Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 47

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

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Communal lead sandbox

Below is a version of the led that everyone can freely edit the only requirement is that rationales for changes be given in the subsection "Changes" below:

Editable lead

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of 17 million. They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders that exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible, with preference given to their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. Following a schism in the movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society underwent significant organizational changes, bringing its authority structure and methods of evangelism under centralized control. The name, Jehovah's witnesses, was adopted in 1931.

Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisaical earth or, for 144,000 elect, in heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watch Tower Society has since changed its stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur.

Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. They consider use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, vital to proper worship; they reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hell, which they consider to be unscriptural; they do not celebrate religious or secular celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or Birthdays, which they consider to have pagan origins. Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth".

The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as saluting national flags has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses' objection to such civic duties has had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.

Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. Members who violate the organization's fundamental moral principles or who dispute doctrinal matters are subject to disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping".

changes

I have changed the bible/foundation part to include the intepretation of the bible by wts. I have inserted vassilis wording of central beliefs except the non biblical and pagan part and his wording of the conflict/military service part.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have co-located the demographic statements because they belong together. I'm not convinced that the growth in certain areas is notable for the lead in this article though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Growth in membership in Africa, Latin America and Asia may not be notable at all if it coincides with a high rate of general population growth in those areas. The statement could therefore be misrepresentative, so this should be verified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

From end of first paragraph, removed "In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia."

Growth is somewhat irrelevant, and certainly not restricted to the late 20th century or to developing countries.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy with the lead as it is now after Jeffro's edits - I only wish that you would all reconsider the importance of the explosive growth of the religion in non western countries as I since it is sociologically important. This is a development that has taken pace in the last twenty and it is not an effect of general population increase as we are talking about new first generation converts in the majority of cases. I also think that the publications (watchtower and new world translation specifically) need to be mentioned because they have their own section in the body. oh, and a nother reason that mentioning the growth rate is important is to balance the statement about defections due to failed prohoecies - as it is now it might be inferred that the religion hasn't recovered from membership loss in 1914, 1925 and 1975 - this is not the case the organization has recovered fully and more. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the last 35 years, the number of JWs has tripled globally, but it's also doubled domestically (that is, inside the USA). Even linearly, that's not an order-of-magnitude difference between global and domestic growth. And, since the difference is compounded annually, the difference is even less statistically significant.

Some of your ideas might fit somewhere at Jehovah's Witnesses by country or Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses. --AuthorityTam (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Though JW growth in some non-Western countries has been higher than average, I wouldn't call it "explosive". In countries where there aren't many JWs, even a small increase in the number of JWs represents a high growth rate, which can be misleading in real terms. According to JW 2008 statistics, in the United States, 1 out of every 8473 people were baptized as JWs in that year. Most countries in Asia have not seen substantial growth in terms of the number of JWs per country population - only Georgia and Armenia had a growth rate per population higher than that of the United States; Japan did not keep up with population growth rate, and Tajikistan had ceased reporting activity. Of the 48 reporting countries in Africa, 18 had a higher rate than the US, but 12 (including 4 of the 18) had a growth rate lower than the population growth rate. Most countries in South America did have a higher rate of baptisms per population than the United States, but 6 of the reporting countries had a growth rate less than population growth. Countries in Central America had growth rates better than the US.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

From middle of first paragraph, changed the last part of:

"They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, a group composed of 9 men who constitute the supreme authority on all doctrinal matters.", to

"They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, an elder group currently composed of nine members, which constitutes the supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."

The word elder connotes some, and the wiki the rest (mature, male). The number is not fixed at 9, and has changed from 8 to 20 over the years. The MOS says spell small numbers. No individual member is a significant authority, but as a body they constitute one.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed my own typo.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed human authority. POV. No other form of authority is verifiable. Also uncap. 'heaven' and minor rewording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Most readers would understand the adjective "human" to mean the GB sees itself as unable to outvote the Bible, which while penned by humans is widely believed to be of divine inspiration. While JWs do not use the term, the concept is sometimes referred to as "sola scriptura". Additionally, the adjective "human" was added to clarify that JWs are not an episcopacy, and they reject the Catholic/Orthodox idea of "Sacred Tradition". Saying all that with one word seemed like a good idea. Might you reconsider your objection? --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The GB makes (some) decisions that have no specific scriptural basis (organ transplants etc), which are often given as 'rulings' that must be followed. The GB deciding what is or is not a 'conscience matter' is also relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro77, are you arguing that even if other religions described their intended authority structure as "sola scriptura", JWs cannot? By way of explanation, in contrast with the governing bodies of other religions practicing episcopacy and "Sacred Tradition", the GBJW claims to lack the authority to contradict the Bible.

Interpreting a matter more strictly than what the Bible may explicitly say doesn't involve contradicting the Bible. If parents tell the babysitter, "no television for the kids", does the babysitter contradict parents by disallowing streaming internet programming from [Hulu.com]? I recommended language that didn't seek to laud JWs, but merely explain that the GBJW sees itself as the highest human authority in deference to the Bible. If there is another way to say it with different succinct language that's fine. It is not correct, however, to assert: The "Governing Body...exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters." per paragraph 1.

Do other feel this is unacceptable? --> "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."

The alternative is that the GBJW recognizes no authority higher than themselves, which is wrong. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That the “GBJW claims to lack the authority to contradict the Bible” is moot since it is also true that the GBJW claims authority to determine what the Bible teaches. The GBJW asks Witnesses to treat what it says as the voice of God. Are you unaware of this? Do you disagree the GBJW claims authority to determine what the Bible teaches? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Threadwise, Marvin Shilmer, are you arguing that it is unencyclopedic for any Christian religion to specify its intentions regarding "sola scriptura", episcopacy, and "Sacred Tradition"? Or that only specific terms should be used to describe those concepts? Is your issue with the exact choice of words?

It seems entirely encyclopedic to note that the GBJW acknowledges itself as the highest human authority (theologically). It's seems POV to hide the GBJW's intention to be subject to the Bible, and POV to pretend no one believes the Bible more than merely human. I suggested a succinct way to do that (eg "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters."), and haven't yet seen an alternate suggestion.

Regarding Marvin Shilmer's "voice of God" question... I'd guess maybe the RC Church uses the term "the voice of God" for its official communications. I seem to recall the Latin "Vox populi, vox Dei" and don't think botanists would use it. The GBJW doesn't call its communications "the voice of God" or pretend that they are on par with or superior to the Bible. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The statement "The Governing Body exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters” is silly to the average reader because the average reader must assume the men on the governing body are, gasp, humans. It insults readers to have to be told this, which is why the language makes for a silly presentation. On the other hand, if the sentence is not trying to express that humans make up the governing body, then the sentence becomes a POV statement of doctrine rather than a statement of fact. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to continue to criticize wording I've conceded is imperfect.

Please feel free to suggest an alternative that at least implies the fact that the GBJW claims to acknowledge a higher authority than itself.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That Witnesses worship a God named Jehovah implies this perfectly well. This article is not about God. It is about a religion. The top authority for the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the Governing Body. It tells Witnesses what God’s word the Holy Bible means. It then enforces this doctrine among Witnesses under pain of organized communal shunning.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that JWs cannot use the term 'sola sciptura'; however, they do not use it. The bible can be largely interpreted to say pretty much whatever you want it to. If the GB told JWs they could murder non-Witnesses, a 'scriptural' precedent could be formed; similarly if they wanted to say JWs should build spaceships to go to 'heaven'. (These examples of hyperbole are demonstrative only, and specific analysis is unnecessary.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Presentation of "human authority" as contrasted with "sola scriptura" is unverified POV, as scripture was written by humans, and inspiration thereof is a theological opinion. As such, if scripture takes precedence, inclusion of "human" contradicts your point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This train is off the rails. My point is that, using some language, the article should communicate the point that the GBJW acknowledges no higher human authority, but they do defer (or claim to defer) to the Bible. Please feel free to suggest whatever wording floats your boat to do so.

