Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

My proposal for the prologue

Bold are the letters added.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist,[1] millenarian[2] Christian religious movement.[3] They consider the Bible to be the supreme authority for their teachings and practices. The group emerged from the Bible Student movement,[4] founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of the Watch Tower Society. It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 and the 1940s, having its authority structure centralized and its preaching methods brought under greater regimentation.[5][6] The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in preaching in 236 countries;[7] they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million.[8][9] They are best known for their international missionary work, especially the door-to-door preaching, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations.[10][11][12] The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service Especially their neutrality in military and political affairs has brought it into conflict with some governments thatconscript citizens for military service,[13][14] and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned or restricted in some countries.[15] Jehovah's Witnesses have had a major influence on US constitutional law concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service.[16] They endeavor to remain separate from secular society, which is regarded as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. The basic topic of their preaching is that the present world order is in its last days, and that God’s Kingdom, after destroying in Armageddon the present world order and its supporters, will transform earth into a global paradise where righteous people would have the chance to live forever. Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order.[18] In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years,[19] resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections.[5] The Watchtower later stated that it "regretted" the expectations that had been raised regarding 1975 by "persons having to do with the publication of the information".[20] Their belief system diverges greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or sect.[21] Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[22] with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing those who oppose its doctrines.[23][24]

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does not understand why some words must be added or deleted, I am willing to explain.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This lead is not acceptable under the policy of WP:LEAD - the lead must provide a concise overview of the article with proportional coverage of the article contents. Try making one that conforms to WP:LEAD then we can talk.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The policy says: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. Isn't this achieved by my proposal? What would you add? Or do you have something specific to suggest?--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You forgot this part "...in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" This means that if the controversy surrounding JW is important enough to merit its own section in the article with four subsections then it should be given as much weight in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The hottest controversies on JWs are mentioned: door-to-door preaching, neutrality, blood transfusions. For these three subjects there are thousands of judicial battles, of academic papers, of news-paper articles. Can you prove me that the same occurs with the congregational discipline in JWs?--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Agree with Maunus. The lead section does contain the basics of definition, membership, belief, history, achievements and pointer to why they are so often criticised. The deletion of material as suggested by Vassilis and replacement of wording straight out of the Watchtower detracts from the summary. LTSally (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Maunus and LTSally. Wikipedia is not watchtower.org. --Sungmanitu (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Neither is it R.Franz & Co--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy someone offered something, but it needs more work. Too Witnessy--Soc8675309 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free and make your less or non Witnessy proposal. -- pvasiliadis  16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Vassilis uses another straw man when he replies "Neither is it R.Franz & Co". Franz references appear twice only in the introduction. The first is when he quotes AH Macmillan's Faith on the March without inserting any opinion at all. The Franz reference can be deleted entirely and replaced by the Macmillan reference to verify the claim of the increasing role of Rutherford in the organizational direction of Bible Students. The second (with an incorrect page reference, my fault during to inexperience at the time) provides a source for the claim that members who oppose WT doctrines are liable for expulsion and shunning. Franz does verify this, as do other authors, as does WT literature itself. Discussion needs to focus on facts, not pointless generalisations. LTSally (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've no interest in either the lead or the article as a whole become a JW soapbox. The status quo is just fine. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Τhe term "authoritarian" is at the very least heavily disputed. As for the rest, we could point many things. For example, according to my search, the term "non-trinitarian" is even more of prime importance than "millenarian" (used at the very first sentence of the article!) as a description for JWs. -- pvasiliadis  08:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A shot at a lead by Maunus

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the creation of the Watch Tower Society. It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 and the 1940s, centralizing its authority structure and bringing their methods of evangelization under centralized control. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelization; they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million. The Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices and the Witnesses follow their own translation, which diverges from other translations on several points.

Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righeteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisical earth or in Heaven. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years, resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections. The Watchtower Society have since changed their stance and teaches that it is impossible to know precisely when the Armageddon will come, instead exhorting witnesses to stay firm untill the end. In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

They are best known to outsiders for their door-to-door preaching, and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations. Other important beliefs include the necessity of using the name Jehovah in adoration, the rejection of trinitarianism, the rejection of belief in a burning hell, and the rejection of all practices that are not directly sanctioned by their interpretation of the Bible - this includes celebrating Christmas, Birthdays and other secular hollidays. The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as flag salutation has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries. Through legal processes Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation and legal practice concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the US. Jehovah's Witnesses endeavour to remain separate from secular society, which they regard as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. The organization exacts strict control of the individual members' adherence to religious dogma and violation of rules of conduct are grounds for disciplinary action, the most severe being complete ostracision, known as "disfellowshipping".

My proposed changes to the lead mostly serve to bring the lead up to the standards of WP:LEAD. It includes in a concise way what I believe to be the most important information from each of the sections of the article. I have added mention of the New World translation taken from the section on publications, mention of rising membership numbers in third world countries which is in my view and that of Holden are important to present. I have globalized the mention of JW influence on civil rights since this is not at all specific for the US. I have added more of the basic beliefs from the section of beliefs and its subsections. Among these I have added the "eternal life" belief since this has been important since the organizations inception and probably is seen to be among their most important beliefs both by witnesses themselves and by those who are initially attracted to the religion. I have stated most of these beliefs as "rejection of X" which I admit may not be the most obvious way to express them, but I have done so to show that these beliefs are central in that they constitute what sociologists of religion call "secterian boundaries" - I would be open to rephrase these in to positive statements such as they. I have avoided the word authoritarian instead providing a brief overview of what can be found in the sections "Discipline" and "Social controversies". ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by LTSally

Very good. A few suggestions though: 1. Modify "The Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices". Witnesses claim this, but several sources claim WT literature itself is equally (or more) important in estabishing doctrines. Example: One of the central WTS teachings is that of the "Faithful and discreet slave class." The "slave" is one figure within a parable. Witnesses have turned that character into a "class" of people". This is an interpretation only. Suggest return to wording similar to existing. 2. Suggest deletion of reference to Witnesses' own Bible. This is not a major point of distinction. 3. After sentence about 1914 etc, fix Watchtower to Watch Tower, plural pronouns to singular, then delete "exhorting witnesses to stay firm to the end." That last bit is not a new teaching. 4. Delete line about growth in some geographic areas. Growth of a religion is not notable or distinctive. 5. Insert the word "distinctive" in sentence beginning "Other important beliefs ..." There are many central WT beliefs relating to Jesus, for example, they hold in common with other denominations. Lead section need to identify distinctive beliefs and practices. 6. Delete "in adoration" in reference to Jehovah (not a term used, nor probably a Witness concept). 7. Flag salutation is more accurately "flag salute", but this may not be a major issue ... the issue (apart from conscientious objection) inviting conflict may be more compulsory political involvement (in some African countries). 8. Poor wording re "strict control": "exacts strict control" is the wrong phrase; the issue is more a requirement for members to obey religious doctrines and authority and avoid voicing dissent. Refs can be found in both WT and external sources to provide balance. I may suggest a reworded sentence on that point, but I agree it needs to be handled sensitively. LTSally (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
1. My reason for inserting that the bible is the foundation is to avoid the word "fundamentalist" which I assumed would lead to problems. I could equally agree to "the religion is based on literalist interpretation of the Bible" or some such - I agree that it would be good to get a mention of the watchtower in there as well. 2. I think the witnesses own bible is notable and important - it is (like the watchtower) an important tool with which WTS "monopolizes truth" as Holden would have it. 3. I can agree to that. 4. I think the rather explosive growth in some areas of the world is notable and distinctive, especially for milenarian religions - Holden agrees with this as can be seen from his very first page. I was inclined to add that membership was stagnant or falling in Europe and North America as well. 5. Agree. 6. agree - insert better term than adoration. Worship? 7. agree. 8. I think organizational "control" is the correct sociological terminology which to my ear is the most neutral.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
On doing a bit of research it it appears that I am wrong about the term ostracision being more correct in sociological use it seems that Shunning is indeed preferable.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
LTSally said: "Witnesses claim [that the Bible is the foundation for all teachings and practices], but several sources claim WT literature itself is equally (or more) important in estabishing doctrines".
  • The bigger-sized Roman Catholic Church article says: "Catholic beliefs are based on the Bible and on Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles, which are interpreted by a teaching authority.". All religions claim to have the best truth or interpretation of the truth, isn't it? So let's not make it more complicated in this point. The proposed wording is more precise than the existing one.
So the Catholic Church article states clearly that they base their teachings on the Bible and traditions. WT doctrines are based on the Bible and teachings of Russell, Rutherford etc that are not found explicitly in the Bible. Let's say so. LTSally (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
LTSally said: "One of the central WTS teachings is that of the "Faithful and discreet slave class." The "slave" is one figure within a parable. Witnesses have turned that character into a "class" of people". This is an interpretation only."
LTSally said: "Lead section need to identify distinctive beliefs and practices."
  • The Roman Catholic Church article says: "The Church defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity.[13] It operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, as well as organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick." This is true for the Eastern Orthodox Church and also for the main Protestant Churches. These statements are not really "distinctive".
LTSally said: "The issue is more a requirement for members to obey religious doctrines and authority and avoid voicing dissent".
  • And this is an issue so important to be written at the lead of the article?
  • In total, let us be more precise without colouring the words we will use at the lead and not to maximize doctrines/teachings or practices that in reality are common with other [Christian mainly] religions as well. -- pvasiliadis  12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The question "this is an issue so important to be written at the lead of the article?" Has been adressed several times - if it is important enough to merit TWO sections in the article body then it is also important enough to merit proportional attention in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Vasilis

1. The words “restorationist and millenarian” are not needed because the introduction below explains the same things with more words (reject trinity, bla bla bla)
2. They follow their own translation, which diverges from other translations on several points

Agree with LTSally. This statement can lead to false assumptions. NWT is not the solid basis of biblical exegesis, but the original texts of the Bible.

