Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 58

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

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

WatchTower logo

The WatchTower logo is not a symbol used to identify JW's. JW's do not use it in the sense a cross or other religious symbol is used. It is a trademark logo of the WT bible and tract society of Pennsylvania. Hence they prohibit its usage even in the Kingdom Halls. It could be used in the WT society article. But it is inappropriate here --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Many trademarked logos appear on appropriate Wikipedia articles and a supposed prohibition on using that logo at Kingdom Halls is irrelevant here. But I agree that the logo is unncessayr here. It's too big and simply adds more white space to the article. BlackCab (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Watch Tower logo is certainly representative of JWs, and it's therefore relevant regardless of the JW religion not itself being the owner of the trademark (though this is largely semantics). However, the copyright rationale applied to the image (claimed that it is simply a geometric figure in the public domain) is invalid, as I have stated at the image's discussion page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! JW´s dont using any kind of symbols. Even neither a image of watchtower (like a castle or wall or sth similar). see here. This is not any kind of symbol of WTBTS or JW´s church or Jehovah´s witnesses people or any organization which "Watchtower Society" have. But it could be used unoficially with sending letters (like a wallpaper or background image) or on some buildings. (for exmaple it was in czech bethel house in 1990´s, but its not official symbol ... rather was painted like a decoration ... later was removed I heard) ... That watchtower images are not their official approved symbols, because it will be like an idololatry or image worship! It is unacceptable for them. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Watchtower logo is a registered trademark, and is certainly an "official symbol" representing the religious organization. The logo was likely removed from the "Czech bethel house" you saw following the April 2009 Our Kingdom Ministry which stated that "Congregations or individuals should not use logos or names of the organization’s legal entities, or variations thereof, on their Kingdom Halls, signs, letterhead, personal objects, and so forth. ... The Watch Tower logo, or a variation of it, should not be used in future Kingdom Hall projects even if the Kingdom Hall is owned by a Watch Tower entity. Congregations with existing Kingdom Halls that bear a logo are not required to make immediate changes to signs or designs, since such changes may involve major alterations and much time, effort, and expense. However, consideration should be given to making a change if it would be minor and would not require extensive work."--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification from church´s internal documents on these problematics. I know that watchtower is registered trademark, but its only like an image copyright. Not like a symbol or sth related to theirs organizations. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a trademark, which would certainly make it what you refer to as "a symbol or sth related to theirs organizations". The only distinction the Watch Tower Society makes is that it is a trademark of the corporation and not of the JW religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You get the point precisely. maybe registered image of publishing organization, but not JW´s itself, so in this article shouldnt be presented like JW´s itself symbol. Correctly saying for use in Wikipedia. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

dispute and question

Hi all. I just checked [article] and some information look to me as maybe not fully correct.

Organizational structure| Hierarchical
Polity| Modified presbyterian polity
Classification| Restorationist (Christian primitivism)

There is a lot of stuff everywhere what take mention rather to these interpretation.

Organizational structure| Hierarchical, Theocracy ^[1]
, maybe even Authoritarianism ^[2]

Classification| Millennialist, Restorationist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrinitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Millennial_Fellowship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Student_movement
"by a Millennialist[1] Restorationist Christian movement"

Polity| Modified presbyterian polity (To be more concrete - Explain "modified" in what way?

I wait on your response on these. Thanks --89.176.227.251

Please see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Should infobox "Classification" read Millenarian or Christian? and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Polity 2010.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx. What about "organizational structure"? Changing infobox in article it should be easy to add few words (Millennialist, Theocracy, Authoritarianism) in two categories. Modified presbytarian polity looks correct. Maybe more concrete write in infobox will be helpfull --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Theocracy is an unprovable belief, not a verifiable organizational structure. Millenialist is a doctrine, not a system of authority. Authoritarianism is disputed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank You, Jeffro77, and other Wikipedia editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jehovah's_Witnesses_articles_by_quality

These wiki articles have generally speaking high quality, quite well objective and independently informative. Keep it. But the highest is "Category:B-Class". Why is no FA-Class in religion generally? --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Religious articles in general attract debate and it is difficult to focus on improving the articles to FA-Class when a lot of time is spent just trying to maintain the status quo. JWs is a minor religion with many contested points. There is therefore a shortage of impartial editors involved in the project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Question To?

I am reading New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and International Bible Students Association 1984 edition given to me by this wonderful two angels and Jehovah's Witnesses Patrick and Patricia who every week come visiting my place, sharing knowledge and wisdom of the writings given in lessons and I must say I enjoy every moment of it reading the text humbly with the recognition of appointed references, on the page 8 and 9 of the book of Genesis at the very top where there are in bold font short descriptions of the following text we read: Man created in God's image: a living soul. Eden on the page 8 where on the page 9 there is: Woman created. First lie. Origin of sin.

What I am interested in particular with at this stage of the events happening in the history of the creation is: First lie.

Question:

Anyone from the group could elaborate on the subject and topic of "the first lie"?

Question:

Who was the one who lied first, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.194.52 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for asking general questions about JWs or their beliefs. You need to take your question to a relevant forum outside Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bible Reading and non-Witness religious literature

Wikipedia states,

Witnesses are directed not to study the Bible independently from its publications or to read any other religious literature.

This is not correct. Witnesses are directed to study the bible and read it itself. Additionally, JW literature literature does not say not to read any other religious literature. It does warn against reading apostate literature such as James Beverly's book quoted, or delving into literature of false worship, which is different. James Beckford's book or Wilson's commentary's in a Witnesses personal library raise no eyebrows. Vine's Dictionary is a non-Witness source which many Witnesses use as another example.

Encouragement for straight Bible reading from Watchtower literature --

w09 5/15 p. 10 pars. 7-8 The reminder that has had the biggest effect on my life is the one about regular Bible reading. It took me about two years to finish the whole Bible, but it seemed that I was meeting my Creator for the first time. I learned about his ways, his likes and his dislikes, the degree of his power, and the depth of his wisdom. Reading the Bible daily has sustained me through some of the darkest moments of my life.” 8 Regularly reading a portion of God’s Word allows its message to ‘exert power’ on us. (Read Hebrews 4:12.) Such reading can mold our inner person and make us more pleasing to Jehovah. Do you have a personal need to schedule more time to read the Bible and meditate on what it says?

w10 10/1 p. 21 How Can You Combat Negative Feelings?

As you adhere to a program of Bible reading, meditation, and personal prayer, you will no doubt find that you are building a close bond with your heavenly Father. That bond is a powerful weapon to wield against negative feelings. What else may help?

p. 11 Take Delight in God’s Word

In order to make daily Bible reading a part of your life, set aside a regular time for it—perhaps early in the morning, at noontime, at suppertime, or before you go to bed. Just reading snatches of it during the day when you happen to have time will not ensure regularity. If you are a family head, show personal interest by helping family members to develop a good routine. Doing some Bible reading as a family may encourage family members to pursue daily Bible reading on a personal basis. Daily Bible reading requires self-discipline. You are not born with a desire for it. You need to “form a longing” for God’s Word. (1 Pet. 2:2) As you cultivate the habit, your spiritual appetite will grow. Then you may find that you want to broaden out by undertaking special projects of Bible reading and study to deepen your understanding and appreciation for the spiritual riches that Jehovah has made available to us. When you do your Bible reading, take time to ponder the meaning of what you read—what it tells you about Jehovah, how it can influence your life beneficially, and how you can use it to help others. Natural (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Non-Witness Religious Literature

These are the specific types of religious literature, besides apostate works, that JW are instructed to avoid (specifically in the Kingdom Hall library, but it can be used, for Wikkipedia's sake, as a general guideline), km 4/97 p. 7 Question Box - What publications should be put in the Theocratic Ministry School library? "It would not be appropriate to include fictional material, Bible commentaries that highlight higher criticism, or books on philosophy or spiritism." There is no general ban on non-Witness religious literature in the Kingdom Hall library. Natural (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It is a strawman argument to claim that it is not true that JWs aren't allowed to read the Bible independent of JW publications. The article correctly states that JWs are told not to study the Bible independent of Watch Tower Society literature. Additionally, the 1 May 1984 Watchtower quite clearly indicated that JWs are not to read religious literature from other sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the comment from the anonymous IP editro above is misleading, as the information in the cited Our Kingdom Ministry cannot be validly construed as a general guideline. The materials specifically mentioned in the cited article were in regard to a library at a Kingdom Hall. Though JWs are supposed to 'avoid' some of the things listed (e.g. 'spiritism'), there is no broad restriction on JWs reading fictional material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct balance on this subject is what more clearly reflects the reality. JW can and do read and have in their library Bible references works or books on religion that are not from witness sources. There is no frowning on it or issue with it. What the May 1, 1984 Watchtower talks about, is clear, two types of religious literature. Wikipedia should make a note, if it wishes to mention this point, 1. False religious literature designed to deceive, 2. apostate works.

With respect to false religious literature designed to deceive, this does not necessarily include any other literature on the subject of religion. Kingdom Hall libraries have religious works from non-Witness sources such as Vine's Exp. Dict. or Strong's Concordance, other religious reference works. Many personal libraries of JW are similar.

Each individual JW might individually have a different view to it and it might be diff. than other Witnesses. My wife and I have different views and practices on it. It is an individual choice. Some who go to college might take a course in world religion, as an example, which would involve reading other literature on religion. Some JW have read the Koran and Book of Mormon, which clearly are religious books from non-religious sources. They do it to find out what other religious teach, rather than reading it to become a Muslim or Mormon. One elder in our congregation read the Bhagavad Gita and has a copy in his library. He serves at Bethel and has the book at Bethel. It is not an issue, because everyone knows he no sentiments to become a Hindu. He is reading it more or less academically, rather than looking for other enlightenment.

The principles found in the Watchtower are generally applied reasonably rather than rigidly, as Wikip. sometimes tries to interpret them. That's the reality of it in JW religion.

Natural (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Your 'defence' of JWs here is unnecessary, and you seem to be missing the point that JWs are told not to study the Bible independent of JW literature. This in itself does not preclude JWs from reading other literature, though they are explicitly told not to accept religious literature from other sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement above is more accurate. JW can read religious literature other than JW literature, read the Bible independently of JW literature, but are encouraged to study the Bible with the aid of JW literature.

The JW literature does not explicitly say not to study without the aid of JW literature, but to study the Bible with the aid of JW literature.

Incorrect...

“Individual Bible study, certainly! Independent Bible study, beware!” (formatting theirs; Watchtower, 15 August 1952, page 501);
“We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the “faithful and discreet slave” organization.” (Watchtower, 15 February 1981, page 19);--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, they are instructed not to accept or trade religious literature, specifically in their ministry, where those trading are likely to be presenting contradictory religious viewpoints, like a treatise on the Trinity as an example, or apostate-type works. Again, the "rules" here are loosely enforced and up to individual discretion, without reprecussion, in actual practice, in terms of accepting literature from other religions. Individual Witnesses vary in their application of this and it depends on the circumstance (which I know has no bearing on what is stated in Wikipedia, but it should be of note to editors that the Witness literature encourages "the spirit of the law" rather than the "letter of the law").Natural (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. 4/15/02 Wa p. 21 par. 13 Guide Your Steps by Godly Principles

Knowing and applying principles also protects us from the snare of empty, formal worship. There is a difference between following principles and legalistically obeying rules. Jesus clearly showed this in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:17-48) Remember that Jesus’ listeners were Jews, so their conduct should have been governed by the Mosaic Law. But in reality they had a distorted view of the Law. They had come to stress the letter of the Law rather than its spirit. And they emphasized their traditions, putting such above the teaching of God. (Matthew 12:9-12; 15:1-9) As a consequence, the people in general were not taught to think in terms of principles.

Naturalpsychology, you convince no one. The 1984 Watchtower reference to "false religious literature that is designed to deceive" is a repetition of the sort of language commonly employed in WTS publications about any religious literature that presents a different viewpoint to that of Jehovah's Witnesses. The 3/15/74 WT, for example, warns that it "would not be wise for a Christian to make it a practice to listen to false religious propaganda on the radio or on television, nor to have such literature come regularly into his home, thinking that this would equip him to refute unscriptural teachings". Though bookshops and libraries are full of literature on spiritual issues written by people of all religions, the Watch Tower Society publications denigrate this as "false" and claim that it is part of some satanic conspiracy rather than what it is: just a range of viewpoints on those great mysteries of God and death and the meaning of life. Jehovah's Witnesses, sadly, subscribe to the cultic viewpoint that they alone have the monopoly of truth. They are so concerned that members might stop believing their claptrap and see elements of truth in other viewpoints that they forbid them from examining them.

Your reference above to James Beverley's book as "apostate literature" is a fair indication of your own narrow-minded, cultic outlook in editing this Wikipedia article. For the record, the WTS definition of apostasy (itself a distortion of the dictionary definition) is solely concerned with ex-JWs. Beverley, to my knowledge, was never a JW. His mere criticism of your religion (in a book he predicts will never be read by JWs who are too fearful of their leaders, too bigoted or too unquestioning of their religion) makes it no more a piece of "apostate" literature than the studies by Holden and Beckford, which also heap criticism on the religion. BlackCab (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Up to Date Information and References

The Wikipedia, when making sociological assertions or assertions on certain views of JW, should use up to date sources rather than antiquated ones. The viewpoints of the 1950s and the manner in which those viepoints are expressed by JW might be different than today. This quote,

^ a b "Overseers of Jehovah’s People", The Watchtower, June 15, 1957, "Let us now unmistakably identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day, that we may continue in his favor ... It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision."

Might not be the same as the view today, so it would be better to use quotes from the 1980s onward. The viewpoints changed a bit since the 1980s, and that would be more up to date.

The same is true of Beckford. Beckford gave his analysis in the pre-1975 JW, with Knorr as president. The sociology of the religion changed after that time. His comments would certainly be relevant as a historical view. But the date of his work should be clearly stated in the main text also. It is more than 35 years later, so even though there aren't a ton of sociological discussions on the subject, it is still important to date the work and keep the article current.Natural (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The viewpoint you dispute in the 1957 WT in fact continues to be reflected in statements in the Watchtower. The WT of September 15, 2010 makes this claim about WTS literature: "Thus, what is taught is not from men but from Jehovah." July 15, 2010: "Sadly, though, some have become casual or even cynical about reminders [in WTS literature] concerning the need to stay awake. However, those individuals should keep in mind that by making such remarks, they are actually questioning Jehovah and his Son, not just the faithful slave class." The April 15, 2011 WT refers to instructions from WTS leadership as "divine direction". It's your opinion only that viewpoints have changed. If the statements were outdated and no longer applicable, why wouldn't those WTs be erased from the WT CD-ROM as they do other material they've changed their mind about?

And as Andrew Holden notes, there is a dearth of sociological studies of the JWs; he, like other authors, continues to cite Beckford's work. BlackCab (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If outdated resources are cited in Wikipedia, the date should be noted in the quote. Additionally, if there are more recent sources, they should be used rather than historical sources. Natural (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It is not simply something noted by Franz that "Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) to declare his will and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events." Those are directly sourced from JW publications. It is plainly biased to claim that direct statements of the Watch Tower society are merely opinions of 'the big scary apostate'.

On the other matter of Beckford, it only makes sense to cite the year if referring to Beckford's specific written work rather than Beckford himself.

A source is not automatically outdated simply because it isn't recent. You are welcome to demonstrate that sources are outdated by presenting more recent (third-party) sources that present different information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Beckford wrote his work in 1975, when there was one strong CEO, as it were, Knorr, and just as the Governing Body was coming into existence as a fully-functioning entity separate from Knorr. Even the Governing Body that consisted of the Franzes, was much different than that of today in their approach, and there has been a shift of emphasis from a certain amount of the rigidity that was criticized by certain dissenters in that time period. Even some of Ray Franz's criticisms were not nec. invalid, but became a part of the JW approach in time.

The statement by Rodney Stark gives a more balanced, reasonable and accurate view of the way JW go about application of "the rules" which more closely reflects the way it is practiced now. Perhaps Beckfords historical comments from 35 years ago were more valid then than now. Including the date of his historical work is of importance for the reader.

As an example, you can write, "the United States and the Soviet bloc experience increasing tension. Increasing suspicions lead to threat of nuclear reprisals." This is true, if it were written in the 1960s during the Cold War, but isn't really true today. Anything written about JW before 1980 is historical and not current. Really, anything since Fred Franz died is historical with regard to the attitude of JW. The new Gov. Body has a somewhat different attitude than that of the "old school". Why wouldn't the Wikipedia editor want to include the date of Beckford's work in the text? It is presenting 1975 info as current.

"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)Natural (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

You think Beckford's writings are out of date? In fact Stark (p.146) also cites Beckford who wrote that "the major premise [is] that since Jesus Christ was actually working at the head of the Society through the medium of its earthly leaders, it would therefore be blasphemous to disagree with their directives.”

You are arguing that more recent sources are more reliable, but Holden (2002, compared with Stark's 1997 paper) notes on p.121 that "devotees see no distinction" between loyalty to "Jehovah or the movement itself". On page 67 he states that "materials such as The Watchtower are almost as significant to the Witnesses as the Bible ... and are therefore believed to contain as much truth as biblical texts." He writes (p.30) that "Legitimation of official authority is claimed on the grounds that the Society acts as Jehovah's earthly agent and as Christ's instrument for the forthcoming Kingdom". Page 32 in discussing the "totalitarianism" of the religion's leadership: "Witnesses everywhere continue to believe that God is using the Governing Body as his channel of communication ... When people join the Watch Tower Society, they must adhere to its teachings, which means subjecting themselves to the theocratic rule of God himself."

You pin your objection on the belief that viewpoints on the WTS acting as the voice of God might be different today. I don't see any indication of a change in viewpoint. Where does the Watchtower hint that the WTS may not be God's organisation after all, or that God might be using other organisations, or that people of other faiths might be spared at Armageddon? On the contrary, recent Watchtowers continue to hammer the point that survival is only possible by being fully obedient to the Governing Body, which is the modern Moses. BlackCab (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Advanced Knowledge

With regards to this Wikipedia statement,

and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[322]

it should be noted in the sentence that JW "advanced knowledge" is with respect to interpretation of Bible prophecy, as opposed to new revelations, as is the case with LDS, who claim new and ongoing revelations and prophecy, and which the reader might be led to believe from this Wiki statement.Natural (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Your objection is pro hominem special pleading. It's like saying, "JWs have special advanced knowledge of the future, but it's based on our novel interpretations of the Bible, not those crazy 'new revelations' taught by other groups." It is merely your (and others') opinion, without any objective evidence, that the Bible is reliable for predicting the future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The context of the cited text, where the 1980 uses the term "advance knowledge," is in reference to two Biblical prophecies. 1. Matthew 24:21, where Jesus prophesied there would be a "great tribulation" such has not occurred before nor will occur again. This is in conjunction with prophecy in Matt 24:3 concerning the end of the system, which most serious Christians (not only JW) interpret as being fulfilled in these times now.

The rest of the article speaks of the execution of Babylon the Great. A reasonable explanation of Babylon the great and the wild beast of Revelation links it with religion being turned on by government which the Bible likens to beasts in the book of Daniel, and then explains that theses beasts refer to governments. Rev. Alexander Hislop (not a JW) in The Two Babylons, wrote an entire book tying together the Catholic Church teachings and practices with ancient Babylon and Assyria, and then referring to the Roman Catholic Church as Babylon the Great. This predates Rutherford.

The interpretation of Rev, in terms of "advance knowledge" in the context in which that statement is made, is not unique, then, to JW, and is not "crazy" or wacked out, it is a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. If you already think that Revelation is crazy, that the Bible is crazy and that whoever wrote Revelation was probably on LSD, then, of course, the next step is those who interpret such things are more crazy than those who wrote them in the first place. Watchtower lit. uses the term "advance knowledge" also with reference to the promised Kingdom blessings in the Bible. 5/15/84 p. 19; other references refer to the "advance knowledge" of Noah and the coming flood; the advance knowledge of prophecies before Jesus Christ; the only other reference in JW literature is quotes of 2 Peter 3:17, 18: “You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard that you may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from your own steadfastness. No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

So, to insinuate that JW believe and teach that they have some esoteric "advance knowledge," which almost sounds like it is talking about some clairvoyant, is not providing the proper way that the Watchtower presents it, or that JW themselves view it. It is spinning an argument, somewhat specious, to try to entrap JW into being something they don't claim to be, but that R. Franz insinuates, "false prophets". That is what the whole argument in Wikipedia is trying to lead to. It is not the way JW go about it.

