Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 49
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
undue weight?!
If wikipedia has articles about JW activities in particular countries then of course hey should be linked to from the main article. This has nothing to do with undue weight - it has to do with making a functional encyclopedia where information can be found.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there were several of such articles about JWs in particular countries that would be true, but Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Nigeria have no special significance in relation to their activities in other countries. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Nigeria.
Flat Earth
I read in an article in TIME magazine that that a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Earth is flat. Someone who knows about/believes this should add this information to, to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.84.40 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
this is untrue the bible talks about the earth being round before and worldly philosopher or scientist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.154.114 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um. Thanks for your irrelevant subjective interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Revelations
Edits have been made recently to the sentence under "Beliefs" that reads: "The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received direct revelations through Christ and the angels." It's claimed the sentence (or a slightly modified version of it) was biased and innacurate. I have now included eight separate sources to support the claim. As far as I know religions such as the Church of England arrive at doctrines through discussion at annual synods. The Watch Tower Society, by contrast, claims that God reveals truths (which sometimes turn out to be not true, so are changed again) through angelic messengers and flashes of light. This claim is made in such statements as:
- Life Everlasting in the Sons of Truth (1966): "...There occurred on May 31, 1933, a revelation of truth concerning these 'other sheep'. It was that the 'great crowd', seen in vision by the apostle John nineteen centuries ago and described in Revelation 7:9-17, was to be made up of the 'other sheep' whose calling is to everlasting life in a global paradise here on our earth."
- The Watchtower, May 15, 1986, page 13 (after discussing how God spoke with Noah and Adam: "In 1932 ... Jehovah revealed that the prophecies related to the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem did not refer to fleshly Israel, which had long since proved unfaithful and been cast off, but rather to spiritual Israel, the Christian congregation."
- The Watchtower, May 15, 1995: "Particularly since 1919 have Jehovah’s servants been blessed with increasing flashes of light. What a bright flash of light shone at the 1922 Cedar Point convention as J. F. Rutherford, the Watch Tower Society’s second president, drove home the point that the prime obligation of Jehovah’s servants is to 'advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom'! ... In 1926 another brilliant flash of light revealed that the war of Armageddon was not to be a social revolution, as Bible Students once thought ... In 1931 a bright flash of truth revealed to those Bible Students a fitting Scriptural name ... in 1932, a flash of light revealed that the restoration prophecies recorded by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets did not apply (as once thought) to the fleshly Jews."
- Light (1930), p. 61: "Surely the holy angels of the Jehovah God, who are under the command of Christ Jesus and accompany him at his temple as his deputies, are clothed with power to put questions in the minds of those on earth who are devoted to God. It is not necessary for us to know just how this is done, but there can be no doubt about the power of the deputies of the Lord."
- Light (1930), pg 63, 64: "It was at a convention at the same place in 1922 when ... a multitude of his followers shouted for joy in response to the announced slogan: 'Advertise the King and the Kingdom.' ... Surely the angels of the Lord were present at that convention and, although invisible to all human eyes, had the power to direct the course of the convention that it might carry out the purpose of Jehovah. ... The Lord used The Watch Tower to announce these truths. Doubltess he used his invisible deputies to have much to do with it. This is not what some may regard as spiritism, by any means, but it does mean that God in his own good way can direct his people without any audible communication with them."
- Preparation (1933), page 64, 67: "Enlightenment proceeds from Jehovah by and through Christ Jesus and is given to the faithful anointed on earth at the temple, and brings great peace and consolation to them. Again Zechariah talked with the angel of the Lord, which shows that the remnant are instructed by the angels of the Lord. The remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones ... Those of the remnant, being honest and true, must say, We do not know; and the Lord enlightens them, sending his angels for that very purpose."
- The Watchtower, February 1, 1935, p. 41, "Without a doubt the Lord uses his angels to cause the truth to be published in The Watchtower... Certainly God guides his covenant people by using the holy angels to convey his message to them."
- The Watchtower, September 1, 1930, p. 263, "It was the holy spirit that operated upon the minds of men in the early church to take certain action; but now the Lord Jesus himself has returned, is in his temple, and, acting by and through his holy angels, puts into the mind and heart of the remnant class to take positive action and to do a certain work." LTSally (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of these quotes clearly indicate that JWs do or did believe that 'angels' transmit God's 'truth' to JWs. Though the first three quotes may be of some value, I'm not sure they are of as much value as the rest. The first doesn't indicate a source of the alleged revelation, and could be inferred as simply revealed by Rutherford (et al); the second makes no suggestion of the method used; the third would be of more benefit if the main text actually mentions their concept of receiving 'flashes of light'. It would be preferable to stick to the most clear references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
LTSally, The question or issue was never whether Witnesses believe Angels assist them at times or lead them into correct beliefs. The Bible makes it clear that angels have reveled things in the past. See Rev 1:1 and Daniel 10:11,14. Daniel 12:4-9 makes it clear that some information in regards to the last days will be secret or unrevealed for some time. JW's have felt that God has continue to uses angles to some degree in helping them. However, this is not the issue, but whether there has been any claim of "direct revelations". At least two of the quotes indicate that there is 'not' direct contact or revelations and even highlight the opposite that there is 'No' "Audible" communication with angels as there was in the past! Even in their recent Watchtower it stated "since we now have the complete Word of God, angels may not need to convey divine messages." May 15, 2009. Thus it is incorrect to say "direct revelations". 1) They do not believe such is true. 2) There is no quote to support it Johanneum (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Replacing the words "has received direct revelations through Christ and the angels" to "has received help through Christ and the angels", however, fudges and clouds the issue. I have included statements above in which the Watch Tower Society has clearly, unequivocally, stated that angels have communicated information to members of the remnant and the organization. Doctrinal changes have apparently resulted from this contact with angels. Now, either the organization still believes this or it doesn't; if it doesn't, how should it deal with Rutherford's statement that it was the angels, not him, who came up with these ideas? Rutherford wrote: "It is not necessary for us to know just how this is done, but there can be no doubt about the power of the deputies of the Lord." (Light, pg. 62) My guess it that beyond his claim that doctrinal changes and positions came from angels, and therefore were beyond question or challenge, he didn't want to commit himself and go into detail because it left the whole concept up to too much scrutiny. However I think it's helpful for an encyclopedia to lay on the table what the organization has said. It said angels conveyed thoughts to the minds of individuals, and that angels, "invisible deputies", helped, for example, direct the 1922 convention at which Rutherford announced all his followers had a new work to do. The quotes from Life Everlasting and the May 15, 1995 WT speak very strongly and loudly of revelations, obviously of divine nature. New "truths" were revealed. The repeated use of the phrases "flash of light" and "flash of truth" and Rutherford's own reference to lightning flashes suggest sudden revelations from a supernatural (ie, angelic) source. As I said above, other churches are frank about how their doctrines are decided. This article can afford to be equally frank about what the Watch Tower Society has claimed about the source of its doctrines. LTSally (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be plenty of phrases that actually could be solidly sourced.
Why insist upon a phrase that cannot be solidly sourced, and which seems both contradictory with other sources and arguably nonneutral?
Insisting upon terms such as "direct" and "revelation" connotes something JWs pointedly do not believe about their metaphoric 'flashes of light'.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)- Agree. Unless a source actually states "direct" revelations, such wording should be avoided. The other cited sources indicate that JW literature has indeed claimed that angels "convey" and "put into the mind" their 'truths', so those sources are more reliable than drawing conclusions about what 'might' be considered 'direct'. It should be made clear that JWs previously made these claims; that said, it has only been said more recently that they (angels) 'may not need to' rather than 'don't' (convey divine thoughts), so it is only really correct to say JWs are more vague about it now rather than an entirely changed point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The phrase "direct, latter-day revelation" was included because it was the phrase used by Penton (p.165). I agree that the evidence supporting that is weak. The sentence now reads The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes of light" and "things revealed" through Christ and the angels. I'm not averse to such a sentence that more explicitly states the sources of doctrinal changes, but there's probably a better phrase than "things revealed". Possibly "angelic direction", which covers the involvement of angels and is a phrase commonly occurring in WT literature. It may be useful to add a sentence that a 2009 WT claims there is no "need" for angelic contact, if that was the subject of discussion. (It would be helpful if the WTS was more candid and precise about what it does mean and when it is reversing previous beliefs.) Please note that the term "progressive revelation" is widely used in WT literature to describe its doctrinal evolution. A quick search of the WT library shows this. LTSally (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Unless a source actually states "direct" revelations, such wording should be avoided. The other cited sources indicate that JW literature has indeed claimed that angels "convey" and "put into the mind" their 'truths', so those sources are more reliable than drawing conclusions about what 'might' be considered 'direct'. It should be made clear that JWs previously made these claims; that said, it has only been said more recently that they (angels) 'may not need to' rather than 'don't' (convey divine thoughts), so it is only really correct to say JWs are more vague about it now rather than an entirely changed point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be plenty of phrases that actually could be solidly sourced.
Describes/described
Consider the section's first sentence.
The last time their publications used the quoted term in connection with JW doctrine was 1975 (a 1981 use related to an unfolding of events rather than doctrine); thus JW don't seem to use the term currently. I changed the sentence from "...literature describes as..." to
- "Jehovah's Witnesses develop their doctrines through a process their literature has described as "progressive revelation".[1]
Someone undid that with the 'edit summary' comment "Concept of 'progressive revelation' still used. e.g. w07 12/1 p24". That ref is weak support, but for an uncontested point. The issue doesn't refer to a "concept" in that article sentence. The sentence refers to the descriptive term indicated by quotation marks in that sentence. If they haven't done so for 34 years, it hardly seems accurate to pretend that JW literature still uses the term in relation to doctrine. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're splitting hairs. The term is always used by them in reference to doctrine, and it is the concept that is being discussed. In any case, the exact phrase, "progressive revelation" appeared at least as recently as 1997 in The Watchtower, and in the 2007 Index in connection with the 2007 Watchtower reference previously mentioned in 'someone's' edit summary. Just because other articles may phrase the term slightly differently (e.g., "progressively revealed"), it does not at all mean that the term has been somehow 'abandoned' or even changed in the last 34 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam, are you suggesting the "progressive revelation" concept has been discredited and the WTS is offering a new term to describe the way doctrines are revealed and applied? If so, what is the new term or concept? And if not, there is no reason to suggest that it is a dated concept and thus should be used in the past tense. LTSally (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is my impression that the concept and ther term progressive revelation are both still used, by speakers and in discussions - at least it was three years ago when I did most of my fieldwork. I also remember a watchtower article describing the phenomenon although I don't remember if it used the precise term. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems best to be accurate in the body of an encyclopedia article, especially if the difference simply involves replacing "describes" with "has described". The first term ("describes") plainly implies recent and presumably ongoing activity, which in this case hasn't been true since 1975.
By contrast, the latter term ("has described") would be accurate even if JWs had used the doctrinal term as recently as one second ago.
Perhaps objecting editors mistakenly believed the replacement suggested was "formerly described"; that term (not suggested here in this thread) would imply a discontinuation in a way that "has described" does not.
If editors believe keeping the sentence in the present tense is a worthwhile goal in itself, their quotes should reflect terminology consistently with what JWs actually do continue to use; for example, a JW publication used the expression "progressively revealed" in connection with their doctrine as recently as 2007. Incidentally, an editor who truly believed the phrase "progressive revelation" to carry the same connotation as "progressively revealed" would have no problem substituting the latter term.
But...it's silly to deny that the term "revelation" has no connotation, and it's reasonable that JWs have in recent decades avoided using it to describe their doctrine.
Why pretend otherwise? Why the fixation on using that particular term and only in the present tense? It seems patently nonneutral.
If the term "progressive revelation" really and truly "is always used by them in reference to doctrine", it would seem simple to cite a few recent examples from JW publications (or at least one).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)- Hmmm, I don't think we need to use the term itself since it is more than anything JW jargon. But I think it is still correct to say that JW believe that the "truth" is becoming progressively revealed to them and that this is why doctrines can and do change. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam's answer doesn't clarify anything. I asked a simple question, which he doesn't answer. I think it's going to extremes to seek nuances in WTS language ("progressively revealed" instead of "progressive revelation") and insist that Wikipedia reflect those changes. They may not exist at all – the individuals who wrote those articles may have preferred to use a verb rather than a noun in those instances. If this Wikipedia article chooses, like Penton, to use a noun – progressive revelation – it is perfectly acceptable. Resorting to the old chestnut of "patently nonneutral" suggests a hypersensitivity over matters that are simply not offensive. LTSally (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam asks why we should use the present tense rather than the past tense. The past tense implies that it was something they once said, however the present tense indicates, correctly, that JWs continue to employ the concept in their teachings. The distinction is particularly important when discussing a group that changes many of its views over time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason to pretend that this editorial disagreement is theological; it's grammatical. There's three choices...
- 1. Use a term with which JW literature currently "describes" the concept
- 2. Use any term with which JW literature has described the concept, and note "has described"
- 3. Make it plain that the reference is not to the term itself, but to a concept rather than a quoted term
- I'm happy to fix this tomorrow if no one else has by then. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason to pretend that this editorial disagreement is theological; it's grammatical. There's three choices...
- AuthorityTam asks why we should use the present tense rather than the past tense. The past tense implies that it was something they once said, however the present tense indicates, correctly, that JWs continue to employ the concept in their teachings. The distinction is particularly important when discussing a group that changes many of its views over time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam's answer doesn't clarify anything. I asked a simple question, which he doesn't answer. I think it's going to extremes to seek nuances in WTS language ("progressively revealed" instead of "progressive revelation") and insist that Wikipedia reflect those changes. They may not exist at all – the individuals who wrote those articles may have preferred to use a verb rather than a noun in those instances. If this Wikipedia article chooses, like Penton, to use a noun – progressive revelation – it is perfectly acceptable. Resorting to the old chestnut of "patently nonneutral" suggests a hypersensitivity over matters that are simply not offensive. LTSally (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't think we need to use the term itself since it is more than anything JW jargon. But I think it is still correct to say that JW believe that the "truth" is becoming progressively revealed to them and that this is why doctrines can and do change. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems best to be accurate in the body of an encyclopedia article, especially if the difference simply involves replacing "describes" with "has described". The first term ("describes") plainly implies recent and presumably ongoing activity, which in this case hasn't been true since 1975.