3. which diverges from other translations on several points:

Agree with LTSally. This statement doesn’t make sense. All the versions differ from each other. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any need for their existence. It should be erased.

4. Since its inception, the Watch Tower Society has taught that humanity is experiencing the last days of the present world order after which the righeteous will enjoy eternal life either on a new and paradisical earth or in Heaven.

Problems: Suddenly JWs disappear and WTS comes on the surface. Why? (I know why but I want you to give the answer.) I propose instead: The basic message they convey in their public preaching is that the present world order is in its last days, and that God’s Kingdom, after destroying in Armageddon the present world order, will transform earth into a global paradise where righteous people would have the chance to live forever.

5. In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, the Society's publications expressed strong expectations of Armageddon occurring in those years,

This statement can lead to false assumptions. Armageddon meant very different things in 1914 and in 1975. As for 1925, it was not Armageddon the expected thing, but resurrection.

Comment: Russell taught that Armageddon was the “battle of the great day of God Almighty,” and that it would culminate in 1914. Do you suggest in 1975 (or today) Watchtower teaches that Armageddon is something other than the “battle of the great day of God Almighty”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
6. resulting in surges in membership and subsequent defections.

What is the purpose of the statement? Please explain.

7. In the last decades of the twentieth century Jehovah's Witnesses membership numbers have been steadily increasing particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Agree with Sally. What is the purpose of the statement? Please explain.

8. Other important beliefs include the necessity of using the name Jehovah in adoration, the rejection of trinitarianism, the rejection of belief in a burning hell, and the rejection of all practices that are not directly sanctioned by their interpretation of the Bible - this includes celebrating Christmas, Birthdays and other secular holidays.

The above can be expressed with more clarity and brevity: JWs consider vital the use of the biblical name of God, Jehovah, reject the traditional doctrines of Trinity, immortality of the soul and Hell tortures as non-biblical, and do not celebrate Christmas, Easter and Birthdays because of their having pagan elements.

9. The religion's stance of conscientious objection to military service and compulsory nationalist practices such as flag salutation has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been consequently banned in some countries.

Add to "Banned": or have some restrictions. P.e. in France and Russia there are some restrictions. In China we have total ban.

10. Jehovah's Witnesses endeavour to remain separate from secular society, which they regard as a place of moral contamination and under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses.

Add: But they teach respect for the secular authorities.

11. The organization exacts strict control of the individual members' adherence to religious dogma and violation of rules of conduct are grounds for disciplinary action, the most severe being complete ostracision, known as "disfellowshipping".

This can lead to misconceptions. Disfellowshipping has to do with specific and severe sins. My proposal:

Jehovah’s Wintesses do not tolerate among their ranks the breaking of their basic biblical principles: these include robbery, murder, drunkenness, pre-marital sex, adultery, idolatry, use of tobacco and illegal drugs, occultism or even the promotion of doctrines not approved by the Governing Body. Persons who insist in doing such things are disfellowshiped.
--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
1. I think those terms are important to highlight in the definition so that readers can quickly find a more detailed treatment of those vital characteristics. 2. & 3 Hmm that is not a bad objection because it is obviously true that the biblical texts are at the root of the translation - however the reason I want it in there is to show that quite a few of the doctrinal differences between JW and other denominations lie in differing translations of crucial concepts like Stavros, Sheol etc. Furthermore most other religions allow different translations of the original texts to be used by its members for private exegesis - JW do not. 4. I can agree with your wording I would just strike the somewhat wordy "have a chance to". 5. we could change Armageddon with "apocalypse" or "end of the world" 6. The purpose is to track JW history and to have the same elements of JW history in the lead that are in the body of the text. 7. The purpose is the same and to highlight the sociological facts of JW's current global project - as stated i also think the growth in these places is remarkable and notable. 8. I can agree to your wording with the exception of "as non-biblical"- and "because they have pagan elements" because these phrases take the Jw standpoint implicitly - not everyone thinks those things are non-biblical or have pagan elements. Also the word pagan is to biased to be used. 9 I can agree to that wording. 10. I would use "and" instead of "but" and "compliance with" instead of "respect for". 11. I cannot accept the listing of "crimes" that you propose and the phrasing "tolerate among their ranks" is also not good. And also you are incorrect that only specific severe sins as the ones you mention can lead to disfellowshipping - also simple non-compliance with advice given by elders can in some cases. Anyway the point of this information is to show the controversial use of strict organizational control (discipline) because this is an important topic in the body of the article not to give a list of sins (which the reader can then falsely infer applies to all disfellowshipped) . I also think that the word "ostracision" is important because this is the sociological term for the mechanism of shutting out in order to force compliance with social expectations.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Re: 11, well said. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I just want to discuss two statements:
Furthermore most other religions allow different translations of the original texts to be used by its members for private exegesis - JW do not.
This is not true. Anyone who's read a book published by JW will see references to different Bible translations. If you go to Watchtower NY Headquierters Library, or any branch worldwide, you will see many different translations of the Bible. Actually, they print and distribute translations other than the New World Translation. Stick to the facts, please.
They follow their own translation, which diverges from other translations on several points
This statement may lead the reader to think JW use only their own translation, as if it were a trick or a way to avoid the truth. The fact is that ALL translations diverge from the others. Read the Revised Version and then the Authorised Version, and the the Douai Version and you will see what I mean. Now, if you want to make an statement about it, perhaps the best place is under New World Translation article, or create an article about Bible Translations Differences... Here, the article on JW should only state something like "they have edited and distributed different Bible versions, and have published also their own translation since (year)" Again, please stick to the facts! --Universal001 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro's lead and comments

(Numbers in text relate to comments below)

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian religious movement. The group emerged from the Bible Students, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of Russell's publishing corporation, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society(1), diverged from the other Bible Student groups, and its doctrinal positions underwent significant changes.
The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelizing(2); they report annual convention and Memorial attendance between 12 and 18 million.
They consider the Bible to be the basis for all their teachings and practices.(3) Distinctive beliefs(4) include emphasis of the name Jehovah, rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity and hellfire, and prohibition of celebrations such as Christmas, birthdays and other religious and secular holidays.(5)
They are best known for their door-to-door preaching(6), and for their refusal of military service and blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations.
The religion's stance of military and political neutrality has brought it into conflict with some governments, particular in regard to conscription and saluting national flags. Consequently, activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned or restricted in some countries. Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service in several countries including the United States.
Jehovah's Witnesses regard secular society(7) as a place of moral contamination under the control of Satan the Devil, and limit their social contact with non-Witnesses. They believe that the current world order is in its last days(8)(9), to be replaced by an earthly society ruled directly by the Kingdom of God in paradisaical conditions.
In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, Watch Tower publications raised expectations that Armageddon could occur in those years, which resulted in surges in membership and subsequent defections. Since then, Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained a stance that the timing of Armageddon cannot be predicted.
The religion requires strict obedience; members who violate its rules are subject to various forms of disciplinary action, including shunning.(10)

Comments regarding specific wording from proposed leads by Maunus (M) and Vassilis78 (V):

  1. M It underwent significant organizational changes between 1917 - JWs didn't formally exist in 1917.
  2. V 236 countries - Exact number of countries unnecessary - subject to frequent change and ambiguity of countries under ban. WP:MOS: “Avoid over-precise values where they are unlikely to be stable ... or where the precision is unnecessary in the context.”
  3. M Witnesses follow their own translation... diverges from other translations... - this comment may imply that whole passages differ, whereas most differences are interpretations of single words.
  4. M important beliefs - 'importance' of these beliefs is subjective.
  5. M not directly sanctioned... - this includes celebrating - presentation may imply that these are things that should be celebrated, which is not neutral.
  6. V best known for international missionary work - JWs are known for 'door knocking' but not particularly well known as 'international missionaries'.
  7. M endevour to remain separate from secular society - this wording may imply that JWs live in communes or avoid even basic interaction with society.
  8. V The basic topic of their preaching... (to end of sentence) - preachy wording
  9. M Since its inception the Watch Tower Society - Inception of Watch Tower Society out of article scope.
  10. M exacts strict control ... grounds for disciplinary action (including intervening) - wordiness.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) (The wikilinked items in my proposed lead are not intended to be the only items linked, and are simply a result of copy/pastes between browser and word processor during editing.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Additional comments on Jeffro's proposal

