Talk:Two by Twos

Edits removed 24 Feb 2019

I've removed these edits which were summarized with...

I removed the erroneous statement that "members are told to deny any church name" and gave one explanation for why any name(s) exist at all. Also, removed the word "only" in "salvation is only available" because that is flatly not the case. God saves whomever He saves. It is true where the gospel has been preached, those who reject it may miss out. But what most ministers would say is that such matters are in God's hand. It is possible to accept every word preached and nevertheless "lose out."

Please note that article lead sections are used to summarize the referenced material in an article's body. Personal experience and research is not suitable for inclusion in articles, and instead the material in articles are to be referenced to published source materials. If you wish to add material with alternative viewpoints, please do so within the body of the article (not simply alter the lead section) with reliable references to back up your statements. • Astynax ^talk 21:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you removed edits /info that was correct 134.215.4.36 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Astynax has a history of using deceptive and creative authoring to portray his own false view of this group. It is true that a name doesn't exist except for where it is required for specific legal reasons, and there isn't a single name used in any of these cases for the group as a whole. It's not a true representation that members are told to deny having a name, as though they are told to lie about a name that exists. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For you information, I have removed the comment about the name (which was in a sentence about the trinity) up to the top where there were comments about the name. Tmtsoj (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sexual Assault in the Church

I was raised in this religion. I never believed in it but I would like to know more about it. I saw in the publication that there was mention of sexual assault, I would like to more about this subject. I'm interested in learning more truth about the religion it almost feels like there is a secret part missing. Finding out more about there money trail would be quite interesting. I also know they still practice meetings in places like parks and such where only certain religions are allowed. (As to keep there practice secret from governments/law enforcement) I wonder if there is somebody above the head workers, I wanna know who's at the very top. I have heard stories of the female workers being sexually assaulted by other male workers. I also would like to bring up the complete sexist way that they will only allow male workers to be head workers. What are they trying to keep so secret? Why don't they tell members more about how it was founded. I was always under the impression that the religion had always been because nothing was even explained. This article is great but I wouldn't say that it quite up to date with how they act now. Many members use technology, even the workers have phones and social media. But don't get the wrong idea the people are super nice probably some of the nicest people I've met. And I know of members who do have tattoos. I did notice that almost all members hide the fact that they take part in "worldly" things like watching TV. I also noticed that it's not mentioned in the article that workers go around to the different members house and stay the night with them or even multiple nights. They are also given there vehicles by members of the church along with there gas money ECT. Currently I haven't meet a bad person belonging to the church, they all seem like good people but I would like for the church to be more transparent to it's members. I would be very interested in anything else that has been heard or seen that hasn't already been mentioned. 2600:387:F:E37:0:0:0:2 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The main problem for under-reported groups such as the Two by Twos is finding published source reference material required to support statements added to articles. There have been several court cases, some ongoing, and convictions of such incidents which could be added to this article (with appropriate references). However, it likely would not be acceptable to add language to imply that sexual predation was a widespread or inherent characteristic within this group unless backed up with high-level source material. • Astynax ^talk 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The latest episode (published Aug. 16, 2023) of the "Trust Me: Cults, Extreme Belief, and Manipulation" podcast is part one of a discussion with two former members; one of the podcast hosts is a former member from a different area. At least one mentions having been a fourth-generation member. They finish the episode by reading a letter to the community from a member of leadership about the sexual abuse by a recently dead member, I think an overseer.

https://www.trustmepod.com/podcast/episode/4c0d7990/kyle-and-kari-part-1-deconstructing-the-two-by-twos Ann Burlingham (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't question the seriousness of this issue, however, until there is coverage of this issue in WP:RS reliable sources (e.g., scholarly journals/books, mainstream newspapers/broadcast news, and similar published sources) this subject won't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Podcasts generally don't meet the standards, unless associated with scholarship (such as produced by a sociologist of note), and often not even then if the content primarily reflects opinion or personal viewpoints rather than research. This and similar issues (such as fleshing out details on finances or succession at the higher levels of the clergy) are certainly worthy of inclusion; once backed by acceptable sources. • Astynax ^talk 15:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that news reporting on court cases arising from such incidents (and court records themselves) can serve as sources, if carefully cited. I believe there have been a stream of convictions in the past that are likely noteworthy, records of which could serve as sources if someone is motivated to dig for them. As I previously stated, however, any intimation that sexual abuse is a common or inherent feature of this church would require top-tier sources which state this (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). • Astynax ^talk 17:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Astynax@Ann Burlingham we now have a reliable source and a confession. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent reporting on this topic for a totally reputable source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66449988?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.38.173 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

CSA in the 2x2 church Article

Hi there is an article written on the Daily Dot about this exact topic of horrible abuse in this church. Would that be enough to dig deeper into this issue? https://www.dailydot.com/news/underground-church-two-by-twos/#llqqcu69euohmb6dle6 2600:6C5E:87F:FA4F:6DC7:8D31:B008:6E67 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Daily Dot has in the past been considered a reliable source for "non-contentious claims of fact". Such sources must be carefully used, however, e.g., it is not stand-alone backing for claims of abuse (although it can be used as backup if such claims have either been cited in higher quality sources and/or tried in a court leading to a conviction covered by the claim), and you cannot cite portions of the article which use Wikipedia itself as a source. A quick scan of that article seems to indicate that there are links to court cases that might yield records that provide additional backing for some statements. I'd suggest any such material be placed toward the end of the Into the 21st century section. Wikipedia is not a current events notice board, place to post info about current allegations/investigations, or place to advance original syntheses, so exercise discretion. When in doubt, wait for high quality reliable sources to appear, however frustratingly slow that may seem. • Astynax ^talk 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of claimed

The use of 'claimed' is deprecated, see MOS:CLAIM, as imappropriately implying doubt and hence a lack of a NPOV on the part of the editor, with the Wikipedia guideline recommending the use of alternatives. Jontel (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, although there is ample reason in sources to support implications of doubt regarding many of this church's "claims" (including self-contradictions in practices, doctrines, and histography). I have, however, reworded to reduce the repetition of that term. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Luvlornlia and general anecdotal bias creeping into article

I may end up undoing most of the recent edits by Luvlornlia that was described as "added details to certain paragraphs that most people may not know", but would like to discuss first. I will acknowledge that Wikipedia is a place that people come to find information that they "may not know", but we need to be careful that it isn't just a reflection of personal experience rather than something that is universal, and also that the personal experience also doesn't disagree other parts of the article other other experience of the group. For example, the addition of "While rules are not strictly 'enforced' and vary between families, the church ultimately values complete and total dedication to the doctrine", seems to simultaneously say that there are no consistent rules (varies between families) which aren't strictly enforced anyway, while also valuing "complete and total dedication" to a "doctrine" that is not clearly defined and variable. It seems confusing and contradictory.

Luvlornlia is misrepresenting the reality that this is more an unofficial and loose group of people with a common faith and purpose, and who do not have a doctrine or official canon like a typical church organisation has, and therefore it isn't accurate to present this group as if it has official doctrine or rules. Tmtsoj (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)