Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Article Bias(1)

This article discusses criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must be sure that such an article as this does not become an excuse for bias or a person's pulpit for criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses. This article is NOT NEUTRAL and SHOULD be better examined in light of other religions and translations. I'm here disputing bias in statements in relation to the New World's Translation.

Further, i question whether such an article need even exist. These statements have been sprinkled throughout other articles and if feel that this is just another attempt by opponents to smear Jehovah's Witnesses' reputation. For example, what great effort has been put in place by Wikipedia to detailing all the positive elements of this religious organization? WHy is there a need to be severely neutral on these occasions but liberal when detailing negativity?

[edit] Translation committee The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man.[21] This move has been criticized, as it is meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked. In 1950 the New World Translation Committee said, "The true scholarship behind the New World Translation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men." [22] A former member of the Governing Body, Raymond Franz, has stated that the translation committee consisted of Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr and Albert Schroeder.

Hasn't this been presented elsewhere? Since this article speaks of criticisms, should it also NOT discuss the VALIDITY of such criticisms? Since this is an encyclopedia and not a pulpit for personal disfavor. For example, the article could go on to list other translations that feel similarly and have not disclosed the members of their translation committees.

[edit] Theological bias The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain portions of the Bible so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The criticism of "theological bias" concerns mostly matters of the divinity of Christ (i.e., that Jesus was God), but also concerns other matters such as the eternity of the soul or the return of Jesus to the earth. [23] Some scholars have defended the translation.[24]

Is it enough to simply say: "Some scholars have defended the translation?" Here is a whole paragraph criticizing the NW and only a simple sentence is supposed to make it UNBIASED? Do not all translations SELECTIVELY translate words? Every criticism is NOT A VALID ONE and need not be GIVEN VALIDITY AS IF IT WERE VALID. The NIV and TNIV and many paraphrased versions are GREAT examples of bibles that SELECT words based on their INTERPRETATION of the bible rather than the original text. Further, the NW does what is within the bounds of the the original words used. It is up to the translator how those words will be used. Another translator can't force anohter to translate a word a certain way just because that is the one he used or favored. As long as the variation is legal and has equal weight, what is there to dispute? The NIV and other translations clearly go beyond the scriptures and stretch words in regards to these same disputed topics!

Unless Wikipedia is going to do its own examination of the NW in comparison to other Bibles, it needs to shy away from making such bold and unfounded statements and criticisms. Just becuase a group is a minority doesn't make the Majority RIGHT!

The most frequently criticized rendering is that of the first verse of the Gospel of John:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Most English translations - e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT, emphasis added)

Stating what the literal Greek says here would put all questions to silence. The Greek clearly differientiates the two uses of God in the text. Thus making the distinction found in the NW LEGAL adn if anyone is biased, it is these other translations who REFUSE to show that John differientiated "The Word was with THE GOD, and god was THE WORD" making use of the DEFINITE article in all put one place in front of the last occurence of god as it refers to the WORD. IN any language, this would be a CLEAR distinction--using the definite article at first and then NOT using it. Showing what the Greek really says will alow people to come to a more balanced opinion!

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society states that the latter rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus ("the Word") is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine" or "a god".[25][26] Some scholars state that "a god" is a possible literal translation of the passage,[27] though not the one they would prefer to see.[28] Some scholars also state that a literal translation does not equate persons, but assigns a quality (godlike nature or essence) to Jesus.[29]

A large number of scholars, however, have disagreed with the Witnesses' translation of this passage,[30] describing the latter rendering as "a frightful mistranslation", "monstrous", "intellectually dishonest", "totally indefensible", and "evidence [of] an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar".[31]

OK, basically, the NW is portrayed in a negative light. Then to be UNBIAS we say "some" (like a few) say that it is POSSIBLE but not one they would like to see. YEAH! quite unbiased for a variation that is QUITE ACCURATE and EQUALLY PAUSIBLE if not more so.

But then "A LARGE NUMBER OF SCHOLARS... disagree." "Some" is no longer appropriate here. Unbiased indeed. Notice the list of direct and NEGATIVE quotes. Why weren't such quotes made in favor of the NW? Wikipedia should be skeptical of such articles as these.

"Other New World Translation renderings that form major points of contention include Jeremiah 29:10, Luke 23:43, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:14."

What is the basis for saying they form MAJOR forms of contention when other translations like the New American Standard Bible uses the same words almost verbatim! Do i need to list these examples? All one has to do is check the online bibles to see that the NASV, which endeavors to translate as accurately as possible the words in the Greek says almost the same thing in a number of places. Now are these MAJOR POINTS OF CONTENTION or is this just a MAJOR POINT of contention for the AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE???????

The New World Translation rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences in the New World Translation. However, when the word is used in reference to Jesus, it is consistently translated "do obeisance".[32] The Watchtower Society has explained its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures.[33]

Many words in Greek do not have a direct and precise translation in other languages. Thus the words can be broad in one language and more narrow in another. Almost ALL TRANSLATIONS SELECT different words for proskuneo to suit their believes based on the CONTEXT of the sentence. "DO obeisance" has been shown to be a VALID alternative in many cases since the Greek word could include homage, reverence, worship, etc. The EXTENT of adoration is the question! Just because a person pays homage does not mean they are WORSHIPPING IT. The NW simply shows that the word need not be translated WORSHIP. Other translations do the same at their own discretion.

[edit] Use of the name "Jehovah" Main article: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Jehovah in the New Testament The New World Translation contains the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated do not contain the name "Jehovah". (The NWT of the Old Testament also contains the name "Jehovah" 145 instances more than it is contained in the extant Hebrew manuscripts from which the Old Testament is translated.)

Other translations do this also. Most translations leave out the Divine Name some 6,000 times in the Old Testament, but no meantion of this fallacy here.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the justification for using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is that it existed in the original New Testament writings, but was subsequently replaced by the Greek words for "God" and "Lord" some time around or before the fourth century. The evidence for this is the subject of debate (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament).

These weak statements used to make it appear to be objective and fair are weak and sound like mere unfounded excuses on the part of the Watchtower Society. This is UNFAIR. The criticisms are stated with authority, but the explanation is simply a rushed excused given at the end as if they lack foundation.

Nothing in this article educates the reader about the true complexity of the issues. Although one does not have to be a scholar to understand the arguments as presented here,they are overly simplified and a little more research put into this article could make it educational and really educate the public.

Wikipedia should be more vigilant about detecting malicious intent in articles biased toward minorities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.177.207 (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you feel that something is biased, you can change it. It is important to remember, though, that the purpose of the article is to present the controversy as it exists separate to the editors, and not to offer arguments on the relative validity of each statement. That is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

If you would like to see this article improved but don't want to edit directly, feel free to make suggestions about alternative wording and such. You will probably find, however, that the article has been through many revisions and debates with JW editors to the point where most parties are reasonably happy with the result. BenC7 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. You may find yourself getting listened to better without the CAPS LOCK on, and if you post more concisely.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenC7 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

BenC7 speaks right here. NPOV cannot be achieved through Wikipedia balancing any arguments for and against, that would result in Wikipedia taking an opinion. However: all arguments found in the surrounding world - by citations - are valid and can be inserted by any reader. That's the principles. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Bias(2)

In order to compare the compilation and editing of the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses with that of other religions, I have looked at the Wiki articles about other well-known religions. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has a thorough discourse about their history, beliefs and practices, and yet there seems to be nothing there about the controversies that surround that particular belief system! If we take the format of the R.C. article as a guide, then an article about JWs beliefs would be similarly presented. However, if the tone of the criticisms against JWs that are found in this article is the better model, perhaps someone should start inserting all appropriate negatives into the RC article! In reality, it would be extremely in appropriate and disrespectful to do so. Everyone should be treated with due dignity and honour. When I saw the various pages about JWs, I first thought that, at last, I would be reading a fair presentation of the beliefs and practices of this group, only to find that it was not to be so. Unfortunately, editing is a free-for-all, and in the case of JWs, it seems that many are jumping on the bandwagon of highlighting short-comings, real or imagined! Let's have some sensible and unbiased presentations of what people believe, and their form of worship. That's all I ask from an encyclopedia. If anyone has a grudge, for any reason, remember, this is not a chat room, but an encyclopedia! --JW-somewhere (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually comparing the JW controversies page with the main Catholic article?? Or are you unaware of the article Criticism of the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet Use

I concur with Justinmc's comment in part, but I fail to see the notability of such as a Contraversy without context. This section is another one of those "See what I found them saying!" type arguments. If some written and verified work has made the connection (about this being contraversial) somewhere in a verified source, then I can see how this is appropriate (though context must still be provided). Does someone have such a source? If not, this factoid would better fit into another article, in my opinion. --Fcsuper (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Without further comment, I will remove this section within a couple of days for not being notable as an actual controversy. The section borders on Original Research in its used of JW references and the conclusions it reaches based on those references. Wikipedia is not used to argue conclusions, but to state verifiable facts that are noteworthy in within the context. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Without further comment, section is removed. I added the text here in case someone wished to add any of this detail to a Criticisms article. --Fcsuper (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet use

- The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking." Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control" in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society. Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.

Disassociation section

Article now states: "However if a person has such feelings or now believes the doctrines to be incorrect and feels they cannot in good conscience remain members, they may freely leave the religion by not attending their services. Their are no sanctions for this and many freely leave the religion or choose to become inactive non-participants members."

Johanneum, while this is a marginal improvement in wording, it isn't entirely accurate for a couple of reasons. If someone does not feel comfortable being a member of the religion, their conscience is not necessarily allayed by merely not attending the religious services. Some feel that it is hypocritical to technically remain a member though they cannot sincerely accept their doctrines - and they sometimes reluctantly do so wholly because of the fear of losing friends and family by taking the action of formally disassociating. Additionally, inactive members still receive 'sheperding calls' which may be unwelcome if they don't really accept the doctrines - and repeatedly rejecting such 'encouragement', or explaining doctrinal concerns to the elders may result in an eventual announcement that they have 'disassociated' anyway. Additionally, social activity by congregation members with those who are 'inactive' is typically greatly reduced.--Jeffro77 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, the comment, "when people do not share the same goals, hopes, beleifs, they will not have the association or relationship as when they did share", while almost seeming to defend the JW approach to shunning is not reflective of people in general. Many people in the real world - even of completely discordant religious beliefs to one another - have very close friends who do not share their same "goals, hopes, beliefs", yet the close friendships are maintained.--Jeffro77 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro I do understand your point and it makes sense. I also appreciate that you discussed this before you changed it again. However, I still feel that the way it is is misleading. Why? Because it makes it appear to the reader that there are only two options. 1) stay due to fear 2) leave and be shunned. This is not true there is at least one other option that I am attempting to bring out. 3) to stop attending. It is also misleading to say, there are “no provision for conscientious objectors who freely leave to have any continued normal associations” . What does “provision” mean? What religion has a “provision” for objectors? Regardless many do find that option 3 above is a “provision”.

Option 3 is quite logical in a purely clinical way. But when real people are involved, it is not that simple. While some may have no trouble with the dichotomy (and they should not be judged for that), others experience a strong emotional conflict regarding such an option. The expression 'no provision for conscientious objectors' was added by Lucille S on 11 July 2006, so you will need to take that specific wording up with her. I haven't thought of better wording, but the point is that people who sincerely feel they are following the attitude of Acts 17:11, making sure "these things are so" - quite different from committing some 'gross sin' - are shunned; if you have better wording that conveys the correct idea, feel free.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also “lost sheep” can and do say no to elders who want to visit. A District Overseer, came to our house and he was not welcomed. So people do say they do not want a visit and it ends with that, no further sanctions! It happens all the time.

I said ' may.. result in eventual', not 'after rejecting a visit'.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If some feel “hypocritical to technically remain” then perhaps that could be brought out. However, that is like saying they want their cake and eat it too. It seems to be one way or the other. Either they are for the policy to Shun or they are against it. If they are against it, then their beliefs may be like Christendom that you should just stop attending church and no longer be a member of it. Just my two cents.

The 'want their cake and eat it too' reference implies that it is merely the beliefs regarding shunning itself that members might disagree with. But there are other doctrines that many have trouble with for which reason they do not want to remain members (or be implied to believe things they know to be untrue), such as the 607BC doctrine (which can be disproved using only the bible). However, there are such ones who feel emotionally bound to 'shut up' about it so their family and friends can still talk to them. (As a side point, using the term 'Christendom' as being distinct from and exclusive of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' implies ad hominem.)--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Association: Yes it will be different, but they will not be shunned, which again shows another option. This whole thing should not be as it is presently implied either A or B with no allowance for C. Is there a way to bring this all out? Would it be better not to have this section? Just some ideas.Johanneum 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, for some it is an entirely unacceptable option. Additionally, it still indicates impinged freedom of association.--Jeffro77 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll have to go option C, but it could turn into option a/b out of my control. It's terribly scary and awful and hurting me so much. I have almost no one to talk to about it. I love my family; they are really nice people, i just don't have the ability to force myself to believe it anymore. I don't know what to do and I'm scared. Im 19 and still living at home. help. please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonieymouse (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An elder told me a few years ago when I was still in that they used to go "looking for" people who'd drifted away and might be caught up in sin, but that these days they don't follow up on people (follow up on them for the purpose of discipline, that is) who aren't showing any interest in attending meetings etc. However, I don't know where such a viewpoint has been published. I do know that Andrew Holden's "Cavorting With the Devil" deals exactly with this subject. I don't know if it has been referenced yet for this section. I've just been reading the discussion page only. Mandmelon (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfulfilled predictions

Johanneum, you will see from the sheer number of references that it would be impractical to quote directly. There is a link provided which has the quotes extensively listed. Unfortunately I cannot make the link go directly to the part of the page where the articles I have listed are quoted. Quoting will make the footnotes too long. The predictive nature is quite clear:

In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. (Awake, 8 Oct 66)

Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. (WT 1 May 67)

Another speaker, F. W. Franz, the Society's vice-president, forcefully impressed on the audience the urgency of the Christian preaching work. He stressed that, according to dependable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will end this coming September according to the lunar calendar. (WT, 1 May 75)

And so on. BenC7 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben you really need to understand the JW's view (and issues involved) before you go and present it like you have. 1) They still do believe that 1975 is the end of 6,000 years of history. 2) Is that a prediction anyway? The prediction is what may have happen then, not how/why they came up with that date. Your little addition is misleading and incorrect. Perhaps in the future you can ask Jeffro for advise or understanding, since he does know JW's, before you post additions which seem like you either do not know, which I believe, or don't care about truth. Johanneum 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben you have had two days to try and correct it, I will go ahead and delete it for now. Please feel free to correct it and fit it in if you really think such is necessary. Johanneum 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, history and "man's existence" was still occurring. They were predictions - they said that such-and-such was going to happen. It belongs in that section because those predictions did not come to pass. Simple. BenC7 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben it seems that you are not making sense. What is the prediction? Please state the prediction.Johanneum 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. I think it would be almost faster to go to an RfC, rather than continue this pointless debate. This will be my last attempt before going to RfC. Take one of the quotes I posted above, which is a small selection of many:

Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. (WT 1 May 67)

This is a prediction. It was made before the event, saying that the end of 6000 years of human experience would happen in the future, and they set a specific date for this to occur. It DIDN'T HAPPEN! End of story. There is nothing that is difficult to understand about how this is a prediction. BenC7 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. That particular quote was saying that 6000 years of human history would be finished in 1975, not that human history will end in 1975. Aside from that fact that it year of human history will end after December 31. That being said, leaduing up to 1975, the isn't really true, it doesn't require a spectacular event, any more than saying that this Watchtower Society did make various comments in publications, and in talks, stating that it was very likely that Armageddon would occur in 1975, or a limited time thereafter. See The Watchtower, 15 March, 1980, page 17 para. 5-6.--Jeffro77 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

JW's believe that the Bible teaches according to its chronology that Man has only lived for just over 6,000 years, they teach that Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE. Thus 6,000 years of human history(experience) DID end. I am sure that there is some point that you will agree that X-number of years of human history has ended or is over. HISTORY is over my friend and any number of years that are part of a given historical period are over too. Ben you are misinterpreting what they said and what they meant! It is becoming clear that you really do not know what they believe but are quick to quote someone else, who you view as an authority. It appears, to me, that you are not qualified to deal with these issues. The is no implication that "human experience" itself would end. Jw's do not and have not ever taught such an idea, they believe that human experience will continue forever. There is some much evidence to support what I am saying. For example, here is a fuller quote from above: "Interestingly, the autumn of the year 1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience. This is ascertainable from reliable chronology preserved in the Bible itself. What will that year mean for humankind? Will it be the time when God executes the wicked and starts off the thousand-year reign of his Son Jesus Christ? It very well could, but we will have to wait to see." Need I say more? Johanneum 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly implied that the end of this 6,000 year period is of some significance, otherwise it would not have been extensively talked about in the various JW publications. E.g.:

"...shortly, according to reliable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will come to an end.. After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest." (Awake, 8 Oct 66)

"F. W. Franz, the Society's vice-president, forcefully impressed on the audience the urgency of the Christian preaching work. He stressed that, according to dependable Bible chronology, 6,000 years of human history will end this coming September according to the lunar calendar. This coincides with a time when "the human species [is] about to starve itself to death," as well as its being faced with poisoning by pollution and destruction by nuclear weapons. Franz added: 'There's no basis for believing that mankind, faced with what it now faces, can exist for the seventh thousand-year period" under the present system of things.'" (WT, I May 75)

It can also be seen from the Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years book, citation 63 in the article, that the thousand years of peace was expected to start immediately after the end of the 6,000 year period. The quote is a long one, so I will not post it here.

I have inserted a compromise which calls some of these "speculations", although it can be seen from at least the above three points that there is a predictive nature to at least some of them, and so it is appropriate to call them "predictions". BenC7 03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben You are absolutely correct that "it [was] clearly implied that the end of this 6,000 year period[1975] is of some significance. However that point is already in the article. Note only was it stated as a possibility but even as a probability. However, the prediction is what would happen in 1975, and not that they believed that man has lived for 6,000 years. Yes there is a connetion, however the prediction is about Armagdon and not about the number of years of human HISTORY, which is not a prediction but a statement of their understanding of Scripture. PS I will delete inaccurate and misleading information which is not sutitable for Wiki. I do apperciate you working with this, and I will delete the ending of your sentence. You can still present your case for the inclusion, but the number of years that a person or persons have existed is not a prediction. Johanneum 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's true that Jehovah's Witnesses predicted Armageddon in 1914, this isn't unfulfilled at all. Many contend that the first World War was Armageddon. One can argue with the exact meaning, but this isn't really a good candidate for unfulfilled prophecy. Nor is the subsequent one. In 1918 millions of churchgoers WERE killed and churches (congregations) were destroyed wholesale by the Spanish Flu. Same goes for 1938 armageddon.

Actually, that is not correct. JWs predicted Armageddon in October of 1914, and inherent in that belief was that "woe" would follow that event. The unfolding events of WWI prior to the alleged fulfilment are actually diametrically opposed to stating that they correctly predicted anything for October of 1914. (Likely for this reason, they usually reference the year rather than focussing on the original specific claim.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being a cheerleader for the Witnesses or anything, but if you're going to criticise, those are rather weak points. 62.49.23.145 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I was an acting Jehovahs Witness in 1969 and it was made clear to us that getting married, having children or going on to further education was a waste of time because the 'end' was coming in 1975. Many friends gave up their jobs and homes so they could spend the 'end' preaching. To now discover that Witnesses pretend it never happened is both pathetic and sickening. I had an excuse for believing such stupidity. I was young. I am still embarrassed that I had anything to do with that 'prophecy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.218.29 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tag of the Unfulfilled predictions section. Granted, the quotes are sourced (primary mostly), but whose place is to say the statements are prophesies at all, let along whether or not they were fulfilled. I would say the section should be at least relabelled to something less declarative. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 01:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Association

In the article block: United Nations Association. We need to keep the wording within the full context of the application process. Before an NGO registers with the DPI it needs to be understood that the application does not incorporate them with the UN SYSTEM (UN SYSTEM IS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMATIC BODIES NOT MADE UP OF NGOs): “Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.” However lets keep it within the context of the application process, it is a TRUE FACT that NGOs direct association with the UN system is non-existence, THERE IS NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP, this statement is made very clear in the application and it should not be taken out of context. To state out of context would be a complete contradiction to Criteria for association with DPI. We need to understand this is an indirect association with the UN, and it is through the DPI and no ONE NGOs will get special treatment above the other NGOs just the chance to spread the word and meet various criteria as stated in the UN/DPI website: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/about-ngo-assoc.asp Again I will back my statement: If we look at this faxed photo copy: http://www.unwatchtower.com/resources/unngo.jpg This is only one example of active NGOs support for the UN. On 28 January 1992, 37 non-govermental organizations (NGOs) seeking association with the Department of Public Information. 13 Out of the 37 applicants failed approval. Association of 14 active members was also terminated because they were inactive(Basically not actively participating). The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the UNITED NATIONS TO HELP BUILD PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMMES AND GOALS. One of the UN Programme is the World Health Organization. Providing support for this program is meeting the criteria set forth by the UN/DPI. Many other programmes also supports the UN. For instance look at this: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_BCT_01.03.pdf do a search of JW's. You will find the presence of JW's in this WORLD EVENT. I hate to say this but this next website is not a very reliable source, it is very biased: http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/pleasesignnowhere.html It states that the UN/DPI was not under the ECOSOC resolution which said NGOs should support the UN. That statement is explained backward, IT IS THE PROGRAMMES such as WHO that will act in conformity WITH ECOSOC in regards to relations with NGOs, again it is not to be taken out of context, IT IS NOT THE NGOs, IT IS THE UN PROGRAMME. I will prove my point lets look at the WHO criteria in regards to NGOs: http://www.who.int/civilsociety/relations/principles/en/ Take notice of 1.2 it states: 1.2 WHO should, in relation to NGOs, act in conformity with any relevant resolutions of the General Assembly or Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC). I advice you to read the whole page. If something is going to be written it should not be biased. REVO2 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It also important that it be kept in mind the attitude JWs (supposedly) have toward any kind of dealings with such an entity that they regard as "beastly". A member of the JW religion is looked down on, and can face religious sanctions, for performing even incidental work for a church. Surely, if there were no hypocrisy involved, members of the JW religion would not even enter a UN building at all let alone seek an associate status of any kind. Nitpicking about the semantics of the UN paperwork is therefore not the focus of this issue.--Jeffro77 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being extreme Jeff. The UN is a political entity, not a religious one. JW's with cleaning contracts enter gov buildings all the time to do their work. They also must go to court or file papers. Gathering information which may be available at the local courthouse may also be necessary. The UN is much bigger but is basically the same thing. The only difference is the UN requires some kind of registration and apparently some action as well. The interpretation of these req's is up to the registering entity and the UN. When the interpretation became unacceptabel the WTS withdrew its membership status. Personally, I think it was a bad idea, but they say hindsight is 20/20.George 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not being extreme, however I am illustrating the extremeness, and the dichotomy, shown by the Witnesses (particularly by leadership). They do not view the UN as merely just another political body, but as an "image" that is idolized (Revelation Climax page 210 pa13), in close association with the "harlot"; it is explicitly defined as a specific "wild beast". True Peace and Security p. 123 par. 18 states: "So, to be among those hoping to survive when that Kingdom comes against all of its opponents, we need to recognize the hard fact that Satan dominates this world and its systems. That includes its political arrangements such as the United Nations. We need to keep free from all of these by our firm stand for Jehovah’s righteous government by Christ Jesus." JW interaction with governmental agencies for mandatory requirements has nothing to do with an optional action to get a 'library card' that they didn't need.--Jeffro77 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They obviously felt they were not supporting or joining the UN. That is the end of the matter. If a church as reference material (such as some have copies of ancient manuscripts) a JW would not be precluded from entering to use the material available. The same would logically follow for the UN. I still tink it was a bad idea because of the public nature of the association and the possibility of 'stumbling others'. It must have been because it was done away with. You know JW's - if they thoght it was not a problem they would have continued without a hitch. George 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

George, They obviously felt they were not supporting or joining the UN. I respectfully will have to disagree, all official documents and watchtower's own literature proves otherwise, If the case is as you stated then they should have no problems explaining the interpretation that became unacceptable, and that is a problem.REVO2 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your words reveal your incredible lack of balance. They did explain their thinking, why they retracted, and that they felt they were not supporting the UN. What documents could you possibly be referring to that say otherwise?George 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You stated the interpretation became unacceptable, please explain in what ways in this site, http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-watchtower-guilty-of-prostitution.html their are many JW's who are in need of that answer. Lets keep this site clean to serve its purpose.REVO2 10:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: In the United Nations Association block I recommend an explaination to the United Nation System, it needs to be made clear that this system is not made up of NGOs. It is a made up of SYSTEMATIC BODIES. Should have a hyperlink to UNITED NATION SYSTEM. I took a glance at the one explained here in Wiki, should it be hyperlinked to the word UN SYSTEM? The reason why I make this request is because the way it is written can be misunderstood as if NGOs direct association with the UN System is possible, and that is not the case.REVO2 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN is a governing body of NATIONS wanting to establish itself as a political entity world wide, would be a better description then to say: The UN is a political entity.REVO2 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We can understand the points you make without the all caps please. George 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it made his point much easier to read. However, please continue to critique the way people conveys their thoughts, this is the internet after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.228.192.46 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

UNITED NATIONS is not the samething as UN/DPI, United Nations Department of Public Information is hyperlinked to the United Nations page. Should be hyperlinked to an UN/DPI page.REVO2 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_system and tell me if it's informative enough to be hyperlinked to the United Nations Association block. It would give the reader a clear picture why NGOs is not incorporated into the United Nations System.REVO2 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They did not withdraw because the language of the contract became unaccpetable, they withdrew because their association was made public. This was something that probably 99%(my approximation) of witnesses would not have known of, as a sincere witness would not even visit the UN website or read UN material. As the great beast of babylon any and all association or ties to UN would have been abhored if the governing body stayed true to their own edicts. Justinmcl 199.243.211.114 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Justinmcl, I agree with you 100%, but that is not what they are claiming. What many refuse to see, before the storm took them by surprise, is that the Watchtower association with the UN/DPI was privilege information. It was also kept from the bethelites, they themselves did not know about this relationship during the 10yrs. And yes I also know if this relationship was not revealed then this knowledge would’ve still been kept on need to know basis, within the inner circle. REVO2 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly the case that every JW I know was disturbed about the association with the UN (and I was shocked), particularly my mother, and I remember from attending meetings as a child in the 70s and 80s that the UN was spoken of in the harshest of terms, and if I am not mistaken was tied up with the prophecies of 1914 (I think I learned about the League of Nations in JW meetings before I ever heard of it at school). I also remember some pretty wild drawings of the UN beast in the JW literature that caught my imagination as a child (along with a sultry whore of babylon). One has to go back to the original editions of the literature since the Witnesses have been (justifiably) accused of revising earlier publications when they are reprinted.Megabyxus (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)megabyxus

Table in "Theological bias"

Is not so good, because it lists very clear statements on mainstream Christianity faith, that is not clear in reality, f.ex. the Trinity:

The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is eternal and equal in power to God.

I've never been taught that! I thought that the correct statement is "The Holy Spirit is a persona of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is eternal and equal in power to God."! A persona is literally a "mask" in Latin. A person is an "individual" in English. "Person" as used in the Trinity doesn't refer to "individual" in our sense. That said, this difference betw JW and Christianity disappears. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a different question from the one raised by Rursus. Why is this table under "New World Translation" and not under "Doctrinal differences"? The table is a non sequitur in its current locations. --Richard (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think trinity is not in common doctrine in Churches, some Church teaches The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity and others does not. I think this mean trinity is not based on Bible teaching. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The sections on judgment and salvation, and on worship and ethics, in the table reflect the views of some Christians, but the tradition is more complex. Also, to Rursus, have a look at the article on Trinity. The word "person" is used to translate the Latin "persona" in English, though you are right to suggest that this is somewhat misleading given the way we now understand "person." "Persona/Person" in Trinitarian language is not an individual, but the difference between orthodox teaching and JW does not disappear. Traditional Chritsian teaching is that Christ and the Holy Spirit are God, though the wording of the statement might better read that they are "eternal and equal in power to the Father." JW's hold that they are not.

To the next writer - orthodox Christian teaching, and the majority of Christian denominations, hold to this Trinitarian doctrine. There are a few, relatively recent groups like the JW who argue against Trinitarian teaching. Some accept that Christ and the Spirit are God, but reject some of the early philosophical language to describe the Trinity.131.238.31.40 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

I think this article is obiously POV because it look towards critics' views and only quate their convinient parts of Watchtower publications. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For examples:

Do obeisance to Jeses: NWT uses the phrases "do obeisance to Jesus" instead of "worship Jesus",

because the Greek 'proskyneo' was also used by the meaning "bow before" ,for example in Matthew 18:26.

United Nations:Jehovah's Witnesses definitely regard it as wild beast, but they also regard it as one of the superior authorities. This article meaningly don't mention this view. Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that UN is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.

Furthermore, it is problem that references often use out-of-print Jehovah's Witnesses Publication. These are OOP Publications:

• Aid to Bible Understanding
• You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth
• Make Sure of All Things
• The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years
• magazines published before 1970

125.193.23.145 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding quoting OOP JW publications... It is preferable to quote the most current publications so that current doctrinal views are presented. However, there are two exceptions. 1) Discussing previously held views or development of doctrine, and 2) discussing beliefs/concepts that are still current but have not been mentioned in a more recent publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I felt disapointed your POV contribution. In present situation, POV announsement can't be unset. 125.193.23.145 (talk)

It is unclear how you imagine what I wrote above to be POV. English is obviously not your first language, so maybe you meant something else?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean this article clearly express that critics' views are right and Jehovah's Witnesses' are false. And I think this aticle clearly tries to disparage Jehovah's Witnesses, and only uses convenient parts for critics. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody exclude Jehovah's Witnesses can refer to OOP publications of Watch Tower Society. So use of OOP publications is meaningless and I think this is used for the porpose of defending critics views.

OOP publications may provide historically valid information regarding previous beliefs. Attempting to censor such material is revisionist bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Forthermore, I think quotations from "Reasoning From the Scriptures" are meaningless, because nobody exclude Jehovah's Witnesses can refer them. "Reasoning From the Scriptures" is not circulated by JWs. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources on Wikipedia and other literature that the average person doesn't have access to, but that does not invalidate their inclusion. So long as the information is quoted faithfully, there is no reason not to quote from JW publications, even if those publications are not distributed to the public. The only exceptions would be using very large sections that fall outside of 'fair use', and anything that is restricted by court order (not aware of any JW publications this would apply to).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the point of 125.193.23.145 regarding OOP publications is not completely invalid. "Aid to Bible Understanding" should not be promoted in the JW infobox as though it were a current resource.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

UN section

Please Jeffro, tell my why do you thing that this statement is out of topic?

So Jehovah's Witnesses have repeatedly denounced the fact that many other religious organizations have offered political support to UN instead of focusing to God's Kingdom.

The accusation about hypocrisy on the part of JWs is based on the fact that they denounced other religious groups for their political connection with UN. Merely to say JWs view UN as the "image of the beast" says nothing to wiki-readers, or it could be even misleading due to the fact that the "image of the beast" can mean many things to different religious groups. Readers must know the doctrinal context of this interpretation in the JW literature.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did think about this after I made the edit, and yes it does relate to the topic. But not where it has been placed within the section. Bad grammar aside, its current placement doesn't flow well. Perhaps it can be reworded and placed more appropriately in the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like also to ask you not to hasten to erase things others who are on line wrote. Argue first.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs about salvation

Luther's viewpoint on salvation doesn't represent the view of the mainstream Christianity. Of course, I understand that in the USA there are many Lutherans, but comparing to Christendom they are a minority. So "salvation by faith only" is not a mainstream doctrine, and it has never been in Church history.

P.S. Of course if you want sources for my claims, I can provide scores of them.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: If this is your reason for deleting the section on salvation from the article's table, then yes, I would like to see the two most authoratative sources you have on this point. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The section about the contrast between the mainstream salvation doctrine and the doctrine of JWs is a distortion of both doctrines.

As regards JWs opinion, the Official Web-Page says:

Do [JWs] believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?

No. Millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21; 25:31.

The above statement is enough to expose the distortion. Many other things can be said on JWs salvation doctrine (such as the cases of JWs who are unable to attend the congregational meetings or those who have been isolated from other JWs for years or even decades), but this is not needed because sola fide and “invisible church” doctrines of Luther are not, as it is wrongly presented, the mainstream salvation doctrine, and never was in the Church History.

As regards New Testament, there are two opinions among scholars. The first is that Paul did teach the sola fide but this doctrine quickly disappeared in his days, as it is evident by the so-called “pseudo-Pauline letters” and James’ epistle, and reemerged by Luther. The second opinion (of those who do not accept the theory of the “pseudo-Pauline letters”) is that Paul never taught the sola fide doctrine and he essentially agrees with James.

As regards the general Church history, unanimously scholars accept that sola fide and “invisible church” doctrines never were official doctrines of the known Church fathers. So, Luther was the first who claimed that, and only a number of Protestant denominations accept his position. Yes, even some Protestants today do not completely accept the sola fide doctrine.

Salvation and Justification in the New Testament

1. The Letter of James, on the other hand, contains a notorious passage (2:14–26) which has often been read as a frontal assault on the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”(2:24). Briefly, it must be maintained that the understanding of “justification by faith alone” against which this polemic is aimed represents a caricature of the Pauline position (cf. Reumann 1982). Paul, like James, was insistent that faith is manifest in active obedience, and (interestingly) Paul never uses the expression “justification by faith alone”(sola fide is a slogan of the Reformation, not of Paul). The teaching of James is a corrective against a distortion that Paul himself vehemently forswore (Rom 3:8; 6:1–2). We will probably never know whether such a position was actually championed by a “hyper-Pauline” antinomian wing of the Pauline school (certainly the Pastorals represent a quite different direction of development of the Pauline tradition) or whether James has constructed a rhetorical “straw man,” representing his own misinterpretation of the Pauline tradition. In either case, the conflict between James and Paul on “faith and works” is more a matter of terminology than of theological substance. If there is a material difference between the two writers, it is to be found rather in the fact that James’ remarks never in any way link justification to God’s redemptive act in Christ.— RICHARD B. HAYS, “JUSTIFICATION,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, New York 1996, c1992, p. 1132.

General Church History

1. Many times St. Paul wrote that man is saved by faith rather than by works, i.e., that the supernatural gift of faith unites a man to Christ, and the ‘‘works’’ of the religious ceremonies and precepts demanded by the Mosaic Law are useless in effecting this union (Rom ch 3; 9.32; 11.6; Gal 2.16; Eph 2.9). However, the faith in Christ demanded by Paul included avoidance of sin, i.e., GOOD WORKS (Rom ch. 6; 1 Cor ch. 5–8). The Gospels and Epistles demand not only faith but also good works (Mt ch. 5–7; Jn ch. 14–17; Ja ch. 2). St. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) spoke of sanctification by faith (1 Clem. 32, 33) but included good works as the outcome of faith. In the early Christian teaching, faith in Christ was distinguished from ‘‘works,’’ i.e., the religious ceremonies of the Mosaic Law. Yet good works, meaning right moral conduct, were always connected with true faith.—A.E. Green, “Faith and Morals,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia (sec. ed.), Vol. 5, Thompson Gale, 2003, p. 605.
2. “That these early [pre-Nicene] fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible church.”—J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (sec. ed.), 2004, p. 191.
3. Even in the earliest days of Christianity the tendency was to regard faith as merely a mental assent to Christian doctrine. 'The possessor of such faith deemed himself as having fully met the gospel requirement, though regardless of the claims of Christian service and even of ordinary morality. Passages in the epistles of Paul and James were written to correct this antinomian error (e.g., Romans 6:1; Galatians 5:16-25; James 2:14-26). Partly as a recoil from this error the demand arose that, in addition to good works as evidences of true faith in believers, the sins of believers should be expiated by penances. And still further came the false idea of the character of good works. Instead of the clear recognition of the only relative and imperfect character of the righteousness of even the best Christians, the distinction was made between the divine commands and the divine counsels, and the belief obtained footing that by keeping both, men might do more than meet the divine requirements. Thus the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith became, to a considerable extent, beclouded in the early period of the history of the church. The abuses that later became prevalent in the Roman Catholic church through the failure to maintain the Scripture conception of faith and through the false conception of good works are well known. Without entering in detail into the views of this or of the Greek church, it must suffice us to emphasize the fact that the rescuing of the Scripture doctrine upon this subject, largely, though not wholly, lost sight of for a long time, was the work of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Justification by faith is a fundamental doctrine of Protestant and evangelical Christianity. It stands opposed to those rationalistic conceptions of sin, and the attitude of God toward it, that reduce justification to a nullity, and to those views of Christian merit, cherished by Romanism, that derogate from the efficacy of Christ’s atonement; at the same time it holds before men the great hope of the gospel and lays deep the foundation of Christian morality.—MERRILL F. UNGER, “JUSTIFICATION”, New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press of Chicago, 1988.
4. The general eclipse of Paul’s teaching on justification within the church only increased in the first centuries after his death. The concern over a legalistic understandings of justification that had prompted Paul’s letter to the Galatians evaporated with the rapid disappearance of a distinct Jewish presence within the church. Furthermore, in response to Gnostic Christians (who were understood to teach a kind of determinism with respect to human destiny), the leading theologians of the church’s first centuries were anxious to stress the role of the human will in justification rather than echo Paul’s emphasis on grace apart from works. This perspective, which stresses the way in which the incarnation renews the capacities of fallen human nature, remains dominant in the Eastern Orthodox churches to the present day. [...] Perhaps the most obvious mark distinguishing Protestant treatment of justification from that of classical Augustinianism is the role of faith. Where Augustine had defended justification by grace, Luther spoke of justification by grace through faith (Eph. 2: 8), or, still more succinctly, of justification by faith alone (sola fide). Because justification was rooted in God’s promise to be gracious to humanity for Christ’s sake, to be justified was nothing else than to have faith or believe in that promise as addressed to oneself. Importantly, the point of sola fide was not to make faith a condition of justification (as though faith were itself a meritorious work that earned God’s favor), but rather to re-enforce the principle that trust was to be placed in Christ rather than oneself. For this reason, justification by faith alone has been characterized by Lutherans in particular as the article by which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae).— IAN A. MCFARLAND, “Justification,” Encyclopedia of Religion (sec. ed.), Vol. 7, Thomson Gale, 2005, 5040-41.
5. II. History of the Doctrine. — 1. The early Church Fathers and the Latin Church. […] The formula that faith alone without the works justifies is found in the full Pauline sense in Clemens Romanus (1 ad Corinthios. c. 32) and is sometimes used by Augustine polemically in order to defend the freedom of grace and the priority of faith. More generally it is used as an argument against the necessity of the Jewish law (Irenaeus, 4:25 Tertullian, adv. Marcell. 5, 3). The ecumenical synods were instrumental in gradually giving to the conception of fides catholica the new sense that salvation could be found only by adherence to ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But as a mere acceptance was possible without a really, Christian sentiment, and as the Pauline doctrine was misused by heretics in an antinomian sense, it was demanded that faith, be proved by works. Church discipline developed this idea with regard to the sins of the faithful, so as to demand a satisfaction through penances and good works (Augustine, Serm. 151, 12). It became, therefore, the doctrine of the Church that such faith alone works salvation as shows itself in acts of charity, while to merely external works faith or charity is opposed as something accessory. […] 2. The Greek Church. — Little discussion and little controversy has occurred on this doctrine in the Greek Church. Faith and works together are regarded as the conditions of salvation. The words of James are referred to first, yet faith is declared to be the stock from which the good works come as the fruits. The description of faith proceeds from the definition in the Epistle to the Hebrews to the acceptance of the entire ecclesiastical tradition. Man is said to participate in the merit of the Mediator not only through faith, but also through good works. Among the latter are comprised the fulfilment of the commandments of God and of the Church, and, in particular, prayers, fastings, pilgrimages, and monastic life. They are considered useful and necessary not only as a means of promoting sanctification, but also as penances and satisfaction. […] 4. Doctrine of the Reformers of the 16th Century and the old Protestant Dogmatics. — The Reformation of the 16th century renewed the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone, emphasizing in the sense of Augustine, the entire helplessness of man, and made it the fundamental doctrine of the Reformed Church. This faith is represented as not merely an acceptance of historic facts, but is distinguished as fides specialis from the general religious conviction, arising amidst the terrors of conscience, and consisting in an entire despair of one's own merit and a confident surrender to the mercy of God in the atoning death of Christ. […] The Reformed theology in general agreed with the doctrine of justification as stated above, yet did not make it to the same extent the fundamental doctrine of the whole theology. According to Calvin, justification and sanctification took place at the same time. The dogmatic writers of the Lutheran Church distinguished in faith knowledge, assent, and, confidence, assigning the former two to the intellect, the latter to the will. From the fides generalis they distinguished the justifying faith (specialis seu salvifica), and rejected the division into fides informis et formata. As a distinguishing mark, they demanded from a true faith that it be efficient in charity. For works they took the Decalogue as a rule; a certain necessity of works was strictly limited. […] 5. Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation. — The Council of Trent, in order to make a compromise with the Pauline formula, recognized faith as the beginning and the foundation of justification, but the full sense which Protestantism found in it was rejected.— McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 4, p. 516-522.
6. Outside the canonical Scriptures one seeks in vain for a full conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification. Christianity is imperfectly understood. […] Thus Christianity was in danger of becoming a new law, and faith an obedient acceptance of revealed doctrine, to be completed by works. Of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement did not gain complete understanding of the Pauline faith. For salvation faith and works are combined, and even forgiveness of sins in mediated through love. Ethical section is based on the command of God.—“Justification,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 6, Baker Book House, 1953, p. 276.