- It is my impression that the concept and ther term progressive revelation are both still used, by speakers and in discussions - at least it was three years ago when I did most of my fieldwork. I also remember a watchtower article describing the phenomenon although I don't remember if it used the precise term. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam, are you suggesting the "progressive revelation" concept has been discredited and the WTS is offering a new term to describe the way doctrines are revealed and applied? If so, what is the new term or concept? And if not, there is no reason to suggest that it is a dated concept and thus should be used in the past tense. LTSally (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The current wording is plain enough and needs no further elaboration or "fixing". LTSally (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the sense suggested above , no printed material currently says anything once the briefest instant has elapsed after ink/toner meets paper. However, in any meaningful sense, the present tense is the most accurate, as it represents JW's current view. Regarding the third point, single quotes are sufficient for this distinction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I used the single quotes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the sense suggested above , no printed material currently says anything once the briefest instant has elapsed after ink/toner meets paper. However, in any meaningful sense, the present tense is the most accurate, as it represents JW's current view. Regarding the third point, single quotes are sufficient for this distinction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Quotation marksWikipedia punctuation style is for double quotes. Using single quotes at this point denotes nothing at all. Quotes are appropriate because the term is taken from a book (and WT literature), but possibly a better solution may be italics, as per Use–mention distinction. This is already in use at some JW articles when referring to distinctive titles. LTSally (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Use italics. If quotation marks are used, this topic will continue in an endless loop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I used the italics. --AuthorityTam (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Calls/called
JW literature hasn't applied the italicized term "progressive revelation" to JW doctrine since 1975 (see above thread). Thus, the phrase "has called progressive revelation" is more accurate than an imprecise alternative (such as an alternative which implies that the specific term is still used that way). Regarding this application of this specific term, JW's 'calling' is not present tense since such 'calling' ceased 34 years ago. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- JW literature still uses form of the expression 'progressive revelation', and it has not been replaced by some other concept. The italics offset the concept, not some exact quote from JW literature. Additionally, both the concept and the exact words have appeared more recently than the alleged 34 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. I asked the question some days ago about whether the term "progressive revelation" has been discredited or replaced. AuthorityTam chooses not to answer, but instead insists the article treat the term as it if is an historical or outdated phrase. And I still don't know why.LTSally (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems odd that editors would pretend their "is too" approach to be a useful answer to "is not".
- A better approach would be to actually cite and quote a recent example of their literature applying "the exact words" (that is, "progressive revelation") to JW doctrine. The last I've seen was in 1975, about 34 years ago. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeffro. The concept of progressive revelation is alive and well in Watchtower theology. The "new light" and "old light" trappings is precisely this concept.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me too.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
AuthorityTam continues to harp on about the term (allegedly) not being used since 1975. However, 1) we are addressing the concept, not an exact quote, and forms of the phrase are still used and 2) the exact expression was used at least as recently as 1997 (unless we include the JW literature Index, in which it case, it is immediately current).--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Jeff about this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Certain editors continue (without support) to insist that the term in question is currently used by JWs. In actuality, the term in question has not been used in connection with JW doctrine since 1975. The entire thread above includes multiple invitations for insistent editors to actually provide an example of from a recent decade of a JW publication referring to their doctrine development with the theologically loaded expression "revelation". Of course, JWs no longer use the term that way, so it is inappropriate for critics (or, ahem, editors) to pretend that JWs do.
On 2009-07-30,[2] I invited ostensibly fair editors to choose:- (No true Scotsman would argue with that.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's three choices...
- 1. Use a term with which JW literature currently "describes" the concept
- 2. Use any term with which JW literature has described the concept, and note "has described"
- 3. Make it plain that the reference is not to the term itself, but to a concept rather than a quoted term
- I'm happy to fix this tomorrow if no one else has by then.}}
- Certain editors continue (without support) to insist that the term in question is currently used by JWs. In actuality, the term in question has not been used in connection with JW doctrine since 1975. The entire thread above includes multiple invitations for insistent editors to actually provide an example of from a recent decade of a JW publication referring to their doctrine development with the theologically loaded expression "revelation". Of course, JWs no longer use the term that way, so it is inappropriate for critics (or, ahem, editors) to pretend that JWs do.
- Yet editors insist on including the decades-old term alongside words such as "describes as" and "calls" which draw attention to the term itself. My interest is accuracy. There seems little or no justification for insisting on questionable accuracy and for rejecting neutral phrasing. It seems unreasonable that editors have rejected such language as
"Jehovah's Witnesses develop their doctrines through a process they've called progressive revelation." or
"Jehovah's Witnesses develop their doctrines through a process their literature has described as "progressive revelation"." - --AuthorityTam (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yet editors insist on including the decades-old term alongside words such as "describes as" and "calls" which draw attention to the term itself. My interest is accuracy. There seems little or no justification for insisting on questionable accuracy and for rejecting neutral phrasing. It seems unreasonable that editors have rejected such language as
- AuthorityTam, you are on your own with this view and wasting everyone's time by persistently changing the wording accepted by the majority. Please abide by the consensus view or stop editing this article. LTSally (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Does AuthorityTam actually contend that the (apparently) loaded term "revelation" is more "loaded" than the "progressively revealed" doctrines mentioned in the 1 June 2007 Watchtower article, Elderly Ones-A Blessing to the Young?? The concept is clearly still used in JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I think you meant 2006. But, yes, the concept is alive and kicking. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Had another look, definitely 2007.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe "revelation" is a more theologically loaded term than "revealed". I believe that, since 1975, JWs have intentionally avoided applying the term "revelation" to their doctrinal development. I believe an insistence on using "revelation" in this context in this article reflects a POV regarding JWs.
If editors truly believe that the expressions "progressive revelation" and "progressively revealed" have the same level of theological "loadedness", they'll be happy to see the more recent term in the article.diff
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)- AuthorityTam: You are thoroughly wrong, and you are thoroughly asserting your personal preference as more authoritative and more important than what other editors have suggested and evidenced. I have no need to keep undoing your edit on this point, because it would be a waste of my time in the presence of your editing behavior. Fighting bias is exhausting, and I just do not really care that much. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe "revelation" is a more theologically loaded term than "revealed". I believe that, since 1975, JWs have intentionally avoided applying the term "revelation" to their doctrinal development. I believe an insistence on using "revelation" in this context in this article reflects a POV regarding JWs.
- (Had another look, definitely 2007.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam, you are on your own with this view and wasting everyone's time by persistently changing the wording accepted by the majority. Please abide by the consensus view or stop editing this article. LTSally (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
So finally AuthorityTam makes plain the basis of his persistent reverts of the consensus view: "I believe that, since 1975, JWs have intentionally avoided applying the term "revelation" to their doctrinal development." Just as, presumably, Charles Manson believed the Beatles were sending him messages through Helter Skelter. A private interpretation is no basis for imposing your own view on this article. You are clearly edit warring and you should be aware that under WP:3RR you may be blocked despite keeping your reverts under the three-per-day limit. The latest phrasing of the sentence, Jehovah's Witnesses claim their doctrines have been "progressively revealed" is a poor substitute for what it replaced. The sentence needs to state, actively, how they develop their doctrines. Your wording creates a clear impression that all doctrines are delivered to them, presumably by God. The fact is they develop doctrines and the sentence needs to state this. LTSally (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Authority Tam you are acting against consensus here. The majority of editors agree that even if the phrasing "progressive revelation" was last used in 1975 the concept is still very much in use. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- While I disagree strongly with Authority Tam's way of trying to force his viewpoint through by editwarring I see one advantage of the latest wording. I think it is more precise to say that they "claim their doctrine to be progressively revealed" than to say that "JW develop their doctrine". I think it describes better the fact that witnesses don't really think of their doctrine as something that changes, they are just gradually understanding "the truth" better. To say that they develop it to me sounds slightly as if they admitted that the doctrine is not perfect and "still needs some work" so to speak, and I think that is a mischaracterization. JW believe they have the truth by the tail - they just need to gradually haul it aboard to get the complete picture.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may be correct in saying Witnesses "don't really think of their doctrine as something that changes". Looking at the evolution of their doctrines since Russell's day, however, this notion is a myth. There have been major changes. The first sentence under the "Beliefs" section needs to state, in a factual manner, how their doctrines are developed. Raymond Franz clearly explained the mechanics of decisions, i.e. that members of the Governing Body bring proposals to their meetings and a vote is taken. Some are adopted, others are rejected. Witnesses are told, in the broadest of terms, that the changes that are accepted are revealed by Christ or angels to members of the anointed remnant who, through undefined methods, pass these on to the Governing Body. The concept of this evolution has repeatedly, consistently, explicitly, been described as "progressive revelation". The WTS has never, to my knowledge, retracted that term or announced the abandonment of that concept. LTSally (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we are talking about a religion - there's no requirement that their beliefs be in line with the observable facts. I think the facts about Franz laying the process of doctrinal decision out in the open is an important point that should probably be included. But then it would require a balancing between Franz' claims of how the process was carried out while he was on the board and the witnesses stated belief that there is divine involvement (supposedly the holy spirit somehow makes the vote turn out right). I think the phrase JW develops their doctrine is false both because the ordinary JW doesn't develop anything (the Governing body does) and because she doesn't believe anyone (but God) is developing it. We should strive to present this discrepancy fairly.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maunus, all the information you need is already cited by me. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe in God’s direction by means of his holy spirit, his angels and the glorified, resurrected in heavens anointed Christians, but they do not consider that this is done in a direct way. This is why meetings of the GB have to be held. If there were any direct revelation of God's will, meetings wouldn't be needed. Please read below the 1947 Watchtower. It gives you exactly the answer you are looking for. And they do believe that this divine direction is still leading to increased understanding of God’s Word and will.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia, I know this. I was making a point that simply stating that "Jehovah's witnesses develop their doctrine through progressive revelation" is not really informative. And what's worse it disregards the witnesses own belief about how doctrinal change comes about, and at the same time creates a false impression that the average Jehovah's witnesses has any part in this development. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maunus, all the information you need is already cited by me. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe in God’s direction by means of his holy spirit, his angels and the glorified, resurrected in heavens anointed Christians, but they do not consider that this is done in a direct way. This is why meetings of the GB have to be held. If there were any direct revelation of God's will, meetings wouldn't be needed. Please read below the 1947 Watchtower. It gives you exactly the answer you are looking for. And they do believe that this divine direction is still leading to increased understanding of God’s Word and will.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we are talking about a religion - there's no requirement that their beliefs be in line with the observable facts. I think the facts about Franz laying the process of doctrinal decision out in the open is an important point that should probably be included. But then it would require a balancing between Franz' claims of how the process was carried out while he was on the board and the witnesses stated belief that there is divine involvement (supposedly the holy spirit somehow makes the vote turn out right). I think the phrase JW develops their doctrine is false both because the ordinary JW doesn't develop anything (the Governing body does) and because she doesn't believe anyone (but God) is developing it. We should strive to present this discrepancy fairly.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may be correct in saying Witnesses "don't really think of their doctrine as something that changes". Looking at the evolution of their doctrines since Russell's day, however, this notion is a myth. There have been major changes. The first sentence under the "Beliefs" section needs to state, in a factual manner, how their doctrines are developed. Raymond Franz clearly explained the mechanics of decisions, i.e. that members of the Governing Body bring proposals to their meetings and a vote is taken. Some are adopted, others are rejected. Witnesses are told, in the broadest of terms, that the changes that are accepted are revealed by Christ or angels to members of the anointed remnant who, through undefined methods, pass these on to the Governing Body. The concept of this evolution has repeatedly, consistently, explicitly, been described as "progressive revelation". The WTS has never, to my knowledge, retracted that term or announced the abandonment of that concept. LTSally (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- While I disagree strongly with Authority Tam's way of trying to force his viewpoint through by editwarring I see one advantage of the latest wording. I think it is more precise to say that they "claim their doctrine to be progressively revealed" than to say that "JW develop their doctrine". I think it describes better the fact that witnesses don't really think of their doctrine as something that changes, they are just gradually understanding "the truth" better. To say that they develop it to me sounds slightly as if they admitted that the doctrine is not perfect and "still needs some work" so to speak, and I think that is a mischaracterization. JW believe they have the truth by the tail - they just need to gradually haul it aboard to get the complete picture.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sally, I would disagree with you. It seems that you are not well informed. The Watchtower itself explains the procedure.
- w96 7/15 pp. 13-14 Jehovah’s Family Enjoys Precious Unity ***
Governing Body Takes Action 15 To preserve the unity of a family, occasionally a dispute may have to be settled. Suppose, then, that a spiritual problem had to be solved to preserve the unity of God’s family of worshipers in the first century C.E. What then? The governing body took action, making decisions on spiritual matters. We have a Scriptural record of such action.
16 In about 49 C.E., the governing body met in Jerusalem to resolve a serious problem and thereby preserve the unity of “the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:19) […]
17 According to Acts 15:6-22, “the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.” Also present were others, including a delegation from Antioch. Peter first explained that ‘through his mouth people of the nations heard the good news and believed.’ Then “the entire multitude” listened as Barnabas and Paul related “the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations,” or Gentiles. James next suggested how the question might be resolved. After the governing body made a decision, we are told: “The apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas.” Those “chosen men”—Judas and Silas—carried an encouraging letter to fellow believers.
18 The letter announcing the governing body’s decision began with the words: “The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the nations: Greetings!” Others attended this historic meeting, but apparently the governing body consisted of “the apostles and the older men.” God’s spirit guided them, for the letter states: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.” (Acts 15:23-29)
- w90 3/15 p. 19 par. 18 Cooperating With the Governing Body Today ***
18 The committees of the Governing Body hold weekly meetings to review important matters, make decisions after prayerful considerations, and plan for future theocratic activity. As noted earlier, Acts chapter 15 shows that a weighty question needing resolution was referred to the first-century governing body for attention. Similarly today, important questions are referred to the entire Governing Body, which meets weekly or more often when necessary. The members of the Governing Body, at present 12 in number, seek Jehovah God’s direction through the Scriptures and by means of prayer. One way we reflect our cooperation with the Governing Body is by remembering these specially appointed ones in our daily prayers.—Romans 12:12.
- w93 12/1 p. 22 par. 12 Happy Are the Humble ***
As in any body of elders, members of the Governing Body have to respect the others’ points of view. For example, one may think he has a fine idea. But unless a sufficient number of the other members agree with his suggestion, he just has to put the matter aside. Truly, all of us need humility, for all of us are in subjection.