Social commentary on JW shows that JW are devoid of that type of thing, that they follow the religious elements almost pragmatically, like a business-like arrangement, devoid of emotionalism. I forget which one elaborated on that, if it was Holden or someone before, but Wikipedia is giving the wrong idea here. Natural (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

End-times religions always believe they have 'reasonable' explanations 'proving' that their interpretations of 'prophecies' are being fulfilled 'now' (e.g. see http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm). So there is nothing remarkable that JWs have what they consider to be 'reasonable' theories about an impending end of the world based on their theology. JWs' entire eschatology is a claim of "advanced knowledge". It is true that JWs don't consider to have very specific knowledge of the future (such as predicting exactly what will happen to a specific individual), but they certainly believe they have special advance knowledge of a general outline of the end of the world and subsequent events, for which they claim a specific order of events. The article properly states that this supposed advanced knowledge is about broad "world events".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, I appreciate the better summation here, still, it needs to be clarified that this is not a looking into a crystal ball Watchtower glass or receiving visions, but based on the interpretation of the Bible prophecies about the end times. One of the reasons is that some other religions who are often categorized with JW, do claim to receive divine revelations beyond the Bible, and Wikip. here does give that impression.Natural (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

You have raised this objection twice before, Naturalpsychology. See here and here, where the subject was fully discussed. On the latter occasion a request for comment was issued, which drew a wide range of opinions. The consensus was clearly to keep the existing wording. Your complaints at that time were variations of similar accusations made here and here. You need to accept the consensus and stop raising the same issue repeatedly as if it is a fresh complaint. BlackCab (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

James Beverly and mind control

According to a google books search, James Beverly does not use the term "mind control". Natural (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The Beverley source is cited for the the term "intellectual dominance", which he uses in the context of a discussion of how much the WTS controls the thinking of JWs and how it also demands total allegiance. The Beverley statement is contained in a sentence which embraces the criticisms by Muramoto, Holden and Rogerson of the level of mind control exercised by the WTS. BlackCab (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Holden does not endorse the mind control theory. He states that he feels there is not that type of control, but it is a free-will thing that the individual Witnesses engage in. He does have criticisms, but that is not one of them. The other writers I would have to see. Natural (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

In examining Muramoto's statements on "mind control," while he does mention the term in reference to the former policy of JW of not allowing conscientious objectors to take up alternative service, in lieu of military service, he declines to use the term. He quotes the Watchtower spokesman who raised the objection of "mind control" before it was raised elsewhere, but again, Muramto does not embrace the idea. Natural (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Rogerson does not use the term "mind control" in his book on Jehovah's Witnesses according to the Google Books search. Natural (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Holden, Muramoto and Rogerson all criticise aspects of the way in which the Watch Tower dominates the thinking of, and control of information to, Jehovah's Witnesses. I have rewritten that sentence to make clear that it was Franz who used the term "mind control" in relation to those forms of intellectual domination, based on the earlier published statements of cult counsellor Steve Hassan. BlackCab (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Ray Franz would use the term "mind control," but do you have that specific quote and its context? page no. Thanks. Natural (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Franz develops his discussion throughout much of chapter 12 of his book, starting on p.407, and makes repeated use of the term "mind control" in the context of tactics applied by the WTS towards members, including information control, mental isolation, the prohibition on doctrinal criticism and the punishment meted out to those who fail to accept all doctrines. He discusses intellectual intimidation, the catechistical method of teaching that requires students to repeat the thinking of WT headquarters and the WTS claim to hold the office of divine prophet, which is another tactic to intimidate newcomers into acceptance. On p.409 he states: "Of the elements presented above as fundamental features of religions exercising mind control, it is a fact that every single one of them is clearly present among Jehovah's Witnesses." BlackCab (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Board

On this edit, and linked comments, I'm going to go to the NPOV board. This isn't acceptable,

Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) to declare his will[321][322] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[323]

Ray Franz, In Search of Christian Freedom "...known to us through the 'faithful and discreet slave,' that group of anointed Christians whom the Master, Jesus, is using now," and that "Jehovah provides his loyal servants with advance knowledge about this system's end...."

This is Ray Franz's argument and would need to be identified as such. Additionally, going to Wa. lit. for criticisms is Wikipedia creating its own criticism, not commenting on historical criticisms. It is more like a NY Times editorial. Editorial articles express an opinion, sometimes a strong one, but it is not journalism. Wikipedia does not express an opinion, but reports the facts neutrally.

Wikipedia is not a parrot-board for Ray Franz on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. Agreed?

Natural (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I Agree. The WT library software program was meant for the JW's which would help in their personal bible study. I think many anti-JW's misuse it to derive their own criticism. It would be appropriate to refer the WT lit. in explaining their own beliefs and practices. However using it in the criticism section causes dispute. The reason is that an anti-JW could interpret the intended meaning in the literature in a different way, in comparison with what is actually understood by a JW. For example the WT itself had acknowledged many times that Bible prophecies could be fully understood only after its fulfillment.(Which is in contradiction with the given statement "JW's claim advanced knowledge about future world events"). However a JW know that they have advanced knowledge about the purpose of God and what he is going to do on earth, but they surely do not know how exactly it will be done( ie. they do not claim knowledge on exact future world events). A solution is to explain the criticism with full credit of the interpretation given to the critic.

For example instead of writing "Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses to declare his will[quote from JW pub] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events[quote from JW pub]" it is appropriate to write "Critic Ray Franz say that the Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that[quote from the WT publication which Ray Franz used in his book to interpret his claim] God has used Jehovah's Witnesses to declare his will and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events[quote from Ray Franz book]". I think this would help.--Fazilfazil (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If something is directly stated in a Watch Tower Society publication, then presenting it as simply the claim of some critic misrepresents the tone of the source by relegating its actual statements as merely the opinions of a critic. It is not disputed that JWs claim to be used by God to do his will; nor is it disputed that JWs claim to know God's plans for the future.

The Watchtower 1 May 1997, "we keep telling people about godly peace whether they respond or not. ... Our greatest happiness comes from our relationship with God and the knowledge that we are doing his will."

The Watchtower 15 July 2010, "Jehovah ... dignifies us by kindly granting us “advance knowledge” in the form of a general outline of what is to occur in the future."

Those aren't claims invented by Franz—nor is stating those claims in itself a criticism, and it is not at all neutral to posit them as if they were. Those statements sourced from JW publications are statements of fact (i.e. it is a fact that the WTS claims those things) from a primary source that are the subject of the criticism that follows.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Watchtower statement is not being used here as criticism and I think few neutral readers would take it that way. It is used as an introduction to the section on "failed predictions", simply stating the published claim that God has bestowed on Jehovah's Witnesses "advance knowledge about this system’s end ... information that will enable them to discern when the “great tribulation” actually has begun". Franz and others are critical of that view, and the article then identifies those criticisms. The clear, unambiguous Watchtower statement is completely germane to those criticisms. Its removal would make the actual subject of criticism unclear. BlackCab (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Naturalpsychology raised precisely the same issue at the NPOV discussion board last year. See here. Someone with more time on their hands might like to pore over the edits and see how much support he gained. BlackCab (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the statement "Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses to declare his will" is true. But the statement "and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events" needs clarification. The wording "future world events" can imply any event (or all events) that is going to happen in future. It may be easily misunderstood by the reader. In fact the source exactly do not use that wording. Instead what the source say is

The Watchtower 15 Oct 1980, "Thus, God gives his humble servants special knowledge that others do not have. ... Having advance knowledge from Jehovah, his servants are equipped—indeed, commissioned, by God—to herald throughout the world the warning of this system’s approaching end, along with the comforting message of the new order...Since Jehovah provides his loyal servants with advance knowledge about this system’s end...And already, yes, right now, events are taking place that are preparing the way for that execution"

The Watchtower 15 July 2010, "Jehovah ... dignifies us by kindly granting us “advance knowledge” in the form of a general outline of what is to occur in the future."

The wording needs to be changed reflecting the meaning given in the source. So I have made a minor change here.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable amendment. Nobody likes to be proven wrong, least of all God. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "advanced knowledge in the form of a general outline on what is to occur in the future" in fact doesn't overcome the objections of FazilFazil at all. The 1980 WT article cited refers explicitly to advance knowledge about "this system’s approaching end" which enables them "to discern when the great tribulation actually has begun". This is quite specific "advance knowledge", so the sentence needs to refer to God giving them advance knowledge of Armageddon's approach, or a similar wording. BlackCab (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me: since the problem is that the current wording is too vague about what the WTS claims to have "advanced knowledge" about, we simply specify what "advanced knowledge" the WTS claims to have. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources of criticism should be from secondary sources and not directly from Watchtower literature to prove point

I don't know how to use the archival system, but there was agreement from one of the editor-arbitrators on this point, that the criticisms should be from actual critics and not directly from Watchtower literature to prove the point. The Watchtower certainly wasn't criticizing itself? When the Wikip. editor quotes directly from Wa. lit. it is creating its own criticism, not commenting or documenting other's criticisms. This has basically been discussed some months ago. The editing team did not follow the suggestion of the arbitrator but continued with this style of editing. I made some small edits here to more clearly identify the specific "critics," which is of importance for the reader to know, that Botting, for example, was a former JW, not an independent sociologist like Beckford. But that is in addition to the need to change the first three or few senteneces in the Criticisms section of listing criticisms from secondary sources and not directly from JW literature itself. Natural (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

There's nothing wrong with presenting a primary source that is subject to criticism before presenting the criticism that is made against it. It demonstrates bias to present a direct statement by a source as merely a criticism by someone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I raise an eyebrow at this one: "Watch Tower Society publications instruct followers not to question its doctrines and counsel." Three Watchtower articles are listed as citations, but I doubt any of them directly say "do not question Watch Tower doctrines and counsel". Rather, I bet the publications instruct followers to trust God, and (implicitly) claim that the WTS is God's organization, therefore claiming that the WTS is to be trusted. I'll give the sources a look sometime and see if rewording really is in order. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added citations at that point to Beckford's study of the JWs, which makes repeated, explicit reference to the prohibition on open discussion and questioning of WTS doctrines by members. BlackCab (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BFizz is correct in saying Watchtowers don't use the phrase "do not question Watch Tower doctrines and counsel". The more common approach is to describe as "proud, haughty, presumptuous, impatient, independent and evil" those who do raise doctrinal objections. Such wording is found in the September 1, 2000 WT, in the article "Show a Waiting Attitude," which includes the following statements:

"As Bible prophecies undergo fulfillment, our understanding of the Scriptures is refined. At times, though, we may think that a certain clarification is overdue. If it is not forthcoming when we would prefer it, are we willing to wait? Remember, Jehovah saw fit to reveal “the sacred secret of the Christ” a little at a time and over a period of some 4,000 years. Do we, then, have any reason to be impatient? Do we doubt that a “faithful and discreet slave” has been appointed to give Jehovah’s people “their food at the proper time”? Why deprive ourselves of godly joy because not everything is completely understood? Remember, Jehovah decides when and how to reveal his ‘confidential matters.’

"A waiting attitude also helps us to avoid presumptuousness. Some who have become apostate were unwilling to wait. They may have felt that there was a need for adjustments, either in Bible understanding or in organizational matters. Yet, they failed to acknowledge that Jehovah’s spirit moves the faithful and discreet slave to make adjustments in His due time, not when we may feel that this is needed. And any adjustments must be in harmony with Jehovah’s will, not our personal ideas. Apostates allow a presumptuous attitude to warp their thinking and stumble them. But if they had adopted the mental attitude of Christ, they could have retained their joy and remained among Jehovah’s people."

The 2009 book, Bearing Thorough Witness About God's Kingdom, offers this advice for anyone harbouring doubts or objections about WT doctrines (p. 103):

"One valuable lesson we learn is that we need to trust God's organization. Consider: The brothers in Antioch knew that the governing body was made up entirely of Christians of Jewish background. Yet, they trusted that body to settle the question of circumcision in harmony with the Scriptures. Why? The congregation was confident that Jehovah would direct matters by means of his holy spirit and the Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. When serious issues arise today, let us imitate the fine example of the believers in Antioch by trusting God's organization and its Governing Body of anointed Christians, who represent "the faithful and discreet slave."

"We are also reminded of the value of humility and patience. Paul and Barnabas had been personally appointed by holy spirit to go to the nations, yet they did not invoke that authority to settle the issue of circumcision then and there in Antioch ...Elders today strive to have the same humble, patient attitude when potentially divisive questions arise. Instead of being contentious, they look to Jehovah by consulting the Scriptures and the instruction and guidance provided by the slave class.

"In some instances, we may have to wait for Jehovah to shed light on a certain matter. So let us never proudly push ahead with our own ideas or react negatively to organizational changes or to adjusted explanations of certain scriptures."

Such statements, and many similar in WTS publications, explain why authors such as Beckford have identified the intolerance of the WTS to questions or challenges from members. BlackCab (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of a change like this?

"The Watch Tower Society's publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel,[refs] reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as the "faithful and discrete slave" of Jehovah. It warns members..."

It makes two changes: 1) replace "instructs not to" with "strongly discourages", which is more accurate, and 2) give short JW reasoning for demanding such respect.

Did I understand the "faithful and discrete slave" bit correctly (that it refers to the Watch Tower Society or ancient organizations considered the equivalent of the WTS)? Or does the phrase refer to a particular person? (Offtopic: If I'm not mistaken, other Christians consider it to be a reference to Jesus.) ...comments? ~BF izz 01:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

JWs officially use the term 'faithful and discreet slave' to refer to the 'remnant' of the 'anointed' 144,000, and in any practical sense it refers only to the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is never used by them to refer to any specific 'ancient organizations' other than first-century Christians. I'm not sure that the 'faithful servant' normally prefigures any particular individual in mainstream Christianity, but it is definitely not Jesus, who is typically considered to be the 'Lord' referred to in the same parable for whom the 'servant' is waiting. (I think it may be used by mainstream Christians in a generic sense to refer to any Christian awaiting Jesus' 'second coming')--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No major problem with BFizz' suggested change, but re-order to get rid of "of" in the possessive, ergo, trusted as Jehovah's "faithful and discreet slave". Note also that discrete ("distinct") has a different meaning to discreet ("avoiding attention").--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the first part of BFizz's suggestion, but the second part ("reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as the "faithful and discrete slave" of Jehovah") is unnecessary and inaccurate. Strictly speaking the Society is not the FDS; nor does it ever claim to be so. BlackCab (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this: The Watch Tower Society's publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel,[refs] reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "Jehovah's organization". (or alternatively, "God's organization"). Or is that the governing body? It's a little unclear to me still. But putting forward this reasoning is important, I think, because it illustrates the reality of how the WTS publications "discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel". Their argument is meaningless without their claim (essentially) to God's authority. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you've written here is about the crux of it. You won't match their wording precisely, because they keep the terminology deliberately vague and obscure. Doctrines are always attributed to the "faithful and discreet slave" (approximately 12,000 people with no direct communication with one another), though they are in fact hammered out by the seven-man Governing Body before being published by the Watch Tower Society. The WTS is claimed to exist only as a legal necessity and is never claimed to dispense doctrinal statements; all beliefs are said to be held by "Jehovah's Witnesses", which also administers discipline when members challenge those beliefs. "Jehovah's Witnesses" seems to have no statutory existence and is described in WTS literature as a brotherhood. It's murky stuff, but the wording you've used covers the bases. The WTS is used consistently throughout this article as being the originator (in general terms) of doctrines and published statements. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I got a bit lost in the detail there with my previous comment accepting the suggested wording. BlackCab is of course correct that the 'Society' is not at all the same as the 'faithful slave', so that part of BFizz' suggestion does indeed need to be amended. The new suggestion seems fine, but with simply "God's organization".--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. ...comments? ~BF izz 03:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Beckford's Analysis, Clarification needed

Wikipedia is using Beckford's analysis as a sort of "absolute" judgement or summation from Beckford, which Beckford does not do. Rather, he qualifies his information, in fact, dating it, for the time period that he studied, which is why if Beckford's work is cited a date should be provided.

Beckford states right before the Wikipedia info. on his analysis or categorization:

"..a note of caution about the necessary crudeness of this device (classifying JW as Totalizing), for location groups at the poles of continua which are in themselves ill-defined, and we must make a please for provisional tolerance of its shortcomings in the anticipation of eventually useful results." Then is the chart that defines Totalizing, Activist, Individualist, and Conventional Religions.

He continues, " We must emphasize that the four type-cases are not intended to be water-tight or rigid (as Wikipedia presents it in the article), they are expressly designed to allow flexibility in scope and mobility between cases. Moreover, this particular group in its formative years might have been located on the borderlines between the Totalizing and Individualist types. The typology can therefore accommodate changes that occur in organizational characteristics even though the group's doctrines may remain unaltered.

Because JW underwent serious changes in its manner of leadership from the time this book was researched, the early 1970s, Beckford's research extended perhaps from 1969-1973 or 1970-1974, it needs to be dated, and can be viewed, perhaps as a loose idea of a flexible classification of JW, that might also include other elements for the time period studied, and might not nec. fall into the exact same categorigal summation today. There are some other statements on the spec. quotes from Beckford that will be provided for clarification in a following post.Natural (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Neither Holden (2002) nor Stark (1997) criticise Beckford's work as outdated. You continue to insist that the leadership "might" have become moderate since the 1970s; Penton (2002) in fact argues that the JW leadership became stricter and more intolerant from the early 1980s. BlackCab (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Other details in Beckford's summary - "friction with secular authorities

Beckford is quoted as stating,

"Other characteristics of the classification include likelihood of friction with secular authorities," he later qualifies that broad statement of what he considers to be categorizing for Totalizing religions, stating that the JW in Britain, where his study originated, with regard to the "friction with secular authorities," "is only superficial expression... [e.g] Their refusal to enlist in the armed forces, to accept restrictions on their alleged rights to evangelize in public without hindrance, and to control the precise type of medical treatment for themselves or of dependents virtually exhausts the list of present-day sources of friction with secular authorities. Witnesses readily resort to litigation in defense of their principles and are thereby willing to exhibit their faith in the value of due legal process. In Britain, therefore, Jehovah's witnesses have become... mild and conventional in their criticism of the prevailing political and legal arrangements. Natural (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

If the statement concerning "friction with secular authorities" should be included, then qualifying in formation in Beckford's text is necessary. This especially in view of the legal battles and persecutions JW are experiencing presently in some countries. (See http://www.jw-media.org) Natural (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It should also be noted that Beckford, on page 207-209 does not consider JW to be Extremists. This is of importance if Wikipedia is to highlight the confusing term "Totalizing". "Totalizing" might be considered to be the equivalent to Extremists, which is the accusation Moscow has used to persecute today's JW. Beckford sums up this section in saying, that Britain JW are "basically conservative and fuly congruent with their social and material status." That Witnesses in Britain often join for "moral" motivations rather than otherwise, and that "its followers are not revolutionarily-oriented". Additionally, Beckford states, " There remains, of course, the objection that the Watch Tower movement warrants the designation 'extremist' by virtue of its theological doctrines, but this argument rests upon certain normative assumptions that have no justifiable bearing on a sociological study of religion." He refers accusations of extremism of JW, as "their so-called extremism".

Therefore, qualifying the use of the term Totalizing, and she subsequent explanation in Wikipedia, the sentence should be added along the lines, "While Beckford uses the term Totalizing, he explains that JW are not Extremists in their practices or doctrines, that they are "basically conservative and fully congruent with their social and material status."Natural (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Your longwinded complaint 'defending' JWs about "extremism" is a strawman argument. The brief section in the article giving Beckford's classification of the religion says nothing at all about JWs being extremists. Your personal opinion that totalizing = extremism = Muscovite accusation is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Beckford's sociological classification of the organizational structure seems to be self-explanatory.If neither the Wikipedia article nor Beckford describe the religion as extremist, I see no point in stating that they aren't extremist. BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Natural in his request to include the year in which Beckford released his work. This is important because the membership had been significantly increased since then. However stark did not agree blindly with all of Beckfords analysis. Penton(a former member) and Wilson had negatively analyzed the religion. It seems the classification section had rigidly presented the facts, which essentially portray JWs as a religion with military like discipline and those believing in it as mere fools. Wondering why sociological study only provide the negative aspects? What about positive aspects like their unity, their brotherhood, their love, their honesty, their zeal, their unquestionable faith? If Beckford, Holden, Penton and Wilson where so sincere and neutral they would have also commented the positive aspects of the religion. --Fazilfazil (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It sound as though you have a bias of your own. You're welcome to present any other reliable third-party sources that discuss the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The statements I presented are true. However it is very difficult to get a 3rd party source, because most writers have a prejudice on JWs. Anyways I understand wiki policy on source and hence would be looking for something. We would have more scope if the section title changed from "Sociological classification of the organization" to "Sociological aspects of the religion".--Fazilfazil (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fazilfazil, you might like to actually read those books before coming out with such stupidity. Beckford was an academic who approached the subject of his study neutrally and his book contained complimentary, neutral and critical comments about the religion. Ditto Holden. Penton's book, though often critical, contains praise for the religion and Wilson is often cited here by another editor who is a JW who thinks he, rather than those other authors, is telling the truth. The prejudice here is clearly your own. BlackCab (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to be more careful in using insult words against another editors opinion. I haven't said anywhere that I read any of those books. Having said that, if you are correct, then what happened to the praise for the religion? I did not see any praise in that section. What I see is a list of academic terms which indirectly prove the apostate theory of "mind-control". If you wrote that section, then decide yourself who is the stupid. --Fazilfazil (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a small reality check here: You are at a talk page of an encyclopedia, disputing the reliability of books on which significant parts of this article are based, claiming that they present "only negative aspects", yet now you confirm that you haven't read any of them. That admission renders your opinions on those sources rather worthless. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that every Wikipedia editor read all the books related to JWs? So nothing wrong in stating my opinion. Why I disputed the books is that I saw only negative statements in that section. But after reading your comment, I understand that the same books contained positive aspects. However Wikipedia have not used it yet because of some unknown reasons --Fazilfazil (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading from "Classification" to "Sociological analysis". Most Beckford descriptions don't strike me as particularly negative (a couple do, but most don't). Some could easily be interpreted as a positive thing: low rate of doctrinal change, and strict uniformity of beliefs among members, historicism, activism, rationalism. I think most of the things Fazilfazil mentioned, "unity, their brotherhood, their love, their honesty, their zeal, their unquestionable faith", are included between the lines of these descriptions. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shunning of those who resign

The wording "formally leave" is unclear and could be easily applied for those who simply leave the religion. Only those who leave with a written letter or verbal statement is shunned. And the appropriate word for that is "Resign". See Resignation. --Fazilfazil (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

'Resign' implies a particular 'position' more than simple membership. JWs define 'disassociating' beyond simply writing a letter or making a verbal statement. Other conditions under which a person may be said to have 'disassociated' and shunned include attending another church's services or accepting a blood transfusion, regardless of any actual 'resignation'. Therefore, neither 'formally leave' or 'resign' are entirely accurate, but 'formally leave' is a better choice of the two.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight--Fazilfazil (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Grammar 101

This is a minor matter, but a couple of editors are insisting that it is correct grammar to say By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had severed ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership. This is not correct. Where "had" is interpreted as part of "had severed" rather than as introducing the entire clause "severed ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership", the grammar is still incorrect, as it presents the two alternatives as "Bible Students had severed ties with the Society" or "Bible Students accept Rutherford's leadership". The correct tense for both alternatives is the past tense. I have reworded slightly to hopefully resolve the dispute. Please do not restore the incorrect grammar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your efforts at cleaning up grammar and do not see it as a minor matter otherwise you wouldn't have been motivated to post your thoughts. I would be the first to admit that mine is not always the best. In my first book the proofreaders and editor had a field day. It was, for various reasons, embarrassing because I had thought my grammar was much better than it proved to be, but I learned a lot and have tried to be more careful and aware. However, if I make a mistake in an edit I have faith in your ability to clean it up. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"rather than" triggers some grammatical weirdness. I'm not sure that the original wording was wrong; "accept" should be seen as being in the infinitive form there, not the present tense. However, I'm much more sure the current wording, "[they] had chosen to sever ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership", is indeed grammatically correct, so let's stick with that. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab's Rhetoric and Continued Use of Ridicule and Name-Calling

I don't think that BlackCab's rhetoric and name-calling should be continued on the Wikipedia talk page. BlackCab tends to ridicule those who don't prescribe to his viewpoint, and I feel his derogatory personal attacks should be taken off the talk page, please. WP:No Personal Attacks Thank you. Natural (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Some of BlackCab's comments have been uncivil. I notice several instances of unnecessary statements incorporated in BlackCab's comments when discussing other editors' contributions, some of which BlackCab could withdraw without any detriment at all to the discussion. I'm not sure there's been something severe as a derogatory personal attack though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of blame to go around. Just about everyone who has a comment on this Talk page has said something that would fall under the category of ridicule or name-calling at some point over the past 12 months. I see nothing in BlackCab's comments that single him out as worse than others. Perhaps we all need to stop reacting emotionally, and stick to facts. Granted, that is difficult when discussing issues about a group who believe they represent God, whether they be JWs, Roman Catholics, LDS, or whomever. My personal opinion is that BlackCab has been singled out for unjust criticism on more than one occasions by a certain user who it has been suggested used more than one username. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Falsely advertised?

The statement "falsely advertised as posthumous work" of Russel in history section needs clarification.

JW-Proclaimers book chapter 66, page 66 "A few, especially at headquarters, actually resented Brother Rutherford..Opposition soon mounted. Four members of the board of directors of the Society went so far as to endeavor to wrest administrative control from Rutherford’s hands. The situation came to a head in the summer of 1917, with the release of The Finished Mystery, the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. Brother Russell had been unable to produce this volume during his lifetime, though he had hoped to do so. Following his death, the Executive Committee of the Society arranged for two associates, Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, to prepare this book, which was a commentary on Revelation, The Song of Solomon, and Ezekiel. In part, it was based on what Russell had written about these Bible books, and other comments and explanations were added.

So if the statement needs to be true then the citation must be from a reliable source, who worked along with the writing committee of Rutherford. Statements from the dissented IBSA leaders cannot be considered as reliable. Hence the wording "falsely" should be regarded as a claim--Fazilfazil (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The source of the publication you quote above is the organization formerly run by Rutherford that made the claim that the volume was Russell's post-humous work. It is hardly a neutral source on the matter. However, a source indicating that it was indeed 'falsely advertised' should indeed be provided if that is actually the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

However, there are indeed various Watch Tower Society publications indicating that the volume was indeed not written by Russell:

The Watchtower 1 March, 2000, p 21: "The Finished Mystery was the seventh of a series of volumes entitled Studies in the Scriptures, the first six of which were written by Charles Taze Russell. The Finished Mystery was published after Russell’s death."
The Watchtower 1 October, 2000, p 26: "Charles Taze Russell had written the first six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, but he died before he could write the seventh. So his notes were given to Grandpa and another Bible Student, and they wrote the seventh volume."
The Watchtower 1 July, 1983, p 18: "Then on June 21, after weeks of court trial, the federal court of the United States sentenced to long terms of imprisonment in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, the Society’s president, its secretary-treasurer, the two coauthors of The Finished Mystery, three other members of the Brooklyn headquarters staff and the Society’s Italian translator." (emphasis added)

That it had been advertised as the work of Russell despite the fact that it was clearly not: The Watchtower, 1 December, 1984, p 28: "I can still see the words printed in the local newspapers of rural Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1918: “BANNED: THE FINISHED MYSTERY, BY C. T. RUSSELL.”"--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A fuller account of the dispute over Rutherford's position is found at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The version of those events as presented by Watch Tower publications is actually a classic lesson in propaganda: several books have been written about those events and most of the pamphlets and magazines produced by both sides are still available online today, so anyone wishing to read the views of both sides of the dispute is able to make up their own mind on who was telling the truth. It's particularly fascinating to see how the viewpoint of the majority of a seven-man board of directors (in this case that Rutherford was acting in an autocratic fashion) is transformed into a claim that they were deperate and ambitious men "endeavoring to wrest control from Rutherford's hands". (See note 36 on that article for some classic WTS spin). Books by Rogerson, Penton and Wills cited at the Presidency Dispute article contain much information of interest and unlike WTS publications they present a balanced view, citing sources from both sides.

Those authors also deal with the situation of The Finished Mystery, which was clearly identified in the preface as the posthumous work of Russell. There is clear proof of the true authorship of the book and several authors, particularly Wills, give numerous examples of how its real authors, Woodworth and Fisher, actually contradicted Russell with many of their interpretations. The book became a divisive factor among the Bible Students, with many choosing to quit rather than accept new doctrines presented in Russell's name.

I'm at work at the moment so away from my home library, but I'll add some references when I can. Please note that the claim re the "false advertising" of the book is already supported by two sources and I don't see that either of them is particularly suspect. I'm a bit baffled by Fazilfazil's request for a citation from "a reliable source, who worked along with the writing committee of Rutherford". Since there is only a handful of books ever written about the religion by Watch Tower members, and none that deal with controversial episodes of the religion's history, I don't know that any such books exist. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The society had mentioned that the notes of Russel were the primary basis for the book. So I don't see anything wrong in advertising it as a post-humous work of Russel, though it was written by someone else.--Fazilfazil (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support changing it to: "In June 1917 he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures without the knowledge or approval of the Board of Directors. The volume, written by Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, was ~~and falsely~~ advertised it as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to that suggested and included a quote from Crompton that accords with statements of other authors. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. ...comments? ~BF izz 14:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Fazilfazil believes the official Watchtower history books accurately reflect the truth on this matter. An unbiased analysis of the facts show that unfortunately they do not. "The Finished Mystery" was controversial not only to the public, but also among Bible Students. Why? Because it contained many new interpretations, projected dates, misquotes of Russell, and claimed to be a posthumous work. This thread was started over the use of the word "falsely" - that it was falsely claimed to be the posthumous work of Pastor Russell and that this word is itself a misrepresentation of the facts. The word is accurate and should have remained. A quick glance at any dictionary will show that a posthumous work is that which was written prior to death and published for the first time after death. Russell had never compiled a manuscript for a seventh volume. He intended to publish one, but publicly stated on more than one occasion including shortly before his death that he did not want to publish anything on it until he felt certain that he understood all of the symbols outlined in the book of Revelation, not wanting to publish speculation, and that he believed God had not yet given anyone the key to understand the entire book. As soon as he died however Rutherford took advantage of the opportunity to publish a seventh volume believing that he was fulfilling a prophetic work by so doing. As has been carefully outlined in the booklet "Notes and Comments on The Finished Mystery" the book contains a false claim of being a posthumous work, is internally inconsistent, contains numerous historical inaccuracies, misinterpretations, misquotes and selective quotes of Russell's writings, false prophecies, and a strong sectarian spirit. I believe that the word "falsely" should remain or that some other word with a similar meaning be used. Readers of an article rarely look at the references when reading an article or section. There should therefore be something in the sentence indicating that this claim was disputed whether it be through the use of the word "falsely" or some other. In an attempt to do this I have extracted from the Lawson statement the words "under the guise" and moved the ref from the end of the sentence and placed it after the extract. Pastorrussell (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That edit looked awkward, so I undid it. It was perfectly clear as it was. However, I'm not entirely opposed to using the phrase "under the guise", but if we do use it, it doesn't really merit the extra quotation marks. Also, footnotes should almost always go after a period, semicolon, or comma. Putting them anywhere else makes the text difficult to read. (Putting footnotes after commas is pushing it, but has sadly become commonplace.) ...comments? ~BF izz 04:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the user Jeffro's suggestion. "under the guise" is again equivalent to "falsely". The book was found here. I would have agreed on "falsely" if the WT society published the book without mentioning anything about the writers, and purely given the credit to C T Russel. In the preface it clearly explain the intended meaning for "POSTHUMOUS". The current wording is perfectly clear, without pushing either of the views.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The book was written by some people but advertised as written by someone else, and the current wording clearly indicates that. In view of the fact that the current wording adequately states the facts, insisting on wording such as false or under the guise seems like POV-pushing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - I do not at all believe it is indicated clearly enough and would like to suggest that we come up with a better wording. And so that it is clear, my edits were made in an attempt to facilitate clarity, not push a POV. There is only one meaning to "posthumous" and the use of that word caused a great deal of controversy amongst Bible Students because it was viewed as a lie made to sell more copies off of the reputation of Pastor Russell' name and the general perception that he had "predicted" the Great War. In the meantime, I've made an edit that to my mind makes the statement much clearer by switching the two clauses placing them in reverse order without adding anything. Surely there cannot be any major objection to that edit. Pastorrussell (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From the preface of the book

Finished mystery preface - But the fact is, he did write it. This book may properly be said to be a posthumous publication of Pastor Russell. Why?..This book is chiefly a compilation of things which he wrote and which have been brought together in harmonious style by properly applying the symbols which he explained to the Church. By his last Will and Testament Pastor Russell designated George H. Fisher, of Scranton, Pa., as one whom he would approve as a member of the Editorial Staff of THE WATCH TOWER — the most important journal published on earth..When Pastor Russell was with us he gave direction that the BIBLE STUDENTS MANUAL should be prepared by Clayton J. Woodworth, also of Scranton, Pa. This Manual was published by this Society, and has proven a great blessing to the Household of Faith. The preparation of that Manual required a critical examination of everything Pastor Russell had written; and thus Brother Woodworth was enabled to become more familiar, probably, than any one else with the explanation of the Scriptures which had been given by Brother Russell. In this manner the Lord seemed to have qualified him for some special work. With the "key" which Brother Russell, as the Lord's servant, had placed in his hands, Brother Woodworth, by the Lord's grace, has been enabled to bring together everything that Brother Russell wrote on Revelation, and to explain and harmonize the other parts of that book with the Divine Plan; also, to treat similarly, the Song of Solomon. It seemed pleasing to the Lord that Brothers C. J. Wood-worth and George H. Fisher should prepare the Seventh Volume, under the direction of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. While both residing in the same city, they have worked separate and apart from each other, not even comparing notes. The reader will be able to judge how fully the work of each harmonizes with that of the other and with the Divine Plan, thus giving further evidence of the Lord's direction in this matter. Pastor Russell long ago said, in substance, that the Seventh Volume would not he for the development of the Church; that the preceding six volumes of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES contain the necessary spiritual food tor that purpose. Asked why, then, it would be written, he replied, "It will probably be given to the Church in a time of direst need, for her comfort and encouragement." ..Some will murmur and find fault with this book; some will grow angry, and some will join the persecutors. But, we believe, every saint whose heart is filled with love for God and for His people will rejoice and give praise to the Lord for this further evidence of His blessed favor.

Please do not take Wikipedia emotionally. Adverb "Actually" is again equivalent to "false". All those authors who claim that the Volume was not written based on Russell's note are simply suggesting their personal analysis on the book. In contrary the WTS strongly acknowledge that the book is called "posthumous" in the sense that it was actually written based on Russell's note. No one can be 100% sure of the actual fact. The present wording is the correct one.--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Those who, to use your word, "claim" that the volume was not written based on Russell's writings are merely reporting the facts. To say otherwise is a whitewashing of history and has nothing to do with emotion except to those who oppose it. Every other editor who has commented here has openly agreed to this fact - that it was not written by Russell and yet was advertised as though it had been. As to the preface, its contents are irrelevant to this matter because a newspaper advertisement doesn't have a preface. In other words, if an advertisement says "the posthumous work of " so-and-so the reader automatically assumes that it is a work written prior and published subsequent to the author's death. I am unaware of any legitimate debate on the meaning of that word. The work was falsely advertised as the work of someone other than the true writers. There is no dispute here. Even the United States Government recognized that it was not a posthumous work, and that Rutherford and his associates had misled the public with the use of that claim. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have also added the statements from the publishers. Otherwise it would not be neutral. I have a few words on your claim "a lie made to sell more copies off of the reputation of Pastor Russell". I observe that you have unsuccessfully tried to make your website popular by selling C T Russell's reputation. Also I observe that you are trying to insist more importance to the dissented bible students(of your ancestors) in this article to steal the visitors to IBSA article using the popularity of JW's. You should have thought about yourself before making that claim.--Fazilfazil (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not "my" claim. It's been made by many, some even before I was born. The other things you state are untrue but even if they were are certainly not appropriate to raise in the context of this discussion. We're talking about whether or not the book The Finished Mystery was or was not falsely advertised, not the role of Bible Students vs JWs in history. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion of the book by Robert Crompton is already covered in the footnotes to the article, making clear that author's viewpoint that the book contained original interpretations based on Russell's notes. Alan Rogerson (1969) notes that the book was written by Woodworth and Fisher "who had incorporated some of the material left behind by Russell". Tony Wills (2006) devotes several pages to the book, noting that it was claimed as the posthumous work of Russell but that both authors had "clearly deviated" from Russell's teaching on several critical points. He notes (p.100) that "although almost all those who left Rutherford, and others besides, rejected Volume Seven as the posthumous work of Russell, and as an instrument of God, Rutherford heartily accepted it." A.H. Macmillan (Faith on the March, 1957, p.81) says the Seventh Volume "was really a compilation of material from notes and writings of Russell and was issued as a posthumous work of Russell's". (my emphasis).

Wills is the only author I can find who refers to advertisements for the book, writing that Rutherford "printed tracts containing extracts from it to advertise it". Given the lack of sources provided that support the claim that it was "widely advertised" as the posthumous work of Russell, I think it's sufficient to note that the book was claimed as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell", based on his notes, but written by Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher. This states the fact as accepted by modern WTS publications (and the preface of the book itself) without suggesting improper motive. BlackCab (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Russell never left any notes for a seventh volume. He had outlined what he wanted it to be, but content was never assembled. He stated on more than one occasion that he did not want to publish anything until he felt comfortable that he had the correct interpretations, not wanting to publish speculation. He admitted a few months prior to his death that he personally believed the book was still "sealed" the "key" not having been delivered to anyone.

The book The Finished Mystery contained three sections which were verse-by-verse interpretations of the books of: (1) Revelation - 338 pp; (2) the Song of Solomon - 26 pp; and (3) Ezekiel - 225 pages. Only the section on Revelation contains quotations from Russell, and even then only selectively. According to the Preface the section on the Song of Solomon was written entirely by Woodworth, having no references to Russell's writings, and the interpretation of the book of Ezekiel was written entirely by Fisher, also with no references to Russell's writings. The interpretation of the book of Revelation was an admixture of novel interpretations written Fisher and Woodworth and random quotations of and citations to previously published material written by Russell. Some of these interpretations were strictly Russell's but others were Fisher and Woodworth's interpretations or analysis of Russell's interpretations. There was nothing new from Russell's pen. This means that a minimum of 43% of the book (338 pages versus 251 pages) was authored by someone else, and of the first section roughly half was written by Fisher and Woodworth which pushes that number to 60-70%. This means that it was neither a "posthumous work" nor "Pastor Russell's final legacy" in any sense of the word.

The Finished Mystery went through four different editions between 1917 and 1926, each with many changes in the interpretations offered. As for my statement that it was "widely advertised", that refers both to the millions of copies of the BSM and scattered newspaper and magazine advertisements around North America, as well as billboards. It was being widely heralded by the WTS as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell" his "last legacy to the Christians of earth". Why is there a dispute about whether this was a false claim? It's self-evident, and is recognized as such by many researchers. We're bending over backwards to avoid saying or even implying that it was dishonestly advertised. Upon what basis? Facts do not need to be eliminated or whitewashed. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Crompton, Macmillan and the WTS (2000) all claim the book was based on his notes; Wills says Woodworth and Fisher used Russell's "comments" as their starting point, so therefore my suggested wording, that the book was claimed as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell", based on his notes, but written by Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher would still be accurate. The explicit statement that it was a false claim would need a reliable source. BlackCab (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that over 50% of the book was not written by Russell doesn't cut it? The reference from a US Government representative saying that the book wasn't written by Russell and was advertised "under the guise" of being a posthumous work doesn't cut it? Russell's own statement that he hadn't written a word of the seventh volume doesn't cut it? The authors you cite are taking the Preface as the final word which claims that they used notes. That is the only place they could have gotten it because there were no notes. There was nothing new in that book written or compiled by Russell. It's a very simple matter. Of all people I'm shocked that you, Blackcab, would disagree. Pastorrussell (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

John Lawson does use the term "under the guise", but doesn't discuss the existence, or otherwise, of notes. All sources discussed here agree on the identity of the authors, and many agree that their interpretations diverged markedly from Russell's writings. Don't be shocked by my position here: I just want to see reliable sources cited. You're basing many of your arguments ("widely advertised", "there were no notes") on your belief or own documentation and you know articles can't be based on assumed knowledge. I prefer to be prudent, get the article firmly based on incontrovertible sources. I don't see that my wording does anything but state the facts and I don't see that there's any necessity to hammer the point about deliberate deception. A carefully worded statement says it all. BlackCab (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pastorrussell, your claim that "Russell never left any notes for a seventh volume" seems fairly tenuous. How could you possibly be absolutely certain that he had no notes at all for a seventh volume?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that we do not need to "hammer the point about deliberate deception." I would even go so far as to state that there is no definitive proof that the deception was malicious. However, I do think it needs to be made plain that it is generally considered to have been falsely advertised. If you recall I removed the word "falsely" in an edit on April 2nd feeling that it was too harsh, changing it to "In June 1917 he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures without the knowledge or approval of the Board of Directors and advertised it as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell", a claim which was disputed by various sources." As for the existence of unique notes written by Russell for his proposed seventh volume there is no evidence that such notes ever existed. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. There is no mention in the Preface to TFM to the existence of separate notes:

"This book is chiefly a compilation of things which he wrote and which have been brought together in harmonious style by properly applying the symbols which he explained to the Church... Brother Woodworth, by the Lord's grace, has been enabled to bring together everything that Brother Russell wrote on Revelation, and to explain and harmonize the other parts of that book with the Divine Plan." (emphasis mine)

Cumulatively, CTR did not write much about the book of Revelation and as a result most of the commentary in TFM falls under that second clause of 'explaining and harmonizing the other parts' meaning those areas where Russell had not expressed in writing any particular interpretation. Even a cursory reading shows that this was the case most of the time. Approximately one month before his death (on September 23, 1916 at an IBSA Convention in Milwaukee Wisconsin) Russell made the following statements (Leslie Jones, What Pastor Russell Said, 1917, page 646):

"The seventh volume is not off the press yet, and I will just say, it is not on the press yet... We think that the book of Revelation is important, and we would therefore love very much to write on it, but, because it is not yet clear as a whole, and I do not wish to put any speculation or guessing into it, therefore do not wish to write anything until the Lord shall make it all plain so far as the Bible is concerned and its interpretation. Therefore we are waiting—waiting on the Lord. In due time I believe He will give up the Key that will unlock the book. Until then, we will rest. You will get it just as soon as He gives the explanation. If the Lord shall give it through somebody else, alright, but I will not give anything until I am sure." (emphasis mine)

At a later IBSA Convention he had said (Leslie Jones, What Pastor Russell Said, 1917, page 645):

"There are certain things in Revelation which I do not understand, and for this reason I do not write the Seventh Volume. Therein I do not wish to give any guesses. Whenever I write the Seventh Volume, on the Book of Revelation, I will have a satisfactory understanding of the teachings of that Book. Until then, I will not write it." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps the clearest statement is found in The Watch Tower of Feb. 1, 1911 pg 36. There we find that a certain traveling speaker ("Pilgrim") was falsely accused of claiming that he had advanced knowledge of what Russell was going to put into the seventh volume - notes - and sought to clear his name. Russell printed his letter, and then made the following statement:

"As for the Seventh Volume, the Editor can assure the readers that nobody knows what its contents will be, for not a word of it has yet been written. While our hands are so full of important work, and while the Church evidently needs to study more deeply the Six Volumes already possessed, we cannot consider it to be the Lord's will to turn aside from work in hand and pressing, to take up the writing of the Seventh Volume." (emphasis mine)

The only WTS-related work that makes any reference to "notes" is from MacMillan in his book Faith on the March and even then he neither says they were notes on the book of Revelation nor that they were of the seventh volume. One of the last Bible Students to die who knew Russell personally, Rose Hirsch, (d. 1984, Bethel worker, and the wife of a member of the Board expelled by Rutherford) indicated that Russell had left nothing on the seventh volume. Although it isn't recorded in any published work it is corroborative evidence, and taken with Russell's own statements it is clear that nothing had been written or compiled for the seventh volume. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You may well be correct in all this, Pastorrussell. However as the WP:V page says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Some of what you've written above is original research and you are creating an argument based on what statements you've found. I still say my suggested wording -- that it was claimed to have been based on CTR's notes -- is factual and based on reliable sources. Reading the section in this Wikipedia article again, I don't think it actually needs to name Woodworth and Fisher anyway. The inclusion of the names of two relatively unknown and unimportant people in a necessarily brief summary of that part of WTS history is not warranted. BlackCab (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree that the bulk of it constitutes original research when (1) Russell himself said, in the context of a claim that there was an outline in existence, that he had neither written anything nor outlined its contents, and (2) that there are no WT or WT-related period references pointedly stating that there were unpublished notes. The unpublished statement by Rose Hirsch, sure, that would constitute original research, but I only mentioned it in the context of the other publicly accessible references in and partially in response to Jeffro's claim that the lack of the existence of notes is tenuous. I don't consider Russell's own statement makes the claim tenuous. All that being said, how about using my suggested rewording from April 2nd: In June 1917 he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures without the knowledge or approval of the Board of Directors and advertised it as the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell", a claim which was disputed by various sources. It is balanced, neutral, and consistent both with the published facts and your suggestions. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion eliminates mention of the actual authors. I considered how it might be reworded while retaining the actual authors' names, but it comes across as awkward and redundant to say Russell's authorship is disputed when it's clearly stated that others were the authors anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly removing the names of the authors is BlackCab's suggestion, and my proposed rewording (although written before this discussion arose) merely takes that into consideration. I agree with his suggestion that the authors do not need to be names in the summary, but could in the reference/footnote. If we all work together then we can come up with better wording that all can agree upon. Pastorrussell (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to deal with the issue of how much of the book's content actually originated with Russell, this part of the article is now simply far too long and too detailed, containing both a claim and a defensive justification. Can I suggest this: In June 1917 he surprised the board of directors by releasing The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, written by two Bible Students and claimed to be the posthumous work of Russell. All fact, no accusations, no defences. BlackCab (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am ok with the blackCab's suggestion with the condition that, views from the both parties should be mentioned in footnotes.--Fazilfazil (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

True, it is all fact, but it hides some of the most important facets. Its publication was a violation of the Will and the Charter, the Board was never consulted which also made it illegal, and the claim to being a posthumous work was untrue. We do not need to go into great detail because it is merely a summary, but I would argue that in a summary it is even more important to lay out the facts very plainly. I do not believe Fazilfazil has a clear enough understanding of the facts, but is merely trying to play apologist, which is his right, but that has no place in a Wikipedia article. We are dealing with documented facts and shouldn't avoid the truth because it will upset someone. There is no dispute over his acting outside of his authority by prior consultation with the Board of Directors. I would not be in favor of eliminating some reference, however mild, that the "posthumous" nature of the book is not accepted (as opposed to not truthful which claim can be properly avoided). How about: In June 1917 he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures without prior approval of the Board of Directors. The book, largely written by two Bible Students, was claimed to be the "posthumous work of Pastor Russell". Pastorrussell (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. BlackCab (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems to lay out the facts nicely, without needing to go into value judgements. However, it's remains unclear to the average reader why the "without prior approval of the Board of Directors" detail is important. Perhaps include a footnote explaining the Intellectual property problem with what Rutherford did? ...comments? ~BF izz 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I guess, Fizz. It actually has nothing to do with intellectual property; Rutherford's unilateral decision to commission and publish the book was a symptom of the problem that was bothering a majority of the WTS board: that he wasn't consulting with anyone, effectively wanting to run the society on his own, as Russell, the founder, had. The board believed they would have a role in doctrinal and organizational decisions; Rutherford believed such matters were best decided by "one mind", and that issue is discussed in the article on the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). WTS publications continue to dismiss as "ambitious" and "cunning" those who were trying to trim Rutherford's wings, but the issue actually goes to the core of the enduring myth of Jehovah's Witness -- that there is a "slave class" or "governing body" appointed by Christ and all decisions are made by that group. In this case, one man defied that group, imposing his own will against the wishes of the majority, yet it was his opponents who were pruned, allowing today's JW religion to evolve from Rutherford's authoritarian branch. I'll have a go at adding a footnote covering the issue, but an option would be to add a sentence in that section mentioning the accusations against Rutherford at the time of autocracy and secrecy. BlackCab (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me give some additional background to supplement BlackCab's excellent summary. Rutherford was convinced that he had been chosen by God to fulfill a Biblical prophecy found in Matthew 20 generally referred to as "the parable of the Penny". Many Bible Students at that time (and some still today) were convinced that the prophecy was (or remains) unfulfilled. Rutherford was convinced that it was necessary to "smite the systems" with the truth and that this "smiting" would effectually bring them to their knees. His eagerness to be the one to do this was no secret. It appeared in print in a few places during the time of his election. He had also been the most vocal representative of the WTS endorsing both alternative and new interpretations of Biblical time prophecies, convinced that 1918 and 1925 would be dates of immense significance. (Pastor Russell thought 1918 had promise believing it would mark the end of the Divine Right and European monarchies, preparatory to the destruction of Babylon - organized religion). Now that he held the reins and knowing that material had been put together by Woodworth and Fisher he took advantage of the opportunity. This is why the frontispiece of TFM has an image of a coin - "the penny". The prophecy says that when "the penny" is given there would be murmuring. He considered the various internal disputes over its publication, the pamphlet war with the expelled Board members, as well as the Government censuring and his subsequent imprisonment, to be indisputable proof that he was correct in his actions and interpretations. All of this is essential to understanding why he did what he did in subsequent years. All of these events convinced him he had God's authority to act unilaterally, as well as laid the foundation of the modern WTS. There are also some researchers who suggest that there was a carefully laid plain put into place before Russell had died, but no solid proof of which I am aware. But there was a lot of this "I'm chosen by God to take Russell's place" idea right after his death. PSL Johnson was one, as was Jesse Hemery in England. The death of a leader is one thing, but when you have so much infighting and unique interpretations and assumed leaders it is even more confusing, and indeed it was. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Russell and Armageddon

Wikipedia states that Russell taught that Armageddon had commenced (1889). This idea may be taken out of context by Wikipedia. The following seems to more closely reflect the teaching or Russell during that time period, which appears to be different from the isolated text referred to here, that is, the political and worldwide conditions leading to Armageddon had already commenced.

Back in August 1880, Brother Russell had written: “We understand that before the human family are restored or even begin to be blessed the present kingdoms of earth which now bind and oppress mankind will all be overturned and that the kingdom of God will assume control and that the blessing and restitution come through the new kingdom.” How would that ‘overturning of kingdoms’ take place? Based on conditions that he could then see developing in the world, Russell believed that during the war of Armageddon, God would use contending factions of mankind to overthrow existing institutions. He said: “The work of demolishing human empire is beginning. The power that will overthrow them is now at work. The people are already organizing their forces under the name of Communists, Socialists, Nihilists, etc.”

The book The Day of Vengeance (later called The Battle of Armageddon), published in 1897, further enlarged on the way the Bible Students then understood the matter, saying: “The Lord, by his overruling providence, will take a general charge of this great army of discontents—patriots, reformers, socialists, moralists, anarchists, ignorants and hopeless—and use their hopes, fears, follies and selfishness, according to his divine wisdom, to work out his own grand purposes in the overthrow of present institutions, and for the preparation of man for the Kingdom of Righteousness.” Thus they understood the war of Armageddon to be associated with violent social revolution.

Proclaimers book, chapter 10 p. 139-140 Perhaps the isolated text referred to in Wiki here doesn't accurately reflect the context of Russell's teachings of that time. This seems to be the idea Russell was promoting - The work of demolishing human empire is beginning. The power that will overthrow them is now at work. from the above cited text. 67.81.205.13 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Russell did indeed teach that Armageddon began in 1874 and that it would culminate in 1914 with the end of that battle. There are various references already present at the article about Russell indicating this. Obviously, when that prediction failed, he and later Bible Student and JW leaders 'reinterpreted' the predictions. However, that does not change Russell's original belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

67.81.205.13 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It is true that Russell originally believed that Armageddon began in 1874, however his change did not come after 1914, but almost two decades before it with the publication of the book The Day of Vengeance, later renamed The Battle of Armageddon. I have in the past provided references demonstrating this but for some reason any edits were rejected. I still do not understand why his original view on a topic must be considered his only view, or only legitimate view. Russell's approach to Biblical interpretation and doctrine was quite different from that of the leaders who entered after his death. As for whether or not all of his expectations for 1914 failed is debatable. An analysis of everything he wrote about 1914 shows that he got more right than he got wrong. Anyhow, his study of the Bible really began in earnest in the mid-1870s and some of his initial impressions changed as he studied the topic further, and Armageddon is one of them. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason your references are rejected is because they conflict with the personal agenda of the editors who have wrestled control of this article. The main editors of this article are only interested in references that back their opinions, not references that paint a balanced view of the subject. They want to prove that Russel was wrong about EVERYTHING, rather than showing it was a mix. Russell never claimed to be perfect. Jehovah's Witnesses never claimed he was either. He did get some things wrong. He also got somethings right. I'd like to see any other religious figure today do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.40.132 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively signed, because agree to both. + change of understanding in many ways is absolutely normal. Noone of people is perfect since born to death. Important is only endeavor and right motives in mind and heart. While not all in this article is POV and something is really truth. But some (not only few) statements seems only negative, while article not says about "reverse side of the coin" --FaktneviM (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether Russell got some things right is both subjective ('invisible' fulfilments are impossible to prove) and irrelevant. This article only needs to report points about Russell that are relevant to JWs and the development of their teachings. There are separate articles about Russell and the Bible Student movement.

On the specific matter of 1874, as late as 1904 Russell still believed that the 'time of trouble' began in 1874 (Thy Kingdom Come 1904 edition — Millennial Dawn, vol. 3, p.342)—this was changed in the 1910 reprint of the same volume. The Time Is at Hand (1907 edition) states that 1914 is "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men" and that "before that date God’s Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image." The evidence indicates therefore that Russell changed his views on the matter between 1907 and 1910.

The other 'accusations' of the anonymous editor are juvenile and irrelevant. However, the anonymous editor is welcome to present some actual sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Reference

Again, in such a strong argument as Wikipedia presents accusing JW or mind control, etc. current sources, rather than 1964 reference should be used. The Watchtower: 277–278. May 1, 1964. Wikipedia skillfully weaves its own counter-JW argument here, using a mixture of JW literature and criticisms of others to support its own argument. Natural (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

What rubbish. The article uses the 1964 in appropriate context. Again, if the WTS thought such a statement was outdated it would not include it in CD libraries available to all JWs. Your constant complaint about "outdated sources" is really very tedious. BlackCab (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference in question talks about the 'danger' of "independent thinking", and the view expressed in the source has not been superseded by more recent JW literature. The source says nothing about "mind control" and isn't being used in such a way to imply that it does.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, BlackCab needs to refrain from denagrating others attempts at clearer through name-calling such as "what rubbish". BlackCab gives the impression that any opinion other than his is garbage. This isn't the case. BlackCab has a very strong point of view, and others point of view do not need to be mocked or ridiculed. Natural (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It might be helpful if you would practice what you preach. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for OT. If someone intentionally do evil to other´s interests or wittingly lie, never mind, he will be fired in the hell and no remission for those people. --FaktneviM (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographic chart

The chart under the Demographics section is already six years old. I propose the chart be deleted; if anyone wishes to update it, it can be reinstated. BlackCab (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 --FaktneviM (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Map have been deleted. ... It should be updated! I´d like to do on my own. However, I have no idea how to do that. Please help (learn me how) or You could do yourself as well. Thx in any case. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to update the chart. However, the old chart was only a picture and could not be updated without re-doing it from the start. Does anyone have the source data handy for both the old chart and recent stats? I don't mind re-doing the chart but don't have the time/inclination at the moment to hunt for the data.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JWStats.png

What is needed? Since 1945 to forward???? ... Or 2005-2011 is enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshbuddy original uploader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pookman7497 later version uploader

--FaktneviM (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already considered that, however none of that really helps. The original uploader hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and the other uploader only reverted to an earlier version rather than updating anything. Therefore all data is required to create a new chart, not just since 2005.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The data since 1945 I have not. Perhaps should be enough to estimate numbers from that png image (for example using functions in Excel spreadsheets....remember about "Polynomial Trendline in Excel Worksheet" graph type...) and complete rest of it with recent data, which I could post. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to make a guess of numbers based on a raster image. An Excel trendline would compound the error created by using estimates based on sight of the PNG. What you suggest is better than nothing, and you're welcome to go ahead, but it's not a preferred option.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other possibility? 1) We can also take back graph image into the article. 2) We can search internet for "Jehovah's Witness membership 1945-2005" or similar words. 3) We can do the graph only with data for last 10 years. The graph start on cca. 6 million value 4) Or just do something estimate. IMHO no need all numbers preciously. Its only statistics. Faith is not about numbers. They are real people behind that numbers. Importance of it is low. Useful only for helping to imagine it for wiki-readers.

--FaktneviM (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to take any of the approaches you've suggested. Rhetoric about faith is unhelpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally is not about numbers. Its recreation. :)) // ... What option is Your preffered one? Why? // Which one is the simplest to get done? (=without the worst variant....taking outdated graph back) //--FaktneviM (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In an article that does have up to date stats, it's of little value to have a chart based on old stats, so please don't reinstate the old one. I am collating some figures that can be used to create a new chart. Jeffro has offered to create a new one and when I have the full list I'll forward them to him. If anyone does have ready access to all average publisher figures prior to 1990, let me know. BlackCab (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a little searching online and found a file at jwfacts.com that says it's the source for JW stats at that site. However, I've so far confirmed from JW publications that at least some of those figures are wrong so I'm not really comfortable trusting them though they're 'ballpark' anyway so it could probably be used to fill in the gaps in the JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the following may be useful for a brief statistics with an interval of 5 years. From Why Jehovah's Witnesses grow rapidly and from yearbooks.
1928 44,080,
1935 56,153,
1940 96,418,
1945 127,478,
1950 328,572,
1955 570,694,
1960 851,378,
1965 1,034,268,
1970 1,384,782,
1975 2,062,449,
1980 2,175,403,
1985 2,865,183,
1990 3,846,311,
1995 5,199,895,
2000 6,035,564,
2005 6,613,829,
2010 7,508,050

--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your most recent figures may be peak numbers. Here are the average publishers for the last few years:

1990 3,846,311
1995 4,950,344
2000 5,783,003
2005 6,390,016
2010 7,224,930

I have more recent ones for specific years, but a table based on those five-year intervals should suffice. BlackCab (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity asking, Why use average publishers? The peak publishers reflect the actual adherents, though some of them may be inactive publishers. Obviously the inactive ones do not leave from the religion--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I've also found some older stats from JW literature. I've started on a chart, and I'll add these new figures.

It's not really obvious that 'inactive' JWs haven't left the religion. In fact, some will have. What is not obvious is what proportion of those who become 'inactive' leave, either formally or informally. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the chart.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Stark and Iannaccone state the figures they use (and which you have provided) are average publishers, a figure the WTS routinely produces and uses for comparison. Obviously if one starts using average figures, one wouldn't switch to peak publishers for the last few figures. An average is just that, a snapshot of the typical WTS labor force averaged out for the whole year, removing spikes that occur for whatever reason. BlackCab (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, Jeffro. Are you able to add 2010 in the legend of the chart, or add it to the total date span in the chart heading? BlackCab (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to the heading. Because it starts at '31, the axis would need to show all years in order to include a label for 2010, which would cramp the labels on the axis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Add 2010 in the legend chart. Add third curve for Memorial attendance. Add my new data under this comment. ...So far looks good. --FaktneviM (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding 2010 to the legend (the box showing the labels for 'Peak' and 'Average') doesn't make sense. I think you mean to add it to the axis, but I haven't done this for technical reasons as explained above. I might add Memorial attendance figures (after finding them), but I don't have time right now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

From the beginning of Bible students movement

1870 0,005
1880 0,300
1900 1,100
1914 5,000
1922 27,000

Peak is better, because reflecting real number of "serious adherents".

Neither average nor peak includes sympatizing persons and applicants, nor those who have Bible study with witnesses of Jehovah. Memorial attendance is close to that figures, but probably not all people are involve in MA number.

--FaktneviM (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Figures for the Bible Student movement are beyond the scope of the chart. I have clearly indicated on the chart that it refers to members who report preaching. There is no reliable published data to report adherents other than the published 'publisher' figures used here. Memorial attendance might be a guideline but it's not a particularly accurate method of indicating adherents, as many who are invited to attend may only have a passing interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

However, many of JW are not present in MA. Bacuase of several reasons. Probably number newly coming is close to them, which miss. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that any significant portion of active JWs are not also included in the Memorial attendance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think so? What I know about JW people, it is spontaneous. They want it from love. Maybe is expected, highly welcome and encouraged to be there. But no sanctions, no problems, its not forced to be present. (perhaps only for elders (especially who have a sermon there) is forced to be present (with exception of illness, injury, death, crash of family, + other important resaons). //// As you added: "active JW" are mostly there. Its obvious that not all. //// Unactive, but self-identifying as JW, which is much more than peak publishers (for example ARIS 2008 report, or regular Census) highly probably not be there as well. // --FaktneviM (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

JWs regard the Memorial as the most important night of the year; your suggestion that active JWs consider the Memorial to be 'optional' is ludicrous. At best, an active member who failed to attend that event would be regarded as 'weak' and would be 'counselled'. Aside from that, there is no way to separate 'inactive' JWs from other visitors in the Memorial attendance figures. Census figures of self-identification might be useful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Most important" means most important....= If it is possible to be there, active JW want to be there. Your second point. Be weak is plenary standard. Strong JW (=all congregation meetings attendance, as much service hours as possible, all magazines reading, very deep private Bible elaboration (=so called "Family worship" or "Private Bible Research" for singles), etc. These as You called "strong JW" are only few in each congregation.

Someone who is ice-hockey fun (recently many talked 2011 IIHF World Championship) is also not strong from this point of view. Most of fans (even "big ones") are not present in the stadium. Inside other religions is regular attendance often under 40 %. Among JW is close to 70% of that "active ones". Among all JW (irrespectively to status of activity) could be 50% or less. // Even in case of "most important event" could be closely to 90% of all JW at maximum. Noone knows. (perhaps nor WTBTS know it = they also dont know such a details). At regular meetings and Memorial event is both counted as a number of attendent people. There is no any exhaustive number, which sort JW active, JW unactive, Visitors and others. It is counted only as a number. No other details are entered.

--FaktneviM (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not at all relevant to the chart, and is entirely speculative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bible students preached since 1890-1910 period for sure. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, statistics for the Bible Students are outside the scope of the group named Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

2003 yearbook --- 2002 service year --- (1.9.2001 - 30.8.2002) 6,048,600 --- 6,304,645
2004 yearbook --- 2003 service year --- (1.9.2002 - 30.8.2003) 6,184,046 --- 6,429,351
2005 yearbook --- 2004 service year --- (1.9.2003 - 30.8.2004) 6,308,341 --- 6,513,132
2006 yearbook --- 2005 service year --- (1.9.2004 - 30.8.2005) 6,390,016 --- 6,613,829
2007 yearbook --- 2006 service year --- (1.9.2005 - 30.8.2006) 6,491,775 --- 6,741,444
2008 yearbook --- 2007 service year --- (1.9.2006 - 30.8.2007) 6,691,790 --- 6,957,854
2009 yearbook --- 2008 service year --- (1.9.2007 - 30.8.2008) 6,829,455 --- 7,124,443
2010 yearbook --- 2009 service year --- (1.9.2008 - 30.8.2009) 7,046,419 --- 7,313,173
2011 yearbook --- 2010 service year --- (1.9.2009 - 30.8.2010) 7,224,930 --- 7,508,050
2012 yearbook --- 2011 service year --- (1.9.2010 - 30.8.2011) not yet ------- not yet

--FaktneviM (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Already done.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not fully yet. Pls improve that. (also could do more image variants with data). --FaktneviM (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? You're more than welcome to create your own chart, incorporating whatever you like. It's not clear what you mean by 'more image variants'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about "all-in-one" (1870-2011 MA+peak+average) as a second choice. Default image visible in article would be that you´ve posted ago. Just idea. :)) --FaktneviM (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no group called 'Jehovah's Witnesses' prior to 1931, and the Bible Student movement continues to exist independent of JWs. An 'all-in-one' chart including older data would therefore be misleading.

Those fractions, which devided from Bible Student movement mostly become extinct long ago. Some of that, which left over to nowadays are small groups of reading and doing rituals. They do not preaching or very exceptionally (few times per 100 years). Moreover they are far from organized regular preaching. // JW´s did many errors and still many things it wrong. Just usual people, so cant be perfect. But its evidently indisputable that real Bible Students groups emerged in group recently named Jehovah´s Witnesses. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The "real" Bible Students? I wonder what the other Bible Students groups would say about that. In any case, you aren't discussing anything relevant to the article. This is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I might update the chart to include Memorial attendance.

There is no data available for 2011.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good work! I would like to see memorial attendance too. --Fazilfazil (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Data after "2011 service year" is not avilable yet. (I mistook with "2011 yearbook" instead).

Yes. Big acclamation for Your work. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Split of Barbour and Russell indicated

reverted [1] --FaktneviM (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no source provided for the reason of the split. But aside from that, neither Russell nor Barbour were JWs and the exact nature of their split is not directly pertinent to the JW article. More information on the split is already provided at Bible Student movement and Charles Taze Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, You have right. Neither Russell, nor Barbour were JW´s. However, reason for their split is particularly important due Russell´s and Bible Student´s practices since July 1879 to forward, especially for importance of such a doctrines like Ransom for Russell. In the articles Nelson H. Barbour, Charles Taze Russell, Bible Student movement are such a statements about "Ransom" and "Atonement", same as in my edit here. This particular doctrine was one of reasons, perhaps most important, why Russell try to make his own magazine (Zion´s Watchtower) and canceled his shared editorship on (Herald of the Mor) magazine. I´ll try to hand out some another reference. (However I supposed such an information I edited as obviosity, what is very familiar to all, including many Wiki-articles about relating topics, and of course for WP:JW participants). --FaktneviM (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the context of this article requires the specifics of Russell's split with Barbour. The details you mention here are more relevant to the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

O.K..... --FaktneviM (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

//// And....link what You send me in discussion (Watchtower Reprints online) are imply only 1879-1916 period. Are there any sources includes forward, especially 1916-1950. Thanks --FaktneviM (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, haven't looked. Quotes from later issues that relate to notable issues are often available online. I'm aware of, but have neither seen nor tried to obtain, something called Watchtower Bookshelf or similar (not the same as the Watchtower Library), which purportedly contains various out-of-print Watch Tower Society literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Christians

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christians, by definition Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.49.229 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That point has been vigorously discussed in the past and the use of term is the result of consensus based on verifiable sources. JWs, incidentally, do believe in the resurrection of Christ and it's unclear from your comment whose "definition" you refer to here. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What I know, Trinity is not involved in any regular definition of Christianity. Are you for example "Cultural Christian", if you know something about chr. traditions or cogitations? Answer to both questions is: "No. You don´t." If you refer to any specifical definition, some unknown one to nowadays, you´re welcome to place it to talk here. However WP:NOTFORUM --FaktneviM (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses are not Christians. Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Let us first look at the Ressurection: The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!

1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." They also do not believe in the Trinity which the Bible says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. The Bible goes further to state Jesus is the word John 1:1,14.

Please remove the part about JW's being Christians because it is not factual. Hysteria2424 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hysteria2424, please stop your misrepresentation of the Bible verses and misrepresentation of the JW teaching with using trance sentence out of context and modify it to your own understanding. Please stop such despicable approaches. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your theological opinion is not important here. This issue has been discussed at length previously. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says nontrinitarians are Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They're confused. Let them be confused by themselves. Everybody has a right to their opinion. You can tell by their lack of spelling and grammatical expertise that they're not very intelligent. Report them or not, but don't debate them. It's useless. Gets you nowhere. Update: some of that bad spelling was from a member of our own Wikiproject; but that's okay! He's on our side! They was robbed! Update of update: Oh, simplified English. I got ya.. Lighthead ^þ 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

~~I´m not on "your side". I´m not on side of any man.~~ --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Stupidity, pride and nasty behavior, which you have been shown are particularly clear proofs that you can´t be one of Jehovah´s Witnesses. Sorry for my sincere talk.~~ --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pinas2020, 19 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to edit some articles in Jehovah's Witnesses

Pinas2020 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Article status

This article have made a remarkable improvement since the last peer-review. I think it owes at least a good article status. What do other editors think about it? Between I don't know the procedure for nomination :)--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

done nomination--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fazilfazil, I saw that and your suggestion is very kind. I have my own view on this propose, but wouldn´t like to prejudice reviewers result. No one of "WP:JW project members", who are "reviewers" concurrently should review this. (some of most active WP:JW members are reviewers) Wikipedia:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Peer review. Thx for an idea. --FaktneviM (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed in better condition than I've ever seen in the past. For example, as some may recall, I once wasted a great deal of effort trying to find the original source of the 1975 prediction when it was already cited, because that most relevant citation in the whole paragraph was so corrupted with irrelevant information that I didn't recognize its relevance. When I discovered that, I got so fed up that I left it for someone else fix, for which I now apologize. I'm glad to see that someone has finally corrected that citation, and that the current statements about the 1975 issue are much more concise and coherent!

However, during my attempts to find the original source, what I found instead were several statements from the Watch Tower Society, from 1966 through 1975, that they did know when Armageddon would happen, and some statements forbidding the membership to predict anything would happen by 1975. (Disobedience to this prohibition appears to have been rampant, or at least received great publicity.) Complete absence of this information continues to give the paragraph about 1975 a biased POV. Is this a good time to correct this?

I also find it ironic that although the Wikipedia article on shunning observes that the word is a pejorative term, articles such as this seem to have no qualms about using this word almost exclusively in place of terms preferred by each religion to indicate its specific practices. However, I doubt that this irony isn't going to be resolved by work on this article, but would require considering Wikipedia's treatment of the word as a whole. Downstrike (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the draft version of edits to that section on your talk page is current, but I would offer two points of criticism if you are still working on it: (a) It is far too long for inclusion in the JW article (the 1975 embarrassment may actually warrant a Wikipedia article of its own where the issue could be explored in greater depth) and (b) your edit reads like an apologetic. It has a very defensive tone and therefore casts its own point of view. Your comments re shunning are interesting, but are based on an article written largely without sources cited. Jehovah's Witnesses are, without dispute, directed to shun certain individuals and the term is used by non-Witness authors. The JW publications may try to soften the blow with their own language "disfellowshipping", but the effect and intention of that practice is clear. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping means withdrawal of the community. An individual could be disfellowshipped from the community of coo-believers and from the church. This practice is really common in most of Christian churches, Judaism, Islam, many other religions, including dangerous sects or cults, in which shunning is practiced with much harder and cruel form, than in JW and other Christian churches. // Several other problems within JW related topics is perhaps due emotional interested editors to the topic. (for example bad experience like disfellowshipping took wiki-editors to write rather bad-biased sentences and searching exclusively for bad-sources and references which are rather critical. Despite good endurance are rather negative-biased articles here. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I abandoned that project in March 2010, and probably should have deleted it. However, I find myself wishing there was a way that I could memorialize it - and all the revisions I put it through and all the the critique that Jeffro contributed - as an example of wasted effort that can result when WP editors try to make sense of sloppy work done by previous editors.

The Shunning article is indeed another example of sloppy work - and at least 3 years of neglect. Even so, this article links to that one, and that article does explain some very different religious practices that are frequently stereotyped as "shunning", and identifies which religions practice them. I'm suggesting on its Talk page that it be merged into Excommunication, which article shows much better work.

Would you write anything less biased? Your tone is just as critical as mine was defensive. However, I was working in reaction to what appeared to be unsourced POV in the article, because up until my very last item of my research, everything I found showed the 1975 prediction to be a product of inept journalism by the news media. I did find enough sourced material that I could have written an entire article about the 1975 issue, but I'm trying to achieve NPOV, not to dig up the past or be critical of the news media. Downstrike (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'Shun' is the correct generic term; it is used accurately in the article, it is used in other reliable sources, and the term is also occasionally used (in this context) in JW literature. Though the specific term used by the group should be (and is) provided in the article, there is no reason to exclusively employ the jargon term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The term shunning means that someone is ignored, not spoken to. Disfellowshipped JW are treatet like that. The Witnesses do not greet them. BUT, if there would be any need for help, (nursing, feeding, help out with personal finance, or working as colleagues) than the Witnesses do talk to them, but just about the basic needs or about the job. That does not fall under the term Shunning.

Disfellowshiping means (At least on what the witnesses self understand) that do not socially gather, and talk with eachother in terms of friendship.

In all cases where someone gets disfellowshipped, witnesses will not greet them, sit down with them. If a DFS is in need, he/she approaches the elders, who can point out members to help, or family members can help out with some basic personal need (Finances, Health care, or in case of dissasters, building houses again, etc. Black Cab, being an EX-JW can vouch for this. I myself have worked along side with a DSF JW. We didn't lunch together, but we discussed our work on daily bases. That is allowed. But I would not greet him on the streets.

The reason is this.. The DSF JW has done something which was against the rules of the bible or the society. He therefore gets punished.

Like a child at school, who had to stand in the corner, faced to the wall. Why? Otherwise the others would get the Idea that it is okay to do something wrong. But when he falls, he would be helped up again. This is the principle which has been practised long before Jehovah's Witnesses existed.

Shunning is something else. A member of a community, who gets expelled, is neither helped, or spoken to. The community turns their back at this expelled person. The meaning of the word Shunning and Disfellowshipping are quite simular. Never the less, there are differences.

I leave it up to you, I am a witness, and therefore deemed to be POV, but I hope that my explanation gives a bit of the Nuance as I feel that shunning is not quite correct. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another special fact is that former JW could "come back". And, for those, who are recently disfellowshipped are no "hard restrictions". Disfelowshipped person still could attend to congregation meetings, read books and magazines in congregation´s library or visit congress, and etc. // The only restrictions for former members are forbid of "public" comments within regular congregation meetings, forbid of public preaching service (((together with other JW, //.... He/She could still preach alone without allowance from organization))). Disfellowshipping is rather term for "lost friends" and "lost of superb privileges". In sense of JW religion practice is disfellowshipping "only very little worse situation", than has non-believers. ((non-believers and purely new visitors could do their public comments in the JW attendance). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite Rodejong's irrelevant apologetics regarding the JW implementation of shunning—and his no true Scotsman fallacy about his opinion of 'real' shunning— JW literature explicitly refers to their practice of "shunning".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute wording. I dispute definition and weasel words in relevant shunning articles. Disfellowshipping (or Shunning) is in the case of JW religion different. There is no kill. No forbid of all communication. No lost of all rights. JW shunning is not such asi it stated in relevant articles. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a distorted opinion about what 'shunning' is. JWs practice a form of shunning, and it is accurately described in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements like those from me (in this talk section - about "what is shunning in reality") are not there. There is only information that difellowshipped person could come back to congregation if elders will see repentant. No other "positive", even "objective" information are there. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A person being required to 'repent' for a 'sin' (such as not accepting JW doctrines) so they can avoid being shunned by their family and 'friends' is little more than emotional blackmail. Your claim that 'JW shunning' is "only very little worse situation" is clearly not neutral. You are quite correct that your comments are not "objective". But you don't seem to be suggesting any actual change to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that current state of sections about shunning (across whole Wikipedia) are not objective. Do not reverse sense of last response. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are disputing how the topic of shunning is covered at other articles, discuss at the relevant Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize again. I didn't mean to start an argument. After reading this one, I'm still sure that this issue won't be resolved by work on this article, or any other single article. The issue isn't about whether "shunning" is the correct word, or whether this religion or that one uses the word, but about how that word is perceived in popular usage, and the stereotyping for which it is manipulated by the same sort of propagandists who scold us for calling this religion or that one, "Christian", or simply vandalize articles with their opinion. Their purpose for the word "shunning", is to make sure that everyone "knows" that all minority religions:

Require members of a family to alienate a shunned member, forcing him out of the home.
Require members of a community to refuse to do business with a shunned member, depriving him of the means of life, forcing him out of the community.
Shun members who did not join the religion of their own will, or join without first learning the religion's requirements or the consequences of failing to meet them.
Shun members with no opportunity to appeal.
Shun members who simply stop participating in that religion.

Does ANY religion practice ALL of that? I suppose; is Bigotry a religion? Downstrike (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All minority religions don't do those things. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, directs that members do many of those things. The article notes that "disfellowshipping" is the ultimate sanction for those who breach organisational and moral requirements, and it is indisputable that the intention of "disfellowshipping" is that members cease almost all contact with those individuals, not even greeting or acknowledging those people. That is, they shun them. The article also notes, with fairness and balance, that critics and sociologists have noted that in a religion that urges members to reduce their circle of friends to only other members, the consequences of being shunned by friends, acquaintances and (as much as it is possible) by family can be traumatic. The fear of being shunned then, serves as a powerful tool to ensure obedience and discourage defection. If you're suggesting a conspiracy by "propagandists" to taint Jehovah's Witnesses on this article because of their shunning policy, you'll have to come up with better evidence. This article discusses the disciplinary policies of only one religion and makes no comparison with other religions. BlackCab (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Downstrike here uses an association fallacy to attempt to negatively characterise those who correctly employ the word 'shunning'. Whilst it is true that Wikipedia should avoid contentious terms ("unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"), the term shun is not only the correct term, but the term is also used in JW and third-party sources. Additionally, jargon terms such as 'disfellowship' should not be used exclusively because the term is then being used as a euphemism to avoid the more 'uncomfortable' word shun. The same Wikipedia page that says to avoid contentious terms also says to avoid euphemisms. It probably comforts those who shun former members of their religion to say that there are other groups (you know, those 'crazy' groups) who practice more extreme forms of shunning, because it minimises the perceived impact of their own behaviour.

To be clear on the JW attitude toward 'disfellowshipped'...

The Watchtower 15 November 1952: "Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof."
An article in the 15 April 1988 Watchtower (which deals specifically with JWs' legal right in the US of "shunning" former members) stated, "Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. ... The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum".
The Watchtower, 1 November 1994: "For a [JW] to “quit mixing in company” with a close friend or relative who has been disfellowshipped can be a real test. In such a case, it is important that one not give in to feelings of pity."

Ironically, the July 2009 Awake! stated, in an article about people who face family opposition for becoming JWs, that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, I have not, and will not suggest that an article on any religion exclusively use the term that religion prefers. What I find ironic is that such articles almost exclusively use a term, about which the WP article for that term observes that it is a pejorative term. Some kind of balance would be appropriate.

Considering that LDS, 7DA, Christadelphians, Churches of God, some Pentecostals, and various minority religions use "disfellowship", I'm not sure why you call it "jargon". Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The jargon term disfellowship as used by LDS (and some of the others you've listed) is an entirely different meaning to the term used by JWs. They do not employ it to refer to systematic shunning, for which they use the term excommunication. The LDS jargon term disfellowship is similar to what JWs call restrictions. Such ambiguity demonstrates further that it is better to use the generic term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am not able to see any ´real´ difference in those terms. Shunning, Disfellowshiping, Excommunication, are clear synonyms in most of existing religions. Especially in sense of JW, all 3 terms lead members to same ´results´ in access to former-members. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just said above that the other religions mentioned above do not use the term "disfellowship" to refer to shunning. It is not possible to make it any clearer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. // Is there any reason have 3 wiki articles? How about merging? // Is there specific reason to use term "shunning" in case of JW, while disfellowshiping is more accurate and comprehensible? // Those terms simply mean all the same. = Dismissal of communion with coo-believers. That´s all. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the term disfellowship is used quite differently by other groups, it is clearly not more comprehensible to use that term in a general sense. Most religions that excommunicate don't shun. The context of communion is different among various religious groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the Shunning article that the term is used as a pejorative is unsourced, as is much of the article. Additionally, Wikipedia articles cannot be used a source for other Wikipedia articles. Much of the article you refer to needs to be rewritten and properly sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and you and I already discuss that on that article's talk page. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab, if I were suggesting that the use of "shunning" reflected a conspiracy in this article, I would stop saying that the issue isn't going to be resolved by work on this article. However, thank you for asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses practice many of the things I listed. Downstrike (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are not suggesting a problem regarding the use of "shunning" in this article, then you are at the wrong Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still ironic, and could be relevant to whether this article obtains "Good" status. That's what this section is about. However, there may very well be considerable irrelevant discussion in this section. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not second-guess the reviewers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying Jehovah's True Words!

Would it be alright to submit in chronological order the print by print verification from the source themselves perhaps from 1870's til' present all of which is in dispute? No one should dispute that it would be a tell all experience! --Newbndreamz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Verification of what? The article is already comprehensively sourced, so you'll have to explain more what your intention is. It's also unclear whether you're employing sarcasm in referring to "Jehovah's true words", but Watch Tower publications were all written by humans, without any evidence of divine inspiration. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it as requesting whether or not it would be proper to give a chronological listing of the doctrinal contradictions and changes from the days of Russell to the present time. (e.g. a "truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935). I would suggest that this would not be proper because it would be highly subjective, and violate neutrality. We aren't trying to demonstrate whether JWs are a true or false religion, nor that their doctrines are valid or invalid. There are already articles on the development of their doctrines, and there is a detailed outline of the administrative and doctrinal changes instituted between 1917-1942 in the JFR article. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! ("truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935") Many times I read specific claims from "Bible Students´s era" and from "JW´s era", that believers recognize their beliefs as "present truth". (e.g. book "Jehovah´s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God´s Kingdom" explicitly cited some of such claims). Many knows that doctrines could changes in future. Those sincere ones did not apostate in hard times. Those lofty and foolish one rather fully stop their believe in God and Christ. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'sincere'? 'foolish'? All very subjective, and nothing to do with article content. This is not a forum!--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You react neither to Newbndreamz´s ask, nor mine and Pastorrussell´s confirmation about "present truth" views, Instead of it, you are feisty and react to less significant end of the sentence. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what Newbndreamz is requesting, any discussion here is pointless. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Newbndreamz´s request is very hard to understand. (Even for me!). Pastorrussell and me think he request chronological order of doctrine changes since the very early beginning to nowadays. Phrases like "present truth", "present light", "present understandings", which they changed over time specifically assume that no people (even with divine leading) can´t know right it all. Understandings is changing and is still better. But not perfect and probably contains some faults. Due this reason is chronology needed, because "previous truth" is not relevant to nowadays teaching. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim that JWs' current teachings are 'better' than previous ones is subjective and irrelevant.

Chronological discussion of JW beliefs is dealt with at History of Jehovah's Witnesses, development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The request is simple. What did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a period of time ?

Make a chronic time line with what doctrines changed through the years.

I suggest that it is written in a separate article, like Timeline of doctrine changes of the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. He want's to use the old publications as sources for that time line.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is already contained in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Timeline of doctrinal changes and the preceding section of that article dealing with Russell's initial millennialist teachings. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendly communication requested

I've tried to read back the talk page.. How about quitting to batter your co-writers, and start talking friendly?

I gave my opinion in a friendly way, and although you may not agree with me, show some respect. I don't trash your comments in to the ground, and neither do I have to accept that my comments are treated the same way.

But it is very obvious that some people here like to set the moral standard, which I will label as Fanatic. It's often suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses are Fanatics, and that is everyone's good right, but when I read the messages here on this talk page, than I can only come to the conclusion that the Fanatics are those who keep battering others, with I am right, and You are wrong. Such a childish way to communicate.

I request a pause for all to settle down, and find a way to be friendly while disagreeing. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all you just described. However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that. Some kind of balance, however, would be appropriate. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem which you described is perhaps more deep inside. Not only about content of discussion, but due the fact the major editor is fanatic non-believer and if we sometimes touch with some believer meaning (like argue with Bible verses or mentioning something about most important beliefs), he just kill the talk with saying that is "irrelevant" or "take you off" - mostly to other talk page. He, as an atheist, is very useful in most of cases (((and we are glad to have him in our project))), especially with editing controversial religious topics. When you want to have really good article, meaning fully objective (not rather negative-biased), however, this cause problem. Dominance and control over articles lead to sort of censorship with no chance to have better (less-biased) topics. I don´t know if other former JW editors have some rest of faith or not, but generally saying, disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Wikipedia see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. // For easing of it read this. {{WP:HUMOR}} --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Love to all :)

In regard to the statement above: "However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that." This very biased demonstration of bad faith is quite disappointing. Please leave your religious bias at the door and focus on facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your typical response! You don´t even accept some problems exist. You just "trash out our comments in to the ground" as Rodejong quite preciously described. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) With love from my side

If someone claims that 2 + 2 = 5, I'm not going to say "well isn't that a nice opinion," I'm going to say, "well, no, that's wrong." If someone says 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to say "Oh, you're a great person, thanks for saying that," because the statement is obviously correct and doesn't need my endorsement. If you believe that JWs can't have a reasonable exchange of ideas with "unbelievers" because of your own assumption of bad faith, well that's your problem. It was you who compared non-JW editors to 'lawlessness, darkness, and Belial' in contrast to the JW editors as 'righteousness, light, and Christ[-like]' (1 Corinthians 6:14-15). So, again, please leave your religious bias at the door.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not interpret all people are bad and have bad motives. Such interpreting would be wrong. I have many relationships with people, who are non-believers. Moreover, I communicate with other beliefs people. However, as a statistic result (in math sense), values of those ´friends´ are often hugely differ from mine. Relationship could continue with them, but can´t be so deep. If you look to my user page, common sense (2+2=4) is one of my most important viewpoints. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop misinterpret what I´d like to intent. No righteousness and lawlessness was thought by me. I just simply stated a fact, that full understandings between us is not able. I do not say, you are evil or whatever you maybe think about I think of you. Stop be feisty and emotional, please. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have close friendships with people who have very different religious and philosophical beliefs to myself. I feel sorry for you for your belief that whilst you may have distant relationships with other people, that "very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope" just because they don't accept your religious beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence answer = Me too. // Last sentence answer = I don´t think so, but statistics is clear. // Closest relationships are not based only on e.g same sport-interests, sexual attraction, social interactions or long-terming relationships e.g. from schools and works. These all could continue, (if is there both-sided interest for), but are they really close? No! It´s only public greetings, few words, talking about life-experiences in a pub with drinking beer, and some others person who I met within philosophy, education, sport-based relations, etc. Question is, if (you and me) considering those people as "friends". I think they are rather "acquaintances". Friendship is not depending on belief or non-belief of each other, but if other one share your values (e.g. beliefs - but not only), chance for long-lasting friendship is higher. Other relationships are firm in rare cases, indeed. That´s not bias, it´s only a statement of fact according statistics. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendships that are conditional on sharing certain beliefs are tenuous and easy to lose if beliefs change. Real friendships are not so fragile. Which statistics?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My own personal stats from my life ( = experience = empiric science ). Your appendix is also wise and truthful. I suggest we should stop talking about terms like friendship and do something for GA status (Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review). :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjective personal opinion is not "statistics", and citing them as such is misleading. I've commented in this section based on the context in which this section was started. However, I have also responded in the other section about changes required for GA status.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the current talk page. I see a robust discussion; I don't see anyone trashing anyone else and I don't see incivility. User: FaktneviM claims disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Wikipedia see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. I don't know which "disfellowshipped JW" he refers to and I don't see that a person's status within or outside the organisation has any bearing on their work as an editor. Wikipedia has clear policies on balance, sources and accuracy. I have butted heads in the past with JWs who edit this article because they don't accept the basic rules of Wikipedia about verifiable sources. Many come from an unfortunate situation in which they live within an organisation where information is tightly controlled, so they have a very narrow, blinkered outlook. Many of those JW editors have since quit editing, in a couple of cases asserting that God is somehow controlling the content here and "permitting" falsehood as a witness to the nations.

The current hot topic here is coverage of Watchtower dictates on shunning people who have been expelled, or formally resigned from, the religion. The subject can adequately be covered with the multiplicity of sources available, including those from the Watchtower and non-JW academics. I'd contend that the article is so far accurate and balanced. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to bring additional sources to the discussion page. In the meantime, speculation about the motives of editors is unhelpful. Please stick to content. BlackCab (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx for your insight as well. You expressed situation much better than I was able to. However, I disagree with statements like blinkered outlook, dictates, tightly controlled information, unfortunate situation and similar ongoing weasel words, which are unlikely and impossible in 2011. I am not interested to comment that at all, but I feel it as unfair.
I am just curious. If you were not disfellowshipped, you probably "formally leave". ?
I don´t know what rules are applied for those formally leaving. They have perhaps same status as "people from world". (better than those excommunicated). ?
I used that Bible verse to prove that deep relationship with non-co-believers could be potentially dangerous. Not because organization said so, but because Bible itself guide us in such cases. However, this shouldn´t be taken dogmatic and literally. (in 1 Cor 5:9-13 is clearly stated in verse 10 that shunning is relative! Can´t be absolute! <blockquote>Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.</blockquote> (= Which is not able = leave out the world in absolute sense). Should be also stated that another type of access is also practiced to "inactive" and "irregular" publishers (both terms are differ). They are not considered as "apostates" and are not dissfellowshipped if there is not other huge rationale for that. ?
Much more information about how to access with disfellowshipped members is in other sources. Did you also checked "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will", "Shepherd the Flock of God", "The Watchtower - Study Edition", "Our Kingdom Ministry bulletins", etc. whereas are continuously written new attitudes ?

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How I left the Jehovah's Witnesses has no bearing on this article. The issue of how those who formally leave, that is announce verbally or in writing that they no longer wish to be members of the religion ("disassociation" in the JW jargon), is contained in the article. The WTS directs that such individuals "practice lawlessness" and therefore are to be shunned. They are not treated as "people of the world", they are treated as worse, and therefore must not even be greeted or acknowledged by friends and congregation members and, as far as is possible, by family members. Your use of Bible verses to indicate your views isn't welcome or appropriate on this talk page. This is a secular encyclopedia and your use of Watchtower interpretations of scriptures in explaining your thinking is irrelevant. BlackCab (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I used scriptures with my own understanding of those verses. My interpretation could be, and in many cases probably is, likely rebellious and often innovatory attitude in meaning.

Is the Bible irrelevant source for you?

