Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Contributors Credentials

I find it questionable that the main contributors to this article are a Roman Catholic and an Atheist (who I won't name directly due to WIKI policy, but just look for yourself), two of who belong to ideologies that are in direct opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. It also appears they have almost total control over the content in this article. They diligently revert any contributions to this article that are not made by them, claiming that those opposing entries are biased (hmmmm). They also regularly make entries in the talk section to each other, which seems like a collaboration. They propose that this is balanced.

I'm wondering how balanced the views of these individuals are. They cite source material, but their presentation of it seems negative. Do you also contribute to other religious articles, say on Mormonism or Judaism? If so, I would like to read those balanced contributions.

I'm not saying that a rabid pro-JW should write this article. I'm just saying that contributors who are clearly from groups historically opposed to JWs should not have total control over the content either. Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have contributed in a small way and my edits have not been "diligently" reverted. All statements in the article are backed up by authoritative sources. If they seem negative to you, perhaps you have an issue with the Jehovah's Witness religion, and not with the Wikipedia article. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have no issues of any kind with "the religion." It is a fact that the tone of the article has changed over time. When I first read this article over a year ago, I was impressed with it's fairly neutral stance. I even recommended the article others. Not any more. Since then, it has been edited almost exclusively by people who do not seem to be using balanced material.

Since your edits were small, they may have slipped under the radar, or were not in contradiction with the two or three people who seem to have control over the content. Also, by your comment, I take it you are not a JW, so therefore your edits would not be rejected by other non-JWs. There is a comment on this page from a contributor who argued about her edits being immediately reverted by particular editors because she contradicted them, as if they were the foremost experts on JWs. Look for yourself at all the comments on this page and the history and see who has the most control over content, then look at their backgrounds. Just for fun, also look at other articles in WIKI about religion and see how slanted they are. Do those articles have edits made by JW's, for example or by people from other religions that don't know anything about that particular religion?

As far as "authoritative" sources go, they are obviously slanted as well. Can we honestly believe that material written by those who are extremely opposed to the Witnesses (extremely opposed is an understatement in many of these cases) is going to be balanced? Many of these people are sworn opposers of the Witnesses, using any means possible to do so. Maybe there is a spec of truth somewhere in their writings. But how would anyone know which is truth and which is biased opinion? Do other articles on religion in WIKI have material quoted by opposers of that religion? Again, I'm not saying Witnesses should have all the say either as that would also be biased. Maybe there is no way to keep things totally balanced. But at least there should be an effort to quote from sources like encyclopedias or other sources that are neither pro or against the witnesses, but just state the facts in a logical and neutral tone.Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sungmanitu's edits have not simply "slipped under the radar". If you continue your accusations and insinuations, and violation of WP:AGF, you will be reported. If you have a specific instance in the article that you think should be changed, discuss it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has far more balance than it had a year or two ago. I have worked hard to add material referenced from the few serious studies of the Witnesses and their beliefs and history. Penton is excellent, Holden is very good, Rogerson has its merits and Franz provides some very good insights from a unique perspective. Despite the trashing Franz gets from some Witnesses here -- on the simple grounds that he was disfellowshipped (ostensibly for dining with his employer and landlord, who had disassociated himself) and is therefore evil, biased and untrustworthy -- his book is one of the most diligent studies of the origin and consistency of Witness teachings. It's a great pity so few Witnesses will read it! The inclusion of sources separate to Watch Tower literature in an encyclopedia is vital. Material that is critical of Witnesses does not indicate bias, but I can appreciate that some Witnesses, in their closed-off world, are disheartened by the inclusion of such material. I don't see any cliques editing the article or forcing their view on it. If you see material that is biased and non-neutral, by all means change it or raise it in discussion. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to argue that, even assuming good faith, there does seem to be a bit more interest in siting the controversies of Jehovah's Witnesses then there is for some other religious organizations. I'm not suggesting that because of X, there should be Y. But I'm just wondering if it's necessary for there to be five articles related to child abuse and JWs, with almost dozens of references from sites that would hardly be considered neutral, much less pro-JW. I'm not saying it's deliberate, or shouldn't be mentioned. It just an example of how the things people would consider weird or wrong about them is where the article and others are most likely to expand upon.

