they believe Jesus lives on Venus and other colorful notions) Part of that was that they've been around since the 1950s, but I think their rule against allowing anyone under 18 to join could be a factor. When kids are involved things get far more emotional. That may well be justified, or just is justified as kids are more malleable and dependent, but it's an observation I've noticed.--T. Anthony 06:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, Kewp... which is exactly why I'm starting a website about the TT that will hopefully be objective and neutral. And it will be a wiki too, albeit with relatively less open access (necessarily). And though I can't elaborate at the moment, we've got a significant source of objective information. I'll definitely post here when the site goes public (several months?). Zach (wv) (t) 02:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hello, Kemp. Yes, I am new here. Yes, I made some changes as an IP number before I signed up. Yes, I would like to work with you to make the entry good. I'll be upfront with you - I live in one of the Twelve Tribes communities. But I respect the necessity of having a NPOV, so I think we can do it. There are several concerns that I have: 1) In the first paragraph, your entry read, "The group is sometimes considered to be a cult for highly controlling its members." I have found that using the word "cult" usually says more about the person using the term than about the group being labelled as such. What is its definition? It is more of a derogatory name nowadays, used to arouse suspicion and fear. If there is actual evidence of a reason for fear, let's include that in the article. But let's dispense with the unmeaningful name-calling. Many social scientists who study NRM have abandoned the use of the term, because it is no longer meaningful. I think it violates NPOV because of its affect on people.
- Although one writer mentioned that it was hard to find neutral research, there is actually a good bit available by those who have spent time in the Twelve Tribes communities. It is not the testimony of Susan Palmer or Richard Robbins, both social scientists who have spent much time in the group and written and presented articles. There is also the Knapp report from a court-appointed psychologist who investigated the communities. Here are a few links:
- I think it would create a more-balanced article if the readers could read first the uncontested beliefs and practices of the group. Describe what we are and why we actually stay together in spite of the flack and controversy. Then proceed to the controversies and opinions on both sides, so that all sides have their say. I say this in the interest of objectivity and education. The misinformation and fear and suspicion has often caused violence and polarization between group members and non-group members. What do you think? Timkroehler 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hi thanks for your well-reasoned response. I agree that "cult" is a loaded term. The main problem, as you point out, is what is the definition of "cult"? In its original definition, "cult" is "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents" [5], a relatively neutral term. However, the word in its modern form is, as you say, much more derogatory. If we look at Wikipedia's article Cult, the word "cult" has different meanings in both the Christian countercult movement and the more secular anti-cult movement. The Christian countercult movement generally characterizes groups as "cults" when they deviate from what they perceive to be "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity. The secular anti-cult movement generally characterizes "cults" for (what the anti-cult movement perceives to be) their high-control environments. (See Mind control). In these separate frameworks, The Twelve Tribes has been labelled a "cult." Is this necessarily correct? no. You say that the word "cult" is "used to arouse suspicion and fear." Well, yes, some people in the Christian countercult movement and the secular anti-cult movements believe the The Twelve Tribes should be suspected and feared (Again, this is not necessarily true). So, I think that to leave the word "cult" out of the the article altogether would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because it would ignore the position of the group's critics.
