Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be defined as Christian

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be defined as Christian in the lead? 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

L. R. from Alberta is concerned that Wikipedia is asserting that "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian". LR believes JWs are not Christian because they have a different point of view on Jesus to groups commonly named as Christian.[1] How can Wikipedia respond to LR? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The actual objection of "L.R. Alberta" was:
  • "The very first sentence is hardly correct, as the sentence reads ' christian religion'. JW believers do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as christians do."[2]

However, JWs do believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reserved for sources

  • "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian milennial movement" — John Stephen Bowden, Encyclopedia of Christianity, (Oxford University Press, 2005), 653.
  • "The story of the Fall is central to all Christian belief, but unlike those who follow orthodox Christianity, the Witnesses regard it as a factual event..." — Andrew Holden (2002)
  • "Christianity is as Luapulan as matriliny; both are involved in the ongoing process of change. Specific features of both organization and doctrines of salvation within different Protestant denominations constitute independent variables that differentially induce behavioral changes. In Luapula, two denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists, stand out from the rest because they adopt a critical attitude toward people's conduct and local conditions." — Karla Poewe, Religion, Matriliny, and Change: Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists in Luapula, Zambia
  • "In North America, the adoption of a Christian theology that dissents from traditional fundamental affirmations (such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science) or the adoption of a non-Christian religious ideology (Scientology, Tenrikyô) will quickly lead to a group being assigned outsider status." — Gordon Melton, "Title required", Nova Religio 8 (2003): 82.
  • "Protestantism is often seen as opposing Catholicism. For example Fortuny (Chapter 5) writes how the Jehovah's Witnesses challenge modern urban Mexican Catholicism." James W Dow, Protestantism in Mesoamerica: The Old within the New

Please comment

LR from Alberta, as you well know, made the false claim that JWs don't believe Jesus is the son of God. I would respond to him that he is wrong. BlackCab (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

From the RFC: First of all, the contention that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God is incorrect, as stated above. What sets JW's apart from most of Christianity is that they don't consider Jesus to be God incarnate, but rather a created being. But they do acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God. Secondly, whether or not the lede identifies JW's as a Christian denomination should depend on whether or not JW's self-identify as Christians. If there is ambiguity on that point, we can bring into play other sources that determine whether JW's are commonly considered a Christian denomination, sect of Christianity, or other independent religion. Brad 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Brad -- while I agree that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe Jesus is the son of God, that still does not mean they consider themselves a "Christian denomination." Rather, they believe they are the only Christians, and other "denominations" are not in the same religion at all.EGMichaels (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There are many Christian denominations that claim to be the only true Christians. This is covered under the link to restorationism. However, the inclusion of the word in the lede is not a theological statement, but rather an anthropological categorization. Since, according to you, JW's do consider themselves to be Christians, and in broad terms they do fit into the description of Christianity, the descriptor is entirely appropriate. The actual differences can be worked out further on in the article. Brad 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is what I have said multiple times. They don't seem to agree with the definitions laid out in the articles Christian and Restorationist, and don't seem to be satisfied that adding nontrinitarian even further clarifies that JW beliefs are different than mainstream Christianity. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Brad -- that descriptor is no more accurate than classifying "Messianic Judaism" as a "denomination of Judaism." You cannot label a heretical group as if it represents the orthodox group that it manifestly denies it represents.EGMichaels (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is that since JW's don't consider other Christian denominations to be Christian, therefore we shouldn't consider them to be Christians. That may be fine theologically (actually it's a bit of a stretch theologically as well), but for the purposes of an encyclopedia that argument makes no sense. The original claim was that JW's should not be considered Christians since they don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Since this presumption is shown to be false, and JW's consider themselves to be Christian, and since they are commonly considered a sect or denomination of Christianity, the descriptor is entirely accurate. Brad 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So that we don't move the goal post, exactly what do you require in order to reach a consensus?EGMichaels (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, I would like you to be convinced that, for the purposes of an encylopedia and for the most readable presentation of the subject matter, Jehovah's Witnesses should be presented as a Christian denomination. Personally, I agree with you that theologically they should not be considered Christians, but that's not really the way we do things around here. We need to look at things from a historical and anthropological perspective, and take into account how people self-identify. For that purpose the lede as it is presently is pretty good, and I would like you to be convinced. Brad 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Brad, I am well aware of the history of the theology behind this group. I'm also sensitive to the fact that they adamantly insist that they are not members of the same satanic apostasy as "Christian denominations." They regard themselves as Christians (which must be presented in the article) to the exclusion of anyone else (which also must be included). I asked you what it would take for you to find consensus, which is a place in which we can all find an acceptable solution. That involves the abject surrender of NEITHER you nor I. Try again.EGMichaels (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A general amen to everything Brad has said so far. I've tired of making these points and now simply summarize my thoughts as the every dictionary ever (EDE) argument. Possibly overstated, but it gets my point across. Why EGMichaels and Alastair continue to fight against every dictionary ever, I don't know. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
"'Arianism, n, the doctrines of Arius, an Alexandrian of the fourth century, who taught that Jesus was not of the same substance as God, but only the best of created beings."
"Christian" is way too broad a term, and Arianism is far more specific. According to the dictionary a "Christian" can simply be "3 a decent respectable person." Certainly by that definition most Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus I know are all Christians.
I find it most odd to see someone trumping a near meaningless dictionary term and yet fight tooth and nail against a far more specific and applicable term such as "Arianism."EGMichaels (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"'Christian' is way too broad a term". #Problem Solved! And, to quote myself, "The comparison with arianism is completely valid". I just wasn't impressed with the rest of the sentence you proposed. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
When I argue #EDE, I'm generally referring to the first entry. You know, the most obvious and common definition. I'm not trying to adopt a dictionary-only mentality. Rather, I'm trying to appeal to what I see as the obvious, simple, clear, secular, objective definition. For further thoughts on why I feel we should use "Christian", see #BIA. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Brad, for your input. You say
"I agree with you that theologically they should not be considered Christians, but that's not really the way we do things around here. We need to look at things from a historical and anthropological perspective, and take into account how people self-identify."
That reads as though you're claiming that theological points of view are silenced by historical and anthropological points of view. As it turns out, I agree that the first sentence ought to define JWs using history (who started the movement and when) and anthropology (social affiliations, etc.) rather than theologically. Examples:
Lutheranism is a collection of denominations with common historical roots going back to Martin Luther. (or words to that effect)
The Roman Catholic Church is a single denomination which claims its leadership decends from the Apostle Peter.
(Obviously, these are not serious proposals for the relevant articles, but they would be options.)
So far so good, we've simply buried theology, which history and anthropology will tell us actually drives the history (though perhaps less than some would like to imagine). But when we address the theology, we will first be interesed in how a group define their theology (primary souce, confirmed in secondary sources of all POVs). Example:
JWs teach that a thousand year kingdom will soon be brought by God, a teaching based on their study of the Bible.
We can go on to note also that they teach "this is conceived of as a restoration of the teaching of the Early Christian Church."
As far as I can see, my samples above are verifiable, presented neutrally, using common language. They demonstrate we can say what we are saying without any need to bring in words like "Christian" which can be used in different ways, some of which depend on a reader or writer's point of view.
L.R. from Alberta reads the word "Christian" with the connotation that the word means Christ-worshiper. It is true to assert that not everyone reads the word the same way L.R. does. However, it is obviously not true to assert that no-one reads "Christian" in the way that L.R. does, in fact it reflects a point of view so significant, that it's documented in very many sources.
The word "Christian" has a significance to those who self-identify as such, that needs to be neutrally acknowledged as a point of view. What do you think Brad? Alastair Haines (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In response to the first few paragraphs, #BIA. In response to your final two paragraphs, #Problem Solved! ...comments? ~BFizz 06:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- Yes JWs are Christians, and there is no credible claim that they are not. JWs themselves claim to be Christians. For anyone else to second-guess their good faith claim is simply disrespectful. How would you like it if you told me your name and I said "Well that's not your name, I'll call you ..." That is obviously disrespectful. If someone tells you they are Christian, and you bring up all of YOUR OWN standards about what it means to be a Christian as a way to claim that they are not "really" Christian, then that's your POV, not reality. Yes Mormans, Masons, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox are all Christians --because they say so. Who is anyone else to say otherwise about someone's personal belief. The opposition is just religious fundamentalism. Greg Bard 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a voice of reason. I don't agree that only self-identification is the determining factor. (e.g. if someone said they're Christian, but had never heard of Jesus [or equivalent name in their local language], it would probably be quite right to not state them as Christian in the expected sense.) However, JWs self-identification is wholly consistent with their actual fundamental beliefs about Jesus. The JW POV that others are not 'really' Christian, and the POV of other Christians about JWs are based on those groups' interpretations, which they are free to decide as they like. But they are all interpreting the same religion (and yes EGMichaels, this time I'm using religion in the context you prefer).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Wittnesses are Christians in my book. Ever talk to one? Besides in the most technical sense Christians are simply followers of Christ. Wether you hold that Jesus was the son of God or God encarnate or just a man with a philosophy, it would still be appropriate to call someone Christian if they followed his teachings. That being said, I also understand the generally accepted definition is that a Christian believes that Jesus was the son of God, but all the views I listed still exist and they are Christians in the technical sense. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that printed encyclopedias and world almanacs describe the Witnesses as being a Christian sect, which would suggest that our describing them as non-Christian would amount to Wikipedia pushing a non-neutral minority POV, which obviously won't work here. Although it's been mentioned already, I'll also note that the Witnesses describe themselves as Christian; the phrase "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" is not uncommon in their literature. That should be more than adequate for our article to describe them as such. I have no objection to this article noting that some Christian sects consider them to not be Christian (the same could be said for Roman Catholics, FWIW). Heather (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

JW's are Christians. They say they are, and WP doesn't have a pope to tell us who the real Christians are, so we call the JW's Christians. Leadwind (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey: use of 'denomination' in lede

Please indicate your perceived level of acceptability of each item below. Use an integer between 1 and 10 inclusive, 1 being "couldn't be worse", 10 being "couldn't be better":

Main statement: Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian [WORD] with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity.

  1. WORD = denomination
  2. WORD = religion
  3. WORD = religious organization
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD
  5. [optional] WORD = (other, please specify the best option not listed)

Denomination survey responses

May include brief explanations if desired. Detailed discussion of these options should instead go in preexisting or new sections. You may collapse your response (like mine) so that others may take the survey without first being exposed to your answers. See {{cot}}

Response: B Fizz
  1. WORD = denomination ... 10
  2. WORD = religion ... 8 (word meaning doesn't quite fit)
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 4 (too verbose; incorrect classification)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 9
  5. WORD = faith ... 5 (too fluffy/amgibuous)

...comments? ~BFizz 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Jeffro77
  1. WORD = denomination ... 10 (this is technically the most accurate regardless of either group's self-identification)
  2. WORD = religion ... 4 (usage is technically inaccurate)
  3. WORD = religious organization ... '7 (may be confused with religion-supporting organization)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... '10
  5. WORD = faith ... 3 (too fluffy/ambiguous)

--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Alastair
  1. WORD = denomination ... 7 (technical word without its normal sense, just like "Christian")
  2. WORD = religion ... 6 (if technical then unusual, if non-technical then doesn't match "Christian")
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 8 (concise, accurate, preferred)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 7 (neutral use explicitly disambiguated, will do)
  5. WORD = movement ... 5 (sounds too much like it's connected to the mainstream)

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: EGMichaels
  1. WORD = denomination ... 1 (the article never uses this term anywhere else, they do not call themselves a denomination, and you cannot "denominate" a group you are the only member of)
  2. WORD = religion ... 10 (the article uses this term over twenty times, they use this term, and you do not try to convert people to another denomination, but rather another religion)
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 5 (they sometimes use this term)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 5 (anything can be reworded, and elegance does not justify giving a wrong connotation)
  5. WORD = faith ... 5 (too fluffy/amgibuous)

EGMichaels (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: BlackCab
  1. WORD = denomination ... 9 (WTS accepts use of the word; fits dictionary definition)
  2. WORD = religion ... 7 (denotes a religious grouping of its own)
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 2 (fails to express its purpose)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 10
  5. WORD = faith ... 1 (meaningless)

BlackCab (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Bradv
  1. WORD = denomination ... 10 (Per dictionary, and per Christian denomination article)
  2. WORD = religion ... 3 (Not an independent religion; there is only one "Christian Religion")
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 4 (Fails to mention what religion - this would need to be "Christian religious organization" to be okay)
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 8
  5. WORD = faith ... 1 (Incorrect)

Brad 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: AuthorityTam
  1. WORD = denomination ... 9
  2. WORD = religion ... 7
  3. WORD = religious organization ... 4
  4. Overall structure/style of the sentence, regardless of WORD ... 7. Would prefer
    Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian Christian denomination with millenarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it distinct from mainstream Christianity.
    Why? Nontrinitarianism is boolean rather than a set of beliefs; millenarianism has a much fuller belief set than nontrinitarianism.
    Phrase "distinct" is superior to "that separate it" because "that separate it" feeds a POV that JWs choose beliefs specifically to annoy others. It seems better to comment on the result rather than imply an ongoing attempt to have separate beliefs for the sake of separateness.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on denom survey

No, it's not a complete survey. But we need to start winding this down. I tried to keep it simple, can we get more responses this time? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about whether JWs are a 'denomination', based on their self-identification. However, this isn't really an accurate method of accurate determination. To demonstrate:
Platypuses (not "platypi") are an unorthodox 'denomination' of mammals. They are unorthodox because platypuses lay eggs, whereas most mammals have live young. However, they are mammals because the facts agree (could elaborate here but unnecessary to the example). It doesn't matter whether platypuses self-identify as mammals. It doesn't matter if platypuses like other mammals. And it doesn't matter whether other mammals (such as some humans who might enforce a stricter definition of what a mammal 'really' is) agree that platypuses are mammals.
Similarly, JWs are an unorthodox denomination of Christians. They are unorthodox because they don't believe the Trinity, whereas most Christians accept the Trinity. However, they are Christiains because the world's largest Christian Church's official encyclopaedia specifically states that there are Unitarian Christians, because sociologists of religion say they are Christians, and because their beliefs satisfy secular definitions of Christian. It doesn't matter whether JWs self-identify as Christians (though they do). It doesn't matter if JWs like other Christians. And it doesn't matter whether other Christians (who enforce a more strict theological opinion of what a Christian 'really' is) agree that JWs are Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro -- the lede is supposed to represent the body of the article. While I had used the term "religion" so as not to CONTRADICT the content, I was unaware of just how ubiquitous it is. The article uses the term "religion" to differentiate it from mainstream Christianity over twenty times, and never once uses the term "denomination". This is entirely correct, since "They believe that only their religion represents true Christianity". They do not regard themselves as a denomination, but an independent religion. We have Watchtower sources for this. We have [mainstream] Christian sources for this. "Denomination" just doesn't reflect the subject matter, or the body of the article, platypus's notwithstanding.EGMichaels (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and as for your wording, they are not "an unorthodox denomination of Christians" but rather "a denomination of unorthodox Christians." In other words, it is not their ORGANIZATION which is unorthodox, but rather their CHRISTIANITY. You have "unorthodox" modifying the wrong term.EGMichaels (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right EGM. In prose, later in the article, we can neither call JWs "Christian" nor a "donomination", except as confessional points of view. Quite correctly, the article doesn't. Only in the definition can any other usage be entertained. I've mentioned this infelicity before.
The inter-faith dialogue section of the Vatican website excludes JWs from Christianity. It's an original synthesis to conclude otherwise from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on Unitarianism. The Oxford definition of common usage of "Christian"--"professes the doctrines of Christ and apostles"--implies the common usage depends on confessional points of view regarding the doctrines of the New Testament. The decisive source is Operation Mobilisation. Conservative Protestants classify JWs as a "Christian denomination", just like everyone else in a context of comparative religion, only. Any other usage would breach WP:NPOV] which is non-negotiable.
The platypus example is useful. We are saying "Platypuses is an unorthodox ovarian, distinguished from mainstream ovarians by its mammalian physiology." But the point is, we're allowed to. Sources and policy permit it. Can we quibble over "ovarian animal" or "ovarian lifeform"? Please!
Still, it doesn't really matter whether we agree why, at least we are agreeing what.
Alastair Haines (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think we all agree on some things:
  1. They are a religious denomination.
  2. They are unorthodox Christians.
But they are not an "unorthodox denomination." Although a bit unusual, there is nothing in their organizational structure which is "unorthodox" on the grounds that there are no rules for orthodoxy on organizational structures.
They are rather "unorthodox Christians."
So, while you can say they are a religious denomination of unorthodox Christians, you cannot say they are an unorthodox denomination of religious Christians. The first statement is accurate, while the second statement sounds like they are orthodox Christians who behave in strange manners.
I'm willing to use ALL of the terms everyone wants here; I just want them sequenced in a manner that represents the group itself.EGMichaels (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Alastair, your adaptation of the platypus metaphor is both tedious, and anticipated. But the fact remains that the one single thing that many (individual) Christians (but conspicuously absent in directly stated official positions) say make JWs 'not Christian' is indicated in reliable sources to actually not exclude them from that definition. You further claim that the cardinal's words, which you take out of context, say anything at all about the definition of Christian. The cardinal says that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'among other prevalent sects', but he doesn't say anything at all about their Christianity. The Catholic cardinal's opinion (as vague as it is) serves us only to the effect that (according to one cardinal's opinion), JWs are not a Christian religion, or at least that we shouldn't decide they are "too quickly". The cardinal's words neither directly nor implicitly deny anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
EGMichaels, the word denomination is absolutely the technically correct term, and use of the word religion throughout the rest of the article is indeed a much more relaxed use of the term. If you would prefer to address the issue of the word religion through the article, this can be discussed, so long as the readability and tone of the article don't suffer. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that the article's colloquial use of religion in the body dismisses the technical use of denomination in the definition in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"Denomination" is NOT technically correct if you put them in the wrong group or (even worse) divorce them from any group altogether. Imagine that I'm trying to pay a bill but caution you that the piece of paper I'm handing you "is a denomination but not US currency." Well, you'd wonder what it was a "denomination" OF. Is it Bahamian currency? Confederate currency? Maybe you're a collector and would especially like it if it were some kind of ancient Greek currency. But you can't divorce a subset (i.e. denomination) from a known set (i.e. mainstream Christianity) and leave it hanging without anything to belong to.
Again (and again and again again) they are "a denomination of [blank]." Okay... what? American currency, but not US? [read Christian, but not mainstream]... perhaps... but you still leave them hanging (what kind of "American"?). If they aren't mainstream, then what ARE they? If they aren't a part of a known group, what mystery group do they belong to?
"Arian Christianity" would be perfect, if they agreed to it. But they don't, so then we have the fuzzier "nontrinitarian Christianity." While that's a large group that includes monarchian modalists, tri-theists, unitarians, Arians, etc., it still gives them some kind of group to belong to.
By all means use the technical term "denomination"! But for goodness sakes don't just say they are "Christians but not mainstream". That's like "this is American currency, but not US." Rather, "this is LATIN American currency" or "this is a nontrinitarian denomination."EGMichaels (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The situation of JWs being Christian, but not mainstream Christian is more similar to Hawaii in relation to the contiguous United States rather than the alternatives you suggest. Arian Christianity is not correct (let alone "perfect"), not only (self-identification not really relevant to technical identification) because JWs don't agree with it, but because Arians specifically believe that the Holy Spirt is an entity, whereas JWs do not. And in anticipation of anyone who tries to raise an allegedly similar strawman argument about Christians: despite the fact that mainstream Christians define Jesus as part of a triune god, there is no evidence that Jesus taught this, or that first-century Christians believed it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
EGM's condensed response in the survey is probably the most convincing for using 'religion' that I've seen yet. He makes the valid point that we use 'religion' multiple times in the article to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses. The second sentence of the lede begins with 'The religion'. However, this does not weaken my support for 'denomination', and slightly strengthens it, since it avoids redundancy with the second sentence. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Use of the word religion throughout the rest of the article is a much more colloquial usage. If anything that usage can be replaced, but not at the expense of the article's tone. It does not justify an incorrect technical definition in the opening sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Brad's recent response, it all options presented would include "Christian". For the presented options, you look at the sentence above and replace "WORD" with the specified word. So the option WORD='religion' would create the phrase "JWs is a millenarian Christian religion...", and WORD='religious organization' would create "JWs is a millenarian Christian religious organization". If anyone wishes to move or remove the word 'Christian' from that part of the sentence, then that should be reflected in your scoring of #4. I don't know how this affects anyone's responses, but please adjust them accordingly. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The problem with calling it a religious organization is also incorrect, however. The Watchtower Society is the organizaton; Jehovah's Witnesses constitute a denomination (i.e. a common name that unites them). Brad 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

denom survey: what now?