Sally, I would submit that it's biased to suggest that Witnesses live in a closed off world, just because a few of the less articulate ones have found their way to this talk page. As they say, "It takes all kinds." Add to that, it's just as much an assumption that Witnesses haven't done a great deal of research before they decided to hang their hats, religiously speaking, with the Witnesses. It's those kinds of comments from editors that might lead one to become suspicious of the article's slant. Intended or not. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicions about "the article's slant" would be better based on the article itself rather than my comments on the talk page. My suggestion about Witnesses living in a closed-off world refers mainly to their choice (and restriction) of reading material about their own religion, but my comments were't biased -- they were just my opinion. Can an opinion be anything other than biased? Look, I want the article to be fair, balanced, neutral and accurate. I'm curious about the reference to "five articles related to child abuse and JWs". I can see Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, which needs a lot of work, and Silentlambs, which is more about the organization than the issue, but no others. Why do you query "the necessity" of the sex abuse article? Is it any less "necessary" than articles on My Book of Bible Stories or Regional Building Committee? If they pass the notability test, they have a place, if anyone can be bothered creating them. I can't see that the existence of those two articles about sex abuse implies any conspiracy of anti-Witness sentiment among Wikipedia editors. Want evidence of articles critical of other religions? Try Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Scientology controversies and their spinoff articles. LTSally (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, particularly in reference to the to these comments. You accuse me of making accusations, then you make them yourselves about Witnesses living in a "closed off world" and being "inarticulate". And isn't it interesting that I didn't originally name the particular people I was talking about, yet as I predicted, they have responded immediately and are threatening to "report" me? Obviously you feel you are the only one allowed to police this article, so you bully anyone who dare defy your "authority."

Steven Colbert made the funny, yet accurate observation about WIKI in his Word of the Day "Wikiality" in which he made the case that anyone can make up any "fact" they want to, and if enough people support it, it becomes "Wikiality." This article is what he must have based his spoof upon. Yes that was comedy, but comedy is a reflection of our world as well.

And here you people are making prejudiced comments about me because you think I'm a Witness? Does that not show your bias against this subject? You obviously think ALL JWs are closed off and never leave their houses, only talking amongst themselves and only reading their own literature. That is not the case. In fact, they are the exact opposite. They are encouraged to LISTEN to the hundreds of people they talk to every year. How many people do that today? Is that closed off? Some of the most intelligent, articulate, and talented people I know are Witnesses. Just because you don't like the belief system of a religion doesn't make those people stupid.

So you know what? I'm going to leave you all to this article. You just keep watching it for any edits that might be contrary to yours, and making sure you report people to WIKI for daring to defy you. Do not expect me to return with my ignorant, closed-off world, inarticulate comments. Scum like me should not be allowed to even view the hallowed pages of this grand Wikepedia. Jeffro, you can just go ahead and report my "accusations" to WIKI. When the WIKI police come knocking at my door, I'll invite them in for coffee and we'll have a grand time. Rodbender2001 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, a Wikipedia article is not some baseless rant by a clique of like-minded editors. If you don't like the factual statements that come directly from accredited sources, do the research and find credible sources that contradict them. Vague condemnations of the article as prejudiced and biased mean nothing unless you can point to specific instances and suggest a specific remedy. In short, be bold! --Sungmanitu (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rodbender2001, you come to the Talk page, complain that only certain editors make any changes, but you make absolutely no suggestions for any improvement to the article yourself. The purpose of Talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. If you have a problem with something a particular editor has included in the article, there is absolutely no benefit in saying so unless you indicate what in the article that they have inappropriately included. (Edit: This would also include indicating any reliablely sourced information that has been removed from the article that you believe should be in there.) Even when explicitly requested to indicate what in the article you believe to be inappropriate, you continue to malign the editors instead. It therefore seems evident that your purpose is simply to cause trouble. But if you actually do have anything to say that might actually be for the improvement of the article, please prove me wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes 3 & 4

Footnote 3 says Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian-based, not Christian. Footnote 4 might use the word "Christian sect", but the article has to do with psychology, not with comparative religion. Poor sourcing in my view, some sort of pseudo-attribution. --82.103.240.167 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: If you believe the references are not suitable, this can be discussed. However, please note that identification of the group as Christian has been thoroughly discussed previously. Most arguments for not calling the group Christian are to do with non-trinitarianism, but it has been thoroughly established that Unitarian Christians are Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the exhaustive debate about this recently, I strongly doubt you'll succeed in removing the description of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, if that's your aim. If you have a suggestion to make, let's hear it. LTSally (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is that those references should be removed, or at least that the idea of removing them should be discussed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Footnote 3 says "Christian-based", therefore it seems that it shouldn't be used as a source for the description "Christian". Footnote 4 seems better but it seems to me that a more fitting source would be an article about comparative religion, not psychology. But actually, if self-identification is the sole criterion for determining if a group should be described as belonging to a particular religion or not, then shouldn't the description also be attributed to the group in question? If there's no need for an external authority in the content of the article, then I guess not in the footnotes either. --212.54.25.15 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't know my IP had changed. --212.54.25.15 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So what I'm proposing is that both references be removed and replaced with something more appropriate. In my view the more appropriate reference would be some official text of Jehovah's Witnesses that states they are a Christian community (since their own understanding of themselves is what matters in this question). --82.103.239.21 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (The same who started this.)

Primary sources are not sufficient per Wikipedia guidelines.[1] --Sungmanitu (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

.

Actually, self-description as Christian is appropriate for most Wikipedia purposes; see Christian#What_is_a_Christian.3F.

How about the original name of their principal journal, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence?

How about the name of one of their principal corporations, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

How about their website FAQ? here, quote:

"Are you Christians?

"Yes. We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and put faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided for the salvation of mankind. We imitate his example in preaching and teaching and in our dealings with fellow humans. We also look forward to living in true peace on earth under his heavenly Kingdom."

If doubt remains about what they think of themselves, you could look at their 1992 brochure entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses—A Christian Community.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sungmanitu. What we have now is preferable to primary sources. The BBC's use of "Christian-based" does not mean that it is not Christian.

Anon, did you read "Status as a cult" in archive 38, to see how we arrived at the present wording? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter at issue should be stated plainly.

Is the argument that these two footnote references are not useful?

Is the argument that some non-JW reference is needed before Jehovah's Witnesses can be called "Christian"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-JW (i.e., secondary or tertiary) reference is needed per Wikipedia guidelines. --Sungmanitu (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

These two footnote references are useful; and yes, non-JW reference is needed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please state plainly what point should be supported by non-JW reference.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That they're Christian. Did you bother to read the discussion I referenced earlier, that provides the context for the present wording? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is self-evident that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian from their beliefs, and claims that they're not Christian tend to revolve around them being non-Trinitarian, which is an application of theological bias. It has been previously demonstrated that even the Catholic Church acknowledges non-Trinitarians as Christian. Additionally, there is also no reference for stating the Roman Catholic Church is Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a satisfactory answer. It being "self-evident" that they're Christian is clearly only an opinion when there are dissenting views. The citation policy requires that material likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable source. Jehovah's Witnesses attract controversy and there are obviously many people who dismiss their claim of being Christians, for whatever reason. I think the last of those citations provided by A-Tam, from the JW website, was enough to show that Witnesses themselves believe they are Christians, and another third-party source would be helpful. LTSally (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro77, where has it been demonstrated that the Catholic Church acknowledges non-Trinitarians as Christian? --212.54.16.42 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading, Unitarians, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian; in its present specific use it is applied to that organized form of Christianity which lays emphasis on the unity of the personality of God."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, must do some research on this topic. Thanks. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The third footnote doesn't call them Christian, therefore it shouldn't be used as a source for that. It doesn't matter that the wording in the BBC page "does not mean that it is not Christian"; it doesn't mean either that or the opposite, so why should it be used as a source for either? I don't think the 4th footnote is good either. Concerning the rule that JW sources should not be used: does it really apply to this question? I mean, is it really forbidden to quote JW's on a matter of their own doctrine? Because it is their own understanding of themselves that dictates whether they are called Christian or not in the article, not some extra-JW source. Basing the text factually on JW doctrine and then just attributing it to some selected non-JW source agreeing with JW doctrine seems to me like putting the carriage before the horse. I mean, there are non-JW sources claiming the opposite than the 4th footnote, but now it seems that the article is taking stand which position is correct. If it was clearly shown that the classification in the text is based on JWs' self-identification, then there would be no problem. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A tertiary source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570056/jehovah’s_witnesses.html --Sungmanitu (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the footnotes have been replaced with that, there is no more problem with the 3rd footnote. But I think my problem with the 4th footnote (see above) still applies. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what 212.54.etc might want but http://religions.pewforum.org/reports could be used too. But it is confusing. OR if one has "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" under Major Christian denominations it has a nice chart about JW's. Johanneum (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that Johanneum put back footnote #3, which Jeffro77 took out, I have to repeat my argument: 1) The BBC page should not be used as a source for "Christian" because it does not call JWs "Christian". No, it doesn't call them "non-Christian" either, but that is not the issue here. Yes, the BBC page is "informative" - but footnote #3 deals with only words "Christian religious movement". Other information on the BBC page is not essential with regards to that. 2) Concerning both footnotes #3 and #4: If the reason why Wikipedia is classifying JWs as Christian is their self-identification, why cannot the description also be attributed to the JW understanding? I mean, since some non-JW sources classify them as Christian and some do not, now it looks like that the article includes a statement about which sources are correct. And it anyway seems silly to just pick and choose a source that agrees with JWs' own definition, leave any disagreeing sources out, and then make the article look as if the classification was based on the non-JW source, when factually it is based on JWs' self-identification. So is it really forbidden to refer to JW sources on a matter like this, and if it is, what is wrong with my argument above? --212.54.9.91 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not forbidden to refer to JW sources. Primary sources are usually not sufficient, however (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources ). Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and must refrain from involving itself in religious disputes. Secondary or tertiary sources which claim that JWs are not Christian are generally biased claims by religionists. We must use secular, dispassionate references. --Sungmanitu (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-removing the BBC reference. Are you sure about what your second-to-last sentence says? It's pretty natural that sources don't use the word "non-Christian" (or non-anything, in any article about any religion), but we should have a look which sources refrain from calling them "Christian" and/or call them something else (e.g. "Christian-based").--212.54.9.91 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources besides the BBC? --Sungmanitu (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming anything, just asking if you are sure about what you said. --212.54.9.91 (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside that this thread could have been resolved in a few minutes if only the matter at issue had been stated plainly, such as: "Two references (footnotes "3" and "4", which say JWs are Christian) are not sufficiently unambiguous. Can someone provide better references for the point?"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