Modern Protestantism

1. A majority of other Protestant denominations agree with Luther's monergistic doctrine of justification, but like Roman Catholics they see sanctification, the working of the Holy Spirit in Christian lives, in synergistic terms, another Greek derivative, which means that a thing has two or more causes. Believers are required to play a part in developing their personal holiness by living lives disciplined by the Law and by special ethical regulations set down by the church. Christians can and must cooperate with God's grace to increase the level of personal sanctification. Cooperation, a Latin derivative, is a synonym of synergism, and also means two or more things or persons working together. As a rule most Protestants agree with Luther that God alone justifies sinners and initiates the work of sanctification, but many differ in holding that believers are responsible for completing it. They oppose the Roman Catholic view that pilgrimages, novenas, penance and masses as good works; however, they agree with Catholicism that man cooperates with God in his sanctification to attain personal holiness. God alone justifies, but sanctification is a combined divine-human activity, which even though God begins, each believer is obligated to complete. In this system, the Gospel, which alone creates faith, is replaced by the Law which instructs in moral requirements and warns against immorality. Justification by grace is seen as a past event and the present focus is on man cooperating with God to reach a complete sanctification.—Rev. Dr. David P. Scaer Sanctification: By Grace Alone, retrieved in February 18, 2008.

Conclusion

If Paul taught the sola fide doctrine is disputed. If he taught it, it reemerged by Luther after 16 centuries. Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church never had what Luther said. Actually both churches teach that “there is no salvation outside of the church” (For the Catholic view see here and for the Orthodox here). For both churches, salvation requires the participation in the sacraments or mysteries, as baptism and Eucharist. Both churches believe that asceticism and monasticism result in a mesure of holiness.

On the other hand, JWs do not share those views on sacraments or asceticism. Beyond those "dead works", as JWs call them, they believe that if you know what is good and still you don’t do it, this is a sin, as James wrote. This could include for someone to get out of Babylon the Great, to get baptized, to have a holy conduct, to obey to those “taking the lead” in the congregation etc. So JWs stand between the sola fide and the traditional and mainstream theology with the sacraments and the similar things.

Hence, the comparison between what Christendom says about salvation and what JWs say is totally wrong.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I appreciate your thoughtful response to my request above.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical sources

A couple of new critical websites have been listed. I don't have time to review them. Could someone familiar with them identify whether they are appropriate (i.e. not merely defamatory). Also, descriptions of such sites as "truth" may be POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of these web-sites are personal and do not have the Wikipedia standards. As it happens with many religious articles, this article is propagandistic, non-encyclopedic, and misleading.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you recognise something that is inappropriate, change it. Information that is correctly but merely unfavourable is not necessarily propaganda. Also, information that is favourable may still be propaganda. Somewhere in the middle is a realistic encyclopedic article. It will get there some day.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffo77, the list of JWs' differences with mainstream Christianity is a typical example of propaganda. The non-acceptance of sola fide or the "invisible church" of Luther is the standard position of mainstream Christianity since Pentecost. If we accept Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Church as the traditional and mainstream Christianity, which are of course multiple in number than Lutherans, sola fide or "invisible church" is not the mainstream doctrines. Again, reverence to icons is. Use of special priesthood is. Intercession of saints is. And taking into account all Christendom, blessing of the weapons is also a mainstream doctrine. Why all these things are not taken into account? Because these things cause troubles to the propagandistic purposes.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

'mainstream' would classify what is most prominent now. That isn't the same as propaganda.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still the majority. (propaganda is to present a perverted picture in order to promote a specific message)--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the article to contain propaganda, change it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1914 generation

According to JW’s earlier teaching, 1914 generation wouldn’t pass away (at least a few may remain earth) before Armageddon takes place. This solid teaching has changed in a Watchtower magazine published in 1996 which commented something different (don’t remember what exactly published) that have completely opposite of the previous teaching and this teaching is no more active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.34.140 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross

About Roman-catholicism, The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

It is unnecessary to insist upon the effects of grace and power attributed by the Church at all times to the use of the holy sign of the cross. From the earliest period it has been employed in all exorcisms and conjurations as a weapon against the spirits of darkness, and it takes its place not less consistently in the ritual of the sacraments and in every form of blessing and consecration.--Sign of the Cross

About the wood of the cross, see The true Cross.

If you need further documentation, tell me, so that I may provide. I can assure you that Orthodox believe the same.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Murders section

The new 'murders' section is misleading and I recommend its removal. The implication is that there is a higher rate of murderers among JWs than the rest of society or other religious groups, though there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The cases cited do not support the idea that such is commonplace among JWs, or that murders among JWs occur at a higher rate than in other elements of society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The cited website lists several murders, but only proves that all murders committed by JWs are committed by JWs. Such a list could be compiled regarding members of any belief system.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many religious connections made on this website.Tre2 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article is Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no controversy as regards murders committed by JWs. There is no academic book or any other source that could stand according to Wiki-standards claiming that there is a problem of commiting murders among JWs. Academic sources usually say, even the critical ones, that JWs as a whole have a good moral status. The fact that there two or three persons, possibly people who have mental illness, who have been accused as murderers among seven million JWs actually proves that. The addition of this section is gross propaganda and gross misuse of Wikipedia. If the problem persists by someones who consider Wikipedia as an extension of their ridiculous forums, administrators will be called for assistance.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Family integrity & freedom of mind section?

I mean User:Vassilis78 removed the entire section and threatens with administrators. I think this is very bad behavour. He should specify what is wrong. I think this is bias in favour of the Jehovas withnesses. The article is about Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, so I think he should at least restore the section.Tre2 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an extension of personal web-sites or forums. Wikipedia is not a place for someone to write his biography, his investigation on something or his opinion. Wikipedia's standards are encyclopedic. Do you know a single encyclopedia that presents JWs the way you do? Even self-published sources are not considered proper wiki-sources. If you want to prove something, you have to use sound sources according to the policy of Wikipedia.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tre2: If there is sufficient controversy on the subject to warrant inclusion then it should be easy enough to find third-party source material useful for supporting a succinct presentation. What Vassilis77 keeps deleting is a presentation that is lopsided and not very focused on the specific subject of the heading you chose. I recommend you develop your presentation here on the talk page where multiple editors can assist with development (if source material warrants) in order to avoid edit warring on the article page. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tre2 and Vassilis78: Based on a doctrine of silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community, I have restored the long-standing version of the Section on Family integrity & freedom of mind. We can edit it from that point. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this addition?

I think everything is fine because I have credible sources and it is urged to add something to this section. Every control form has a source to prove that it really exists. Tre2 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Steven Hassan has created the "BITE" acronym to help define four critical areas of control groups must focus upon among their social circles to effectively achieve mind control (control of Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotions). These characteristics of control are prevalent among Jehovah's Witnesses and again, we assert, they are well hidden:

• behavior control - A comprehensive and never-ending effort is put forth by the Society to enforce a clearly defined, scrupulously detailed and rigidly enforced standard of conduct among all Witnesses. Society publications, social interaction and frequent "role-play" dramatizations in public meetings ensure that they are continually reminded of what is good behavior and what is "conduct unbecoming a Christian," as they would say. The pages of the Awake! and The Watchtower magazines are filled with prescriptive teachings on how to act in a wide variety of different situations; the constant readiness for Witnesses to rehearse their unsolicited wisdom to householders on how to beat a cold or do grocery shopping is a singularly striking example of this.

• information control - The Watchtower views its authority as part of "theocratic order" and a loyal submission by all Witnesses to it a serious test of fellowship. No more sure a test of this submission is how willingly Jehovah's Witnesses will "avoid independent thinking" and reject any sources of information that may lead to critical thinking. The immediate response of Jehovah's Witnesses, upon being confronted with individuals or literature that question the authority of the Watchtower, is to demonize the questioner as unspiritual and blind and/or reject or destroy the literature. Witnesses surfing the World Wide Web and who view counter-cult websites do so under pain of harsh congregational sanction. Indeed, any and all information that contradicts and brings into question the Watchtower is viewed as spiritual pornography and must be vigorously shunned.

• thought control - Randy Watters has helpfully observed that the Watchtower's campaign to control the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses has gone so far as to result in the creation of "thought-stopping" cliches used frequently in Witness social circles. These cliches are the vocabulary, expressions and slang that Witnesses use among themselves to put any given situation or individual into an instant context that compels them to view it as the Society wishes it to be seen, and therefore, thought of (former JW David Reed calls it "Jehovah-talk"). Usage of phrases like "rebellious," "whole-souled", "opposer", "loyalty" and "wicked system", each with a very specific and clear-cut meaning, are part and parcel of Witness thought. Remembered or used in the right order at the right time keeps the Witness in lockstep with Society expectations and a Society worldview. This is just one of many ways thought is controlled or even stopped in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses.

• emotional control - The human capacity to both suffer guilt and quail in fear is exploited to an unspeakably insidious way by the Society to reinforce the black and white mentality of the Watchtower's worldview. Fears of a demon-haunted world, of the fate of non-Witness loved ones, of an impending Armageddon, of not being "remembered" by Jehovah in the resurrection, and above all, of being expelled from the Society are always in the back of Witness minds and hearts. Guilt over not working "hard enough" for Jehovah, for having sinful thoughts (such as questioning the local leadership), for neglecting study meetings, and for being unable to meet the code of conduct of a "clean organization" are also woeful companions for many, many Witnesses. This terrible internal pressure is subtly yet unmistakably paranoiac and has caused untold trauma to many Witnesses unable to withstand the mental stress. And to resolve this, the Witness constituency is endlessly admonished to bury themselves in faithful service to the organization, and to trust that Jehovah will take care of it all. Relief is then contingent upon service, and those who struggle emotionally are often viewed as lacking somewhere in that area.

and what is wrong with this addition?

Among their unique doctrines is a teaching called theocratic war strategy that justifies lying in court and elsewhere. The doctrine is complex, but essentially the Watchtower teaches that it is appropriate to withhold the truth from "people who are not entitled to it" if it will further the Watchtower's interest (Reed, 1992, also per the court's definition, not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" which means the court requires the whole story, not half-truths. Although the Watchtower claims to condemn lying, they define it as "saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person" (Franz, Vol. 2, 1988:244). They then add:

While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it. …Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm (Mt 15:1-6; 21:23-27; Joh 7:3-10). Evidently the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts from nonworshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light-Ge 12:10-19; chap 20; 26:1-10; Jos 2:16; Jas 2:25; 2Ki 6:11-23 (p. 245).

The Watchtower does not admit to reaching lying, but that lying to "God's enemies" is not really lying but "war strategy".

Please respond.Tre2 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The information as it is presented is contradictory. It states that 'Theocratic War Strategy' allows for certain types of deception, then states that under oath, there can be no deception, then says that they lie in court. It is not clear whether their doctrine allows "deception to further 'God's will'" in court or not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is meant that deception is not allowed in court but there clearly can be deception in court and that their doctrine allows "deception to further 'God's will'" in court.Tre2 14:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tre2 (talk • contribs)

Granted, there are sources detailing use of deception, but I would still argue against its notability. Use of deception is a human practice for particular reasons (regardless of the reasons themselves). We all lie for particular reasons. It can be said that patriotic Americans would lie under oath without hestitation if the purpose of that lie was to defend America (say, if captured by a dictator and asked to devulge details of U.S activities in their country). As far as having a doctrine for such, it seems more spite than anything else to add this as a point. This particular section seems a little over the top and hardly controversial. --Fcsuper (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept the version of Marvin Shilmer. We can now talk about the text about mind control.Tre2 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tre2 (talk • contribs)

Ok, let's talk about it. The BITE is a direct copy-paste of the article on SpiritWatch, which presumably violates copyright law. Whoever applied it to this page added links to pictures of Watchtower Society material, which presumably violates copyright law. It was not written by Steven Hassan but by the writer of that article, whose credentials other than being a "minister" are not available on their website, and there is no proof that he is capable of making such a psychological analysis. It does not cite any sources. In other words, it breaks just about every rule in the book. The BITE itself shows ignorance of the original BITE model by Hassan (find it in Mind Control, then compare to B and T), is very POV, non-encyclopedic, and is contentious. Also, I'm not exactly thrilled about all the linking and referencing of 50 year old material and pushing it as being the current, standard viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses. Can't you guys find anything more up to date? How can the average person even find that material on their own? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Compared to Unitarianism" edit war

I have protected this article because of the edit war that has been running over the past few days.

Personally, I think the text in question should not be left in the article as is. However, that has not influenced my decision as to which version to protect. I simply protected the most recent revision per Wikipedia policies on page protection.

Edit warring is disruptive to the project. I have not visited the Talk Pages of the edit warriors. Has there been any attempt to open a dialog between the edit warriors? If you can prove obstinacy and unwillingness to discuss, the better approach is for an admin to unprotect the article and block those who refuse to enter into dialog. If none of the edit warriors are willing to discuss, then the only alternative is to unprotect the article and block all the edit warriors.

You have been warned.

--Richard (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave the reasons in the edit summaries several times but never got any answer. The reasons for my reverts are:

1. WP:NOR
2. Links with personal experiences can't be part of a controversy of JW since nobody can and should verify them in Wikipedia. For this we need external high-quality sources
3. Most of the text is just a quotation list. We are not in Wikiquote here. The selection is naturally biased and
4. it tells nothing about "positive quotes" and the real behaviour of the group. It's just a personal interpretation and obviously intented as personal "truth" and "unbiased information". See also WP:V

BTW: The article's lemma hasn't been affected. --GermanWriter (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I am unwilling to allow the edit war to continue because edit wars are disruptive to the project. Page protection is a way of stopping the edit war in order to encourage the editors to discuss the issues rather than simply reverting.

The points that Germanwriter makes above are generally valid. In addition, I do not think the point comparing JWs to Unitarians is needed. However, I would like to see a way to address the issues discussed in the other sections inserted by User:Cmmmm (without the quote farm though!).

Germanwriter, could you re-read the text inserted by User:Cmmmm and give us your opinion whether that text could be reworked to meet Wikipedia's standards?

--Richard (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the current situation a bit different. The author didn't present a text according to Wikipedia rules. You agree it doesn't. At the moment our author has no motivation to be active because you protected the contribution. I removed it with arguments but it was restored without arguments. Did you recognized any serious motivation to deliver Wikipedia-style from the editor? I don't. --GermanWriter (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In all likelihood, I have protected the wrong version of the article. This is my obligation as an admin. I am not allowed to choose which version of the text to protect. That would cause me to lose the stance of neutrality.

Personally, I agree with you that the text in question is unacceptable in the form that it was inserted. However, that is not relevant to my job as an admin. Think of me as a policeman. It's not my job to determine which of two neighbors is right in a dispute although I may have an opinion. It is my job to preserve the peace if the dispute is disturbing the peace. Edit warring is disruptive to the project and must be stopped. That is what I have done by protecting the page. There are many ways to resolve disputes. Consult WP:DR. You could ask for a third opinion or issue a Request for Comment, etc. However, the easiest approach IMHO would be to adopt a more collegial attitude and try to determine if the points made by User:Cmmmm are actually valid and if they can be made in a more encyclopedic way. I see the potential that some of it may be valuable but, in truth, I haven't looked at them very closely which is why I'm asking you to look at the text minus the quote farm and tell me whether you think the text itself is valuable.

Actually, I should also point out that both User:Germanwriter and User:Tre2 violated the WP:3RR rule and thus were subject to being blocked. I personally do not like to block users who are acting in good faith unless a good-faith effort has been made to resolve the conflict and that effort has failed. Germanwriter, please state your case here on the Talk Page, explaining why you have reverted Cmmmm and Tre2. Then try to form a consensus for your POV. If you don't get enough response here, try posting a request on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Once again, it's not my job to pass judgment on who is right here but simply to determine if there is a consensus that will allow editing to proceed without disruptive edit warring.

--Richard (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses] - Discussion about this article should be kept here on this Talk Page

Over the last few days, there has been edit warring over edits made to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses by User:GermanWriter, User:Tre2 and User:Cmmmm. I could use some help from editors who are more knowledgeable about JWs in evaluating which edits are encyclopedic and which are not. I speculate that User:GermanWriter does not like some of the edits because they are too critical of JWs. That's not Wikipedia's problem. However, the edits don't make the points in a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia (too many quotes and smacks of OR). I'm sure providing citations tp reliable sources would help. Can someone take a look at the edit history and join in the discussion at Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"I speculate that User:GermanWriter does not like some of the edits because they are too critical of JWs": My reasons you'll find in the talk there and they are just based on the principles of Wikipedia. We have at the moment WP:NOR, quotes instead of text, one-sided quotes, lack of references, links with personal experiences instead of representive content and so on. And we face the situation that the author is not willingful to cooperate or to give a statement to his senseless text. That is a Wikipedia problem since an encyclopedia is not collection of ideas, quotes and funny texts but of facts. --GermanWriter (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GermanWriter, can you be specific about what you consider to be Original Research in the disputed text?

I agree with you about the preference for prose instead of excessive use of quotes. However, this is a stylistic question rather than a policy issue. If the quotes make a valid point, the points can be made in prose. Are you objecting solely to the quotes or to the points that are being made by presenting the quotes?

If you are arguing that the quotes are "one-sided", then you are making an WP:NPOV argument. The solution is to make the text NPOV by presenting the other side in a neutral way that presents all major POVs without giving undue weight to any POV.

I don't know what you mean by "links with personal experiences instead of representive content". I saw a reference to a book published by someone who had a negative experience as a JW. There is an important distinction to be made here. If I enter my own personal experience with JWs as text in a Wikipedia article, that is unacceptable OR. However, if I cite the published account of a single individual, that is a citation to a reliable source (note that "published" means "by a major publishing house" NOT "self-published" or "published on a vanity website"). So, the argument should not be about "personal experience" but about the reliability of the source and whether it represents an extremely small minority or a sizable minority of those who have experience as a JW.

As an illustrative example, it would be reasonable to cite Scott McClellan's new book as a reliable source although his book simply documents his personal experience as White House press secretary. It doesn't mean that everything McClellan says is gospel truth but it is reasonable to say that McClellan is a reliable source and his POV deserves to be documented in Wikipedia without giving it undue weight.

--Richard (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GermanWriter wrote:

"it tells nothing about "positive quotes" and the real behaviour of the group"

GermanWriter, this article is Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Articles on other religions have companion articles such as Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam. It is to be expected that these articles will focus on the negative and controversial issues regarding that religion. (Yes, there is an argument that the criticisms should be folded into the main article but that principle is not currently being followed with respect to the articles on the major religions.)

In general, it is a bad idea to turn an article into a polemic of "attack and defend". Some counterbalancing points can be made but the thrust of the article is to document the criticisms and controversies without necessarily proving or disproving the validity of those "negative points". When we describe a criticism or controversy, we must not take sides on either the "positive" or "negative" side but simply present all sides in a WP:NPOV way. For you to argue about the "real behaviour of the group" suggests that you have a POV that sees the "real behaviour" as positive. That is your prerogative. However, Wikipedia does not allow you to insist on your POV over that of someone else who wishes to present negative aspects of the group's behaviour.

--Richard (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is inappropriate to present pro and con arguments on wikipedia. 1) I've seen other similar articles, and for me, they call into question the notability/creditability since such articles are rarely based on actual neutral documents that offer "both sides"; 2) this leading into the fact that comparison or contrast itself becomes Original Research. 3) There are more than just absolute pro and cons. POV is individual to each person or resource. There aren't just two views to choose from. I would call the legitimacy several sections of this article into question. Also, the article doesn't feel well organized at all. I feel like I'm reading a series of blog postings when I read through it. Let's pick the points of controversy, with sources making note of such. Let's not get into why JW's might right or wrong. Just state and explain the controversy. Some sections do this; others do not. --Fcsuper (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard, let's speak about "Race": We have no serious reference that the subject is "controverse". We missed the target of the lemma. And: If we have no ref we have to remove the paragraph. And: The quotes are commented with personal interpretations. Is that POV or NPOV? Are the quotes "primary sources" or not? At the moment the contribution is original research, isn't it? Is original research acceptable in Wp. or not? --GermanWriter (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Germanwriter, I disagree with you that "Race" or "racism" is not a controversial topic vis-a-vis Jehovah's Witnesses. Part of the question is whether the scope of this article is about "controversies" or "criticism". There appear to be criticisms of JWs based on prior positions that the WTS has taken vis-a-vis Race and Education. These topics are encyclopedic insofar as they provide information about past teachings of the WTS. I suspect that these positions are no longer espoused by WTS and therefore the criticisms are of WTS's past teachings and not its current teachings.

However, in researching these topics, I determined that the text inserted by User:Cmmmm were near-verbatim copies of text taken from [1] and [2]. Without a WP:GFDL license to use the text, that text cannot be included in a Wikipedia article so I have removed it.

I do think the topics are encyclopedic so we should consider how to present this information in a manner that is acceptable to Wikipedia. A key question to address is how reliable the sources are. I have no way to evaluate the reliability of Jerry Bergman and Randall Watters. I don't know how to evaluate the reliability of www.freeminds.org. A more credible source would be an article from a newspaper or, even better, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Since the text in question has been removed as a copyvio, I have unprotected the article. Happy editing.

--Richard (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Race:

Because the Watchtower organization has taught thus-and-so about race does not mean the teachings were controversial at the time or that any current controversy exists over those teachings. I am not asserting there is no controversy in this area. Rather, I am pointing out that an encyclopedic entry should steer clear of equating two relevantly dissimilar things; that is, a teaching (or teachings) on race with controversy. If there is noteworthy controversy on this subject it should be easy enough to locate, cite and present third-party findings. So far I see little information presented suggesting there is noteworthy controversy about what the Watchtower organization has taught regarding race. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Marvin. Your comment is enlightening and that is what I think Germanwriter was trying to say as well. I think I can agree with that stance.

It appears that you see the WTS' teaching about race as a topic of solely historical interest? That is, the current teaching is not controversial and any criticism of past WTS teaching is along the lines of criticizing the Catholic church for having burned witches at the stake in the past? We can criticize an organization for having done XYZ in the past but that past sin does not necessarily have any relevance to the current organization or its members.

That having been said, do you see value in having an article along the lines of Jehovah's Witnesses and racism which would discuss both past and present WTS teachings regarding race?

I'm an inclusionist. If there is valid knowledge, I want to include it in Wikipedia. However, I also recognize the importance of getting titles right as the wrong title will raise a ruckus.

Same question goes for the Randall Watter discussion of WTS teachings about university education.

--Richard (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard: “Racist” is a pretty loaded term conjuring images of intolerance, hatred and belief that a particular race is intrinsically superior to all others. Accordingly we should take care to avoid the usage aside from fairly robust third-party sources that might level the criticism. It is not enough to quote/cite articles containing such assertions written by anti-writers. Contentions of such magnitude deserve reputable third-party sources free of axe grinding.

Were there substantial secondary sources (“valid knowledge”) leveling criticism of racial remarks published by the Watchtower organization then an article as you suggest might have a basis. If such a body of sources exists I am unfamiliar with it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Grizzuti Harrison claims that Jehovah's Witnesses are "demonstrably racist and sexist" in her book, Visions of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, this is a primary source because it's an autobiography.

Mandmelon (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Deception

I challenge the notability of this section. Everyone lies. Hypothetically, as an American it would be my duty to lie under oath to protect American interests; say if I was captured and tried by an enemy looking for information on US activities in their territory. This section mostly references Watchtower sources presented here to promote a very particular and even a bit of an odd POV. It's a "See, look what I found them saying!" type argument. I can pull watchtower documents that say you shouldn't give blood tainted cat food to one's cat. But I don't because it's not notable (even if someone did write about it). In any event, this doesn't look like much of a controversy, which is against the point of the article. For the lack of controversy, for the self-serving and mis-used watchtower references, and for the lack of notability (more important and substantive controversies exist), this section should be removed. -Fcsuper (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Without comment by others, I will remove this section within a week or two on the grounds that notability in the context of being an actual controversy is not established. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Without noted objections, I removed use of deception section on the grounds stated above. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New Proposed Section: Refusal to Serve in Military and Participate in Polictics

A section that may be very notable is the JW's refusal serve in the military, and in fairly recent flip-flops they've had regarding their "neutral" stance on politics. It would seem to me this is a much more important issue than silliness like "internet use". Any thoughts on this? Does anyone have an sources? --Fcsuper (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to iterate the request for individuals to come forward with sources that discuss the Refusal of JWs to serve in the military or to vote in terms of contraversy, so we can add this section to the article. Of note is how they tend to change their rules when faced with political pressure even though they are supposedly nuetral and are not affected by politics. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Consult Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. I think you'll find plenty of "controversy" there.

--Richard (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that I only had the time to put together something about this, -sigh- I'll try soon, but I'm hoping to get some help on the writing of the section. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

if you need help just ask me Fcsuper i'm realy good at editing and adding to talks and all you have to do is ask.--Mindoshawn (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

race

I must first state that I am an African-American. I have been a Jehovah's Witness for a long time, and I can personally vouch for the fact that the statements made in reference points 72 and 73 are actually not racist at all. I understand clearly why they may seem to be racist when heard through the ears of one who is unfamiliar with our view of meekness and servitude, but you must take my word for it that the statements did not indicate a belief that blacks are in any way an inferior race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.213 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm seeks to restore the following references under his racism section:

...it would be very surprising indeed if Jehovah's Witnesses - even today a community largely composed of converts - did not carry with them many of the values and attitudes of the larger societies out of which they have come. Hence one often finds among ordinary Witnesses a certain degree of rather covert prejudice towards persons of other nationalities or races. Occasionally one may hear Witnesses, high and low, make racial slurs. (Penton, 1985:286)."

Most mainstream religions say racism = bad. Those religions, like any other social group, have a distribution of members who are racist or make racist comments. The comment above is therefore not notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This reference suggests that racism occurs among JWs at the same rate as within general society, which does not support any special tendency toward racism, nor that such is endorsed by the religion. Also:

Jehovah's Witnesses practiced segregation of blacks until the late 1950s<ref>Watchtower, April 1,1914:110 "Recognizing that it meant either the success or the failure of the...[Photo] Drama as respects the whites, we have been compelled to assign the colored friends to the gallery... Some were offended at this arrangement. We have received numerous letters from the colored friends, some claiming that it is not right to make a difference, others indignantly and bitterly denouncing [us] as enemies of the colored people. Some ... told us that they believe it would be duty to stand up for equal rights and always to help the oppressed.... We again suggested that if a suitable place could be found in which the Drama could be presented for the benefit of the colored people alone, we would be glad to make such arrangements, or to cooperate with any others in doing so"</ref>

A reference about a single period of time (in 1914) regarding the showing of the 'Photo Drama' is being used to allege that segregation was a general practice for several decades up to at least the 1950s. This reference cannot be validly used to support a claim of general segregation as a rule.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We talked about Jehovas Witnesses racism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#JW_racism_in_the_controversies_section_of_the_general_article Cmmmm 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

You have not addressed the issues above either here, or at the other Talk page. If you believe the above references are appropriate, explain why and await concensus from other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference about segregation has been accepted since the section was written. Only Jeffro77 removed a reference which was accepted by everyone.Cmmmm 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

Accepted by who? Failure to comment doesn't mean anyone agrees with you. The fact is, the reference does not support the statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the statement is enough. What for a reference does Jeffro77 expect?Tre2 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tre2 (talk • contribs)

If that is the case, you will be able to explain how a reference from a 1914 Watchtower confirms segregation up to and including the 1950s. You will also be able to explain how racism in one group at the same rate of racism as in the rest of the society is controversial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin response at arbitration page:

*What is presented to us is certainly a content dispute. However I had a look behind it and it was quite clear that there is some user misconduct - Tre2 is an obvious sockpuppet of Cmmmm - and Cmmmm has made no attempt to discuss his edits. In my view he is pushing his point of view and has done very little to discuss his edits and attempt to reach a compromise. This is becoming disruptive and I hope that an uninvolved admin will assist in encouraging dialogue. However, I can't agree to take an arbitration case here; it is stretching a point to say that a dispute has exhausted dispute resolution procedures when one side has not entered into them. Failure to take part in dispute resolution is an indication of bad faith. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm, drop the Tre2 sockpuppet, and either explain your edits to reach a compromise, or stop disrupting the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I notice that Cmmmm has reverted removal of the race section in this article. Despite Cmmmm's refusal to discuss his edits, clear bias demonstrated on his talk page and elsewhere, and sockpuppetting, I do agree that there is sufficient weight regarding prior views of JWs regarding race to merit including them in this article, so long as 1) it is stated that those views are not current, 2) POV speculations about race of GB members are not included, 3) statements are properly referenced and are consistent with those references, 4) statements relate to racism that is supported, recommended, or committed by the organisation's polices or doctrines rather than by 'rank-and-file' members. This is not necessarily an endorsement of the 'racism' section as it currently stands, nor is it an endorsement of Cmmmm's methods.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77 wrote that I do agree that there is sufficient weight regarding prior views of JWs regarding race to merit including them in this article, but the Watchtower does not even admit it had such views. The Watchtower is lying to the public about this issue.Cmmmm 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

And you haven't openly admitted to your sock puppetting and refusal to properly discuss either. But neither have you denied it. Based on your own reasoning, should we start a controversy topic on you?--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm, in the article, you have claimed that "the Watchtower [Society] claims that they never discriminated against any race". This says they did more than merely omit that they previously believed certain things. It says they denied it. Your claim requires a citation, or it needs to be reworded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is sad to say that some people do not seem to understand what NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH POLICY means. It means that you cannot make a list with quotations in order to prove a point and to draw conclusions as a journalist, a biographer or a historian would do. You need a reliable source that does this job. You cannot do it and publish it by yourself in the Wikipedia articles. The next question is what is a reliable source to be used in Wikipedia. Of course, a private web-page is not. Freeminds.org is not an academic or a journalistic web-page. The subject of racism is very serious. If racism truly exists or existed among the ranks of JWs, then it should have been a matter of an article of an important journal or magazine, or even a subject of an academic book or magazine. Is this the case here? Is there any important journalist or professor who has stated that JWs had ever racism? If not, then the whole section must be deleted. Wikipedia articles must never be considered as extensions of personal web-pages. Wikipedia articles must never be considered as a podium for the expression of personal positive or negative feelings.

Please, respect the policy. For one more time, administrators' assistance will be asked if needed. --Vassilis78 (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely correct. I have previously questioned the notability of this as a current 'controversy', and I also stated above as a condition for inclusion that "3) statements are properly referenced and are consistent with those references". The freeminds site indeed does not seem to meet the criteria as a 'proper reference', as the site is clearly biased. (I understand that the same site has a section of JW murders which proves nothing but that murderers who are JWs are JWs who've murdered people.) Some of the older Watchtower articles do clearly indicate racist views, which is why I think it's fair to include those. However, there is no clear evidence about any current org-endorsed racism, nor any support for Cmmmm's claim that the org actually denies previous racism (rather than merely not mentioning it). Cmmmm's continued refusal to properly discuss is not helping, and I think down the track the actions of him (and his sockpuppet Tre2) will ultimately lead to arbitration anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could other editors please give their thoughts regarding this issue, i.e., whether it is a significantly notable controversy with regard to JWs? (Whether 'racism' is an important subject is not the same thing.) It seems that Cmmmm is simply using Wikipedia as a soapbox to voice his pet issue, as evidenced at Cmmmm's user page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Compared to society at large the JWs (and pre-JW Bible Students and/or Russellites) have a rather good history regarding race relations. The details Cmmmm hangs his hat on are trivia. The information would be useful as refutation should the JW religion assert something contrary to documented history. But I am unaware this is the case. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place for refutation. Rather it is a place for sharing notable and verifiable information without regard for effect.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... I am new to this controversy which hopefully makes me a relatively unbiased third party. I'm beginning my investigations into this topic by doing a review of Google hits from the search "racism Jehovah's Witnesses". For starters, the top hit is this article by Jerry Bergman. Anybody want to comment on the reliability of Jerry Bergman as a source? --Richard (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... there's darn little in the first hundred Ghits that is reliable on the topic of "racism" and "Jehovah's Witnesses". Here's aGoogle books search result that seems worth considering. I think the proper stance is not for us to try and determine whether or not JWs have been or are racist but rather we should simply state that some have made the charge of racism and cite Bergman and Penton to support that fact. The fact is "some have charged that there is racism in the JWs both at world-wide headquarters and at the lower Kingdom Hall level". That doesn't mean that it is indisputable that there is racism. It just means that it is indisputable that some have made these charges. This is a crucial distinction to make. If there are reliable sources that have made refutations of these charges, we should document those as well.

These are facts that we can document i.e. "some have charged that ..." and "others have rejected these charges making the following arguments in refutation...". I agree that Cmmmm's text smacks of Original Research. If a Wikipedia editor makes the charge that JWs are racist based on citing and interpreting Watchtower publications, then he is indulging in OR. If he documents a reliable source who makes the charge, then he is writing in an encyclopedic fashion. --Richard (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the matter of weight. The number of authors charging racism among JW is nearly as rare as hen’s teeth. The most authoritative thing I can find is authored by Werner Cohn more than 50 years ago in an unpublished thesis. I do not have a copy of this material to read in its entirety so for now am unable to comment about its veracity or relevance to this discussion. However, going solely by what is cited by a couple of contemporary authors from this thesis, Cohn’s observations from the 1950s are not particularly surprising for the period in relation to society at large.

I have access to many articles penned by respectable sociologists who address the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When it comes to race relations the conclusion is that the religion has strong and growing roots in minority non-white populations. Based on my own observations this is supported anecdotally. If true, this reality stands contrary to any claims of notable racism among JWs. If is not notable then why would we include it?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm In a review of one work written by Afro-American Witness Firpo Carr--who attempted in his book to rationalize why there have not been any blacks on the Watchtower's governing body--Watters concludes "his most astounding claim is that there WAS a black man on the Governing Body--William K. Jackson! ...Having known Bill Jackson from my six years at Bethel (1974-1980) and [I could not understand how he came to this conclusion because] he was as white as a sheet with no black features whatsoever." Carr's only evidence was that Bill Jackson "openly stated that he was black" to which Watters adds, "That is news to all of us who worked at Bethel. Perhaps Carr needs a second book to correct the incredible fantasies of his first one, if the Watchtower doesn't disfellowship him first" (1993:11). In response to this book, Jones wrote:

This quote was addressed at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses when Cmmmm was vying for the subject’s inclusion there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77,have you red the statement of this black man?

Wow, a quote from "this black man" - obviously an expert in internal JW policy and ethnology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing from another "Black American Perspective," I can tell you that "blacks" are still second-class in the Watchtower movement regardless of what Firpo states. Only very recently has the Watchtower ventured to place "blacks" in its regional management posts--i.e.: circuit or district overseer--in its Southern territories of the USA. Also, from the representative stance, the Governing Body lacks Asian, Hispanic, and "black Americans." ... the latest slew of "young people" articles ... bombast a popular and predominantly "black" music form ("rap" music) [shows] ... the Watchtower's strong, white, middle-class orientation. It notes very little on the more acceptable "white" suburban music forms of country, modern rock, metal, pop, etc. but focuses on the suburban white, middle-class "fear"--black rappers invading the white home. Additional evidence of the Watchtower's "white,""good ole boys" club mentality (1993:9). This comment was made by Jones in 1993.Cmmmm 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

JW publications have also given their 'warnings' about heavy metal, alternative rock, and other forms of music they regard to be 'inappropriate'. The claim that only 'black music' is targeted in JW publications is a complete fabrication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm The Watchtower in their publications today tries to convey the impression that they never taught these prejudicial views, and that only the churches of Christendom, all which they regard of Satan, are guilty of this sin (Bergman, 1990; Carr, 1993). Yet the Catholic Church officially dropped these racists views long before the Watchtower formally did. The Watchtower even once admitted that the Catholic Church dropped their official prejudice against Afro-Americans at least 40 years before they did. Even up to a hundred years ago the Catholic Church held the view that blacks were cursed by God. ... this view "apparently survived until 1873 when Pope Pius IX attached an indulgence to a prayer for the 'wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa that almighty God may at length remove the curse of Cham [Ham] from their hearts (Awake!, October 8, 1977:29. See also the 2/8/82 issue).

It would be reasonable to include the import of the statement above. While it doesn't specifically 'deny' their previous racist views, it does indicate a double-standard that seems to indicate a deliberate omission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes came about only because of outside "worldly" social and legal forces: So the Watchtower claims that they never discriminated against any race! I think that this is a current issue and want that the race section is on the 5th place, regardless if the other editors think that this is a current issue or not.Cmmmm 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Your closing argument is 'I want it there no matter what other people think'. Oh dear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The appeal and the need to belong, are so great it makes it impossible for black Witnesses to question the monolithically white nature of their leadership; it allows them to defend the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses were among the last of all religious groups to be integrated in the South. They waited until integration became law; they did not question the segregation laws that had kept them apart until then, nor did they protest them in the name of God. When nuns and priests and ministers and students marched to protest against what the Watchtower Society believed was Caesar's business, the Society called them "crazed mobs." (Harrison, 1978:261) all this people who charge racism and everybody thinks that there is no problem?Cmmmm 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The quotes from freeminds.org regarding JWs and racism comprise of a) quotes from old Watchtower publications presenting views that have been long discarded, and b) retellings of first-person POV accounts. Neither of these present a current notable controversy. (Incidentally, freeminds hosts a page[3] about 'the black GB member', stating "He is Afro-American, as most already know by now, of a dark mahogany skin color rather than ink black", or basically 'he ain't black enough'. That in itself is a racist statement endorsed by freeminds.org.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of people who say that there is racism in the Watchtower but according to Jeffro77, they are ALL lying.Cmmmm 15:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

"Tons of people"?? Is it 10 people? 100? Who are they? What is your basis for this statement? What have these "tons" of people actually said? And why are we weighing them?--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on Penton's statement: "it would be very surprising indeed if Jehovah's Witnesses - even today a community largely composed of converts - did not carry with them many of the values and attitudes of the larger societies out of which they have come," it is not surprising that people might occasionally point out instances of racism among JWs, as it does in the rest of society. Such statements are not notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Jeffro77, all people who say that there is racism in the Watchtower are simply not notable. He should read the rest of Penton's statement:"Hence one often finds among ordinary Witnesses a certain degree of rather covert prejudice towards persons of other nationalities or races. Occasionally one may hear Witnesses, high and low, make racial slurs."Cmmmm 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

You imagine the rest of Penton's statement to be significant. It merely indicates that some JW members behave in the same manner as many other people who are not JWs. It is indeed therefore not notable with regard to the alleged controversy. You have not demonstrated that such racism is endorsed or condoned by the Watchtower Society, or that such occurs more than in the rest of society. Penton's entire statement actually contradicts your claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if it were such an entrenched problem among JWs, why would they bother with "covert prejudice"? Some JWs covertly smoke, have premarital sex, take blood transfusions, and any number of things that JWs aren't supposed to do. It does not lend to any "controversy".--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Covert prejudice: Even as late as 1973, the Watchtower Society wrote, in answer to the question if any blacks were on the governing body that: The answer to your question regarding blacks on the Watch Tower Society's directors is No... however... membership in the corporation is not something determined on the basis of race... selecting of men to handle unusual responsibilities is on the basis of spiritual qualifications and not on the basis of racial or national points, and this is in accord with what we read at Acts 10:34,35: "For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Letter from Watchtower Society EG; E1, 1973).

The only material actually quoted from a JW source in Cmmmm's post indicates that official JW policy does not select people on the basis of race. This isn't much of a reference to support your point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote shows that there is a refusal by the Watchtower to let black people on the GB. They claim of course that this has nothing to do with race. But "spiritual qualifications" can be defined in whatever one wants to define them. "spiritual qualifications" could be anything and they refused to let a black man on the GB until 1999. 26 years after the Watchtower was questioned and I think 1999 is very current.Cmmmm 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

The quote shows no such thing. It explicitly states that race is not a determining factor. There is no evidence that they "refused" to let a black man on the GB until 1999. Such evidence would require identification of specific black individuals who were told they couldn’t be on the GB because of their race, or who were given no other valid reasons. --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Theocratic Subversion of Ethnicity, A Paper Presented to the American Academy of ReligionCmmmm 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm: Two things about this paper by Joel Elliot: 1) it is admittedly an unfinished work and 2) it does not support your assertions of racism.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation by ex-jehovas witnesses: One of the more subtle reasons behind the Watchtower's reluctance to use minorities to serve on the Governing Body is its belief that only Caucasians of Northern European American descent can serve in such high capacities. As Watters notes: Any aspiring soul brother must put on the same attitudes of English Caucasians in order to be trusted. While the Watchtower does have a few blacks in high position, including Circuit Overseers and members of the Service Department at Bethel, such ones have been promoted no higher in spite of their adopting "white" attitudes. Perhaps with increased public pressure and the passing away of the older diehards, a black may be appointed to the Governing Body--time will tell. One thing for sure, they will have to lose their "soul" in order to do so! (1988:2)Cmmmm 19:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

"aspiring soul brother"? Freeminds certainly knows how to stereotype black people (or "blacks" as it so crudely likes to call them).--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've done the same copy-and-paste from your favourite propaganda site several times now. And it still as much of an unofficial POV first-person account as it was the first time you pasted it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole Jeffro77/Cmmmm debate is quite unproductive. I don't see why this article has to be limited to current controversies regarding JWs. It can reasonably cover all controversies regarding JWs, both past and present. To argue that JWs were no more racist in the past than the rest of society is passing judgment and therefore OR. It is sufficient to state the facts that JW literature espoused racist positions in the past and that it no longer does so. As to whether JWs were racist or are racist, we need to cite reliable sources without giving minority positions undue weight.

Correct. With regard to whether racism should be mentioned at all, I have previously said:

"I do agree that there is sufficient weight regarding prior views of JWs regarding race to merit including them in this article, so long as 1) it is stated that those views are not current, 2) POV speculations about race of GB members are not included, 3) statements are properly referenced and are consistent with those references, 4) statements relate to racism that is supported, recommended, or committed by the organisation's polices or doctrines rather than by 'rank-and-file' members."

and:

"Some of the older Watchtower articles do clearly indicate racist views, which is why I think it's fair to include those. However, there is no clear evidence about any current org-endorsed racism, nor any support for Cmmmm's claim that the org actually denies previous racism (rather than merely not mentioning it)."

What I object to is that Cmmmm asserts that it is a "current" controversy; that the Watchtower Society "denies" having previously made racist statements; that speculation from biased individuals adds weight to the alleged (current) controversy. In addition, there are the issues of Cmmmm's behaviour regarding inappropriate use of references, and sockpuppetting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to mention the controversy with an emphasis on this having been an issue with JWs in the first half of the 20th century. One might mention in passing that some have questioned the fact that no African-Americans serve at the highest levels of the JW organization. This does not mean that JWs are racists, simply that some people have alleged that the lack of African-Americans at the highest levels suggests racism. Some people allege it; JWs deny it. That makes it a controversy. Is it "notable"? Notable enough that it is mentioned in at least one book that came up via Google Books. I'd say it's worth mentioning but without taking a stance on one side or the other. --Richard (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. However, there is a black member of the GB, Sam Herd[4].--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The lack of black people on the GB is the reason that many people assert current racism, including myself. There is now a black man on the GB. But:

Yes, speculation about GB members is the basis for allegations of current racism. We worked that out ages ago.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

and As of 1995, not one non-white person is on their governing body which consists totally of "old white men" most in their 80's or older. Sam Herd was appointed very, very late. Samuel F. Herd was appointed in 1999.Cmmmm 15:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

The point is not whether the GB has any black members. The point is why. If there is no evidence for the claim that racism is the reason for having no black members, it is not controversial. At most, the article might mention that some people have questioned it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel F. Herd was appointed in 1999 and Changes came about only because of outside "worldly" social and legal forces:Cmmmm 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

On what evidence is this claim based?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason why there were not black people on the GB: Two foreign Negroes are pictured as delegates from African countries, and what appear to be American Negroes are pictured as "cleaning up the kitchen"; another witness, apparently Negro, is pictured as helping in the immersion exercises. It is difficult indeed to escape the impression that the role which the Negro plays in the Witness organization is very similar to that traditionally assigned him by the least enlightened sections of white society: he is regarded as best kept separate and not quite equal; often he is merely "cleaning up the kitchen" while his white brother does all the important theologizing (Cohn, 1956:8-9).Cmmmm 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

This is not a 'reason why there were not black people on the GB' at all. It is merely the opinion of one person who has nothing to do with JW policy.

Cmmmm, you are still not really adding much to discussion apart from pasting chunks from the freeminds.org website. If you have suggestions that are actually beneficial to the article, and that are based on valid references rather than the speculation above, state them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1.We have many racist statements from the Watchtower in the past!

That various statements appeared in past Watchtower publications, particularly in the early 20th century, has been acknowledged, and is not being disputed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2. We know that there is a race problem on the GB. Samuel F. Herd was appointed as late as 1999 and we have many statements of people who know that there is a race bias in the GB. But Jeffro77 needs an official addmition by the Watchtower that race was a reason. This is very hypocritical.Cmmmm 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

There has been absolutely no establishment of any fact in this allegation. Who is 'we' in the statement above? Based on what do 'we' "know" there to be "a race problem on the GB"? The freeminds.org website presents some opinions of people who have no insight at all about internal policy decisions. There would not necessarily need to be a Watchtower admission, but there would need to be some kind of official evidence rather than merely speculative opinions and hearsay. Explain your charge of hypocracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop pasting the same quotes over and over again. If you wish to add further discussion to a point, do so under the existing entry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I want that the race issue is on the 5th place because of the Watchtower quote about the Catholic church. This is denial.--Cmmmm 14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

It was acknowledged that the Watchtower Society's reference to Catholic racism was notable enough to include. It is unclear how this warrants placement of the racism in 5th place in the article, or how it is more significant as regards JW controversies than the other listed items. Please provide explanation beyond "I want".--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is denial of racist doctrine since the 70s. I think that this warrants placement of the racism in 5th place.--Cmmmm 15:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

This 'explanation' is insufficient. There has been no Watchtower "denial" of previous statements, though they have omitted reference to them. There is no clear reason at all how this warrants the racism section being in the 5th place, and it seems your entire reason is merely because that's where you previously had it. I have reordered the entire article based on doctrinal issues first, and then social issues next, with a secondary sort order by significance of controversies as they relate to JWs. To merit the higher positioning of the racism section, you need to demonstrate how this issue is more significant than the other listed issues, and I see no obvious reason for not logically separting the doctrinal and social issues, which your revert completely ignores. Do not revert without providing valid logical responses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ReligionFacts website as a reference for the table.

I don't think it's suitable. Wikipedia requires PUBLISHED sources. This is what the author of the site has to say about citing it.

"I have received numerous e-mails from students asking for my name because they are not allowed to cite anonymous sources... Moreover, even if I did provide a name, ReligionFacts is still a non-official, non-peer-reviewed website. As such, it is not generally suitable for citation in a school essay. For all you know, I could be making up my name and qualifications! Your teachers are right to insist against anonymous Internet sources and hopefully they are also teaching you that you can't trust everything you read, especially on the Web... So I don't claim ReligionFacts has inherent authority, and you shouldn't treat it like it does... Most of the articles will point you to more official and authoritative sources that you can cite with more confidence, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, university websites, official websites of religions, and so on." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandmelon (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added new sections

I added two new sections a few days ago. One is the legal action against Peter Mosier. The other is the inconsistent dating of the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. Although I don't have access to a published source that puts the matter in quite this way and the sources themselves certainly don't point to any perceived inconsistency in their statements (see No Original Research: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."), I'm receiving a copy of The Gentile Times Reconsidered through the mail and should be able to provide an additional reference soon.

Mandmelon (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The section you added, regarding the 70 years should be restored, and expanded upon, as 607 is a major issue in JW belief, and controversial because their authority structure is based on it, and is not supported by any secular source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial versus Different

I'm not sure that all of the doctrinal differences listed should necessarily be listed as "controversial". The nature of God (Trinity), and cross are certainly controversial issues. I'm not sure there's much controversy surrounding the JW beliefs about icons etc. Not all of their different beliefs are necessary cause for "controversy".--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editor's input required

Before I take this to mediation level, the input of other editors is required. 1. Cmmmm wants to use a reference about the Photo Drama in 1914 for a statement that JWs practiced segregation into the 1950s. 2. Cmmmm claims that a reference about JWs having racist members to the same degree as in other areas of society in general to be a notable element of a controversy. Please comment on this issue. If concensus is not reached, or no comments are received, I will continue with the mediation process.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were segregated as long as they were had more to do with societal repercussion than anything else. In the United States, and particularly in the Deep South, Jehovah’s Witnesses would have faced severe persecution had they integrated much sooner than they did. History testifies that Witnesses have been willing to suffer persecution. But rarely, if ever, have they been willing to suffer persecution to correct a social injustice unless it directly impinged tenets of their religion. Racial bigotry among Jehovah’s Witnesses is unremarkable, unless the religion claims its membership is less vulnerable to this anathema than other religions, regardless of policy of the religions. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nation of Islam section

The 'Nation of Islam' section does not seem to present a relevant topic in this article. If there is any controversy there at all, it belongs on a page related to the 'Nation of Islam' article, not here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NWT section

The statement, "Rhodes states "it quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task"" presents a logical fallacy. Irrespective of whether the translation contains doctrinal bias, the fact that the translation exists means that whoever produced it must have been able to. The presence of a logical fallacy in Rhodes' statement suggests bias and calls into question the suitability of the reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The only fallacy I see is your apparent conclusion that author Rhodes was talking about anything other than a scholarly translation. Because Rhodes’ remark is premised on lack of educational qualifications then we have every reason to think scholarly translation is the subject of his remark and no reason to think otherwise. Hence the fallacy is yours. Anyone with enough money can self-publish a translation. Whether that translation is a scholarly work is something else entirely. You have argued a strawman. Have you read Rhodes?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The translation exists. The text of that translation has been "translated". Apart from controversies regarding doctrinal bias, the fact that the translation exists confirms that whoever translated it was able to do so. It is pointless arguing whether the translators were capable of producing the translation, because it is tangible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Because a translation exists only means a translation work has been published. Because a translation is published does not make it a scholarly translation. It is false to equate the two, which is why your initial assertion here presents a fallacious conclusion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are existing references in the article that indicate that at least some reviewers consider it a "scholarly translation", and scholarly objections to the work that deal with any specifics center on doctrinal bias, not whether the ability to translate in general is inadequate. If the translators were "completely unqualified" to do so, the translation would not exist in its current form.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The subject here is not what other reviews have said. The subject here is what Rhodes said, and whether your conclusion of his work is true, the he has presented a fallacy. Hence, to this discussion, it is irrelevant what other reviews have or have not said.

Digressing back to the subject of your assertion that Rhodes asserted a fallacy, Rhodes comment you object to was stated in relation to educational qualifications; not ability to publish. There is no doubt that Rhodes believes Watchtower workers were qualified to self-publish a book called a translation. But Rhodes’ remarks are not about this. Rhodes’ remarks you complain of address Watchtower workers scholarly credentials; hence he questions their ability to produce a scholarly translation. Nothing you have said remotely disputes this, let alone refutes it. All you are doing is mangling the words of author Rhodes to mean something less than they mean, which is fallacious. I will ask you again: have you read Rhodes?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about ability to publish, as it's quite redundant in the issue. However, in order to publish the translation, whoever translated it was inherently able to do so before any publishing could take place. Or are you contending that it is not actually a "translation" at all?? At best, Rhodes comment that the people presented as translators being unqualified is redundant and not notable. 1. Reviewers have remarked that based on its content, it is a scholarly translation. 2. The people who translated it translated it. Therefore, the people who translated it were qualified in any practical sense to translate it. Is there any verse/passage of the NWT that has been specifically criticized by scholars for any reason other than doctrinal bias, to indicate an 'unscholarly' translation?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Either Rhodes’ remark was said in relation to a scholarly translation, or it was said in respect to something less. If it was said in relation to producing a scholarly translation then his opinion is not the fallacy you assert. Only if his statement is made in relation to something other than a scholarly translation is his remark the fallacy you assert. You have neither demonstrated the latter nor refuted the former.

If I had enough money I could self-publish a translation of German into Pidgin Motu. But since I am not trained in Pidgin Motu the translation would not be scholarly, despite my publishing it. Hence, publishing a translation is one thing whereas publishing a scholarly translation is something else altogether.

If you (or your translation committee) in fact knew both languages, and were able to actually do the translating, and peers reviewing your work actually acknowledged that work to be scholarly as regards the translation, then yes, it could be termed a scholarly translation. Such is the case here. We are not talking about some hypothetical publication that may or may not have been translated. Unless there is any argument against the actual quality of the translated text, aside from those verses that are charged with doctrinal bias, Rhodes' comment is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: But that is the point. Rhodes disputes the scholastic integrity of the NWT, and the remark in question is his, not someone else’s. Hence for Rhodes to say “X” is completely unqualified for the task of a scholarly translation because they lack certain training is for him to say “X” is completely unqualified to produce a scholarly translation. Rhodes has not committed the fallacy you assert. Whether Rhodes is correct or incorrect about the scholastic veracity of the NWT is another question. However, Rhodes is in company with the likes of Metzger and Rowley, and particularly the latter are highly regarded as authorities on the subject of English translations of biblical languages. Do you know how hard I had to search my library archives to find an instance where Metzger offered a crumb of commendation that I could insert into the NWT article to add some balance to that article?

As for the quality of the translated text, apparently you are unfamiliar with the very authoritative works of world renowned academics such as Harold Rowley. I know, I know, NWT advocates wave the likes of Jason DeBuhn around like a flag whipping in the wind as a counter view. But the Jason DeBuhns of the world are nowhere near the same class as experts like Bruce Metzger. I do not know of a single world renowned expert on the subject of translating biblical languages into English that gives a thumbs up to the NWT. Do you?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether other trained opinions agree or disagree with Rhodes is beside the point of this discussion. I have not argued here for a reinstatement of the Rhodes statement. Rather, I have only pointed out he fallacy of your asserted fallacy, and drew a circle around it for you. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We've spoken about your condescension before. In any case, I have no inclination to continue another pointless debate with you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. When all else fails let us turn to personal attack. I am not speaking in condescension here. I am trying to do you a favor. Do you have a persecution complex so strong it leaves you unwilling to accept help when it is offered? Regardless, I have already offered assistance. Whether you learn from it or sting from it is for you to decide.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to get over yourself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Earlier you asked:

“Is there any verse/passage of the NWT that has been specifically criticized by scholars for any reason other than doctrinal bias, to indicate an 'unscholarly' translation?”

Yes. There are lots of them. In his initial review of the NWT Hebrew Scriptures Harold Rowley points to more than a dozen literary gaffes that are inexplicable except to conclude them the work of someone who either does not understand biblical languages or else does not understand how to express its meaning into English with elegance deserved by a great literary work like the Bible. Rowley offers these gaffes as examples of clumsiness that is, in his opinion, found throughout the translation. (The Expository Times 1953; 65; 41) Hence it is false to suggest that academic giants have pounced on the NWT purely in terms of doctrinal biases.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply any examples? Otherwise it is unclear whether the verses in question relate to doctrinal bias, as explained earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC Request regarding 'Race' content dispute

References disputed and reasons for them are listed under 'race' section on Talk page.

It seems obvious to me that the specific source cited refers to a particular incident & can't be used to support a broader statement. I'd certainly say, tho', that that incident is important enough to mention in the article if no source can be found for a more general statement. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cmmmm continues to demand that 'Race' issue be arbitrarily more prominant in the article. See Race and Reorder sections on talk page. User continues to revert all intermediate edits to his own version without explanation for their desired placement of the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge sections

I recommend merging the sections Family integrity and freedom of mind and Treatment of members who disassociate by making one a subsection of the other, and possibly some other reordering.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorder

I have reordered the sections, grouping them by doctrinal issues, and then social issues. This order could be swapped, though I believe doctrinal differences are more relevant in an article on controversies about a religious group. Beyond that, I have attempted to order the sections roughly in order of how controversial issues are with regard to seriousness and currency, subject to discussion. (I have also renamed the 'Freedom of mind' section.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning to Jeffro77 and Cmmmm

Hi guys,

The set of reverts on September 28 came awfully close to violating the WP:3RR rule. I just noticed it today and won't impose any sanctions since it's over and done with. The edit warring today has not approached 3RR... yet. However, I notice a general tendency to indulge in revert warring which is not a good thing.

3RR is not a right and admins can block for edit warring even if 3RR is not technically violated. Please use the Talk Page as the first resort for resolving differences of opinion and avoid reverting to insist on your POV.

Page protection is another tool that admins can use to stop edit warring.

I gather that Cmmmm was a bit quick on the revert but Jeffro77 is equally quick to revert back to his preferred version. Admins are required not to take a side but to be evenhanded in stopping the edit warring.

Please don't make admin action necessary.

--Richard (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm is trying to use this article as a soapbox for his own pet issue. See User:Cmmmm#2.Why_intimitation_on_Mormonism. Could other users please provide input indicating whether they support Cmmmm's desired placement and other issues with the Race section?

Cmmmm has been blocked for 48 hours after the positive identification of his sockpuppet, Tre2, which has been permanently blocked. Subsequent to the block, edits to his user page under the IP 79.209.73.25 confirm previous edits to this article under IPs 79.209.124.23 and 79.209.120.2 (creation and editing of spurious 'Murders' section) to also be the same user. (All 3 IPs are dynamically assigned from the same provider.) I hope the action taken against Cmmmm will encourage him to make only appropriate edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research in Racism section

The Racism section is in breach of the WP:OR rule. Apart from a paper written by a PhD at the Freeminds website, which is of highly dubious value as a reliable source, the entire section consists of nothing but the observations and arguments of a Wikipedia editor, who supports these claims by citing WT articles. Unless reliable, verifiable sources are added, the section must be deleted. LTSally (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The section was added by User:Cmmmm and endorsed by his now-banned sockpuppet Tre2, a clearly biased editor previously also responsible for adding the spurious 'Murders' section. Though there is some value in presenting the erstwhile racist views of JWs, primarily from the early 20th century, there is no serious current controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The current controversy is that there were racist views of the Watchtower in the past and the Watchtower denies them now and reacts as if they never tought this views.Cmmmm 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have restored elements of the previous Racism section (specifically, the elements I previously indicated as appropriate). I have removed the lengthy quotes from the references, as these are not required to establish sources. In its current form, the section is acceptable, however, as there is no significant current controversy regarding this issue, I will not resist if others want the section removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy and heresy

Before I spend more time sitting here searching for references to add to the table on Mainsteam Christain teaching vs Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, someone might like to add a reference to the introductory paragraph to that section to show that there is actually any controvesy over those differences. I've added a citation tag to the claim that "many Christian denominations consider these beliefs to place Jehovah's Witnesses outside of Christianity." If there's no substantiating reference for this claim, that section can be deleted. LTSally (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised this above under "Controversial versus Different", but no one responded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't spot that. Leave it a bit longer, I guess, and then we'll scrap it? LTSally (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted that section for the reasons above. Further tidy-ups to follow as time permits. LTSally (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Attitude towards other religions

I propose that this section be deleted. There is no real sense of controversy here. Certainly the strident criticism of the clergy and other religions, particularly Catholicism, and particularly in the 1930s, offended people and probably contributed to the bans and persecution of earlier decades, but I don't think a separate section is warranted in an article about controversies. Possibly it could be merged into the section about claims to be a prophet, with other self-aggrandizing statements about being the only true religion, but the question remains, is it a real controversy? Thoughts? LTSally (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really a modern controversy. May be worth making sure that anything of import is merged into relevant articles regarding opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses if not already there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Blood issue -- a health issue rather than a social one?

Is anyone adamant that the issue of blood transfusions is a social issue? It's probably better broken out as a health issue. And I'm not sure that the United Nations business is a doctrinal issue ... a Governmental Controversy on its own, perhaps? LTSally (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did think about that when I reordered the article. But if we split hairs, the article may eventually go back to having no coherent structure at all, with a bunch of separate categories, each with only one entry. Aside from this, I'm not too concerned with re-ordering the article in any particular manner so long as it makes sense.

My rationales for ordering the way I did... Regarding blood, although it is a health issue, most of the controversy surrounding it generally relates to how others (medical personnel, and non-JWs generally) relate to it. Regarding the UN, most of the controversy relates to how their doctrines about the UN conflict with their relationship with the UN as an affiliated NGO.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)