Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 61

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 55

←

Archive 59

→

Persecution reasons short note

We already examined reasons to persecution of JWs very much, so we don't need to resume that previous talk. Specifically, I remind expressions like "provocation theory", "masochists", "conspiracists" and "horny to self-martyrdom", what were considered to be a noted utterances. Archive is here. I came across Wikipedia and discovered some articles and essays which can be (=maybe it is not) relevant to reasons of JW' persecution in general. Unintended consequences ,, The road to hell is paved with good intentions ,, Side effect ,, Boomerang effect (psychology) ,, Relevance paradox. However, speculation about that is possibly WP:OR. --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting anything. But you're right, your implied leading question about the listed topics is indeed original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Are all Jehovah's Witnesses homophobic?

Wikipedia is not a forum; this is not the place for this discussion.

Having recently experienced homophobic comments from a Jehovah's Witness I was curious as to whether this was common? What I mean is are all Jehovah's Witnesses homophobic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.185.66 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The attitude of Jehovah's Witnesses to homosexuality is already stated in the section Ethics and morality. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Jeffro's comment. Lighthead...KILLS!! 05:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that Wikipedia is not a forum; however, it is entirely legitimate for a person to want to know if JWs have a doctrinal or ethical position on homosexuality. They have, and it is already stated in the article at Ethics and morality. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No. That wasn't the intent of the question. The person was asking, not about the official position, but about the attitude of members. Whatever the official position (which they wouldn't call 'homophobia' anyway, though that's arguable), an encyclopedia can't possibly presume to know or assert the attitude of every individual member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this discussion may be closed, but from what I understand that kind of biased comment wouldn't even be allowed at a forum. Just my own personal thought. Lighthead...KILLS!! 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sociology

The Sociological analysis section has been tagged as 'not including all significant viewpoints'. If other sociologists have provided notable opinions, provide them. However, it seems more likely that the section does not present the opinions some editors would like to see. The tag will be removed if no other notable information can be provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

shunning

I edited the sentences in the criticism section regarding shunning by carefully differentiating the reason for shunning. A conscious objection to some teaching owes disfellowshipping only if such indicidual try to promote it to other members. Also persons who just leave the religion are NOT disfellowshipped, unless they formally write a letter or join another religion--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your objection to the wording, but you are incorrect. A person can be disfellowshipped for acting contrary to WTS doctrines without promoting their views. I know of someone who was disfellowshipped for posting on a blog photos of their children's birthday party. The elders' handbook allows for people to be disfellowshipped if they are known to celebrate Christmas. Both these things are decisions of conscience, but neither involves promoting their dissenting view. Someone who, as a matter of conscience, accepts a blood transfusion (even without disclosing or promoting this publicly) will effectively be disfellowshipped, though the WTS takes a legalistic approach and declares that such a person has automatically disassociated themselves by their action.

Similarly, Holden's observation about not being allowed a dignified exit follows comments in that chapter about multiple individuals who ceased association with the religion and were subsequently shunned by former friends. He does not limit his comment to those who are disfellowshipped or who formally disassociate. If I was a member of a sports club or stamp collecting club or Rotary club, for example, I could choose to end my membership, shake hands with the other members and continue to chat whenever I subsequently met them. I would leave with dignity. Those who choose to leave the JWs have few options. They can formally disassociate (and thus will suffer from a mandatory organizational shunning from friends and relatives) or they can "fade". This will probably involve receiving repeated calls from elders wanting to know why they left and if they still believe the core JW doctrines (if the defecting JW says they do not, they may then be told to appear before a judicial committee and subsequently disfellowshipped). They will almost certainly be shunned by former friends, who will treat them with suspicion and caution. They will also be under pressure to avoid demonstrating any behavior that conflicts with JW doctrine, i.e. they will be very cautious about celebrating birthdays or Christmas, buying lottery tickets, donating blood, voting or any other decision of Christian conscience. The defecting JW is then forced to hide their motives for leaving, refrain from acting according to conscience and will be shunned by former associates. Their decision to leave will not be respected or accepted, even though they wish to live a quiet life. They will thus not be allowed a dignified exit.

Holden's comment reflects that of Raymond Franz's in his In Search of Christian Freedom book (pg 358): "Those who think of 'quietly withdrawing' know that they have a gun at their heads, the weapon being the threat of official disfellowshipment (or that of being pronounced 'disassociated', which is the same weapon) .... Witnesses attempting to leave the organization for conscientious reasons can do so only at the risk of being labeled heretical, unfit for true Christians (other Jehovah's Witnesses) to associate with, someone that even family members should treat as an 'outcast'. The organizational policies allow no possible way to leave with honor."

I will revert your edit. I'll also take this opportunity to adjust the position of two references in that paragraph that support the use of the words "authoritarian" and "totalitarian"; the subsequent addition of other citations has pushed their placement far from the actual point they support. BlackCab (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The present wording is misleading and have a broad meaning. Writing a letter to "Governing Body" or talking with an elder regarding a disagreement on a particular teaching would not cause disciplinary action like shunning. Such individuals are encouraged to "wait for Jehovah", and are not shunned as long as they don't stumble others by their actions. By using the word 'Promoting' I mean to 'express' themselves either by their actions or speech that they no longer agree with the official teachings. A person who celebrated birthday and posted it online had definitely shown by his action that he no longer agree with the official teaching. Having different opinions but not expressing or persuading others to follow his opinion on a teaching would not make any disciplinary actions. Perhaps we both make some WP:OR here, but what I said is accurate. The present statement is quite inaccurate and portrays the fact in an extreme critical way. Also there are many former members around the globe who go inactive by not involving in any JW activity, but not shunned. Many of them later choose to become active. See official statement here under the heading "DO YOU SHUN FORMER MEMBERS?". In my knowledge such self-resignation is very rare, and I hence seriously doubt the need for highlighting that in the lede section as well. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is contained in the "Criticisms" section and clearly and accurately reflects the views of critics, as expressed in reliable published sources. The article nowhere discusses the situation of a JW writing a letter to the Governing Body or discussing a disagreement on a teaching, so your objection is a straw man argument. BlackCab (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is then "formally" is given in the lede when disassociating is mentioned? We don't need to show double standards for lede and criticism section--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no double standard, Fazilfazil. Reference in the lead section to people formally leaving the religion is a summary of material contained at the Disciplinary action subsection of "Practices". I have already explained the context of Holden's comment in the "Criticisms" section, so your inclusion of the word "formally" in that sentence is a blatant misrepresentation. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea. Independent editors know who is "Blatant misrepresenting". Leaving it alone until I find a source, no use of talking--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Two disagreements have been bandied here. Firstly:
1.) User:BlackCab's preferred wording is this: "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings."
2.) User:Fazilfazil's preferred wording is this: "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who promote their conscientious disagreement with any of the religion's teachings."
JWs do not disfellowship for mere thoughts. JWs disfellowship for apostasy when an adherent unrepentantly advocates some disagreement (so-called "conscientiousness" being immaterial) with his supposed faith's religious beliefs. I suggest the sentence be edited to:

"Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who advocate some disagreement with the religion's teachings."

Do the cited references contradict my suggestion? If so, please provide a quote. Moving on... Secondly:
The cited Holden reference is not to those who merely "fade". A so-called "fader" is by some definition, still an "inactive Jehovah's Witness". By no reasonable definition can such a "fader" be considered to have "formally" left the religion. The disagreement:
A.) BlackCab's preferred wording: "Holden says those who choose to leave the religion ~~formally~~ "are seldom allowed a dignified exit." ..."
B.) Fazilfazil's preferred wording: "Holden says those who choose to leave the religion formally "are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..."
Removing the "formal" tends to imply that merely "fading" can result in disfellowshipping, which is untrue. Holden's very next sentence makes it clear that the 'lack of dignity' applies to those whose leaving involves something for which JWs actually disfellowship, such as the promotion of doctrinal disagreements. IMHO, that's a lot closer to "formal" than it is to "informal". It seems best to sidestep the matter by using Holden's term (though it's not from the quoted sentence); I suggest the following wording:

"Holden says "[defectors] are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..."

Incidentally, Holden's chosen wording in that sentence seems startling (that is, "Those who do eventually break free..."). Would it be scholarly to refer to adherents who "break free" of some other denomination of Judaism or Islam or Christianity? Further, Holden includes unverified accusations which are shamefully unscholarly, including a hearsay anecdote about a disfellowshipped octogenarian JW who fell down the stairs and "knew she would be refused help from members of her congregation". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So you've returned, AuthorityTam. I hope your conduct and attitude have improved since you were last reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard.

Your use of "defectors" is a reasonable compromise in referring to Holden's comments about those who voluntarily exit the religion.

However your other edit referring to "the practice of expelling and shunning members who advocate some disagreement with the religion's teachings" is unacceptable. Muramoto remains as the source cited for that statement, but although he does refer to "former JWs who voice disagreement with the leaders" being labelled as apostates, the thrust of that article and the others in his series of Journal of Medical Ethics articles is that disfellowshipping also results for "conscientious dissenters" who unrepentantly receive blood products. In that article he refers to judicial action being taken against patients whose acceptance of blood is confidential, but which then becomes known to other JWs and subsequently reported to elders. There is very clearly no advocacy of opinion about WTS doctrines in that case, yet organized shunning will still result, probably from an announcement of disassociation. In his later article in the same journal, "Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses" (6 January, 2001, pg 37) Muramoto notes that "a member may be automatically shunned if there is reason to believe that he or she has renounced a core tenet of the faith by some specific action". This would clearly include the acceptance of blood (even in secret) as well as the celebration of birthdays and Christmas or the regular attendance of another church, yet once again there is no requirement for evidence of advocacy for a judicial committee to decide the individual is to be shunned. Pages 65-66 of Shepherding the Flock of God make a clear distinction between "Celebrating false religious holidays" and "Deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses", both of which are viewed as acts of "apostasy" and "Offenses requiring judicial decisions". Muramoto's discussion of the issue clearly shows he is aware of the distinction as well, hence he makes repeated reference to the "coercion" of members to obey the blood ban by the ever-present threat of expulsion and shunning.

The paragraph of Ray Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom I quoted above in this thread refers explicitly to those who "quietly withdraw" from the religion for conscientious reasons. On that page of his book, Franz also refers to a letter to all circuit and district overseers dated September 1, 1980 (reproduced on pages 341-2 of Crisis of Conscience) that says: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views ... if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrines .... then he is apostasizing."

In an observation highly germane to the criticism of "Suppression of free speech and thought", Holden, on pages 151 and 155, writes: "People leave the Society of their own accord ... The Governing Body's strategies for dealing with those who question its teachings force some individuals to spend several years, even most of their lives, suppressing doubts about the legitimacy of certain doctrines before deciding to leave. Others who have lost faith completely might never be able to break free because of their affective bond with friends and relatives in the movement ... The people I interviewed offered accounts of how they were rejected by other family members who were equally disillusioned, but who were too afraid to voice their concerns for fear of estranging their families."

AuthorityTam's change to the wording is, then, quite wrong: it contradicts not only Muramoto, but also Franz, who is cited as a source in the next sentence. I will revert the previous wording, which accurately conveys the criticism of both Muramoto and Franz. BlackCab (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I was reading through this section, I was going to say that I was happy with AT's second suggestion. However, in light of the letter to overseers quoted and reproduced by Franz, it is clear that it is not merely empirical or anecdotal that a person need not 'promote' other ideas to be considered 'apostate' (and therefore be formally expelled) according to JW definitions. Of course, the view that a person need not 'promote' anything to be considered an 'apostate' is closer to the actual ('undemonised') definition of the word apostate anyway, though this is not consistent with how 'apostates' are routinely described in JW literature for general members.

Regarding the first suggestion, I agree in principle, but it would be simpler and less weasely to state, "Critics have described the religion's...practice of expelling and shunning members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings." The allusion to "mere thought" is a red herring, as there obviously must be some expression of such thoughts for anyone else to know about them. However, such expression may refer to remarks to the elders (or others) with no intention of 'promoting' anything at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Openly disagree? That wording doesn't accurately convey the issue. If a JW accepts a blood transfusion, telling no one, but is later discovered to have done so, has he "openly" disagreed? If a JW fades from the religion, then a year or two later celebrates a birthday within the family and a relative reports that incident to elders, prompting a judicial committee, is that "openly" disagreeing if he has told no one? In neither case is the ex-JW advocating anything, he is just going about his own life, post-JW. This conversation takes the issue out of the realms of the hypothetical. The words "cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings" are key to the whole issue. BlackCab (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of the examples you're raising about actions warrants an entirely separate sentence. "cannot conscientiously agree with" is a fairly ambiguous way of trying to wrap up explicit disputes about doctrine with other mundane actions that the organisation's leadership imagines are significant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Muramoto, though he is cited here as a source, in fact writes much more about quiet, conscientious dissent with WTS doctrines rather than "open disagreement". So, at the cited source that follows, does Franz. Several editors here seem to want to insert their own observation and then base it on sources that say something quite different. In such a compact summary, however, the issue of conscientious dissent can probably be left out. BlackCab (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that the article should be more unambiguous about what the sources actually say rather than cramming two different concepts into an ambiguous statement. It could probably be stated in just an extra sentence. I agree that there isn't much benefit in providing wording like "conscientious dissent" in the article if elaboration isn't warranted. I don't have ready access to the actual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We now have 'Sociologist Andrew Holden says defectors "are seldom allowed a dignified exit...' The problem is while defectors (which implies renegade, rebel or one who revolts), is one category of those who would not be affored a dignified exit, it certainly is not the case of all. When I offered my own example (open celebration of Christmas after 2.5 years away, triggers unilateral disassociation by action against my wishes), Fazilfazil suggested action was taken "because you publicly manifested your conscious disagreement with the Biblical teaching you promised to follow during your baptism." If Fazilfazil is correct, and I think he is, such is a pretty low threshold for the word "defector". Considering that any who leave, that do anything that could be construded as disagreement with a Biblical teaching or not following the promise of your baptism could justify taking DBA action. To suggest only defectors, in the common usage of renegade, rebel or revolter, does not capture what should be said here. Yet there are many who leave who are neither subjected to DFing or DBA. Randyg271 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is entirely inappropriate for Fazilfazil to attempt to make any kind of judgement about another editor who simply was no longer interested in a particular religious denomination. There is nothing improper at all in doing so, and claims about 'biblical teachings' and 'promises at baptism' amount to nothing but an irrelevant strawman, and could be considered a personal attack.

As stated previously, an additional sentence could be added to separately mention the two separate concepts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the present wordings which is much better than it used to be--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagged sections for problems

1) Fazillfazil and Jeffro77 both significantly improved sections Jehovah's_Witnesses#Legal_challenges and Jehovah's_Witnesses#Sociological_analysis.

2) Still, I don't think it is completely done. Section 'Legal challenges' is now not Globalize/US suitable in content. [It would be even more better if primary source from jw-media.org could be supplied with secondary source, to have more than one evidence there.]

In any case, now the tag Globalize is no longer needed.

3) Section 'Sociological analysis' now contains different criteria within Sociology and provides interesting data for readers. It is almost fine, but 3 opinions doesn't need to be overcome of 'Too few opinions' tag, especially if two of those three covers same branch of Sociological science.

So I prefer put the tag Too few opinions back to section. I am not going to edit-warring if you don't like to have article tagged. [Just keep focus to find something more to this section.]

4) --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are far superior to primary sources. If the Watch Tower Society is a litigant in a legal action, it is not appropriate for the Watch Tower Society to be used as a source to report on that action. BlackCab (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I suggest to find some secondary claims about Legal challenges and/or Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. As I know there is few websites, which even completely controvert of persecution existence and claim such news to be imagined. [I would like to ask Witnesses in South Korea, who are in prison for 'Conscientious objector', if theirs living condition are only dream.] Another kind of bias is from several other religions, (aka source from rivals/competition) which claim that suffering of JW is in fact in mild manner, and that WTBTS deliberately exaggerates in referring about it. I guess that some kind of objective secondary material could be found despite of that. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's too few opinions in the Sociology section. But that doesn't mean that additional views/sources cannot be added. The views presented seem fairly consistent with mainstream sociological classifications of religious movementss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And that is what I noticed. You can analyse religious movement from thousands of possible perspectives. Do not limit only on few ways how to cope with the topic. There are many branches in Sociology, which examine societies, teams, groups, ... by other paradigm than those 3 sources currently available in the article. To have an insight about religious denomination like JWs, it is possible to examine it not like religion (=don't analyse religion like religion), but look after different concepts inside that specific group. Obviously, there will be many negative points and many positive points, but diversity of perspectives in Sociology is very usable here. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is relevant information from other notable reliable sources, add it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Films or works prohibited

Hello! It seems pertinent to add to the article a paragraph that contains a list of films or other works banned or morally challenged by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I think so, because the more we know about their beliefs, the more respect we will be able to have them, the margin of sharing or not their positions. Thank you very much.--190.173.17.81 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New topics go at the bottom of the page.

JWs are told they shouldn't read certain things in general. There is no 'list of prohibited works'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Separations

In the separations tab in infobox its given See Splinter groups. I think its inappropriate and undue to place that very minor detail to the main info-box. Given the number of members, there has never been any divisions among Jehovah's witnesses to fit the definition of "Separations". Those groups started by certain individuals(most being rank and file members) never made any impact on the religion. I think the mentioning of it inside the Jehovah's Witnesses template is more than sufficient. Any objection on removing that thing?--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It also appears that certain individuals started some new movements, and that article do not state any reliable sources to say the number of members that left with them to at-least call it as a "separation". Also given the way the JWs are organized its really hard to leave the religion together and start a new one--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC);

I agree that the number and significance of splinter groups since 1931 is quite minor. I support removing it from the infobox. BlackCab (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So long as the link is retained in the JW series template, it can be removed from the other infobox. The target article is adequately sourced, and there is no good reason to orphan the target article altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I just read the WP:IBX article. It states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears...however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content..Consider the following question when designing infobox..How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox?" In accordance with its guidance and the consensus I am removing it from the infobox. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline about designing infoboxes is not directly relevant. Whether a particular parameter is used in an infobox in a particular article has no direct bearing on whether that parameter should be included in the infobox at all. There certainly has not been any demonstration that separations from religious groups are never notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that my second statement from WP:IBX is about guidelines on designing infobox parameters. But the purpose of infobox is the same regardless and we need to exclude unnecessary content. This article never talks about any information on "separations" of Jehovah's Witnesses since its insignificant, and therefore cannot be considered as a summary of Key facts in the article--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Further I don't object keeping it in the template--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Splitting: "child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central". I don't believe anyone is suggesting deleting the article at 'Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups' (which perhaps lacks obvious independent notability), but that article can survive per one of Wikipedia's 'Acceptable types of forking': a WP:SPINOFF. Per WP:DETAIL, we sometimes offload a clearly-defined chunk of a subject to create a separate "child" article; this JWs article or perhaps History of JWs is the "parent", so one or both should link to that (if that is a child WP:SPINOUT article). --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Persecution and Legal Challenges

The following statements:

"Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted and their activities are banned or restricted in some countries. Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries."

sound heavily influenced (and probably written by) a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and slightly slanted. "Persecution" is a JW buzz word and essential to their doctrines, primarily in regards to identifying themselves as 'Jehovah's organization' since Jesus said that his followers would be 'tortured and killed for the sake of his name.' Furthermore, Jehvoah's Witnesses believe that their court battles have advanced the interests of others when it comes to Civil Rights. While this is somewhat true, it is greatly exaggerated by the JW leadership. Another point that should be mentioned is that most of these court battles have taken place in the United States. It would be hard to say exactly what percentage without adequate data, but notwithstanding, this fact is well known within the movement. To say that their legal battles have "influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries" sounds like a big self-pat on the back. The movement was fighting for their individual rights and whatever "influence" Jehovah's Witnesses have had on civil rights is an afterthought. I would like to see this worded differently.

I would like to see some references or citations to backup the claims of the statement. I'm not saying that it is totally false, but the wording is slightly slanted. There are rumors that a committee has been established at the Watchtower headquarters to oversee, edit, and otherwise administer these Wikipedia articles and similar sights. Therefore the neutrality of the articles should be regularly monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.69.251.49 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement would seem to be a fair summary of the spinout article, Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country, where legal victories are listed for several countries. The sentence cites Shawn Francis Peters' book, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, which I have. That book focuses on Watch Tower Society court challenges regarding US law only, and Peters does emphasise the benefits to civil liberties rights that resulted from those challenges. (Those wider benefits, it has to be said, were unintended, since, as Peters notes on page 14, the Witnesses were entirely interested only in their own welfare. Peters, as do several other authors, also notes the irony of the religion being credited with expanding civil liberties for religious minorities, while acting in a manner that crushes individual liberties and freedom of conscience within their ranks.) I will rewrite the sentence to clarify that Peters refers only to US challenges.

You may not be aware, but JW-related articles are the result of often heated disputes between JW sympathisers and JW critics about the issue of neutrality, so although it is possible the Watch Tower Society has delegated someone to edit here to defend and promote their religion, the articles (at least the main ones) certainly are not WTS vanity pieces. Thanks for your interest and please feel free to contribute to articles if you have something to contribute in line with Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability. BlackCab (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am currently an "active" JW in "good standing", raised in the religion since birth and baptized in my preteens. In the past few years I and my family have become disillusioned with the movement and currently study the bible independently, now holding only a few minor beliefs in common with the religion with whom our family has been affiliated since the late 40's. The only reason we haven't disassociated ourselves is because of our many friends whom we care deeply about, the movements issues are not their fault. Personally, I know what it's like to read certain statements and feel a sense of pride and boastfulness as a JW, and just hope to see data that portray's the leadership in an accurate light. Not to portray them in a totally negative light, no one is 100% bad or 100% good. My father was (technically still is) an elder since the elder arrangement of the early 70's, knowing from his personal experiences and my own interactions as "an elder's son", the child abuse thing has been blown out of proportion. The WT Society certainly seeks their own fanatical interests, but they don't exactly "harbor" child perverts. I just like to check in once-in-awhile to make sure this supposed "secret committee" isn't routinely going back and slanting little statements in their favor. Didn't mean to sound overly critical. Thanks. Anonymous for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.69.249.47 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous, yes, but please be aware that Wikipedia provides tools that allow anyone to trace you to your general locality. Wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum, but again, be assured that any attempt by the Watch Tower Society to slant pages would be quickly challenged. BlackCab (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Holden and "defectors"

We should remove "defectors" if Holden did not use or imply such a designation. Elders have wide latitude who they may decide to subject to a disfellowshipping announcement. I used my own example of open celebration of Christmas after having left for 2.5 years. Blackcab mentioned lottery tickets, donating blood and voting. The word “defectors” (renegade, rebel or one who revolts) implies more active opposition to the faith than just the normal stuff of life ex-members may be involved with.

I have written the US branch in response to my own circumstance to ask:

If I am wrong in my views, please explain how anyone can leave the faith without being labeled “wicked” (1 Corinthians 5:13), short of continuing year-after-year to live by some undefined subset of the rules that govern active members.

No answer has been given so far. I would like to suggest this wording:

Sociologist Andrew Holden describes choosing to leave the religion as an eventual breaking free. He says those who do "are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyg271 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Refer to my existing comments under the Shunning topic above.[1][2]--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holden does in fact repeatedly use the term "defectors". He refers to those who "withdraw", "leave", "exit", "abandon" the society and "break free". My dictionary defines defection as "ceasing in allegiance to a leader, party, religion or duty". It does come from a Latin root meaning "to fail" or "to desert", but it is not inherently pejorative. BlackCab (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment of 16:46, 9 August suggested juxtaposing Holden's quote with the term Holden himself repeatedly uses: defectors. The term is not pejorative, as Holden consistently cheers those who leave the religion. Regarding the article wording... No doubt there are honest differences, but my suggested sentence syntax would have put Holden's term in brackets inside the quote from Holden (and another editor might have even put that bracketed term in quotes) to more clearly identify the exact term with the exact source of the term. That is: "Holden says "[defectors/"defectors"] are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..." I still prefer my suggestion, but I'm not the type of editor who insists on "correcting" every detail differing from my personal preference...
Incidentally, Holden's work is hardly an example of good scholarship; for one embarrassing example, he repeatedly refers to rank-and-file adherents as "Watch Tower members" even though they are not (there are only a few hundred "Watch Tower members"; see 1944 'Watch Tower Society#Amendments to Charter'). Further, Holden repeatedly chimes in with outrageous and unverified nonsense; note page 164, "In a much more sinister account, Tom told me: "I started drinking to deaden the pain. Most Witnesses I knew drank very heavily."[emphasis from original]" Between that and the end of his work, Holden leaves intact and unrefuted the shameful accusation that most JWs are sots. Relying on Holden is certainly problematic. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear on what basis you claim that your example of Holden's statements demonstrates "outrageous and unverified nonsense". Regardless of whether such is typical of JWs, there is nothing especially surprising that a particular individual drinks heavily, or that persons known to that individual also drink heavily. You haven't supplied any context of why Holden reports that 'Tom' started drinking heavily, but it is entirely plausible, for a variety of possible reasons, including perhaps, disagreeing with a religion's teachings but not saying so for fear of being shunned by family members. I also know of JWs who drink heavily (and, yes, even "very heavily"), and I'm sure others do as well. The implication that Holden 'must' be lying is a no true Scotsman fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your experience with Witnesses is quite odd, Jeffro. I met several congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, but all of those people are not drinking alcohol at all. Most of them even after little mention about alcoholic drink say something about insobriety and you feel such contempt from that in their face. Words like pub and beer are not viewed positively and you can be viewed immediately like alcohol addicted one. Excluding of Christ's Memorial commemoration, I ever seen drink glass of wine only about one or two persons - not sure if they were Witnesses or not. For example me, I drink alcohol extremely rarely - just about 1-5 times a year. Some years I didn't drink at all. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not surprising in social settings (and congregations) for people to want to maintain a good public image (including reiterating rules the group attempts to hold to others), but to act differently with one, or a few, closer friends. Personally I have known some alcoholic JWs, although they were not drunkards. People who have weaknesses which are known to be frowned upon by the group are even less likely to let their fellows know about these (and might even not yet aknowledge these fully themselves). There is no reason to doubt the faithfulness of Holden's accounts. As you know, the WT publications themselves frequently warn about leading a "double-life", for a reason... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But, of course, I cannot be typical pattern for JWs, especially when Mormons, Mohammedans, Moonies, etc. can drink alcohol under no circumstances. In the Name of Allah [(=God)], the Merciful, the Compassionate I said this silly remark. :)) --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the value of FakTNeviM's last comment. In Australia Witnesses drink, and some drink very heavily. I know of Bethelites who have told of habitual heavy drinking in the rooms at Bethel. But so what? Holden, as a sociologist, included the comments of one of his interview subjects but so far as I know made no attempt to make any generalisation from that comment. BlackCab (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only Australian Witnesses drink heavily. :)) --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM, you may be correct that I have had some odd experiences with JWs. But that has nothing to do with the amount of alcohol they drink.