COULD or WOULD 1975

Year Book of JW's stated 1975 p. 256 "This certainly raised questions. Does this mean that Babylon the Great will go down by 1975? Will Armageddon be over, with Satan bound, by then? ‘It could’ acknowledged F. W. Franz, the Watch Tower Society’s vice-president, after posing similar questions at the “God’s Sons of Liberty” District Assembly in Baltimore, Maryland. However, he added, in essence: ‘But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975."

You will not find a WOULD for 1975. Johanneum (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NO SHOUT on the talk page or in the edit summaries. You're splitting hairs. Page 29 of "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God contains multiple uses of the word "would" in regard to 1975 ... How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to act .... this would be most timely for mankind ... it would be fitting on God's part ... that book, plus the additional references in Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions, plus the later apology by the Watch Tower Society, all amount to support for the claim that there were strong expectations that Armageddon would take place that year. LTSally (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word Please would have been more fitting. Sorry if I came across as shouting. The point is there is a difference between saying something WILL happen and stated that it may, could, even should. One can be taken as dogmatic something the WT has done with other dates. However to say it would be fitting if God were to act is not the same as saying GOD WILL act. There is no solid evidence to say "WOULD or WILL" as the article lead our readers to falsely conclude. The "would" applies to Armageddon as the article stated not about other issues. I did not even find the word Armageddon on pg 29! Johanneum (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I will added a little to the context of the above quote in the Yearbook. "Just think where we are in the stream of time! Its importance was deeply impressed on our minds back in 1966. God’s people then received the absorbing book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God. It did not take long for most of them to note the chronological chart in it that identified 1975 as the “end of 6th 1,000-year day of man’s existence (in early autumn).” This certainly raised questions. Does this mean that Babylon the Great will go down by 1975? Will Armageddon be over, with Satan bound, by then? ‘It could’ " Johanneum (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'could' is a better term with relation to the statements about 1975 (if the choice is only between 'could' and 'would'). The instances of "would" quoted above are subjunctives relating to a conditional event ('would be appropriate', 'would be timely', 'would be fitting'), not a statement of prediction ('this would happen'), and therefore do not add weight to making definite claims for 1975 in themselves. Of course, other statements such as 'endorsement of people selling their homes in the short time left' etc, as well as the strained 1980 admission of raising such hopes (see Watchtower 1980 ref added to article), do indicate that high expectations for a 1975 Armageddon were certainly raised by the Watchtower Society.

(As a side point, whilst I'm aware of the analogy, the seriousness of the weak metaphor of a string of capital letters being equated to 'shouting' has always escaped me. Though lengthy prose in all capitals results in reduced reading comprehensibility, a couple of words in all capitals certainly won't cause any permanent damage. However, the preferred method for emphasizing text is to place it *between asterisks*, or to make it bold or italic. But why aren't strings of numbers, which are also all the same height like capital letters, not also considered shouting??)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro that sounds reasonable. I will have to think further about being "subjunctives relating to a conditional event." Johanneum (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When only one or two words of a sentence or phrase are in all-caps, that's emphasis (not shouting).

IMHO, the actual references much better support "could" rather than "would".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In accord with what I previously hinted at above, ("if the choice is only between 'could' and 'would'"), I have reworded the sentence to remove either word as the argument is tedious and unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Adventist?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not "an Adventist sect". I submit that only a tiny minority of "sociologists of religion" would classify them so, certainly not enough to warrant having this idea leading the article.

No early congregation left Adventism to become Witness; no early "founder" was ever a member of any Adventist congregation. Yet the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article begins, "Jehovah's Witnesses... Sociologists of religion have classified the group as an Adventist sect.[4][5]"

The so-called reference "[5]" never calls JWs "an Adventist sect", and actually draws stark distinctions between Adventism and Jehovah's Witnesses, noting, "While the Witnesses increased their intransigence and endured considerable persecution, Adventists increasingly compromised their original positions, prizing governmental approval."

The so-called reference "[4]" is published by "Hartford Seminary".
These are the two best references for this point? The "Adventist sect" point should be dropped, or at least dropped from the lead and then properly discussed.

Jehovah's Witnesses have always conceded that their early thinking was influenced by Adventism, and in a general sense they're perhaps (lower-case) "adventists" themselves. However, neither Bible Students nor Jehovah's Witnesses described themselves or their predecessors as "Adventist"; quite the contrary:

"Happy Are Those Found Watching!", The Watchtower, December 1, 1984, page 14,

"Russell wrote: “From 1870 to 1875 was a time of constant growth [for Bible Students]... We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists, who were expecting Christ in the flesh.” Russell and his associates quickly understood that Christ’s presence would be invisible. They disassociated themselves from other groups and, in 1879, began publishing spiritual food in Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence."

"Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 49,

"Russell stated: “...various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists”"

“Here Is the Bridegroom!”, God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, ©1973 Watch Tower, pages 185-186,

"Bible study continued on. Thirty years later found a small group of men, not associated with the Adventists or affiliated with any of the religious sects of Christendom, studying the Holy Scriptures at Pittsburgh (Allegheny), Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They studied independently so as to avoid looking at the Bible through sectarian spectacles. Among these men was one Charles Taze Russell, just entered into his twenties."

"Priest Apologizes for Lies", The Watchtower, February 15, 1954, pages 125-126,

"Toma y Lee, meaning “Take and Read.” This periodical, dated January 25, 1953, said that Jehovah’s witnesses were a branch of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith... On February 9, 1953, we (two of Jehovah’s witnesses) decided to call on [the one] who was responsible for these articles, to ascertain the reasons for these misrepresentations and falsehoods. ...[Later, a Jehovah's Witness public] speaker quoted the assertions, misrepresentations and bold lies made in the periodical, and then, step by step, clearly and logically refuted them. He showed that Jehovah’s witnesses are not and never were Seventh-Day Adventists"

Admittedly, some Bible Student connection with adventism and early Adventism exists, but it should be described accurately. Recommend dropping "Adventist sect" from the lead unless and until it can be better supported as representing a majority of scholarly (rather than seminarian) assertion. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Jehovah's Witness publications are not always the best guide to the religion itself. Watch Tower publications denounce hierarchical religions, yet the Witnesses themselves are a hierarchical religion. They denounce dogmatism in doctrine, yet are very dogmatic in their assertions on scriptural interpretation. They condemn speculation, yet much of their eschatology is based on pure speculation, as Gruss has explained at length.

Alan Rogerson, in his "Millions Now Living Will Never Die - A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses", notes, "In the Witnesses' 'official' history 'Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose' and also in 'Faith on the March' the authors evidently wish to emphasise the differences between Russell and the Adventists – how they were wrong and he was right. In fact nearly all of Russell's beliefs, and certainly all the important ones, were thought up by other people – most of them Adventists." (page 7). Penton's study of the religion's origins devotes many pages to the strong connection between Russell and his Adventist mentors and on page 22 refers to the early movement (c 1877) as a "small band of unnamed Adventists". This goes far beyond your suggestion that there was "sdmittedly, some Bible Student connection with adventism". So there are a couple of scholarly sources. I'll add them if you wish. LTSally (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Though some people actually may have stated Jehovah's Witnesses so, calling Jehovah's Witnesses an offshoot of the Adventists would be misleading. It would be far more correct if the article said: "They share some background with the adventist movement". Summer Song (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is probably accurate to say Russell's group did begin as an Adventist sect – they were part of the Adventist movement, but diverged with their own flavor of doctrines. In other words, they hived off and formed a sect, as defined in the dictionary. That said, it's probably not helpful to describe them as that now; no more than it is to describe the Lutherans, or Protestants in general, as Catholic sects. The claim that "Sociologists of religion have classified the group as an Adventist sect" is actually poorly supported by references provided here. I'd suggest deleting the second sentence referring to the Adventist sect and saying in the second sentence, "The group emerged from the Bible Student Movement,[6] which was based on Adventist teachings and founded in the late 19th century by ..." or something similar. LTSally (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The theological views of George Storrs, an original member of Russell's bible study group, were strongly influenced by William Miller (who started the Adventist movement), and Storrs only broke with Miller regarding issues other than the 'Second Advent'. Nelson Barbour, an Adventist, collaborated with Russell in the 1880s, after the start of Russell's study group. The Bible Students were certainly influenced by Adventism, but the Bible study group itself that was started wasn't a break from any Adventist group, so it was not truly a sect of Adventism. I'm mostly happy with LTSally's suggested wording, though I think I'd be more comfortable with 'influenced by' rather than 'based on'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LTSally, except in that it is more helpful to describe the Witnesses as an Adventist sect than to describe Protestants as Catholic sects, since the latter is universally known while the former is not, and in fact the Witnesses efforts to cover up their sectarian roots speak to the importance of shining a light on their origins in a balanced article like this one. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society is a credible source and should not be removed. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also necessary to describe the Witnesses as a "sect" from a sociological standpoint (the sentence which appears later on in the first section is not sufficient as it attributes the designation to members of other churches). See Apocalypse Delayed, page 3. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The early movement was in fact influented by various traditions. Russell himself was originally raised a presbyterian. Later he followed congregationalism, before he went through various speculations and then followed Wendell. The Watchtower literature states that the early Bible Students may have been influented by the congregationialists in some issues. Wendell was, if I understand right, a member of Advent Christian Church. However, Russell actually began to critisize the adventist movement after leaving it. Storrs was also some sort of adventist, bur Russell and his companions were never affiliated with his congregation. In fact, the Bible Students followed various traditions in the early times. Stating that they were, and even still are, an offshoot of adventism, is clearly misleading. Summer Song (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand right, Russell was baptized in Wendell's congregation and reckoned this baptism as valid the rest of his life. But he clearly distanced himself from the adventists and said that they did not satisfyingly understand the Biblical truth. He looked upon his own movement as something of its own. The Bible Students can really be said to have been influented by adventism, as well as various preacher movements and nontrinitarianism. They can also be called a restorationist movement. Summer Song (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some points to keep in mind. 1) Some sociologists still view the SDA movement as a sect. "Religion". 2) Generally their definition of sect has to do with separation from the world. (this can be stated without using the word "sect" 3)Sometimes even Catholics will call JW not a sect but a denomination. IF they can do it, can not a NPOV encyclopedia do it? "Religion". 4) Not all sociologist agree. Some will prefer the term "group" "Religion".others will say they are not a "sect". See pg 110 "Religion". 5) JW are often classified as a denomination. "Religion". and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" Johanneum (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now going to try out a minor change in the text. I am hoping for comments. Summer Song (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some of the thoughts of the Adventists" is wordy and vague. "Influenced" misspelt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Predictions

The so called predictions of the end by Jehovah's Witnesses were not supported by the organization. Rather radicals guessed these dates on their own. It was writen in the Holy Scriptures that this day would come as a thief in the night. That not even Jesus knew. 1914 was not the predicted end of the world but the year when Jesus Christ was to recieve the throne from his father Jehovah/Yaweh and rule as king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hempman, the claims you have made here are entirely false. 1914 had been given entirely different significance, and that significance was assigned by the Watch Tower Society, not by (other) "radicals". JW's current views about 1914, which you present above, were only formed much later.

The Watchtower, January 15, 1892, p.1355: "The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874."

The Time Is at Hand, 1907 ed., p. 101: "The ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced."

Please know your subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you have anything to say about the actual article??--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

improve style

The article needs a linguistic overhaul. In the second paragraph, for example, "most well-known" should be "best known" (no hyphen), and "subsequently" should be changed to "consequently." These are very minor edits which I would have been glad to take care of on my own, but it was not possible to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.242.20 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the minor edits you've suggested. This article is semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. You can edit the article yourself if you create an account and become a confirmed editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)