1. he group emerged from the Bible Students, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. Following a schism in the Bible Student movement, the branch that maintained control of Russell's publishing corporation, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society(1), diverged from the other Bible Student groups, and its doctrinal positions underwent significant changes

I haven't read a single encyclopedia until now that describes JWs as an offshoot, or branch, of the Bible Students movement:

  1. "Jehovah's Witnesses trace the origin of their movement to Charles Taze Russell."—Encyclopedia of Religion (20052), 7:4820.
  2. "A Christian movement that began in the United States in the 1870s. [...] The movement began with a Bible study group organized by Charles Taze Russell in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, now part of Pittsburg, in 1872."—The Encyclopedia of World Religions (20072), 235.
  3. "Jehovah's Wintesses have taught and practiced an alternative version of Protestant Christianity for 125 years. Originating in the United States in the late nineteenth century as a small group of Bible students..."—Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America (2006), 2:62.
  4. "A sect, originally called Russelites, founded in the early 1870s by Charled Taze Russell."—The New Catholic Encyclopedia (20032), 7:751.
  5. "Jehovah's Witness; an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world; the group is an outgrowth of the International Bible Students Association founded in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell."—Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.

As for focus on the changes made during Rutherford's presidency, the approach is subjective. Big changes where made during Russell's presidency and Knorr's presidency as well. What's the difference? The thing that has been forgotten and must be mentioned is that the group took the name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer we use the word 'sect' as stated by your Britannica reference? See also reply to AuthorityTam in 'Changes' section below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
JWs did not exist during Russell's presidency. The changes during Rutherford's presidency are specifically intrinsic to the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro, you know very well that a personal interpretation of the facts is not enough. Do you have bibliopraphy of equal value that says that JWs began in 1917, 1931 or whenever?--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that the name, Jehovah's witnesses was chosen for the group by Rutherford in 1931. Although the term Jehovah's Witness had previously been used in an unrelated sense to refer to a pyramid, its unclear why you would actually ask your question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree that an "outgrowth" is an "offshoot"? Check your Britannica reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
1. At the beginning of the article Protestantism there is no reference to the plain reality that Protestantism was an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. I don't understand the reason to push it that way in this article.
2. Under the so-called Bible Students "movement" umbrella is tried to have groups packed that either have already ceased to exist or their minuscule number of members is diminishing, with indeed no or minimal credible information available about. Having this misty context I would not agree to include such a presumption in the very beginning of the article. In this I just see a try to diminish Jehovah's Witnesses and impoverish them to an "offshoot" of a notional "movement", which virtually is from its very beginning Jehovah's Witnesses themselves.
3. That the name "Jehovah's Witnesses/witnesses" was chosen for the group by the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society corporation, J. Rutherford, does not mean that this group was something else before that change of name. For example, the then so-called Russellites were not something different than the Bible Students. Αs a matter of fact, the -let's say- differences between Rutherford's era teachings compared to Russell's era are not as many to the differences between the Rutherford's era "Jehovah's Witnesses" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses" of our days. -- pvasiliadis  05:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Rutherfords view diverged from those of others groups of Bible Students who wanted to maintain various views of Russell in 1917 and into the 1920s. If they hadn't diverged, they would still be part of the main Bible Student movement. This is not the same as an entire group gradually changing their views over time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses are still Bible Students. They have pointedly retained the century-old corporation name "International Bible Students Association", and continue to refer to even long-baptized Witnesses as "Bible students". Adherents associated with IBSA and Watch Tower have never totaled less than a majority of the Bible Student movement.
The matters of supposed "divergence" were largely procedural and organizational rather than theological or doctrinal. JWs retain the central doctrines of the BSM.
Some would pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses popped into existence in 1931. In reality, IBSA Bible Students simply accepted a new name for the beliefs and practices they had embraced for years or decades already.--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It is logically invalid to refer to a list that explicitly contains only doctrines that haven't changed to imply that JWs believe all or most of Russell's teachings. But how about returning to the same article and consider the doctrinal positions that were changed in 1920 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927 and 1928. In fact, these points show that, to wit, Rutherford's Witnesses, formed gradually from 1917, and any suggestion that JWs simply "popped into existence in 1931" is oversimplification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The Wiki'ed list is not limited to unchanged doctrines. Depending on your web browser and screen size, you likely have to scroll up and down to see all of them.
Feel free to perform the analysis you suggest. JWs would likely note that the granularity of "developments" over the decades is in marked contrast with the significance of core doctrines that have been retained. You may be interested to contrast JW theology with that of other Bible Students. --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You are now claiming that the list of "doctrines unchanged since 1879" you linked to "is not limited to unchanged doctrines". Oy vey!--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The "list" is not limited to unchanged doctrines. I may have linked below the lead to the first subtitle with listings, but the article was and is the same. Are you seriously arguing about this?--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL. You linked to the wrong thing, and then you get annoyed with me for assuming you meant what you said. Oy gevalt! In any case, the rest of the list (the changed doctrines) contradicts your argument that "The matters of supposed "divergence" were largely procedural and organizational rather than theological or doctrinal."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Agree.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro, if you say that JWs were founded in 1917, then why do you refer in your prologue to the 1914 false prediction?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, I do not say that JWs were founded in 1917, but that the Bible Students under Rutherford gradually diverged from Russell's views from around that time. But aside from that... you refer to the statement, In the years leading up to 1914, 1925 and 1975, Watch Tower publications raised expectations. This is because the Watch Tower Society was involved in all of those predictions; I have not said JWs did anything in 1914. I then indicate that since the last time such expecations were raised (1975), Jehovah's Witnesses have stated that Armageddon's timing can't be predicted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the article of the Watchtower magazine, but of JWs. If JWs didn't exist in 1914, why should we refer to an older chronology? What is the logic behind that? Just to find more mistakes?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mention The Watchtower magazine. The Watch Tower Society was involved in publishing claims about the three cited years, control of that corporation was maintained by the group that became JWs, and JWs still regard 1914 as significant in their eschatology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarian & authoritarianism

·Maunus·ƛ· said:

"Holden does not say that authoritarianism is bad or compare it to fascism - he just describes how the social organization functions. And fact is that witnessea are explicitly told through all of the literature of the watchtower corporation to obey the leaders because they are put in their places by Jehovah - children must obey their parents, wives their husband, men their congregation elders, the elders the supervisors, the supervisors the governing body etc. This is not a bad or a strange thing, it is natural that some organizations are hierarchically and authoritarian in their structure - an authoritarian is the neutral word to describe such structures in sociological literature and say NOTHING at all about Holden's own preferences."

But:

  1. Is the term "authoritarian" a colourless sociological term?
  2. What are the connotations attached to the term?
  3. In which context is the term used by current reference works?

Let's see the use of the term at such sources and then you can make your comments:

>> The block of sources has been moved here. -- pvasiliadis  09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This ponderous list of quotes doesn't really address the issue. LTSally provided several sources that consider JWs to be 'authoritarian', yet Holden is here singled out, and his particular usage is retorted with a stack of definitions that aren't necessary to read in their entirety. If the sources say JWs are authoritarian, the quote should be allowed to stand, with any necessary qualification of the context of 'authoritarian' supplied in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I put 3 questions concerning the sociological use of the terms "authoritarian" and "authoritarianism". Please, be specific in answering. -- pvasiliadis  11:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The proposal by Maunus above removes the word "authoritarian" from the article at that point. If there is agreement that this is acceptable, your questions and lengthy posting are rendered obsolete. LTSally (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You could have merely used this part of the quote: "If they obey because they believe they should, they are responding to authority. Authority is that subtype of power that is accepted as legitimate. Max Weber distinguished three different types of authority. Traditional authority involves an appeal to custom and ancient practice. Legal rational authority involves obedience to formal rules, which have been established by proper procedure" Which shows exactly why JW are authoritarian in a sociological sense of the word. But yes as LTSally says - you could have just adressed my proposal instead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I do agree with removing the term "authoritarian" from the lead section. But it is also important to become clear that these terms carry heavily negative sociological (and not exclusively) connotations and are usually used for disgraceful political regimes. If this will become obvious concerning the use of such defamatory labels in the article, the list of quotes will have accomplished its object. -- pvasiliadis  12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Answering your questions: The context is sociology - the study of different kinds of social organizations. I imagine that what you object to is how the word authoritarian seemingly links JW with fascism and totalitarian ideologies - but you must understand that when sociologists characterize these kinds of organizations they also do not judge them. Its use is not negative in it self - you feel it to be negative because you personally object to one or more of the ideologies that are also called by that term. You think that fascism is bad and don't like seeing JW mentioned in connection with it - but sociologist establish neutral criteria for classifying diiferent kinds of social organizations - it is not their fault that JW like fascism strongly stresses the aspect of obedience to the given authorities. But JW and fascism aren't the only authoritarian organizations and I am sure that you can find other organizations that you sympatize more with that are also within the sociological definition of authoritarian.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me say it in other words: if I presented 2 or 3 sociological surveys/studies that claim that Roman Catholic church is authoritarian, would you put it in the lead section of the corresponidng article? If I found 2 or 3 sociological surveys/studies that claim that the administration of China is authoritarian, would you include it in the lead section of the article? At least, would you create in the article "four subsections" for such an 'important controversy surrounding' Roman Catholicism or Chinese government? -- pvasiliadis  13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the lead of "People's republic of China states that it is a constitutional dictatorship. I don' think you can find two reliable sources calling the catholic church of the twentyfirst century authoritarian but you are welcome to try. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not - Jehovah's witnesses is knnown to the outside world for their policy of congregational purity and it has attracted attention from many sides - JW is also controversial for other reasons which is why there IS a section of controversies with four subsections already in the article! just like the PRC article has section on (lack of) civil rights. And according to WP:LEAD if it has a section it must be represented in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to give a quick answer, because it is very late here in Greece and propably PVasiliadis is sleeping and dreaming now. Dear Maunus, since you want two I brougth only two examples:
One of the elements of the limited, pluralistic character of Franco's authoritarian regime is the considerable set of powers and social functions assigned to the Catholic Church. A series of agreements, culminating in the Concordat, gave public and juridical recognition to the Church's role in the regime. […] It can be said, however, that the greater part of the organized Church willingly cooperated with the Franco forces during the war and that, as an institution, it became a bulwark of the regime that emerged from the conflict. The victory of Franco and, by implication, the contribution of the Spanish Church to that victory, were sanctified by Pope Pius XII with these words: "Raising our hearts to God, we give sincere thanks to Your Excellency for the victory of Catholic Spain".—E. J. HEUBEL , “CHURCH AND STATE IN SPAIN: TRANSITION TOWARD INDEPENDENCE AND LIBERTY”, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), p. 125-127.
In some ways, though, the Austrian educational reform differed significantly from the Nazi and Fascist programs, since the clerico-fascists made Catholicism a cornerstone of their ideology. The Catholic church bolstered the authoritarian state because it taught unquestioning faith and obedience to a great cause. Emphasizing universal Christian prin- ciples, however, the clerico-fascist ideology rejected the social Darwinism and glorification of violence that characterized other "fascist" move- ments. The clerico-fascists did introduce militarist elements into public education, but they did not propagate theories of racial superiority or programs of military conquest. In addition, the use of hypernationalism as the basis for loyalty to the state posed special problems for the Austrian government. While other fascist movements were able to build on an already existing national sentiment, the clerico-fascists found that they had to create this sentiment.— Carla Esden-Tempska, History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), 189, 190.
Since the involvement of Papacy in political scandals and dictatorships is vast, I believe that I can bring hundreds of such statements. So, when I say that Holden's parallelism between JWs and the Papacy is ridiculous and stupid, I know very well what I am saying, and every sincere person that knows history understands what I mean. And I also know very well what I say when I insist that if we want to deal with all the religious articles of Wikipedia on the same conditions and terms, there are things that have to change. For I believe that as things are now, some "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel" (New American Bible).--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


It would be very considerate if whoever put that ginormous block of text at the beginning of this section please move it to their personal Talk page, replacing it with a Wiki here. Please? I've resolved to do better myself about lengthy comments here at article Talk.
It seems odd that sociology has become the end-all be-all for some of those interested in this article. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier today in another thread...
A Wikipedia article is not a sociology textbook. Frankly, it seems odd to insist upon so much "sociological" commentary in a main article on a religious denomination. Do most Wikipedia main articles on religious denominations explore a sociological analysis of its adherents? Shouldn't that be relegated to a new article such as Jehovah's Witnesses sociology? That would placate the professional and amateur sociologists without needlessly complicating things for the hoi paloi (that is, most of us).
A typical Wikipedia reader connotes "authoritarian" with despotic totalitarianism. If certain editors feel that the word "authoritarian" is indispensable and scientifically defensible, I'll suggest the reasonably modified term: "sociologically authoritarian". Or maybe just keep the word "authoritarian" in quotes all the time.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC), guessing about 160 words in this comment
AuthorityTam, researching a religion for purposes of presenting it is a sociological endeavor; hence how sociologist depict a religious group is relevant. If editors here do not look to the body of work already published by trained sociologists on the subject of a particular human social structure of religion when writing about that same religion, then what authoritative source should editors look to?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


The label of "authoritarian" is totally subjective. As Holden himself admits:

"In a modern secular world in which all manner of life options are available, the Witnesses stand out as calculating, conservative and authoritarian. The movement’s demand of unquestioning loyalty means that those who violate its moral or doctrinal code risk disfellowship. To the sceptical outsider, this is a movement that bears all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime".—Andrew Holden, "Doing Tolerance: How Jehovah's Witnesses Live with Unbelieving Relatives", published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster 2002.

So, it is from the standpoint of a liberal skeptic that JWs are called "authoritarian". On the other hand it is very interesting that in the arcticle of the New Catholic Encyclopedia about JWs we don't see such tedencies; even disfellowship is not even mentioned. Why? Because it would be rediculous for Catholics to call us "authoritarian" or "totalitarian". It self-evident that if Catholics had called us "totalitarian" because we keep biblical morals, then they would have invalidated themselves as a biblical religion.

The label of "authoritarian" is as subjective as the label "conservative". You see, for a sex liberal we are conservative, but for some Pentecostals who don't find acceptable their wifes to use make-up, we seem liberal. Which standpoint will Wikipedia take? Is it Wikipedia's role to take the standpoint of the anarchist, of the modernist, of the liberal or of the Taliban? I believe Wikipedia's role is not to take any standpoint. Subjective labels and characterisms must be avoided.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are playing tricks here - holden writes that to the skeptic outsider it has all characteristics of a Totalitarian regime - No one has argued that "Authoritarian" and "totalitarian regime" are freely interchangeable terms. And while of course what one classifies as "Authoritarian" is of course relative to ones own viewpoint there can be no denying that JW is relatively more authoritarian than most or any other Christian movement of comparable size, and this is what prompts the sociologists classification of the religion as authoritarian rather than their personal viewpoints. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
According to your point of view, , "there can be no denying that Roman Catholic Church [with her centralized authority and structure] is relatively more authoritarian than Hinduism". It is true, isn't it? Let's make a corresponding section at the Roman Catholic Church article. -- pvasiliadis  08:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I will point out that when Maunus writes "No one has argued that "Authoritarian" and "totalitarian regime" are freely interchangeable terms" this includes author Holden. That is, what is cited by Holden does not suggest Holden uses the terms interchangably or that his readers would understand these terms as interchangable.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Vassilis78, what term do you suggest to depict Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed? For most English speakers the term authoritarian captures the policy pretty well, and this is Holden’s point in his usage. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If the English speaker is atheist, possibly. If the English speaker is a devout Catholic, maybe not. Of course the issue at stake is not what you suggest in behalf of the average English speaker, but what Wikipedia stands for.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Again Vassilis78, what term do you suggest to depict Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Biblical and legal. And it is something made clear before the baptism. Whoever wants, he follows. Whoever doesn't like it, he doesn't follow. We don't force people to accept what we believe or to get baptized without knowing the responsibilities of being a Christian. But why should we try to find a term to characterise it? Isn't it better to describe it?--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Vassilis78, I'm not sure that you answered my question. If you do not see a term you would apply then how would you describe Watchtower’s doctrine of requiring members shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed, without just saying it in plain unwaxed language? We both know that Watchtower can change a doctrine overnight, hence it is false that people always have a choice prior to baptism. The active policy is authority over the membership. Watchtower sets doctrine and membership is restrained from openly voicing dissent under pain of organized communal shunning. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
AuthorityTam, who is insisting on the term "authoritarian"? I think I added the word to the article. I have twice now stated that the word can be removed if the issue of subjection to authority is discussed as per Maunus above. LTSally (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good question, LTSally! This seems like a good opportunity for folks to declare. Consider voting.
Yes, I insist that JWs be identified explicitly as "authoritarian" or
Maybe, if "authoritarian" is in an attributed quote or is well-defined within a specific sociological context or
No, the article should avoid terms like "authoritarian" altogether.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe for me! --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but not in the lead, and only if part of a quoted source supplying context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Question. How wise or practical is it for current editors to vote on whether particular words should or should not be used in an article when authoritative sources use those very words applied to the subject? Who are we to decide what word can or cannot be used? A word is no issue. How an editor strings a word in a sentence is the issue. Am I wrong? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Well Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and votes here have only the weight of a direction towards a later consensus - However it is perfectly fine if editors express their opinions about what is a good solution and if they wish to do that by colored text votes that is fine I suppose. However we should rather focus on the issue of HOW to present the fact about Jehovah's Witnesses being among the most authoritarian christian movements. I have suggested that we simply state what they do which is to "strongly encourage subordination to authority and discourage disobedience by exacting disciplinay actions for expressing beliefs or presenting behaviour that go against the established doctrines". Also notice that for me, LTSally and Marvin Shilmer such a use is already a compromise since we all apparently feel that "authoritarian" is a more concise way to describe the same semantic content. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about that: Jehovah’s Wintesses do not tolerate among their ranks the breaking of their basic biblical principles: these include robbery, murder, drunkenness, pre-marital sex, adultery, idolatry, spiritism or even the causing of divisions as regards doctrinal matters. Persons who insist in doing such things are disfellowshiped.--Vassilis78 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment “Causing of divisions” is Watchtower-speak. Such a presentation does not express in language the common person would understand that Watchtower’s doctrine requires members to shun a fellow member for openly sharing a dissenting view on a significant subject regardless of the veracity of the view expressed.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Tommorow we can find something better. I am going to sleep now. It's 3 a.m. here.--Vassilis78 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Marvin Shilmer said "“Causing of divisions” is Watchtower-speak". This is not true. The Bible (KJV) says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them". (Ro 16:17) It is Biblical-speak. If you'd like a more sophisticated term or an expression with expertise language we can discuss it further. -- pvasiliadis  10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is "watchtower speak" because it implicitly takes the JW viewpoint - plus it doesn't actually explain what it is.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The point is that “causing of divisions” is Watchtowerese in that the average reader has no idea that the mere act of publicly voicing a dissenting view is reacted to by Watchtower as “causing a division.” Developed societies embrace public voicing of dissent generally as a healthy thing; something that helps society grow and flourish; not as divisive. Society at large views divisive behavior as the valueless last resort of desperate whiners, whereas Watchtower’s doctrine disallows any public dissent no matter the veracity of the dissent. Society does not view well articulate and sound dissent as divisive; it views it as healthy, and certainly not in the same category as unfaithfulness to marriage, murder etc. So, again, how would you depict this without just coming out and stating it rather than waxing over it?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Repeating only that the apostle's Paul expression "causing of divisions" "takes the JW viewpoint" and "is Watchtowerese" does not explain anything.
  • Maunus, you say "it doesn't actually explain what it is". When you read the Bible what do you understand when you read: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them"? If you would prefer "dogmatic divisions" (as Paul also wrote), I would agree with you.
  • Marvin Shilmer, you understand as well that "the average reader" would have problem with the Bible terminology and not particularly with JWs' dogmas. Right? So, it is clear that the -according to you- "divisive" Bible practice has to do with the basic structure of the Christian dogma (Ro 16:17) and not with JWs especially. Who is the one that puts the "divisive voices" in the same position with " in the same category as unfaithfulness to marriage, murder etc"? The Bible or Jehovah's Witness? If you have not searched this subject alredy, I could go into more details: what the Bible says, what the Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox believe as dogma and what exactly is the practice of Jehovah's Witnesses. -- pvasiliadis  13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The problem occurs because the average person in developed society does not treat/view public sharing of a dissenting opinion by a member as divisiveness, whereas Watchtower teaching does treat/view public sharing of a dissenting opinion by a member as divisiveness. Hence the phrase “causing divisions” is peculiar in this context to Watchtower in relation to the developed world. This has already been explained and there is no reason to keep repeating it when it has not been refuted, or even disputed. In effect, the usage of “causing divisions” waxes over a reality by leveraging a phrase understood and applied one way by the general public that is applied very differently by Watchtower over its membership. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Marvin Shilmer said: "Hence the phrase “causing divisions” is peculiar in this context to Watchtower in relation to the developed world".
  • Jehovah's Witnesses do live in the developed world. The depreciation you try to impose against Jehovah's Witnesses by repeating "in relation to the developed world" is offensive. Anyone could say the same concerning Pope's dogma on using condoms. So, please, stay to the facts.
  • Whether you like it or not, the phrase "causing divisions" is found in the Bible. The handling of such conditions is also found in the Bible, it is a "Watchtower [sic!] teaching" as much it Biblical. -- pvasiliadis  14:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Of course Witnesses live in the developed world, and I have not suggested otherwise. But Witnesses also have language usage that means one thing to them and something else to the rest of the developed world. “Causing divisions” is one of those usages. Watchtower teaches it is “causing divisions” for a member to publicly offer a dissenting opinion on a significant teaching of its religion. The developed world does not view a member publicly offering a dissenting opinion on a significant issue as “causing division” (as divisive). Contrarily, as a general rule developed society sees this as a natural and healthy thing. You do not even address this disparity of usage and perspective. Why? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to confuse a religious Bible based practice with what happens generally in the secular societies. Please make this distinction in your mind: In all religious groups there are norms. Whoever wants to live in acceptance with them, he is free to do so; whoever does not want to do so, he is also free to become whatever he wants --an atheist, a Roman-Catholic, a Satanist or whatever. This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. If Pope says that using condom is a sin, it is just so for all the Roman Catholics. They can discuss for it 24 hours a day but this will not change. Even more, officialy if a Roman Catholic disagrees and rejects this norm, he puts himself out of the Church body and should be excommunicated. This is the situation for the 1 billion people of the Roman Catholic "developed world".
"Causing divisions" is a Biblical term and its meaning is standard for the Bible reasearchers of the Christian Church of the 1st century. You could search, also, at a theological dictionary the term "apostasy" to see what exactly meant for the Christians and how did they respond to it. I think you will surprised. -- pvasiliadis  20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This article is written for all readers to comprehend. Hence the language usage must be something that communicated to all readers. “Causing divisions” does not mean the same thing to the common person as it does under Watchtower doctrine, and apparently to you. The average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is an act “causing divisions”. I will not keep hammering this for your sake. Other editors around here seem to understand the problem with your preferential usage. As for Roman Catholics, I do not know a single one that feels they would face organized communal shunning for voicing a dissention opinion from the pope. Even among this population the notion that public voicing of dissent is “causing division” is absurd.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That "the average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is an act “causing divisions”" is your personal point of view. Please, discriminate for yourself and for the article's shake what is: a) an authorised and accepted religious practice exercised inside the cycle of its members, and b) a general, secular understanding of the rights that a person enjoys as a member of the society.
  • You said that, "as for Roman Catholics, I do not know a single one that feels they would face organized communal shunning for voicing a dissention opinion from the pope". This is not true. Officialy if the one who sins belongs to the laity then he is excommunicated and if he is a bishop/priest then he is also dethroned/deposed. (Have a look at the top-of-all Church rules of the Ecumenical Synods' decretals. These rules are steadily apply to the Roman-Catholics adherents of both "developed" and underdeveloped (sic!) world. See examples here: some reason for excommunication, priests excommunicated cases [1], excommunication for attempting sacred ordination of a woman) Of course, if you have one priest for 2,500 believers or the church members do not have any connection with the active body of the church, you cannot manage the excommunication according to the established church rules. You can imagine what would happen if the Catholic Church tried to bring into effect her own well established rule of excommunicating the church memmbers that commit/practice fornication! And what about the Roman Catholics who commit abortion? The Church cannon says: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." So, let's be more realistic and put aside the prejudiced trivia. -- pvasiliadis  06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It is not my personal point of view that the average person in the developed world would be aghast at the notion that publicly voicing a dissenting opinion is a “sin” of “causing divisions.” Judges issue dissenting views from the bench; they are not viewed as sinful or as “causing divisions.” Legislators caste dissenting votes in public sessions; they are not viewed as sinful or “causing divisions.” Individuals among Roman Catholics publicly express that birth control should be allowed; they are not treated as sinful or “causing divisions.” I could go on and on, by why? So far you have refused to listen or even respond to the point. “Causing divisions” is Watchtowerese for the “sin” of publicly voicing a dissenting opinion from some Watchtower doctrine. Average readers have no idea that such public voicing of a dissenting view is “causing division, let alone a “sin”. To them it is absurd. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Your statements about Roman Catholic excommunication are misleading (at best). Catholics are only shunned if excommunicated vitandi (for extreme violations such trying to kill the Pope or destroying Christian relics etc, and not at all since 1983). Most Catholics who are excommunicated are excommunicated sententiae which is "what would happen if the Catholic Church tried to bring into effect her own well established rule of excommunicating the church memmbers that commit/practice fornication!" Catholics who are excommunicated sententiae may not partake of the sacrament, but are not shunned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: "At best." Indeed! I could not agree more.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
For editors to do with as they please, the Oxford English dictionary attributes two short meanings. As an adjective it is used to mean “Favourable to the principle of authority as opposed to that of individual freedom.” As a noun it is used to mean “One who supports the principle of authority.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Concerning authoritarianism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
  • "Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church".
  • "This College [of Bishops] has supreme and full authority over the universal Church".
  • "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. [...] For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered".
  • "As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff".
Keeping in mind the sources that Vasilis78 presented showing that the Roman Catholic Church is called "authoritarian", we should include at the lead section of the Roman Catholic Church lemma that she is a strictly hierarchical and explicitly authoritarian organisation. Right? If not, we should not do the same here as well. -- pvasiliadis  13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Are you suggesting we need to achieve a consensus with editors working on the Roman Catholic Church article in order to make progress on the article about Jehovah’s Witnesses? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I just want to treat the article equally with the other of its kind and not maximize points with no reason, as I already explained in details. -- pvasiliadis  13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The argument of equality is invalid for several reasons: firstly articles are independent - because one article makes a mistake other related articles doesn't need to make it (this is described in the policy WP:OTHERSTUFF) secondly the roman catholic church and JW are different entities and the material that is important in relation to either is different. The leads reflect what is in the article body and the article body of RCC and JW is necessarily different so there is no basis on which to demand equal treatment.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
1. So, you say that the Roman Catholic Church article makes a mistake in this point? This would be interesting to say! 2. All the articles refer to different entities: different articles, different entities/subjects. But, yes, I "demand equal treatment""! This is the right thing for us/everyone to do. One measure, one set of rules for everything/everyone. -- pvasiliadis  14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps we should have this article’s introductory language state that Watchtower’s governing body of nine men holds supreme authority in the religion. This is something Roman Catholics quite easily admit of their own religion, that is that the pope is their supreme leader on earth. But unlike the pope, the governing body of Watchtower reacts to members publicly voicing dissent with organized communal shunning of the member. Does this suggests the governing body of Watchtower is, as a controlling authority, more aggressive than the pope? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (SAGE, 2002, p. 1512), "neither disassociation nor disfellowshipping [practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses] is shunning and both conform to practices in other religions". Apostates of the 1st-century Christianity turned against the body of the rest Christians, but this behaviour was according to freedom that Jesus taught and in accordance with the prototype that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. As apostle Peter points, "there were also false prophets among the people [of Israel], just as there will be false teachers among you [Christians]" who "will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1) According to apostle Jude these ones "have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion". (Jude 11)
As for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is obvious even to the naive that the smashing power of Pope today and all the previous centuries is incomparable in every possible way. Would you like to make a chart of comparisons? -- pvasiliadis  14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Watchtower’s own literature depicts as shunning the action taken toward disassociated or disfellowshipped members. Are you unaware of this? Do you disagree with this assessment by Watchtower? As for the rest of your statements, who exactly says publicly offering a dissenting opinion of a particular teaching of Watchtower constitutes “apostasy” or “false prophecy,” that is other than Watchtower? The rest of the developed world does not view the public offering of a dissenting view as either, or as divisive. So what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I presented a sociological source that explains that disfellowshipping is not "shunning" with the general meaning of the term. There are many kinds of social shunning, but "disfelloshipping" does not fall into that sociological category. Sources mention that the official "excommunication" of mainstream Christianities has the same characeristics with the "disfellowshipping" of Jehovah's Witnesses. The real difference is that the latter can manage to successfully impose these sanctions. -- pvasiliadis  20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: You did not answer the question. Watchtower depicts the effect of disfellowshipping as shunning. Do you disagree with this depiction by Watchtower? If not, then what is your point? When Watchtower uses the term “shun” and “shunning” do you think it is making some unique usage of the term? If no, then again what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am personally in agreement with this suggestion and would like to see a mention of the supreme authority of the governing body introduced in the lead. Something like "The Governing Body of 9 men hold supreme authority on all matters of doctrine and biblical interpretation " ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If we added "according to the Biblical standard of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem", I would really aggree with this proposal. -- pvasiliadis  14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That addition doesn't really make sense and if anything it is watchtower speak and implies explicitly the jw viewpoint. However I think we could add a comment about how WTS explains the governing body's biblical basis in the article BODY but not in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It really makes sense. It is incomparably different the power that Pope exerts in comparison with the Governing Body (GB) of JWs: either in quality or quantity. If it is rational to put at the lead of Roman Catholic Church article the notion that Pope/Papacy has his/its own country, soldiers, banks, etc it would be logical to do the same here with GB. We will put down comparatively the whole range of information. -- pvasiliadis  14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Do you disagree that Watchtower’s governing body holds supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? If not then what is your point? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
All Christian denominations hold that their doctrines and policies are based on the Bible. But all of them, a) have their own interpretation of the Bible and b) have an hierarchical administration/decision-making system locally and universally.
So, I would say that comparativelly the Pope authority exerts a much greater power compared to that of Jehovah's Witnesses' GB. The status of infallibility that Pope enjoys is ex vi termnini an authoritarian one. Jehovah's Witnesses' GB does not hold such kind of secular and religious power over millions of people. The Governing Body is not imposed to anyone --as Pope (or Dalai Lama) is not imposed to Hinduists but is the head of his Church-- and as a result it does not exercise any kind of "authoritarianism". For Jehovah's Witnesses, the Governing Body is a central body of faithful elders who is accepted willifully by them as an authorised administering co-ordinator of all the congregations worldwide. Nothing more or nothing else than this. -- pvasiliadis  20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Here is the question again: Do you disagree that Watchtower’s governing body holds supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? If not then what is your point? No one here suggests that the governing body and the pope are identical. The statement you keep stammering around only states that the governing body is the supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy. Either you agree with this or not. Which is it? If you disagree then how do you explain that the governing body teaches Witnesses to respond to it as though the voice of God? How do you explain disfellowshipping for publicly offering a dissenting opinion from the governing body, that is if it does not view itself as the supreme authority in the religion in terms of setting doctrine and policy? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I made clear of what I mean in details at my previous comment. I disagree using the term "authoritarian" (furthermore, this is the subject of this section) for describing the religious activity of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. This assessing adjective would be extravagant and misleading to the readers. Pope is considered as "the voice of God" on earth. So what? I do not see to have been included at the lead of the Roman Catholic Church article such subjective judgements! -- pvasiliadis  06:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I am talking about your wording which doesn't make sense to anyone who is not a witness. E.g. "the biblical standard" assumes that one believes that there is such a standard. and "of apostles and elders in Jerusalem" doesn't provide lay readers with any information about the nature of the authority of the governing body.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Discussion of the lead paragraph is being conducted at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Lead sandbox