The Watchtower has never told that any of the Governing Body members ever had a direct revelation by means of an angel, a dream, a vision etc. The Watchtower always says that decisions are taken under prayerful study of the Bible and discussion between the members of the Governing Body.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand both me and the teachings of your own religion. I didn't suggest the GB receive revelations; quite the contrary. They simply take proposals to their weekly meetings. See "Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small", The Watchtower, May 15, 1995, page 16, which explains the claim of how the "faithful and discreet slave class" are used as the channel for God's "flashes of light" that change doctrine. In other articles the GB are said to "represent" the "slave class". Franz, who was part of the Governing Body, devotes much of chapter 5 of his book, In Search of Christian Freedom, to discuss how doctrines are created/changed and the widespread belief among Witnesses that the "slave class" somehow have an input in this. This sets out clearly what the Watchtower likes to obfuscate. LTSally (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia est opulentia, see previous comments about JWs 'having their cake and eating it too'. The ambiguity they introduce about exactly how their beliefs are 'revealed' does not negate the importance of stating what they believe. They do indeed state that 'God reveals things to them', though they refuse to specify how this is done.
- In view of Maunus' comments above, I would be supportive of "claim their doctrines are progressively revealed".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the phrase "their doctrines are progressively revealed" does nothing to explain how they arrive at them. Catholics have their councils, Anglicans have their synods, where do the JW doctrines spring from? The article so far doesn't say. My proposal below has wording that may overcome the problem. LTSally (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
As a way out of this mess, I'll make this proposal. The paragraph about which we're debating needs to be no more than a summary of the relevant part of the splitoff article, Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs. I'd suggest the following wording:
"Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. Watch Tower publications have described the process of doctrinal change and refinement as progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is commonly construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes of light" and direction from Jesus Christ and angels."
The concept of progressive revelation clearly needs to be added to the Beliefs splitoff article as well. LTSally (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- With citations in the appropriate places I would endorse this version.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, though ditch the past tense, ergo, "Watch Tower publications describe the process of doctrinal change and refinement as progressive revelation."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of you really do make things ten times more complicated then they really are. Watching this from afar, the current wording is the best I've seen so far, but this gang is too stubborn to realize they got most of what they want. Now it says BOTH PHRASES, its spot-on, and its not biased. Whats the problem, except that one of you didn't write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soc8675309 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Specific reasoning why the present tense should be used has already been explained.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let me say that I don't care about the tense of the wording at all. I think both the arguments for and against seem more like stubborn nitpicking than an actual POV issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I fear we're going to go round in circles again. "Have described" doesn't offend me. I'm unconvinced by AuthorityTam's insistence that "progressive revelation" is an old teaching, but unless he's cited for editwarring, I suspect he will continue to change it to his personal preference. In the spirit of compromise I'm content to keep the past tense, which doesn't indicate per se a subsequent rejection of the concept. LTSally (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let me say that I don't care about the tense of the wording at all. I think both the arguments for and against seem more like stubborn nitpicking than an actual POV issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Specific reasoning why the present tense should be used has already been explained.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of you really do make things ten times more complicated then they really are. Watching this from afar, the current wording is the best I've seen so far, but this gang is too stubborn to realize they got most of what they want. Now it says BOTH PHRASES, its spot-on, and its not biased. Whats the problem, except that one of you didn't write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soc8675309 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, though ditch the past tense, ergo, "Watch Tower publications describe the process of doctrinal change and refinement as progressive revelation."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- With citations in the appropriate places I would endorse this version.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
New proposal
- Watch Tower publications have described the process of doctrinal change and refinement as progressive revelation.
False statement.
“Progressive revelation” refers to a situation, not to a process. The process is the weekly meetings of the Governing Body.
- The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is commonly construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is POV, not really informative, it is very cloudy.
- The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes of light" and direction from Jesus Christ and angels."
Such Biblical expressions have been used but they do not refer to any kind of inspiration. This statement may lead to false assumptions.
This is my proposal. It is clear and informative.
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. The Governing Body has stated that they are not inspired, neither do they have any kind of supernatural revelation, but that they follow the pattern of the apostolic synod, as this is described in Acts 15. Every week, meetings of the Governing Body take place, and through prayer divine direction is asked for the correct understanding and application of the Bible. Not being inspired, the Governing Body does not hesitate to correct or refine former views, and it is strongly held that divine truth is gradually understood. Before the formation of the Governing Body, the President of the Society had the final word for the decisions taken. But again, divine inspiration was never claimed.
--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like apologetics rather than encyclopedic content. As stated previously, both JW views should be presented. I.e. they believe God actively directs them (in an unstated manner) to 'the truth', and they do not claim to receive (vaguely defined) 'inspiration'.
- Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. The Governing Body conducts meetings each week, where doctrinal viewpoints are discussed based on their studies of the Bible. The Governing Body disclaims any specific form of divine inspiration but believes that God progressively reveals divine truth to them. Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, matters of doctrine were decided by the President of the Watch Tower Society.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No way. The paragraph need only summarise what is in the main splitoff article. There is no need to discuss the frequency of GB meetings, and judging by the rate of doctrinal change, it would be a rare meeting at which new doctrines are formulated. There is also no need to discuss what happened before the GB was established as the supreme doctrinal council. None of Scientia's objections to my proposal stand up. (1) Progressive revelation is a processs of doctrinal development, not a "situation", whatever that is. (2) The claim about progressive revelation not being explicitly defined is sourced, as currently in the aricle, to Penton, and can remain. It is neither POV, uninformative or cloudy. Penton simply states a fact: the WTS has never defined the process. He makes a reasonable assumption of what "progressive revelation" is. (3) The reference to "flashes of light" etc is fully sourced and is a valuable explanation of the origin of doctrines developed in Rutherford's day and still accepted by Witnesses. Any danger of "false assumptions" is not the business of this article: it simply states the fact as drawn from the words of the Watch Tower Society itself. I stand by my proposal. LTSally (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I was rewriting Scientia est opulentia's proposal minus the apologetics, though I do prefer LTSally's earlier proposal. Aside from that, progressive revelation is neither a "situation" nor their "process of doctrinal development"; it is simply a theological claim they make about the development of their doctrines. The actual process is 'the Governing Body has meetings and decides stuff'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. The GB meetings are the process or means of doctrinal change. Penton (p. 165) refers to "progressive revelation' as a concept or doctrine. The challenge for Wikipedia editors is to spell out what the WTS won't; they like to leave the whole process of doctrinal development as opaque as possible: the more the detail they go into, the easier it is to lay it bare and challenge its logic. However I'll make this suggestion, leaving open the suggestion that one process leads to another action:
- Fair enough. I was rewriting Scientia est opulentia's proposal minus the apologetics, though I do prefer LTSally's earlier proposal. Aside from that, progressive revelation is neither a "situation" nor their "process of doctrinal development"; it is simply a theological claim they make about the development of their doctrines. The actual process is 'the Governing Body has meetings and decides stuff'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No way. The paragraph need only summarise what is in the main splitoff article. There is no need to discuss the frequency of GB meetings, and judging by the rate of doctrinal change, it would be a rare meeting at which new doctrines are formulated. There is also no need to discuss what happened before the GB was established as the supreme doctrinal council. None of Scientia's objections to my proposal stand up. (1) Progressive revelation is a processs of doctrinal development, not a "situation", whatever that is. (2) The claim about progressive revelation not being explicitly defined is sourced, as currently in the aricle, to Penton, and can remain. It is neither POV, uninformative or cloudy. Penton simply states a fact: the WTS has never defined the process. He makes a reasonable assumption of what "progressive revelation" is. (3) The reference to "flashes of light" etc is fully sourced and is a valuable explanation of the origin of doctrines developed in Rutherford's day and still accepted by Witnesses. Any danger of "false assumptions" is not the business of this article: it simply states the fact as drawn from the words of the Watch Tower Society itself. I stand by my proposal. LTSally (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. Watch Tower publications claim doctrinal change and refinement results from a process of progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is commonly construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes of light" and direction from Jesus Christ and angels." LTSally (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No way. This is POV and says nothing specific. And please stop promoting Penton as the sole authority. The Watchtower itself explains many things, and the official statements have priority in the article. But, you see, you remember the Watchtower quotations only when they help you to support your anti-JW agenda. This is why I presented so many quotations. In order people who do not own the Watchtower Library, like Maunus, may draw their own conclusions and even help us here.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just want to present the facts. Tell me, what precisely is the point of view I am expressing in those four sentences? And mate, "official statements" from Brooklyn have no priority in this article at all. It's a simple couple of sentences: how do they arrive at their doctrines? It doesn't need your defence of the GB or claims that they pray for divine guidance. How do you know I'm not praying for divine guidance in writing what I do for Wikipedia? As I've explained, Penton is doing his best to explain what the WTS chooses not to do. That's a challenge for us as well, and Penton happens to be an excellent source, along with the WTS itself, whose words I've drawn on for the final sentence. LTSally (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No way. This is POV and says nothing specific. And please stop promoting Penton as the sole authority. The Watchtower itself explains many things, and the official statements have priority in the article. But, you see, you remember the Watchtower quotations only when they help you to support your anti-JW agenda. This is why I presented so many quotations. In order people who do not own the Watchtower Library, like Maunus, may draw their own conclusions and even help us here.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The ambiguity of JW theological opinions about the development of their doctrines is not our fault; we can only state what the sources provide. Perhaps there should be separate (brief) paragraphs about 1) how JWs actually form doctrine i.e. 'GB has meetings and decides stuff' to introduce the Beliefs section, and then 2) how JWs believe their doctrine development process is influenced by God. The non-apologetic portion of Scientia est opulentia's proposal could be used for the first part, with some modification, and then LTSally's proposal, minus portions redundant from Scientia est opulentia's text, could follow...
- Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. The Governing Body conducts meetings each week, where doctrinal viewpoints are discussed based on their studies of the Bible. Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, matters of doctrine were decided by the President of the Watch Tower Society.
- The Governing Body disclaims any direct form of divine inspiration. Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is commonly construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You say “The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature”. This is POV. And it is POV because the WT explains it, as you can see below.
- “official statements" from Brooklyn have no priority in this article at all.” Are you sure that you understand the wiki-policy? Do not confuse facts with opinions on facts.
- “It doesn't need your defense of the GB or claims that they pray for divine guidance.” This is an official statement about the procedure. It is a fact; it is not a comment or an opinion on a fact.
- “How do you know I'm not praying for divine guidance in writing what I do for Wikipedia?” If you become an article here, we will discuss this further.
- “As I've explained, Penton is doing his best to explain what the WTS chooses not to do. That's a challenge for us as well, and Penton happens to be an excellent source, along with the WTS itself, whose words I've drawn on for the final sentence.” What you admit proves that you have a totally wrong attitude in editing. And if you continue like that, I won’t hesitate to report that to the administrators, because your editing tends to be destructive. Penton is a respectable source in academic bibliography, but it is not Wikipedia’s business to take the role of anti-JWs, as you put it. Do you understand that when you speak about a “challenge” to prove the Watchtower false, you admit that you have an agenda?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia est opulentia, LTSally said nothing about a "callenge to prove the Watchtower false", but rather, suggested that it is a challenge to determine what the vague statements in Watchtower literature are actually intended to mean. The Watchtower does explain what their 'progressive revelation' is not, but says basically nothing as to just how their organization is actually "spirit-directed". LTSally, I'm not sure there's much value in the phrase "flashes of light" without clarification that it is metaphorical rather than literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The 1995 WT I cited above repeatedly uses the term "flashes of light" to describe the process of developing new doctrines. Since the WT has never explained what these flashes are, I assume they are enlightenment from the invisible angelic messengers Rutherford wrote of. That's only a guess, and I'd hate to be accused of expressing a point of view, so it's reasonable to stick with the term they use. They have claimed doctrinal changes resulted directly from these "flashes of light", so they are highly relevant in noting the basis of their doctrines. Scientia, your answers are so far off beam I'd be going off-topic to address them. I'll message you directly if you wish. LTSally (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, but simply indicating that "flashes of light" is quoted from the source does not adequately convey that the expression is metaphorical (representing some vague unexplained process). If the phrase is used, it is important to make this clear in the article, as it is conceivable that a religious group might hypothetically claim such in a more literal sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, this expression is metaphorical and taken from the book of Revelation.
- Indeed, but simply indicating that "flashes of light" is quoted from the source does not adequately convey that the expression is metaphorical (representing some vague unexplained process). If the phrase is used, it is important to make this clear in the article, as it is conceivable that a religious group might hypothetically claim such in a more literal sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The 1995 WT I cited above repeatedly uses the term "flashes of light" to describe the process of developing new doctrines. Since the WT has never explained what these flashes are, I assume they are enlightenment from the invisible angelic messengers Rutherford wrote of. That's only a guess, and I'd hate to be accused of expressing a point of view, so it's reasonable to stick with the term they use. They have claimed doctrinal changes resulted directly from these "flashes of light", so they are highly relevant in noting the basis of their doctrines. Scientia, your answers are so far off beam I'd be going off-topic to address them. I'll message you directly if you wish. LTSally (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia est opulentia, LTSally said nothing about a "callenge to prove the Watchtower false", but rather, suggested that it is a challenge to determine what the vague statements in Watchtower literature are actually intended to mean. The Watchtower does explain what their 'progressive revelation' is not, but says basically nothing as to just how their organization is actually "spirit-directed". LTSally, I'm not sure there's much value in the phrase "flashes of light" without clarification that it is metaphorical rather than literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- “As I've explained, Penton is doing his best to explain what the WTS chooses not to do. That's a challenge for us as well, and Penton happens to be an excellent source, along with the WTS itself, whose words I've drawn on for the final sentence.” What you admit proves that you have a totally wrong attitude in editing. And if you continue like that, I won’t hesitate to report that to the administrators, because your editing tends to be destructive. Penton is a respectable source in academic bibliography, but it is not Wikipedia’s business to take the role of anti-JWs, as you put it. Do you understand that when you speak about a “challenge” to prove the Watchtower false, you admit that you have an agenda?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- re chap. 14 p. 79 par. 13 The Magnificence of Jehovah’s Celestial Throne ***
- Well, flashes of lightning can illuminate, but they can also strike one dead. Therefore, these lightnings issuing from Jehovah’s throne well picture the flashes of enlightenment that he has continually granted his people and, even more significantly, his fiery judgment messages.
