Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:00, 23 March 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Jehovah's Witnesses is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:FAOL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67Auto-archiving period: 14 days

NPOV needed in this Jehovah's Witnesses article

It seems as if LTSally has a strong opinion on all of the above suggestions for improving the article. Basically, it seems to be the point, that he feels the article should stay as it is, and no changes should be made, that it has no bias or POV? Is that correct? I feel the article needs some edits in order for there to be a NPOV, neutral point of view. I disagree with LTSally and will take some days in the next week to set out more clearly in the Misplaced Pages protocol why that is the case. The article is imbalanced with former Jehovah's Witnesses and apostates from the opening paragraphs, the quotes are mostly from a few apostate sources. So,that in itself slants the bias. But, as for more specifics, I have to spend a little time now, with Wiki protocol and go from there, please be patient. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you help us work towards good article status. If we can get a quality good article review or peer review, that will certainly help to smooth out any issues with POV. Until then, point out specific instances of POV, and we'll help to assess and correct the situation. We have made progress, especially in the criticism section, towards shedding light on all points of view. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea and good point. Thanks--Natural (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, you have an obsession with "apostates", which is distorting your view of the article. I find it frustrating to deal with you because you continue to speak in generalities about "apostates" and "controversy" rather than dealing with specific issues. You have indicated you are a psychologist by profession, so may I kindly suggest you have some "issues" than you need to address.

Several books about Witnesses that provide valuable historical information about Witness history, teachings and lifestyle have been written by former Witnesses. In your view, all are the spawn of Satan and are therefore liars, untrustworthy and bent on destroying the reputation of Witnesses. I have just had a look at the article's sources to find who these apostates are who are supposedly dominating the article and slanting it towards controversy. Those who are former Witnesses are the Bottings, Franz, Penton and Gruss. Linking those names with facts in the article sourced to them provides simple statements of fact. You need to look beyond this term "apostates" and examine the information used in the article sourced from them. Most of the sources in this article are WT publications. LTSally (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user LTSally. Since Jehovah's Witnesses is a proselytizing religion, all quotes from their literature can assumed to be presenting the religion in the best possible light. Add to that the unique jargon commonly used by Witnesses, and surely user Naturalpsychology can see the need for other sources aside from the naturally skewed presentation of the religion that is found in JW literature. To my knowledge, there does not exist an exhaustive sociological study written by an author who is not presently or formerly a Witness. To date, then, it appears we must rely on the scholarly works of Franz and Holden rather those of a completely neutral outsider (indeed, it appears that some details are only accessible to baptized members).--Sungmanitu (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with LTSally. I know that automatically makes me wrong, in his view, but so be it. And yes, former Witnesses who left the religion are just as biased as current Witnesses. If you say that witness literature is biased, then so must literature by former witnesses. Both were written in bias to express a view. I highly doubt that literature written by former witnesses is done so to express a neutral, completely factual viewpoint. Literature, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, are what I would call more neutral. And it is true that this article is heavily edited by LTSally, who's clearly biased views are expressed in his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sociological studies by non-Witnesses on the subject from unbiased sources which give both sides of the issue, including books and magazine articles. It is not all apostates or Jehovah's Witness literature.

Beckford is one. Holden is another. (Holden's books is not entirely accurate in its details). Another unbiased source is Frank S. Mead's Handbook of Denominations which gives accurate and ubiased information on most Christian denominations in the U.S. including Jehovah's Witnesses. Publisher: Abingdon Press--Natural (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reputable websites, such as

PBS, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/witnesses.html BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/

those are a few sources. Bryan R. Wilson, of Oxford University gives a pretty convincing analysis of the lack of credibility of apostates for information about their former religion.--Natural (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue for you will always be a definition of an unbiased source. The Watch Tower Society is not an unbiased source, yet you are happy to quote from that. As has been said to you time and time again, the fact that a book has been written by an ex-Witness doesn't mean the statement drawn from it is a lie. What is important is that the information is presented on Misplaced Pages in an editorially neutral fashion. You are resorting once again to cult language in raising the issue of "apostates" and displaying your prejudices. Sociological studies are helpful, but will not provide information on every aspect of Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I do not believe Wilson asserted a broad blanket of lack of credibility onto “apostates.” I believe he expressed a caution that personal stories and personal opinions of “apostates” should not be given too much weight unless those stories are substantiated with evidence that is not prone to bias. So far as I could tell, Wilson had no objection to well documented information regardless of the source; apostate or non-apostate.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A trained sociologist recognizes a religious adherent is just as likely to manifest a favorable bias toward their religious choice as an “apostate” is likely to manifest an unfavorable bias toward the same religion. In both cases the research must be aware of biases pro and con.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the Wilson book referred to here? LTSally (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvin and Sally seem to be focusing on the wrong point. Natural seems to be trying to get you to use unbiased sources which are not JW or jw-apostate. I haven't seen natural say we have to use JW literature only. Below I see sally arguing against using a PBS independent lens documentary? Seriously? George (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology's intention may seem pure to you, but he is approaching the issue from a prejudiced standpoint and has decided that any book written by a former Witness is biased and should not be used. He steadfastly ignores all requests to identify statements in the article drawn from such sources that fail to maintain editorial neutrality. The fact is Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources do not prohibit the use of sources that one editor arbitrarily decides are, to use the cult terminology, apostates. Where the opinions of former Witnesses are used in the article, they are identified as such. Otherwise statements drawn from those sources simply provide incontestable, and often mundane, facts.

WP:SOURCES says that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A website produced by the the makers of the "Knocking" documentary doesn't fit that category. Naturalpsychology had added to the article the false statement that "Some social commentators have stated that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult or sect, but a valid religion" and cited the Knocking website as the source. That claim was not made by "some social commentators" at all and because the website is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards, I removed it. LTSally (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, two things. 1) WP:AGF. Natural's POV seems no more skewed than yours. Natural just hasn't had enough experience here to make improvements to Misplaced Pages in the "right way". 2) "should be" does not mean "must be". In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, we need all the third party sources we can get. Franz's and his publisher's "fact-checking" is questionable, but we use him anyways. On the other hand, "some social commentators...not a cult/sect" feels unnecessary. "Some social commentators" sounds like weasel words to me. It would be correct to say "PBS documentary Knocking has stated that...", and then cite the website, though the true usefulness of the statement is questionable. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Naturalpsychology is approaching this article with a very strong opposition to using sources from ex-Witnesses. He has expressed this forcefully and repeatedly, arguing against those who tell him those sources are acceptable by Misplaced Pages standards. I am perfectly happy to assume good faith, but I withhold that assumption in the case of clear bigotry. As for skewing POV, my opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses are clear, but I keep them out of the articles. I don't invent statements in support of my views. As for "should be/must be" in the WP:SOURCES guidelines, you're correct. But in an article that already has a large number of sources there is no need to accept concocted claims drawn from questionable sources. The statement on the Knocking website on cults has no value at all. LTSally (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, LTSally is a great example of being unbiased. Your viewpoints are clearly unbiased, right? You don't express your personal views, you just look for sources that reflect them and then call them "unbiased." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk • contribs)

User Natural and other JW apologists likewise look for sources reflecting their views and think them "unbiased" as well. A balanced article does not mean "free from biased statements," otherwise criticisms and even flattering conclusions by sociologists and others could not be included. The best we can do is honestly present both sides of the divide between critics and admirers. --Sungmanitu (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, who are you to declare that a PBS Independent Lens documentary is "not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards"? That assertion was challenged on February 1 by George, above, and you have not justified this opinion. I have researched Misplaced Pages Sources Policy and Guidelines, and have found nothing there that seems to disqualify PBS, Independent Lens, or Knocking as a reliable source, so your opinion seems absurd.

If the disqualification of a PBS documentary were adequately proven by nothing more than your own opinion, then it would be equally adequate for Natural to also delete any sources cited in the article, that in his opinion are not reliable sources by Misplaced Pages standards.

However, that is not how Misplaced Pages works; neither for him, nor for you. If you do not show just cause why Misplaced Pages disqualifies this documentary as a reliable source, or put a neutrally worded citation of it back in, this article will be made neutral in spite of you. Downstrike (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's recap. Naturalpsychology added to the article the statement, "Some social commentators have stated that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult or sect, but a valid religion". He cited the Knocking website as the source. The article on the Knocking website was written by someone (who?) associated with the production of a TV program about Jehovah's Witnesses. Was the claim made by "some social commentators"? No. Therefore the statement written by Naturalpsychology was false. Does that website count as a reliable source? WP:SOURCES says articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does that website, or that anonymous writer, have such a reputation? No. Because the statement was false and cited an unreliable source, I removed it. LTSally (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reiterating your previously stated opinion that the producers of this PBS documentary are not "social commentators", and do not "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", does not justify the opinion - particularly when you haven't bothered to determine who they are.

What kind of reputation does PBS have, in your opinion? Better yet, what is Misplaced Pages's opinion? When I researched Misplaced Pages Sources Policy and Guidelines, I found PBS cited as a source there.

FYI, the primary producer of the documentary is easily found on the web site. Like the authors of so many other sources cited in this article, he is a former member; he was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but left. Since that seems to be the only qualification many sources cited in this article have, that makes him just as qualified, so either allow him to be cited as a source, or equitably remove the rest of the sources that don't have any better qualification than he has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the producers are not "social commentators" fairly plainly backs up the statement that the documentary cannot be used as a source for saying that "some social commentators" made a particular claim, irrespective of any other redeeming qualities of the documentary. Is there some other statement for which you'd like to use the documentary as a source??--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The other sources you refer to do meet Misplaced Pages's criteria as a reliable source. An anonymous contributor to a PBS website does not. LTSally (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: Is someone seriously pretending it is not easy to find a verifiable authority (or ten verifiable authorities) for the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion." or against the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult."...? For the latter, a good editor need only consult WP:WORDS#Religion.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is pretending anything. The criticisms section contains the claim in Gruss's book that Witnesses fit the definition of a cult. This is immediatrly followed by a Watchtower response to the suggestion, denying they are a cult. User:Naturalpsychology added a sentence, as quoted above, that "some social commentators" say the Witnesses aren't a cult. The statement misrepresented the statement on a website and, given the WT response, is unnecessary. Someone has recently challenged its removal and demanded its reinstatement to make the article "neutral". The article currently describes JWs as a Christian denomination. I see no justification, of for that matter, any pressure, to change that. My recent argument has been to resist the pointless suggestion to reinstate a false statement sourced to an unreliabls source. LTSally (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that the PBS documentary is not a reliable source was challenged, and I specifically challenged you to restore a neutrally worded citation of the source - not a false statement - because I take exception to your removal of the citation of a reliable source under the pretense that it is unreliable, when it would have been adequate to edit the statement to make it neutral or reconcile it with the cited source.