- As regards the first definition, it is too neutral. All RC, Protestants, and Buddhists alike become members. The second definition, likewise, when applied consistently, fails to become significant. From the RC perspective, the "Lutheran heresy" is still active (called Protestantism) - they would perceive themselves as orthodox and all others as divergent. From the Protestant perspective, the "popery" of the RCs is divergent from the "truth". From the perspective of the 12T, the Religious Right and the RC are "cults" in that they "deviate from the perceived position of orthodoxy." :) So that is why I say, it has much more to do with the person using the term than about the group being called "a cult". I actually like your third definition the most, as this is what people genuinely understand the word to mean - "a religious group that should be suspected and feared". Now I simply ask that we would present the factual basis for why the group should be suspected and feared, so that our entry here does not turn into heresay or a tabloid article. I have no objection to the facts being brought forward. But I think you will find that those who have investigated us closely have not observed any reason to fear, except for the "rumors" and reports from disgruntled members. Here was a recent article in the Boston Globe (although some of the overtones of the writer I wouldn't agree with, it is nonetheless relatively accurate in most points). [6]Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- just a quick question; you say the only people who believed that there was a "reason to fear" the 12T are "disgruntled members." You don't say in your comment whether these disgruntled ex-members are to be believed or not, their opinions to be respected and/or believed. I was wondering if you had any comments/opinions on that matter? (Or anyone else following this article for that matter--it seems like ex-members are often not seen as a legitimate source of information about a group, only so-called "outside observers." What do others think?). For example, could Twelve Tribes-EX be used a source in the article?--Kewp (t) 17:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- As regards the first definition, it is too neutral. All RC, Protestants, and Buddhists alike become members. The second definition, likewise, when applied consistently, fails to become significant. From the RC perspective, the "Lutheran heresy" is still active (called Protestantism) - they would perceive themselves as orthodox and all others as divergent. From the Protestant perspective, the "popery" of the RCs is divergent from the "truth". From the perspective of the 12T, the Religious Right and the RC are "cults" in that they "deviate from the perceived position of orthodoxy." :) So that is why I say, it has much more to do with the person using the term than about the group being called "a cult". I actually like your third definition the most, as this is what people genuinely understand the word to mean - "a religious group that should be suspected and feared". Now I simply ask that we would present the factual basis for why the group should be suspected and feared, so that our entry here does not turn into heresay or a tabloid article. I have no objection to the facts being brought forward. But I think you will find that those who have investigated us closely have not observed any reason to fear, except for the "rumors" and reports from disgruntled members. Here was a recent article in the Boston Globe (although some of the overtones of the writer I wouldn't agree with, it is nonetheless relatively accurate in most points). [6]Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Onto your second point, I agree with you that it might be better to begin the article by presenting the group's beliefs and practices in a uncontested manner. Having looked at some other Wikipedia articles about religious groups that are the targets of a lot of criticism, this is generally how it's done. We could then move on to the criticisms of the group. I agree we would have to tread carefully here. I think that criticisms of the group should be balanced with the group's response to such criticism, allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind.
- Sounds great. I like how you set it up.Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that my response is so long, I hope that it's somewhat coherent. Why don't we keep on discussing changes to the article on the talk page first, so we don't get in any unneeded conflicts. I think that maybe we should first rewrite the intro, describing the group's beliefs and practices in an "uncontested" manner, as you said. We could leave the criticism as it stands for the time being and then move onto that later. Does that sound all right?--Kewp (t) 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for your well-reasoned response. I agree that "cult" is a loaded term. The main problem, as you point out, is what is the definition of "cult"? In its original definition, "cult" is "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents" [5], a relatively neutral term. However, the word in its modern form is, as you say, much more derogatory. If we look at Wikipedia's article Cult, the word "cult" has different meanings in both the Christian countercult movement and the more secular anti-cult movement. The Christian countercult movement generally characterizes groups as "cults" when they deviate from what they perceive to be "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity. The secular anti-cult movement generally characterizes "cults" for (what the anti-cult movement perceives to be) their high-control environments. (See Mind control). In these separate frameworks, The Twelve Tribes has been labelled a "cult." Is this necessarily correct? no. You say that the word "cult" is "used to arouse suspicion and fear." Well, yes, some people in the Christian countercult movement and the secular anti-cult movements believe the The Twelve Tribes should be suspected and feared (Again, this is not necessarily true). So, I think that to leave the word "cult" out of the the article altogether would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because it would ignore the position of the group's critics.
