Talk:Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Development of Witness teachings

After reading the listings here, I am doubtful the information presented here is accurate. I would like to hear from someone who is an active Jehovah’s Witness to express if they agree with these statements presented as to the changes of the Witnesses beliefs over the years. Some of the information appears to me as being negative instead of a NPOV. And some listings seem to be written more as a criticism instead of being informative.

Any Witnesses expessing their views on this information I would like to hear from them. --Saujad (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular part of the article you're concerned about? I notice that you've previously held concerns about "apostates"[1] editing articles about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Basis and criticism

No proper rationale has been provided for moving the section on the basis of the doctrines to the end of the article. The section is an elaboration of what's contained in the intro and properly belongs as the first sub-section to explain how the doctrines are developed. What follows is then a point-by-point detail of the changes in doctrine. Nor does the section warrant the description "Basis and criticism." It is chiefly a description of the method of doctrinal development and happens to contain two sentences of comment by an academic and a former Governing Body member on thst method. LTSally (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The section seems too long to come before the main point of the article ("Developments"); that's why it was moved to after the actual Developments.

The title was changed to reflect the facts about what is in the section. An alternative might be to move the criticisms to a separate section.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Central teachings

Regarding "central teachings", LTSally made a troubling edit.

This statement had introduced Development_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_doctrine#Basis_and_Criticism before her edit:

"In addition to their central Scriptural teachings, Russell also detailed a teaching of Biblical chronology based on what Russell called a "venerable tradition" he conceded was directly confirmed by neither facts nor scripture."

LTSally (opining that "Russell's central teachings were the Bible chronology; other scriptural doctrines played a minor part") replaced that with the following:

"Although the enduring central teaching of Biblical chronology was based on what Russell called a "venerable tradition" he conceded was directly confirmed by neither facts nor scripture."

I'd submit that teachings such an nontrinitarianism, "Jehovah" name advocacy, paradise earth, minority in heaven, no hellfire, and mortal soul were much more central to the faith than "chronology". Is there some reference that supports the idea that chronology was more central to the faith than these doctrines?

Even though they are uniquely known as believing nontrinitarianism, Divine Name advocacy, paradise earth, minority in heaven, no hellfire, and mortal soul, would LTSally believe it POV neutral to say that they have abandoned their "central teachings" because their chronology has changed? Do other editors agree? Recommend reverting from this LTSally edit.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany?

LTSally edited in this spirit: "most doctrinal positions are not the result of a fully formed epiphany, but are gained by what Witness publications describe as "progressive revelation" That seems remarkably nonneutral, and arguably motivated by a desire to hide what JWs really believe about the matter.
A main thought of their articles is not that understandings have been "revealed", but that they are revealed progressively. Language about "revealing" and "revelations" was left intact; why would this one balancing phrase have been removed?
Recommend reverting from this LTSally edit.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving out 'fully formed epiphany' doesn't seem to detract from what the remainder of the sentence says about their process of doctrinal development, as it's still obvious that it's not a sudden or immediate process. Inclusion of the phrase may also require some (otherwise unnecessary) elaboration of the word 'epiphany'. (It's unclear how you've determined the "spirit" in which LTSally edited.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already explained that it was progressive revelation. You added the phrase "are not the result of a fully formed epiphany". You don't source that information, so I assume that's your conclusion, your opinion. The wording as I had written it simply explained how they explained the source of their changes – "flashes of light", information "revealed" and messages from angels. It's not for you to elaborate on what they aren't. Why you think this is "non-neutral" escapes me. LTSally (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1956: Communion bread and wine

"1956: Communion bread and wine identified as symbols of Christ's body and blood (return to pre-1938 position)" Can someone please post the 1938 position, what was taught during these 18 years?

Also, on a different subject, it'd be nice to see the original stance on the great crowd going to heaven posted somewhere... being that it's such a major development of fundamental doctrine. Jadon (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement is about to be deleted by me, since it is unsupported by reference, and in fact available references contradict that the teaching was new (or renewed) in 1956. Note these references from the early 1950s which plainly state that Memorial (that is, "Communion") bread and wine are symbols of Jesus' body and blood. Some emphasis added.

• The Watchtower, July 1, 1950, page 196, "Jesus instituted something new and different to follow in the future. He instituted the memorial of his death, and of the members of his body the church. Then he pointed out that his blood, represented by the wine in the cup, would validate the new covenant."
  
• The Watchtower, February 15, 1952, page 105, "[Jesus] he said to do it “for a commemoration of me”, indicating that the bread was still bread and was merely a symbol of his body. We note the same fact regarding the wine."
  

Incidents such as this remind conscientious researchers of the need for verifiable references.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The line about communion symbols was in the first version of the page when it was created by User:Summer Song, so I don't know what he was basing it on. It's one of a few doctrines for which I've been unable to find a reference. LTSally (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam's creation

I've deleted this point for now. Looking at an attempted rewording, and the original text, it's clear that point is just confusing and fails to make much sense. I'll have another look at it later to work out what I meant to say in the first place. LTSally (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added this as part of a copyedit of the timeline. I think it is a little clearer the way I've put it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread pertains to the 1968 changes, regarding the interval between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, which effects the 1975 matter.

What's written now is at least better than what was there before I started editing, but I think some of the references don't exactly match the body point they juxtapose (one of the reasons I like to leave a quote with the reference). My own edits on this tried to fix what was flat-out wrong, and perhaps I misguidedly included too much explanatory information to round out a topic rather than a simple bulletted item.

The matter is complicated somewhat by the fact that Russell used different terms than those used later by JWs. I'll post a nutshell...

Russell was very interested in chronology.

He taught that:

(1) each creative day (of which there are seven) was of an exactly 7000 years duration.

(2) the current creative "day" (we'll call "Day 7") will also be 7000 years duration.

(3) Christ's Millennial Reign overlaps the end of that "Day 7".

The math (7000-1000=) leaves 6000 years between the beginning of "Day 7" and the start of that Millennium.

Thus (if all three assumptions are correct), knowing the begin date of "Day 7" and adding 6000 years would show the begin date of that Millennium. (Armageddon? Hmmm.)

The million-dollar question: What is the begin date of "Day 7"?

Separately, in parallel, Bible chronologists dated Adam's creation approx 6000 years before the 20th century; that's coincidental or not depending on your POV. The similarity between the two periods of "6000 years of human history" and of "6000 pre-Millennium years of the current 'Day 7'" must have been particularly significant to persons already interested in chronology...

But... Russell (and JWs still) ALWAYS recognized that Adam's creation is NOT in itself the beginning of "Day 7". Nevertheless, both Russell and 1960s JWs apparently felt that the interval between Adam's creation and the beginning of "Day 7" seemed short enough that it was worth performing the exercise and 'showing their work'.

Russell (to his credit) recognized that there were too many variables, explicitly noting:

(a) Adam was created an unknown time before Eve, and

(b) together they lived in Eden for an unknown time (he guessed 'over two years') before their ouster.

(c) He believed the ouster began "Day 7".

While Russell felt he knew the date of Adam's creation, the other two events couldn't be dated with precision.

Later, at some point between 1890 and 1950, WT began teaching that "Day 7" began BEFORE the Edenic ouster, but after Eve's creation; that simple change largely nullified the variability resulting from the above points (b) and (c), but point (a) still remained.

The date of Adam's creation was thus of interest, but not much hinged on it. Over the decades, WT communicated different dates of Adam's creation. By 1966, JWs did teach that "Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E" and they connected that with "six thousand years of human history" (see The Watchtower, July 15, 1967, page 446).

Point (a) was still recognized as being unknowable and uncertain; a 1955 WT explicitly stated the 6000 years would end an "unknown amount" after 1976.

Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, February 1, 1955, page 95

"Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date."

In 1968, out of the blue, JWs tried to compress the timeframe between Adam's creation and Eve's creation by teaching it may have been only "a few months", which would have greatly reduced the uncertainty of the above point (a).

If... the lapse between the creation of Adam and that of Eve was truly so momentary, and

if... "Day 7" began IMMEDIATELY after Eve's creation, and

if... Russell's previous assumptions (1),(2),and (3) were valid,

...then Adam's creation plus "a few months" plus 6000 years would date the beginning of the Millennium.

JWs no longer suggest that only "a few months" separate Adam's creation from Eve's creation.

Also, JWs no longer teach that a creative day is 7000 years long; if that's not already in this article, I'll dig up the references and note it.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctrines unchanged since 1879: 144,000?

The article asserts “144,000 "elect" to go to heaven” as an unchanged doctrine from 1879 in terms of the number being “fixed and limited”. Yet the reference for this assertion is dated 1904; 25 years beyond 1879. If this teaching is “unchanged since 1879” then we need an 1879 reference to support it as presented. Otherwise it either needs re-wording or removing from this section. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell wrote about "the little flock" going to heaven repeatedly even before 1879. Here is an 1880 reference which explicitly mentions "the 144,000" having "heavenly life", although this wouldn't have been new to WT readers.

"Gathering to Christ", Watch Tower, November 1880, page 3 (Watch Tower Reprints, page 155), "The 144,000 being the first fruits to the heavenly or spiritual life are, or represent, God's temple in heaven, as the living, mortal part of the church has always been, or represented God's temple on earth. And in the judgment scene that follows, and harvest of the earth, (not of the first fruits) as described in Rev. 14:14-20, the angels, or messengers, are said to come out of the temple which is in heaven. It seems that after the exaltation of the "little flock," and contemporary with the above-named judgment scene, there goes forth the message, "Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of his judgment is come, &c." Verse 7. This language seems to be addressed to the "great multitude" who, at the time the "little flock" are exalted, are found"

I'd guess the 1904 reference was cited by others because its a little more plainly stated. Those familiar with the history of JWs know that they formerly believed others besides the 144,000 would go to heaven, but they always believed the 144,000 to be heaven-bound.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: 1880 is not 1879. Furthermore the 1880 reference is not evidence that the “144,000 elect” is limited. The reference only says the 144,000 are the “firstfruits” of other Christians to be resurrected to heaven later. Watchtower’s contemporary teaching regarding 144,000 is that there is limited number resurrected to heaven. This was not at all what was taught in 1880, or 1879 for that matter.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The early WTs are all on line and easily searchable. I'll check the first few years when I get the chance, unless someone else does it sooner. LTSally (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To point a mistake

I've spotted a mistake in the article:

"1921: Vaccines condemned as a violation of God's law.[44][45][46]"

In 1921 there is no mention of God's law in connection with vaccionation. In the magazines quoted in footnotes 44 and 45 there are several letters and quotes from other periodicals in favour and against the effectiveness of vaccination.

It was in 1931 when a letter was published expressing the opinion that vaccination was a violation of God's law, which was repeated in 1935, as the footnote 46 shows.--217.172.69.102 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word and I've moved the reference. LTSally (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and Original Research

The selection of the doctrines mentioned rests partly on original research and partly on some negative comments by ex-JWs or anti-JWs. On the whole it is subjective, since we see a selection of the wide spectrum of JWs teachings.

For instance, nowhere it is mentioned that Russell expected earth to become a paradise, nowhere it is mentioned that Russell approved Christian neutrality among the political and national strifes, nowhere it is mentioned that Russell taught the seperation of true Christians from false religion and that he didn't accept religious acts of interfaith, nowhere it is mentioned that Russell considered baptism as a symbol of personal dedication and he rejected infant baptism, to give some examples.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither of your objections is valid. The list of doctrinal adjustments is exhaustively referenced and sourced and retains a consistently neutral tone. Feel free to add further points that mark the development of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. LTSally (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information. LTSally (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we safe to remove this tag now? There has been no discussion since July 2 and the editor who placed the tag has made no attempts to support, or make edits to address, his claims that it is biased or based on original research. Nor has he responded to my point re Wikipedia's policy on compiling facts and information. The article is comprehensively referenced and sourced and retains a consistently neutral tone. LTSally (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the tag can be removed. Vassilis78, or anyone else, is free to add additional information to the article if they feel it is needed and have the references. And the absence of that information doesn't invalidate other sourced information that is directly relevant to the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Righteous to live forever in paradise earth

It is simply a dishonest statement to say that the doctrine that "Righteous to live forever in paradise earth" is unchanged since 1879. As the references indicate, Russell believed all people would be given such an opportunity. Rutherford, in later decades, began identifying bigger and bigger "classes" of people to whom he decided this promise did not apply. Current Watchtower thinking is that if Armageddon were to happen tomorrow, than only a few million of the earth's six billion people would have the opportunity to live forever. Of those who had already died, those who died in the Noachian flood would also be excluded, as would those who died in the falls of Jerusalem. And Adam. And Eve. Clearly, Russell's original doctrine has been changed. We have two choices: (1) Delete the line "Righteous to live forever in paradise earth" from the Unchanged doctrines section or (2) Restore the notes that describe the subsequent major qualification to Russell's doctrine of 1879. LTSally (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The primary doctrine concerns a restored earthly paradise and a future resurrection to human bodies.
The doctrine of exactly who qualifies for those eventualities might be explored separately.
In any event, controversy has been avoided by reverting to what I had actually written (see diff).

"Paradise earth to be restored, humans to live forever."

Hypothetically, it might have been dishonest to call the doctrine unchanged if the listing had said "...all humans..." or "...all righteous (using any definition of righteous)...", but no one did that to my knowledge. The current language doesn't do that either.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue. My point is that Russell's original doctrine has been modified. The additional information in the entry made that clear, but you have simply stripped the wording back to avoid stating this. Since the whole point of an encyclopedia is to impart information rather than selectively withhold it, the entry needs to make clear what Russell's belief on this issue was: namely, that the Bible held out this prospect for all people. LTSally (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The doctrine about who qualifies for salvation (that is, for resurrection and eternal life) may have changed.
The doctrine that earth will be restored to paradise hasn't changed.
The doctrine that humans can live forever in that earthly paradise also hasn't changed.
Rather than "withholding" information, I've explicitly suggested and continue to suggest that the related doctrine "might be explored separately", that is, in a logical rather than illogical place in the article.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the explanatory comment on this doctrine to document Russell's doctrine and note the fact that parts of this doctrine were later changed. LTSally (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that if "this doctrine were later changed" then it would not be "unchanged since 1879".
It seems rather obvious that the two separate doctrines should be separate items on this list; only one doctrine of the two remains "unchanged since 1879" (that is, restored paradise earth and eternal life for humans).
It seems rather obvious that the doctrine of who qualifies for salvation should be considered a separate doctrine and a separate item on this list.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If it all seems so obvious, why do you revert to a version that is patently wrong? But it's a good suggestion and I'll split the doctrines. LTSally (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a version which entirely accurately states JW's unchanged belief as:
"Paradise earth to be restored, humans to live forever."
An editor who calls that "patently wrong" should support her accusation better...
Could not 1879 doctrine be stated that way?
Could not 2009 doctrine be stated that way?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted reference in the "unchanged doctrines" section to humans living forever. LTSally (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The point has been in the article since July; why summarily delete it without giving a {{fact}} tag some time? LTSally's impatient handing of this matter seems frantic and unwikipedian.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1991 WT reference claims Russell held such a view held in 1879, but itself does not state its source. There is no mention of it in 1879 Watchtowers. The first reference to a similar doctrine is in the August 1880 WT (page 6) when it says:

"("The heavens must retain (Jesus) until the times of restitution of all things.") and that the very object of His coming is to glorify His Bride and "the Virgins, her companions that follow her," and then through them to "bless all the families of earth" and "restore all things"--restore poor fallen humanity to its original human perfectness which God declared "very good," freeing them from all the evils of Adam's transgression and placing them again where it is possible for them to keep a perfect law."

Watch Tower Society literature is notoriously loose with the truth in dealing with historical developments and a better source is required. LTSally (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say that you must not erase things just because you are suspicious of the Watchtower...--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The claim in the 1991 WT is insufficient to support the statement, for the reason I have explained. Please do not restore these statements again without citing a better source. LTSally (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to chastise an editor regarding "good faith" while seemingly accusing a conspiracy to falsify history.
Incidents like this do much to remind the Wikipedia community of the mindset of certain editors.

Well that personal attack wasn't well disguised was it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Certain editors have remarkable ideas about what the term "personal attack" means.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Trite semantics aside, the intention of your wording about what "seems" to be the case about "certain editors" "seemingly accusing" a point of view you disagree with, which you allege that other editors should consider a 'reminder' about that editor's "mindset", are crystal clear, despite the pseudo-legalese mincing of words.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor who chooses to libel a source as "notoriously loose with the truth" while refusing to actually challenge the source at WP:V/N certainly does reveal much about him- or herself. An editor who considers such a benign observation to be a "personal attack" likely recognizes the nature of what has been revealed.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear who you're saying "likely recognizes" something here, but whoever you mean, it's purely your own speculation anyway. Regardless of the "mindset" of "certain editors", how about sticking to the actual merits of the argument. It is demonstrable that some elements of JW history are at odds with other sources, so concerns about revisionism are valid. Indeed, lengths of passages in the great pyramid were 'conveniently' changed in different editions of Russell's Thy Kingdom Come (page 342) to point to 1914 in instead of 1874, so literature by Russell is certainly not beyond reproach. There is no need for arbitrary {{visible anchor}} templates in Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Russell in 1879 believed in a restored paradise earth and eventual eternal human life is already supported by two references, including a non-JW source quoting Russell's 1877 writings.
Furthermore, the ideas are not alien to Adventism, which heavily influenced Russell.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You write: "The claim that Russell in 1879 believed in a restored paradise earth and eventual eternal human life is already supported by two references, including a non-JW source quoting Russell's 1877 writings." I don't think so. Now the "Unchanged doctrine" reads God will restore what was lost in Eden and thus humanity is to enjoy eternal life in a earthly paradise. There are three references cited: (1) Russell's "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return", which makes a single, passing reference to "the earth being restored to Edenic beauty"; (2) page 7 (reprint) of the July 1879 Watch Tower, which makes no mention of either doctrine and (3) a Watchtower article written 112 years after the events it describes, which doesn't cite its source. Only one of those sources is JW, but all are Watch Tower Society sources, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim. The first source supports only that God will restore earth to its Edenic state. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source from around that date to support the claim that " ... thus humanity is to enjoy eternal life in a earthly paradise." Wikipedia is built on a basis of verifiable, accurate sources. The second half of that statement so far lacks those reliable sources. LTSally (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

An 1877 source would seem to pre-date the Watch Tower magazine by two years and pre-date the Watch Tower Society by four years; plainly, LTSally is mistaken in pretending that "all are Watch Tower Society sources".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Russell's literature from 1877 is not Watch Tower Society literature. But literature written by Russell before the inception of a corporation that published literature written by Russell isn't far from, and is hardly a source independent of, the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"...Technically..."?
No, the matter is a practical wrinkle in the silly accusations of those who insist on portraying Jehovah's Witnesses poorly. It is simply not credible that a conspiracy to falsify history by the Watch Tower Society could have reached back in time to four years before the Society was formed; seven years before it was incorporated!
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Without reading the entire tedious (and poorly formatted) source from 1877, can you indicate specifically where it says that humans will live forever on earth?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In chapter 2 of his 1877 title, Russell specifically writes, "...these pages were not written for the world [that is, earthbound humankind], but for "the household of faith" [that is, anointed Christians with a heavenly hope]". Russell expected that everyone who read his booklet would aspire to heaven, so he doesn't dwell on his ideas about the earthly hope. I'll try to pull and annotate some quotes from Russell's 1877 booklet, and I'll put them in a new subsection below called "#1877 annotated". --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Refuting rejection of 1991 reference

All this is irrelevant and I'm not interested in conspiracies. I'd just like to see a quote from a publication around 1879 that showed that Russell believed humans would live forever on a planet restored to Edenic conditions. The 1991 WT is inadequate as a source. LTSally (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I really don't have spare time to give long explanations like the one below, and especially for subjects which are self-evident and clear.

I want first to examine a technical point which deals with the WP policy.

LTSally, you say: The 1991 WT is inadequate as a source.

Why? You say:

1. The 1991 WT reference claims Russell held such a view held in 1879, but itself does not state its source. There is no mention of it in 1879 Watchtowers. The first reference to a similar doctrine is in the August 1880 WT.
   
2. Watch Tower Society literature is notoriously loose with the truth in dealing with historical developments and a better source is required.

Your arguments here do not comply with the WP policy because the first constitutes original research in contrast with an official claim of the WT and the second constitutes (at least) POV, because you have not the right to erase an official statement just because you don't like the organization that made it. The official statement is official statement whether you agree with it or not.

You also claimed that what you found in the 1880 WT was not found earlier:
The first reference to a similar doctrine [about a paradise on earth] is in the August 1880 WT (page 6) when it says:

"("The heavens must retain (Jesus) until the times of restitution of all things.") and that the very object of His coming is to glorify His Bride and "the Virgins, her companions that follow her," and then through them to "bless all the families of earth" and "restore all things"--restore poor fallen humanity to its original human perfectness which God declared "very good," freeing them from all the evils of Adam's transgression and placing them again where it is possible for them to keep a perfect law."

So, you claimed that the Watchtower of 1st July 1879 doesn’t say that, but you are wrong. It seems that you didn’t read carefully and that, probably, you are not well acquainted with the eschatological context of millenarianism.

First of all the magazine itself, which you have read it, promotes the booklet entitled The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return, which means that the thoughts of this booklet are endorsed. Since the booklet speaks of a paradise on Earth, this doctrine was accepted in 1879.

Secondly, this very first issue of the Watchtower speaks thoroughly about the millennial kingship of Christ along with his church over the nations of the earth.

Basic eschatological knowledge of the Christian doctrine through the ages affirms that, generally speaking, chiliasm or millennialism is about nothing else but a material, corporeal, earthly paradise during [at least] the millennium.

And actually the belief to chiliasm and the restoration of the earthly paradise didn’t only bring Russell and Bible Students in antithesis with the traditional eschatology of Christendom, which is called “post-millennialism” in the article “Why will there be a Second Advent?” (in contrast Russell’s belief in “pre-millennialism”), but with Second Adventists as well. How? Russell explains (WT 1906, 15 July p. 230)

“from 1870 to 1875 [...] We came to see [...] how all who exercise faith in Christ's redemptive work and render obedience in harmony with the knowledge of God's will they will then receive, shall then (through Christ's merit) be brought back into full harmony with God, and be granted everlasting life. This we saw to be the Restitution work foretold in Acts 3:21. But though seeing that the Church was called to joint-heirship with the Lord in the Millennial Kingdom, up to that time we had failed to see clearly the great distinction between the reward of the Church now on trial and the reward of the faithful of the world after its trial, at the close of the Millennial age-- that the reward of the former is to be the glory of the spiritual, divine nature, while that of the latter is to be the glory of restitution--restoration to the perfection of human nature once enjoyed in Eden by their progenitor and head, Adam.”

On the contrary, the Second Adventists believed that during the millennium earth will be a desolated place, being a prison of Satan and his demons, and that all faithful ones will be forever in heaven. So says Russell:

“These wrong views so generally held [by Adventists] of both the object and manner of the Lord's return led me to write a pamphlet--"The Object and Manner of The Lord's Return," of which some 50,000 copies were published.”

Aha!

Returning to the article of 1879, we also read about the restoration of the Edenic earth:

“Everything that mankind lost in the first, is to be restored in the second. Hence, the age following Christ's second coming is spoken of as "the times of restitution." […] All men are saved or rescued from the loss entailed on them through Adam, by having all those lost things, including natural life, restored to them.

In the same magazine there is an article by Paton about the “Three Worlds.” Which are these “three worlds?”

It is explained:

“The first "order" is called "the old world," 2 Peter 2:5 [the pre-deluge world]. Then "This present evil world" must have been new at first. As the second "waxes old" and passes away, another new one comes on, "Wherein dwelleth righteousness." […] Righteousness will be the rule and sin the exception. "The sinner being an hundred years old, shall be accursed." Isa. 65:20. Sin and death go hand in hand, and neither shall be destroyed until the end of the thousand years: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15:26.”

In the new world to come there will be two classes:

“[…] the saints are to enter upon a higher state than the nations, being raised in the "spiritual body," and made equal to the angels at the beginning of that world. The heavenly state of the saints, as the "Bride, the Lamb's Wife," and the earthly state of the nations, as the "blessed of the Lord," are facts of the world to come and in harmony with each other. If the saints are to rule the nations as promised, the nations must be there to be ruled.”

The things are very clear, and I don’t really see why the restoration of mankind in the Edenic state has not been accepted till now as a doctrinal position since (at least) 1879.

--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No contradictory refs

Obviously, an encyclopedic work cannot ignore the plainly-stated 1991 reference, especially when nothing has been shown to contradict it.
There seems no real possibility that a challenge to the source at WP:V/N would be successful. Incidentally, it states...

"Speak the Pure Language and Live Forever!", The Watchtower, May 1, 1991, page 17, "In 1879...a small Bible-study group led by Charles Taze Russell was meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They had become certain that Jesus’ second coming...would restore Paradise on earth, with eternal life for obedient humans."

The mountains of additional support in the previous comment are interesting but likely unneeded.
Rather obviously, since 1879 Jehovah's Witnesses have not changed this doctrine (of a restored paradise earth and humans living forever upon it).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So, to summarise: (1) The reader must have a background knowledge of millinerianism to appreciate that Russell would have had such a belief in 1879 because of the prior teachings of other Adventists, even though no reference is necessary to support such a view; and (2) A Watchtower written 112 years after the date in question asserts with no references itself that this was the case. It doesn't sound much like verifiable sources to me. But hey, it sets a new benchmark of evidence that I'll be happy to apply in future. Without complaint I hope. LTSally (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of even a hint of contradictory evidence, it would be grossly POV to insist that The Watchtower of May 1, 1991 must be the culmination of a conspiracy of dishonesty. Since Wikipedia doesn't tolerate such prejudice, the provided reference never needed confirmation. Incidentally, that reference reads as follows:

"Speak the Pure Language and Live Forever!", The Watchtower, May 1, 1991, page 17, "In 1879...a small Bible-study group led by Charles Taze Russell was meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They had become certain that Jesus’ second coming...would restore Paradise on earth, with eternal life for obedient humans."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly my view that the Watchtower is a poor source of historical information about itself. Editors must always form a point of view about the quality of sources they provide. This does not inject a point of view into the article, however, which is what WP:NPOV is designed to guard against. And what was that quote again? It's been a few minutes since you last posted it. LTSally (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1991 source is quite unambiguous, that JW (née IBSA) doctrine has, since 1879 at the latest, taught that
(1) paradise earth will be restored and that
(2) humans will live forever.
An editor's POV (such as referring to the "intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" or opining "my view that the Watchtower is a poor source" or claiming "I became sickened...at Witness conventions and assemblies" or "[they're] a claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community") is encyclopedically meaningless, excepting in revealing something about that editor to the Wikipedia community.
An actual objection (that is, a scholarly objection) to a source should be presented at WP:V/N, or else dropped. Incidentally, there seems no chance that The Watchtower of May 1, 1991 could be rejected as a source in this instance, especially since its explicit statement is supported by a mountain of implicit and arguably explicit evidence, and no contradictory evidence has yet been presented.
An additional note: anti-anything activists have a wide range of forums on which to spin their conspiracy theories; Wikipedia is not such a forum.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with the notion of my edits "revealing something about that editor to the Wikipedia community". You refer repeatedly to my edits revealing my "mindset". To quote WP:NPOV: All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. My talk page clearly explains my intentions at Wikipedia and my point of view, so you don't need to scrutinise my edits for further hidden meanings. Your edits clearly show that you wish to present your religion in a positive and glowing light, and there's nothing wrong with that. As long as we can agree on the need for verifiable, reliable sources in articles and a balanced, neutral presentation of facts, there shouldn't be a problem. We should each acknowledge and accept the other's bias. I agree that the 1991 WT is unambigious. However the WTS publications are not always an accurate source of information about the history of the organization and I requested a better source from around that time. One source was added, with rather vague wording, which hardly constitutes what you claim is "a mountain of implicit and arguably explicit evidence". LTSally (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

While 'point of view' may be unavoidable, that wouldn't excuse a Wikipedian campaign to "bring down the Watch Tower at all costs".
It seems revealing when an editor assumes that others who use such phrases must be referring to her.
Furthermore, it seems odd to assume that an editor who merely wishes for Wikipedia articles to be fair, accurate, and useful must be interested in presenting "religion in a positive and glowing light".
That's not my interest; frankly, I don't recall having stated any religious or irreligious preference. When LTSally calls a particular religion "intrusive, insidious, malevolent" and "incestuous" and 'sickening', my distaste for such blatant POV by an editor is based on the best interests of the Wikipedia community rather than any personal agenda.
Regarding this thread: an existing referenced point shouldn't have been deleted without a contradictory reference.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For a person so concerned with "the best interests of the Wikipedia community rather than any personal agenda" you spend an awful lot of your time concocting derogatory personal remarks about other editors. My advice: Use these talk pages to improve the article rather than filling it with childish comments about the "mindset" of others. LTSally (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1877 annotated

Russell's 1877 booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return specifically says in its Chapter 2, "...these pages were not written for the world [that is, earthbound humankind], but for "the household of faith" [that is, anointed Christians with a heavenly hope]". Russell expected that everyone who read his booklet would aspire to heaven, so the booklet doesn't dwell much on his ideas about the Bible's earthly hope.

Russell's 1877 work mostly synonymizes "the church", "the little flock", "the light of the world", "first-fruits", heavenly "Jerusalem", and "Temple of God" and uses all these terms to refer to anointed, born-again Christians who become heavenly resurrectees (or ascendants). Separate from them, Russell mostly synonymizes "the world", "the nations", and "more of a harvest" and uses these terms to refer to earthbound humankind during the Millennium (and sometimes before the Millennium).

IMHO, it seems more plausible to conclude that Russell's 1877 ideas were simply less explicit than Russell's 1882 ideas, rather than contradictory. I've pulled and posted some quotes below, in order, from Russell's 1877 booklet, and annotated them [with brackets] and added emphasis to show that Russell did expect humans on that restored paradise earth. I'm not going to pick apart what Russell wrote, or pretend that Russell believed just as JWs do today.

Chapter 1

• [At Revelation 21 and 22] there flows a river from under the throne, "a river of the water of life." ... No longer the little well, no longer confined to the few, the "little flock," but "whosoever will" may partake of it freely. ...It will be free to all. But, notice when, it is in the heavens and new earth, (Rev. 21:1), in the next dispensation. ...This is a glorious prospect for both the church and the world [that is, both anointed heavenly resurrectees and earthbound humankind].
  

• The church [heavenly resurrectees] gets something far better than a restitution: The whole human family get back in the second Adam all they lost in the first Adam. ...Of the church [heavenly resurrectees] alone it is said, "Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body." All others rise fleshly, natural bodies... The Law contains no higher promise than that of natural life. ...The Jews had an idea of a future life in Christ's day
  

• We read of the restoration of Israel and other nations [that is, of human Israelites and other humans]...and also of the earth being restored to Edenic beauty, when the wilderness shall blossom as the rose, and the church...as a rule they have never thought of the prophecy embracing the dead as well as the living, and the other nations as well as Israel. But these things are mentioned in the same Bible. ...God proposes to bring them [humans without a heavenly hope] back to their former estate [that is, human life on earth]; what they lost by sin and death entering the world through the first Adam is to be restored in the second [Adam, that is, Christ] and they will have the same opportunity that he [Adam, a human incidentally,] had, and better, in that the old serpent, the devil, Satan will be bound (or evil restrained) that he may deceive the nations [that is, earthbound humankind] no more until the thousand years are expired.
  

• It is during the millennial age that [Christ] does sit on the throne of His glory: and the overcomers [that is, anointed heavenly resurrectees] sit with Him in the throne. Then, before Him are gathered all nations [that is, earthbound humankind]... [Christ] comes to bring about the great restitution which was so beautifully represented and shadowed forth under the Law in "the year of Jubilee," in which every man was restored to all His possessions, and to personal liberty. (Lev. 25:13.) The millennial reign is the great antitypical jubilee, (the substance which cast the shadow in the Law) in which every man will have restored to him in the second Adam just what he lost in the first Adam... Then the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose
  

Chapter 2

• ...these pages were not written for the world, but for "the household of faith" [that is, the anointed with a heavenly hope]... The church are those brethren and will have a second birth...to spiritual bodies... But will the world not see the saints when gathered or gathering? No: they are changed (in the twinkling of an eye) from Natural to spiritual bodies...they were sown (buried) natural bodies, they are raised spiritual bodies... (It should not be forgotten that only the church is raised spiritual bodies, all others, natural fleshly bodies as Lazarus, etc.)
  

Chapter 3

• Peace is established on a sure basis, by the breaking in pieces of the worldly governments. "Every man [that is, every human] may then sit under his own vine and fig tree, with none to molest or make him afraid."
  

Chapter 4

• Now we are beginning to realize that these inventions...will in the millennial age minister to the comforts and necessities of the world [that is, earthbound humankind]. In fact, humanly speaking the Millennial Era would be an impossibility without them. When the kingdom is the Lord's, right and justice will hold the reins, oppression and strikes will alike give place to equity. These inventions will be used for the benefit not alone of a class but of the whole, they will serve not merely to the accumulation of dollars, but to the intellectual enrichment of all classes, and "all shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest."
  

Again, IMHO, Russell's intent seems rather straightforward if not obvious: while earthbound humankind wouldn't have immortality, they'd be like "the first Adam" in that they'd live as long as they obeyed God. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thread

This thread is interesting but it's looooong, almost half the Talk page. Is it appropriate to archive it? --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Armageddon

User:AuthorityTam has repeatedly reverted the section on Doctrinal changes 1921-1930, requesting a quote from cited sources that the doctrine on Armageddon was changed in 1925. It's reasonable to request a quote when a statement may be contested and when the cited source is difficult to obtain. I have, in good faith, supplied something better than a quote. I provided a link to the source material, "The Finished Mystery", page 258, which provides the information he contests, or at least seeks to verify: namely that Russell's belief was that Armageddon was a "melee between contending forces of mankind, resulting in social revolution and political anarchy." I added, for the benefit of those readers requiring everything to be spelled out, a note that reads "See comment on Rev. 16:16-20". The discussion in that section of the book is patently about Armageddon, and it explains, verse by verse, the WTS understanding of that time of Armageddon, namely that it would be a time of political anarchy. User:AuthorityTam is, for unknown reasons, still reverting and insisting I supply a quote of this material on the basis that page 258 of The Finished Mystery does not use the word "Armageddon". I'm not sure of his motive, but his actions are time wasting and provocative. I will amend the reference to refer to pages 256 to 258, which encompasses a broader group of verses from Revelation 16, and for those readers unfamiliar with the contents of Revelation 16, includes the word "Armageddon". LTSally (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LTSally seems to fundamentally misunderstand what is required to support her controversial interpretations of sources.
The fact remains that none of the editor's cited references actually says that Russell believed Armageddon to be a "melee between contending forces of mankind, resulting in social revolution and political anarchy." Instead, that quoted phrase refers merely to one incorrect belief which may be held by anyone.

The Template:Request quotation/doc says, "Please add this template after an unquoted interpretation of a source that you think may be inaccurate. This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source...has been interpreted correctly. This is particularly helpful...in order to check the editor's interpretation."

LTSally insists that she need not provide pithy quotes which tend to support her interpretations, instead expecting others to wade through multiple references (some with ranges of pages) and apparently guess at what phrases she might believe to support her interpretations. Such blatant disregard for the letter and the spirit of Template:Request quotation would ordinarily be summarily reverted, but LTSally seems untroubled by WP:3R.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, the references are plainly cited. It seems a waste of time and space to repeat on this page what is quickly accessible on the internet, but here, to hopefully stop your complaints, are the original statements.

1. Rutherford, Light, page 134: "It was in that same year that God's people saw clearly that the battle of Armageddon would be the battle of God against Satan, and not a melee between contending forces of mankind. (See Watch Tower, January 1, 1925.)" Rutherford here adjusts the view of "God's people" (in other words, the view formerly presented by the Watch Tower Society).

This shows the 1925 view, but doesn't state that the other is the former belief; the quote does NOT say, "It was in that same year that God's people first saw clearly that the battle of Armageddon would be the battle of God against Satan, and not a melee between contending forces of mankind as was understood previously.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Rutherford, Light, page 223: "that the great battle of Armageddon soon to begin will result in the full restraint of Satan and the complete overthrow of his evil organization." Rutherford here states that Satan's organization will be overthown.

Again, stating 'a position' is not synonymous with stating 'a new position'; the quote doesn't contrast or even mention anything of any previous understanding. --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Rutherford, Light, page 251: "The earthly kings could have no glory left after Armageddon to bring into the kingdom. (Isa. 24: 21) Not even David will be a king in the earth when he is restored. There will be no kings in the earth." Rutherford here shows that kings and governments will no longer exist after Armageddon.

Again, stating 'a position' is not synonymous with stating 'a new position'; the quote doesn't contrast or even mention anything of any previous understanding. --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Watch Tower, August 1892: "The Editor expects from Rev. 19:20 that the final overthrow of present governments will be at the same time as the fall of ecclesiasticism and will be followed by from five to seven years of socialism and anarchy, to end with 1914 by the establishment of Christ's Millennial government." Russell here describes the gradual dissolution of human governments prior to God setting up his kingdom. Is he talking about Armageddon? The Watch Tower Society would say yes: it cites the same verse (see Revelation book, pg. 285) when describing God's battle against human governments that results in their sudden destruction.

The reference quote is mildly useful, but LTSally's comments seem to be arguing that the cited 1892 source agrees with a current JW reference (their Revelation book).
Ironically, JW's current understanding of the "great tribulation" arguably allows for "five to seven years of...anarchy" among human governments.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

5. The Finished Mystery, pages 256-258: "Rev 16:16 ... And [he] THEY gathered them together. — The three unclean spirits do the gathering. Unto a place called in the Hebrew tongue [Armageddon] ... And there was a great earthquake. — Social revolution. The same mentioned in Rev. 8:5; 11:19 and 1 Kings 19:11, 12, following the War. ... Such as was not since men were upon the earth. — Worldwide socialism, an unprecedented and sure-to-fail experiment in government. Rev 16: 20: Even the republics will disappear in the time of anarchy. And the mountains were not found. — Every kingdom of earth will pass away, be swallowed up in anarchy." The WTS here, in its 1917 publication, describes Armageddon as a time of political revolution and anarchy, reflecting Russell's view.

This is the first useful quote to show the understanding which would have changed by the 1925 sources. It might be better to remove the useless references that only distract from the matter. Incidentally, if any actual references use the terms "new view" and "old view" in connection with this matter, supplying them would have avoided needless back-and-forth.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Rutherford was introducing a new view of Armageddon. It is the view currently held by the WTS. It is different to that expressed by Russell. That is why Rutherford sought to explain this, referring readers to the 1925 WT in which the new view was presented, contrasted with the old view. Hope this helps. LTSally (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the references which do not support the point will make the article better. This incident has been useful if editors become more selective regarding which citations they plan to include to support a point.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited here are provided for two reasons: (1) to support the statement that Armageddon would result "in the overthrow of human governments and false religion" and (2) to state the previous view on Armageddon and indicate the contrast. I don't know why you'd want to delete some. LTSally (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro and "Unchanged doctrines" section

I'd suggest the intro be changed to read that the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses have developed since publication of The Watchtower magazine began in 1879. This was when Russell began promoting his views. The WTS didn't come into existence for another two years and it wasn't incorporated with Russell as president until '84. This at least harmonises the intro with the first section of the article, "Doctrines unchanged since 1879". LTSally (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Seems kind of obvious really.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Trinity

Is there anything to suggest that the information in 1882 about the Trinity represented a new or changed view since 1879?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no earlier reference to an antiTrinitarian stance before 1882. To all intents and purposes, Russell's earlier views on the trinity were no different to any other Protestant preacher and there are multiple references in his early writings to the Holy Spirit as a person. In 1882 he made an emphatic stand against the doctrine. LTSally (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For now, it seems advisable to create separate listings (and subthreads) for 'Holy spirit not a person' and 'Nontrinitarianism'. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Even the 1975 yearbook and Proclaimers book identify the July 1882 WT as the issue that defined the doctrine on the trinity. If Russell made no overt statement opposing the trinity before then, then 1882 marks the beginning of that belief. I have deleted AuthorityTam's strained interpretation of Russell's writings that "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" in defiance of WP:SYNTH and also the WT writings written in 1881, after the 1879 date. LTSally (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See below. 1881 Watch Towers do indeed dismiss the trinity as a true doctrine. Russell did take a strong, clear stand in July 1882, but I have moved the doctrine back to 1881. LTSally (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy spirit not a person

I'm not fully convinced that the religion before 1882 thought the holy spirit to be a person.
The references to Paton's non-WTS book are irrelevant, except (ironically) to show that Russell wouldn't permit such ideas in the pages of Watch Tower Society publications. Russell's use of a personal pronoun ("he") in connection with the holy spirit can be mentioned, but it's a traditional convention to do that and so it's hardly a statement of faith about the personality or impersonality of the holy spirit. I'll leave this particular part of the doctrine at 1882, but I'll edit the irrelevant references and perhaps research it a little more (eventually).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Paton wrote his book in 1880 at Russell's urging and published through an arrangement made by Russell (see Wills, page 10 and Penton, page 23). It contained a strong trinitarian statement. Russell continued to use Paton as a regular contributor to the Watchtower through to July 1881 and his name is listed in each issue as such, so he is therefore one of those who contributed to the Watchtower set of beliefs. It is therefore logical that Russell had no objection at that point with Paton's theology. I might be swayed by your argument that the use of "he" in reference to the holy spirit was only a traditional convention if you can locate uses of this term after July 1882. If there are no such uses, one can only assume that this reflected Russell's new teaching that the holy spirit was (a) not a person and (b) not part of a trinity. LTSally (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't support that conclusion. I don't believe in the Trinity personally, yet I call the holy spirit "he" instead of "it". Not to be sacrilegious, but my car is a "she". That's anthropomorphism. Anyway, reading everything above, my synth is that Russell was non-Trinitarian before 1880, but I'm late to this game and not arguing for the point. --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions about anthropomorphising aside, if it can be demonstrated that a traditional use of 'he' for the holy spirit can be demonstrated from 1882 onwards in Russell's writings, then it could be accepted that previous use of the pronoun was not an allusion to a 'personal' holy spirit (whether or not that 'person' was considered to be part of a godhead').--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that conclusion. I've personally heard Witnesses who've been baptized a year or two say "holy ghost". In time they drop it. Did it take them a year or two to decide the holy spirit isn't a ghostly person or did it occur to them that the term ghost had implications? I knew a lovely older woman with not a racist bone in her body who called dark skinned babies "pickaninnies", a horribly racist term here. Old habits die hard. I'm not arguing that Russell rejected Trinity in 1879, only that there's no solid evidence he ever supported it. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism

Nontrinitarianism wasn't new to 1882.
Incidentally, pointedly refusing to embrace or defend Trinitarianism is better described as Nontrinitarianism than as Antitrinitarianism. Even anti-JW writers such as Penton typically concede that the Watch Tower was unequivocally Antitrinitarian beginning in 1882 (“Our readers are aware that while we believe in Jehovah God and Jesus, and the holy Spirit, we reject as totally unscriptural, the teaching that these are three Gods in one person, or as some put it, one God in three persons.”). But... the magazine had been pointedly devoid of Trinitiarianism even before 1882.

Is it accurate to pretend that nontrinitarianism was a new WT understanding that year? No. None of the 1882 articles were written as though nontrinitiariasm was sudden and new; in fact, both Henry Grew and George Stetson were unabashed nontrinitarians years earlier; furthermore, George Storrs had pointedly refused to defend Trinitarianism for decades. Russell himself, several times over the decades, said and wrote that he personally had "never understood the doctrine of the trinity" (eg Harvest Gleanings III).

1882 was certainly NOT the first year that Russell introduced nontrinitarianism to Watch Tower readers. As with other aspects of doctrine, Russell's later writings about nontrinitarianism were not contradictory of (but were merely more explicit than) his earlier writings.

Frankly, it's silly to pretend that Watch Tower nontrinitarianism began in 1882! In the first issue of the Watch Tower in 1879, Russell's analysis of John 14:10 with 17:21 is a common refutation of trinitarianism; Russell concludes that analysis with a seeming dig by contrasting his simple logic against Trinitarians who "attempt an explanation" of their complicated theology. Here are five pre-1882 quotes which at the least imply Russell's consistent nontrinitarianism since 1879.

• Watch Tower, July 1, 1879, Supplement page 3, Watch Tower Reprints page 9 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, Supplement page 3, "Christ's words are true: "I and my Father are one" --one in purpose and in work. Christ prayed to the Father that the disciples might be one, "even as we are one." "As thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may be one in us," &c. John 17:21. ...Truly they are in harmony. ...No theologian need attempt an explanation of the Divine Sonship of our Lord."

Comment: The discussion does not touch on any discussion of the trinity, either pro or anti. LTSally (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Watch Tower, February 1880, Watch Tower Reprints page 78 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 7, "Notwithstanding the Trinitarian controversies they are NOT REFERRED TO BY A SINGLE GREEK FATHER OR BY ANY OF THE OLD LATIN CHURCH FATHERS. [emphasis retained from original]"

Comment: If you bother to read the article, the discussion is not about the trinity, but about the addition of spurious wording in 1 John 5:7. LTSally (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Watch Tower, April 1881, Watch Tower Reprints page 207 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 7, "And why did they thus keep the people in ignorance? Because they feared that if people knew this, the only text which gives even a shadow of support to the doctrine of the TRINITY, to be an interpolation to support a papal error, they might renounce the error"
• Watch Tower, September 1881, Watch Tower Reprints page 278 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 132, "As to the motives and errors which may have led to these unwarranted interpolations of the [Bible] text, we may be able to offer a suggestion, viz., the last mentioned (1 John 5:7,8) was probably intended to give authority and sanction to the doctrine of the "Trinity." ...From our standpoint we recognize the Papal system as being the counterfeit of the true church...to bind men with chains of ignorance and superstition"
• Watch Tower, October 1881, Watch Tower Reprints page 290 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 4, ""He gave his only begotten Son." This phraseology brings us into conflict with an old Babylonian theory, viz.: Trinitarianism. If that doctrine is true, how could there be any Son to give? A begotten Son, too? Impossible. If these three are one, did God send himself? And how could Jesus say: "My Father is greater than I." John 14:28. [emhasis retained from original]"

When taken together, the multiple pre-1882 quotes, the 1879 quote's implication, and the lack of contradictory quotes pushes "Nontrinitarianism" back into Doctrines unchanged since 1879.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good find! From April 1881 he certainly did express disapproval of the trinity doctrine. Please let the WTS know so they can rewrite their history books! There is no evidence that this view was held in 1879, however. LTSally (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of doctrinal developments

If the timeline of developments is going to have any meaning, the date of the establishment of the doctrines needs to be better nailed down. A number of the doctrines supposedly established by 1879 seem to have been stated in Watchtower books or magazines after that date, which means they're in the wrong section. The clergy-laity view (1880) is one such doctrine, which I've moved. LTSally (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

The claim has been made that "Evolution is a teaching contrary to the Bible and denies the need of redeem by Christ" is a teaching unchanged since 1879. The reference cited is a July 1906 WT, which condemns former WT contributor JH Paton for writing about evolution. Paton's Day Dawn book was written in 1880. His book that contains material to which Russell objects was written after that. Is there a quote in this WT article that states explictly that Russell or other WT writers held a view in 1879 that evolution was a teaching contrary to the Bible? If so, can you please quote it here? If not, then that belief belongs in 1906. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found a condemnation of the evolution teaching in The Divine Plan of the Ages that lends support to the statement. That book was published in 1886. Unless a quote from a WT publication earlier than that can be found that provides explicit support for this view, I'll move this doctrine to 1886. LTSally (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this an open thread? I'll research it, but I don't want to waste my time if its a mootly contention. I mean, no one really thinks JW's ever believed in evolution, do they? Is it enough to just find an 1879 WT saying "God is the Creator"? Is that second part about evolution denying Christ more than trivial? --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessing article

I'm reassessing this to C class, though if the article is to go further the timeline is going to have to be converted into prose. Ltwin (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good news! It's an interesting and useful article. I think its terse nature without much elaboration has freed it from the troubles of related articles. So anyway, what do you mean when you say has to be "converted into prose"? Is there a guideline that explains in detail how to, or has examples of a section that's been converted? --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I shouldn't say prose, the timeline has prose. But I mean not so much a timeline but more like paragraph structure. A timeline would be useful for somethings, but for a subject as rich as the development of a religion, it can be limiting. I'ts not so much a problem with the information, just the style. I would suggest removing the bullets and forming paragraphs. The section headings are fine. Ltwin (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There could be nothing clearer than bullet points to identify the specific doctrines and the date of their change. LTSally (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LTSally. I support retaining this article's current bullet structure, but I concede the article might be renamed "List of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrinal developments". --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose that. The list is a primary part of the article at present, but I'll be expanding it soon with more academic commentary on the process of its development, particularly on the post-Russell era. Having the article named as a list will make those facts hard to accommodate. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why a major change if its about to be "C class"? I still support retaining the article's current bullet structure and renaming it List of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrinal developments. LTSally's topic is different, really that would be Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine development process. --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Without question"?

The lead says

Members of the religion outside the Governing Body play no role in the development of doctrines and are expected to adhere to all those decided at Brooklyn headquarters without question or dissent.

That's not correct. I know they expect adherence but they're quite tolerant of questions. They claim that all their articles have the approval of ninety senior people (2009 Annual Meeting). Even if we critically imagine the Governing Body is like the Politburo and these are ninety rubber stamp yes men, its not intellectually honest to say the ninety have "no role in the development of doctrine". --Soc8675309 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement cites Andrew Holden as its source. I'm not sure what the "2009 Annual Meerting" is you're referring to ... are you able to copy the quote you refer to and a fuller explanation of the source to the talk page? Thanks. LTSally (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps: "The Governing Body makes all decisions regarding doctrinal development, which are ratified by senior Watch Tower staff [or whoever attends the annual meetings?] at meetings held annually. Other members of the religion are expected to adhere to all decisions made at Brooklyn headquarters without question or dissent."---Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The annual meeting of the Watch Tower Society usually has over 10,000 in attendance. They no longer allow sound recordings, but transcripts report everything. The broad strokes are in official print in about a year. That's just where it was said about the ninety signatures on new teachings. I think these are ninety senior people around the globe, probably "anointed", not necessarily at the annual meeting. I think any of them can start the chain letter, like, "I think Hezekiah 9:24 applies to the start of the great tribulation because of this that and the other thing" or whatever but they all have to agree or at least not argue and then the Governing Body may sit on it for a year or years and maybe send it around again with more thoughts. So who is Andrew Holden and when did he say what he said? Getting back to the article, first off, the "without question" part seems indefensible and counter to the experience of most who know much about it. Questions aren't allowed? Pshaw. Second, saying 'others have "no role" in developing doctrine' just makes drama and overstates I think to press a point of view. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to defer to Holden's study over what you (an anonymous editor) "think" about who "probably" make decisions on doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! You'll both note I haven't changed the article. "Holden" just seems to have overstated a point in a way I thought was obvious. The article isn't forced to include his every overstatement! The overstatement could be removed from the article because it doesn't pass a smell test. I haven't done it because I expected ready agreement and have been surprised not to find it. Ideally, me or someone should find a less overstated statement on the matter and have that be the source for a more balanced statement in the article. And did "Holden" really use those absolute terms, without question and no role? --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source for that explicit statement. Raymond Franz was a member of the Governing Body and is in a good position to state how doctrines are established. Soc8675309's objection to the wording obviously means little without a reliable published source that shows otherwise. LTSally (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure Franz didn't say others have no role in "finalizing" or "approving" new doctrine? I'm thinking anyone who writes in a question or shares an interesting turn of Bible language has some role in "developing" doctrine. Casual readers here may not know that Franz is an expelled member with an ax to grind. Almost every point sourced from him really needs to be prefaced by the fact that Franz is the one saying it. Even if it were stipulated Franz was knowledgeable in the 1970's, the article (the lead!) is about today and says others have "no role in the development of doctrines" today. I'm happy to agree a reputable source is needed to verify the "gang of ninety" (my term) before including it in the article itself, but I also expect that no one actually believes nine lonely guys originate, research, outline, write, edit, factcheck, and translate without some help. If Holden or Franz claim that outright or by implication, I think its an extraordinary and dubious claim even if a bookseller agreed to publish it. --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Franz's book and decide for yourself. Far from being an extraordinary or dubious claim, the statement was made as part of a chapter dealing extensively with the faithful and discreet slave and the common misconceptions held by Witnesses about its role and that of the Governing Body. The speculation you raise about the role of outsiders in formulating doctrines was discussed at length. I know Witnesses won't go near the book because the Watch Tower Society demands that Witnesses avoid the "poison" of "apostasy" (and indeed anything written by a person expelled by the religion for whatever reason), but in fact the book is a fastidiously researched, well-written, carefully considered discussion of the history and practices of the religion. The book, as many other authors have noted, is free of vindictivenss or invective. It also happens to contain much that would surprise most Witnesses. For those reasons it is unnecessary to adopt your suggestion to preface every statement attributed to him with a note that he was expelled from the religion for having a meal with a disfellowshipped man, his employer. His statements are an explanation of Governing Body process and procedure as he experienced it.

I agree the book was written based on Franz's knowledge and experience of the time, and it is entirely possible that the WTS has changed its structure now to allow a collaborative approach to formulating doctrines, something approaching the synods and conferences of other religions. But until there is a reliable source that says so, it can only be assumed that Franz is still an accurate source. LTSally (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LTSally, that's a good example in your first post/paragraph. I think we both know an article would say "Franz claims he was expelled for having a meal with a disfellowshipped man", since the only other source could be Franz's expulsion committee and they aren't talking. That kind of prefacing is routine for "authorities" in situations similar to Franz. I'm not saying its ignored, just identified to the reader. I don't know what Franz claims, which is why I asked. I'll ask again. Did Franz really claim with the words: Members of the religion outside the Governing Body play no role in the development of doctrines and are expected to adhere to all those decided at Brooklyn headquarters without question or dissent. ? I'll say again that would be an extraordinary and dubious claim, counter to logic and the experiences of too many to count. Did Franz really write that in such absolute terms? --Soc8675309 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to reconcile the phrase "without question" with what JW's do actually teach. Eg. Proclaimers Book p. 628, "these people certainly had the freedom to believe what they chose. But anyone who publicly or privately advocates views that are divergent from what appears in the publications of an organization, and who does so while claiming to represent that organization, causes division." To say without question is simply not accurate but misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.36.15 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but essentially meaningless. Anyone is free to believe anything they like about anything. In the context of this discussion, it's what happens to people if what they believe becomes known to those who say they should believe some other thing. In the case of JWs, in this context, they are indeed not "free" to believe whatever they choose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you that Franz spends most of a chapter discussing the method by which the Governing Body arrives at its doctrines. He makes clear that doctrines are established by the Governing Body alone, and that there is no system of input "from the field", nor are opinions sought from anointed members around the world. His argumentation is based on the Watch Tower teaching that the Governing Body represents and is spokesman for the faithful and discreet slave class. He contrasts this with his own observation as a longtime member of the body that established doctrines. He states repeatedly that there is no attempt to seek the views of these individuals or to represent their views. On page 159 he notes: "Any headquarters staff who are of the anointed but who are not privileged to be members of the inner circle of the Governing Body are never – on the basis of their being of the anointed – called in to Governing Body meetings to express their views. They are never interviewed on that basis and are rarely talked to on matters of weight." The words you ask me to confirm are not quoted verbatim from his book, but accurately and succinctly convey the unequivocal statement of a reliable source.

The issue of the requirement of Witnesses to accept the doctrines of the Governing Body is sourced in this case to another author, English sociologist Andrew Holden, who wrote his book based on extensive field work with Witnesses as part of an academic study. James Penton, Heather and Gary Botting, James Beverley, Robert Crompton, Edmond Gruss and Alan Rogerson make remarkably similar comments in their own books about this issue. As an exercise, I'd suggest that at this weekend's Watchtower study you put your hand up and suggest that the article errs in some significant doctrine. Give a public talk and suggest that the number 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 are symbolic only. Start discussing with your friends the view that Jesus did not preach door to door and never did require his followers down through the centuries to do so. Invite your book study conductor to your birthday party and tell him you don't accept the Watch Tower Society reasoning on birthdays, and that you made a conscience decision to start celebrating yours. Decline to accept a blood card next January and say you're undecided on the Society's hardline stance. How long would you last in the organization? It would be unthinkable for any Witness to do what members of any other religion feel free to do – make up their own mind and act on it – because they know the consequences.

So are doctrines established by the Governing Body alone? Yes. Do they seek or consider the views of anointed or non-anointed Witnesses? Apparently not, and I have yet to read any Watchtower article that suggests they do. Are Witnesses expected to obey doctrines and teachings without question or dissent? Of course they are. LTSally (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you don't think much of Jehovah's Witnesses, but kudos for commenting on the quotes and the absence of quotes for the two points. 1. So then, Franz actually contradicts the idea that others have "no role" when he says his own 1970's experience had others consulted "rarely...on matters of weight". Rarely is differently than neverly (and that was three WT presidents ago)! It should say "little role". 2. It's not extraordinary or dubious to claim Witnesses are required to accept Witness doctrine. It's extraordinary and dubious to claim "doctrine must be accepted without question". If your books don't say that, your SYNTH isn't usable for articles. Maybe "without dissent" is okay, but "without question" is wrong. --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis on the matter of unquestioning obedience. The Watchtower (July 15 1974) writes: that Christians "do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization." That's straight from the horse's mouth. Franz (In Search of Christian Freedom, pg 166) writes that the concept of the faithful and discreet slave class "is used principally as a means to demand unquestioning submission to the Governing Body's direction." Robert Crompton (Counting the days to Armageddon, pg 141) writes: "Whether Jehovah's Witnesses will continue unquestioningly to accept the Society's authority, however, remains to be seen." In the 1954 Walsh case, WTS legal counsel Hayden Covington was asked: "A Witness has no alternative, has he, to accept as authoritative and to be obeyed instructions issued in the Watchtower or the Informant or the Awake?" He replied: "He must accept those." Fred Franz, in the same case, was asked about the doctrines promulgated in the Watchtower: "Are those statements of doctrines held to be authoritative within the Society?" Franz: "Yes." Q: "Is their acceptance a matter of choice, or is it obligatory on all those wish to be and remain members of the Socirty?" Franz: "It is obligatory." LTSally (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a laughably dishonest interpretation of the sources. The 1974 source is about questioning God, Jesus, the angels, et al, and isn't particularly to Jehovah's Witnesses. Excerpted differently, it says "Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them". Go ahead and identify Franz's quotes as being from Franz. Crompton says that Witnesses' 'unquestioning acceptance' is a choice which could change, and Covington did not say that Witnesses couldn't ask questions. Again (is this the third fourth or fifth time?), Witnesses may accept doctrine without dissent, but its untrue it must be without question. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the article. When the 1974 Watchtower tells Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization, exactly what organization is it speaking of? The Catholic Church? Watch Tower publications make plain the belief that God speaks to humans through the Governing Body. Therefore what the organization says is God's instruction for his servants today. Those instructions must be obeyed without question. LTSally (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The WT teaches that God's organization includes Jesus and angels. Your own authority Crompton wrote that JW's might choose differently in the future. The WT probably also says that Christians don't watch violent movies and don't break the speed limit. An encyclopedia can't be so absolutist in its statements. --Soc8675309 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs by raising the issue of angels to avoid conceding the obvious: that they are referring to statements made in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. This encyclopedia relies on reliable sources for its information and that particular statement is drawn from those reliable sources. The context of the discussion in Franz's book and others suggests the meaning of "question" in this case is "to challenge or dispute" rather than the meaning you initially raised, that is, simply asking questions about doctrines, which the Society will always happily answer. I'll remove the word "question" however, because it doesn't really add anything to the statement that Witnesses must accept those doctrines without dissent and removes any ambiguity that objections such as yours raises. LTSally (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 2.6 Re: Organ Transplants

I'm new to the discussion, so please forgive me if I'm entering this discussion incorrectly.

In section 2.6, there is incorrect information:

1967: Organ transplants banned, described as "medical cannibalism". Organ donations considered incompatible with dedication of baptized Christians to present "their lives, bodies included", to God.[173]

1980: Organ transplants, previously banned, deemed a personal decision.[178]

If you look at the footnoted article [173], you will find no mention that organ transplants are banned. In fact, they are specifically called out as being a "personal decision"

Note the last paragraph of the quoted article:

"It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making *PERSONAL DECISIONS* as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.

Therefore, saying that Organ transplants were banned is incorrect. The word "banned" is not used, but "personal decision" is specifically called out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Accepting a blood transfusion is ultimately a "personal decision" too, but the result is the same. You're mincing words.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: In reading the 1967 article it never uses the words: "ban" or "banned." The phrase "personal decision" is specifically used. It's the same case with the 1980 article: "personal decision". How can this section claim transplants were banned in 1967 and changed in 1980, when each article specifically says they are a "personal decision?" The comment that transfusions were banned is completely without support based on the 1967 article. Both articles specifically call out organ transplants as personal decisions.

Feel free to remove the specific word, "ban". However, it would be misleading to claim that the JW's "personal decision" did not carry with it religious sanctions, including shunning, if their "personal decision" did not coincide with that of the Watch Tower Society's doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1967 article says that organ transplants constitute "cannibalism", which the same article pointedly condemns, stating "Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. ... Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic." A 1974 Watchtower article (w74 7/1 p. 394) condemned cannibalism by crash victims who ate others who died in the crash, not citing their actions as a "personal decision", instead stating "the idea that ‘the end justifies the means’ does not harmonize with the Bible. ... attempts to save one’s life in ways out of harmony with God’s will can only lead to loss of God’s favor." (A 1972 Awake! article (g72 7/8 p. 28) again citing organ transplant as cannibalism also claimed that "the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived", which is pointedly false.) In contrast, the 1980 article ignores its own decision that transplants equal cannibalism, instead stating that it was merely "Some Christians" who "might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic," and goes on to say "there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue." Every decision is a personal decision (often employed as JW jargon), including the JW claim that everyone has to make a personal decision whether they will serve JW's chosen deity, but it doesn't mean that the religion automatically approves of whatever decision is arrived at.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire basis of the 1967/1980 points in this Wiki article are invalid. Both WT articles specifically say it's a "personal decision". There is no reference to sanctions, ban, disfellowshipping, or disassociation. In 1967, it was a "personal decision". In 1980, it was a person decision. I see nothing has changed. Both references should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.11.74 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are entirely wrong in the principle of the matter, as stated above, you are also incorrect regarding what is actually stated regarding personal decisions in the 1967 article. The only thing the 1967 article indicates to be a "personal decision" is "Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect to say that "the only thing the 1967 article indicates to be a 'personal decision" is regarding animal parts. "Personal Decision" is mentioned multiple times throughout the article. The question was: "Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?" The final summary of this question is provided in the last paragraph: "It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him." I see no reference to it being banned, or any discussion that it would be a matter of disfellowshipping, or removal of a person from the congregation. The article is a very frank discussion about the topic and specifically concludes that it's a "personal decision".

You are incorrect. The only specific thing about accepting organs that the article states as a "personal decision" is organ transplants from animals. (The point about donating their bodies for non-specific scientific research is irrelevant to accepting organ transplants.) Furthermore, the other more general point you highlight actually opposes your view, as it actually 'encourages' the reader not to make a truly "personal" decision (i.e. "whim or emotion"), but rather that they should base their "personal decisions" on 'looking to God for direction', which they are explicitly told elsewhere is presented in the pages of Watch Tower literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1967 article certainly indicates that organ transplants are a medical procedure that is disapproved by God. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed, p. 112-114) makes this conclusion: "In 1967 the society suddenly decided that what had been permissble no longer was. Organ transplants suddenly became a form of human cannibalism ... Persons needing cornea transplants to see were told by the society that they would have to wait until the 'new order which was so near at hand' to have their sight restored. Those needing kidney transplants to live were told that to accept them would bring everlasting destruction. Yet after many faithful Jehovah's Witnesses had suffered for their faith by giving up transplants which in some cases could have made their lives more pleasant and comfortable and by saving them from early death in others, the society again reversed itself."

Can any WT quote be provided to support these claims? The 1967 article doesn't say that "organ transplants are a medical procedure that is disapproved by God." You are paraphrasing your own personal opinion. It says it's a "personal decision". —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs)

The 1967 WT article did not explicitly "ban" organ transplants. It did indicate they were something repugnant to God, which has the same effect. The 1967 entry, then, could say: Organ transplants described as equivalent to cannibalism, and therefore repugnant to Jehovah. LTSally (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1967 WT also didn't say organ transplants were "repugnant to Jehovah". In fact that phrase wasn't used at all in the article.

The reference should say:

"In a 1967 Watchtower article, the question of organ transplants was discussed. The proceedure was compared to cannabalism because it allows an organ recipient to live off the flesh of another human. However, the article concluded that questions like these were "personal decisions" to be made by each Christian.

"In an 1980 Watchtower article, the question of organ transplants was raised again. Once again, it was determined to be a "personal decision".—Preceding unsigned comment added by mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs)

You're right, the word "repugnant" wasn't used in the Watchtower article and nor did I claim it was. The word, however, is a reasonable description of the November 1967 Watchtower's comment on the acceptability of organ transplants. Penton, a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, interprets that Watchtower article as a direction to Witnesses that organ transplants are unnaceptable, and his interpretation is sufficient for the purposes of this article. Considering the intro to that 1967 article, "It would be good, though, for Christians to consider the Scriptural principles that apply, and then make decisions in harmony with these principles so as to be pleasing to Jehovah" and the additional comment "Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic ... in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others", it is obvious that the Watchtower was stating that (a) organ transplants are a form of cannibalism (b) cannibalism is a practice detestable to Jehovah and (c) Christians should act so as to please Jehovah. With such forceful and confronting language, the suggestion that they make a "personal decision" was hollow and fraudulent. It would have been impossible for a Witness to have read that article and proceeded with an organ transplant and expect to remain in good standing with his congregation. Penton's interpretation is the only logical one to make.

As to your other issues: the source of his other claims about what Witnesses were told by the society is unstated; they may have been personal correspondence he saw, but in any case they are not critical to this Wikipedia section anyway. And finally, your suggested wording is out of style with the rest of the article. LTSally (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there such adversion to actually using the words that were used in the article? You've redefined "personal decision" as "hollow and fraudulent." (NPOV) Although the word "unacceptable" or the phrase "organ transplants are unacceptable" do not appear in the article, Penton's interpretation trumps the explicit words "personal decision." And his opinions are sufficient for this article? What kind of standard is that? This whole issue of "banning" organ transplants is a lie that spreads from critic to critic to critic without any formal documentation or confirmation. Behaviors that are banned, or cause the removal of a person from the congregation are clearly stated in WT publications. Go read about tobacco for example. You'll see specific instructions that it's unacceptable and a unrepentant practicer will be expelled from the congregation. And finally, I love the fact that although no quote, or documentation is provided that gives any indication of "banning" or congregational actions against anyone, simple the fact that Penton says it, makes it true for you. I'm done with this silly exercise of pointing out truth where there's error. This idea of "banning" is a big lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs)

Which is why I have avoided using the word "ban". The 1967 WT article was, however, written to tell Witnesses something. What did it tell them? "God hates organ transplants -- regards them, in fact, as no different to a human chewing on another human's flesh to sustain their life. Now go ahead make your personal decision." The message of the article was clear. That message can be conveyed within this article without the use of the word "ban", and I've suggested a wording that achieves that. LTSally (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

""God hates organ transplants..." I'm sorry, I don't see these words in the article. Once again, you insist on inserting your own paraphrased opinion instead of simply quoting what the article says.

Here is exactly what was said in the 1967 article:

1967: Organ transplants described as "cannibalistic." "Serious consideration" should be given before donating body parts for "unrestricted use" in "scientific experimentation." However, both practices are deemed as "personal decisions."

1980: Organ transplants reaffirmed as personal decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs)

Your incorrect and redundant argumentation is easily dissolved by including reference to the 1972 article cited above (which it seems you have conveniently ignored) which clearly indicates that JWs are to view cannibalism as something that "can only lead to loss of God’s favor".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower articles can of course freely state that JWs can be expelled for smoking as opposed to organ transplants or blood transfusions, because there is very little risk of dying of not smoking, so it is far less controversial to admit to shunning someone for it. It is the same reason for the circumlocutory provided when JWs are asked if only JWs will survive Armageddon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Exact word-for-word quotes from the article are considered to be "incorrect argumentation", however negative, paraphrased interpretations, unsupported with specific documentation are consider good? I'm not sure what's so difficult about understanding the term "personal decision." It's the same term used in both the 1967 and 1980 articles. As for your cannibalism "can only lead to loss of God’s favor" quote, that's not from the 1972 article, but from a 1974 article: "Stay Alive—At Any Cost?" which discusses the event in October 1972, where following a plane crash high in the Andes mountains of Chile, some of the survivors stayed alive during the next ten weeks by eating parts of their dead companions’ bodies. Organ transplants are and have always been a matter of personal decision. That means some people will choose them, while others will not. Unless you can provide a clear reference or document that indicates organ transplants were "banned", or that people will be removed from the congregation for taking one, you're simple spouting and supporting disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs)

I'm glad to see that the most inaccurate of the previous wording has been changed. --Soc8675309 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest changes in the reference to the 1967 article continues to present misinformation. For example, the last person to edit this reference (Jeffro77?) combined two unrelated quotes into one. He wrote:

"1967: Organ transplants described as "cannibalistic ... a practice abhorrent to all civilized people".

The exact quote is: "Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. It was the "Eating human flesh" that was "a practice abhorrent to all civilized people." However, human organ transplants, although considered by some as "cannibalistic", are a matter of "personal decision" by each Christian.

Here's some more misinformation: The WT's specific statement that this is a "personal decision" was removed in favor of stating the "interpretations" of "commentators" (i.e. anti-JW critics) The last editor said: "Equating of organ transplants with cannibalism is interpreted by commentators as a prohibition and later described by the Watch Tower Society as a "stand" by Witnesses against such procedures.[176][177][178]"

Why such a strong intent to remove the WT's words "personal decision" in favor of "prohibition"? Some negative agenda here?

Jeffro77 claims: "1967 article DOES NOT *specifically* state that *organ transplants from human donors* is a personal decision"

And yet it specifically does:

The "Question From The Reader" was:

"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?"

What source? Read the question, "donating one's body" or "accepting organs for transplant from such a source" What does "such a source" mean? The source being discussed was human (i.e. "one's body")

After discussing multiple scriptural points that Christians should consider, the article concludes:

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.

Human organ transplants are, and have always been, a personal decision. The entire idea that they were "banned" in 1967 and reestablished as a "personal decision" in 1980 is completely false. It's been passed on from critic to critic without thought. Each person may hold strong opinions about the ethics of the matter and several of those points were discussed in the article. However, It should be evident from this discussion that they are a "personal decision."

What does "personal decision" mean? One of the previous commentators here said that was "hollow and fraudulent." However, the term, "Personal Decision" is used repeatedly in WT literature. Here are a few samples from that period of time 1964 through 1972

Is there any Scriptural objection to the use of birth-control pills? (3/1/64 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Is cremation proper for Christians? (7/1/65 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Using birthstones in a ring? (9/15/67 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Human organ donations and transplants? (11/15/67 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Can a wife fulfill her non-JW husband's demand that she attend a holiday dinner (12/1/67 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Attending a function which might contain a false religious ceremony? (12/15/67 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Having friends over on New Year's Eve (12/15/67 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Using birth control? (12/15/69 WT), there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Proper for Christians to send flowers to a funeral or to lay flowers on a grave? (9/15/70) there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Is it proper for a Christian to wear a wedding ring? (1/15/72 WT) there are factors to consider, but it's a "personal decision"

Do you want to insist that any of these other "personal decisions" should be viewed as "bans" or "prohibitions", even if anti-JW commentators say so? The fact is that this "Questions From Readers" article was simple one in a chain of questions where there were factors to consider, but it was ultimately a "personal decision"

The claim of human organ transplants being "banned" or "prohibited" as been proved wrong. The reference to it in this article doesn't even belong in the category of a change, any more so than wearing wedding rings, using birth control, or having friends over for New Years Eve.Mrsrpwiki (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)MRSRPWIKI

The phrase ""cannibalistic ... a practice abhorrent to all civilized people" is entirely accurate. Acceptance of organ transplants was described as cannibalistic. Cannibalism (not specifically eating flesh) was described as a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.

I agree that the reference to personal decision should be retained, and my last edit of that section included that line. The statements by two reliable sources that the 1967 WT article was effectively a prohibition of the process, however, should also be included. That is their interpretation, regardless of your disagreement with that conclusion. LTSally (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LTSally says: "The phrase ""cannibalistic ... a practice abhorrent to all civilized people" is entirely accurate."

Let me ask a basic question: Is it "entirely accurate" to generate a quote by selecting two phrases, from two different paragraphs, eliminate 166 words between them, reverse their order, and then put quotations around it?

Here are the two paragraphs with the words/phrase bolded. This may be your paraphrased opinion, but it doesn't adhere to any quoting standards I've seen. Let's take a look:

Paragraph 4 talking about eating human and animal flesh:

"Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, **a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.** Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6."

Paragraph 5 taking about about organ transplant:

"When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is **cannibalistic**. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

How exact is this a "accurate" quote?

LTSalley goes on to suggest: "Cannibalism (not specifically eating flesh) was described as a practice abhorrent to all civilized people."

Actually, "eating human flesh" was specifically referenced as the practice that what was "abhorrent" to all civilized people:

"Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.

What was the "that" in this question? "Did this include eating human flesh?" "THAT would be cannibalism."

Lastly, LTSally suggests: "The statements by two reliable sources that the 1967 WT article was effectively a prohibition of the process, however, should also be included."

What is the standard that caused something the WT said was a "personal decision" to get reframed as "effectively a prohibition?" The standard appears to be that some Watchtower opposers said it was so. If you want to call this "personal decision" as "effectively a prohibition", why aren't you consistent and call all the other personal decisions as prohibitions also? (wedding rings, birth control, friends over on Dec 31st, etc.)

The only people who seem to be confused about what a "personal decision" is are those who are opposed to the Jehovah's Witness religion. Is the article supposed to be about what the WT has written, or the (mis)interpretations of opponents? Mrsrpwiki (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) mrsrpwiki

Cannibalism is described in the article as a practice abhorrent to all civilised people. Organ transplants are described in the article as cannibalistic. You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid the obvious connection between the two statements. You are also resorting to rather lame tactics in denigrating as "Watchtower opposers" two people who have drawn a conclusion you disagree with: the author of a pretty even-handed book on the history and practices of the Witnesses and a neurologist who has written extensively on issues of medical ethics involving Witnesses. Your argument about prohibitions on wedding rings and birth control might hold some water if there was a strong belief among reliable sources that those practices had been banned. As far as I know, there is no such belief. LTSally (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are not able to comprehend the easy concept of the WT specifying an issue to be a personal decision. It has happened many times. I've even directed your attention to multiple other occurrance in that timeframe, before, during, and after they specified that translplants and donations were personal decisions. You seem to more swayed with what outside sources have to say about what the WT wrote then what they wrote themselves. I've heard all sort of ridiculous statements about what the WT has supposedly "banned" or "prohibited", and yet when you actually bring up the articles, they're simply voicing factors to consider. Until you can provide a quote from the WT using the "banned" or "prohibited", your critics' comments belong in the Criticism section, not changes to the doctrine section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And when you state: "You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid the obvious connection between the two statements." that is only because I don't ignore the author's specific conclusion that they are a personal decision, not a "ban", not a "prohibition", but a personal decision, which by definition means that different people feel differently about the situation and can make their own decision on the matter. There are obviously people who would never take a transplant because it violates their ethical view and they would describe it as being too similar to cannabalism, while others don't feel that way at all. For you, or your so-called "reliable sources" to insist that the article was banning or prohibiting transplants under the threat of congregation disfellowshipping is a complete fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me when I say you are going to great lengths to avoid the obvious connection between the two statements. The two statements I refer to are in the 1967 WT article, firstly that cannibalism is a practice abhorrent to all civilised people and that organ transplants are described in the article as cannibalistic. To overcome your objections, I'll take that connection out of a single quote.

Your last edit to the 1967 doctrinal development relating to the 1972 Awake article is wrong. The Awake! article notes that for the first three years of this new, major surgical treatment, 85 per cent of the transplant recipients died. The comment by the author of the Awake! article does not refer to individuals who made a personal decision to decline organ transplants. It refers in the most broad terms to "the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah — that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism" proving a safeguard. Not some Witnesses, not the stand of individual Witnesses, but the stand of "the Christian witnesses of Jehovah" as a group. This comment could make sense only if discussing the united stand adopted by all members of that religion and the benefits that accrued. Such a united stand resulted from what Penton and Muramoto reasonably concluded was a prohibition, the natural reaction by Witnesses to the 1967 Watchtower article that, by the use of such confronting language as "cannibalism" signalled that God would find such surgical procedures unacceptable. Your edit is a distortion of what was written in the Awake! article.

And I will restore the comment by Muramoto and Penton, which meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion. LTSally (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're free to do and believe whatever you want. The issue human organ transplant is either a "personal decision" or it's not. It's either something you'll be disfellowshipped for, or it's not. The author of the article didn't call it any of the words you and others have tried to insert: not a "ban", not a "prohibition", not "effectively a prohibition", not "unacceptable", not "God hates transplants", not "transplants are repugnant." Just as a dozen other "Questions From Readers" articles state, it was simply a "personal decision." Now, if there was anything confusing about that in the minds of readers, they could simply write a letter to Bethel and ask if making a personal decision to have a transplant would result in them being disfellowshipped. There are plenty of letters on the Internet from readers asking for clarification about "hot-button" issues like this. Can you provide any written reference from the WT that indicates someone will be disfellowshipped for taking a transplant? If not, then the issue has been proved to be a matter of "personal decision." Which is why the author choose to emphasize the point in his closing comments that:

"It should be evident from this discussion that Christians ... can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making *PERSONAL DECISIONS* as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.13.82 (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer and Jeffro have argued that the 1967 article was a directive and I've added other sources that show the article was accepted by others as such. The problem is that the article began with a question and concluded by saying these were personal decisions. As I've said above and here, I think this was a cynical and fraudulent statement, but I do think the fact that the WTS did specify those issues as personal decisions should be stated. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider the following analogous 'article':

Q: Is it wrong to murder?
A: Murder is very bad and you will go to jail. God hates murderers. Good people should consider what God likes before making a personal decision to murder someone.

Would readers (who believe the 'publisher' to teach 'truth' and believe in the publisher's chosen deity) of such an 'article' reasonably conclude that murder is endorsed therein as merely a 'personal decision'?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an argument, because the question of murder is something specifally condemned in the Bible and therefore it's not necessary for which the WTS has to make its own rules. My point is that the WTS did say it was a personal decision. Regardless of how fraudulent that was, it still needs to be noted.

Here's a better comparison. In reading this and this, both articles written by an American medical ethicist, he cites a legal statement by the WTS to the Bulgarian government and the European Commission of Human Rights in which it says Witnesses have free choice to receive blood transfusions "without any control or sanction on the part of the association". Surprising? Here's the catch. Interviewed by the BBC, a WTS spokesman said that a Witness who accepted blood would never be automatically disfellowshipped. If he expressed repentance before a judicial committee, he would not be punished. He said unrepentant JWs who received blood are disfellowshipped not because they received blood, but because they abandoned the doctrine of the organisation. I remember you've discussed a similar situation with regard to voting: a 1999 WT article said Witnesses are free to enter a polling booth and may make a conscientious decision on whether to vote. Sounds good, except that the elders' book, Pay Attention to all the Flock, provides the the disfellowshipping of individuals who breach neutrality. Both cases demonstrate a duplicity in which the WTS says one thing publicly but reserves the right to act in a completely opposite fashion. Bottom line: I agree with you completely that the 1967 article was intended to direct Witnesses not to accept organ transplants. But the article's statement that it was a personal decision needs to be noted. LTSally (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's called hyperbole. Whether murder is condemned in the Bible or any other source external to the example itself is superfluous to the analogy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Precisely where in the 1967 article does Watchtower say accepting an organ transplant was a personal decision? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: "Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?—W. L., U.S.A."

Answer: "It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105." Mrsrpwiki (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)mrsrpwiki

The terms "personal decisions," or "personal decision," as used in this 1967 organ transplant article, are used frequently in the "Questions From Readers" articles. Anyone with access to a Watchtower Library CD can easily search the terms and review how the Watchtower uses them in the Questions From Readers series. By doing so, you'll see the context in which a Christian's right to make a personal decision regarding organ transplants should be viewed (I've posted a partial list of these above.) Interestingly, in the 8/15/83 Questions From Readers article, the term "personal decision" is defined as something that the Christian congregation takes no official position on:

"Is home birth to be preferred where no complications are foreseen; which delivery position is easiest on the mother; will a baby do better if born in a soothing environment, even under water; should anesthesia normally be used; when should the umbilical cord be cut?

The Christian congregation takes no official position on such matters, for they are personal. Nor does it urge women to use an obstetrician rather than a nurse-midwife, or vice versa. That, too, is for personal decision. But husband and wife should be interested in what they feel is best for the mother and the child, desiring that both of them live to serve Jehovah in good health. Mrsrpwiki (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)mrsrpwiki

Also, you can look in the Publications Index under: "Disfellowshipping" "Grounds" to see the list of activities with which a person can be disfellowshipped. There is a very specific list, but taking an organ transplant is not there because it's a "personal decision"... something that "The Christian congregation takes no official position on..." Mrsrpwiki (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)mrsrpwiki

Steady on, I'm not saying the acceptance of organ transplants is today grounds for disfellowshipping. The 1980 article stated explicitly, in answer to a question, that congregations wouldn't take judicial action against someone for doing that. To Marvin Shilmer: the 1967 article asked a question relating to two procedures and the concluding paragraph appears to state that "those" things are a matter of personal decision. It's that statement (however contradictory) that should be included in the article, along with the fact that the article was, reasonably enough, interpreted/accepted as a prohibition because of the strong and confronting language. LTSally (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Organ transplants have never been grounds for disfellowshipping because they were specified as a matter for personal decision. When the WT prohibits or bans something, the issue is clearly marked as something a person will be disfellowshipped for. That was not the case with organ transplants. They were marked as a "personal decision." There is no rationale for including the word "prohibition," because it was specifically marked as a matter for "personal decision". It can't be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsrpwiki (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all starting to repeat ourselves now. All up, it's rather sad that Witnesses so enthusiastically embrace the Talmudic/Pharisaic application of law and the endless setting of "musts" and "must-nots" not contained in scripture, the very attitude Jesus condemned. LTSally (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The point being discussed is the exact opposite. The WT is specifically not making a rule here, it's saying it's a personal decision. It's actually those who feel negative emotions against the WT that are insisting this was a rule, prohibition, banning. The fact that you insert this "Talmudic/Pharisaic" insult shows the emotion you're bringing into this discussion. Mrsrpwiki (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) mrsrpwiki

LTSally says she(?) now understands that the 1967 article shows that taking an organ transplant was to be a personal decision. However, she(?) argues that the "strong and confronting language" explains or justifies the interpretation of commentators (i.e. non-JW critics) that this was a "prohibition" or "ban." Thus, the word "prohibition" should be inserted into this reference of a change in WT doctrine.

Once again, I argue this isn't logical. I argue there was no change in WT doctrine. Organ transplants have always been a personal choice.

So, what creedance should we give to the interpretations of non-JW's critics?

Let's illustrate the point with a well-known Bible example. At John 6:53-56, Jesus specifically said that people had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Strong and confronting language? Absolutely. It looked to be a direct demand for cannibalism.

If you were there, what would your reaction have been? Would you be part of the critical group that "would no longer walk with him?" (John 6:66) Or would you have been part of the group that stuck around seeking the correct interpretation of Jesus' real meaning? The difference between these two groups was in their heart condition, how they choose to interpret, and how they choose to react to Jesus words.

So, what creedance should we give to the interpretations of those who were offended and left off following Jesus? Why didn't they simply stick around and ask what the proper meaning was? Did the strong language Jesus used justify them holding a conflicting opinion and then publishing their opinions about what Jesus was teaching?

In this case we have what appears to be a direct demand for cannibalism, and all of you quickly choose to understand that perhaps that's not the correct meaning of what was said. However, in this article you are demanding that "personal decision" shouldn't be understood as the author wrote it... it MUST be understood as the JW critics misinterpret... as a prohibition.

Is it appropriate to redefine and reframe the simple meaning of "personal decision" to "prohibition" simply because of the opinions of certain JW opponents, who write negatively about multiple JW beliefs?

This entire argument that organ transplants were banned or prohibited is a myth. It was concocted in the minds JW critics who were diligently looking for any hint of fault. And after they wrote it in their books, it's been passed along to unsuspecting readers who assume their opinions are correct. Mrsrpwiki (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) mrsrpwiki

Comment: mrsrpwiki writes "in this article you are demanding that "personal decision" shouldn't be understood as the author wrote it." The problem with this assertion is that the 1967 article nowhere says that accepting a human organ transplanat is a "personal decision." If you you believe otherwise, please quote the exact statement "as the author wrote it." Show me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also does not say that a JW would be disfellowshipped for accepting one. Because the article is (likely, intentionally) vague, it is better to simply state what the article does say rather than drawing conclusions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I asserted what the article DID NOT stipulate, and indeed the article DID NOT stipulate that accepting human organ transplantation was a personal choice. This lack is noteworthy because in 1961 and 1980 Watchtower expressly stipulated human organ transplantation was a personal choice. The lack of this stipulation in 1967 is, therefore, noteworthy.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! The vague nature of the (Watchtower) article is indeed noteworthy. However, we still can't draw conclusions in the (Wiki) article. And it is of course suitable, and important, to note that other commentators have construed it as a ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with what you write here, and with current wording regarding Watchtower's position as of 1967. In 1961 Watchtower expressly asserted human organ transplantation was a personal choice. In 1980 expressly asserted human organ transplantation was a personal choice. In 1967 Watchtower expressed something other.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the statement that it was claimed as a personal decision and also the inclusion of the interpretation by two reliable sources that it was a prohibition. Someone else has removed the "personal decision" reference. I have stated my view on this talk page. I don't wish to engage in an edit war over the issue. LTSally (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal Choice

The 1967 QFR article does not tell Witnesses it is a personal choice (matter for personal conscience) to accept a human organ transplant. It says it is a personal choice whether to accept an animal organ transplant. If I am wrong, show me the words. Show me the precise words.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct here. Despite what has been claimed about the 1967 article above, the article only states that "[JWs] can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions". It does not state that accepting a human organ for transplant is one such "personal decision" (i.e. it doesn't say something to the effect of "consider the scriptures in making these personal decisions", which would tie in with the questions in the title), and the only kind of organ transplant specifically indicated as a "personal decision" is use of animal organs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In 1961 Watchtower stipulated that accepting human organ transplant was a personal choice not to be criticized. As premise for this position Watchtower asserted there was no scriptural principle involved. In 1967 Watchtower decided that there was a scriptural position to advance regarding human organ transplantation, and no longer did Watchtower stipulate that human organ transplant was a matter of personal choice. In 1980 Watchtower again asserted that human organ transplant was a personal matter of choice. This is what the record of Watchtower publishing demonstrates. If wrong, please correct with more than an opinion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has become absurd. Between the lack of basic reading comprehension and the agenda to insert the misinterpretations of dedicated JW opposers, this discussion has become a complete joke. A person wrote in asking about human organ transplants and donations. Various scriptural principles were discussed, and the final answer to the questions was given:

"It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."

What was the question about? Human organ donation and transplant

What was being discussed? Human organ donation and transplant, along with animal organ transplant and autopsies.

What were "these decisions" that were being discussed? All of the above.

Were "these decisions" being dictated to members based on a ban or prohibition? No, it was a matter for personal decision.

I'm laughing at the absurdity of all this. It seems to me that this is like opponents to Christianity editing the article on "The Development of Christian Doctrine" and changing it to something like:

"Although the Mosaic Law prohibited the eating of blood, Jesus Christ demanded that his disciples participate in cannibalism, by eating human flesh and drinking human blood (John 6:52-47). Later, the apostles changed the doctrine by reestablishing a ban on drinking blood, while leaving Jesus' demand to eat human flesh in place (Acts 15:29). Although Christians say this is a complete misunderstanding of their doctrine, reliable commentators have viewed this as evidence of the ever-changing doctrine of Christianity."

This discussion is far too silly. Have fun misunderstanding and misrepresenting the fact that organ transplants have always been a personal decision. Mrsrpwiki (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) mrsrpwiki

I have pored over the article again and have changed my mind. The key point in the article is paragraph 5, which states that God "did not grant permission for humans to perpetuate their lives" by cannibalistically taking into their bodies body parts taken from others. To paraphrase this, the article is saying God does not permit transplanting of human organs. In that context, the reference in the closing paragraph to the "personal decisions" by Witnesses loses all meaning of conscience decision. Witnesses similarly make personal decisions about whether to smoke, gamble or commit adultery, each of them activities which WT literature also say is not permitted (therefore prohibited or forbidden) by God. Therefore I have no objection to the removal of reference to "personal decisions" in the 1967 entry, because given God's (claimed) prohibition, it is irrelevant. LTSally (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A 1998 Watchtower ( w98 3/15 p. 22 pars. 15-16 Living Up to Christian Dedication in Freedom) stated, "If a Witness makes decisions on the basis of Bible counsel offered by the Governing Body, he does so of his own volition because his own study of the Bible has convinced him that this is the proper course. Each Witness is influenced by God’s own Word to apply sound Scriptural counsel offered by the Governing Body, in full recognition that decisions he makes will affect his personal relationship with God, to whom he is dedicated. ... But if decisions as to conduct are a personal matter, why are some of Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped? ... As an individual endowed with freedom of choice, a Christian soldier can decide as he wishes, but he must bear the consequences of his decision." Basically, the article is saying that all decisions are "personal decisions", but that certain personal decisions will incur religious sanctions. Based on this 'reasoning', any decision a JW makes because they are told to by the Governing Body which then has negative consequences (such as dying for not accepting an organ transplant) is disclaimed as simply being a result of the individual JW's "personal decision" (see also LTSally's earlier comments about blood transfusions in Bulgaria). This legalistic disclaimer is along the same vein as the concept of "transplants = cannibalism" changing from an instruction from the Governing Body in 1967 to merely the opinion of "some Christians" in 1981.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Mrsrpwiki asks/asserts:

What was the question about? Human organ donation and transplant

What was being discussed? Human organ donation and transplant, along with animal organ transplant and autopsies.

What were "these decisions" that were being discussed? All of the above.

Were "these decisions" being dictated to members based on a ban or prohibition? No, it was a matter for personal decision.

1. The question was of multiple issues; not just one.

2. Donating human organs for research and donating organs for transplantation are treated differently within Watchtower's response.

3. "These decisions" is a general (read: vague) statement said in relation to donating organs for medical research, accepting human organ transplant and accepting animal organ transplant.

4. "These decisions" is not a statement addressing 'the decision' to accept human organ donation. The Watchtower article asserted something new as a teaching to the Witness community. As of 1961 Watchtower taught Witnesses that there was no biblical issue related to human organ transplant. As of 1967 Watchtower asserted in no uncertain terms that there was a biblical issue related to humna organ transplant; God abhors it. When Watchtower says 'God abhors it' it is to say that Watchtower congregational policy abhors it.

A question for Mrsrpwiki: What action does Watchtower teach should be taken toward Witnesses who willfully and without regret practice an act that God abhors? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputing a teaching

Just to clarify: the transcript on page 119 of the Walsh case has Franz being examined about a change in teaching on man's creation. A: The date has been corrected.
Q: But once the date was published by the Society all Jehovah's Witnesses were bound to accept it as scripturally true?
A: Yes.
Q: And liable to be disfellowshipped if they demurred to the date?
A: If they caused trouble over it, because the Scriptures say that if anyone is a disturber in the congregation he is hindering the growth of the congregation and its activities and should be disfellowshipped.
Q: Even though he perchance were supporting the date now taken by the Society, when the Society was publishing a wrong date?
A: One who may have a difference of understanding like that will wait upon Jehovah God so see if he is correct and he will abide by what is published in the meantime.

So the threat of disfellowshipping there is limited to individuals who hold a view different to that of the Society and also speak about it. LTSally (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That point wasn't contended. So long as it doesn't say "causing a trouble ... becoming disturber..."--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indisputable1922

The article says:

The organization's literature has included claims that its predictions about dates such as 1925 were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but the Governing Body says its teachings are neither infallibile nor divinely inspired.

That unhelpfully portrays JWs as schizophrenic, and ignores that 'indisputability' was last claimed more than 87 years ago. I edited to:

As recently as 1922, the organization's literature claimed its predictions about dates were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but in recent decades the Governing Body has explicitly said its writings are neither infallible nor divinely inspired.

My edit makes it clear that the obsolete position hasn't been maintained for 87 years, and that JW's have not schizophrenically advocated two contradicting positions simultaneously. The existing references support my edit. Yet... Twice, my edit has been reverted by the same editor. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society has always disavowed any claim to infallibility. Russell said so explicitly, so your edit that "in recent decades the Governing Body has explicitly said its writings are neither infallible nor divinely inspired" adds no value at all. That disavowal of infallibility, however, did not stop the society from publishing such dogmatic statements as the ones cited that contradict their insistence of fallibility. It's not for me or you to try to rationalise that contradiction or dismiss it as ancient history. The inclusion of the dogmatic statements of "indisputable" and "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" in the article is fair and reasonable in the context of historic development of JW doctrines. And as a minor point, your use of the phrase "as recently as 1922" when trying to indicate that it is ancient history makes no sense. LTSally (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit doesn't rationalize or editorialize. Are you seriously suggesting that it's merely happenstance that it's been 87 years since JW literature last claimed to be "indisputable" and "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct"? Why hide the fact that only 87 year old "literature has included claims" such as are quoted in the article body? That is my primary interest: including the fact that such sensational claims were last made in 1922. As for the second part of the contested quote, it would be fine to clarify that infallibility has always been denied. Here you go:

As recently as 1922, the organization's literature claimed its predictions about dates were "indisputable", "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God", but since its beginnings the Watch Tower and the Governing Body have explicitly said they are neither infallible nor divinely inspired.

Again, the article would be better if it didn't wrongly imply that the quoted claims were made in recent decades. The quotes are pushing a century old. --Soc8675309 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement quite clearly addresses what was specificially claimed to be "indisputable" (i.e. claims about 1925). It is inherently obvious that after 1925 came and went without anything occurring as predicted that the claims were indeed not "indisputable", so the statement does not need to be qualified further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't imply anything. In discussing the basis of their doctrines, it states that claims by the WTS about events predicted for 1925 were described as "absolutely correct" and having the "stamp of approval of Almighty God". It also states that the Governing Body (which came into existence almost 50 years after those claims) makes no claim to infallibility. LTSally (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)