Your pretense that some "contributor" connected with the documentary or its portrayal on the PBS web site is anonymous has also been noted. However, its only relevance to this discussion is to demonstrate that you don't want to know, and would rather others didn't know, either. Here are the filmmaker biographies and the site credits:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/bios.html

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/sitecredits.html

These pages were clearly linked from the source citation you deleted. I won't force you to read them, but if you still don't know who they are, that's by your own choice, and of no relevance to this discussion. Downstrike (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not for me to rewrite a Misplaced Pages editor's fraudulent use of a statement on a website, nor to establish who wrote the words on that website. The belief of the anonymous "Knocking" website contributor that Witnesses are not a cult is neither here nor there and adds nothing to the article. A claim is made in this article that they fit that description and a Watchtower article is provided as a rebuttal. There are numerous other books that claim the Witnesses are a cult, but I don't see any value in adding a long list of sources for those who say they are and those who say they aren't. The claim is made and a rebuttal provided. If you want to expand that section, do it yourself. LTSally (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I will consider doing that.

The statement that you consider to be from an anonymous source, is from the film's script.

Meanwhile, I hope that you will consider that rejecting the citation of such a source and almost every suggestion made from a viewpoint opposite of your own, gives the appearance - if not the reality - that you think you own this article. This appearance has brought reproach, not only upon you, but also upon another contributor to this article. At the bottom of

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Jehovah.27s_Witnesses_not_a_cult_supported_by_other_sources_other_than_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses

the comment from 208.54.14.42 sarcastically implies that about both you and Jeffro77, suggesting that this person probably perceives you and Jeffro as a tag team.

Jeffro understandably takes this accusation personally, as I suspect you do, as well. However, the worst reproach is against the neutrality of this Misplaced Pages article, and we would do well to make some effort to dispel this perception. Downstrike (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that I may be, or may be perceived to be, a "tag team" with LTSally is ridiculuous, though it is unclear in what sense it is intended. If this is an accusation, suggestion or inference of sockpuppetry, feel free to request a whois from an admin.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Get off your high horse about reproach. You sound like something straight out of the Watchtower. If you think any section of the article lacks a neutral tone, then address it. At the moment the article contains a claim and a rebuttal. In the context of a section discussing criticisms of the religion, it is balanced and presented in a neutral tone. As I've said, I don't see that one more person's view that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't a cult adds any balance or neutrality that's not already there. But if you feel so strongly about it, stop talking about it and do someting about it. LTSally (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't notice your reply sooner. When I see a block of text at the left margin, I think that someone has started a new thread.

I'm also sorry if I used a word that doesn't belong to me. I didn't realize anyone owned it :^D I gather that I hit a sore spot, and I apologize.

I had a use for the source in mind, but further research shows me that I need to revise it. I meant to do that by now, but I've been ill; every bone in my body aches, especially my fingers, and the last thing I want to do right now is type. I'll get to it, when I can. Downstrike (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the PBS documentary, and cannot vouch for its reliability per se (though there is anecdotal evidence that at least one of the production's sponsors is a JW ). However, if the documentary is used as a source then it must be representative of the statement it is citing. It does not appear to have been demonstrated that the PBS documentary is a suitable source for claims about what "some social commentators" have said about the JW religion. Also, regarding AuthorityTam's concerns about whether sources say JWs are a "cult" or a "religion", we've been through this several times in the past for the lead, and there it most certainly is not appropriate to call the religion a cult (particularly given the ambiguity of that term); however, it is entirely appropriate for a criticism section to indicate the quite widely stated claim that JW has been called a cult. It is not for this section (or this article) to prove or disprove whether those claims are actually true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:WORDS#Religion the term "cult" should be either attributed to a named source or avoided.
The exception is for sociological articles where the "neutral sociological usage" of the term "must be clear".
I'd argue that it is disingenuous to pretend any "neutral sociological usage" for the use of the term "cult" in a section entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses#Social criticisms". Social is entirely different from sociological. It's unsurprising when a religion's enemies metaphorically beat on it with the pejorative club "cult"; it's more surprising when ostensibly objective editors insist on the term universally understood to be intended "usually with negative connotations".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The intent of WP:WORDS#Religion is clearly to avoid the article labelling a religion as a cult, which would be applying an opinion and a breach of WP:NPOV. The reference to a cult in this article is clearly an accusation in a book by a named author, and contained in a criticisms section. It is balanced by a rebuttal by the WTS. The use of the word "cult" is therefore completely acceptable. LTSally (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORDS#Religion plainly says, "Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended."
If an editor wishes to argue for a change to the plain language of a Misplaced Pages guideline, the editor should do so at that guideline's Talk page.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And in this case the article is not saying "Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult". The article says "Critics quoted by former Witness Edmond Gruss call the Watch Tower organization a cult." That's plain enough. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand user AuthorityTam's contention. Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. Your words. The usage in the article is plainy attributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungmanitu (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cult20100301

Why such a desperate insistence on tacking the label "cult" on some target?
Why the hesitation to cite the claim directly back to its initial named claimants?
We don't dodge a Misplaced Pages guideline by sidestepping it.

• Fact 1: WP allows "X claims Y is a cult.", where X is a named source of the claim.
• Fact 2: WP disallows "Unnamed someones claim Y is a cult."
• Conclusion: WP disallows "X says unnamed someones claim Y is a cult".

Otherwise, the guideline at WP:WORDS#Religion (explicitly intended to reduce the use of the pejorative "cult") would be a mere speedbump for clever editors to circumvent.
Either name whoever claims "X is a cult" or don't use the anonymous claim.
The term "cult" can only remain after tags for "who" and "quotation requested" have been resolved.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the insistence? Because it's a notable widely held view, to which JW literature has explicitly responded. It is correctly posited in a criticism section, and is not stated as a plain fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With your usual dramatic flourish, you say I’m displaying a "desperate insistence" to “tack a label” on the Witnesses. Get a grip. The Witnesses are clearly described in the article as a Christian denomination. All I’m doing is documenting a common point of criticism that the Witnesses are a cult.

The source of the claim in this case is already clearly stated in the article: critics quoted by Edmond Gruss. That attribution alone is enough to satisfy the requirement at WP:WORDS. Gruss doesn't reveal their names, although he says (page ix) that all were Witnesses for between 30 and 50 years and claims they requested anonymity to avoid the inevitable repercussions that would be directed at them and their families from other Witnesses. To overcome your predictable response that those critics are not named, I’ll alter the wording to say that Gruss himself calls the Witnesses a cult: “The author himself reluctantly came to the conclusion that the Watch Tower Society is a cult, the Cult of Rutherford, renegade heir to the Cult of Russell.” (p.65)

And to avoid any further nitpicking and hair splitting, I’ll add some more books that explicitly identify Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. As you're probably well aware, there's no shortage, so I'll include a representative sample. LTSally (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Improvement to NPOV of Social Criticism

I apologize for taking so long to come up with this. I become ill before and during major earthquakes. I probably become abnormally grouchy too, and I apologize for that.

As discussed and disgusted ad nauseum above, there have been requests for more balance in the presentation of POVs in the Social Criticism section, and that any citation of the PBS Knocking documentary be neutral and factual.

I also note that the first paragraph of this subsection is becoming bloated, so I suggest breaking the paragraph after the assertion that the Watch Tower organization is a cult. I propose this wording for the second paragraph:

Others disagree. In the script of the award-winning documentary, Knocking, the documetary's author and ACLU civil liberties advocate Joel P. Engardio, who was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but chose not to be one, states that they have too many members to be a sect in the pejorative sense, "nor have they broken away from another religion", and that they do not fit the definition of a cult.

ref> Engardio, Joel P. (2007-04-17). "Myths & Realities". PBS Independent Lens. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2010-03-03.</ref>

John Bowen Brown II, a Social Educator associated with the Center for Studies on New Religions, a former Jehovah's Witnesses member and a cult deprogrammer,

ref> Brown II, John Bowen (2008-04-16), "Cult Watchdog Organizations and Jehovah's Witnesses", Twenty Years and More: Research into Minority Religions, New Religious Movements and 'the New Spirituality', London School of Economics, London, UK: Center for Studies on New Religions, retrieved 2010-03-03 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

calls Jehovah's Witnesses a sectarian religion, rather than cultic.

ref> Brown II, John B. (2005-06-02), "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anti-cult Movement: A Human Rights Perspective", Religious Movements, Globalization and Conflict: Transnational Perspectives, Palermo, Sicily: Center for Studies on New Religions {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

Jehovah's Witnesses also deny they are a cult;

ref>"Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?", The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, pages 5-7</ref>

they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking.

ref>"Do Others Do Your Thinking?", Awake!, August 22, 1978, page 4.</ref>

ref>"Who Molds Your Thinking?", The Watchtower, April 1, 1999, page 22, "You have free will. Exercising it, you can choose to respond to Jehovah’s molding influence or deliberately reject it. How much better to listen to Jehovah’s voice instead of arrogantly asserting, 'No one tells me what to do'!"</ref>

The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader.

ref>Bearing Thorough Witness to the Truth. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 2009. p. 110. The Governing Body follow the leading of the holy spirit of God. Its members do not consider themselves leaders of the people of Jehovah. Rather, as all anointed Christians on earth, they "follow the Lamb, Jesus Christ, wherever he goes."</ref>

Please let me know of any problems with this proposal. Downstrike (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a References section below, so the citations will be visible. I have only made minor changes to the wording that begins with Jehovah's Witnesses denying they are a cult. Downstrike (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've determined that when I copied the latter part of the paragraph, I picked up some vandalism that hadn't been reverted yet, so I'm removing it from the proposed text. Is it typical for this article to see this much vandalism? I hope that improving the perception of NPOV will help reduce vandalism. Downstrike (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your wording is far too detailed for that section, which is a summary only of the main article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. At the moment there is one sentence making the claim that they are a cult and one sentence containing a rebuttal, which is from the Watch Tower Society. In a summary paragraph, that should be sufficient. The first response to claims that they are a cult should come from the religion itself, rather than a documentary maker who first says they are not a sect (though there is no claim that they are a sect) and then adds, wuthout elaboration, that they don't fit the definition of a cult. What is his definition of a cult? Because of objections from another editor who for tenuous reasons didn't want the word "cult" used at all, I have added citations for three more books. Those books specifically discuss religious cults and include the Witnesses in that category.

If you think Joel Engardio's opinion is worth including, it should go in the main article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not convinced his peremptory and rather simplistic dismissal is worth much, but if you add it there, then for the sake of balance I'll expand that section further by including comments from the other four authors on why they believe Witnesses are a cult. LTSally (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you'll ever get enough retaliation to get it out of your system? I'm sorry, but you never will, so don't bother trying. At any rate, Misplaced Pages isn't the place to get it.