-
- Sure, we must describe the beliefs and practices of the group/denomination/sect. I also saw pictures of male adherents on Germany who were arrested because they refused to send their children to school. Homeschooling is forbidden in Germany (like in my country). In spite of the arrest, the picture looked quite peaceful, almost gemütlich. (The arrest fits into a pattern that Susan Palmer described.) Andries 18:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It is no problem to get English language books here in the Netherlands if you are willing to spend the money. I will cite Parker, but I believe her article is also available on line. (Not fair I paid a lot, a lot of money for the book). Andries 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Kewp, I like most of what you did with the article. I am making some minor edits in places, and adding to the beliefs section. I think we are close. Let me know what you think. Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I finished the edits, and I wouldn't say they were "minor edits" any more. I added a bunch. I hope I didn't write too much.Timkroehler 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm glad that this is working out well. I removed the phrase "not in guarded barbed-wire compounds," because it isn't in quotation marks and so I'm not sure if it's from the Twelve Tribes' official material or not. If it is a quotation from somewhere, let's put it back in, but otherwise it seems like editorializing: that "all dangerous cults are in guarded barbed-wire compounds," which isn't true, and also it doesn't seem as if anyone has accused the TT of having "guarded barbed-wire compounds." Is this all right? See my change here [7].--Kewp (t) 17:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Great, Kewp, I like it much better.Timkroehler 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weighing in... Based on the article I added in the links section, I think the Wiki article as it stands may still be 'whitewashed' -- though that aricle itself is biased. Still, it points usefully to examples of several violations of child labor law, and examples of established, well-known businesses which refuse to do business with Twelve Tribes/Common Ground based on illegal practices and/or on some of their espoused philosophies. Certainly if only white male adults are paid for work at these business, that's something that should be in the article. Anyway, this is why I added the tag questioning the article's neutrality. Hopefully someone else will have the time to do further research on this angle... --The Jack 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Jack. I'll add my two cents for what it's worth. The article you cited seems to be a letter to the editor, not so much a reputable article in a periodical or reference book. I would say that much of it is inaccurate, even from the perspective of non-members who know the Twelve Tribes well. Some of the quotes from teachings are accurate, although their presentation distorts their original meaning significantly. There were NYSDOL (Dept of Labor) citations for 2 home-industries. In one case, a 14-yr-old held a screwgun as as a 24-yr old installed a light in their new classroom. In another, a 14-yr old was pushing a dolly with a slab of wax outside a candle shop that was not operating that day. The problem is that NYS law classifies these home-industries as factories, and no one under age 18 may even be present in a "factory". Family-run businesses at home represent the majority of labor violations. This is a far cry from "child labor" as most people understand the term. Both citations are under appeal and both involve incidents that were very minor, fueled only by a virulent article from a tabloid. The whole controversy is addressed in a much more objective way from the original sources - the Cambridge Press Conference Page on one side and the original NY Post article (found on Rick Ross's site) on the other. Perhaps we should footnote the NY Post article better? Perhaps we should add more to the child labor section regarding the NYSDOL cases that are pending?? What do you want to do?
- In regards to the statement "only white male adults are paid...", it is not accurate. As mentioned in the top of the article, members renounce all possessions and receive no income. Everyone works for the common good. My wife is working in our shoe store today :) and she did the layout for an ad this morning. She is a wonderful woman, but neither she nor I will get paid for our day's work today. We do see that society appears to be decaying as regards to marriage and family, from the perspective of our grandparent's and parent's generation. Some of those statements which alarmed the author of your article were commonplace in the 50s and 60s, even published in Good Housekeeping magazine. The time's they are a changin'.Timkroehler
[edit] Nivan's article
- If no one else has anything to say about The Jack's addition of the POV check and Nivan's article, I would like to propose that we remove the POV check and remove the link to Nivan's articles because of its numerous factual errors and inflammatory bias. If anyone feels strongly that it should be included, change the subheading from "Business Practices" to "Editorials/Criticisms". Personally, I would rather remove it. In regards to The Jack's comments - there have been many accusations throughout the history of the group, but to be "illegal", there must be an official judgment in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard. There are no such judgments. The only exception could be the NYSDOL Child Labor violations, which are under appeal. It is covered thoroughly in the Cambridge Press Conference page. The burden of proof lies upon the person who says, "What about their illegal business practices?" 71.52.171.0 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Yahshua, a Hebrew name ?
"(whom they call by his Hebrew name Yahshua)" This should be qualified, since Hebrew scholars and speakers use Yeshua or Yehoshua as His name, and there multiple reasons why Yahshua is not Hebrew. If you like I could supply references, but ultimately it should simply be changed to be more neutral without a false statement as is currently in the text. Since I am a newbie to this article, I will simply mention it here now. Thanks. 24.193.219.212 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Praxeus
[edit] Should anyone mention recruiting practices?
Hey I have encountered this group on many occasions while touring with the band Phish as well as going to many other "jam band" festivals. The twelve tribes always had a contingency here recruiting membership to their group... they had a really cool double decker bus that tended to draw people in and that enabled them to lay their spiel on you... I found the fact that they recruited from people on tour who by their nature would not be missed for a long time very cultish... new recruits who were picked up on tour were deposited at "communes" along the tour route.
- Wouldn't this imply that Phish was a cult, since these people you mention would otherwise continue on the Phish tour?Timkroehler 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
