Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation

Paradise earth

JW publications typically use the term "paradise earth" rather than "paradisaic earth" or "paradisiac earth".
Should encyclopedic references to JW beliefs use the perfectly grammatical term used overwhelmingly in JW literature, or should encyclopedic references inject one of the two latter terms?
JWs would likely note that parts of the earth are already "paradisaic", that is, "like paradise". Additionally, IMHO, "paradisaic" reminds me of the snack foods at the convenience store labeled "choclaty cake" rather than "chocolate cake"; one wonders if there is any actual "chocolate" in the "choclaty cake". Why fudge the matter? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Paradise does not normally function as an adjective. Paradisaic is favourable over paradisiac (which is incorrectly influenced by the word 'aphrodisiac'). Rewording in forms such as 'earth will be a paradise' are also acceptable. Your own relative unfamiliarity with the word "paradisaic", demonstrated by your comparison to 'choclaty', does not invalidate the correctness of the word in favour of JW jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"...relative unfamiliarity with the word "paradisaic"..."? That's not nice.
I'd have thought my analogy to be obvious, but I'll now make it painfully obvious...
The word "paradise" is a noun, just as "chocolate" is a noun (in my example, a specific ingredient which the FDA defines).
The word "paradisaic" is an adjective which means "like paradise", just as "choclaty" (excuse the typo) is an adjective which means "like chocolate".
If I may... is User:Jeffro77 actually arguing that "paradise earth" is an incorrect use of the word "paradise"?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison of the noun "paradise" with the adjective/trademark "choclaty" suggests that you don't understand the correct usage of the word paradise. If you don't understand, then my statement is not "not nice" at all, and if you do understand, then your statement about choclaty is irrelevant. I am therefore stating, quite plainly, that JWs use the term "paradise earth" in a jargonistic fashion (indeed as you said, "overwhelmingly"). I am also stating that paradise is not an adjective, and that "paradisaic" is an adjective that means not only "like paradise" but "of, relating to or like paradise". The statement "paradise earth" is probably fine in informal or poetic usage, but it is indeed not strictly correct, and there is no reason to defer to that wording unless quoting an original source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to park the condescension elsewhere. It's unproductive.
Actually... I compared "chocolaty" with "paradisaic"; both are adjectives.
Also, I compared "chocolate" with "paradise"; both are nouns but also both reflect the key quality of the noun which they precede.
I'll note that I don't recall insisting that "paradise" is an adjective. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, your confusion stems from your mistaken idea that "chocolate" (in the expression "chocolate cake") is a noun, whereas in such usage it is an adjective. Paradise doesn't function as an adjective in this manner, as you will find if you consult a dictionary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's drop the insistences
* that I'm 'unfamiliar with paradisaic',
* that I "don't understand the correct usage of the word paradise",
* that I suffer from "confusion", and
* that I harbor a 'mistaken idea that chocolate is a noun'. Please.
Really, any ingredient (or rather, any noun) could be juxtaposed with "cake". Readers are likely familiar with carrot cake, pound cake, cheese cake, angel cake, etc.
Similarly, it's silly to pretend that a particular noun cannot be grammatically juxtaposed with "planet". It seems unsurprising to imagine a writer referring to, for example, a "jungle planet", a "desert planet", a "water planet", a "carbon planet", a "gas planet", an "ocean planet", a "treasure planet", etc.
It seems odd to pretend some grammatical disqualification for "paradise planet" (or, more to the point, "paradise earth").
Do editor objections to the term "paradise earth" really reflect an evenhanded application of English grammar?
Googlebooks lists over 600 books which use the term "paradise earth", including several encyclopedias discussing but not explicitly quoting Jehovah's Witnesses. If an editor here has an argument he believes outweighs the preponderance of scholarly examples, that editor should present his argument soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that a fair number of those 600 books are either Watch Tower publications or books quoting them. Many more do not include that phrase; the list includes books with the two words separated by commas or full points. LTSally (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The alleged support from the Google Books search is indeed unreliable. Many are quotes from JW literature. Most are instances separated by punctuation. Over 100 are repeated quotes of a poetic "Fruits of more than paradise; Earth by angel feet be trod". Many are repeated titles, such as "EARTH A PARADISE Earth a paradise". Others are entirely different grammatical structures, such as "What a paradise Earth is!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples in the form of "-cake" are all common examples. It has not been demonstrated that "paradise earth" is in common usage, indeed the opposite has been shown to be the case. Comparison of "paradise earth" with scientific classifications of planetary composition are also dissimilar comparisons. In particular, one might see desert planet (a science-fiction oriented article), but one still wouldn't normally write desert Arrakis, which would be the analogous form of paradise earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The WTS's own peculiar use of language gives no requirement for Wikipedia articles to use the same terms. "Happifying" events frequently referred to in WT literature come to mind. There are many more of them. LTSally (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Peculiar use of language"? The term "paradise" is the exact theological term used by nearly every English translation of the Bible to render Jesus' term for afterlife (at Luke 23:43). The term "paradise" is certainly not peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses! The term "paradise" has significance for nearly all Christian religions. Insisting on modifying it to "paradisaic" when discussing Jehovah's Witnesses seems primarily intended to sever the connection with Jesus' use of "paradise" at Luke; it's thus POV against Jehovah's Witnesses. Does it not seem at least odd to discuss Witness beliefs while rejecting the very expression Witnesses themselves routinely use (that is, "paradise earth")?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No one said that "paradise" was "peculiar use of language". It was the ungrammatical structure of the primarily jargon term "paradise earth" to which the objection was raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam here misunderstands the difference between a 'noun used as a modifier' and a 'standard adjective'. In descriptions like 'carrot cake' or 'gas planet' (AuthorityTam's term, usually called a 'gas giant'), a noun is used as a modifier, and when spoken, stress is placed equally on both words. In the JW expression 'paradise earth', this is not the way it is used; instead the stress is placed on 'earth', with 'paradise' used (in a non-standard manner) as a standard adjective. The inferred term is 'an earth that is a paradise'. No one would say 'a cake that is a carrot' or 'a planet that is a gas', because 'carrot cake' and 'gas planet' use the first noun as a modifier, not a standard adjective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate

It is the Bible rather than Jehovah's Witnesses which uses "paradise" rather than "paradisaic".
Jehovah's Witnesses use the term "paradise earth" because that term includes "paradise", which is a specific theologically significant biblical term.

• (Isaiah 51:3) Jehovah will...make her wilderness like Eden and her desert plain like the garden [“Paradise,” LXXSy] of Jehovah.
• (Luke 23:43) [Jesus] said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”
• (Revelation 2:7) To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Most English Bibles read "paradise"; no Bible to my knowledge read "paradisaic [place]".
Imagine that a multicourse meal is described as including "chocolate". If "chocolate cake" (with the primary ingredient being chocolate) is delivered, that might perhaps be different from what was expected but the recipients would likely agree that they had in fact received a dessert of "chocolate"; by contrast, a delivery of merely "chocolaty cake", which was allegedly "like chocolate" and had no actual chocolate ingredients, would not satisfy what was promised.
Just as the term "chocolaty" is sometimes used specifically to allow the complete absence of actual chocolate, the term "paradisaic" arguably implies something pointedly less than actual paradise.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the obvious. Paradise is a noun. Paradisaic is the adjective. Just rewrite the sentence to avoid the description. LTSally (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear why AuthorityTam has decided to re-hash this. In any case, the argument relies on a mistaken view that because some nouns also function as adjectives (as a modifier), that all nouns can be used in the same way. It simply is not the case. Per LTSally, rephrase as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The existence of hundreds of instances of the term in verifiable references is sufficient to allow the same term to be used in Wikipedia articles. I've elucidated as I have as a courtesy to other editors, some of whom have been less than courteous.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, the list actually contradicts your argument. LTSally (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Per AuthorityTam's desire for elucidation, this is copied from above: The alleged support from the Google Books search is indeed unreliable. Many are quotes from JW literature. Most are instances separated by punctuation. Over 100 are repeated quotes of a poetic "Fruits of more than paradise; Earth by angel feet be trod". Many are repeated titles, such as "EARTH A PARADISE Earth a paradise". Others are entirely different grammatical structures, such as "What a paradise Earth is!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And why is there a wiktionary link to the mundane word, elucidate? (See rhetorical.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the term "paradisaic earth" implies an earth which is merely "like paradise" (rather than literally "paradise"), the term "paradisaic earth" actually misrepresents what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe (Witnesses believe a restored earth is the "paradise" of Luke 23:43). The term "earthly paradise" is an unambiguously grammatical alternative to the unacceptable "paradisaic earth" term; still, Witness publications overwhelmingly prefer the term "paradise earth".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, we don't need to defer to JW jargon. However, I don't think anyone has objected to "earthly paradise".--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nethinim

I don't know if it would be appropriate to add information about what the JW's say is the modern parallel to the Nethinim in the organization in the section the other sheep. Does anybody have any ideas on how it could be included or even if it should? Lighthead ^þ 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

JWs' interpretation of a 'modern day Nethinim class' is essentially a fairly minor interpretation about members who exercise positions of authority as 'helpers to the governing body' but who do not claim to be 'anointed'. The teaching was introduced in 1992; previously, they had considered the 'modern-day Nethinim' to be the the same as the 'other sheep' rather than a subset. The matter doesn't seem to have any direct bearing on the subject of salvation, so I'm not sure it would be necessary to include it at this article. If included, it would perhaps only require a single sentence.

 Done It would be suitable to mention the 'Nethinim' doctrine at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You might know about where it would fit best there, I'm not sure when it was developed. Do you know? Lighthead ^þ 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that. I see you've already put it. Thanks, Jeffro. Lighthead ^þ 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy of article

I tagged this page for primary sources, but after searching for secondary sources and having a close look at the content on this page, I think the best option is to resubmit this article as an AfD (last proposed in 2008 -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation).

While most books on JWs deal in general with the JW doctrines on salvation – the belief that 144,000 believers will go to heaven as kings and priests and the expectation that other faithful ones will gain everlasting life on earth – I have found only two books (Hoekema’s The Four Major Cults and Beckford’s The Trumpet of Prophecy) that go into any real detail. I’ll add I have added what little they offer to the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article under the “Salvation” section, but beyond that I don’t believe there is enough left to warrant a separate article dealing with the JW salvation doctrine.

There are a number of significant problems with the article as it stands.

• Primary sources. Every statement is based on primary sources. The Watch Tower Society is a reasonable source on information on its own doctrines, but the issue here is the lack of secondary sources that demonstrate notability.
• Irrelevance and original research. Under “The anointed” section, the second paragraph, which constitutes almost half that section, drifts into a discussion about the Governing Body’s perceived opinion towards the validity of the claim of some that they are anointed. The statement that the GB “cast doubt on other members’ claims of being anointed” is an interpretation, and therefore arguably a synthesis of opinion.
• Irrelevant history: The “Jonadabs” section is irrelevant in an article that otherwise has no claim to portray the history of the salvation doctrine.

Without significant coverage of the specific subject by secondary sources, there is no demonstrable notability to the subject that warrants a separate article. The relevant information here can easily be merged with the Beliefs article. I'm happy to hear other views, but I really think an AfD nomination is appropriate here. BlackCab (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Much of the information is already covered in the Beliefs and Eschatology articles anyway. The 'great crowd' and '144,000' concepts should probably be more clearly stated at the Beliefs article. Detail about 'Jonadabs' is not particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So ... those who have had a role in editing and/or contributing to this article were generally prepared to see this article become a redirect to the Beliefs article, yet the AfD proposal was defeated because of the arguments of User:202.124.73.170, User:Tom Hulse and User:Peterkingiron, none of whom appear to have ever come near a JW article. Hopefully they will be sufficiently motivated to seek out the secondary sources required to indicate notability as required under the Wikipedia standard for inclusion, which states: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This article, oddly enough, has never ever had a secondary source. In the meantime, does anyone else see a logical reason for the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation section to begin with a statement saying "Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation" when the article to which it points is vastly inferior? BlackCab (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was really expecting a re-direct out of the Afd, but perhaps it is for the best. Willietell (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD proposals for this article have now failed in both 2008 and 2012.
This article could certainly use some attention, but I wouldn't agree that it is "vastly inferior" to the section at JW beliefs#Salvation. Perhaps most of the JW-specific material from 'Faithful and discreet slave' could be moved here to Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation; after all, JWs use the terms "faithful and discreet slave" and "anointed" nearly synonymously, and any proper discussion of JW 'anointed' is always going to include JW 'other sheep' anyway. The rest of the current 'Faithful and discreet slave' discussion could be moved to 'Parable of the Faithful Servant' as a plain acknowledgment that that article is the more natural location for comparing how different Christians understand the parable and the term.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A very poor idea. As already explained,[1][2] the depth of detail in the Faithful and discreet slave article, which pertains almost exclusively to a JW doctrine, could not be accommodated in the Parable article. There is also little crossover between this article and the FDS article. BlackCab (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you AuthorityTam, The article needs work, it could really use a little more accurate substance, as well as addressing the outdated use of the term Jonadabs, which is only ever used by the WTS when offering a reflection on scriptural understandings held in the distant past and really has little bearing on present understanding of the bible by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is therefore an outdated term and should be used, not as a subheading bullet, but as only a side-note pointing out that the Other sheep "used to be referred to as Jonadabs", but certainly not in a way that leads the reader to believe it is a currently used term. I also don't feel the article is "vastly inferior" to the section at JW beliefs#Salvation, as I think that article as well as the new Salvation section is filled to the brim with POV spin, however, despite my efforts, I couldn't get anyone to agree with my points of dispute, thus, I find it difficult to see that particular article as being superior to any neutral article. Willietell (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's no surprise that Willietell thinks a five-paragraph section dealing with JW salvation doctrine, for which all but two sources are WTS publications, is "filled to the brim with POV spin". He convinced no one about his similar view of the article's lead section ... and I really don't think anyone has the energy to debate him on his conspiracy theories on this section.