JWs have no prohibition on drinking alcohol, so your suggestion that entire congregations "are not drinking alcohol at all" is not typical. However, as BlackCab has stated, Holden apparently did not claim that heavy drinking is typical of JWs, but just recorded what his interviewee said about people he knew. It would be quite dishonest to try to 'whitewash' JWs by simply denying that any JW would ever do something against 'the rules'.

You've further made a sweeping generalisation about Mohammedans (better known as Muslims), claiming they "can drink alcohol under no circumstances". However, Turkey is an Islamic nation, and many Muslims in Turkey drink alcohol. (This does not mean that no Muslims in other countries drink alcohol, but that even in some Islamic countries, it is typical for Muslims to do so.) Further, in non-Islamic countries, such as Australia, it is quite common for Muslims to drink alcohol.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some Witnesses were used to be alcohol addicted before they starting to study the Bible with JWs and publications of WTBTS. So those who were previously addicted are very aware of alcohol danger and don't drink at all. That means neither one glass of any sort of alcoholic beverages. And most of them are taught against using alcohol so heavily that average person in congregation is very negative even on mention to drink alcohol. They are just extremely strict inside their minds. Drink slightly and proportionately in their brains means often shun it completely. Of course that some members think it more liberally and balanced and thus they drink slightly. But certainly 'no active Witness in good standing' drinks regularly and more than other people in the world. Generally they drink much less than other people in the world. --FakTNeviM (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So called "Cultural Muslims" or "Secular Muslims" (and "Progressive", "Modern" Muslims) drink alcohol. But it is the same like some so called Muslims keep Ramadan because of dietary and health advantages for human body (e.g. loose weight, test your stamina, someone even openly say: I don't believe in Allah ...). It is said that keeping Ramadan (in secular freedom and money wealthy countries) is "voluntary act". However, keeping a Ramadan is in TOP 5 basic faith rules in Islam. Five Pillars of Islam. So that means, these people are, in fact, not Muslims already. And don't post me "True Scotsman fallacy" article. It is clear that they are not Muslims already. So drinking alcohol is the same situation. (even if state laws allow to drink alcohol freely). That's it. --FakTNeviM (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed promoting a no true Scotsman fallacy, regarding Muslims and JWs who drink alcohol.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Fallacy is thinking that national tradition which has extremely high diversity, is comparable with strict rules of one's religion. Logical difference between Scotsman and Muslim/or JWs is huge. To be a Scotsman is enough to be born in northern part of United Kingdom called Scotland. Or you must marry some Scottish girl (or Scottish boy if you prefer otherwise). But to be a part of some religion (not only formally, but really by deeds, minds, heart, teaching based on your religion's holly book, etc....) is completely different. If someone doesn't (both from conscience reasons) believe in Allah or not fasting during Ramadan what is one of most important Muslim duties, by the Islam faith itself is no longer consider to be a Muslim. You cannot hold 3 rules from 5, if all of them are basic assumptions for that religion. It is similar like someone who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but at the same time, he doesn't believe in existence of God. Of course, such person cannot be considered to be a Christian (irrespectively if you support or not terms like "True Christian" and "false Christian"). And for your information, to learn more, "fasting" which Muslims are supposed to keep is very easy and from my point of view it is not fasting at all. They cannot eat and drink during the day for 1 month, but it is allowed to feed yourself arbitrarily as much as you would like before sun-rise and after sun-set. At least 2 (you can eat 5 times or more during night) meals a 24hours-day is, in fact, normal condition for poor people in least developed countries and for busy people in high developed countries who haven't time for break during the day. Thus, so called fasting during Ramadan, in Islam, it is not monthly starvation, but it is easy thing to pass. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand. A "no true Scotsman fallacy" is the name of a type of logical fallacy. It it not restricted to describing literal Scottish people. The rest of your argument, apart from your irrelevant foray into more specific details of Islamic fasting, is a textbook no true Scotsman fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No_true_Scotsman#Misattributing_the_fallacy. This fallacy is often misattributed. Including on the religion. No True Christian/Muslim is not necessarily No True Scotsman fallacy. It depends of definition. (Look, Islam itself and JW religion itself define rules clearly enough). Fallacy is thinking that national tradition, (of course ---Scottish is just an example there) or whatever else what is not strictly clear and defined, and has high diversity, is comparable with strict rules of certain religious group. It is sad that you seem to misinterpret this article very often here. End of off-topic. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed employing the fallacy. Indeed, a JW can do any number of things they consider 'bad', and then say they're 'repentant' ('sin', rinse, repeat), and all the while not only call himself a JW, but be officially considered a JW, and back to the pertinent example, this could certainly include heavy drinking especially if done in secret. And then there's any number of other things that 'a JW in good standing' might not do, but might still be done by other 'active JWs' without any official 'reproof'. So please stop employing fallacious arguments in an attempt to 'whitewash' JW behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not listening to my argumentation that I think that your using of that article is not correct in this case. And your last sentence seems to be personal attack on my motives (what you cannot know anyway). Stop with it. WP:NPA. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I heard your argument. I don't consider your argument to be valid. There was no 'personal attack' at all. You objected, based only on your own general opinion of JWs, that an account about a JW who drinks and knows other JWs who drink 'must' be dishonest in some way. Then you provided further generalisations presenting your view that 'real' JWs 'don't drink heavily'. I don't really care what your motives are. No one said that it is typical for JWs to drink heavily; if you have a source that says JWs never drink heavily, provide it—otherwise there was no basis for impugning Holden's account in the first place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro77 and BlackCab. I don't have access to Holden's book so I am limited to Google book search. For my suggested wording I was relying on the quote provided by AuthorityTam, which seems to suggest “break free” was used in the immediate context.

If one “leaves” merely by becoming inactive, yet continue to follow distinct aspects of the faith (remaining neutral, not celebrating birthdays or Christmas, not openly disagreeing with doctrine, etc) such ones will most likely not face judicial action, but as jw-media.org says elders and other active members will “try to rekindle their spiritual interests.” In contrast certain behaviors (voting, birthdays, Christmas, blood transfusions, etc) are particularly offensive to members of the faith. If a former member openly engages in such public displays of difference with his or her former faith they may face judicial action even if they left months or years earlier and no longer identify themselves as members. To capture the difference between “inactive” and folks like myself, I used the words, “choose to leave”, although I don't know if that aligns well with Holden. If the consensus view is “defectors” is not pejorative and considering Holden uses this word, I am okay with it. Nonetheless I wish we could somehow capture the ultimate truth behind Holden's criticism, that is a dignified exit is not afforded members of this faith.

Please note I prepared my comment above without first reading last two comments. I will post this update and get back to reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.106.109 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AuthorityTam. Calling Jehovah's Witnesses "Watch Tower members" does indeed sound uninformed and certainly we should be careful about how much weight we give to anecdotal references like Tom. Quoting Holden makes sense if it is his conclusions we are quoting and they are otherwise considered reliable. To me the challenge in how to word the lead-in to the quote to capture both what Holden says and why he says it. There are several obvious triggers for the disfellowshipping announcement and subsequent follow up shunning. But there are also some subtle aspects to this business that doesn't allow for a single named category. The comment from 98.165.106.109 is mine, but I guess I was not logged in. I'm also new to wikipedia editting. Randyg271 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Holden's use of the phrase "Watch Tower members", again, the context has not been provided. In particular, it would probably be best to indicate Holden's statements about the phrase the very first time he uses it (if he uses it more than once). The term Watch Tower is often used synonymously with the term Jehovah's Witnesses, and JWs are indeed "publishers" of the Watch Tower Society's literature; it is therefore not clear whether Holden is uninformed or simply being informal. The anecdote about 'Tom' wouldn't necessarily warrant inclusion in this article, but nor does it support the claim that Holden's statements are "outrageous and unverified nonsense".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will see if I can check out Holden's book from the library. As to drinking my personal experience was most in the faith I knew and associated with did not drink excessively. Of course a few in each congregation were known to have tendency in that direction. Serving as an elder also made one more aware of who had issues in this regard. Randyg271 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I had not intended to initiate an extended discussion of JWs drinking or teetotaling, which seems beyond the scope of this Talk. My point was simply to relate yet another of many examples of Holden's stark lack of good scholarship. An objective sociology study would have followed up interviewee-subject Tom's accusations that "Most Witnesses I knew drank very heavily" with the sociologist's at least half-hearted attempt at objectively comparing alcohol consumption by Jehovah's Witnesses with their contemporaries. But, no, Holden is happy to let this 'heavy drinking' accusation fester all the way through the end of his book, tacitly endorsing the accusation as fact. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any basis for the interpretation that Holden had any intent to let an 'accusation' 'fester'. It's not clear if drinking was specifically addressed at any appreciable length, or that there was any atempt at comparison with 'contemporaries'. From what has been provided (though it forms no part of this article anyway) it seems that it was just something reported by a single interviewee. It might help if another editor can provide the actual context from the source. Nor has it been demonstrated that it is actually one of many examples. It also doesn't seem to have been established that Holden is broadly considered to be poor source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As I already noted, Holden himself chose to highlight the inflammatory nature of this exact anecdote (wherein an interviewee claims that most JWs he knew "drank very heavily") by Holden opining that it is [quote] "a much more sinister account" [unquote]. Holden then leaves the accusation unrefuted and unverified for the duration of his work. Holden is a poor excuse for a scholar and a problematic source, but I am not arguing that he can never be referenced. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 16:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are suggesting (and can prove) that sinister here is meant to mean typical, your point remains unestablished.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes in website

1) It seems that website is located somewhere in Ireland (IP address of website). Wow. Firstly not USA.

2) "Publishers" were renamed to "Ministers who teach the Bible".

3) "Publications" were renamed to "Bible-Based Books and Magazines Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses".

4) Whole website now looks BFU-friendly. (means something like "dumb computer user" proof // website resistant against stupidity).

5) Does anyone knows why the Bible is not yet published in Belarusian and Hebrew languages? I observed that already long time ago. Are there problems with copyright or with state laws? Or any other reasons? ((Belarus is dictatorship state regime = the only one in Europe) ... if we don't count Russia as hybrid democracy-totalitarian regime)). And State Israel is secular regime with non-secular religious freedom laws. JWs and other missionary active groups are banned (not for real presence in the country, but banned from availability of proselytism, as part of basic human rights). As expected, from the Yearbook 2012, we can see that JWs don't listen to any ban of preaching, neither in Israel, South Korea, Islamic states, Communist states, etc.

6) Witnesses relocate their headquarters http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/world-headquarters-relocating/

7) The good thing is http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/world/watchtower-simplified-edition/ still, since July 2011.

8) This looks like new method of preaching http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/special-campaign-manhattan/

9) I think there is a need to request a Bible study https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

10) Can you find anything else what seems different there?

11) --FakTNeviM (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like they wanted to avoid the "Watchtower", "Watchtower society" cry often found online, and wanted to focus people not on the leadership but on what they teach. And Ireland? interesting, many websites like wikileaks use web servers from European countries where freedom for journalism and media is very high and secure. I guess that might be the reason. Translators for Hebrew might be very less, because in Israel only few witnesses are there and most Jews in US no more use Hebrew as their mother-tongue--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

12) The answer to: Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion has been significantly re-worded: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

On first read, I noticed a few things

no reference to disassocation * examples of stealing, drunkeness and adultery have been dropped in favor of breaking the Bible’s moral code * example of disfellowshipped man, with believing wife remains. As before the wording does not hint at the difference between at home family members compared to outside of home. Other than that, I filled in the form for user id on the site, but processing eventually timed-out. Randyg271 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything relevant to the article in this thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This wording seems to be changed (more soft than before):

“What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
“We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin.”
“If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.”

--FakTNeviM (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Their publicity page has no bearing on official terms or doctrines (by which I mean minor changes in wording do not represent changed views), and it is unsurprising that it contains less jargon where information is intended for non-members. It is not a secondary source, and therefore not a preferred source for Wikipedia articles about same subject. The only thing the new site warrants changing in this article is the external web links section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. It could be only non-jargon wording for non-members and for non-associates. Although I am not completely sure of that. We will see later on, -- especially in Yearbook 2013, letters to congregations, articles in The Watchtower Study or within bulletin Our Kingdom Ministry --, if there are any changed views. Until its publication more clearly by primary source, or even by secondary source, we must suppose that nothing relevant changed yet. So far, I agree, it isn't necessary to continue in this talk thread. (not hiding). --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro - wording clarification on who is "shunned"

The following might be changed to add the word "baptized members". Unbaptized members, unbaptized publishers are included in the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses, in other words, they are "members," included in the yearbook figure, are not shunned if they leave for any reason.

This is the line: Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant.

Should more accurately read, Baptized members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant. Natural (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Natural

You're right. I changed it. Unbaptised publishers, Students of the 'Bible Study' courses, Associates, irregular public visitors and others cannot be shunned at any way. However, unpaptised publishers and associates can temporarily loose some spiritual 'privileges' in congregation's agenda. For example, they can loose ((after 'private reproof by an elder', and after repeating serious sin without remorseful deeds)) possibility to performing on stage and reading or dissertate during the 'Theocratic Ministry School'. They can also lost possibility/privilege (voluntarily taken deeds) like going with other congregation's members to the Ministry (preaching, evangelizing). That are only possible actions on them. (Only if they already have had these privileges). Someone of members might no longer want to talk with them. (on religious topics). But certainly no official shunning or disassociating on those can be taken. --FakTNeviM (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for concurrence on that.

Similarly, this line,

Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned.

The word "leave" and even "formally leave" can have many connotations. It might imply that anyone who leaves Jehovah's Witnesses and doesn't come back is shunned. Perhaps a clarification in the wording here also would more accurately state the idea the article is trying to convey.

Something like,

Baptized individuals who formally disassociate themselves from being one of Jehovah's Witnesses are also shunned.

Natural (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Natural

The JW term disassociation refers to not only those who choose to formally resign, but also to a person whom the Watch Tower Society leaders imagine has taken some action they imagine indicates the person to longer be a member, such as accepting a blood transfusion, attending another church, or having a birthday party (oh, the horror). The current wording is only just accurate enough; the suggested wording is less accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I need to agree that meaning of "formally leave" is ambiguous for unknowing readers. In fact, it is a JW jargon. Even neither I do not know precisely what it means, or at least, what shall be suggested meaning by authors. We need to explain there what "formally leave" actually means or we need to change it to something clearly understandable. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Long version here::::: Baptised individuals/members ... “who forsake/forsook fellow believers community and religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, or who runs afoul (=gets into mismatch) with/to (= by means of words or deeds) an order and regulations based on congregation's understanding of the Bible.”... are also shunned. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything similar to 'forsake' or 'afoul' is a POV judgement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only for Aussie. Per Google Translate it is precise language without bias. ... You can suggest different wording. I already wrote in edit summary that this sentence shouldn't be considered as suggested wording. Rather as first try to exposure meaning of the phrase "formally leave". Better to focus on changing current ambiguous wording in article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity. The Jehovah's Witnesses may adopt a legalistic approach to deciding who members are and are not permitted to speak to, but it is sufficient for an encyclopedia to say that a person formally leaves or resigns from the religion. The concept of formally leaving (as opposed to just ceasing association) requires no lengthy description. BlackCab (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "formally" is indeed unclear what it is going on. There is a need for thorough description. --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "leave", what is unclear too (leave from what, leave from whom, for how long time, how much seriously, etc.), we can use appropriate synonym (give up, relinquish, forsake, abandon, quit, desert, drop). --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that the current wording needs to be changed. Aside from that, most of the alternatives offered have negative connotations—give up, forsake, abandon, desert in particular are certainly too judgemental. If there is broader agreement that there is an issue of clarity, then that might warrant a longer explanation, but would not justify replacing one potentially ambiguous term with a different ambiguous term that has negative implications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify any proves about negative connotations of those words? For example, ["formally leave"] replacing with ["officially abandon"] ... ['its community, beliefs, and the religious organization.'] ... Is it negative? No, it isn't. ^{Because word 'leave' seems to be time-temporary term instead of more definitive words like 'forsake', 'quit', 'drop', and 'relinquish' ... which they have no negative connotations.} _{I can agree that 'give up' and 'desert' might have some negative connotations. But negative convey is only imagined here. For example, a word 'defector' (a noun) has same meaning like these similar words (verbs): ['fall away', 'drop out', 'drop off', 'omit', 'neglect'].} I think that word ['formally'/'officially'] is in fact unnecessary there, because as we already discussed that [informal/unofficial] [leave/abandon] is not reason for shunning baptised/baptized members. See previous talk threads. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We must be alert to connotation. Words such as "forsake", "relinquish", and "desert" imply that something/someone of value has been left, which wouldn't be neutral. The article lede's use of "formally" was intended to distinguish from "informally leave" (that is, merely becoming inactive); while "formally leave" is imperfect, the expression seems superior to any of the suggested alternatives. I don't believe it's necessary, but any additional explanation would be better parked in the article body rather than further bloating the lede. I've never felt that the sentence "Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned." improves the lede, and would support its removal. Of course, I don't believe that those who feel differently should be threatened with being "reported". --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Maybe. I don't make a fuss here. So what about this: Baptized individuals who officially resign ~~[abdicate on theirs membership]~~ and leave from its community and from religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, are considered disassociated and are also shunned ~~as part of social exclusion, ostracism, social rejection, commonly practised by most social, and especially religious, groups.~~ Baptized individuals which gets into mismatch with an order and regulations based on congregation's rules are typically disfellowshipped and disassociated, and are also shunned. Individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant. .... repair it for grammar and style, if needed, before placing in the article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my guess, but I'm guessing that English is a second language for FakTNeviM. The current wording in the article lede is:

Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning.[21] Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant.

That current wording seems superior to recent suggestions. I cannot agree to 'placing in the article' any of what FakTNeviM has just suggested. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not put a footnote to explain what the ambiguous term "formally leave" means.

e.g. Baptized members "formally leave" Jehovah's Witnesses when writing a letter to the local congregation stating that they no longer wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and to remove their names from the congregation.

Anyone who has a question about that term can read the footnote. Natural (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Natural

That might be appropriate, but only if actions other than a letter of resignation that are also considered to constitute 'formally leaving' (e.g. accepting a blood transfusing, attending another church or celebrating Christmas) were addressed separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 That is why I previously suggested 2 sentences. Baptized individuals who officially resign ~~[abdicate on theirs membership]~~ and leave from its community and from religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Baptized individuals which gets into mismatch with an order and regulations based on congregation's rules are typically disfellowshipped and disassociated, and are also shunned. Individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggested over a month ago that 2 sentences may be warranted.[3] However, the existing wording is probably sufficient for the lead, but could possibly be more clearly stated in the body of the article (don't have time to look into this closely right now).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thus we have some consensus on writing 2 separate sentences. ... First one would cover those who 'formally leave'. It should be explained in a footnote what does it stands for common reader. Second one would cover those who 'break JWs laws or Bible laws in some way and continue without show genuine repentance'. There is many ways how to describe this second group of those who are shunned. I already suggested more different variants of wording, and they were refused so far. Although style and grammar were wrong in some way, meaning is likely understandable. Can YOU, or whoever else, offer actual text of those 2 sentences, please? (First sentence should be easier, because we can use footnote next to phrase 'formally leave') It is clear that two different groups of apostates/defectors/deserters are shunned and we need to add that both information into a lede of the article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I support two sentences—or a single sentence that makes both points—in the body, though I don't think this is necessary in the lead; also, I'm not sure my agreement necessarily constitutes broader consensus, which needs input from other editors. I don't believe a footnote would be required; the sentence in the main text should be worded so that it is sufficient for 'the common reader'. It would not be appropriate to make POV claims about supposed 'Bible laws', as interpretations of scripture are highly subjective.

The sentence already in the lead suitably describes the situation regarding those who formally leave. The relevant sentence in the body of the article could be replaced with something like, Members who disassociate by writing letters of resignation, or who are considered by elders to have disassociated through some other action (such as attending another church's services or accepting a blood transfusion) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as wicked and are also shunned..--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference to shunning in the lead section needs no further elaboration. Jeffro's suggested wording for the body of the article is good, though in fact it still doesn't cover all eventualities. Shepherd the Flock of God (pages 110-112) spells out that a person is deemed disassociated if they:

(a) make known a desire to be known no longer as a JW (preferably in writing, though a verbal statement is acceptable if heard by more than one witness);

(b) join another religious organization and intend remaining with it;

(c) willingly and unrepentantly take blood;

(d) join or work for a non-neutral organization.

Yet this is clearly not an exhaustive list: the elders' handbook says those factors are only included among possible actions that indicate disassociation. A slight amendment to Jeffro's suggested wording then is: "Members who disassociate with a statement of resignation, or who are considered by elders to have disassociated through some other action (such as joining another religious organization or accepting a blood transfusion) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as wicked and are also shunned." The first part of the sentence covers the concept of taking a "formal" action (that is, explicit and definite); the second covers the unilateral decision of local elders that a person has themselves demonstrated they are no longer willing to conform with church doctrines and is thus deemed disassociated. BlackCab (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab's change regarding joining another church is better, as a JW wouldn't necessarily be shunned for attending a single service at another church. (Members/a statement of resignation isn't strictly correct grammar.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

His (BlackCab's) notice was actually much more informative and valuable than yours. // The same what I told to AuthorityTam also goes for you. Whether someone is 'English-speaking country-born' or he isn't, such sort of 'grammar bullying' could be deemed as disruptive behaviour and would lead to be reported per WP:Civility. If some sentences are wrong by grammar or style, it is more valuable to just correct it instead of shouting on other person 'you are stupid'. Even native-born/immigrant/second-generation immigrant/foreign-learner could make mistake. Even if English is someone' 'first language', not everybody has 'A mark' from that subject during school's attendance. --FakTNeviM (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab's wording is only slightly different to mine. Irrespective of the specific words you chose, your suggested wording didn't benefit the article. It is a false claim that your edits were reverted merely on the basis of poor wording. Your further claim that anyone has called you 'stupid' is untrue. No one 'expects' every editor to be good a particular language; however, a person who is editing in a second language would probably benefit if they paid attention when native speakers suggest something about English wording rather than taking it as an 'attack'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I commented your grammar comment to BlackCab's notice what actions lead to disassociating. // We still do not solve that two issues: How to explain to common reader terms/jargon like 'formally leave' and sentence which should cover those who break JWs laws without genuine repentance. Suggestion? --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

btw: wikilinks to social exclusion, ostracism, social rejection were written only for editors' interest here. Shunning in way in which is practised by JWs is nothing new, and is commonly practised by most social, and especially religious, groups. I am not suggesting to placing these sociological studies' terms to the article.

about AuthorityTam's response: He and everyone else here already known that English is not my mother tongue. His comment seemed like that he imagined that I am now apostate and worthy of his shunning. = Indeed ... Laughing laud and Exceptionally funny. But his refusal tone completely lacked assuming good faith in the subject of rewording. In fact, I only agreed with Naturalpsychology's notice that "formally leave" is unclear statement for JWs-matters unknowledgeable readers (=most of Wikipedia readers). However, after AuthorityTam's irrelevant comment I lost eagerness about this thread.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sociological analysis

I was reading this section and was puzzled by some of the wording under the Pew Research Center information. I clicked on the Pew Research link and from reading the actual site's wording I had a better understanding of some of their research questions. I would like to have some wording changed so readers of Wikipedia might also understand this better. The sentence "belief that their religion can only be interpreted one way and that theirs is the only true religion" can be misunderstood. The actual site has two different questions, "My religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life" and "There is only ONE true way to interpret the teachings of my religion." I would think to use this site's wording as much as possible would be clearer. I would like this sentence changed to "....,belief their religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life, belief there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion,.....

