Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Template:FAOL

How to archive JW talk pages

I'm putting this at the top of the talk page to help preserve it, hopefully it won't be another year before the talk gets archived. Our system is a bit different from the normal WP:ARCHIVE. Here's how:

- Create the page: Search Wikipedia for the archive you want to create (even though it doesn't exist yet e.g. "Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26") or click on an existing archive link, then enter the number of the archive you want to create in the URL (Change: ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_25 to ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_26)

- Add the text: Wikipedia will indicate that the page does not exist and provide you with the option: "Start the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26 page". Start the page, copy/paste (ctrl + c for copy, ctrl + v to paste) all the material from the current talk page that you want to archive.

- Add the templates: Before you save it add the following three templates to the very top of the page: {{talkarchive}} {{JWArchiveNav}} {{JWArchiveNotice}}. Preview, then save the page.

- Edit the {{JWArchiveNav}} template: (By now the archive page is already created, now we just need the link to archive page "26" to display on the main Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page). Wiki search for Template:JWArchiveNav (or click the link here), then go to "edit this page". Add another line of text (copy/paste an existing and just change the number to 26, don't forget the comma) e.g. From [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 25|25]] to [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 26|26]] (you may or may not need a comma at the end of the new line, just preview it first to make sure that the Archives 1-26 all display in one row). Save it, you're done. Duffer 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe ...

The Jehovah's Witnesses project page recommends avoiding the term "Jehovah's Witnesses believe". This is a prudent approach, because in a religion of more than seven million active participants, there will be a range of opinions, notwithstanding the very strong pressure placed on members to believe what they're told through meetings and literature without further discussion or questioning. It's probably reasonable to presume most Witnesses expect to live in a renewed paradise on Earth, but it would be claiming too much to say, for example, that "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Revelation 8:8 was fulfilled at a 1923 convention of Bible Students in Los Angeles." The Watchtower Society teaches this, but there wouldn't be more than a handful of Witnesses worldwide who would spontaneously nominate this as one of their beliefs.

Similarly, the Watchtower Society teaches that celebration of birthdays is something not acceptable to God, although a significant number of Witnesses do celebrate birthdays in one form or another, albeit furtively. Doctrinal positions are set dogmatically by the Watchtower Society's publications, but when these change – as they have on such issues as the starting point for both the "last days" and Christ's "presence", and more recently on the definition of "this generation" in relation to the timing of Armageddon and certain issues in the Book of Revelation – the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses believe" becomes redundant. The critical issue in discussing Beliefs and Practices is not the belief of the congregation members, who are expected to do what they're told, but the teaching by the Watchtower Society. LTSally (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. The edits you and Jeffro77 made to my additions are significant improvements, I thank you both for that. I am still new to the community and the editing process and I appreciate your guys' help. Brocknroll81 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that deviating from the term altogether suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses teach one thing and believe another. I would recommend a careful balance between the two phrases, because of the potential POV tinge to it. Clearly it's unrealistic to think that all Witnesses think exactly the same thing, but to completely avoid the idea that "Jehovah's Witnesses believe" anything is to intimate the other. For example, what sourced evidence do we have that JWs celebrate birthdays in secret or that only a handful wouldn't express doubt about the Wathctower Society's interpretation of Rev 8:8? It just strikes me as the rational to avoiding it altogether, rather then to use it judiciously, can easily be based on unsourced presumptions. I would advise caution. ~ Digital Jedi Master (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that the article, despite its name, is focusing on the teachings or doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think too many encyclopedias would baldly state that "Catholics believe such and such" or "Lutherans believe .." The emphasis would always be on the demonstrable teaching rather than an assumed belief. LTSally (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a better rational. Though it's much easier to say "Catholicism teaches" or "Hinduism teaches". I think "Jehovah's Witnesses believe" is just a workaround. I think "Jehovah's Witnesses teach" would be a more appropriate phrase. ~ Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LTSally's point and Jedi's comment. I will go along with the suggestion to replace "believes" with "teaches" as verb, and "doctrine" as a noun; but that we should do so with caution and on a case by case basis. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain semantic awkwardness inherent to the way the religion chooses to identify itself. Jehovah's Witnesses (members) are members of Jehovah's Witnesses (religion). Jehovah's Witnesses (religion) teaches Jehovah's Witnesses (members), who teach non-members. Jehovah's Witnesses (religion) publishes materials that publishers (members) distribute. Because of these ambiguities, 'Jehovah's Witnesses believe' may occasionally be preferable, and can be appropriate in a generic sense, even if not all nominal members actually adhere to (or have a full understanding of) a particular belief, especially if there is no specific controversy about a particular belief (e.g. 'JWs believe that the trees at Ezekiel 47:12 represent God's provisions to bring mankind to perfection' would be less controversial (even though more obscure) than 'JWs believe in rejecting blood transfusions'). For readability, some variety in word choice is also advisable. For these reasons, instances should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a rule dogmatically.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