He is correct that the two paragraphs of the "Jonadabs" section is unsatisfactory. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of "The anointed" section deals with claims to be anointed rather than the doctrine of salvation, and should therefore be removed. Even with those four paragraphs deleted, the remaining material would still do a worse job at explaining JW salvation doctrine than the succinct five paragraphs in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation. Hence, an inferior article. BlackCab (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments about the inferiority of the article are irrelevant to discussions of deletion per WP:ATD (improve it, don't delete it). Concerns about secondary sources have to be separated into two categories:

• First, is there sufficient coverage by reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? Yes, absolute proof here. Whether or not these references have yet been used in the article is irrelevant to notability per WP:NRVE.
• Second, are these secondary sources better than primary sources for this article? Almost always that is true at Wikipedia, since "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". The difference here is that this article is a very unique animal, in that it only answers what they believe, and must by definition contain no interpretive claims or analysis. This satisfies the intent of the Wikipedia policy since there will be zero claims or facts in the article that could ever be challenged by a reasonable person when they are based soley on the primary sources. The question is only "what do they believe?". Only they are best equipped to tell us that. If you want secondary sources, just add them. There is not going to be any conflicts between primary and reliable secondary sources, so no big deal.

I agree with Willietell that the Jehonadabs section is out-of-date, and should be reduced to a blurb within the Great Crowd section. --Tom Hulse (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All very well, Tom, except that the cart is still before the horse. WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that "if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it". My argument is that that is the case with this article.

The article Jehovah's Witness beliefs contains 15 separate sections on areas of belief. Only two of those link to "main" articles, which have been ostensibly split because the subjects warrant expanded treatment. They are (1) Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, which has a detailed examination of current and past eschatological doctrines, and (2) this article on Salvation. At the moment the argument for having a separate article for Salvation is no stronger than an argument for having a separate "main" article for each and every one of those 15 areas of belief. Apart from Eschatology, they are adequately dealt with as a succinct section within the Beliefs article.

The link you provided as "absolute proof" of sufficient coverage by reliable secondary sources in fact does no such thing. The books I see on that list are almost all self-published attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses by evangelical Christians and would almost certainly fail the test of WP:RS.

You agree with Willitell that the Jonadabs section is out of date and redundant; in fact that was my initial argument. In view of the consensus on that point, I will be BOLD and remove that section, along with other redundant material. There seems scant interest by any editor in improving the article; it will be interesting to see whether anyone (including the editor who complains that the material at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation is "filled to the brim with POV spin" is sufficiently interested to improve it. BlackCab (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You looked at all 11,000 books and not one reliable source? Interesting. No matter, because I feel secondary sources are not needed here. It is not logical to expect that there would have been any secondary sources added to the article by now, since the article is only about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, not about the truth of those beliefs. For instance, WP:JW#Cite sources "Statements about what JWs believe would naturally cite JW publications". It's just simple logic. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, yes the main article is in the low range for needing a split (depending on how the articles were recombined), but they are already split now, and we already have a substantial-sized article that well exceeds the min. size for recommended re-merging listed there. --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Article Lead

The Article Lead doesn't quite seem like a summary of the article [[]]. It provides information not found in the rest of the article. Perhaps it should be modified and used as a third new section and then have a new article lead written in on paragraph as per WP:LEADLENGTH that summarizes the information of the article. By doing this we could avoid the large amount of citations in the lead, which makes it look choppy at best. I think it would be aesthetically better if we limit that. It is possible to write the lead with minimal citations as per WP:CITELEAD. Any thoughts? Fordx12 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed redundancy

I have again reverted Willietell's recent wordy additions. The edits were improper/redundant for the following reasons:

Lead

1. Removal of 'being part of God's organisation' is dishonest, as this is quite clearly indicated in JW publications as a 'requirement' for 'salvation'.
2. The fact that JWs believe that salvation can be 'lost' if they 'do not continually obey Jesus' is concisely stated in the statement that they do not believe in 'eternal security'. The lengthy addition is unnecessarily wordy for the lead.