- So, this expression means nothing more than God’s giving gradual enlightenment in Biblical exegesis. Instead of using a metaphorical expression that could lead to the false assumption that JWs claim that they have direct revelations, it is better to say that GB believe that God leads them to gradual understanding of the Bible.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So the "flashes of light" about which the Watchtower has written so much are "enlightenment" from God. (Disappointingly, no explicit indication of how this happens is provided. If a vote is taken at the GB, are those who vote against an unsuccessful proposal unenlightened? This is a side issue.) This being the case, I have added a final sentence that states the Society's own claims about the origin of doctrinal changes. I'll reinsert the references that support those statements. I have also trimmed the detail on GB meetings, which contain a certain amount of conjecture about the content of their closed meetings. My proposal then is:
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, matters of doctrine were decided by the President of the Watch Tower Society. The Governing Body disclaims any direct form of divine inspiration. Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes" of enlightenment from God and direction from Jesus Christ and angels. LTSally (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need to make a list with the most important things concerning the procedure of the doctrinal formation.
- Who has the authority? The Governing Body. Before that, the President.
- How decisions are taken? Under discussion. Inspiration is disclaimed. Yet, in general terms, divine guidance is claimed in progressive understanding of the Bible. Hence, changes, corrections or refinements are accepted.
- ...
- ...
- Can you continue?
- And when the list is finished, we make the paragraph.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This section (Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes" of enlightenment from God and direction from Jesus Christ and angels.) says nothing specific or informative. Can you explain us what is the point of it?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Watch Tower Society has repeatedly used the term "progressive revelation" as part of its explanation of why its doctrines have continued to change since Russell's day. The constant changes in Witness doctrines -- and the requirement for Witnesses to abide by them -- is one of the distinctive features of this religion. The phrase "progressive revelation", or variants thereof, have never been explicitly defined, but it is reasonable in an encyclopedic examination of Witness doctrines to attempt such a definition based on the crumbs of information provided by Watch Tower publications. Based on this evidence, it is apparent that the official JW belief is that God reveals doctrines in a drip-feed fashion by means of his holy spirit, angels and Jesus Christ. Once these "new truths" are revealed to the anointed remnant (based on Rutherford's explanation above) the Governing Body makes a decision to publish these doctrines in The Watchtower. (All this information is drawn directly from WT publications or, in one small part, Penton's considered opinion based on the evidence of those publications.) For these reasons, the paragraph explaining the origin of JW doctrines needs to mention both (a) the Governing Body, which establishes the doctrines, and (b) the belief that God is progressively revealing his purpose, or "truths", to his people through that agency. LTSally (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This section (Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation. The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature, but is construed as the application of reason and study, aided by the undefined guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has also suggested the organization has received "flashes" of enlightenment from God and direction from Jesus Christ and angels.) says nothing specific or informative. Can you explain us what is the point of it?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- We have to be simple and to remain to the facts. Speculations and investigations do not belong here, especially in this small paragraph, where brevity and clarity are a must. These are the facts:
- The Governing Body conducts meetings for the discussion of doctrinal matters. They disclaim any kind of direct inspiration, but they believe that God is directing them to a gradual understanding of the Bible. Thus being the case, the Governing Body makes doctrinal corrections or refinements in biblical exegesis when this is deemed necessary.
- --Scientia est opulentia (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between editors speculating, and presenting the sourced speculations of the Watch Tower Society about itself. The statements in LTSally's version accurately indicate what the Watch Tower society claims about the development of its doctrines. However, any ambiguity on their part is not our fault, and it is not our responsibility to fill in the gaps I previously provided text that also incorporates details about the GB meeting to discuss doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't my proposal accurate?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The accuracy of what you have said is not the issue. The issue is that you have omitted the other information. It is directly pertinent to the section to state what JWs believe about how their doctrines are formed. Though their beliefs are not facts (just as the beliefs of most religions are not facts), it is a fact that they do hold those beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What is ommited in my proposal? What would you add?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in going in circles. Look at LTSally's proposal. Look at your own proposal. It should be immediately obvious what elements are in LTSally's and not in yours.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia, your latest proposal falls well short of explaining the origins of Witness doctrines. It doesn't say that the GB establishes doctrines for one thing; stating as a fact that that they make doctrinal corrections has no logic in an encyclopedic explanation. How does one "correct" a doctrine? I support Jeffro's reply to your objection: my proposal presents the basic facts, covering the essentials of how doctrines are established, by whom and with what overriding belief (viz, that God continues to reveal "new truths" to his name people). You have previously claimed this wording expressed a bias and was somehow anti-JW, yet it is clear, neutral, accurate and informative and can be sourced almost entirely with citations from WT publications. You are clearly mistrustful of any of my edits, but when invited to state your objections, you can say only that it contains speculation and investigation. It contains neither. If there are no other objections, I'll change the wording in the article to my proposal. LTSally (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in going in circles. Look at LTSally's proposal. Look at your own proposal. It should be immediately obvious what elements are in LTSally's and not in yours.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What is ommited in my proposal? What would you add?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The accuracy of what you have said is not the issue. The issue is that you have omitted the other information. It is directly pertinent to the section to state what JWs believe about how their doctrines are formed. Though their beliefs are not facts (just as the beliefs of most religions are not facts), it is a fact that they do hold those beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't my proposal accurate?--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between editors speculating, and presenting the sourced speculations of the Watch Tower Society about itself. The statements in LTSally's version accurately indicate what the Watch Tower society claims about the development of its doctrines. However, any ambiguity on their part is not our fault, and it is not our responsibility to fill in the gaps I previously provided text that also incorporates details about the GB meeting to discuss doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- --Scientia est opulentia (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there are objections. You see that I have not touched the article but I’m trying to communicate here. Respect that.
- You say nothing about the GB meetings. This is the core of the information about the formation of doctrine.
- “Flashes of light” mean nothing without context. And it is generally out of the scope of this paragraph.
- “Progressive revelation” needs desperately rewording, because it gives place to misconceptions. JWs seek the truth in the Bible. When they speak of “revelation,” they mean “understanding of biblical truths”. So, “progressive revelation” actually is “progressive understanding of the Bible with the help of God".--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there are objections. You see that I have not touched the article but I’m trying to communicate here. Respect that.
- It is true that there are problems with the 'progressive revelation' doctrine, because just how God supposedly "helps" them to arrive at their understanding is entirely unstated in their literature, particularly demonstrated by the quotes you previously provided in the "complicated" section below, which say various things about what 'progressive revelation' is not, and list things that anyone could do, such as prayer, study etc, which does not support their claim that God is directing them (exclusively). However, these problems are with the source material, not with presentation in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think at least to a jehovah's witness the way in which the progressive revelation works is quite clear. Prayerful study is the method that allows god to direct the GB. They don't need actual revelations they just need to believe that god is making them arrive at the correct understanding - this is only illogical to someone who doesn't believe in the power of prayer. Of course anyone can pray but in JW terms god directs his slave (the GB) manage his estate (the other JW's) this is why he guides the GB exclusively in the making of doctrines. You can point out incoherences and contradictions all day, but they simply don't exist for a JW - they only exist when looking from the outside. I think we should have too goals here - describing what JW believe and what they do - selectively choosing terms and parts of doctrine to make it look as if JW beliefs are selfcontradictory is doing the opposite of that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might have missed my point. Scientia est opulentia said there are problems with the presentation of 'progressive revelation' in the article, and I have indicated that there are indeed issues with that doctrine. However, and this is the important part, those issues and the ambiguity surrounding them are issues with the source material, and do not invalidate the presentation of their concept of 'progressive revelation' in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I get your point no. I understand Scientia to be saying that the current wording makes the process of progressive revelation sound as something exotic and mysterious, and that that is not how the literature portarys it or how witnesses think about it. The sources state that doctrine (and changes to it) is arrived at through discussion and prayer. You say that the sources are ambiguous about how the process of doctrinal change happens and that that is why the wording is ambiguous - I don't think they are - one just has to understand it from the witness viewpoint. I think we should try to explain that view point rather than point out that their arguments don't support their claims of being directed by gods. As I have stated before we are talking about a religion there is no requirement that it confine it self to terms of basic logic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might have missed my point. Scientia est opulentia said there are problems with the presentation of 'progressive revelation' in the article, and I have indicated that there are indeed issues with that doctrine. However, and this is the important part, those issues and the ambiguity surrounding them are issues with the source material, and do not invalidate the presentation of their concept of 'progressive revelation' in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think at least to a jehovah's witness the way in which the progressive revelation works is quite clear. Prayerful study is the method that allows god to direct the GB. They don't need actual revelations they just need to believe that god is making them arrive at the correct understanding - this is only illogical to someone who doesn't believe in the power of prayer. Of course anyone can pray but in JW terms god directs his slave (the GB) manage his estate (the other JW's) this is why he guides the GB exclusively in the making of doctrines. You can point out incoherences and contradictions all day, but they simply don't exist for a JW - they only exist when looking from the outside. I think we should have too goals here - describing what JW believe and what they do - selectively choosing terms and parts of doctrine to make it look as if JW beliefs are selfcontradictory is doing the opposite of that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my new proposal below which may address these issues. LTSally (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Based on your response, I think we are actually on the same page. I don't merely say they are ambiguous - I have pointed out that their literature is ambiguous, demonstrated by their claims that their organization is "spirit-directed" and at the same time not "inspired". Any religion can claim that their doctrines are arrived at "through discussion and prayer", but this is hardly a rationale for claiming that God directs only them. The resultant ambiguity is not our responsibility. The wording in Watch Tower literature is only as "vague and mysterious" as it purports to be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think the discrepancy lies in what we wish the article to convey to its readers. I would prefer it to give the reader an understanding of how witnesses understand their own religion, where it seems that you prefer presenting facts about their literature is worded without necessarily providing the reader with clues as to how those wordings ar understood by the witnesses themselves. Neither approach is wrong I think, but they should probably be balanced.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is probable that many if not most Witnesses do imagine that there is something "exotic and mysterious" (though they wouldn't use those words) about how God guides them to the "truth". Every JW is told at baptism to explicitly confirm their understanding that the organization is "spirit-directed", though they are not able to explain just how.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think the discrepancy lies in what we wish the article to convey to its readers. I would prefer it to give the reader an understanding of how witnesses understand their own religion, where it seems that you prefer presenting facts about their literature is worded without necessarily providing the reader with clues as to how those wordings ar understood by the witnesses themselves. Neither approach is wrong I think, but they should probably be balanced.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Based on your response, I think we are actually on the same page. I don't merely say they are ambiguous - I have pointed out that their literature is ambiguous, demonstrated by their claims that their organization is "spirit-directed" and at the same time not "inspired". Any religion can claim that their doctrines are arrived at "through discussion and prayer", but this is hardly a rationale for claiming that God directs only them. The resultant ambiguity is not our responsibility. The wording in Watch Tower literature is only as "vague and mysterious" as it purports to be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent)I disagree. That is not my own experience and I the way I read both Beckford and Holden´s studies they agree that mysticism of any kind is alien to the JW creed. In my experience there is nothing in the JW creed that they do not believe can be explained in rationalistic terms. But we are straying from the tiopic I think - we agree on the wording, so lets drop it here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Thanks for the comments. (1) I don't think reference to weekly meetings of the GB is needed in such a short summary of what is elaborated at the main splitoff article. A wiki link to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses will take a reader to the main article that explains they meet weekly. I'd guess most weekly meetings of the GB deal with personnel, WT articles, conventions etc rather than establishing doctrine and I think it's a given that the GB meets when making decisions. (2) The term "flashes of light" no longer appears. I have used "flashes" of enlightenment to reflect the emphasis given in the 1995 WT article cited above, and also to reflect the explanation you provided in the Revelation book. "Flashes" is the word used repeatedly in the article and its title, presumably to reflect a sudden appearance. I am not trying to read too much into this, but this is the term they used heavily, repeatedly. (3) "Progressive revelation" is also the term the WT has used repeatedly. It is the phrase Penton, as an external source, also notes. I have endeavored to provide an explanation that would avoid the creation of misconceptions. On what basis do you provide the explanation of "progressive revelation"? Is this your view or can you cite a source for this? I am trying to avoid personal speculation and I hope you are too. LTSally (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this enough?
- jv chap. 31 p. 709 How Chosen and Led by God ***
It should not surprise us that in modern times too, Jehovah has often led his people as a progressive organization, gradually enlightening them as to Bible truths. It is not the truths themselves that change. Truth remains truth. Jehovah’s will and purpose, as outlined in the Bible, remain fixed. (Isa. 46:10) But their understanding of these truths gets progressively clearer “at the proper time,” Jehovah’s due time. (Matt. 24:45; compare Daniel 12:4, 9.)
--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Another new proposal
That quote makes things quite clear. I am puzzled, then, why Scientia and Maunus are so touchy about the phrase used by their own religion that succinctly describes what they claim is a very important aspect of their theology: that God gradually reveals things to them, and therefore their doctrines change to reflect this. Maunus, I don't see any attempt in these words to suggest or imply self-contradiction in JW beliefs. I accept that Witnesses pray for guidance and direction. So do Catholics, Baptists and Latter Day Saints.
I'll make another attempt, though this will require citations for the reference to "reason, study and Holy Spirit" (that phrase came from Penton). There appears to be a contradiction, however, in the Governing Body being directed by Jesus, angels and holy spirit (references for this are contained above under the heading Revelations), but disclaiming divine inspiration.
- Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture. Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, matters of doctrine were decided by the President of the Watch Tower Society. Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose. Watch Tower literature has suggested such "flashes" of enlightenment results from the application of reason and study, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and direction from Jesus Christ and angels. However the Governing Body disclaims any direct form of divine inspiration. LTSally (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like this better, because it mentions what I believe is most important to most witnesses - reason, study and prayer. I don't see a need to mention those flashes - to me thats not really a part of the religious system but more a metaphor (light on the road) that is occasionally used. I think it does make the wording a little myusterious and exoticized, but I would bend on that and let it be included if others find it to be an important term. I don't think there is an actual contradiction by claiming that the GB is not inspired, as I understand that term JW reserves that for the authors of biblical books who presumably experienced a much more direct inspiration with god actually operating and speaking through them. In my understanding the witnesses have to say that the GB is not inspired but merely guided or their writings would rival the biblical books in importance. This doesn't reflect n the passage though, which is good and well written in my opinion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from the grammatically incorrect use of "results" (should be "result"), and a comma after "However", I would accept LTSally's wording here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- An expression other than assumes responsibility might seem more neutral.
- JWs would likely note that the religion has had a governing body since the WTS has had directors, and they'd likely point to "the apostles and older men" in 1st century Jerusalem as an early example of a governing body.