The Research site also provides a pie chart of the data http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits Then click Select a Tradition. --Saujad (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure your suggested change really alters the meaning. Apart from minor aspects of reversing the order of the two statements and separating the two aspects with a comma, the only other real difference is adding the part about 'eternal life'. Though that aspect could probably be added, I'm not sure it really adds much to the significance of a belief about 'only true religion', as some hope of 'afterlife' (or in some cases, at least being more accepting of death) is generally the point of most religious beliefs anyway. I'll see what other editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Saujad: Personally I think that there isn't any real difference in meaning. However, I made some changes and additions into that section. Look this diff. --FakTNeviM (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some entries that were not actually the highest in the statistics presented by the source; selecting only some details for results that are not actually highest and lowest quickly becomes subjective. The claim about JWs having higher concern for the environment than other groups doesn't seem to have any basis in the cited source—the source actually suggests that fewer JWs expressed that environmental protection is worth the cost than most of the groups surveyed (9 out of 15 groups were higher, and 2 were equal), and they had the highest result for not responding to the question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Respondents answers in question about 'Environmental protection' are quite fuzzy, because raised question is named ' Views About Environmental Protection Among Jehovah's Witnesses' while actual possibilities to answer on it are asking for environmental laws and regulations and not for subject 'protection of the climate' itself. So sorry about that. That was my fault. 2) Homosexuality' and Abortion' questions are answered in by means of should be discouraged by society thus I replaced word 'opposition to' for more precise word 'discouraging to'. JWs are not 'activists' at all. They are not in opposition to anything or anyone out there. Word 'discourage' is supported by the survey' source. 3) Bible views as a genuine Word of God is in question named 'Literal Interpretation of Scripture Among Jehovah's Witnesses', in which respondents mark off possibilities 'Word of God, literally true word for word' and 'Word of God, but not literally true word for word'. Whether most of them support literal word by word or not, 'only 8 %' JWs marked off other two possibilities. 92 % is by far highest proportion among religions surveyed there. //// 4) 2nd highest proportion in 'Lower income' could be placed too. Although I am not sure if earning between 30 000 to 75 000 USD should be considered as someone is a poor one. And I have a suspicion if other groups' claiming are 'true', because some respondents 'could lie' in this particular question in aim to higher reputation of their religion. In every case, JWs have 'very low proportion' only in possibilities 75 000+ and 100 000+. 18 % is actually not low, but an 'average proportion' expected within 'general US population' in these very high earnings. //// 5) I don't think that placing 'very high' and 'very low' proportion is banned. Even if the proportion is not actually 'the highest' and 'the lowest', it is possible to placing such criteria there. It is suitable especially if there is considerably gap in compare with other religious groups. --FakTNeviM (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

2) I think 'opposition' carries the thought well enough, but it could be changed to something else; maybe someone else can suggest something. 'Discouraging to' is very awkward wording. No form of 'activism' is necessary for someone to be opposed to something, and JWs don't really merely 'discourage' abortion or homosexuality, which both carry religious sanctions within the group. 3) The claim about JWs having 'by far the highest' is not true. Only 8% of Mormon respondents answered similarly to the other two questions as well. 4) What basis do you have for the claim that respondents of other groups might lie about their income; I suppose you don't think any of the JWs would lie though. 5) Not 'banned', but it becomes much more subjective if only some 'high but not highest' aspects of the survey are highlighted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that Mormons had [Holy Book] replaced with 'Book of Mormon' or more directly with quad-books set named 'Standard Works' which includes the Bible. At least Muslims had replaced with Quran. Some other results of the survey are absurd too. There is a notice under graphic tables about Holy Book is replaced for particular religion. Though, this discussion becomes irrelevant. I agree with your explanation that other not highest aspects shouldn't be highlighted in the article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks better Jeffro77, the old version of the combination of two completely separate questions made it unclear. --Saujad (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed predictions wording

I also found the statement under the subject "Failed Predictions" not quite accurate. The statement, "It says that unlike Old Testament prophets, its interpretations of the Bible are not inspired or infallible" Generally the Witnesses as well as the Society very much believe their "interpretations of the Bible" are an absolute in many areas, such as their understanding of Bible's use of soul, hell and other teachings. It is more understood that its writings or publications are not inspired or infallible as the references used as proofs in this sentence states. Their statements about the end is also understood as not inspired. I believe changing this to "its printed material are not inspired or infallible" might fit better.--Saujad (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Though there are a few core doctrines that haven't changed, most of their beliefs—including their core eschatology—has had significant changes. Any JW belief can be changed by the leadership at any time as 'new light'. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that their interpretations of the Bible are considered absolute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He tried to mention that core doctrines like rejecting Trinity dogma, rejecting Immortality of the soul, rejection of Hell-fire, and few of other teachings remain unchanged for more than Century. Thus we can call it like "...'absolutely true' Present Truth..." teachings of JWs. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly arbitrary distinction you're trying to make. They used the cross up until the 1930s, so up until then that could be considered a core doctrine as well. If we were having this conversation in 1931, you would probably include the cross in your list of "'absolutely true' Present Truth".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying anything. I just explained you what I understood from Saujad's comment. Anyway, using/banning symbol of a cross within worship was never one of most important doctrines for JWs. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a prominent belief of JWs (now) that Jesus did not die on a cross. You're defining 'important' doctrines as the ones that haven't changed, which is circular reasoning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I partially included Saujad objection into that article section. It isn't limited to 'printed' materials, but covers all 'published' (I guess such word could help cover spoken as well as written 'data') --- 'released' by JWs Governing Body' members, --- and by some its Committees (especially 'The Teaching Committee','The Writing Committee','The Governing Body'). Note: 'The Publishing Committee' is responsible only for 'physical printing' on machines and cannot change provided content. Note: These all branches of WTBTS are in use just since 1970's and continuously 'develop' and 'adapt' its purpose and work to go. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Saujad's objection was incorrect. Many current JW interpretations are quite different from the beliefs of either Russell or Rutherford. The current wording its interpretations of the Bible are not inspired or infallible is accurate and implicitly refers to any of their teachings whether they are spoken or in print. Elaboration about the various committees in the JW organisational structure is not necessary here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Elaboration was intended to Saujad and every other unknowledgeable person. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But you deleted part of citation from source. I restored it, and modified in a purpose common reader would easier understand. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete any citations. However, there is no evidence that OT 'prophets' ever actually received 'revelations' either, and it doesn't really add anything to the point that JWs don't consider their current teachings to be 'infallible' (though they can only be 'corrected' by the GB). (Their belief that Bible writers were 'inspired' [by some unstated mechanism] is already covered in the Sources of doctrine section.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All the references supplied with this sentence are concerning only Witnesses viewpoints on when the End (Armageddon) would occur. I still believe to insert "interpretation of the Bible" is too general and misleading. It would appear from this that they don't have strong convictions on their interpretations, which is inaccurate. One reference says concerning mistaken viewpoints of the End are "relatively minor when compared with the vital Bible truths that they have discerned and publicized." I would like to add an example: Billy Graham will his long years as a minister may over time had a changed viewpoint over a specific scripture or even a change over a minor subject but this does not mean he was a change in his theology or how he interprets the Bible. His core religious beliefs have not changed over the years and he is very firm on his teachings.

I noticed some talk concerning Witnesses' written material vs. oral material. The written material IS the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Information giving in a talk is always suppose to be from written material or in the case of an Assembly talk will later come out in more detail in written form. It is understood an individual speaker may inadvertently add something that is not correct or something that is a personal assumption or a personal feeling. Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach their written material is their teachings and this is not Inspired of God, unlike the Bible. There is no need to think that any speaker or any talk that is giving would be any different. Saujad (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What I last wrote did not generate any discussion so I probably did not make myself clear, which I have difficulty doing. I know this is a minor complaint but it caught my attention of a misstatement and misuse of references. "stating that its interpretations of the Bible are not inspired or infallible." The 'its' in this sentence being the WB&T Society would never make such a statement. The Society does not use the word 'interpretations' this way, they would never state this. About interpretations, they say Jehovah is the one who interprets the Bible. God interprets the Bible for us through the Bible. (If I need to I can find an exact quote.) This being so from the references supplied what the Society does state is that their writings are not inspired. If something is not crystal clear in the scriptures an additional insertion is considered an assumption or a conjecture not an interpretation. (Like a date of when Armageddon might come) --Saujad (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be a subjective POV to assert that their beliefs about the Bible are anything other than interpretations. The article does not need to (indeed, should not) employ alternative JW jargon or hypothetical claims about God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be better to state that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that the Watchtower's teachings about the Bible are interpretations? The current sentence in question reads:

"The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet,[335] stating that its interpretations of the Bible are not inspired or infallible,[336][337][338] and that it has not claimed its predictions were "the words of Jehovah."

It could say instead, "The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet stating that its teachings are not inspired or infallible, and that it has not claimed its predictions were 'the words of Jehovah'"

This way wikipedia won't be using Jehovah's Witnesses jargon and at the same time it won't give the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses see the Watchtower's teachings as "interpretations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the wording, but I don't see it as any real improvement on the existing text. I'm not sure what jargon you're referring to. BlackCab (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to what Jeffro77 refereed to as "alternative JW jargon." Saujad stated that the content in question is not properly representative of the source. The watchtower doesn't claim that it's interpretations are infallible, it claims that it's teachings on the "failed predicitons" were never infallible. By using "interpretation" Wikipedia's voice is used to label Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as merely interpretations, and not teachings. It's not really a major issue, I understand that this is a minor detail, but one that shouldn't be ignored. Fordx12 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest that "interpretations" is JW jargon. Actually, I said quite the opposite: "It would be a subjective POV to assert that their beliefs about the Bible are anything other than interpretations". However, simply referring to their teachings is also acceptable. What is not appropriate is equating 'JW teachings' (which the WTS can change at whim) with 'Bible teachings' (which are variously interpreted by various groups).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that you suggested "interpretations" is JW jargon. I am sorry if that's how my comment came across. I will go ahead and edit the sentence since there are no objections here. Fordx12 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All good. I had considered that you may have intended something else. However, I wanted to clearly state my position for other editors anyway just in case there was some confusion.--03:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the page

Please change "The meetings are largely devoted to study of Watch Tower Society literature and the Bible." To "The meetings are largely devoted to study of the Bible using Watch Tower Society Literature" 76.75.80.215 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done Make this request on the page the edit is needed on, also please provide a source/reason for changing it. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disciplinary action clarification, citing of Muramoto

The Muramoto reference here doesn't really fit with the contention of the sentence. Muramoto is referring to the possibility of being disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion. Witnesses who take blood transfusions are not automatically disfellowshipped. Their circumstances would be taken into consideration, and if it wasn't a practice, they might continue in the congregation if they were deemed repentant. Also, taking a blood transfusion or taking blood transfusions is not considered apostasy. If someone were to dispute the doctrine publicly, that might be considered apostasy. But it doesn't seem like disfellowshipping for blood transfusion is common.

reference - ^ a b c Osamu Muramoto (August 1998). "Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Part 1. Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views?". Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (4): 223–230..

No one takes blood transfusions as "a practice". The current JW policy is that a person who accepts a blood transfusion and is not considered 'repentant' has 'disassociated'. The Watch Tower Society claims the person has 'disassociated by their actions' rather than the person 'being disfellowshipped', so your statement about disfellowshipping here is irrelevant. However, both actions have the same result of shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the journal discusses dissidents, which is the part in reference to 'apostasy', not the actual receiving of a blood transfusion. Did you actually read the source material??--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right, I read Muramoto's other articles but not this one. this does get into all of that. Natural (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Russell's views on 1914 and Armageddon seem to have changed in 1904

This page http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1301 explains and provides evidence and references from Russell's works that how in 1904 Russell's views on 1914 changed.

He felt that 1914 would usher in, not the Millenium, but the beginning of the "time of trouble," leading to anarchy, that would eventually usher in the Millenium. Also, his views on Armageddon seem to be not that all would be destroyed, but the in worldwide anarchy nations would destroy themselves, and then the Millenial Reign would follow. So, there is perhaps a demaracation between Russell's teachings on this subject prior to 1904 and from 1904 and after.

Written in 1910:Natural (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

I believe October, 1914, is the time when we may expect that great time of trouble, because it seems to our judgment, as far as we can understand the Scriptures, that is the time when the Gentile period of lease, or tenure, will expire, and when, therefore, we may expect that the time of trouble shall be ushered in; and that time of trouble we understand is the one the Scriptures tell about–a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, a time of trouble which shall overwhelm all sorts of government, and every institution of the present time; and a time of trouble which thus will make ready and prepare mankind for the glorious reign of Christ and his Church, for the blessing and uplifting of all the families of the earth. — What Pastor Russell Said, Question 555:4 (1910).

Wikipedia here seems to refer to Russell's prior views, those prior to 1904, that 1914 would end the time of troubles. Natural (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

You're selectively quoting what was written in 1910 to just claim that 'something bad' would happen in 1914. "That great time of trouble" referred to Armageddon.

In 1911 Russell said: "Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914." (The Watch Tower, 15 May 1911, page 146). It didn't happen. end of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Below is Russell's actual full statement from 1910. Note that it is based on Russell's beliefs about measurements he took from a drawing of a pyramid. Your original quote has been underlined. The 'time of trouble' in Russell's teachings was Armageddon, when the Church and all the world's governments would be ended.

QUESTION (1910)--4--What importance do you attach to the date October, 1910, in view of the suggestion in the Pyramid? (http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/QB/QB.asp?xRef=Q555%20#Q555:4)

ANSWER--In the chapter on the Pyramid, in the third volume of Scripture Studies, we made mention of the fact that a measurement might be taken up the front of that large step, you remember, that is at the top of the Grand Gallery; that it could be measured up that step and along that step to about the junction line. We did not have the [Q556] exact measurement of that, but we took what is termed a paper measurement. That is to say, if anything is drawn to a scale, you can, by measuring very carefully with a piece of paper, estimate pretty closely, and our estimate of that, as I remember it, and as recorded there in the third volume, was that the point of time in inches would seem to represent October, 1910; but we did not give that as anything positive, nor as anything we know. I do not know anything about October, 1910. It is merely a suggestion. When it comes to October, 1910, I think it will be very well for you to have both eyes open and look around and see if you see anything. But the dates that are given to us prophetically are the ones I think we ought to especially give heed to. Now these prophetic dates seem to be, 1874, October; 1878, in the spring; and then 1881, in October; and then October, 1914. Now these, as far as we can tell, are the dates marked in prophecy, and to these we do well that we take heed as unto a light shining in a dark place, as St. Peter says. That does not mean that we know now, or that we ever knew, nor that we say now, nor that we ever said, that the suggestions made respecting these dates which are based upon prophecies are indisputable; nor that we have ever claimed infallibility in the interpretation of the prophecies in connection with them. What do we say, in the Scripture Studies, you will remember, is this: That to our understanding, this teaches this, and that teaches that, and the other teaches the other. We do not see any other way they could be held together, or any other conclusion that could be reached; and for my own part, therefore, I believe that those dates signify such and such things. That is all we have ever said; we never said we were infallible in these things. We believe them. We have believed them from the first; we are acting upon that belief. But, my dear friends, if October, 1915, came, or October, 1920, came, and no great time of trouble, and no change of all the Church came, it would not overthrow my faith in the divine plan of the ages for a moment. God is selecting a Church as the Seed of Abraham, and that Church as the Seed of Abraham is predestinated to do the work of blessing all the families of the earth; whether 1915 is the exact time for that to begin, or the trouble that will introduce that time of blessing, is another matter. I believe October, 1914, is the time when we may expect that great time of trouble, because it seems to our judgment, as far as we can understand the Scriptures, that is the time when the Gentile period of lease, or tenure, will expire, and when, therefore, we may expect that the time of trouble shall be ushered in; and that time of trouble we understand is the one the Scriptures tell about--a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, a time of trouble which shall overwhelm all sorts of government, and every institution of the present time; and a time of trouble which thus will make ready and prepare mankind for the glorious reign of Christ and his Church, for the blessing and uplifting of all the families of the earth.

Please don't try to re-write history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, You're quote here doesn't really prove the point you are trying to make. Russell's idea on what Armageddeon would be was different from Rutherford's and present day JWs. What you quoted says exactly the point, it would usher in a "time of trouble" that would lead to the kingdom over the earth. He did not say what Wikipedia says.

What is on the website link, is more precisely what Russell taught. I think Russell followers wrote that site, but I have to look more closely. Russell believed that 1914 would usher in a time of trouble leading to worldwide anarchy and then that would lead to the establishment of God's kingdom. His views on that were different than what followed and today's JW teaching.

From that website, that Russell wrote in 1909, October, 1914; at that time we believe the Gentile lease of power will expire, and that the God of heaven will set up his Kingdom in Israel. We do not expect universal peace to immediately ensue because Christ is styled the Prince of Peace. On the contrary, to our understanding the collapse of the nations will be through a fierce strife, “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,” in which “there shall be no peace to him that goeth out, nor to him that cometh in,” because God will set every man’s hand against his neighbor. Our belief is that the warfare between capital and labor, emperors and peoples, will be short, sharp, decisive, and bring untold calamity upon all concerned. If people could only discern it, they would avoid it, but their eyes are holden; they see not, neither do they understand. All the parties to the conflict are plunging into it, each intent on gaining its point, and each oblivious to its own best interests. — “Times of the Gentiles”, The National Labor Tribune, July 11, 1909.

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Newspaper_Sermons/NS46.asp

That is the more clear understanding of Russell's teachings from 1904 onward, rather than what is implied in the current Wikipedia article, which mixes Russell's prior teachings and Rutherford's and modern day JW teaching.Natural (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Also, Jeffro, please you need to not resort to ridiculing other's comments. The comments are in good faith, not to "rewrite history". Be respectful, please, you used to be respectful, now you're giving in more to ridiculing. Thanks. Natural (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

I have also shown from Russell's 1911 statement that he expected this "Age" to "close" in 1914. Of course Russell's ideas about Armageddon were different to those of Rutherford. Russell believed Armageddon (the "time of trouble") would begin suddenly in or shortly after October 1914. It didn't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In the perspective of many the "time of trouble" did begin in 1914 with WWI, and then that time of trouble continued to our day, based on Jesus' prophecies in Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. Natural (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

This statement may be outdated

"which their leadership claims is an extension of a heavenly "theocratic government". The reference here does not seem to directly stated what Wiki is stating here, and is from 1967. Penton's work also is outdated as to current JW thinking and terminology, unless there are also more recent references on that point. I don't remember anything like that since the 1960s, although there might be. Natural (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

There has been no change in the JW doctrine that 'God's kingdom' is a literal government that will rule over earth. There has been no change in their use of the term theocratic or their belief that their leadership today is 'ordained' in that 'theocratic' arrangement by God. If you have sources that show otherwise, please provide them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki article states that the JW leadership makes this claim, but no reference is provided indicating such wording or claim. If searching the JW Watchtower library, with the words extension heavenly theocratic government, there are no applicable references. If searching under extension heavenly government, neither applies to the Wiki wording. The one relevant reference that comes up is in relation to the paradise rather than now. "Showing the effects of the extension of Kingdom power to the earth, the account says, "And [God} will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.The former things have passed away." Rev 21:24. Awake 1973. So, the only reference coming anywhere close to the Wikipedia interpretation or interpolation is with reference to the paradise, rather than anything present. The wording of the Wiki statement seems to be a Syncretism of ideas, amalgamation of wording and ideas from various sources and attributing such wording to the JW leadership. The word does not seem to be found in JW publications.

The other reference with similar wording is for "The Young Men's Christian Associations seek to unite those young men, who regarding Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour, according to the Holy Scriptures, desire to be His disciples in their faith and in their life, and to associate their efforts for the extension of His Kingdom amongst young men." 1/1/79 p. 30. So, this idea of extension of Christ's Kingdom amongst men, is something that is not unique to JW.Natural (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Insistence on the appearance of the word "extension" (which was not quoted in the article) is a fairly minor distinction, as the concept is still supported by the sources. In any case, I have simplified the wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it reads better as you have it now.Natural (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Most disciplinary action doesn't involve doctrines but moral breeches

Most disciplinary action involves cases where it is deemed that individuals transgressed against Bible moral standards rather than doctrines. Quote - 4/1/99 p. 30 Baal Worship--The Battle for the Israelites' Hearts.

The "unseen power" of Satan promotes sexual immorality in order to enslave people spiritually (John 8:34) In today's permissive society, sexual abandon is not practiced as a fertility rite but, rather, as a way to find personal fulfillment or to do one's own thing...God's servants are not immune to this assault. In fact, the majority of those disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation are individuals who succumbed to such practices. Only by continually repudiating these immoral suggestions will a Christian remain chaste--Romans 12:10

concerning Wiki statement-

disciplinary action for cases that are seen as breaching their doctrines Natural (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

The Watchtower is hardly a neutral source for stating why people leave the JW religion, and it is in their interests to claim that people leave for 'immorality' rather than other doctrinal reasons. In any case, 'immorality' is also something "seen as breaching their doctrines".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Watchtower is making that up, that, in fact, the vast majority who are disfellowshipped are disfellowshipped for immorality. In all my years as a JW, I've only personally known 3 who were disfellowshipped for doctrinal disputes, and all 3 disassociated themselves and weren't actually disfellowshipped. I know some are, but it is not common. Disfellowshipping for immorality, though, is common. That's the facts of it, as the Watchtower states. Natural (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

The claim requires a neutral secondary source. Additionally, the JW procedure allows for 'elders' to say a person has 'disassociated by their actions', regardless of whether the individual still identifies as a JW. The result of either 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociation' is shunning so the end result is the same. So the number who are 'disfellowshipped' over doctrinal disputes can be skewed by semantics anyway. No statistics are available for how many are 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated', or for what grounds. The claim that most leave for 'immorality' can therefore only be cited as a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And in case it is not yet clear, moral breaches inherently involve doctrines anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Certain "moral breeches" are strictly Bible teachings, where you can use the dictionary to discern what is meant. No interpretation is required. "Adultery," as an example, means the same thing everywhere. Heb 13:4. "God will judge fornicators and adulterers." No need to interpret what is meant. Natural (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

I'm not sure how you would define "doctrine" to exclude bible teachings. Khendon (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source of main reason for disfellowshipping "disfellowshipping" "usually for sexual misconduct." New and Alternative Religions in America [Five Volumes]. By Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraf (Link here) Natural (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

The article already notes (under the Disciplinary action section) that most allegations of serious sin involve issues of morality. The wording under the "Organization" section referring to the elders' role in disciplinary action is pretty woolly. Beckford (cited in the Disciplinary action section) and the New and Alternative Religions in America both identify the most common disciplinary issue, and the term "sexual misconduct" is more direct than anything about breaches of a "religion's code of personal morality". I'll insert that phrase in both sections. BlackCab (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Natural (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Layman's Missionary Movement schism

Only one of the schism movements mentioned in David Reed's quote seems actually to have taken place during the era the Wikipedia article states, during the 1920s (the first half of Rutherford's tenure, that is, the Dawn Bible Students.

The other two, the Layman's Missionary Movement and Chicago Bible Students seemed to have been schisms from Russel's time, or in conjunction w/Russell's death in the case of the Layman's Missionary Movement. Reed's research is not, then, it appears, written entirely accurately. [63] However, one source states that Chicago Bible Students schism dates at 1933. Anyone have an accurate date?

The Layman's Missionary Movement seems to be a schism from Russell's death with Paul Johnson, rather than from when the "theocratic" arrangement was initiated. http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/2008/08/savage-wolves-will-come-in-among-you.html

According to Wikipedia Bible Student movement page, the Chicago Bible Students schism may be associated w/1909 date. One puts the date at 1933. http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2010/11/19/former-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses-and-bible-students-testify/

This is the Wikipedia reference mentioning the Chicago Bible Students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Student_movement

On October 24, 1909 former Watch Tower Society secretary-treasurer E.C. Henninges...When Russell refused, Henninges and most of the Melbourne congregation left Russell's movement to form the New Covenant Fellowship. Hundreds of the estimated 10,000 U.S. Bible Students also left, including pilgrim M. L. McPhail, a member of the Chicago Bible Students, and A. E. Williamson of Brooklyn, forming the New Covenant Believers.[49][52]

Natural (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

This Wiki statement isn't accurate,

leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society,[61][62] most of which still exist.[63]

Even though Reed claims it, there were at most 2 groups at that time, the other having formed, as noted at Russell's death. There was no discussion yet on this point. So it is open to discussion, otherwise I plan to modify the structure of the sentence to fit in with the facts and actual history. There was only one group, or perhaps two that broke off at this time, rather than several. Thanks. Natural (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

The schism at the time led to the formation of several groups. Bible Student groups are generally autonomous, and represent independent groups that developed from the schism during Rutherford's time. The fact that there were also earlier schisms doesn't alter that. Do you have a source supporting the claim that there was only one other group formed during Rutherford's tenure?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The article specifically refers to "the first half of Rutherford's tenure". One schism occurred before Russell died, one when he died, "Layman's Missionary..." and then one or two afterwards between 1927 and 1933. The emphasis on preaching work is cited by secular sources as one reason for one of these schisms. That wouldn't really be a disappointment of the changes, but a group's not desiring to participate in, what was for some, a work that was difficult to do. So, yes there were numerous schisms, but basically, the wording of that section might be stated more accurately.

1. The breakaway organizations split off for various reasons, one of which was disappointment with changes. Others were, preaching work, power struggle. 2. This wasn't limited to the time period involving Rutherford's policy changes but was from 1909 through the early 1930s. 3. It is not clear that most of those organizations still exist, though counting through descriptions of all of them, it seems both in the U.S. and other parts of the world, about half do still exist. 4. Reed's information is not entirely accurate. Layman's broke away at the time of Russell's death, not in response to policy and doctrinal changes. (please see reference above).