Separateness

Is it my imagination or does this section give impression of isolationism. Witnesses are not isolationists. Anyone have suggestions to improve this?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The section Jehovah's_Witnesses#Separateness seems relatively free of inaccuracies (at the moment), but much of the wording is awkward. Here's a sentence which seems redundant: "[Witnesses] do not serve in the armed services and refuse national military service". However, it seems better to first focus on sections and articles which have factual errors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The current presentation includes the sentence:

“They do not salute or pledge allegiance to the flag or sing national anthems and patriotic songs and demand high standards of morality within their ranks.”

This makes it sound as though Witnesses are unwilling to pledge allegiance to national governments, and this is not the case. Witnesses can pledge allegiance to national governments, and have done so. I believe it would be more appropriate for an editor other than myself to clear up this language so it does not mislead readers by implication.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can they? But isn't that allegiance only valid untill the government tells them to violate a WTS principle?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Though I think it not widely known, and though Watchtower has arguably published conflicting statements on the issue, apparently Witnesses can pledge, for example, the national oath of allegiance to the United States government because many of them have done so, including Watchtower presidents and other high ranking members. How these viewed or may explain their pledges is for them to say. How the United States government and the rest of society views the taking of this national oath of allegiance is pretty well understood by the fact that it is the same oath of national allegiance taken by officers in the armed forces. But because I have written on the subject by sharing information of some then unpublished documentation, I think it better for other editors to address this issue.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, JWs never pledge allegiance to a flag, because of their understanding of idolatry. The matter is quite clearcut for symbols and icons.
However, for example, an immigrant JW applying for citizenship may pledge explicitly relative allegiance to a legitimate secular government (which he considers to be a god-authorized "superior power") if his conscience allows it. Despite the formal oath's language, in the USA at least, the government routinely allows the oath taker to make his particular oath explicitly subject to his allegiance to God a Supreme Being. That's not even a JW-specific thing. In the past, some who had conscientiously and pointedly altered the "standard" oath before pledging later learned that a bored/lazy/disagreeable clerk incorrectly documented that the "standard" oath had been accepted (though it had not been). That doesn't happen much any more, and when it does the matter is well understood to have been a clerical error.
In addition to citizenship, certain nonmilitary government jobs require a similar oath (and allow a similar exception), and such oaths may or may not be allowed by the conscience of an individual.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I have not suggested anything in relation to pledging allegiance to any flag. I have suggested a false impression cause by the current presentation in the article. In terms of separateness, the current presentation suggests Witnesses are unwilling to pledge allegiance to, for example, the United States government, and that is not the case. Witnesses can and have pledged allegiance to the United States government. Any false impression is only exacerbated by Watchtower having published conflicting statements in relation to Witnesses pledging the national oath of allegiance to the government. As for immigrants, when presented to take their oath for citizenship they can modify the language in respect to bearing arms, but I am unaware that the pledge of allegiance to the government can be altered. Naturalized citizens must “bear true faith and allegiance to the United States.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Apparently it is not so “quite clear cut” that saluting a national flag is idolatry. Though members of other religions thought it a problem, prior to the mid-30s Witnesses held no common aversion to pledging allegiance to the flag. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The matter had seemed sufficiently straightforward as presented, but I tucked in the word "highest", so that the sentence now reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe their highest allegiance belongs to God's Kingdom..."
I'm not sure if my additional comments will further this thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I do not disagree with your edit, but it fails to address the sentence in question (that I qouted above in this Talk Page section), and it fails to remove the false implication that Witnesses do not pledge allegiance to national governments. Because the average person sees pledging allegiance to the flag as pledging allegiance to the nation government it represents then the current language is Watchtower jargon and it misleads readers. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a subsection on "Allegiance"? Among us editors, if only a handful (or one) is dissatisfied, it makes sense for that handful (or one) to propose something tangible.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, suggest something Marvin - then it'll be easier to adress the problem you see.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pledging Allegiance to Flag vs Pledging Allegiance to a Government

Average citizens view pledging allegiance to a national flag very differently than Witnesses are taught to view it. Witnesses are taught to view this as an act of idolatry. Average citizens are taught pledging allegiance to a national flag is no more and no less than pledging allegiance to their national government. Hence to say Witnesses do not pledge allegiance to flags conveys to the general citizenry that Witnesses do not pledge allegiance to national governments. Since the latter is false then the former must be articulated so it does not imply the latter. Frankly, the only practical way I see of accomplishing this is to say both. That is to say while Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance to flags they do not refuse to pledge allegiance to national governments as a matter of official doctrine.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying I believe readers understand it is the flag ceremony which Witnesses avoid.
Anyway... The simplest solution is to change the sentence from "pledge allegiance" to "salute", such as:
"They do not salute or pledge allegiance to flags or sing national anthems and patriotic songs." In other words, keep only
"They do not salute flags or sing national anthems and patriotic songs." --AuthorityTam (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: No. Readers do not understand it is a flag ceremony that Witnesses avoid. Witnesses do not avoid the ceremony. They avoid engaging in the ceremony of saluting the flag because they are taught it is idolatry. How many non-Witnesses do you know that teach their children they are engaging in idolatry when they salute the flag? I don't know of a single one that teaches anything to this effect.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) <-- This signature copied from below to distinguish from next editor
Respectfully, I disagree on several points.
A typical Wikipedia reader can understand that one might refuse to participate in a flag ceremony but still pledge to obey laws.
Witnesses do avoid flag ceremonies when it is convenient to do so.
Among JWs, every parent who uses JW pubs for family study would teach his child to connect the flag salute with idolatry.
Consider their publication "Learn From the Great Teacher" (page 146), intended for children...
"Even today men set up images, or idols, for worship. The Encyclopedia Americana says: “The flag, like the cross, is sacred.” Images can be made of wood, stone, metal, or cloth. Early disciples of Jesus would not do an act of worship to the Roman emperor, which the historian Daniel P. Mannix said could be compared with “refusing to salute the flag or repeat the oath of allegiance.” So do you think it makes a difference to God if a religious image is made out of cloth, wood, stone, or metal?— Would it be right for a servant of Jehovah to do an act of worship before such an image?— Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego wouldn’t do it, and Jehovah was pleased with them. How can you copy their example?— Those who serve Jehovah cannot worship any other person or thing."
By contrast, Witness parents teach their children to obey the government and its representatives, in a manner relative to God.--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Note that Daniel P. Mannix said an act of worship to the Roman emperor could be compared with “refusing to salute the flag OR repeat the oath of allegiance.”--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: 1) From the perspective of readers to pledge the national oath if far more than simply pledging to obey laws. Obedience and loyalty are related but distinct. Pledging an oath of allegiance is a pledge of loyalty from the perspective of society in general, and this is the readership of this entry. Hence the distinction you draw between saluting a flag and pledging to obey laws is misplaced. The pledge is not to obey. The pledge is to give allegiance. Allegiance requires obedience, but obedience does not require allegiance. The distinction you attempt is without relevance. 2) As Jeffro has forced upon me, this article is not about what some Witnesses do. It is about official policy. Official policy neither encourages nor discourages being present for the ceremony of saluting a flag. That some do avoid this ceremony is purely personal preference. If that were an issue then mentioning it would be appropriate. But that is not the issue. 3) No one has suggested that Witnesses do anything other than teach as you say. The point is this is not how the average reader understands saluting the flag. The average parent teaches their child that to salute the flag is equivalent to pledging allegiance to the national government, the country.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather, these parents teach their children that to salute the flag is to pledge allegiance to their country, their national government. This is what the flag salute means to the average everyday reader, and Witnesses can and do pledge allegiance to national governments. Hence to say "We do not salute the flag" is to communicate "We do not pledge allegiance to our national government." Since the latter is false then the former miscommunicates for a non-religoius encyclopedic entry.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) <--This signature copied from below to distinguish from next paragraph
How about this statement: "They refuse compulsory flag salutes, singing national anthems and patriotic songs, but some are willing to pledge allegiance to national governments aside from ceremonial flag salutes."
The wording is good but I think it is an unnecessary degree of detail - couldn't we say it in a more general way?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Make a suggestion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Complicating factors isolated to show why the miscommunication based on terms:

Witnesses are taught: Saluting a flag is idolatry. Society understands: Saluting a flag is not idolatry.

Witnesses are taught: Saluting a flag is idolatry. Society understands: Saluting a flag is pledging allegiance to the country.

Hence: To say Witnesses do not salute the flag is understood to mean Witnesses do not pledge allegiance to the country. This is a miscommunication because of different understandings of the same term.

Editor AuthorityTam asserts: To pledge allegiance to the country is to pledge to obey laws. Society understand: To pledge allegiance to the country is to pledge loyalty to that country’s government.

Hence: When a Witness pledges allegiance to the United States it is understood by society to mean this Witness has pledged loyalty to the United States just like everyone else who takes the same oath. As a matter of black-letter law the pledge of national allegiance carries the same import and force for one oath-taker as it does the next. The national pledge of allegiance has a single significance for everyone who takes it, so far as society is concerned and understands. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal Standards vs External Association

What does maintaining a high standard of morality amongst themselves have to do with seperateness from others? I do not see how Witnesses' standard of morality is relevant to whatever seperateness they have from others.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely in their own self image it is relevant, but that is of course not what we want the article to convey.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I agree, as a matter of self-image. As you say, this is not what an encyclopedic entry is for. If the reason this statement is in this section is because Witnesses believe their standards are more righteous than anyone and everyone else's standards then it is no more than self-promotion to have it stated as it is in the article. As it reads to the general public the statement makes no sense in its current form.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It is valid to state that JWs avoid socializing with others because they believe it protects them from a lower moral standard, but it is not neutral to state that JW's moral standards are better.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I believe my last edit on this point conveys our agreement. If not please discussion further.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Community Issues

Watchtower of March 1, 1983 asks, “…how should we act with regard to community issues or social concerns, such as environmental conservation?” In reply the article states, “Understandably, Christians today realize that there are things that might presently make life better for them and for people around them. They are not callous to human needs; rather, they appreciate and cultivate “human kindness.” (Compare Acts 28:2, 7-9; Mark 7:24-30.) This may influence their course when certain issues come up involving community improvements. For example, people in a neighborhood may be asked to express their opinion about the need for more street lights or signs, new schools or better water supply and sewage facilities. There would generally be no harm in a Christian’s expressing his opinion about such improvements. He might even feel that he could sign a request, or petition, for such.”

The above is a positive statement coming from Watchtower. It does not cast a negative light on engaging community issues that are non-political (see rest of article). It admits Witnesses may indeed be compelled to engage certain issues in their community that “might presently make life better for them and for people around them.” Why should this community engagement not be recognized in a section addressing Witnesses separation from society around them?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement added to the article, as individuals they may engage community improvement issues., referencing Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, March 1, 1983, p. 30, is not well supported by that reference. Though the article suggests that JWs might 'offer an opinion' or 'sign a petition', it is weighted against getting involved in such projects.

There are some issues that may not yet be political where we live, or that people in the area work for without using politics. Curbing pollution, conserving water and mineral resources or protecting wilderness areas might be matters of that sort. One might see good in these undertakings and feel that God would too. Yet we must not forget what work Jehovah has commissioned Christians to concentrate on: The spreading of the good news of the Kingdom... ... those human efforts cannot have as widespread and lasting good results as can the helping of people to develop godly devotion ... we can do the most good by helping people to become genuine Christians. ... The benefits they receive will be much more reliable than what might be realized from social or community endeavors. ... our taking care not to be diverted from the work that God has assigned us will display our obedience to Jehovah...

— Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, March 1, 1983, p. 30
In the same manner that some individual JWs might accept a blood transfusion, pledge allegience, celebrate Christmas, or smoke cigarettes, the involvement of individual JWs in such community efforts is not endorsed by the religion, and should not be presented in an encyclopedic article about the religion itself as though it had such endorsement.
In general, please note that this article is not for promoting social reforms by Jehovah's Witnesses within the JW community that counter the religions official positions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Stating "it is weighted against getting involved in such projects" is purely your opinion. Aside from community issues with political over or undertones or that are likely to become political, the article presents no objection or suggestion against Witnesses engaging community issues. Hence we find local Witnesses working with school systems in all sorts of ways to improve facilities and programs for children; we find Witnesses engaged in various prpofessional and trade associations working to improve construction and ethic standards; we find Witnesses engaged in publishing literature aimed at improving life and health for everyone. Why would anyone want to deny this community engagement by Witnesses?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Activities of individuals that is ancillary to their status as JWs is not representative of the JW religion. If a congregation gets involved in a broader community effort, or a body of elders endorses such activity, it would be a different situation. This would not include things like labelling preaching to prisoners as a 'rehabilitation programme'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It is nothing resembling statements that some Witnesses accept blood et al, because engaging community issues that are non-political is not forbidden under Watchtower doctrine.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Knitting is also not forbidden by 'Watchtower doctrine', but that does not make knitting representative of JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The extent Witness defy official prohibitions potentially evidences an extent that Witnesses do not wholly accept an official position. But the extent Witnesses engage social activities that are not forbidden evidences an extent Witnesses are integrated with society. What behavior suggests or does not suggest must be kept relevant and valid.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Stating that JWs are allowed to do something does not indicate that it is typical of JWs. The main article should stick to points that are representative of the religion. That JWs live and work among the rest of society is representative of the group, but JWs getting involved in broader community issues is not, and should be omitted from the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: My last edit made the very distinction you make. I.e., though Witnesses are not known for social engagement they are nevertheless engaged in social issues on an individual basis so long as these are non-political and unlikely to become controversial. This section addresses whatever is Witnesses’ separation from society. The extent of separation includes the extent of integration. One cannot be addressed outside context of the other if we are to maintain an accurate and balanced picture.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I am not trying to promote social reforms or counter official positions. I am trying to add balance to a section that makes Witnesses look like isolationists because it treats social “separateness” without addressing social integration. To the extent Witnesses are integrated with general society this section should not suggest otherwise.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that JWs should not be presented as isolationists, which I've previously stated. However, it is not accurate to say they do this by getting involved in community activities, or that the religion officially endorses such behaviour; indeed the QfR article pointedly states that preaching is preferable to such community endeavours. It should be made clear that JWs live and work among others in the community though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The point is they do more than just live and work among others in the community. It is a myth to say otherwise. Witnesses are far more integrated with society than this article has implied. It has spoken about things Witnesses do not do without consideration of what they do. I am a professional, and I belong to quite a few organizations that write Standards for the improvement of society in general. Among my peers are quite a few Witnesses. We are not paid for this. It is volunteer work. Though our numbers are not significant, they are commensurate with the population of Witnesses vs society in general. I am also a parent and grandparent. As such I have been and remain actively engaged with improving facilities and programs for the school systems of my children/grandchildren. As a Witness I am not alone in these efforts. I could go on about social integrations, but the point should be sufficiently made by now. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Your status as a Witness who engages in community activities does not make such activities typical of JWs, nor does it indicate endorsement of such activities by the religion. Though it may be admirable that you, as a JW, advocate various reforms in JW attitudes, such as their views on blood transfusions and co-operation in broader community-based social improvements, this does not indicate any official position of or endorsement by the JW religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The section in question is to address whatever is the separateness Witnesses have from society in general. It is imbalanced to present specific social separations without admitting whatever are the social integrations when the section addresses the overall separation. Because this section has historically avoided Witnesses’ integration with society it then makes Witnesses look like isolationists by omission of information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the new wording, but I'll wait for other editors to comment after consideration of this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Separateness section needs to explain the Pagan connection to holidays and such a bit better. I think this topic was better served under it's own section. OK, regarding the comment being discussed in this chain, the statement being adding about community involvement asserts non-notability, which is fundamentally inappropriate per WP that demands notability. I actually find the statement to a little ironic in light of this. I would agree with Jeffro regarding its removal, unless it can be based on some notable fact. Perhaps this statement can be tied to JW disaster relief efforts (if those can be shown to support non-JW's)? — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 18:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe my input on this aspect of the section is sufficiently voiced. Editors can make of my concerns and comments what they will, and then edit as they please. If not agreed to, I trust my concerns have been considered .--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've remove the non-notability assertion, but left the fact in. I would still question the notability of this, but I understand why it has been added. Perhaps it can be replaced with a more notable fact at some later date. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Blood

Individual JWs may have doubts or disagreements about any doctrine of JWs (being the interpretations of their GB). Specific elaboration on individual topics, such as their blood doctrine is not necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You undid an edit characterizing it as an unnecessary elaboration. How is it elaboration to clear up a false implication and make a statement more succinct at the same time? Do you believe my edit presented false information or impression?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Specifically stating the position as that of the Governing Body, in contrast to not stating the same for other beliefs of JWs (and in view of the fact that this is broadly indicated in the lead) lends undue weight to the position on blood transfusions. If there are more specific issues about the positions on blood, they belong in the article, Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, not here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Then we will remove the statement and leave the fact that Witnesses are directed to refuse blood transfusions. Based on the broad indication you suggest, where precisely this directive comes from should be evident to the reader.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The current section on blood states: “Jehovah's Witnesses are directed to refuse blood transfusions, based on their understanding of how the Bible says blood should be treated.”
That sentence says the directive to refuse blood is based on the understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses hold about what the Bible says, as though the community of Witnesses birthed and grew the teaching. In terms of the official position of the religion, the membership of Witnesses had/have no say in this matter. Rather it is the Governing Body’s understanding of the Bible that resulted in this official position regardless of how Jehovah’s Witnesses feel individually or collectively. In 1961 when Watchtower increased the strictness of how it imposed its teaching on blood the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses had no say in the matter. It was determined solely by the then Governing Body. The article’s presentation I question gives impression that this doctrinal position is based on the belief of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that is not the case.
I believe the sentence quoted should be restated as:
“Jehovah's Witnesses are directed to refuse blood transfusions, based on the Governing Body's understanding of what the Bible says about blood.”
Does other editors find this inaccurate? If so, how? Does other editors find this too elaborate in relation to the current presentation? If so, how? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you are proposing that every belief about JWs is explicitly indicated as being the Governing Body's interpretation in each case, the proposed wording is not a balanced perspective. All JW doctrines are specified by the GB, and can be changed at their whim, and their positions on blood are no different. The proposed lead already indicates that the Governing Body has authority over doctrine and that objecting to such rules may attract 'discipline'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I would argue for language as you suggest only when two things occur: 1) An implication is made that a whole community has a say when that is not the case and 2) when it is demonstrably the case that among that community there is significant divergence on the particular issue. In this case we have both.
Alternately the sentence in question could read: “Jehovah's Witnesses are directed to refuse blood transfusions.” And leave it at that. Your view?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be preferable to a statement of undue weight in this article (in contrast to the presentation of other JW doctrines). If there is a "significant divergence" on the issue within the JW community, this should be discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, and probably also at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In this context there seems little reason to argue with “Jehovah's Witnesses are directed to refuse blood transfusions.”
There's more information at the
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
Incidentally, of course, there are legal reasons why JW publications do not explicity "direct" or "instruct" anyone to refuse blood.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think "instructed" is probably more accurate than "directed". It more accurately implies that reasons are given.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider the verbs "encouraged to...", "exhorted to...", "taught to..." or consider getting rid of the passive voice altogether and try "Watchtower publications encourage JWs to...", "WT exhort JWs to..." or "WT publications teach that..." --Rudy Waltz (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About defection

The small paragraph about defection is very inflammatory. It describes the witnesses in a negative light and the finishing statement about witnesses only stay because they would lose their status is an outright lie not to mention is paints all witnesses as weak, mindless, courage. It is not written in a neutral pov. I also find some of the references as either misquoted, or outright wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.178.22 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't believe the section to be untrue, I agree that it is given unnecessary prominence in the article, as it is not a central belief like the other entries in the Beliefs section. This content belongs under criticism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then were is the criticism page? And let me get this straight you think the defection page is true about JW's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.178.22 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in a tedious debate about non-specifics. If you believe the article to contain untrue content, state your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the defection section.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.178.22 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_46&oldid=1136267695"