They dont let them celebrate their birthdays! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.177.232 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be hard to make a hard and fast rule. Referring to JW's and what they believe is awkward, indeed. I think this is because the Governing Body goes through great pains to control or at least charactorize every definition anyone tries to place on them, so they can feel like they aren't getting pigeon-holed into a definition that actually describes what they are (to hide what they really are?). I'm not in favor of a whole-sale change to the article for this issue, but let's look at each section to see what is appropriate. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article about any religion shall describe what the religion officially teaches. If some want to discuss various speculations on how many members that don't really faithfully follow the religion, they are free. But that doesn't change the standard. In fact, wikipedia is not meant for debates. I recommend such participants to find a discussion board another place to discuss their opinions. Summer Song (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed how the main article and subsequent comments seem to mostly be from people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently so by the comments made. Therefore, this article in general has taken a tongue-in-cheek "those people" slant. This is a change from the original tone of the article from, say, a year or so ago, which was more neutral. Of course, this is being influenced by those who are apparently ant-Witness and who are subtly injecting negative comments over time. This article also heavily quotes from anti-Witness literature. I'm not saying to write that JWs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just saying to be more neutral. Do other religious articles in WIKI have a negative slant against the subject? What if the article on Judaism had this same slant? Oh my, what an uproar there would be! But it seems that this article, as so many others do in the popular media, paint Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious atrocity (of course I can hear all the anti-JWs screaming right now "Oh but they are!"). There are also inaccuracies such as saying the first president was not CT Russell, or that Franz was the main theologian in the 1950s. This information comes from questionable sources and is not official. It's kind of like having former employees and competitors write an article about a particular company. How balanced do you think the information would be? 70.192.245.141 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Celebrations

Under the Celebrations heading, the phrase "...Jehovah's Witnesses believe these customs come from ancient false religions" seems to be poorly worded to me. I know this section discusses the believes of JW's, but their believes should themselves not be stated as matter of fact. In this case, the suggestion is that there are "false religions". I suggest the following wording: "...Jehovah's Witnesses believe these customs come from what they term as ancient "false religions"." or something like this. I don't like the term "false" at all, since this is a term that is only truly understood by those familar with the faith. Is there a better neutral way of saying this? Any other suggestions? — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 02:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with avoiding the term 'false' unless supported by quotations implying source from JW teachings or perhaps the article could read, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe these customs are not supported by the bible." or "Jehovah's Witnesses believe these customs are of pagan origins." Are these on the right track? Brocknroll81 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I have removed the statement that JWs have more than half a million people in Brazil, US and Mexico, as inclusion of the statement implies misleading notability. The proportion of JWs in these countries is typical of a great many countries (less than 1%), and the high numbers merely reflect typical proportions among high total populations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording

In the lead, the article states: "Medical ethicists have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses as an authoritarian group that coerces members to obey doctrines including the ban on blood transfusions." This seems to be worded as a bit of an appeal to authority to say something broader than the area of expertise of medical ethicists. I would suggest changing this to: "Medical ethicists have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses as an authoritarian group for coercing members to reject blood transfusions."--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section summary

I have reinstated the summary of the spinout article that existed until December 27. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article calls for a summary without specifying its length. The summary of the spinout article I've reinstated is brief and concise and of entirely appropriate length. The comment by User:Corjay in cutting the summary to one sentence was accompanied by the comment: "removed controversy info as it already has its own page. This page is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not what others believe is wrong with JW's." That action was unjustified for two reasons: (1) coverage of controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses are an essential element of an encyclopedia article on the religion and (2) applying the same rationale would also reduce the beliefs and practices sections to one-line summaries. LTSally (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is wrong

"the religion's publications expressed strong expectations that Armageddon would occur in those years,"

You can read every publication ever produced by Jehovah's Witnesses. They said nothing about Armageddon occurring in those years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.198.171 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, except that that sentence is backed up by a RS. I'll trust something published by a university press over an anon user, thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will trust the Watchtower's own admission over an anonymous user: The Watcthower, 15 March, 1980, page 17, para. 5

With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility.

But thanks for trying.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact the Watchtower publications expressed strong expectations of God bringing the present "system" to an end in three different years -- 1914, 1925 and 1975.

1914: The Time Is At Hand (1889) presented "Bible evidence" that 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men" and that the Kingdom would be "firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions"; that Christ would be earth's new ruler and that he would dash Gentile governments to pieces as a potter's vessel and establish in their place his own righteous government. It also said: "The battle of the great day of God Almighty which will end in 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced.". (See pages 76-77 and 98-99, reproduced in Franz's Crisis of Conscience, pages 189-194.) The Watch Tower of Jan 15, 1892, said the final battle would conclude in 1914, noting: "The final struggle will be comparitively short, terrible and decisive – resulting in general anarchy."

1925: Millions Now Living Will Never Die' made no explicit reference to Armageddon, but clearly, unambiguously predicted the "beginning of the restoration of all things" in "the fall of the year 1925", with Abraham Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old being resurrected "and made the visible representatives of the new order of things on earth". (page 88). Watchtower theology had long before clearly linked the "new order" on earth with Armageddon. The Watch Tower of May 15, 1922, said there was "no question" that 1925 was the date of the "antitypical jubilee" when Jehovah's new order would begin. The same reasoning was applied in The Way To Paradise (1924) which identified October 1, 1925 as the time when the New Order would begin, (pages 224-7, as reproduced by Franz, pages 230-3). (The "Millions" book is available online at [1])

1975: Again no specific statement that Armageddon would take place in 1975, but in Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (1966), a clear, unambiguous connection was drawn between the advent of the New Order and "the seventh period of a thousand years of human history (which) will begin in the fall of 1975 CE." (page 28). It was described as "fitting" and "appropriate" for God to act at that point to establish Christ's thousand-year reign. This was reinforced in the Awake of Oct 8, 1966, pages 19-20; Watchtower of May 1, 1968 (pages 272-3); Awake October 8, 1968 (pages 13-14), which linked the destruction of the corrupt system of things by God with "the end of a full 6000 years of human history", The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969, pages 25-26) and the timeline chart illustrating "the thrilling hope of grand relief" in "the mid-1970s" in the October 8, 1971, Awake. See also the urging in the Our Kingdom Ministry for Witnesses to join full-time preaching work with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed" (March 1968) and the commendation for those selling homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end" (Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1974).

A date for Armageddon was certainly given for the 1914 prediction; for 1925 and 1975 the Watchtower made clear implications which were expected to be embraced by all Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel the dates should be included in some sort of early history part. It is a fundamental belief that their belief system changes. They call this, "the light getting brighter" as in they become more enlightened. From an outside perpective, they have changed radicially. They used to believe in Christmas and even used the cross as a symbol at one time. Their former end of the world dates must be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.91.254 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JW did not insist that Har-Magedon was coming in 1975. Only stupid people made debts and refused planting potatoes --Gufido (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC):

• • • w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!

Questions Answered By A JW

I will answer any questions about my religion. I hope to clear up any confusion about my religion. Many people have been told things that aren't true about my religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck198 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion or question-and-answer of JW beliefs. You are welcome to contribute to the article and to discuss improvements to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Building on Jeffro's comment, please also note, Duck198, that, though being a JW you have the unique ability to contribute knowledge of the current beliefs and practices; diffuse false statements; etc, while you are contributing to this page you have to check your bias at the door for this article cannot become a propoganda page in either direction (critical or positive). Brocknroll81 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to have caused any trouble!!! I didn't no!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck198 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No trouble, don't worry. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck198 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that on one hand people say this isn't a forum for debate on JW beliefs, but then all the contributors are doing just that, inserting their own interpretations and negative slants on JWs. Interesting contradiction. Rodbender2001 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

4.2 Ethics and Morality .. permissible divorce needs updating

"Divorce is permissible only for adultery or cases in which a Witness's partner forces on them "repugnant and perverted" sexual practices.[136] "

the citation (136) regarding permissible divorce needs updating as does the sentence it is referenced with. the writer of the source material was using an older guideline from 1974 and '78 Watchtower articles.

an update to this issue was released in the following.

• • • Watchtower 83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***

What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. *

• Footnote * This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

and Jesus words (Matthew 19:9) 9 I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumbehr (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for article, from JW

Hey! Raymond Franz is not a good source of information since he is an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses. I suggest to consult a watchtower official to get the best source of information. They will not hesitate to honestly cooperate with you. Jehovah's Witnesses have been cruently prosecuted and wrong information could present this decent people in false colors and instill lack of tolerance in this society. Please consult a watchtower representative to clean this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.216.85 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A promoter of Jehovah's Witnesses would be just as poor a source of accurate information as an opposer. All sides must be presented in order to present a balanced article. Just as this article should not be allowed to become a platform for maligners neither should it be allowed to become a soapbox for proselytizers. If someone wishes to read a fluff piece filled with glittering generalities they can go to watchtower.com. Sungmanitu (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The suitability of Franz as a source has nothing to do with JWs being 'cruently prosecuted' (whatever that might mean). Franz is established as a notable source intimately familiar with the organization, not only as the nephew of the Governing Body's former president, but also as a member of the Governing Body himself. His bias does not automatically invalidate everything he happens to say about the organization, and only relying on a particular group, especially a controversial one, for statements about itself is foolish.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Finding a neutral souce of information on JWs is tricky. But presenting both far ends of the opinion spectrum is still confusing. ANd to be honest, this article is taking an increasingly negative anti-JW slant than in the past. Clearly, commenter's and contributors like JEFFRO are negative against JWs, as can be clearly seen by his defense of Raymond Franz. I'm not saying this article should be written by the Governing Body either. I'm just noting a fact, that the main source of information in these articles has slowly taken on a negative tone. That same tone would not be tolerated in other religious articles now would it? Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts by LTSally & Carl.bunderson

User LTSally, you wrote that my changes at this article were "unacceptable given the lengthy discussion about the content and the eventual agreement" and you reverted them twice (plus Carl.bunderson's one). You gave these reasons, to which I'd like to answer back:

"(1) "Jesus Christ is no more the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that he is of Mormonism (founder: Joseph Smith), Christian Science (founder: Mary Baker Eddy) or Seventh Day Adventism (founders: Joseph Bates, James White, Ellen G. White, etc). Each religion began with someone’s teaching ... though it's possible that within each religion there are people who also claim that Jesus moved these individuals to start their interpretations. At each article, however, the foounder is named, without Christ's name being mentioned. Without C. T. Russell, Jehovah’s Witnesses would not exist today. The point of the encyclopedia article is to identify the person who began the movement and in this case it was clearly Russell".

• I don't disagree with your starting point. But, according to your words that "each religion began with someone’s teaching", who is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church? (Accordingly, why there is no founder-section at Roman Catholic Church article?)

"(2) Your addition of the phrase though terms like "sect" or "cult" are "negatively connotated" ones or imply a religious "orthodoxy" is your opinion and can’t remain."

• These comments are not "my opinion". I have put just there as a footnote my sources: 1) The phrase "[new] religious movement" is "the prefered scholarly term". Lippy, Charles (2006). Faith in America: Changes, Challenges, New Directions. 1. Praeger Publishers. pp. 228, 229. ISBN 0-275-98607-1, and 2) Clarke, Peter (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 0-415-26707-2. Didn't you see them? When you need a source to be mentioned for sure you don't delete the addition but you use the relative source-requiring template. You didn't do this; you just reverted.

"(3) Your addition of “their peaceful attitudes” into the sentence about what the characteristics and activities for which religion is most well known is also your opinion. LTSally (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)"

• If you think that this comment is "my opinion" you should first ask for sources. If I will not provide them, you can delete it. -- pvasiliadis  13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is that your caveat ("though terms like 'sect' or 'cult' are 'negatively connotated' ones or imply a religious 'orthodoxy'") is not sourced - only that it is superfluous. One can look up those terms under their respective Wikipedia entries. Your edit reads like it is intimating that the cited sociological studies were based on a flawed assumption. "Sect" is a very precise term in the sociology of religion and carries no negative connotation whatsoever in that field. This article is not a summary of the average layperson's opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses and so it must maintain a neutral (i.e. secular) point of view. Sungmanitu (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You say: ""Sect" is a very precise term in the sociology of religion and carries no negative connotation whatsoever in that field" and this term is used in the article. The sources I mentioned, though, say something else:

"The term "sect" is "negatively connotated" and implies 'a deviation from a Church orthodoxy'. Instead, the phrase "[new] religious movement" is "the prefered scholarly term". von Stuckrad, Kocku (2006). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Vol. IV. Koninklijke Brill NV (Brill Academic Publishers), Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 1734, 1735. ISBN 90-04-12432-2. Lippy, Charles (2006). Faith in America: Changes, Challenges, New Directions. Vol. 1. Praeger Publishers. pp. 228, 229. ISBN 0-275-98607-1. Clarke, Peter (2006). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 0-415-26707-2."

• You presuppose for me that I am an "average layperson's of Jehovah's Witnesses" and that I mention such a summarized "opinion". You should reply concerning the sources not to an abstract accusation of an "average" opinion.
• I think that this information I added (and was deleted) is missing from the article:

"Jehovah's Witnesses do not hold Charles T. Russell as the founder of their faith but Jesus Christ. "[Charles T. Russell] was not the founder of a new religion, and never made such claim. He revived the great truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles, and turned the light of the twentieth century upon these. He made no claim of a special revelation from God, but held that it was God’s due time for the Bible to be understood; and that, being fully consecrated to the Lord and to His service, he was permitted to understand it." "The Watch Tower". W.B.& T.S. 1916: 356. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) "The Founder and only Head of true Christianity [is] Jesus Christ". "The Watchtower". W.B.& T.S. 1985: 29. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)" -- pvasiliadis  21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to know who founded the Catholic Church since its origins are obscured in antiquity and myth. The origins of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, reach only as far back as the Bible Student Movement (which sprung from the Adventist/Millerite tradition, as noted in the article).

• You don't know who is the founder of the Catholic Church? Very interesting! But with your mention to the "obscured antiquity" you presuppose the Apostolic Succession, a basic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church itself. I think that you use two standards. That "Jehovah's Witnesses reach only as far back as the Bible Student Movement" is an arbitrary point of view, theologically coloured as well. -- pvasiliadis  21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pvasiliadis, I've reverted your latest edit (including a footnote about the use of sect vs. NRM) as completely unnecessary, and I would say, undue weight. We already define it as a religious movemement in the first sentence. That is the first thing people see. Second, following that, is the point that in the field of sociology, it is called a sect. Thus, the article already reflects the idea that "NRM" may be the preferred term. Including a footnote about the use of sect is unnecessary here. Put it in an article on the sociology of religion, or the word "sect", where it might be more appropriate. You might do well to read the archives of this talk page, where you'll find that the article did not emerge out of a vaccuum. If you start from 38, you'll see that we had a rather extensive discussion about the use of cult, sect, and NRM, which resulted in the (consensus-based) current wording of the lead. We have already taken into consideration the use of these terms, and to include caveats about them would be undue weight. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• User Carl.bunderson, I will do. Thank you for your assistance. -- pvasiliadis  21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your understanding. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot say that Russell "revived great truths [blah blah blah]". Plainly POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence existed as a footnote only, which seems reasonable. It cited a couple of WT publications, so it's hardly POV. For the purposes of the infobox, Russell was clearly the founder of the religion, but if the WT persists with its vainglorious statements that he was only a tool and that Christ was the real founder of the religion, that's worth noting in a footnote. Comments? LTSally (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All Christian religions can rightfully claim that Jesus is the founder of their religion. In view of that, there is no special significance for JWs claim of such. The Watchtower claim is therefore not notable, and its inclusion as a footnote is special pleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Every organised Christian group of believers that calls itself "Christian" means that it follows the original teaching of Jesus Christ. So, though "there is no special significance for JWs claim of such" as well, the underlying notion that i.e. Roman Catholic Church has founder the Christ (though this is silenced at the relating wiki article/no such infobox) but JWs are followers of a founder (Russell) is obviously POV. This heresiological understanding of the Christianities of all centuries (named indiscriminately after a real or so-believed founder/heresiarch) —and especially for the existing ones— is biased by particular religious understandings by the orthodox-majority part. Otherwise JWs should not be called "Christians" but "Russellites"/"Russellists". It is clear to the JWs' researchers that JWs do not render special reverence to Pastor Russell —and even much much lesser than other Christian denominations do for persons such like John Chrysostom or Augustine (that are not considered even as any kind of founders). -- pvasiliadis  20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're flying off at a tangent. Naming Russell as the founder of the religion in this article does not imply that today's Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of Russell, so your claims that this presents a point of view is a nonsense. Having said that, it's also true that the Watch Tower Society has placed repeated, consistent emphasis on Russell's role in the establishment of the religion. If not, his name would be unknown and his face unrecognisable to today's Witnesses. At times past, the Bible Students were arguably followers of Russell. Rutherford wrote in The Finished Mystery that Russell was the faithful and wise servant of Matthew 24 and that he had been appointed ruler over all the Lord's goods (see Faithful and Discreet Slave#Development of doctrine); remember also that Russell himself urged Bible Students to study his writings rather than the Bible on its own (see Watch Tower, September 15, 1910). In later years the religion's emphasis moved from demanding obedience to Russell to demanding obedience to "the organization", so most Witnesses would be more likely to be guided today by what the Watch Tower Society said rather than what the Bible itself said. However, I digress. The inclusion of Russell as the founder of the religion is in no way a suggestion that today's Witnesses follow him, nor is it a point of view. It's a documented fact. LTSally (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

pvasiliadis, the very existence of the term 'Founding Fathers' (of the Catholic Church) invalidates your position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm sorry to disagree but I think User:pvasiliadis has a point. All Christian churches claim to have been founded by Jesus Christ. Usually, Christians rely on Matthew 16:18 to establish the Primacy of Simon Peter among the Twelve Apostles. The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and some other churches rely on Apostolic Succession to establish their legitmacy. Contrary to Jeffro77's assertion, the Church Fathers are not the "Founding Fathers" of the Catholic Church. Neither really are the Apostles. Jesus Christ is claimed as founder of the Catholic Church with Apostolic Succession maintaining the legitimacy of the church.

Other churches of the Protestant and Restorationist branches do not claim Apostolic Succession. Some churches have a clear human founder(s); these include most of the Protestant denominations, the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I think it is valuable for us to draw a distinction between Jesus Christ as founder of the Christian church (all branches and denominations) and specific individual humans as founders of specific individual branches and denominations.

If we can reach consensus on how to present this here, we should move the discussion to Talk:Christianity to develop a wider consensus and then implement the resulting solution across all articles related to Christian branches and denominations.

--Richard (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article acknowledges that Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination. The issue here is not about who started Christianity, but whether Jesus Christ's name should appear in the infobox on the JW article alongside that of CT Russell as the founder of this religion. The history of Jehovah's Witnesses can be traced back to the Bible study group established by Russell and the journals he wrote and published. Russell was, to use your term, a clear human founder. He was dedicated to discussing and interpreting the teachings of Jesus Christ and others contained in the Bible, but Christ, as far as I can determine, played no active role in the establishment of that splinter group in the 1880s. That, and that alone, is the information the infobox attempts to provide in that section. LTSally (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Jesus did not found any particular branch of Christianity at all. Nor were Peter or the other apostles members or founders of the Catholic Church or any other particular branch of Christianity beyond the 1st century. Claims made by later groups, whether they be small groups like the JWs or major denominations like the Catholic Church, do not retroactively make early Christians members of their particular denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Current president

• "Presidents since (...) and Don A. Adams (2000-)" - Adams (2000-2002), Max H. Larson (2002-)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.17.187 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify this? Max H. Larson Larson has an entry ... a Freeminds website entry has him as president of the NY Watchtower, which oversees activities in the US and some districts, and Adams as president of the Pennsylvania society. That entry is quite old, though. Does anyone know the current situation? LTSally (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidents of branch offices of JWs is not notable, and misleading regarding presidency of the international corporation. Requesting article deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Monotheist religion

Hi, the term "Christian" is not correct when refering to the Jehova's Witnesses, as Christian refers to the doctrines that believe Christ is God, as one of the integrants of the Trinity, besides Holy Spirit. As Jehova's Witnesses believes the only God is Jehova, and Jesus was created by him, the term "Monoteist" is the right one. Thank you! Vicpulido (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed at length recently and a consensus was reached to keep the term "Christian". Please check the archives of the talk page. And your spelling is atrocious. LTSally (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LTSally for your answer, however, considering this is just a talk page my comments don't deserve such an unpolite response, respectfully I would say that your manners are atrocious indeed. Please visit WP:CIVIL vicpulido —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpulido (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

While most Christian religions are trinitarian, some are unitarian. --71.68.117.33 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Christians were a group of people that followed the teachings of Christ? Since JW's make that claim, then they would consider themselves Christian. That Jesus is the Almighty God is, in fact, a mainstream Christian view that was adopted hundreds of years after Jesus death (see article on Trinity). Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Advances in Bloodless Surgery

I read through the ref, and I don't think it supports this advances in bloodless surgery bit. It says, "they have served both as critics of medical practice and as medical guinea pigs as a result of their refusal to accept blood transfusions." I don't see as much continuity between that and "The refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to accept blood transfusions has led to advances in the medical practice of bloodless surgery" as there should be between a ref and the text of a WP article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair cop. I think I may have written that a while ago amid all the claims the article's intro was very negative, and I was doing my best to find some positive points for the intro. But looking again at the reference in Penton, you're right. He doesn't make that claim, and nor can I find such an explicit claim in Google. Certainly the Witnesses have benefited from those advances, but according to a couple of articles I found, the whole AIDS epidemic and fear of blood transfusions may have been a more important contributing factor to the development of those techniques. I've deleted the reference. LTSally (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sally. If I come across anything along these lines, I'll add it in. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Celebrations

In the aricle under the subheading Celebrations this statememt was made: Birthday parties and celebrations are also avoided as days that lead to feelings of "self-importance". This is not true. The reason Jehovah's Witness's do not celebrate birthday's is because, quote, "The only two birthday celebrations spoken of in the Bible were held by persons who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 40:20-22; Mark 6:21, 22, 24-27) The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays. The custom of celebrating birthdays comes from pagan religions. True Christians give gifts and have good times together at other times during the year." this quote was taken from the What Does God Require of Us Brochure, Lesson 11 , published by Jehovah's witness's. It is also found at http://www.watchtower.org/e/rq/article_11.htm ( The official webpage of Jehovah's Witness's.) Please revise this section. Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck198 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Duck198 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--Duck198 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The cited reference from the "School" brochure completely supports the current reading of the Celebrations section: "Birthday celebrations tend to give excessive importance to an individual, no doubt one reason why early Christians shunned them. (Ecclesiastes 7:1) So you will find that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not share in birthday festivities (the parties, singing, gift giving, and so forth)." Additionally, it is a begging the question to assert that "early Christians did not celebrate birthdays," since this is not known. However, the assumption you mentioned (only Pagans celebrated birthdays in the Bible and therefore Christians shouldn't) might be supplied to the section if there is consensus that it would not make it overly lengthy. Sungmanitu (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current wording is correct. Besides that, the practice of celebrating birthdays does not come from some mystic pagan source. Only famous and powerful people celebrated their birthdays in ancient times, and usually even that wasn't annual. The practice of celebrating birthdays annually is very modern and came into vogue in that past couple of centuries. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 02:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I'm completely new to all this, I just wanted to say something. The first line indicates that Wikipedia has the opinion that JWs are christians implicating that it know some absolute truth about the term 'Christian', (i.e. JWs are part of that group/religion) I think this is wrong. I'm sure it's been said that a some(i think many) mainstream christians (including myself) would disagree with that first sentence. Perhaps we would say they were self proclaimed christians, though perhaps that sounds a bit negative. perhaps.221.122.38.178 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a secular observer would say that you are a "self proclaimed Christian." I doubt she would mean it in a negative sense, however. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and therefore cannot take sides in the issue of which denomination, sect, etc., can rightfully lay claim to the title of "Christian." If only "mainstream Christians" can correctly be labeled Christian, what are we to call Gnostics or non-Pauline Christians? If we do not want to take sides in a dispute about orthodoxy, we must let the religious group speak for itself and accept the label it claims. Of course, we would be remiss to ignore any controversies such a claim creates. This is not the case with the current version of the article. The second sentence states the sociological classification that has been described for JW's, and a little farther down in the article the fact that other Christians have labeled them a sect and a heretical cult is clearly stated. If you check the archives you will see that this has already been discussed in length. Sungmanitu (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced; get over it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Number in infobox

I think leaving it as 7.1m is more pragmatic than is having the precise number. That would be my preference; rather more pragmatic, and change in utility is marginal, if even negative. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's of questionable value to be so specific. At precisely what point was the membership 7,124,443? How long did it remain there? How is the number calculated and how accurate is it? None of this is explained, though presumably it's a product of an organisation that counts the number of hours supposedly spent in witnessing down to the last single hour. The figure of 7.1 million is much more representative of their numbers on an annual basis. LTSally (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible as the supreme authority for their teachings and practices, but diverge greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or heretical sect." I think the way this sentence is contructed gives the wrong impression. To me, I sounds as if you say "Jehovah witnesses say that they follow the bible BUT they actually don't because other denominations denounce them as a cult or sect." I recommend this sentence:

Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible as the supreme authority for their teachings and practices. Their teachings diverge greatly from traditional Christian theology, which has caused several major Christian denominations to denounce the group as either a cult or heretical sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.49.196 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done (with slight modification to avoid redundant terms). Sungmanitu (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the opening paragraph needs to be modified to let people know that Bible believing Christians consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be a false cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorart1974 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

JWs are bible-believing Christians. Such a statement in the intro would therefore be contradictory and POV. This has been discussed previously. It is already stated in the article that some groups consider them to be non-christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in my edit summary

This is to document an error in my edit summary of March 3, a single reversion of six acts of vandalism by User:Iancoley. It should of course have stated "POV" rather than "NPOV." My apologies for any misunderstanding this may have incurred; the mistake was made in haste. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate classification in infobox

The classification in the infobox is currently Restorationist. Both James Penton in Apocalypse Delayed and Andrew Holden in Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement use the term millenarian to describe them. Their restorationist views are not highlighted by either author. Edmund Gruss, as well, focuses solely on their eschatological doctrines, while Heather & Gary Botting in The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses identify as their central doctrines those concerning the imminence of Armageddon. Russell's teachings certainly had restorationist flavors, but compared with their doctrines and focus on the impending thousand-year reign of Christ – as highlighted even by the names of their periodicals, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom and Awake! – their restorationist views are today of little significance. I'd suggest changing their classification in the infobox, then, to Millinerian. LTSally (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't/shouldn't use both? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. LTSally (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did this, adding Millenarian in front of Restorationist. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who Founded Jehovahs Witnesses?

Charles Taze Russell did found the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society!However,HE DID NOT found Jehovah's Witnesses! This was done by Judge Rutherford.A lot of Bible Students did not agree with his style and felt he went way off course! In 1931, the name JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES was adopted by Judge Rutherford to seperate from th eoriginal Bible Students! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.200.217 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The development of Jehovah's Witnesses and its origins from the Bible Student movement are already stated in the article. You don't seem to have any additional information here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This may have some import for the infobox. It would be more accurate to say that Jehovah's Witnesses branched from the Bible Student movement, rather than directly from the Adventists and Millerites.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally JW literature refers to the Bible Students as simply a previous name of Jehovah's Witnesses. However the development of the religion show this to be inaccurate, particularly since the Bible Students continue to exist as a separate group. In this respect, the claim that Bible Students were entirely the same group as Jehovah's Witnesses is tantamount to the JW claim that Abel, David, and other Bible characters were also 'Jehovah's Witnesses', and is simply a way of 'streamlining' the development of the religion to minimize the significance of a schism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mankind vs. humankind or just human

The extensive use of the term "mankind" in this article seems to be derived from JW preferences. Unless their material is being directly quoted, it seems we should try to use gender neutral terms. "Humankind" is OK to keep the same flavor of the article, though this is an auto-tautology. The term "humans" or something similar sounds best from a neutral perspective. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "humanity" would be best. --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Will start making changes unless there are some objections from others. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 23:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We should delete any links to the OWS news agency

I am sure that the "discoveries" by fake Anderson are gossips made by the "One Woman Said" news agency. No woman can have free access to the dossiers of the judicial committees, but only "appointed men" (elders). --Gufido (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no one is against. --Gufido (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely that no one actually understands what you're saying. What is your point? Are you offering a suggestion to improve this article? LTSally (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex abuse

I propose reverting Testbed's edit, which restored material Sally removed. That detail is not needed on this article. The parapragh is taken verbatim from the bottom of the article this section is summarizing, so there is absolutely no need to have it here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph again. Of all the material in the main Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse article, it's a strange choice of paragraph to include -- the very last one in a long article, and one that adds no material of any great significance to a summary of the issue. Incidentally, if someone is looking for a rewriting/editing task, that article is crying out for it. It's very wordy and written more lika a school essay. LTSally (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Average Publishers?

The graph presented is captioned and keyed with the term "Average Publishers"... Is that an understood term? It means nothing to me and isn't explained anywhere in the article or on the image's page... 5 minutes of googling didn't explain it to me, but hinted that it may have something to do with proselytizers? Thanks, Chconnor (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the section of which it is a part, or the file's page, the term is explained; it a measure of their membership. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

'Publishers' isn't explained in that paragraph at all. It is an alien term to the vast majority most English speakers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.176.239 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it's explained in the paragraph right next to it. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording could probably be a little more clear, to specify the intended meaning of 'average number of publishers' rather than the possibly inferred 'publishers who are average'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, ffs, there is no misunderstanding over 'average number of publishers' or 'publishers who are average', 'publishers' is pure JW jargon. You know, the kind of jargon that they drum into you all so that in the end you are so cut off from the outside world that you would even be responsible for the death of young child, your own child. Use another term.

Contributors Credentials

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

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

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