One possible suggestion in the wording might be... There were a number of independent Bible Students organizations that separated from the Watchtower Society during both Russell's and Rutherford's tenures, for various reasons, a number of which still exist. Natural (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

The current wording of Wikipedia is - Disappointed by the changes, tens of thousands of defections occurred during the first half of Rutherford's tenure, leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society,[61][62] most of which still exist.[63]

If other references are needed, please state so, and I'll try to come up with more. Thanks.Natural (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Sources of Doctrine section bias

This section seems to have a biäs. Also, it largely uses references directly from Watchtower publications to prove its point, which would fall into the category of private research. Wikipedia editors on a previous occasion on this subject stated that unbiased third party sources would be preferable and more in line with Wikipedia policy than private research using the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses against them, as it were, which is basically what most of this section is endeavoring to do. The NPOV is lost in this section. This idea can be further developed, but this is an opening statement on the editing of this particular section. Natural (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

A related question, then, would be, what is the position of Wikipedia editing, as it relates to this article, on going directly to Watchtower sources to prove a point? Natural (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Wikipedia's policy on verification states that "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I have re-read that section; unusually for a Wikipedia article, every single statement in that section is supported with an inline citation, many of them with supporting quotes. Of the 29 citations, 20 are from Watch Tower Society publications. You have described those citations as "proving a point"; I would say that in an article about the source of JW doctrines, they appropriately use WTS publications as the source for an authoritative, definitive statement of belief. The section is balanced, accurate, comprehensively sourced and editorially neutral, but since you believe it is biased (and I note you have now withdrawn your complaint that it has "a JW apostate bias" ([4]) you might like to identify your areas of concern. BlackCab (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if I wanted to create a section using mostly Watchtower publication sources stating that Jehovah's Witnesses stress love, shepherding rather than disciplining, balance, modesty, not "Lording it over the flock," etc. under the topic, Qualities that Jehovah's Witness Literature Encourages, that would be acceptable? or something along those lines? using some verifiable secular sources as well. Natural (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

It's a fairly hypothetical question. It would depend on the content of the section, whether the claims could be backed up by secondary sources, and whether the material did not represent undue weight or a biased POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Such a section would probably fail Wikipedia standards of reliable, independent sources and be promptly removed. If it was based on WTS publications, it would be one editor's subjective opinion that JWs stress those qualities. Another editor might read the same publications and decide that JW publications stress obedience and submission to the religion's leaders. BlackCab (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Recommend GAR

This article has been a battleground since it was promoted to GA status, it should be reviewed to make sure it still complies with GA requirements. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has in fact achieved relative stability since achieving Good article status. The latest flurry of complaints from two editors, both of them very defensive members of the religion who take umbrage at any content that portrays the JWs in anything less than a glowing light, raise little of substance. But further review is never a bad thing. BlackCab (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just an observer here, but I previously saw you guys fighting it out at AN/I. The article would quick-fail if it were reassessed at this point because it is unstable. I recommend you all find a way to reach an agreement and shake hands over this thing, or it will fall in GAR. Ignocrates (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see little of substance has changed in the article since its GA status. Given the thinking of those JWs, their objection to academic and non-JW sources and their predilection for accusing people of being "apostates", I don't see that complete agreement is ever possible. They are part of a religion that thrives on a sense of being not only different, but the One True Faith, part of God's channel. Their leadership accepts nothing short of complete adherence to official doctrines and the individuals accept nothing less than complete agreement with their worldview. If the loss of GA status is the cost of disagreement, then so be it. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making. There's no such thing as Cafeteria Christianity for a JW. Still, if everyone sticks to the facts in front of them, rather than what they "know" to be true, it should be possible to find some common ground here. Maybe I can help. I will take a closer look at the article over the next few days and try to get a clearer sense of the sticking points. Ignocrates (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the Wiki article has a strong POV, but the other section which needs attention is the Sociology section. It focuses primarily on Beckford's and other's negative summaries of JW, while not all sociologists are equally negative in their summary or in the idea of a hardline JW religion. Additionally, Beckford's work is described as "outdated" by Andrew Holden, as it is from around 1975, predating 1975, during the Knorr administration. Also, not everything Beckford and Holden wrote were negative. (1974 is two JW administrations back, when JW had a strong president that ran the organization. The Governing Body that followed Knorr are all deceased, the new GB is different from previous, and their has been a "simplification" program in place for at least one decade, possibly two. Many criticisms of Ray Franz, not nec. all, as an example, have been addressed, including one recently).

One quote in the Wiki article here is from 1933, Rutherford, presented in the article as a current proving point. There has to be some differentiation between current and historical. Also, the editor who put up that reference probably did not go to the original source so in writing ethics, it is necessary to show the actual source. e.g. "As quoted in....." Natural (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Natural

Did you have any other sources in mind for the Sociology section?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holden said he felt the need to update Beckford, and chapter 7 on social stratification and employment types encountered in his survey were certainly outdated. Yet Beckford continues to be cited by Holden himself and other academics and remains a powerful and insightful work and an accurate study on the practices, ideology, conversion methods and mentality of the religion and its members. Your statement that an editor "probably did not go to the original source" in quoting Rutherford is presumptuous in the extreme. It is, again, difficult to understand why you would say that the quoting of a WTS publication on how WTS leaders receive spiritual enlightenment is "proving a point". It simply turns to that publication to explain the process. In complaining that two sections express a point of view, you really seem to be saying only that you just don't like some of the things they say. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have a problem with creating a new References section with the full references listed in alphabetical order by the author's last name? The Citations section would then become a short citation with author's name, a short title, and page numbers. The idea is to put the references in a WP:MOS format that will be acceptable for WP:FAC at some point. I will compile an alphabetized list of References offline for now as I go through the article. Ignocrates (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I went through the references in the first paragraph of the lede, and half of them would not pass muster in FAC. It's more work than its worth until the content is stable. Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume there's an element of hyperbole in that last comment. There are 20 references in the lede; apart from Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia, academic publications, a Pew Forum survey and clearly reliable sources such as Beckford, Holden and Rogerson, as well as other books on religion by Van Sommers and Edwards, there are five citations of material from Watch Tower Society publications, almost all of them of a statistical nature. The only reference of dubious merit is a definition of "Christian" at Religioustolerance.org. Which half of those sources do you say fail to meet Wikipedia standards? BlackCab (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was using a bit of hyperbole. Still, many of the references lack attribution to a known author (including Encyclopedia Britannica). How are we to evaluate the credibility of the content if we can't know anything about the person who wrote it? There's no way that would get past the reviewers in FAC. I also don't know what to think about the religious publications of the Watch Tower Society. There has been quite a bit of discussion recently on some of the religious Wikiprojects about whether to allow this kind of material. As far as I know, no policies have changed, so I don't see how those references can be included in a Featured article. Ignocrates (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to the WikiProjects where those discussions were held? I'd be interested in reading the comments, in particular the scope of religions' self-published material that is deemed unacceptable. I've had a look at the WikiProjects listed on this talk page, as well as their archives, and can't find anything. BlackCab (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussions I was referring to are notability guidelines for religious articles Notability Guide and a manual of style for religious articles MOS. The MOS guidelines are apparently still a work in progress. Ignocrates (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion somewhere about whether religious groups and denominations should be allowed to present their beliefs and practices in their own words rather than rely on third party sources. That discussion might be on the talk page of the MOS guidelines. Ignocrates (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall seeing a proposed set of rules/standards for religious articles, but I can't remember where. I'm not aware it ever got past the proposal stage though, and it may be the same thing to which you're referring. It proposed that articles about religion should use (in different words) an 'in-universe' style for presenting their brand of (what I consider to be) 'fan fiction'. Based on that style, it's fine for an article to rely on primary sources for details about what a religious group believes about itself—that is, its beliefs and practices. (Of course, different policies still have some bearing on what articles can say about what such groups believe about others.) However, establishing notability, as well as any exposition or commentary, about those beliefs or practices would still need to be based on reliable secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I found it. The original discussion began with IZAK's Seven Point Proposal and the extensive discussion that follows. The proposal was later restated at Reminder: Seven_Point Proposal. Also, note the two discussion sections that follow. As a result of the discussion, the proposal was summarized. See, for example, MOS#Reliable Sources. Note, however, that some of the more controversial changes have been lined out. A consensus emerged that some of the proposed changes would not be accepted by the wider Wiki Community. Another source to check is WP:Religion. My take is that none of this went anywhere because it was seen as a form of special pleading to bend the rules for religious articles. Ignocrates (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no policies or guidelines were modified as a result of all this discussion, WP:PSTS still applies to religious articles as written. Therefore, the Watch Tower Society publications would be considered primary sources by FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Watch Tower Society publications are primary sources. But WP:PSTS does not prohibit the use of primary sources. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. There has been extensive discussion over the use of WTS sources, with efforts made to remove and replace as many of them as possible. I believe that what remains, for the most part (and certainly in the lede), conforms to that policy. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, as long as WP:SELFSOURCE guidelines are followed. Ignocrates (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been working quite a lot on the article in French, and we have decided there to put the Watchotwer references in a specific section called "Watchtower publications". Do you think this could be a godd idea here also? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think having a separate section for primary sources is a great idea. However, even though the Watchtower Publications may be allowed under PSTS and SELFSOURCE guidelines, there is still the potential problem of attribution to a notable author. I'm not sure that attribution to unknown elders within the Watchtower Society will work. Ignocrates (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to include these Watch Tower publications as primary sources if possible, but I'm concerned about the question of authorship. Does anyone here object to a WP:3O? I would like to ask Blueboar to take a look at this. I would rather talk about it now than have this issue blow up in FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What is your specific concern about authorship? I'm not sure of your familiarity with Watch Tower Society literature, but in the past few decades no books or magazine articles (apart from life stories) identify the authors. It's a device that purports to avoid elevating anyone in the organization, but in reality simply reinforces the mythology that their writings come via "the society" from God himself. The lack of identifiable authors does not alter the acceptability of WTS sources when stating beliefs and statistics. BlackCab (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I reread all the guidelines and I think the WTS sources are ok to use. I wanted to get confirmation from an outside editor who has dealt with a lot of these issues without taking it to RS/N. If you feel confident the primary sources will hold up in review, I will back off my suggestion. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:3O is really for discussions that currently only involve two people. Ignocrates' query is probably better suited to either the Reliable Sources noticboard or an article RFC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I took the question of authorship to RS/N here. Ignocrates (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, based on the responses so far in RSN, that these WTS sources are ok to use. If there is any question about accuracy later, a statement can be worded as a claim made by the group rather than presented as a fact. Ignocrates (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Their position on blood transfusions has resulted in many deaths and much criticism. I think a subsection under Criticism on their blood transfusion policy will improve the article. Perhaps a summary of this will suffice: [5] Zaalbar (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already a brief section about their views of blood transfusions, which includes a link to the other article. I'm not sure it's necessary to also include a summary about blood transfusions in the Criticism section. If anything, I would be tempted to remove the sections about the NWT and child abuse from this article, so that the Criticism section of this article contains topics about the broader scope of the religion rather than more specific controversies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions, undercovered sections and improvements

I have some suggestions for the article, in topics that may are somewhat undercovered. It is written for the Norwegian wiki, so some aspects of the text are may reflected from a Scandinavian POV.

I've added a raw translation (used google translation) for demographics. Several of the sources are in Scandinavian languages only, but as some users here have complained about the sparse accessible sources, it could be an option to use and translate from those sources. One of the sources, Hege Kristin Ringnes, have published own works about JW, and is a common used source by Norwegian media when JW is topic somehow:

Demographics:

«Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries, but they constitute a major part of any country's population. [271] the United States is the country with the most Jehovah's Witnesses, and 19 percent of the members are American, but there are fewer of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States than in Western Europe and far fewer than in Latin America. [86] There is greater growth in "emerging markets", where Jehovah's Witnesses preaching work in recent times has been banned, than in areas where it has continued preaching for a time, and Jehovah's Witnesses have greater success in its recruitment efforts in traditionally Christian countries than in traditionally Muslim countries. [86] In the Scandinavian countries, there has been particular focus on recruitment among immigrants, and several sociologists have pointed out that Jehovah's Witnesses at the international level, in particular successful in recruiting people who have recently moved from one location to another. [272] Sociologist James A. Beckford has pointed out that there are remarkably many core families with young children among those who have been recruited for the religious community. [272] — Grrahnbahr (22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

The points about relative global distribution, and areas under ban should probably be added. Focus on Scandinavian countries is probably undue weight here. (Note that the automatic translation above has not properly negated the statement about being a major part of any country.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to your views. The Norwegian wiki do have some issues, as it is expected to have a section about the topics relation to Norway, and it is really hard to get an article featured without (I have no clear opinion on the issue, as the same occours in the Swedish and German wiki, as the Norwegian language bokmål is one of the languages spoken primarly in Norway only). JWs do of course not form a major part of any countrys population, as you stated. It is not included in the Norwegian article, but a comparison with LDS could may be of interest, as LDS do have about 50 percents of its members in USA. Regarding using research from Scandinavia, or Europe, I think it may could be of use here, if it offers information likely to find relevant for at least western-oriented countries (reseach done in USA, GB, Belgium, Sweden and Norway do very often offer very similar results). Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a main article for Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses where further focus could be made on specific regions. This article probably doesn't need too much detail beyond the continent level.

If the research from Scandinavia/Europe has a global focus, then I don't see any problem using such sources in the Demographics section here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

On a separate note, there is currently a point in the Demographics section about JWs having the highest growth of any religion. The statement may be mis-representative, as JW growth in 2009 was higher than in other recent years (3.17% according to the official report). JW-reported growth (based on publisher averages) is less than 2% for 2012, and has been under 3% for all but two of the last fourteen years. Based on peak publishers, growth for 2012 was 1.6%.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Social composition

Significantly more women than men say they are Jehovah's Witnesses. [273] Nevertheless, women are virtually absent from leadership positions in the religious community, as these are largely restricted to men. [274]

There have been no studies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in Norway and education, [275] but studies from the United States and Canada indicate a significantly lower proportion of higher education among Jehovah's Witnesses than the rest of society. [K] Studies concerning the economic conditions for U.S. households consisting of members of the religious community, showing a slightly lower average incomes, but close up below average for U.S. households in general. [86] Sociologists Stark and Iannaccone has reviewed the study that remarkable for many reasons, among them that there is a significantly higher proportion of households with Jehovah's Witnesses Dependants of just one income. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses in a higher degree than the general population working part time, and the relatively low proportion of white Americans among Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, are factors that would help to pull down an average for households consisting of Jehovah's Witnesses. [ 86] The survey shows that there are relatively equal number of Jehovah's Witnesses who live in a home they own, like that found in the community. The findings of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious community with culturally middle class feel, confirmed by Beckford, while sociological studies conducted by Wilson and Dobbelaere for Belgium's person, and Göran Gustafsson of Sweden's competent, indicating that Witnesses primarily consists of a combination of middle and lower working class. [ 274] The various perceptive agree, however, that one finds people of higher social rank only rarely in the religious community. [274]

Another suggestion, about classification:

Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves the only true Christians, a continuation of the first Christians, and as the world's oldest monotheistic religion. [282] In religion science context considered Jehovah's Witnesses as a young Christian faiths originated in the USA in the 1870s, during the third great revival wave. [283] Sociologist Andrew Holden describes in addition Jehovah's Witnesses as a mill ennis movements, with teachings in conflict with those found among the majority of Christians. [284] From a religion science perspective are traces of Russell's past as Adventist in several of Jehovah's Witnesses present teachings. [86] [24]

In sociological not fit Jehovah's Witnesses in the definitions of either church or denomination as "sect" has often been used by religious sociologists, as a descriptive term. Some religious sociologists, like Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, has avoided using "sect" in their works, because of the term's negative charge in everyday language. [285] Jehovah's Witnesses reject even that they are a sect, but the rejection is based on a different definition than that descriptive term such cult concept is used in sociology of religion. [130]

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

Witnesses religiosity consists in a practice of Christianity on key points stand out from the vast majority of the world's Christians profess. [286] Jehovah's Witnesses considered Christian in religion scientific context, sociological, and other contexts where secular definitions adopted. [8] [283] [86] [287] [288] [289]

Within konfesjonskunnskap, which is the teaching about Christian churches and denominations, the definition of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian any more hesitant. Author and lecturer Geir Winje discusses the criteria that apply to the WCC and other inter-church organizations, "For the first requires an understanding of the Bible as God's word, and the other an adherence to the old church dogma which states that God is triune, and that Jesus is true God and true man ". [290] Many theologians on similar grounds stated that they do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, among them the Danish Orthodox priest Poul Sebben, as in a post to religion.dk writes: "Allow me, as Orthodox believers and minister, stating that the Orthodox Church and theology excellent understanding to discern what is the Christian doctrine, and what is not [it] .... It drops us not into to [compare Lutheran faith] with Jehovah's Witnesses [s], no matter what people's opinions on this might be. "[291] Professionals in konfesjonskunnskap is not as consistent rejection of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians and religious community are other described as "rooted in Christianity, in the margins of Christianity, or a Christian elements." [292] — Grrahnbahr (22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

The opinions of theologians of other groups are not really important here. JWs don't regard other groups as 'true' Christians either (and various denominations believe similarly about Christian groups other than themselves), but it doesn't mean we say something in every article about a Christian group that someone doesn't regard them as 'really' Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Critic section:

To mention that former members are significant contributers to critic of the denomination, t.ex by "Among the critics are former members of the religious community and representatives of professional-apologetic research strongly represented". Sourced by 1)«Organisasjon og medlemskap», Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie, preface by Hege Kristin Ringnes and Helje Kringlebotn Sødal, p. 11. Universitetsforlaget 2009, ISBN: 978-82-15-01453-1. Quote: «Den forholdsvis store 'avhopperlitteraturen' er sterkt subjektiv og kritisk, ... [d]et samme gjelder en annen type kritisk litteratur, den faglig-apologetiske, som på normativt-teologisk grunnlag vil vise at Jehovas vitner tar feil og formidler vranglære.» (translated "The relatively large 'defectors literature' is highly subjective and critical ... the same applies to a different type of critical literature, the academic-apologetic, as the normative theological basis will show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and conveys heresy" 2) ^ «An introduction to research and analysis of Jehovah's Witnesses: A view from the Watchtower*, Carolyn R. Wah, Review of Religious Research, vol. 43, nr. 2, desember 2001, ss. 161-174. Sitat: «James A. Beckford, (1975:xi) while working on his monograph on Jehovah's Witnesses, found conversations with 'both practising and defected Witnesses' to 'offer invaluable insights' but found that 'the literature published by groups which had seceded from the main Watch Tower movement was coloured by ideological interests that probably distorted their accounts of the history and present practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.'»

Suggestion, detail for the section "Sources of doctrine": The article states: "They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,[139] although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible."

This statement is commented by Rolf Furuli, who is a JW and scholar within linguistic, in the book Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie (he wrote last chapter of the book, to give an inside POV of JWs teachings and practices, but the book is edited by Ringnes and Sødal): "Similarly do Jehovah's Witnesses expect that the Governing Body's organization of the congregations and their educational program is fully consistent with the Bible ... just as the Norwegian law stands above the Norwegian government, is the Bible of the Governing Body. When critics therefore argue that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the 'Bible and Watchtower' as if the two were side by side, this shows a lack of knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses."(The text is highlighted in the original text)

A suggestion is to prolong the sentence in the article to something like: They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,[139] although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible, a claim explained and repudiated by Rolf Furuli, member of the denomination, in the book Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie. (My opinion: when the statement is disputed by a scholar in a published source, both versions should be mentioned in the article) Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article history, but there currently doesn't seem to be a section about this. Maybe it is mentioned in the Criticisms article. If a new section is added, it should be balanced with the alternative POV, e.g., some theological sources, speaking for orthodox Christians, regard JWs to be non-Christians because of non-adherence to non-biblical church dogma, whereas JWs regard those same orthodox Christians to be apostates for adherence to the very same non-biblical church dogma. Ignocrates (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a subsection of the earlier heading, which would indicated that it is a proposed addition to the article. Having said that, I very very seriously doubt that such a section is either required or even indicated. So far as I know, most if not all self-described "Christians" include the JWs in that broad designation, although some of the Charismtic and Evangelical groups, who tend to have a more narrow definition of the term, might disagree. However, based on the fact that most Christians consider the JWs as some form of Christian, I tend to think that giving this matter, which appears to be a bit of a minority opinion regarding the matter, any particularly substantive discussion in this, the main article on the topic, would very likely violate WP:WEIGHT. That is not saying that the material might not be eligible for inclusion somewhere, but not necessarily this article. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It have, at some stage, been an issue in three of the largest Scandinavian wikies, and the most serious objection against a FA-status for the Norwegian article was about stating in the introduction that JW was a Christian denomination. The user objecting, have a theologic degree, and objected because JW did not meet the criterias presented by World Council of Churches for defininition of Christian Denomination, and combined with quotes from theologs, was representing for a main stream view. The solution was to make a separate paragraph, explaining who don't concider JW Christian (mostly theologs or whoever they impact), and who does (most secular scholars). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently made a bit of a point in consulting any number of highly regarded reference sources on the broad topic of religion, and on some particular groups, for the purposes of finding articles which are included in those sources, so that editors here can have some idea as to what is included in other reference sources on those topics. I can honestly say that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen a reference source I have consulted not consider the JWs to be some form of Christian, and I am rather certain that I would have remembered if they had. The World Council of Churches' opinion is one opinion of some other Christian groups, and I have every reason to believe that any statements it might make are in some way potentially biased. It may well be that, for whatever reason, I might have more access to high quality reference sources than others in other languages might. If that is the case, feel free to drop me an e-mail with an indicator as to what is specifically being sought, and I will be more than happy to forward what I can. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have no strong opinions on the matter, other than JW are considered Christian by the mainstream of secular scholars and definitions of interest in this issue. The paragraph was written as a result of strong objections during a FA-nomination. It was out of question to remove any statement of JW as Christian, but the paragraph should be uncontroversial, and may not needed. It should however be concidered, as it may represent a significant minority view ("(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." - WP:NPOV) Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As atypical as JWs may be, they are a Christian group by any meaningful definition. The fact that they are a Christian group is encyclopaedically significant. Wikipedia is not censored. If the sensibilities of biased editors means that this point prevents the article from becoming 'featured', so be it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Furuli is a member of JWs, but he doesn't really have any authority as a JW (that is, there's no way to tell that anything he says is officially endorsed by the organisation). He could probably be used to cite material about linguistics, but I don't think there are grounds for considering him authoritative about JWs. On that basis, I don't think it would be appropriate to say Furuli explains the claim, as he can only really offer his opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Explain is may not the right word (it's a raw translation, by google), but it is an obvious objection to a statement exactly like the one quoted by Holden, and should be included. Furuli is a published writer, and this is a quote from a published source, edited by Ringnes, who is a promonent and commonly used sholary on this topic. I can't see why Furuli not should be quoted, when it contributes to a balanced section in the article. Several of the authors sourced in this article has no background directly connected to sholary work about JW or a close related subject, but are still used in the article, based on what? Furuli, with his inside experience, is a far better and more updated source than most, if not any, of them. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Furuli can't be quoted. Only that he shouldn't be quoted in a manner that suggests his view is official.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding Furuli's comment would be a rebuttal of an opposing opinion. The article states what the JWs say, then adds a contrasting view by Holden. There is no value in Furuli (an unofficial commentator) agreeing with what the WTS (an official source) says. If a third commentator agrees with Holden, do we then rebut Furuli's comment with that? It could turn out to be a very long article. BlackCab (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I then suggest to move Holdens comment before the WTS statement, so Furulis comment is supportive to the WTS statement. Furulis comment comes from a third part source, and is a direct answear to a statement like the one from Holden, as it is presented in the article, so it adds value to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is correctly expressed in the article. This is what the JWs say about themselves, but here is a dissenting view from an academic researcher based on his own observations. It is only to be expected that a JW will support what his leaders say. To do otherwise would invite expulsion, as Penton discovered. Furuli's reinforcement of his religion's teaching is just not notable and adds no value. BlackCab (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange mentioning Penton, who not can be described just another academic researcher, who offers his own opinion? Penton is referenced to in issues not related to history. The motive for Furulis comment is out of scope here, and wikipedia does not take a stand on true or false, wikipedia reference to published sources. The source is edited by Ringnes, and is published by the University publisher connected to the university of Oslo. We could have a third part to look into if the source is qualified as a RS, if that is the issue. Grrahnbahr (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Penton writes about JWs. Furuli is a language professor. Furuli's position as a linguist does not make his views about JWs any more notable than the views of any other JW member. And if the views of a JW member are considered reliable, then they're just going to echo the official view from the Watch Tower Society anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is like claiming Penton only reflects defectors view of JW. Penton have no autority as makes him a better source for writing about JWs believings than Furuli, who at least is updated when it comes to JWs believings. Penton was never higher ranked within the denomination than Furuli is, and Furuli is contributing to an interdisciplinary study about JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be turning this into a competition between the two. Penton is a professor of history who wrote three books about JW history and he continues to be cited by other authors and academics for his research and observations. I'm not sure what qualifications Furuli has that make him worth including. He is a JW and therefore supports the Watch Tower Society in its statements, as all members are required to do. BlackCab (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Penton is sourced in this article in topics not related to history. It is referenced to four different works written by Furuli (alone or together with other) in the same book as mentioned earlier, the interdisciplinary study about JW, so yes, Furuli is a referenced scholar, also when the topic is JW and their believings (Penton and the Bottings are not listed at all in the same book, Beckford, Stark and Holden is). I offered to ask for a third parts opinion if the source was an issue. The comparison between Penton and Furuli is of interest when it comes to what sources to use in this article, as the fact that Furuli is a member of JW, is used as an argument to disqualify him as a RS for this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of Penton in the article is fully justified: each of his statements in the article makes a contribution to understanding the religion. Please list what you think the article should cite from Furuli. BlackCab (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is no need for advertising what to list or not to list in advance. I don't know if you seek some kind of guarantee I wouldn't suggest more quotes from Furuli-related works? I got only one suggestion for now, and I do not see any need for limiting it the that single statement if a later addition could add value to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Furuli, a JW, simply re-states the official JW view. It doesn't add anything to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually his comment do represent a third view, as it is quoted from a third part source. As far as I know, WTS have not stated an answear as directly as Furuli in the actual issue. Furuli is not tight connected to JW officials (as far as I know), other than being a JW and an elder. The book is edited by a non-JW scholar, and published by a secular publishing company, and can in no way be said to represent an official JW view, even if the work should be explaining teachings and believings of JW. His statement seen in context, it is obvious it is an answear to a statement simular as the one Holden presented, not just a random retelling of a JW-doctrine. WTS statement presented -> Holdens response to the WTS statement (or a similar statement - who knows?) -> Furulis response to a statement exactly like the one presented by Holden, and in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You're going in circles. We don't need a rebuttal to a rebuttal, especially when it's just a JW's opinion that reflects the official view anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stark link

The 1997 report by Rodney Stark & Laurence Iannacconne may be used as a source, but may not be suitable as an external link, as the report is not representative of current growth rates.