Basis

1. The fact that JWs believe God is the 'source of salvation' (as a 'gift' from God) is already clearly indicated in the same paragraph. (And the expression 'Jehovah God' is jargonistic and grammatically poor.)
2. Salvation purportedly being based on the 'ransom' is directly stated in the first sentence of the same paragraph.
3. Salvation being based on 'free will' and not 'forced' is already indicated in the second paragraph of the same section.
4. Elements about people showing 'ungodly' behaviour and 'not benefitting' is not part of the 'basis' for salvation, and is covered in the 'other sheep' and 'great crowd' section.

Please do not continue to add redundant material. You may notice that the What is Salvation link has been added to the article's External links section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessive copying from source

As it is likely that Willietell will object to the assertion that a significant amount of his added text is a copy-and-paste from source, the differences are provided here:

Jesus Christ identified a first requirement when he said in prayer to his Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking inaccurate knowledge of you, the only true God,Jehovah and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. This "knowledge" includes the knowledge of God’s purposes regarding the earth and of Christ’s role as earth’s new Kking. Will you take in such knowledge by studying the Bible? Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is Additionally they believe it is vital for salvation to obey God’s laws, yes, to conform one’s life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes, including refraining from a debauched, immoral way of lifelifestyle.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4. ... The fourth requirement is connected with God. They also believe that loyalty to Jehovah is necessary to be "saved" and that Jehovah requires that prospective subjects of his Kkingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kkingdom rule to others. Jesus Christ explained: “This through the preaching of "the good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth.”

The text has been removed not only because it is plagiarised (with just a little bit of rephrasing), but also because the tone of the source is not suitable in a Wikipedia article when not acknowledged as a quote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The source for the information was clearly given, your accusation of plagiarism is completely unfounded, however if you wish I can rework the edit and insert quotation marks to make identifying the source easier for you. Willietell (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is an adequate explanation. I agree with Jeffro's comment that the wording (with phrases referring to "Christ’s role as earth’s new king", "a debauched, immoral lifestyle" and "loyally advocating his kingdom rule to others through the preaching of 'the good news of the kingdom'") read as if they are from a religious tract and lack the simple and concise facts that are appropriate for the language of an encyclopedia. BlackCab (TALK) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:PARAPHRASE states, "Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." It is not sufficient to modify only small portions of copied text and present it as unquoted article prose, even if you have cited the source. This is especially the case where the tone of the source is not suitable for an encyclopedia (such as the examples indicated by BlackCab above). Despite your claim that my 'accusation' is 'unfounded', I have clearly demonstrated that your text is very close to the cited material and not a 'summary in your own words'. The relevant guidelines indicate that close-paraphrasing without in-text attribution (not simply a citation) constitutes plagiarism. In any case, the extended preachy passage was of little benefit to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is that although we can use primary sources for some things, we should ideally report on what secondary sources (if any) say. We should neither interpret the material ourselves (original research or synthesis), nor present the beliefs in the language the primary source would use... Of course, the result could still include things like the tenets of those beliefs, i.e. a mention of some biblical verses which are considered important and information on the interpretation of those by the society is acceptable, including relevant quotes. But the explanations, the summary of it, must ideally be derived from a seconday source (I do see some of these are currently used). PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

where are the anointed now?

In the section "the anointed", the first two sentences can be interpreted in an orthodox WTS way, but the third sentence throws everything off. "They believe that most of those are already in heaven ...." "those remaining alive on earth who will be immediately resurrected to heaven when they die." Source please! Or does the WTS teach that they will be resurrected, along with everyone else, and currently do not exist (if they have died)? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I should have done research first. I found this text The First Resurrection, which talks about the resurrection of the anointed class, having started between 1914 and 1935. Would this be a relevant source for the article? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The doctrines related to it have been modified from time to time, partly because there were so few anointed remaining while the "end" was still not occuring. Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine mentions some of those changes. This makes it tricky to summarize and the paragraph could probably be improved. As for your last question, I think that the belief is still that the anointed immediately go to heaven to serve as judges when they die. You may already know but if not, the majority (non anointed) hope for a future paradise on Earth (there is also the millenarism). So the others cannot be resurected until the beginning of that period. There is some redundancy among the various JW related articles (see the infobox) so possibly that the sources you are looking for are already out there elsewhere. — PaleoNeonate — 14:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah... the context of the question at the Development article now makes a little more sense; if only I'd come to this page first. The detail about resurrection of the 'anointed' starting 'after 1914', 'before 1935', and 'immediately when they die after that' could be added to the article, but would not warrant more than a single sentence unless there are suitable secondary sources discussing it in more detail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)