Currently, the term denomination has strong support, and there seems to be overall satisfaction with the proposed wording, though most indicate there is at least some potential for improvement. If anyone feels the survey responses to be unrepresentative, then now would be a good time to invite people from the JW and/or Christianity Wikiprojects to opine. The survey's proposed wording, using 'denomination', has been implemented, and further changes can be discussed in new talk sections, as necessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam's tweaks

AuthorityTam suggests Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian Christian denomination with millenarian and restorationist beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. Though AuthorityTam abstains from directly stating his religious affiliation, his past edits very strongly suggest him to be a JW or pro-JW; regardless, at the very least, we have a pro-JW's view on the matter that it is unnecessarily confrontational to imply that JWs deliberately 'separate' themselves (though they do). That is, they separate themselves because their beliefs are different, not they make their beliefs different so they can separate themselves. However, I do not agree with AuthorityTam's swapping of nontrinitarian with millenarian; despite his claim, nontrinitarianism is not simply boolean—there are different nontrinitarian beliefs held by different nontrinitarians, who have varying opinions about each of the three elements usually defined in the Trinity. Additionally, nontrinitarianism is the most important aspect that distinguishes them from mainstream Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has never expressed a religious preference, but I am likely as or more familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses than other editors here. That seems less relevant than my primary interest at Wikipedia: to improve the quality of articles. I submit:
  • It's POV to imply that JWs choose doctrine for the sake of separating themselves. Critics actually allege this.
  • My preference is weak regarding "...nontrinitarian Christian denomination with millenarian..." rather than "...millenarian Christian with nontrinitarian...". Again, weak preference.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've attended meetings at Kingdom Halls, spent months with witnesses going over their doctrines, read Raymond Franz's "Crisis of Conscience," and have read most of their more familiar publications. I used to have a relative (now passed on) who was a Witnesses. Sweet woman -- would send us "just because" presents in late December. I'm very aware of their need to be different. No, they did not create their doctrines in order to be different -- but having those different doctrines they do want to stress the fact that they very much as an independent religion -- and every Christian denomination I'm aware of is happy to allow them that separation. It's no crime to be different, and certainly a good thing to note it here.EGMichaels (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
By J[eh]ov[ah], I think we've got it!EGMichaels (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
AuthorityTam, I did not at all state, suggest, or imply that "JWs choose doctrine for the sake of separating themselves". I explicitly stated the exact opposite. The only reason I stated your (likely) religious affiliation is to indicate the discussion has included a pro-JW view, (though your claim that you are "more familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses than other editors here" is unsound).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro's complaint is regarding a claim which was never made! While a claim of certainty that one is 'more familiar than other editors' may or may not be unsound, by contrast I merely commented on the likelihood that I'm perhaps 'as familiar' as others (or, perhaps, 'more familiar'). Obviously, there are few editors as humble as I.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Tam, 'obviously' it's hard for us 'mere mortals' to be as 'humble' as you. Your actual religious affiliation is of little importance here, and even less interest to me. My comments stand on their merits in the context they were given.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And just to be clear, it wasn't me who made this a new section under the heading "Tam's tweaks" either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Tam's proposal includes two separate changes. 1) have 'millenarian' and 'trinitarian' swap places. 2) change 'that separate it from' to 'distinct from'. I feel that (2) is just as acceptable as its alternative. I'm not sure what I feel about (1) yet. I disagree with the 'boolean' concept, and have the same hesitancy as Jeffro, but yet there is a certain advantage to 'nontrinitarian Christian' over 'Christian w/ nontrin beliefs'. I have performed change (2) on the article, and await further comment on both. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been away all day, and may not be able to fully catch up. However, in spite of my arguments in favor of "nontrinitarian Christian denomination", Tam's edit was not correct about what distinguished the religion from mainstream Christianity.
Tam's being a JW or not is NOT an issue. His edit appeared to me to be an attempt at compromise between Jeffro's word sequence and my preferred grouping of terms.
Jeffro and I DO appear to agree on the SUBSTANCE of the issue, and I have praised his STYLE. His sequence of words is more accurate than Tam's here.
That said, I'm not convinced that it is impossible to meet Jeffro's intended force of the sentence and my preferred grouping. But at the moment I'm too far behind to be able to justifiably say more until I can catch up and experiment with wording.
Again, between Jeffro's and Tam's wording, I would supposed Jeffro's. But I would strongly urge folks to not disallow Tam or me or anyone else because we have a POV. ALL editors have a POV. I mean, honestly, why the heck would we be arguing in this strange corner if there wasn't something about the subject that drew our interest?EGMichaels (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The current sentence reads "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity." I am happy with this reading, but I would like to suggest the following: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian millenarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity." This puts the emphasis of the terms in the proper order. The term restorationist modifies the term Christian denomination to imply that they believe they have a special revelation from God which makes them unique, and that they consider all other denominations to be inferior or even heretical. The nontrinitarian and millenarian words work their doctrines out further. This approach would make the lede concise and clear in its meaning, without any sort of POV or perjorative terms to work through. That's my two cents. Brad 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I've said before, it's bingo with adjectives. ;) It is certainly true that we all have a POV, and I hope that no one has felt excluded or dismissed, despite being a minority POV in the discussion. I'm not sure whether to embrace or dread Brad's suggestion. In my mind, any ordering of mil, nontrin, and resto will work fine, though there are slight advantages and disadvantages to each configuration. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If Tam and Jeffro were the only options, I'd use Jeffro's. If Brad and Jeffro were the only options, I'd use Jeffro's.
My problem with the survey right now is that it is stuck with Jeffro's syntax. Given that syntax, there's an inherent non-sequitor in which Jehovah's Witnesses are a subset of a group they are later stated to not be a member of (at least in any mainstream sense). In other words, there is no POSITIVE group they are a denomination of.
Restorationist doesn't cut it. Nontrinitarian does. While I respect Jeffro's intended emphasis (and agree with it), I'm not certain his syntax is the only one possible.EGMichaels (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with emphasizing the non-trinitarian part is that it doesn't imply the rift between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of Christianity. For example, Oneness Pentecostals also deny the Nicene formulation of the Trinity, yet they have more in common with the rest of Christianity than Jehovah's Witnesses do. The difference is, as you have said many times here on this talk page, that Jehovah's Witnesses consider everyone else to be heretics. Oneness Pentecostals don't. That is the distinction that is covered by restorationism, which I think should be emphasized in the lede, as it quickly sums up their beliefs and their attitudes toward the rest of Christendom. Brad 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Restorationism is basically meaningless against the universal goal to restore or preserve authentic Christianity. Yes, there was a historical period in which restorationism ocurred, but Jehovah's Witnesses are not true Campbellites. Their historical trendline comes from Millerites (Baptists) who spawned Second Adventists, of which Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are two existing branches. While it is notable to recognize the claim somewhere in the article, it doesn't even belong in the lede, let alone serve as a defining characteristic. It's there, sure, but making it the chief point would be meaningless to most folks (at best) and controversial (at worst).EGMichaels (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Seventh Day Adventists are also considered restorationist, as are any group who claim to have a hold on the One True Christian Faith (tongue-in-cheek). This is indeed the best term to qualify "Christian denomination" to indicate the departure from mainstream Christianity. Have a look at Restorationism (Christian primitivism) and you'll see what I mean. Brad 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Seventh Day Adventist are a [unmodified] Christian denomination, as is the Christian Church and the Church of Christ (which doesn't call itself a denomination). They are NOT separated from mainstream Christianity because they do not violate the self definition of mainstream Christianity. While they do not necessarily agree with the importance or value of that self definition, they don't violate it either. That's why "restorationist" is meaningless as something making you distinct from mainstream Christianity. You have to do more than say "we're dictinct" -- you actually have to hold to something not allowed by the mainstream group. I usaed to work with a bunch of Church of Christ ministers, and the only difference was that they believed water baptism was literally essential to salvation. Okay, well, that's not really a violation of the Nicene Creed.EGMichaels (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Tam (whose alleged personal POV is an advantage not a liability) about "distinct" and with Mr Fizz that it's not a big issue. Agree with Jeffro's "nonboolean" and Brad against EGM about "restorationist" in preference to "nontrinitarian". The issues seem to me to be very well understood by multiple parties. Discussion above gives me confidence that the current sentence (despite nothing ever being perfect) is probably more robust against criticisms than what preceded it. "Restorationist" strikes me as an excellent word to say with genuine neutrality what all involved groups might want to say confessionally. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be some mistaken ideas that my comments about AuthorityTam (likely) being a JW were intended in a negative sense (EGMichaels: I would strongly urge folks to not disallow Tam or me or anyone else because we have a POV; Alastair Haines: whose alleged personal POV is an advantage not a liability). However, my intent was quite the opposite; the reason I drew attention to AuthorityTam's religious affiliation/stance is that the discussion requires input from the JW perspective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification Jeffro. No problems then. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with either the current wording, or the alternative offered by Bradv. I agree somewhat with Bradv's observation that there are also other nontrintiarian Christian groups, though I'm not sure it is sufficient to diminish the significance of JWs nontrinitarianism, given the clear majority of Trinitarian Christians.
EGMichaels, the syntax of the definition doesn't put them in a subset that they're not a part of; rather, it puts them in a subset that JWs don't identify with only because of their POV about the other Christian religions. That reason does not alter the technical definition.
Per Alastair's ongoing concerns, it is absolutely imperative that nontrinitarian be used to offset the term Christian (whether as a preceding adjective, or, preferably, as in the current lead as a factor that distinguishes it from mainstream Christianity). It is (slightly) less important that Restorationist be retained in the opening sentence, though it must still be stated in the article, and preferably included in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
My current preference would be: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination, distinct from mainstream trinitarian Christianity." Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
To me, this wording is (only) okay. It seems to lose some of the feel of how JWs are distinct from mainstream Christianity. Saying "with nontrinitarian [with or without 'restorationist' per Bradv] beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity" makes the point clear by explicitly stating that it is their nontrinitarianism that makes them distinct from mainstream Christianity, rather than implicitly stating that they are "(somehow) distinct from ... trinitarian Christianity".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Given Tam or Jeffro, I prefer Jeffro's wording.
  • Given Brad or Jeffro, I prefer Jeffro's wording.
  • Given Alastair or Jeffro, I prefer Jeffro's wording.

Talk about boolean!EGMichaels (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the suggested wording is based on several of my recommendations, the specific wording is more BFizz's than mine.[3] But thanks anyway.
I'm not at all averse to AuthorityTam's reasons for substitution of "distinct from" instead of "that separate it from", though to me "beliefs distinct" seems a bit awkward, so I would prefer Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that are distinct from mainstream Christianity. I think that distinguish it from would read slightly better, but I'm hesitant about that wording because distinguish can imply elitism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro and Alastair and I are all TRYING to say the same thing. Tam and Brad are not. To Tam and Brad, the Jehovah's Witnesses are distinct because they say so (i.e. "restorationist"), but not because of anyone else's consent. While [Nicene] Christians agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are distinct, they do not merely believe they are distinct because they claim to be distinct (circular), but because they claim to reject the Trinity. Conversely, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim they are distinct because they claim to be distinct (circular), but rather they claim to be distinct because they worship Jehovah alone and not a partnership of other beings.

In other words, the claim for distinction is mutually recognized and agreed to by all parties. The same is not the case for Church of Christ, Christian Church, or Seventh Day Adventists. These groups reject the prescriptive nature of the Nicene Creed (as do many evangelicals), but they do not reject what it describes.

Now for Jeffro and Alastair -- my problem with Jeffro's wording is that it creates and resolves a logical gap at the end of the sentence. It's like the line, "take my wife... PLEASE." Great for a punchline, but it can be a little disorienting to anyone who grew up Christian.

  • They are a group of set A,
  • distinct from set A
  • because of their rejection of the parameters of set A
  • established by set A --
  • but wait! -- they're really a group of SUPERSET A1.

(chiastic for Alastair's amusement)

Most Christians expect the term "Christian" to mean "mainstream Christian." They do NOT expect (nor should they expect) it to mean something different. This creates the reader surprise that Alastair keeps talking about.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian (set A) denomination (subset of A) with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs distinct (non set A) from mainstream Christianity (set A).

So now the reader has to go BACK through the sentence to decipher that you have redefined the first mention of set A somehow -- without being told HOW.

What we need is a different set A to be distinct from another set (B).

Tam and Brad believe the most important aspect of Jehovah's Witnesses is not that the are nontrinitarian (a negative valuation) but rather that they are restorationist (a positive valuation).

Jeffro and Alastair (and I) want the distinction from mainstream Christianity to be one mutually recognized by both parties.

And Jeffro prefers the flow of his syntax because of the emphasis on the nontrinitarian aspect being weighted toward the end of the sentence.

ALL of these can be accomplished with:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist (set A) denomination (subset of set A) with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity (set B).

The positive identity of this group is now "restorationist" while the distinction remains "nontrinitarian."

The term Christian isn't used twice (with different meanings) in the sentence, and the term "denomination" is retained with the Christian connotation.EGMichaels (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with what you've said here.
Firstly... You state (correctly) that JWs' self-identification is not important for a technical classification, but then you contradict yourself by asserting that JWs are 'distinct from set A' (Christianity) which is actually based only on their self-identification, which in turn, is based on their bias about the majority of Christians. In reality JWs are a subset of set A (Christians), but they are not part of the (major) subset, Trinitarians (which I will call subset B). You appear to be confusing the JW belief that 'the religions of Christendom are not a part of set A' with your conclusion that 'JWs are not part of set A because they reject those in subset B' (it is superfluous that JWs also reject other minor religions in hypothetical subsets C, D, E etc). (And you use a similar argument in regard to those in subset B who say JWs are not in set A because they are not in subset B).
Secondly... Christian isn't used twice in the current lead. The word Christian is used as part of a very important contrast with mainstream Christianity. Removing the word Christian weakens the contrast.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm right with Jeffro here: "The word Christian is used as part of a very important contrast with mainstream Christianity."
He's absolutely spot on imo. This is neutrality and due weight. Reader surprise is eliminated by the explicit contrast.
It would be totally unfair to deny Christianity to the JWs and leave it with the mainstream.
Both have an acknowledged claim to Christianity, one has a "mainstream" claim (whatever that's worth). All is said and done.
Sorry to break the flow here Jeffro. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely grant that we can use "Christian" in the non-specific-to-trinitarian sense. I'd just like to WARN people before they get to the end of the sentence and have to backtrack. The previous wording hit me like "Luke, I am your father!" While a fantastic impact, you had a mind bending journey back to hints Obi Wan Kenobi had given a movie and a half earlier. Everything was "correct" but your previous assumptions.EGMichaels (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, the "flow of the syntax" of the current lead is largely from BFizz, not me, though I happen to agree with it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The centre of your confusion seems to stem from your assertion that "mainstream Christianity" is "set A", whereas it is actually a (major) subset.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hence:
Jehovah's Witnesses (subset C) is a millenarian (modifier defining subset C) Christian (set A) denomination (subset of A) with nontrinitarian (modifier defining subset C) and restorationist (modifier defining subset C) beliefs distinct from (not in...) mainstream Christianity (subset B).
--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal eradicates set A entirely, leaving only subsets B and C:
Jehovah's Witnesses (subset C) is a millenarian restorationist (modifiers defining subset C) denomination (subset of A) with nontrinitarian (modifier defining subset C) beliefs distinct from (not in...) mainstream Christianity (subset B).
--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Jeffro -- either I worded it sleepily or you read it sleepily, but you didn't get the gist of what I meant somehow. First, I DO hold their self identification to be essential, but not in isolation. For a self identification to apply to a LEDE it must be by consent of all POVs (including their own). All POVs appear to be willing to grant that this is a part of [set]-restorationist, and also part of [superset]-Christian. The problem is that the first use of a term either needs to be unambiguously modified or else have its normative or mainstream meaning.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of [superset]-Christian.
Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of [set]-restorationist.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not a part of "mainstream" [set]-Christian.
That's the problem. You use the term "Christian" as [superset] while acknowleding at the end of the sentence that you are not using the term in its normative or "mainstream" meaning. You need to acknowledge this earlier if you are going to use the term that way.
"Mainstream" is not a [subset] of [set] Christian, but rather the unmodified meaning of [set] Christian.
All of this is unnecessarily confusing because you are using the term in a way that is not "mainstream" without telling people at the beginning of the sentence that you are doing so.
Before we go any further, perhaps we can at least make sure we agree with WHAT we are talking about so that we can agree with HOW to word it? (new section below)EGMichaels (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of either set theory or mainstream, or both, is incorrect. For the purpose of this discussion, Christianity is the (master) set and includes all (orthodox and unorthodox) forms of Christianity. Mainstream constitutes a subset of the entire set; it is the biggest subset, but it is not the master set. Mainstream can be further broken down into other subsets. Similarly, the non-mainstream subset can be further broken down into other subsets, one of which is JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro -- this isn't that complicated. If you modify the [set-mainstream] you need to ALSO modify the [set-nonmainstream].
  • "Messianic Jews disagree with Jews about the Trinity" makes sense.
  • "Messianic Jews disagree with Rabbinic Jews about the Trinity" makes sense.
  • "Jews disagree with Rabbinic Jews about the Trinity" does NOT make sense.
By all means, modify the normative group! But don't leave the nonnormative group unmodified or it won't make sense. The unmodified use of a term defaults to the normative group.EGMichaels (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
We aren't discussing Messianic Jews, because the comparison is dissimilar.

Also, even though they ARE a "restorationist" denomination, this does NOT distinguish them from mainstream Christianity, which is accepting of other restorationist denominations, such as Seventh Day Adventists, Campbellites, etc. The only "restorationist" denominations that they do not accept are the nontrinitarian ones, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. You need restorationist in the first half of the sentence rather than the last half. I'm really trying to use all of your terms here. Work with me, okay?EGMichaels (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As for awkwardness, it's the "Christian" part that's awkward. Southern Baptists are not a "Baptist Christian denomination" but rather a "Baptist denomination." While I'm sensitive to your need to cram "Christian" in there, you're going to have to leave a more meaningful set for "denomination" to fit into.

The previous wording "Christian religion" is easier to do since a religion is more of an indenpendent unit. But you want "denomination", so we need a modifier that makes sense. Christian isn't a modifier and millenarian certainly isn't either. Most American evangelicals are millenarian, but their [set] is "evangelical" rather than "millenarian".EGMichaels (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have previously explained the difficulties with attempting to compare the definition of JWs with that of Messianic Jews.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, and I've previously explained the usefulness of it. We disagree. That doesn't make either of us ignorant or wrong.
  • "Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with Chrisians about the Trinity" makes sense.
  • "Nontrinitarians disagree with Christians about the Trinity" makes sense.
  • "Arians disagree with Christians about the Trinity" makes sense.
  • "Christians disagree with Trinitarians about the Trinity" does NOT make sense.
  • "Nontrinitarian Christians disagree with Trinitarian Christians about the Trinity" cumbersome (or as you say awkward) but makes sense.EGMichaels (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've pretty much only got preferences at this stage. Inclusion of the explicit contrast satisfies my original objections.
The 4th sentence is why I'm uncomfortable with "nontrinitarian Christian denomination".
It's far too easy for a reader to think we mean nontrinitarian is a perfectly mainstream variation of Christian.
... millenarian (self-identifying adjective, JW key doctrine, Kingdom Hall etc.), restorationist-christian-denom (classification, Christian works in more than one sense here), <with a Christology divergent from>(or words to that effect) mainstream Christianity (i.e. non-restorationist-chrn, added for clarity for readers less familiar with issues).
Protestants believed they were "restoring" the original church vis a vis Catholicism; and that was their claim to being Christian, despite having their claim disputed by the then one-of-two mainstream denominations of Christianity. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the phrase, nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity, it seems extremely unlikely that readers would infer that we mean that "nontrinitarian is a perfectly mainstream variation of Christian".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro, as I've said, the current wording is within tolerance limits for someone with an orthodox background. There is at least a strong hint at the outset that some modification of the "mainstream" meaning of "Christian" could happen by the end of the sentence. But it is only a hint. Your definition of "Christian" is perfectly acceptable -- but (at least some) folks needed some warning. That's all.
Alastair's point seems to be that denominations do not deny aspects of other denominations, but rather emphasize things differently. All denominations baptize, but one emphasizes believer's baptism in its name. So, some are Baptists, but all baptize; some are Presbyterians, but all have elders; some are Catholic, but all acknowledge a universal Christianity; some are Episcopal, but all have overseers. Religions, on the other hand, do more than emphasize things differently -- they outright anathematize each other (except for the United Methodists who only anathematize anyone they suspect of anathematizing).
But back to my point, sometimes we editors help each other see things that we ourselves can miss. You felt it was important to stress that there was a different meaning of "Christian" from the normal "Trinitarian." And that's fair. I felt is was important for you to warn people you were doing it at the start of the sentence instead of leaving them to reboot at the end. In the end we were trying to accomplish the same thing, and while neither of us are perfectly satisfied, hopefully we can each feel that enough of our intended gist is in there to get the drift across to the reader.EGMichaels (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right on the mark there - "denominations do not deny aspects of other denominations", and this is seen in the Catholic Encyclopedia's definitions of 'Christianity' ("we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical") and 'Unitarian' ("In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian;").--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously stated, in response to Bradv, I am not opposed to moving restorationist to the first half of the sentence. To be crystal clear, I have never said I was opposed to having restorationist in the first part of the statement. Additionally, though it has been stated that the current wording is Jeffro's wording, it was actually suggested by BFizz[4]. If you review this discussion page, you will note that I stated that restorationist might not be required in the first sentence at all[5].--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The set, Christianity is not altered by the subset of mainstream Christianity. Orthodox Christians and unorthodox Christians are both subsets of Christians, though the subset orthodox Christians is bigger than the other. With some subsets (modifiers), such as restorationist, the subset overlaps parts of both unorthodox and orthodox subsets; that is, there may be mainstream restorationists and unorthodox restorationists. (It was not me who placed restorationist as a thing that distinguishes JWs from mainstream Christians.) With other subsets, such as nontrinitarian, it does not overlap both orthodox and unorthodox, but is a subset of unorthodox (that is, there could conceivably be Trinitarians who are unorthodox for other reasons). To make it absolutely clear, I agree with moving restorationist to the first part of the sentence. I absolutely do not agree with removing Christian in the first half of the sentence as it is the identifier of the complete set, Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I have non-hyphenated wording you should find acceptable now. While not perfect, it does not leave "Christian" hanging with a default meaning of "unorthodox."
Don't you at least see that it's odd to word something in such a way that the exception appears as the norm? It's like saying "James Buchanan was the white President of the United States" or "Lyndon Johnson was the President who did not have a civil war." While sort of true, it implies that every other president wasn't white, or that every other president had a civil war.EGMichaels (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Christian was never left with a 'default meaning' of unorthodox. Christian with specific modifiers was indicated as unorthodox. I don't have a problem with the new wording, I think, but it's time for bed. Presumably it is now clear that I never objected to moving restorationist to the beginning of the sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully the new wording is sufficient for everyone. Have a good night. EGMichaels (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, any rational configuration of the three terms is fine with me. However, it's worth noting that the new wording (mil resto Christian w/ nontrin beliefs) seems to be the exact converse configuration of Tam's tweak #1 (nontrin Christian w/ mil + resto beliefs). ...comments? ~BFizz 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
AuthorityTam's stated preference was merely a preference. A sentence sufficiently similar to:
  • Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.
is not unacceptable to me, and is greatly preferred by me over many or most of the suggested alternatives.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Also fine with me: Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.
Also fine with me: Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.
This matter has to stop aiming for perfect and start settling for acceptable ("fine"). --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not fine with me, but I won't push it further than consensus can stretch. As I said, my option for "religion" is that it connotes a full set, while denomination is a subset. A "Christian religion" is something that stands on its own, while a "Christian denomination" doesn't. But, Jehovah's Witnesses do stand on their own, and insist upon it (by mutual consent of Christian denominations).
For what it's worth, I'd call the SBC a "Baptist denomination" and the PCA a "Presbyterian denomination." Depending on their emphasis, I might call the "Free Will Baptists" an "Arminian Baptist denomination."
The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, deny association with any known group and stand on their own. If they claimed Arius it would be easy -- an "Arian denomination" or a "semi-Arian denomination." But they don't claim ANYBOY, and nobody claims them either. So, in all actuality, they really are their own religion (as noted repeatedly in the article and sources).
It's not prejudicial to say they are independent, and religion is more of a full [set] than a denomination. You can always say Buddhism is a religion without needing to say Buddhism is a religion "of something". However, you can't say Mennonites are a denomination. They are a denomination of... what?
And while "Mennonites are a Christian denomination" is possible (especially since it doesn't violate normative use), it would be better to be more specific, such as "Mennonites are an Anabaptist denomination."
As I said, while I'm not satisfied, the current lede is within a tolerance threshold. "Millenarian restorationist" is front loaded enough to at least prompt the reader to suspect some kind of modification from the mainstream. While not a full warning against reader surprise, I'd say it's a strong hint.EGMichaels (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Tam's alternative: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity." Sorry if credit for that is actually due to some one or more than one other people. Actually, I'm certain it should be credited to several people here. Also support Tam's meta comment: perfection ain't possible. I think several others would support that meta-comment. Thanks EGM for graciously leaving your thoughtful but unpopular proposal of "religion". Alastair Haines (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
If I can just note that the phrase "the current wording" (from far far earlier in the thread) is terribly ambiguous to those of us who don't read a typical comment immediately after it's been written. Can editors be more careful to avoid ambiguity regarding the wording upon which they comment? Thanks! --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion-Denomination / Sets, Subsets, Supersets

Please let me know if you agree with the following:

1) A religion is a [set] -- it is independent. 2) A denomination is a [subset] -- it is a part of something (as in, "denomination of" or "[blank-set] denomination")

Sometimes a [superset] is necessary to disambiguate.

I believe you are using the terms in this way:

[Superset] Christian

[Set] mainstream
[Subset] denomination
[Set] nontrinitarian
[Subset] denomination

That is a legitimate logical framework if you let people know you are doing it that way before you use it.

My own framework recognizes common use. That is, mainstream isn't a modifier. Mainstream is the unmodified use.

While it's perfectly legitimate to put a modifier over the mainstream group (like mainstream-Christian or Nicene-Christian or Trinitarian-Christian), you shouldn't modify the mainstream group INSTEAD of the non-mainstream group.

Back to my earlier example of Messianic Jews:

[Superset] Jewish

[Set] mainstream
[Subset] denomination (as in Reform, Conservative, Orthodox)
[Set] trinitarian (i.e. Messianic)
[Subset] (in this case a congregation)

The "mainstream" meaning of "Jewish" is not assumed to mean "a believer in Jesus." Therefore you need a modifier over [set-Messianic] Jew rather than [set-mainstream] Jew.

If you HAD to modifiy both, you could, such as: "Messianic Jews are distinct from Rabbinic Jews". But you should NOT say "Jews are distinct from Rabbinic Jews" -- that is, you can't modify the normative group and NOT modify the non-normative group.

  • If you have to modify ONE group, modify the non-normative one.
  • If you have to modify the normative group, you have to modify the non-normative one -- or else you'll connote that the non-normative group is now your normative one.

Even the Watchtower does this -- they'll distinguish themselves as true-Christians as distinct from false-Christians and then use the terms "Christians" (for themselves) and "Christendom" (for Nicene Christians). That is, FIRST they modify BOTH terms, THEN they redefine their terms, and only THEN will they use the redefined terms in their new meanings. But you can't start out with a modified meaning and not tell people what the heck you are doing.

Does that make sense?EGMichaels (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what I see:
[Set 1] Christian (everything in the Universe, including, but not limited to, radio stations, people, and concepts, that can be considered 'Christian')
[Set 2] Nontrinitarian (everything in the Universe...that can be considered 'Nontrinitarian')
[Set 3] Mainstream (everything in the Universe...that can be considered 'mainstream')
[Set 4] Denomination (everything...considered 'a denomination'. We'll limit this one to denominations of people [not bills], since that is unarguably understood in our context.)
These sets overlap in interesting ways. The Venn diagram would be fun to draw. Consider the following intersections (I use AND and INTERSECT interchangeably):
[A: 1 AND 4] Christian Denomination
[B: 2 AND 4] Nontrinitarian Denomination
[C: (A INTERSECT B) = 1 AND 2 AND 4] Nontrinitarian Christian Denomination
[D: (B AND NOT A) = NOT 1 AND 2 AND 4] Nontrinitarian Denomination (non-Christian)
[E: 1 AND 3 AND 4] Mainstream Christian Denomination
[F: (A MINUS (C UNION E)) = 1 AND 4 AND NOT 2 AND NOT 3] (non-mainstream, not-nontrinitarian) Christian Denomination
Note a few things. Note that set D is not empty. More on that later. We can agree that sets E and B are disjoint. In other words, all nontrins (Christian or not) are not mainstream Christians, and all mainstream Christians are not nontrin. We state in the lede that JWs pertain to set A, and also subset B, (depending on our reordering of words, we either explicitly or implicitly put them into set C) and then contrast that with set E. Since set C is a subset of set B, it is also disjoint with set E. Good contrast.
However, EGM argues that since we say "JWs are part of set A", and then contrast that with subset E, it is unacceptable since E is a (very large) subset of A. EGM goes so far as to say that when most people say A, they mean E. I see where that's coming from, but it's fuzzy logic. The proposed alternative is to state that "JWs are part of set B", and then contrast that with set E. The sets are disjoint, right? But this proposal fails to ever actually identify which subset of B the JWs fall: C or D? In other words, whether or not they are in A. This would not be a problem if set D were empty, but, as stated before, it is not empty.
The core problem is this: 'nontrinitarian', 'restorationist', and 'millenarian' are all terms that could apply to non-Christians (aka, none of their domains is bounded by set A). Set D is not empty. That's why I prefer the current wording. I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much. Have some alphabet soup whilst playing bingo. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion of Arian or semi-Arian or at least nontrinitarian-Christian. There are restorationists who are not distinct from mainstream Christianity, and millenarian is even worse, since the majority of evangelicals fall into that. My suggestion "Christian religion" at least warns the reader that a "distinct from mainstream" is coming. It's not fuzzy logic per se to be aware that readers assume mainstream when you don't modify a known group. Thus, "Jews don't believe in Jesus" may not be rigidly correct from a strict logical sense, but is most often true.
Humans aren't computers. They assume things. Since we editors have a lot of time to spend on a sentence, we can show some consideration for those who blip through a sentence in half a second.EGMichaels (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
For the technical side, I have expressed my reasons here. For the human side, I have expressed my reasons at #Problem Solved! I'm not opposed to putting 'nontrinitarian' directly adjacent to 'Christian denomination', as Tam suggested, though I'm equally unopposed to the other proposed reconfigurations. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The current wording is within my tolerance limits against reader surprise.EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New lead suggestion

I could support a change to the lead along these lines:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion which teaches that it is the one true Christian faith and that it restores the practices of the early christians of the first century as based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and described in the Bible.

and I assume that if it is adopted EGm, and NTDavis will assist me when I afterwards go on to implement a similar change to the lead of all other religious groups claiming to be Christian starting with the Catholic Church. The lead of the Catholic church would then of course have to read:

The Catholic Church is a religion which teaches that it is the the original Christian church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles of whom Simon Peter was chief and representing an unbroken tradition and that its doctrines are guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible.

·Maunus·ƛ· 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus,

Thank you for your thoughts. Although it won't be the level of change I was hoping for, I do agree that the renovations you've proposed would be better than the article's current phrasing. I, for one, am in favor of altering the article in the manner suggested above. --Nathan (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you do realize that this would mean that no other religion could claim to "be christian" but only to "teach that they are Christian". Wikipedia cannot simply adopt the majority viewpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed changes. It shows a nuetral tone and a continuity with other religous article. I don't nec. think continuity is absolutely needed but it is definitely helpful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So Nathan and Hellinabucket, you'll be happy to post a notice of this proposal on the talk page of every article about religions and denominations that are currently described as Christian? BlackCab (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll admit that I was being slightly pointy when I made that suggestion. You don't think that there is a problem with the proposed lead wording in that it doesn't actually give any information that could be used to discern JW from most other Chirstian faiths? It doesn't really give any information about what is specific for this particular faith - most religions clæaim to be the one true religion. If there is consensus to rewrite the lead I this way I do support it - but I would personally prefer a lead that gives information such as the one we have. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No. The 'suggested' (if that's the right word) lead is far too general, but I think Maunus knows that already. We don't need to pander to editors who want to assert their personl POV that they don't like JWs' interpretations with regard to the Trinity. The only objection to the current wording is that JWs aren't Trinitarian, and the fact that nontrinitarian Christians exist invalidates that as a reason for changing the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Separateness and attitude towards other religions

In this sentence, under Separateness,...

"They believe that only their religion represents true Christianity, and that all other religions fail to meet all the requirements set by God and will be destroyed."

...there should be a clarification that this applies to the present time. In time's past, God used the primitive Christian congregation, and in the period preceding that the Jewish religion. In the period of time from the 2nd century until the early 1900s, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God chose Christians from the general pool of Christian religions to represent him, possible such ones as Tyndale, Wycliff, Servetus, etc., many of which have been written about in the Watchtower publications. Also, groups such as the Waldenses, the Collegiants, have been given mention in the publications as those seeking the truth, and coming close to it, in an effort to restore true Christianity from the Roman Catholic apostasy from truth in the Dark Ages, as the Witness publications see it. Also, even in the time of Russell, in the late 1800s to after WWI, the Witness publications teach that the Christian congregation with what became Jehovah's Witnesses really wasn't fully established until around that time period, so God still may have been using ministers and others outside of the Bible Students associated with Russell. This is open to comment, don't know if this point is clear to others on this panel.

So, if the statement is made that Jehovah's Witnesses feel that all other religions fail to meet the requirements and will be destroyed, which is a pretty strong statement by any religion to make, (not saying that Witness publications don't say that) then there should also be a clarification on the above point. If the editing panel here needs references for that point, please say, and I'll try to find some. Thanks. Natural (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

I've taken the liberty of shortening the rather unwieldy section title. It's unnecessary to spell out their historical view on that point. The section is only a summary of the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article and all the statements in that section deal only with current teachings and practices. Their current belief on separateness etc is unambiguously that only their religion meets God's favor and they thus reject ecumenism. The belief that God previously used other religions as his channel is stated under Faithful and discreet slave#Origin and history, which seems an appropriate place. BlackCab (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Natural, It seems obvious that the article means now. It is self-evident that religious groups that don't exist anymore won't be destroyed in the future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Organization question

Under the heading "Organization" this question is posed, when it states here about "judicial committees" to investigate... breaching scriptural or organizational rules.

With what "organizational rules" would a judicial committee be formed? I am trying to see if there are any organization rules for which a judicial committee would be formed that are not scripturally based. Thanks. Natural (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

According to the "Pay Attention To Yourselfves and All the Flock" elders' manual, judicial committees may be formed to investigate allegations that a person is smoking cigarettes, gambling at a casino, working secularly for a "false religious organization", associating with another religious organization and stubbornly holding and speaking about Bible teachings as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. There are no explicit "scriptural rules" found in the Bible that prohibit those activities. They are interpretations by the Governing Body. Jehovah's Witnesses is also, of course, the only religion in the world that interprets Acts 15:20 in such a way that it will expel and shun any member who accepts medical advice to have a blood transfusion to save their life. They may hold the view that this is a scriptural rule (though they can do that only by equating transfusions with "eating" blood), but objectvely this is an organizational rule as well. You have used the phrase "scripturally based" in your question, but that is not what the article says ... it speaks of scriptural rules, which would forbid such things as adultery, theft and murder, and organizational rules, which forbid the activities I've mentioned. BlackCab (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if one might not agree with the scriptural position that Jehovah's Witnesses take on some things that are not clearly defined in the Bible, it is important to note, as have some sociologists, that all of the positions Jehovah's Witnesses take, including those "rules" as mentioned in the note above, are, in fact scripturally based. That, one might define Acts 15:29, or interpret it differently than Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is still a Scriptural mandate rather than otherwise. So, I would say that saying that someone can be disfellowshipped for breaking organizational rules, gives the impression that there are rules that one can be disfellowshippped for having nothing to do with the Bible. So, there might be good to have a clarifcation in the wording, that's all, to give the more accurate understanding of what is stated.
The issue with many of the statements on this main Wikipedia page, is that thew wording is written in a blunt manner, in many cases, designed to give the impression that JW are rigid in their viewpoint, when if fact, there is much room for reasonableness, mercy, etc., in the way JW practice their worship.
Stark said in his report on Jehovah's Witnesses, which is true,
"Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to conform to rather strict standards, [but] enforcement tends to be very informal, sustained by the close bonds of friendship within the group. That is, while Witness elders can impose rather severe sanctions (such as expulsion and shunning) on deviant members, they seldom need to do so -- and when they do, the reasons for their actions will be widely-known and understood within the group. Moreover, even if leaders are not always very democratic, the path to leadership is. As a result, Witnesses tend to see themselves as part of the power structure, rather than subjected to it. It is this, not 'blind fanaticism' (as is so often claimed by outsiders and defectors), that is the real basis of authority among Witnesses." (Journal of Contemporary Religion) - Starks comments here represent a more accurate view of Jehovah's Witnesses and the way "rules" are viewed and enforced, it is more reasonable.Natural (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Your introduction of Stark's comments here is not terribly relevant. His claim that the path to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses is democratic is simply wrong. When did you, as a Witness, last vote for the elevation of a person to become a ministerial servant or elder? When did you last help decide who your circuit or district overseer would be? When did you last help decide who would join or leave the Governing Body? When did you last have the opportunity to learn of the agenda of their weekly meeting, learn of their decision or have the opportunity to voice your comment on their decisdion?
The point that Mr.Stark was probably trying to make is that most Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any issue with the appointments in the congregation, including themselves. Most recognize that the requirements of elder or ministerial servant are pretty easy to follow in the Bible,
1 Tim 3:1-12 as an example, and that the majority that want to serve, when they measure up to those qualifications will be appointed. So they are as much involved in the process as are those who make the appointments. An elder or body can approach a brother who is not a servant, or a brother who wants to serve can approach the elders and say, "what can I do to qualify as a ministerial servant or an elder?" They might say, "well, you need to work on this or that.." The brother works on it, and he is appointed. So the point being, that the brothers feel involved in the process, it is not by chance, and most can reach out for offices of oversight as the Bible says, a desirable thing. Not too many feel slighted about whether they are appointed or not, but many can and do reach out. Natural (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
But let's get back to basics: the wording at issue here is that elders create judicial committees "to investigate and decide disciplinary action for cases that are seen as breaching scriptural or organizational rules". If you think that could be expressed better, would you like to suggest new wording? BlackCab (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be worded, "to investigate and decide disciplinary action for cases that are seen as seriously transgressing against Biblical commandments or breaching scriptural rules."
That might be one way of wording it. Natural (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
This has been an educational thread, regarding the following article sentence:
Elders maintain general responsibility for congregational governance, setting meeting times, selecting speakers and conducting meetings, directing the public preaching work, and creating "judicial committees" to investigate and decide disciplinary action for cases that are seen as breaching scriptural or organizational rules. [emphasis added]
An editor above says, basically, JWs believe their judicial matters concern Scriptural rules, not merely "organizational rules" .
BlackCab explicitly acknowledges that the term "organizational rules" was used for POV reasons. That's unacceptable, no matter how strongly BlackCab (aka LTSally) feels about it.
  • JWs believe smoking involves the biblical sins of both self-abuse and gross uncleanness with greediness, but BlackCab's POV is that the JW interpretation of Scripture is invalid.
  • JWs believe gambling is the biblical sin of idolatry (perhaps an appeal to the "god of good luck"), but BlackCab's POV is that the JW interpretation of Scripture is invalid. Etc.
Frankly, it's shocking to see an experienced editor so blatantly insist upon his own nonneutral POV language in an article.
I've removed the POV language. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses are free to interpret the bIble however thry like. If they choose to impose a ban on smoking and expel a member on that basis, that is fine, but it is an organizational rule, not a scriptural rule. I'm happy with Mr Natural's suggested wording. BlackCab (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to "... investigate and decide disciplinary action for cases that are seen as breaching scripturally-based rules." This avoids the issue of whether they are "organizational rules" (i.e, made by the organization) or "scriptural rules" (ie, rules contained in scripture) and clearly indicates that the rules are based on scriptures. BlackCab (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"Scripturally-based" (actually "[anything]-based") sounds like fairly weak wording. I have changed this to "their doctrines". The article already states that their doctrines are based on their interpretations of the Bible, and doctrines adequately covers biblical 'rules' and 'principles'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Removing the POV dichotomy between "Scriptural" and "organizational" rules has improved the article. Agree with avoiding "[anything]-based" terminology. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification regarding wording, schism in the movement

This sentence might need some clarification:

The group emerged from the Bible Student movement,[12][13] founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the formation 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.[14][15]

The schism it is referring to, assuming that it is after Russell died, when Joseph Rutherford became president. That is the reference point here?

If that is so, then it might be more clear to mention, "After Charles Russell's death in 1916...."

That is the first point on that sentence. Want to make sure we are talking about the right time frame with that sentence. Natural (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Done. BlackCab (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if that is the time period that is being spoken of, it would be good to mention that in 1919 there was new emphasis to the public preaching work. That is really the more significant event of Jehovah's Witnesses after Russell's death, more of a pivital point for the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses that changed the shape of the movement.Natural (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Beliefs - Sources of Doctrine

There might be a need for some clarifications in some of the statements in this section.

The points in question are in this sentence... "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be the sole visible channel of Jehovah," which is acceptable, but continues, "and asserts that the Bible cannot be understood without associating with the Watch Tower Society." [145][146][147]

Question. Looking at these 3 references, they do not implicitly make the statement made in Wikipedia above, "that the Bible cannot be understood without association with the Watch Tower Society," with the exception of one quote in the 1961 Watchtower, saying "so he has made understanding the Bible today dependent upon associating with his organization." (The 1967 and 2008 reference do not make such a statement, and don't really qualify as references on this point).

This might not be the exact wording that Jehovah's Witnesses would use today for people to understand the relationship between the understanding gained through reading the Bible, and that gained through association with "the Watch Tower Society". There are certain truths in the Bible that many can gain by just reading and studying the Bible. One sister destroyed all of her images, she was Catholic, after reading the Bible scripture in Exodus 20 in the Ten Commandments which states that you should not make any carved image. After she did that she met Jehovah's Witnesses. So she understood the Bible without any help, in this case, from association with the Watchtower Society. Also, if I as a Jehovah's Witness study the Bible with someone, we are not coming as a representative of "the Watchtower Society". (A circuit or district overseer, though, might be considered to be a representative of the Watchtower Society). But for most Witnesses, we are not such. We use and are encouraged to use the Bible as our authority.

So, unless there are some newer references to that particular point, I don't think that that one 1961 reference really holds up that idea in representing what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or teach. Natural (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

  • The October 1, 1967 WT, page 587 states: "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind."
  • The November 1, 1961, WT, page 668 states: "he has made understanding the Bible today dependent upon associating with his organization."
Both those references are fairly clear in their meaning. I agree the June 15, 2008 WT adds nothing of significance as a citation. I'll replace it with the following:
  • "Worship the Only True God, pages 26-27: "Of course, this does not mean that if we read it on our own, we need nothing else. The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves. We should not think that we can figure out everything by independent research ... Similarly today, no one arrives at a correct understanding of Jehovah’s purposes on his own. We all need the aid that Jehovah lovingly provides through his visible organization." BlackCab (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a better quote. When discussing doctrine or practices, it is better to quote from more recent sources than antiquated ones. I'm sure all would agree, unless we are talking about something historical. Natural (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Andrew Holden Quote

Additionally, Andrew Holden, while having some good points in his book, presents many ideas for which there is no or little evidence, or inaccurate. The statement made "since the information is presented as the inspired work of theologians, and they are therefore, believed to contain as as much truth as biblical texts." does not in any way represent what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, believe, or practice.

These are two examples of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe - Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible? Feb 15, 1981 Watchtower p. 19 "True, the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers." (2 Tim. 3:16)

To Whom Shall We Go but Jesus Christ? March 1, 1979 Watchtower, p. 23,34 par.15 "it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time. But let us never forget that the motives of this “slave” were always pure, unselfish; at all times it has been well-meaning."

The claim is to unselfishness or pure motive, rather than any type of inspiration. Natural (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

What section of the article are you talking about here? BlackCab (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This was the section -

Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible.[145]

This is an innacurate summation of the teachings or beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of Holden's work is good and accurate, some is inaccurate. Either the quote of Holden shouldn't be referred to, or a clarification of the views of JW as stated above would be helpful. Natural (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural


Holden tends to be sourced by those who appreciate giddy hilarity like this:
"It could be that many Witnesses have not yet been in the organisation long enough to realise that 'new lights' have a habit of growing dimmer, while old ones are switched back on!" [exclamation mark retained], page 32
The fact is that Holden's work is an embarrassment of poor research and editing, with substantial factual errors.
Furthermore, Holden begins his work with an anecdote about his mother's distaste for Witnesses!
An earlier thread detailed just a few Holden errors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No special role on earth?

The article currently says, "In 1932 it was announced the Jews had no special role in God's earthly kingdom". I've added a tag requesting a quotation from the cited reference.

  • Firstly, Witnesses have and had considered the kingships of Saul, David, and Solomon to be "God's earthly kingdom". Witnesses didn't suddenly recant that "the Jews" certainly had a special role then and there, did they?
  • Secondly, Witnesses have and had considered prominent biblical Jews to be assured future earthly princedoms in the Messianic kingdom.
  • Thirdly, how was this (which seems odd to begin with) purportedly "announced"?

The third point is merely interesting, but it seems remarkable if an ostensible "expert" writer on Jehovah's Witnesses ignored the first two points in his published writings. It seems more likely that BlackCab (aka LTSally) did not accurately interpret the references when he added this supposed tidbit. Does the current wording accurately interpret a verifiable quotation regarding God's earthly kingdom?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous teaching, articulated as late as the Watchtower of February 15, 1925, was that the earthly kingdom would begin with a government based in Jerusalem comprising Jews who had been returned, through God's intervention, to Palestine. Gentiles would have to accept that they were the seat of his government on earth, through which the blessings of everlasting life would begin to flow. In his "Vindication" books in 1932 Rutherford announced that this was an erroneous view and that Jews as a people would have no special role in God's earthly kingdom. I have added a quote from Penton and links to the Rutherford books. BlackCab (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
So, the "announcement" was in a 350 page book, on pages 258, 269, and 295.
The editor has supplied the quotation from the cited reference by writer Penton:
"In 1932, he and the society abandoned a long tradition which had taught that natural Jews and Zionism had a special role in Jehovah's divine plan; thereafter, the Witnesses themselves were to be seen as the only Israel of God."
Even with the additional sources, there seems no basis upon which to interpret writer Penton's quote into:
"In 1932 it was announced the Jews had no special role in God's earthly kingdom".
Penton writes explicitly of the "divine plan", but BlackCab interprets that as "God's earthly kingdom"; an odd substitution to be sure.
Most obviously wrong is the introduction of (and insistence on continuing) the interpretation that 1932 JWs suddenly believed Jewishness to disqualify one for a special role. Penton used the term "natural Jews" because the former tradition held persons were entitled to a special role for no other reason than their "nature"; that is, the former tradition concerned those with nothing more to their credit than genetic Jewishness, literal Jews, ethnic Jews, and as a group rather than as individuals. Neither Penton nor Rutherford imagined JWs to have abandoned their teaching that individual adherents of biblical Judaism such as David and Moses have a yet-future special role. BlackCab's interpretation ("the Jews had no special role") doesn't reflect the Penton reference or Rutherford.
Furthermore, Penton writes that JWs "abandoned a tradition" (that is, one tradition) pertaining to 'God's [future] plan'; Penton did NOT write that JWs "abandoned every tradition" regarding literal Jews "in the past and the future". So, even if a ref claims Jews had/have "one less role" than previously, BlackCab is wrong to interpret that to mean Jews now had "no role".
There seems no indication that Rutherford used language similar to that invented by BlackCab for this article.
It's disappointing when an editor introduces a controversial interpretation of plainly worded references. It's more disappointing when he insists upon his interpretation, rather than simply correcting it.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
By requesting a quotation from the cited work, it became clear that the interpretation of BlackCab aka LTSally was not supported.
The misinterpretation has been replaced with an accurate interpretation of the source.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
An explicit doctrine, elaborated upon in Watchtower magazines with discussions about Jerusalem becoming the world capital and Gentile wariness of their new Jewish leaders, is not a "tradition". It was a WTS doctrine, a WTS teaching, peculiar to that religious society. BlackCab (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the editor forgets that he himself inserted this point, and he himself selected this reference to support the point: the editor's chosen reference EXPLICITLY refers to this as a tradition.
There seems no reason to be frantic about reposting a preferred wording...
BlackCab aka LTSally should calmly explain why he insists on a personal interpretation of Penton's quotation which rejects Penton's choice of words.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We are not, however, blindly beholden to the sources to repeat their wording when it is less than accurate on an uncontroversial subject. The words "teaching" or "doctrine" more accurately express their belief that God would establish living Jews as the heads of God's kingdom on earth. This teaching or doctrine was abandoned in 1932 and is now that some elders, presumably the Governing Body, would be the head of God's theocratic arrangement on earth. Or is that a tradition as well? BlackCab (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither should an editor be blindly beholden to his own personal choice of wording.
The fact is that the editor previously misinterpreted his own chosen source, and his misinterpretation was not corrected until a quotation was requested and supplied.
The fact is that the editor seeks to ignore the wording of the source he himself selected; though that source explicitly calls the former belief a "tradition" (not "teaching"), the editor preposterously claims "it was a teaching, not a "tradition"" and again claims "is not a "tradition"".
Yet, the editor's inflexible (and source-contradicting) rejection of the term "tradition" introduces merely imprecision rather than inaccuracy. I disagree with BlackCab (aka LTSally) on this matter but consider this thread closed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy in Introduction and Separateness heading

The words on separateness are pretty unique in their wording, and are mentioned twice in the article, almost the identical words. So, it comes across as redundant. If this point is mentioned, it is probably better to mention it in the separateness section than the intro. Thoughts on that?

Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society as a place of moral contamination under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.[32] Natural (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The intro is a summary of the main article. Everything in the intro should also be elsewhere in the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. BlackCab (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
For writing that is of high quality, if one wanted to repeat what was stated in the introduction, then it would be better to reword what you are trying to say, otherwise, it doesn't flow, if you state the same thing exactly the same again. That's the idea. It is of better quality to reword it or restate it differently, than to repeat the same phrase. That is what is meant be redundant.Natural (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Agree. The main ideas should be present in the lead, but preferably not using exactly the same words..--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Botting reference [14]

I've read the reference from Botting, it doesn't seem to tie in at all, or just loosely, to the comment being made, unless I'm missing something. Botting talks about a lot of things in those pages, but the reference here, doesn't seem to have a direct connection.Natural (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

You're correct. I've removed it. BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 1976 - Doctrinal decisions

With regards to this statement: Prior to the reorganization of the Governing Body in 1976,[128] matters of doctrine were decided by the president of the Watch Tower Society.[129][130

This isn't accurate. Even prior to 1976 there was a Governing Body, and the President, who was Nathan Knorr in those years, did have a say in matters of doctrine, but this article brings out,he wasn't "the main theologian". So that matters of doctrine were decided by the president of the Watch Tower Society is innacurate in the years from 1944-1976 when Nathan Knorr was president. Natural (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

This same matter is unresolved at Talk:GBJW#Claim about “complete control of doctrines” is misleading.
In recent days, I have not followed through in contesting the silly assertions of those who pretend the Watch Tower board and the Governing Body were a decades-long parade of "rubber stamps" to three "Pope-like" presidents until 1976.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed recently at Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Claim about “complete control of doctrines” is misleading. Fred Franz, who was the "main theologian" under Knorr's presidency, told a court under sworn oath that the president had the final say, or decision, on doctrines. It is therefore accurate to say the president decided them. BlackCab (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Where is the reference for Fred Franz stating that under sworn oath?
Also, even so, it gives a misleading idea that the president was the source of the doctrine, and if that line was to be kept, then there would be need for clarification. 96.57.151.186 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
The source that is being referred to is in the footnote [130]. It is a 1954 quote, so might not apply exactly in the 1960s and 1970s. So, if that were to be used as the source, then it would be appropriate to indicate the year of the source in the main body. Also, there should be clarification on that point in the body of the article, to be more in harmony with the actual procedure that Brother Franz did mention under sworn oath, as seems to be what the footnote is about. This way it gives an accurate impression of the actual process of the development of doctrine, rather than a misleading one that the president of the Society, alone, decided all matters of doctrine, which is the case with some religions. Natural (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
I have added more sources, which state that in Knorr's day, doctrines were established by Fred Franz. According to his testimony in the Walsh case, Knorr had the final approval. All sources attribute origin of doctrines prior to Knorr to either Russell or Rutherford. I know of no source that suggests Russell or Rutherford, who were both prolific writers, let others develop Watch Tower doctrines for them. BlackCab (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
BlackCab (aka LTSally) now claims four sources, three of which are former Jehovah's Witnesses. The fourth, a 1954 transcript of then-Watch Tower vice-president Fred Franz, is interpreted with a nonneutral POV, addressed in a thread at:
Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
On 2010-05-04, I'd written something in that thread which seems germane to this thread, analyzing that fourth reference:
For one [objection], Fred Franz explicitly said of the board of directors (their then-"governing body") regarding any proposed doctrine: "They all consider it." That certainly sounds like discussion and tweaking would be involved in their groupwide consideration. Furthermore, Fred Franz testified EXPLICITLY that proposed "advances" in doctrinal matters "go through the Editorial Committee"; do editors seriously imagine that the editorial committee had one member, the Watch Tower president? Fred Franz subsequently testifies only that the vice-president could veto a proposed "advance", and after him the president had a final veto over any proposed "advance".
Veto authority is certainly not "complete control", else the U. S. Supreme Court has "complete control" over all laws in the United States.
Furthermore, whatever may have been in 1954, the article's references repeatedly state that matters changed in 1971—that's FIVE YEARS before 1976.
To reiterate, the extraordinary claim that the Watch Tower president had "complete doctrinal control" is ostensibly supported by a statement which explicitly describes doctrinal changes as a) 'going through an editorial committee', b) subject to veto by vice-president, c) further subject to veto by president, and d) 'considered by the entire board of directors aka the governing body'. While a board of directors has a defined leader, since 1971 the formal Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has a mere "chairman" in rotation with a vote equal to that of other members.
While it might be argued that the president circa 1954 had a unique doctrinal role (to veto proposed doctrinal changes) there is no basis to pretend that after 1971. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Lack of Credibility of apostate authors and unethical literary practices

Also, the Bottings and Ray Franz, Penton, these are a trio of apostates, whose testimonies are their own version of things. They established it, the apostates leap frog over each other's work, and in their mind that is how it was. But the Bottings have some interpolations, as I could read, that are way beyond anything Jehovah's Witnesses were taught in that time period. They talk about the anti-typical Jubilee ending in 1976, and how appropriate that would be.... That type of thinking with JW, was last used in 1925, never used again for a specific date. They try to make a case for 1984, which JW never did, part of the theme of their book, on the back cover of their book, so they go beyond, making connections where there were no connections.
Ray Franz has his own version of the story. He is covering his own tracks, to a great extent, defending himself, covering over his own shame, in his book. You can't take all of his ideas as fact, they are his own version, from his perspective as the victim.
Penton also, he is an apostate, which takes issue, not only with Witnesses view of the end, but also with their view of sexual morality, with Charles Russel's sex life based on rumour, not fact. So,yes you have three witnesses to any idea you would like to present, but their credibility as presenting factual information isn't pure, their motives or ethics aren't pure, and they are presenting their own viewpoint and their own conclusions rather than fact. You are then creating a Wiki article with it's own bias, and strong POV, because you are going to books which were written, not factually, but with a strong POV, and saying it's documented. All 3 of those books have serious breaches of literary ethics. They are fine for a tabloid quality book, or slightly above in terms of ethics, but not much more than that. Natural (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Demographics

Demographics - Retention Rate

This is a discussion on the stat mentioned in the retention rate under demographics. The interpretation of the survey mentioned with Jehovah's Witnesses and retention rate might need rewording or clarifying.

According to Stark in the Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, p.153 under the article, Why the Jehovah's Witnesses Grow so Rapidly, A Theoretical Application. RODNEY STARK & LAURENCE R. IANNACCONE the retention rate given by Beckford 1975 is 70% and the rate by Throug, 1994, 70%. p.153. http://www.theocraticlibrary.com/downloads/Why_Jehovah's_Witnesses_Grow_So_Rapidly.pdf

Also, in the survey mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Congregationalists have the same retention rate as Jehovah's Witnesses, one evangelical religion has a lower retention rate, and Anabaptist, Presbetyrian, Episcopal, Methodist and Pentecostal possibly have statistically a similar retention rate as Jehovah's Witnesses. The margin of error for Protestant and Catholic in the survey is at about 1%, whereas the margin of error (because of the small sampling) of Jehovah's Witnesses is at 7.5%. p.119. So, if the U.S. Religious Landscape survey were to be used, there should be some clarification.

Also, (for accuracies sake), it is a 2007 survey, rather than 2008. Natural (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

A problem, Mr Natural: The "Demographics" section contains the statement that growth rates in Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide have slowed from 8% pa in the 1970s to 5% in the 1990s and just 2-3% pa since 1999. You have added a line (which I've italicised) so the section now reads: "A 2007 study in the United States reported that only about 37% who self-identified their upbringing as "Jehovah’s Witnesses" still identify themselves with the religion as adults. However, other surveys put the retention rate at around 70%."
There are two problems. Firstly your 70% retention rate figure is dated from 1994; the 37% figure was from a survey in 2007. If growth rates have slowed considerably since the date of the survey you cited, the later figure (ie 37%) is probably going to be more accurate.
Secondly, the 2007 survey sampled 35,000 adults. Of those 215 were JWs. What was the sample in the General Social Survey (GSS) cited by Stark et al? Their figure of a 70% retention rate is, in actual numbers, 47 people. If that was 70% of their sample, they interviewed 67 people who identified as JWs. That doesn't sound like a very usable figure to me. BlackCab (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that the retention rate in 2007 among JW is 37% in the US. The 70% numbers, I believe, both in England. Also, the sampling of 215 doesn't necessarily give an accurate statistic on JW, because the margin of error is plus our minus 7.5% in that survey for Jehovah's Witnesses, because of the low number of respondents. The margin of error for evangelicals, Catholics, and others who have, say, 1,000 or more who were surveyed is much less, like 1%. So the number, 37% might not be accurate, it could be as high as 44%. If you account for the margin of error, then Jehovah's Witnesses are equivalent to that of Methodists, Presbetyrians, and some others.
The Wikipedia article here quotes many sources from previous years, from 1994 and before for references. Given the margin of error in the Pew survey, then it seems appropriate that the other studies be mentioned, maybe with a note of the year, or mention that
"Two previous studies (1994), (1975), give a retention rate of 70%." This would be fair, in view of the fact that the 37% retention rate might not be totally accurate, any more than the 70%, because of the small sampling. This would help to give a fair summation of the situation. Otherwise, there really wouldn't be any reason to mention the retention rate at all, due to the inconclusiveness of the statistic, and to leave that for the Jehovah's Witnesses demographics page.
What do you think? Natural (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
What do you mean The 70% numbers, I believe, both in England? The GSS data cited by Stark, which you added, was an American study. The Pew report does note that the margin of error for the JWs in its study was plus or minus 7.5 percentage points. But it's quite wrong for you to conclude the figure should therefore be a 44% retention rate. It could also be 29.5%. I tend to accept your other position - that the figures are so low (a sample of 215 JWs in all of America in one study, about 76 in another) they are unreliable and should be left out of the article. BlackCab (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing growth rate

Hmm. How many religion parent articles mention the religion's growth rate at all? I'd guess only a minority.
Yet this article (a parent article) seems to go out of its way to find something negative: a DECREASE in the (growth rate)!
That level of digging is not typical for these types of articles, and seems unwikipedically fault-finding. The matter is already analyzed at Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses; it seems wonky and awkward to spend space in a religion's parent article discussing its changing growth rate. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree that this would be better at the demographics article. Why the Wiktionary link to the back-formed derogatory term, wonk instead of the older term wonky (or better still, not at all)???--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I probably should have coined the term "wonklike" or "suchwonk", not realizing wonk-y would be a distraction. I focused on wonk rather than wonky because my issue is with the superfluousness rather than the solidity of the statistical analysis here. Whereas wonky connotes something askew or "off", wonk does not. In my experience, usage of "wonk" is often quite respectful and only occasionally gently pejorative. See this definition. Frankly, I disagree with and have never once heard the second usage here.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. There was no need for the 'focus' link at all. And the question was rhetorical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It would seem Jeffro77 expends far more energy whining about the existence of the definition link ("wonk") than it took AuthorityTam to type it. If AuthorityTam has a soft spot for non-sesquipedalianists, is there such harm in tossing them a metaphoric bone?
The "changing growth rate" has been removed per this thread.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, sesquipedalian(ist) relates to long words, not words that you decide are interesting or obscure. Secondly, talking about yourself in the third person is weird. Thirdly, you're being tedious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
First, WP:RELAX.
Second, WP:ENJOY.
Third, per WP:TALK, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
More tedium. Quit while you're behind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Statistics

Also, other statistics that are of note, indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have a higher level of commitment to practicing worship and to their faith than other religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

Highest "identification" with their denomination, 93%, compared to 37% of the general US population, (Stark, p.145) Prays the most of any religion, 89% daily, compared to 53% of Protestants. Pew Research Center survey. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# (Also, Stark, p.145).

Jehovah's Witnesses attend religious services weekly more than any other religion and have the strongest belief in God than any other religion. They are also highest in those who feel that religion is important in their lives.

Jehovah's Witnesses also pray daily the most than any other religion, (89%) and report the highest percentage for having received answers to their prayers. (36%) See also: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/07/Survey-Jehovahs-Witnesses-pray-the-most/UPI-51611241741280/

These statistics suggest a higher level of commitment and daily practice of religion with Jehovah's Witnesses, in comparison to that of more nominal churches. Natural (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Are you suggesting a change to the article? This kind of information would be better suited to Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know they had a separate page for Jehovah's Witnesses demographics. Wow. Thanks for the tip. Will keep your comment above in mind for the general tone of the current main article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Thanks. Natural (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
You're welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of most judicial hearings

The vast majority of judicial cases among Jehovah's Witnesses deal with sexual immorality. There are judicial meetings for other reasons as well such as illegal drug use, smoking, drunkeness, etc. Judicial hearings for anything to do with disputes about doctrine are relatively rare. Natural (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

While the editor above doesn't cite a source, references do say that the majority of disfellowshippings among Jehovah's Witnesses concern what they term "sexual immorality".
  • The Watchtower, February 15, 1993, page 13, "Although only a small proportion of Christians are affected, it has to be recognized that the majority of cases of disfellowshipping...are related to some form of sexual immorality."
  • Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, ©1993, page 103, "In fact, several thousand...had to be disfellowshipped each year, the majority for sexual immorality. "
I don't recall any ref explicitly commenting on the rarity of judicial hearings about doctrinal disputes. In any event, a detail like this is probably best-discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Any basis for the claim that judicial hearings about doctrinal disputes are rare? Sounds more like an opinion. Of course, it would not be in the group's interests to say so themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Either way the point of a judicial hearing would be to remove those unrepentant. It's not uncommon that sexual immorality is an growing matter in the world in general and therefore most likely the a case one would have to handle. --Jasper175 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper175 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, the matter is perhaps best-discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline.
Again, I don't recall any ref explicitly commenting on the relative rarity of judicial hearings...at all.
Regrettably (for Wikipedia's purposes), JWs only retain records for judicial cases which result in disfellowshipping.
* Our Kingdom Ministry, September 1977, page 3:
"There are also records on disfellowshiping cases handled by judicial committees that should be kept in the congregation files."
However, by definition, if a particular "serious sin" makes up the majority of disfellowshippings, any other particular "serious sin" would make up only "a fraction of disfellowshippings". Thus, there seems little basis upon which to infer that (high-minded) doctrinal disputes result in more judicial hearings than do (low-minded) sexual misconduct, and good reasons to infer the opposite. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if 50% of expulsions are about immorality and 40% are about doctrinal disputes (and 10% for other things), the majority would not relegate the percentage of doctrinal disputes to "a fraction" in the sense you imply. I am not aware of any exact published breakdown of reasons people leave, nor anything to suggest that the proportion of those who leave due to doctrinal disputes is necessarily a minor fraction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Earlier in this thread, two references stated that sexual immorality constitutes the "majority" of JW judicial hearings which end in disfellowshippings. While that evidence is insufficient to insist that sexual immorality constitutes the majority of all judicial hearings, that evidence is sufficient to call into question the claim that anything else constitutes the majority.
Furthermore, "majority" and "minority" have quite specific definitions related to statistics, and a fraction is anything less than 100%. Thus, any "major fraction" would be anything more than 50% and any "minor fraction" would be anything less than 50%. Forty percent is less than fifty percent. A "minor fraction" is, indisputably, "a fraction".
In any event, Watch Tower references explicitly refute the claim that doctrinal dispute constitutes the majority of JW judicial hearings which result in disfellowshipping; due partly to ecclesiastical privilege, it seems remarkably unlikely that usable statistics will emerge about all judicial hearings (casual readers should know that a particular hearing may result in disfellowshipping, formal reproof, abeyance, or simple dissolution of the hearing). Suggest that future threads like this be focused at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of fractions in the context given is either incorrect or their presentation here is deliberately distorted (and no one claimed that some other thing constituted the majority). A "minor fraction" is not "anything less than 50%". If there were 3 reasons for expulsion, then 'immorality' could account for a majority of 40% (according to you, a "minor fraction") and the other two could be 30% each. Of course, the reasons for expulsion could be broken down into more causes; if there were 5 reasons, 25% might be a majority. The wording is meaningless without more-specific statistics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems no basis upon which to pretend that "majority" means "plurality". Neither 25% nor 40% could ever be accurately described as more than 50% (that is, "a majority"). Especially related to statistics, words are certainly not meaningless. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. You're rapidly losing touch with the context. In the strict sense, I intended most in place of a majority, to demonstrate the actual point, which is that there is no basis for the claim that expulsions over doctrinal disputes constitute a "minor fraction" in the sense implied. We don't have any clear justification for the assumption that the majority is "vast" or that expulsions over doctrinal concerns are "relatively rare".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body of JW not considered to be leaders

The Governing Body does not consider themselves or claim to be leaders. In the recent release on the book of Acts, the Governing Body refer to themselves as being "not leaders" but "followers" of Christ. This distinction should be clearly stated in the Wiki article, as it uses the term leaders. Natural (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural Bear Thorough Witness about the Kingdom of God, p 110. It say about the Governing Body, "It's members are not considered to be leaders of the people of Jehovah. Instead of this, all are anointed Christians on earth, they "follow the Lamb, Jesus Christ, wherever he goes." Revelation 14:4. (this is not word for word but my own translation from another language).Natural (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

In any meaningful sense, the GB is the leadership of the religion, in that it has authority over all decisions related to doctrine and policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that terms such as "leadership" and "lead" are more precise than "leaders".
  • The Watchtower, March 15, 2002, page 15, "Jesus Christ provides leadership to his disciples today through the Governing Body"
  • The Watchtower, December 15, 1989, page 21, "Local elders and members of the Governing Body take the lead among ["local congregations" and "all the congregations", respectively.]
Perhaps Natural aka Naturalpsychology intends to clarify that an individual Governing Body member is not "a leader" in that a Witness need not feel compelled to follow him personally. JWs believe a godly individual may be due "honor", but that Christ is the only individual to be followed.
  • The Watchtower, September 15, 1989, page 21, "Today, we can observe those making up the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, other anointed overseers, and men of the “great crowd” who take the lead among us. (Revelation 7:9) Although we are not urged to imitate their voice quality, posture, or other human traits, we should be able to make our conduct turn out well by imitating their faith."
The semantic difference is likely to be missed, but the distinction is there. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"take the lead" is employed as JW jargon. Those who lead are leaders, particularly if those 'leaders' have authority over rules and doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation of Isaiah 43:10-12

The quotation Jehovah's Witnesses used for Isaiah 43:10-12 was more likely taken from Young's Literal Translation, 1898, or the American Standard Version, 1904, where it reads, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen." The Witnesses at the time used the King James, but also other Bibles, and when quoting Isaiah 43:10-12 with reference to the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" would read from or refer to these 2 other translations which used the divine name.Natural (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

That's a guess. This was discussed at [[6]] and unless there are further writings from the WTS on the subject from the time I don't think the point can be advanced any further. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a reference on that scripture from Watchtower literature -

Our Incoming World Government --God's Kingdom chap. 2 p. 20 par. 8 Chapter - The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning

8 And now comes the declaration of the challenger: According to the American Standard Version (AS) of the Bible, the challenger identifies who he is by name, saying: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God. Yea, since the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who can hinder it?”—Isaiah 43:10-13.

The Scriptural account that Jehovah's Witnesses draw on for their name is in the 43rd chapter of Isaiah. There the world scene is viewed as a courtroom drama: The gods of the nations are invited to bring forth their witnesses to prove their claimed cases of righteousness or to hear the witnesses for Jehovah's side and acknowledge the truth. Jehovah there declares to his people: "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour."—Isaiah 43:10, 11, American Standard Version. 173.3.43.103 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural


I read the archive and see the point with that. I'd have to look back into archives of Witness literature to see if another version was referred to somewhere. I thought for sure he was quoting from the ASV. But that is sufficient evidence for now, as was stated before in your discussions.Natural (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
The publication certainly quotes the ASV at that point, but there is nothing there to support the original claim which was, as I recall, along the lines that Rutherford based the name Jehovah's witnesses on the ASV version of Isaiah 43. As I pointed out in the earlier thread, the name "Jehovah" wasn't in the Bible text he cited in his 1931 WT article announcing the name change. BlackCab (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Selling homes in 1975

The point is made in the Wiki article that a Jehovah's Witness newsletter commended those who sold their homes to use the time remaining in this system to preach the good news. This is not something unique to 1975, either before 1975 or after 1975. It is pretty standard Christian stuff. The book of Acts talks about Christians who basically did the same thing, selling their possessions and properties to further the good news, as it was back then. Nothing really has every changed with that among Christians since that time, and 1975 really has little to do with that point. Jehovah's Witnesses have always, before 1975 and at 1975, as well as today, felt like the end was right around the corner, and that attitude has been encouraged in the past and today as well.

These are some examples ---

Watchtower 2008 2/15 pp. 17-18 pars. 5-6 Imitate the Greatest Missionary *** When he saw that his work made it difficult to live in harmony with his newfound faith, he sold his lucrative business and moved back to Brazil to help his family find spiritual treasures. Upon learning Bible truth, many immigrants willingly give up jobs in affluent countries and go back to their homeland with the objective of helping their relatives and others spiritually. Such Kingdom publishers display a real evangelizing spirit. A number of Witnesses have been able to move to areas where the need for Kingdom preachers is greater. Some even serve abroad.

Watchtower 2008 5/15 p. 30 Highlights From the Book of Acts *** Scriptural Questions Answered: 2:44-47; 4:34, 35—Why did believers sell their possessions and distribute the proceeds? Many who became believers had come from faraway places and were without enough provisions to extend their stay in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, they desired to remain there longer in order to learn more about their new faith and to bear witness to others. To help such ones, some Christians sold their property, and the funds were distributed to the needy

Watchtower 2005 2/1 pp. 16-17 Pursuing the “Pearl of High Value” Today ***

12 When the traveling merchant found a pearl of high value, “away he went and promptly sold all the things he had and bought it.” (Matthew 13:46) This willingness to give up what may be held as valuable is characteristic of those who truly appreciate the value of the Kingdom. As one who would have a share with Christ in Kingdom glory, the apostle Paul said: “I do indeed also consider all things to be loss on account of the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. On account of him I have taken the loss of all things and I consider them as a lot of refuse, that I may gain Christ.”—Philippians 3:8.

Watchtower 2003 3/1 p. 20 Make Good Use of Changing Circumstances *** Creating a Simpler Life My salary decreased by 40 percent. I sold our house and bought a houseboat so that we could serve where the need for Kingdom publishers was greater. Later, I took advantage of early retirement; my income went down another 20 percent, but in 1993, I was able to begin serving as a regular pioneer.”

Watchtower 1989 12/1 p. 30 I Climbed the Finest Mountain of All *** As I gave away or sold all my equipment—skis, climbing irons, carabiners, hammers, hooked nails, and ice ax—I can honestly say, in the apostle Paul’s words, that to me they were now just “a lot of refuse.” (Philippians 3:8) A feeling of deep contentment came over me as I was able to join in the grand work of praising God’s name in public. In 1977 both Henry and I symbolized our dedication to Jehovah by water baptism.

Watchtower 1989 9/1 p. 25 Making Full-Time Service a Career *** A Family of Pioneers Soon after I started pioneering, my sisters and my brother, Norman, also took up the full-time ministry. Norman and his wife sold their farm, bought a 12-foot [3.7 m] trailer, and with their three-year-old daughter, Joan, went out preaching. Natural (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

These examples are dissimilar, because they do not emphasize the 'short time remaining' as did the KM with reference to 1975.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have always used the expression "short time remaining". It has been used since the earliest days of Jehovah's Witnesses until today and is in no way unique to the years preceding 1975. Selling one's home to do more in the preaching work or move to where the need is great is not unique the years preceding 1975, but a common theme also to this day.
These are some examples --- They are used in connection with not pursuing careers, spending too much time with higher education, and any number of "worldly" pursuits, not limited to selling one's homes, but things which are equal in value to "the world".
Watchtower 1997 8/15 p. 21 par. 14 “Soundness of Mind” as the End Draws Close Since the end of this system has not yet come, some might be inclined to seek what the world has to offer—prestigious careers, lucrative jobs, and wealth. Will you use the short time remaining to help as many as possible to gain the precious knowledge of Jehovah? What job could ever match the joy of helping someone to gain life?
Watchtower 1989 3/15 p. 31 Call on Jehovah’s Name and Get Away Safe! Repentance is required beforehand if a person is to be saved during the fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. The nearness of that day should move us to engage in holy acts and godly deeds.Therefore, in the short time remaining before God’s fear-inspiring day, let us have a full share in helping others to ‘call on the name of Jehovah so as to get away safe.’
Watchtower 1987 7/15 p. 30 Does True Christianity Produce Fanatics? A person who sets aside many time-consuming personal activities in order to devote as much time as possible to the Kingdom-preaching work is not a fanatic. Instead, he shows his appreciation for the urgency of helping others to learn about the life-giving truths of God’s Word in the short time remaining for this work to be done. This is reasonable and beneficial.
Watchtower 1951 3/15 p. 166 Praise Jah! You Who Attend the Memorial who shall in the short time remaining before Armageddon fly with the speed of doves to the entrance that Jehovah has provided to the refuge of safety
That the comment quoted on Wikipedia was made in 1974 might or might not have anything to do with 1975, it is a matter of opinion. It is how the reader or commentator chooses to interpret it, or according to his own personal views or bias.
If one is searching for things to make a case of bringing up the 1975 issue and to judge or discredit JW's, then one would be more inclined to use that quote. If you are a JW, then you realize that this has always been a part of our religion, of Christianity, since the 1st century. The Bible leads us to believe there was a short period of time before the end in the 1st century. Natural (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Natural (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
I remain unconvinced, but I've lost interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree that Jehovah's Witnesses magazines and newsletters had previously and have since consistently praised those who retreat from "materialism" to better use "the last days" remaining. Wikipedia need not accept the questionable interpretation of former Witnesses such as Ray Franz, the Bottings, and BlackCab (aka LTSally). Frankly, the fact that other notable critics discuss 1975 but refrain from mentioning the same reference tends to imply that they also reject that questionable interpretation. I've corrected the article. There's no objective connection to be made between the 1974 reference and certain 1975 claims. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, that's your view. Wikipedia articles are built around what published reliable sources say. BlackCab (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, as noted above, Heather Botting's work and Ray Franz's book, are not books of high literary integrity in matters of detail. Botting's book makes broad inferences, way beyond what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, and her own interpolations. Her strong opinion isn't a statement of facts, but her own interpretation of facts, most likely based on Ray Franz's own viewpoint on things, which is similarly written with a strong bias, that of self-defense, rather than a statement of facts. It is facts as Ray Franz sees it, as the victim, having recently been asked to leave Bethel, and later disfellowshipped. The work of apostates is not considered by sociologists as reliable sources of information. (Bryan Wilson - I've posted Wilson's comments on this before, so am not posting it again here, unless the panel would like me to.) They do give another point of view, but both Botting's and Franz's books have strong POV, and Botting has interpolations of the facts, making connections where there are no connections, but that she superimposes on the facts. Her book are "above and beyond" into the realm of conjecture. Natural (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
It seems necessary to see what the claimant actually claims about the 1974 Watch Tower reference. Please post the quotation here at Talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Quotes as requested:
  • Bottings, page 46: “Many speakers at public talks and assemblies echoed this note of urgency. Systematic psychological pressure mounted as the decade of the seventies dawned and in 1970 and 1971 the number of active Witnesses increased by 20 per cent to 1.5 million in August 1971. The pressure continued until the eleventh hour, with the Kingdom Ministry declaring in May 1974: ‘Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end’. Of course the end did not come in 1975 and understandably many Witnesses – especially those who had sold their homes – became very disillusioned. But the Witnesses seemed more numbed than shocked by Armageddon’s non-arrival.”
  • Franz, page 246, 247: “Some of the most direct statements came from the Brooklyn Service Department which produces a monthly paper called Kingdom Ministry, a paper which goes only to Witnesses and not to the public. The March, 1968 issue of the US edition urged getting into full-time preaching activity (‘pioneer service’) saying: ‘In view of the short period of time left, we want to do this as often as circumstances permit. Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man’s existence is completed.’
The May 1974 issue of Kingdom Ministry, having referred to the ‘short time left’, said: ‘Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end’.
Quite a number of Witnesses did just that. Some sold their businesses, gave up jobs, sold homes, farms and moved with their wives an children to other areas to ‘serve where the need was greater’, counting on sufficient funds to carry them through 1975.
Others, including some older persons, cashed in insurance policies or other valuable certificates. Some put off surgical operations in the hope that the millennium’s entrance would eliminate the need for these.’
  • Ruth A. Tucker, “Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement”, page 131: “By the end of Knorr’s presidency in 1977, trouble was brewing in the ranks. One of the tension points related to the 1975 prophecy of the end of the world – a designation that was made in 1966 after a six-year slump in baptisms. This date was based on findings that showed there had been a one-hundred-year miscalculation in the original designation of 1874 as the end of the world. As a pragmatic ploy to increase membership, the prophecy worked. A 1968 issue of Kingdom Ministry urged Witnesses to abandon their regular employment in exchange for fulltime Pioneer service. ‘In view of the short time left,’ the article entreated, ‘we want to do this as often as circumstances permit. Just think, brothers, there are only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man’s existence on earth is completed.’ Many responded, as a later issue of Kingdom Ministry indicated: ‘Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service.’ With the failed prophecy, the numbers of full-time publishers dropped nearly forty per cent and rumblings of discontent were on the upsurge.”
  • James A. Beverley, “Crisis of Allegiance” (pg 89): “After Nathan Knorr became the Society’s third president in 1942, there was more balance in prophetic stance. This was to continue until the 1966 publication Life Everlasting in Freedom in the Sons of God began the focus on 1975 as the end. Though most of the statements in Society literature were guarded and nuanced, Frederick Franz was known for his more bombastic claims about that year. And the May 1974 issue of Kingdom Ministry (USA edition) was very pointed: “Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end’. The 1975 fiasco had such a negative impact on worldwide membership that the Society’s original evasion and dishonesty on the whole matter was finally balanced by a forthright apology in the March 15, 1980 edition of the Watchtower.”
And also from Holden (p. 151) who doesn’t refer to the OKM but does refer to the pressure Witnesses were under to give up their possessions as 1975 approached: “Tom, who had been in the movement since the early 1970s, explained how the 1975 prophecy failure made it impossible for him to remain an active member. In a detailed testimony of how the prophecy governed his life during his initial stages of membership, told me: ‘Our main teaching book was called the Truth book and there was a little graph in there which ended in 1975. I said it from the platform! We told everyone the end was near. When I became a Witness I gave up my insurance policies, I cancelled all my insurance endowments, I never bought a house because I knew I wouldn’t need one, we didn’t even want to put the kids’ names down for school.’ ….
This corresponds with the preparations made by other devotees in anticipation of the New Kingdom. For example, former member David Reed explains: ‘Having already served some years in pioneer work, I had no home or property to sell. But I did neglect having necessary dental work done, figuring it would be better to devote my tie and funds to spiritual things, since the end was so near and my body would be restored to perfection shortly after 1975.’
Those authors clearly link the Kingdom Ministry article with the expectations for 1975. The Kingdom Ministry quote is clearly relevant in that section of the article. BlackCab (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
For years after 1975, JW publications continued to routinely praise Witnesses who "simplify", even selling houses, and those who preach during (explicitly) "the short time remaining". There seems no reason to hide that fact, and it would seem to violate WP:UNDUE to do so. I've reinstated the references showing this point.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On Obedience - not blind obedience, but obedience based on love and reason

The type of obedience that the organization stresses, isn't blind obedience, but rather it is the type of obedience that stems from love, that a child will have of a parent, obedience primarily to Jehovah, and in following the Bible's commandments, "This is what the love of God means that we obey his commandments, and yet his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3.

It is the obedience, also, of reason, to understand why the Bible states a thing, and to follow the Bible principles from the heart. The Watchtower does not stress blind obedience, but rather the type of obedience mentioned in this quote.

It is always encouraging JW's to cultivate their powers of reason, so as to be able to "distinguish from right or wrong."

Watchtower 2008 6/15 pp. 19-20 Accept Jehovah’s Authority Training Our Perceptive Powers 8 The Bible tells us that we should have our “perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Heb. 5:14) Hence, our goal is not to obey God’s laws in a mechanical fashion; rather, we want to be able to “distinguish both right and wrong” based on Jehovah’s standards. We want to see the wisdom of Jehovah’s ways, so that we can say as did the psalmist: “Your law is within my inward parts.”—Ps. 40:8.

Additionally, it is not the Watchtower Society, but the Bible which encourages Christians to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you and be submissive." Hebrews 13:7,17.

This is of importance in understanding the type of obedience that the Bible and the Watchtower is talking about. Natural (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The leadership interprets the scriptures and decides what is "right and wrong" (and specifies which things are 'conscience matters'), and members must either 'accept' (or at least 'go along with') those decisions or face sanctions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The secular viewpoint is that we do all this to please our "leaders" which isn't the case, we want to please God, to have his approval, not man's. Colossians 3:23,24 Natural (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Sorry, Mr Natural, but are you discussing a certain point in the article you believe needs editing or just trying to convince us? This page is not for general chat. BlackCab (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I already covered the aspect about various activities being referred to as 'conscience matters'. The thing is, lots and lots and lots of 'worldly' people manage just fine to not 'commit fornication' or smoke weed. POV statements about "the pull of wicked things in this world" are quite boring and not relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witness don't bend as other religions usually do as far as immorality goes. It is closer to 1st century Christianity Natural (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Please see WP:TALK "Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject." BlackCab (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body Statement by Holden and need for clarifying comment

Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry as much or more weight than the Bible.[150] The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be the sole visible channel of Jehovah and asserts that the Bible cannot be understood without associating with the Watch Tower Society.[151][152][153]

The statement by Holden was discussed previously. He claims that the pronouncements of the GB, carry as much weight as the Bible. I couldn't find where it said more weight, but maybe it says that, I didn't see it.

Directly after that it says the "leadership of JW claims...

The two statements together give a misleading impression of the GB in a couple of ways. A couple of clarifying remarks are necessary.

1. Either Hodlen's statement should be removed, as it is inaccurate in it's observation or in the practice of the religion, and it is inaccurate as far as what JW claim or the GB claims.

or 2. There must be a statement directly afterwards stating that neither the GB nor Watchtower publications not Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Watchtower publications or pronouncements of the GB have or ever have had as much weight as the Bible. There are quotes from JW literature previously that support that, which were removed.

3. There must be a statement somewhere on the website quoting from the Give Thorough Witness to the Kingdom of God Book, 2009, Watchtower. p.110, with regard to the fact that the GB do not claim to be leaders but followers of Jesus.

The term leader and leadership is used throughout the Wiki article, and this is a necessary clarifier.

(Rutherford also did not claim to be the leader (regardless of what others might interpret)).

These statements would be necessary to maintain a Neutral POV on this subject, presenting both sides of the issue. Natural (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's a perfectly valid observation for Holden to make, given the power the Governing Body has over Witnesses in terms of establishing rules of conduct and belief and adjusting interpretations of scripture that all members are obliged to follow. It's your view that Holden is wrong, but Wikipedia doesn't exist to reflect our personal views. It is insufficient to add a line that the Governing Body, Jehovah's Witnesses and the WTS don't believe this. That is your view. Wikipedia can't run unattributed statements that people don't hold a view.
Because the Governing Body is made up of living members, and because Holden's comment, is his own opinion, and your opinion, then a line should be added on the viewpoint of the Governing Body itself, as stated in one of the options above. Agreed. 173.3.43.103 (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Your repeated claim that the Governing Body are not leaders is a twisted form of reasoning and is more reflective of euphemistic Witness-speak. Any group that calls itself a Governing body, makes decisive decisions on policy, action and doctrine without recourse from members and has the power to decide the basis on which members may be expelled, are uncontestably leaders. Of course they say they are "followers" of Christ. (As does the Pope.) But they also apply to themselves scriptures that speak of being sibmissive to those taking the lead. Jehovah's Witnesses does not function as a loose, democratic collective of people who all make rules. They are part of a strong hierarchical structure and do what they are told by those who lead them. BlackCab (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"Twisted form of reasoning" "and euqphemistic Witness-speak" are words reflecting a strong POV, an opinion put in a disparaging tone. It reflects an antagonism which also can reflect on one's style of editing. I disagree with that opinion, being informed of all the facts and seeing it from a different angle. The Governing Body also don't make such claims and disagree. They base their viewpoint on Jesus words at Matthew 23:8-10, where Jesus said, " But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister."
Since the collective name of the individual living 9 members of the Governing Body is involved in this type of labeling, then it would be of importance, in order to publish all views on this subject, that the Governing Body's own public statement on this matter also be published on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia did not refer to "leaders" in this article, than it wouldn't be necessary, but as it is, it uses the term many times, it is a statement with a strong POV, and whether you believe one side or the other, both sides should be available for the reader to be aware of, even if you personally might not agree. If Jehovah's Witnesses, as Christians, viewed the Governing Body as leaders, it would be contradictory to Jesus' own teaching, so it is of importance that, if such claims are made on Wikipedia, that the public viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, as Christians and followers of Jesus' teaching, be published as well for public view.
The Bible shows us that there are fleshly and spiritual men. For fleshly persons, they cannot see God beyond the creation, and anything spiritual they see only in secular terms, and the spiritual is nonsense to them. A spiritual man sees things differently, and recognizes that there are higher authorities beyond the human sphere.
The Apostle Paul said, "These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by [the] spirit, as we combine spiritual [matters] with spiritual [words]. But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man." 1 Cor 2:14.
The reason that this is relevant to this discussion, is that there are some sociologists who take, basically, an agnostic point of view to the analyzing of religious groups. Holden takes a basically agnostic view at Jehovah's Witnesses, whether he is agnostic or not, that is the viewpoint of his discussion. Others such as Frank Mead, Bryan Wilson, and Stark, analyze religion, but also take into a count a certain amount of the spiritual point of view as well. It is difficult even to examine the Roman Catholic Church purely from a secular or agnostic viewpoint, although it is easier to do that then it is to examine Jehovah's Witnesses from the secular viewpoint, as Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on the authority of the Bible in developing most of their ideas, if not all of them. Natural (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
So now you are disputing the observations contained in books that qualify as reliable sources. Again, you are free to disagree with them, but don't presume to remove that information from the encyclopedia article simpply because you don't agree! BlackCab (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You make the claim that "It reflects an antagonism which also can reflect on one's style of editing." Not bad from an editor who accuses the author of every work about Jehovah's Witnesses as untrustworhy apostates! BlackCab (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Your argument that the article displays a point of view by referring to the religion's Governing Body as its "leaders" defies logic. My dictionary defines "govern" as "rule or control." What, out of interest, does your dictionary say? You are too readily falling back on the point of view argument when you have no actual basis for your objection. BlackCab (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Look, I am a Jehovah's Witness. The Governing Body are not my leaders, Jesus and Jehovah are. What I read in the Watchtower, I follow, to the point it is in harmony with the Bible, and I don't blindly follow every syllable of the Watchtower, or even every pronouncement of the Governing Body. I exercise my faculties of reason, "my power of reason," to try to "discern right from wrong," as a mature Christian. Each member of the Governing Body will individually stand before God's judgment throne, as will I. They won't answer for me on that day. So, we, individually, follow God and Christ. Jesus is our leader. Who was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus died? Paul? Peter? If you asked someone "in the world" they would say, Peter was the leader, Paul, the 12 apostles. If you asked any of the Apostles, they would say "Jesus". It is two different points of view. One secular, the other spiritual. Natural (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Purpose of Zion's Watchtower - Charles Russell section

In the Wikipedia reference, I think #44, Prospectus, where the purpose of Zion's Watchtower is stated, Wikipedia accurately highlights the last days, but also, Zion's Watchtower gives several reasons for the publication of the magazine,

1. to highlight that we are in the last days and... that the dawn of a new age is at hand, what the Bible says, a new earth. 2. the cultivation of godly qualities as mentioned in 1 Peter 1:5-8. 3. the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ

These details are of importance to note, because there is considerable discussion at times on the Internet about apocalyptic sects, where all they dwell on are the end and when it will come. Jehovah's Witnesses today recognize that Jesus' prophecies of the time of the end are being fulfilled, but the Watchtower and other publications similarly highlight and emphasize these other aspects of Christianity, with equal weight, as the last days.

Russell was a defender of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, and this is an important aspect of his legacy. See: Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom book, page 131, 619.Natural (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Wiki article overemphasizing, through some wording, 1975

From what I can read, there is one quote in Jehovah's Witness literature of a convention in 1974 where brother Franz talked about 1975, without saying the end would happen that year. There seems to be one convention in the 1960s where there was a similar talk. In the earlier part of 1975, Franz addressed the Gilead audience to say that the end might not come in 1975 (as it is stated in this article, that the Witnesses felt the end would come in late 1975), but that there was probably a time period that Adam named the animals, etc., before Eve was created, so that even though 6,000 years of man's existence would be completed in 1975, there might be some time that passed before the rest day began, which could have meant years. So, while Witnesses did pinpoint 1975 as a significant year, at the same time, they did not preach that the end would come in 1975, but that day was a marker for the end coming soon.

Quote: Does this mean that we know exactly when God will destroy this old system and establish a new one? Franz showed that we do not, for we do not know how short was the time interval between Adam’s creation and the creation of Eve, at which point God’s rest day of seven thousand years began. (Heb. 4:3, 4) But, he pointed out, “we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,” for the Bible proves that Jehovah is “the greatest chronologist” and “we have the anchor date, 1914, marking the end of the Gentile Times.” So, he continued, “we are filled with anticipation for the near future, for our generation.”—Matt. 24:34. March 2, 1975 Gilead graduation. 75 5/1 p. 285 A Contrast—Missionaries with an Urgent, Lifesaving Work Natural (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Additionally, Stark makes a correct statement, that while 1975 was identified by Witnesses, and that there were expectations, it was not the official teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses that the end would come in that year. (which was more the case in 1914 and 1925). It was more like a marker year, then an emphatic declaration that the end would come then. When I can, maybe now or later, I'll put up the exact quote of Stark, which is a pretty accurate summation of that situation.
Stark, “Following Rutherford’s death on January 8, 1942, [actually around 1925 or 1926] the Witnesses ceased

specific date-setting. However, during the late 1960s the belief that the end would come in 1975 began to circulate and soon gained wide-spread acceptance (although it was never made the official view). As we shall see, the failure of that date caused considerable damage to the Witness mission, but the damage is long since healed…” Natural (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The wording of the article is careful enough and accurate. All sources agree that it was never an official WT teaching, but their comments built up very strong expectation of the end coming in 1975, as any adult Witnesses who were around at the time will attest. The WTS later apologised for its part in creating that expectation. BlackCab (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
While this might be true, the specific details in question are, 1. that there is really nothing special about the mention of selling homes in 1974, because that was done before and after, so it is unnecessary to bring that up, unless one is trying to prove something other than the facts. 2. That, specifically, there was not a build up at conventions preceding the years leading to 1975, rather there was only one convention that mentioned it in the world. So the two statements in Wikipedia about selling homes, and about the conventions isn't necessary or entirely accurate, or significant, in relation to the Wikipedia article, nor is it totally congruent, in the case of the "newsletter" comment.Natural (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
That the Watchtower later apologized, or acknowledged is error is a significant fact, that is not disputed.Natural (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
You are being a little disingenuous with your argumentation, including Bible accounts, about the OKM article. The article commends some Witnesses for disposing of property and going pioneering, "a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end". The mention at that point is evidence of the mounting expectation of Armageddon the following year. As secular sources indicate, many Witnesses sold properties and businesses and deferred medical treatment because they expected the end to come within months. It was all part of the trend, the mood of the time. The OKM article is highly relevant. BlackCab (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you have about 5 other highly relevant Watchtower commendations for the same exact thing from 1949 to 2008. If I were to go through all the references for brothers who sold their homes and were commended as examples for doing so, that are mentioned in the Watchtower publications from the 1940s until today, it would probably number the hundreds. Why would we make special mention of one of hundreds of references in one Kingdom Ministry that happened to be in 1974? Jehovah's Witnesses still believe the end is close, that there is a "short time remaining". That hasn't changed at all, and we are still commended today for selling our homes to serve where the need is great with that "short time remaining". That Kingdom Ministry in 1974 could be reprinted today, with the exact same wording, and is probably has, if we were to look for it, and it would be taken just as relevant, and taken without a flutter. I'm sorry, but it seems like the quote is being misapplied, 1974 is no different than 2004 in our expectations. I was preaching in 1974 and 1975, so can concur with the thinking then and now, if that makes a difference, but I'm just going by the facts as they are printed in this article.
If there are some facts on the conventions that I'm missing, also, that would be of help. As far as I know it was one convention around 1974 where that was mentioned. Thanks. Natural (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
The thing about this Wiki article is, if the article is going into so much detail about Jehovah's Witnesses, more so than even the Witness' publications, then the facts have to be accurate and relevant not only in their substance, but in their detail as well. Natural (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Wikipedia, as you know, draws its information from published reliable sources. Both Raymond Franz (Crisis of Conscience, pg 247) and Heather and Gary Botting (The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 46) explicitly link that OKM article about selling homes with the increasing expectation and excitement over what 1975 would bring. The Bottings, Franz (pages 237-253), Penton (pages 91 to 96), Gruss (The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society, pages 120-121) and Holden (Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, pages 151-155) all discuss the events leading up to 1975 and the consequences among the Witnesses. Their observations on the sequence of events is in complete accord. BlackCab (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added wording from Penton (pg. 95) that no dogmatic statement was made that the end would definitely come in 1975. Franz makes a similar statement (p. 239): "No outright, unqualified prediction was made about 1975." The Bottings write: "The problem was that while the society wrote of 'how appropriate it would be' to apply Bible chronology to the world, individual members (naturally enough) spoke of the applications as certainties ... by 1968, however, the prophecy had been established in the minds and imaginations of the Witnesses and reinforced by public speeches and articles in Awake and The Watchtower." They then quote from Franz's speech at the God’s Sons of Liberty” District Assemblies reported in the Watchtower, 1966, page 631... "Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could!" BlackCab (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I know the quote, the point being, it was one and possibly 2 assemblies, one in 1966 and one in the 1970s or so, where mention of 1975 was made, not a series, or buildup of assemblies. The other thing is, the sentence of Franz did not end there, it's being ended either by the Bottings or by the editor here, more dramatically than it was stated by Brother Franz at that time. There were qualifying talks after that, and Watchtower articles, cautionary, about not speculating about dates, also by Brother Franz, as stated, at the March 1975 Gilead meeting. So, it was not a question of prophecy, and it was a wrong way of thinking to begin with, as well as unwise to state it on several occassions as strongly as it was, but in any case, if it is going to be presented in Wikipedia, it should be presented not stronger than it was, not embellished, or in a way to prove one's own point, but as it actually happened.Natural (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Unfortunately all sources available disagree with you. Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources. Please stop attempting to rewrite history. BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Heirarchal arrangement?

The wording here, "Jehovah's Witnesses are organized under a hierarchical arrangement," needs to be qualified. There are a lot of checks and balances with the Jehovah's Witnesses organizational arrangement. The organizational tree isn't strictly hierarchal, especially since the formation of Committees and the giving of more authority to country branch committees. Additionally, individual Governing Body members can be, and have been, counseled by circuit and district overseers on their visits, and have been also by other members of the anointed who are not members of the Governing Body or at Bethel. There are certain organizational decisions, which have been delegated to Committees, and all of the Governing Body Committees have members who are not members of the Governing Body who make decisions in their own departments apart from the complete Governing Body. So, the word heirarachal, is not entirely accurate in relation to the present organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Any organization can be considered to be heirarchal, a bank is heirarchal, a school system can be considered heirarchal, but in both systems there is a lot of checks and balances, so they are not considered to be true heirarchal organizations. Natural (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural Natural (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Once again, you are arguing that the wording change simply because you do not agree with the cited source and that you think you know better. Wikipedia is built on facts gleaned from reliable sources. If you can find a source that describes the Witness structure as something other than hierarchical (or heirarchal as you repeatedly call it), please provide it or discuss it. BlackCab (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is problematic to qualify the statement, according to sources JW is every bit as hierarchical as the catholic churchj for instance. Also many sources describe JW's organization as authoritarian - which doesn't really make sense without a hierarchy. And thirdly JW publications talk at length about how subordination to ones "head" (woman<man<elder<overseer/anointed<GB<Jesus<Jehovah)is the necessary principle of social organization.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses publications reject the term "hierarchical" for their organizational structure.
* The Watchtower, January 15, 2001, page 13, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not decide for themselves the form of spiritual government under which they operate. These sincere Christians endeavor to stick to Jehovah's standards. Overseers among them are not put into office by some congregational, hierarchical, or presbyterian form of church government."
* The Watchtower, April 1, 1966, page 205, "Christian witnesses of Jehovah...have freed themselves from the hierarchical, congregational and all other forms of church rule that are unscriptural and they are governed by theocratic rule."
So, Witnesses prefer to describe theirs as a "theocratic" organization. Incidentally, the only congregational "escalation" of JW authority might be:
adherent — local elder body — branch committee — GBJW.
While critics sometimes claim that traveling overseers are a layer between branch offices and local bodies of elders, that's not accurate for two reasons.
1) JW "traveling overseers" directly represent the Governing Body (see GBJW#Representatives), not the branch office.
2) JW branches always communicate directly with congregations; congregations always communicate directly with the branch.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the Organization itself claims to have a flat hierarchy with only two layers "men<Jehovah". Everyone researching JW (Beckford, Holden, Penton at the least) has noted that this is so false as to be humourous. Anyway claiming to be egalitarian doesn't equal being egalitarian. It is notable that they claim to be no-hierarchical, but the neutral description clearly needs to state that the organization is authoritarian and hierarchical/stratified.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
After posting this subject, reading further on the term "hierarchal" it seems that every organization, including every church organization has an hierarchal structure of some type or another. Every organization has some type chain of command or authority, including every religion. So, it really isn't wrong to use the term hierarchal. There might be, though, a type of hierarchal structure which is more accurate, because of what is mentioned by AuthorityTam above, and the other points, that there is a lot of dispersion of authority, in some cases, the authority can be directly above, in some cases, two layers above, as AuthorityTam mentions, in which case, the two more appropriate term are, branching hierarchy and overlapping hierarchy, according to Wikipedia's Hierarchy page. The term "theocratic" as JW refer to it, is already mentioned in the article. In secular terms a modified hierarchal structure seems appropriate, that is branching or overlapping, or both.Natural (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
The structure of Christian groups is usually one of three 'ecclesiastical polities', and strictly speaking JW have a Presbytarian polity, though this will probably be met with some objection. The self-identified structure, theocratic, is clearly unprovable and therefore not a neutral option. Therefore, hierarchical seems to be the best available term to describe the structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement - Shunning - Introduction

If disfellowshipping is to be mentioned in the opening paragraphs, it is necessary to mention reinstatement there as well. People can get the wrong idea that the thing is forever or you can't come back. Some might not read the complete article and it can be confusing for them. Natural (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Any place disfellowshipping is discussed in this article, in the introducation or body of the article, then reinstatement must also be mentioned, which is just as, if not more important to Jehovah's Witnesses. Natural (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Of course, if a person believes that a particular teaching simply isn't true, they're shunned for life. Should we mention that too?--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro, this is stretching it. There might be a teaching we don't agree with in our religion (Jehovah's Witnesses). If we have a different idea about a few things, we aren't going to use it to try to cause division. We strive to maintain Christian unity and be patient.Natural (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Please see WP:TALK. "Talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject." BlackCab (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Commendation for Witnesses who sell their homes for benefit of the Watch Tower Society

The line has been added, "though Witness publications since then have also commended Witnesses who've sold homes and preached in "the short time remaining". Can AuthorityTam, who added the following links, indicate which paragraph in each article he has cited, the WTS commends Witnesses who have sold their homes and preached in "the short time remaining""

  • "Imitate the Greatest Missionary", The Watchtower, February 15, 2008, page 17-18. (No reference to "short time remaining". Two references to selling a business, but only for newly converted Witnesses to return home to help their families and relatives spiritually).
  • "Pursuing the “Pearl of High Value” Today", The Watchtower, February 1, 2005, page 16-17. (No reference to "short time remaining". No commendation for anyone selling their home to preaching.)
  • "Make Good Use of Changing Circumstances", The Watchtower, March 1, 2003, page 20. (No reference to "short time remaining." One person left -- but didn't explicitly sell -- their home to get possibly free board by moving into an Assembly Hall as a caretaker. Another does sell his house to go preaching.)
  • "I Climbed the Finest Mountain of All", The Watchtower, December 1, 1989, page 30. (No reference to "short time remaining." No commendation for anyone selling their home).
  • "Making Full-Time Service a Career", The Watchtower, September 1, 1989, page 25. (No reference to "short time remaining". No commendation for anyone selling their home.)
  • "“Soundness of Mind” as the End Draws Close", The Watchtower, August 15, 1997, page 21. (A mention finally of "short time remaining", but no commendation for anyone selling their home).
  • "Call on Jehovah’s Name and Get Away Safe!", The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, page 31. (Another mention of "short time remaining ... oh dear, 21 years ago! But no commendation for anyone selling their home.)
  • "Does True Christianity Produce Fanatics?", July 15, 1987, page 30. (Another reference to the "short time remaining", this time 23 years ago. And no commendation for anyone selling their home).

Those citations provide no support at all for the claim that Witness publications since 1975 "have also commended Witnesses who've sold homes and preached in "the short time remaining". Will you delete the line or shall I? BlackCab (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) You can if you would like to. Natural (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

What do you mean by "will you delete the line or shall I?" I deleted it, as agreed to here, and then you reversed it. I'm confused about what you want with this particular edit. Natural (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
You are throughly confused. I was discussing the line added by another editor that reads "...though Witness publications since then have also commended Witnesses who've sold homes and preached in "the short time remaining". At the close of that discussion I wrote, "Those citations provide no support at all for the claim that Witness publications since 1975 "have also commended Witnesses ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a reference in the above heading on Isaiah 43:10-12 from Watchtower literature using the ASV with reference to the name Jehovah's Witnesses.Natural (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The emphasis on 1975 as "the end" in WT publications and talks, 1966 to 1975

User:Naturalpsychology has repeatedly removed the information sourced from four separate books, quoted above, that link the 1974 Our Kingdom Ministery article with the heightened expectation of Armageddon taking place in 1975. He has also added a sentence that reads: "The subject of 1975 was mentioned at at least one major convention in public talks (1966)". This appears to indicate that discussion of expectations for 1975 was limited to one convention in 1966.

  • The Bottings point out that those expectations were the focus of an August 1968 WT article, "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" and numerous public talks and assemblies.(p.46).
While this article identifies 1975 as a significant date, and perhaps one of expectation, it concludes with the idea of serving God for eternity as the Apostles did, so many centuries ago. The Apostles had strong expectation of the end, which didn’t come in their lifetime, how much more so we. It is as much about continuing to serve Jehovah after 1975 comes and goes, as it is about expectation concerning 1975.
  • Penton (p.95) refers to "a series of articles in Watchtower and Awake". He cites the 1968 WT and "What will the 1970s bring", Awake, October 8, 1968.
  • Holden (p.151) refers to the Truth book that contained a graph of human history that ended in 1975.

thumb|right|WT document circa 1970

  • Franz (Crisis of Conscience, p.241-251) cites the October 8, 1966 Awake article, "How much longer will it be?" that links the expected end with the end of 6000 years of human history in 1975.
The end of 6,000 years of man's history is what brought them to the date 1975. The previous 3 quotes are of the same point. Both are referring to the same Awake article.
  • Franz cites a May 1, 1968 Watchtower that discusses the likelihood of Armageddon occurring in 1975.
This article states clearly, "Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!"
So, while 1975 is pinpointed as a significant date, it concludes with Jesus' words that "no one knows the day or the hour"
  • Franz cites an October 15, 1968 WT that repeats the view that 6000 of human history would end in the mid-1970s, noting the "arrival of the seventh millennium of man’s existence on earth suggests a gladsome change for war-stricken humankind", and asking: "Would not, then, the end of six millenniums of mankind’s laborious enslavement under Satan the Devil be the fitting time for Jehovah God to usher in a Sabbath millennium for all his human creatures? Yes, indeed!"
This article does present the erroneous view that Jehovah's Witnesses presented at that time.
  • Franz cites the October 8, 1971 Awake that includes a chart that links the "thrilling hope of grand relief" with "the mid-1970s".
ditto. It is not specifically stated, but it is implied.
  • Franz cites the March 1968 Kingdom Ministry that urges Witnesses to go pioneering, pointing out "there are only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".
I don't have access to this Kingdom Ministry, I'd need to see it in context.
  • Franz notes that Fred Franz travelled around the world with Knorr at the start of 1975 and that Franz's speeches "in all countries visited centered on 1975".
Again, Ray Franz's interpretation of this is not necessarily an accurate barometer of what actually was said or implied. In the citing below, as an example, at the March 2, 1975 Gilead School graduation speech that Ray Franz is noting as pointing to 1975, it is a partial quote, and the full picture is not given. The rest of the quote indicates that Fred Franz is backtracking a little, and saying that they really don't know if the end would come at that time, because they didn't know the period of time between Adam's creation and the creation of Eve.
"Does this mean that we know exactly when God will destroy this old system and establish a new one? Franz showed that we do not, for we do not know how short was the time interval between Adam’s creation and the creation of Eve, at which point God’s rest day of seven thousand years began. (Heb. 4:3, 4)"
  • Franz notes that at the March 2, 1975 Gilead School graduation speech (reported in WT May 1, 1975) Fred Franz again linked the end of 6000 years in September 1975 with human destruction by pollution, starvation and nuclear war, adding, "We should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us, for the Bible proves that Jehovah is the greatest chronologist and we have the anchor date, 1914, marking the end of the Gentile Times. So we are filled with anticipation for the near future, for our generation."
Read it in entirety. Pretty much same information as above.
  • From "Announcements", Our Kingdom Ministry, July 1970: "A new circuit assembly program is scheduled to begin in September. We believe you will find it most informative and upbuilding. The public talk will be 'Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970’s?'"
Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970's does not say that the end would come in the 1970s, but the thought Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970s can mean, to Jehovah's Witnesses, "the world has become more wicked than ever, we are deep into the last days, Will You Conquer the World, or Will it Conquer You?" As a Jehovah's Witness, that public talk does not mean to me that the end will come in the 1970s but "will I conquer the world personally in the 1970s.

Clearly, reliable sources prove that emphasis on 1975 was at more than one convention in 1966. It was a sustained, nine-year build-up supported by publications and public talks and assemblies. BlackCab (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Concluding this analysis of the facts, what Jehovah's Witnesses said, what Fred Franz said, what was not said, what was implied, and what was clarified, this is the more accurate analysis of it.
There is no doubt that the facts show that there were unfounded expectations about the year 1975 by Jehovah's Witnesses, published in the Watchtower, and also mentioned at one assembly in 1966 and at one convention program (held in 8 cities) in 1969. There was also information published in a number of Witness publications which would lead one to believe that one might expect the end to come at that time, or soon thereafter, but at the same time, there were some cautionary remarks, disclaimers, as it were, that as Christians we serve God with eternity in view, not just to a specific date, and that we really don't know for a certainty the day or the hour.
More accurately one could say that there was a general line of thinking that first appeared in 1966 in Jehovah’s Witness’ publications concerning 1975 marking 6,000 years of human existence, and that it was possible that that year might mark the beginning of the looked forward to Millenium. This thought was introduced by Fred Franz at one assembly in Baltimore in 1966, and again was part of the convention program held in eight cities in 1969. Additionally, there were a number of Watchtower and Awake articles from 1966 which explained why this possibly might be a pivotal date in terms of the beginning of the Millenium, but at the same time, it cautioned that Jehovah’s Witnesses did not know the exact day or hour, and that they would have to “wait and see,” what would take place at that time and in the time soon thereafter.
The two points in question are--The selling of houses has nothing to do with 1975. There was only one convention where 1975 was specifically referred to, on record, according to the verifiable evidence in both Jehovah's Witness and other publications (1966) and one convention program, one public talk, given in 8 cities, (1969) where the general idea, which most JW were probably already familiar with, and the Millenium coinciding with the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. The public talks that the Bottings refer to are one public talk, the same talk given in 8 cities at one assembly program in 1969. After that, there is no record, from the evidence presented here, that 1975 was mentioned at any public talks or assemblies, or implied, other than the cautionary retreat in March 1975 at the Gilead graduation.
The selling of houses has nothing to do with 1975, but is an inference or interpretation of the facts by one apostate. 1975 was not mentioned in the article. Selling one’s homes to further kingdom interests is as old as the Apostles, and continues to be encouraged to this day, as it did in the decades previous to the 1970s in Jehovah’s Witness’ publications.
This isn't saying that 1975 shouldn't be mentioned in this article, but that it should be accurate in its wording, and not an opinion, or an interpretation of events by a Wikipedia editor, or by a publication from a Jehovah's Witness apostate. Stick to the facts. Natural (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Those are your interpretations. I have made the point repeatedly to you, however, that such statements in reliable published sources are the ones Wikipedia must report. I have gone to the trouble of spelling out all the evidence presented by those sources that speak of the mounting level of expectation over the years. Wikipedia gains its information from those sources. That information utterly contradicts the statement you wrote that the expectation arose from one 1966 convention. It is not for you to debate each source and argue with the author that they are wrong. Bottom line: I am writing what sources say. You are trying to justify the conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses leadership through that period. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that would be your interpretation of it. Ray Franz is a disfellowshipped apostate, he has his own bias. You also are in the apostate camp, so you have your bias. You take your position with Ray Franz, that's your right, but other's have the same right to hear both sides of the issue.Natural (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
I am interpreting nothing. I am using the available sources, listed above. What is the other "side" of the issue? Your synthesis of events based on your reading of the Watchtower articles? Wikipedia, thankfully, is based on reliable sources rather than individual opinions. BlackCab (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, point, no one agreed to post a pioture of the 1971 or 1967 lapel about World Conquerors for the Circuit Convention. I don't feel that really proves the point, because JW have that type of thing regularly in many different formats. Other JW literature uses the term "20th Century". I've personally used 21st Century in my other small writings. So, whether you are a world conqueror in 1970s or 1980s or in the 21st Century, it is the attitude that JW had in the past and still have. So I don't feel that the lapel is appropriate, nor is it neutral in viewpoint. It is a specific apostate viewpoint, a negative way of interpreting a positive message. Typical Ray Franz complaining type stuff. Not able to find happiness in anything, some only find fault. Natural (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
A picture of a Watch Tower Society document is an apostate viewpoint? It is an illustration of a document -- an invitation to a circuit assembley public talk that could be a lapel card -- that is highly relevant in a discussion of Watch Tower publications highlighting the mid-1970s as "an appropriate time" for God to bring Armageddon. I'm not sure why you raise Franz's name in connection with the illustration. BlackCab (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The word conquer is pretty meaningless without a context of something ending; the word implies completion and isn't something that continues with no defined end point. Mundane references to a time period generically are not quite the same as a specific reference to conquering in connection with a specific time period. However, I'm not entirely sure the picture is necessary in the scope of the main JW article. It would probably be better placed at the Criticism article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with you, Jeffro. It's not used as a criticism. It is an appropriate illustration of WT material from the time (1970) they were continuing to focus attention on what they say as the climax of human history in the mid-1970s. It's no more a criticism of the religion than it was at the time; it simply reflects their outlook at the time. BlackCab (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the illustration itself is a criticism. However, the image is more relevant to the criticism concerning 1975, and isn't particularly important to the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles benefit from appropriate illustrations. The image we're discussing is probably more informative and relevant than several illustrations already in the article. How informative are the images of a blood bag, a Kingdom Hall and a staged picture illustrating what two Jehovah's Witnesses looks like when they're offering literature? I'll recaption the image, which illustrates the focus WT literature placed on God acting to "conquer" his enemies in the 1970s. The image is not terribly appropriate in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article, because there is scant reference to 1975 in that article. The main JW article, however, does have a section devoted to that episode of JW history. BlackCab (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses section from main article

The section on the main article Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses, is almost in its entirety a copy of what is already on the Critiems of Jehovah's Witnesses page. The Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page, has more words than the Jehovah's Witnesses page itself.

The Criticisms secton on the main page is fully, 1109 words long. The entire Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses is only about 6,440 words long, which means that between 17 and 18% of the main article is devoted to criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems unnecessary to have a 17% of the main article devoted to criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses when there is already such a large page, larger than the main Jehovah's Witness page, already on Wikipedia. It is questionable why there would be a Criticizng Jehovah's Witnesses page on Wikipedia, when Wikipedia is supposed to support only a Neutral Point of View. But for now, I feel that all that space to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses isn't necessary. Natural (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The "Criticisms" section on the main JW page is a summary of the main article. It will necessarily contain information that is expanded on at the main article. Wikipedia's policies on neutrality require that a subject be presented in an editorially neutral, impartial manner. As long as the main Criticisms article is fair and accurate, it is acceptable. Type "Criticism" into your search box and see how many articles there are about criticism of subjects. Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted much criticism and the articles attempt to cover that criticism. You have labelled this thread "Removal of Criticisms". What would you like to see removed? BlackCab (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This article should be written in summary style - providing brief summaries of the relevant daughter articles in separate sections. It is completely logical that this article should have a summary of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, which should be worded similarly to the article. Also the article "criticism of JEhovah's Witnesses isn't for criticizing Jehovbahs Witnesses it is an article about the various criticism that have been levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is not supposed to purport the criticial viewpoint as fact but is subject to all the same NPOV requirements as any other article, and as such has to bring all relevant viewpoints about criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Naturalpsychology that the criticism section at this article is longer than it needs to be. However, in line with Maunus, criticism of JWs is widespread and notable, so it is appropriate to have a criticism article (and summary here), so long as it simply presents criticisms that have been made by others rather than making its own criticism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if the criticism section was condensed to give a better alotment of due weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"...so long as it simply presents criticisms that have been made by others rather than making its own criticism." That is what the article does. User:Naturalpsychology, whose thread title suggests he wishes to remove the "Criticisms" section from the main JW article, should be aware that he should not simply delete material from either article simply because he disagrees with the criticism. He has shown a tendency do this in the past and at the thread above continues to argue against the statements of sources based on his own view of the religion as a member. He has also claimed repeatedly that "apostate" sources (who happen to be the main sources of published information outside the WTS) should not be used n Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
On apostate sources of information and NPOV - There are many sources of information on Jehovah's Witnesses which have a NPOV. Apsotate sources are not the main source of accurate information on Jehovah's Witnesses. These type of sources are opinionated and also have their own bias and often times, self interest. There are scores of books and website about Jehovah's Witnesses that are not from apostates that give accurate information both pro and con, for Jehovah's Witnesses. These are in fact Neutral. I feel that the Wikipedia article should use these type of sources, which are more in line than apostate sources as being accurate and unbiased. As an example, the Bottings book interprets, interpolates, and gives strong opinions, rather than just presenting facts. That is one example.Natural (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
Whatever Naturalpsychology is suggesting, no one else has agreed to deleting the whole section, so I'm not sure such a call for 'caution' is required at this point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
We'll see! BlackCab (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scores of books" about Jehovah's Witnesses that are not from what you call apostate sources? Why are they not in the article? BlackCab (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are that many books and reliable websources, and many are in the article. The thing is, that some editors prefer to stick to using apostate sources. But there are at least 20 reliable non-Jehovah's Witness sources of information on Jehovah's Witnesses from neutral sources. When I have opportunity I'll list them here.Natural (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

In the Demographics section of the main Wikipedia article, the paragraph there leads to another page which is more in depth. The Demographics section is about 187 words, and provides a good template for about what the length of the Criticisms section should be, as the details are thoroughly considered in the main page Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. Natural (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Each summary necessarily reflects the length of the spinout article. The Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses main article is five paragraphs long. The summary in the main JW article is two paragraphs. The Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses main article is a much more extensive article containing three separate sections, the longest of which is Social Criticisms. The summary of that article at the main JW article contains two paragraphs on each section except Social Criticisms, which is a little longer. The Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses main article is very long and the summary of it at the main JW page reflects that. It all seems well balanced to me. Suggesting the brief Demographics summary is a template for the length of all summary sections would then require the Beliefs and Practices section to be cut to a similar length. BlackCab (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems like Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses has a direct bearing on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is more of a direct connection. The criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses is more of a tangent, and it is questionable whether there should be such a page on something like Wikipedia at all. Also, it is a tangent, something of special, rather than general interest. Each of the criticisms levied against Jehovah's Witnesses is controversial and also, of all the sections, can contain the most bias. The length of the criticisms section is disproportional to the article, containing 17-18% of the article itself. That, in addition to an article on Criticisms, which is longer than the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, an article which, in my opinion is a biased article, not Neutral at all in viewpoint, makes a section 17% of the Wikipedia article, not appropriate, necessary, and certainly reflects the bias of oppossers of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are using Wikipedia as a platform to air their complaints against Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's be honest about. So, I propose cutting down the Criticisms section to 5% or less of the main article. That certainly seems fair and balanced. Natural (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Natural
There are no grounds for deleting material from articles on the basis of a mathematical formula. As noted above, the section is a summary of a big article and briefly covers the main points in that article. It also gains its length by including a rebuttal from Watch Tower publications. Your argument about "special" vs "general" interest displays a lack of understanding about what Wikipedia is. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1) Agree that the criticism section is unusually large. 2) Agree that picking an arbitrary percentage is an inappropriate method of dealing with #1. 3) Agree that the inclusion of rebuttal partially justifies the length of the criticism section.
If I were to pick one subsection to try and cut down, I'd pick the social criticisms section. As it stands, it's good prose, but not as compact-summary-style as it could be. It carefully leads the reader to understand the criticism presented. Like I said, this is great prose, but it introduces some fluff that could possibly be trimmed.
My suggestion: rework the section. The social criticisms listed in the 4 paragraphs there are interrelated, and so can be compacted into more a succinct summary....comments? ~BFizz 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1970s photo inserted - deletion

I won't accept the 1970s circuit assembly photo for Blackcab. The reasons are noted in the above section on 1975. The theme of being in expectation has been one in the Bible, Jesus "What I say to one, I say to all, keep on the watch," in Matthew 24, repeated by the Apostles, notably, the Apostle Peter and Paul, and one that has been one of the theme's of Jehovah's Witnesses to this day. The 1970s do not significantly differ from today in the view of JW in being in expectation. It is the interpretation of Ray Franz that leads one to the conlcusion that Blackcab is attempting to illustrate rather than fact. The wording of that assembly can be interpreted a couple of different ways. If Blackcab insists, then I'm going to have to go to the board for a NPOV discussion on this and some other points. I'll draw the line there. I won't accept that illustration, as I feel it is an interpretation of the facts, rather than a fact itself, the interpretation being that of persons who have a bias and ax to grind against JW. Natural (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

It is unrelated to Raymond Franz and it is an appropriate and neutral illustration of WT thinking in the 1970s, as reflected by a significant number of Watchtower and Awake articles focusing on expectations that God's action against wickedness would coincide with what it believed was the close of the first 6000 years of human history in the mid-1970s. Use of the illustration is not inherently critical or negative; it is included in a section of the article dealing with expectations for the 1970s, which was a notable part of JW history, and I don't know why you find it offensive. BlackCab (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The illustration is useful and should be kept. The caption that accompanies it, however, could be rethought. The current caption text is, imho, a subjective interpretation. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have abbreviated the caption. Its relevance should still be obvious. BlackCab (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal Criticisms section

The Doctrinal criticisms section also, is too detailed for the front page. It merely repeats what is already stated, almost word-for-word, and so is unnecessary to go into that type of detail, which is basically rhetoric, when it starts talking about false prophet and so on, of die-hard opposers and extremists, rather than the balanced type of material that should be on a first page article on this subject. That section should be trimmed, made more general, and it can refer to the criticisms section if that is desired. The whole section can be summed up into one paragraph. For now I'll go along with Jeff, in his focus on the criticisms section, but I'm being up front in my intentions and feelings on this criticms section. Thanks. Natural (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Upon reviewing the section, I agree. The entire section of "Doctrinal Criticism" focuses entirely on the "false prophet" idea. Perhaps we could merge this section with the "Biblical Criticism" and put both under the heading "Doctrinal Criticism". In any event, both the criticism and the rebuttal of the section can be trimmed to just the core ideas. Again, this is great prose, and it fits perfectly in the article dedicated to criticism, but is too verbose/fluffy for summary style. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think most of the current wording in that section is mine. If it's too long, it's because I've worded it to avoid direct accusations without context. In each case (predictions and demands for unquestioning obedience) I have established what the WTS ostensibly does (publish its expectations, state that Christians must obey God's visible organization) and then state the view of critics (false predictions, JWs told to believe unquestioningly or face expulsion). There is then the WT rebuttal. To maintain the criticism, it's important to first establish the JW position. Removing the JW position leaves only a criticism without a context. I don't mind the section being abbreviated as long as the main points of criticism remain. If someone has a proposal, they might like to suggest the wording here. BlackCab (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness, by definition...

Jehovah's Witness, by definition, is not a Christian denomination. Nor is the New World Translation a legitimate translation of the Bible.
Jehovah's Witness is not a Christian denomination. By definition, a Christian denomination is one whose members believe Jesus Christ to be Lord, or follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.[1] This is something that Jehovah's Witnesses openly reject.

In Revelation 22:18, Jesus says via his disciple John, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."[2]

The New World Translation is a grossly skewed interpretation of scripture, and the idea that the New World Translation is just as valid as any other translation of the Bible is a farce. There are dozens of places all throughout scripture where the New World Translation alters or adds one key word that skews and completely changes the meaning of the passage, and blasphemes the scriptures to dangerous levels.

For instance, one of the most well known perversions of scripture is found in the New World Translation's interpretation of John 1:1. The New World Translation's interpretation says, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The New International version says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The New American Standard Bible prints John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The English Standard Version prints John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

In the previous three translations (All of them nationally accepted by christian denominations as accurate translations of scripture), John 1:1 says the exact same thing. Only the New World Translation alters this passage. This is "not" because the interpreters of the New World Translation merely interpreted this passage differently than other translators. It is because they had different beliefs than other translators, and interpreted scripture accordingly. They tried to interpret scripture based on their preconceived ideas, instead of allowing scripture to speak for itself.

Jehovah's Witnesses profess to believe in creation by an intelligent designer[3]. For any Jehovah's Witnesses reading this, know that interpreting scripture based on what one believes instead of interpreting scripture and "then" believing what it says is no different than the evolutionist who sees a monkey's skeleton and says it is a Cro-Magnon man. He has beliefs and interprets the evidence accordingly, instead of looking at the evidence and "then" forming hypotheses. Forming conclusions before looking at the evidence is exactly what the translators of the New World Translation did.

As the saying goes, "If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it." The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures fits this saying like a glove. It has been translated to fit previous beliefs of the translators and therefore is not based on true scripture. Because Jehovah's Witness is based on the New World Translation, which is not based on the Bible, it follows that Jehovah's Witness is not a legitimate Christian denomination.

--Ntdavis (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Was that a rant? Jamie (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ntdavis alleges that "by definition" JWs are not Christian, and claims that "a Christian denomination is one whose members believe Jesus Christ to be Lord". He then cites, but doesn't quote, the entry of Christian at 'thefreedictionary.com'[7]. That source states:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
None of that endorses Ntdavis' claimed definition of Christian, and the previous discussion over the last few weeks demonstrates that nontrinitarian Christians are Christians. Whether the beliefs of JWs (or of any other group) are correct is irrelevant with regard to whether they are Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr. Please read the past few archives of talk discussions regarding why I disagree with the title of this section. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's a huge deal, but arguing that some of my arguments aren't valid because I didn't directly quote all of the definitions of "Christian" is a poor argument against my points. However, since you brought it up, the direct language of the definition is: "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." So I ask you: Do JWs profess Christ to be who he said he was? If JWs are Christians, then they follow the teachings of Christ. Even the demons knew that Jesus was the son of God[4][8]. Do JWs believe this? Jesus taught that he rose from the dead.[5][9] Do JWs believe this? Jesus taught that he and the father were one. [6][10] Do JWs believe this also? Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit and God the father were distinct and separate parts of the trinity.[7][11] Do JWs believe this?

If JWs believe all of these things, then there are hundreds of mistaken web articles out there. If you can be a Christian and still not believe all of these things, then there are even more mistaken web articles out there. Either JWs are not Christians or Christianity is not what God defined it as and we call God a liar. There's no in between. Either we as flawed humans rebel and define things as we see fit, or we let the perfect creator of the universe define things. Which will you choose? There's no third option. --Ntdavis (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Third option: there is no God, and if there were his definitory powers would hold no sway in the domain wikipedia which is based on Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources (which is not the Bible in any translation) and consensus. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ntdavis, JWs (and other nontrintiarian Christians) interpret scriptures commonly accepted as Trinity proof texts differently, rather than simply ignore them. It isn't up to you to decide which interpretations of the scriptures identify a group as Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ntdavis cites the definition, "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." JWs do profess belief in Jesus as Christ, and follow the religion based on the lief and teachings of Jesus. The question, "Do JWs profess Christ to be who he said he was?" relies on theology which is subject to interpretation on which the previously cited definition is not dependent.
Some of Ntdavis' ideas are just plain wrong. JWs do believe Jesus was God's son. JWs do believe Jesus rose from the dead. The other questions are based on interpretations.
The fact that Ntdavis imagines that John 14:26 proves the Trinity demonstrates the point about interpretation quite well. In that scripture, Jesus did not say, "Hey guys, I'm a Trinity!"; he said, essentially, "God will send some other guy in place of me to remind you about stuff."
There is no actual proof that "the perfect creator of the universe" exists at all, much less that it is the deity spoken of in the bible, so until it presents its 'proof', we'll stick with a neutral definition.
What the Catholic Encyclopedia does know (refer to previous Talk), but that Ntdavis apparently doesn't, is that other Christian denominations don't have a monopoly on how other Christian religions should interpret scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, I apologize if I angered you. I'm trying to make a point, but I'm sorry if I came across as too-persistent. Because it looks bad if I do it, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the phrase but that Ntdavis apparently doesn't from your last post. Different points of view are accepted and welcomed by Wikipedia standards. Personal attacks are not.

My suggestion is that, because it's apparent that we share different views, the article be changed to a more neutral point of view, as is Wikipedia's goal anyway. For instance, the first sentence could read something like this: Jehovah's Witnesses view themselves as a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The application of similar phrases in the rest of the article would put it in a more neutral light. Thoughts anyone?--Nathan (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but we have been over this to death. All our thoughts have been expressed in the above many many many threads. Read them and find our arguments. It is not neutral to adopt the viewpoint of mainstream christianity. It is neutral to adopt the view of neutral objective secular sources and they all agree that JW are classified as a Christian faith. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ntdavis, there was no "personal attack". You assert that mainstream Christian interpretations about the Trinity exclude JWs from the definition of Christian. You are incorrect. You are of course welcome to state your opinion, but you have provided no source at all that backs it up, whereas specific sources have been provided that refute your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the current text. The problem is that there are two definitions of "Christian." One is descriptive, the sort of thing a historian of religion might use. The other involves a value judgement: that a Christian is actually a follower of Christ. For an encyclopedia it seems that we need to use the first definition. JW's see themselves as Christian. They claim to accept follow Christ. In a descriptive sense they are Christians, although they are fairly far from the mainstream. Hedrick (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is, there aren't two definitions of Christian. There is a definition, as presented in dictionaries and encyclopedias, including the Catholic Encyclopedia; and then there are subjective opinions about what a Christian 'really' is. Notably, no one has supplied any sourced definition of 'Christian' that excludes JWs. The current lead suitably deals with the contrast with the mainstream.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I feel that I need to step in here. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can rightfully state our beliefs. If you decide to pretend to know what we believe without digging past the many websites that profess to know our beliefs but flagrantly distort them, than you are just one of those type of slanderous people that go with what everybody is saying without getting to the real truth of the matter. And really, getting to the truth of the matter, in this case, isn't even that hard. If you want to get to the bottom of this, why not try going to watchtower.org, our main website, and read for yourself articles galore which clearly state our beliefs about Jesus. Or just believe me that we do base our religion on the life and teachings of Jesus. But somehow I don't think that you, who are shaped by mainstream media, will even believe that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Although we do not believe Jesus to be God, but rather his Kingly Son, does this make us not Christian? I will also address the matter of the attacks on the New World Translation, esp. about John 1:1. I quote right out of Reasoning From the Scriptures, by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses: "Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God? John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording. What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the‧os′ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.) What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS." Well, there ya have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.127.148 (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I'm assuming that means the current lead is acceptable to you. Otherwise, can you suggest an improvement? The statement "somehow I don't think that you, who are shaped by mainstream media, will even believe that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" suggests an inappropriate assumption of bias that might itself set people against you, which you might like to avoid. Also, you don't need to prove JW interpretations here (or disprove anyone else's), just state what they are. Aside from that, maybe you could look through the article and indicate your thoughts about the article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
How do JWs get around John 14:9, "Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" Could Jesus say it in a more specific way? So far in the book, Jesus has done several miracles including raising a dead man, healing many people from serious ailments, feeding five thousand men from practically nothing, walking on water, and turning water into wine. His disciples, however, are not getting the picture, so Jesus speaks as plainly as possible. Can anyone get any more basic than the identity property: I (Jesus) = Father (God)? What's more basic? How can that be misinterpreted to say that Jesus is merely God's 'kingly son'?
--ntdavis 16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The comment above is probably better-addressed to all nontrinitarians, but at an appropriate forum (eg other than an article talk page). JW ideas on nontrinitarianism can be found here. That publication addresses John 14:9 by referring to John 5:19, John 8:28, and John 12:49-50.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you would bring up verse John 14:9. In this, Jesus is not saying that he is God, but that he is the reflection of God. That his bahavior and mannerism are Godly. Jesus was so much like his Father, that looking upon him was like looking at the Father. That is why Jesus could not understand why they were asking to see the Father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireAndIce6280 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to make subjective claims about what Jesus 'really' meant. It if sufficient to simply indicate how JWs interpret what the passage says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Random House Dictionary, at dictionary.com, says that JWs are a "Christian sect." Mandmelon (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Witnesses base their beliefs on the Bible"

Would anybody oppose inserting text after this (in the intro) to the effect that they also have a range of literature explaining such? I do not mean to explicitly say that they base their beliefs on their literature, but their literature does explain their unique interpretation of scripture. Mandmelon (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already indicates that they produce and distribute literature, and it's fairly unremarkable that their literature contains their religious interpretations. I'm not sure it's necessary to restate it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Isaiah 43:10-12 Ye are my Witnesses saith Jehovah - Watchtower Reference

This is a reference on the Sctipture Isaiah 43:10-12 from Watchtower literature -

- Our Incoming World Government --God's Kingdom - chap. 2 p. 20 par. 8 Chapter - The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning which states:

Our Incoming World Government --God's Kingdom chap. 2 p. 20 par. 8 Chapter - The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning

8 And now comes the declaration of the challenger: According to the American Standard Version (AS) of the Bible, the challenger identifies who he is by name, saying: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God. Yea, since the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who can hinder it?”—Isaiah 43:10-13.

The Scriptural account that Jehovah's Witnesses draw on for their name is in the 43rd chapter of Isaiah. There the world scene is viewed as a courtroom drama: The gods of the nations are invited to bring forth their witnesses to prove their claimed cases of righteousness or to hear the witnesses for Jehovah's side and acknowledge the truth. Jehovah there declares to his people: "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour."—Isaiah 43:10, 11, American Standard Version. Natural (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

This was discussed two weeks ago at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 51#Quotation of Isaiah 43:10-12 and in March here. Neither the 1931 convention talk nor Watchtower article announcing the new name for the religion cited the American Standard Version nor the particular wording you have added. Therefore despite what the Watchtower recently wrote, it is incorrect to say the name change was based on that translation with that wording that includes the name "Jehovah". The Isaiah quote used by Rutherford specifically used the words "the Lord". BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford gradually brought the preaching work under centralized...

This small edit helps it to give a more clear understanding, that it wasn't all at once, but the quote states "gradually, Rutherford..."

Rutherford wanted to unify the preaching work and, instead of having each individual give his own opinion ... gradually Rutherford himself began to be the main spokesman for the organization." (Franz quoting Faith on the March, 1957, A. H. MacMillan) Natural (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Doctrinal Changes

The cross should be mentioned as a doctrinal change by Jehovah's Witnesses under Rutherford, and the year for that, short explanation.Natural (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

too many references to this one point-combine

These two references are the same for the one point, there are too many references on that line, and it would be good to combine the ones that can be.

references 80 and 81

The Harp of God. 1921. pp. 231–236. states that "the Lord's second presence dates from 1874." ^ The Harp of God at Google Books Natural (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Social Criticisms, take II

Here are the main criticisms and rebuttals I see as I scan the section.

paragraph 1
  • (explanation: WTS teaches loyalty to God, shuns the dissident)
  • WTS is autocratic
  • cult
  • [undue] "adulation" of WTS by Witnesses
  • "mindless acceptance" of WTS direction by Witnesses
  • teachings are cult-ish
  • rebuttal: Witnesses, scholar, deprogrammer, and knocking guy disagree
paragraph 2
  • (explanation: WTS warns against "independent thinking" and other religions' publications)
  • WTS teaching causes "mental isolation"
  • intent of mind control
paragraph 3
  • (explanation: WTS publications say preaching is required)
  • WTS continual admonitions to preach = "coercive pressure"
paragraph 4
  • coercion to obey ban of transfusions
  • Muramoto's criticism:
  • exaggeration
  • emotionalism
  • create paranoia
  • distort facts
  • rebuttal: Ridley discredits Muramoto

Now then...I'll need to think more before proposing exactly how to make it more compact, but I see 2 ways we could probably approach the problem. 1) reduce redundancy of criticism (for example, combine criticism of coercion for preaching and no-transfusions), and 2) reduce preamble/explanatory information. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is already on the Criticisms page, almost word for word. If you are going to keep a criticisms section, it should be maybe, one paragraph, succinct, and then the reader can look for more details on another page. There is no reason to repeat the 1,200 words of the criticism section on another page.
Also, the New World Translation doesn't need to be in a Criticisms section. It can be in its own section, it has been criticized, and it has been verified, or given credit, but that's not the main idea behind the New World Translation. The criticism would be a secondary point to the main idea of the New World Translation. So, a better approach would be to have a paragraph, New World Translation, and then, any controversy can be succinctly summarized, along with the reponse. It shouldn't be in a criticisms section, but it's own, if it is going to be mentioned on the first page that in depth in the Wikpedia article. Actually, what is stated in the first paragraph, gives a pretty accurate look at it and the right impression, about the New World Translation. It would be just as good not to have a paragraphy on the NWT in the front page, but to have a link to the article on the NWT. It gives the right impression to the reader in that first paragraph. Natural (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Here are my proposed adjustments to the section. Cuts are indicated with strikethrough text, and additions in bold text. Please provide feedback.

Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[322][323] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[324][325] Frequent calls for loyalty to the Watch Tower Society, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership asautocratic.[326][327] Former Witness Edmond Gruss and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[328] and Alan W. Gomes[329] call the Watch Tower organization a religious cult based on its religious teachings and Witnesses' "mindless acceptance" of its direction.[330][331] Gruss bases his claim on the "adulation" of the organization, the "mindless acceptance" of directions by members and the Watch Tower Society's insistence that faith in the organization is necessary for salvation.[330] Hoekema has identified teachings he claims are characteristic of religious cults.[331] Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult,[332] stating that individuals need guidance from God, but need to do their own thinking.[333][334] American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton,[335] Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,[336] and Joel P. Engardio, the producer of the documentary Knocking, also reject the claims.[337][338]
Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous.[339][340][341] The Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization by apostates, or former members,[342][343] or literature published by other religions.[344][345][346][347] This has led some critics to accuse the Watch Tower Society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.[348][349][350]
Watch Tower Society publications say that the preaching work is "a fundamental requirement of their faith", and an obligation for Jehovah's Witnesses.[351][352][353] Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's continual admonitions to preach door-to-door as coercive pressure.[354][355][356]
Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society as manipulative, [citation?] citing its continual admonitions to preach door-to-door and to avoid criticism of the organization. [paragraph break removed] Critics claim that Witness medical patients have been coerced to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions.[23][24][357] American neurologist Osamu Muramoto has stated that Watch Tower Society literature uses exaggeration and emotionalism to create paranoia and distort the facts about blood transfusions[358] in order to coerce them into obeying the religions ban of the practice. In response, Donald T. Ridley, Associate General Counsel of the Watchtower Society, stated that "Muramoto resorts to distortion and uncorroborated assertions in his effort to portray a matter of religious faith as a matter of medical ethical debate."[359]

Since that's probably way too hard to read, here is what it would look like in the end (only two short paragraphs):

Former Witness Edmond Gruss and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[328] and Alan W. Gomes[329] call the Watch Tower organization a religious cult based on its religious teachings and Witnesses' "mindless acceptance" of its direction.[330][331] Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult,[332] stating that individuals need guidance from God, but need to do their own thinking.[333][334] American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton,[335] Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,[336] and Joel P. Engardio, the producer of the documentary Knocking, also reject the claims.[337][338]
Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society as manipulative,[reference needed?] citing its continual admonitions to preach door-to-door and to avoid criticism of the organization. American neurologist Osamu Muramoto has stated that Watch Tower Society literature uses exaggeration and emotionalism to create paranoia and distort the facts about blood transfusions[358] in order to coerce them into obeying the religion's ban of the practice.

It's not a finished product (the prose is mediocre, and the second paragraph needs a little bit of JW rebuttal) but I think it preserves the essence of the criticisms. I've added the word 'manipulative', which I think sums up most, if not all of these criticisms, quite well. Thoughts? ...comments? ~BFizz 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good try, but not quite there. Three immediate thoughts: (a) the introductory point you've deleted about the demand for total obedience to an autocratic leadership is an important one; this is one of the most common criticisms of the religion. (b) The rebuttal by the WTS to the cult claim is sufficient. Additional rebuttals by other parties is not necessary in such an abbreviated summary. (c) The condemnation of "independent thinking" is closely related to this and can probably be included in a sentence that reinstates the first point about total obedience. (d) The "manipulative" line is not sufficient to cover those points you've merged there and on first glance I'm not sure the points you combined in that sentence are so closely related. I'll have a go myself when I get a moment. BlackCab (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree totally to what you are saying in b) that additional rebuttals are not necessary. If you accuse someone using what seem to be "authoritative references" and then their rebuttal is only their word for it, then you have won the contest. You need similar "authoritative references" if it is to be unbiased.

I feel that the proposal by Jeff77 is better, more succinct, and less redundant. Natural (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Do you mind if I pinch your markup? Here's my proposal:
Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[318][319] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[320][321] Such instructions, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic.[322][323] Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous.[335][336][337] This has led some critics to accuse the Watch Tower Society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.[344][345][346] Former Witness Edmond Gruss and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes[324] and Alan W. Gomes[325] call the Watch Tower organization a religious cult. Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult,[328] stating that individuals need guidance from God, but need to do their own thinking.[329][330]
Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's continual admonitions to preach door-to-door as coercive pressure.[350][351][352] Critics including neurosurgeon Osamu Muramoto claim the Society also coerces Witness medical patients to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions with the aid of exaggeration and emotionalism.[23][24][353][354] Watch Tower legal counsel Donald T. Ridley has responded that Muramoto resorts to distortion and uncorroborated assertions in his effort to portray a matter of religious faith as a matter of medical ethical debate.[355]
Shorter, but, I think, retaining the major points. BlackCab (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
BlackCab's suggestion (which has been put into effect) is a step in the right direction and has my support. The whole criticism section is looking leaner now. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Silent Lambs

Silent Lambs is something of a rogue organization whose information is not very credible or verified. It's position on Wikipedia is questionable and has been challenged a couple of times. It is still on because no one has worked hard enough to take it off. I don't think that it needs to be included in the main article of JW, but it is sufficient either on its own page or in the criticisms page of JW. Silent Lambs hits below the belt as it were, and goes beyond what it needs to in an area that JW have already significantly addressed the policy issue.Natural (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

I disagree. I feel that the *brief* mention of Silent Lambs is appropriate. On a related note, the rebuttal in the "Handling of sexual abuse allegations" section is unnecessarily lengthy. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It is Naturalpsychology's opinion only that Silent Lambs is a rogue organization. His argument that the article "is still on because no one has worked hard enough to take it off" is false: a proposal to delete the article was made in February 2010 and failed. He is also apparently of the opinion that the JW article shouldn't mention issues over the handling of sex abuse cases (which were the subject of several major TV current affairs investigations and newspaper articles) because it's all better now. That argument is also false. And I agree the rebuttal is far too long. Someone else might like to edit that; anything I did would probably be viewed with suspicion. BlackCab (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The SilentLambs website frequently includes reports that are either unverifiably or tenuously related to JWs to maximize a perceived view of the issue. However, that doesn't negate the notability of the organization. I'm not sure it is necessary in the scope of the main JW article to mention SilentLambs though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If the Silent Lambs page is going to stay on Wikipedia for the time being, it needs some change, it would be better if it were incorporated into another page. It makes more sense, and keeps the thing coherent. It is not so notable an organization that it needs to be a part of the first page of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It has a lot of content that is unverifiable, and Jeffro77 put quite a list together on the Silent Lambs showing, really, that it is not the type of credible source that one would go to for accurate information. That being the case, it really doesn't need a front page link unless someone is trying to load the page with anything they might be able to find in the way of criticism, which certainly isn't the purpose of any of the editing that we are trying to do. Our purpose is to produce a high quality page, neutral in viewpoint, without hidden agendas. Natural (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
Please propose any changes to the SilentLambs article at that article's Talk page.
I agree that the scope of the main JW article doesn't warrant a link to the SilentLambs page. Such a link is better suited to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section revision

Getting back to the revision of the lengthy criticisms section on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page. The first proposal here, is that the criticism of the New World Translation on this page is not necessary. There's a page that can be referred to on Wikipedia New World Translation, that explains it more throughly. There's no reason to singel out the New World Translation for criticism, really, any more than any other translation. All translations have some bias or another, for the most part, depending on which religious school of thought one subscribes to. In any case, one can simple refer to the New World Translation page if anyone wishes to do more research on that, or summarize it in one sentence. All the detail isn't necessary on this front page. Comments? Thanks. Natural (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

If you want, the sentence on the New World Translation can say something like.

In the 1950s, Nathan Knorr authorized a new translation of the Bible by Jehovah's Witnesses, which became known as The New World Translation. It was released gradually over a period of years, and was finally available in its entirety in the early 1960s (or the exact date). It is a literal translation of the Christian Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Previously, Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James Version or the American Standard Version of the Bible. The New World Translation has recieved both laudits and criticism from different scholars and reviewers. See New World Translation article. Natural (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

I reject this entire doctrinal and social criticisms section as it presently is.

If you want a paragraph that gives general information such as.

Some former Jehovah's Witnesses, and some opposing religious critics have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses with making false predications and being overdemanding in its call for obedience to the organization. Some former Jehovah's Witnesses have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses for their preaching work, and Jehovah's Witnesses have often been criticized for their position on blood transfusions. Then the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses section can be highlighted.

The sexual abuse section can be handled seperately.

That should be enough for Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses on the front page of Wikipedia. Natural (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Good try, Scott, and not a bad effort from someone who just a day or two accused me of trying to "repress" information. The Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is fully sourced and based on reliable sources. The summary of that spinout article in the main JW page contains a very brief precis of the major areas of criticism and also includes a rebuttal of each criticism from the WTS to provide neutrality and balance. Your suggested edit above removes the balance by deleting the Watch Tower Society defence of itself. Your proposed wording on the NWT also, rather curiously, removes the criticism. What you seem never to have grasped is that the Wikipedia article about Jehovah's Witnesses is not a promotional vehicle for the religion. It provides information about it, and that must include information on the many criticisms of the religion. As written it is editorially neutral and appropriate weight within a long article. BlackCab (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Then this is what I suggest. Please come up with a workable idea now, for what the Criticims part will look like. Are you going to allow the criticims section to be edited? If so, how much are you willing to allow to be edited? You have a full page devoted to criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses,larger than the Jehovah's Witnesses page itself, and close to 20% of the main page of the Jehovah's Witnesses article with pretty much exactly the same information, which was literally copied and pasted to the bottom of the Jehovah's Witness article some months ago. So, before I appeal to the Wikipedia board for NPOV or whatever other page I might appeal to, what is your plan now with the large amount of space you have to devoted to the criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses? I'm ears, please show me how much and what you are willing to edit. Thanks. Because we have another editor who can see the value in consolidating this information. Please let me know now your plan on this issue. Thanks. This idea was posted and discussed over a week ago, so what is your plan?

Natural (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

You say "You have a full page devoted to criticism" as if it's my personal project. It's a summary of a big article that exists in its own right. Both the article and the summary in the JW article existed before I arrived at Wikipedia. I don't control them. Your intent appears to be to delete critical material simply on the basis that it criticises your religion, so to put it bluntly, I don't trust your motives or your edits. Your proposal above would reduce the summary to a mere paragraph, which would be acceptable only if other summary sections, including Organizationsl Structure and Beliefs and Practices, are similarly reduced to a single paragraph. And that would be nonsense.
As it stands, the Criticisms section contains a brief summary of each of the main four areas of criticism and a rebuttal. Another editor has proposed trimming the biggest of those sections and I am happy to have a look at that and try to trim it. If you have concerns that the section contravenes Wiki policies on neutrality, then raise it at the appropriate place. I don't see that you have a case, but that's for the wider Wiki community to judge. BlackCab (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have trimmed the "Doctrinal criticisms" section to one paragraph and made a proposal above for an abbreviated version of "Social criticisms". I think the sexual abuse can take some trimming as well. As it stands there are two sentences of criticms and seven of defence. I'll leave it for someone else to trim. BlackCab (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The proposed changes are something of an improvement.
The opening statements in the current social criticisms section, not shown here, but that are on the current social criticisms section, I feel are excessive.
I feel this entire section, as was suggested by another editor above, should be removed-
Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[318][319] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[320][321] Such instructions, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to describe the religion's leadership as autocratic.[322][323] Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous.[324][325][326] This has led some critics to accuse the Watch Tower Society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.[327][328][329]
It's excessive, and if it stays in any way, there has to be much more in the way of both clarifying the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on all of these points, as well as including authoritative references, because Wikipedia is accusing JW of a lot here.
Also, more specifically - The line in here that I do not feel is a valid criticism, but an extreme view is the point on mind control. I feel that it is a term, the way I understand, from criticisms from Ray Franz, from his own problems in coming to terms with the Governing Body he was a part of, and it was picked up by other critics. I don't feel that there are any sound reasons to accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of mind control. Also, I feel there should be some defense, or counterpoint, if Franz's accusations of coercive pressure and the Christian ministry.
Also, Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's continual admonitions to preach door-to-door as coercive pressure.[350][351][352] Critics including neurosurgeon Osamu Muramoto claim the Society also coerces Witness medical patients to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions with the aid of exaggeration and emotionalism.[23][24][353][354] Watch Tower legal counsel Donald T. Ridley has responded that Muramoto resorts to distortion and uncorroborated assertions in his effort to portray a matter of religious faith as a matter of medical ethical debate.[355]
The point exagerration and emotionalism, this is a critism of Jehovah's Witnesses that is unique. Other social commentators, it might be Holden, or Bryan Wilson, refer to Jehovah's Witnesses in the absence of emotionalism and exaggeration, but rather, as logical, almost business-like manner. The term used by the author is "rational".
One might also, and some do, critisize Jehovah's Witnesses for the absence of overt emotionalism in their religious services. Knorr, especially, instituted, a very straight business-type arrangement to things, rather than emotionalism. I don't really feel that his criticism is well thought out, and don't feel it should really be here, but if it is, then the counterpoint on the emotionalism side, also should be published. I'll post the specific reference later. Natural (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
For the 54th time, this is only a summary of the spinout article. If you have problems with the content of the criticisms article, address it there. After repeatedly demanding the criticisms section be trimmed because it was too long, you are now suggesting the addition of comments that deny the allegations. As it reads every single criticism in the section is rebutted by the Watch Tower Society, so it is well balanced. The reference to emotionalism and exaggeration pertains to the presentation in Watchtower magazines of the dangers of blood transfusions. "I don't really feel his criticism is well thought out" is your personal viewpoint, Scott, but that doesn't alter its acceptability for inclusion in the article: it is a statement by an expert in a peer-reviewed medical journal. BlackCab (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Eschatological rather than Doctrinal Critisisms

The criticisms in this section have to do with eschatology and not doctrine. If they were to be included anywhere, it would be in an eschatology section. These aren't doctrinal critisms. "Dcotrinal Critisms is a euphamism for the real purpose of the paragraph, and for the writing of critics of former Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious critics. This particular paragraph, I feel is better relegated to the critisms section, rather than the front page, and any comments on this should be put in the eschatology section.

The most common doctrinal criticism against Jehovah's Witnesses has to do with the Trinity, the interpretation of JW of John 1:1, and the many scriptures that are often used to support the Trinity, and that Jesus is God, not just the Son of God, as JW believe.

These, on the Wiki Doctrinal Criticisms page seem to be more along the lines of Eschatological criticms, rather than doctrinal. Natural (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Disagree. It is a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses that they, alone on earth, are God's channel and his prophets, just as God used the Old Testament prophets. It is a fundamental belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that they publicly preach that the end of the "system" is about to end. The WTS has made emphatic statements in the past about events it said would occur based on its understanding of scripture and its belief that God was using them to warn the world. Is is therefore appropriate to include in that section criticisms of the failure of those predictions. BlackCab (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This line cannot stay in Wikipedia main text, maybe in my editing I inadvertently put it in the main text, or maybe you did. But I edited it. It won't be accepted in the main text. The Wikipedia page on Jehovah's Witnesses, can't be used as an advertising board. No other section in Wikipedia quotes any books like this in the main text. It's unprecedented. So, it would have to be relegated to the footnote. Excuse me please if I inadvertently did that, I don't think I did, but if I did, sorry about that.

This would not be accepted as remaining in the main text. Thanks.Natural (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Criticisms of statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books including Penton, M. James (1997) Apocalypse Delayed, University of Toronto Press; Franz, Raymond, In Search of Christian Freedom (2007) Commentary Press; Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989, Baker Books.

Natural (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

I have no idea what you're talking about. BlackCab (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

New World Translation in seperate section

If the editors here want to keep information about the New World Translation regarding criticisms, I think it will make the article less of a damning type of article, or one that is seeking out criticisms, an article that is less biased, if we were to put the New World Translation as a seperate section, explain the New World Translation a little, and then afterwards, if one wanted to mention any controversies, rather than having it in a seperate criticisms section. There is still too much space given to criticism in what should be a neutral article. In that way, if some editors feel that it is important to mention criticisms of the NWT in this article they can, and it will be put into a format that is more neutral and less devoted to critism. Make sense? Natural (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Criticisms logically belong in the criticisms section. What is biased about identifying criticism of the NWT? BlackCab (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In other words, there is two many criticisms. It is overwhelming the article with criticism. Why not be more positive. Even when you are against something, if you be positive, people swallow it better. Nobody wants to read all negative things about anything. If you put another section, New World Translation, bring out some information about the NWT, and then if the editors insist on including criticism, then put the criticism in it underneath. Don't overwhelm the reader with a lengthy criticisms section. That's the idea. Natural (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Extensive Use of Self-Published books in criticism

The following are some self-published books that are referred to in certain sections of this article. Considering the weighty claims being made and borderline, or clearly fringe theories being presented, I propose that all of these self-published books be not used as refernces on the Wikipedia page.

Thus Saith Jehovah's Witnesses Publisher: Free Minds; 2nd edition (1996)

Self Published

Buttrey, John M (2004). Let No One Mislead You. iUniverse Self Published

Val Waldek Pilgrim Publications South Africa Self Published

Edmund Gruess - Self Published Christian Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably correct, though I can't find a reference to Christian Press in the article. BlackCab (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Stark's Quote in 1940s to Present section

Stark's quote is accurate as he states it and gives the correct impression and summation of the entire situation. It's better to leave his quote as it was originally put in the article, then to chop it up. It helps the reader to get the correct impression of the situation of date-setting, as that is something that is heavily highlighted in this article and one of the main focuses in each history section. So, having Stark's full quote in the main text, will help give the reader the complete picture of the situation from Rutherford's time until 1975 and after. So, the Wikipedia article read better before, when the Stark quote was in place, than when it was relegated to the footnote and the editor's own words used in place, which summarized the quote in the editor's words.Natural (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is no need to quote his words in full in the article. Doing so simply repeats material already in the paragraph. It is sufficient to summarise what he said as part of the narrative. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what needs to be said. The type of editing you are doing is strong in POV, it's biased. If there is something that clarifies the situation, you repress it. You insisted on inserting the picture of the 1970s assembly, based on your viewpoint, but there is a quote which clarifies the whole dating situation, but you repress it. Why? Because you have an agenda, as is stated in your biography page. If you continue to repress edits which clarify and insist on your own way on things on the page, then I'm going to appeal to the NPOV page, and Wikipedia on a number of specific points. Natural (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
How does my precis of Stark's comments inject a point of view?
  • Stark wrote: "Following Rutherford’s death...the Witnesses ceased specific date-setting. However, during the late 1960s the belief that the end would come in 1975 began to circulate and soon gained wide-spread acceptance (although it was never made the official view). As we shall see, the failure of that date caused considerable damage to the Witness mission, but the damage is long since healed."
  • I wrote: "Sociologist Rodney Stark said the widespread acceptance of the belief about the significance of 1975 and the failure of that date caused considerable damage to the Witness mission, although the damage was later healed."
His statement that during the late 1960s the belief that the end would come in 1975 began to circulate repeats what is already in the section. His statement that it was never the official view repeats the statement that it was never dogmatically stated. The task of Wikipedia editors is to write articles, not to copy quotes from other authors. My statement adequately summarises his statement without the repetition and also includes his original quote in the footnote. I'm not sure how you think this is part of an agenda or why you think his whole quote "clarifies" the situation in a way my sentence doesn't. BlackCab (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue of date setting is mentioned many times on this article. Stark's comments, and the full quote, give one the full scope. That Jehovah's Witnesses ceased date-setting after 1925. That with 1975, the date was not an official teaching, although it was something that gained widespread, not universal, acceptance among JW. The wording of his quote is more neutral than your abrupt style of wording things, which tends to have a judgemental flavor to it. Stark's quote is refined, your style in this sentence is blunt. Your edit tends to emphasize the word failure, Stark's tends to give a more complete idea of the picture. Your quote is one that definitly appears to be tainted by a negative bias against JW, whereas Stark's is neutral. Does that answer your question above? Thanks.Natural (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
No, Scott, it doesn't. Wikipedia editors don't just dump quotes in articles as you've done. We write articles using those sources. Stark's quote repeats material that is already contained in the paragraph, so that repetitive material is redundant. If you want to state that the WTS stopped setting dates, then do it at a more appropriate place. The article already states that the 1975 belief was never dogmatically stated in the publications, so there is no need to quote someone saying that in a different way. Other authors have written about the 1975 saga as well ... should we include their entire quotes as well to provide "the full scope"? What you call my "blunt" and "biased" description is simply Stark's statement minus the repetition. You said my edit "repressed" information. What am I "repressing"? I am not hiding anything, I am simply trying to remove unnecessary, repetitive, redundant material from an article that is already very long. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is very long, because you have dumped a large amount of information in an added Criticisms section, that is already on another page in Wikipedia. If all of that is already on a page in Wikipedia, why would someone repeat all of that information again? unless he had a purpose in doing so, which you clearly state in your biographical page, that you have an anger towards Jehovah's Witnesses, and that this is your venting mechanism. Natural (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
You have changed the subject. What am I "repressing"? How have I introduced bias by deleting repetition? Do you agree that Wikipedia editors should write articles rather than just dumping an assortment of quotes within them? BlackCab (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Quotes are permissable on Wikipedia, if the quote clarifies information and if they are neutral. Stark's quote clarifies accusations made in this Wikipedia article against Jehovah's Witnesses about false predictions, and is from both a neutral and authoritative source, unlike sources quoted against JW on this subject. Because the accusation of false predictions is made often in this article, Stark's quote helps the reader get the full sense and context of the matter.
This is what Wikipedia says about use of Quotations-
Quotations
While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.
The Stark quote does just that, is aids in the verifiagble and nuetral presentation of the subject. The length of the JW article is a non-issue in this case, as the problem with length of this article has to do with the criticisms section rather than other sections, which we had suggested does not need to be on this, but that some insist it does, in which case, sufficient information in giving the correct idea involving the context of such criticisms is necessary. Stark's quote is one such clarifying comment. Natural (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
Stark's viewpoint is adequately expressed in the article. It is expressed in an editorially neutral tone. His full quote is contained in the footnotes. There is no compelling reason to include the full quote in the article, particularly when it repeats information already contained in the article. BlackCab (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The summary of the quote as provided by BlackCab above concisely conveys the point of the original quote. The point described by Naturalpsychology as "blunt" about the 'failure' of the date appears in the original quote anyway, and there doesn't seem to be any particular benefit in retaining the full quote in the main text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Jeffro77 - I feel that the original quote gives a much more clear understanding of the whole issue, the clip of the quote as it is here, gives a version that does not convey the original intent of the quote. Natural (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

False Prophet

Also, "false prophet" is a very heavy accusation against a group that supports the Bible. I feel that those making such claims are extreme. I would want to see exactly what those quotes are, but feel that this section should be in the Critisms of JW page, and not the front page. If that were true than JW are against Jesus, and part of Jesus warning, and also, it says in Revelation that the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire,

"And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who render worship to its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur." This is very heavy to accuse JW of being a false prophet, judgmental and damning, basically saying that all JW "leaders" will be given the same judgment of the Devil, and most JW as well. That's a heavy accusation, and really brings slander upon JW as Christians. So, I don't really feel that Wikipedia is the place to air such deep theological critisms, with little basis. This isn't a theological battleground, but an encyclopedic discussion. Natural (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Upon looking at this further, I feel that this false prophet idea could be considered accurately to be in the realm of Wikipedia WP:Fringe Theories.

Who exactly is saying JW are the false prophet or false prophets? What are the quotes? I feel they aren't the type of sources, peer reviewed, or university type, respected journals, but opinionated comments from apostates or religious opposers.

This is Wikipedia's guidelines on the Fringe Theories page for reliable sources -

"peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."Natural (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
Your claim that the description of the WTS as a false prophet because if its long history of wrong predictions is a fringe theory is laughable. It is one of the most common criticisms of the religion. Fringe theories include the belief that the earth is flat, that civilizations created a human face in Mars, and that Paul McCartney is dead. The fact that the description of your religion as a false prophet makes you uncomfortable is no reason to delete the material. And I wouldn't worry about Witnesses being "slandered" by such an accusation. How many times has the Watchtower and all the WTS books slandered all other religions, describing them as false religions and reprehensible, blood-stained, claiming the clergy mislead their flocks, etc etc etc? You give it, you have to take it. -- BlackCab (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to see the exact quotes from the references that are listed here. Who exactly is saying that and the context. Self-published works aren't reliable sources as far as Wikipedia goes. Especially on an idea that is pretty heavy and that seriously damages the reputation of an individual or group of individuals. It is a part of what is referred to as "name calling". Natural (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
These references do not support the claim that is made in the Wikipedia article about Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a prophet, but is an inference. 307 ^ "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1997, page 21

308 ^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watch Tower Society, 1993, page 708. Natural (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

The sense in which Jehovah's Witnesses have considered themselves a prophet is in the sense that it can be said, that there are a "true prophet" rather than a "false prophet". The Insight on the Scriptures book says,
"But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application." It is in that sense that Jehovah's Witnesses have considered themselves a prophet, rather than as one that foretells the future. The references that are referred to in this article are 1972 and 1959. Those citations are not sufficient to establish the point trying to be made in the sentence, and take the meaning of the sense in which JW consider themselves prophet out of context. Natural (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
The May 1, 1997 WT article you deleted as a reference in the article, "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", refers to Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel as prophets and messengers and links them with their so-called modern-day counterpart, the JWs, who serve as "a fearless witness who will warn the wicked of coming destruction". In paragraph 15 it refers to the JW expectation that "Christendom and all other false religions will soon be destroyed ... the whole global political entity ... is about to be wiped out." Those are predictions or prophecies. Russell made similar predictions 120 years ago and put actual dates on when he said those things would happen. Previous WTS publications have described the WTS as a prophet organization. Prophets make prophecies. The WTS has made prophecies. They have so far all failed.
The Proclaimers book makes reference on page 708 to the JW expectations about the end of the present age that turned out to be wrong. It refers to the Witnesses' belief that God is revealing his will to them. They believe his will involves future catastrophic acts. The May 1, 1997 WT article and the Proclaimers book reference therefore support the statement in the article, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a 'prophet' to declare God's will."
Witnesses publications will naturally deny they are false prophets. But the accusation has been made by many writers, and this is what is contained in the Criticisms section. BlackCab (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
First, you are making an inference. The Wiki text says, Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will.
Niether the May 1, 1997 Watchtower, nor the Procalimers book on page 708 refer to JW as a "prophet". That statement is an inference, not a claim by JW. You are making that statement on Wikipedia, the two publications sited do not make that statement. You are taking it to the next step for them, based on what you have read in other literature. Wikipedia does not support the use of inferences in making statements on its site. So, these two references cannot be used to support that Wikipedia statement.Natural (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
If the accusation of 'False Prophet' were merely 'fringe', there would not be a section specifically dealing with the accusation in the JWs' publication, Reasoning from the Scriptures (page 137), where it is mentioned as a common objection they could encounter while preaching. There are also other instances in JW publications which report outsiders referring to JWs as "false prophets".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This is please what is needed. What specific books or writings, which are acceptable as reliable by Wikipedia, refer to JW as false prophets, or a false prophet? I looked, but am a little unclear. The only one I could find was Edmund Gruss, whose books are all self-published, but there might be some others. Among former JW which and what are the quotes? Natural (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Natural
  1. ^ "Christian" from thefreedictionary.com
  2. ^ Revelation 22:18-19, New International Version
  3. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/article_03.htm
  4. ^ Matthew 8:28-29
  5. ^ Matthew 16-21, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 20:19, Luke 9:22, Luke 18-33, Luke 24:7, Luke 24:46, (Just to name a few)
  6. ^ John 10:30
  7. ^ John 14:26
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_54&oldid=1136839553"