Must you take this article so personally? No one is here to hurt you; no one has hit you even once, and no one is going to, so there's no need to hit back four times. Downstrike (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway... the additions do seem better suited to the criticism article rather than the main JW article. If retained, the first sentence should drop or modify the introductory sentence fragment. Remove statements about the documentary being "award-winning" (argument from authority) or indicate how those awards are relevant to the comments about being a cult. Engardio's definition of the ambiguous term "cult" needs to be clarified. Brown's actual words about not being "cultic" would also be helpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone else wishes to add any citation I'm supplying here to the main Criticisms article before I get around to it, they are welcome to do so. However, my interest at this point is improving the NPOV of this subsection, because it is perceived by the public as biased, and it not only provokes accusations here on the talk page, but I now see that it provokes vandalism on the article. In regrettable fact, this subsection is biased, presenting four citations of a controversial opinion, but presenting the only one citation of a rebutting opinion, when more are available. If further citations of rebuttals do not belong here, then neither do most of the citations they rebut; if one rebuttal citation is sufficient, then one citation of the opinion it rebuts is sufficient. The excess only serves to provoke the public.

I am willing to downsize this addition, as you and LTSally suggest. I would prefer to quote directly from Brown, but the page's copyright statement specifically prohibits quoting without the consent of the author. If Brown has granted permission, I will gladly quote him. I haven't had time to attempt to approach him about it. Downstrike (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Downstrike, your comments don't help resolve this issue at all. Assume good faith, address the problem and avoid personal attacks. My comments are a sincere suggestion, because your proposed addition wanders all over the place without actually saying anything authoritative at all. I'm sorry you can't see that, but don't accuse me of retaliation against ... whatever it is you think I'm retaliating against. LTSally (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LTSally, take your own advice. You threatened that if I make a particular effort to balance the POV presented, you would make it even further out of balance, under the pretense of providing "balance". That threat is against the already damaged NPOV of the article, and it is blatantly retaliatory. If you don't want anyone replying to your threats, don't make threats. They don't belong here. Downstrike (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not making threats. I simply resent your personal attacks on me when, as requested, I am discussing your supposed "improvements". Your are undulging in a bit of hyperbole by suggesting the article is "perceived by the public" as biased and it's amusing that you somehow link this to the ongoing vandalism of the article. Idiots have been adding puerile comments to this article as long as it has existed. If you want to add further rebuttals, why not just say .... "Documentary maker Joel Engardio and cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II have also rejected the claims." If you want to add detail, do so at the spinoff article. LTSally (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A threat is a threat, regardless whether you perceive it as a threat.

I tried to assure you that no one is here to hurt you. If you perceive that, or anything I said in that context, as a personal attack, I'm sorry that you perceive it that way. Downstrike (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? LTSally indicated concerns with your proposed edit. If you disagree, present a rebuttal to those points. Stop jabbering.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We were making accusations at each other, and I'm sure it was more of a disgusting than a discussion. Please don't feel obligated to pay any mind to it. Downstrike (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you and LTSally would like to continue discussing the merits of each other rather than the article, then by all means do so at User talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Proposal

Considering comments from LTSally and Jeffro 77 above, and comparing with the current page to make sure I don't have any more snippets of obsolete text embedded, I revise the proposed second paragraph to this:

Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult;

ref>"Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?", The Watchtower, February 15, 1994, pages 5-7</ref>

they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking.

ref>"Do Others Do Your Thinking?", Awake!, August 22, 1978, page 4.</ref>

ref>"Who Molds Your Thinking?", The Watchtower, April 1, 1999, page 22, "You have free will. Exercising it, you can choose to respond to Jehovah’s molding influence or deliberately reject it. How much better to listen to Jehovah’s voice instead of arrogantly asserting, 'No one tells me what to do'!"</ref>

The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader.

ref>Bearing Thorough Witness to the Truth. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 2009. p. 110. The Governing Body follow the leading of the holy spirit of God. Its members do not consider themselves leaders of the people of Jehovah. Rather, as all anointed Christians on earth, they "follow the Lamb, Jesus Christ, wherever he goes."</ref>

Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,

ref> Brown II, John Bowen (2008-04-16), "Cult Watchdog Organizations and Jehovah's Witnesses", Twenty Years and More: Research into Minority Religions, New Religious Movements and 'the New Spirituality', London School of Economics, London, UK: Center for Studies on New Religions, retrieved 2010-03-03 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

with the Center for Studies on New Religions, and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims.

ref> Engardio, Joel P. (2007-04-17). "Myths & Realities". PBS Independent Lens. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 2010-03-03.</ref>

ref> Brown II, John B. (2005-06-02), "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anti-cult Movement: A Human Rights Perspective", Religious Movements, Globalization and Conflict: Transnational Perspectives, Palermo, Sicily: Center for Studies on New Religions {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coeditors= and |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)</ref>

I'm disabling the citations in my previous proposal, to avoid redundant clutter in the References section. Downstrike (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems there, except I'm not sure that the Rev Brown is with CESNUR. That organisation is an anti-anti-cult organization that presents conferences allowing scholars to produce papers. Brown, a rather colorful character who evidently identifies himself as a gay pagan and is a member of the Tuscon Satanist Community, contributes papers. I don't think he is part of CESNUR. LTSally (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer the wording, "associated with CESNUR", or "published by CESNUR", or have a wording suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

CESNUR doesn't need mentioning. It was a forum for the paper only and belongs only as a cited reference at that point. (At CESNUR says it "does not necessarily agree" with the statements published on its website.) Brown is simply a cult deprogrammer and his statement is based on that qualification or role. LTSally (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are no other objections, I will add this paragraph, with the phrase mentioning CESNUR removed. Downstrike (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone who commented. I've added the paragraph, and I'm disabling the citations in my revised proposal. Downstrike (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoekema et al

This is related to Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Cult2010. Certain so-called "authorities" quoted in this article and elsewhere do not use the term "cult" in a neutral manner; in fact, many ostensible "scholars" believe and advocate that every nontrinitarian Christian religion is a cult. Their opinions may or may not be encyclopedic, but their POV must be labeled. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which authorities? What did they say?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses not a cult supported by other sources other than Jehovah's Witnesses

"But Jehovah's Witnesses do not fit the definition of a cult, either." Independent Lens Jehovah's Witnesses - Myths and Realities http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/myths.html The only ones who make that accusation are 1. religious opposers, usually from evangelical ministers 2. apostates Both have their own self interest in making such an irrelevant claim. JW are a Christian denomination. Natural (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

A website representing the makers of a TV doco on JWs is not a reliable source. At the moment the article contains a reliable source stating the claim and a rebuttal by the WTS which has previously addressed the issue. The lead section of the article describes the Witnesses as a Christian denomination. LTSally (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether JWs are or are not a cult is not at issue and does not need to be proven here. The article states that they have been called a cult, and then gives the alternate opinion that they are not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The authors of Knocking, are as reliable documenters of Jehovah's Witnesses from a cross-section of sociological interpretation as is Beckford or Andrew Holden. They present a filmography or Jehovah's Witnesses that gives several different perspectives, and the website is as valid an opinion on JW as any commentary made on the subject. The subject of JW is explored deeply and is well-researched. So I feel that the PBS documentary is as valid as any of the references in this article. It just approaches it from and unbiased viewpoint, as Misplaced Pages is supposed to. I agree, with your comment, though, what is stated on the article now is sufficient. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a documentary representing different viewpoints on JWs is not reliable, but books written by former JWs are. Interesting. I guess the only reliable sources are dictated by LTSally and Jeffro. And just make sure that those sources say nothing positive about JWs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.42 (talk • contribs)

Don't make accusations of me that you can't back up. If you have other reliable sources to add to the article, then do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Superbauer (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It is important to note, however, that while there are some outside sources that do not recognize the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult, there are a large number of conservative denominations that do make that distinction based on doctrinal statements of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Dr. R.C. Sproul is an Evangelical/Calvinist theologian who recognizes them as a cult. Other church bodies such as conservative Lutheran denominations (Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical Synod), and Roman Catholics identify Jehovah's Witnesses not only as cults but as a non-Christian denomination. Whether someone agrees with this point of view or not, the article must make it clear that it is debated whether they are a Christian or non-Christian church body. Even though they could make the claim that they are Christian, then a neutral article must denote that they proclaim themselves Christian and not present it as undisputed fact. Superbauer (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The widespread opinion that they are not Christian is already appropriately stated in the article. Those opinions do not override the plain consistency of the religion's core teachings with the plain defintion of the word 'Christian'. (Whether JW beliefs are correct or whether other religions don't like them has no bearing on such a definition.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent Thinking Botting reference and statement

In the criticism section, the common statement by JW about apostate sources is that apostates often quote JW out of context, and thus give the wrong impression. This is the case with Heather Botting, a former JW in her book concerning the subheading Independent Thinking. The context with which the application of this thought is made has to do with warnings concerning drifting into immorality, which many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses drift into each year. The way the Wiki article is worded might need to be modified, if this statement is made, because the Wiki article is third removed from the source, commenting on a commnetary. This is the original source:

21 How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s visible organization. For example, God’s organization has from time to time given warnings about listening to certain types of immoral and suggestive music, and about frequenting discos and other types of worldly dance halls where such music is played and people are known to engage in immoral conduct. (1 Corinthians 15:33) Yet certain ones have professed to know better. They have rebelled against such counsel and have done what is right in their own eyes. With what result? Very often they have become involved in sexual immorality and have suffered severe spiritual harm. But even if they have not been so affected, are they not reprehensible if others follow their example and suffer bad consequences?—Matthew 18:6.

The point of this is not to not think about anything and let the Watchtower do the thinking for you, like some sort of robot, but rather, to be humble and accept counsel in terms of avoiding things that can lead to sexual immorality, which in fact happens daily among JW and is something that is warned against in the Bible. "Do not be practicing fornication as some of them practiced fornication...." "Fornicators will not inherit God's kingdom". "Bad association spoil useful habits." 1 Cor 15:33. So, it is the Bible's counsel itself, not rules or ideas imposed by the Watchtower. That's the idea. Most people accept the fact that one of the purposes of the religion is to uphold and teach morality and it is not so way out an idea, as some ones would like to make it sound. Make sense? --Natural (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The example from the January 15, 1983 Watchtower you quote is stated directly in that article as exactly that - an "example". It does not at all mean they are saying that independent thinking is only bad if it might lead to fornication. "Independent thinking" is elsewhere cited in JW literature in regard to questioning JW doctrines (Watchtower 15 July 2006), including changes in JW doctrines (Watchtower 15 January 1983); doing what the elders tell them (Watchtower, 15 September 1989; Watchtower 1 February 1987); adhering to JW interpretations of Bible principles (Watchtower 15 August 1988, Watchtower, 1 November 1987) etc.