The hypotheticals assume mindless participation by adherents, ironically, by adherents who have been told repeatedly for decades that the Bible is the highest authority. Please consider a parallel hypothetical: In the US government, the U.S. Supreme Court is the supreme human authority on matters of contention, but it defers to the US Constitution. As our friends have above, skeptics might argue, 'Since the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, it isn't really subject to it.' Others might hypothesize, "The Supreme Court could get Americans to commit murder or build spaceships just by claiming the Constitution says to." Americans and JWs are not mindless automatons, and each group recognizes a higher authority than the Supreme Court or the Governing Body.

Even if one rejects the notion of a Divine Author, the Bible is not a human authority in the manner that a committee of living humans might be a human authority. The Bible (like the US Constitution) is a document imbued with heritage and cross-generational consensus which transcends a human lifetime.

I'll mention again my suggested wording: "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters." When some insist on removing "human", the result is "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters" implying the GBJW does not believe itself under any additional authority such as from the Bible (or heaven, it could furthermore be argued). I'm not arguing that my suggestion is perfect, but that it is more accurate than the only alternative I've seen suggested. What's your suggestion? --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that JWs are Christian indicates they assign authority to the Bible. However, GB doctrine does indeed outrank the Bible when necessary, and although its straying out of scope, here is an example: Jeremiah 29:10 is used by JWs to assert that Jews would be "at Babylon" for seventy years. (The common cited issue with that verse is that most translations say "for Babylon", however that is moot.) The context of this passage is a letter sent by Jeremiah (while still in Jerusalem) in about 595BC (615 in JW time) to Jews who were exiled to Babylon in 598BC (618 JW), prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC (607 JW), where he tells them that they would not be released until after Babylon’s 70 years had ended. It makes no sense to tell those people that they would be in Babylon for 70 years starting from some point in the future, but the Governing Body's interpretation support its chronology, ignoring the context of the passage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, no non-human authority is verifiable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You write, "...Christian indicates they assign authority to the Bible".

Would that were true! However, the term "Christian" does not explicitly indicate that the self-described Christian religion (or governing body) teaches that its authority is subordinate to that of the Bible. You may be interested to learn that religions espousing episcopacy, and "Sacred Tradition" believe their leaders are authorized to supersede and contradict the Bible, at least to some extent. JWs do not claim that right.

It seems inadvisable to allow a remarkably granular point to distract from a rather overriding concept: should this article seek to hide that the GBJW considers itself subject to the authority of the Bible, a concept others have named "sola scriptura"? If yes, please create a separate section, because the conversation will be long and loud.

The wording I have proposed is: "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme human authority on all doctrinal matters." The argument to remove "human" seems to prefer "[The Governing Body] exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters", but that wording implies the GBJW does not believe itself under any additional authority such as from the Bible (which might be called pan-human, if not divine). If my suggestion is unacceptable, please consider offering a suggestion which makes the points mentioned. Thanks! --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested wording does not "explicitly indicate that the self-described Christian religion (or governing body) teaches that its authority is subordinate to that of the Bible". I'm not sure what 'pan-human' might mean here (perhaps you're suggesting some personal opinion that the Bible has authority over all humans), nor how readers should determine from your wording that the inclusion of "human" indicates what biblical authority "might be called". If you believe the perceived authority of the GB should be clarified, do so in the relevant section, but it's not necessary in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The current suggested wording for the statement in question is They base their beliefs on the Bible and its interpretation by the organization's Governing Body, a group of elders currently comprising nine members, which exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters. It is not clear why you believe this does not adequately convey that the GB bases its doctrinal decisions on the Bible. I would like to note that I have no problem with dropping the word 'supreme', which is actually redundant (and a bit Diana Ross-ish).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for a Christian religion to claim the authority to contradict the Bible. The GBJW claims it does not have that authority. Feel free to suggestion wording of the matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the perceived authority of the GB should be clarified, do so in the relevant section, but it's not necessary in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed "constitutes the (supreme authority)" to "exercises". The group doesn't 'constitute' authority.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed currently 9 members (of GB). This exact number isn't particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed 'to outsiders', as the distinction is inherent and implicit. They are obviously known more intimately by 'insiders'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In third paragraph, change:

"reject the traditional doctrines of Trinity, immortality of the soul and a Hell tortures", to "reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hellfire" What's the difference if someone views them as traditional? The beliefs/non-beliefs should be grouped better.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Added Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society, diverged from the other Bible Student groups. This is to clarify how and why the group that became JWs 'underwent changes'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There was not merely one schism. The matter lasted a decade or more.

Elsewhere, I've recently pointed out that no reference yet presented has pretended that the number of adherents associated with Watch Tower was ever less than a majority of the BSM (that is, the Bible Student movement) at any given time. The majority doesn't "diverge" from the minority, and the majority is not merely a "branch". Please reconsider your edit. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Statistics published by Watchtower show at one point that about 75 percent withdrew from Watchtower. From memory this tremendous withdrawal occured in the mid to late 20s.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are statistics for annual Memorial attendance published by Watch Tower; I've included every year I could readily find:

1917 21,274

1919 17,961

1924 65,105

1925 90,434

1927 88,544

1935 63,146

1938 73,420

It's theoretically possible to shoehorn in a 75% dip and immediate huge recovery between 1928 and 1934, but why don't you just share your reference showing the 75% figure? --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Shoehorn? Why the characterization? According to Penton, memorial attendance for 1928 was around 20,000. If true, what would this tell you? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can determine the 75% figure originated with William Schnell, the ex-Witness who wrote Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave. I don't have that book, but Alan Rogerson (p.52) writes: "Schnell claims that three-quarters of the Bible Students associating in 1921 had left by 1931. (italics mine). Rogerson makes no claim that that figure is reliable, but cites a statement by Rutherford (Jehovah, p. 277) in possible support of this (a link to that book is in the lead section of Bible Student movement). The Divine Purpose book (p. 73) uses the figures tabulated above to claim "far less than 4000" of the 21,000 associating in 1917 had walked out by 1919, which is a 16 per cent defection in two years. Penton (p. 68) says that while new converts were being made post-1917, "almost as many Bible Students were severing association with the society". He notes in the footnote that it is impossible to say how many Bible Students from CTR's day left, but he also turns to a statement by JFR in support of the clain that many did, citing the 1930 WT, page 342 (which I don't have) and Timothy White, pages 251-8 (which I don't yet have). Bottom line: many claims, but little proof. And using Penton's rationale, the rise in Memorial attenders post-1919 may hide the number of Russell-era Bible Students who abandoned the organization, so it is still possible (but not verifiable) that there was a significant churn post-1917, creating a new-look organization with new people to embrace its new teachings and control structure. LTSally (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The numbers I cite address a period restricted to Rutherford’s era or leadership. The massive exodus of Watchtower followers that occurred during the late 1920s was not necessarily Bible Students upset with Rutherford’s defection from Russell’s teaching, but rather disappointment/dissatisfaction with Rutherford’s leadership/teachings regardless of what Russell taught. It is probable the failure of Rutherford’s extravagant claims of 1925 played a significant role in this. In any event, it is not always the case that a majority of Watchtower followers remained after a schism. Memorial statistics of the late 20s demonstrate this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider changing 'a schism' and 'branch', (maybe something like "After a series of disputes within the Bible Student movement, the group that maintained") but the idea in this sentence is important to explain how and why changes occurred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When one thing moves away from several things (See Bible Student movement), it "diverges" from them, regardless of which is bigger.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the Bible Student movement. They'd say they never left it; it seems difficult to argue with them since they still believe the central teachings. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious comment. Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever stated that they are "part of the Bible Student movement" and have "never left it"? I'd be surprised if they today acknowledged there was such a movement and that it had any relevance to them. Still, you may have a reference. LTSally (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

JWs claim that they used to be known as Bible Students, but they do not state that they are part of the Bible Student movement, the ongoing existence of which they officially ignore.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute in the context you're claiming. JWs are inherently connected to the Bible Student movement. However, they have clearly diverged from other Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted "diverged from the other Bible Student groups". There's already a reference to a schism in the Bible Student movement and probably each of the strands of the movement — the Dawn Bible Students, Johnson's group, the Standfast movement etc — diverged from one another, otherwise they'd have remained united, so any doctrinal movement by Rutherford's group at that point is not notable. The adoption of the new name in 1931 and subsequent centralization are the major milestones at that point. LTSally (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reordered. 1) who they are 2) how they started 3) what they believe 4) why they're notable--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed "endeavour to remain separate from". This phrase suggests they live in communes and avoid 'outsiders' altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed "the Armageddon". Poor wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar - separate run-ons with semicolons--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite JW reason for not celebrating holidays.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Break up last paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced flag salutation with saluting national flags. Have never heard anyone refer to 'flag salutation'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Split two figures to read: "they report annual convention and Memorial attendance of over 12 and 17 million, respectively." Wording can probably be further improved upon, but previous wording made the figures seem like one approximate estimate, whereas both figures are in reality very exact, and separate. 70.70.148.83 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have further split these. I wouldn't say that a headcount of large numbers of people who happen to be seated at a particular time is very exact, but it is certainly representative, and separating the two gatherings better makes the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Added adoption of name JW - This would seem to be a fairly fundamental point for the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed restating of 'Bible Student'. It is clear from previous sentence which 'movement' is referred to.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed incorrect use of the verb, exact, which means to demand or require (something) (often in reference to payment, respect etc). The leadership doesn't exact control, it exacts obedience, but including the word adds little value. Slight re-wording re 'shunning'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced strictly controls individual members' adherence to religious dogma and with does not tolerate divisions as regards doctrine or the breaking of its. The second is much more accurate and does not lead to misconseptions. There is no human way to "control" what others believe.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoid buzzword application of 'divisions'. Can't 'break' a moral 'principle'. People's beliefs can indeed be 'controlled' by making circumstances intolerable e.g. threat of shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Disagreements on minor things are allowed:

Consider another possibility involving the congregation. Suppose that a person finds a Scriptural teaching hard to understand and accept. He may have done research in the Bible and in publications available through the congregation and sought help from mature fellow Christians, even elders. Still, he has a hard time grasping or accepting the point. What can he do? Something similar developed about a year before Jesus died. He said that he was “the bread of life” and that to live forever a person had to “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.” That shocked some of his disciples. Rather than seek an explanation or simply wait in faith, many disciples “would no longer walk with [Jesus].” (John 6:35, 41-66)
— *** w07 4/15 p. 28 par. 14 Let the Congregation Be Built Up ***

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The import of the quote from The Watchtower is not It's OK to disagree, and the article does not support your claim. More specifically, instruction from The Watchtower is that members who have doubts about JW doctrines should 'shut up' about them, and 'remove their doubts' by 'deepening their appreciation for the JW organization' rather than maintaining their own opinions.

16 What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders. (Jude 22, 23) Prayer, personal study, and association with spiritually-minded fellow believers can also help to remove doubts and can deepen our appreciation for the faith-strengthening Bible truths we have learned through Jehovah’s channel of communication.
— The Watchtower 15 July 2006 p. 22

--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Causing of divisions is not allowed. This is different if someone's conclusion aren't the same with organization's as regards a specific subject of minor importance.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored again. The suggested wording has no bearing on your inference that members are free to have their own unstated disagreements with the religions doctrines on minor matters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly relevant to the introduction, Vassilis. Those first-century disciples chose to quit association. In a well-publicised incident, a number of Witnesses in Brooklyn Bethel about 1980 proposed adjustments to WT teachings re the 144,000 and the "last days", among other points. Judicial committees were promptly formed to question them and their associates and they were disfellowshipped for apostasy, even though they all wishes to remain in fellowship with other Witnesses and the organization. The WTS did not tolerate dissent from official teachings. Nor, I'd suggest, would they have tolerated anyone suggesting the "generation of 1914" teaching at the time was wrong, even though it was later abandoned. LTSally (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980 incident there was an organized effort to cause divisions. It wasn't just misunderstanding of explanations of secondary things.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. The current wording gives the false impresion that every detail of the lives of JWs is determined by the organization. If it is to be again, there must be clarification. My view is that this is totally out of the scope of the prologue.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case re-word it, don't remove it. Disciplinary action of JWs is a notable issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Added as unscriptrural.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

rephrased and fixed spelling.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed It underwent significant organizational changes in the early twentieth century, centralizing its authority structure and bringing their methods of evangelism under centralized control. POV since the organizationals changes neither started then nor finished then. It leads to focused misconseptions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated sentence on organizational changes. The changes made in the early 1920s particularly altered the religion significantly. The concept of "theocractic government" was introduced, elective elders replaced, independence of local ecclesias dismantled, standardised teaching programs introduced, including service meeting standardized preaching processes introduced including the recorded sermons, reporting of preaching service to Brooklyn required. All in all, a comprehensive centralization of power from the independent ecclesia system that had grown under Rutherford. This is not a POV as claimed, but a record of significant change in the running of the religion. LTSally (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Remeoved again. At the beginning, Russell had no elders at all. Then he chanded that. Wasn't that a great difference? Also, the organizational stracture changed significally in early 1970s' also. Was that of minor importqance? And who are you to judge which specific period you will select to focus on? This is POV, the fact that isolate a specific period because of your views. BTW, this serves nothing the prologue. There is an article below to explain.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes under Rutherford from 1917 to 1931 relate to a period of development of Jehovah's Witnesses as they became distinct from (the rest of) the Bible Student movement, and is therefore significant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement restored with some modification and chronological order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Vassilis, that Russell made some changes in organization, and that there were more changes regarding committees, GB etc in the 1970s. These, in the scale of things, were minor. Until Rutherford's changes the group functioned as a collection of independent ecclesias, free to choose how they preached and conducted meetings. Once the centralization changes took place, they remained, allowing the organization to function on a global basis. This was a major reorganization. LTSally (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Added in 236 countries.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. 1) The number is subject to change, and is trivial. 2) The statement is false. JWs report activity in 236 of what they call lands. For example, Hawaii is not a "country". Several of the islands they report separately are also not countries. See footnotes at Jehovah's Witnesses by country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think it is not good that the first paragraph mentions "Memorial attendance" whih the average reader will have no way to understand what is. I believe that 'Memorial attendance' should either be explained or moved into a note.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked to JW Beliefs article for Memorial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to NWT (with slight rewording re GB), Watchtower, and Awake!, per Maunus' suggestion ("I also think that the publications (watchtower and new world translation specifically) need to be mentioned")--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason we need it to read "Satan the Devil"? Can't we strike out "the Devil"? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed "devil".·Maunus·ƛ· 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to 144,000. The Witnesses' use of the number is widely known, but in my experience is widely misunderstood. The wording previously said that believers hope to live in heaven or earth; this now indicates their belief that it's not a random option or matter of choice. "Elect" was Russell's term, as I recall, and should be widely understood, but there may be a better term. LTSally (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on wording/spelling: Jeff, what's your source for paradisaical and paradisiacal having different uses? I checked the OED, which gives them as precisely synonymous, redirecting paradisaical to paradisiacal. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I had never before seen paradisiacal (and apparently neither have the spellcheckers I have though they each recognise paradisaical.) The standard English suffix, '-ical' denotes 'pertaining to', and '-iacal' should be used only when the base noun already ends in '-iac', such as in the word maniacal. (The flawed etymology of the alternative base adjective paradisiac is likely influenced by aphrodisiac, derived from a Greek word with the suffix '-akos', whereas paradise is derived from a different Greek word with the suffix, '-eisos'.) The source for my cursory verification was Wiktionary, which probably isn't the best source, however etymologically, paradisaical is indeed the most correct form.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Move sentence about Governing Body lower than the second sentence. To any casual reader, there are more important facts (and their membership numbers is one of them) that are of more interest and importance than who directs them. LTSally (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the phrasing "Jehovahs witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation..." - I think this formulation raises more questions than it answers. How did they do it? Through JW senators? Through lobbying? I think it should be clarified that they have only done it through trials within already existing legislation that has set precedence in civil rights cases.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed hellfire to hell; saw no reason not to. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this sentence: "Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth"." really so essential as to be in the lead? I suggest that it be stricken. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not need in the head.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is dominant and distinctive among Witnesses. It is part of their distinctive, unique language that allows them to instantly identify Witnesses and outsiders. The phrase is so extensively used that for Witnesses it completely, unconsciously, substitutes for the phrase "in the religion" or "in the organization". Even ex-Witnesses who have consciously, deliberately left, slip back into usage of the phrase. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I added heavy as regards violation of rules. It's an effort to clarify things.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Heavy" is completely the wrong word. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. The term is no clarification; it is waxing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ι put They consider Bible as the authority of their teachings. Even thought personal and daily Bible study its strongly encouraged, the biblical exegesis is done under the supervision of the Governing Body, a group of elders that coordinates the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses world-wide. This exactly depicts the situation. The mention to NWT is irrelevant. Biblical exegisis doesn't depent on the NWT. The NWT is an important Bible study aid to those not aquinted with the biblical languages.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the very poor spelling, it fails to convey the broader message of control of doctrines and behaviour. The GB does not simply "coordinate" or "supervise". I will revert to the superior language that existed earlier. LTSally (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. GB is the decision-making body. The GB tells Witnesses what the Bible says. It then enforces this view under pain of communal shunning for members voicing public dissent.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What you restored is not an accurate description of the case. It leads to false assumptions. GB is impossible to do control everything in 7,000,000 people. This is illogical to say. The local body of elders have considerable authority that is respected by the traveling overseers and the local branches. The routine of JWs had nothing directly to do with the GB but has to do with the local elders. Of course the guidelines are given by the GB but the application of the guidelines rests on the local bodies of elders. As regards Biblical exegesis, GB is responsible for the final decisions, but this doesn't mean that all the work or all the study or all the research is made by the GB. This is impossible. The writers of the articles and the specialists on some fields, as p.e. Biblical languages, are many, inside and outside the Bethel, the final work is supervised by the GB and the final decisions as regards what will be published rest on the GB. The translation work in some difficult languages is typically under the supervision of the Governing Body. I don't see how the GB could check one by one the decisions taken, for instance, in the Chinese New World Translation. The course in this case is this: GB supervises the Writing Department. WD supervises the Translation Services. TS supervise the local translation departments. So, the current version must be changed.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The GB enforces its doctrinal views by imposing organized communal shunning on Witnesses who publicly voice a dissenting view. Elders are appointed by instruments of the GB to oversee local application of this control over dissenting views expressed by members. As you say, and I agree, the GB makes the final decisions about doctrinal matters. But the control factor is there in terms of the “final decision” the GB has asserted that forbids public dissent, or else face disfellowshipping.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is little room for "false assumptions". The sentence says Witnesses are directed by the GB and that the GB exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters. There is nothing in that wording that suggests the GB has an active role in establishing meeting times for local congregations or the GB meets to edit the punctuation or check the scriptural references of translation accuracy of every Awake! article. You are taking that to a ridiculous extreme. The GB does decide what the doctrines are, establishes how the organization will function and how closely it will direct members of the religion in their activities. This is accurate. LTSally (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In different words: The organization does not tolerate among its members severe violations of its fundamental moral principles or divisions in doctrinal matters, and if a member insists in such, this will lead to a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping". It must be clear that disfellowship has to do with gross sins, not with every-day mistakes. It must also be made clear that divisions it the problem, not just a failure for someone to understand or accept something.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I Can't accept this wording - first of all it is bad prose. "among its members" breaks up the sentence in a fairly amateurish fashin, the subordinate phrase "if a member insists" is also much too heavy and unlelegant and it cannot be combined with a the clause "a form of shunning "they" call disfellowshipping" because they refers back to the grammatical subject Jehovah's Witnesses not to the individual member. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your changes.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus, especially about "among its members" - very awkward phrasing. Also, the specific choice of the word 'divisions' seems like deliberate selection of JW phraseology. Previous suggestion that it is there because it is the word at Romans 16:17 is not a particularly good justification, because the article should not be interpreting scripture anyway. The term 'division' implies a much more significant disturbance (e.g., a schism) than the JW application of the term, which may constitute a JW simply expressing that they disagree with a single JW belief. A more common expression would be much more suitable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Noticed after posting previous comment that the wording had already been altered. However, it still seemed too wordy. I have reworded with more matter-of-fact phrasing rather than the more accusatory-sounding statements about 'tolerating' and 'dissent'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is false.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The recent example of Greg Stafford is a striking example, who had even published a book with his doctrinal differentiations. Only when he pushed things too much, he was disfellowshiped.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent application of their rules does not mean the same rules are not applied for lesser acts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I presented to you what WT says about someone's expressing doubts about a doctrine to the elders. Can you prove me the opposite?--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Nothing to prove. As presented by Watchtower its doctrine does not impede members for expressing doubts, so why bring that up? No one here has suggested language to the effect that voicing a doubt or doubts subjects a member to Watchtower’s shunning policy. Rather, editors have addressed the action that does subject a member to the shunning policy, which is for a member to publicly voice a dissenting opinion about a Watchtower teaching. Voicing a doubt and voicing dissent on a particular teaching are relevantly dissimilar acts. (Corrected mistatement above by adding "not")--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Stafford is not a good example in this case because Stafford was not attempting to remain in association with any congregation of Witnesses at the time he published Three Dissertations. Watchtower policy provides that congregation action is not necessary if the member no longer associates with the congregation. So was Stafford left alone because as of the time he had not yet sufficiently “pushed things,” or was he left alone at the time because he was not associating? Because neither of us can prove this either way then it is impossible to prove the assertion you attempt based on this work titled Three Dissertations.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Watchtower doctrine states, “Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity.” Watchtower doctrine also states, “Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range… Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." What does it mean to ‘teach a divergent view”? To teach is to explain with proofs and valid argumentation, and answering related questions. Who decides the “Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses”? The Governing Body. Hence to teach a view divergent from what the Governing Body deems a ‘Scriptural belief unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ makes a member subject to Watchtower’s policy of organized communal shunning by Witnesses, including family. This policy by Watchtower effectively squashes open discussion among Witnesses of views held that are not in lockstep with Watchtower teaching. This is institutionalized suppression, and some would say oppression. Developed societies do not suppress thought (divergent or not) and they certainly do not view expression of divergent views necessarily as “causing division”. This very day were I to express in open discussion among the average elder among Witnesses that I see no way Watchtowers’ blood doctrine and related policy can be proved valid from the Bible and for that reason I neither accept it nor teach it as scriptural, what do you suppose would occur next, and then after that when I explained with proofs and valid argumentation, including answering questions? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment:What does someone need to understand and accept in order to become a baptized Jehovah’s Witness? Does anyone need to study and accept all the published information of the last 50 years? Does he need to study and fully accept everything mentioned in the Insight Bible encyclopedia? Of course not! In order someone to get baptized, he needs to have studied the 192 pages What Bible Teach book. This means that a person is accepted as a baptized Jehovah’s Witness if he understands and accepts not the whole spectrum of our published positions but the fundamental doctrines. Having this in mind helps us to understand that it is the challenge to the fundamental doctrines that can lead to a disfellowshipped, because if the fundamental doctrines are not accepted by someone, this person cannot rightly be called a Jehovah’s Witness. For instance, if someone doesn’t accept that pre-marital sex is fornication, he cannot continue as Jehovah’s Witness. This is a fundamental doctrine.

On the other hand, imagine that someone believes that resurrected ones will get married again; No one will bother with that. If someone believes that, let him believe that. This is not a fundamental doctrine.

But again, if someone who believes that resurrected ones will marry again consistently and unrepentantly tries to promote his idea in order to take others with his side in the congregation, then he will be disfellowshipped, not because of not accepting a published view of the Governing Body, but because of his effort to cause divisions in the congregation. Because “causing divisions” is by itself a violation of a fundamental Biblical rule.

Documentation of the above statements:

What is need for someone to accept in order to be a baptized JW?

- - bh chap. 18 p. 176 par. 6 Baptism and Your Relationship With God ***

Of course, you do not need to know everything in the Bible in order to qualify for baptism. The Ethiopian court official had some knowledge, but he needed help to understand certain parts of the Scriptures. (Acts 8:30, 31) Likewise, you still have much to learn. In fact, you will never stop learning about God. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Before you can be baptized, however, you need to know and accept at least the basic Bible teachings. (Hebrews 5:12) Such teachings include the truth about the condition of the dead and the importance of God’s name and his Kingdom.

If someone expresses to the elders that he doesn’t understand a published position because of being influenced by critics, then what?

*** w98 6/1 p. 19 par. 17 “Put Up a Hard Fight for the Faith”! ***

Third, Jude urges us to continue showing mercy. (Jude 22) His own example in this regard is remarkable. After all, he was rightly disturbed over the corruption, immorality, and apostasy creeping into the Christian congregation. Nevertheless, he did not succumb to panic, adopting the view that the times were somehow too dangerous to show such a “soft” quality as mercy. No, he urged his brothers to continue to show mercy whenever possible, reasoning kindly with those suffering from doubts and even ‘snatching from the fire’ those straying close to serious sin. (Jude 23; Galatians 6:1)

- - w92 7/15 p. 21 You Can Find Comfort in Times of Distress ***

By their false teaching, murmuring, and so forth, “ungodly men” who had slipped into the first-century Christian congregation were causing some to have distressing doubts. Hence, the disciple Jude wrote: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 3, 4, 16, 22, 23) To continue receiving God’s merciful consideration, Jude’s fellow worshipers—especially the congregation elders—needed to show mercy to doubters eligible for it. (James 2:13) Their everlasting life was at stake, for they were in danger of “the fire” of eternal destruction. (Compare Matthew 18:8, 9; 25:31-33, 41-46.) And what joy there is when help is kindly given to fellow believers having doubts and they become strong spiritually!

But “causing divisions” is something different.

*** it-1 p. 788 Expelling ***

Some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation are fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation. (1Co 5:9-13; 6:9, 10; Tit 3:10, 11; Re 21:8) Mercifully, one promoting a sect is warned a first and a second time before such disfellowshipping action is taken against him. In the Christian congregation, the principle enunciated in the Law applies, namely, that two or three witnesses must establish evidence against the accused one. (1Ti 5:19)

--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It understates the issue to suggest studying and agreeing with the book you cite amounts to accepting the whole spectrum of Watchtower’s fundamental doctrines, because that book does not contain all the fundamental doctrinal policies of Watchtower. For example, nowhere does not book explain that at any moment Watchtower can change (and that it has changed) a doctrine or doctrines 180 degrees and that if a member nevertheless continues to teach the former belief (the one you accepted at baptism) with sound argumentation and proofs that you will be disfellowshipped for causing division. You assert that “if the fundamental doctrines are not accepted by someone, this person cannot rightly be called a Jehovah’s Witness” yet this fails to accommodate the timing of when a person was baptized. For instance, what I accepted as proper doctrine and related policy at the time I was baptized I would be disfellowshipped for publicly teaching it today. Was I a Witness then or am I a Witness now? You tell me. What does this tell you about Watchtower’s fundamental doctrine? It tells me Watchtower’s fundamental doctrine is that Watchtower’s governing body expects to be treated like God because it expects members to always treat what it says as the voice of God. It expects members to suppress personal conviction in order to teach some things they do not actually believe themselves, or at least to refrain from teaching personal convictions that diverge from Watchtower. Watchtower does not brush over that it expects to be treated as the voice of God, so why do you? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a fundamental doctrine that has changed 180 degrees the last, let's say, 70 years, so that those baptised could claim that they have been mislead in a way?--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: When I was baptized it was no sin to accept blood transfusion. In fact, at the time it was considered heroic to save someone else’s life by giving them some of your own blood, even it meant dying yourself. Then Watchtower decided it was a sin to accept a blood transfusion. That was a 180 degree turn. At the time I could live with the new teaching because no one was disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion. Witnesses were left to do as they wish, and that is what they did. Then Watchtower decided that members who conscientiously accepted a blood transfusion were to be disfellowshipped. Another 180 degree change in terms of how congregations were instructed to respond to members accepting transfusion. Then Watchtower began playing around with would members could accept from blood, and what procedures they could accept in relation to their own blood. At one point it was considered sin to accept hemoglobin from blood, and there was congregation repercussion for conscientiously accepting this as a product from blood. Then Watchtower decided members could accept hemoglobin from blood without congregation repercussion. Another 180 degree change in terms of members accepting hemoglobin.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another exmple given by Holden is the degree to which WTS regulated sexual practices within witness marriages - first there were no guidelines, then certain practices were prohibited also within marriage, then they were again allowed and now only some of those practices are discouraged. If I am not mistaken the prohibition against tobacco was also made within the last 70 years.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: At one point Watchtower doctrine did not recognize extramarital homosexual relations as fornication. Accordingly members whose spouses were having extra-marital homosexual relations were not considered to have scriptural grounds for divorce. Then Watchtower changed this doctrine 180 degrees to recognize extra-marital homosexual relations as a scriptural grounds for divorce.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent Comment: Why does Vasslis persist in comparing doubting with divergence when the subject at issue has only to do with divergence? To correct something I said before, Watchtower’s doctrine does not impede members for expressing doubts, so why bring this up as if it is an issue? No one here has suggested language to the effect that voicing a doubt or doubts subjects a member to Watchtower’s shunning policy. Rather, editors have addressed the action that does subject a member to the shunning policy, which is for a member to publicly voice a dissenting opinion about a Watchtower teaching. Voicing a doubt and voicing dissent on a particular teaching are relevantly dissimilar acts.----Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"publically" is not a misspelling, it is a commonly occurring variant spelling.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In Australian English publically is a misspelling. And from what I can tell, even in American English, publicly is much more common, so its usage should be preferred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind retaining publicly, but I do take exception to the tone of your edit summary. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't like the tone of my edit summary. However, "public(al)ly" suggests in public, which is vague and possibly misleading. The reader could be left wondering what might constitute such 'public' dissent among JWs... Addressing townspeople at City Hall? Announcing divergent beliefs to the public on street corners? In actuality, conversation with an individual JW friend in private could be considered by the elders as causing such 'public' dissent, so I stand by my original wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have made liberal and variant use in the relevant discussion of the term “public.” The point Jeffro makes is well taken and valid. A member could share a divergent view in a private discussion with a fellow member and that could suffice to initiated Watchtower’s shunning policy. Watchtower’s policy makes it precarious to address this issue succinctly. Here is what I mean: A member can voice all they dissenting views they want directly to Watchtower headquarters and have no fear of congregational repercussion via Watchtower’s shunning policy. I would say that most of the time a member could voice a divergent view to an elder and it would not lead to shunning. But beyond this, just about any voicing of a divergent view to a fellow member or members, or to the general public, is likely to initiate investigation by local elders, which is the first step of Watchtower’s shunning program. Hence, as Jeffro says, it is not as though a member has to make a public radio announcement. The member could jeopardize his association merely for sharing a divergent view with a fellow member in private discussion. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, dissenting views expressed directly to Watch Tower headquarters generally have responses redirected back through local congregation elders, and an individual's response to those elders when confronted may also be used to constitute such 'dissent'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental restored. Only gross sins can result in disfellowshiping.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not unconditionally true. In my experience (and according to quite a few sources) even minor infractions such as wilfully disregarding advice given by elders about personal decisions can result in disfellowshipping. For example marrying outside of the organization is not a seen as a "gross sin" but may still result in disfellowshipping if the committee sees it as a wilfull disobedience of the elder's advice.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Franz produces abundant proof that he was disfellowshipped specifically and solely for dining with a man, his employer and landlord, who had voluntarily disassociated himself from the organization. Interestingly, at the time he had dined with that man, it was not a requirement for other Witnesses to shun a person who had disassociated. The GB subsequently decreed, without scriptural support, that this was now a requirement, and Franz was put on trial. Would Vassilis regard this as a gross sin or simply a refusal to obey a directive of the GB? LTSally (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are digressing into unfruitful discussion of JW doctrine. We should refocus on the wording in question - whether we need "fundamental" as a qualifier of "moral principles"? Is there a good reason to distinguish between fundamental and non-fundamental moral principles? I don't even believe that JW make such a distinction - I think the evidence also shows that for the purposes of discplinary action any principle that derives from the bible is equally fundamental as any other and violations against any of them may result in disfellowshipping given the right circumstances. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source we can use on which to base this sentence? So that we don't end up arguing about the in-/ex-clusion of "fundamental"? I agree with Maunus that this doesn't seem to be the most fruitful discussion we could be having. Let's find a source, and parrot it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of such a source - vassilis added it so the burden is on his shoulders. On the other hand we could add -ist to fundamental - then I'd be able to support its inclusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated phrase "resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections". It is not notable that a religion should grow or shrink, even though disproportionate growth may occur in some parts of the world at any one time. It is very notable, however, that there were sharp spikes in membership around the time Watch Tower gave strong suggestions that the world was about to end, and then sharp drops in membership once those predictions proved false. LTSally (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I’m not sure there is a consistent correlation of membership/defection and end of world teachings that went seriously astray. Russell taught Armageddon would culminate in 1914, but there was no sharp number of defections at the time so far as I know. In the mid-70s the membership was practically whipped into frenzy over the year 1975 because the biblical seventh millennium beginning in the mid-seventies is the period Watchtower identified as the one Jesus would rule over as Lord of the Sabbath, thus fulfill something Jesus would have to do in order for Him to be Lord of the Sabbath (ref. the thousand year reign). Again, there was no sharp defection of membership. The famously erroneous teaching that 1925 would see the resurrection of faithful men like Abraham et al also did not mark any immediate decline in membership. The serious decline in those associating themselves with Watchtower occurred between 1927 and 1928 when Watchtower experienced an 80 percent reduction in attendance at its most important annual event call the memorial. Though the 1925 debacle probably primed the pump of this mass defection, more had to be involved or else it would not have taken 3 additional years after 1925 for the defection. Bottom line, I do not think the language added about surges and defections is valid as presented, and I am inclined to believe nothing about this should be in the introductory language.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

comment I must maintain that for the sake of balance and neutrality we cannot write about large numbers of defections thirty years ago without also noting that the numbers that were lost then have long since been recuperated.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What large number of defections 30 years ago? If you are referring to the 1975 episode, the statistical reduction in associates with Watchtower was pretty negligible. Noticeable? Yes. Large? Not really. Off the top of my head it seems there was a reduction of about 1 or 2 percent, which was regained within just a couple of years. I see neither need nor place for any mention of reduction in membership to be mentioned in the intro.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

comment well that was merely what the leads mention of "surges and subsequent defections" made me think - if that is misleading then obviously it should be changed.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Yes. The current language leaves impression as you say. But I do not believe facts sustain the assertion. Perhaps LTSally can help us out since she/he placed the language into the lead. Based on my knowledge and sources, I see no need to mention any of this in the lead. Furthermore, as it stands at the moment, I believe the language is factually in error.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2009-06-10 and after

The "changes" subsection has developed an increasingly tenuous connection with the current "Editable lead", and its length has become awkward. I am going to:

A. Leave the current threads alone in the current section "Communal_lead_sandbox"

B. Create a new section named "2009-06-10 and after", with new subsections and subsubsections as follows

1 "2009-06-10 Lead (please do not edit)"

2 "2009-06-10 Lead, sentences edited per explanations below"

2.1 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 1), bulletted by sentence"

2.2 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 2), bulletted by sentence"

2.3 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 3), bulletted by sentence"

2.4 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 4), bulletted by sentence"

2.5 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 5), bulletted by sentence"

2.6 "Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 6), bulletted by sentence"

C. Verbatim-copy the current "Editable lead" into both "2009-06-10 Lead (please do not edit)" and "2009-06-10 Lead, edited per explanations below".

D. In the appropriate paragraph subsection, verbatim-copy each sentence into a separate bullet.

E. Invite editors to succinctly restate each individual sentence's point of contention (under its bullet).

F. Brace myself for howls of criticism and accusations of every sort.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2009-06-10 Lead (please do not edit)

(Paragraph numbers are for sandbox convenience only, and correspond to sentence numbering in next section.)
1 Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of 17 million. They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders that exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible, with preference given to their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

2 The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. Following a schism in the movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society underwent significant organizational changes, bringing its authority structure and methods of evangelism under centralized control. The name, Jehovah's witnesses, was adopted in 1931.

3 Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisaical earth or, for 144,000 elect, in heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watch Tower Society has since changed its stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur.

4 Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. They consider use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, vital to proper worship; they reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hell, which they consider to be unscriptural; they do not celebrate religious or secular celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or Birthdays, which they consider to have pagan origins. Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth".

5 The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as saluting national flags has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses' objection to such civic duties has had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.

6 Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. Members who violate the organization's fundamental moral principles or who dispute doctrinal matters are subject to disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping".

2009-06-10 Lead, sentences edited per explanations below

(Paragraph numbers are for sandbox convenience only, and correspond to sentence numbering in next section.)

1 Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of 17 million. They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders that exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible, with preference given to their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

2 The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. Following a schism in the movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society underwent significant organizational changes, bringing its authority structure and methods of evangelism under centralized control. The name, Jehovah's witnesses, was adopted in 1931.

3 Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisaical earth or, for 144,000 elect, in heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watch Tower Society has since changed its stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur.

4 Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. They consider use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, vital to proper worship; they reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hell, which they consider to be unscriptural; they do not celebrate religious or secular celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or birthdays, which they consider to have pagan origins. Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth".

5 The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as saluting national flags has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses' objection to such civic duties has had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.

6 Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. Members who violate the organization's fundamental moral principles or who dispute doctrinal matters are subject to disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping".

Please leave sentence numbering intact; suggestions to reorder sentences and/or paragraphs can be considered later (discuss in next section).

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 1), bulletted by sentence

* (1.1) Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement.
My only additional suggestion might be to include the word "global" in that string of adjectives, perhaps with a Wiki to Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Any opinions either way?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for global. LTSally (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sally, global is unnecessary. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Covered adequately by "reports worldwide membership".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

* (1.2) The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of 17 million.
Suggest: "...and annual Memorial attendance of over 17 million.", since figure is actually closer to 18 million.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you all think about changing "adherents involved in evangelism" to the simpler "active adherents" with a text footnote describing the JW definition of "active adherent"?--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be of greater benefit to explain in the paragraph with the link to evangelism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Jeffro. Evangelism is common usage that conveys the point.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who likes "active adherents" here? With or without footnote?--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

* (1.3) They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders that exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible, with preference given to their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Mention here of NWT is awkward. Does lead on Roman Catholic Church mention the Jerusalem Bible or Douay-Rheims?
In the phrase "that exercises supreme authority", the word "that" should be replaced by "which" to clarify that the body is supreme, not the individuals. For several days, I've noted that the GBJW claims to defer to the Bible, so I've added that. Also, the phrasing had seemed a bit redundant.
Suggest: "They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders which exercises supreme authority on all doctrinal matters, based on their interpretations of the Bible as ultimate authority."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"as ultimate authority" is unnecessary and inaccurate. Their flip-flops on some doctrines renders the concept a nonsense if they interpret it in different ways at different times. LTSally (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "which" is preferable to "that". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "that" here, but can go with "which" (see also wikt:which#Usage_notes).

User:Maunus previously suggested inclusion of NWT in the lead, and this is the most relevant place to mention it. Unlike the Jerusalem or Douay versions, the NWT has some distinctive and controversial renderings, so I think the comparison with the Catholic article isn't sufficient to not include it here.

I don't like the superlative 'ultimate' on top of the already superfluous 'supreme'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 2), bulletted by sentence

* (2.1) The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.
Suggest appending "and International Bible Students Association ("IBSA")".
Both corporations were used as "publisher" for literature of the time, and the corporation names are still familiar to JW and BSM scholars today.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref to IBSA is unnecessary. The WTS was the dominant corporation used (IBSA was an English subsidiary, and not formed until much later). LTSally (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

* (2.2) Following a schism in the movement, the branch that maintained control of the Society underwent significant organizational changes, bringing its authority structure and methods of evangelism under centralized control.
"...authority structure..."? "...control..."?
Suggest "Following schism in the movement, IBSA Bible Students underwent significant organizational changes, including centralization of congregational administration and evangelism methods."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. The suggested wording (especially with the suggested wording for the previous sentence) implies that the Watch Tower Society was separate from the 'schism', whereas, control of the Watch Tower Society itself was central to the controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

* (2.3) The name, Jehovah's witnesses, was adopted in 1931.
Are commas necessary? --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 3), bulletted by sentence

* (3.1) Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisaical earth or, for 144,000 elect, in heaven.
Suggest "...after which righteous humans will enjoy eternal life on a restored paradise earth; 144,000 "elect" or "chosen ones" will have been resurrected to heaven."
This more accurately allows continuity with Russell's 1870's ideas.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unncessary. The current wording accurately presents their hope. LTSally (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Since its inception Watchtower has not taught the number going to heaven is limited to 144,000.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed. I tried to point that out earlier. Ironically, my newer suggestion[1] (of 16:58, 11 June 2009) both agrees with Russell (by ignoring "great crowd") and current JWs. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This presentation suggests to readers that a contemporary Watchtower teaching has existed since inception of the Watchtower. It is misleading. What Watchtower taught in its beginning about future prospects for righteous people is very different from Watchtower’s current teaching. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: JWs would likely say the central doctrine has existed since Russell. Frankly, it's far from obvious that current and 1800s Watchtower "future prospects" really are materially different, so IMHO "very different" seems a POV overstatement. WT always taught that most righteous humans would live forever on earth and only a minority would go to heaven. WT always taught that the 144,000 would be heavenly rulers. My suggested sentence (for the lead only) does not misstate what 1800's WT says or what current WT say. The details aren't discussed in this sentence because it's in the lead; the details can be discussed elsewhere.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Whether a Witness or Witnesses would likely say or is unlikely to say is anecdotal. So what? 2) As for POV, the talk page is precisely where POV is expressed. So what is your point? 3) Please offer verification that Watchtower “always taught” that only a minority of righteous people would go to heaven. Was the “great multitude” a great multitude or a less-than-great multitude as taught by Watchtower? 4) Watchtower current theology of future prospects involves specific teachings of a minority 144,000 and a majority made of “the great crowd” and resurrected humans. To suggest Watchtower early teaching of the 144,000 has remained unchanged is to suggest that the current teaching of the 144,000 is precisely what Watchtower taught from its earliest days, and that is false. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Clarifying the thread topic, you'll notice that neither the 2009-06-10 lead nor my suggestion says that the number going to heaven is limited to 144,000. My more recent edit was intended to make that even more clear without making it the focus of a lead sentence; restated here...

Suggest: "Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order, after which 144,000 "chosen ones" rule with Christ from heaven and the righteous live forever on a paradise earth."

Furthermore, I don't recall saying that WT's understanding hasn't changed, especially in the details. I said that their central teachings haven't changed in that: a minority go to heaven and a majority stay on earth, and the 144000 are rulers with Christ. Here are two quotes from the first issue of WT in July 1879:

(Quote) "The Royal Priesthood. ...1 Pet. 2:9...Rev. 1:5,6...Rev. 5:10...Rev. 20:6. The above scriptures clearly teach that a part, at least, of our work in the future will be to officiate as the priests of God. ...The fact that these offices of "king" and "priest" will exist, logically implies that there will be subjects to rule"

(Quote) "When this elect Church shall have been completed and its members come to be Priests and Kings with Christ in the glorious Messianic kingdom, the same general calling [that is, justification or being declared righteousness] which they now fill will continue. These sublime princedoms of the eternal empire are a part of God's great plan to let forth His love, wisdom and blessing upon earth's generations. ...That the glorified saints will to some extent mingle with those who live in the body and at times unveil their radiance to them, I think there is reason to believe. If they are to govern, direct and minister to those in the flesh, it is natural to suppose they will also be visible at least occasionally. ...And in that new world in which the glorified saints are to be enthroned and commissioned as the ministers of Christ to execute his orders and administer his government over the nations, we may reasonably expect that they will often appear and converse with those who live in the flesh, and that intercourse between them and those in the body, will be as real familiar and blessed as that which Adam enjoyed with heavenly beings in Paradise." [emphasis added]

Before this thread goes on needlessly, it might be better to simply ask that Marvin Shilmer suggest some specific wording to address his concerns. Should this thread be decoupled from this section?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Again, the statement you suggest makes a false implication because it addresses the religion’s prospects for future life, and in terms of prospect for future life it suggests the religion’s teaching has remained unchanged since inception. You know this is false. You have said so yourself. Watchtower’s doctrinal development is far more complex in how it has changed in this respect than your suggested statement speaks to. You have asserted that your silence in relation to “the great crowd” is what makes your statement accurate as presented. Yet what is left unstated is precisely what gives a false impression to what is stated. Watchtower’s teaching regarding future life prospects has underwent significant change; it has not been consistent in terms of who go to heaven or who live on the earth. It is patently false that “Since its inception” Watchtower has taught that other than the 144,000 “the righteous live forever on a paradise earth.” My opinion is that you want to assert (inappropriately) a thread of consistency of belief in order to reduce criticism of changing doctrine later on. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It would seem that you wrongly ascribe to me the sentence's initial wording at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Lead_sandbox#2009-06-10_Lead_.28please_do_not_edit.29. Would you insist that whoever wrote (and until now tolerated) that sentence is similarly conspiring to deceive everyone? My efforts were toward (rather than away from) greater accuracy.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I do not believe I have wrongly ascribed. My last comment that you question was in relation to what you write at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Lead_sandbox&diff=295840892&oldid=295829780 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: (Sigh.) Check this.

Vassilis78 apparently wrote it.

Richardshusr apparently put it on this page.

I just copied it.
Things would probably go more smoothly if certain people would stop alleging duplicity at every turn.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It matters not to me who proposes what language. It matters to me whether than language is verified. My remarks are to point out error, presentations suggesting false notions, and otherwise bad presentation. Along the way I ask for verification at every turn. This is how it should be. Occasionally I will offer (and have offered) recommended language.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If you want to address Watchtower taught at inception in relation to future prospects then you should just tell it how it was: That 144,000 Jews would go to heaven and later on a unnumbered “great multitude” would also go to heaven and that everyone else gifted with eternal life would have it on earth. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm less concerned about my 'wants' and more concerned for the improvement of the article. I'll allow the metaphoric dust to settle on this sentence before I offer additional comment.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

'paradise' isn't normally an adjective. "will have been" seems wordy and unnecessary. Wouldn't complain if "enjoy" were removed either: the righteous will live forever on a paradisaical earth...--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that "enjoy" is somewhat unencyclopedic. Don't want to argue about "will have been".

Paradisaical vs paradise... JWs do not merely believe the earth will be paradisaical (by definition, "like a paradise"), but rather JWs believe that the earth will literally be a paradise. The only accurate word here is "paradise". While "paradise earth" seems fine to me, the expression "earthly paradise" is also superior to the insufficiently accurate current expression.

Elect vs chosen ones... In this sentence, the term "elect" is a purely theological term which JWs don't even use. The same Bible term is exactly translatable as "chosen ones"[2] and the latter term is more self-evident to a casual reader. Either term is technically accurate, but the latter seems more superior.

Suggest: "Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righteous will live forever on a paradise earth or, for 144,000 "chosen ones", in heaven." --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could "present world order" be worded differently? And I don't see the inaccuracy of "paradisaical earth". Paradise is necessarily paradisaical, so even if they think IS paradise, the phrase is still apt. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, because JWs now pointedly avoid the phrase "world order" (since it was co-opted by secular globalists). Unelaborated alternatives such as "[current] world" and "[current] age"[3] are too vague. Their NWT uses "this system of things". The sentence's context here is clear, though, and I feel "present world order" is fine.

I've re-thought the last half of the sentence, and now suggest:

"Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order, after which 144,000 "chosen ones" rule with Christ from heaven and the righteous live forever on a paradise earth."--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It needs two sentences. Perhaps: "Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order. Its current teaching is that after God destroys that world order, 144,000 "chosen ones" rule with Christ from heaven and the righteous live forever on a paradise earth."

First sentence is ok. I don't like the suggested wording of the second sentence, and am leaning towards removing the sentence altogether as it is an incomplete and therefore misleading portrayal of JWs belief (resurrection of dead, 1000 year reign by Christ, Satan released, testing and more judgement, rule handed to Jehovah, as opposed to the implied, after Armageddon, eternal hugs and puppies), and extraneous exposition of these details is superfluous for the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have elaborated somewhat on the implemented lead, largely for the reason stated directly above. The text I have used for this section is: Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that after the current world order is destroyed, righteous survivors and resurrected dead individuals will have the opportunity to live forever on a paradisaical earth, ruled by Christ and 144,000 people raised to heaven.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Clear enough. LTSally (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

* (3.2) In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections.
Suggest "...publications led to strong expectations regarding Armageddon in each of those years, with each accompanied by a waxing and waning of membership." Its POV whether a particular publication did or did not itself 'express strong expectations'. The term "defections" seems nonneutral.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to delete the reference to surges and defections. It is not a point of view to state that the publications expressed strong expectations. The evidence is clear and has already been cited. LTSally (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower has explicitly stated that such expectations were raised by their literature. I don't care if the statement about defections is removed from here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

* (3.3) The Watch Tower Society has since changed its stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when Armageddon will occur.
The phrase "changed its stance" seems unencyclopedic.
Suggest "In recent decades, Jehovah's Witnesses publications have not focused on eschatological chronology; adherents are discouraged from worshipping with a particular date in mind."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

discouraged is JW jargon. Prefer original wording, but would prefer position over stance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor suggestion. The Watchtower doesn't encourage or discourage views on when the end will occur and leave it to members to decide. It states what the GB decides and members repeat that view in their Watchtower study meeting "comments" without debate or discussion. The existing wording suffices. LTSally (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 4), bulletted by sentence

* (4.1) Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations.

* (4.2) They consider use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, vital to proper worship; they reject Trinitarianism, immortality of the soul, and hell, which they consider to be unscriptural; they do not celebrate religious or secular celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or Birthdays, which they consider to have pagan origins.
JWs claim to believe in Scriptural hell (as 'the common grave of humankind'); they do not believe in torturous hellfire.
JW view commemorations such as Cinco de Mayo and Independence Day to be objectionable for their roots in nationalism, not paganism.
Suggest "...and torturous hellfire, which they consider unscriptural; they do not celebrate such commemorations as Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or others they view as having pagan or nationalistic origins."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This usage of pagan is POV.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommend changing back to the term hellfire; no need for 'torturous'. Regarding celebrations, suggest "they do not observe celebrations such as Christmas, Easter or Birthdays, which they believe have pagan origins, or national holidays, such as Independence Day." (This usage of pagan is specifically indicated as something JWs believe, so doesn't seem to be a problem.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to have 'hellfire' instead of 'hell', I suggest that the wikilink be to Hell in Christian beliefs#Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to hell, as it is more accurate. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lower case birthdays. LTSally (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

* (4.3) Members commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth", and once baptized are said to be "in the Truth".
JWs do not consider baptism to dichotomously determine if an individual is "in the Truth" or "not in the Truth".
If I understood the point being made, I could better suggest an alternative.
I'm also unsure that JWs uniquely use the term; isn't it somewhat a Scriptural synonym for "Christianity" (like "the Way")?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the term being frequently used by mainstream Christian religions, though other (particularly restorationist) groups (e.g. Christian conventions) do also use the term. The prevalence of its use by JWs seems notable though. I agree that the 'baptism' bit should be dropped - typically it is belief that marks them as being (informally) "in the 'truth'" rather than specifically the moment of baptism. Suggest: ... and adherents consider themselves to be "in the Truth".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Accept Jeffro's wording. LTSally (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 5), bulletted by sentence

* (5.1) The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as saluting national flags has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries.
Conflicts and bans have occurred in countries and times where conscription was not the issue. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This should be reworded to indicate that refusal of saluting flags or conscription or other issues have resulted in bans/restrictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented this as: The religion's positions regarding conscientious objection to military service and refusal to salute national flags has brought it into conflict with governments, particularly those that conscript citizens for military service; activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned or restricted in some countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

* (5.2) Jehovah's Witnesses' objection to such civic duties has had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.
The beginning of this sentence restates much of previous while failuring to elaborate on what form JW "objection" actually takes. Also, I believe the terms "civic" and "civil" can intentionally refer to NON-military governmental service (ie "civilian").
Suggest: Their persistent legal challenges and record of civil disobedience have had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and alternate military service in several countries including the United States." Only the bold part was changed.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Prefer original wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a change long these lines, i think it is important to make explicit that they have not influenced legislation through political processes but simply through use of the juridic system and existing laws to set new precedents for civil liberties.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight preference for Tam's wording. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not JWs' record of civil disobedience that has brought about changes, it is the subsequent legal cases. Attempting to bring about changes by 'civil disobedience' (a contradiction that is probably intended to be 'civic disobedience) (i.e. 'protesting') is a political process. Alternate as an adjective means 'relating to things that happen reciprocally (taking turns)'; the correct word is alternative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could "persistent legal challenges" be included though? That would make it clear that this happens on the judicial, rather than legislative, end of things. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that part.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how about "Through persistent legal challenges, Jehovah's Witnesses' objection..."? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented this as: Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses' to such civic duties have had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits EXPLAINED (paragraph 6), bulletted by sentence

* (6.1) Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses.

* (6.2) Members who violate the organization's fundamental moral principles or who dispute doctrinal matters are subject to disciplinary action, the most severe being a form of shunning they call "disfellowshipping".

Suggestions to re-order sentences or paragraphs (to be addressed later)

Implemented

I have implemented the lead as it currently stands. This does include some changes based on suggestions in the ongoing discussion that were not yet formally phrased. Please check the lead in the live article, and continue discussion here (in the sections above) for ongoing concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)