- It's wrong to ignore a pertinent fact: the WT president never had carte blanc authority, but always depended upon the continued support of a majority of directors. The directors' public solidarity with the president doesn't preclude private dissent; ironically, historic hints at dissent exist, foiling claims that the WT president had sole doctrinal authority.
- JWs (and others) typically pluralize God's purposes.
- JW usage of the expression "flashes of light" is noteworthy and neutral; in proposed paragraph, recommend replacing
such "flashes" of enlightenment with metaphorical "flashes of light". - The term "gradually" introduces difficulties which "progressively" would not.
- JWs do not capitalize "holy spirit"; the preceding definite article "the" is unneeded. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from the grammatically incorrect use of "results" (should be "result"), and a comma after "However", I would accept LTSally's wording here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like this better, because it mentions what I believe is most important to most witnesses - reason, study and prayer. I don't see a need to mention those flashes - to me thats not really a part of the religious system but more a metaphor (light on the road) that is occasionally used. I think it does make the wording a little myusterious and exoticized, but I would bend on that and let it be included if others find it to be an important term. I don't think there is an actual contradiction by claiming that the GB is not inspired, as I understand that term JW reserves that for the authors of biblical books who presumably experienced a much more direct inspiration with god actually operating and speaking through them. In my understanding the witnesses have to say that the GB is not inspired but merely guided or their writings would rival the biblical books in importance. This doesn't reflect n the passage though, which is good and well written in my opinion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, matters of doctrine were decided by the President of the Watch Tower Society should be changed to that:
Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, the President of the Watch Tower Society had the final word on doctrinal matters. Biblical research and interpretations, even writing, was not only President’s business, but the President had the final word in the publications.
- Watch Tower publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose. Watch Tower literature has suggested such "flashes" of enlightenment results from the application of reason and study, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and direction from Jesus Christ and angels. However the Governing Body disclaims any direct form of divine inspiration
I propose the changes below:
The Governing Body disclaims any kind of divine inspiration or supernatural revelation, but they say that their conclusions are taken with prayerful biblical study and discussion. They claim that God’s will is to use them to understand his recorded in the Bible word and purpose in a progressive way. When doctrinal “corrections” or “refinements” are made, they usally call them “a new light,” a term taken from Proverbs 4:18.
Inspiration and revelation is not one and the same and we have to include the second.
The “flashes of light” is an expression used rarely and in a wider sense. In WT of 1995 it is used for public speeches and assemblies, and public reading. So this expression must be removed as inaccurate and generally problematic. On the contrary we all know that the “new light” and Proverbs 4:18 is the motto of the Witnesses.
The “guidance of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the angles” is needless when we say under the guidance of God. Further more it may give the false impression of a mystic experience, which we want to avoid in any case.
What I propose is accurate, clear and brief.
--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- To AuthorityTam's points: (1) "takes" responsibility may work, though "assumes" is probably more accurate. The WTS directors formed the GB and granted it the power to control doctrines. I don't see that "assume" is pejorative. (2) As noted in the GB article, there was no formal GB that controlled matters before 1971, and as the Proclaimers book (p.108) shows, control of such matters as doctrines wasn't given them until January 1976. Suggesting Jehovah's Witnesses had a Governing Body in the days of the apostles is a spurious argument. (3) There is enough evidence from Rutherford's day (the Birth of a Nation article, for example, in which he simply sacked the editorial committee when it refused to print an article that introduced a new doctrine) to show that the president had the power to establish doctrine and over-rule anyone. I can produce citations to support this claim. All WTS books in his day were written by him and leading WT articles were also his. In Knorr's day it appears Fred Franz was the man behind the doctrines, but they still had to be rubber stamped by Knorr. I have yet to see a reference that would support your claim, but if you can provide one I'll change the wordiing. (4) Plural? Singular? By far the most common usage in the WT library is singular. Will and purpose. (5) I changed "'flashes' of light" to "'flashes' of enlightenment" to address concerns raised by others that it suggested a literal Road to Damascus blinding flash or any other mystical experience. The Revelation citation provided by Scientia above showed that such flashes referred to enlightenment. Adding the word "metaphorical" may help. (6) Not sure which "gradually" you're referring to. What do you want to change? (7) Agree.
- To Scientia's points: (1). Your suggested wording says precisely the same as mine but uses more words. If he had the final word, he took the decision. Please provide any references that support your claim that anyone other than the president provided biblical interpretations. (2) My wording is more succinct. "New light" is not a term taken from Proverbs 4:18. The wording already refers to a gradual revealing of God's will. The reference to "new light" is JW jargon that is much less clear than what I have written. (3) "Flashes of light" has been widely used. You are quite wrong about the 1995 Watchtower, which applied this to doctrines. See the opening few paragraphs of that article. The WTS used the term deliberately to highlight sudden changes in doctrine which resulted, presumably, from a sudden understanding which -- following WTS argumentation -- was initiated by God. In this context it is an important term. Christ and angels were specifically mentioned by Rutherford (as noted above under the "Revelations" subheading) as instrumental in doctrinal change. This article can be more informative by including such information. LTSally (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- AuthorityTam: 1) 'Assumes' seems most accurate. What alternative would you suggest? 2) It would be appropriate to include at the main GB article that JWs believe the apostles etc to have been GB, but can't say that they were. This kind of detail is too specific for the summary in this article. 3) If you have sources, please include relevant details at the main GB article. 4) "God's purpose" is used more than twice as often in JW literature compared to the plural. 5&7) Agree. 6) "progressively" better suits what appears in JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scientia est opulentia: 1) Agree in principle, but 'the final word' seems a bit informal. If there is evidence that not only the President developed doctrines, then I suggest: Prior to the formation of the Governing Body, doctrinal matters required the approval of the President of the Watch Tower Society. 2) The existing wording is better. It accurately presents that JWs believe God is directing their organization, using the term used in JW literature, and also states that they do not believe GB receives direct "inspiration". If they believe that they exclusively are God's one true organization, they inherently believe in some kind of "supernatural" direction, even if it is not clearly stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
complicated
I am really wondering whether things are so complicated with JWs or some people are deliberately trying to distort facts.
Of course JWs are a religious group, not a social club, and religion deals with the divine. In this framework, JWs claim direction and enlightenment by means of the holy spirit, the angels and the anointed Christians who have already been resurrected, under the general government and guidance of Jesus Christ, the head of the Christian Congregation.
What they do not claim is that this is done in a direct manner; they do not claim inspiration, or direct revelations, or the gift of prophecy, or the gift of knowledge, or direct dictations by angels, or visions, or prophetic dreams.
JWs believe that today only Bible is inspired of God, no any other source. And that Christ is guiding indirectly JWs to understand the Bible.
- w88 10/15 p. 19 par. 17 What Will the Lord’s Day Mean for You? ***
Then, over the years, they were given a progressively clearer understanding of Jehovah’s will.
- w92 7/15 p. 28 Follow the Surpassing Way of Love ***
Today, Jehovah’s spirit enables his Witnesses to understand Bible prophecies and sacred secrets and guides them in imparting such knowledge to others. (Joel 2:28, 29)
- w95 10/15 p. 12 par. 17 Why Fear the True God Now? ***
In line with Revelation 14:6, 7, mankind now is hearing a warning message of judgment declared by Jehovah’s Witnesses under angelic direction.
- it-1 p. 937 Gifts From God ***
Not every first-century Christian could perform powerful works, heal, speak in tongues, and translate. Paul, and doubtless some others, had by God’s undeserved kindness been granted a number of these gifts of the spirit. However, these miraculous gifts marked the infancy of the Christian congregation and were foretold to cease.
- w79 3/1 pp. 23-24 par. 15 To Whom Shall We Go but Jesus Christ? ***
Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time. But let us never forget that the motives of this “slave” were always pure, unselfish; at all times it has been well-meaning.
- w54 10/15 p. 638 Questions From Readers ***
In regard to how the truth is brought forth through Jehovah’s organization, please note that if the Watch Tower Society were infallible there would be no need for future correction of viewpoints held; but because it is not infallible and has never claimed to be, from time to time corrections are necessary. If Jehovah’s spirit operated in the way it did upon Bible writers, inspiring them to write according to Jehovah’s thoughts, then no future corrections in matters would ever be necessary. But because the spirit does not operate in this way today some corrections are made from time to time.
- w50 8/15 p. 263 Name and Purpose of The Watchtower ***
However, The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.
This pouring out of God’s spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so. […] But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1.870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. [...] Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ. We know the inspired infallible Scriptures of prophecy will be fulfilled toward us correctly, although we may not understand them at the time or may not be aware we are having a part in the fulfillment of them. (John 12: 16) While we do not have, expect or hope for direct visions or inspired dreams from the Lord, we can study the visions and dreams of his faithful men of old. We can watch how God by Christ Jesus has fulfilled or is in course of fulfilling them, and then can safeguard ourselves from the false dreams and vain visions of the religionists of Christendom. While none of us can produce inspired speech and writings, God has committed his inspired Bible to us and we can govern ourselves by its inspired commandments, teachings and instructions. We can quote and copy the Scriptures of God’s inspired men and can apply them according to the facts. We can observe how God interprets them by Christ Jesus through the events and facts that he causes to appear. Believing in the inspiration of Jehovah’s written Word, we will continue to hold fast to it, knowing that in obedience to it there is eternal life, and we are determined to keep on preaching its comforting message of God’s kingdom to all nations.—The Watchtower, 1947, 157-158.
--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is indeed a lot of "have our cake and eat it too" in JW literature, which isn't helpful in clarifying how they actually claim to received their 'progressive revelations' and 'new light'. On the one hand, there is the claim the God is guiding JWs (and only JWs) to the 'truth', but on the other, they at the same time claim that this isn't done in any actual manner. Their ambiguity aside, it is completely appropriate for the article to indicate both their claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Paradise earth
"Paradise earth" versus "paradisaic earth" or "paradisiac earth"...?
Please comment over at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation#Paradise earth (that is, not here but there). Please.
I couldn't find anything in the archives; it's a discussion someone else rekindled (diff). See also Paradise#Jehovah's Witnesses.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was discussed (or rather I was lectured about spelling) when Jeffro77 objected to my introduction of paradisiacal a a month and a half ago.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you considered it a 'lecture', I'm still waiting for my tuition fee. How will you be paying?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the thing is that I was surprised, since I didn't remember inscribing in the Jeffro Grammar Academy. I considered it a freebie to get a taste of the learning environment - it wasn't suited to my learning style I must admit.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- In any case, it is unclear what 'lecture' you're referring to. I did respond to carl bunderson about the etymology of the two words. Were you in disguise?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The lecture was given in the form of an edit summary. You changed my original wording of paradisiacal and I reverted in this edit[3] - you reverted back to paradisaic in this edit[4] which prompted this comment[5] by Carl Bunderson to which you responded like this[6] (btw. without providing sources other than wiktionary for the particular preference)·Maunus·ƛ· 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- We evidently have different definitions of what constitutes a lecture. As far as I'm concerned, a definition in an edit summary does not constitute a lecture, but you're welcome to call it what you will. If you have any basis for refuting the etymological explanation I gave to carl, I'm all ears.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have not challenged or changed it. You were apparently provoked by my use of the work lecture. That was not my intent. I could have said "I was taken to school about" or "I was explained" - the point was that it wasn't a discussion since I did not argue with you. That being said you do sometimes employ a rather abrasive tone when arguing your point, which has at times made me feel somewhat downtrodden. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I was reacting to a connotation of lecture that you evidently didn't intend. Sorry about that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd hoped this thread would be discussed over at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation#Paradise earth.
It's on the metaphoric backburner at the moment. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd hoped this thread would be discussed over at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation#Paradise earth.
- You're right, I was reacting to a connotation of lecture that you evidently didn't intend. Sorry about that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have not challenged or changed it. You were apparently provoked by my use of the work lecture. That was not my intent. I could have said "I was taken to school about" or "I was explained" - the point was that it wasn't a discussion since I did not argue with you. That being said you do sometimes employ a rather abrasive tone when arguing your point, which has at times made me feel somewhat downtrodden. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- We evidently have different definitions of what constitutes a lecture. As far as I'm concerned, a definition in an edit summary does not constitute a lecture, but you're welcome to call it what you will. If you have any basis for refuting the etymological explanation I gave to carl, I'm all ears.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The lecture was given in the form of an edit summary. You changed my original wording of paradisiacal and I reverted in this edit[3] - you reverted back to paradisaic in this edit[4] which prompted this comment[5] by Carl Bunderson to which you responded like this[6] (btw. without providing sources other than wiktionary for the particular preference)·Maunus·ƛ· 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- In any case, it is unclear what 'lecture' you're referring to. I did respond to carl bunderson about the etymology of the two words. Were you in disguise?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the thing is that I was surprised, since I didn't remember inscribing in the Jeffro Grammar Academy. I considered it a freebie to get a taste of the learning environment - it wasn't suited to my learning style I must admit.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you considered it a 'lecture', I'm still waiting for my tuition fee. How will you be paying?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was discussed (or rather I was lectured about spelling) when Jeffro77 objected to my introduction of paradisiacal a a month and a half ago.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
References to Scriptures to support beliefs
A note to any editors for this an any JW article: Please be mindful that placing bible scripture references behind a belief of the JW is not appropriate in most cases since it only provides the JW POV of that scripture (which is usually different from main stream Christian interpretations). It is good practice to only provide a bible reference if the JW interpretation itself of that scripture is being discussed in a balanced fashion. It should not be used as a reference for a JW belief since that would presume that the JW interpretion of scripture is the only meaningful interpretion. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Doctrinal controversies
"Its publications have made the explicit claim that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a prophet[209][210] and urged members of the religion to place unwavering trust in those predictions,[211] but has condemned others for making false predictions about the future.[212]"
I have a complaint in how this section is worded. For a common reader they would view this information as a fact even though they are listed on the subheading as “controversies.” This is a distortion of the information presented in the Watchtower articles that is not available for the average wikipedia reader to view. Since such things have been added and deleted over the years to this site, I think it should included briefly what the Watchtower actually states on this information.
Concerning the use of the word "prophet": a general reader thinks of an “inspired” person who speaks for God. Watchtower’s explanation of the word prophet, in the few articles listed, was a harmless discussion about how the term prophet was used for non-inspired evangelizers in a few scriptures in the Bible and DID NOT relate this information to any type of predictions.