You're still in love with the word 'apostate' aren't you. See if you can go a week without using that particular thought-terminating cliché.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

After typing what is below, I read all of the references in the Watchtowers above. The citations don't really prove your point. It's not designed for the purpose of blind obedience as these statements imply. I'll go through it specifically point by point, or article by article, but for example, on the article on elders, there are three articles. The first two are encouraging the elders to be kind, reasonable, base their counsel on the Bible, etc. It isn't like, the elder rules, and what he says goes, and he is in authority so we have to listen to whatever they say. That isn't how it is in the congregation, any congregation. And not listening to the counsel of an elder doesn't get you kicked out. I've done that before. After a while, I had a change of heart, but they were patient with me, and understanding, and then, felt, afterwards, that their counsel, which was mild, Biblical and loving, wasn't so bad. It takes humility to realize that there are some who can help us, use the Bible better than us. If we are proud, we rebel against any suggestions and counsel. It really isn't any different at work. The first article quoted there, it presents it reasonably, not dictatorially, not authoritarianally, or in blind obedience. The other article deals with complaining or murmuring, not blindly obeying elders or the organization. If I have an idea to present in school (at work), if it's done complainingly, it probably won't get anywhere. If I am a constant complainer, I'll probably be let go at the turn of the year, no one can work with someone like that. It is a little different with religion, but a similar idea. If you have something to say, do it respectfully, and tactfully, not to offend people or cause divisions, and it will much more likely be considered or accepted. --Natural (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the definition of an apostate: Apostasy definition: 1. Renunciation of a previous faith. Abandonment of a previous loyalty. Defection. Miriam-Webster.com Dictionary Apostate: One who has abandoned his religious faith, political party, one's principles or cause. Greek aphistanai - to revolt Farlex Free Dictionary. Thesauraus - apostate - noun - a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend, etc. other words: deserter, ratter, turncoat, recreant, renegade, quitter - a person who gives up too easily. traitor, defector. adj. - Not faithful to religion, party or cause. unfaithful. Farlex Free Dictionary -

The reason this is an important point, is that if one decides to join another religion, that is different, if one drifts away from one's religion, that is different, but a person who actively pursues undermining his former religion, has some issues that he needs to deal with, usually many sided. Many times there is wounded pride that needs to be recovered, personal issues with persons of authority, or rebellion against authority, rebellion against one's parents, etc. So, it is good to understand the motives of an apostate, and it is an appropriate label for those who can only see the negative in Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses are not all bad, their teachings have done, and are doing a lot of good for a lot of people. It is not 100% bad, and it's not 100% perfect, but for many people, it is a very good thing, life-saving, in their life. They benefit from the structure, as many of us do. So, these apostates, they only see the negative side of things, and their viewpoint is not balanced. You have to have other things you do in life besides religion, some hobby, some schooling in other things, something to occupy your mind, art or poetry, or literature, outside reading.

But the apostate, is like all or nothing. It's not like that in reality. So, a lot of the statements in this article critisizng JW are like, "all or nothing". God is not like, and Jehovah's Witnesses are not like that. Like, for example, Heather Botting. I've read 1984, and her books is skewed. She probably had issues with her mother and father, rebelling against them, and maybe they were overbearing. But Jehovah's Witnesses are a record of integrity under the Orwellian-like oppression of the Third Reich and USSR, East Germany, for decades, they experienced from the side of persecution the 1984 novel, in China also, and came out with integrity. The book 1984 is a story of breaking someone's spirit and integrity. So these people, there books are quotable, but the only deal with one microcosm of the issue. That is why they aren't reliable as sources of opinion. They are skewing things, seeing it very narrowly, and selfishly, without looking at the whole picture. If you are going to leave, leave, but why are you going to spend your whole life fighting it? If there is something better, what then? I'll be a part of it for sure. --Natural (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you may genuinely be unaware of the contradictions of what you have stated here. You give a dictionary definition of 'apostates', which says nothing at all about people who are 'all or nothing', or who have no other interests but trying to bring down their former religion, or who necessarily criticize their former allegiances at all. You then say that not all JWs are 100% bad, but that "the apostates" (meaning only former JWS) are bad, always saying everything they can that is negative about JWs. Do you consider apostates who leave other religions to join your religion to be just as reprehensible, critical, and rebellious as apostates who leave yours?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, "if one decides to join another religion, that is different, if one drifts away from one's religion, that is different, but a person who actively pursues undermining his former religion, has some issues that he needs to deal with, usually many sided" is incorrect. None of these situations are different with regard to what is defined by the word 'apostate'. In reality, some apostates fade away, some change religion (some become JWs), and some are outspoken critics. And even of the outspoken critics, it is still not valid to broadly characterise the motives of all of them as necessarily bad.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating development. When the Watchtower gives a clear, unequivocal warning to Witnesses to obey the Watch Tower Society without question and thus avoid the "danger" of thinking for themselves, Naturalpsychology turns it into a "claim" by "critics", as if the Governing Body made no such statement. Yet the article (page 27) is explicit in its command to follow, not the Bible, but the "direction of God’s organization". If this article is going to be accurate and neutral, editors need to be honest with source material rather than trying to hide or twist uncomfortable facts. LTSally (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Jeffro, you are generally reasonable in your edits, you seem to be allowing a reasonable amount of clarification, but the apostate way of thinking is the negative, all or nothing thing. That is the type of thing in this article or any article that is thought closing. We need to be balanced in the presentation of criticism on JW. It is not as clear cut as it is trying to be presented, like JW are a dictatatorial, authoritarian religion. That is not how it is, although you can refer to some quotes which give the "opinion" "biased-opinion" only from apostates, no one else really has an issue with that. The Watchtower lesson this week was focused on "love". That is the cornerstone of true Christianity. The Watchtower acknowledged that we are commanded to preach, but that Jesus stated that "love" was the identifying mark of true Christians. Love is emphasized, that has to be balanced out with obedience, it is not blind obedience, it is obedience out of love. "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3. --Natural (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The contrast you present above with "the apostate way of thinking" is a generalised ad hominem attack on 'apostates'. (Not doing well with going a week without using the word 'apostate' are you?) JWs is a minor religion, so for the most part, there are not a lot of available sources about the religion other than from the religion itself (almost entirely from the Society rather than members publishing material independently), and from people who have left the religion. Though the article would likely benefit from more neutral sources, you should not presume in their absence (argument from silence) that neutral sources would disagree with what 'apostate' sources say. Instead, the article presents what critics say and what the Society says, neither are presented as facts but as views of those sources. Religious rhetoric about love, common to many religions, is not relevant here, and the term "true Christianity" as used here is similar to the no true Scotsman fallacy employed by other religions to say JWs aren't Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here once again Naturalpsychology, is that you are filling this page with foolish generalisations about "apostates", which has very little to do with the purpose of this talk page. As I pointed out earlier, Nathan Knorr, born into the Reformed Church, was an apostate. Fred Franz, raised as a Presbytarian, was an apostate. Don Adams, the current WTS president, is an apostate, having been raised in an Episcopal family and renouncing that faith to become a Jehovah's Witness. You have been invited many times to identify specific points in the article sourced to former Witnesses that is presented in a biased fashion. If you can't do that, drop the point and move on. LTSally (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference being, it isn't changing one's religion that makes one an apostate, but when makes it one of one's goals in life to do all that one can to discredit or slander, bring into reproach one's former religion, then that makes one an apostate. My father was Dutch Reformed before he became a Jehovah's Witness, but he has no issues with that church in particual, other than he found what he felt to be a better way. The same with Knorr or Franz, Franz hasn't singled out the Presbetyrian Church to try to bring out every detail of the private life of the founders of that church that might bring it into reproach. That type of thing is a tactic of, I don't want to say the word again, to offend Jeff, we'll just say the "a" word. --Natural (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for again demonstrating your distorted view of this term, as indoctrinated by Jehovah's Witnesses to demonize the term. Go back to the dictionary definition you provided. Keep reading it until you understand that what you wrote immediately above is false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, are you actually claiming that in becoming a JW, your father did not 'renounce a previous faith', 'abandon a previous loyalty', and became "One who has abandoned his religious faith", that he became "disloyal" and 'deserted' the Dutch Reformed Church?? The actual definition of "apostate" says nothing at all to suggest that the term only includes those who are outspoken about discrediting their former allegiance—an entirely JW jargon application. Do you need a Venn diagram?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your definition, not the dictionary's. You have decided who among ex-Witness authors has "made it a goal in life" to slander their former religion. On that basis you view any and every statement they make as suspect. That is a foolish and unhelpful view, particularly when considering the statements in the article attributed to those sources. LTSally (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Older ones who preach and those limited by health

The line about even old people and those limited being required to preach, makes it sound like JW have a whip at the back of old people to force them to preach. That really wouldn't be an accurate presentation of the way it is encouraged, and feel it is better to leave that line out. The Watchtower actually makes the point the opposite way, that those who are limited by old age and bad health, should be happy and not sad that they can't do more.So the line here had it a little backwards.--Natural (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the wording to retain the relevant import of the statements and present what is actually stated in the cited source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference on blood transfusions and paranoia.

This line, I don't feel should be included. The author of this article has no identity. His email is not valid on the reference page, it came back returned. And he does not identify himself as a doctor, or anyone other than someone who seems to work for an insurance company. So, even though it is published, the author is more like giving an editorial, rather than a professional opinion, which would be something of a requirement in the medical field to make the statements he makes in that article. Pretty much, anyone can say anything that they might want to on that subject, but he provides no evidence, but states his own bias on the subject. Who is the author of the article? I couldn't find any information on him anywhere, and would be interested in knowing who he is.

They claim Watch Tower literature uses exaggeration and emotionalism to create paranoia and distort the facts about transfusions.--Natural (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is published in a respected journal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The journal is respected, but who is the author? There is no indication, he has no identity other than a name. In seriousness, if you find out who he is, that would be good.--Natural (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A Google search shows he is a medical ethicist at the Department of Neurology, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division Portland, Oregon and a member of the Regional Ethics Council. As far as I know he is not an apostate. LTSally (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that Muramoto is stating "his own bias" about blood transfusions is typical of your own prejudices and narrow thinking. He is a doctor writing for a professional readership in a professional journal that would have strict requirements for inclusion and is expressing his professional view. You have never heard of him and know nothing of any of his previous views, but because they differ from your own intolerant, restricted outlook you declare he is biased. What a strange, sad world you live in. LTSally (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You define the word irony. Natural's so called "intolerant, restricted outlook" is exactly the same as your's only from a different viewpoint. You are as intolerant of his belief as he is of yours. It seems you too live in an equally strange sad world, by your own definition.Jamie (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was sincerely asking who he was, all I could find on him is that he worked for Kaiser, and that he wrote this article. So if this research is valid, I appreciate it. I'm going to look into it to see.--Natural (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1974 article on this point outdated

This article is from 1974, and if the same point was being made today, it would be worded differently. The writing of these type articles has changed a lot since 1974. If that type of thing is in a history section, that would be fine, but this is from 36 years ago. It's changed a lot since then. These are the types of criticisms from Ray Franz, from that time period. That is why Franz's criticisms aren't really valid today, from his book Crisis. Many of them have been addressed. There have been organizational changes in those years, and changes in the way of presenting information. The same with the reference for "a prophet in their midst." They don't have those type of articles anymore and the current publications don't really refer to them. --Natural (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is rather incoherent. What are you talking about now? LTSally (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only a few references to 1974 in the article. Of those, some relate to JW publications speaking approvingly of JWs selling their homes in the lead-up to 1975 - those statements are specific to the period in question, and therefore "a history section". The next is a statement about the translators of the NWT - no change has occurred with regard to the Society's views of the translators of the NWT. Those statements cannot validly be the focus of Natural's complaint. The next '74 reference is in relation to whether JWs should question "the organization". Whilst it is true that in more recent JW literature "trust" and "organization" more often appear in articles soliciting donations of valuables including "trusts", a 2003 Watchtower does state that "our trust in Jehovah is manifested when we turn to him in prayer, when we seek direction from his Word, and when we look to his organization for guidance." (w03 9/1 p. 13 par. 2) Obviously there has been no change in attitude about unquestioning trust in the organization. It is therefore unclear what Natural is concerned about. Natural, have you read 'Crisis'? If you have not, how can you claim that its criticisms have been addressed?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He has explained previously that he read bits of it by accident. On that basis he has formed a very strong view that nothing Franz says can be trusted. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I hate when I accidentally read stuff.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a link to membership data

I would like simply to add this to external links:

• Statistical Profile of Jehovah's Witnesses at the Association of Religion Data Archives

ARDA is a highly respectable digital library at Pennsylvania State University, and as you can see the page I link to is simply detailed statistical data on this religious denomination.

Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Lann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. LTSally (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the link per se, but it might be also/better suited to Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heirarchal Arrangement

It would seem that heirarchal arrangement might not be the best description. The book Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Frank Mead, originally,newer version by other authors, has a different view. Will provide a quote on that, but heirarchal, today, is not really accurate. That might have been said pre-1975, at the time of Penton's criticisms, before the arrangements of committees, but today, there is so much dispersion of authority, that a different or more accurate view would be more appropriate. --Natural (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of Governing Body committees hasn't changed the hierarchy. Local congregations are overseen by circuit and district overseers, wjo report to national branch offices, which are in turn given directions by the Governing Body throuogh its committees. The absence of a hierarchy would return to the earliest structure of Russell's day, when local congregations established their own teaching programs, appointed their own elders and operated independently of Brooklyn or Pittsburgh. LTSally (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a neutral quote, not from an apostate, or from Jehovah's Witnesses,

Handbook of Denominations in the United States, "Administration of the group changed during Rutherford's presidency. The governing body today is in the hands of older and more "spiritually qualified" men who has their judgments on the authority of Scripture. This is not considered a governing heirarchy, but an imitation of early apostolic Christian organization." Then it goes on to described circuits and districts, as well as the headquarters in Brooklyn, Bethel and so on.

Source Handbook of Denominations in the United States. Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, Craig D. Atwood. Abington Press, Nashville. 2005.

These are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and they write about over 100 denominations in the US. This can be considered a neutral and unbiased, authoritative source on any religion in the US.--Natural (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The author's wording that this is not considered a governing hierarchy is clearly a reference to the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is only Jehovah's Witnesses that also believes their authority structure is "an imitation of early apostolic Christian organization". LTSally (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the Handbook of Denominations clearly indicates that it is the JW religion which considers their leadership to not be a hierarchy. Additionally, the suggestion that "today, there is so much dispersion of authority " supports definition of the structure as a "hierarchy".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire section, possibly other parts, violates the Misplaced Pages policy of NPOV. I had tried to make some modifications to adjust it, they were deleted, so am looking for comments on that, before posting it on the Misplaced Pages NPOV board. --Natural (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some former Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have accused the religion of being a false prophet for making those predictions, particularly because of assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God. Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians should not question what God tells them through his organization. Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.

The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet. It says its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible and that its predictions were not claimed as "the words of Jehovah". It admits some of its expectations have needed adjustment because of its eagerness for God's Kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth".

Social criticisms Watch Tower publications teach members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being fully obedient to the organization, promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations. Its frequent calls for loyalty, and its judicial system that can order the expulsion and shunning of disobedient members, have led to criticism that the religion's leadership is autocratic and dictatorial. Critics quoted by Edmond Gruss call the Watch Tower organization a cult, noting the veneration of it by its members, and asserting that Witnesses let their leaders think for them. Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult; they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking. They also state that they do not venerate their "leaders" and that the Governing Body do not consider themselves to be "leaders".

Which specific parts of WP:NPOV do you believe those sections are violating? By presenting the criticisms and then a Watch Tower response, this provides the balance required under that policy. LTSally (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch Tower publications have stated that Christians should not question what God tells them through his organization. Such statements have led to criticism that members of the religion are expected to place "unwavering trust" in Watch Tower predictions and face expulsion if they do not accept its teachings, even though many of its predictions have subsequently been set aside.

This would be a biased paragraph.

Wiki: Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.

NPOV

Also, if Edmond Gross is going to be used, he must be clearly identified as a former Jehovah's Witness or apostate, rather than critic. That he himself is disfellowshipped or dissasociated. In other words, he is criticizing, making some pretty heady claims, but he has a pretty strong bias and reason for bias also.

In other words, if you quote Nazis, for example, on Jews, you can quote from the Mein Kamf, and say that Hitler was a respected author. But he is biased. The same here, you can find books you can quote from that are published to make one's point, but they have a strong bias already, so, your article is going to reflect that strong bias.

The false prophet, mind control, these are fringe theories, these are a little way out, always from apostates, not from unbiased sources. These type of fringe theories really aren't the type of thing that you will find in an encyclopedia or other unbiased source. Except, really, in discrediting that a little bit way out idea.

Also, the cult accusation. This one says JW are a cult. JW say that they are not a cult. Just by raising that accusation, you make people start to think that that possibility is real. So, it's a biased thing.

It's like saying, "my uncle is a child molester, he molested me 10 times. Uncle J denies it, says he never did it." So by raising that issue, whether he did it or not, you still succeeded in damaging his reputation.--Natural (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The accusation that Witnesses are a cult is a common one. The fact that the Watchtower has published an article discussing, and rejecting, that accusation, indicates that they, too, acknowledge the view is widespread and needs addressing. Your extract from the Misplaced Pages policy on achieving NPOV answers your own question. A claim is made, a response is presented, balance is achieved. Yes, many sources themselves may come from an author who has a bias, either pro (as in Macmillan) or anti (as in Gruss), but what's important here is that it is presented in an editorially neutral manner. I believe it is. LTSally (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural, you seemed to be confused about the difference between editorial bias (as addressed at NPOV), and discussion of a controversial issue as cited in third party sources. Articles should not omit a controversial issue on the basis that the existence of a controversy is not neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Point being, these paragraphs are lopsided in presenting one side of the idea, currently, wanted to discuss that point first. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on identifying Gruss as a former Witness, however. I've added that detail. LTSally (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewording to clarify thought

The sentence structure in this line was difficult to follow. This change was made, and hopefully, makes it more coherent and more accurately reflects the thought trying to be expressed. --Natural (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the current world order will be destroyed at Armageddon, and have stated that only they “have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system". they have also acknowledged that only God will decide who survives.[16

Blood Transfusions and Coercion

A few thoughts, please on these sentences:

Critics also claim that Witness medical patients have been coerced to obey the religion's ban on blood transfusions.

The reference cited here #23, states that the practice of disfellowshipping, might be conidered to be an indirect form of coercion. That is, if a person might be (not always) disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion, then, in Canada, not the US., ths might be interpreted, by some legal ethicists, as being subtly coercive. This is the source material also for the Vancouver Sun article (I believe) in the previous reference. So, to say that they have been accussed of using coercion, makes is not really the point of the references here, but that disfellowshipping can be interpreted by some as an indirect form of coercion, in the one country of Canada. This point is open to disucssion.--Natural (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added another reference that states that Witnesses have been coerced by elders into refusing blood transfusions. I am curious, however, about the statement you added that said "Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that decisions on blood transfusions are one's personal decision in this matter". I think any Witness who made such a claim would swiftly be expelled. In view of such statements as "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or the four primary components of blood—namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. They also do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion" (OKM Nov 2006,) ... I wonder if you have any Watch Tower citations to support your claim? Is this "new light"? LTSally (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

Two points in this article that I feel are WP:FRINGE theories, that is mind control, and second false prophet. These are accusations from two apostates, and don't have any reputable support in unbiased sources. It is difficult and unnecessary to defend against these very biased accusations, which are not accepted in any other sources except the most serious sources of apostasy. Don't feel a Misplaced Pages article is the appropriate place to bring up these type of accusations. --Natural (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society has published material specifically addressing both these claims,(e.g. Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 137: "If Someone Says—‘My minister said that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the false prophets’"; The Watchtower 15 February, 1994 p. 6 Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult) therefore they recognize that these issues have not been raised merely by "two apostates" (otherwise they would simply not draw attention to them), and are therefore not simply 'fringe' criticisms of the religion as you claim. It is not necessary for you to defend the accusations here, simply present what the critics have said and what the Watch Tower Society has said.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user Jeffro77. User Natural, I hope I don't overstep the bounds of propriety if I remind you that an argumentum ad hominem is not reason enough to completely discredit a source. Remember, Charles Manson could claim the earth orbits around the sun and it doesn't mean he's wrong just because he's a lunatic. --Sungmanitu (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws, Naturalpsychology. Fringe theories include the fake Moon landing or government conspiracies on Rockwell or that aliens are poisoning our water supplies. Many Christian publications have made the explicit, and reasonable, suggestion that the WT organization, which describes itself as a prophet organization, has led people up the garden path with their predictions of specific dates when events would happen. LTSally (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The spirit of the arguement is noted. Unfortunately this is a issue that can't be avoided. Protestants would like call Catholics Idolators. Maybe a subsection under criticisms that deal with former members? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits on the Social Criticism section

I've edited the social criticism section to better facilitate a NPOV according to the Wiki standards. First, that any criticisms are clearly defined as being such, rather than as stating facts about the Watchtower's comments ,as Wiki clearly states. Also, that both sides of the issue are presented. I still feel that referring to 1967 material for "proof" of criticisms is groundless, as things are much different today 42 years later. But I've left those in for the present. I would prefer taking out references to "false prophet" and "mind control" and might consider posting a directive on that under FRINGE theories, but for the present have added some edits that help to balance out these accusations by a two apostates. Also, the blood transfusion criticisms under social criticisms, needed to be edited to more accurately reflect the nature of the criticisms themselves, as well as the response by JW on this subject. If there are any specific issues with these edits, kindly post them here for discussion before editing, and give us, please an opportunity to respond. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of your inappropriate changes. On some of the most important points: Warnings in Watch Tower literature about "independent thinking" are specifically from those publications, they are not statements from "critics". "Encourage" is JW jargon for "teach/direct/instruct". We don't need to mention that Franz is a former member every time his name is mentioned. Whether blood transfusions are good or bad is not relevant to whether JWs are coerced not to accept them, and news articles referenced by you are not articles officially cited by JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind control

Under the "Social criticisms" section, someone has added the line, 'Andrew Holden, who has studied Jehovah's Witnesses, rejects the idea of "mind control," stating that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an act of free will, and that most whom he interviewed felt an increased measure of personal well being and happiness in their association with the religion'. Where does he reject the accusation of mind control? On pages 32-33, he discusses the "intense loyalty demanded of each individual ... (that) demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism ... The Watch Tower Society controls millions of people who are denied freedom of speech ... freedom of conscience yet, paradoxically, devotees regard themselves as free, and non-members as oppressed on 'in shackles'. (Witnesses) must adhere to (WTS) teachings, which means subjecting themselves to ... judicial committees that claim the right to function as a literal government."

On page 67 he says of the method of instruction at meetings: "Despite the fact that the Witnesses claim to reason from the scriptures, their theology is taught in a highly mechanistic fashion, and written publications encourage the members to lean almost by rote."

In chapter 8 Holden interviews people who have left the religion and they speak very loudly of the level of fear that prevents many Witnesses from leaving, despite the fact that they no longer believe the doctrines. Their views are as valid as current members he interviewed who were happy in the religion. And the "act of free will" in joining the religion does not remove the possibility of subsequent mind control for baptized members. That response to the suggestion of mind control is a straw man argument.

Given the foregoing, I'd be surprised if Holden says what is stated above, which means it is either synthesis or pure opinion. A page number for his explicit rejection of the claim will help clear things up. LTSally (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Sally, I had posted the page reference where Holden states, that he does not agree with the idea of brainwashing, or anything similar, and your apparently removed that a week ago, as soon as the semi-protection was removed, then the edits were made to revert the article back to the biased style that you are apparently trying to achieve. I'm going to post a complaint now about your edits here, and apparently, not allowing any type of defense, balancing or counterargument for the apostate ideas that you want to promote on the Misplaced Pages webpage. It would seem that you desire only to criticize and present material that criticizes Jehovah's Witnesses on Misplaced Pages. But when evidence is presented contrary, not to remove your critical quotes, but to balance them with the other side of the issue, you remove them from the article. So I'd prefer now, to go to the Misplaced Pages board and post a complaint, and possibly ask for some arbitration, because you are very difficult to work with on this, your view is strictly one-side and clearly you have an antipathy to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it makes any editing or adding of additional information very difficult. Why did you remove all of the additional information that I added to the article? Thanks. Natural (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

I made this edit, , removing a false claim you inserted. In reference to allegations of mental isolation and mind control, you added the words 'Other social commentators reject this type of thinking, referring to it is as "sensationalism"' and sourced this to Holden, page 7. On page 7, only one sociologist (Holden) states his opinion, and that is about the contrast between the happy Witnesses he met and the "generally negative profile which religious movements have been given over the years by the popular press." He then goes on to refer to tabloid press stories of families torn apart by religious maniacs demanding total compliance. There is nothing in that wording to support your claim that Holden is referring to the specific measured claims of Franz. Your latest edit, quoted at the top of this thread, repeats the false claim that Holden rejects the idea of mind control, and this time fails to provide any page number. As stated above, Holden makes repeated reference in his book to the Watch Tower Society's strong demands for total control over people's lives, so it is a nonsense to suggest Holden is rejecting the issue of mind control at that point. In short, you are reading into his work words that are not there. LTSally (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive cleanup

I plan to move all of the archives from "archive #" to "Archive #", for consistency, and so that our format will be compatible with handy templates that dynamically display the archive links and allow them to be searchable. If anyone opposes, please speak up before I do too much. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading literature from other religions

This article says nothing about not reading literature from other religions, or about reading of anything critical of JW. Rather, it warns against negative apostate ideas. Also, it warns against falling prey to philosophies of persons who try to discredit the Bible. It says nothing about reading of it, but of falling prey to it. JW are against, specifically reading apostate literature, because it is often times very negative, and also, it often times misrepresents the true facts of the matter. So the statement,

Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization or scriptural material published by other religions.

is not correct with the references provided, and only correct insomuch that it is an accusation made by Ray Franz. --Natural (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

May 1, 2000 p. 9 pars. 6-7 Firmly Uphold Godly Teaching ***

7 Consider another source of potentially damaging information—the flood of ideas published by some scientists and scholars who challenge the Bible’s authenticity. (Compare James 3:15.) Such material appears frequently in mainstream magazines and popular books, and it can erode confidence in the Bible. Some individuals take pride in weakening the authority of the Word of God with endless speculations. A similar danger existed in the days of the apostles, as is clear from the apostle Paul’s words: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”—Colossians 2:8.

The March 15, 1986, WT article does tell Witnesses they should not read literature by "apostates" and later (paragraph 13) says that books "filled with slander and half-truths" should also not be read. That direction is not limited to authors who the WTS chooses to label as apostates. Nor is it stated how a Witness is to determine whether a book proffered by a householder is filled with slander and half truths without reading it. However I agree the general thrust of the WT article is about "apostate" books and I'll add that to the article.

As for reading literature by other religions, the Questions from readers in the WT cited, (May 1, 84) does say that "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive" and tells Witnesses not to accept it. Another WT article, "Limping upon two opinions" (WT 67, Aug 15) tells Witnesses to shun literature by other religions, so I'll add that as a reference. LTSally (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of synthesis and original research, LTSally, as you work with this kind of material. Franz isn't the ideal source for explaining what the Witnesses believe. If you're going to say "the Watch Tower Society instructs X or Y", then X or Y had better show up very clearly in Watchtower publications. In the quotes mentioned, from what I understand, the WT instructs members to be cautious; the WT does not clearly teach members to never read any "apostate" or other-religion material. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society prepared an entire article stating that JWs don't read material from other religions (except information about other religions that has been filtered through a JW publication such as What Has Religion Done for Mankind?): "Questions From Readers—Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses decline to exchange their Bible study aids for the religious literature of people they meet?" (The Watchtower, 1 May 1984, p. 31) In that article, they state "So it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive." After that, they state that "some" such literature might be from 'apostates', but the article includes all materials from other religious groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, thanks for the cautionary advice over synthesis. Stern WTS warnings over "apostate" literature leave no room for ambiguities, however. From the Watchtower, May 1, 2000: "When sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda ... Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking. Exposing ourselves to apostate teachings through the various means of modern communication is just as harmful as receiving the apostate himself into our homes. Never should we allow curiosity to lure us into such a calamitous course!" From the Watchtower, November 1, 1987: "Having this accurate knowledge, who would become so curious as to pay any attention to apostate mouthings? ... False religious propaganda from any source should be avoided like poison! Really, since our Lord has used “the faithful and discreet slave” to convey to us “sayings of everlasting life,” why should we ever want to look anywhere else?" (emphasis mine). The Watch Tower Society repeatedly warns Witnesses against becoming "curious" about anything critical written by former Witnesses and in the May 84 WT mentioned above, it says that Witnesses "do not make a practice of exchanging valuable Bible study aids containing Scriptural truth for religious literature that disseminates error or apostate views". In the Watchtower lexicon, all literature from other religions contains "error" and satanic propaganda to lure people away from the "true God" and his "true religion". It therefore should be avoided. The statement in the Criticisms section, then, is fair and accurate. LTSally (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again this line of reasoning is using SYNTHESIS to get your point across. The line of reasoning is the apostate line of reasoning. These are the accusations found only in apostate literature. That's the POV that is being presented in this article. The synthesis and reasoning is apostate.--Natural (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is "the apostate line of reasoning"? Go back to the dictionary definition before ranting Watchtower propaganda about sneaky apostates trying to cause trouble.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses have no list of books that it "labels" apostate.--Natural (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone said, "it is harmful to read children's books ," would you require a list of all children's books?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The November 1, 1987 article is entitled Are You Satisfied with Jehovah's Provisions. The context in which the above quoted statement is made is dealing with false religious propaganda, and specifically apostate propaganda, both of which are designed to lure people away from truth. It doesn't say that JW cannot read literature from other religions, that is the editor and apostates taking it to the next level. The Watchtower library in Bethel, and most Jehovah's Witnesses, especially many elders, have many Biblical references from other religions besides JW, myself included. What is to be voided is the propaganda type of references. Many of these propaganda resources rely on apostate sources, or are directed against JW to try to lure them away from what JW consider to be the true teachings of the Bible. That specifically is what this article and otehrs liks it is referring to, including the references made above. R. Franz's specific gripe with K. Klein and others, was that he wanted to use certain specific references that K.Klein rejected, so in his book, he accuses K.Klein of being closed minded and that JW only use their own references, which isn't true, and it is taking it again, to the next level, uping the ante without proof or reason other than to make the then current GB look bad, and he look good.--Natural (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's synthesis. "designed to lure people away from truth"??? Isn't Watch Tower literature itself "designed to lure people away from truth" from the perspective of people with other beliefs?? JW 'truth' itself changes over time, so we aren't talking about any absolute truth here, we're talking about what Watchtower literature says is 'truth' at any particular time. "Many of these propaganda resources"??? Which ones? Have you done a survey? How many of them have you read? How do you classify which ones are propaganda? You're mincing words beyond belief, specifically about materials which by your own definition you're not allowed to read, and therefore in no position to offer objective analysis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When the 1984 Watchtower cited above said "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive," it did not classify only certain religious literature, but encompassed literature as identified in the opening question, "the religious literature of people they meet".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, so when the WT (October 15, 2000) writes: "The Bible acknowledges that even after learning Bible truth, there is a danger of spiritual contamination from false teachings ... It is one thing to inform yourself about the origins and beliefs of false religions but quite another to feed on them ... Having found this knowledge of God through the Bible and the Christian congregation and having seen how Jehovah blesses those who are guided by that knowledge, true Christians do not continue listening to false religious teachings", to whom is it referring? Not just the dreaded apostates, this time, but "religious radio and television programs" (see paragraph two). Still synthesis, you think, to say the WTS instructs members to not read literature published by other religions? --User:LTSally 11:38 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I used to vandailise this page and post my disagreements of this religious group. However, I now realise it was wrong, and though I do not necessarily agree with this relious group, I should now have used abuse to put a point across. I am sorry to those who could have been offended and I will not vandalise this page nor any other again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.51.225 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are. Many of us are here because we are passionate about the subject, either for or against, and it's better we direct that energy in a positive way to help produce a better article. LTSally (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, User:HaslandHell/User:I live in hasland!. The apologies at both pages were a dead giveaway. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

User:Automyte, if you would like to discuss the merits of the external links you would like to add to JW articles, please do so here. Please indicate notability and reliability of the sites you propose as indicated by WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

This article currently gives wrong or confusing information. The Governing Body of today was not created until the 70's. the article lists MacMillan and Covington, but they were dead or no longer in the Governing Body when it got its modern form. In fact, I have been doubtful for this article for a long time. The article now gives in fact very little interesting information, it is just discussing lots about the history and various (mostly critical) viewpoints. I will ask if the article can be incorporated in Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose any merger, but the appropriate place to discuss this issue is at the article itself and I'll copy this discussion over there. I did raise the problem of names and dates that preceded the formation of the GB at active. There was never any response. LTSally (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses likely to be a spin-off of this article? It seems to me that if they were to be merged, that article would be merged back into this one. I doubt that's desirable.

I also have doubts about much of this article. That's why I recently came to work on it. If either article has incorrect information, it seems to me that the incorrect article should be corrected using sourced information from the article that's correct. Downstrike (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that issues about Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (there are more than a few) should be discussed at Talk there.
Incidentally, all pre-1971 directors (such as A. H. Macmillan) have been recently removed from the article Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and an individual's years of WT directorship are now listed separately at the separate article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaders

The reference to the cult accusations has been covered well enough, but the additional sentence has highlighted a problem with the reference to "leaders".

Section currently reads: "Former Witness Edmond Gruss and authors including Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes and Alan W. Gomes, call the Watch Tower organization a cult, claiming it is venerated by its members, and asserting that Witnesses let their leaders think for them. Jehovah's Witnesses deny they are a cult; they believe that individuals need guidance from God, but also need to do their own thinking. The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader. Cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II, and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims."

The sentence "The Governing Body is said to direct Witnesses, but its members consider only Christ to be their leader" is clearly meant to counter the earlier claim that Witnesses let their leaders do their thinking for them. I think this is becoming an issue of semantics. Yes, Witnesses would claim that Christ is their leader, but the GB as their ... um, governing body, certainly are in charge of doctrines and establishing behavioral norms. If an acceptable alternative to "leaders" can be found, the subsequent sentence can probably be deleted, which would allow Brown and Engardio's counter-argument to connect better with the initial claim. LTSally (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me while I was adding that wording to the article. I wondered if it would help to reverse the order of the last two sentences, but didn't want to introduce any more revision proposals, once we reached an agreement on wording.

However, "its members consider only Christ to be their leader" more clearly counters the claim that "the Watch Tower organization... is venerated by its members", while the claim "that Witnesses let their leaders think for them" is more clearly countered by the statement that Witnesses "need to do their own thinking." Downstrike (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Isaiah 43:10-12 in Article Intro

The last sentence of the second introductory paragraph:

The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10-12, was adopted in 1931.

More specifically, it seems to have been based upon the reading of these verses from the American Standard Version, since The KJV and most other translations say "LORD", rather than "Jehovah" in these verses, and New World Translation wouldn't be published for about 20 more years. The result is that the average Misplaced Pages user who opens a Bible to these verses isn't going to see their relevance.

I've been to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Bible but haven't found it very helpful in determining whether it's practical to cite the verses from a specific translation; it seems to mention doing so, but seems to assume the reader already knows how. Is there a better guideline? Downstrike (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Jehovah, "...In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals." I think its fine to not cite a particular translation in this case, since the original version apparently uses "Jehovah". ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In contrast, however, the New World Translation inserts "Jehovah" in the New Testament where there is no original document that says "Jehovah". If we were citing a new testament verse from the NWT, then I do believe it would be important to make it clear which translation it came from. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of this relates to the question about the ASV, from which Jehovah's Witnesses quoted in 1931: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10-12&version=ASV

What are you calling the original version? That would be ancient Hebrew, and very few WP users can read it, or are even aware of the tetragrammaton in it. By and large, the masses are unaware of Bible dictionaries, and think "Jehovah" is something JWs made up when they published the NWT. Downstrike (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have said "original documents" instead of "original version". I was trying to refer to the early Hebrew texts and early translations of them such as the Septuagint and Greek Old Testament manuscripts that include the Tetragrammaton. See my further comments below; the relevance of my comments comes in my conclusion that we don't need to cite a particular English translation. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 18:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From what do you draw the conclusion that most people imagine that JWs made up the name Jehovah?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of propaganda like this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22There+is+no+such+word+as+Jehovah%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B6_____enUS348US348&ie=UTF-8 Downstrike (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Google search results you indicate are hardly an accurate representation of what most people believe. In fact when I restored the quotes in your search, there were about 9400 results (largely talking about translation of the name from other forms of the name), but when I crossed referenced with "Jehovah's Witnesses", there were only four results. Clearly it is not popular opinion that JWs made up the name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. This search result is a lousy example of what I meant. I ran out of time, and threw it in at the last minute. I'm sorry I wasted your time with it. (Second posting of this apology; WP apparently didn't save it last time.) Downstrike (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When you say "it seems to have been based upon the reading of these verses from the American Standard Version", is this your opinion or that of a reliable source? Macmillan's Faith on the March does refer to the ASV when discussing that text, but James Penton (p.62), in what may be a reference to Rutherford's actual talk on July 26, 1931, speaks of the president quoting from Rotherham's Bible. LTSally (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Rotherham's Emphasized Bible uses "Yahweh" in the text of Isa 43:10-12, so it would seem odd if Rutherford choose to introduce the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" by quoting from that particular translation. Ironically, Rotherham apparently came to favor "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" in his commentary writings later in life.
The thread began asking linking to Bible verses. In discussing the origination of the name "Jehovah's Witnesses", the specific translation's wording is indeed significant, and so most editors would likely not object to linking specifically to the ASV's rendering of the passage at issue, namely Isaiah 43:10-12, ASV. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I found that these verses are repeatedly quoted from that translation on Jehovah's Witnesses' web site: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:watchtower.org+watchtower+isaiah+43+%22ye+are+my+witnesses%22&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B6_____enUS348US348&filter=0 Downstrike (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves claim that the name was derived from the ASV translation, then there's no reason not to state that in the article. But if not, then we could simply make a footnote that briefly explains the difference in English translations, with a "see also Jehovah" link. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to look for documentation of the translation upon which they based this decision. However, all I've found so far, are the facts that New World Translation didn't exist yet and that KJV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10-12&version=KJV doesn't contain the name Jehovah in those verses, which eliminates both of those translations, but they did quote these verses from ASV on occasion, and it does contain the name. Downstrike (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that they did base the name on a particular translation, which may or may not be true. I tend to believe that they made the decision based on the general gist of all translations, and the documents from which they came, combined with their own belief that the name "Jehovah" is so important. (Like I said before, when the KJV says "LORD", it should typically be understood to be "Jehovah".) But that's just my guess. In any event, I would also guess that finding a JW statement that says "we pulled the name of our religion from English translation X" is highly unlikely, even if it were the case. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead article of the October 1, 1931 Watchtower is "A New Name", which is probably Rutherford's address given at Columbus, Ohio on July 26, 1931. Even if it's not, it's certainly the official announcement in the magazine of the change of name. The article opens with a text from Isaiah 62:2 and states that it is from Rotherham's Bible. On page 292 it refers to the way Rotherham translates the word "oath" in Isaiah 65:15. On the same page it quotes Isaiah 62:1,2, again from Rotherham. On page 295 it quotes from Isaiah 62:2,3, again from Rotherham. On page 296, the article states: "To the remnant who must deliver the testimony of Jesus Christ and who must make known that Jehovah is the only true God, the most High, Jehovah says: 'Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is no saviour.'" ... And so on. As far as I can see it's the sole use of that scripture in the article and there is no attempt made to link the scripture with any specific translation. It's also significant that when Rutherford does quote Isaiah 43:8-12 at that point, he actually uses a translation with "the Lord" instead of Jehovah. As well, the only translation of the Bible explicitly identified in the entire article is Rotherham's. In view of all this, I see no support for the proposition that the name Jehovah's Witnesses was based on the American Standard Version's version of Isaiah 43, unless a specific Watchtower reference for this is found. LTSally (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. The wording of that quotation matches the KJV. 74.38.20.227 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (wonders how he gets logged out so frequently) Downstrike (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Contradicts Cited Source and Main Article in Sexual Abuse Section

The existing first sentence of the second paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Handling_of_sexual_abuse_allegations

Since May 2002, the Watch Tower Society has instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even where there was only one witness and changed policy to ban any person guilty of sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.

The 2003 source cited in this sentence seems irrelevant to the statement; if anything, the 16th paragraph seems to contradict the first part of the sentence at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/29/eveningnews/main551557.shtml

'"we have long instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even where there is only one witness."'

By comparison, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the main article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse#Reporting_to_civil_authorities

A 1995 memo to elders stated: "Many states make it mandatory that elders report an accusation to the proper authorities but other states do not. In those states where such is required, oftentimes the parent, the guardian, or the accused person himself can do the reporting."

Also, the second sentence of the second paragraph of the main article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse#Reproof_and_restrictions

A 1997 Watchtower article stated: "For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service."

The sources cited say nothing about changes in policy, so any assertion that policy was changed, or that a policy has been in effect since a particular date, is POV unless someone comes up with a reliable source stating when a policy was changed. We already have an erroneous POV stated here, so we should be cautious of making the same mistake again.

Would someone else like to rewrite the sentence in this article, or should I? Downstrike (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If I rewrite this, it might read something like this:

In May 2002, the Watch Tower Society publicized previously confidential instructions to elders, to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness, and confirmed policy banning any person guilty of sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization. Downstrike (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer these edits to the suggestion:

In May 2002, the Watch Tower SocietyJehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information publicized the religion's previously confidential instructions to elders, policy instructing elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness, and confirmed policy banning documenting their policy barring any person guilty of child sexual abuse from receiving any responsibility inside the organization.<!-- By contrast, committing ADULT sex abuse does not necessarily mandate LIFETIME disqualification from special privileges, as does CHILD sex abuse. In practical terms, it is possible but unlikely for a person who committed adult sex abuse to ever be appointed. -->

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that child abuse should be specified. However, are you implying that the policy barring child molesters from holding responsibility wasn't documented in 1997? Downstrike (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the policy was neither undocumented nor unconfirmed previous to 1997. Perhaps it was "unpublicized"?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there evidence for the statement that the policy was "previously confidential"? Instruction for a particular audience (in this case, the elders) does not necessarily make it "confidential" simply because it is not widely publicized to other audiences. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. Confidential is not an ideal word to express what I was trying to say, but it's as close as I could come at the moment. I really meant to imply that most people had no occasion to be aware of the policy. I still haven't come up with a better word for that. Downstrike (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the policy was not exactly "confidential" previous to 1997. Perhaps it was "unpublicized"?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If changing confidential to unpublicized in the suggested wording above, recommend changing the preceding publicized to released to avoid repetitiveness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggested wording says they "publicized the religion's policy ... documenting their policy". Rephrase to avoid saying the policy documented the policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps:

"In May 2002, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information released the religion's previously confidential policy, wherein elders are instructed to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness, and that any person found guilty of child sexual abuse is barred from receiving any responsibility inside the organization."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we are directly mentioning the May 2002 statement implies that it was not previously publicized; I think that the qualifier "confidential" or "unpublicized" could safely be dropped. The proposal seems like a run-on sentence: it's hard to stay with it to the end to understand what it is saying. I suggest we put a period at the 1995 citation location, and start a new sentence that begins by saying "The policy also states that any person found guilty..." or something of the kind. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 09:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to incorporate a number of suggestions, improve the flow of words, improve on the citations provided in the main article, and reconcile the information with the sources cited. However, while doing so, I wasn't able to find a source where the May 2002 date came from. I've come to the conclusion that it was in reference to this web page, because a number of web sites began quoting from it about that time: http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

However, I've determined that it has existed since at least January 1, 1997. Considering all that, here's my latest attempt:

By 1997, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information publicized their policy for elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so, even if there was only one witness. Any person known to have sexually abused a child is prohibited from holding any responsibility inside the organization.

Downstrike (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that I'm done tinkering with this for now. Downstrike (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch with the 2002 reference. Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse#Jehovah's Witnesses' sex offender database explains that in May 2002 there was a public statement by a religion representative, JR Brown, though their policy was indeed publicly announced prior to that date. As for the second sentence, I believe that it should say "any person known to have sexually abused a child..." ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that wording would be more correct. Meanwhile, I may need to revert to "where required by law to do so" in the first sentence, because I misread the context of "if privacy laws permit". Downstrike (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change as discussed. Downstrike (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

References

1. "Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection". Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1997. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
2. "To all Bodies of Elders in the United States". WTBS. 1995-08-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
3. n/a (1977). Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 138. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. "Let Us ABHOR What Is Wicked". The Watchtower: 27–29. 1997-01-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Political neutrality 2010-03

WHY DONT jEHOVIAH WITNESSES ENGAGE IN POLITICS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.141.102 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is discussed briefly at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. Any expansion on the topic seems best-located there at that article.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief explanation there. Downstrike (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal criticisms

I would like to point out a conflict under “Doctrinal criticisms” with the sentence: “Its publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet and is gradually leading his followers to a clearer understanding of his will.”

Because this statement is sandwiched inbetween statements about “predictions” this can cause misleading and even contradictory information supplied by the Watchtower articles that are used as references here and what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. An aveage reader of Misplaced Pages does not have access to these referenced articles to correct this information.

The Watchtower article states a prophet can be a people who are, “telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities.” The discussion has nothing to do with predictions. Watchtower Society has written in their Insight book under the definition of Prophet, “the fundamental meaning of the word is not that of prediction.” And also stated, “Again it should be remembered that prophesying does not mean solely or necessarily predicting the future. The apostle Paul stated that “he that prophesies upbuilds and encourages….”

Since critics desire to include this information, this subject needs include the meaning of the use of the word “prophet” that these few referenced articles listed discuss. --Saujad (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism that JWs have predicted things that did not happen should remain in the article. However, I don't object to removing the sentence in question for the reasons stated above. The sources for "" cited above do not specifically mention modern day JWs prophesying in the sense of predicting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the WTs mentioned at the moment, and I'll check them tomorrow, but in the context of accusations of false predictions, reference to the WTS's claim to be a prophet organization at that point is fair and accurate. Most of the actions of this self-proclaimed "prophet organization" were indeed telling followers of "God's will at that time" (that he was judging all humans based on their attitude towards the anointed, was calling the saints to heaven, was requiring a worldwide witnessing campaign) and "warning of dangers and calamities" ("false" religion about to be destroyed, earthquakes and natural calamities to crush the business system and destroy governments, that people would turn on each other in violent rage). It was the failure of just those claims, which were said to be beyond doubt and approved by God, that led to many Witnesses abandoning the organization. The Watch Tower Society has always believed that it "builds up" people by warning that God is about to wreak terrible vengeance on wrongdoers and end the present "evil' world. LTSally (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources used don't support the implied context of being 'prophets' in the sense of predicting. If the statement is retained, it needs to be either clarified, moved elsewhere, or given more relevant sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The January 15, 1959 WT specifically deals with earlier predictions of the demise of the League of Nations and repeats the prophecy that God will destroy the United Nations (para 21). It prophesies that "all the inhabitants of the earth" will be punished with God's sword (para 22), that God will punish specific blocs of nations with his executional sword (para 23) and that God will "slaughter" humans from one end of the earth to another (para 24). The May 1, 1997 WT predicts that "Christendom" and the global political system will be destroyed (para 15). These are messages pronounced by a group that considers itself to be God's "messenger" and "prophet", declaring his will to the world. That section on criticisms deals with claims that the WTS made bold assertions, claiming to be speaking in God's name, of events that did not take place, and the direction from the WTS that members should not question its assertions. I have reworded the section to make more clear the point of the criticism. LTSally (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Many articles in JW literature state their eschatological beliefs as noted above; but the article doesn't state predictions similar to the context that the previous wording implied, in relation to specific timing of events. However, I think your new wording in the article should be ok.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This section is much clearer. But again to make a statement at the beginning about a "prophet" with articles of reference and then in the next sentence begins a discussion of predictions is much the same as the original wording. This is misleading about the use of the word "prophet" as used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the few paragraphs when "prophet" is mentioned it is referring to "a work of being witnesses to all these nations concerning God’s kingdom of good news" (1959 article) not specifically used concerning any predictions. I would think an additional sentence to what the Society's statement of what a "prophet" is nowadays might clarify this. --Saujad (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have highlighted above what the Witnesses regarded as the witness they were bearing to the nations. Much of it, like ancient Jewish prophets, comprised dire warnings of imminent death and destruction. You may not consider these predictions, but they clearly were forecasts of what they believed would soon happen as part of "God's will". Some were attached to specific dates, some were not, but the absence of specific dates does not alter the nature of them as predictions of what they believed lay ahead. LTSally (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have made predictions, but to use articles that are not about making predictions, to make the point that they make prophetic predictions, is still dishonest. Unless we can cite a source in which they claim to be a prophet in that sense, we have no business stating in this context that they claim to be a prophet, (unless we explain that that isn't what they mean by a prophet). I don't believe we're going to find one, because, as the wording now suggests, every time they make a prediction, they point to a biblical prophecy that already exists, and claim some understanding of it.

In order to state that they make prophetic predictions, it may be necessary to obtain such a POV statement from some other source; one that doesn't take Watchtower statements out of context for that purpose, and then allow for an opposing POV - assuming that those POVs can be found in reliable sources. Downstrike (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is clear enough. The Watch Tower Society claims to act as a prophet. It has made predictions, including specific dates, for things that did not eventuate. Critics have thus accused it of being a false prophet because some of those predictions did not come true. It's unclear what you mean when you speak of "prophetic predictions" as if they are something else altogether. A bunch of books are cited, currently at source No. 291, that identifies those false predictions. The current sources No. 287 are not dishonest attempts at anything. They simply support the statement that the WTS claims to be God's prophet for modern times. LTSally (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My explanation was clear enough too, and so was Saujad's. If the article is to say, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", in the context of making predictions, we must cite sources in which they made that claim in that context. If we don't have those sources, including that statement in the context of making predictions serves the purpose of disinformation, and no other. Downstrike (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Prophet prophecy prophesy

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses claim what they explicitly do not. It is true that JW publications have applied the terms "prophet", "prophecy", and "prophesy" to modern figures in a manner that has (at best) confused others, but the JW sense of the terms has been maintained consistently for decades. Here are references from Witness publications showing how they use these loaded terms today:

• Jehovah's Witnesses' reference handbook defines "prophecy" thusly: "Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment."–"Prophecy", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 295
• Jehovah's Witnesses' reference "encyclopedia" article on "Prophecy" has this in its first paragraph: "Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. As shown under PROPHET, prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages"–"Prophecy", Insight on the Scriptures-Volume 2, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 690-691
• "Today, prophesying would apply to any Bible-based teaching that a Christian minister does."–Keep Yourselves in God's Love, ©2008 Watch Tower, page 209
• "Those who teach that God’s Kingdom is achieved through political action are false prophets. –"False Prophets Today", The Watchtower, February 1, 1992, page 6

How is that not a prediction??? Whether there will be "God's Kingdom" at all, or methods that will or will not result in it are all predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to show that the Watchtower recognizes that a prophet can be someone who makes a prediction. However, considering the content of the first 2 items, I don't believe that was in question. It's only appropriate that this aspect of being a prophet be included among all the others listed. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Jerusalem’s false prophets, or teachers, were doing “horrible things” in God’s eyes. ...Yes, these prophets, or teachers, set very bad moral examples themselves and, in effect, encouraged the people to do the same."–"Jehovah’s Judgment Against False Teachers", The Watchtower, March 1, 1994, page 8
• "True Christians are prophets in that they teach others God’s Word"–“Would That All Were Prophets!”,Awake!, ©Watch Tower, June 8, 1986, page 9

Misplaced Pages must be more concerned with intellectually honesty, and Misplaced Pages must avoid distorting a religion's theological definitions toward some third party's agenda. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to make a statement such as, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", this information should be included, to clarify the statement. Downstrike (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The definitions you provide above support my argument. When the Bible Students and Witnesses were warning the world that it was being judged by God and that he was about to end the system, that is a prediction of what is to come. I'm not suggesting that the WTS was predicting something not contained in the Bible (a meteor is to hit the earth in 2012), but its interpretation of Bible scriptures to claim that God is about to act to bring about widespread slaughter, and that he is about to establish peace on earth in 1925, and that he is to take the anointed to heaven in 1914, and that he will destroy all religions in 1918 and that the Jews would be restored to the Palestine and assume world government are predictions and are thus inextricably linked with prophecy. A more comprehensive list of unfulfilled predictions are contained at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions. LTSally (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the definitions, but I didn't provide them. The historical background is interesting, but apparently not relevant to current beliefs. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point. You seem not to have read the article I mentioned above, "Down with the old, up with the new" in The Watchtower of January 15, 1959. The article initially poses the question of who God is using as his prophet in the world today. Answer: Jehovah's Witnesses. It then goes on to state how God has used the Witnesses (and previously the Bible Students) to declare events in advance, including the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 (which it somehow links with the onset of World War I) and the demise of the League of Nations to which the article declares: "His Word through his witnesses on earth did not fail." You raise the claim of intellectual dishonesty: do you still claim there is no connection between the JWs as a self-proclaimed prophet and their long history of predictions based on their belief that God "put his word in their mouths" (paragraph 14)? I'll say this again. The Witnesses claim to be God's prophet, telling of events in advance. The frequent failure of those predictions has led to claims they are a false prophet. The WTS defence of its actions ("Never ... did they presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’" -- a curious denial in the face of the 1959 claim that God put his word in their mouth) is also included in that section. I don't see any merit in your objection. LTSally (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I hadn't gotten to reading that, because a source that old seems more like historical background than a statement of current belief. I was under the impression that the Criticisms section, and particularly the Doctrinal criticisms subsection should be about current criticisms. However, upon examining it more carefully, I see that it has little, if anything, to say about current doctrines. At this point, I'm inclined to question the relevance of this entire subsection, as anything more than a historical footnote. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles