Talk:Mennonites/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikification, POV checks, fact dispute, complete representation

This article could use some wikification. The history section especially needs some titles. Riyehn 20:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's strange that the largest Mennonite community currently existing, Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua, Mexico, is not even mentioned. This is a very U.S centered article.

http://www.chepe.com.mx/ing_html/estaciones/est_cuauhtemoc.html

Cuauhtémoc Km. 401. Largest Mennonite community in the world (German descendant farmers with strong religious traditions). Main apple producing region in Mexico and famous for its cheeses and creams.

so write it up! i don't know anything about this community and would not be qualified to say a word. this is what wikipedia is for, so you can write it up and include it. r b-j 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment about Cuauhtémoc demonstrates the weakness of Wikipedia. Cuauhtémoc is in no way the largest Mennonite community in the world. The suggestion that this is a U.S. centered article is correct. It also has a conservative theological bias as reflected in some of the language.

Can you explain more about why you think this demonstrates the weakness of Wikipedia? Is it because people can make innacurate claims or because the aritcle is U.S. centric and theologically conservative? mennonot 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

i dunno if it is true that Cuauhtémoc is "the largest Mennonite community currently existing" or not. the fact that we're having this discussion on the talk page rather than seeing it in the article is, to me, demonstrative of WP working. and i'm right in the middle of a pile of other examples demonstrating that it isn't. if only the rest of WP worked as well. r b-j 01:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This article also needs to show the sizable Mennonite communities in Canada and other nations such as Belize, Paraguay, Bolivia etc. It needs to show the various Mennonite conferences and how they control Mennonites worldwide. Finally, it needs to show the full scope of Mennonite faiths, theologies and traditions with some sort of census. News reports indicate that there are a least 4 separate congregations in the US that welcome gays. Many non-Mennonite sources indicate many conservative or orthodox congregations continue to exist worldwide. This article seems to be written by and for the mainstream group with their POV and is not representative of all Mennonites worldwide. Anacapa 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It should include all these things. Feel free to add what you know. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a little more about the Old Colony Mennonites. This wouldn't address any of the more general issues mentioned above, but it would help to give information about the large communities in Western Canada, Mexico, and Bolivia, among others. Also it might help with the whole Cuauhtemoc question, since, as far as I know, most of the Mennonites in all of these areas are Old Colony Mennonites. Perhaps this could be included in the "Russian Mennonite" article, since they are a part of that group. (I think that article doesn't even mention "Old Colony" right now.) I can find and add some information about the Old Colony group, once I have the time (in a week or two.) If anyone else has info, I'd like to see it added.

Jo, ekj denkj daut scheen onn goot senne wudde. I would put them in their own section for now perhaps, since groups like Old Order Mennonites are not in the Swiss-South German Mennonite section. Stettlerj 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why document balanced experiences about Mennonites (pander vs slander POV checks)

To those who follow the arguments below (and above) I suggest a quick glance at Factnet 'Mennonite Church' (google) to see that this article (in its current form)is far from a full and balanced reflection of Mennonite history and ideology. I also suggest a data base search of NY Times and LA Times news articles which add flesh, blood and statistics to the Mennonite story worldwide. There is much of interest in these sources that is quite applicable in this encyclopedia article but is see no sign of yet. I wonder why?

There are any number of critical commentaries on Anabaptists and Mennonites. Why are all the 'facts' I see in these entries uncritical and therefore 'in-credible'. I expect no less from these entries than I do all other encyclopedia entries and that is balance, evidence and verification. Instead I see Mennonites? using Mennonite 'language' (we 'hold', we 'feel' 'understood as' etc) here to spread Mennonite 'realities' and sometimes to lie with unconscienceable ommissions. Mennonite histories by Mennonites are suspect sans Non-Mennonite validation because all people tend to whitewash uncomfortable realities.

To have a definitive encyclopedia allow people (Mennonites, Mormons etc) to pack entries with their self serving propaganda is so sad. Mennonites use vicious forms of relational agression to 'discipline' members who dissent (disobedience is the worst sin here) and commit 'sins' and those who merely decide to escape Mennonite membership. The most 'literal' sects use the 'ban' to punish "abominable" excommunicants ("sinners") which includes shunning and shaming by their closest clan members and sometimes by their spouse and the parent of their children. Such sanctions wreck homes, divide houses, and poison future generations. No people has the right to rape families for their God, for their dogma, and most of all for their comfort. It is as important to state how Mennonites practice internal war as it is to state how they practice external peace.

The Mennonite family is far too broad and varied for such a narrow characterization. Could you please be more specific? Thanks. - Rlvaughn 00:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Family as used above has nothing to do with your use of it below. In religious or Christian taxonomy (classification), a family is a grouping of churches/denominations that share a common faith and history. - Rlvaughn 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To Rlvuaghn, this is an English (eg secular) encyclopedia. Please use english dictionary taxonomies here. We are not all religious and we are not all Christian on this planet so in the interest of understanding I insist on secular language here. To me, a congregration is a congregration, a sect is a sect etc and a group of sects is a class of people or some such taxonomy. I mean no offense here, I have no need to quibble and I do respect your request for specifics. I become sensitive to taxomony because I know that some Mennonite sects call members 'brothers' and 'sisters' in the Christ 'body' or faith 'family' and that when banning, shunning and shaming occurs these loathsome labels take precedence against the rights of blood brothers and sisters. This is an insidious form of 'figural incest' (google) and false 'familialization' which I loath and detest with sound cause. It common is characteristic of totalitarian tyrannies world wide to use similar (eg 'comrade' etc) classifications to 'take' people. I hope this explanation is clear to you. I also would be glad to see distinctions between broad and narrow characterizations here. I know that Mennonites are a diverse and always evolving people. Some sects are literal fundamentalists (see article) and some sects are more moderate just as in politics. I see no need to tar the broad-minded with the detestable deeds of narrow-minded. I do however expect all Mennonites to own the full range of deeds Mennonites do. I am American and although I am not directly responsible for the terrible American tortures at Abu Grad in Iraqi, I know that such torture is condoned with a wink and a nod at the highest levels of the American government. Therefore as an American, Iraqis have a right to see me as partly responsible. I expect Mennonites to study and show what all Mennonites do worldwide here so accountable accounts become the norm rather than the exception here.

First, a 'family' is a family. It is insidious social incest to call a group of sometimes standoffish sects or a religous people a 'family'. Big Business does this too to with its 'family' incests to take, slake, and toss its employees' hearts and minds and souls to make money. When brothers and sisters become 'brothers' and 'sisters' in the 'faith' the stage is set for future (below low) 'ban' betrayals between blood brothers and sisters inside actual families under color of no less authorities than God ('fear'), Jesus ('love') and Menno ('the all pure people' vs the all abominable sinner').

What is done by some Mennonite sects affects all Mennonites. To silence crimes against people in 'Mennonite' histories does a detestable disservice to those who did and do suffer such crimes and to all Wikipedia users who use such histories. I insist that Mennonites bear both the best and the worst of Mennonite 'wisdom', the profound peace ideals and the poisonous (internal) war realities. It is said that when Amman split from his people the acrimony was so serious that the two groups refused to communicate by staying on opposite sides of the same boat. Such well known 'war' facts are part of a credible Mennonite history too just as Catholic sex offenses (no comparision here except that silence is how churches hide negative realities) became, at long last, Catholic history too....thanks to the 'free' media I might add.

And yes I can be more specific. I suggest you read the various confessions of Anabaptist and Mennonite faith. You will notice that there is a theme in those confessions that states in effect that Anabaptists/Mennonites are the one 'good/true/shameless' people on the planet and everyone else is 'bad/false/shameful'. These false, insulting and insidious core thoughts taken to their totalitarian extreme in 'the ban' do detestable damage to all people consigned to such 'living hells' and their 'innocent' children. In less extreme sects, they cause a relentless resistance to all but 'comfortable' ideas and a 'righteous', robotic reaction to 'uncomfortable' ideas. (I urge wikis to watch what happens on these talk pages.) These thoughts and the internal practices of some such sects closely resemble the totalitarian tactics that totalitarian states (The Third Reich, Red China etc) use to take total control of people. For example, the 'confession' is a common and insidious totalitarion tactic (Google Rape of the Mind). To claim that all Mennonites practice peace when some sects use terrible and systematic psychological torture to 'correct' dissenters is false. I insist on reality here because no one group gets to claim commitment to high ideals unless there is external verification. President Bush must be accountable for how 'freedom and democracy' is affected by Abu Grad and Gitmo. Mennonites must be accountable for Mennonite banning, shunning and shaming too. Mennonites can be both peaceable and poisonous. The poison is as well documented in Mennonite confessions of faith as it is concealed inside 'meek' malice cunning within those sects that use such vile social violence to squelch dissent. I suggest Ruth Garret's Crossing Over: One Woman's Escape from Amish Life (which resembles closely what happens 'under Mennonite bans too) as an introduction to the social/psychological horrors of the ban.

ya know, i've had at least a couple of bad experiences with some MC or another. and the article should not be "self serving" to any particular individual or group: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine. now some Mennonite churches and leaders have done some bad things such as exclusion or even shunning (i am not saying that all exclusion done by a church is necessarily bad, but only to recognize that being imperfect people, we cannot expect that the right decision has been reached or carried out at all times by all MCs). and some will do some bad things in the future. there is also some controversy about what is bad: e.g. is it bad to be a homosexual or is it bad to exclude a homosexual from the church community? that is still being slugged out.

there is nothing wrong, IMO, with describing the theology of the MC (such as it is) in its ideal. Mennonites sin. they commit crimes (gasp! but i am sure there is domestic violence in some Mennonite homes). but the correct way to define what the church believes in is in terms of the ideal. the MC is committed to peace and non-violence even though not all Mennonites are faithful to that ideal. i think it is also true that the MC, in principle, is committed to simple living and to the belief that God is on the side of the poor, but certainly there are many materialistic Mennonites and some of that is ostentatious. Mennonites are committed to faithful, lifelong, and monogamous sexual relationships (normally called "marraige") but they're certainly not all living up to that ideal.

somehow, the short comings of the denomination need to be described in this article. such as how shunning practiced by some groups have rendered families. there are other issues. but they must be done as a general description and not as a personal sob story. r b-j 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

People and churches who do bad things that cause immense damage to people must be held accountable. The Catholic Church is beginning to be held accountable (to the tune of $billions?) for bad (sexual offense associated) deeds it did commit and it did condone with silence. Mennonites also will become accountable, in time, for the 'ban' and other church practices used to coerce, punish and 'correct' people. The damage such practices do to innocent children is similar to the damage the Catholic sex offense did to innocent children. I hope Wikipedia will at least show people, planet-wide, the bad with the good so they can choose with knowledge not propaganda.

Yes, I agree, shortcomings do need to be done as a general description. However, as in all totalitarian groups, Mennonites are quite effective at concealing internal coercion and silencing critics. This allows them to emphasize the positive 'realities' they want 'the world' to see and eliminate the negative 'realities' that they want 'the world' not to see. I hope to see balance here because what some Mennonite sects do when they 'discipline' people is cruel and unusual punishment by all external criteria. I suggest interested people google 'female bullies', relational aggression, parental alienation syndrome, and emotional incest and compare 'the ban' and related 'disciplines' with what is known to be vicious aggression in other contexts.

well, with "totalitarian groups", any persuasive appeal began to wane. I did not grow up in PA or OH or IN or KS, but i did grow up in the Mennonite Church. I have only once experienced a Mennonite Church excluding a member and it was for dumping his wife for another woman. i don't know what else they could have done and remain faithful to a the call to live in lifelong monogamous marriage. this guy could, if he chose to, continue to attend this church, but his membership was nixed because he was doing something that every other member disapproved of, we could see it victimizing his wife, and to not do something about it would mean we just don't stand for anything. excluding someone from a mutually volunteer relationship is not akin to raping or molesting children under the cover of authority as is what some of the Catholic clergy have done. there is no comparison. Mennonites do bad things. there is no doubt about that. entire churches sometimes do bad things. sometimes we disagree what is bad or not (excluding gays?). but it really seems like you got an axe to grind here, and although the WP article should not simply portray Mennonites as some kind of idealized flawless Christians, i don't see how your particular bad experience should be a significant part of this article. if there is something systemic, it should be documented in the article. r b-j 04:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There is much that is quite cruel and systematic here (see sources above). The ideals themselves are cruel and sometimes criminally cruel to anyone who dissents. This is not about one bad experience this is about what all Mennonites 'feel' to some extent... that they are their God's ONE chosen people and the rest of us (6 plus billion!) people are abominable 'sinners'. Such thought is totalitarian at it's core and would be deeply offensive to 'worldly' people were Mennonites to communicate their authentic 'feelings' to the 'world'. I urge the writer above to read Rape of the Mind (google), and Thought Reform by John Jay Lifton to see just how systematic Mennonite thought control is. (It is possible to sanction unfaithfulness with withdrawal of the Mennonite marriage sanction itself, with full disclosure of the infidelities, and with sanctions on future marriages in the church...membership is membership while marriage is marriage...and no Mennonite member is able to claim to be shameless, in REALITY that is.)

I attempt to write here with balance and fact. I do have an axe to grind and that is that Mennonites tell the whole truth here so Wikipedia is in fact credible. At the very least, we should see here how Mennonites do 'discipline' members who dissent and who 'sin' since Mennonites do this in secret, with 'tribal' traditions and with unusual tenacity. I also note that while no one Mennonite sect is the same with the same sanctions it is important to any article on Mennonites to show the full scope of all practices in all sects. As long as some Mennonites destroy families under color of authority indeed (no less than their god) to uphold their dogmas, all Mennonites become accountable. Just ONE Abu Grad/Gitmo torture victim shames us all who claim to 'hold' to 'freedom and democracy' and just one broken family (there have been quite a few in Mennonite history) shames all Mennonites who claim to be committed to 'peace'. I hate to see Mennonite 'peace' people tour the world claiming what is, indeed, peace wisdom while Mennonites at home and in the home perpetrate psychological violence, vice and incests in the name of 'love'.

There is NO idealized homo sapian in my humble opinion. The idea that Christians are somehow more or less flawless than say indigenous peoples or Muslims, Hindus or (heaven forbid indeed) Atheists is false on its face. Mennonite faith confessions show that they believe they are THE ONE 'pure' chosen people among Christians and among ALL people. To claim such shameless shamelessness is absurd to people who know people and to people who know Mennonites and to people who know Christian history.

no one believes that any humans or human institutions are perfect. but we can still have ideals. all Mennonites have sinned and violated other people. probably every Mennonite church has done something that, in retropect, they wouldn't be proud of. some Mennonite churchs are stricter than others, some are more provincial than others, some Mennonite churches are simply "worse" than others (but Mennonites do not all agree on what is "better", hence all the bru-haa about gays and membership). i do not know how to help you, but your experience may not be representative of the denomination and, unlike the Catholic sex abuse scandal, your experience might not be systemic. we should certainly cover systemic or common problems or "bad practices". but not all Mennonite Churches are in conservative conferences where everyone paints their car bumpers black. r b-j 05:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course we can have ideals but those ideals must be stated and tested as are all other ideals on this wikipedia. Mennonite violations must be stated too and not just by Mennonites who see no need to face uncomfortable truths. When Mennonites build their own websites I watch without comment but when Mennonites attempt to pack a wiki website with just the 'nice' ideals and with one-sided 'realities' I insist that they face their own ideals/facts. Mennonites sects range in ideals from the most conservative to almost 'worldly'. This range needs to be shown and the associated practices and attitudes need to be shown as well. Judgement about what is better/worse HERE is made by all people not just Mennonites. There is no more systemic practice in Mennonite churches than church 'discipline' which is what Mennonites use TO hold to Mennonite ideals. To offer 'help' here, to discount such vicious violations as 'sob stories', and claim that the ideals and practices in the 'ban' are non-systemic is exactly why I wrote this up. I insist on truth (little t) here. I will help myself with this editing. Unlike parochial Mennonite websites this is a secular worldwide web site. I insist that Mennonites respect all those who use Wikipedia, here, respect all viewpoints, and respect those of us who know the ugly other side of Mennonite ideals/realities all too well. Once this article attains statis, I hope to see the finest that Mennonites did/do contribute to the world (pun intended) and the worst that Mennonites contribute to the world too. Anything less is a loathsome lie in a worldwide SECULAR encyclopedia.

you document these violations. make a case that they are systemic (that is they are common in the Mennonite experience). and then write it up from that POV. whether or not you have an axe to grind should make absolutely no difference in what comes out. do this like a real journalist or else knock it off. otherwise we get the admins (and eventually ArbCom) involved here. just because you have had a bad experience, does not mean you get to crap up the article. r b-j 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I will use the knowledge Mennonites attempt to hide here (faith confessions' hate etc) to show how systemic Mennonite discipline is. (RBJ This is a open edit article, you are not in charge of this article and I take no orders from you. I have no intention of crapping up anything which is why I wrote this up here and why I insist on balance in the article. Go get the admins/arbcom to read the above and stop threatening me. I notice you respond to thought with threats and little thought back. Such responses make my case for me.) Any encyclopedia that uses just Mennonites to decide what to write about Mennonites is absurd. Many Amish and Mennonites have had bad experiences with Amish and Mennonite 'discipline'. There are books written on these experiences, this article includes and yet conceals and whitewashes such 'discipline' as Mennonites well know. I expect Mennonites to state the good and the bad about Mennonites so that Wikipedia users know how Mennonites conduct themselves behind the closed doors of the ban etc. I know both the good and the bad Mennonites do and I know that all peoples do good and bad. I note that the Catholic article includes both the Inquisition (a terrible example of religious torture) and the recent sex scandals and I insist the bad that Mennonites do be included here too.

i do not want to disuade you from including, in encyclopediac form, abuse that is endemic to the Mennonite community. i do not deny such (i tend to imagine that it is within the more isolated and conservative communities). it is an open edit article (but it might not stay that way if there is an edit war). i am saying that sin or moral failure is is not sanctioned in an "official" statement of faith.

so document the moral failure. document the consequences it has had on the victims. but if you change what Mennonites believe to infer that it is sanctioned, i will revert it. your comparison to the R.C. church and its historical and current crime and failure is apt. we identify the bad behavior and the responsibility those who had authority in the R.C. had in that bad behavior (sometimes by commission, sometimes by ommission or negligence). but if you were to edit the article on the R.C. church to say that Roman Catholics, as a matter of faith, believe in or approve of torturing nonbelievers and molesting children, they would revert that fast. those are blots in the the R.C. church, just as well as there are blots in the Mennonite church history and current events. but those blots exist because of failure to live according the faith ideal, not because of the faith ideal. r b-j 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To rbj thank you for your thoughts above. I too, see the distinction between moral 'failings' and a 'faith ideal'. I am not here to document Mennonite moral failures (domestic violence, domestic 'vice', child abuse/use, etc) although some newspapers are beginnning to report on those endemic crimes. I am here to document SANCTIONED sanctions that Mennonites (with varying degrees of severity) use to discipline members who split away from or decide to escape Mennonite control. As the article states The Ban is used to 'disipline' such members. The Ban is also theme in popular books (The Shunning etc B Lewis) when Amish use it with little change from its original forms. I insist that such systemic Mennonite sanctions be included here so that people can see how these so-called Peace people use psycho-social warfare to control their members. This IS a Mennonite faith ideal (which the Shcleitheim Confession states in no uncertain terms) that has terrible effects on those so sanctioned.) I insist that these faith ideals/actions be stated here so that wikipedia members know HOW Mennonites do indeed discipline coerce and punish members who decide to become non-Mennonites. I insist that the faith ideal itself rather than the 'normal' moral blots be stated and shown here with honest, balanced and complete integrity. I will use the facts/sources already shown here to do just that. In the meantime, I ask that you and all those who care about this article show how Mennonites sects do discipline with the Ban which to anyone who knows is far more important than how much wheat Mennonites grow in the Midwest. I will be glad to listen to comments, clarifications and corrections here. I claim no inside knowledge about what is going on now among today's Mennonites so it would be helpful to see today's Mennonites state how and where the ban is being applied today worldwide. I do know that silencing Banees is how Mennonites in the past attempted to be seen as peace people while committing terrible psycho-social crimes within the church (correction here) 'to those ban, shun and shamees.

One of the allegations being made here (where???) is that Mennonites are part of the "true church" movement. From a footone in the Anabaptist article:

A "true church" movement is one in which the participants of a movement believe their movement represents the true faith and order of New Testament Christianity. Most only assert this in relation to their church doctrines, polity, and practice (e.g., the ordinances), while a few hold they are the only true Christians.

The main Mennonite church denominations do not make this claim. On the contrary, they are an active part of the ecumenical community and in active conversation with other Christian groups. While there may be pockets of conservative Mennonites who do, it is not a widely held belief or doctrine of Mennonites as a whole. mennonot 11:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mennonot, I'm not sure that I'm following you. The footnote from the Anabaptist article is intended to explain something in the "Origins" section, and is certainly not intended to state that Mennonites as a whole embrace the "true church" concept. The footnote goes on to say, "Some examples of Anabaptistic true church movements are the Landmark Baptists and the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite. The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee), the Stone-Campbell restoration movement, and others represent a variation in which the "true church" apostasized and was restored, in distinction to this idea of apostolic or church succession." But if this is being taken wrong, we may need to do some rewording. - Rlvaughn 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(reply) Many of the things that you mention, such as the "war within the Church", and all of the propaganda that you mention are blatantly false. You may have had a bad experience with a particular church group, but as a whole, this is nothing but a poor generalization of a wonderful group of people. I have lived in a Mennonite community for many years, and I have neither experienced this nor have I seen any signs of this happening to anyone. I feel insulted that this would even be considered viable information on Mennonites as a whole.

you shouldn't have blanked it out (it's a talk page, not the article proper). i also feel that 66.15.140.3 was grinding an axe and was crapping up the article to sorta get back. i was reverting his changes, but i do not discourage that person (he/she) from writing a section of what he or she understands are problems endemic to the denomination or even some sub-groups or congregations or geographical communities (and that gets to be tested for veracity). we have to be humble enough to hear the bad along with the good. but that doesn't mean that he/she may gunk up the article with vitriol. r b-j 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I was very annoyed to see something that looked so slanderous to an entire group of people, that I felt the need to blank it out. I apologize for doing so, as that was not the appropriate action.

To those who feel slandered here I mean no offense. I know how to use distinctions to separate slander from thought. Do you? I feel pandered here. The people who were my peoples' people did terrible wrongs to me, those nearest and dearest to me and to all my extended families. To see no mention of such Mennonite 'disciplines' here panders those like me and all those who use Wikipedia. It is common to use emotion when thought is lacking. I am doing the best I can (see wikipedia's Pyschology of Torture Article) to use thought rather than legitimate and terrible outrage here. I thank those who also use thought here and I ask those who 'outrage' here to face facts with facts such as below.

To those people who included The Ban in this article, please state which Mennonites use such 'discipline'? Please understand that I know not all Mennonites use the same 'discipline' and that I am not intending to slander a whole group of people for the crimes of a few groups. Please also google 'shunning' and the Jehovah Witness comments to see why I detest the Mennonite Ban and why I insist that Mennonites include the facts about this form of Mennonite discipline here.

in the eighties, i was part of (but not a member of) Reba Place Fellowship/Church in Evanston IL, which is (or was, i can't say anything authoritive about it now) a church and Christian community with dual affiliation with the Church of the Brethren and the MC. it took its Anabaptist vision quite seriously. there was a couple that fell in love, both members for a long time, both never married but she had a long term sorta "common-law" marriage with another man with a few kids resulting and had ended the relationship for a long time. so there was this big discernment process to decide whether this relationship was really a marraige in all but a legal POV and it was decided "no" and this couple was married in the church. then, a year or two later, there was a separation and some grieving and hope that they might reconcile. that hope was dashed when the separated husband fell in love with another woman, a former member, and asked the church's blessing on this new marriage. instead the church "dissolved" (i dunno what word was used) his membership saying that he separated himself from the church by not being true to his marital commitment. that is some form of exclusion that might be akin to "The Ban". this man was not excluded from church services on Sunday. but his membership was voided and a leadership role he had (i won't say what because i might identify him) was, of course, no more. no one was told to shun him or avoid personal contact.

personally, my feelings about it is that in this case the church went as far as it could to tolerate, but was facing a crisis of integrity if they had not separated themselves from this man because his unilateral divorce (his wife was devastated) was really contrary to the lifelong commitment to marriage that the MC at least pays lip service to.

i am sure there are cases of abuse of "The Ban" in some churches in the MC denomination history. some guy has a contentious dispute with his brother-in-law, who happens to be a bishop or some leader in the church and gets excommunicated and shunned as a result. i remember reading of some dairy farmer (i think in PA) in the 70s or 80s whom this happened to, his wife and kids left him, his hired help left, his farm went down the tube, and it was really bad for him (i think a lawsuit might have happened as a result). that would qualify as abuse in my book. i cannot imagine the exclusion from church membership, even if that was appropriate, extending to destroying families and ruining livelihoods. that is really unchristian. if some story like that can be authenticated somehow, i have no objection to that being included in the article. r b-j 05:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mennonite 'discipline' is widely known. I spoke with a 'worldly' South American on his way to Bolivia last week. A casual mention of Mennonites elicited a statement that there were Mennnonites in Bolivia who practice forms of shunning there against non-compliant members. He had a mild (and amused) outsider's contempt for such practices. Why is Mennonite discipline the 'third rail' of Mennonite articles everywhere?

that's premise that i certainly do not accept. i have read many articles in The Mennonite and the old Gospel Herald about church discipline.

I want to see the full range of disciplines (both severe and moderate) here along with the full range of causes. I know, quite well, that one huge cause is to challenge church dogma in any form. When, where and how will this wikipedia article back what people in the 'world' already know?

To rbj above and all those who engaged in the 'discipline' discussion. I see sound changes on the 'discipline' line in the article. I see a little balance and some distinctions now. I added Shunning and Shaming there because I know (right now) cousins, aunts, uncles who are being banned shunned and shamed for no cause other than following their own 'lights'. I will also edit or delete the intention explanations too because because these sanctions were stated by the Mennonites to be 'for the ban shun and shamees own good' and are used to punish with 'God's love' and to cause these people to 'correct' their 'evil' ways. I also believe that Old Order Mennonites still use such sanctions too. Is it possible to gather some systematic (to back anecodotal evidence above) evidence here inside the Mennonite fold?... (a fold I am not privy to.) I welcome comments here on that 'discipline' line in particular and I will listen to all suggestions that reflect the realities that I know all too well and that capture the WHOLE essence of Mennonite discipline here worldwide.

again, i ask you to put together stories (examples) about abuse endemic to the Mennonite experience or even endemic to some particular traditions or conference or churches (it would be good to identify which), then create a section about this in the article. ya know, as a long-haired middle-aged hippie who likes to drink Pinot Noir and is married to an Episcopalian, i could find myself unwelcome in some of these Old Order communities. i have no doubt that there are are some communities or churches so conservative, so intolerant of true non-conformity (yet, ironically, nonconformance is a sorta faith tenet) that someone like me would be asked to leave some Mennonite churches. the thing is, i probably could find a "modern" Mennonite church down the road a few miles, if that were to happen. i simply would not be attracted to such a church in the first place.

Ruth Irene Garret (mentioned above) wrote a book recently with the stories of 25 Amish and Mennnonites who were banned, shunned and shamed. I am unable to find it now which I suspect means it is out of print. My intent here is to simply show that some Mennonite sects do indeed practice this detestable form of social torture to 'discipline' their members so that potential Mennonites can choose with ADVANCE knowledge. When your whole family bans, shuns and shames you there is no escape in the modern church down the road!

now the problem with you grinding your axe in the section about the theology of Mennonites is that it implicates the Mennonite conferences, churches, and individuals who are not the intolerant ogres you depict. it is obvious with your edit history 128.111.95.240 (talk · contribs) that you have a huge axe to grind. perhaps you've been severely victimized or have a loved one who has. that still doesn't mean that you can use this experience to define what Mennonites beleive when Mennonites do not agree, among themselves, what they believe corporately. that is why documents such as the Confession of Faith from a Mennonite Perspective is not a mandatory creed or catecism. as for the whole denomination, there is little that can be agreed to be "dogma". perhaps pacifism/nonresistance (actually we disagree on that, particularly in relationship of Mennonites to the State), perhaps marital fidelity (naw, way too many divorced and remarried Mennonites, still goin' to church and in good standing, and once in a while somebody's teenage kid gets pregnant out of wedlock), perhaps believers' baptism (but i've seen little 6 or 7 year old girls wearing little coverings like their mother, hard for me to imagine a volitional confession of faith in the original sense of the Anabaptists), perhaps stewardship or simple living or anti-materialism (yeah, right, i remember a cute story by Lynn Martin regarding that). Mennonites are not united in substance about any of those issues, and unity on the meaning or practice of "The Ban" is even lower down the list. you simply have no right to take a bad experience you happen to have had or have known of, and lay that at the door of the entire denomination. so create a section and tell the story, but when you change the section about theology, you are misrepresenting the large majority of modern Mennonites, at least in North America, today. but there is certainly some substance to abuse stories and some written theology by some Mennonites justifying it. (maybe [1], i dunno.) if you want to write about it, good! but put it in a separate section describing it. if there are particular abuses to write about, you should have some verifiable source.r b-j 05:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To rbj this is again becoming an extended rant with little thought. To insist that Mennonites study Menno's ideas in this Mennonite article is indeed reasonable since his ideas form the basis for Mennonite thought worldwide. I expect you to stop demeaning me with 'axe grinding'/ogre/sob story innuendos and respond with fact. I have been quite clear here to distinguish between people and their deeds. To me, no one is an ogre and all people including Mennonites do good and bad deeds. I can read what Mennonites believe in their own documents here and in Menno Simon's writings. I simply expect Menno's belief to be studied here in the article too so that Non-mennonites and (potential Mennonites) can see the whole picture not JUST the 'nice' picture. I have every right to hold Mennonites accountable to show the whole range of Mennonite conduct here. I misrepresent no one here. To me a statement that SOME Mennonites Ban, Shun and Shame here is fine and is indeed fact as you no doubt well know. I also have no intention to study endemic (unsantioned) abuse in Mennonite communities here. The free press will take care of that for me. (I will note that Mormons another puriticanical people have the highest rate of domestic violence in the nation according to press reports.) I simply insist on a balanced and fair account of banning shunning and shaming that some Mennonites practice with a clear distinction between those who don't and those who sit in silence and let others do it.

(YMT) I grew up in a very conservative Mennonite Church. My experience in the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church (this is a group of churches in the East Coast area) is that shunning does take place; however, it is usually used as a last resort -- when all other methods of encouraging a former member to return to the church or chastising a current member who shows no regret for his sins have failed. The Mennonites do use psychological manipulation and other tactics to keep their members within the church, but that is not the only purpose for shunning. If a member or ex-member shows no sorrow for his sins and does not take action to change his behavior, the Mennonites believe there is danger that he or she could influence other members to leave the faith, and therefore, no longer be considered a child of God. Hence, by shunning a disobedient brother or sister, pure church members are protected from the contamination of ungodliness. Most Mennonites do not shun to the extreme degree that it is practiced in some Amish communities. The Mennonites will not socialize on a daily basis with a person believed to be an infidel, but they will not refuse to speak to that person nor will they treat that person as deceased. In fact, a person who has left the Mennonite faith will most likely be a name mentioned in weekly prayer meetings for years to come. In contrast, the Amish will sometimes refuse to speak or answer to a shunned person on any occasion and will also treat that person as if they have died.

Foot washing

I noticed User:80.130.189.119 made two contributions (17:21, 21 Jan 2003; 17:20, 21 Jan 2003)to Wikipedia, both of which were to delete from this article the following: "4. Foot Washing as continuing outer sign of humility within the church.

Foot Washing was not originally an Anabaptist practice. Pilgram Marpeck before 1556 included it, and it became widespread in the late 1500s and the 1600s. Today it is practiced by some Mennonites as a memorial sacrament, in memory of Christ washing the feet of his disciples as recorded in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John."

Feet washing appears to play a prominent part in most Mennonite churches (including Mennonite Church USA, which is one of the larger bodies), so I'm not sure why it was taken out. Perhaps it would not belong under core beliefs, as originally listed, but it seems it should have a place somewhere in the article. Since I can't contact 80.130.189.119, perhaps someone else will have an explanation, a comment and/or a suggestion. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 04:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(reply) I've lived in a Mennonite community all of my life, and I have never heard of Mennonite's practicing footwashing. It may be a regional practice opposed to a general Mennonite practice. I believe that would, in all probability, be why it was not mentioned in the article.

I certainly cannot speak to your own experience, but feet washing is a well documented part of Mennonite faith and practice. For example, check out the statement of faith of the Evangelical Mennonite Conference <http://www.emconf.ca/> or of the Mennonite Church USA <http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/1995-13.html>.

Here's a interesting article discussing the demise of it among "Mennonite Brethren": <http://www.mbherald.com/43/04/footwashing.en.html>

In the article itself someone added the words "who/where?" (which were appropriately clipped) after the statement that some Mennonites practice footwashing. Some links have been given, and more can be to anyone who really wants to know. I am being to doubt the sincerity of someone who appears to not want to believe this. It is quite well-documented and should not come as a great surprise. Try the Dordrecht Confession (1632) for an old document: <http://www.bibleviews.com/Dordrecht.html#XI> - Rlvaughn 04:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in the Eastern Mennonite community from age four until I was sixteen. Feetwashing was observed on a regular basis -- annually or biannually -- I cannot remember which. Large tubs were brought into the church and filled with water. Each man had his feet washed by another man and washed another man's feet. Each woman had her feet washed by another woman and washed another woman's feet. Men and women sat on separate sides of the church according to their sex. Although I no longer attend this church, I know for a fact that these customs are still followed today in that same congregation.

Amish

Someone added a note saying "This appears to be inaccurate" to where I referred to the Amish being a splinter group from the Mennonites, following Joseph Amman. I'm happy to have this challenged, but here are some references I used in making this statement:

http://www.amish.net/lifestyle.asp (look under "Amish Origins"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish1.htm under "Amish"
http://www.amishacres.com/aa_miscellanous/faq.htm question 3

Some other sites say the Amiesh split from the "Swiss Brethren", though it seems most people classified the Swiss Brethren as Mennonites. DJ Clayworth 03:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Radical Reformation

There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Separate History?

So, I'm wondering if the history section is a little to long for this sort of article. Should it be a separate article that is linked to at the beginning of the section, as is done in many history sections in other articles? 16:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

dunno if it would be the best thing to split it off or not, but i'm not opposed to trying it. r b-j 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In editing broken and missing links, I guessed that John Smyth (1570-1612) was the same John Smythe mentioned in this article. I don't know this history well at all, so some footnotes and references would be helpful. In poking around with Google, it became evident that this part of the history section, and perhaps other material here, has been basically copied from Thirdway Cafe, with no attribution.

It looks like someone needs to be bold and do a better job with this article. JonHarder 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I second this concern. I have POV issues with the Mennonite Church USA's Third Way Cafe site which appears to be a MC USA evangelistical site, the opposite of a NPOV source. It is far from respresentative of all Mennonites. The Mennonite Church USA represents only about 1/3 of all US Mennonites and membership growth appears to be occurring fastest among conservative Mennonites not MC USA Mennnonites. The Third Way Cafe content contains positive POV, falsehoods and POV by omission, and misrepretentations of other Mennonites. Third Way Cafe content should in no way be implied to NPOV, representative or even accurate for all Mennonites. If the MC USA wants to use it for their article with proper distinctions between themselves and other Mennonites that would see much more NPOV to me but I still question the use of such pandering positive POV content in an encyclopedia. Anacapa 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is not so much accuracy but copyright concerns and plunking copied material into the middle of an article without attention to context. JonHarder 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to clean up external links.

I would like to start a discussion to develop a policy about the types of external links appropriate for this article and prevent it from becoming a web directory. I will make a first pass at a set of proposed rules of thumb and present a table showing how the rules will affect the current links.

Links should be broadly applicable to Mennonites or Mennonite history.
Links that are mainly about a topic covered in a different existing article should be placed there.
Similarly, links that apply to specific Mennonite denominations should go there; stubs should be created if a particular denomination does not yet have an article.
Plus all the applicable guidelines in external links style guide.
Temporary or permanent new sources that contain missing content/themes broadly applicable to Mennonites belongs in the Further reading or other (new?) reference sections until this article includes such broadly applicable content and until consensus is achieved on where to link the sources..according to rules 1-4 above. (proposed new rule)

I added a proposed a new rule above. I want to respond to concerns about new Links such as the Comparing One True Churches link. I see this source as a candidate for a few statements/links that are broadly applicable and missing in this article followed by a move to other more specific articles, including the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite article. Please comment.Anacapa 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My preferennce is to incorporate new material into the article and then provide the references. I do not find links within Further reading helpful to the article. Further reading logically goes after the references section. JonHarder 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Applying these guidelines would prune the current list considerably, leaving a few good links broadly applicable to this article. (A notation like #4.1.3.1&4 means: rule #4 (external links style guide), section 1.3, items 1 and 4.)

Keep per:	Remove per:	Link
	#3, #4.1.3.1&4	Anabaptist.org
	#3 (MCUSA)	Archives of the Mennonite Church
	#3 (MBs)	Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
	#3 (COGM)	Comparing the One True Churches
	#3 (MCUSA)	Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective
	#3 (MCUSA)	Eastern Mennonite Missions
	#4.1.2.2 (web directory)	Global Mennonite Connections
	#4.1.3.1&4	MennoLink disclosure: I own and operate MennoLink.
	#3 (MCUSA)	Mennonite Church USA
	~#1, #4.1.3.1	Swiss Mennonite Cultural and Historical Association
	#2	Menno Simons Biography
	#2	Menno on the Net: A directory of web pages about Menno Simons
	#2	Neu Samara - A Mennonite settlement in Russia
	#2	The Martyrs Mirror
#1	#2	The Schleitheim Confession
	#3 (MBs)	US Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
	#2	Yoder, John Howard - Mennonite Theologian
	#3 (MCUSA)	Third Way Cafe
#1		Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
#1		Dordrecht Confession of Faith
	#2	Mennonite Central Committee
	#3 (MBs)	Mennonite Brethren Missions and Services International
	#3 (MBs)	Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary
	#4.1.3.3	Cascadia Publishing House - Publisher of Anabaptist-Mennonite resources
	#3 (MBs, MCUSA, ?)	Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns
	#4.1.3.3	DreamSeeker Magazine - Featuring Anabaptist-Mennonite writers and articles
	#3 (COGM)	Holdeman Mennonites
	#4.1.3.2	Mennischt in padutch wiki

I proposed that the after a week of discussion and three days after the last comment the agreed upon guidelines be implemented. Add comments and suggestions below. JonHarder 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Support! thanks for doing this hard work. haven't checked every detail or application but the 4 principles sound real good. thanks, Jon. r b-j 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support - like r-b-j, I haven't checked every detail, but the principle is sound. - Rlvaughn 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is a good idea and thanks very much for your work, Jon. However, I have some concerns about the application of rule #2. Because this article may be the first and only article on Mennonites that some people see, I think there may be a place for linking to key external websites (i.e. Schleitheim Confession or Mennonite Central Committee) even though other Wikipedia articles cover the same topics.

I see the external links as an a starting point for research and some (but not all) of the external links that would be removed under rule #2 provide key insights into what Mennonites are about. Why force people to hunt for a wikilink in the article to the wikipedia article on MCC or Schleitheim and then click on a an external link when you could include a link in the much more visibile External link section? That said, I would support the application of rule #2 to more obscure links (i.e. Neu Samara - A Mennonite settlement in Russia). mennonot 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect to rule #2, it is acceptable to include the wikilinks of these key topics in a See also section, even if they are redundant to links within the article text. To me this approach is preferable to external links. Let's keep batting these ideas around for a few days until we come up with guidelines that are common sense and workable. JonHarder 02:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Support if key external links are shifted to the See also section, that works for me. I didn't realise that those links could duplicate wikilinks already in the text. mennonot 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: It's been over three days since the last discussion item on this, so I went ahead and pruned down the list, adding a couple of the items that had actual articles into the See also section. In the process I also axed the Christian anarchism link which just doesn't seem to fit.

Shunning, theology, punishment (NPOV, facts and speculation checks)

I support the cleanup and added the link to Shunning in the See Also section. This is a part of Mennonite history and theology and no less relevant than Peace churches. Please include it here. Anacapa 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Shunning is more typically thought of with respect to Amish, and is of course at the root of the Amish-Mennonite divergence. One would have to do more research to know which groups of Mennonites have practiced something similar, but I believe it would be a small subset, especially after about 1950. Most of the Mennonite forms would be more accurately described as disfellowship, not shunning. In practical terms this translates to denial of communion. Your phrase to punish likely is not accurate with respect to Amish. I can't say whether Mennonites are more mean spirited... Again, this paragraph is semi-informed speculation and more research in this area would be insightful. JonHarder 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I like the External Links cleanup a lot. I am also attempting to make the Further reading links broadly applicable to all Mennonites with balance from both extremes where the link articles study only one extreme. I will be glad to listen to comments/suggestions about balance etc. I am also going to find and add something directly from Menno Simons in the References because his theology is missing in the article and because he is a key part of Mennonite history and was key contributor to Mennonite theology/codas. It is for a reason that Mennonites call themselves Menno-nites. I would like to see those reasons here.

As for shunning, there are about 13,600 entries from a google search of 'Mennonite/shunning' and these include quite a bit of current material too. I found one recent article by an extremely progressely GMC woman about (painful!) mild shunning by the M/S Mennonites (vi a vi the gay split) so please be straight with me here. Most non-Mennonites (from all over the world) who know Mennonites and who I mention Mennonites too, know something about Mennonite discipline/shunning. Some of the google entries also clearly spell out the huge impact dissension/shunning has had on Amish and Mennonite history. To omit or downplay this theme in a CREDIBLE history of Mennonites is blatant, and pandering POV by omission to me. I suggest more research and an honest, balanced inclusion of Mennonite control, discipline, and shunning here so that THIS Mennonite history is whole and complete... and includes the 'good' and 'bad' across the whole scope of Mennonite historical/ongoing policies. I also want to be sure I do not unfairly slander mainstream or progressive Mennonites who condemn shunning or who use only mild forms of shunning. Is that fair here?

As to 'punish', I will be glad to discuss this in shunning-associated settings. I also point you to the External links at Shunning. As for mean-spirited, I make no comparisons on that as Peoples. To me, ALL people are both mad and mean at times and that includes me. I do take issue with systematic all-against-one mean ideas/deeds as encoded in the earlier Mennonite faith confessions against people who decide to change their faiths or who commit so-called sins. To me, one's so-called sin is no cause to commit all-against-one relational aggression to 'correct' the one's sin in a god's name and then to toss double-bind shame from all to the one, claim he/she 'brought it on him/herself', and ALSO call one's church a Peace church at the same time. I might be missing something here, but this strikes me as far from reason-able and far from peace-full. To me, a god, a faith and a 'unity' is no cause to ruin relationships, wreck homes, and destroy families or become a human suicide bomb either. It is the deeds, I hate here not the people. I did and will continue to add research. I welcome your suggestions/comments here but, please, no NEW (see edit histories) Silence by Shame' (see Further reading link) tactics against me, from anyone in the Mennonite 'We'. Anacapa 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Discipline is an important theme in Mennonite History and needs to be addressed better in this article. It occurs to me that there are three main areas of interest: 1) formal statements of various confessions, 2) typical application of discipline and 3) anecdotal cases from particular congregations. The first two areas would be good sources of encyclopedic information; the third would be less useful for an excellent article. A good solid paragraph would be appropriate for an article this size. I would be tempted to include maybe twice that amount of material, but the article is right at the suggested 30K size as it stands. If anyone who wants to start playing around with a concise statement, a Talk:Mennonite/discipline sandbox would be a good place to start batting ideas around without disturbing the main articles too much. I personally am not inclined to look at it in the near term.

Thank you for acknowledging that discipline is indeed an important theme in Mennonite tradition and in contemporary practices. As far as interests go, please let me suggest what I need here to see this article as reasonably representative and NPOV:

1. I want to see Menno Simons theologies be well-represented, referenced and linked in Theology since he is the founder of his faith and since he is claimed to have had huge influences on Mennonites. (see Menno Simons article)
2. The formal faith confessions seem to be here already. They seem fine. However, I do insist on short NPOV studies of their contents here. I want to include explanations/links where that content matches well with Mind Control content or with content in other articles so Non-Mennonites can understand Mennonite theology and it's implications well.
3. I want to see the history include Mennonite discipline and its influence on Mennonite schisms and on former Mennonites here. I will include news articles/texts as appropriate to ensure this history is indeed NPOV. I also insist on adding crebible secular histories here in the references so we can see a nice NPOV match. Former Mennonites and their points of view deserve a place here too. They have often been shamed into silence by Mennonites which is a part of any NPOV Mennonite article.
4. I want to see all applications of Mennonite discipline here. Typical is fine. However the extremes need to be shown too. There are a wide range of Mennonites worldwide and quite a few Mennonite congregations worldwide continue to use painful forms of discipline (see Miriam Toew link on Shunning) This article is about them all from orthodox to progressive. To conceal the extremes is POV by omission. We can discuss proper proportional representation with data or with reason.
5. Anecdotal cases of discipline belong here as much as all the other 'nice' anecdotal material this article is full of. Be they orthodox, mainstream or progressive these anecdotes always seem to make the news which gives one some idea of their interest to Non-Mennonites. I insist on reasonable representations and especially of the extremes where real suffering occurs. I will call a point of view check on this article unless it begins to reflect the hidden Mennonite realities that show up in so many other sources.
6. I see no single new paragraph but a representative inclusion of balanced NPOV material (some of which will be controversial to Mennonites) through-out this article. Discipine was/is a huge part of the Mennonite experience. It needs to be shown so here in proper proportion.For example, I see no mention of the various conferences and how they discipline here yet this keeps making the news. Failing that, I suggest we add a section here for Other (secular) POV's about Mennonites as in the Religion article.
7. As for size, I see no need to add huge amounts of additional material here. But please don't pack a site with POV (Mennonites for Mennonites) content and then call size a constraint. There is nothing sacred about the official content here that cannot be adjusted to match NPOV realities. This is not The Third Way Cafe. This is supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedia article on Mennonites for all possible readers.

I hope this begins to point out the POV issues I have with this article as is. Similar concerns apply to the Menonnite Excommunication (see discussion) and Shunning sections too. I will add links/sources for temporary use as we build this article. Please allow me a place to add these sources for others to read here or I will call a point of view check on the article. I plan no big changes in the near term except to source this article with other POVs and call out POV checks here on this page. Anacapa 07:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by a GMC women is or a M/S Mennonite (mainstream maybe?). Does Anacapa stand for something? JonHarder 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This was my shorthand. GMC stands for Germantown Mennonite Church and yes M/S stands for Mainstream. Anacapa stands for many things none of which are relevant to this article. Anacapa 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-Mennonite source articles: Negative, Positive, Neutral Or Eye of the Beholder?

How come all the non-Mennonite source articles are negative. In fact most non-Mennonite source articles about Mennonites are probably positive, and this list seems to insist that all non-Mennonite source articles about Mennonites are negative. Not that the negative does not exist, it does, but I wonder if this list is biased by listing all non-Mennonite sources as negative towards Mennonites. Stettlerj 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stettler, I not accept this characterization. Some of my sources were negative, some were positive. I added an number on new ones today which are both positive, negative and neutral. I also suggest that how any one person sees a source has a lot to do with who they are and how attached they are to a particular POV. I will note that before I added these sources that article was sourced with almost all official Church sources which did not reflect any of these realities. I also note that the content in this article panders to positive POV and needs much NPOV balance. There is no attempt by me here to add ONLY negative POV. There is much that is positive about Mennonites. However, Mennonites have concealed negative POV content about Mennonites in secrecy for centuries which is why Britannica and other mainstream sources seem to omit the 'blood and guts' of Mennonite/Anabaptist histories. When I begin to see some matches between other sources and Mennonite sources here I will become less what you see as negative and I see as balanced. I will note that nowhere in any other article have I had to fight so hard for so little even in Feminism or Religion which are highly controversial articles too. I am American and I note that the same fights go on in the mainstream media over US torture at GITMO. Yet as a human being I welcome negative stories about Americans who do hienous things like torture so it can be stopped...and so I/we are not the next targets to be tortured by our own government in a police state. On occasion, some Mennonites have done bad things to others, in the name of God, Menno, or Love which I expect to be shown here. In the past these traditions have been silenced, concealed and covered up much like the US government is doing with ongoing torture. Sometimes there is a negative reaction to such news but that is from the POV of the beholder. I will also note that some Mennonites see negative news as very positive because it allows them to face issues head on. This is what Linda Espenshade found in her four part series Silenced by Shame about Mennonite/Amish Domestic Violence, Child sexual abuse and incest. So again, positive or negative perception often depends on the POV of the reader rather than the content IMHO.Anacapa 04:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptist/Mennonite Theology, Mind control and One True Church links

I have removed a link to Mind control, which seems to be an attempt to imply that Mennonites use mind control techniques without actually backing it up with evidence. I explain this in more detail on Talk:Anabaptist where the editor did the same thing, and main discussion should probably go there. However I suspect that the editor is making a common mistake of assuming that all Mennonites are Old Order Mennonites. Now I think it is highly doubtful that Old Order Mennonites practice any form of mind control, but if that is what the editor meant then the link should be there, not here. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I intended no such inferences to be made from this or from the other Non-Mennonite sources I added there. Please do not 'suspect' me sans discussion. The Non-Mennonite sources I add are attempts to show the full scope of Mennonitism as there is much diversity among Mennonites that is not shown in the article. I added Mind control related content to the Anapbaptist article and will be glad to source/discuss how and where that applies here. Anacapa 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the 'one true church' link because Mennonites in general do not believe that their denomination is the 'one true church', and I could find no mention in the referenced site. Again, you may be thinking of Old Order Mennonites. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Historically, there may be some kernel of truth here. However, even if references can be found, it would still be difficult to show that Mennonites were significantly different in this respect from other religious groups of the same time period. People tend to be a product and reflection of their time. The link removed refers to Holdeman Mennonites which is a more insular group where that type of thinking is perhaps more likely. JonHarder 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

People also tend to be a product of their histories, especially Anabaptists, Amish and Mennonites who sometimes stay stuck in one time. ONE-TRUE Church ideology is also a core part of many Non-Mennonite church ideologies. It deserves to be shown here where it is/was being used. I suspect it is being used much more covertly now than it used to be. I also suspect it is much less extreme in Mainstream and Progressive Mennonite churches. Anacapa 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have objection to the link being inserted in an article about the Holdeman Mennonites, assuming that the statements can be substantiated. DJ Clayworth 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

DJ, NO OFFENSE but I have no idea what you mean with this statement above. The Holdemans are Mennonites too. The main Mennonite article includes all known Mennonites from old-fashioned to progressive. IMHO I have a right to include material here about any group of mennonites as I have about the progressive Mennonites as well. My intent here is to capture the full scope of the field not to imply that all Mennonites are the same. Anacapa 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write "I would have no objection... DJ Clayworth 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all above for the discussion about the Comparing the One True Churches link. Please ignore my last edit comment. I added the one true church link here because the Anapbaptist and Mennonite confessions of faith (shown here in the article) are full of one true church etc, etc statements. The Holdemans just stated core Mennonite beliefs that are stated in the Anabaptist/Mennonite confessions of faith. 'One-True-belief' is a core part of the early anabaptist and contemporary Mennonite tradition. I insist on this link because it is a source to study this with. I will be glad to make distinctions between Holdemans and other mennonites when I/we write this up in the main article but I insist on using it as a source since ONE-TRUE church belief is the whole basis for the Anabaptist/Mennonite theology as shown here in the faith confessions. Please suggest ways we can write this up with representative balance in the main article. Anacapa 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by the above is that what the Holdeman Mennonites believe is not necessarily what other Mennonites believe. Your including the link (which is entirely about Holdeman Mennonites and not others) is implicitly trying to state that other Mennonites also believe this. It may be 'a source to study with', but if it is about only a specific (and very small and extreme) sect then it belongs on the article about that sect. Otherwise it is misleading, because it implies (mistakenly) that all Mennonites believe this. I've said before, it is appropriate to place the link on the article about the group it refers to.

Now you may believe that Anabaptist and Mennonite confessions of faith are full of what you call 'one true church stuff'. But to put that here you need evidence. My reading of them is very different. However feel free to quote passages to back up your point of view. We can examine them piece by piece if you like.

I'll refrain from removing your link for now, purely in the interests of reducing edit war. But please give some evidence in the next day or so. I await your evidence. DJ Clayworth 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have a copy of a typical Mennonite confession of Faith, so here is a link to a pretty generally believed one. Feel free to read. Article 9 is the most relevant. DJ Clayworth 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To DJ thanks for the clarification above. I also added clarifications in the meantime. I am implicity trying to state nothing here so please do not read my motivations sight unseen. YOUR take on my source is YOUR take on it. Other Non-Mennonites would see a source that studies all churches including even the Mormons or Catholics who also use ONE-TRUE Church ideologies. Thanks for your restraint on removing the link. I will exercise restraint too as I go forward. I will also be glad to work with you on misleading links. For example if the HOLDEMANs are not considered Mennonites at all this specific link could indeed be misleading. Please direct me to references in the articles that show these distinctions clearly so I can see who is who here. I will also be glad to soure some of the many ONE TRUE CHURCH statements in the Anabaptist/Mennonite Faith Confessions pending your examination. I prefer to use the official faith confessions linked in the theology section here so we use a common basis but I will also glance at your reference above. This will take some time so please be patient. Anacapa 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The "One True Church" page does not provide additional information on the Mennonites, so much as it attacks them for what they are. Growing up in a Methodist family, I read in the church doctrine that they insist on adherence only in that which is essential, and in all other matters they allow members to have diverse opinions. I felt that was uncommonly decent of them - but when I got older and started looking around, I found that ALL churches insist that true members believe what the church believes. That's what the definition of a church is - a group of people with doctrine in common. Because the "One True Church" is intended to be persuasive, rather than factual, it's not NPOV and highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. No matter how much you (and I) may agree that blind faith is dangerous, the Wikipedia is about information, nor persuasion. Sorry. The link needs to go. ClairSamoht 08:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Clair above. I grew among orthodox Non-Holdeman Mennonites who also use theology and doctrine very similar to the Holdemans. I also note that Holdeman Mennonite article states that Holdemans closely follow core Mennonite doctrine. However, this theology and doctrine is not well explained in the Mennonite article at all. I added this link to promote discussion and to see if we could find NPOV balance here. 'ALL-Church' POV is also POV for those 1.1 billion people (see religion) on the planet who are irreligious so I see no cause to throw out other points of view just because they are different. This link shows that many churches use ONE TRUE Church ideologies, some more than others. It even mentions the Catholics who use it a little but not exclusively. ONE TRUE ideology is a well known form of totalitarian mind control used in totalitarian states planetwide. To test and study core church theologies as we do political ideologies is quite valid here because these theologies/ideologies have real consequences to real people. To me this link provides much additional info about Mennonites not studied in the article at all. It compares the theology that many One True churches use not just some Mennonites and it shows some of the consequences of those beliefs to members. I believe most people are grown up enough to compare these sourced statements and draw their own conclusions. However, I, too, am sensitive to the tone here because this material comes from cult exiters who themselves use cultish techniques to fight cultish groups. My attempt here is to make faith much less blind so we can see the theologies that govern particular groups whether it be ALL church faith or just the faith of a few churches. We live in world where blind faith must be questioned with reason because in the Middle East OTHERWISE NICE young suicide bombers blow themselves and other innocents up in hopes of having sex with 72 virgins in a heaven where the streets are paved with gold.. etc. Some orthodox Mennonites, Amish and Hutterite groups also use blind faith to do terrible damage to members who question or rebel against their control (see shunning). Blind faith is what led to the Jonestown mass suicide too. Clearly there is cause here to question and study faith itself. HOW we do this with NPOV balance I am willing to discuss but information about dangerous theologies belongs here as well even if ALL churhes use some or all of it. Please suggest how I can meet your concerns and meet mine too. I suggest a glance at Sam Harris' The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future Of Reason (2004) for someone else's take on these concerns. Anacapa 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, it is now a week since you said that "I will also be glad to soure some of the many ONE TRUE CHURCH statements in the Anabaptist/Mennonite Faith Confessions pending your examination.". You have not done so. Given that ClairSamoht also found that the link was relevant only to the Holdeman branch of Mennonites I've removed it. I've put it in the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite article. If you can come up with those sources we can consider putting it back. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Other sources both 'good' and 'bad'

Wow, you are really determined... you know you missed a recent book about an excommunicated Amish that you could use as ammunition. You seem to not know it is out there otherwise you would certainly be quoting it's title. It is Chris Burkholder - Former Amish writes tell-all, and you know, I will probably read it myself, i guess the "mind control" did not work for me :). By the way, were you really Mennonite, and if so, if you don't mind me asking, what kind precisely? Although there is an old order group called "orthodox mennonites" in Ontario, it is such a small group I would be surprised if you came from there. But you never know with all the mennonite subgroups, maybe there is another one with that name Stettlerj 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way I would suggest reading Miriam Toews book, A complicated kindness. It won the governor general's award in Canada. I don't think Mennonites are scared of this part of their history, as you seem to suggest. The author also does not portray Mennonites all that badly anyway, and the author is proud to consider herself a Mennonite today although a non practicing one. Stettlerj 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj, please do not mistake determination for hatred. From your Amish tell all, and other sources including Ms Toews (see the A Complicated Kind of Author link on this article) there are still quite a few (number and faces unknown of course) people including innocents who are being hurt by shunning or others forms of hidden violence inside official Amish/Mennonite silence, shame, and denial. When I see official Mennonite or Amish leaders ahead of the news media on this and other uncomfortable topics, I will be able to go back to 'sleep'. Shame kills, lies kill, and denial kills which is what (rather than who) I do hate here. Thanks for the source on the Amish...it could help us all with Excommunication, Shunning and Amish but please notice that I added a source from Amish in their own words too in Amish because I value all POV's and hate to see a whole article about a whole group of people with no statements from them about themselves. I am tickled to see that you still have your mind! However, mind control is quite insidious so I always wonder about myself (now watch the character assassins here have a field day with this!) I will not disclose who I am here. I suggest you glance at your talk page, the history of this article and the Silenced by Shame series to understand why. I will do what I can to respect those here who respect me however with feedback, comments and sources. Your willingness to share 'negative' content goes a long way with me and I will not intentionally abuse it or use it as ammunition for perjorative reasons. I will go find Complicated Kindness because I like authors who call a spade a spade in the face of shame. I think you might be one of the least scared Mennonites(?) here on these pages which is nice to see.Anacapa 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Holdeman Mennonites: Are they Mennonites/Representative of Mennonites?

Anacapa, no problem. Let's try and work together. I don't know whether other Mennonits consider the Haldemans to be part of the general Mennonite fellowship - I suspect not, since their doctrines are so radically different from other Mennonites. So here is my point. Putting the link here makes it seem like the statements on the website apply to all Mennonites - even if you didn't intend that, it's how people will read it. The statements don't apply to most Mennonites so it is misleading. Putting the link on the Haldeman Mennonite page is clear and relevant. I don't see what the problem is with simply moving the link (though you'd have to take into account the objections from ClairSamoht above, which I agree with to some extent).

I too am willing to work with you on this. I will also be glad to pull this link from the Mennonite page the moment I see someone write up a sound sourced statement in the Mennonite article stating that the Haldemans are NOT Mennonites. As for that statement that this link applies to all Mennonites I will change the link title now to eliminate that mistaken perception and show the source biases. I added the further reading section precisely because there are many types of Mennonites which need to be shown both orthodox and progressive that are not well represented in the Mennonite article now. There is no known and sourced consensus on most Mennonites now which is obvious from reading the news sources against the article here. There is no Mennonite POPE who enforces one type of Mennonitism worlwide. Mennonites have been and are a fractious bunch with much variety in many independent denominations. This needs to be well-represented here. If the Haldemans are indeed Mennonites article about the Haldemans belong here because they represent one rather extreme example of the full scope of Mennonitism. I will also note that the Holdeman articles states how closely Haldemans follow core Mennonite doctrine (as do other orthodox Mennonite churches I know of) so this link contains much that is representative of orthodox Mennonite theology and is therefore at least temporarily relevant as we discuss this. Again I just want to see us discuss this so we bring real represention to this article and let the chips fall where they may.Anacapa 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I, Tony Toews, am of Mennonite heritage living in western Canada. Three of my aunts and uncles are currently Haldemon Mennonites. Many of my relatives now belong to the Mennonite Brethren conference. My maternal grandmother was kicked out when she married a non Haldemon Mennonite. My paternal grandmother was a Haldemon Mennonite until she died a few years ago. In my opinion I consider the Haldemon Mennonites to be a bit of an extreme example of Mennonites but definitely Mennonites. From all the conversations I've ever had with my many relatives, non Haldomon, we would all consider them to be Mennonites as well. Feel free to email me at tony at tonytoews dot com if I can be of any admittedly non academic assistance.

Tony, thanks for weighing in here. I am going to ask you to assist us with POV checks. If you could add perspective, ask questions and break logjams that would be a big benefit to me. We can pull the academic content in but it is hard to break the POV logjams unless we have more neutral observers. If you can help with this I for one sure would love to see you assist us.Anacapa 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Faith Confessions: NPOV sources, NPOV representation and possible conflicts of interest?

As for applicability to the rest of the Mennonites, I await your references with interest. However I'm really not sure what you mean about wanting to use 'official' Mennonite sources. The link I gave you is the official statement of the Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church, who are two very substantial denominations within the Mennonite movement. I don't think you are going to find anything much more official. There's another one here, which is very similar and from the Mennonite Brethren, another big Mennonite denomination. DJ Clayworth 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By 'official' sources, I mean Mennonite sources written by Mennonites for Mennonites such as the Mennonite Encyclopedia and other references. These sources tend to have built in biases and omissions because they are written be people attached in some way to Mennonitism. I tend to trust secular sources with no implicit or explicit conflicts of interest for NPOV studies of Anapbaptists and Mennonites but that is often a pipe dream because there are so few of these sources. The Mennonite Church USA seems to be setting itself up as an official source but as its membership is only about 33%? of total US Membership and falling, I question whether it can really represent the full scope of all the other independent Mennonite denominations that contain the other 66% of members. Hope that answers your questions above.

Anacapa 02:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another take on your question above is that I also prefer where possible to use reputable official sources already used in this article so some common ground for comparison is possible. As each Mennonite conference in each nation writes up it's own stuff the web fills up with so much non-standard sources that it is impossible to use universal references. There is no single Mennonite POPE to demand one single standard here so who knows what is going on among all Mennonites. I find myself trying to sort out all this confusion so for now I will use this article's sources/references as a starting point although I question many of them because they link directly to Mennonite sites for Mennonites. Those Canadian references were helpful but different than US references. Seems like we have a little tower of babble effect going on here (which I am familiar with from experiences in other big organizations ...so no offense please.)Anacapa 07:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of the links I supplied above are official sources. They are the confessions fo faith from two of the largest conferences of Mennonites, from their website - i.e. written by Mennonites and for Mennonites just like you said. Given the level of fragmentation within the Mennonite community I would be surprised if you can find anything more official. Encyclopedias are mostly going to be less official. I'm happy to look at source from other Mennonite conferences, but if most of them contain similar statements (and I have seen no indication to the contrary) then we can generalise and say that Mennonites (in general) do not believe that their church is the only true church.

Holdemans again (please move to that section)

As for the Holdeman Mennonites, I am not stating that they are not Mennonites. Their theology may be similar to other Mennonites in many ways. However, on the evidence I have been able to find, including the links I posted above, one of the ways in which their theology differs significantly from other Mennonites is in this 'one true church' aspect that the link talks about. Holdeman's believe they are the only church, other Mennonites do not. Once again I have to say that the proper place for a link that entirely talks about one very small Mennonite subgroup is on the article about that subgroup.

You also said, two days ago, "I will also be glad to soure some of the many ONE TRUE CHURCH statements in the Anabaptist/Mennonite Faith Confessions". However I don't see any of these statements here. I have provided two links to official Mennonite sources that state the opposite very clearly. DJ Clayworth 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also said please be patient then. There are many confusing issues to sort out here. First, I have to know who is who and where and who worships what, why and how so we can decide what links are relevant at all here. I am guessing from the discussions that Holdemans are considered Mennonites but I notice no one has come out and stated anything one way or the other. To me, anyone who calls themselves Mennonite is Mennonite but that is just my POV.

Could you run this to ground first with sources? My hands are full right now. Anacapa 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Holdeman's are considered Mennonites by most people, including the World Mennonite Conference. As for sorting out confusing issues, if you are not certain that your link applied to most Mennonites then the link should be removed; in fact I've done so. See below. If and when you come back with sources to indicate the general applicability of the link then it can go back. I gave you sources above which show very clearly that neither Mennonite Brethren nor Mennonite Church consider that they are the one true church. That's a big chunk of Mennonites right there. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal question

Anacapa, since you say you grew up among Mennonites with a theology similar to the Holdemans, maybe you should say which subgroup this is. Then we can start to identify which subgroups hold to that kind of theology and which do not. DJ Clayworth 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I insist on all groups with all forms of worship/theology be shown in an article about all Mennonites. If I was a Mennonite in India or Africa or South America or even in our neighbor Mexico I would want to myself well and fairly represented in the article especially since 'I' do outnumber US/Canada Mennonites so much. I don't see how telling you about those groups I know of makes much difference here. This article is not about me or you. It is about ALL Mennonites. I also suggest you read recent comments I made on your talk page and the history of character assassination attempts on this article's edit comments to see why I might be hesitant to become so specific. (yes I was an outraged beginner on wiki and I could have been cleaner too then but I did and I do refrain from personal attacks here) Anacapa 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note

On a lighter note, congrats to Cindy Klassen a Mennonite girl, woman, who won five medals and lighted up the olympics for canada at Turin! Stettlerj 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, good one Cindy! DJ Clayworth

Also Ben Heppner who sang the national anthem for Canadian segment of the Olympic closing ceremony is or was a Mennonite. (He is a soloist on current West Coast Mennonite Chamber Choir CDs.) JonHarder 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add to List of Mennonites. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Population representation, Who's who/where? and who worships what/how?

Encyclopedia Britannica, states that: "the largest single body (of Mennonites) is the Old Order Mennonite Church, following are the General Conference Mennonite Church, The Mennonite Brethen and the Old Order Amish. Most extreme are the Hutterian Brethren who..." I suggest this article include some accurate statement of who the various groups of Mennonites are along with their approximate numbers and associated traditions. I question this summary because they include Amish as Mennonites. Anacapa 04:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good information and it should be in the article. Yes the Amish are generally considered as part of the Mennonite movement. I think even the Amish themselves would say they were part of it. There are some sources on the subject a couple of sections down from here. DJ Clayworth 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Could you point me to the sections you see these sources in? I agree that Amish are of Mennonite origin but I wonder how we should make distinctions between Amish and Mennonite groups here since we have separate articles on each here in Wikipedia I suggest keeping them separate and studying Mennonites in the Mennonite article and the Amish in the Amish article. Please comment.

Also I think we should explain the Mennonite conferences and who they do and do not include. Here is what Britannica says about that:

"Most Mennonite congregrations are joined together in numerous conferences, seven of which are in North America. The Amish, Hutterian Brethren, and some conservative Mennonites do not form conferences (emphasis mine to show why these groups might be missing and misunderstood by other Mennonites). Since 1925 there has been a Mennonite World Conference that meets every five years for fellowship, study, and inspiration but does not make decisions binding (emphasis mine) on it's member bodies."

I want to see which churches, worldwide, these various conferences include, which conferences make what binding decisions on their member churches and which do not, and what churches fall outside of all conferences so we have an accurate census of Mennonite conferences and their binding consenses as well as the independent churches. I also suspect this Britanica statement needs some corrections to reflect current realities. In any article about Mennonites (or Amish) we should see who is worshiping what, where (worldwide) and in what numbers so a representative assessment is possible. This also might help a lot with the confusion about who does what and the edit wars about proper proportionality etc. Please suggest secular or NPOV sources here and please suggest where and how to do this in the article.Anacapa 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the Britannica article from a very old version? If not I would be surprised if it was seriously out of date. Memberships of churches don't usually change hugely over ten years or so. Why would it need correcting? In terms of sources the websites of the individual conferences are going to be the primary ones. They will be the best sources of basic facts about each conference. DJ Clayworth 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica edition I use is the latest in my (good) local library. I can check the pub date but I believe it is quite recent because the books are quite new. The reason for my fact-check questions is that there is nothing shown in Britannica about the conference merger in 1995? I will go find the official Mennonite sources and write up something in the article from those on Mennonite membership. From what I found so far, it is clear that the vast majority of US Mennonites are members of independent denominations outside the control of the Mennonite Church USA conference. These independent denominations and their specific theologies/traditions may not be well known to Mennonite Church USA Mennonites. This might explain why so little proportional representation seems to be present in this article about orthodox and/or progressive Mennonite denominations. Maybe with sound data we can prevent useless edit wars based on mere speculation. I note that this data has been educational for me too. (I am using the Mennonite Church USA's Historical committee's statistics on US and Worldwide Mennonite membership.) Anacapa 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, thanks a lot for all your work on gathering these statistics. It's especially admirable that you've taken the time to sort through all these confusing names and statistics as a non-Mennonite. Funnily enough, I was responsible for posting the page of statistics on the Mennonite Church USA's Historical committee's site that you're referring to. I agree that these numbers point to a large population of independent Mennonite churches outside Mennonite Church USA. This fits with anecdotal reports that I've heard that suggest these smaller conferences of more traditional or conservative Mennonites are where most of the growth among Mennonites is happening. However, keep in mind that these figures also include the Brethren in Christ and Mennonite Brethren churches who are also members of Mennonite World Conference[2] and were included in the 319,768 figure that is listed in the second table on the MCUSA Historical Committee page as it was take from the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ World Directory 2000. I know, I should have made the table more clear. I take full responsibility for the confusion. Although not for the confusing org names. That's an endemic Menno problem.

Your statistics/charts were clean and clear...and fun to interpret with words. Your source is about the only thing in official Mennonite sources that is quite clear to me and I imagine, other non-Mennonites. When I glance at news articles on Mennonites and Amish I see a whole host of wildly varying statistics tossed around. Your archives were refreshing and assist the potential of WIKI to cut such confusion by having everything sourced and shown in one place. Anything else you can do to make clear breakdowns in the data (or source those breakdowns) would be quite valuable develop specific data-based assessments of who is who where and who worships what how? I also welcome additional distinctions in between Churches,(capital C) and churches (lower case c). I also welcome data on the automomous churches since they seem to contain majority of membership and seem to be being ignored here.Anacapa 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This definitely raises questions about who is really being described in the wikipedia "Mennonite" article. There is such a wide range of beliefs and practices within this label that someone is bound to come along sooner or later and disagree with just about any generalisations made. This also raises challenges because the indendent Mennonite conferences, who tend to be more conservative, are less likely to be visible on-line or contributing to wikipedia.

I think the article is moving in the right direction with the Mennonite's today section focusing on describing the global statistics. I think you are right that we need to be clear about how all the umbrella organisations relate to each other. Once we've established that, then specifics of current Mennonite practices, teaching, etc. should be moved to more specific pages dealing with these smaller groups. As you point out, this solution is much more productive and helpful than edit wars.

Careful here! (to the two paragraphs above). I insist that a main article about ALL Mennonites worldwide reflect all Mennonites worldwide well and that includes current Mennonite content in a broad survey with links to or short statements about specific groups. As it stands, this article is awash in history (which itself is full of Third Way Cafe POV and biased toward US history) It needs much more current content to be the least bit relevant to most non-Mennonites IMHO. News article are much more interesting, informative and NPOV than what I see here and they often include Mennonite history too. There seems to be a sneaky self-serving attempt here (for political purposes I suspect) by some Mennonites groups to dissassociate themselves from other Mennonites in this article about ALL Mennonites. There also seems to be a self-serving attempt to dominate this article with minority group POV. Broad distinctions do need to be made here but such dissassocation distinctions (gays/shunning or whatever) belong on the specific sites such as MC USA or whatever. On the other hand I will tolerate no attempts to hide the full (and broad) scope of Mennonite current events and NPOV history on this article as it applies to ALL Mennonites, since as you stated above the 'conservatives' seem to be the majority and seem to be growing the fastest too. I know all the data is not in and it is much to soon to draw conclusions but your data (and my interpretations) sure did shatter a huge number of false impressions in the article already. This article cannot be allowed to be hijacked by any one group as it's special POV platform. It must represent ALL Mennonites world-wide well with balanced NPOV that includes ALL Mennonite 'idealities' and realities at least in broad statements. The specifics can indeed be handled in the specific articles but I insist on NO contradictions and NO glaring ommissions between this ALL-Mennonite article and the other associated articles including those about specific groups. I am as interested in what the African Mennonites are doing as I am the US Mennonites. It was shocking to me to find out from a stranger that Mennonitas existed in Mexico because I was so ignorant. I hope WIKI will dispel such ignorance and shatter false impressions. However, I am quite aware from the battles on these pages, The Third Way Cafe and from reading NPOV news media articles that some Mennonite groups use false impressions, the truth be D______, for self-serving political 'identification' purposes. I also know that some groups don't want to be identified with other groups or with a whole and authentic Mennonite history here because they want to be seen as modern or whatever. That is intolerable if this article is to be balanced NPOV. I cannot source all this content but I can see and call POV's. I hope Mennonites will be honest here and include all POV's about Mennonites, including those from NPOV non-Mennonites about Mennonites. Again, I mean no offense here and I make no accusations as these are just my perceptions. I just wish I could have as much faith in ALL Anabaptist sources as I did yours!Anacapa 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a minor point. Shound't this whole NPOV balance, comparisons with other sources topic/section be at the bottom of this page? I think it makes it easier to follow the latest discussions if we always add the latest topic to the bottom of the page. If there are no objections, I'll move it down after a day or two. mennonot 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the titles here to cut confusion. Please move as you see fit and do any additional cleanup that seems appropriate. I will try to add new discussions to the bottom unless they relate to a unresolved point in a section above. Please comment suggest on the best protocol here so we don't repeat unresolved sections.Anacapa 04:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote up some membership content from Mennonite Church USA statistics. I welcome feedback and corrections and understand that during merges that data can get messed up. I hope to see much more readable statements about the various Mennonnite umbrella organizations and who, where and how they organize Mennonite denominations. I also suggest a table of some kind if we are going to show Mennonite churches in all nations worldwide to save space. Anacapa 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a slight alteration to the way the demographics is phrased. It is true that the two large churches (MC and MB) do indeed represent a minority of denominations, but that is because most of the denominations are tiny organisations of one or two congregations. As far as I can tell in North America the combination of MB and MC outnumbers other Mennonites. Only the New Order Amish come close for size. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The total US membership in the Mennonite Church USA, Brethren in Christ, and the Mennonite Brethren conferences is less than 160,000 US Mennonites of a total of 346,000? or so which is less than a majority. I totaled these numbers directly from the articles. I asked that Mennonote who has good data source this (see his talk page and comments above) if it is wrong. For now, I am going to rewrite the Population section alteration to reflect these realities. Please do not alter statements there unless there is data and please source it somehow. I will be glad to follow the numbers as they come in but please make no alterations before discussions and data here so we can avoid edit wars. Membership in these tiny independent churchs (ie not just congregrations but churches) needs to counted somehow too here so we can use facts rather than opinion to write NPOV content.Anacapa 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just finished another stab at Population. This is getting to be quite confusing with no sound sources other than a few websites. I am quite willing to wrong about majority and minority statements but so far the numbers show that the majority of Mennonites worship in independent churches worldwide. Are there any sound numbers available on membership within and without independent (to avoid miscounts) Churches/Conferences worldwide. And just out of curiosity does anyone know how Mennonites take census on other Mennonites. Is the count unbiased and complete where the little unaffiliated churches are concerned? Please discuss and correct any mistakes in the content with sourced data.Anacapa 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have made a mistake in adding up. I get 147,000 MC and 61,000 MB alone in North America. Also you forgot to look at Asia, where there are another 100,000 MB Mennonites. Adding in Africa that gives these two conferences more than 350,000 out of an estimated 1.2m Mennonites. But these are far from being the only conferences or churches. You will find many dozens of of conferences with five to ten thousand members, and many, many more with a few thousand. The number of congregations that exist entirely independently is tiny. Even the Markham Mennonites exist as a conference, and they are just 1300 people. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed-section

One True Church Link

I added the one true church link back because it has content that is common to all orthodox (as in the dictionary) Mennonite churches. Please do not remove it again until we finish this discussion to avoid edit wars. I will note that the Further reading section is not covered by Jon Harder's rules above...however I do intend to follow his rules for Further reading as much as possible as soon as we achieve some consensus here. I have read all the points several other editors made above about the One True Church link and many of them make sense to me. However, I see no reflection in the article of orthodox Mennonite worship. Since the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite Holdemans are closer to Menno Simons and orthodox Mennonitism than are so-called 'modern' Mennonites this source is of general interest (both present day and historical) and is a source for the main article...IMHO. That said, I also want to be fair to modern Mennonites who do not want to be steoreotyped falsely as extreme One True church Mennonites.

So here is what I suggest. We add complete, balanced and NPOV content in the main article summarizing Menno Simon's doctrines and orthodox Mennonitism using the Holdemans as one example and adding other known orthodox churches as we find them such as Stettler found in Excommunication. Once that is complete, we link the Holdemans article here and then I move the One True Church link to the Holdeman article along with all other non-general Holdeman related sources in Further reading. Will this satisfy all the concerns discussed above? Please comment and where problems occur please suggest possible solutions that speak to NPOV balance here. In the meantime, I will wait and add no new Holdeman content to Further reading. Anacapa 06:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to summarise 'mainstream' Mennonite doctrine and to take a couple of examples. If we do that we should take an example from the mainstream and an example from the stricter communities. Logically the mainstream should be either Mennonite Brethren or Mennonite Church, since they are the largest. As for the others I would think that Old Order Mennonite or Old Order Amish would be better examples since they are larger. However I would have no particular objection to using the Holdemans as the strict example. Incidentally the 'one true church' link is already on that article. DJ Clayworth 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mennonite|Membership|Organization worldwide

Editor Mennonot and I have been discussing how to show Mennonite membership in the many diverse Churches (capital C) and Conferences (capital C) that exist worldwide. Please see our discussions on his and my talk pages. Since there are so many organizations, none of which represent even close to a majority of the total number of Mennonites worldwide, I am going to make the following suggestions as guidelines for how we might show ALL Mennonites in a limited amount of space. I hope this will help us cut confusion, shatter false impressions and give us a common basis upon which to complete this sub-section.

1. We list the 10 largest automomous (eg. no co-dependent or dependent bonds with other groups) Churches or Conferences in descending order by name, with number of members and number of congregations. Hopefully this will capture 80% or so of the 1.3 MM Mennonites worldwide.
2. Then we total the remaining number of Churches, Conferences and show their total combined membership and total combined congregrations without listing them each by name.
3. Last, we name/link a few totally independent churches (lower case c) (such as maybe the Holdemans etc) to show what we mean, and follow that with a total of all independent churches (lower case c), their total combined membership and their total combined congregations.
4. We test all statements in this entire Membership section that might have been made based on false impressions after the data comes in and we know who is who here.
5. later we do something similar with the largest continent which is North America (including Mexico, the U.S., and Canada). Note, I am going to change that Subtitle from US to North America so that no one can claim a U.S. POV here.

Please feel free to add other suggestions to this list or comment on each specific suggestion (with specifics please) so that we can move toward some sort of consensus on this very confusing topic. Anacapa 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach to me. I just found MENNONITE CHURCH DIRECTORY which would be an excellent source for the semi-independent more conservative congregations. JonHarder 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I have been trying to get this too but so far have been unsuccessful. Thanks for linking it here for us all to use. However, I get a 'file not found' error when I click on it. Any suggestions? Anacapa 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa suggested copying our discussion about this article from our respective talk pages to here, so find the thread that we've written over the last 2 days copied below. mennonot 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to assist with Anapabaptists/Mennonite facts/data. Could we begin with just getting the Population section complete and somewhat representative of the data? What would help me is a figure for the 2003 total US Mennonites. Also do you have a breakdown on how many US Mennonites belong to what conferences (versus automonous churches) so we can eliminate opinion based arguments here? I am going to try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages so no one feels blindsided...so please source these there or on a link. Also I welcome your sourced edits to clean up statements that may be false so long as we keep moving toward a more specific and complete picture there. Maybe with more facts we will be able to associate specific practices with specific groups so no ONE group feels unfairly steoreotyped through association with other groups. Anacapa 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your ongoing work on the Mennonite article. The best breakdown of North American Mennonites by conference appears to be here: http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/namerica.html which is part of the Mennonite World Conference directory which also includes stats from other continents: http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/index.htm The most interesting thing I found from reading this is that two Mennonite conferences in the Democratic Republic of Congo and one in Tanzania are both much bigger than Mennonite Church Canada (see http://www.mwc-cmm.org/Directory/africa.html). I've tried to correct for this in the article.

I'm still not completely clear about how you are defining autonomous. Are you referring to some of the smaller conference listed in the North America MWC directory like "Keystone Mennonite Fellowship" and "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and Related Areas"? Or is autonomous defined as not listed in this directory at all? mennonot 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to dig here, for your sources and for editing/correcting mistakes/misperceptions with data. I hope we can somehow show ALL Mennonites fairly and accurately in this section with data that everyone can agree with. That said, it looks like quite a job and I am glad you are here to point us in the right direction(s) and I hope to add content that fleshes out the whole picture too. I am not sure 'autonomous' is my word because I seem to remember finding it there before I began. However, I do want to see which Mennonites are under Church or Conference control and which are automonous or independent. I tend to use the dictionary to define words because I have found that it cuts confusion and pointless debates over meaning. Here is what I found for 'autonomous':

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; INDEPENDENT: an automomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed
3. Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs
4. Autonomous: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole.

Hope that helps. I have no idea how to make this distinction now. Do Mennonites make this distinction and if so how? How do you suggest we break this data down?

Also do you know how to move content like the above to the main pages discussions so that other editors can see this too. I am concerned about back channel discussions between us that might exclude others. Could you comment on wiki protocol here and suggest ways we can continue this so that everyone benefits from our discussions and no one feels excluded? Anacapa 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"the majority of Mennonite churches are entirely autonomous.". Could we change the wording here, because I think our readers will misunderstand. While Mennonites use 'Church' to mean a grouping of congregations (such as Mennonite Church USA) readers may think it means that most congregations are entirely independent, which is only true to some extent, since most are members of conferences and the larger churches. DJ Clayworth 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated some fo the numbers for North America and added some of the stats about the IMC. One of the DR Congo organisations is the Congo branch of the Mennonite Brethren, so I lumped them in together with the other MBs. Also worked out a lower bound on how many members the IMC represents - it may be much higher. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all the editor who added comments above and especially to editor Mennonot for his assistance to move us ahead so with good sourced data and suggestions. I tried to lay a base tonite for followup flesh outs. I suggest we name someone as the stats or data person go to and pick a single year to bring all the stats up to the same year. As I have only a few stat sources I suggest Mennonot or Jon Harder as possible collector and verifier of the stats. Is this suggestion at all interesting to either of you or anyone else? I will be back with a closer look at all your new comments above next time. Anacapa 07:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is now a nice section. I have a slight doubt about the Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada. As far as I can tell they were formed during the big North American merger by simply taking the merged churches and dividing on geographical lines. There doesn't seem to be any overarching organisation to which they belong, but they also seem to have virtually identical beliefs and practices. Should we list them as one denomination or two? DJ Clayworth 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there. I appreciate your help here. As for MC USA and MC Canada, I don't know the answer. I suggest check of the definition above and then a fact check. For example do they combine funds/fundraising? Do they insist on exactly the same doctrine? Do they have a single headquarters/website etc? My instinct says to separate but I need more facts to make a decision. What are the facts here and how would you apply 'automomous' above using those facts? Anacapa 00:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lombard Mennonite Church

For anyone interested, an article on Lombard Mennonite Church is being considered for deletion. You can share your thought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombard Mennonite Church. JonHarder 14:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The result was merge to Illinois Mennonite Conference. JonHarder 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Beachy Amish Mennonites

I notice there is a See also link to the Beachy Amish here. Could anyone tell me whether they are considered Amish or Mennonite for the purposes of membership? Scott says they are much closer now to Mennonite than Amish but I'd like some other sources so we can decide where they belong.Anacapa 08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Types of worship today section

I added this section to capture and study the full scope of Mennonite worship today. It is loosely modeled after Scott's classifications (a source that editor Stettlerj used to add content to Excommunication). I added 'moderate' and 'progressive' to his classifications. I also moved the Theology section back to the top (as it was originally) so that when readers get to this section they will have the background to understand what these types of worship mean minus repetitive explanations.

I welcome comments and suggestions on proper placement etc etc. My intent here is to summarize the many 'flavors' of Mennonites as journalists do so that people can make sense of this vast panopoly of distinct traditions as Mennonites and as non-Mennonites. I forsee short studies of each flavor with representative examples links and some loose estimate of membership in each flavor. Anacapa 09:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the section, but I don't think the title is right. The differences cover far more than what most people think of as 'worship'; lifestyles, theologies and other practices. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ I changed the title to respond to your concerns. I am still open for suggestions on this.

For example 'doctrine', might be better than 'church discipline'.

I suggest dividing this section in the same way as the membership count. That will keep the sections consistent and understandable and one doesn't have to create labels and decide which group goes under what label. Let the reader determine from the information if a particular group is conservative or liberal or whatever or if it even matters. JonHarder 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I am not sure what you mean exactly here. Could you explain? Clearly there is much confusion both inside and outside Mennonite circles about exacly how Mennonites practice their faiths. The editor above makes a valid point about the title which speaks to some of the difficulties in classifying these groups.

My intent here is to shatter false stereotypes with specifics about each tradition in a way that is short, succinct and that is connected to Mennonnite history, theology and doctrine. Scott did a fine job with these distinctions in his 1995 book on Conservative Mennonites which has since been used in other Non-Mennonite publications to show people the various flavors of Mennonites. I don't know how any Non-Mennonite readers would be able to make these distinctions themselves as I see that many Mennonites are also unable to make them due to how many distinct and often hidden or unknown traditions there are. However, I might be missing your point here so please explain a little further what you mean. Anacapa 04:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we be using the term 'Old Order' in this section; it's a term that's understood by a lot of people with regard to Mennonites. I'm actually not sure how it relates to otherodox/conservative etc., but it would be a reference point for readers. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ, Stephen Scott, an Old Order Mennonite, himself did a fine job with these classifications in his book on Conservative Mennonites. I will bring it next time and lay out his ideas here. I also suggest you find a copy because Stettlerj did us all a big favor by bringing him on board. Let's hold resolution on all these classifications until we have common references here. I added 'moderate' and 'progressive' myself because Scott's book didn't include these flavors. Are they about right as representations of MC USA/MC Canada and the real liberal churches. Anacapa 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This coincides with what I was trying to say above. By using the same groups in the "organization" section we can be consistent throughout the article and won't need to impose another layer of labels. I'm beginning to wonder why we are making this article so difficult to edit. JonHarder 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jon, please be specific about your suggestions so I can understand you. If you have concerns about difficulty editing please be specific with them here so I can see where you want to go and work with you. The reason I created a new section here is because Organization is shaping up to be a section about demographics not worship per se. These are two entirely different and non-repetitive classifications. My intention is to have a section that fleshes out the distinct flavors of Mennonite faiths separate from demographics. I see quite easy editing as long as the Theology and History sections remain above this section to refer back to without repetition. I suggest History contain past content so that there is no repetition with this present content. I also regret any confusion I might have caused here by seeding this while Organization is still incomplete due to lack of data. I will be glad to discuss any and all possibilities here as long as we remain solution oriented. Anacapa 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to replace the classifications Orthodox, Ultra-conservative, Conservative ... Progressive with Mennonite Brethren, Mennonite Church USA, ... Conservative Mennonite Conference as in the Organization section. It removes a layer of abstraction and will make both sections somewhat consistent. The latter groups are well-defined; the former labels may cause difficulties for forming a concensus about what group fits where. With respect to the Theology section, my preference is for it to come somewhere after the history. JonHarder 04:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To address the concerns above I began a series of example edits to show my intent here, to cut confusion and to seed discussion. I moved Present-Tense content that is descriptive rather than historical in nature down into the present-tense section and modified the remaining historical content slightly to include the many other groups beside Old Orders. I added content as an example about the Holdemans but am not stuck on that language per say. What I wanted to show here is the distinction between description and demographics/geography as we need both IMHO to be able to show the who, what, where and how and why of Mennonites without confusion and repetition. I see the Theology and History sections as lead-ins to these sections since they explain the foundation/background applicable to all churches. Now I am going to stop for a few days and wait for feedback. Please let the changes be until we discuss them as they are just examples so we don't go round and round here in confusion. I will be glad to discuss/edit any specific content that is objectionable as soon as we discuss the basic flow here so for now please focus on the flow itself.

I also worked on the Organization section and asked Mennonote if he would work with me back-channel (on his talk page) on focussing this data/these dates so we can cut confusion. Please glance at my message on his discussion page. If this is a problem for anyone please let me know. My intent is to go back and forth with him there until we have a single set of standards/sources and then pop it back over here for discussion as we did before. Anacapa 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have similar concerns to Jon regarding the headers in these sections. The meanings of the categories (Orthodox, conservative) etc. are not clear. For example the "Conservative" section that you wrote would surely be better headed Old Order. The term Old Order is much more familiar to people with regard to Mennonites than Conservative. I would tend to go along with giving the MB and MC their own sections, since they (along with the Old Orders) dominate Mennonism numerically. Also, why is the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite called Orthodox? DJ Clayworth 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ, There are, of course, many ways to look at this. However, Stephen Scott who wrote the book on Conservative Mennonites does not include the MB and the MC in his classification of Conservative Mennonites. He says there are about 30,000 Conservative Mennonites in the US.

As he is an Old Order Mennonite himself he focuses on them but writes up the others two. By far the biggest single number of Conservative Mennonites are the Church of God in Christ Mennonites according to his book. 'Old Order' is just one distinct type of Conservative Mennonite among many other types according to his book. I called the Holdemans orthodox (lower case o) because they hue closely to orthodox Menno Simons' doctrine as described in their article and because they are quite distinct from other types of Conservative Mennonites. I suggest a glance at Scott's book which Stettler sourced for us which might help us build common understanding here. Anacapa 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that MB and MC get sections within the 'Conservative' section (they clearly don't fall within that category) but that they get separate sections in the "Types of Worship..." section. Not having read Scott I don't know what he means by 'Conservative Mennonites'. Does he mean the technology-rejecting groups, (what most people round here think of as Old Order) or does he cover a wider spread than that? DJ Clayworth 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My other issue with using Conservative as a label for the Old Order and similar groups is that it might cause confusion with the Conservative Mennonite Conference, which is not an Old-Order-like group. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ I decided to take my own advice and go through Scott's text again. You seem to be right here...we should call out Old Orders as a separate type. As usual these classifications are very complex and it is easy to get confused even by Scott himself. Let me try to address your concerns in the edits because most of your points are correct as far as I can see now.

As for the MB, and MC I need to know what classification they seem to be closest too here so we can discuss where to put them. If they are so distinct that no existing type fits them what are the proposed types they fit into instead. I suspect the MC USA is a moderate church but I have no idea about the MB. Please comment. Anacapa 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The complexity can be reduced by eliminating these new classifications. I still think it is cleaner to arrange this section by the same ten groups identified in Organization: worldwide. The introduction of census counts (20,000 orthodox) also mixes the purpose of this section with the next. JonHarder 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, the 10 groups in Organization:worldwide make no mention of types of worship. That is a demographic section classified merely by name of group and it would be impossible to describe all the countless types of Mennonite worship there without making that section far too long and confusing. As for the membership estimates in the Types of Worship section...I added them simply to show some idea of how big each type of worship is so we have a basic idea who is who and so we can be somewhat proportional with space here. Those counts are not intended to be census counts and they can be moved down into the content as soon as we have a clear picture here or after discussion deleted altogether. I will be glad to discuss how to reduce complexity as long as the article includes a full, complete and balanced picture of all the many Mennonite 'flavors' which was completely missing before Stettlerj came aboard with Old Order author Stephen Scott's content. As this is done in mass media articles to help people make distinctions between and avoid stereotypes of any one group of Mennonites, and as this was one of the original hot button issues raised here when I came aboard I ask that you assist me with solutions here that do create complete NPOV balance. This article is an article for all readers. My intent here is to help non-Mennonite (and from our discussions above Mennonite too!) readers make sense of a terribly complicated group of people in as simple a form as possible. Anacapa 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, just so I am sure I am listening here I will ask you how YOU see showing types of worship in a 'clean' (and complete!) fashion here. Does anyone know how those 10 groups worship? How do we show how the host of other Mennonites (not included in those 10 groups) worship? I am not locked in to a single layout here but I do insist that we do this right which is IMHO complete, NPOV balance that NON-Mennonites can easily comprehend. Please be specific with how I can work with you. I will note that this article has always been hard for me to edit too but I will do what I can to make it easier to both edit and read. Anacapa 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to replace the subheadings like Orthodox, Conservative, etc., with the name of the group being described (e.g. Conservative Conference Mennonite). Conservative, liberal, and such labels are hard to pin down, have different meanings to different people, and when a group is spread over a wide geographical area, there develops a differences between congregations putting them in several of the categories. It strikes me that placing groups in these categories then becomes original research. For instance, getting back to DJ Clayworth's concern: what source defines "orthodox," what is that definition? And so on for the other categories. Another area that will be difficult is "theological-conservatives" (and I realize this may just be part of your creative process that will be cleaned up eventually) which could include groups from all over the spectrum of outward practice. I really don't know much about theology, so I'm out on a limb here.

Jon, I wish we could use the actual names as it would be much simpler and less difficult to decide how to handle them but there are dozens of individual churches in most of the subheadings. The only NEW non-Scott definition that I used is 'orthodox' (lower case c) which is right from the dictionary as defined in the discussions above. Surely reasonable people could use a dictionary and facts to check fit here after discussion...we seem to be splitting hairs on 'orthodox'. If you can find another word that better classifies those churches that most closely resemble the first Mennonites please suggest it. Theological Conservative and another new group of Unaffiliated Conservatives are all terms that came directly from Scott and he defines them with examples. I apologize for the confusion I might have created as I try to sort out the complexity in Scott's book which is also confusing. However, I ask that you let me finish this content and then see what your concerns are after it becomes more clear. I am not fixed in stone on anything. I will clean things up so that you see that I can 'create' and edit as well. It would help if you could grab a copy of Scott or other similar sources to test me here because I cannot perfectly reflect all this complicated stuff myself.Anacapa 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

An alternative way to group things (I'm not advocating, or even suggestiong this approach, just throwing out there as an example) is by traits that are fairly obvious to everyone, especially when a clear definition is presented: horse & buggy, plain, black-bumper, or whatever. I think I'm out on a limb again.

Yes and so am I out on limb. There are so many often paradoxical distinctions between groups that it is truly mind boggling...we could fill this whole article up with just this section and still not clearly make all such distinctions clear. I am going to follow Scott's lead here since he did a fairly good job of making a monstrous mess simple. Anacapa 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not a big deal to get hung up with section headings. People are always coming into articles and tweaking headings anyway. I look foward to more additions from the Scott source (good to see the reference added), because that is the important part of the article and it sounds like there is a lot of good material in there. Make sure to include page number references for major points so others can followup or get more details if they wish.

Once we establish reasonable headings here, I will insist on some reasonable basis for heading 'tweaks' since this is hard work. What are 'major points' to you and could you show me an example of how you wish to see page number references in the content? Is this something that is done in the whole article that I can take lessons from (for fit) or is this something you want just me to do as this is new content? I wonder about where some of the History content came from but I may not understand your system of references yet so please let me know how you handle references here. Anacapa 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The mechanics of footnote style used in this article are detailed in WP:FN, which likely will clarify things for you if you haven't already seen it. Basicly one just places <ref>Author, p. #.</ref> right after the text the citation applies to. The text between the two ref tags then automatically appears in the right place in the Notes section. "Author" is just the last name of the author of the text cited. It is easy to tell what that text is, because the Reference section below the Notes has all of them listed, in alphabetical order by author. Know what parts need a citation is somewhat of an art. When to cite sources gives some guidance. Anything like specific numbers and dates are candidates as well as anything someone might question or want to find out more about. The exception is information that numerous sources all agree on.

I want you to know that I value the work you do to insist on guidelines in this article. However, when I am in 'Wild West' mode dealing with content issues it might seem otherwise. I appreciate you taking the time to explain these guidelines above, I see you as the editor most likely to help us all stay in line and I intend to follow all your suggestions as long as they seem reasonable and allow complete, balanced NPOV. My final goal is to always cleanup everything I do toward standard form although temporarily I often add things for many reasons that I intend to eliminate or move later. I see myself as responsible for cleaning up all content I add. I welcome your suggestions comments on this as time goes on. For now I am going to take a few minutes and clean up my references per you request. Anacapa 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see citations throughout the whole article eventually. I too wonder the source of some parts. As for subsequent changes, I know what you mean by putting a lot of effort into an article and than have someone come muck it up. I've pretty well resigned myself to the fact that someone who has better insight or superior sources will eventually update most of what I've contributed. It comes with the territory as emphasized by Wikipedia's encouragement for editors to "be bold." I'm confident you didn't intend it to come out this way, but have said, in rough terms, that editors should both wait to see how your ongoing edits turn out and also that once done they should not be changed without discussion! JonHarder 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see citations throughout the whole article too as long as they stay clean and simple. Some science content brought into other articles is so loaded with citations that it is quite hard to digest. So I guess we will have to find balance with criteria at some point. All I ask about my edits is that while I am adding new and confusing content people give me a chance to complete that content to prevent endless confusion and rework. Did I step on your content somewhere here? If so please let me know how to handle things so you feel fine about it. Anacapa 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of references typically they should be alphabetized by author, and only works that are actually used in the article should be listed (see WP:REF). The "Complete Works" and "Kniss" entries should go in a Bibliography section (Further Reading in this article's case; again, per WP:REF), and should be works someone in the article has actually read and recommends. It's probably safe to include the "Complete Works" in a Bibliography whether or not an editor has read it; I doubt anyone here (I could be wrong) has read the Kniss material and actually am a bit suprised you included it since your preference on this discussion page has always been for research from outside the Mennonite community. As an aside, I postulate that more Mennonite homes (especially the plain groups) would have a copy of Martyrs Mirror on their bookshelf than anything by Menno Simons.

I plan to use these references in the article which is why I put them there. If it turns out that I don't use them, I will pull them or place them elsewhere per you suggestions. I will be glad to alphabetize and list them in proper format as soon as I finish the main content under discussion here...(I copied these from other articles where they were not listed right). As for sources, I would be glad if you surprised me too. That seems to be the whole point here since it leads to a better article. Thank goodness for editor Stettlerj's surprise (Scott) or we would still be boxed in often hostile babble with no facts. I'll note that no other editors seem to have read Scott either yet is is quite relevant to this article. I could care less where research comes from as long as people are fairly honest and own who they are in their books. Donald Kraybill seems to be somewhat of a charlatan because he hides his background in his books and writes with banal pander-POV psuedo-science but Scott owns who he is and (despite his occasional pander to positive POV) tries his best to tell the whole unbiased story...which is respectable. Mennonote's data was a joy to use...wish there were more where that came from because I/we cannot finish that section unless I/we have decent data. I definitely distrust much non-data content from inside Mennonitism because there are always unconscious and often deliberate distortions and pandering that go straight to the heart of what it means to be Mennonite. The secular news media also biases it's stories on Anabaptists toward the mass media thought-cloud as if there is only one way to see things, the 'fashionable' way, so I have to pick and choose. As for what books sit on the shelves in Mennonite homes...NO OFFENSE...but I could care less who has a copy of Martyr's Mirror. I am writing this article for ALL wiki readers rather than just a million plus Mennonites. If it makes sense to NON-Mennonites it will probably make sense to Mennonites too but NOT VICE VERSA. I ask that you reach out to NON-Mennonite readers and not confine this to just being a Mennonite for Mennonites article. That said I hope it will be of interest inside Mennonite homes too. Anacapa 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Donald Kraybill ...(use my exact quote in context please!)— wow Kraybill must really get your blood pressure up! Who publishes his work? You've written a number of times here that this article is by Mennonites for Mennonites. I tend to doubt that many Mennonites have edited this article or that very many read it. I have been a Mennonite for about 30 years. Besides rearranging things somewhat chronologically, my only major contributions have been to three consecutive sections in the history. I believe they are now more accurate than they had been. If you have a problem with any of this, let me know. JonHarder 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, you asked the personal questions. I was decent enough to answer you with personal answers. Please make no personal assumptions about my POV about anything (here) so I can state MY POV myself. I intend to be clean with you...please be clean with me back. Donald Kraybill is no 'wow' whatsoever to me. I could care less that he uses John Hopkin's Univ Press to publish his flagship books because I can read his books myself and compare what he says with the realities I know. Please stop mind-reading me sight unseen and get on with discussing NPOV content as I value what you bring to this article...even when I disagree with you.

I did suggest a number of times that this article seems IMHO to be being written for Mennonites by Mennonites. I see what seems to be some 'boilerplate' Mennonite content from other Mennonite sources and I see that you, in particular, seem to care a lot about Mennonite readers rather than ALL readers from your comments above which would be quite natural after 30 years as a Mennonite. I make no statement of fact here because I have no idea who did what here. My goal is an article that most people can read and make sense of be they whoever. I am also interested in complete, balanced NPOV coverage of Mennonites here. I will gladly work with all editors who work with me on that. Of course I would EXPECT Mennonites to care a lot about this article and I have no problem with MENNONITE editors who work with me clean such as Mennonote did, as DJ appears to be doing and as you have done on occassion. I do take issue when I feel other POV's might be being squelched beneath 'official' POV's is all.

As for your contributions...I welcome them. I hope you are able to separate general comments about some Mennonite authors from specific comments about you here. They are not the same. I welcome your wisdom here. I have no particular (edit) problem with you now. If I do see problems, you will be the first to know. Can I expect the same back? If you have personal problems with me please use my discussion page to work them so we can contain the gossip that could happen here. Anacapa 05:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Menno Simons, I want to use Jon's comments above to ask all editors why there is so little specific content about Menno's ideas/influence on Mennonites in this article? It seems quite strange to me that given how much everyone says Menno did and since a million plus people call themselves Menno-nites that there is less specific content about him here than say Michael Sattler or even the Amishs' Jacob Amman. What is the reason for failing to show the great (as described in Menno Simons) leader's leadership here since this is the history of all Mennonites. Am I being completely daft or am I missing something here? Anacapa 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have this feeling there is another question someone has directed toward me on this page in the last week or so, but I can't remember what it might be. If someone wants to point me at something they are waiting for an answer on... Sorry about being so long winded — JonHarder 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Types of and distinctions between 'old-fashioned' Mennonites

After going through Stephen Scott's classifications of traditional Mennonites it is clear that there are many Mennonites who dress plain, etc, etc but who are NOT Old Older Mennonites. There are many confusing commonalities and significant distinctions that need to be shown so it is possible to see who is who here. I am going to take a stab at filling in these classifications in as simple a fashion as possible. After a better look at the distinctions it might make sense to condense the sub classifications under the Conservative section but from what I can see now the other classifications are quite distinct. I welcome comments here that are solution-oriented and I welcome other sources that could make this mess much simpler. Anacapa 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what many means here. My knowledge is limited to Canada. I'm aware that Old Order Mennonite technically refers to a particular church. There are a number of small churches (such as the David Martin Mennonites - a few hundred people) that are strictly separate but very similar in beliefs and practice. Is that who you are referring to? We also have to remember that we are giving an overview here. We mustn't get too bogged down with detail.

Since Scott seems entirely concerned with Conservative Mennonites (by which I assume he means the technology-avoiding, plain-dressing, distinctive groups that I know as Old Order) then I think we shouldn't get into too much detail about the distinctions within them here. This should be an overview article. There is an article at Old Order Mennonite to which more detail could certainly be added. DJ Clayworth 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ, No offense here but Scott shows the Old Orders as just one MINORITY group of many kinds of 'old fashioned' Mennonites. The Orthodox Holdemans and the many types of other conservative groups are entirely separate in his book. Your point about detail is well taken...although I wish it were that simple. I suggest you get a copy of Scott's book and see for yourself how complicated this is. I added some complexity here just to show you what we are up against. However I share your goal to keep this as simple as possible and link for detail wherever possible. Please allow me a little space now just to get the basic content up which we can simplify as time goes on. I think you can see from my previous edits in the Membership section that as soon as I get solid data/facts I can and do attempt to cut things to the simplest form possible. That is my intent here too despite the somewhat messy content that was/is there now in the Types of worship section. I will be busy over the next few days trying to add clean content that makes sense here. Hopefully that will address some of your concerns. Anacapa 03:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I glanced at the Old Order Mennonite article per your references above. It is far from complete and descriptive of the three distinct groups of PIKE, Horse and Buggy, and Automobile Old Order Mennonites each of whom have different types of traditions. I added Scott as a reference there too since Scott is the best author I have found so far who makes some sense of these confusing groups and their distinct and separate histories. However, there are many other groups of 'old fashioned' Mennonites too some of whom use modern technologies and some of whom don't as well as many other surprising differences. These differences seem quite interesting to most people and are key to representing Mennonites in their full scope of worship. Their histories also shed much light on Mennonite history as a whole which so far seems to be missing in the History section of this article. Again I suggest you get a copy of the book so you aren't taking this just from my POV. Anacapa 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, I'm more than happy to defer to your knowledge here. My knowledge is pretty much confined to the Ontario branches, and it's a long way from complete there. I would suggest that the best way forwards is to put detail in the Old Order Mennonite article and only summarise in Mennonite.

DJ I am in total agreement here about detail versus summarization although I am not sure I have time to complete the content in the Old Order article.

I'm wondering if the Conservative groups (total numbers around 31,000) really need five separate subdivisions. Maybe we could summarise and start a new Conservative Mennonite article to give details. I'm also going to presume that the MB and MC groups belong in 'Moderate' and I can then start filling in some details there. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I am wondering the same thing and will cut those subdivisions as soon as I add the content. I put them in there so you could see what we were dealing with on a temporary basis. I will summarize all these sections (within reason) and point to detailed articles where available but I don't have time to create new articles for these groups now. My intent here is just to show the basic distinctions between Mennonites so that people who are interested in more detail can go that article. Another intent here is to tie these groups into the whole Mennonite story somehow so that the article flows and is representative of all Mennonites. As for the MB and MC's I welcome you adding content there but please explain on what basis you see these groups being Moderate so I can follow with some kind of sourced content. I am fine with your decision (so far). I just want a few distinct facts (worship, traditions etc) about each group to show me how you made this assumption. You are welcome to show these facts in the content itself rather than discussing it here to save time. Anacapa 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ After rereading my comments above I realized that they imply that I was going to add content to the Moderate section which was NOT my intention. Please go ahead and fill it up. If you have any content to put in the Progressive section that would be great too. Anacapa 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Menno Simon's 'one true' church doctrine

I have to say I still haven't seen any evidence that this doctrine is original Menno Simons doctrine, at least not in any sense that I understand it. My observations are that Simons cooperated freely with other Anabaptists from the start, which is a good sign that he didn't think his followers were the 'one true church'. Also the split with the Amish was over whether to remain in communion with those who had returned to state churchs, the Mennonites deciding to do so. Again remaining in communion with those of other churches is a sure sign that you don't believe your little group to be the 'one true church'. If these statements are to stay we need some really clear evidence that this was believed. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ We can discuss the exact form of these statements but most of the content here was taken directly from Scott. I will begin there first as I attempt to finish this. Please wait a few days until I do that and then come back if you still have issues here. Also I suggest you glance that Schiethiem (sp) Confession to see the roots of the ONE TRUE church doctrine that is common in orthodox churches. Anacapa 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I reread the Schleitheim (sp) confession but I don't find anything to back the statement up. What I mean by "one true church" doctrine is that those who hold to it believe that only people who are members of their organisation are true Christians, or truly saved. Iglesia ni Cristo would be a good example, and from what I've read the Holdemann Mennonites also follow this. However I don't find it in the Schleitheim confession. The confession clearly rejects the Catholic church (unsurprisingly) but it doesn't say that those in other, non-Catholic, churches are excluded from being genuine Christians. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ From my reading of the S Confession (Wenger's translation) I see the following statements:

Fourth. We are agreed [as follows] on separation: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who [have come] out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.

To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters.

He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and the earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them.

From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our (emphasis added by me) God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all popish and antipopish works and church services, meetings and church attendance,* drinking houses, civic affairs, the commitments [made in] unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteouness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.

Wenger says this was a "severe judgment on the 'state' churches" but the text shows it applies to ALL popish and antipopish worship so I have to wonder a bit about Wenger. The Anabaptists were radical reformers who saw themselves as separate from other Protestants too. What is (strangely) missing in our article here is how Menno Simons weighed in on this since he was so influential in making Menno-nites out of Anapbaptists. I listened to a Stanford historian's lecture on Early Anabaptism. He said that following the unsuccessful Peasant's war with 70,000-100,000 deaths the Anabaptists decided that all people who took up arms were false worshipers and they were the only 'true' Christians. This was seen as quite dangerous defiance from the authorities who had just put down a revolution by peasants since they couldn't be sure Anabaptists would remain non-violent. Whatever the case may be here, I do know from Scott that the orthodox churches closely follow the "Gospel as taught by Menno Simons" whatever that means. I also know that the extremely othodox Reformed Mennonites (founded from the first North American schism in 1785) claim to the ONE TRUE Mennonite as well as the ONE TRUE Christion church too. Scott has a whole chapter on this small group of only about 400 members because they are what he calls 'The First Keepers of the Old Way' and represent the purest remaining root of the original North American Mennonite church before it progressed, became too 'degenerate' for them to stand (in 1785), and schismed into the countless churches we see now.

I also see the statement that "Whoever has not been called by ONE God to ONE Faith, To ONE Baptism, To ONE Spirit, To ONE body, with all the children of God's church, cannot be made into ONE Bread with them, as indeed must be done if one is to TRULY break bread according to the command of Christ." Since clearly God, Faith, Baptism, Spirit, Body and Church in this Confession refer to Swiss Brethren conceptions against all others the ONE TRUE church doctrine is clearly implied here. Clearly, Sattler claimed God and Christ as 'ours' for his people but not for all other 'false' abominables he condemns. He could hardly be more distinct here about the ONE-US/MANY THEM, true/false, good/bad, light/dark classifications he is spelling out. (I wish modern Mennonite confessions were so specific and distinct!) I imagine (but don't know if) Menno Simons spelled this out in his writings. But, in any case, those Mennonites who claim to follow Menno Simon's teachings to the letter sure do seem to see themselves as SEPARATE and OPPOSING one-true churches against all other many-false Mennonite/Christian churches (in Scott.) Hope that answers your question. Anacapa 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My assumption here is that this refers to the line, "Menno Simon's 'one true' church doctrine" in the Orthodox part of the Worship section. It strikes me that this comes a little too close to POV issues for me to feel it should stay as-is. Firstly, I feel that including an implied meaning should be avoided whenever possible. Secondly, I feel that the current phrasing leans towards an Orthodox POV, in that they may believe they are following Menno's teachings, but not all others may interpret his works that way. I'll try and rephrase it a little in a way that will hopefully be acceptable for all.Sxeptomaniac 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption above is incorrect. DJ is discussing a previous discussion above that has very little directly to do with the Types of Worship section although they are related by coincidence. This is actually a side discussion I should have called out as such. The content I am adding in the Orthodox section comes directly from (Old Order Mennonite) author Stephen Scott's reference so if you want to check POV please go to this source to see if I fairly summarized his research on this. He devotes an entire chapter to the orthodox "First Keepers of the Old Way" Reformed Mennonites and has a half page subheading titled 'One True Church' where he shows these (by now I hope familiar from discussion directly above) Anabaptist ideas of ONE TRUE CHURCH OF (our) CHRIST, ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD, etc. He also seems to reflect the general POV of most Mennonites against the orthodox Holdemans by giving this, the largest-single church in his entire book less than a full page. I am making no implied meanings here. With the exception of the section title ('orthodox') which came straight from the dictionary (see definition/discussions above), this content is direct from Scott's research. If you want to fact check please go ahead but please do not quibble about POV here when I am being as close to Scott (who also has some POV) as possible. As for whether this ONE TRUE church doctrine is from Menno Simons I suggest we stop 'intrepreting' Menno Simons teachings and just show his teachings here so that grown adults can interpret his teachings for themselves. I added The Complete Writings of Menno Simons as a reference for just such content which is quite missing in this article about Menno-nites. Personally, I have no idea YET where Menno stood on ONE TRUE CHURCH doctrine FROM HIS DIRECT TEACHINGS although it is clear where Michael Sattler stood and it is clear where early North American Menno-nites stood from reading Scott. I am sure that a direct study of Menno's teachings will make this clearer though. I welcome you to use his teachings directly to make this clearer and cut confusion here but please use facts to call POV so we can complete balanced NPOV content here that shows ALL POV's. Anacapa 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly the line I was discussing. There may be others. DJ Clayworth 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ What LINE(S) EXACTLY are you discussing? I intended to address your 'lines' but I am far from clear what they are now. If the conclusion to this section fails to address you lines please refer to the content in the last section I just added. Anacapa 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sxeptomaniac comments and edits are made in good faith. This response strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. JonHarder 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, my comments and edit were made in good faith too. My intent was to be clear rather than harsh. I was trying to give this editor the facts so he would have less issue with possible POV on my part. I mean no offense to any editor here including Sxeptomaniac. I ask that you be specific about any concerns you might have about possible harshness here so I can address them directly. Otherwise, please let other editors do their own responding. This sections topic is a harsh issue indeed but that doesn't mean I have harsh feelings for DJ or any other editor that questions me. I do hope for specific questions that move us toward completion however. Anacapa 03:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read several sections of the past comments, I was aware that this article (like most dealing with religion/churches) is a POV/NPOV hornets nest. I won't get in any revert wars, but I also don't plan on mincing around, either.

I stand by my decision to address the issues I saw. I'm not saying that the person who wrote it necessarily has the POV that the section leans towards; I just found the wording problematic for the above reasons.

Clarification: in other words, I'm not accusing a person of having a POV, much less inserting POV intentionally. I'm saying that the wording, as it stood, suggested a POV.Sxeptomaniac 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't feel my edits are reasonable, then revert or change them (I see you've done the latter in this case, expanding and improving on the section. good). Frankly, there are too many people on Wikipedia with axes to grind for me to worry if my edits are liked or not. I explained my edit, then did it. I've made a little more time here in order to explain myself, and now I'm done with this particular section, until I see another need for editing.Sxeptomaniac 03:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sxeptomaniac, I am fine with your edits and I am glad you could care less whether they are liked or not because likability has little to do with NPOV. I was just trying to answer your other loaded (hornet nest) questions above. Pop back in anytime...as we ALL need help with POV. Anacapa 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ to go back to your question at the very top of this section: Is the ONE-TRUE Church doctrine from Menno Simons? My answer is that I don't know now. It definitely is part of the original Anabaptist theology though. Further research will tell where Menno stood on this. I added the orthodox and other content directly from Scott so I suggest you use that to see the original church doctrines from extrapolation. Anacapa 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that that is the case. But it boils down to a definition of "one true church" doctrine. I take this to mean the doctrine that "my church organisation is the only valid one", a doctrine espoused a number of organisations. However that is distinct from the belief that "there is one true church, and my organisation is a part of it", a doctrine espoused by most Christian organisations. There is a spectrum of belief here, according to how many other CHristian organisations you accept as valid. My understanding is that while Simons rejected all the state churches (Catholic and Protestant) he accepted as valid other non-Mennonite churches, especially other Anabaptists.

I think the best solution may be to not use the phrase "one true church doctrine" since it seems it may mean different things to different people. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Types of Worship content

I cleaned up and completed a first version of the Old Order section. I will start next on the Orthodox section and finish with Conservatives and Progressives as DJ seems to be willing to add the Moderate content. I foresee much less detail/content in the other sections because there are fewer distinctions between groups inside the sections. The intent here is to introduce readers to the full scope of Mennonite worship but point them to other articles that are available to explain details. Another intent is to flesh out/tie into the flow of history/theology above with real living examples of Mennonites today and how they have evolved so that this article is shows both past and present well. I welcome comments and suggestions but please refrain from major edits until I have a chance to complete the missing sections. Anacapa 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Orthodox content directly from Scott. Due to the obvious bias against the Holdemans in Scott's book (about a half a page of content in his whole book for the LARGEST church/and the largest single group in his book) and due to the bias in other mainstream Mennonite sources against the HOLDEMAN's I tried to balance things a little by noting that the HOLDEMAN's seem to be the largest single SEPARATE church and by noting what seems to be a pervasive bias against the Holdemans in mainstream Mennonite literature by suggesting that most other Mennonites shun the Holdemans too. I want to be sure the attitude of most Mennonites toward the Holdemans is as clear as the (ostensible) fact that the Holdemans separate themselves from other Mennonites. Please check these facts for me and suggest ways to handle this. Otherwise the content in this section is as close to Scott as I could get in the space allowed but please feel free to fact-check and POV check anyway so no other editor has to take my word for it. Anacapa 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try to finish the Conservative section next. Space is always a concern so I welcome comments about the content I added so far. Please go ahead and discuss any other issues anyone might have with the completed sections too. Anacapa 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott's book talks mainly about the Swiss Mennonite plain groups and does not talk much about Russian Mennonite plain groups etc. This is why Holdeman Mennonites only get a half page. Scott is probably much less familiar with these groups. Also, to clarify a misinterpretation, Scott is Old Order River Brethren (Yorker) which is an Old Order group of Brethren in Christ which split in the 1920's. It is not an Old Order Mennonite group. Stettlerj 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj, thanks for that clarification about the Holdemans. It makes sense to me and might well explain why Scott chose to spend so little time on this quite large and controversial group. As for Scott himself, I just remember reading from his book's bio that he was an Old Order Mennonite. Did I get it wrong or is this a clarification that is not in his book...(I don't have the book with me now)?

Also I want to thank you for bringing in Scott's reference. It seems to be the best (by far) study and history of these groups available. It also sheds quite a bit of light on overall Mennonite history in North America. I also respect Scott for his mostly NPOV content, his details, and his thoroughness. This kind of reference goes a long way toward giving us facts to discuss issues with. Thanks again.

Last, do you have any interest in completing the Conservative sub-section or rewriting it entirely? We need someone IMHO who can make sense of all these confusing groups/histories and yet write a short, succinct summary that non-Mennonites would be willing to wade through. If you have an interest please go ahead. (I will be polite this time and make no big changes without discussion as I should have done earlier when you added that content in Excomm.)Anacapa 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

CPS content edit

I cut the following PP and moved it here for discussion as it seems to have little specific content about Mennonites and as it seems to have content that belongs in the CPS article itself. Please discuss comment. Feel free to demand that I put it back if I am completely off base here.

The CPS men served without wages and minimal support from the federal government. The cost of maintaining the CPS camps and providing for the needs of the men was the responsibility of their congregations and families. Mennonite Central Committee coordinated the operation of the Mennonite camps. CPS men served longer than regular draftees, not being released until well past the end of the war. Initially skeptical of the program, government agencies learned to appreciate the men's service and requested more workers from the program. CPS made significant contributions to forest fire prevention, erosion and flood control, medical science and reform of the mental health system.Anacapa 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: with regards to this paragraph for deletion, since this is my own material I'll abstain from defending it. For this article to be a collaboration among editors it would be better for others to indicate its merit for the article by responding with the usual delete, keep or rewrite. If someone is interested in rewriting it, it is flawed in a typically understated way: it doesn't adequately reflect that the Mennonite contribution to CPS was key to its success; how much better the Mennonite camps were run according to government reports or how much more efficient the Mennonite workers were when compared to the workers in the pre-war programs they replaced. JonHarder 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, This is a piece I pulled for discussion rather than deletion. My issue is that the content seems unrelated directly to much specific Mennonite content and might be better handled by being linked to the CPS article...that's all. I have absolutely no problem with the positive POV here as it seems quite factual. You are quite welcome to adequately reflect the Mennonite contributions here as far as I am concerned. I just wanted to discuss how and where to handle CPS content rather than to delete the section If I don't hear back from you on this, I will just put it back and discuss similar issues we ALL seem to have about content throughout the whole article. I do ask, however, that you propose whole-article criteria when you want to link my content to other articles to minimize or remove that content in this article for whatever reason. Anacapa 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott's First Keepers of the Old Way and Stauffer Mennonites

To Stettlerj and any other editor who is tempted to delete or revert content about Mennonite groups that practice controversial forms of excommunication, shunning or whatever...I ask that you discuss your issues prior to possible reverts to keep the peace. I am willing to discuss any reasonable issues you have here but please refrain from pulling stunts sans discussion to remove 'uncomfortable' content just to suit a particular positive but unrepresentative POV here. To head off future issues here are my reasons for adding both the 'First Keepers of the Light' and the Stauffer or Pike Mennonites:

The orthodox Reformed Mennonite First Keepers of the Light were rightly given a full chapter in Scott's book because they are the 'purest' remaining living example of what the earliest North American Mennonites were like. They are important far more than their numbers because they show the root of ALL Mennonite worship in North America. I gave them one tight clean PP here to compare and contrast them with other old fashioned groups.
I added one short PP about the Stauffers because they too are representative of both early Mennonites and representative of the sources of many later Mennonite schisms (usually over church discipline of so-called sins or 'degenerate' worship). There is no other article to link them to. Even if there were an article to link them to, I certainly can introduce them here as the Amish are introduced in this article too and as this article is about ALL Mennonites.

If any editor has a specific issue about this content please discuss it here before wholesale deletion or reversion of new content to prevent ongoing edit wars. I took this material directly from Scott and was careful not to slander anyone. I insist that complete, balanced NPOV be included in this article as it represents that whole scope of Mennonite history, doctrine and worship. Anacapa 02:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I should start with saying I am not Mennonite, not even Christian, and have no interest in propping up the Mennonite faith. I did think however that someone could clean up the article a bit. My concern is with accuracy and I am not sure it is accurate to have entire sections devoted to extemely small groups under misleading headings and with misleading information (for example "orthodox" for Reformed Mennonites and "Old Order" for Stauffer Mennonites, and statements like Old Order Mennonites shun). Also, this article is way too USA centered. One must think about readers in Europe, India, Ethiopia also. There are Mennonites in Switzerland, Kazakstan, Guatemala, Belize, Ethiopia, Mexico, France, Germany, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Tanzania. Although if the people wish to keep an entire paragraph devoted to the Reformed Mennonites in under the heading "orthodox" (which is the title of another mennonite group), while no detailed mention of Mennonites in Ethiopia, Paraguay or Europe is given, that's fine but please don't assume bad faith and that everyone is trying to hide something. Stettlerj 02:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj Then what is your POV here? I notice you seem to engage against content that describes what most Mennonites seem to see as 'uncomfortable' that is groups that 'purely' represent orthodox Mennonite faith or schism content. Maybe you could explain what you are aiming at so I know how to address your issues prior to these pop-ins especially as you are too busy to engage in ongoing discussions/edits here. As for 'accuracy' is that really what you are about here? Accuracy means: Conformity to fact, Precision/Exactness. If you are going to characterize this content as 'misleading' or inaccurate please read the past discussions and compare the titles/content with the exact DICTIONARY definitions I used. I also suggest you go back and compare The types of Worship section against Scott's facts. You will find a fair and close take on what he said there. I wonder how exact you are being with us here. Scott called the Stauffers part of the Horse and Buggy Old Orders today but mentioned that they schismed long before most other Old Orders. I suspect your concerns have far more to do with a POV than with quibbling over facts. I notice that there are many other possible issues with the other groups that you do didn't even mention. I wonder why? As for this article being to USA centered I couldn't agree more but we have to start somewhere. If you have a 'Scott' for the rest of the world I sure would love to make sure those groups are well represented in Types of Worship too. Since I doubt that source exists to show the establishment North American groups (Scott includes Canada I might add) in types of Worship is probably the best we can do now. I see the Membership section as being the best place to show all Mennonite groups worlwide at least in terms of numbers/organization etc. Anacapa 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj, We were were caught in a discussion page edit conflict so my comments were lost. To begin I ask that you hold off edits/reverts while we discuss this. I also ask that you use edit comments on all major edits so we can see what you are doing. I have a issues with your edits on Schisms too that I would like to discuss so I will be putting that content back so you can delete or edit it after discussion. I will myself add no new content or make any big new changes while we discuss this. Will you join me here? Anacapa 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj, I am going to shut down for today. I will be back soon to address the issues you have above. Please be patient.Anacapa 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Stettlerj changes move the article in the right direction and would like to see us continue in that direction. JonHarder 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon Please explain what changes you mean and on what basis you see Stettlerj moving in the 'right direction' so we can see YOUR POV here. This is not something I will be fall down about with no reasonable basis from you. It is an attempt to complete balance NPOV content. Anacapa 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My basis for putting the "First Keepers of the Old Way" (FKOOW) first in the Types of Worship section are below. (If other editors have issues with the use of 'orthodox' as the subsection title for Reformed and Holdeman Mennonites as per definition/discussions above I welcome better suggestions. We could toss orthodox and use their names instead...but it is up to other editors to weigh in with suggestions rather than just hidden complaints. I also insist that before any new changes be made here that other editors grab a copy of Scott and use him to comment on my content with facts rather than round and round opinions.) I ask that anyone who has problems with FKOOW or any other 'old fashioned' group spell them out so we have specifics to deal with here. Please be sure that you are not demanding something special here about this issue that you are unwilling to apply to the rest of article too...as I can see that this issues is about much more than about a single PP of content in an article that is full of much less directly related content. This conflict seems to be about POV concerns about eliminating quite accurate One True Church content rather than all the other peripheral issues.

1. The FKOOW is the first (1785) of countless schisms form the main Mennonite body in North America. It represents a living example of the earliest known Mennonites in North America. Therefore it belongs first as a point of comparision/contrast with all subsequent groups.
2. The FKOOW is the purest remaining example of orthodox Mennonite worship in North America. Therefore as Scott shows (by giving it a whole chapter over much much larger groups) it is significant far out to proportion to its small size. Putting it at the top of the section allows for comparision/contrast with other old fashioned but less doctrinally pure groups below.
3. The FKOOW is of interest to readers in the same way Williamsburg VA is interesting to visitors as it shows better than any other remaining North American group how early Mennonites might have worshiped. As such it is sort of a living relic of the original Mennonite mainstream. Most readers will be able use this content to enliven the History content with a real living example.
4. Every attempt was made to condense FKOOW content here so that it flow with the article. If someone wants to build a separate article on the FKOOW to link to they are welcome to. However to attempt to cut this church entirely out of this article or try to stick it in a See also all by itself is a POV attempt to hide content that represents a significant part of the WHOLE Mennonite story.
5. Stettlerj was inaccurate about the FKOOW's possible extinction. Scott said that the US groups were headed toward extinction but that the Canadian groups were likely to sustain themselves indefinitely. I welcome other editors to read Scott themselves to eliminate this 'he said, she said' confusion.
6. This group follows Menno Simons teachings closer than any other group according to Scott. As such it is probably the last remaining real example of how Menno Simons taught Mennonites to worship. Therefore it is of interest to show readers who Menno Simons was. (I will note again that there seems to be a sustained attempt to hide Menno Simon's teachings in this article (and in his article) so I suspect some of the issues about the FKOOW have to do with that.)
7. This group holds closely to the One True church doctrine. As such it is a good example of one extreme of the full scope of Mennonite worship with the Progressives on the other extreme. It might also be the extreme example of following the orthodox Anabaptist idea of the One True church as shown in the Schiethiem Confession but that is questionable based on Scott's content.
8. To take issue about one PP of clean tight content seems quite disengenous to me given how much other content in this article there is in this article that is less representative of all Mennonites or aspects of Mennonite History. For example, I see 4 huge PPs about the Russian Mennonites packed with an immense number of details such as a PP about winter wheat production in a single state. No offense to that editor but what is fair is fair here so please don't claim space as a criteria unless you are willing to condense a lot of other content too that is barely germaine to the WHOLE article. As I wrote up this content on the FKOOW my intent was to make it as a germaine to the WHOLE article and to the following sections as possible. I spent a little more time on it because that allowed me to eliminate useless repetitions in the Old Order and Conservative sections by referring back to it. You are welcome to question specific statements but please have a goal in mind so we can consensus on something here.

I ask that before other editors revert or make major changes to this content that they discuss their SPECIFIC issues about this here. If you have a POV about this please state it so we can work with it. I insist on a reasonable up-front discussions to surface issues and attain some kind of consensus before you go about reverts or major edits as this content is clean, straight from Scott and because I have offered a solid basis for why I put it where I put it. Anacapa 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try using more than one source. You know you're quite opinionated for what I would call an overnight "expert". According to Richard K. MacMaster of James Madison University the Reformed Mennonites were influenced by a fusion of Mennonite Anabaptism with Pietism, revivalism and an early form of Fundamentalism in regards to the Bible, ideas that were popular in the day. So much for it being Mennonitism in its purest form, as you seem destined to want to show it as, hence your use of the word 'orthodox' (which nobody uses but you) to describe it. Anyway, I still think there is way too much of a USA biais here, and this does not deserve more than a one or two sentence mention. Stettlerj 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj I would be glad to use as many sources as you might have to suggest. I love to get new sources! I was glad to see you bring us SCOTT. However, I insist that you refrain from calling me an 'overnight expert' or any other perjorative name here. I have decades of personal experience inside the Mennonite hell of banning, shunning and shaming beginning as a child. I have quite a few relatives and acquaintances who are Mennonite and who know directly of what SCOTT speaks so spare me the opinionated accusations. I have just as much right to express my sourced statements here as Mennonite editors can and do...NO OFFENSE to those Mennonite editors who have nothing to directly to do with what I know personally. I suggest you give me a source for MacMaster's RMC content so I can compare it with Scott's content. Scott himself emphasises the 'pure' literal doctrine of what he calls The First Keepers of the Old Way so if you have problems with HIS 'opinion' about the Reformed Mennonites being the 'purest' remaining example of early Mennonite worship, blast away at SCOTT. (He chose to give this little group a whole chapter because they represent so much about Mennonites. Surely I can give them a short PP here!) All I did was use YOUR reference to capture SCOTT's essence of this church and others. (I welcome you to go get Scott and fact check me because no one is perfect.) Scott seems be being quoted in many scientific papers on google Scholar so he must be credible and his is probably the only recent source with so much material. As I read his work, I notice he seems to be thorough detailed and much more genuine than say Kraybill's Backroad to Heaven but I will be glad to glance at McMaster too should you point me to where to look.

While we are talking sources here, the highly credible Encyclopedia of American Religions by Meldon paints a very different picture of Anabaptist/Mennonite history/theology than is shown here. To imply that early European Mennonites were much more liberal than the Reformed Mennonites or the Stauffers seems almost impossible given the short time span of European Anabaptist history. I have to wonder about POV when I hear you claiming otherwise so hard here...but I am willing to be convinced by your sources since anything is possible.

I say again to you (and other editors), if you have complaints about 'orthodox' please stop just complaining and suggest a better term that fits Scott's content as that is all I have now. I could use 'literal' instead of 'orthodox' but I suspect you would start complaining that that doesn't fit either because I have cause to good cause to suspect this is more about POV concerns than about specific definitions. Scott is quite clear that this group represents the earliest North American Mennonites in the purest remaining form and is one where they follow the gospel according to the teachings of Menno Simons as closely as possible. He didn't title his entire chapter The First Keepers of the Old Way by accident. I didn't choose 'othodox by accident either. I went to dictionary and I discussed it ad nauseum here with no real resolution because no one really stated their specific reasons for why it was a problem to them. To take issue with no reasonable reasons suggests covert POV to me. I will note that SCOTT failed to classify both othodox or literal churches in his book about ALL Old Order and Conservative. This is a glaring oversite because the Holdemans are by far the biggest single group of Mennonites shown in his book but they were given less than a full page for whatever reason. Since he failed to classify these groups I had to choose a classification so it would fit with the rest of the section.

As for your repeated issue about this being USA centered I suggest you read the intro to the Types of Worship section. It is North America centered (minus Mexico) because Scott's 'old fashioned' groups are in both the US and Canada. The Reformed Mennonites are in Canada too. The Holdemans are worldwide. If you or anyone has a source that shows 'old fashioned' Mennonite worship, doctrine and traditions well worldwide such as 'SCOTT' survey worldwide by all means bring it on. In the meantime a study of the biggest, and longest established continent (after Europe which is dieing out): North America seems to be a beginning to give people some idea of how 'old fashioned' Mennonnites worship today. DJ's Moderate section includes a worldwide conference and I am sure as more worldwide groups go on line it will be possible to include them here to. However, please do not use this USA issue as a POV ploy to eliminate or minimize material that is 'uncomfortable' to most Mennonites.

As for how much space this church deserves, I would be glad to consider your SPECIFIC criteria or your response to my criteria about what deserves what here. Please state the specific basis for what you think about this here. And please apply what you think to the WHOLE article too rather than just targeting one small paragraph in an article loaded with other content that could be condensed too. Again I smell POV concerns here because you seem to have no problem with gross examples of longwindedness elsewhere but do have problems with a single tight clean PP of content that seems to be 'uncomfortable' to some Mennonites (from a glance at earlier discussions.) I believe you have good instincts. However, I insist that you bring NPOV to the table here or I will have cause to believe you have a POV that precludes NPOV here. I have no problem with you taking me on about anything as long as you take everyone else on too for the same reasons. I have a huge problem with you popping in and popping out on just ONE topic that is indeed quite loaded with POV concerns (see earlier discussions).

Fair is fair here. I listened to your concerns about the Schisms content and made preliminary changes because (even though I have good reasons to stand by the content itself) you made a good point about tone there. Please be clean as you comment on other issues such as this one so I can USE what you suggest to meet your concerns and mine too to complete the article. Anacapa 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh one last thing. I ask that you refrain from using edit comments (per WIKI Protocol) to discuss issues with. I ask that you use edit comments to note changes and point to discussions here to work issues...so that things stay reasonably respectful. Is that possible for you? Anacapa 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your situation with Mennonites has been quite sad, and I don't deny that that happens. I too know people who are being shunned or have been shunned. You're not the only one who is shunned (and in fact shunning is really quite light in Amish churches today in general, there are Amish who have split from the Old Orders because they thought the Old Order Amish did not take shunning seriously). Anyway, you are not the only person who knows people personally who have left the Amish and Mennonites, and I can tell you, your situation is not the norm from what I have experienced, although perhaps it is the norm in the Holdeman Mennonites, which I assume is what they were from your prior comments. I do not doubt that you may have had, or someone close to you, a very bad experience with the Holdemans and that is quite sad if so. I know also some very sad stories within shunning churches like the Amish even though they are less strict from before even if I have not seen this tough shunning side personally. However, trying to use language to suggest that a "true, orthodox, pure" Mennonite shuns because that is the way you were taught from your Mennonite background, is just that, your Mennonite background. What I meant by "overnight expert" was in regards to certain aspects of Mennonite history. Growing up Mennonite or having family or friends that are Mennonites does not make someone automatically an expert about Reformed Mennonites or any other kind of Mennonites to which they did not belong. I was refering to the fact it seems your knowledge of Reformed Mennonites comes from one book which you recently read. I don't mean to be cruel, but I don't think we should be making up new designations in wikipedia that are of our own invention just to agree with our personal opinion of what a "true" Mennonite is. To me you seem to want to suggest by using the term "Orthodox" for Holdemans and Reformed, that although the large majority of Mennonites don't shun, groups such as the Holdemans that shun hold to true pure Mennonite teachings, therefore pure true Mennonite teachings are cultish and dangerous Stettlerj 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj, I like you because you try so hard to understand people who are different than you. I went to my town's peace memorial last Sunday and a woman from Chigago wrote in the notebook...something like "sitting in church this Easter the sermon (probably some big mainstream Non-Mennonite church) left me cold because I realized 'who are we Americans to believe that we are the only 'special' people with our 'special' god?' when there is so much human grief in the world". I suspect you might be a bit like her and I liked her a whole lot. I am a both glad, sad and mad about my people's people. Glad because they have many fine qualities, fine ideas and a fine culture. Sad because they follow ideas to the death that they haven't even questioned themselves. Mad because they often do very cruel things to children and others to be able to follow those (IMHO quite silly) ideas to the death...mad because they will do almost anything to blame the victims and coverup the scandals when they are caught while pretending to be the 'nicest' 'peace' people on earth...and mad because I know I will soon die and that this will go on and on and on. I am not too sad now. I am just glad I have me back finally after decades of hateful, loathsome and detestable Mennonite ban, shun and shame hell. I am not really mad now either. There is strength, knowledge and awareness that comes from going to hell and back. If you had any idea how I really feel about what was and is being done to me and mine...the word 'loaded' would not even begin to suffice. I am outraged at the 'unloaded' content here because I have good cause to suspect that at least one of our editors here knows better and is consciously concealing NPOV sources/content that could show a very different picture than is what is being shown here. (I suggest a glance at Encyclopedia of American Religions (Meldon) for a NON-Mennonite's take on how early Mennonite worship, doctrine and traditions and a comparision of his content against this article and against your sources too.)

That said, you can't be cruel to me because I won't let you be...and I also don't believe you are a consciously cruel editor anyway. I have every right to choose a relevant classification out of the dictionary to describe groups that other researchers have failed to classify by oversight or whatever and I won't be bullied on this given all the other similar titles chosen by other editors in this article. I have no problem with you arguing about a particular term (eg orthodox) nor am I stuck on THAT term as I have repeated many times. I insist that you explain specifically what is so problematic about that term and suggest other terms that better fit if you have problems with my sub-section title. I see POV all over this discussion. I am not naive. I know what is going on here because I have been running into red herrings every time I try to include content that shows what some Mennonites see as 'uncomfortable' content. I'll note just for starters when I came aboard here there was complete denial that shunning even occured among Mennonites and a totally false statement to that effect was (is?) on the Third Way Cafe Website. The claims against this content seem to go round and round and round with few reasonable specifics so I suspect immense POV issues here (no offense to any editor in particular).

As for how I handled orthodox. I followed Scott's characterization in his full chapter on the First Keepers of the Old Way when I chose this term. From his account they are the most 'PURE' example of the original North American Mennonites...thus I used orthodox to describe THEM that way. Seems to me that First Keepers of the Old Way is quite close to the definition of 'orthodox' which is why I used it. Since the HOLDEMAN's article spelled out how closely they follow the gospel according to Menno Simons I put them there too with the clear caveat that they are ATYPICAL in that they are also a cult of personality. I had doubts about where to put the Stauffers but as SCOTT said they now considered Old Order Horse and Buggy Mennonites so I put them there with proper flow to distinguish that they were separate and schismed earlier than the main OO groups. Now I am going to move my content back into that order and incorporate any other reasonable changes you have added but please discuss issues here, be patient until we have some resolution about 'orthodox' here, and if you disagree about the Stauffers show us a source that is better than Scott so we can make these groupings on some basis other than on our personal opinions.

Now as for possible assumptions that I am adding content because of what I was taught as a child or that my knowledge comes from one source...all I can say is PLEASE?!. I added all that content directly and scrupulously from SCOTT and asked other editors to fact check me with SCOTT. Since you gave me SCOTT I have got to wonder where you are going here...although earlier you might indeed have had a basis for making this assumption. I have access to several libraries...all your suggested sources are inbound now and I have added a host of sources that another (avowedly Mennonite) editor removed (see reference discussions). It just happens that SCOTT (being an engineer) seems to be the ONLY thorough detailed and up do date source on what here to for had been completely hidden in this article...namely the large and growing groups of 'old fashioned' Mennonites. If you have other sources better than Scott I'd love to use them but in the meantime by all accounts he seems to be the best we all have available on these hidden groups. One big POV issue I have with our existing references here is that there are almost NON published by NPOV publishers. Most seem to be from parochial publishers. When I try to bring in new references I run into resistance which is quite strange to me given that we are supposed to be trying to attain NPOV here. I ask again that you read Encyclopedia of American Religions (Meldon) to see some NPOV issues I have here...eg one-true doctrine, excommunication, shunning etc. Anacapa 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for all those 'therefores' statement you seem to want to attribute to me...nothing could be further from where I am with this content. I have a background in statistics. I was trained to state the facts and let the chips fall where they may. I was trained that facts can often end baseless fights about opinions. I try to state the facts from the best sources I can find...Scott being the best in this case (with a poorly written source from a Reformed Mennonite (Delivered Unto Satan)) who Scott gave a section. My intention here was mainly to show the full scope of Mennonite worship today and that means both extremes and all the groups in the middle here. I do insist that a full representation of this full scope be shown here...because it is needed for complete balanced NPOV in this article. But any idea that I am going to steoreotype ALL Mennonites as cultish or dangerous from a few churches which represents (to some extent) 'OLD' Mennonite types of worship is absurd. I ask you to observe other edits I have made in Membership where I have done my best to be fair to the facts. The same fairness applies here too and elsehere too. Where I get hot and bothered and tend to react is where we are squelching certain significant facts for POV purposes...such as showing no meaningful content at all about Menno Simons teachings/writings. If I want to make a case about Anabaptist/Mennonite teachings I will go directly to those sources many of which are already in this article. The Schiethiem Confession is a fairly distinct example of ONE-TRUE church doctrine...which most moderate churches don't follow as DJ's 'MODERATE' content shows. I am quite grown up enough to separate one group from another and see the forest from the trees. I believe most readers can also make their own judgments without seeing ALL 1.3 million Mennonites as part of some kind of 'dangerous cult'. I also believe most people can see the differences between Moderate and other groups too if we spell them out clearly here. I needed the 'pure' extreme so comparision could be made between what they call the 'worldly' or less nicely the 'degenerate' (Progressive) extreme. Anacapa 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Reformed Mennonite's...It is a fact that they practice strict separation, extreme excommunication, and severe shunning. It is also a fact that they follow the gospel as taught by Menno Simons as closely as possible. When I read Encyclopedia of American Religions I see fairly close alignment here which makes me wonder about early Mennonite worship and about possible purposeful POV by ommission in this article. NO one wants to make ALL Mennonites be falsely shown as Reformed Mennonites...and I DIDN'T I DO THAT EITHER! On the other hand, NPOV demands that we show the whole Mennonite story/history here. The Reformed Mennonites (and a little less so the Holdemans) are stated as following Menno's core teachings doctrine closely. This makes them important indicators of the old age, in a modern age where most other groups have become more 'worldly' and hold less tightly to the literal ideas in the old teachings.

Last as far as assumptions about me personally. I wish I could state who I am for you but that would be stupid given the kind of treatment I have had to face on this site earlier. I have assumptions about you too (as very few people know so much about and fight so much for Anabaptists without some kind of strong identification to or with them) but most of my assumptions about you are probably wrong. I ask that you keep challenging your assumptions about me as I do mine about you. I will be glad to answer direct questions where you need to check possible intentions if you give me the same consideration back.Anacapa 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Types of Worship/Moderate subsection content

DJ I like the content you added here. I have a few questions but it seems to flow quite well with other sections. Thanks for filling this in. I will be back soon to ask a few questions where i am confused/unclear but I expect no major issues because this looks like a very complete NPOV representation of the Moderates at least to me. Anacapa 04:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DJ I have the following questions about the Moderate content. I am going to stay out of it to allow you to finish what you had planned. Could you address these issues in the content somehow?

1. could you note the percentage of all Mennonites that the two Moderate churches include so people know how big a part of the Mennonite stream these churches represent?
2. could you clarify what group 'conservative evangelical protestant' refers to. It is the Conservative subsection?
3. Could you specify 'Moderate' Mennonites in the second PP so people know who you are talking about here as opposed to all Mennonites.
4. Could you show what 'salt and light' means for unfamiliar readers.
5. I liked the third PP which seems balanced, clean and clear.
6. Could you note some standards that Moderates differ on from Progressives so we can flow into the Progressive section.

Overall this looks real good to me. It flows well with the other sections and makes the Moderates stand out as separate groups. It is also honest about Menno Simons doctrine (although we will have to add/link that somewhere so people know what it is.), church discipline and excommunication from what little I know. Hope it works for you too.Anacapa 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Schisms subsection issues

You know Anacapa, there are entire books devoted to early Mennonite schisms among the Dutch and Frisian Mennonites during the early Mennonite years that don't have any mention here. There is so much information that could potentially be included on this page. It's impossible to include it all. That's why I suggest moving Reformed Mennonites and Stauffer Mennonites to their own page, with perhaps a one or two sentence mention here. Stettlerj 03:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You know Stettlerj, one can summarize a whole book in a few statements so nothing is impossible here. I welcome these sources as I had expected there were far more early schisms in Europe just from watching what happened in North America. I would be glad to work with you on how to show how the schisms changed things from the beginning with short, succinct statements. I added the Reformed Mennonites and the Stauffers in the TYPEs of Worship section not to cover old schisms but to show the living results of those key schisms today and to give readers some idea of how other Mennonites worldwide might indeed worship today. I suspect you might have other unstated POV reasons for moving these two extreme but historically representative groups out of the main article entirely. Let's look at all the sources and then decide on some consensus basis how to handle this here. I have good cause to question POV in general here because almost none of the genuine early so-called 'negative' historical content is included here. I don't mean to be testy or suspicious but I begin to wonder when we go round and round on the same predictable issues that there might be something unstated beneath the table here that some people have a big problem with. I notice we almost never have issues about other topics.Anacapa 04:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, I have a huge problem with this statement:

What are now seen by many as the 'modern' churches descended from those groups that abandoned traditional Mennonite practices such as extreme forms of excommunication, severe shunning, head-veiling for women, plain dress for both sexes, ordination from the laity, and nonparticipation in government. Today, however, the groups that have held to the literal interpretations of Mennonite doctrine are actually increasing at a much more rapid rate than those groups that have rejected these standards.

First problem: extreme excommunication and social avoidance was never practiced in Europe by the Swiss Mennonites, therefore "traditional Mennonite practice" is a blanket statement that is not true of probably the majority of Mennonite traditions in the USA and the world.

Second, who says that those who have "literal interpretations of Mennonite doctrine" are the Old Orders and Conservatives? That is a very loaded biased statement.

Third, and this has nothing to do with the above quotiation, but I am concerned about what was written about the Reformed Mennonites and the Stauffer Mennonites borders on plagiat since no credit is given to the source and even terms such as "the first keepers of the old way" are taken verbatim (by the way this refers to keepers of certain old mennonite practicises such as dress, and is not at all refering to the one true church doctrine). Anyway, you can do what you want with my comments. I am busy and can't devote time to edit this page. Stettlerj 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettler, I welcome your comments. I just ask that you read the discussions before you pop in and make changes with no warning again. I also welcome you back anytime and I hope you will provide your source texts for the early schisms so I/we can see what you mean. Here are few responses to your comments:

1. It seems you have problems with two statements above. The first is mine. The second was already there.
2. As for your claim that extreme excommunication and social avoidance (shunning) was never practiced in Europe by the Swiss Mennonites what are your sources? The Encyclopedia of American Religions paints quite a different picture of 'traditional Mennnonite practices'. What I will be glad to do now is to move that first statement down here so we can complete source checks and compare your sources with mine.
3. As to your second point about 'literal interpretations' please do not attribute that statement to me. It was there when I edited this. If you have problems with it change it to better represent what you know from sound sources and reference those soures.
4. As for the plagiarism I had planned go back to that entire section and give Scott the credit he is due there but there was no point in making everything perfect while you were reverting the content. I will attach Scott to his characterization of Keepers of the Old Way and reference this as soon as this POV debate settles down.
5. As for the One True church doctrine I suggest you go back and reread Scott's chapter on his First Keepers of the Old Way. He goes on at length about their ONE TRUE Church doctrine and their close adherence to the gospel as taught by Menno Simons. Your statement above about what Scott refers to is false based on his content. I was as faithful as possible to his exact content here so be please be much more careful before you accuse me of false references.
6. As for your unnamed sources about European schisms/history, I would love to include such content. Surely if we have content about rat poisioning here we can include on of the fundamental aspects of all Mennonite history which were countless schisms that make up the character of countless different denominations today.
7. To call this content loaded is a bit disengenous to me when the entire article seems to be loaded with positive POV. A glance at the Encyclopedia of American Religions shows quite clearly that we have far from the whole picture in this article. Excommunication and shunning go way back and are a big part on Mennonite faith confessions. I wonder who is being loaded here me or you?
8. I welcome you to come back with sources and discuss the Schisms section in detail. I had just seeded it from the best I could gleen from Scott. I knew it was far from complete and I welcome your suggestions/edits as long as you refrain from using your sources as an excuse to delete or minimize uncomfortable but quite representative content.
9. If you do come back please begin by showing us your sources and where you want to go with the Schisms sections so we can work together and prevent round and round reverts.Anacapa 01:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Jon, I see you removed two references that I plan to use as sources. They are The Complete Writings of Menno Simons and Encyclopedia of American Religions both of which have NPOV content that is highly relevant to this article. Please explain the basis for these deletions as I put them there to give all editors prior chances to review them before I go in and add the content. Anacapa 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The references section is for sources used in creating the main text and cited in the notes. One would typically add the references after the material has been added to the main article. This page is better for communicating with other editors. JonHarder 12:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine but please explain next time with edit comments so I have no cause to suspect POV motivations here.Anacapa 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Othodox subsection edits and POV issues

Stettlerj, please finish resolution of discussions before making changes on high conflict content that is loaded with facts that are uncomfortable to most Mennonites. I will be glad to address your questions. I will also be glad to change subsection titles/or any content after discussion but please do not jump in and edit loaded content unless you discuss things first to some sort of resolution to prevent edit wars here. Clearly this is a POV issue rather than an 'accuracy' or space issue from most of your edits.

Here are some responses to questions you asked with edit comments along with explanations about edits I to your edits to restore the original flow and intent of this content (see discusssion above. If you have issues with my specific intents please spell them out and state your specific intents so we can consensus. I now know this is a huge POV issue from watching the edits you made so please be careful here.

1. I restored orthodox to keep the flow of this section and to fairly classify the two 'literal-minded' or 'orthodox' churches who closely follow the gospel according to Menno Simons. As to the Holdemans please go to Scott and to their link and the dictionary definition of othodox to see why I put them there. Also please see the points I made above about Scott's failure to classify just these two groups.
2. I restored 'purest' remaining example as that is out of SCOTT and as this section is about Types of worship be they 'pure' or 'degenerate' not about Schisms per say. I use schisms to give people and idea of how these churches came about so perspective is possible. Please read the discussion points above and discuss this with me before you change it again. You have to source your statements or give me time to compare your sources.
3. I restored 'precious purity' because it came right out of Scott and YES it well represents a REAL melodrama.
4. I restored the extreme excomunication and severe shunning because that is shown in Scott's account and in the Reformed Mennnonite Delivered Unto Satan reference in shunning. Please make no new changes here without discussion of I will call a POV check on this section.
5. thanks for the catch on the cars.
6. I am going to move the Holdemans back into 'orthodox' for the reasons above. and I will restore a few things until we discuss them but I will leave your edits about shunning by other Mennonite groups alone because I already stated questions about that above...although I have good cause to suspect from reading Mennonite references that it is going on.

I insist that you stay clean on the edit comments and make no new ridiculing statements about my content there. This is the page to take issue with me. I want this to stay professional if possible. Anacapa 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is it's plagiat? - User:Stettlerj

First of all, I complety agree that its important not to leave messages to other users in the edit comments. After all, everyone reads those notes, so how do we know who "you" is? We all seem to be in agreement that we don't want an edit war here.

I have a few thoughts on the issue of using the "orthodox" label to refer to Holdeman. You've referred a number of times to the dictionary definition of orthodox. If we look at the dictionary.com definition, two definitions seem most relevant:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

2. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

I have questions about whether Holdeman Mennonites or reformed Mennonites qualify for two of the three main parts of this definition:

Is there theology "accepted" or "commonly accepted" view of what it means to be Mennonite? A google search on Mennonite turns up no reference to these churches in the first few pages. A review of well established Mennonite theology sources like The Mennonite Quarterly Review and The Conrad Grebel Review will reveal a very different interpretation of Anabaptist teachings than that held by the Reformed or Holdeman churches.

As I said before and will say again and again if there is a better term that 'orthodox' to classify these two (and other?) literal-minded churches please suggest it. It is clear from the countless number of independent Mennonite churches with immense differences between types of worship, doctrine and tradition that NO SINGLE group today can claim to represent the 'accepted' or 'commonly accepted' view of what it means to be Mennonite today. Clearly the 'old fashioned' groups would immediately excommunicate and shun a member should that member do what is perfectly acceptable in moderate and progressive groups. The sources above seem to represent the moderate viewpoints (because the moderates pack the web with websites and manage the Mennonite colleges/institutions) but the moderates seem to be a 'declining' minority of all Mennonites while the more conservative groups seem to be growing. So NO, as far as I know, there is no single 'establishment' type of worship doctrine or tradition TODAY but there is a traditional faith established by Sattler and Menno Simons and others that is shown in the Theology section already. The old fashioned groups seem to follow that original faith quite closely as opposed to the so-called 'degenerate' faiths outlined in some of the Moderate(?) sources above. As for interpretations of Anabaptist teachings, each groups seems to take what they like and 'interpret' the rest to their liking irrespective of the teachings themselves. Where the 'orthodox' churches are different is that they seem to see themselves as the living embodiment of the LITERAL intrepretations of the ORIGINAL Menno Simon's teachings and interpretations of the Gospel. Clearly the 'orthodox' groups adhere most closely to the 'traditional' faith established long before all those early and ongoing schisms began to splinter the Mennonite body into countless independent groups. From a glance at SCOTT and the Membership section data there is no 'established' church today that can claim to represent most Mennonites. When I came aboard this article, I saw what appeared to be Mennonite Church USA POV/content with no mention of the other groups at all. Clearly the Mennonite Church USA fails to represent most Mennonites in North America much less worldwide from all the demographic data we found and added. What I am trying to do is include all POV's here with NPOV and show some real sense of the remaining embodiments of Mennonite history.Anacapa 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do they represent the "established" church? Given that both of these churches were formed as splinters off the main branch of the Mennonite church, this seems unlikely. If we look at the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Jews, both groups can reasonably claim that the other groups broke away from them or that they've never had a reformation. Not so the Holdemans or Reformed Mennonites.

No one claimed they represent the 'established' church today. The fact that these and the other 'old fashioned' church were formed from splinters off the THEN main body of Mennonites, AND REMAINED MUCH MORE "PURE" as the main body continued to splinter and become more 'degenerate' is an indication that they represented the Mainstream group THEN NOT NOW. Since the 'old fashioned' groups seem to have far more in common with each other than they do with the Moderate or Progressive groups today...one can claim that they represent the so-called 'mainstream' before it morphed into it's present 'degenerate' state AS SEEN BY THEM. These churches represent the remaining roots of the early Mennonite Worship, Doctrine and Tradition in North America to one degree or another with all their idiosyncracies (eg NO ONE is claiming that early North American Mennonites followed a PERSONAL cult leader as the HOLDEMANS did). No one is claiming that all Mennonites follow the First Keepers of The Old Way today either but Scott is claiming that these people were the keepers of the old way...thus the use of 'orthodox' by me. (Note: The Old Orders seem be much less 'orthodox' in worship/doctrine despite their much more traditional lifestyles. This can be quite a confusing paradox to readers unfamiliar with all the twists and turns in Mennonite history...another reason for separating the two groups)Anacapa 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because both these groups claim to represent "true" Mennonitism or Anabaptism does not mean that they do. If this was our criteria then we'd end up classifying every true church sect that comes along as orthodox.

Indeed a claim is just a claim, but one can sure see what they DO...and these groups sure seem to practice what they preach as opposed to other less 'pure' groups. One can see close compliance with Sattler's 'True' Anabaptism here which is all about the ONE TRUE church against the MANY FALSE churches. As for a 'true' Mennonitism, it is a glaring ommision to me that there is no mention of Menno Simon's many "Menno-nitisms" in this article with which to compare these 'orthodox' and all other Mennonite churches against. Given how extreme the 'orthodox' ideologies are and how hard it seems to be to follow them today, I can't imagine there will have many more new churches be discovered to fit in this 'orthodox' sub-section...Scott certainly doesn't point to others...although there might be others on other continents who are just as 'pure'...but I imagine just a few. Anacapa 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, thanks to all of you for all your ongoing work on this article. Although I don't have the time that you do to work on it, its great to see so much activity going on and I'll pitch in when I can. mennonot 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the "you" being very inappropriate there, I noticed that immidiately and knew i should not have written "you" for the very reason given, but it's impossible to change after being written. Stettlerj 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mennonot, I am having trouble separating what are your comments above from Stettlerj's. Would you separate them for us so I can see your points? I welcome you pitching in. Your data was solid and sound and quite useable. I notice we rarely go round and round when there is such sound info available...so thanks for that contribution. Anacapa 02:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stettlerj thanks for noticing. NO problem about 'you' being permanent to me as long as we move in toward professionalism in the future. The point to me is to try to keep (as much as is reasonably possible) personal opinions about both people and content confined to this page or to our personal talk pages so we can grapple with them without being personal on the articles history page. I know these issues are hot because I have only spent most of my lifetime in them. I also know you have good instincts and I am glad to work with you as long as you face facts with facts and make your POV and opinions overt and clear here. No one is perfect about POV...I am glad when you call mine as long as you allow me to call yours back. We all have a POV. The point to me of NPOV is to include all POV's here. Anacapa 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pause on Types of Worship/Schisms to attain consensus?

I reverted Stettlerj's last changes to allow to finish resolving what are huge POV issues and so we could consense on little issues such as the use of 'bewildering' to describe the countless confusing distinctions between Conservative subsection groups. Since Stettlerj made a few changes before this revert, I am going to go back and restore the orginal content although I plan to keep changes that Stettlerj made that seem fine to me. My intent is to reestablish the basic content in it's original form so that we can discuss each issue bit by bit here. Prior to attaining some sort of consensus I will add NO NEW content to either section and I ask that no one else edit content to the any 'Types' section above the Moderate subsection until we have some consensus. (Since no one seems to have a problem with the Moderate content or Progressive content I welcome ongoing editing in those subsections.) I am doing this to try to keep the peace. I mean no offense to Stettlerj...I hope to work with her to meet her issues and mine in a reasonable, complete, balanced NPOV way here. I also am fine with her added content about the first European split. I will be back in 1-3 days to listen to where people are here. I welcome other editors to weigh in too but I insist on reasonable and specific criteria for changes to this content that apply to the whole article as well. I also ask that all editors make a good faith attempt to read the LONG discussions about this and listen to my criteria/concerns/intent on this section so we can actually come to some sort of consensus on these sections/subsections that is fair to all sources/POV's. Anacapa 05:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Low German, Plautdietsch, Dutch-Prussian descent

I edited the section in "Russian Mennonites" which previously read: "Mennonites of Dutch-Prussian (Low German) descent ..." It now reads: "Mennonites of Dutch-Prussian descent (who speak a dialect known as Plautdietsch, which can be loosely translated as "Low German") ..." In the previous reading, "Low German" isn't directly identified as a dialect of German, but was linked to the "Plautdietsch" page, which discusses this Mennonite dialect. Also, although "Low German" commonly used among the Mennonites as the English description for both their dialect and cultural heritage (as this "Russian Mennonite" paragraph does), the term "Low German" in English can be ambiguous; linguistically it refers to German dialects which were "unaffected by the High Germanic sound shift," found in the north of Germany, to which Plautdietsch belongs; but it can also imply "any non-standard German"(see Low German). Although this meaning is not linguistic, the term in English leaves ambiguity. In any case, even the linguistically accurate meaning of "Low German" is a group of dialects; Plautdietsch is only one of these dialects. I think the paragraph could use further re-working to clarify this distinction, and the ambiguity of Low German refering to both a dialect and ancestry. Perhaps another paragraph could be added to discuss the language of Russian Mennonites, and the words used for it. A brief explanation with links to the existing pages (Plautdietsch & Low German) would do the trick.

Fundamentalist instead of Orthodox

After all those long winded (and possibly pointless) discussions above I am going to title this subsection again based on direct quotes below. The intent here is to keep this section simple, clean and reasonably representative rather than listing each of hundreds of independent churches by themselves. If other editors take issue with this, I insist on some reasonable discussions before reverts (or edits such as softening the discipline statements) or I will call a POV check here.

Quotes on Holdemans:

"In denying that Jesus was made from the seed of Mary, the Christology of this church is probably closer to the teachings of Menno Simons and Melchior Hoffman than any other Mennonite group."
"...a separate group (in 1859) with emphasis on the "true lineage" of the church, evangelical conversion, church discipline, and the shunning of the excommunicated" (Scott|198)

Quotes on the Reformed Mennonite Church:

"They saw themselves as the only true followers of Menno Simons teachings" (Scott|107)
"a kind of fundamentalism with how the scripture had been written; and a determination, remarkably strong even for Mennonites, to achieve a truly pure church through uncompromising discipline." (McMaster|227)
"although one part of him (founder Francis Herr) sought purity of faith by carrying certain Anabaptist-Mennonite principles to their limits, another part sought assurance more along the paths of the Pietiest and revivalists. (McMaster|227)

Anacapa 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the place to make up new designations for groups. Some individuals in "mainstream" Mennonite churches could be described as fundamentalists, while others in Reformed Mennonite churches, for example, may be there because it's tradition, so I don't see how this title clarifies anything. Also, why are the Holdeman Mennonites and the Reformed Mennonites put together. If they both think they are the one true church, that means they don't recognise each other, so I am not sure they would appreciate being put together. What do you think. Stettlerj 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Worldliness"

In the "Russian Mennonite" section the following comments were rather out of place:

"Avoiding the worldliness of the outside world remains another important keystone in the foundation of the Mennonite faith. However, as with all groups, worldliness is virtually impossible to keep out. In the Mennonite colonies of Russia,..."

There are two problems with these statements about worldliness; one is that "worldliness" isn't defined in the article, or even mentioned otherwise. So a reader who is not familiar with Mennonite beliefs will not understand the significance of these statements. For this reason, I have deleted the statements (up to "In the Mennonite colonies ...")

Secondly, the discussion and definition of "worldliness" doesn't belong in the history of the Russian Mennonites. The concept is a very important one and should be included in the "Theology" section along with a definition/discussion. Perhaps whoever included these statements could make this change.

The paragraph following these statements ("In the Mennonite colonies of Russia ... mass expulsions under the Soviet Union") needs to be re-worked. There need to be more specific references to events between the arrival of the Mennonites in Russia and their expulsion under the Soviet Union. Some re-wording to clarify any connections between the prosperity, the alcohol consumption, and the ensuing community strife and splitting would also be helpful, in addition to sources/evidence for the prosperity and social problems (again, an understanding of the idea of "worldliness" seems to be taken for granted.) The Russian Mennonite page has specific information (names, dates, groups, etc.), so perhaps this paragraph could be significantly shortened, or even deleted, since these specifics would be more in place in the Russian Mennonite article anyway. (Worldliness, however, should be defined in this article, as mentioned above.)

Finally I wonder whether the following is NPOV:

"Occasionally, Pietist movements, often influenced by Baptist missionaries from Germany, formed groups opposed to the accepted community ways; one particular group formed was the Mennonite Brethren,"

It seems to be looking outward at the Mennonite Brethren as outsiders. In any case, it has the needs the same re-working mentioned above. Perhaps someone can fix this paragraph or help decide whether it's necessary or not.--Stetson 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think these are all good suggestions. I wouldn't mind working on an overhall of Russian Mennonite and Mennonite Brethren material myself, but want to start by improving the individual articles first and then figuring out how to summarize it in this article. It would be good if someone could look at those parts of this article now. Sxeptomaniac? JonHarder 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking to myself the other day that the Russian Mennonite section was about as large as the main article it links to. When I have a little time, I want to whittle it down to a summary and move the data that isn't already in the Russian Mennonite section there. I think it would be easier in the long run to move data first, then improve, so as not to undo too much work in the transition. I'll see if I can dig out my books on the Mennonite Brethren, too.

As far as the worldliness section, that is an important concept, since it would also tie into the plain dress practices of the Old Orders, so it should be defined in the theology section. Sxeptomaniac 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Up in the discussion section called "Wikification, POV checks, fact dispute, complete representation" I suggested adding more about the Old Colony Mennonites as well, but perhaps this too should appear on the "Russian Mennonite" page, since they're a branch of that group; it could then find its way into a summary of the "Russian Mennonite" material on the main Mennonite page.--Stetson 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I mostly just did a cut and paste of sections to the Russian Mennonite article. Now it's cleanup time. Sxeptomaniac 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Schleitheim Confession Separation line

I have a real problem with the addition of "and all other churches" to the Schletheim Confession in the Theology section. The wording implies meaning that they could not possibly have intended when they wrote it. The Anabaptists rejected the Catholic Church, and other movements that had beliefs and practices contrary to the confession, but "churches" implies a denominational organization that just wasn't in place at the time. There was no Anabaptist Church, so how could they reject "all other churches"? For now, I'm going to remove that, though maybe we can come to a decision on some better wording. Sxeptomaniac 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

In the Beliefs section I found one of the sentences caused a bit of confusion to me, meaning that I had to read it twice. Specifically, in the bullet point labelled Horse and Buggy Old Order Mennonites. The sentence is:

″they stress separation from the world, excommunication, and the wearing of plain clothes.″ - On first reading my brain read it as separation from the world, separation from excommunication, and separation from the wearing of plain clothes. Which is why I was confused.

Would it cause confusion or dilute the meaning of this sentence to change it to something like: ″they stress separation from the world, the wearing of plain clothes, and excommunication.″?

Efan78 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That would not dilute the meaning, no. It is a list of three items. The order is probably better because they don't actually stress excommunication, but they do practice it. So they stress separation from the world and the wearing of plain clothes. They also practice excommunication might even be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)