If a counter statement can be included or rewording this information would add much to the accuracy of the information.--Saujad (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think your complaint is ungrounded. The sentence does clearly state that the society has been accused of making false predictions and claiming to be a prophet. The sentence is in a section at the end of the article that deals exclusively with controversies and negative accusations about the religion, so I don't think there's room for too much confusion. Two references are provided to Watchtower articles in which the organization does claim to be a prophet. The April 1, 1972 WT asks the question at the outset, "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? (my emphasis) These questions can be answered in the affirmative... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." It's your view that it was a "harmless discussion"; I'd imagine most readers of that magazine would have taken the article at face value and accepted it as the Watch Tower Society asserting itself as a prophet sent by God to warn people about what's coming in the future because he has revealed special knowledge to them. If you can provide further information from Watch Tower (or other) publications that provide an opposing view, by all means add it to overcome what you believe is bias. LTSally (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Prophet
JWs do not teach that any post-biblical human is a true prophet. I've rearranged the section's problematic sentence from:
- "Its publications have made the explicit claim that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a prophet" to
- "Jehovah's Witnesses publications have made the explicit claim that God has used the religion as a prophet"
It seems unlikely that JWs have made claims using terms such as "unwavering trust" or "those predictions", or that they have actually "condemned others". Each such occurrence is now accompanied by an invitation (that is, {{quote needed}} or [need quotation to verify]) asking the originating editor to share the actual quote here in Talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This paragraph is a summary of information at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Doctrinal controversies. Expanded references are there. Please note that the phrase "and urged adherents to place unwavering trust in those predictions" is drawn from the Franz reference cited at the end of the sentence. There is no need to place an additional reference to the same book within the same sentence. LTSally (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Editors should not remove tags prematurely (see diff).
Editors may be interested to review the information at Template:Quote_needed. In part, it says, "Please add this template after an unquoted interpretation of a source that you think may be inaccurate. This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided onsome otherthe discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly. This is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation [emphasis and strike added]." --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)- There's no address a crowd, AuthorityTam. When you write "Editors may be interested ..." I presume you're referring to me. I have already pointed out that you have inserted two tags within the same sentence requesting a quote from one cited source. However here's the quote you require: "No less serious is it when a group of men have divided views on predictions related to a certain date and yet present to their adherents an outward appearance of united confidence, encouraging those adherents to place unwavering trust in those predictions." (Franz, Crisis of Conscience, page 174). The 1968 Awake reference is partly quoted in the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article I referred you to above. That quote was taken from another book, which I'll try to locate to provide the complete passage. Otherwise I'll replace that source. It shouldn't be too hard to find a WT publication condemning other religions for predicting the end of the world. LTSally (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't take too long. here's a PDF of the page including the quote. [7]. LTSally (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly (but unsurprisingly), the cited reference didn't actually use any term similar to "condemned". I've edited (see diff) the first paragraph of the section as follows:
- Former: but has condemned others for making false predictions about the future.
- Current: but has referred to others as "guilty of false prophesying".
- Former: but has condemned others for making false predictions about the future.
- It would be good for editors to reflect what their chosen references actually say when they choose language for an article's body. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the matter of "urged unwavering trust in those predictions", the previous wording made it seem as though JW publications themselves said that, when that was actually an interpretation by a critic. I've edited (see diff) the first paragraph of the section by removing that phrase from the middle of that sentence and creating the new sentence as follows:
- One critic implies the religion's governing body urged "adherents to place unwavering trust in those predictions".
- It would be good for editors to be careful not to imply incorrect attribution of an idea. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Attributing those words to a "critic" is misleading, as it implies that the notion is something contested, whereas JW literature frequently states that JWs should put full trust in the Watch Tower organization.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- [JWs] have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization. - The Watchtower, 15 July 1974, p. 441 --Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the matter of "urged unwavering trust in those predictions", the previous wording made it seem as though JW publications themselves said that, when that was actually an interpretation by a critic. I've edited (see diff) the first paragraph of the section by removing that phrase from the middle of that sentence and creating the new sentence as follows:
- Sadly (but unsurprisingly), the cited reference didn't actually use any term similar to "condemned". I've edited (see diff) the first paragraph of the section as follows:
- Didn't take too long. here's a PDF of the page including the quote. [7]. LTSally (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no address a crowd, AuthorityTam. When you write "Editors may be interested ..." I presume you're referring to me. I have already pointed out that you have inserted two tags within the same sentence requesting a quote from one cited source. However here's the quote you require: "No less serious is it when a group of men have divided views on predictions related to a certain date and yet present to their adherents an outward appearance of united confidence, encouraging those adherents to place unwavering trust in those predictions." (Franz, Crisis of Conscience, page 174). The 1968 Awake reference is partly quoted in the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article I referred you to above. That quote was taken from another book, which I'll try to locate to provide the complete passage. Otherwise I'll replace that source. It shouldn't be too hard to find a WT publication condemning other religions for predicting the end of the world. LTSally (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Editors should not remove tags prematurely (see diff).
A similar matter was handled well at the related article Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses (see diff). The current wording there is as follows:
- ...The Watchtower instructed members that "Christians ... do not question what [God] tells them through his written Word and organization";[1] a critic of the religion claimed that adherents were encouraged "to place unwavering trust in those predictions".[2][3] A Witness publication referred to others as "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the world', even announcing a specific date'",[4] but has itself claimed it is not infallibile,[5][6][7] thus absolving itself of responsibility for the consequences of failed predictions.[8]
I'll try to improve this section in this article by borrowing from that section in that article, unless someone else does it before me.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me the current wording sums up the issue well in one short sentence, starting with the words "These accusations focus ...". This is to be a very brief summary of what has been expanded at the main Controversies article. LTSally (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Introduction to Criticism and Controversies
- Comment. This is completely the wrong way to go about it. I have just read the doctrine controversy section again and frankly is needs a complete rewrite. It is completely full of weasel words "critics have claimed", "has been accused of" these phrases all need to be made explicit: who says what? IF we do this the problem discussed above will also go away because we don't need to state any quotes form watchtower literature refuting the claims. We can simply say that "Franz has accused JW for hypocrisy by calling others false prophets yet making prohecies that do not come true" or however it should be worded. Another problem with the writing is that it requires the reader to make inferrals themselves - sort of like posing leading questions: "JWs have called themselves a prophet but have made false prophecies themselves" leads the reader to think that they are hypocrites. Instead the section should simply state X and Y has said that JW made themselves guilty of hypocrisy by .... The section could be much better written if it kept the criticism on a more general level while at the same time being completely explicit about claims and criticism and who makes it.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're overstating the problem. "Biblical controversies" is even-handed and simply states the points of controversy. "Social Controversies" already explicitly identifies the author of the criticism. "Doctrinal controversies" can certainly be improved, and I'm happy to address that, but I'm not sure adding a long catalogue of critics' names is the way to do it. LTSally (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I am overstating it. The section is an incoherent mess and it doesn't help the reader to get any understanding about how and why the witnesses have been criticised. The whole criticism section also relies too much on Franz and Penton to not describe who they are and why they are prominent critics. I really think an introduction like this[8] would benefit the article. You reverted what I wrote before I had time to source it, but it is sourceable and it is not based on opinion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your draft for an introduction: An especially vocal group of critics are often ex-witnesses who have left the organization or have been disfellowshipped over doctrinal disagreements. An especially prominent critic of the Organization is Raymond Franz who was a member of the Governing body before his disfellowshiping. He has since published several books criticizing the organization both for general disagreements with the Organizations practices and over the particular situation surrounding his disfellowshipping. Another prominent critic is James Penton a historian who had published a book about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada while he was still a member, and who published critical books about the history and development of the movement after being disfellowshipped. Ex-witnesses generally criticize the organization for being too authoritarian and for coercing members into following its doctrines under threats of disfellowshipping, and consequent shunning. Other Christian denominations and theologists are often critical of particular aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine such as their rejection of the trinity and often they also take issue with the Watchtower Bible translation. In the general public Jehovah's Witnesses are often criticised for their tendency to seclude themselves from the surrounding society, for their refusal to participate in military or political organizations and for their persistent proselytisation....
- This could be used, with changes for reasons of readability and accuracy. Perhaps, Former members of the group who have left the organization or have been disfellowshipped over doctrinal disagreements are often critical of the organization. One prominent critic of the organization, Raymond Franz, was a member of the Governing body before being disfellowshipped
for charges of apostasy. He has since published several books criticizing the organization both for general disagreements with its practices and the specific details surrounding his disfellowshipping. Another prominent critic is James Penton a historian who published a book about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada while he was still a member, and other critical books about the history and development of the movement after being disfellowshipped. Former members generally criticize the organization for being authoritarian and for coercing members into following its doctrines under threats of disfellowshipping, and consequent shunning. Other Christian denominations and theologists are often critical of particular aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, such as their rejection of the Trinity and the Watch Tower Society's translation of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses are often criticized in general society for their tendency to seclude themselves from the surrounding community, their refusal to participate in military or political organizations, their objections to blood transfusions and popular celebrations, and their persistent proselytism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I am overstating it. The section is an incoherent mess and it doesn't help the reader to get any understanding about how and why the witnesses have been criticised. The whole criticism section also relies too much on Franz and Penton to not describe who they are and why they are prominent critics. I really think an introduction like this[8] would benefit the article. You reverted what I wrote before I had time to source it, but it is sourceable and it is not based on opinion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problems with your changes, it was only a draft anyway - I am sure it can get better.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm at work now so can't check the book, or spend too much time studying the proposal, but from memory Franz wasn't disfellowshipped for apostasy, but for eating with a disfellowshipped person, his employer. LTSally (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think thats right - he only began publicly criticizing the society after that.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Sorry about that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can see your intent with this and the idea has merit in providing context, but this is the wrong approach. Rather than focusing on the criticism contained in the section, it is instead addressing and describing those who have raised the issues. This would be appropriate if the section was about critics rather than criticism. It probably wasn't intended, but the first sentence of Jeffro's proposal reads almost as a rationalisation or minimisation of those criticisms: in essence, people who leave often start complaining, or the complaints always come from people who were expelled. Franz is a distinctive case because he was a GB member who clearly became uncomfortable with some of the religion's doctrines and outlooks while at the top and publicly voiced those views once he had been ousted. I'm not sure it's fair to pigeonhole Penton as a "prominent critic": yes, his Apocalypse Delayed book does contain much criticism, it also has praise for aspects of their work as well. His book is an examination of the religion that contains criticism. If criticism by Holden and Wills and Rogerson is also included, do we try to find some reason to explain their beef with the religion as well? What chip on their shoulders are they carrying? I'll have more of a think about what introduction is appropriate, but while it should contain reference to the peculiar circumstances of Franz and Penton, it must focus less on those who speak up and more on the subject of that part of the article: the criticism. LTSally (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Sorry about that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think thats right - he only began publicly criticizing the society after that.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm at work now so can't check the book, or spend too much time studying the proposal, but from memory Franz wasn't disfellowshipped for apostasy, but for eating with a disfellowshipped person, his employer. LTSally (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Maunus, because the criticism against JWs, in the article, mainly comes from two specific persons, R. Franz and J. Penton, both of them ex-JWs, and this must be understood by the readers. Personal opinions about JWs must not be presented as general problems of JWs.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion:
- Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted criticism over a range of issues. Other Christian denominations and theologists are often critical of aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, such as their rejection of the Trinity and the Watch Tower Society's translation of the Bible. Criticism of other aspects of the religion's practices has focused on its emphasis on the anticipated arrival of Armageddon, claims that by requiring a high level of obedience from members to its doctrines and practices it exercises unnecessary levels of control over their lives, and that its use of expulsion and shunning in dealing with dissidents is harsh and unscriptural. Much of the published criticism of these features has been made by Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body, who was expelled from the religion in 1980, and Canadian academic and former elder James Penton, who wrote a history of the religion in his own country but was disfellowshipped for apostasy while writing a more expansive history of the religion.
- The religion has also attracted widespread controversy over its requirement for members to refuse blood transfusions, particularly when life is at risk or minors are involved. Witnesses are also often criticized in general society for their their persistent proselytism, their tendency to seclude themselves from the surrounding community, their refusal to participate in military or political organizations, and abstinence from popular celebrations.
Three quick observations on the above: There's no mention of the sex abuse issue, there is a new mention of the blood issue (not currently covered in this section, but it should be -- it's certainly a controversy) ... and references for this last sentence may be more difficult to obtain. LTSally (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- To Scientia: Er, so the only acceptable criticisms of a religion are those that aren't personal opinions. That makes no sense at all. Nor does your suggestion that criticisms of the religion's control of members' life and behavior, for example, are a "problem" of Witnesses. It's not a problem, it's just a criticism. And if I add criticism from other authors, will you then try to identify their attitude problem, since you'd clearly not accept that they may have a valid point of criticism? LTSally (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is relevant that different groups of people make different kinds of criticism. I don't think it minimizes the criticism - if anything i think it shows that different people criticize the areas they know the most about - ex-witnesses tend to criticize the authoritarianism which they have experienced firsthand, theologists criticize the doctrine and translation and the general public criticize the witnesses for the areas in which they experience them. Anyway it can be sourced to sources such as Holden so it is not personal opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Maunus, that the type of criticism can be dependent on the person or groups making it and I have incorporated this into my proposal. However my wording as an introduction to the section, while clearly identifying those making the criticisms, focuses on the criticism – the subject of the section – rather than the critics, and also avoids any suggestion of dismission of those criticisms because of the identity or circumstances of the critics. LTSally (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Polity
While JW may claim to have an episcopal polity fact is that it is much closer to a presbyterian policy while also having some traits of the congregational polity. furthermore calling it episcopal will confuse just about any non-JW who reads it to think that JW has Bishops. Hierarchical is a much more fitting description and has the virtue of being supprted by sources such as holden 2001.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maunus' suggestion makes sense. Given that sources support it and it is at least a bit contentious, could we source it even though it's in the infobox? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I strongly disagree to almost every point of Maunus’ retort. I don’t know what you’re referring to by Holden 2001… please supply this reference. Again, “Hierarchal” is not technically a form of religious polity. Polity refers to the type of government used… a hierarchy is not a type of gov’t, it’s an attribute. Also, I take exception to the very nature of your reasoning as it’s impossible to “have some traits of congregational polity” while also being a little Episcopal or Presbyterian. These forms of polity are completely opposed to each other. Episcopal and Congregational polity in particular are completely contradictory.