During the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996, average annual growth was 5.6%. However, in the 16 years from 1997 to 2012, average annual growth has been only 2.4%.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

- The period of 1981 to 1996 is not the point of the Stark article. On the other hand I’m unsure why this article deserves usage as an external resource given that its point is a theoretical analysis rather than a case study. The analysis is attempt to extrapolate a mechanism to project growth potential among religious groups. This is a very, very narrow field of study and other secondary articles offer far more about the actual state of things among Jehovah’s Witnesses, all of which makes me wonder why the article deserves placement as an external resource. That said, I leave it to other editors to decide what to do with this placement.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The report do have some unique aspects about JW, esp. when it comes to topics related to demography. It may is better used as a source than an external link, I've no strong opinion on the matter. I'm not sure what other secondary articles User:Shilmer knows, that is better suited. I'm really interested in more studies and aspects about JW, as I think the article still can be improved, not to mention if made by scholars not affected to JW as a member or ex-member. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The study is one of many academic works on the JWs that is available online and focuses on one aspect of the religion. It is cited twice in this article as well as in Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no need to list it as an external link. BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1981 to 1996 was used to illustrate the point because it is the same amount of time as 1997 to 2012. However, using any period of older statistics similarly demonstrates the point I made about the non-currency of the growth rates in that source. The only period with growth rates lower than the last decade and a half was the late 70s. I will remove the external link. This has no impact on the validity of the source for reporting historical growth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a worthwhile EL for the Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses article however. It's not cited in the article but fits the general guidelines of WP:EL.BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my edit summary here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying point on "Failed Predictions"

A clarifying point on this topic is a good source of reference on Jehovah's Witnesses, that seems to be more thorough than most sources and less biased. George D. Chryssides states in the Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses, "It is therefore simplistic and naive to view the Witnesses as a group that continues to set a single end-date that fails and devise a new one, as many counter-cultists do." Chyssides accurately documents that initial date setting is attributable to Nelson Barbour, rather than Russell, who was not a Bible Student or Witness, and that date setting, that is in terms of "Failed Predictions," needs to be examined in light of historical context, that is the rise of Adventist doctrine, from which some of Russell's eclectic selection of ideas sprang. Preface, p. 14.

Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series). George D. Chryssides, PhD. 2008. Scarecrow Press

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jehovah's+witnesses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=STs9UaWsLufL0wG5vYCwBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=simplistic&f=false Natural (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Beckford Sociological Analysis Outdated

A substantial portion of the sociological analysis is from Beckford. Holden refers to Beckford's analysis (1975) as "outdated". A historical analysis of JW should be dated in the article (1975) or more current references would be appropriate. At 1975 Knorr was president, it was quite a different structure, and many changes took place from 1975 on in the structure of the Governing Body, Knorr, etc. Natural (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Holden praises Beckford's work and cites it repeatedly throughout his own book. Other academic writers also continue to cite Beckford. His work remains a landmark study and its information is still valuable. BlackCab (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Beckford's work is good for historical consideration of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975 and previous to that, and it has many good historical reflections and explanations, this is true. However, in considering the sociology of a religion that is still, as George Chryssides, and that has an entirely different "leadership" as it is put here, with different policies and priorities, then it stands to reason that the reader should have current information on the sociology of the group, or should be informed that the information presented is not current, but from previous decades, that is, close to four decades old. A date Beckford (1975) would be enough, if the other editors felt that Beckford's analysis should stay. Otherwise, it is misleading to the uninformed reader to use an outdated resource on the current sociological opinions of an author, as current. Natural (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

I don't have strong objections to providing a reference to the year of the study (the year is already present in the citation), but I also don't see that the information is outdated.

Which of Beckford's observations do you consider no longer to be true? On what specific basis do you believe he would draw different conclusions if the study were done in the present? Can you provide reference to a more recent sociological study?

Wilson's analysis of the religion in the 1990s is essentially the same as that given by Beckford in the 1970s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Wilson, for one, refers to Jehovah's Witnesses in terms of "differential commitment," stating, "Thus even in sects such as Jehovah's Witnesses, which are in many ways so very different from the new movements being her considered (Krishna Consciousness, the Divine Light Mission, the Unification Church, among others), differential commitment is well institutionalized." Then he gives examples of varying degrees of involvement in the "witnessing" work. Religion in Sociological Perspectives. Bryan Wilson. Oxford University Press. 1982. p.143. This is a valid and clarifying point on the time demands or time commitments involved. Natural (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

So a 1975 work is outdated but another written just seven years later is acceptable? Did anything significant change in the organisation in those seven years that would make Beckford wrong and Wilson right? You need to be more specific about exactly what information sourced to Beckford is outdated. BlackCab (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You (Naturalpsychology) are going off on a tangent. The Beckford citation doesn't attempt to address how much time JWs commit to the religion. It is unremarkable that among JWs there is a spectrum of levels of activity in the religion.

Back to your original objections about Beckford, please refer to the questions above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Beckford is cited here in reference to competing demands on members time, and the word "Totalizing" is used, implying that huge amounts of time, all the members free time, is a demand of the Jehovah's Witness religion. This gives an impression that is not entirely true, as is brought out by Wilson, that "differential commitment" exists in the amount of time and commitment individual members personally choose to invest on a regular basis, which is the reality of it.

2. Beckford is quoted as stating that the Witness religion, being Totalizing, has likelihood of conflict with secular authorities. However, on the next page of Beckford's book, he clarifies his chart, in which he had included Witnesses and other religions, not just Witnesses, saying, "We must emphasize that the four type-cases are not intended to be water-tight or rigid, they are expressely designed to allow flexibility in scope and mobility between cases." He gives the example of how a religion might fit into that type in its formative years, but change as it progresses.

That provides the context for Beckford's following statements on p.206,7. "But we shall now argue that the everday behaviour of British Jehovah's witnesses betrays no signs of violent alienation from major social institutions or processes, and that their outlook could be more accurately described in other ways." (that is other ways than extremism, mentioned in the preceding sentences). Further, Beckford states, "Their refusal to enlist in the armed forces, to accept restrictions on their alleged rights to evangelize in public without hindrance and to control the precise type of medical treatment for themselves or for depandants virtually exhausts the list of presented-day sources of friction with secular authorities. What is more, the Witnesses readily resort to litigation in defence of their principles and are thereby willing to exhibit their faith in the value of due legal process In Britain, therefore, Jehovah's witnesses have become so mild and conventional in their criticism of the prevailing political and legal arrangements that 'world indifference' more aptly described their outlook than 'extremist' or 'revolutionsist'. p. 207.

By isolating one undeveloped section of Beckford's analysis, the present Wiki sociology section fails to provide the entire picture that Beckford gradually develops. It is necessary to clarify his comments, if they are to be used.

Natural (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Additionally, to address Blackcab's objection, yes, there is a huge difference between Jehovah's Witnesses style in 1975 to Jehovah's Witnesses style 10 years later. In 1975 Nathan Knorr was still largely directing all affairs of Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas, within the next 2 years, the Governing Body was expanded. Knorr died in 1977, and a larger Governing Body now was directing things, Ray Franz left around 1981, so there is a vast difference between the structure in 1975 to 1981, and subtle changes in the religion. A sociological study in the early 70s would be different than one in the 1980s or today. Natural (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

The 'implication' of "totalizing" is your own conclusion, not what is stated in the article. And you go on to indicate that the terms used by Beckford specifically "allow flexibility of scope". You've then jumped from your initial claim that Beckford is "outdated" to your new suggestion that the article present more information about his views. Wilson's study from the 1990s presents similar factors to the study from the 1970s. If you have sources for an even more recent sociological study, please present it. You also did not answer the earlier questions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, there are two parts or angles,

1. Beckford did his study in Britain, and his research was limited to Britain, it was not international in scope. British culture is quite different than Hispanic or Brazilian culture, and his study might be considered to be true at that time for Britain, but might not be true if you were to do a similar study in a Hispanic congregation of JW in the U.S. or in Brazil, the culture is quite different and even styles of elders differ from congregation to cong. and country to country.

Esther Peperkamp in the book, Religion and the Secular in Eastern Germany 1945, mentions this fact concerning both Beckford and Holden, that their sociological work on JW was based on JW in Britain. Another study, I have to get the reference later today or tomorrow, states that while Beckford considers converts coming from lower classes, and that might have been true then, it is more of a movement that attracts "the young" and "middle class" now. I'll post the reference later today or tomorrow. This provides only an example.

The generalities of Beckford and Holden's analysis, then, in some aspects, might not be true to the letter for JW as a whole, but it may be a mixture of the England-British culture, and the JW religion. The spirit of JW in Italy is quite different from British JW, even as going on a bus in England, and going to a subway in Rome, is like going to two different worlds, there is a sharp culture contrast having little to do with religion.

A second point from Beckford, which is not in this Wikip article, but serves as an example is, Beckford said that you basically had to have been raised a Christian to become a JW. [Not true now in England or other countries, many Hindus and Sikhs, some Jews and atheists, have become JW the past 2 decades esp] p 159. Though this statement or observation may have been true in the limited sphere w/which Beckford did his research, in England in the early 1970s.

                              *******

2. The way in which Beckford is quoted or referred to in the Wikipedia article needs to be clarified, either using his material w/additional references from him and other sociologists, or by using other more current material. Either way would work.

One point on that (there are some others, but they can be considered later -

Beckford, Demerat confirm in The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, (James A Beckford, Jay Demerat, that almost all of the conflict that JW have w/secular society involve only these areas, based on the cases that Jehovah's Witnesses have brought to the European Court of Human Rights, ( the books says the ECHR "has developed a significant record in recent years of supporting religions freedom.")

Jehovah's Witnesses

1. seeking to defend themselves when the proselytize

2. refuse to serve in the military

3. refuse to accept blood transfusions

There is not, therefore, widespread tension or conflict w/secular society, as the current quote in the current Wikip article might suggest, but it is limited to these 3 areas.

Bainbridge similarly limits the tension w/ secular world to

saluting the flag

blood transfusions

dedication to proselytizing

The Sociology of Religious Movements, William Sims Bainbridge. P.107. http://books.google.com/books?id=eCKbw8QuhEkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sociology+of+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nxg_UZn4JafH0AHov4DgAw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jehovah's%20witnesses&f=false

"Although 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses experience tension with the world, they do not by any means approach the extreme in high tension." P.110. Bainbridge. "medium-tension movements." p. 413

Natural (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

from Bainbridge, “their culture is chiefly a mere intensification of ordinary Protestant beliefs and practices." p.165 “added considerable culture to the old Protestant traditions”.http://books.google.com/books?id=eCKbw8QuhEkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sociology+of+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nxg_UZn4JafH0AHov4DgAw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jehovah's%20witnesse&f=false

from Bainbridge, refers to Beckford's study, stating that Jehovah's Witnesses are “culturally middle-class” p.107 Natural (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

I have left you a message at your talk page, Natural. Please try to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines on talk page indentation. Your comments here are becoming rather hard to follow and your point is no longer clear. Your initial complaint was that Beckford's book was outdated and you were subsequently asked to point out his observations that you consider no longer to be true. You need to confine your comments to those that are actually contained in this article. This talk page is to discuss improvements to this article, not to debate the perceived rights and wrongs of authors' works. The article contains nothing about Beckford's findings about lower classes, nor about his observations about previous church affiliation. BlackCab (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest organisational development

I added many new informations about 'organization' and 'the name'. Deleting such information seems to be what I described in 'edit summary'. [6]. He closely followed '3 revert rule', and 'play the system' as he reverted me 3 times. And claim like 'unnecessary primary sources' is quite mad, because I included them after (un)explained removal by other editor several days ago. [7]. I am not sure what specifically is the problem. Notable that info surely is. So why not include it? As by language form, I don't mind rewording. But the meaning of notable views on its own doctrines should be preserved. --FakTNeviM (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't add "many new informations". You added two details (aside from altering quoted source material and adding some superfluous primary sources).

Your change about the group's name was unnecessary POV, and the claim was fairly pointless because outsiders could either continue using the old epithets anyway, or make up new ones.
Your second addition was unintelligible trivia about Watch Tower committees.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tension with the world

Bainbridge's comment on tension with the world would be of value for the article. "Although 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses experience tension with the world, they do not by any means approach the extreme in high tension." P.110. Bainbridge. "medium-tension movements." p. 413 - Also, that with tension with the secular world, Beckford and Bainbridge limit that tension to 1. saluting the flag and military service. 2. blood transfusions 3. dedication to proselytizing and/or seeking to defend themselves when the proselytize. Natural (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

You seem to be on a frenzy of snatching up fragments of quotes that would add little to the article without context. Bainbridge's comment about extreme high tension was made in the context of a comparison with the Branch Davidians, an apocalyptic cult that, as we know, had a fiery end. On its own the statement says nothing. Littering this talk page with these fragments, each with their own section heading and a garbled short-hand comment, makes the task of improving this article harder rather than easier. It makes it impossible for other editors to respond in a way in which rational discussion can take place. If you have reasoned arguments to make and wish to draw attention to usable sources, please do so with more care. Present your sources and explain where and how the material would be of benefit. BlackCab (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

I have deleted two edits [8] that add unnecessary detail outside the scope of this article and also unnecessary material from a primary source on the religion's history. The article has largely been cleared of material drawn from primary sources that adds little of value. The religion's history can easily be covered using secondary sources, of which there is an abundance. The inclusion of comments from an organization that attempt to relate its history from its own perspective is clearly contrary to the requirements of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. BlackCab (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor immediately restored the material with the comment, "not proper reasons for hiding facts per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED, youre welcome to reformulate sentences, but not censor valid primary source just because WP:IDONTLIKETHEM." I have adequately explained the reasons for deleting primary source material, which should not be here without good reason. It is stupid to suggest I am attempting to censor the article. Faktnevi's edit, which inserts the JW jargon of "arrangement", has already been previously reverted by another editor [9], who pointed out that it should adhere to the quote from the source. Discuss your changes here instead of edit warring. BlackCab (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it any specific reason why the expression used in the source from 1967 is preferred rather than the one from 2001? The 2001 source uses the expression "theocratic arrangements". Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1967 quote presents a Watch Tower Society description of the religion's so-called theocratic structure that is still current. The book Organized To Do Jehovah's Will (2005), which focuses on the JW concept of organization, refers repeatedly to the concept of theocratic organization: that is, God has established an organization on earth of which he is head. The opening paragraphs of chapter 1 compare the "thousands of national and international organizations" with the "unique and wonderful worldwide organization that is theocratic". It's not a question of right or wrong, but the term "arrangement" in that context is more vague and less precise. I don't know why editors would fight so hard to use the word "arrangement" when the WTS itself so strongly promotes the concept of "theocratic organization". BlackCab (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the Watchtower Library CD, the phrase "theocratic arrangement" only appears 103 times, and many of those are in reference to various specific 'arrangements', such as building a Kingdom Hall or sisters wearing head coverings, rather than the organization. In contrast, the phrase "theocratic organization" appears 898 times. Any questions?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1) 'Theocratic organization' is outdated term. I provided only year 2000 and newer sources, including 2013. Moreover, word 'organization' appears 2 times in 1 sentence, what is not looking nice. In fact, 3 times if we count 'organized' as the same word. 2) Newer wording "theocratic arrangement" is supported by updated sources. Term "visible part of Jehovah's organization" should be preferred too over term "God's organization", because new sources do not use it that "God's" one. 3) WTBTS itself described 2 another reasons why new name of the belief group was chosen, so why you keep removing valid important information? 4) Governing Body is now representing 'the slave' only. That is still correct info. But in 2013 article there is proper focus on structure of whole 'slave organization'. It proves that GB is just one part of whole. It should be there noticed. It is notable on the subject. Is 'censorship' and 'don't like it' still preferable approach? On all 4 removed additions? --FakTNeviM (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "theocratic organization" is 'outdated' is a lie. The term appears in the 15 November 2012 Watchtower (page 17). I have already clearly indicated that "theocratic organization" is the predominant term. In particular, from 2000 until 2012, the term "theocratic arrangement" has appeared in The Watchtower only twice (in both cases referring to specific 'arrangements' as previously mentioned above). However, "theocratic organization" has appeared six times during the same period, and always in the relevant context (in addition to other occurrences of Jehovah's visible organization, God's organization, and so on). Further, the term Jehovah's organization and similar terms occur repeatedly in the 2013 Watchtower you cited. And it doesn't even contain the phrase theocratic arrangement!

The practical point of the name change—to distinguish the group from other Bible Student groups—is still in the article, and this covers the superfluous point you tried to make about association with 'Russelites'. Additional semantics about the name are fairly trivial. I'm not aware of any recent change to the article that is relevant to your 4th point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

From my side this was only a question, as ranging a quote from 1967 before a quote from 2001, not would be the standard way to do it. In Norwegian the expression used, is closer to organization than arrangement, although I don't yet have a picture whether WTBTS prefers other expressions for the current description of the organization, like those User:FakTNeviM presented. In this case, I have no personal preferences, other than the one giving an updated and correct picture of JWs own perception of their own structure, as the statement is presented as their view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation: Jehovah's Witnesses are organized under a hierarchical arrangement, which their leadership calls a "theocratic organization", reflecting their belief that it is God's "visible organization" on earth. .... I feel that this sentence contains too much 'organizing' words. I already pointed out about three-times or more.

If you assume 4 references I provided - all of them contains one or both (theocratic arrangement, visible part of Jehovah's organization) of those two crucial phrases and thoroughly describes present teaching on the structure of JWs.

1)Bible Students/Christians issue (= both terms are too unclear and common), 2)Russellites/Rutherfordites issue, and 3)feel like being witnesses for Jehovah God, ... are very important reasons why new name was adopted in 1931, as referred in source I provided there (DVD, chapter 2). Present state of the article is without these reasons more uninformative and incomplete than it deserves.

The Wiki article currently state that the Governing Body of JWs solely/only represents Faithful and Discreet slave. Although this is not disclaimed in 2013 WT-s article, the GB is newly described as highest instance of 6part-level !visible! arrangement. Above all 6 levels are !invisible! spiritual beings (see picture and description in article). It explains what WTBTS believes 'the theocracy' means. It should be noted in Wiki article as JWs view.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Each of your points about the source and reason for the name change is already made in the sentence already in the article.

The JW belief of the visible and invisible elements of 'God's organization' do not represent the actual verifiable structure of the religion. It is not necessary to go into detail about their theology in the Organization section. Additionally, no teaching authority (to originate new teachings) is assigned to any members other than the governing body.

The number of appearances of forms of the word organize in that sentence, quoting JW literature, properly demonstrates the emphasis that JWs do place on that word. If you approach a random person and mention "the organization" they'll almost certainly say, "Huh? Which organization??" But to a JW, no context is required for them to know what someone means when they refer to "the organization".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

FakTNeviM do have good points regarding presenting the current beliefs of JW, and I do support including notable changes within JWs theology, even if its only presented within a major and official JW publication. I cannot support FakTNeviM regarding the six level statement, because FakTNeviMs statement implicates a hierarchy as it not is fully explained within the source. It does not look like the article is describing the structure in levels, but rather presenting an overview of what WT states Jehovah's (earthly) organization does include. To make a conclusion that the numbers connected to the objects within the picture, is some kind of ranking or levels, I would say would neither be a conclusion well founded in the source, nor supported by the comment above the picture. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree, Grrahnbahr, that 4th point with the picture is not entirely clear how much invisible spititual beings have influence on 6-level structure or if they have influence only on the GB. From logical viewpoint every single human inside the system must be affected. For we cannot make our own hypotheses on Wikipedia, I support to include that 6-level structure, but without comments/explanations. --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem of your reasoning, Jeffro, is in the fact, that you and BlackCab were reverting me because of supposed (=only you both think so) redundancy of those information. Primary sources should not be refuted just for the sake of it. All of those changes are significant and notable. If you have problem to include additional references from WTBTS to article (for the supposed reasons = excuses, like keeping GA quality), we would include information, but not add references?! Or we would put NOTE markup tag instead of using as references. Just to add brief summary about recent views. --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must depend on reliable, verifiable sources. This article does use some references to statements in WTS publications where they clearly show doctrinal positions. It does not need to go into excessive detail. The above conversation in which two editors argue about the interpretation of an illustration in a WTS publication show the importance of relying on reliable secondary sources. The current wording on the JWs' organizational structure is sufficient for a general readership. BlackCab (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the Moral contamination-discussion, Jeffro uses his interpretation of several quotes received from WT to support his point, and I did object to his interpretation of the quotes. I did then not hear you object to Jeffros use of primary sources to back his argument. I do though agree primary sources have to be used by caution. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest citing those sources in the article, but it would be naive to simply ignore the official sources altogether regarding the religion's own official view on the matter. The intent of comments in The Watchtower is quite clear regarding the official view that JWs are told to avoid friendships with 'worldly' people. As previously stated, any number of JWs as individuals might take any of various actions or hold private opinions that are not officially considered 'appropriate' by the religion, but this would not mean that the article must provide a disclaimer for each point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not really attacking you quoting WT as an argument for your statement. I was pointing out BlackCabs different treatment of users doing close related things. I can see the slight difference between you using it for backing in a discussion on the talk page, while FakTNeviM suggested changes in the article based on information received from the study edition of the watchtower. I was actually disagreeing to FakTNeviM's interpretation of the source, and BlackCab managed somehow to make a rather negative focus out of it, and I felt the best defence against it, was to show I treated you the exactly same way when disagreeing to an interpretation of the information you received from the watchtower, as I did in this occasion. Regarding this discussion, I think it is important to be open for including new aspects of JW's doctrines, though I do share BlackCabs concerns regarding primary sources and being too focused on details. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackcab changing agreed upon edits without conferring w/editors

To make edits, editors have to discuss changes first, yes?

This was Blackcab's edit, so the question is, if there was an issue with this edit, why doesn't Blackcab discuss it w/the other editors?

in his 1975 study of Jehovah's Witnesses, classified the religion's organizational structure Natural (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

I am not required to gain your approval for an uncontroversial edit that makes no significant change to the article. The sentence adds the publication date of Beckford's book, which is what you wanted. BlackCab (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to discuss minor changes to improve the article. The previous wording ("Beckford, 1975") didn't indicate whether 1975 was the year of a study, a subsequent publication, the year of Beckford's birth... etc. The new wording is clearly better. It appears Naturalpsychology is arguing just for the sake of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I apologize, when I checked it the whole 1975 point didn't show up. It is good now, the wording on that point. Either I missed it, or it went out and came back up. Sorry, it's fine w/the date that way, not arguing about anything with it, didn't mean to.Natural (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

All good. There was an intermediate edit where BlackCab reverted a few edits, which inadvertently included the ambiguous reference to 1975. However, shortly thereafter, he put clearer wording in. You may have checked the page between those edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that is what happened, sorry, next time I'll wait to say anything. Natural (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

Moral contamination

Moved from User talk:Grrahnbahr

You removed the statement from the Jehovah's Witnesses article that "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses", commenting: "The statement is not accurate, nor reflected in the article". [10] In fact that point is expanded under the "Separateness" section, where a reference to Holden's book is included. Holden is the author who uses the term "moral contamination". BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Holden did also mention examples of JW not following this advice/teaching. The article later states "Witnesses... are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality." A JW is still regarded as a JW, even if the "advice" is disregarded, so stating "They limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" is not only misleading, but an untrue statement (the statement is using "they", as the statement is describing JW as individuals). The statement is, as I see it, reflecting an area of teaching to complex to include as a one-sentence statement in the heading. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some Witnesses (who would be regarded as defiant) ignore the constant instruction to avoid social interaction with non-members doesn't change the truth of the statement. Holden emphasises this point in pages 109-112. The other references in the article show the WTS constantly tells Witnesses that fraternisation with outsiders presents a threat to their spirituality. Their separateness from non-members is one of the defining and notable characteristics of the religion. Beckford's sociological study of the religion, Trumpet of Prophecy (p.194) also notes that the religion urges children "strenuously to restrict their friendship relations to fellow-members of the faith". BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Their "limitation of their social interaction" with non-Witnesses is an object of interpretation. "Social interaction" is presented like if not in a broader context, but it does include so many exceptions it is difficult to make a specific description in few words (WTBTSs definition of social interaction is may not even the same as from a secular view). I think it better could be described as situational. Their limitation is also not a strict practiced teaching (unlike most of their morale codex), and can pretty much be compared with seeing a possible "unsuitable" movie or having an ungroomed appearance. JW are encouraged to stick with the policies on those topics, but it is not fair to state t.ex. "JWs are not watching James Bond-movies", because the movies are portraying murders, and JWs are taught not to let themselves entertain by violent expressions. Some of them may don't see James Bond-movies of that specific reason, while some, may even many or the most of them, do or have done so. It could be fair to state it in the context of their teaching, but a narrow view like it is presented in the recent changed heading, is possible contributing to an unbalanced and misleading view of JWs as individuals. Regarding their relation to not being a part of "the World", it appears to be far more often used by the witnesses regarding not engaging into Politics. Sorry for not showing to any good sources here on short notice, but I am pretty sure you are familiar with most of the policies and examples here, and my point. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks about watching movies are irrelevant to the discussion. You initially claimed that the statement about the outside world being morally corrupt and the fact that JWs limit their social interaction with non-members was "not accurate, nor reflected in the article". I have clearly showed you that it is an accurate reflection of a sociologist who studied the religion and devoted an entire chapter (Holden, pg 103-124) to the practice by the religion of discouraging "unnecessary contact with the outside world". I have directed you to another author, who wrote a landmark study of the religion, who discussed the same thing. The Wikipedia article also includes a reference to, and quote from, an article in the Feb 15, 1994 article specifically warning members against "extended association with worldly people" and the "dangers" of such friendship. From long personal experience I know this message is repeated regularly at meetings and conventions, with a variety of illustrations to highlight the spiritual dangers of such association. I therefore see no reason to delete the statement from the article. BlackCab (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't understand why there is a conflict here. I don't have Holden's book at hand but I also don't see the basis for disputing his statement. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to BlackCab): I think you may mixing up warnings for a JW against making close friendship to a non-JW, with normal social interaction with non-JW acquaintances. I doubt a JW visiting a non-JW neighbor, aunt, and a lot of other possible acquaintances, is considered living on the edge of their faith, even though the purpose is of social character only. The statement in the heading is giving such an expression, like JW could be considered as of an antisocial character. Note also "bad associations" (like the expression is used in 1. Cor. 15:33) is also used to warn against fellow JW in a not so good standing. I thought I would need more time (I'm about to have a week or so wikibreak), but I managed to find some sources to confirm a somewhat different view than stated above: "Since all Witnesses are responsible as individuals for managing their contact with the outside world, close scrutiny from inside the movement might reveal differences in how this is achieved." "But one thing that is clear is that the tolerance levels of devotees vary, as does their frequency of contact with outsiders. Although some voluntary contact with the outside world is permissible, the Witnesses are adviced to err on the side of caution when forming friendship with those who do not share their beliefs." "Certain Witnesses demonstrate their conviction by keeping contact with outsiders to a minimum. Others, though they may befriend non-members and maintain amicable relations with people in their neighbourhoods, makes their status known to those with whom they associate." (Quoted from Holden, p. 110-112) Holden describes this topic as complex, and was using interviews to get a realistic view of how JWs relations to "Worldly people" is. I still think the addition to the heading is representing unnecessarily criticism and a twisted and narrow view of JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether all JWs happen to follow any particular instruction they're given, the official position is that JWs are not meant to form close friendships with non-members. Despite that 'counsel', there may be any number of JW members who do so, just as some JWs might talk to former members, watch violent movies, and so on. The article is about the religion, not what individual members might do. Unless there is a source indicating notability of a particular widespread attitude among JW members that is counter to the leadership's instructions, it is not necessary to cover actions or attitudes of members who happen to diverge from any particular rule.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to religion, it is unavoidable that articles cross back and forth between doctrinal positions versus belief held by people making the particular religious community. Presuming a given statement is made in relation to a religion’s official position I don’t disagree with Jeffro77’s comments, and I’m sure this is what he speaks to. On the other hand, if the same statement is said broadly of the community of people associated with the religion then notable divergence should be disclosed. Notability would have to be documented and quantified by reliable sources. Anecdotal evidence would not establish notability no matter who shares it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Grrahnbahr's edit [11] that replaced a straightforward statement reflecting reliable sources with a defensive half-truth. His statement was "While the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members, independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, as Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination." As I have explained, Holden devoted almost an entire chapter to the religion's practice of instructing members to avoid "unnecessary contact with the outside world". The Watchtower and Holden refer to socialisation with non-JWs as dangerous and a source of moral contamination. These are strong statements of an extreme view and cannot be brushed off with wording that says they are "advised" to "minimize" such socialisation. Some JWs may indeed have social networks outside the organisation, but it is of no greater significance than the fact that some are also wife-bashers, tax cheats and gamblers. Just as their strong convictions on morality (and the constant admonition in WTS literature to maintain this stand) are notable, so also is the practice of strong warnings to members to avoid social interaction with outsiders, and the general practice (as observed by Holden) that Witnesses do indeed follow this instruction. Per WP:NOENG, an English translation should be provided for a Norwegian source that is cited here. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement that JWs are not supposed to have close 'worldly' friendships and view 'the world' as morally contaminated cites a reliable source, and the point is also made in JW publications. This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, the group. Any number of JW members might hold any particular personal view (including opinions for which they would face religious sanctions if revealed). However, the official attitude of the religion is that JWs are to avoid close friendships with non-members. They are told they should only have close friendships with 'true Christians', which is understood by JWs to mean only JWs. Even 'close association' with their own non-JW 'Bible students' is discouraged.

The Watchtower, 15 March 2006, p. 23: "What about having close association with those who may be morally clean but who lack faith in the true God? The Scriptures tell us: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We come to discern that bad associations are not limited to permissive or morally debased people. Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah."
The Watchtower 1 July 1972, p. 400, "Blessing Jehovah in Our Daily Associations": "Fathers often must spend the larger portion of their waking hours working with worldly associates in order to provide materially for their families. Schoolchildren, in order to receive an education, must spend a considerable part of their time with schoolmates who are not concerned with blessing Jehovah. Other than such necessary association, true Christians will avoid keeping company or making friendships with those who do not share their love for Jehovah God. It is only the course of wisdom and life to do so."
The Watchtower, 15 July 1975, p. 428, "Watch Out for Spiritual Uncleanness": Of course, there are persons with whom you may be studying, and some of these are very fine people, making progress, loving association with you and the members of the congregation. These need your association to the extent necessary to encourage and to help them. But there are those who have no interest in what the Bible has to say, or who do not particularly care to listen to the good news. Some of these persons may be upright, respectable people according to the world’s standards. But close association with them is bad, for the reason that all persons who are not devoted Christians engage in things not pleasing to God and can be a contaminating influence."
The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, p. 23, "Keep Your Distance When Danger Threatens": "Some Christians have gone astray by getting too involved in business activities, by cultivating close friendships with worldly associates, or by becoming emotionally attached to someone of the opposite sex when they are not free to marry. The wise course, in each case, is to keep our distance from danger."
The Watchtower, 15 August 2001, p. 19: "All the while, [Abraham and Sarah] avoided getting too close to their pagan neighbors. Christians today must likewise remain “no part of the world.” (John 17:16) While we are kind and courteous to our neighbors and work associates, we are careful not to get entangled in behavior that reflects the spirit of the world alienated from God."
The Watchtower, 1 March 1993, p. 9: "We also live in a world of twisted values, bankrupt morals, and false religious practices. Many among us once lived according to the system of things of this world. Others of us have to rub shoulders with worldlings day in and day out." (Yes, 'worldlings'! Sigh.)

Clearly, the article reflects both third party sources and the official view of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to BlackCab's comment: Whenever "strong statements of an extreme view" is added to an article, it should be accompanied with outstanding referencing. As far as I can see, it is only page 109-12 from Holden's book which is used as a source for the statement, and it is strongly supportive to the change I suggested (I've re-read the whole text to get a fully context, and can not see the text and its examples from pp. 109-12 should be representing some kind of rare exceptions). While gambling and physical abuse could be reasons for expulsion from the congregation if not repented, I could not find that social networks outside the organization/social interaction should be reasons for any kind of religious sanctions. I will provide a quote and a translation for the Norwegian source before reinstating it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two phrases you seem to take exception to: (a) Witnesses are taught that association with "worldly" people presents a "danger" to their faith; and (b) they are advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality. Neither is a "strong statement of an extreme view" about the subject of the article. Holden, a reliable source, states it clearly, and as Jeffro has just demonstrated above, the Watch Tower Society's own publications support the statements contained in the article. BlackCab (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a more complete change within the text. The "danger" is among JW considered as of spiritual character only (an eventually connection to "real" danger is only of interest if you believe in Armageddon), and I suggest to scope on they're practice in this section of the article rather than details about they're beliefs. Regarding Jeffro's quotes: JW separates between principles and laws, where laws ranks higher in their "juridical hierarchy". Choice of friends, or associates (which I think could be considered as two different topics in a larger context), belongs to principles, along with among other things choice of music and entertainment. I won't make a longer explanation here, as other sources are added, unless considered necessary regarding choice of sources, but it is covered by two articles in Watchtower 2002, 15. April. I find it to be of encyclopedic interest, but it is not or only to a some extend, covered by religious sanctions (like being "marked" for extensive use of "inappropriate" entertainment, or rare exceptions like extensive/repeated use of pornography).Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous wording. The distinction you're making is unnecessary, and has an apologetic tone. It's fairly mundane to point out that within any social group, there is some variation among individuals. The article now (again) simply states what JWs are taught and advised, without suggesting that they 'must' comply, or that all individual JWs interpret it in exactly the same manner (though the Watch Tower Society is fairly clear about it). I have removed one reference to "danger" from the paragraph though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Grrahnbahr, what is the point of attempting to soften a clear statement made by a reliable secondary source when Jehovah’s Witnesses everywhere know his statement is true? The Watchtower organization “owns” teachings far more onerous and silly than this one. So why attempt to disown the reality of this particular position?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your change, Grrahnbahr. There are significant problems with your edit.

1. The original wording stated the official position of the religion, as expressed by the WTS, and included as a source the observation of a sociologist and a prominent ex-Governing Body member (Holden, Franz) about the "danger" of socialisation with non-JWs. Your edit instead opens its discussion of the subject with the word, "while ....", which instantly dismisses and minimises those observations; you then proceed immediately to a (poorly worded) claim that the reality is different to the official position. You have deleted Franz as a source, though he is in a very good position to comment on both teaching and actual practice.

2. Your reference to what "independent scholars" say about what actually happens is false. The selective quoting from the Norwegian authors does not provide the context of their comment, and nor am I convinced you have provided their complete viewpoint. They acknowledge that some Witnesses have non-JW friends (which is not in dispute), but reinforce that the "ideal" (ie, the official teaching) is that they primarily have other Witnesses as friends. The "ideal" is precisely what the Wikipedia article should present as a summary of JW beliefs and practices. Holden did quote one woman who, after agonising over whether to holiday with a non-JW couple went ahead chose not to do it but did eventually spend time with them anyway. Her comments clearly reveal her dilemma of whether she should follow the WTS directive; Holden further states that the woman "proceeded to inform me that other Witnesses would have refused completely to engage in unnecessary association with anyone who was not a member of the community." (emphasis in original). On P.109 he wrote: "The people I interviewed claimed they were highly selective about the kinds of venues they frequented and with whom they associated outside the weekly meetings ... when Witnesses engage in (leisure activities) it is nearly always in the company of other members of their congregation." Holden is clearly an independent scholar, yet he states the opposite of what you claim.

3. Four other editors have disagreed with your change. Please desist from further changes without full discussion first. BlackCab (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I stick to my edit as the most accurate. I did remove the statement in the article heading, as it isn't matching either Jeffro's or my suggestion for referenced statement within the article. I also added the Ringnes reference in this thread, as I does not accept BlackCabs explanation for why it can't be used (that he doesn't understand or believe the source isn't reason for removing the statement). I do also find BlackCabs accusation suggesting bad faith for my edits inappropriate (twice use of "half truth" or similar, and unfounded suggestions that I should have made use of selective quoting). I would love to quote the whole text, but I am aware of the risk quoting to much, as it could be seen as a copyrights violation. BlackCab did also state that he thinks his own personal experience with the JW is a good reason for reverting. The Franz source was removed, along with the WT source, as I found scholary sources to be more direct and of a better quality (BlackCab did by the way only mentioning the removal of the Franz-source).

"Vitnene gjør ikke alt likt. (...) [O]ppfatningene hos nære venner kan for noen vitner være viktigere enn de som fremkommer i de offisielle veiledningene. (...) Barna står i ulik grad fritt til å bestemme hvem det er passende å være sammen med og ha som venner. Det varierer om barn og voksne har et sosialt nettverk utenfor Jehovas vitner, selv om idealet er at en primært har andre vitner som venner. (...) [V]itner som forholder seg friere til reglene og har sosiale nettverk og høy status i storsamfunnet, kan være vel så godt ansett." English translation: "The Witnesses does not act all in the same way. (...) Perceptions among close friends, for some Witnesses may be more important than those presented in the official guidelines. (...) The children are in varying degrees freely to decide who they think of as appropriate to be associated with, and who they [choose as] friends. It varies for children and adults [wheather they] have a social network outside of Jehovah's Witnesses [or not], although the ideal is that they primarily [choose among] other witnesses as friends. (...) Witnesses that relate freer to rules and do have social networks and are of higher social status in the outside society, can be in as well as good standing."

A reason for including both versions like it was done in my edit, is that quantity of the variations isn't mentioned in either sources, so I find claiming it is insignificant in any way, as wrongfully interpretation of the sources. Another reason for keeping my edit, is that two separate scholars mentioning the JW individual practice in such a degree, a good reason to claim it to be significant enough to mention as an alternative opinion. Do also note BlackCabs quote from Holden "[t]he people I interviewed claimed they were highly selective" makes me ask why he used the word claimed (to use the tea spoon: He didn't have to use claim if he didn't see any significant deviation from the topic he was commenting, like those mentioned later in the same chapter). Regarding the language; if agreed to the statement, it is allowed to reword it. I do know stuff about the topic, better than an advanced level of written English.

Regarding use of "the ideal", it is not necessary descriptive for a typical. Even if something not is typical, it could be of significance for the topic. May being elder or pioneer is considered ideal among JW, but not being elder or pioneer isn't untypical. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs and flogging a dead horse. There is no support for your changes. BlackCab (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know the proper format for editing here. But I thought it was worth noting that Jehovah's Witnesses are warned to be mindful of bad association or corrupting influence, even INSIDE their congregation. This lends me to believe the emphasis of the teaching(s) in more to promote association with people who will support the witnesses moral standing, whether inside or outside of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.170.100 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but your belief about the emphasis of their teaching isn't important. The statement in the article is properly sourced and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Further work with the statement

I suggest to move or remove the reference in the lead, as the lead should reflect the article. I do also suggest to adjust the statement in the lead so it becomes according to the discussion at the dispute board.

I've earlier suggested a reference from Ringnes, added with a more complete rework of the text. I would like some suggestions, so Ringnes' source and statement could be added to the text. I did understand it was objected partly because the use of the word "while" initially, followed by "the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members", followed by "independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination". I suggest to remove "internal", as it was objected because of the printing numbers of the Watchtower, witch exceeds the numbers of JW. I don't without further notice agree to the objection, as articles primary written to access the Witnesses in several cases are printed in the Watchtower, but the use of word "internal" could also be understood as "not accessible for other than" the Witnesses. My further suggestion to the article, is to turn the two statements, so it becomes something like "While independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination, the Witnesses official teaching is to advise to minimize social contact with non-members". The last part could also be like "the Witnesses official teaching is warning against extended social contact with non-members", or similar, as neutral as possible regarding the facts agreed to. By turning the statement, I hope the reason for objection should be eliminated. BlackCabs objection was: "Stating that “While the Witnesses internally are advised x, independent scholars say y” injects editorial comment that is designed to minimise the official, accepted teaching and present a contrary interpretation". The suggestion is to turn this to "While independent scholars say x, the Witnesses are advised y", as this not will minimise the official teaching. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You opened a dispute notice at WP:DRN, you have not responded to a consensus there and then you come back here with a long-winded statement that takes us back almost to square one. The statement in the lede is accurate, though I have suggested the word "most" be inserted there. The word "extended" in "the Witnesses official teaching is warning against extended social contact with non-members" is vaguely supported by one 1994 magazine; the thrust of almost all WTS sources simply warn of the dangers of social contact with outsiders. They do not endorse any friendships with "worldlings" because of the perceived "dangers". Your final suggestion ("While independent scholars say x, the Witnesses are advised y") will not work: the WTS warns members against having friendships with outsiders and independent scholars observe most do exactly that. We are just going round in circles. When will you accept consensus? BlackCab (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've lost of track of this issue. Did we actually agree on inserting the word 'most' in the lead? The change implies that avoiding close friendships with non-members is simply a decision made by individual members. The change is less accurate in regard to the official stance of the organisation. Refer to quotes from Watch Tower Society publications already provided above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Finished Mystery

The article must necessarily prefer secondary sources, where available, to primary sources. I have deleted as a source a 1955 Watchtower that gives a half-truth as an explanation of the origins of The Finished Mystery. Penton (p.50-51), Rogerson (p. 40) and Crompton (p. 84) all clearly identify Woodworth and Fisher as the authors and make clear their writings significantly deviated from Russell's interpretations. Each book also points out that the book was published as the posthumous work of Russell, with no explanation at the time that it was far more than that. BlackCab (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am restoring an edit made by BlackCab, which was an accurate statement.G.Larson (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited again to remove a duplicate line. G.Larson (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The publication cited at footnote #54 states: "One of Rutherford's first actions as president ... was, without reference either to his fellow directors or TO THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE WHICH RUSSELL HAD NOMINATED IN HIS WILL". However, the preface to the book "the Finished Mystery" states the following: "By his last Will and Testament Pastor Russell designated George H. Fisher, of Scranton, Pa., as one whom he would approve as a member of the Editorial Staff of THE WATCH TOWER" and "When Pastor Russell was with us he gave direction that the BIBLE STUDENTS MANUAL should be prepared by Clayton J. Woodworth, also of Scranton, Pa. This Manual was published by this Society, and has proven a great blessing to the Household of Faith. The preparation of that Manual required a critical examination of everything Pastor Russell had written; and thus Brother Woodworth was enabled to become more familiar, probably, than any one else with the explanation of the Scriptures which had been given by Brother Russell." So Fisher had actually been named in the will, despite what the footnote quote states. Also, Woodsworth had already been writing with Russell's permission. I had put a footnote quoting these words which has been removed by another. G.Larson (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Fisher and Woodworth, in the book they wrote, put forward their credentials in the most favorable light. The three secondary sources I noted earlier, however, cut to the chase: the book purported to be the posthumous work of Russell, when much, or most, of it was the original writings of two uncredited Bible Students chosen by Rutherford. Russell's will is reproduced here; Fisher was in fact not on the editorial committee nominated there, but was listed, with Rutherford, among six individuals who Russell thought worthy of filling later vacancies. The book was also written without the knowledge of the majority of the WTS Board of Directors, as Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose acknowledges (p.70). BlackCab (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The "preface to the book" was written by the persons making the claim of Russell's support of their authorship of the book. Using that statement to imply Russell's endorsement is a self-serving circular reference. And as BlackCab has stated above, the specific claim about the Will itself is also misleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment above is misleading. Further, you stated: " The book was also written without the knowledge of the majority of the WTS Board of Directors, as Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose acknowledges (p.70)." This is a straw man argument. The fact is, as is brought out on Page 70 of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose; even while Russell was alive, the Board of Directors was NEVER consulted when publications were decided upon. The officers made such decisions. The book states the following (on page 70) :"Brother Rutherford continued this same policy as he took up the new administration. In the course of time the three officers decided to publish the "seventh volume," which had been in prospect for many years and which Russell himself had hoped to write before his death. The officers then arranged to have two brothers at headquarters, C. J. Woodworth and G. H.Fisher, compile this book, the first part of which was to be a commentary on Revelation and the second a commentary on Ezekiel." G.Larson (talk)

The footnote from Robert Compton's "Counting the Days to Armageddon", (currently at #54 in the article), states that neither the Board of Directors nor the Editorial Committee were consulted. However, as I mentioned, it was not deemed necessary to consult the Board of Directors about new publications even while Russell was alive. Further, as Pastor Russell's will made clear, the Editorial Committee was not to have anything to do with other publications outside of the Watchtower. The will states:

"I direct that the entire editorial charge of ZION'S WATCH TOWER shall be in the hands of a committee of five brethren whom I exhort to great carefulness and fidelity to the Truth. All articles appearing in the columns of ZION'S WATCH TOWER shall have the unqualified approval of at least three of the committee of five, and I urge that if any matter approved by three be known or supposed to be contrary to the views of one or both of the other members of the committee, such articles shall be held over for thought, prayer and discussion for three months before being published-that so far as possible the unity of the faith and the bonds of peace may be maintained in the Editorial management of the journal." ... "As the Society is already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree."

"As the Society is already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree."

Therefore the footnote quoting Robert Crompton is misleading and should be discarded. G.Larson (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Crompton citation supports the statement that the book was largely the work of two other Bible Students rather than that of Russell. Your comments are taking on a rather bizarre defensive note for the actions of people almost a century ago. Your quotes from Russell's will above are irrelevant. BlackCab (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Crompton quote states that neither the Board of Directors nor the Editorial Committee was consulted prior to the publication of the book. Neither the Board of Directors nor the Editorial Committee were supposed to be involved in writing any book. I cited the quotes from Russell's will to support that the Editorial Committee was not to be involved. And page 70 of "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose", (which "Jeffro" said you'd referenced), stated that the Board of Directors was not even consulted by Russell about publications. Therefore, the Crompton book makes an unwarranted and illogical assertion about Rutherford's actions. What is bizarre or defensive about an objection to that? G.Larson (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's unimportant whether you think Rutherford should have consulted with the editorial committee or board of directors before commissioning the book. Crompton, in developing his discussion of several doctrinal lurches that took place with Rutherford at the helm, observes that Rutherford did not consult with either body. Russell seemed to have established the editorial board as a form of insurance against any one individual seizing control, which is precisely what did happen. (In today's JW parlance, Rutherford chose to act independently of, and in direct conflict with, the majority of the governing body, raising the intriguing question of whether he was an "apostate" in their ranks.) It is entirely predictable that the JW history book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, would seek to justify that decision by grasping for some precedent. As every study of the religion has observed, Russell was, in practical terms, the Watch Tower Society until he died; it was his conception, his publishing arm, the outlet for his views. He wrote almost every word of what had been published until then. Crompton then makes his observation on the deception pulled by Rutherford when he published The Finished Mystery as a posthumous work of Russell. It was, of course, no such thing. Crompton's comment is highly relevant. BlackCab (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

G.Larson claims above that I said BlackCab quoted page 70 of "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose". I never said anything of the sort. It's unclear why this has been made up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab, It doesn't matter what "I" think. Russell's own will stated that the editorial committee was never to have anything to do with any other writing outside the Watchtower itself. see: http://www.biblestudents.net/history/russell_will.htm So, Crompton's assertion is baseless. It's the same as if an interior designer belongs to a neighborhood association that makes certain all the exteriors of the homes are painted in shades of beige. Tho outside of her house is therefore beige. However, the designer decides to paint a bedroom purple. If a newspaper writer reporting om her decorating style states that the neighborhood association was not consulted about the purple walls inside the bedroom, that would be true. But it would also be a stupid statement for the writer to make, since the association has no say in that decision. This is similar.

Further, the three OFFICERS were the ones who decided on publications. They were the ones who chose the two writers, which was within their power to do. They were also on the Board of Directors but the rest of the Board had nothing to do with the writing decisions. Further, two of the members of the Board of Directors WERE REALLY consulted. They were the two people on the Board of Directors who where authorized to choose and DID choose the seventh volume's writers. That's according to the book you'd cited yourself.

To sum: In line with Russell's wishes, the three officers, who were also part of the Board of Directors, chose Fisher and Woodworth to write the book. Fisher and Woodworth were (properly, in line with the will), not part of the Editing Committee.(So Crompton's assertion is not only misleading, part of it is outright false.)

(In addition, though four of the members of the Board of Directors had been appointed by Russell, they had never been confirmed by vote of the corporation's membership, so they were not actually legal members of the Board anyway. Rutherford knew that, but had allowed them to remain out of loyalty to Russell. But they were not really legitimate members. [See "Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom", page 87-88.])G.Larson (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: Calm down. I made a mistake. Your comment ran right after BlackCab's, and since there is no space left between them, I missed the break between the two comments when scanning the page while reediting my comment later. G.Larson (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(I want to make clear that any words I've written in all caps above should never be construed as shouting. Since I am not a typist, it is simpler to type caps than inserting html to italicize the words.) G.Larson (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see you've spent a lot of time researching the Watch Tower Society's version of its history. Authors such as Crompton have never been constrained by that one highly filtered and processed version, which is why you remain confused by his statements. There's no point in a long argument with you over what the WTS says it did and why. Bottom line is Crompton's statement is accurate, legitimate and relevant. BlackCab (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: Crompton's version is demonstrably false, as the source information I cited shows. Russell's own Will appears in its entirety at the link I provided and elsewhere online. So, how can that source be "filtered"? It alone proves Crompton's assertion to be misleading, if not false. Further, primary sources are valid for research and citations, even if--as you've earlier said -- secondary sources are preferred here. Finally, in case you hadn't noticed, secondary sources are "filtered" to varying degrees when discussing any topic in the world. And obviously, books written by people who already hold antagony toward a subject are more "filtered" than neutral writers on the subject. G.Larson (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab, you reverted my deletion of part of a reference from Crompton that stated: "without reference either to his fellow directors or to the editorial committee which Russell had nominated in his will". As the quote I gave above shows, the Will itself clearly reads that Russell expressly forbade the writing committee's involvement in any publications outside of the Watchtower magazine itself. Further, the 1959 source "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose", though a primary source, explains that the three officers on the Board--who were the only ones who actually had the task of overseeing the writing of other items---made the decision. The other members were not supposed to be involved. Also, both Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" and "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" point out the four other members of the board had not yet been properly elected, so they were not really members of the Board. So Rutherford had, at the minimum, conferred with the other two officers who actually were part of the Board. (Rutherford had even brought the situation of the unconfirmed Board members up with Russell before his death, according to "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose.) ^[1]. So the line not only gives a false impression it contains a clear falsehood. The rest of the quote is OK. (Anyway, there were already extensive edits in the quote, as evidenced by the elipses already there.) G.Larson (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot alter or rewrite material from secondary sources because you disagree with it. You are drawing all your arguments from the Watch Tower Society's own version of its history. Others involved in the highly contentious events at the time saw things quite differently and independent scholars including Crompton have chosen to write their observations on events based on a judgment of all views. I am beginning to regard you as a troll, with your edits and talk page comments taking on an increasingly provocative and needling tone. If you alter material from secondary sources again I will report you to administrators. BlackCab (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab, I respect your view, but I don't see myself as being needling. Concerned about accuracy, yes. In fact, when I requested you come here in the "Edit Summary" note, I respectfully said "please" and "thanks" G.Larson (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Early in this thread, you stated that Fisher was "as one whom [Russel] would approve as a member of the Editorial Staff of THE WATCH TOWER". But now you're resting on your case on Fisher not being a member of said Editorial Staff. But if Fisher were to be at some point approved as a member of the Editorial Staff, then he wouldn't be allowed to write The Finished Mystery per the terms of the Will anyway. In view of the actual cited source in the article, your position seems a little strange. It should be obvious that relying on a group's accounts about itself are subject to bias, and does not justify censoring the secondary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the statement that there were already extensive edits in the quote, as evidenced by the elipses [sic] already there, following is the full quote with the skipped parts in bold.

One of Rutherford's first actions as president, whilst he was engaged in the power struggle to establish his position, was, without reference either to his fellow directors or to the editorial committee which Russell had nominated in his will, to commission a seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. Responsibility for preparing this volume was given to two of Russell's close associates, George H. Fisher and Clayton J. Woodworth. On the face of it, their brief was to edit for publication the notes left by Russell, who had intended to publish a seventh volume at some stage, and to draw upon his published writings in order to provide a commentary on the books of Revelation, the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel. Working entirely separately, Fisher prepared the section on Ezekiel and Woodworth prepared the sections on Revelation and the Song of Solomon. The completed volume was published in July 1917 under the title The Finished Mystery, and was described as the posthumous work of Russell, even though it was evidently widely realized amongst the Bible Students, as the movement's adherents had become known, that he had not been working on the seventh volume. In 1914 he had replied to a question about that volume:

You will have to ask me something easier. I do not know, my dear friends, and I am not nearly as goodd a guesser as some of the rest of you ... [ellipsis from original] I am waiting for the Seventh Volume also. Waiting until it gets off the press—but I will tell privately, it is not on the press yet.

And as late as 1916 his answer to a question about when he would write the seventh volume was:

There are certain things we ought not to tell anyone; and amongst these are those things which we do not know.

Publication of The Finished Mystery was not greeted with universal acclaim amongst the Bible Students. Dissent at this stage, however, appears to have centered upon the way in which Rutherford, it was claimed, exceeded his authority, rather than upon the amendments which were being put forward—some of which, at least, had been initiated by Russell. Posthumous ascription to Russel was not sufficient to mollify those who believed that no successor could fill the role of the movement's first President. Indeed, it is obvious, even upon a fairly cursory reading of The Finished Mystery, that it was not in any straightforward sense the result of editing Russell's papers; rather it was in large measure the original work of Woodworth and Fisher at the behest of the new President.

The parts that have been quoted in the article are consistent with the rest of the extended quote. However, if you consider any of the skipped portions to be especially pertinent, they can also be added.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There is little to be served by beginning a debate over what happened in 1916-7 and who had the right to publish what. G.Larson has indicated so far that his research is limited to the publications of the WTS, which has since that day continued to present a skewed, distorted, one-sided view of events that deeply divided the Bible Student movement. It is nonsensical for him to decide, on that basis, that secondary sources are wrong when discussing those and subsequent events. It is unimportant what 21st century Wikipedia editors think should have happened back then regarding Russell's will or Rutherford's subsequent behavior. This article, in skipping briefly through the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, has made a passing reference to (a) the actions of an individual who was pivotal in the religion's history ("new light" in the July 15 WT will actually elevate Rutherford over CT Russell as part of the new faithful slave dogma) and (b) the divisive, controversial book that helped land the WTS directors in prison on sedition charges. The article has cited, and quoted from, the work of several authors who have carefully researched that history. That much is appropriate; censoring some of the statements of an author on the grounds that "I don't accept that" is inappropriate, as is a debate over those events at an article talk page. Take it to a blog somewhere. BlackCab (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Debate?? G.Larson queried about the quote already having been edited. The extended quote was therefore provided. If there is serious consideration that important elements have been omitted that are directly relevant to the context of the publication of The Finished Mystery, the additional text can be added. There's no debate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No debate yet, but I fear it's brewing. Comments about Fisher will only be seen by this bloke as an invitation to dump quotes from old JW history books on to the talk page as a rebuttal. I can do without it, and I'd be inclined to delete from the talk page any material that is irrelevant to the article. Just saying. BlackCab (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Members speculating among themselves about other members has nothing to to with writing the article. Most other discussion pages elsewhere warn those members who indulge in that practice and the monitors delete such comments. This is not the first time I have seen personal discussions about other members happening on the talk pages here. If you are going to talk, talk to the person you are having difficulty with. Would either of you like it if I speculated to someone else with a similar view to mine about your own motivations or possible actions?

"Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." is part of the written code of civility here. But it seems to be a habit from some users here to negatively talk between themselves about others.G.Larson (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Including the entire quote is appropriate and preferred. It's a more accurate version of what transpired than the previous heavily edited quote. It brings out some of the very things I've stated here. And, it states that some of the amendments were originally put forth by Russell. That's a key point. G.Larson (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

An ambiguous statement about unspecified amendments doesn't really add anything (and would be misleading if the amendments were implied to be the content of The Finished Mystery itself). Clarifying that would require an even broader quote of the source to establish the context of the other amendments. Doing so would stray even further from the pertinent context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Jeffro, since the Wiki statement on the face of it looks like all the additions to Russell's work were initiated by Fisher and Woodworth: " The book, published as the posthumous work of Russell, was a compilation of his commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation, plus numerous additions by Bible Students Clayton Woodworth and George Fisher." They were NOT just Woodworth and Fisher's additions. Russell had a hand in at least some of the additions. Hiding that information appears dishonest.

You'd stated this" :"The parts that have been quoted in the article are consistent with the rest of the extended quote. However, if you consider any of the skipped portions to be especially pertinent, they can also be added." The rest of the quote is indeed pertinent. G.Larson (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again G.Larson is setting himself up as an expert, arguing against the statements from reliable sources. Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die (pg 40) writes: "The book was written by two Bible students, CJ Woodworth and GH Fisher, who had incorporated some of the material left behind by Russell." Penton, p. 50: "Russell had often spoken of writing the seventh volume, but had never found the 'key', or more likely, the time and energy. Now, however, Rutherford released a book made up of various comments from Russell's works, plus numerous additions by the co-authors, Clayton J Woodowrth and George H Fisher." Tony Wills' A People For His Name (p.97-99) details how the book came together, with Woodworth having already written a 481-page commentary on the Bible from Russell's writings (deviating markedly from Russell's interpretations in many important areas) which he took to Rutherford. Crompton's brief quote is sufficient; there is certainly no need to reproduce several long paragraphs from his book in the the footnote to support what one editor claims is an error by that author. BlackCab (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny you state about me that I am "setting myself up as an expert". (And to whom are you speaking? Why not talk to me directly?) I'm not arguing against the "statement from a reliable source". I am saying that the statement has been heavily edited to reflect a narrower view than the author intended. The author's original view supports information from "primary" sources which you want to discredit. Witnesses would know their own history, and the very old magazines in Kingdom Hall libraries -- from the same era when these things occurred -- support what I've said. Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV. This article about the religion is more negatively biased than articles I've read in paperbound or online encyclopedias.

Changing the line under discussion to read something like: "The book, published as the posthumous work of Russell, was a compilation of his commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation, with some amendments initiated by Russell" (Here you might insert a numbered reference link to: "Crompton, Robert (1996). Counting the Days to Armageddon. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co." or just "Crompton, Robert [1996]" and then continue the sentence as it was:) "plus numerous additions by Bible Students Clayton Woodworth and George Fisher." Just adding that short comment into the text and putting in a brief link to Crompton would be more even-handed. That doesn't take much. Do you understand what I am saying?G.Larson (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"With some amendments initiated by Russell"? Where does that come from? It's not that the magazines in Kingdom Hall libraries support what you're saying; you are simply gaining all your information from that one source. I have already explained that there are multiple perspectives on that tempestuous period of WTS history. You routinely dismiss those. Why? BlackCab (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"With some amendments initiated by Russell" came from the quote from Crompton above, obviously.

And I am well-aware there are multiple views. However, there are also primary-source articles written comtemporaneously with the happenings. They are available in multiple Kingdom Hall libraries. I'm not advancing the idea we quote from them. (Though I could.) I am stating that pertinent information is being left out of the Crompton quote. G.Larson (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sentence "The book, published as the posthumous work of Russell, was a compilation of his commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation, with some amendments initiated by Russell" doesn't make sense. It's already been pointed out above that the reference to "some amendments initiated by Russell" is vague and its meaning uncertain. Crompton has already said Rutherford had not started on the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, so I don't know what Crompton's reference to "some amendments" actually means. Russell had died. The two Bible Students took it upon themselves to write some biblical interpretation using his work as a basis. There is nothing in any other secondary source to support your claim that Russell had begun amending his earlier beliefs and that these writings became the basis of the seventh volume. BlackCab (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

How is "with some amendments initiated by Russell" any more vague than "numerous additions by Bible Students Clayton Woodworth and George Fisher"?

The Crompton quote states "some of which [amendments], at least, had been initiated by Russell" That second quote is a judgement by the WIKI editor.

BTW: Woodworth and Fisher did not "take it upon themselves" as you stated. Even Crompton states the work was "given to" them: "was given to two of Russell's close associates, George H. Fisher and Clayton J. Woodworth". So who GAVE it to them? It was the three officers on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors who commissioned the work, chose Woodworth and Fisher to write it, approved the finished work and released it to the Bethel family on 7/17/1917. (As I stated before, it is erroneous for Crompton to say that none of the other Board members were consulted. Two others were definitely involved. The other four were not supposed to be consulted.) G.Larson (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We are now straying into debates that aren't related to material in the article, presumably because of your earlier concern that "the Wiki statement on the face of it looks like all the additions to Russell's work were initiated by Fisher and Woodworth." Tony Wills, pg 97 writes: "In late 1916 two of the more prominent Bible Students at headquarters, Clayton J Woodworth and George H Fisher, approached the Executive Committee with the statement that they had some 'understanding and interpretations of Revelation and Ezekiel that might be helpful'." This statement could be based on a report in the December 15 1917 WT (see this link for a scan). Exactly who approached whom is not terribly important here. It appears that Russell has written some material that had not previously been published; Woodworth and Fisher began with this and signficiantly expanded on it. Do we agree on this? BlackCab (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We agree pretty much. It's debatable how much they expanded upon it. But they did expand on Russell's writings. (I need to defer further discussion until much later in the day. Thanks.) G.Larson (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are taking the phrase some amendments initiated by Russell entirely out of context. That statement relates to broader doctrinal changes in the Bible Student movement that had been 'initiated by Russell' (and those amendments were partially the cause of people leaving the movement, but secondary to Rutherford's autocratic leadership style). It makes no sense to imply that the 'amendments initiated by Russell' relate directly to content of The Finished Mystery. There were only initial notes from Russell for the 'seventh volume', so there was nothing in those notes for Russell to also have 'amended'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I came back, briefly, and will make this comment: Not long after the book was released, there was a five-hour controversy over the administration of the Society's affairs. That was because immediately after the book was released, Rutherford announced that the four officers who had not yet been approved by a vote at the annual meeting had been removed and four others had been appointed. So the "amendments" appeared to me to be about the book, and not about the business matters. I'm far from any place I can check on it right now.

Perhaps you can agree with this quote from the "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book: "Following [Russell] death, the Executive Committee of the Society arranged for two associates, Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, to prepare this book, which was a commentary on Revelation, The Song of Solomon, and Ezekiel. In part, it was based on what Russell had written about these Bible books, and other comments and explanations were added." G.Larson (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself... In regard to the notes for the book, there was nothing for Russell to 'amend'. Are you claiming Russell made amendments to his own unpublished notes even though there was only one collection of notes? Or are you claiming that he amended his notes after he died? The 'amendments' cannot logically relate to the content of the book, and clearly relate to a separate (broader) context. The amendments also do not relate to Rutherford's changes to the business. To be clear, the amendments initiated by Russell relate to Russell's changed views following the failure of his expectations for 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the current wording. We seem to be engaged in a huge debate over the circumstances of the writing of the book without actually addressing what, if anything, is wrong with the present statement. "The book, published as the posthumous work of Russell, was a compilation of his commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation, plus numerous additions by Bible Students Clayton Woodworth and George Fisher." BlackCab (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Initially G.Larson claimed that the statement in the article is not supported by the cited source, and then claimed the cited source was 'heavily edited' in a manner that only appeared to support the statement in the article. After I provided the extended quote, he's since moved on to claiming that Russell's 'amendments' referred—in some unspecified manner—to Russell's changes to his own unpublished notes, presumably with some unstated delineation between the original and 'amended' versions of those notes. I don't follow his 'reasoning' either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my understanding: The two men consulted the previously published commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation. Several other previously published books as well as "The Photo Drama of Creation" were consulted and cited by Fisher and Woodworth. Russell himself had emended statements from previously published works in his notes, and the men used those too. And of course, there were extrapolations from the original published works by Woodworth and Fisher. I'm just trying to clarify that point.

In the preface of the book "The Finished Mystery" a concern is expressed that "some will murmur and find fault" with the book and "join the persecutors". That's the line I see as being referenced by Crompton in his statement here: " Dissent at this stage, however, appears to have centered upon the way in which Rutherford, it was claimed, exceeded his authority, rather than upon the amendments which were being put forward—some of which, at least, had been initiated by Russell. Posthumous ascription to Russell was not sufficient to mollify those who believed that no successor could fill the role of the movement's first President." Again, I see Crompton's statement as going along with the "Finished Mystery" concern expressed in the preface, but have no way to verify it at this time. [User:G.Larson|G.Larson]] (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Jeffro, you can talk to me instead of about me. I'm willing to speak with each of you in turn. I'd seen a complaint like that on an earlier page about a Witness by one non-Witness to another non-Witness, (which in itself is ironic). The non-Witness stated something to the effect that the Witness talked about some non-Witness instead of addressing him directly. It works both ways. We are all capable of reading each other's comments. So let's stop. OK? G.Larson (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

On the odd occasion, BlackCab has mentioned your edits and on those occasions I've responded in reference to those edits. However, by and large, I have responded directly to you (even though you seem to ignore or misunderstand a great deal of what I say). I have already shown that it is impossible for Russell's "amendments" to refer to any content of The Finished Mystery. Your speculation about supposed 'amendments by Russell' in regard to his notes about the book is untenable, firstly because editing other commentaries would be plagiarism rather than amendments. Also, because Russell's notes were unpublished, there was no mechanism for the Bible Students audience to discern which of those amendments came from Russell rather than from Woodworth and Fisher (nor am I aware of any evidence that Russell's notes were provided to commentators such as Crompton). What was discernible to the Bible Students were the published changes in views initiated by Russell following the failed expectations for 1914 that appeared in Zion's Watch Tower from 1914–1916. Please stop reading something into Crompton's statement that simply is not there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Question Regarding Quote from Andrew Holden

Hi, this is my first time participating in discussion on Wiki so I apologise in advance if I'm not following the protocol correctly.

I'd just like a bit of clarity regarding the quote in the "Supression of Free Speech and Thought" section. The statement I'd like some discussion on is, with regard to defectors, ".... are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’."

I'm an Ex-Witness myself and trust me, I don't have an awful lot of respect or admiration for the Witnesses. However, I have to say that that quote, to me, reads that most inviduals who are disfellowshipped, if not overly apostate, are thought to be (or even announced as such from the platform upon a 2nd read) "mentally diseased". That's just not factually true and is a very broad claim.

I understand that personal experience neither has, 'nor should have, much weight on Wikipedia but could I at least urge someone to look further into the source of this quote? I'm not saying disfellowshipped individuals are treated well, but speculation surrounding the mental health of most disfellowshipees is not something I believe is prevalent enough amongst Witnesses to be mentioned here in such broad terms. I understand it's a direct quote, and from someone who would be a better authority on the subject than I, but I do not believe it to be a factual statement with strong factual evidence backing it up.

Again, I apologise if this out of turn or doesn't conform to proper Wikipedia protool, but I will strive to find some factual sources to back-up my claim. After leaving the church I'm quite bias against them but in this instance I think it's quite an unfair statement. 109.125.38.159 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Irishdude 28/03/12 01:07

The section you're talking about is clearly discussing "intolerance of dissent about doctrines and practices" and refers specifically to those 'disfellowshipped' for being "defectors".

Also, 'overly apostate' seems to be a subjective loaded term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for a disfellowshipping are never publicly stated and no assessment is made of any individual's mental health. Further, Jehovah's Witnesses are expected not to discuss or criticise the disfellowshipped individual. There is an expectation that the disfellowshipped one may return in the future, and they are welcomed back if they return. The idea behind avoiding discussion of the reasons for the person's disfellowshipping is to make it more comfortable for the person should he choose to return. Further, as of the last few years, an announcement is made from the platform simply stating that 'such-and such' is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The statement is the same whether someone chooses to leave or is disfellowshipped. G.Larson (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your response here presents an unnecessary apologetic tone. "welcomed back if they return" is a gross over-simpification, wherein the religion actually requires the 'disfellowshipped' person to regularly attend JW meetings and to accept all JW beliefs for a period of (at least) several months while being shunned before any chance of 'reinstatement' and being 'welcomed back'. The failure to note why the person left clearly therefore has little to do with any effort to 'make it more comfortable for the person should he choose to return'.

Secondly, your response is tangential to what the paragraph in question actually addresses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The original objection stemmed from the statement that most individuals that are disfellowshipped for apostasy are thought to be "mentally diseased". The scripture referenced in the Bible is at 1 Timothy 6:3,4 "(1 Timothy 6:3-4 NWT) If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being MENTALLY IDSEASED over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions". Some may object that this wording only appears in the NWT. However, a the phrase in question derives from a single Greek term: noseō, which only occurs a single time in the Christian Greek Scriptures (at 1 Tim. 6:4). The full Strong’s entry and Vine’s entry are as follows:

Strong’s G3552

Transliteration: noseō Part of Speech: verb

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1) to be sick 2) metaph. of any ailment of the mind a) to be taken with such an interest in a thing as amounts to a disease, to have a morbid fondness for

Vines Entry

Dote - signifies "to be ill, to be ailing," whether in body or mind; hence, "to be taken with such a morbid interest in a thing as is tantamount to a disease, to dote," 1Ti 6:4 (marg., "sick"). The primary meaning of "dote" is to be foolish (cp. Jer 50:36, the evident meaning of noseo, in this respect, is "to be unsound."

3.2 The Verse in Other Translations

Here are a number of different Bibles which all translate 1 Tim 6:4 in the sense of having an “ailment of the mind,” i.e., a “disease” of the mind. There are probably far more than are highlighted in this brief list, but the point is made nevertheless: the NWT is not alone in its translation decision.

1 Timothy 6:4 Common English Bible "They don’t understand anything but have a sick obsession with debates and arguments."

Contemporary English Version "...they don't really know a thing. Their minds are sick, and they like to argue over words."

Darby Translation "...he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and disputes of words,"

English Standard Version "He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words,"

New American Standard Bible "...has a [a]morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words," Footnote [a]: is sick about

New Century Version "...but is sick with a love for arguing and fighting about words."

The Translators New Testament "He is a sick man."

The New Testament in Modern English by Phillips "His mind is a morbid jumble of disputation and arguments ..."

The Modern Speech New Testament by Weymouth "is crazy over discussions and controversies”

NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall "being diseased"

"...but wasteth his brains about questions and strife of words." -- Tyndale's New Testament (a modern-spelling edition of the 1534 translation; original spelling "wasteth his braynes").

The wording stems from the Bible itself, and no assessment of any individual's mental state is ever voiced or written among Jehovah's Witnesses. So my previous remarks are on point.G.Larson (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchtower 15 July 2011: "Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. Jehovah, the Great Physician, tells us to avoid contact with them." This page is not to discuss JW beliefs, but to discuss improvements to the article. BlackCab (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the quote from the literature, but the point was made by "Irishdude": "I'm an Ex-Witness myself and trust me, I don't have an awful lot of respect or admiration for the Witnesses. However, I have to say that that quote, to me, reads that most inviduals who are disfellowshipped, if not overly apostate, are thought to be (or even announced as such from the platform upon a 2nd read) "mentally diseased". That's just not factually true and is a very broad claim." I agree. It's overly broad and nothing of the sort is ever said about anyone from the platform . — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Larson (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. The phrase "said from the platform" used in this manner is JW jargon, and is usually used in this defensive manner for conveniently talking around actual JW practice. Apart from that, you're continuing to ignore the fact that the paragraph in question is not referring to all 'disfellowshipped' (more JW jargon) individuals, but to so-called 'apostates' (in the distorted pejorative JW sense). The claim that the expression is from 'the Bible itself' is an irrelevant appeal to authority fallacy. JWs quite frequently have 'debates about words', and that Bible verse could equally apply to them. The fact that JW literature specifically applies the verse to people who disagree with subjective JW teachings is not defended simply by stating that a particular phrase is found in a particular translation of 'the Bible'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see the points some of you are trying to make but you must concede that the statement I'm questioning does carry some connotations.

I may be wrong, but the phrase "condemned" holds connotations of being verbalised or somehow expressed/pronounced as such as opposed to privately thought. G. Larson is also correct in that Witnesses are encouraged not to gossip about the situation, so where does the implied expression of "mentally diseased" come from? Surely it would make more sense, if the quote is to be left in, to change it to be "thought to be 'mentally diseased'". I still wouldn't agree that it's accurate but it'd certainly be less inaccurate in my mind.

Further, the phrase "defector" means giving up one allegiance for another. If, as you claim, the paragraph is describing apostates then I think there's quite a few better phrases than "defector". Maybe I'm taking it up wrong but it kind of stirs up notions that they've given up allegiance from the JWs to some other religion or group. Many apostates are just sick of the doctrine and speak out against it, they don't have allegiance to anything or anyone else. As such, is there no better phrase than "defector"? I concede to Jeffro's point that the statement IS actually with regard to apostates but I don't think defector is the appropriate phrase to distinguish this. 109.125.36.36 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Irishlad, 28/3/2013

Jeffro, you use the word "defensive" about a clarifying point. There's a difference. And regarding the matter of "mentally diseased" used in the quote, apparently some group of ex-Witnesses has been up in arms for the past year after a different statement also referencing 1 Timothy 6:4 from the NWT was printed in a Watchtower article. The words "mentally diseased" have a loaded connotation to some people, but they in fact come from the Greek. However, people not acquainted with that fact tend to take offense when that part of the scripture is used in a public forum without any explanation as why the words are there in the Bible. The way the quote here is written, it is an inflammatory statement. G.Larson (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 'justification' that the phrase 'comes from the Greek' is another appeal to authority fallacy. The way the phrase was used in The Watchtower was indeed inflammatory. Saying something 'is in the Bible' does not automatically justify a particular statement. Someone could unsympathetically tell a rape victim they have to marry their rapist, and follow the cruel statement with, "Don't get upset! It's in the Bible!" followed by arrogantly trotting out Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The statement is inflammatory irrespective of the despicable 'morality' endorsed by 'the Bible'. (The pre-programmed JW response to the analogy is 'we're not under the Mosaic law', but such a side-step is simply a JW interpretation, as is their view of the verse in 1 Timothy.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Irishlad, even if 'defector' did actually necessitate joining another religion (it doesn't), such action is also explicitly defined by JWs as apostasy. (Shepherd the Flock of God, page 65: "16. Apostasy: Apostasy is a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment. It includes the following: ... Participation in interfaith activities.") Your additional broad claim that 'apostates' "don't have allegiance to anything or anyone else" is nothing but an attempt at 'character assassination'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Character assassination? Between that, the "sighs" in one of your posts and your claims of people being "defensive" towards Witnesses I'm kind of seeing a pattern here. I'm not trying to start a fight but I think you need to calm down and stop taking things personally. This is a discussion and should remain a calm one. As a new member I don't think you've been particularly friendly or welcoming.

My claim is not that NO apostate has any allegiance to anything or anyone it was that MANY don't. I never said a defector had to join another religion, I said the word holds connotations of leaving one side for another.

This own website's definition of the phrase is: "This term is also applied, often pejoratively, to anyone who switches loyalty to another religion, sports team, political party, or other rival faction. In that sense, the defector is often considered a traitor by his original side".

As such a phrase like "outspoken critics from inside the religion" or even "those members" (referring to the members in the previous sentence in the article) distinguishes who you're referring to from others being disfellowshipped and doesn't hold the incorrect connotations that defector holds.

I'd also further state the connotations that "condemned" possesses. I think between that and "defectors", this is where the majority of my problem with that section lies.

I'd also like to state, so there is no ambiguity, I don't disagree with what the section is saying whatsoever. I just think it's been written in such a way that for someone unfamiliar with the Witnesses would assume that anyone leaving the religion is "condemned as mentally diseased" or an "apostate". Irishdude 109.125.3.8 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: I'm in complete agreement with Irishdude. If the phrase "condemned as mentally diseased" is going to be used, then--at the very least--the scriptural citation should be provided. The Witnesses are a church or religion after all; and, of course use the Bible as do other churches. (Your personal views on the Bible or anyone's use of the Bible to support their beliefs are completely beside the point. Likewise, your perceived motives for anyone's use of the Bible are not relevant, and they are presumptive.) Returning to the quote: The quote makes it appear that some sort of public condemnation of individuals takes place, which is not true. It is inflammatory speech as presented.

Further, the phrase "mentally diseased" has been in the NWT for ages, and it is rendered similarly in other Bible--as I showed above. It has previously appeared in the Watchtower literature. But more important, the scripture has been a part of the Bible for longer ages. Now, an issue is being made of it? You are offended? If you have a problem with anyone, that sought to be with the person who originally wrote it in the Bible.

Again, the use of the phrase as it is presented in the quote is inflammatory speech. G.Larson (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of "mentally diseased" in The Watchtower was inflammatory, as evidenced by the various newspapers that reported on the matter. The JW magazine spoke not only of the supposed ['spiritual'] 'mental disease', but also added that "apostates seek to infect" others. (If I were to suggest that the preaching of JWs is an effort to infect others with their teachings, you would probably consider that to be inflammatory.) The usage of the phrase in this article accurately represents the sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To be more direct, are the following statements inflammatory?

Apostates are "mentally diseased" (1 Timothy 6:4) and seek to infect others with their teachings.
Jehovah's Witnesses are "mentally diseased" (1 Timothy 6:4) and seek to infect others with their teachings.

Is neither statement inflammatory? Are both? Or only one?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: (I started posting just about the time you posted the above, and received the message that there was an editing conflict. So the following paragraph was not registered. I will repeat it.) All this is not news. The scripture been quoted many times before in their literature. Only now is there a flap. And your saying: "If I were to suggest that the preaching of JWs is an effort to infect others with their teachings, you would probably consider that to be inflammatory." is no problem for me. I don't take such things personally. Why should you? Again, I say the scriptural source should be provided, at the very least, since it's in Bibles. And the Witnesses are a church or religion after all. (Here's a Catholic version with 1 Timothy 6:4,5: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1timothy/6/ Catholicism views dissidents similarly. One reason's right here.) So why would inserting a scripture citation as the original source for their magazine statement cause you heartburn? G.Larson (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a place to download the magazine that caused the flap. The offending statement starts at the bottom of page 15 and goes onto page 16. 1 Timothy 6: 3,4 is cited right there. What is wrong with including the whole thing as the quote?

Bear in mind that this edition of the magazine is printed for the personal study by Witnesses, and is not normally publicly distributed. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/w_E_20110715.pdf G.Larson (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Jeffro, may I remind you that the beliefs of the Witnesses is not a topic to be posted here. The "talk" page is to improve the articles.

The topic here is the presentation of the sources (i.e. various newspapers) regarding inflammatory comments that The Watchtower made about 'apostates'. The article accurately reflects those sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement, "The scripture been [sic] quoted many times before in their literature", is also misleading. In fact, prior to the inflammatory statement in the 15 July 2011 issue, neither The Watchtower nor any previous JW publication had ever explicitly claimed that 'apostates are "mentally diseased"', and almost all previous Watch Tower Society references to 1 Timothy 6:4 (apart from a few from the 1960s) included a more full quotation of the verse, as being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words, which at least provides some context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, you stated: "almost all previous Watch Tower Society references to 1 Timothy 6:4 (apart from a few from the 1960s) included a more full quotation of the verse, as being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words, which at least provides some context." The context was provided in the Watchtower, as the scripture was cited. And most of the audience for whom the special Study Edition was published know the scripture well, so it would have come to mind. (And if they didn't know it, they would easily look it up. The scripture was cited.) Let's ignore the paragraphs and explanatory sentences surrounding the one sentence. So here's that sentence as it appeared in the Watchtower, including the quotation marks around the words "mentally diseased":

Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4)

Seems to me that a newspaper's partial quote should hold far less weight as a reference resource than the actual sentence as it was published.

So now, why do you not want to provide the very same context that the Watchtower provided to its audience? Does a quote as it appeared with the scripture not serve your purpose? G.Larson (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:G.Larson seems to have hijacked this thread with his own defense of JW practice. So back to the question. The statement the IP user is querying is from a secondary source that is appropriately used in the section of the article dealing with criticism of the religion, specifically the treatment by the religion of "members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings". The statement "Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’" is correct. Those who openly dispute official teachings are disfellowshipped, with such an announcement made at meetings as part of the process of humiliation and demonisation. Those who dispute official teachings are also condemned by the religion's publications as "apostates" and therefore "mentally diseased". Holden's statement could be misunderstood by some readers as a description of a disfellowshipping announcement that is accompanied by a description of the individual as an apostate and mentally diseased. However his comments refer to the entire process of punishing those who challenge the autocratic leadership. The sentence, though containing an element of ambiguity, was reproduced as a quote after earlier objections that words were somehow being put in Holden's mouth. BlackCab (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for highjacking the thread, as you put it. However, Holden's comments definitely could be misunderstood as an announcement that they are condemned and called "mentally diseased" in person. That doesn't happen. (And though I can understand your point of view in using the word "humiliation", your personal use of the the word "demonisation" is inappropriate.) Currently an announcement is made that "such-and-such is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses". The same announcement is made whether one withdraws voluntarily or is disfellowshipped for whatever reason, including apostasy. It could be over sexual sins or even business matters. And people do withdraw without becoming apostate. It's all the same announcement. So the article's quote from Holden is behind the times, as well as causing a wrong impression. G.Larson (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's still current. If a judicial committee in, say, Portland decided to disfellowship an individual, an announcement would be made from the platform at the Kingdom Hall. The absence of the word "disfellowship" doesn't make an iota of difference; the congregation would understand its meaning, which is what Holden is addressing about those who dispute official teachings. An earlier discussion about this issue took place in 2011 here. For the sake of clarity I am not opposed to rewriting the sentence to remove the quotation, but keeping it as part of the citation. BlackCab (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

G.Larson, your use of the word 'apostate', as demonstrated in your sentence And people do withdraw without becoming apostate demonstrates an incorrect pejorative understanding of the word (which happens to coincide with the pejorative JW usage of the word). In actuality, by definition, anyone who withdraws from a group is an 'apostate' (including individuals who leave another religion to become a JW). The perception you have that 'apostates' are vicious deceptive people lurking in the shadows to lure away JWs is a distorted application of the word.

Further, you acknowledge that JWs aren't told why a particular member is shunned, so it can be just as readily assumed that the person is being shunned for 'apostasy' as for any other reason, rendering that argument useless. In particular, the specific statement in the article under consideration is explicitly about those who leave because they dispute JW beliefs, so the distinction you're trying to make is tangential anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab, the page you pointed out in your looks looks like nearly the same arguments, including someone's plea lower down on the page that more scriptural references be allowed as explanations for beliefs and practices. I think your suggestion to remove the line from the page's body and leave it as footnote is reasonable, though. G.Larson (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: Witnesses are "told" that most disfellowshipping occurs for unrepentant sexual sins. Unless a person has been going around the congregation teaching things that run contrary to the established teachings, (and that would be exceptionally rare), no one has any reason to assume that it's for apostasy. And there is no distinction made when a person is disfellowshipped as I said. Whether that is tangential or not depends on your point of view.

And yes I know that "apostasy" means "a standing or drawing away", but that's the word used in the article under discussion. And looking here on Wikipedia, "the definition given by Stuart A. Wright, an American sociologist and author, asserts that apostasy is a unique phenomenon and a distinct type of religious defection, in which the apostate is a defector 'who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden the dispute, and embraces public claims-making activities to attack his or her former group'." And "the American sociologist Lewis A. Coser (following the German philosopher and sociologist Max Scheler) defines an apostate to be not just a person who experienced a dramatic change in conviction but 'a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation'."

There are less extreme definitions elsewhere. Dictionary.com offers this: "a·pos·ta·sy "[uh-pos-tuh-see] "noun, plural a·pos·ta·sies. "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."

And there are very mild and general definitions out there as well. However, as far as Witness's use of the term they know that people do occasionally leave without completely abandoning the beliefs. Those people are not considered apostate. Their use of the term is in line with Wright's and Coser's definitions.

It appears you have strong emotional reactions when dealing with this subject. But it's just a Wikipedia page.G.Larson (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The claim that I must have a 'strong emotional reaction' here is irrelevant if not slightly amusing. I'm not the one who's posting lengthy responses with little content. I'm not sure your view that JWs 'should' assume people who leave probably committed some 'sexual sin' is particularly nice though, so it's a pretty awkward 'defense' for the implication that they might otherwise consider them to be 'mentally diseased apostates'. I suppose it's a case of pick your slander. The fact remains that the article accurately conveys what is presented in the sources in regard to the practice of expelling and shunning members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings, which is explicitly indicated as the context in the article. Please stop deflecting with irrelevant tangents about 'other reasons for being disfellowshipped' or claims of 'emotion'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The claim that people who "do occasionally leave without completely abandoning the beliefs [are] not considered apostate" is also misleading. The official JW view is that if a person does not accept all current JW teachings, then they are said to have 'apostatized'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04 pm, Today (UTC+10)

There's a difference between trying to persuade and becoming upset. Your posts have come across to me as upset and irritable at times. If my perception is incorrect then I owe you an apology. But you have also accused me of defensiveness at least twice; and stated that I made something up, when I erred by attributing one of BlackCab's comments to you because of the formatting. Again, it's just Wikipedia and publicly edited by whomever has the most interest in the subject at hand. The pages will change over time. G.Larson (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've concisely responded to the arguments presented. If that causes you to mistakenly imagine I'm 'upset', there's little I can do about that. Nor am my responsible for your errors about attributing comments to me that I didn't make. The fact remains that the article accurately reflects the sources in regard to Holden's comments and other statements about former JWs who do not agree with JW teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: I'll let other readers judge between us on the rest of the exchange. But choosing to use words like "pick your slander", when it has been made clear that disfellowshipped people are not to be spoken about, comes across to me as your own strong negative emotions. I'm sure you know that no one is disfellowshipped without a full investigation and if an admission is not made, witnesses to the incident(s) are called. There must be at least two or three witnesses to testify. (Both "sides" may have their own sets of witnesses.) So the word "slander" is inappropriate. And unrepentant "slander" is seen as a disfellowshipping sin. (Watchtower 1959, "Helpers Toward Walking Wisely") So that assertion could be seen as "slanderous", or more properly "libelous", by me. But I am only pointing it out as an example what appears to be negative emotions. (The explanation is only to show why the term "slander" is improper.) G.Larson (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaking cynical humor for being upset. However, it would be particularly naive to believe that such slander never actually takes place. It would also be naive to believe that JW 'investigations' of 'wrongdoing' are either without error, or entirely objective (irrespective of even the best intentions, there are layers of subjectivity from the interpretations of the elders based on their assumptions about the 'guilty' person, right through to the subjective interpretations of the leadership, depending on the 'present truth' of the day, which in turn are based on scriptures that are themselves extremely subject to interpretation). If you disagree, pretend we're talking about 'judicial' proceedings of any other religion. In any case, the fact remains that the article accurately represents the sources in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You've both kind of gone off on little tangents here. The main issue with the quote, as Blackcab has noted, is that there is a level of ambiguity in the way the quote has been constructed. I'm not trying to disprove the quote, I just think it'd be better to reconstruct the sentence so that a reader would not incorrectly assume that speculation on one's mental health is announced from the platform.

As I've stated numerous times, the words "condemned" and "defectors" hold connotations that I feel don't fit what the statement is alluding to. I don't think it'd be difficult to construct a better sentence that doesn't have, as Blackcab stated, a level of ambiguty. Irishdude 212.129.92.37 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right that I should not have indulged G.Larson by responding to the tangential issues raised. In response to your comment, I think "defectors" is suitable to the context of the section. I agree somewhat that "condemned" is probably unnecessary, and could be replaced with a more neutral word like "regarded" without any detriment to the import of the statement. It's a direct quote from a source; the wording of quoted text should not be changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the word "condemned" with "regarded" would be a more accurate statement. However, I know this is a direct source quote, so the wording should not be changed. Nevertheless, Witnesses know to keep in their minds the possibly that the person may return. It does happen. Further, they know it is not the role of fallible humans to "condemn" others in spiritual matters. Offering another, more neutral quote--even along with the original one--would be more accurate. G.Larson (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The responses or attitudes of individual JW members to 'disfellowshippings' aren't of special significance to the official procedures. The accusation of being 'apostates' and 'mentally diseased' originates with the organization, rather than any independent opinion arrived at by individual members. It is therefore not necessary to provide a 'disclaimer' speculating about the attitude of individual members. (In case it's not implicitly evident, I don't have any objection to including a suitable additional quoted source that may provide a different position or additional information about the official process.) More specific detail about the process of 'disfellowshipping', including announcements made, is provided at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#Disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: Doing this never occurred to me :" It is therefore not necessary to provide a 'disclaimer' speculating about the attitude of individual members." This HAS been what I've been after :"I don't have any objection to including a suitable additional quoted source that may provide a different position or additional information about the official process."

According to the WIKIPEDIA article, (which link you posted), the word "apostate" is applied to a person only: "If a baptized Witness TEACHES contrary to Witness doctrines". It is clear even from the article that those who persist in other views but do not promote their private views to others -- those persons are not "apostate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Larson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. See below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, calling people "apostate" does not originate with the organization, though the organization uses the term. Please see the Wiki page here, for examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy . And again, the description "mentally diseased" of those who leave and THEN seek to draw others after themselves originates in Paul's letter to Timothy, and not with the organization. (However, it's true that in my personal experience, which has nothing to do with editing the article, the first time I personally became acquainted with the word was due to some conversations I began having with a member about the religion. But the word is used by others as well.)G.Larson (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quibbling about semantics. Though JWs are not the only ones to 'use the word apostate', JWs do assign special (pejorative) meaning to the word. Further, the JW definition of 'apostasy' is not restricted to those who 'seek to draw others after themselves'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: Please READ the exact words in the WIKIPEDIA you posted. The subject heading is "Disfellowshipping", not "apostasy". The article makes it perfectly clear that it's ONLY those who promote their views to others or teach others their personal views that are considered "apostate". Yes, it brings out that others may be disfellowshipped if they persist in HAVING personal views contrary to what Witnesses learn, but if they do not try to turn others to their own views, they are not "apostate". Just read the words again.

NOTE, the subject of apostasy was clearly dealt with in the Watchtower we discussed earlier. It explains that the "mentally diseased" or "apostates" are ONLY those who seek to draw others after themselves--per Paul's letter to Timothy. I'd already posted the link to the magazine, and the discussion of apostasy starts on page 15. G.Larson (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong.

The 'elder's manual' also states, on page 7, "At times you may need to consult other publications and letters to the body of elders for detailed information." One such letter sent to all Circuit Overseers stated:

Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, "The word 'apostasy' comes from a Greek term that means 'a standing away from,' 'a falling away,' 'defection,' 'rebellion,' 'abandonment.'" Therefore if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing.

The letter was also reproduced in Raymond Franz' Crisis of Conscience.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro,

First, I want to let you know that I edited some words in the previous post to you. For some reason, I did not at first realize it was another Wiki article when I wrote the previous response.

Second: I can concede your point. Yes, he is "apostatizing".

Third, I am LOOKING at the actual August 1, 1980 Watchtower on paper. It also says at paragraph 4-8 on page 18:

4 Early on during his earthly ministry, Jesus warned his followers against apostates. In his Sermon on the Mount, he said: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them.”—Matt. 7:13-16. 5 Twenty-five years later, Paul warned the Christian elders of Ephesus: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:29, 30) In the last of his inspired writings Paul named a few of such first-century apostates. He warned Timothy: “Shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, . . . and they are subverting the faith of some.” “Alexander the coppersmith did me many injuries . . . be on guard against him, for he resisted our words to an excessive degree.”—2 Tim. 2:16-18; 4:14, 15. 6 If we analyze these warnings given by Jesus and Paul, the following identifying features of typical apostates emerge: (1) Deviation from the truth (2) Twisted, empty speech (3) Efforts to subvert the faith of some and draw away disciples after themselves (4) Hypocrisy (‘wolves in sheep’s covering’) (5) Recognizable by their fruits; they ‘advance to more and more ungodliness’ Such telltale signs were meant to enable the early Christians quickly to identify apostates and to ‘be on guard against them.’

Note that "drawing people off" figures prominently in the description of an apostate. However, regarding any labeling of an "apostate" as "mentally diseased", I cannot find any reference in the literature to anyone as "mentally diseased" unless they are ALSO said to argue with those in the congregation in some manner or attempt to lead others off. So, I still object to giving the impression to readers that Witnesses view all who leave or who are disfellowshipped due to their personal beliefs as being called "mentally diseased". It doesn't fit the scriptures Witnesses rely on for their views. G.Larson (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The article does not refer to 'all who leave' in this manner. The section explicitly refers to "members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The 15 July 2011 Watchtower said "apostates are "mentally diseased", and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings." That article did not suggest, as you claim, that apostates are mentally diseased if they try 'to draw away others'. It made a direct pejorative statement about 'apostates', and then attributed actions to that group of people.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The article also explained what that was about. It gave 1 Timothy 6:3, 4 as the reference. Generally Witnesses would know the scripture. If they didn't they would look it up. Then it goes on to describe someone who argues and tries to lead others off. I posted the link to the magazine and invited you to read it already.

Again, this edition of the magazine is published for Witnesses themselves and not to be distributed to the public. But a member of the public who somehow got hold of the magazine could certainly read the Bible reference and the rest of the article for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Larson (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote under discussion says this: "According to sociologist Andrew Holden, defectors "are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." G.Larson (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The context of the quote regarding 'defectors' is explicitly indicated in the sentence immediately before that, which has already been indicated to you (repeatedly) on this talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And repeatedly, no one is told that. Irishdude mentioned the quote would give a false view to anyone not familiar with the religion. Holden is only one person, one writer. Why does that quote carry such weight here? Surely, there are loads of other writers who are critical for the same reason that don't make that misleading statement. G.Larson (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Members who choose to leave the religion are shunned, and those profess their disagreement with official teachings are condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’ " . This is the sentence I have recently came up with after reading the dispute above. A reference from the Watchtower would help the reader to understand the source of the ‘mentally diseased’ wording.--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Holden's statement was clearly not misleading. He was correct in stating that the names of defectors are announced from the platform and that those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as apostates and mentally diseased. He is correct in stating that defectors are seldom allowed a dignified exit, though Fazilfazil has decided to delete that statement. The Age newspaper, (Melbourne, Australia) reported on March 15, 2013: "In 2011, The Watchtower, the scripture magazine for the bizarre yet outwardly benign Christian sect, described those who abandon the church as "mentally diseased" outcasts, or apostates, who "seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings"."[12] Similar media reports followed the release of that July 2011 Watchtower; like Holden, they are reliable secondary sources. BlackCab (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten FazilFazil's edit slightly, restoring Holden's valid observation about a dignified exit. I think it should address the original concerns of the IP editor, while retaining the thrust of Holden's comment. BlackCab (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to G.Larson for pointing out this. The following part of the section is complete out of topic: "According to sociologist Andrew Holden, defectors 'are seldom allowed a dignified exit'. The names of those who formally leave the religion are announced at congregation meetings and they are shunned. " This part have nothing to do with "Suppression of free speech and thought", which is the heading for the section. The text is added to make a context and justify use of Holden's quote. "The names of those who formally leave the religion are announced at congregation meetings" is not something I think of as criticm, and I think it belongs further up in the article. That those formally leave the religion are shunned, is already mentioned earlier in the article, so why repeat it here? The statement "Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as 'apostates' and 'mentally diseased'" should be correctly addressed. If being criticism of JW, it have to be addressed who who are criticizing, t. ex. "XX states that those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as 'apostates' and 'mentally diseased'". If it is WT who states so, it is somewhat misplaced, as WT rarely/merely criticize its own movements practice. I don't think it is fair to add/keep sourcing from WT here anyway, as it is not referencing criticism ("XX criticize JW for YY"). Like it is now, is it Wikipedia represented by an unknown used who states the critic, and uses WT to "prove" it, rather than stating "XX states YY about JW", followed by a reference for who's stating it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The announcement of the names of those formally leave (i.e. defectors) and their subsequent shunning is directly relevant to the manner in which defectors are not allowed a dignified exit. The treatment of 'defectors' is directly relevant to the suppression of free speech and thought.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a quite narrow field to scope on. If JW do make the announcement at congregation meetings for all who leaves the religion, and then the members (at least they're told to) shun all those who leaves the religion, why keep the focus on those who so as a result of "suppression of free speech and thought"? The focus is given through Wikipedia, not through the sources. I can't see JW then could be claimed to treat those violating this part of their faith, worse than those breaking their rules for, let me give an example, sexual conduct, which for most cases, and in most parts of the world, per se is fully legal conduct in the secular society (if talking about voluntary sexual relations between adults). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations, Grrahnbahr. I've thought similarly. G.Larson (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The section is a succinct summary of the main spinoff article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Holden is clearly identified as a critic of the JWs' treatment of those who disagree with certain teachings. That criticism is directly related to "Suppression of free speech and thought" and should be obvious to any reader. BlackCab (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the footnote #306 is appropriate and should be left there especially, if Holden's statement and the reference to his book continues to stand. But Holden's book was written NINE years BEFORE the 2011 magazine. So Holden's statement was definitely misleading in 2002. As stated repeatedly, no individual is verbally denounced that way, especially at the time of their disfellowshipping. And prior to 2011, the words "mentally diseased" in the Watchtower magazine were always accompanied by quotes from the pertinent scriptures when they were applied to those who tried "to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30) or who fit the description given at 1 Timothy 6:3,4.

So Holden's statement in his book is essentially false, as discussed. The rewritten reference to Holden's book is more nearly correct. I can live with it for the meantime. G.Larson (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To mix in statements about disfellowshipping as it is practiced among JW, with no sources connecting it to the topic, is limiting to synthesis to make a conclusion. Ringes and others suggest a majority of disfellowshippings have relation to sexual conduct, thus a minority at best are disfellowshipped because of issues regarded to "suppression of free speech and thought". To include the statement, it would a) be correct to find a statement stating JW do practice "suppression of free speech and thought" or related, and to b) address who stating so. It is no reason to mix in JWs' practice in general regarding disfellowshipping, into this section. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As you are no doubt well aware, disfellowshipping is the JW process to initiate shunning. Its inclusion in the section is well supported by the sources cited. The fact that former JWs might be shunned for a bunch of other so-called 'sins' does not trivialise the cited statements about the treatment of dissenters. The 'suggestion' of "Ringes and others" is largely based on the JW's official self-reporting about those who leave, and even if so, it is still misleading to imply that those who leave over doctrinal matters are a tiny minority.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm Ringnes base the fraction of information from JW officials, actually I think it was from Norwegian JW officials as well (I can't recall if the fraction in this case was for Norway only, or for JW in general), but these kind of fractions use to be quite uniform for at least western-oriented countries. Actually it would surprise me if JWs leaving the religion in Australia in numbers because they start believing in the trinity doctrine. I'm pretty sure there are other sources confirming a majority of those leaving, is because matters related to sexual conduct, and I would challenge you to get some numbers of how common it is the reason is because doctrinal matters. A minority is a minority, not tiny nor barely, until it could be quantified. "Suppression of free speech and thought" is quite a broad expression, and to use it to describe disfellowshipping for doctrinal matters in common, I find questionable. Penton and Franz are notable examples of former JWs, but I doubt they're representative for former JWs in common, as they belong to a minority group of former JWs. Further, some politician parties does exclude members who does behave or promote a different view of the official party's, and in some cases, the expulsed member is pretty much shunned by other members of the party, though shunning may not is their official proposal. Is that "suppression of free speech and thought" as well? Another issue is, I doubt actually doubting doctrines would qualify for disfellowshipping, as WT publications do give advice what to do if being a JW and doubting teachings or doctrines, so the critic may be limited to the "free speech"-part anyway. The fact that the doctrines are made by the Governing Body and them alone, is already mentioned earlier in the article, so why repeat it here? Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any independent source about how many leave the religion over doctrinal concerns, and it's possible that no such independent sources exist. Whilst it may indeed be the case that the majority of 'disfellowshippings' are for 'immorality', the only source of this claim is what the group says about itself. It is in the group's best interests to minimise the number who leave over doctrinal concerns.

As far as doctrinal concerns that may cause some to leave (or want to leave but stay quiet to avoid being shunned), the trinity doctrine isn't a very good example; if you like, I could list several more common reasons.

The example of political party members being 'shunned' is a bit of a stretch. Firstly, as you have indicated, there is no formal shunning process in such cases. Secondly, the comparison is in reference to former colleagues rather than friends or even family members.

In regard to the comments about doubting doctrines, see previous response above. Basically, such 'doubters' would initially receive 'counsel' (a 'warning'), but if they do not capitulate, they can be shunned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why the issue of sexual misconduct has been raised. The section is about the leadership's intolerance of dissent and debate. Holden is cited as a source in discussing the consequences for "defectors" who "have found an alternative belief system", those who "break free" from the church's iron grip on beliefs and practices. The consequences are the public humiliation of being named at a congregation meeting and an organizational requirement for shunning. That's why the issue of disfellowshipping is raised here. I have rarely seen such a small section crowded with so many citations, most of them inserted after the complaints of JW-sympathetic editors who express a similar horror at seeing the religion criticised for its elaborate system of control and punishment. Introducing contrasts with political expulsions is just idiotic. BlackCab (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's an accurate assessment, Grrahnbahr, G.Larson (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem for both of you is that you start from a baseline of believing that any criticism of the religion is either a fabrication or an error. The wording is perfectly fine: it is properly based on multiple secondary sources, fair, accurate and editorially neutral. BlackCab (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That may be what you think, but it's not the issue. As I said, I can live with the statement as it currently stands, but still agree with Grrahnbahr's assessment.

If I said that any positive statements about Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be seen here as either a fabrication or an error, would that be the case? I hope not. G.Larson (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

^ Look under heading RELEASE OF "THE FINISHED MYSTERY" A BOMBSHELL": http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/divinepurpose/purpose11.html

[1] Look under heading RELEASE OF "THE FINISHED MYSTERY" A BOMBSHELL": http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/divinepurpose/purpose11.html

[1]