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are getting a little off topic here. As noted at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article." Let's stick to discussing article edits. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of scriptures

In other words, Is Bible verse reliable source as reference or at least note for explaining beliefs and practices of JW? Could be Bible (or several other ´sacred texts´) used in religious articles like this? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is considered a primary source and should be used with care on Wikipedia because it can be interpreted in many ways. I recommend you find a secondary source that can explain the beliefs and practices. Check out WP:PRIMARY for more information on appropriate sources. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed something. When and where was there a discussion about the use of scriptures as a source in this article? The article already has a sparing use of scriptures where they are needed to explain the basis of a JW belief. I haven't seen any discussion suggesting more be included. BlackCab (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM inquired about use of scriptures for article sources in his most recent comment above, after 72Dino requested that discussion here be relevant to the article. It was indeed a non-sequitur to his previous use of scriptures at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: We already have had with Jeffro77 some talk about using scriptures and other issues. (= No result)

{{WikiProject}}
{{WikiProject Talk}}

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. What do you want to discuss? BlackCab (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just read those ´blue links´ named "Watchlist and RC" and "To do". Later just express your ideas about such issues. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review

Hi guys; I've just been going through this article inserting non-breaking spaces as and where advisable according to the MOS. It was hard! Enormous amounts of prose included within refs, which (while I understand the desire to provide as many refs as possible) isn't really best practice. Also, I noticed with the refs that there seems to be no standardisation of ref format, which (if I were reviewing this) I would require to be addressed before passing it. So this is maybe something that you could work on while waiting for a reviewer, so that once the review process gets started the review itself will take less time and flow more smoothly. It is possible to have "too many citations" - many of those given are really surplus to requirements; the majority of statements really only need one citation unless very, very contentious - and if they're contentious, the citations would have to come from very different types of source - so providing three citations all from Witnesses' own publications, for example, for one statement, doesn't bolster up a statement more than one single citation from own publications. I suggest you go through pruning out multiple citations wherever possible - just keep the 'best' one for the statement.

Anyhoo, those are just my thoughts - hopefully they'll be helpful in getting this article quickly up to GA standard. I have to say that, as it stands at the moment, without these issues being addressed, I would personally fail it if I were the reviewer - but these are easy fixes, and just "stuff I noticed" while doing gnomish work on non-breaking spaces. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to trim prose from within refs in the past, and advised the editors involved that only a brief relevant excerpt is required, if at all. The refs certainly need a lot of cleanup for consistent presentation too.

In regard to multiple JW citations, I'm not aware which in particular you're referring to. However, there has in the past occasionally been a need for more than one JW citation where, for example, it may be disputed whether JW publications really said such-and-such or where the context of a single statement might be disputed.

When I have time, I'll take a closer look at the refs, though probably not until at least the weekend. Of course, if someone does it before I get the chance, that's even better.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has often been in the past that JW editors have claimed that the article unfairly applies certain Watchtower statements and that the publications really weren't saying that. The surest response has been to add another one or two Watchtower quotes to emphasise that the statements weren't isolated or taken out of context. This has been particularly important given that all Watchtower statements cited are primary sources and thus theoretically subject to interpretation by the Wikipedia editor using them. Adding another one or two uses of the sources helps to overcome that argument. BlackCab (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA1 'First reading'

There was (is?) an informal minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, eventually was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks. [This first point has been copied to a new subsection below at #eventually be reinstated ].
The serial comma is used in the second instance to separate the listed phrases rather than the first instance which separates only single words. If consistency is preferred here, it is more important that the phrases are unambiguously offset, such that it would also be preferable to add a serial comma after doctrines. Fixed
Fixed
It won't be a simple task to pare down the references, as some care should be taken to retain the most direct citations. The style of citations also needs to be made consistent. I have separated the obvious 'footnotes' from the 'references'.
I'm not sure that the broader context of the main JW article requires mention of 'quick builds'. The 'quick build' process is addressed at Kingdom Hall#Construction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with My76Strat (the GA editor): the article should mention the association between JWs and "quickly built" construction. In many countries, JWs are as notable for this as for preaching and there are literally thousands of references available. To the section Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization, I've added this sentence: Branch offices appoint local elders and ministerial servants, and may appoint regional committees for matters such as involving quickly built Kingdom Halls or disaster relief.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventually be reinstated

There was (is?) an informal minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, eventually was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [This first point has been copied from above.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)]

Point 2) "Imitate Jehovah’s Mercy" article from (w98 10/1)

Although it seems that the wrongdoer in Corinth was reinstated within a relatively short period of time, this is not to be used as a standard for all disfellowshippings. Each case is different. Some wrongdoers begin to manifest genuine repentance almost immediately after being expelled. With others, it is quite some time before such an attitude is evident. In all cases, however, those who are reinstated must first show evidence of godly sadness and, where possible, must manifest works befitting repentance.—Acts 26:20; 2 Corinthians 7:11

So, the answer how long should lasts time for penitence is really individual. No time limit. Someone who sin, is NOT automatically expelled. It depends on own´s approach. If regret breaking Bible´s rule or not. In most cases, expelling is not needed. In such case is not needed even reinstatements, becuase expelling were not done. Prayers and acknowledge of mistakes is mostly enough. = James 14-16.

Further reading with "Expelling" (dx 30-85) and (dx 86-10). See also terms "Disfellowshipping" and "Reinstatement" etc. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this was point 1. It is not necessary here for you to attempt to justify or minimise the JW practice of shunning. Cases where persons are not expelled at all are not relevant to the point discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article sentence "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders." could be without any adjective there. Word ´eventually´ is not needed for proper sense of sentence. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The adverb "eventually" is present in the sentence to (correctly) indicate that reinstatement does not occur shortly (hours, days or weeks) after expulsion, but rather, after months or years, if ever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but from prison is also not exemption next day. It will be unpractical and fruitless. Those processes normally haven´t so fast progress. Month or few weeks should be viewed as ´very soon´. It doesn´t depends on ´speed of elders´, but on ´approach those who expelled´ instead. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shepherd the Flock of God (Watch Tower Society), page 119: "The committee should be careful to allow sufficient time, perhaps many months, a year, or even longer, for the disfellowshipped person to prove that his profession of repentance is genuine."--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This mean elders shouldn´t be overly optimistic, but rather carefully identify if repentance is sincere or feigned. Not claiming any rigid limit for reinstatement. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the whole paragraph at issue is too wordy for the lede. So I'd replace:

Baptized members who violate the organization's moral code or who dispute doctrinal matters may be subject to disciplinary action including expulsion and shunning, which they refer to as disfellowshipping. Members who formally leave the religion are also shunned. Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders.

with this:

Congregational discipline may include disfellowshipping, their term for expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may request reinstatement.

Although published refs support "perhaps many months", it is possible for reinstatement to take weeks rather than months.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer has already indicated that the discussion at Talk indicates that the use of the word 'eventually' is justified. The recommended action of JW 'judicial committees' is to take a long time ("many months, a year, or longer"). It is misleading to omit that recommendation, and the suggested replacement text is less informative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but AuthorityTam´s text is more sensible. For non-native-English readers, even for English-born, his ´version´ is much more comprehensible. Your version includes several different terms what are hard to explain. Fewer words is sometimes better as well. Do not take it personally. Or you could try to invent some compromise, hopefully better, version. :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The original text was not 'my version'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eventually" is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We are not dealing with word "eventually" anymore. It was accepted by all. In this we tried to find better formulation in the lead section. This is already done as well. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA1 'Second reading'

Regarding the statement, For a better rendering of the lead, I suggest you remove all inline citations which occur within the lead ensuring that they are included where these facts occur in the body. - There have been attempts in the past to reduce the number of references in the lead, and this rapidly resulted in complaints that 'contentious' statements in the lead were not properly sourced. While it's possible that many could be removed, some will need to remain. Per WP:LEAD, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." If no one else gets to it, I'll see what I can do about reducing the citations in the lead when I get time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One way to reduce the visual clutter in the lede would be to save footnote markers for the end of the sentence, or if possible, the end of the paragraph. So instead of "millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination, blah[4] blah." it would be "millenarian restorationist Christian denomination, blah blah.[1]". The footnote for the new [1] would be longer, containing multiple references as needed. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentantly practice etc

Many Brooklyn etc

In various places, I replaced "most" with "many". Editors should feel free to provide references if they feel "most" is well-supported.
In recent weeks, someone added the idea that the GBJW is "located in Brooklyn"; the article elsewhere states that Brooklyn is the current headquarters and the ref for this three-word addition is dated 1969. These three words have been removed.
The article formerly stated, "They do not observe holiday celebrations..."; in recent weeks that was changed to "They do not observe celebrations...". The misconception that JWs do not celebrate ANYTHING could be reinforced by that edit, so the former wording has been reinstated ("They do not observe holiday celebrations...").
I changed "about one in seven Bible Students had chosen to sever ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership" to the less-speculative and better-supported "about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society". The actual wording of the cited ref has now been quoted with the ref.
In recent weeks, the section "Life after death" has become oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. The sentence: "Their hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon." has been changed to: "Aside from a "little flock" of a few thousand with a heavenly hope, Witnesses consider themselves among "other sheep" whose hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon."
The article formerly stated that by their 1931 name change JW's would "distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students". In recent weeks someone changed that to the alliterative but unnecessary phrase "distinguish themselves from disassociated groups of dissenting Bible Students". The cited ref states explicitly, "to distinguish...from the other groups". I've reverted to the former neutral wording "other groups of Bible Students".

Also, I plainly have less time than others do to devote to Wikipedia, but it seems necessary to revisit the issues discussed here .
Contrast the discussion of Russell at 22:52, 11 February 2011 with the subsequent edit.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the GB and the headquarters are somewhere other than Brooklyn? (The Watchtower 15 July 2006, p. 20: "The ‘faithful slave’ is represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a small group of spirit-anointed men serving at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.")

Birthdays are not 'holiday celebrations', which sounds a little redundant anyway. I have simplified the statement in the lead regarding celebrations.

I've added a {{request quotation}} template "one in seven", which is not clearly supported by the source provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't meant to imply disbelief that the GBJW is based in Brooklyn (in 2011); I had removed the factoid only from the lede (leaving it intact in the body at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization) because it seems not lede-worthy and entirely superfluous in the lede. Stating world headquarters to be based in Brooklyn is one thing; insisting that the lede enumerate the location of the committee leading the world headquarters seems pedantic (IMHO). I still feel it's unnecessary to stuff the lede with such a detail, but feel it's unworthy of my time to argue the point.

I see my other edits above have essentially survived. I still hope to find time to address Jehovah's_Witnesses#Background (1870–1916), which still hides Russell's intentional establishment of a religious rather than merely publishing organization.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentantly practice

About four months ago, an editor added this sentence:

"Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"."

The quote from the cited ref shows several sentences (technically, two paragraphs though I've here removed both paragraph breaks) separating the loaded phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" and 'disassociated or disfellowshipped ones':

"However, he [God] will reject those who unrepentantly practice lawlessness, saying: “Get away from me.” (Matt. 7:21-23) Why such a judgment? Because such individuals dishonor God and cause harm to others by their lawless practices. God’s Word commands that unrepentant sinners be removed from the congregation. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.) This is necessary for at least three reasons: (1) to keep Jehovah’s name free from reproach, (2) to protect the congregation from contamination, and (3) to help the sinner come to repentance if possible. Do we share Jesus’ view of those who have become set in their lawless course? We need to give thought to these questions: ‘Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated himself from the Christian congregation?"

A previous Talk discussion of the matter here focussed on whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together, which was never my point. Instead, the newly-added idea is plainly WP:SYNTH because the references don't imply and JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin (or sin's infrequent and loaded theological synonym "lawlessness"; incidentally, I couldn't find any JW publication which ever put "lawless-" in the same PARAGRAPH as "disassociat-"). The evidence is that JW publications explicitly note no human certainty regarding the condition of disfellowshipped or disassociated persons; note this:

The Watchtower, December 1, 2001, pages 30-31, "Does this mean that all who are expelled from the Christian congregation for sinning unrepentantly have committed sins that “incur death”...? This would not necessarily be the case because in some instances such transgressions are not sins that incur death. In fact, it is difficult to tell if they are. ...Thus, we should not jump to the conclusion that a person must be guilty of sin that incurs death solely because he is expelled from the congregation. It may take time for the true heart condition of the individual to be revealed. ...Since the [expelled] person is no longer in the congregation, any change in heart and attitude may be observed first by those close to him, such as a marriage mate or family members. Those observing such changes may conclude that the transgressor did not commit a sin that incurs death. ...While some may be in a position to observe sufficient evidence to believe that the sinner has repented, this may not be the case with the congregation in general."

Thus, the recently-inserted example of WP:SYNTH has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are deemed to be continuing forever to practise lawlessness or whether JWs think this merits their death is irrelevant. The paragraphs and the question, as discussed here, are plain enough and without synthesis. In the context of a tightly-focused discussion, paragraph 18 of the article reads: "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome." Review question for that paragraph reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The descriptions are clearly synonymous. In the case of a person who has chosen to resign membership of the religion, it is their resignation that is deemed to be a sin, or act of lawlessness. There's no hint of any other reason to direct that JWs "hate" that decision and thus shun the person. At the end of that previous lengthy discussion there was no consensus to remove the statement. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be correct to say "Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals who have no intention to return to the congregation are considered to unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Also "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" may be applicable at the time of disfellowshipping. However as user:AuthorityTam pointed out JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever continues to "unrepentantly practice" sin. I think its a good practice to compare other publication of WT society when a single source is disputed for WP:SYNTH.--Fazilfazil (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fazilfazil, it is of no value to speculate about possible alternative meanings of a clear statement; what the WTS might have meant or how it might have expressed the view of the Governing Body. Neither the WT article nor the Wikipedia article deals with future, or long-term, treatment of people who are expelled from, or decide to resign from, the religion. The WT article simple uses synonyms to equate the behavior of a disfellowshipped or disassociated person with lawlessness. The Wikipedia article then states that published view. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that individuals who are expelled are shunned unless eventually 'reinstated', suggesting that their 'practice of lawlessness'—by the very nature of having left—continues until such reinstatement, however the suggestion that such individuals 'continue' practicing lawlessness in the objection above is a red herring, because the article makes no such claim. The source material ('paragraph 18 and its review question') very clearly correlates "disfellowshipped and disassociated" with "practicer of lawlessness"; there is nothing ambiguous or 'synthesised' in regard to the connection. "whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together" is also irrelevant because the source material explicitly refers to both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am not endorsing nor opposing the statement.--Fazilfazil (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, JW publications explicitly state that a person must be repentant before he can be reinstated; ergo by definition some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons are 'repentantly practicing non-lawlessness' (or specifically NOT "unrepentantly practicing lawlessness").
JWs do not shun a former member because they know him to be currently practicing lawlessless but because they know he was found to have unrepentantly sinned and has not yet been reinstated. At the time his disfellowshipping or disassociation is announced, he is considered (at that time, by JWs) to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". But—almost immediately thereafter—it becomes inappropriate to say that JWs believe a disfellowshipped/ disassociated person is (rather than was) "unrepentantly practic[ing] lawlessness". If the interpretation of BlackCab and Jeffro77 is so iron-clad, why is only one single solitary reference cited for this supposedly article-worthy belief? I have edited 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' to read 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice[d] lawlessness".' --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we now agree that the WT article does dictate that a person who formally resigned from the religion is to be regarded as someone who committed a lawless act, and that unless they "repent" and return, shunning by their family, friends and former acquaintances is an appropriate response.

A complicating factor in your argument, though, is the subhead on Page 31 of the Feb 15, 2011 WT: "Adopt Jesus' view of those who love lawlessness." The use of present tense there indicates that the subsequent discussion of how to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals is based on their current status and assumes the "attitudes and actions that led to that outcome" remain. In fact, in the case of a person who quit because they disagreed with a doctrine, they would be deemed to be still "practicing lawlessness" unless they "repented" and returned. Question 18,19 (a) also uses the present tense and could be deemed to assume that a person who resigned is still lawless: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" Though the use of past tense in the sentence you changed may be accurate in cases of disfellowshipping over dishonesty, immorality and certain other behaviors, it is wrong in the case of people who are disfellowshipped for apostasy (which will probably involve ongoing disagreement with a doctrine), and it is also wrong in the case of disassociated individuals. The writers of the Watchtower article know that, and therefore used the present tense in the relevant subhead. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"one single solitary"???—it's the holy redundant trinity! Anyway... JWs are shunned until their reinstatement, not at some arbitrary point prior to reinstatement; and they are reportedly shunned because JWs are supposedly to 'avoid lawlessness'. If those shunned are no longer 'unrepentantly practicing lawlessness', then there's no [JW] 'reason' to continue shunning them. If your position were correct, JWs would be 'allowed' to associate with those 'progressing' toward 'reinstatement'—if such is not the case, then your position is incorrect.

I did not add the phrase to the article, and I don't think it's absolutely essential to include it. But if it is in the article, I will certainly ensure that it is presented in a manner consistent with the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The word 'practice' indicates ongoing action. It doesn't make sense to interpret the source article as meaning that the expelled person did 'practice' lawlessness in a single instance that resulted in their expulsion. The intent of the source material is clearly to indicate that expelled individuals continue to be 'practicers of lawlessness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The two editors above interpret contrary to the plain meaning of the cited article, differently than seems intended by JWs, and with an interpretation unsupported from decades of available Watch Tower references. If the notable beliefs of JWs include this (that is, all expelled individuals continue to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"), then the notable belief should be significantly better sourced than a tortured interpretation of a single article. The JW state of 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociation' would continues until 'reinstatement' is requested and granted; by contrast, a 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated' person quite possibly could be repentant (that is, not unrepentant) for the entire duration of his disfellowshipping or disassociation, but he would not be reinstated without a request.
As a parallel point, Christians in general accept that all humans are sinners (James 3:2, 1John 1:8–9); thus since the Bible itself explicitly equates "sin" and "lawlessness" (eg 1 John 3:4), the latter term only seems notable. The term "lawlessness" is not notable in this context.

NIV: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
ESV: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
ASV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
Darby:Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
ERV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness.
WEB: Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
YLT: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness
NWT: Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness.

Since JWs (indeed all Christians) believe that all humans are sinners, the matter becomes one of degrees; a faithful Christian is a sinner, and a purple Christian, a tall Christian, or an expelled Christian is a sinner (according to Christianity in general). Plainly stated, JWs do not teach that every disfellowshipped/ disassociated person remains forever unrepentant. The matter is so clear that I have no doubt how it would be resolved if escalated. Again, it is wrong to insist that: Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". If the sentence is to remain, its wording should be less influenced by editors' opinions about JW theology. Until then, I've removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is quite disingenuous and you are grasping at straws. Yes, the article was about "lawlessness", yes, the article does cite the Bible text equating sin with lawlessness and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners. However the article warns JWs about a few narrow areas of what it calls "wicked" and "bad" conduct: heavy drinking, occult practices, immorality, pornography and ... contact with people who have quit or been expelled from the religion. Your argument that since all Christians are sinners (practicers of lawlessness) there is no notability in decribing DFd and DAs JWs as "practicers of lawlessness" renders the point of the article meaningless. A 1952 WT (March 1) referred to the expulsion of "lawless" people; the Feb 15, 2011 WT simply escalates the rhetoric to ensure that those who quit the religion are also demonised and shunned. BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems a lot like WP:SYNTH to get to that conclusion. I'd appreciate if editors think on this a bit more. JWs do not insist that a disfellowshipped / disassociated person is (by definition) forever unrepentant. If an editor believes that is true and notable, he should provide better references. I hesitate to escalate this matter primarily because it will take time! --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's you, not I, who is introducing the issue of whether they are forever unrepentant. The article discusses current activity ("practicers of lawlessness") rather than future activity. The article directs Witnesses to shun DFd and DAd persons because those people are deemed to be bad and wicked. BlackCab (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor felt it necessary to move additional comments to a new section at Talk:JWs#"Unrepentantly practice" revisited (or try #"Unrepentantly practice" revisited).--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asides to 'Unrepentantly practice'

I agree with you that terms like "Unrepentantly practice", "practicers of lawlessness", etc. were primarily intended about disfellowshipped and disassocited, including those who formally leave. However, I am not sure if WTBTS think all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, until they will die (their death) or until coming back to congregation with repentant attitude. I don´t know if this is intended in such sense. February 2011 Watchtower just says what is in harmony with clear logic and is reasonably expected. Imagine that absurd situation when an apostate (for some reason) voluntarily leaves before that elders could expelled him/her. Is it normal to expect that such people are still ´good´'and ´well-minded with relation to God´? Of course, not. They are same sort of apostates, perhaps even worse, because they renounce their faith and betray all, Jehovah, Jesus, congregation co-believers. Is it normal deem these people as still accepted persons or even friends and members? They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally. Surprise is only such article was not released until 2011. A catastrophic. How much people could misuse this liberal rule before? As a result, I don´t contest validity of those terms in the article. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

to BlackCab, ---- cited ---- "and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners.". ---- No! That is hardly wrong. Christian teaching according to the Bible is all Adam´s offspring (7 billion of his seed recently live in the world) ((7 x 10⁹)) is unperfect, because of first sin are all people (includes non-believers, other religions members, christians itself) unperfect (state of imperfection) and due that people do errors, and things like aging and dying. All mankinds is under slavery of ´sin´. Sin does not mean something what man could change. It is genetically degenerated seed. Sin is congenital defect of all people. Like genetically determined error with 100 % of people have that error (in body, in brain, in soul, etc.). 2nd sense of word "sins" means intentional wrong doing to own or to others. Just breaking rules, which Bible clearly stated as laws. Not only advices or recommendations. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, this is not the place discuss whether JW doctrine is correct or incorrect, so therefore a discussion on whether it is right or wrong to shun some people ("They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally") is inappropriate here. And you have completely misunderstood my point about inherent sin. I am not disputing the point. But I'm glad you accept the truthfulness of the one-sentence statement in the article. So far it remains one user, AuthorityTam, who disputes the issue by introducing straw man arguments about "forever unrepentant". The subject barely requires further discussion. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

~~I wrote it on purpose to upset you. :)) As joke for someone who catch it, you know.~~ I could be very well in POV statements if I would like to. :)) Take it easy. What about reaction to other sentences, please? You claimed, for example, only christians are inherently sinners, what I stated above as wrong. And what about sentences "all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, ....". Should be stated in article this disputed meaning. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners". I acknowledged that it is a common church doctrine that all Christians are sinners. And your challenge about "former members are doers of lawlessness forever" is an act of stupidity that I presume is similarly designed to be provocative. If you have sensible and constructive comments to make, do so. Otherwise don't bother. BlackCab (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, please be aware of the behavioral guideline: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please contribute positively to the discussion or remain silent. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to stir up the discussion again, but isn't our current text backwards? Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" - I thought it was the other way around: people are disfellowshipped because the elders (and/or the congregation?) believe that they "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". That's what the WTS quotes seem to say, anyways. It makes sense to say that only those who continue to be considered "unrepentant" are inelegible for reintegration, while those who stop their "unrepentant" ways are permitted back in. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It may sound backwards, but it's an accurate representation of their teaching. Someone who, for example, rejects a core teaching of the JWs and is thus brought before a judicial committee, or someone who chooses to write a letter of resignation, is described in The Watchtower as a practicer of lawlessness. Witnesses are told they must have no dealings with, or conversation with, that person because they are (not just were) therefore a wicked person. The magazine could have given as a reason that they committed a wrong act by disassociating, but chose instead to refer to them as "practicer of lawlessness" who warrants ongoing shunning. The shunning process can be lifted if a person later "repents" of a sin or, presumably regrets resigning and seeks readmission. BlackCab (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@BlackCab: You seem to heavy nervous today. I suppose your motives are not bad, but your uncivil response, with even rejecting answer for my 2 points I mentioned in my last comment, is quite disappointing. You, again, said all Christians are sinners, but this is wrong. NOT ONLY them are sinners. Read it carefully again what really christian teaching is, as in my previous comment as well. You just were feisty and not taking it easy. I apologize if you not catch it as I intended. My second point was referring to the sentence including text from my previous contribution, from which I partially! cited. I suggest you help with Ctrl+F and find such text including related sentences. You probably find my comment in reverse sense, than you realized. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer from BlackCab here.... hopefully

No, the response below is clearly indicated as my response, not an "answer from BlackCab". Do not falsely attribute statements to other editors. ("hopefully" was only added above later[2].)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote>Answer from BlackCab....</blockquote> was intended to show where BlackCab could answer for my comment and finally resolve last 2 issues I mentioned. // Please do not join discussion parts, when is not appropriate to have them joined, because they dealing with non-coherent issues. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I will join any discussion at Talk pages as I see fit. Additionally, the placement of your comment was as if to introduce a comment made by me. Do not blame me for the poor placement of your comments. If BlackCab wants to respond to something you've written, he will do so, and does not require your solicitation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another uncivility. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was direct, but not uncivil. You are achieving nothing. Please restrict your comments to discussion of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "all Christians are sinners" is not a claim that only Christian are sinners. This is basic set theory. Additionally, BlackCab explicitly stated, I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But in another comment he again repeat the same wrong understanding. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not falsely claim editors have contradicted themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested to continue this endless talk. Thanks for understandings. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Civil liberties

Weasel word alert: The sentence opening the "Legal challenges" section claims that "Their persistent legal challenges have broadened the definition of civil liberties in many countries". I have no access to the source cited; is anyone able to confirm that this statement does apply to many countries? I know such claims have been made about civil liberties in Canada and the US; what other countries have benefited in this way and does this constitute many countries? BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have it at my local library, but a page number would be nice. A whole-book cite is hardly helpful. Any idea when or by whom this was added? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording was added in September 2010 in this edit by User:Logicalthinker33 who was blocked for sockpuppetry. That section had initially identified Canada, El Salvador, Germany, India, Japan, Philippines, Russia, the United States "and some European countries" as places in which the definition of civil liberties had been widened by persistent legal challenges. Trawling back through the history I have discovered -- worryingly -- that I was the one who first named those countries! The edit was made here. It looks as if I drew that list from the article Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country. If that's a comprehensive list, the phrase "some countries" would be more appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, wow. Welll, I think we could change it to "some countries", but it still seems like weak sourcing. I can look into that book unless there is a better option. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to that source, but online synopses for the source seem to indicate that the book (full title: Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution) seems to discuss JW legal challenges within the context of US First Amendment rights. On the face of it, it would therefore not seem to be a source relating to JWs' legal rights in "many countries".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did want to contribute to this article, and this discussion by saying that I did remove the Wikipuffery following the Bold Revert Discuss cycle. When you see an example that appears contrary to policy, as has been noted in the discussion, it is more proper to revert the POV, and then discuss. It seems this discussion was following more of a Bold Discuss Revert cycle which is less conducive to the "GA" standards that this article should endeavor to maintain. IMO My76Strat (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus reference mislead

/* Jehovah and Jesus Christ */

I had to change that misunderstands and bias. See hidden notes.

"They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael, Apollyon (a.k.a. Abaddon), and the Word all refer to Jesus."

Here, in this sentence, is no mention about which roles has Jesus nowadays. JW believe, He, since his resurrection in 33 CE, and now, 2000 years later, He still has some important roles. There is no mention about what really JW think about Jesus.

(a) Change the wording of whole sentence, (b) Delete nonsense refer to appollyon and better describe his role as Logos and Michael, (c) In any case, do not revert me in hard way, but change smoothly revision with applying my suggestions here.

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is entirely accurate. JW literature states that all those names refer to Jesus. That small section within the article is a summary of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Jesus Christ, which provides much the same information, with the additional statement that after his resurrection he "then ascended into heaven to sit at Jehovah's right hand until he would become the promised king of God's heavenly kingdom". Your claim that the identification of Abaddon and Apollyon is "fully nonsense" is simply wrong. See "Apollyon" and "Abaddon" in the Insight book. BlackCab (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Accurate is part "They believe that ---references in the Bible--- to the Archangel Michael, Abaddon, and the Logos, all refer to Jesus." .... But he haven´t all such roles simultaneously. It is due ´past-recent-future´ time-line in the Bible, but should be stated there, that He is not all in the same time. And mention about "King of God´s Kingdom" since 1914 (okay, this could be disputed by many scholars), "Leader -not only one- of great army in the Armageddon" (= this is probably intended with terms Abbadon and Apollyon, which I never heard, neither in English, nor in Czech). And moreover, in the article is no mention about "what Jesus did" (since 33 to 1914), nor since 1914 to today. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The summary in this article does not need to go into excessive detail about JW's theological speculations about what Jesus has been up to since 33CE. The article outlines the basic JW beliefs about Jesus as co-creator, redeemer and king, and then briefly presents the other names in the Bible with which JWs associate Jesus. Abaddon and Apollyon are at Revelation 9:11; JW literature unambiguously claims both names refer to Jesus.---Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read it in CZ and seems to me this clearly refer to Satan according to context of other close verses in the chapter. I have heavy doubts about this could be ´speculated´ (your idiom), for Jesus. In any case, this is one of the most meaningless! information, and it´s not needed to have such info in ´the main article´ with GA nommination. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that most Christian religions associate Apollyon/Abaddon with Satan. However, JWs do not. Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand, chap. 22 p. 148 par. 20: "“They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon [meaning “Destruction”], but in Greek he has the name Apollyon [meaning “Destroyer”].” (Revelation 9:11) As “angel of the abyss” and “Destroyer,” Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom." (formatting and bracketed text from original). ~~It is a little disappointing that you need non-members to tell you the beliefs of your own religion~~.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a fairly notable contrast to most Christian religions that JWs use those terms to refer to Jesus. The fact that you, a JW, were not aware of this JW teaching also demonstrates that the information is of educational value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I known also English variaton of that verse. // In any case, those ´destroyer´ roles refer to future events, and shouldn´t be linked explicitly, because we can´t be sure how future preciously will happen. For main article is meaningless information, if special more explanation is not in the lead possible. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a plain statement of fact about what JWs believe. The JW teaching about those names is current. It is not relevant whether the supposed 'role' is in the 'future' ~~(and it is even more disappointing that I need to tell you that JWs believe that scripture was fulfilled in 1919, not "the future".)~~ More information about the names is available from the linked articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another sarcasm coming? Okay! ´The fact that you, an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or whatever ´xxxxx´ you are, also demonstrates that you should learn much more´. (((By the way. I read book ´Relevation-Grand Climax´ as well, but don accept it as immutable truth or even as ´right´ present truth teaching))). I still think, this is not needed for main article. Could be there only with more explanation of that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is true (or the JW jargon 'present truth'), or whether you believe it is irrelevant. It is the current JW teaching, and that is all that matters here. Your suggestions regarding my own theological positions are not relevant here. I have not claimed that JWs believe anything other than their official teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If it was fulfilled in 1919, I probably something missed. Oh well, present world order is still here. :) False denominations of Christendom still prosper and the entire World is still in state of imperfection. There are only 2 possibilities. First, you wrongly understood content of Grand Climax book. Second, WTBTS something miss. Or both. I´ll take a look in the book again. However, this is not important part of belief evidence for me at all. And, at least is not in TOP 10 teachings for other JW.

In any case. This, (((= sth. called Apollyon and Abaddon = I remember few years ago when I read this article, I mistook it as Apollo. :-D =))), without additional details and further explanation is inappropriate there. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

~~I'm not going to sit here and explain JW beliefs to a JW. If you don't know your own religion's teachings, that's your problem.~~ I have correctly provided JW beliefs on the matter, with a source. You are welcome to provide additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one! Some kind of Wikipedia fairy tales. Please! I want it! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your response doesn't make any sense. You can look up "Apollyon" and "Abaddon" in the JW publication, Insight on the Scriptures. The JW belief is correctly summarised in the article. I have already explained why it is notable that JWs identify those names with Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In my point of view, I have no religion. Maybe from your extremist viewpoint seems so. I rather call it as evidences and relations. As I said you should learn more and be sincere and deep. Not frivolous as you are. I stop this discussion. If you want neither delete incomprehensible mention about Apo and Aba, nor add better explanation there, I am not willing to continue the issue. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your religious affiliation is not especially important here, apart from issues of bias affecting articles. However, your claim of 'no religious affiliation' above is misleading (specifically, a denial of bias relevant to article context).[3].

Why and What is it ´misleading´ for you? Yo are not so clever, as me and as Lighthead, but you´re not fully stupid as well. I am quite sure you are able to catch it (after long and many times re-trying, if you will be hard on yourself). What misleads you? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that I am not as "clever" as JW editors such as yourself is a personal attack and not welcome here. It is quite clear from my statement that I was not tricked by your lie about your religious affiliation. I commented for the benefit of other readers who might be misled by your dishonest claim. Please restrict your comments to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, you are welcome to present other sources if you dispute the JW belief about biblical references to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another try to tell me kind of Wikipedia fairy tales? Why do you still trying? In fact, you have no interest to have it better. You are smug and self-satisfied. You couln´t try to simulate good will. Everyone knows you have not. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Provide sources supporting your view, or stop arguing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I stop it before. Leaving my home and just after look here I see you continue!!!! You don´t understand, what does mean "I stop"? (

I stop this discussion. If you want neither delete incomprehensible mention about Apo and Aba, nor add better explanation there, I am not willing to continue the issue.

). If you are not smart enough to catch meaning of "STOP", so what? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, your claim that my views are 'extremist' is also irrelevant. I have presented JW sources for a JW belief. My own view is that Jesus, if he ever existed at all, decomposed a long time ago. It doesn't matter to me personally, beyond knowing the article is accurate, to say that Jesus is or is not identified in the Bible as Appolyon or Abaddon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are plainly extremist, but rather we say it "irrelevant". --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your irrational comments are becoming annoying. Please restrict your comments to relevant discussion of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not use revert function to me, but normal edit next time, please. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, it is irrelevant what you think about the use of the names. The article is about the official teaching of the JWs. The references are clear and explicit that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. The article does not claim that Jesus is all those biblical characters at once. It does, however, make the point that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. BlackCab (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to complain that 'Jesus isn't all of those names at once'. JWs believe the Bible uses those names to refer to Jesus when the Bible uses those names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@BlackCab. Main difference is, when you say too little information, many readers could be mislead about JW teachings, because in the article is not available intended meaning. Pure facts cited on Wikipedia are sometimes very confusing, because reader often knows only "a", but don´t know "b" and "c". I am sure, that refer in the article could be written more clearer and comprehensible. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning to User:Jeffro77 ... WP:NOT#CHAT ...... --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite funny. I have repeatedly requested that you restrict your comments to article content. Hopefully you will now do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediator

As an editor familiar both with JW theology AND with criticism of it, to me it seems that the paragraph of interest ~~to [an editor in the section #Jesus reference mislead, above]~~ does/did include wording influenced more by propagandism and less by encyclopedicality. I changed the formerly problematic sentence thusly...
[Pre-edit]Jesus is considered to be the only mediator between God and humankind—though his mediation role is restricted only to the anointed—and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom.
[Post-edit]Jesus is considered to be the only intercessor and high priest between God and humankind, and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom.
The former wording evokes a common bugaboo in works theologically critical of JWs, but it unduly highlights a technicality so as to imply something untrue. I believe that's WP:UNDUE.
In fact, JWs do believe that Jesus is the Intercessor between humankind and God.

Insight, Vol 1, ©Watch Tower 1988, page 137, "Those approaching through Christ Jesus as their High Priest and Intercessor know that “he is always alive to plead for them”"
The Watchtower, January 15, 2009, page 28, "Jesus ‘interposed,’ or interceded, on behalf of sinful mankind... Paul wrote: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him [Christ], and through him to reconcile again to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.”—Col. 1:19, 20. “The things in the heavens” that are reconciled to Jehovah by means of Christ’s shed blood are the anointed Christians... “The things upon the earth” are Christ’s other sheep, who have the hope of living forever on earth."
The Watchtower, September 1, 2006, page 28, "Hence, we are required to pray in Jesus’ name, recognizing Jesus as the sole channel through which God’s blessings are extended to all mankind."
The Watchtower, April 15, 2009, "Jesus’ words as a prophet and his actions as a mediator affect the entire human family. As a Deliverer, Jesus brings not temporary but eternal salvation for redeemable mankind."
The Watchtower, November 15, 1991, page 6, "[Saints] were never authorized to intercede with God for anyone. Jehovah God has decreed that only his Son, Jesus Christ, can do this."
The Watchtower, September 15, 2002, page 5, "We can be confident of Jehovah’s willingness to hear prayers offered in Jesus’ name. ...Jesus is willing to intercede in our behalf"
The Watchtower, November 15, 1995, "Jesus’ office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end his life. The good effects of his service as King and High Priest will remain with mankind forever, and humans will be eternally indebted to him for his having served in these capacities. Moreover, throughout eternity Jesus will take the lead in the pure worship of Jehovah."
The Watchtower, December 15, 1978, "The resurrected Jesus as a mediator reconciles God and sinful humankind."
Insight, Vol 2, ©JWs 1988, page 363, "Christ’s mediatorship, having accomplished its purpose by bringing “the Israel of God” into this position, thus results in benefits and blessings to all mankind."
The Watchtower, May 15, 1973, "Jesus at Jehovah’s right hand continues forever...his office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end his life. The good effects of his service as King and High Priest over mankind will remain forever with mankind"
Awake!, November 2010, page 21, "Jesus Christ has been given great authority, including the responsibility of serving as mankind’s Intercessor. ...Jesus can serve as the sympathetic Intercessor in behalf of those who ‘approach God through him.’"

The former wording was undue here, and concerned only one aspect of JW theology: the "new covenant" of Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24. JWs explain "the new covenant" as a legal contract with signatories and beneficiaries, and teach that only the signatories have legal representation (ie, a Mediator). So, Jesus is Mediator only to them only in that narrow legal sense; in fact for decades, JW publications have consistently and pointedly capitalized "Mediator" when describing Jesus' formal role in "the new covenant". In other non-specific contexts, JW publications describe Jesus as the "Intercessor" and "mediating high priest" for all humankind. It was unencyclopedic for this article to repeat the intentionally-distorted misrepresentation of a little nugget of JW theology. I edited it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you saying incorrect accusation against me? I did not such changes. We were not dealing about sentences you cited. Thus, I suppose you mistook other edit and think that was by me. Again. We were not dealing about ´mediator´, ´humankind´, or any other similar issues. You´re simply wrong. And moreover, you talking badly about me, while I have no idea, what are you talking about. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I call for your apology. Moreover, for my satisfaction (deleting all mentions about myself, where other editors talk badly about me). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor seems confused, so I'll state this simply.
~~[The editor in the section #Jesus reference mislead, above]~~ was concerned about a paragraph in the article (in other words, it is a 'paragraph of interest to him').
The same paragraph also concerned me, but for a totally different reason.
I here created a sub-section (below his section) to discuss my issues which seem totally unrelated to his issues.
I had imagined that my additional step would keep the new matter from cluttering the former matter.
The closest thing to an "accusation" was that some unknown past editor was "influenced more by propagandism and less by encyclopedicality".
I didn't/don't even know who the past editor was/is! Still, I'm sorry. Sigh. Fin. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not intersted about nothing here. Stop using my name. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, your edit is accurate, yet incomplete. It avoids the elephant in the room. The Catholic Encyclopedia reflects the view of orthodox Christianity that Jesus acts as a mediator for all mankind. Jehovah's Witness doctrine, as the Insight on the Scriptures book concedes, differs from this and excludes all but 12,000 humans from this legal relationship. The Bible says there is one mediator between God and man, but Watchtower theology is that Christ's role is restricted to 0.00017 per cent of mankind. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to highlight notable information about its subject and that must include, in this case, notable divergences from mainstream Christian doctrine. The section must note that Christ's mediator role is thus tightly constricted. BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He offended me with false accusation and you just agree with it? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, far from being an elephant, the practical difference is more similar to a gnat. JWs agree that Jesus is the mediator (intercessor, go-between, high priest, reconciler) between God and all humankind. JWs are simply careful to discuss the matter and apply the title "Mediator" in a manner consistent with their understanding of the legal concepts. Incidentally and in a similar vein, the term "Orthodox Christianity" may be NPOV, but "orthodox Christianity" is not.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, AuthorityTam said nothing at all about you, and did not mention your name (at this point in the conversation, I was unaware that FaktneviM had altered AuthorityTam's wording). You seem to have misinterpreted the context of the word 'mediator'. AuthorityTam's subsection is about Jesus as mediator for humans, not about mediating your dispute.

JWs believe that Jesus is a mediator in a special sense with the 'anointed', but still that he is a mediator in some sense with other humans. I therefore agree that the parenthetical statement should be left out of the sentence in this article. However, it should be properly explained at the Beliefs article. (See below)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Penton (who has now been removed as a source on the issue) makes the point, which is also stated in the Insight book, that Jesus is not a mediator for those outside the New Covenant. The issue here is that though the Bible states plainly that Christ is a mediator between God and mankind, JW doctrine rejects this, applying that relationship to a tiny group of humans. In other words, Christ is a mediator between God and some humans. That doctrine diverges from mainstream Christianity (for which the mediator role is a fundamental and uncontroversial point of belief) and is therefore notable. Penton draws attention to that point. I'll reinstate that fact. BlackCab (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have again removed the here-undue grain of theology. JWs do teach that Jesus is the mediator for all humankind, according to the plain meaning of the term "mediator" and almost all that is implied by the theological term "mediator". A thesaurus includes the following synonyms for mediator: agent, channel, delegate, envoy, go-between, instrument, interceder, intercessor, intermediary, liaison, messenger, representative, spokesman. JW publications have used all those synonyms (and "mediator" itself) to apply to Jesus' action between God and humankind:

Agent: The Watchtower, March 15, 2010, page 12, "Being baptized in the name of the Son means acknowledging what Jesus has done for you and accepting his authority as “the Chief Agent of life.” (Acts 3:15; 5:31) Previously, you had no relationship with the Creator, and actually you had no valid hope. But by exercising faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and being baptized, you now have a relationship with the Father.
Channel: The Watchtower, May 15, 2007, page 6, "Christ continues to be the “Wonderful Counselor,” serving as the principal figure in Jehovah’s channel of communication to mankind."
Delegate: The Watchtower, March 15, 1990, page10, "Jehovah is willing to delegate authority. The one to whom he has delegated the most authority is his Son, Jesus Christ. Indeed, God “subjected all things under his feet"
Envoy: The Watchtower, October 1, 1953, page 607, “Apostle” means an envoy... Even Christ Jesus is spoken of as God’s apostle because he was sent forth from God on an earthly mission."
Go-between: The Watchtower, April 15, 1957, page 238, "Jesus said to his followers: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, RS) The reason why Jesus said this was that he had come here to be the go-between or mediator between Jehovah God and men. [incidentally, this discussion relates to prayer and worship, and Jesus is also described as mediator with a lowercase m]"
Instrument: The Watchtower, January 1, 1997, page 22, "Jesus is the one who has become “Yes” as Jehovah’s instrument in bringing to reality the many “promises of God.” "
Interceder: The Watchtower, September 15, 2002, page 5, "Concerning Jesus, the Bible says: “He is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead [“be interceding,” footnote] for them.”—Hebrews 7:25. ...Jesus is willing to intercede in our behalf"
Intercessor: Awake!, November 2010, page 21, "Jesus can serve as the sympathetic Intercessor in behalf of those who ‘approach God through him.’ "
Intermediary: Insight, Vol 2, page 61, "Jesus Christ introduced a new and essential element for gaining eternal life in the sense of being an intermediary or go-between, but he is such in an administrative sense as well. He is God’s High Priest who can effect full cleansing from sin and liberation from sin’s death-dealing effects"
Liaison: Insight, Vol 1, page 349, "Paul uses the functioning of the human body to illustrate the operation of the Christian congregation... God has set each one in his position...Jesus Christ, as liaison member, supplies the members of the body the things they need"
Messenger: The Watchtower, January 15, 1997, page 11, "Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s greatest messenger of peace."
Representative: The Watchtower, September 15, 2008, page 21, "It is also vital that we accept that Jehovah has appointed Jesus as His representative and the one through whom God has provided his spirit."
Spokesman: The Watchtower, April 1, 1993, page 10, "This “great light” is Jehovah’s Spokesman, Jesus Christ. Jesus said: “I am the light of the world." "

I can understand that some critics are obsessed with portraying JWs as ignorant freaks who can't read the Bible (eg 1 Timothy 2:5). But Wikipedia is more interested in presenting information in an encyclopedic manner, where a grain of theology is perhaps discussed in articles on theology (such as at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs), but is not allowed to unduly distract from a primary discussion such as here at the main Jehovah's Witnesses article's section on Jehovah and Jesus Christ. This article is not of sufficient length to include this granular point in a manner which is not undue, even if Penton and other former JWs wish to highlight it. Again, I removed it from here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchtower publications themselves draw attention to the fact that Jesus is not a mediator to all mankind as the Bible (apparently erroneously) states.

Worldwide Security Under the Prince of Peace: "Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members." (p.10)
Insight on the Scriptures: "While Jesus’ mediatorship operates solely toward those in the new covenant, he is also God’s High Priest and the Seed of Abraham. In fulfilling his duties in these latter two positions, he will bring blessings to others of mankind."
Watchtower: "Christ does not act as Mediator of the new covenant toward them, yet they benefit from this covenant through the work of God’s Kingdom." (Feb 15, 1991).
Watchtower: "Consequently, 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 is not using “mediator” in the broad sense common in many languages. It is not saying that Jesus is a mediator between God and all mankind." (Aug 15, 1989).

It is a fundamental point of Watchtower doctrine, one they have used much ink to explain, including Questions from Readers in the Watchtower. Why you suggest this is a "bugaboo" and "granular point" concocted by former Jehovah's Witnesses and critics is a mystery. A succinct 15-word sentence noting an unorthodox doctrine about a plainly-written Bible text is not undue weight. BlackCab (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the quotes supplied by AuthorityTam unambiguously state that Jesus is mediator for all mankind. The quotes BlackCab has supplied quite explicitly state that Jesus is not the mediator for all mankind. In light of these references, I agree that the statement is suitable to include in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

JWs are careful with the term "mediator" in connection with the "new covenant" specifically because JWs also believe Jesus to be the mediator (intercessor, channel, intermediary, et al) in a greater sense between God and all humankind: so as not to obscure the detail within the big picture (JWs even deliberately capitalize "Mediator" to reduce ambiguity in connection with the 'new covenant' and 1 Tim 2:5.) I've provided twenty-something refs above to show the JW belief that Jesus is the mediator (ie, intercessor) between God and humankind. Here are just two:
* The Watchtower, January 15, 2009, page 28, "Jesus ‘interposed,’ or interceded, on behalf of sinful mankind"
* The Watchtower, November 15, 1995, "Jesus’ office as a mediating High Priest toward mankind does not end"
The mediator point isn't "concocted" by those seeking to dispute JW theology, but the disputers do present 'mediatorship' distortedly to inflate the difference between JWs' view and that of other Christians. The fact remains that many (most?) Christian faiths accept the belief that Jesus intercedes for all humans while the "new covenant" is a legal contract only between God and anointed Christians (rather than between God and all humankind; see New Covenant#Membership). The point other editors insist upon including here at JWs is a corollary of that theological point; where JWs are unique is their belief that 'anointed Christians' are a minority subset of 'all Christians'. That's a significant but pretty dry theological difference, worthy of mention in the main article on the religion. Again, just like many or most other Christians, JWs believe that Jesus is the Mediator of the "new covenant", and the "new covenant" is between God and anointed Christians. Now then... if this point about the "new covenant" is so notable that it must be in this article, then it is also so notable that we should both make it clear just what we're discussing and Wikilink to the actual discussion of the theological matter at hand. I have edited "His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is restricted to anointed Christians." to the current wording: "His role as 'Mediator of the new covenant' is on behalf of 'anointed' Christians." See here. It seems unnecessary to refer directly to dispensationalism or supersessionism here (though it also seemed unnecessary to refer to this non-issue at all here!).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses' official doctrine on Jesus' role as a mediator, as noted in 1 Timothy 2:5, certainly deviates from orthodox Christianity in regard to the extent of his mediatorship and that sentence of the article simply notes that. Your edit, while true, has the unfortunate effect of hiding that simple fact. Encyclopedia articles should illuminate, not obfuscate. Your long list of references above shows the hair-splitting WT doctrine that all mankind benefits from him being a mediator to a comparatively tiny number of humans, but the sources I raised earlier contain the explicit acknowledgment that Jesus is not mediator to all humans. More importantly, the sentence as it was written reflects the source cited, Penton, pages 188-189. BlackCab (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as his use of "orthodox Christianity" is overbroad while "Orthodox Christianity" would be specific, so too User:BlackCab seems intent on implying the common meaning of the term "mediator" while only a specific meaning (the formal '"Mediator" of the "new covenant"') is accurate. Sadly, the editor further claims that JW beliefs are 'deviant' regarding "the extent of his [Jesus'] mediatorship". No they're not. JWs do consider Jesus to be a mediator to all, and the personal mediator/ go-between/ intercessor between each human and God; of course, JWs additionally teach that each human also benefits from Jesus being 'Mediator of the "new covenant"'. There seems no reason to sacrifice accuracy just because the editor believes that accuracy to be "unfortunate".
To me, this theological nugget about the "new covenant" seems remarkably granular and likely better-located in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs or some other of the dozens of subcategories and articles under Category:Jehovah's Witnesses. But whatever. If this article must include JW beliefs about Jesus' mediatorship... is the article (1) better to hide the context and plop a non sequitur Scripture citation in the middle of the sentence, or (2) better to state the matter plainly and include the relevant Wikilinked term?
The editor has already acknowledged the truth of the sentence he reverted, so there seems no real complaint against it (only a difference with the personal preference of editor User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally). I've replaced his preferred sentence ("His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is restricted to anointed Christians.") with the more-precise and better-elucidated statement ("His role as 'Mediator of the new covenant' is on behalf of 'anointed' Christians.") because the latter sentence better serves Wikipedia's audience; see here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor removed the linked, directly-relevant term "new covenant" and instead plopped in a Scriptural citation devoid of context; he entirely reverted my edit without explanation. I have reinstated the superior wording for reasons explained in this thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediator collateral

Mediator collateral
I have no interest about this topic, Mediator and I never said reversely. AuthorityTam just mislead the whole community, in fact, he lied about me in this public site. He claimed that I did some changes, which I didn´t. See prove here. Another comments (almost 10 other nonsense reactions, /// just deleting my name and sincere apology was enough) were needed for he+others finally! accept he did fault. (<blockquote>didn't/don't even know who the past editor was/is! Still, I'm sorry. Sigh. Fin. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)</blockquote>). But my name was still used in that section see few first sentences and upper section, ... even after his apology! (crazy and stupid together). Again, I have neither interest recently, nor I had in the past about such meaningless talks like section named Mediator. (NO RESPONSE on this, Please. I am not willing comment this silly discussion anymore). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam said nothing bad about you, and did not say you were responsible for any of the changes specific to Jesus as mediator. The reason AuthorityTam mentioned you in the first sentence was that AuthorityTam's subsection of Mediator seemed to be within the scope of (what he perceived to be) misleading references to Jesus, which is the topic of the section you created. There was no attack, and no need for an apology. You simply misunderstood. Crisis over.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He misunderstood (which ´reference´ I mentioned to solve in section I created before).

If he talks badly (see first sentences in this ´Mediator´ section, which was intended originally against me), there was not reason for apology from your opinion? (You have really strange habits, if you think so).

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence was not against you. AuthorityTam thought you might be interested in something in the article AuthorityTam considered to be a 'misleading reference about Jesus' because you started a section about misleading references to Jesus. AuthorityTam did not say you were wrong or that you changed anything in relation to the mediator topic. The only thing AuthorityTam said about you is that you were interested in the article's paragraph about Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing; if other editors agree, I could clean up the thread somewhat.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support for clean up of ´unproductive edits´ including threads ´Mediator´ and ´Jesus reference mislead´. Thx for your well-minded attitude after clarification. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue and demons

Here is what is written at WP:UNDUE:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. [1] If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; [2] If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; [3] If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
So, editors are pointedly instructed to 'keep that in mind' when trying to shoehorn-in these factoids here in the main article. The guideline explicitly suggests putting that "perhaps in some ancillary article".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary problem here is deciding what is due and undue for a summary style article. Whether BlackCab has any third party neutral source which includes the term "lawless and wicked" so that it is notable enough to this article? Similarly I see that the recent addition of "Jehovah's Witnesses' fear of demons" is not a notable claim to owe a place here. Wikipedia is not a place to any current JWs or former JWs to promote their personel propoganda. --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, the use of those descriptors from a recent Watchtower is helpful in explaining why people who voluntarily resign from the religion are shunned. Without that explanation it would remain a mystery to the reader why Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to speak to someone who quits the religion. I have added another reference by Raymond Franz in which he notes the specific policy change in 1981 that directed members to treat an individual who disassociates "in the same way as if he had been expelled from the congregation".

I have also added a further reference on the Witnesses' abject fear of demons and demonism. Both those sources regard it as a notable feature of JW thinking. Your claim that the inclusion of such a fact, noted in reliable reference sources, on the outlook of Witnesses constitutes a promotion of personal propaganda is baseless, baffling and insulting. Is it propaganda to restate an observation by academics that is clearly supported by the high number of articles in Watchtower publications on the subject of avoiding demonic practices? Even a 1988 Watchtower article that commendably addresses the issue of higher rates of mental and emotional difficulties in society today ("Mental Distress—When It Afflicts a Christian", October 15) includes a four-paragraph section raising the question of whether the sufferer is the subject of demonic attack or has "received any suspicious items directly and deliberately from individuals who are involved in some form of demonism". BlackCab (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Witnesses' abject fear of demons..."? What in the world?
Incidents like this make one wonder if editors are trying to be intentionally outrageous. Into this main article on Jehovah's Witnesses, an editor inserted this:
"James Penton and James Beckford have noted Jehovah's Witnesses' dread of demons that Penton says is "sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious"
I couldn't find where Beckford says "dread of demons". Here is what Penton wrote:
"Jehovah's Witnesses therefore have a sixteenth-century fear or outright dread of the demons that is sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious. But, paradoxically, it is true that by avoiding what they regard as 'demonistic practices' they have broken the hold that fear of spirits has had over large numbers of persons, particularly in Africa and Latin America."
Who is Penton? In May 1981, Newsweek magazine called him "one of 50 ex-Witnesses in Alberta, Canada, who are now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings".
What do independent scholarly reviewers think of Penton's anti-JW double-speak?
* "However, to conclude...as Penton does...is demagogical rather than the result of solid analysis. [...H]is presentation suffers from his aversion against his former religious community. ...If Penton would have been able to transform his seemingly personal vendetta into a detached analysis, this study would have rendered considerable surplus value. As it is now, the...scientific community will frown upon the author's lack of objectivity."–"Review" by Richard Singelenberg, Journal of Church and State, vol.47 no.3, page 627
* "I would like to refer the reader to my comments about Penton's previous publications... His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion against this religious association, of which he had once been a member. ...from a historiographic viewpoint Penton's writings perhaps show a lack of scientific objectivity."–Between Resistance and Martyrdom: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich by Detlef Garbe, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2008, page xx
* "Penton is a bit too reproachful in his evaluation of the Witnesses' actions...the weakness of Penton's study shows itself"–"Book Reviews" by Kevin P. Spicer, Church History, July 2006, ©American Society of Church History, page 205
Of course, Penton's claim that JWs have "dread of the demons" is patently false; Penton himself immediately contradicts his own silly claim, and here are direct quotes from JW's The Watchtower:
* "Demons are dangerous, but we need not dread them. Their power is limited.–The Watchtower, 2006-01-15, page 7"
* "God’s people do not dread demons.–The Watchtower, 1986-10-15, page 24"
In any event, what the editor has insisted-upon in this main article on Jehovah's Witnesses is even more detailed than the topic's discussion at the ancillary article Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs! At the least, it is undue here at JWs and I have removed it. If an editor wishes to re-introduce this "dread of demon" material, he should do so in an ancillary article and include the relevant refuting quotes from The Watchtower.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Academia is a robust environment and naturally there will be some commentators who take issue with the viewpoints of others. How many academics argue with Freud and Darwin, but do we ignore their writings? Penton and Beckford both clearly meet the test of being reliable sources and are freely cited by Holden and Crompton. Their viewpoint is notable and I have included it. I have also added it to the spinout article, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. The protest in The Watchtower that Jehovah's Witnesses do not dread demons is interesting, but unhelpful in this context. They are a primary source making a claim that is clearly at odds with the observations of academics. The WTS can make any claim it likes ("We are not a cult", "No one should be compelled to remain in their religion because of family pressure", "Jehovah's Witnesses have free choice to receive blood transfusions without any control or sanction on the part of the association"), but secondary sources will always trump such misleading statements. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the laughable (and self-contradictory) claims about JWs being paralyzed by supposed "dread of the demons" were not here-deleted from this article because Penton is a biased source (though independent refs do contend that he is anti-JW) and the claims were not here-deleted because JW publications explicitly contradict what Penton claims. These "dread of demons" claims are removed here because (1) it is not integral to a general understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses as a main topic, and (2) the matter cannot be discussed sufficiently here without unduly weighing the article.
The expression 'dread of demons' has specific theological implications; does Beckford actually use the loaded expression? If he does, and/or if this factoid really merits encyclopedic discussion, the discussion should be moved, perhaps to JW beliefs or JW practices; JWs' own explicit refutations of these claims should be included, as well as the views of other academics. As for this article, that which BlackCab aka LTSally insists upon including here I have again removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The observation about the Witnesses' fear of demons was of sufficient importance to have been included in both one of the most comprehensive histories of the religion (Penton) and a landmark sociological study of the religion (Beckford). It is certainly worth noting briefly in a section dealing with JW beliefs on Satan. BlackCab (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional reference from a peer-reviewed journal, Social Compass, that provides further explicit support. A Google search indicates that Dr Jerry Bergman, a psychologist, ex-Jehovah's Witness and author of a book that he says is the sixth most commonly found book on JWs in academic libraries, (see here), has also referred to it in his book, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Health (1992). I haven't located that book, though AuthorityTam, who has demonstrated his ability to hunt down reference works when he wants to, may be more successful. BlackCab (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As a sidelight, it's interesting to note AuthorityTam's ad hominem attack here: though scorning Penton's claim about the Witnesses' fear of demons in Apocalypse Delayed, he cites three critical reviews of an entirely different book. As with his rather silly tendency to refer to me as "BlackCab aka LTSally", he'll always focus on distractions of personal attacks when he has no better argument. BlackCab (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?

~~Your input would be appreciated at Christian pacifism talk, pacifism talk and/or peace churches talk. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)~~

Redirected discussions to this talk page only:

In terms of pacifism, are the Jehovah's Witnesses actually pacifists? They have been cited on Christian pacifism, peace churches and pacifism. I find no reference to pacifism on this Wikipedia article and a quick internet search revealed this:

Pacifism is "opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes" (American Heritage Dictionary). Quite significantly, the Watchtower Society is not a peace church. Despite being neutral in war, Jehovah's Witnesses are not pacifists. A Witness may draw arms in self-defence. Jehovah's Witnesses are only forced to stay neutral until they are in the situation where they are required to defend themselves.

The situation may be such that the only thing a person can do is to use whatever is at hand to protect himself or others. As a result, the attacker may receive a fatal blow. From the Scriptural standpoint, the one acting in self-defense would not thereby incur bloodguilt. (Awake!, Sep. 8 1975, p.28, Should You Defend Yourself?)

True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world's military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God's war that will finally enforce his will on earth-a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all. (Awake!, May 8 1997, p.23)

Furthermore, pacifist churches such as Quakers are against the death penalty, which the Watchtower Society is not. The Watchtower Society "recognize the right of governments to do as they wish" in regards to the death penalty, noting that the Mosaic Law advocated the death penalty. (g96 3/8 p. 23).

See source for more. Furthermore they believe that "Jesus Christ was installed as God's heavenly King" on October 1914. This they say has "been marked by dramatic world developments - war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences... and the beginning of 'the last days' of this present wicked system of things." (Source: What Does the Bible Really Teach?, bh-E, pp.217 and 218). Jehovah's Witnesses have claimed that this is proof that Jesus himself is not a pacifist.[4] Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than respond at all three of the other discussions, I will reply once here.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves to be pacifists. They consider themselves politically neutral, and as conscientious objectors, they object to involvement in political and military conflicts. However, they believe that various accounts of murder and genocide in the Bible, as well as their hoped-for future slaughter of most of the planet's population by their god are justified. As mentioned in the Awake! articles you've quoted at the other discussions, JW literature teaches that they are allowed to defend themselves if endangered. They therefore cannot be defined as pacifists in the strictest sense.

These matters are addressed in The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951, "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" and Awake!, 8 May 1997, "Should Christians Be Pacifists?"--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken from an essay on Eisenhower: "The Watchtower has established in the courts that they are not pacifists but conscientious objectors, opposed only to wars initiated and carried out by humans. The Watchtower teaches that involvement in war, except those that God wants us to fight, is not only a violation of God's law that 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shall love thy neighbor' but is also wrong because Watchtower doctrine considers it an improper use of time in these last days before Armageddon."[5] Also from source below: "Jehovah’s witnesses...fight only when God commands them to do so, because then it is theocratic warfare." i.e. as per Abraham in the Old Testament rather than on the command of civil government (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951, "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists"). This brings me to the question of when would JW agree to bear arms in God's name? Is this when The Watchtower says so?

Thank you for your references. I had briefly read "Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951) but I thought this was a lone JW rant against pacifism, rather than official JW doctrine. Another essay from the same publication is "Pacifism and Conscientious Objection — Is There a Difference?" (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951). I cannot find "Should Christians Be Pacifists?" (Awake!, 8 May 1997) online, but I am guessing this is along the same lines. Given whether a human should kill or not kill is a central part of ethics in any religion, I am surprised this topic is only the subject of three articles in WT/Awake. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of The Watchtower articles I have removed JW from the above articles. The only nonviolent articles I see they are relevant to is conscientious objector and persecution of Christians. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "Given whether a human should kill or not kill is a central part of ethics in any religion, I am surprised this topic is only the subject of three articles in WT/Awake." Quite frankly, very few Jehovah's Witnesses have ever been put in a situation where they in fact chose to kill someone. It's not a very common event, so I personally see this as a rather tenuous distinction. In normal use of the term, I don't think "pacifism" is a binary label, only applied to those that are 100%. Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot more pacifist than most Christian churches, but their teachings certainly aren't the most pacifist. ...comments? ~BF izz 10:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, JWs cannot be defined as pacifists in the strictest sense. In by far the majority of scenarios, a JW would not typically kill another person (just as most people wouldn't), and such a view is fairly clearly indicated in a lot of their literature. However, the specific sense of being 'pacifists' is not covered often in JW literature because it is a quite specific definition regarding attitudes toward non-violence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that they are, but not necessarily for the same reason as Quakers. Quakers play an important role in politics, JWs keep out of it. But by being conscientious objecters, I believe that they are in fact indulging in a form of pacifism. There are many things to be said against the JWs, but they do not believe in killing people (Jehovah does that) and they are prepared to go to the gallows rather than fight.

More importantly, JWs' civil disobedience has helped religious pacifists in other denominations. Albeit unintentionally.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Regarding the death penalty, since JWs do not serve on juries, let alone on the panel, they are unlikely ever to be involved in anything to do with it.

"they do not believe in killing people (Jehovah does that)" - Not quite. JWs still believe in wielding the sword but in God's name only (not government or country) as per the Old Testament (e.g. Abraham, King David etc). Its just that they have not had the opportunity/calling to do this yet. See Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists (The Watchtower, 1 February, 1951). They are COs, not pacifists. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MacRusgail has claimed above that JWs do not serve on juries. However, this is incorrect. Jury service is considered a 'conscience matter' for individual JWs to decide. See The Watchtower, 1 April 1997, page 27.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And when exactly will Jehovah order that? In the never-never. Therefore they are pacifists as much by accident as by design. Likewise, you can read about wine and vineyards in the Mormon scriptures but true blue Mormons will never drink the stuff.

JWs are pretty anti-statist, so I doubt any that did jury service would be particularly popular.-MacRusgail (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what either of us think i.e. whether they are, or are not, pacifists. JWs do not regard themselves as pacifists. Possibly some individual JWs do, and if this is case, then they can be cited on the pacifism articles along with a source. However the WT has quite clearly stated their official position on this matter. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If they do not engage in state violence, and refuse to do so, and refuse to help out in war efforts... then that's pacifism. When exactly is Jehovah going to step down and tell them to fight? --MacRusgail (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Conscientious objection to military service is a personal decision, whereas pacifism argues against warfare by anyone. Editors may be interested to note too the difference between pacifism and pacificism; a pacifist eschews violence and warfare altogether, while a pacificist may tolerate violence and warfare when necessary to further a greater peace.

A pacifist (eschewing all violence and warfare) might be expected to disapprove of Armageddon (by many theologies, a future violent war).
A pacificist might approve of Armageddon, believing that it leads to a greater peace.

Thus, JWs are not pacifists; JWs do not disapprove of Armageddon, for example. JWs are perhaps pacificists. Incidentally, an editor above asks "When exactly is Jehovah going to step down and tell them to fight?" JWs teach that certain Christians will be told to fight:
"Will the resurrected ones of the anointed class now with Christ in heaven share in the destruction work of Armageddon? ...Neither the anointed remnant nor the other sheep on earth when Armageddon strikes will fight the political nations in a fleshly way. ...Only the invisible heavenly forces with Christ, including the resurrected anointed ones, fight at Armageddon"–The Watchtower, 1956-10-15
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We're getting into the realms of casuistry here. JWs are pacifist by their actions. You do not agree with the P word being applied to them, and you are talking about their eschatological beliefs, rather than practicalities. They should be mentioned in articles about pacifism, because of their attitude... If you wish, disclaimers could be added... something along the lines of "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to take part in military activity and wars; however, they do not consider themselves to be pacifist, and will fight only if commanded by Jehovah, rather than man, as a part of the Battle of Armageddon."--MacRusgail (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. "fight the political nations in a fleshly way" - in other words, they're not going to do so in their bodies, so they're pacifists when they've a suit of flesh and blood on.

I agree - the word pacifist means rejection of participance in worldy, political physically violent warfare - not other-worldly kinds.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the strict sense of the word, they're almost pacifists, but in a practical sense, they are pacifists. It could be said in other articles that they are pacifists, with a 'disclaimer' as given by MacRusgail. In this article, it would be sufficient to state that they do not consider themselves to be pacifists, if it were mentioned at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[Left justify again] I think the disclaimer is the answer. They ought to be mentioned elsewhere. It's a bit like the church thing. In some ways, the JWs are a church, but they would never call themselves or their buildings such, because they consider it a pagan term.-MacRusgail (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)