From XFamily - Children of God
  • Is "knew disciple" correct? It's there in addition to "new..." but I am unfamiliar with the term. --Craven de Kere 01:42, 30 Mar 2005 (CST)
    • I, too, am wholly unfamiliar with the term. I would recommend that, short of any 2 editors being aware of its meaning, it be removed from the glossary. --Monger 07:33, 30 Mar 2005 (CST)
      • I've gone ahead and removed the entry. --Monger 17:48, 7 Jun 2005 (CDT)
        • Knew disciple was a term used in the Family. There is even a Mo Letter with the title KNEW DISCIPLES!. Here is a quote:

4. BUT OUR GROWTH IN NEW BABIES ALONE FOR 1978 WAS A PHENOMENAL 611 NEW DISCIPLES VIA THE BIRTH CANAL!--A record number of babies above any year for the past 10 years! So 1978 was a record year for children! So we now have a total of 1,741 children in the Family, which is about one-third of our total live-in population!

5. I'D LIKE TO CALL THEM "KNEW" DISCIPLES from the various Scriptures in the Bible in which it was said that "he knew his wife & she conceived & bare a child"! (Such as Genesis 4:1.) So I'd call that a "KNEW" child or a "KNEW Disciple"!

6. AND I'D SAY THAT'S THE BEST KIND OF DISCIPLE-A "KNEW DISCIPLE"! These KNEW Disciples are born of good Christian parents, missionaries, full-time workers for the Lord, blessed of the Lord before birth, given of God to His children for His Service, born to genuine Christian missionaries on many foreign & home fields during active service for the Lord.

So I think the term "knew disciple" is correct and should be included in the glossary. Anyways, I was wondering if perhaps we should create Category:Glossary and categorize all the terms in the Glossary there. It would be a good way to keep track of all the Glossary terms that have been defined. We could either move the content of the Glossary article to the new category or just put the Glossary article in the new category. Peter F. 10:31, 10 February 2006 (CST)

In light of this Mo Letter, I agree that "knew disciple" should definitely be included in the glossary, though its article should probably note that the term has seen limited use (at least in recent years).
Regarding "Category:Glossary", I've thought about it several times in the past, but at least for me the redundancy between a manual listing immediately above the automatically-generated list of articles within the category would outweigh the benefits of that method. While some categories (e.g. Press, Testimony, etc.) share this problem, I consider there to be greater benefit to those being handled the way they are. Moving the manual listing to a page to be included in the category (preferably as the first link), however, seems like a decent idea. Perhaps we could retitle the manual list as something like "Glossary of Family terminology". One thing though... I'm somewhat opposed to categorizing a number of the articles listed in the glossary (e.g. Flirty Fishing) under a glossary category. What are your thoughts on this point? --Monger 17:22, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
I agree that it would be better for the Glossary article to be in Category:Glossary rather than the latter replacing the former. I don't think it's necessary to retitle the article to "Glossary of Family terminology" as this would be redundant as we would not have a glossary of terminology from any organization other than the one that is the subject of this wiki. Regarding what articles should be listed in the Glossary category (as well as any other apropriate categories), I think it should include all terms listed in the Glossary article. If they don't meet the criteria for being included in a list of glossary terms then they shouldn't be there in the first place. Of course it depends on how the criteria is defined. I believe it should include any term that would likely be unfamilar to a reader without special knowledge of COG/TF and/or any term which is or has a definition unique to TF/COG. So I wouldn't have a problem with Flirty Fishing being listed under Category:Glossary as well as Practices, Sexuality, Proselytization and History. Peter F. 06:14, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
Okay, I provisionally agree with all your suggestions in this matter (I say provisionally simply in case another editor brings up points I hadn't thought of). Whenever you or another editor feels motivated to start the process of categorizing all (or the vast majority) of the articles listed in Glossary, I will try to help with the process. --Monger 19:16, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
What do you think of products (such as the Free Zine or Kiddie Viddie) being included (in either Glossary or Category:Glossary)? I'm not sure they're appropriate in those locations, with a few exceptions (e.g. possibly Mo Letters). --Monger 14:11, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
It depends on how inclusive or exclusive we want the glossary to be. I added those terms to Category:Glossary only because they were already in the Glossary article. Feel free to remove them if you think they don't belong there. In any case, for consistency I think any terms listed in the Glossary article should also be in the Glossary category. Peter F. 14:26, 10 June 2006 (PDT)