- Linguistically the title bishop and overseer actually mean the exact same thing. Furthermore, because modern JWs have overseers they can not be Congregationalist in the slightest. Also, because they don’t allow their congregations to vote for their Overseers, or allow lower ranked members to remove Overseers by their own authority… they can not be considered Presbyterian Polity.
- Arguably, the hierarchy is structured and ranked as follows… President (now obsolete), GB, Zone Overseers, District Overseers, Circuit Overseers, PO, Elders, Ministerial Servants, and laity. Because only higher ranked members, i.e. bishops/overseers can promote, and the laity is not allowed to cast a vote in this regard, this is absolutely Episcopal Polity. I recommend reading up on Presbyterianism… the very reason for its historical creation was to remove the consolidation of authority by giving congregations a vote in promoting and demoting their bishops. Modern JWs do not do this. Congregationalism is against all forms of titles or ranks higher than elder/pastor. The issue of polity is quite clear… in regard to religions there’s only three to choose from, and “Hierarchal” is not even one of them. By their very nature all Episcopal polity religions are hierarchal, adding this is redundant. So now that I’ve said my piece, Carl Bunderson can you reply again... I'd like you and someone else to mediate on this point. Jadon (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Holden 2001 "Jehovah's Witnesses portrait of a Contemporary religious Movement" is in the bibliography of the article. And the citation where he classifies the organizational structure as hierarchical is also in the article body. It is true that JW orghanization is built on the Episcopal mold, but it is not clear to me that it can necessarily be equated with it. Most of all I am quite sure that it will be confusing to layreaders who will think that it has to do with the Episcopal church. No need to mediate - if there is consensus to change to episcopal (which would however require a reference to be considered) I have no problem with changing it. I just don't see the change from a cited to an uncited classification that may be confusing or may not apply to this movement to be immediately acceptable without discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- actually I am remembering one quote that might be used in favour of Episcopal - Beckford writes that the Watchtower organization is just as hierarchical as the caholic church. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- “The Governing Body uses a hierarchial organization.” Affidavit of Don Adams, Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1986, Brogdon v. Ruddell -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the graciousness in your reply Maunus... if the referenced sources are actually talking about the type of ecclesiastical polity then by all means change the polity field back to "hierarchical". In regard to references I think it’s important to not confuse a description of a group's organization or structure with an actual form of polity. I never even heard of “hierarchical polity.” For example saying that the USA is a hierarchical gov’t might be an appropriate description (and you might find reference that support it) but it’s not technically a form of government (or polity), the USA is a Republic. Listing off just one attribute of a Republic doesn’t effectively tell people what type of gov’t it is. Likewise, Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely a hierarchical organization, but their being hierarchical isn’t a form of polity. Therefore I’m arguing that a description of the organization is not actually what the polity field is asking for, nor are these references actually talking about ecclesiastical polity. Let a few more people reply and then I'll go along with the consensus… so far it looks like Maunus’ view is in favor. Jadon (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best solution would be to leave the "polity" field blank? I don't remember having ever seen the word polity actually being used about JW organizational structure, maybe it just isn't applicable? The sources I mention don't specifically talk about "ecclesiastical polity" they talk about social organization. Maybe we could replace the polity field with a field saying organization?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that might be the best route. Unless we have a source saying "JWs have an X polity", we will probably be interpreting sources for this material. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
JW refs
Scholars will likely agree that in Russell's day and for many decades, congregations of Bible Students were unmistakeably congregational. It was not unheard of for a congregation to simply ignore a teaching which a majority of congregants didn't like. For example, as early as 1942 smoking was said to disqualify a man from appointment as overseer or servant, yet reportedly that behavior was widely tolerated for at least another decade. The question is whether the changes since then have moved JWs out from under their historic classification.
I'm insufficiently familiar with the various forms of polity to know which features are inextricably linked with each. Additionally, does each form imply legal and ownership principles which may or may not have repercussions? My thoughts on each:
- Presbyterian polity - No, the layers of elected committeemen are dissimilar to JWs.
- Episcopal polity - I'd thought (likely incorrectly) that episcopalism implied central ownership of places of worship, and that each bishop is a successor to the apostles. JWs don't do or believe that. IMHO, JWs have pointedly structured themselves so that they have (arguably) only two levels: GBJW and local. Multiple references show that EVERY branch committeeman and EVERY traveling overseer is a direct appointee and direct representative of the GBJW; each acts under specific assignment rather than on his own ordinal authority (which, to my understanding, is different from the authority of a bishop or other episcopal layer). Furthermore, the section Ecclesiastical polity#Episcopal Polity says, "episcopal polity is not usually a simple chain of command"; yet that seems to be the PRIMARY basis for applying the term to JWs.
- Congregational polity - Of the three, I'd have guessed that JWs would be listed with a Congregational polity, since they dispense with titled positions, and the local body of elders in each congregation is actually recognized to have remarkably broad authority over local (that is, non-doctrinal) matters. While a branch office or traveling overseer may push a particular issue on the mere basis of "organizational unity", the fact remains that local elders do have wide latitude, and are expected to present many practical matters to a congregation vote. In practice, a JW branch office mainly influences a local congregation's non-doctrinal affairs by appointing and/or deleting particular elders; the obvious parallel is that other congregationalists also look outside the local congregation for ministerial ordination (and they typically respect authoritative de-ordination).
Primarily, JWs differ from traditional congregational polity only in that unappointed congregants cannot recommend the appointment or deletion of their elders and deacons. Technically (that is, legally) a majority of local congregants probably COULD do what it wanted with its house of worship and appointments (admittedly, with those involved then considered as "disassociated"). I think that scenario is altogether impossible in an episcopal organization.
Incidentally, JW literature seems to pointedly refused to allow the religion to be categorized in any of the three polities. Consider:
- The Watchtower, April 15, 1996, page 20, "Christian unity is the eighth requirement of true worship. ...Many divisions have sprung from differences of doctrine or church government (for example, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational). [By implication, none of those three is "true worship".]"
- Awake!, May 8, 1995, page 20, "Should the true religion be identified...by the form of rule it employs (such as Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregational)? ["No," is the implication; "true religion" is none of those three.]"
Without a better suggestion, I'd recommend "Congregational polity ('centralized' or 'modified')" or similar.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up." -- The Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1971 p. 754 --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The Governing Body uses a hierarchial organization.” Affidavit of Don Adams, Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1986, Brogdon v. Ruddell --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- JW structure is a very corporatised form of episcopal polity, and the formal differences to an episcopal model overshadow the similarities. Additionally, Marvin Shilmer's quote from Don Adams is explicitly clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- But I don't think we can fill in the "polity" field with OR or SYNTH like this - we need to have a quote specifically about the kind of ecclesiastical polity used by JW or we should leave that field blank or rename it organization.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already mentioned, I'm certainly not going to claim expertise at ecclesiastical polities. I am skeptical about the need to pigeon-hole every Christian denomination into one of the three best-known (only-known?) examples. Of course, an explicit categorization which is 'explicitly clear' should be straightforward to reference. Otherwise, it seems unwikipedian to include original research in an article (or template) here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- JWs do not use the term 'polity' to describe their structure; however there are references already provided by Marvin Shilmer indicating that they are "governed" by a "hierarchical organization". The definitions of "polity" and "govern" are generally clear (and if not, there are dictionaries), and it is not abstruse synthesis to state that their polity is hierarchical based on the references already provided. WP:SYNTH states "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- But there is no kind of polity called "hierarchical" that is a kind of organization structure.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- A polity is an organizational structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- An ecclesiastical polity is a special kind of organizational structure of which there are only three types neither of which are fitting descriptions of Jehovah's Witnesses organizational structure. Not all organizations has a polity, the organizational structures of Microsoft, RSPCA or the united Nations are not described as polities. Not even all religions have one. There is no compelling reason to use the word polity in relation to JW unless we actually find a source using that word.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are three general forms of ecclesiastical polity. However, if none are completely accurate to describe a particular group, then obviously there is something else. If you feel that JWs cannot be described as having a "polity" even though it means organizational structure, feel free to add an additional suitable optional parameter to the {{Infobox Christian denomination}} template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would consider inventing a term "Hierarchical polity" OR. I will insert an organization structure parameter in the tempate instead.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm apparently not clever enough to do that myself - I would urge someone else with a higher IQ to do it.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- What would you like it called? ("Organizational structure" will likely wrap in the first column, so would prefer something shorter if possible).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Implemented as 'Organizational structure'. Please advise if you prefer something else.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a very good outcome relative to the original concern by User:Jadon.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm apparently not clever enough to do that myself - I would urge someone else with a higher IQ to do it.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would consider inventing a term "Hierarchical polity" OR. I will insert an organization structure parameter in the tempate instead.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are three general forms of ecclesiastical polity. However, if none are completely accurate to describe a particular group, then obviously there is something else. If you feel that JWs cannot be described as having a "polity" even though it means organizational structure, feel free to add an additional suitable optional parameter to the {{Infobox Christian denomination}} template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- An ecclesiastical polity is a special kind of organizational structure of which there are only three types neither of which are fitting descriptions of Jehovah's Witnesses organizational structure. Not all organizations has a polity, the organizational structures of Microsoft, RSPCA or the united Nations are not described as polities. Not even all religions have one. There is no compelling reason to use the word polity in relation to JW unless we actually find a source using that word.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- A polity is an organizational structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- But there is no kind of polity called "hierarchical" that is a kind of organization structure.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- JWs do not use the term 'polity' to describe their structure; however there are references already provided by Marvin Shilmer indicating that they are "governed" by a "hierarchical organization". The definitions of "polity" and "govern" are generally clear (and if not, there are dictionaries), and it is not abstruse synthesis to state that their polity is hierarchical based on the references already provided. WP:SYNTH states "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already mentioned, I'm certainly not going to claim expertise at ecclesiastical polities. I am skeptical about the need to pigeon-hole every Christian denomination into one of the three best-known (only-known?) examples. Of course, an explicit categorization which is 'explicitly clear' should be straightforward to reference. Otherwise, it seems unwikipedian to include original research in an article (or template) here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- But I don't think we can fill in the "polity" field with OR or SYNTH like this - we need to have a quote specifically about the kind of ecclesiastical polity used by JW or we should leave that field blank or rename it organization.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- JW structure is a very corporatised form of episcopal polity, and the formal differences to an episcopal model overshadow the similarities. Additionally, Marvin Shilmer's quote from Don Adams is explicitly clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehovah as God's name
The article must not give the false impression that JWs believe that using especially the form “Jehovah” is vital to proper worship, or that they believe the form "Jehovah" to be the ancient pronunciation of the Name. JWs publications have time and again explained that the use of the form “Jehovah” in English is made for practical reasons.
So, it is not the form “Jehovah” that is vital to proper worship, but the understanding and the use of the personal name of God.
Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. [...] Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.” Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.—Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 7.
--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also preferring "jehovah" is only true in english - in other languages other transliterations are in use.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reverted statement (They consider the use of God's biblical name, the Tetragrammaton, vital to proper worship, and in English they prefer the form Jehovah) is not accurate. JWs believe the tetragrammaton represents God's name, but they do not go stamping the tetragrammaton on everything, and they don't claim that it is required for pure worship. This is the English Wikipedia; we do not need to state that a word as used in English is the preferred English usage, nor do we need to elaborate on usage in other languages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The "this is English wikipedia" argument doesn't hold - Jehovah's Witnesses is an international organization - it is false to state that the use of the name "Jehovah" is required by their doctrine - this is only the standard in English in other languages other transliterations of the tertagrammaton are used - which clearly shows that it s a matter of convention not doctrine. Vassilis' version is moe correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jeffro77, you say “we do not need to state that a word as used in English is the preferred English usage”, and you prefer this:
- They consider use of the name Jehovah, one of the proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton, vital to proper worship;
- Can you explain what is the purpose of the phrase, “One of the proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton”? What is its value and purpose here?
- And what is the meaning of the phrase, “The they consider use of the name Jehovah vital to proper worship”? As the name of what? Of the kitchen, of the car?
- I think we need to learn to write taking into account not the one who is familiar with JWs but the one who is totally ignorant.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest something like "They consider the use of a personal name for God based on the Tetragrammaton, such as Jehovah, to be vital in their worship.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- The "this is English wikipedia" argument doesn't hold - Jehovah's Witnesses is an international organization - it is false to state that the use of the name "Jehovah" is required by their doctrine - this is only the standard in English in other languages other transliterations of the tertagrammaton are used - which clearly shows that it s a matter of convention not doctrine. Vassilis' version is moe correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reverted statement (They consider the use of God's biblical name, the Tetragrammaton, vital to proper worship, and in English they prefer the form Jehovah) is not accurate. JWs believe the tetragrammaton represents God's name, but they do not go stamping the tetragrammaton on everything, and they don't claim that it is required for pure worship. This is the English Wikipedia; we do not need to state that a word as used in English is the preferred English usage, nor do we need to elaborate on usage in other languages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also preferring "jehovah" is only true in english - in other languages other transliterations are in use.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Article Jehovah
The article "Jehovah" currently words the matter as follows:
- The name Jehovah is widely used by Jehovah's Witnesses as the personal name of God, although the religion recognizes and encourages the use of equivalent names in other languages.[9][10][11] Witnesses do not believe that Jehovah is the original pronunciation of the Name, but rather that Jehovah is a commonly used, faithfully translated form of the original Hebrew Name.[12][13]
[...]
"Jehovah" has been a popular English word for the personal name of God for several centuries. For this reason, some religious groups, notably Jehovah's Witnesses and the King-James-Only movement, make prominent use of the name.
- The name Jehovah is widely used by Jehovah's Witnesses as the personal name of God, although the religion recognizes and encourages the use of equivalent names in other languages.[9][10][11] Witnesses do not believe that Jehovah is the original pronunciation of the Name, but rather that Jehovah is a commonly used, faithfully translated form of the original Hebrew Name.[12][13]
In THAT article, I seem to recall having helped nudge things into the current form (see diff) several weeks or months ago.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Avoidance of the term "shunning"
Tha section on discipline has been rewritten with the addition of the phrase "Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to avoid the term “shunning”[165] because they do not altogether avoid business, family, or humane interaction with disfellowshipped persons, and congregation elders regularly invite disfellowshipped persons to apply for reinstatement." The same phrase has been added to Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. I requested a source for the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses tend to avoid the term. Without such a source, this is merely one editor's view that rank-and-file Witnesses have this tendency. AuthorityTam has supported this claim with a quote from the Watchtower website, which addresses the issue of shunning. He adds his own comment about his interpretation of their answer in square brackets:
- "Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions", Authorized Site of the Office of Public Information of Jehovah's Witnesses, "[Note that the question is not answered affirmatively, and their alternate term is explicitly bolded.] Do you shun former members? Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, special effort is made to reach out to them and rekindle their spiritual interest. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. ...The spiritual ties [which a disfellowshipped person] had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. ...Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith [emphasis retained from source]"
This answer, and AuthorityTam's explanation of it, don't support his claim that Witnesses avoid the term. The initial reply in the negative refers only to Witnesses who have become inactive. Its subsequent reference to disfellowshipped Witnesses confirms that they are avoided. Watch Tower publications often use the term "shun" in reference to discipline. A Kingdom Ministry article, "Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped" (August 2002) includes the comment: "Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial." A website article, Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit, uses the term repeatedly. "How Christians Cope With Public Reproach" (WT, April 1, 1995) uses the term in regard to apostates (ie, former Witnesses who speak against the organisation).
The current claim in the article is obviously wrong. Great care clearly needs to be taken when writing that Witnesses as a whole tend to act in a particular manner. LTSally (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: How can anyone make such a claim when Watchtower applies the term to characterize the social treatment of those disfellowshipped or deemed to have disassociated? The notion is absurd. Witnesses are taught to shun and taught to use the term "shun" and "shunning" by Watchtower's governing body.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only is the claim about avoiding the term not clearly evidenced, but the reason claimed for avoiding the term is also an unsourced opinion. I have reworded the section. (Additionally, the part of the quote about inactive or 'faders' not being shunned is irrelevant to the application of 'shunning' to disfellowshipped or disassociated.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The phrase "though Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to avoid the term 'shunning'" can safely be removed, however. It adds nothing of importance and without a source, this claim is a personal observation only. The article could be filled with observations about what Witnesses tend to do. LTSally (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only is the claim about avoiding the term not clearly evidenced, but the reason claimed for avoiding the term is also an unsourced opinion. I have reworded the section. (Additionally, the part of the quote about inactive or 'faders' not being shunned is irrelevant to the application of 'shunning' to disfellowshipped or disassociated.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Been through this?
Please could I have a link to the discussion referred to in the edit comment on this revert [9] on why we choose to break WP:SYNTH in use of references. The references provided do not support the composite term currently used, and the composite means more than the sum of its parts. On top of which Encarta is pretty weak for this kind of thing. --BozMo talk 08:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- To be clearer, History.com is clearly not WP:RS, any more than the many small organisation sites saying "JW is a non-Christian cult" are WP:RS. All the references I can find support one of the phrases "Christian-based denomination" "Christian sect" or "Christian" group. The phrase Christian_denomination has a particular meaning (basically, accepted part of the church) which I cannot find a reference to support for JWs. --BozMo talk 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH states "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing." No compelling reason has ever been provided for stating that JWs are anything other than Christian. Biased opinions regarding the Trinity (which is not the determining factor of Christianity) are irrelevant. Membership in the WCC is also not a determining factor of being either Christian or a denomination, as even the Catholic Church is not a member. The definition of 'denomination' you have provided ("basically, accepted part of the church") is your personal opinion, and not consistent with what appears in the articles Christian denomination or Religious denomination. Other than that, feel free to look back through the considerable volume of discussion in the history yourself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am very sorry but Christian denomination is a phrase which has a meaning over and above the combination of the words. That is why there is a Wikipedia article on it, very obviously which I looked at before changing this article. Finding separate references for "Christian" and "denomination" is inadequate because you can clearly be a religious denomination and Christian without being a Christian denomination as per the articles. That article defines it in a way which does not apparently include JWs, as it presently stands. I have no problem with the use of the word "Christian" as there is no trademark on it, and self declariation seems to be the way it works. JWs self declare as such. But I cannot see any reliable source to assert they are a Christian denomination. Do you have an actual argument for using this phrase? I find your reaction has slight overtones of WP:OWN by the way.--BozMo talk 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The definition underwent exhaustive discussion in recent months and a consensus was reached. Witnesses self-identify as Christians and fit the dictionary definition of a denomination, therefore they are a Christian denomination. When common sense is applied, there is no requirement for an external source to use the explicit phrase used in this article. LTSally (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article, religious denomination states that "The term describes various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicanism, and the many varieties of Protestantism or Restorationism)." JWs are a restorationist religion and are therefore within the scope of this definition of a denomination. Christian denomination also includes JWs in its discussion of Messianic groups, which are broadly considered part of the Protestent movement (despite those groups' own self-identification as something separate). As regards both articles, JWs are entirely within the scope of a "Christian denomination". If you believe this not to be the case, please present evidence to the contrary. The "overtones of WP:OWN" that you believe you detect may be a result of frustration at the number of times this issue has been raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The definition underwent exhaustive discussion in recent months and a consensus was reached. Witnesses self-identify as Christians and fit the dictionary definition of a denomination, therefore they are a Christian denomination. When common sense is applied, there is no requirement for an external source to use the explicit phrase used in this article. LTSally (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough on WP:OWN and it is difficult to care much about the issue. However a link to where the discussion was debated would help, if it keeps coming up perhaps you should have one to hand rather than send people off to search the archives for themselves. Meanwhile I guess some people do use language in the way LTSally does. I am pleased that to LTS my being a first team rugby player and being at Cambridge University makes me a Cambridge University first team rugby player which I never realised I was. --BozMo talk 12:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Monogamy
Can a man have a active sexual partner (outside his marriage) if he is married but not sexually connected with her in any sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.255.6 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult to interpret this as a serious question. In the context of the article discussed, the answer is no.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
opening paragraph
Restorationism / Millenarianism
The opening paragraph says 'Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist,millenarian Christian denomination'. But Jehovah's Witnesses themself don't recognize that they belong to Protestant groups. -See p19., November. 1, 2009, The Watchtower. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed your verifiability tag pending your explanation of its purpose. Your comment above doesn't address the issue. LTSally (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think opening paragraph is biased to critics views. This is POV.119.244.100.232 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then I say JW don't recognized that they are one of restorationist,millenarian Christian denomination. I think this is critics' point of views. This is not an accurate information.119.244.100.232 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- November. 1, 2009, The Watchtower can be downloaded. Please listen to this(from "Worldwide Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses").119.244.100.232 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is official reading of JW, not personal reading.119.244.100.232 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- JW literature often uses jargon and circumlocutory to make their religion appear unique. However, neutral and basic definitions of the terms restorationist, millenarian, and Christian all apply to JWs. If you believe otherwise, present reliable neutral third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, "Restorationism" is only occasionally understood as a branch of Protestantism; more often, Christianity is described as three or four branches, two of which are Protestantism and Restorationism (the others being Catholicism and sometimes Anglicanism although not all agree on these three or four).
- JWs do not describe themselves as "restorationist" but they do describe themselves as having rediscovered "primitive Christianity". The term "restorationism" is intended by scholars as an umbrella for all Christian groups who describe themselves thusly, and JWs have typically accepted that others classify them as Restorationists (while not formally agreeing with the classification).
By contrast, JWs have never shied from being described as "millenarian" (consider under the subheading "Early Christians were called “MILLENARIANS”" in the article "Christians and the Millennial Hope", The Watchtower, April 15, 1981, page 13). --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- JW literature often uses jargon and circumlocutory to make their religion appear unique. However, neutral and basic definitions of the terms restorationist, millenarian, and Christian all apply to JWs. If you believe otherwise, present reliable neutral third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is official reading of JW, not personal reading.119.244.100.232 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But in point of fact, no restoration and millenarian Church believe same denomination. Nor Jehavah's Witnesses. In doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Second Coming such as other restoration Churches, they believe invisible presence of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, JW actually believe millennial government of Jesus, but they also believe Jesus is not God and he will hand back full powers to Jehovah God after his millennial govenment. I think this is diffent from other restoration and millenarian denominations. I think your classification is by Catholic Church. It seems that you say that Catholic and Protestant Church is the same denomination because of trinity doctrine. It is POV. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jehovah's Witnesses are neither Catholic nor Protestant, that much is obvious. So with which other Christian classification should they be included: Anglicanism or Restorationism (which claims to have "restored" first century Christianity)? It seems rather obvious that of the two, JWs more closely identify with the Restorationism.
- Article: "Jehovah’s Witnesses", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 203, "The modern-day history of Jehovah’s Witnesses began with the forming of a group for Bible study in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the early 1870’s. At first they were known only as Bible Students, but in 1931 they adopted the Scriptural name Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Isa. 43:10-12) Their beliefs and practices are not new but are a restoration of first-century Christianity."
- The objections to the other term are even harder to understand, since Jehovah's Witnesses have described themselves and early Christians as "Millenarians". The term is hardly a pejorative!
- Article: "Christians and the Millennial Hope", The Watchtower, April 15, 1981, pages 13-14, "Roman Catholic Church and, indeed, most of the large, well-established Protestant religions never mention the millennial hope to churchgoers. They speak disdainfully of that hope as “millennialism,” and of those who share it as “millenarians.” But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not ashamed of this belief, for irrefutable historical facts show that the millennial hope was shared by the early Christians. Early Christians were called “Millenarians” Referring to Christians who believe in the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the Encyclopedia Americana states: “Those who hold such views are called millenarians..." [...] Thus, there is cumulative evidence that the early Christians were “millenarians,” insofar as that name was applied to those who were hoping for the 1,000-year reign of Christ the Messiah.
- Of course there are significant differences between denominations under the umbrella terms "Restorationism" and "Millenarianism", just as there are significant differences under the umbrella terms "Christianity" and "Protestantism". Still, sociologists and social scientists find it useful to group religions in such ways, and the Wikipedia community is fond of referencing published scholars such as they (who more often seem to be Atheist than Catholic).
Please let me assure 119.244.100.232 that Jehovah's Witnesses have been identified in this article as "restorationist" and "millenarian" for analytical and encyclopedic purposes and not as part of any Catholic plot against them.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reasoning from the Scriptures and The Watchtower, April 15, 1981 don't explain that JW is a restoration, millenarian Christian denomination. I think these only express JW's doctorine come from first-century Christianity. They are NOT denomination or sect. I think they are a group differed from other restoration, millenarian Christian denominations. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that JW don't define them selves as being a protestant group - it matters that specialists in religion define them as such. That is not a "critical viwe" it is an "academic view" there is a BIG difference and the difference is NPOV. The article should neither supply the POv of JW or their critics but that of reliable academic sources - that is what it does when describing the religion as millenarian and restorationist. It is in fact a defining criteria of restorationist movements to not consider themselves to belong to any other established groups.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Denomination
- But the first meaning of "denomination" is sect, but JW is NOT sect from other restoration, millenarian Christian denomination. Furthermore, I don't think "academic views" always means "not critical views". I think your meaning "academic" come from "theology" and theology come from Catholic doctrine. Then I think it become POV.119.244.100.232 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well you're wrong on both accounts - my meaning of "academic" comes from sociology. And denomination explicitly doeas not mean "sect" a sect is what branches off from a denomination. And anyway theology is also practiced by protestants, I even know a JW who taught theology at the University of Copenhagen - your fear of a catholic conspiracy is completely unfounded.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- But the first meaning of "denomination" is sect, but JW is NOT sect from other restoration, millenarian Christian denomination. Furthermore, I don't think "academic views" always means "not critical views". I think your meaning "academic" come from "theology" and theology come from Catholic doctrine. Then I think it become POV.119.244.100.232 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The matter of JWs as a "denomination" was discussed just weeks ago, at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive_45#Denomination. Several of those secondary (third party) references were quoted by the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, implying that JWs tolerate being labeled as a "denomination". Those familiar with JWs have noted that their literature sometimes compares and contrasts the faith with "other denominations", which arguably implies that JWs believe themselves to be 'a denomination'. Consider two examples...
- "Watching the World", Awake!, August 2006, page 19, "As a public corporation, the Religious Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany is entitled to tax exemptions and other privileges enjoyed by the country’s major religious denominations. [emphasis added]"
- "Iceland", 2005 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 220-221, "1969, Jehovah’s Witnesses obtained legal recognition and were registered with [Iceland's] Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs. Now the Witnesses in Iceland had the same rights as all other denominations and were authorized to perform marriages and to officiate at funerals. [emphasis added]"
Very occasionally, the term "denomination" is used elsewhere to refer to a fraction split from a previous whole, but the term "denomination" is almost never used in that sense encyclopedically. Instead, "denomination" typically means a significant, discreet religious entity (smaller than a religion, eg "Christianity", but larger than a congregation). Encyclopedically, the term "denomination" does not imply any particular POV. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"Awake!, August 2006" and 2005 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses NEVER say that JW is a denomination. Don't be embarrassed. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless, the wording in the Yearbook quoted above indicates to any person with a reasonable grasp of English that the JW leadership accepts that they are also a "denomination". Added to this, the basic definition of "denomination" as previously indicated as specified at religious denomination and Christian denomination also encompass JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- ^ "The Godly Qualities of Love and Hate". The Watchtower. 15 July 1974.
{{cite journal}}: Text "page 441" ignored (help) - ^ Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, 2007, page 174.
- ^ Botting, Heather (1984). The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Toronto Press. pp. 60–75. ISBN 0-8020-6545-7.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Awake!, October 8, 1968, p. 23.
- ^ "Why So Many False Alarms?", Awake!, March 22, 1993, footnote, which contains several quotes from Watchtower publications since 1896.
- ^ "Views From the Watchtower", Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, January 1908|"We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises ... We do not even [assert] that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."
- ^ "Preaching Christ—Through Envy or Goodwill?", The Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p. 297.|"Jehovah’s Witnesses as modern-day Christians are working hard to get this good news preached to every individual. They do not claim infallibility or perfection. Neither are they inspired prophets."
- ^ Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, 2007, page 174.
- ^ Awake!, January 22, 2004, cover series of articles "Do You Know God by Name?", mostly reproduced here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122/article_01.htm
- ^ The Watchtower, September 1, 2008, "Why Use God’s Name if Its Pronunciation Is Uncertain?", page 31
- ^ The Watchtower, July 15, 1964, "What Is The Name?", page 424
- ^ Awake!, December 2007, page 20, "How God’s Name Has Been Made Known", "The commonly used form of God’s name in English is Jehovah, translated from the Hebrew [Tetragrammaton], which appears some 7,000 times in the Bible."
- ^ The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, p. 7, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania "The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names. To take the most prominent example,consider the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus' family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or perhaps Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus."