Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Russell and Barbour - Time Prophecies - The Three Worlds

In the Wiki article it states that Russell and Barbour co-wrote The Three Worlds which wrote about their thoughts on 1874 being the time of Christ's invisible presence.

It would be important to note that it was Barbour who convinced Russell of the date 1874, and that Russell had rejected any time prophecies, if that sentence were to remain in the Wikipedia article. The Wiki article gives the impression that the date of 1874 was something that Russell and Barbour came up with together, which was not the case.

This is a reference on that fact

Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 5 pp. 46-47 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)

One morning in January 1876, 23-year-old Russell received a copy of a religious periodical called Herald of the Morning. From the picture on the cover, he could see that it was identified with Adventism. The editor, Nelson H. Barbour, of Rochester, New York, believed that the object of Christ’s return was not to destroy the families of the earth but to bless them and that his coming would be not in the flesh but as a spirit. Why, this was in agreement with what Russell and his associates in Allegheny had believed for some time! Curiously, though, Barbour believed from Biblical time-prophecies that Christ was already present (invisibly) and that the harvest work of gathering “the wheat” (true Christians making up the Kingdom class) was already due.—Matt., chap. 13.

Russell had shied away from Biblical time prophecies. Now, however, he wondered: “Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom?” With his insatiable thirst for Scriptural truth, Russell had to learn more. So he arranged to meet with Barbour in Philadelphia. This meeting confirmed their agreement on a number of Bible teachings and provided an opportunity for them to exchange views. “When we first met,” Russell later stated, “he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time.” Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874.

To counteract wrong views regarding the Lord’s return, Russell wrote the pamphlet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. It was published in 1877. That same year Barbour and Russell jointly published Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World. This 196-page book discussed the subjects of restitution and Biblical time prophecies. Though each subject had been treated by others before, in Russell’s view this book was “the first to combine the idea of restitution with time-prophecy.” It presented the view that Jesus Christ’s invisible presence dated from the autumn of 1874.

Natural (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Russell was not a JW, and JWs did not exist during Russell's lifetime. Greater detail about Russell beyond what is relevant to the development of JWs is out of the scope of this article. Russell doesn't need 'defending' at this article, and the details you raised are sufficiently covered at Charles Taze Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Natural, you're making a distinction that is utterly unimportant. Barbour convinced Russell that the Christ had returned in 1874 and Russell believed it until he died in 1916. In the context of a discussion on the early beliefs of the Bible Study movement, from which Jehovah's Witnesses evolved, the sentence is entirely accurate. BlackCab (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Russell split with Barbour over the matter of transubstantiation, not about 1874.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article is going to go into such detail about Russell on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. We've gone through this point about Russell already, some say that Russell was not a Jehovah's Witness and so shouldn't be discussed on this page, others say he is closely tied to Jehovah's Witnesses, as is indicated by the continuity of The Watchtower, which Russell started, then any statements about Russell need to be clarified, especially in view of the fact that this article makes an issue over "failed predictions," terminology such as "false prophet". Therefore, it needs to be noted, if the issue of 1874 is going to be raised in this article, that it wasn't Russell's idea, it was not Jehovah's Witnesses idea, really, it was Nelson Barbour's idea, who had nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. So, either the line needs to be edited out of the article, in harmony with Jeff77 bent on simplifying the article. Or if BlackCab wants to keep it or insists on keeping, then the incomplete thought expressed in Wikipedia about Russell's connection to the thinking behind the date 1874 needs to be clarified. Natural (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's an historical fact, nothing more or less. The teaching about Christ's invisible return was a distinctive teaching of the Bible Student movement, which continued after the schisms of the early 20th century and which are still embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses. Only the date was changed. You are making some pretty stupid assumptions here and I really can't see the value of the point you make. BlackCab (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it is necessary to provide these details, because User:BlackCab is making strong efforts to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses on the Wikipedia pages about Jehovah's Witnesses, by attempting to create a strong argument concerning failed predictions by Jehovah's Witnesses and emphasizing these in his additions to the Wikipedia article. Evidence of User:BlackCab doing this on the Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen from his addtion of the illustration concerning JW and 1975, the convention lapel, which is an effort by him to draw attention to the JW and 1975 "predication". His wording had to be edited which was more strongly worded when it was put up. And the section on False Predictions, where User:BlackCab has created his own argument to persuade the reader that JW are a false prophet, and continuing to add to his argument there. The reversal of edits to clarify the 1874 date is a similar effort to edit out clarifying information so that a strong POV supporting his argument remains in the article. Natural (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, I believe that Russell differntiated between Jesus' "return" and the "invisible presence" of Jesus. Barbour also. I think that what Barbour taught was that Jesus' "invisible presence" began in 1914.

"Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874." Proclaimers book Chap 5 p.47Natural (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The JW Proclaimers book is not entirely neutral in its attempt to distance Russell from his predictions about the period from 1874 to 1914 which failed to culminate in Armageddon. However Russell accepted that belief, and continued to hold to it long after his separation from Barbour. The Watch Tower makes positive reference to 1874 right up until the December 1916 issue when Russell died.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Russell took hold on that idea, of 1874 and 1914, and that he published them in the Watchtower from 1879 (or somethint close to that) to 1914. The only detail being, that they are referred to sometimes as his teachings, but he was persuaded by others on those teachings, and they weren't original to him. Natural (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'm wondering what the difference is between someone teaching something as fact that he/she created, or someone teaching something as fact that he/she was convinced of? If Natural were to convince me that 2+2=5, and I were then to teach other people that same formula, it is MY teaching, regardless of where it originally came from. Vyselink (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whose teaching it is kind of depends on what is convenient at the time, apparently. When it is a matter of allegedly 'fulfilling' predictions for 1914, then it is touted—proudly and frequently—as the message of Russell and his Bible Students, retroactively re-branded as JWs. But when it is a matter of those predictions failing, User:Naturalpsychology assures us that Russell was simply restating what other ministers had predicted decades earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell believed it, Russell taught it, Russell created a publishing empire out of writing about it. Naturalpsychology is concocting a very peculiar argument in order to avoid the clear statement of Russell's belief. He is getting spooked at the most innocuous statements, judging them to be part of some vast conspiracy against his religion. BlackCab (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a convoluted interpretation of Natural's viewpoint, and an unnecessary questioning of good faith. On the other hand, the arguments presented here are either speculative or relatively insignificant, probably both. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdated publications and misinterpretation and interpolation beyond what the 1972 and 1959 Watchtower stated

It seems that after the discussion on the NPOV board, LTSally or one of the other editors actually added to the rhetoric rather than edit it accurately.

Taking two outdated articles from 1959 and 1972 and to state that JW claim to be prophets along the same lines as the Old Testament prophets is a misinterpretation and an interpolation beyond what is stated in either of those articles.

This is the Wikipedia sentence that needs to be deleted:

Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[292][293]

Again, to save time, if the sentenece isn't deleted or edited in a way that reflects the true intent of the articles, then I'll have to repost to the NPOV or appeal higher.

Additionally, because the articles are from 1972 and before and because there are no living members of the Governing Body of JW from that time, and also because there have been many refinements in doctrine since that time, those articles shouldn't be used. If they are used, they need to be dated in the Wikipedia article itself so that persons can see that this is a historical accusation raised by Wikipedia editors and not a current teaching of JW. Natural (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You have raised the issue repeatedly in diverse forums and convinced no one. I'm not sure which higher authority you now intend appealing to, but in the context of a religion that constantly refers back to its earlier writings, and indeed expects that all Witnesses maintain libraries of older publications, it is ludicrous that you alone decide what points in earlier magazines are "outdated" and demand that they be erased from encyclopedia articles. The statements are fully sourced and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Natural, your premise for determining which JW literature is outdated is slightly flawed. The Bible is pretty old, and the NWT (which has various significant differences to many other translations) has not changed substantially since it was published in the '60s, but it is not considered 'outdated'. Additionally, to my knowledge, there has been no statement from the Watch Tower Society that the doctrinal positions of non-current Governing Body members are intrinsically and automatically defunct. Unless more-recent articles have reversed the specific position stated in an older article (rather than simply not saying, or being more ambiguous), it is not sufficient to discount older publications simply on the basis that there have been 'many' (unspecified) changes. The quoted statement does accurately reflect the content of the cited 1972 article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than dispute these matters further, I posted an inquiry on the Christian religion editors board and receive a response advising me on how to go about mediation in these disputes. I was advised to post on WP:RFC, ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard at WP:ECCN. That is what I will do today. Thank you.Natural (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

As some claim to be experts on JW publications, you should be aware that major doctrine of JWs is repeatedly written about in their current publications. JWs are not expected or demanded to keep back libraries of literature. That is their personal choice. Since you say that this is a doctrine still taught today by Witnesses, then there should be numerous references in their current literature, as most JWs were not even alive in 1972, let alone 1959. I am also an expert in JW publications, as I have studied them for over 30 years. I have never in that time read any claim that JWs were prophets, nor have I ever heard a JW make that claim, nor have I even imagined it or believed it myself as an official member of the religion. The bible doesn't need to be changed, but our understanding of it does as we learn more about it. And that is OK, because only a fool thinks he knows everything there is to know about the bible. Sure that statement was made some 40 years ago once in the Watchtower. But there's no reason to retract it since 95% of JWs alive today have not even read or heard about that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.1 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So your objection has shifted again. This time you are arguing:

(1)"I have never heard of that, so it can't be true"; and

(2) Even if the WTS doctrine has changed, there is no need to retract it, because most people have either forgotten about it or are ignorant of it anyway. BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a personal library of JW publications is specifically recommended by the Watch Tower Society. "Why is a home library necessary? ... But it is unlikely that we will take full advantage of this invaluable information if we do not organize a personal theocratic library. How can that be done? The first step, of course, is to obtain the books such a library needs. It is well worth the effort, since it will enable us to have at our fingertips the precise information we need to handle problems and answer Bible questions. ... Most of the publications printed by the Society during the last 20 years are still available. If you have come into the truth recently, it would be worthwhile for you to obtain all such works that are available in your language." (The Watchtower 1 November 1994, p. 28-29 "How to Organize a Theocratic Library") Additionally, every issue of The Watchtower back to 1950 is available to all JWs on the Watchtower Library CD-ROM.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a personal library is beneficial, but not required. One benefit of having one is so we don't take one statement in one magazine out of context, such as has been done in this article. Chances are, someone with 40 years worth of literature hasn't read every word of it, which would be needed to find the quote you use to support your illegitimate claim that Witnesses think they are prophets. That would only be found by people who devote their lives to finding single sentences in old Watchtowers so they can make false claims about Witness beliefs. Those individuals would of course be biased, which is in direct conflict with this article's policies, as stated in the header of this page. These individuals also make a point of quoting books by ex-Witnesses who have also devoted thier lives to bashing Witnesses. I think I see the bias here. I am also biased. Therefore I do not contribute to the main article. I merely question other biased contributers who do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.91 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that "Witnesses think they are prophets." The rest of what you've said is just a rant, including misguided claims that other editors 'devote their lives' to anything in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant references

This article contain too much references. I found in many places that to establish a single point almost 5 or more references are given. I intend to replace them with single strong references if possible. It could significantly reduce the article size and thus can avoid omission of important sections in the name of wiki page size policy.  Logical Thinker  17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Simpler is always better -a good (logical) idea. Natural (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The problem arose through argumentive Jehovah's Witnesses who kept denying the validity of certain statements. It was a dopey response, I guess, but I think many of those references were added to provide a convincing argument by sheer weight of numbers. I agree that many simple statements are supported by too many sources. You'll need to be careful about what you keep and delete, or it will start the cycle again. BlackCab (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted redundant references in several sections up to "Life after death". In some cases I've left statements supported by a bunch of sources, particularly where the statement might be disputed (as in "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, although God is the final judge") and also where a non-WTS source makes the statement as well; in those cases it is sometimes helpful to have that source (Penton, for example) and also an example of a WTS source making the same point. There is also a stack of references supporting the statement "Watch Tower publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization". In that case a similar point is made by two sources, Franz and Holden, but a list of WT references cited by Franz is also included. These allow readers to consult the original source material and weigh up the facts, but also support his claim that the appeal for obedience is frequently stressed. I'll return to the task at some point soon.

I think we all agree on the need not to oversource statements; the problem arises when other editors sometimes challenge the statements, suggesting that certain WT references are not representative of the published view. In those contentious cases an additional reference or two might help to settle the issue. BlackCab (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford

I have a question about this statement, and don't mean it in a challenging way. In what way did Rutherford do what is stated below, "centralizing control"?

"Rutherford continued to centralize organizational control"

Natural (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

See Joseph Franklin Rutherford, History of Jehovah's Witnesses or read one of the many histories of the religion by non-WTS sources. Congregations had previously been autonomous bodies that elected their own elders. Rutherford required them to submit to direction from Brooklyn, have all appointments made or approved by Brooklyn, required them to report to Brooklyn on individuals' missionary work, provided them with quotas to fill, provided them with sermons and phonograph records to deliver a unified message provided by himself ... there's quite a list. It was part of the reason most of the early Bible Students quit. BlackCab (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford became president around 1917. Elders were apointed by Brooklyn in 1938. That does not really prove that point that is stated that he centralized control. It's 21 years later that that happened.

The phonograph work was started in 1934, 17 years after 1917.

What year do you say that Rutherford provided them with quotas? I can't find that information anywhere.

In what way did Rutherford require them to submit to direction from Brooklyn?

So far I cann't evidence for your claim until at least 1938. Using the phonograph in the ministry doesn't qualify as centralized "control". It might centralize a message of evangelization, but it needs to be spelled out, what you mean be "centralized control". That is an intrepretation of the facts, it is not a fact itself. But please answer the two questions about the year of the quotas, and how and when did Rutherford require them to submit to direction from Brooklyn. Natural (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Rutherford began making the structure more authoritarian from 1917 when he moved for his role of president to be given complete control of the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That really didn't change the structure of the International Bible Students at all. Previous to that Russell was the president and pretty much made all the decisions. After Russell, Rutherford was president, and he pretty much made all the decisions. After Knorr became president, things changed and gradually became less centralized. I dont' see yet where Rutherford's organizational methods were any different than Russel's. In the evangelizing aspect, reporting ministry time is noted, but there was not organized ministry before Rutherford. So what changed wasn't the centralized organization of the thing, but the public ministry itself, which only started, really, in 1919. Natural (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Unfortunately you know too little about the history of your religion to make an accurate assessment. Both Penton (page 60) and Rogerson (p.50) both write about Rutherford's actions in centralizing authority, shifting it from the independent ecclesias to the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn. Both use that term. Wills (pgs 175-9) discusses the change. BlackCab (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm jumping into this argument a little late, but according to Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience (Fourth Edition, page 61, published 2007) "At the annual corporation meeting in January, 1917, Rutherford was elected to replace Russell as president of the Watch Tower corporation. Early in his presidency, four of the seven Directors (a majority) took issue with what they viewed as arbitrary action on the part of the president. He was not recognizing the Board of Directors and working with it as a body but was acting unilaterally, taking actions and informing them later of what he had decided to do. ...Their expressing objection led to their swift elimination." Later, on page 68, Franz says "...the historical record demonstrates that anyone, including any member of the Board of Directors or of those on the Editorial Committe, who expressed disagreement with Rutherford was quickly eliminated from whatever organizational position that person occupied. One has only to talk with others who were at the headquarters during his presidency to know that...to all intents and purposes, the "Judge's" word was law". In anticipation of the argument that Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped, I simply want to state the fact that Mr. Franz was associated with the JW's during the last five years of Rutherford's presidency, and later would be proclaimed one of the "anointed" and serve on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from October 20, 1971 until May 22, 1980 when he voluntarily resigned his position. Vyselink (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Most histories of the Witnesses discuss the organizational changes Rutherford introduced after his elevation to the presidency. Central to those were the move in 1919 to require congregations to register with the WTS and allow the WTS to appoint a director in each congregation. As the 1954 WT history book, "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose", reported: "This meant that for the first time authority was being taken away from the democratically controlled congregations under their "elective elders," and direction was to reside now, specifically, under the Society's international supervision. True, it was limited, but the visible theocratic organization got started with this arrangement." Over time Rutherford dismantled the system of locally elected elders, required members to report their missionary activity to headquarters (1920, see Divine Purpose, pg 96) and in a series of Watchtower articles in 1938 (May 15, June 15) told companies (or congregations) to "get in line" with the changes (pg 179), noted that "individualism of the respective companies has been done away with" (pg 186) and urged congregations to pass a resolution in which they ceded all organizational authority to Brooklyn. (page 182). Witnessing quotas were introduced in 1943. (See WT, July 1, 1943, pg 204-206). As I've mentioned, Witnesses often know little of the history of their own religion, imagining the power structure of today has always existed. Hence the objections of a member of the religion above who challenges the statement (sourced from published books) that Rutherford centralized authority and control. BlackCab (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Jehovah's Witnesses who are well read, know the history of the doing away with elected elders. It is in all the history publications of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower also. I have to double check the dates here, I thought elective elders were done away with in the 1930s,not 1920 as stated above. Maybe reporting to headquarters began in 1920, but not the elective elders in 1920?

Do you have a reference on this,

Central to those were the move in 1919 to require congregations to register with the WTS and allow the WTS to appoint a director in each congregation.Natural (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, it should be noted, that Ray Franz got most of his history from Edmund Gruss's book on the Four Presidents, it wasn't original research, from what I understand. Natural (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'm not sure what it matters that it may not have been "original" research. As long as the information is correct, we can only cite where we got it from, not where our sources got it from. Vyselink (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point was made as if it was significant, that Franz was associated with JWs for 5 years under Rutherford. I was a JW for 4 years while FW Franz was President of the WTS, does that make me an expert on 'his' era? The other point is that many of these sources are from ex-JWs, whose literature forms a body of what would best be described as attack literature, and sources like Penton and Ray Franz should be identified as belonging to that genre. Nevertheless, some of the specific points mentioned are consonant with known facts about Rutherford, ie his extreme forthrightness and strong personality, the overriding of the Board of Directors (the resultant revolt and split is documented in JW and non-JW sources), although I would like to see more substantiation on several of the assertions. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not merely that the periods of Franz and Rutherford overlapped, but that it is not only plausible but highly likely that, as the nephew of a headquarters staffer since 1920, R. Franz had direct contact with Rutherford during that time. Your comparison is therefore only valid if you also had direct contact with F. Franz.

I have previously indicated that sources who are former members should be identified as such, and that their statements should be clearly stated as their opinions unless those opinions can be verified from other sources. The article clearly specifies that Raymond Franz is a former member and a critic of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that such contact took place, but not apparently verifiable, nor indeed is the significance or extent of that contact established. As per the identifications as 'critics', this is welcome. Eusebius12 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Failed Predictions" Section

If the "Failed Predictions" is going to be so heavily argued on the Wikipedia page, then the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses that have come true or that are supported by secular writings should be highlight in the same section or in a separate section. Natural (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There are no verifiable successful predictions to report. Specifically in regard to those you will claim...

• Neither Armagedden or anything else of significance broke out in October of 1914. World War I began too early to correlate with anything predicted by Russell, which is why Jesus' 'presence' was (later) deemed 'invisible'.
• Claims that the League of Nations would fail were not unique to the Bible Students, and other millenarians had said as much in 1918, before the Bible Students. Their specific predictions about the League were borrowed from William Edwy Vine.

The same could be said of Jehovah's Witnesses "predications, then, if you are to use that logic. 1914 prediction was not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, it had been advanced since the 1700s. Jehovah's Witnesses did not originate that teaching or thinking scriptural reasoning behind it. The reasoning that developed the 1975 and 1925 ideas had already been advanced in the 1800s, only with different anchor dates. If you are to use that reasoning, then it should be consistent throughout the article.Natural (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's unclear how you imagine it to be a particularly strong defence that not only were Bible Students' and JWs' predictions wrong, but also that they were not the source of the predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible Students and JWs promoted those dates, and they were wrong. If there are articles about other notable groups that made similar wrong predictions, I have no objection to similarly noting at those articles that their predictions were also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that disasters or other problems specifically began or increased in severity as of October 1914.
• It was not a secret that a world organisation would develop following World War II. Specific plans for such a new organisation were drafted in 1939, and the specific name "United Nations" was officially used in January 1942.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It would make more sense to include the witnesses response to the failed predictions. Yesterday I heard a JW elder explain that yes, JW have made mistakes in predicting the armageddon, like someone waiting for an honored guest to arrive they may mistake the slightest sound in the driveway for his arrival - this however does not mean that the guest will not come later.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you interpret these events as fulfillment of Bible prophecy, Jehovah's Witnesses predictions, or of Jehovah's Witnesses, or Russell's interpretations of the predictions, some verifiable resources view the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses in a positive light. If the negative elements of "failed predictions are highlighed throughout the Wikipedia article and in specific sections, that is one point of view (POV), from a negative angle.

Others view it in a positive light, and that is another point of view (POV). Then, if the negative is to be highlighted, then to achieve a Neutral Point of View, then the positive must also be highlighted. This is the positive side of the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses.

1. fulfilled “prophecy” of 1914

Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chapter 5 p. 60

When World War I broke out in 1914, “The World,” then a leading newspaper in New York City, stated in its magazine section: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. . . . ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of travelling evangelists, who, representing this strange creed [associated with Russell], have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand.’”—“The World Magazine,” August 30, 1914.

That might not be your particular viewpoint or interpretation, but this reporter looked at it from that viewpoint, and perhaps others as well.

The intentionally sensationalist headline ignored the fact that Russell's prediction was for October of 1914. Armageddon was supposed to "break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914" (Watch Tower, May 15, 1911). There simply was no such fulfilment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Global peace period following WWII fulfilled “predication”

Some believed that WWII would culminate in Armageddon. Knorr spoke in 1942 that there would be a period of peace in which the good news would be preached in all the earth.

"This gave impetus to a global campaign that over the years has reached into more than 235 lands and is not yet finished." Conventions Proof of Our Brotherhood Kingdom Proclaimers book - chap. 17 p. 262

In the midst of World War II, in 1942, when some wondered whether the preaching work was perhaps just about finished, the convention public talk delivered by N. H. Knorr, the newly designated president of the Watch Tower Society, was “Peace—Can It Last?” The explanation in that discourse of the symbolic “scarlet-colored wild beast” of Revelation chapter 17 opened up to the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses a period following World War II in which there would be opportunity to direct yet more people to God’s Kingdom. ::3. The defunct League of Nations would arise again.

That there would be a period of peace after a war ends is unsurprising, nor is it really a specific 'prediction'. They did not say when the war would end, or any other specific information. Given that there were already specific plans in place for the United Nations, the statement is not remarkable, except under the light of historical revisionism. (This paragraph applies equally to your third section immediately below.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Rise of the United Nations

“They Are No Part of the World” chap. 14 pp. 192-193

A Political Expression of God’s Kingdom?

While World War II was still under way, in 1942, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?”

Whether you believe that that was a prophecy, prediction, or common sense, it is the positive equivalent of the mistakes made in 1975. If the Wikipedia article is going to highlight 1975, even call attention to that date wtih an illustration (the 1974 convention badge), then this information should also be included to achieve a WP:NPOV as required by Wikipedia.

It could be that your personal view is cynical, and that is one reaction, that's fine, that's your viewpoint, but other authoritative sources do not share that viewpoint. If both viewpoints are expressed, then a WP:NPOV is achieved. If one viewpoint is expressed, then it is not a WP:NPOV Natural (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are comparing 'predictions' that can be twisted into some kind of loose 'fulfilment' if specific elements of the predictions are conveniently ignored, with predictions that quite definitely failed. Because your comparison is flawed, there is no need to proceed further. Would you also endorse Nostradamus on the basis that some of his ravings can be spuriously contorted into alleged fulfilments?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1914 "prophecy" here, is not the words of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a neutral source. Whether anyone today believes it tto be fulfillment of prophecy or not is really irrelevant. To me, the fulfillment of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is very specific and very different than Nostrodaumus. Jesus stated in Luke that Jerusalem would be surrounded by pointed sstakes and then destroyed. The Arch of Titus testifies to the prophecies of Jesus, which anyone can see in Rome. Additionally, there are fragments of the Gospels dating back to very close the their having been written, within 25 years. So I don't know if you are comparing Bible prophecies to Nostradaumus, or Jehovah's Witnesses interpretations of them. In any case, fulfillment of 1914, or discrediting it as of any significance is a matter of viewpoint. I feel that "predicting" that the League of Nations would rise again, when it was defunct based on Bible prophecy, not on world events, is significant. You might not think so, but again, it is a matter of viewpoint. Wikipedia is suppossed to present both viewpoints, not just the one that specific editors might find supports their point of view. Natural (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The claim that there are fragments of the gospels within 25 years of the originals doesn't prove much, as they may actually have been the originals themselves and 25 years after the alleged writing would put them after 70AD. (Also, the Watch Tower Society doesn't put much credence in scientific or archaeological dating methods when the results are inconvenient for their purposes.) There is only a small amount of evidence that Jesus existed at all, and there is no evidence that Jesus ever said or did many of the things attributed to him in the Bible, many of which were invented later or recycled from pagan myths. However, that is not directly related to the issue here of JW predictions.

There is no evidence that predicting the return of the League of Nations (though it was actually replaced by a different organisation) was based only on scriptures rather than on world events and information that was publicly available at the time. Your opinion that it is a 'remarkable' prediction is not the benchmark for inclusion. Do you have a neutral reference that considers this 'prediction' to be particularly remarkable?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

After some brief checking, I have confirmed that your claim that "there are fragments of the Gospels dating back to very close the their having been written, within 25 years" is not supported by any available consensus. The earliest dates attributed to the oldest known fragments for the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke (John does not mention the 'prophecy') are dated to 150AD, 350AD, and 175AD, respectively. (A 1996 Watchtower article cited fringe material assigning an earlier date for Papyrus 64, but that date is not accepted in the mainstream.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Rylands 52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.

The Gospel of John itself was written around 98 CE, which would make the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 between 2, 19, 40, or 52 years from the original.Natural (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'm puzzled by user:Naturalpsychology's claim that the reference to failed predictions is "heavily argued". It's delicately worded, refers to no specific prediction and almost half the text in that section is a defence. But it's reasonable that a line be inserted that says the WTS has claimed that predictions on x, y and z were fulfilled, if indeed the society has claimed as much. Any expansion on that would properly be included under the appropriate section in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a reasonable response.Natural (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Based on Blackcab's response above, this was added,

It also notes that some interpretations of Bible prophecy in modern times have been fulfilled, such as the rise of the United Nations after the League of Nations demise, and a period of peace after World War II in which the good news of the Kingdom would be preached.[307]When World War I broke out, a leading newspaper in New York City stated that the outbreak of WWI fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy, proclaimed by the creed associated with Charles T. Russell. [308]

Natural (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

JWs did not predict that 'the UN would rise after the demise of the League of Nations', which is simply reinterpreting after the fact. The 'prediction' was that 'the League would return'. It is certainly misleading to assert as a 'fulfilled prediction', the retroactive claim that the League 'returned' as the UN. The League was officially disbanded in 1946, after the formation of the UN. The article can state that JWs say their predictions have been fulfilled, but an example would have to be clear and neutral without requiring lengthy elaboration.

Similarly, the remark from the 'leading newspaper' (The World Magazine) about 1914 was simply sensationalism, remarking on the (wrong) events that happened in the 'right' year. The fact that the newspaper made its announcement in August clearly indicates that it was not really a 'fulfilment' of the Bible Students' (not JWs') expectation of Armageddon in October of that year. Additionally, you previously claimed that Russell cannot be credited with 'predictions' about 1914 because other ministers had made similar predictions decades previously. You can't have it both ways.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

William Edwy Vine says "Neither Armagedden or anything else of significance broke out in October of 1914. World War I began too early to correlate with anything predicted by Russell, which is why Jesus' 'presence' was (later) deemed 'invisible'." Look up the Wiki article on World War 1. It started in the Summer of 1914. Summer ends on Sept 21, right? That would be a week before October 1914. World War 1 is nothing significant, huh? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.27 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's some pretty twisted 'logic'. (Even aside from the fact that you have wrongly attributed my earlier Talk comment to William Edwy Vine.) Your false syllogism attempting to correlate the beginning of World War I (in July) with the end of summer being close to October is mildly amusing, but entirely irrelevant. The Bible Students claimed that Armageddon would "break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914." That simply did not happen, and the prediction cannot validly be reconciled with entirely different events that happened months earlier, particularly in regard to the JW belief of a period of exactly 2520 years from October 607BC until October 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of 1914 was that it was identified as the end of the period known scripturally as the 'Gentile Times', interpreted by Russell as a period of 'Gentile domination'. This lead him to the conclusion (evidently erroneously) that 1914 would usher in Armageddon. So the Bible Students did mark 1914 as the year of Armageddon, but not always explicitly. Some of the references to it were more guarded. The New York World of Aug. 30 1914 had a more charitable view of the remarkable nature of this 'prophecy'. It stated (just googled it) that

"The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914."

It is worth mentioning that the early months of the first world war were little different from previous wars, (notably the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) and that the nature of the conflict radically changed after the so-called race to the sea and the first battle of Ypres (Sept-Oct) leading to the buildup of forces and the greater horrors of 1915. That the year 1914 is attested and nominated as the end of an epoch is beyond doubt. Not only did 'wars and reports of wars' begin in 1914, but there was a series of notable earthquakes in the war years followed by the massive spnish flu. So what we could justifiably assert, is a date truly obtained from scriptural prophecies but not fully understood as to its precise significance. 1914 is an extraordinarily momentous year, and for the Bible Students to have pointed to it at all is remarkable and contrasts with other 'prophetic' years (even if the dating was a few weeks out, although as I have stated there is good reason to consider October as the real watershed. The early months of the war were like a prelude to the events post-Gentile Times, just as the beginnings of avant-garde art, Picasso and Fauvism, the nightmarish world of Mahler and Munch and early Kafka, presaged the greater 'decadence' of Dada, Schoenberg, and the roaring twenties atmosphere of sexual rebellion). Eusebius12 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As is indicated from the sensationalist quote from The World magazine, the 'prophecy' did not come true as predicted at all. 1914 did not 'usher in the Day of Wrath' (aka Armageddon). It was merely a sensationalist comment referring to a coincidence about the wrong event in the wrong month, in the 'right' year. A statement in an August newspaper clearly doesn't ratify anything that was alleged to happen suddenly in October.

The claim that "there was a series of notable earthquakes in the war years" is also misleading. There was no increase in the frequency or magnitude of notable earthquakes in 1914 or the years that immediately followed - see List of 20th century earthquakes. Additionally, it is better methods of detection, measurement and recording that account for more recent 'increases'.

The fact is, when enough groups guess that 'something' will happen at enough different times, eventually at least one group will inevitably be close to 'something' happening, especially when the event is retroactively reinterpreted. It is entirely implausible that any reference to 1914 was correctly established from so-called 'Bible prophecy' because the starting point of the alleged period culminating at 1914 can be readily disproved, with support from the Bible itself, but that goes beyond the scope of this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the 'World' reference is mentioned above. As per the dismissing of the revival of the League prediction, I think that Jeffro is splitting hairs on that. The fact is, that the League in 1939 was effectively defunct, comatose, and universally perceived as a practical failure. That it would be revived was no certainty and no widely publically canvassed fait accompli. It is also reasonable to assert that the UN was a cover version of the League, ie the League in all but name. I have never read that any authority has pointed to any significant substantive difference between the League and the UN, other than membership (and most of that due to the breakup of various colonial empires, although undoubtedly the UN established more cred via the inclusion of the USSR and the US) Eusebius12 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to assert any number of things. It was not a secret that something like the United Nations would form. The Atlantic Charter that ultimately led to the United Nations was officially signed in January 1942, and the specific term "United Nations" was announced at that time, several months before any 'prediction' by Knorr. Anyone with access to available media at the time who was paying close attention to world events could have known.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're retconning history there. The so-called 'Atlantic Charter' as far as I can determine does not propose the development of a UN type organization although that might be an outcome of its 'wishlist' (but it is not implicit in the agreement, no international body is mentioned as far as I am aware). Also the term 'United Nations' was applied to the Allied Nations, for whom victory in the War was not certain in Sept 1942. The German defeat at Stalingrad was still a few months away. According to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Nations the idea for the UN didn't begin to crystallize, even in embryo form until late 1943. Although if you think the articles pertaining to this are incomplete, it would be nice if you could add some referenced additions to them. Also as I have pointed out, JWs don't claim to 'predict' events, merely to interpret scripture (guided by Holy Spirit) which we believe foretells future events. That might seem nitpicky, but there is a significant distinction between the 2 positions. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed Predictions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses

The Failed Predications subheading on the Jehovah's Witness page has been debated for months. It presents a strong viewpoint which in the viewpoint of this editor is not backed up Wikipedia-worthy sources, according to this editor. This editor also feels that the argument claiming Jehovah's Witnesses to be a false prophet presents Original Research, and is mainly a Synthesis of ideas from Watchtower literature which was not written to make the point that the current editors of Wikipedia are making. Additionally, the argument misrepresents statements from Jehovah's Witnesses literature and uses outdated sources from 1959 and 1972 to prove its point, and yet presents the material as current. Editors on Wikipedia have been successfully blocking any efforts to modify the article so that it reflects a NPOV on this and some other points, which the article currently does not. One of the editors has a strong and open anti-Jehovah's Witness bias, which is reflected in his editing style.Natural (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Can you elaborate on your claim that editors "have been successfully blocking any efforts to modify the article so that it reflects a NPOV"? Who has been blocked and how was this done?

The "prophecy" issue was raised at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 51#False Prophet and again at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 52#Sources used to support that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a prophet. It was discussed at length. User:Naturalpsychology has also argued several times in the past in support of his personal belief that magazines beyond a certain arbitrary (but unstated) date are outdated and shouldn't be cited. The problem is that WTS publications and talks frequently refer to older magazines and Witnesses are encouraged to maintain a library of older publications which they are urged to use. His latest specious argument is that because members of the Governing Body who were alive at the time of some writings are now dead, those statements are now invalid.[1]. Neither argument invalidates the specific points raised in WTS publications that God has appointed Jehovah's Witnesses as his prophet to warn people of things to come and equips them with special knowledge with which to do so. BlackCab (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses, the Governing Body, the anointed, most definitely do not equate themselves with "Old Testament prophets," as Wikipedia claims. That is a false interpretation of two older Watchtower articles. The Old Testament prophets of the Bible 1). performed miracles 2). spoke under direct inspiration by God 2 Tim 3:16,17 - The Watchtower has repeatedly stated, as did C.T. Russell that they were and are, not inspired by God in the same way as the Bible writers, the "Old Testament prophets". Wikipedia is misleading the public with this information.

March 1, 1979 watchtower par. 15 To Whom Shall We Go but Jesus Christ?

Because of this hope, the “faithful and discreet slave” has alerted all of God’s people to the sign of the times indicating the nearness of God’s Kingdom rule. In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible [the bible], but that is not true of other writings since.Natural (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

RfC comment - Penton and others have documented fairly well that there have been predictions made in the past which have, apparently, not proven accurate. If I remember correctly, he even indicated in Apocalypse Delayed that Frederick Franz in a speech in Hawaii (in 1975 I think?) blamed the assembled JW's for the world not ending in 1974, saying that their belief that it would happen caused Matthew 24:36 here to be relevant and to prevent it happening. I have to say that the matter is certainly sufficiently important to be addressed in the article. However, I would question inclusion of material regarding "false prophet" claims. It seems to me that most of those accusations might be made by other Christians to discredit the JWs, and that the phrase might not be used much outside of those biased discussions. If that is the case, then using that phrase might be giving a bit too much weight to the opinions of opponents for a central article like this one. Perhaps a sentence or two about how others have called them "false prophets" might be in line, and possibly more from individuals who left the JWs on the basis of those "false prophecies", but we would want to ensure that the phrase not be given too much weight. Discussing the claims made, and how they did not come to pass, would to my eyes be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment All of the relevant scholarly works from Beckford and Holden to Penton treat the subject of failed prophecy - of course it will have to be treated here as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the subject of failed prophecies/predictions must be covered. This is mentioned in one way or another by most of the references I have read, and as Wikipedia is about summarizing the literature, it shouldn't be blazing new ground by omitting this prominent piece of the story. Beit-Halahmi mentions several failed predictions from Russell and onward in his article (Beit-Halahmi, Benjamin. 1993. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, p. 193. ISBN 978-0-8239-2586-5), while Melton's encyclopedia only mentions the failure of the 1914/1918 prediction (Melton, J. Gordon. 2003. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Seventh Edition. Farmington Hills, Michigan: The Gale Group, Inc., p. 123. ISBN 0-7876-6384-0). Neusner uses the words "failed prophecies" in his description (Neusner, Jacob. 2009. World Religions in America: An Introduction. Fourth Edition. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 242, 243. ISBN 978-0-664-23320-4), among many similar references. Some sort of explanation(s) of the rationalization for those failures would also be in order, and may be found in 3rd-party sources – these incidents are used in several texts to illustrate the use of denial to explain failure of predictions in works such as Ralph W. Hood, Peter C. Hill, Bernard Spilka, eds. 2009. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. Fourth Edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, p. 225. ISBN 978-1-60623-303-0; Weddle, David L. "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, eds. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, vol. 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 81–82. ISBN 0-275-98714-2; Stone, Jon R. 2000. Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. New York, New, York: Routledge, pp. 16, 27fn, 242. ISBN 0415923301; Aldridge, Alan E. 2007. Religion in the Contemporary World: A Sociological Introduction, Second Edition. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, pp. 123–126. ISBN 978-07456-3404-3; or other of the sociological sources out there. I agree also that the term "false prophet" would best be avoided unless it is used more in 3rd-party references than I can find. • Astynax ^talk 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Sourcing is key here. Cover it, but cover it as it is covered in secondary sources (preferably scholarly sources) and cite the secondary sources. Mining primary sources (i.e. JW publications) for failed predictions is inappropriate. If secondary sources quote specific JW publications making predictions that did not come true, the original JW publications (primary sources) may be quoted by us as well and can be given as an ancillary citation, in addition to the secondary source citation. But we should not be quoting JW publications that have never attracted the attention of secondary sources, as that is original research. See WP:PSTS and WP:NRMMOS. Presently the great majority of citations in this section is to the Watchtower, i.e. a primary source. --JN466 22:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As per JN's comment. This has attracted plenty of research and commentary, so it should not be difficult to avoid original research. Where the secondary sources quote JW publications, it would be fair to cite the quoted publications as a primary source. It would be reasonable to also cite any official JW position on the prophecies or their failure. As to a "false prophets" conclusion, the article should specify according to whom(I would include "according to the Bible" in that). It is also relevant whether JW's officially still recognise these as prophets. LowKey (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Response: There is no "mining" of JW publications to find failed predictions in the section in question. The section actually mentions no specific predictions. The section is worded to establish that (a) the Witnesses do see themselves as a prophet "class" appointed by God (See "They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them", WT, April 1, 1972, which is cited in the article); (b) they have made certain predictions about things based on their interpretation of the Bible; and (c) they have been criticized for the failure of those predictions. James Beverley, cited in the article, accuses them of false prophecy and writers including Beckford, Rogerson and Penton refer to failed predictions or failed prophecies. WTS publications acknowledge the accusation. Reasoning From the Scriptures (their doorstep book for answering householders' questions) on pg 137 suggests a reply when they face that accusation and an Awake article (March 22, 1993, also cited) states the accusation and then denies it. Perhaps it would be better to delete the first two or three sentences in the "Failed predictions" section and lead off with the specific accusations of false prophecy, but I think those sentences help to establish why they issue those predictions. User:Naturalpsychology accuses me of synthesizing the accusation of false prophecy and framing it with original research, which is clearly wrong. As already stated, he claims the clear, unequivocal statement in the April 1, 1972 Watchtower that Witnesses are today's divine prophet is invalid because he thinks the magazine is old. He has also claimed the article is invalid because its writers are now probably dead. That suggestion alone would probably warrant the charge of apostasy within his religion. I will add the Beckford reference to the article, but I doubt that yet another source will alter his belief that such accusations are the invention of malevolent Wikipedia editors.BlackCab (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is, whether the statement in the 1972 Watchtower for example, or any other statement made in a JW publication, is relevant and notable enough to include in this article is a decision that should be made by secondary sources, which have amply covered this area, rather than by any individual Wikipedian. What we need to do is to summarise secondary-source coverage. Secondary sources may provide the same, equivalent or better examples from JW literature. Citing a statement like "Jehovah's Witnesses' publications have made various predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[293][294]" to two Watchtower publications is not appropriate. I propose you and your fellow editors look into the books posted by Astynax, above. If you find they don't have a preview in google books or amazon, I have three or four of them on my bookshelf and can provide quotes. (If any editor needs help on how to view a book's pages in amazon or google books, please ask.) --JN466 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Beverley does refer to the 1972 WT and their 1968 condemnation of false prophets in a 1968 Awake. I can reword the section if necessary. Quotes from other sources not currently cited would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1972 and 1959 articles refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a prophet, only with respect to their public preaching work. It does not use the term in the way it was used of the prophets of the Old Testament.

Additionally, God has equipped Jehovah's Witnesses with advanced knowledge through the Bible, not through their modern day prophecies. Later Day Saints claim they have modern day prophecies, but Jehovah's Witnesses don't make that claim. There is a big difference and Wikipedia needs to make that clear if it is going to talk about prophecies by Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim to make any new prophecies, they claim to shed light on the prophecies that have already been written in the Bible.

Natural (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your argument about the 1972 WT article is quite false. The entire thrust of it was about God using a prophet class to warn the world of something that is yet to come. The constant comparisons with JWs and OT prophets had nothing to do with them preaching. It was about their being chosen by God to warn of calamitous events that were about to occur. Your claim that JWs don't originate prophecies or predictions is a matter of debate. If they alone determine that the United Nations is about to overthrow religion and that the JWs will come under violent attack, which will then trigger Armageddon and mass human destruction based on certain chronological calculations, then that is an interpretation of scripture. It is not a Biblical "prophecy". BlackCab (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC comment - You mean the world did not end in 1974? I am glad someone noticed that. Nobody likes hearing about past predictions that did not fly, specially if they made the predictions. Was it Yogi Berra who said: "Predictions are hard -- especially about the future"? But seriously, they seem to have made predictions and then it would be natural to try to get selective amnesia on it, like many people who predict elections, stock market trends, etc. However, as with market analysts, it would be essential to reflect their track record here. It would be relevant and there seem to be good sources for it. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources, per Astynax above:

• The 8th Edition of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion (Gale 2009) says nothing about failed prophecies. (I don't have the 7th Edition to hand.)
• Neusner p. 242-243
• Beit-Hallahmi (p. 193) says, "In 1886 Russell revealed his timetable for the millennium. According to this plan, the Harvest period or the "millenial [sic] dawn period"(1874-1914) would end with the "battle of Armageddon", the establishment of God's direct rule on Earth, and the restoration of mankind to perfection. During the millenial [sic] dawn period the Jews would return to Palestine and gentile governments would be overthrown. The coming of World War I in 1914 was considered a confirmation of the prophecies; but as God's direct rule on Earth did not start, the date was revised to 1918. Russell died in 1916. Witnesses claim, however, that in 1914 Jesus Christ did indeed start a period of "invisible rule" on earth. Joseph Franklin Rutherford [...] kept annoucing [sic] dates for the end of the world, first 1920, then 1925, and then 1940. [...] In 1969 Nathan Homer Knorr (1905-1977), Rutherford's successor [...] stated that the Millennium of Christ's reign on Earth would start in 1975. Later, the date of October 2, 1984, was proclaimed. Witnesses believed that the End would come before the generation who saw the events of 1914 passed away. [...] In 1995 specific references to timetables were discouraged for the first time."
• Gallagher/Ashcraft p. 81-82
• Hood et al. p. 225
• Stone
• Aldridge p.123ff

This is a useful tool for generating a properly formatted ref template from a google books URL. Just paste the google books URL in, and the tool does the rest. --JN466 02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Valuable references. Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to detract from the interesting book mentioned above, 1975 was not Knorr's baby, but Fred Franz's.

In 1969 Nathan Homer Knorr (1905-1977), Rutherford's successor [...] stated that the Millennium of Christ's reign on Earth would start in 1975.

Have never heard or read a quote of Knorr talking about 1975. (although maybe there is something out thereNatural (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Needs to be covered when made from the highest level of JW and properly sourced. The term "false prophet" sounds pov, even if in the source, and should, most probably not be used. "Inaccurate" or a similar word, or even no word. We don't really need to point out that the world still exists!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of "false prophet" is a fairly specific one, and one to which the Watch Tower Society has specifically responded. It therefore seems appropriate to indicate that specific term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16,

14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Watchtower doesn't accuse itself of being a false prophet, and also, there doesn't seem to be any reliable/verifiable resources with that statement. It might be found on evangelical sites of the type of preachers that sympathize with burning the Koran, but not a direct accusation on serious sites or books, as far as it can be seen at the present. If it were to be mentioned with a Watchtower reference, like the Reasoning on the Scriptures, it would need to be in the context with which it is written, and not in an attempt to accuse JW of being a false prophet.Natural (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I suppose analogous to this might be to suggest that we add sections to the LDS article saying 'are Mormons racist polygamist Indian killers' or 'are Catholics pedophile torturers' or 'are Muslims fanatical terrorists'. It is pejorative. I don't have a problem with this subject being addressed on the main page, but with a less pejorative flavour in the way it is described. I think its worth mentioning that the JW concept of prophet has nothing to do with being a crystal ball gazer, ie exclusively or even primarily a seer of future events, but as God's spokesman and representative. Also the WT has never claimed to be inspired, that it delivers the actual inspired word of God (independent of the Bible; ie its only inspired content is direct quotations of the Bible), merely an interpretation of the scriptures (although this is intended and believed to be a correct interpretation) and that the time predictions are not divine messages exclusive of the scriptures, but contained (explicity or implicitly) therein and explained by the Faithful Slave class (cf Matt 24:45). The whole concept of JWs as 'prophets' in the sense of being predictors of future events either through direct revelation or other means other than interpretation of scriptural texts, or members being prophets (the current etymology, if used, would be to describe the anointed class as 'the prophet') is erroneous. Eusebius12 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether 'JWs say they are prophets (in the sense of prediction)', but that such a criticism has been made in notable sources. The article cites the material from Watch Tower Society publications on which the critics base their claims, and then presents the claims made by the critics. The fact that the Watch Tower Society has responded to claims that JWs are false prophets indicates that such claims are notable. We aren't here to tell the critics that their criticism is right, wrong or other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about what wording Eusebius regards as "pejorative". The "Failed predictions" section clearly states that Franz and Beverley are the critics making the claim, and also clearly states that Witness publications "have made various predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible". Those predictions obviously include Rutherford's expectation of resurrections in 1925. Readers can decide for themselves whether that one was an originated prophecy or an event he believed was prophesied in scripture. But certainly many predictions were expressed as "beyond doubt", yet failed. Given that the Witnesses have claimed theirs is a "prophet organization" with a message that "must come true" (see ref 277 in the article) and continues to make claims about what they say lies immediately before us, it is not surprising they attract criticism for failed predictions of the past, and that criticism is sufficiently notable to be included in that very brief section. BlackCab (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

1874 Correct term used is Presence (parousia), rather than coming

The issue Barbour and Russell had and that they agreed on was the the "presence," Greek, parousia, was invisible, and that it was different from the "coming" of Jesus Christ. This was based on Matt 24:3 and the remaining part of the chapter. That is what united Russell and Barbour. It was Barbour that convinced Russell of that date, it was not something they come up with together, as Wikipedia here implied. So, it would be more accurate to use the term "presence" . Additionally, 1914 was not a date that Russell came up with. It was something that a number of ministers previously had elabroated on. So, it should be noted, not attribute too much to Russell, and give the correct viewpoint of him, from whatever perspective you look at him, that many of his teachings were things that were already written about by other ministers, that he gleaned from. The teaching of the immortality of the soul and hellfire are two examples also, that Russell had read about from other ministers, and then expounded on them. If Russell is going to be used in the article as the start of Jehovah's Witnesses, then the article should give an accurate view and information.Natural (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

See quotes above- 4. Russell and Barbour - Time Prophecies - The Three Worlds Natural (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

watchtower 5/1 1993 5/1 pp. 10-11 par. 2 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence

In Volume 2 of Studies in the Scriptures, pages 158 to 161, Charles T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, wrote: “Parousia . . . signifies presence, and should never be translated coming, as in the common English Bible . . . The ‘Emphatic Diaglott,’ a very valuable translation of the New Testament, renders parousia properly, presence . . . , not that of coming, as being on the way, but presence, as after arrival [Jesus] says, ‘As the days of Noah, so shall also the parousia [presence] of the Son of man be.’ Notice, that the comparison is not between the coming of Noah and the coming of our Lord . . . The contrast, then, is between the time of the presence of Noah among the people ‘before the flood,’ and the time of the presence of Christ in the world, at his second advent, ‘before the fire’—the extreme trouble of the Day of the Lord [Jehovah] with which this age ends.”—Matthew 24:37.Natural (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Russell made bold and ongoing claims about 1914—even claiming that they were fulfilled in 1914 itself—and those claims are directly relevant to core JW doctrines. What other people said about 1914 isn't particularly relevant here, though you are welcome to cite their beliefs about 1914 in the relevant articles about those other people. Your objection implies that Russell's ideas about 1914 were merely incidental, which is clearly false. Earlier when you boasted about a newspaper 'vindicating' Bible Students about predicting 1914, you did not then fall back on your current reasoning that it was predicted not by Russell but by "other ministers". You can't have it both ways. The article gives an overview of Russell's core beliefs as relevant to the development of core JW doctrines. It requires neither apologetics, nor excessive elaboration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By that reasoning, then, the lengthy Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses in a number of different areas isn't necessary. In others words you are saying that any explanations which criticize or go into details criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses are necessary, but any references which "vindicate" or defend Jehovah's Witnesses are unnecessary. We have already a lenghty Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page, why do we need to reiterate it again on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page? There are double standards being applied here, according to the above reasoning.Natural (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Incorrect. Russell was never a JW, and JWs did not exist during Russell's lifetime; as previously indicated, the article need only comment about Russell as much as is necessary to indicate information directly relevant to the development of core JW doctrines. That is entirely dissimilar to notable published criticisms about the religion that is the subject of this article. It may be possible to trim the criticism section, but not on the grounds you suggest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• IIRC, Melton (9th edition) comments on this re-interpretation of parousia; being a secondary source, Melton would be better to use here than the primary source. --JN466 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell

The Wikipedia article currently has this detail, which is provided, perhaps, to "expose" another eschatological error of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In 1889, Russell taught that "the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' ... is already commenced" and would culminate with the overthrow of all political rulership in 1914, at the end of "the Gentile Times".[20]

If this detail stays in the article, it would be appropriate to add some few words of clarification on some other details in that paragraph, to keep in Neutral NPOV.Natural (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You're a conspiracist, Scott. The statement is there to show the gradual development of Watch Tower Society teachings on the last days, which is still a core and fundamental teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. They had a date and were certain about it, then later changed it. There's no point scoring here; it's a simple statement of fact and an important part of the group's history. BlackCab (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that a change is required to keep the statement neutral is rather foolish. It is a statement of historical fact, written in an editorially neutral tone. There is no point of view expressed. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is going into some detail, usually about dates and Jehovah's Witnesses, but omitting clarifying details.

What you say is a fact, true, but clarifying details help to put it in perspective.

You can say, Bob burned his neighbors house down.

You are left with the impression that Bob is a criminal or psychopath.

But if you add the clarifying detail, Bob was working on his neighbor's gas line as a favor, when there was an expolosion. The house burnt down.

Now you get an entirely different impression of Bob.

The same is true in the way things are worded on Wikipedia, what details are allowed, and what details are edited. This is the case with Charles T. Russell, by adding a small detail, you get a better picture of this date 1874 and 1914.

Natural (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

In such a brief summary of the development of doctrine, the details of how Russell decided Christ returned in 1874 is unimportant. Your own wording is trying to impart some other meaning, but I'm not sure why. BlackCab (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording I was suggesting is that Russell did not come up with the idea of 1874 along with Barbour as the Wikipedia article implied. But rather, Barbour came up with the idea, or advanced the idea, not knowing if was even original with Barbour, and convinced Russell. After that they wrote the information together on that. Previous to that Russell had been against any such time prophecies.

1914 also was not an original idea from Russell, although after he took up that teaching, he was a primary advocate of it. But it was not "his" teaching. It was a teaching advocated by various ministers, including some Adventists or Adventis, that Russell took up and then advanced in his publications. That detail is not slanted towards Jehovah's Witnesses or against. It might be more favorable in the viewpoint of JW to think that Russell came up with the idea. It's just a fact, giving the correct account of where the eschatology of 1914 came from.Natural (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The sentence implies nothing. The Three Worlds marks the first publication in which Russell attached his name to the dates of 1874 and 1914, dates which remained pivotal to his teachings about the last days until the day he died. Jehovah's Witnesses have since abandoned the 1874 date, but retain the 1914 date. Obviously it is important to note when he, as the founder of the Bible Student movement, began using those dates. That's all it is saying. BlackCab (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Naturalpsychology, you are repeating yourself. Already responded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 130.102.158.15, 13 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload

Jehovah's Witnesses is not a Christian denomination, it is a sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a) Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect rather than a denomination, or b) Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect that is not Christian? If the latter, that biased POV has been discussed at length before. If the former, the term sect is ambiguous and confrontational.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to report this chump? Apparently he's done something similar recently to the page on the Latter Day Saints, where he put "They are a sect, that is, they have perverted Christianity" after the opening paragraph. It was deleted, but come on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=384532854) Vyselink (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If the anonymous editor attempts to do the same again (either here or at the other article), both instances should probably be reported. For now, maybe we can cautiously/optimistically assume he's gotten the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Obedience and Loyalty First To Jehovah Stressed

The statement here in Wikipedia - Witness publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to the Watch Tower Society.

The Witness publications never (presently,maybe in 1960 they did, I'm not sure), stress obedience to the Watch Tower Society. Maybe Ray Franz complains about that with that terminology, if he does, it would be either outdate or innacurate.

In terms of obedience and loyalty, Witnss publications stress obedience and loyalty to, 1. Jehovah 12/15/2008 Wa. p. 10 par. 14 10/01/2006; p. 6 12/15/1992 p. 13 par. 19 2. God 10/1/1991 p. 14 par. 3 3. Obedience to Bible principles Wa. 7/1/1997 p. 9 par. 5 (to Jehovah and his laws - Wa. 1/1/1993 p.22 par.16 4. Having an obedient and humble spirit Wa. 12/15/1997 p. 14 par. 13 5. Messainic Rulership (in the paradise earth). 9/15/1991 p. 8 6. To those taking the lead (elders). 9/15/1989 p. 20 par. 20; p.25 par. 23; 9/1/1993 based on Hebrews 13:7,17 7. That elders should be loyal. 9/1/1980 p. 26 par. 21 8. That Jesus was obedient and loyal. 11/1/1980. p. 9 1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 7:26. 9. Obedient and loyal to the truth rather than to sin in terms of holiness. 2/15/1976

This covers everything that has been written in Jehovah's Witness publications since 1976 (35 years) that has the words obedient and loyal

The first instance of anything resembly that idea that we should be obedient and loyal to The Watchtower Society, is in 1976, 10. loyal cooperation with the remnant. 12/15/1976

11. loyal spirit creatures, obedient [spirit] sons, about the angels. 10/15/1974 12. loyal subjects of the Kingdom 1973

There doesn't seem to be anywhere in any Jehovah's Witness literature where mention is made of obedience and loyalty to the Watchtower Society. Natural (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, the term here, submissive to the religion's leaders isn't used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses recognize Jesus and Jehovah as their leaders, even though some (opposers) might dispute that idea in its practice. Jehovah's Witness literature and the Governing Body, including Rutherford, emphasize that they are not the groups leaders.

A reference would be needed to show what exactly is meant here, the Governing Body? Theocratic arrangements? Natural (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

JW literature makes no real distinction between obedience to God and obedience to the Watch Tower Society. For example, "We must obediently follow the direction Jehovah provides through his Word and his organization." (The Watchtower, 1 February 2007, p. 24) It is unnecessary to provide further examples. Obedience to the leadership (the "organization") is specifically posited as being synonymous with obedience to God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no need for uncertainty regarding publications from the 1960s. If you check your Watchtower Library CD-ROM, available to all JWs, you would readily find "And lastly, we can stay awake by being respectful and obedient to the organization, the Watch Tower Society and its appointed servants." in the 1 September 1961 Watchtower.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem relevant that one reference in a 1961 Watchtower, from 40 years ago, establishes the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses stress obedience to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which is a legal corporation, that present, the Governing Body are not members of.

The Watchtower does make distinction between obedience to God, his commandments in the Bible and obedience to direction from the slave class, as was shown by the articles above.

The Watchtower stresses obedience to Jehovah, but saying that obedience to Jehovah is the equivalent obedience to the Watchtower Society is synthesis of ideas by Wikipedia.

You could say, based on the 1961 reference, that the Watchtower has mentioned once (1961) obedience to the Watchtower Society, but to say it stresses it, from one 1961 reference is a biased interpretation from one viewpoint,

that of the former Jehovah's Witnesses who resents the authority structure which is outlined in the Bible.

Jehoavh's Witnesses mention many things in their literature, but to say they stress one thing or another indicates that they put undo, or repeated reference to that point. In truth, there is a balance in many points which are mentioned in Watcthower literature. Love is stressed, Christian qualities is stressed. Loyalty is stressed in many different contexts, to one's mate, to the congregation, to Jehovah personally, which is not synonomous with loyalty to the organization, except through an agnostic viewpoint. Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to build a personal relationship with Jehovah God through his Son and make a personal dedication to God. Natural (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Natural (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Andrew Holden writes: :The structure of the movement and the intense loyalty demanded of each individual at every level demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism" (p.32). "Like some of the examples I have used in previous chapters, it is difficult to tell whether Diane's sense of loyalty is to Jehovah or to the movement itself, since devotees see no distinction." (p.121). Beckford writes: "The habit of questioning or qualifying Watch Tower doctrine is not only under-developed among the Witnesses, it is strenuously combated at all organizational levels." (p.221) Franz spends a fairly lengthy section of his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" discussing the issue. You deleted that reference because you simply have a personal dispute with the claim. These articles rely not on our personal beliefs, but on reliable published sources. BlackCab (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth is Out of Print and has been replaced

You Can Live Forever in Pardise on Earth is out of print and is replaced by What Does the Bible Really Teach. It may not fully reflect current thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses in its details, or emphasis of what Jehovah's Witnesses currently emphaasize in its details. Quotes to demonstrate current Jehovah's Witness teaching are better taken from the current publication, What Does the Bible Really Teach. Natural (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, Worship the Only True God is out of print and has been replaced by the book Keep Yourselves in God's Love. While the points in the book are probably still valid, they might not emphasize what Jehovah's Witnesses currently emphasize. I've not heard the book referred to in many years, 10. I think it is two books back as a secondary study book for new people.Natural (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Feel free to update with references from the newer corresponding publications for points addressing current views. This does automatically mean that references to older publications are automatically invalidated, particularly in relation to points to do with historical or doctrinal development.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses in the What Does the Bible Teach book, are refined. While many books might still be valid years later, there are certain books which are revised and refined. The What Does the Bible Teach book, which replaced the You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, does not make similar statements about this topic on the organization and survival. It states in the corresponding chapter,

Remeber, too, that you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans or an organization. What Does the Bible Really Teach. p. 183. Natural (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's unclear what you're saying this corresponds to, and I don't feel like hunting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In the paragraph about oganization. Wikipedia makes a lot to say about the organization. The direction of Jehovah's Witnesses is that JW are not dedicated to an organization or work, but are dedicated personally to God. It is an important point, especially with the other side trying to be highlighted in this article, that Jehovah's Witness literature stresses that JW be obedient to the "organization" or something like that. JW literature says definitely that our dedication is to God, not to an organization. Now maybe there is some literature somewhere in the past that words it differently, but the most current book for Bible study is that JW are dedicated to God and not to an organization. It is a point that should be a part of the article, esp. if there are any issues that continue in the article concerning JW and their "obedience," etc. It has to be made clear, that as a religion, our focus is on God, not on humans on earth, whci is the sum of it in truth.Natural (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I have just replied to the same point under a different thread. The article is based on written material, not on your personal viewpoint. BlackCab (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of personal viewpoint, it's a question of being current. If you were to say on Wikipedia,

The United States is engaged in a cold war struggle with Eastern Europe and there is threat of Mutually Assured Destruction because of difficult relations with Russia.

That statement is in print. But it is not current. It would be current in the 1960s and 1970s, but not in 1990 or 2010. If an editor is going to post, for example, criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses that have already been addressed, then they should be noted as historical criticisms. If a book of Jehovah's Witnesses was replaced with an updated version, maybe it was updated for that reason, that they recognized the need to adjust the wording and did. But critics, including Wiki. perhaps, prefer to quote from the old wording, because it makes a better case against JW. Keep it current.

69.115.172.182 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Tense in wording about sexual abuse

The criticims cited here are from around 10 years ago, concerning events more distant into the past. The more correct tense would be made, past tense, rather than make, present tense, unless there are accusations current which are still questioning current policies.

Some critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. Natural (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I believe the correct tense is "make", as according to the official Watchtower Site:

We need to be careful to take this quote below in context, the quote is not talking about child abuse in general, but it is talking about repressed memories.

This is the preceeding sentence - Still, an accusation should not be made hastily if it is based solely on "repressed memories" of abuse.

That gives the context of what is being stated below. The policies for child abuse and elders is not what is stated below. Also, the article cited is not official policy, but an Awake article on comfort for those with child abuse.

Natural (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I would say that most people who are Witnesses believe that what the Awake and Watchtower magazines say are equivalent to official policy. I know when I was actively involved with JW's often a response to a question would be "Let us see what the Watchtower (or Awake) has to say on the matter".Vyselink (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? Then the two elders can advise him that, in line with the principle at Matthew 18:15, he should personally approach the accused about the matter. If the accuser is not emotionally able to do this face-to-face, it can be done by telephone or perhaps by writing a letter. In this way the one accused is given the opportunity to go on record before Jehovah with his answer to the accusation. He may even be able to present evidence that he could not have committed the abuse. Or perhaps the one accused will confess, and a reconciliation may be achieved. What a blessing that would be! If there is a confession, the two elders can handle matters further in accordance with Scriptural principles.

If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such "memories" are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.

What if the one accused—though denying the wrongdoing—is really guilty? Does he "get away with it," as it were? Certainly not! The question of his guilt or innocence can be safely left in Jehovah's hands. "The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men their sins also become manifest later." (1 Timothy 5:24; Romans 12:19; 14:12) The book of Proverbs says: "The expectation of the righteous ones is a rejoicing, but the very hope of the wicked ones will perish." "When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes." (Proverbs 10:28; 11:7) Ultimately, Jehovah God and Christ Jesus render everlasting judgment in justice.—1 Corinthians 4:5."

That first paragraph basically says that the abused is being told that they must approach the accused directly. It is phenomenally hard for victims to do this, and some may not have the necessary strength to go through with it. The "done by telephone or perhaps writing a letter" idea allows time for the accused to gather himself and begin to create a story (if he/she is guilty). That last line, "If there is a confession, the two elders can handle matters further in accordance with Scriptural principles" is not very hopegiving to the abused, as "Scriptural principles" may not effectively handle the matter.

The second paragraph makes it quite clear that if the accused denies it, and no hard evidence is given, which, as the paragraph states, means that unless there are two or more witnesses, and VERY rarely (unfortunately) are there two witnesses to abuse, then nothing is done. The paragraph also states that even "if more than one person 'remembers' abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain" without the "supporting evidence" (meaning two witnesses to the abuse) to do anything about it, meaning that "the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person" and the abused will have to deal with it. So if the abuser is abusing many people, and they all come forward and speak, unless they actually witnessed the the abuse of the others, it doesn't matter.

The third paragraph is basically a way to pass the buck to Jehovah so they won't have to feel bad: "It's all in His hands, so we don't even really have to worry about it if the abuser gets away, because when he dies (after abusing who knows how many others) he'll get his comeuppance" is what the paragraph is saying.

What all this boils down too is that "make" is the correct tense, as this information is still valid and can be readily found on the JW official site (http://www.watchtower.org/e/19951101a/article_01.htm) Even if the actual allegations are old (which I have found some allegations from much more recent than 10 years, one in England was just a few months ago) the sentence "Some critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members" is correct as is, with "make", as the offical policy as stated above does make it difficault to report abuse. Vyselink (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the Watchtower policy doesn't really signify that verifiable sources are currently finding fault with the Watchtower for the way they handle child abuse cases. What you stated, might have some validity. There might be a need to look at policy on child abuse more closely.

However, we have seen situations, not in the congregation, but having to do with teachers at secular work, where children do make up stories for one reason or another, and the teacher is innocent, they are investigated, but innocent.

If anyone in the congregation comes forward, without evidence of child abuse, they have every right to go to the authorities for an investigation and Jehovah's Witnesses support that. In some states, there is mandatory reporting of any incidents of child abuse, and Jehovah's Witnesses and elders support that also and are instructed to do so. Jehovah's Witnesses do not deal with the law, though, and they cannot accuse someone who denies that they did not do something, without evidence. It would be one persons word against another. Elders are not in that position legally or otherwise. State child abuse agencies are in the position, legally, to make investigations into child abuse. I've personally been involved in reporting those type of investagations from children who have talked to me about situations that happened at home. An elder is not in that position legally though, to investigate, all they can do is talk to the person. If the person denies it, they really can't assume him or her guilty, unless there is more evidence. Child abuse is something you can go to jail for and you can get into a situation where a person's reputation is irreparably damaged if they are accused of something they didn't do. Natural (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

But my question to Vyselin, is this, is can you provide the link from England, is it on Silent Lambs, or a newspaper. Silent Lambs isn't real strong site for factual information. But a newspaper report or something like that would be verifiable. Thanks. That would make a difference, because I really don'tknow if there are current issues with policy of Jehovah's Witnesses, elders and child abuse. Thanks again. But, I personally am 100% in favor of anything that can be done more to protect children. Natural (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I have doubts about your first statement ("If anyone in the congregation comes forward, without evidence of child abuse, they have every right to go to the authorities for an investigation and Jehovah's Witnesses support that") as on that same page from the JW site it also says "Wisely, Solomon said: "Do not go forth to conduct a legal case hastily." (Proverbs 25:8) If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case. Otherwise, take your time. Eventually, you may be content to let the matter drop. If, though, you want to confront the alleged perpetrator (after first assessing how you would feel about the possible responses), you have a right to do so." That statement more than implies (but stops from directly saying) that they should "come to us first" and that going over the elders heads would not be in keeping with Biblical standards. I understand that allegations against innocent people are a terrible thing, and I truly hope that it does not happen. However, placing a policy of "two witnesses are needed because the Bible says so" is overly restrictive, impossible to even comprehend that such a case could occur where TWO people would witness something as horrible as child abuse and NOT say something until AFTER the child steps forward, and give the abuser the ability to say "you don't have two witnesses, therefore I am innocent".

As for your second question, here is a link from the Yorkshire Post dated Dec 2009 (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Respected-Jehovahs-Witness-groomed-and.5911846.jp). Here is another one from Sierra Leone dated April 17, 2009 (http://standardtimespress.net/cgi-bin/artman/publish/article_3910.shtml) Here is one from San Diego from Jan 2009 (http://www.10news.com/news/18433734/detail.html) This one is from 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798/), but I think better highlights the idea that people still find fault with the reporting/non-reporting of allegations (although it does not come right out and SAY that they are at fault, the tone is rather self evident). The one I mention from 2010 was from the Hull Daily Mail but it has apparently been erased from their archives as everytime I try to find it it says "please come back later, we are having difficulties". All of these, most not even two years old and one just about three, have one common theme: "man used JW's as cover" to abuse children.

My main argument is that although nobody may have said recently that "Some critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members", the argument is still valid as "make" because the policy has not changed, and abuse is still happening in Kingdom Halls and by elders and other JW's. "Made" makes it appear that it is no longer an issue, that the abuse is something that happened in the past, but not anymore, and that is simply untrue. I believe your argument that "most are from around 10 years ago, concerning events more distant into the past" is an invalid one. Vyselink (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the articles in the newspaper. The first three there, were saying that there were Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested and sentenced, and didn't find fault with the way Jehovah's Witnesses handled it. With the California situation. When it came out, it was dealt with and the men were disfellowshipped. It is possible that in 1993 and 1994 and preveious, when those cases were handled by elders they weren't handled correctly.

The Watchtower article quoted is an article on child abuse, but it is not official current policy to elders on handling child abuse cases. Also, the part quoted has to be taken in context. I have to read the article more carefully, but it seems like it is talking about repressed memories, rather than current or recent child abuse. In other words, memories from many years or decade ago. I have to read the article more carefully later before commenting on it. There doesn't seem to be current articles, so far, there might be, that are finding fault with current policies and situations involving elders and their handling of sexual abuse. Not that there might not be sexual abuse anywhere in the Jehovah's Witness religion. In any case, it is a delicate issue, and I'm abhored by child abuse as much as anyone. Whatever can be done more to protect children anywhere, including Jehovah's Witnesses is important. Natural (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

This is one public statement on child abuse and policy, in part. (Jehovah's Witnesses)

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

::::When any one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other’s presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, “No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.

However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

Natural (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Here is a youtube video from MSNBC from 2007. Regardless of the polices enacted since that time, I would say that this serves as recent criticism of JW's stance on child abuse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLAC9kS_EqM Vyselink (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about this matter. I watched the video and understand the issue raised. I can't make judgments on the information, but I am very much in favor in anything that can help protect children more completely. The only question I had, and this in no way takes away from the issue, is the MSNBC report, it seems as if it was posted in 2007, but is there a date for the actual report? In any case, again, I appreciate your concerns, I had asked if there was anything current on it. So, I'm not trying to dispute this point, if it is in fact a current objection. I was trying to get the facts on it. Thank you. Natural (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I understand your desire for facts, and I agree with them. I hope you understand that this is not a personal attack on you, as I believe you are very sincere about the issue. It just seems to be disingenuous to change a word to past tense simply because we can not find any current sources who have share that criticism. However, I am more than willing to leave it up to the other editors. Vyselink (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "As late as 2007, the media reported" such complaints might be acceptable? John Carter (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That wording would be fine. I wasn't sure if the date on the YouTube was the date the video was posted or the actual MSNBC report, because most of the information was from 1994 and previous. Natural (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I agree with that wording as well. That video has to be from at least 2004 as Brian Williams didn't become anchor until that time. Vyselink (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

1975 References -Overdoing it

64][65][66][67][68][69] Don't really need all of these references to make the point. Two references on this point seems to be enough. Natural (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, the wording in this section about expectations

were proved wrong. is a little awkward and sounds like there was a group there that had to prove that the date was wrong. Or that, Wiki is saying, Ha Ha, we proved you wrong. In other words, the word proved, in this sentence seems to be an action verb. When it was more like, it proved to be, no one had to prove it, it just came to pass, that the idea was not correct.

Perhaps a better way to phrase it might be,

proved to be unfounded

proved to be incorrect

or something like that. Natural (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You're right. Two were duplicated references. Two that remain quote directly from WT literature and the other two are other books that refer to those articles and make the claim. BlackCab (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also probably don't need so many references for this point, [102][103][104][105][106] Two are probably enough.Natural (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Again [123][124][125][126] too many refernces for the point, probably is better to use current references, rather than going back to 1961 and 1967 to make the point. United in Worship out of print and not used. Replaced by other books. Natural (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Second baptism question

The second baptism question says what? Something like, do you recognize that by getting baptized you are identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Not sure exactly the wording. But it doesn't say anything about obedience and loyalty to the Watchtower Society or to the organization. What are the exact words?

There are ample references above which indicate that Jehovah's Witness literature does not emphasize obedience to the Watchtower Society or the organization. It has a very small list of references on that, which is comparable to the Bible's emphasis on that subject. The Bible mentions it directly in some places, and Jehovah's Witnesses mention it in some places. But the Bible doesn't empasize it, it mentions it. JW literature also mentions it, but doesn't dwell on it. Hebrews 13:7,17. Natural (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

If we're discussing the Organization section, it does not currently discuss baptism questions. You added a sentence about baptism, evidently in defence of something that wasn't raised. I don't see any justification for discussing baptism in that section, and certainly not to deny an accusation that hasn't been made. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the Bible emphasises obedience to the Watch Tower Society. The statement above that Jehovah's Witness literature does not emphasize obedience to the Watchtower Society or the organization is your opinion. Franz, a reliable source, says otherwise and Holden also notes the "intense loyalty demanded". BlackCab (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two Watchtower references for the sentence that refers to obedience and loyalty and the organization.

Jehovah's Witnesses literature does not use this term -

- religion's leaders

It should be phrased in harmony w. JW literature, if you are going to use Watchtower references.

The part about baptism questions was raised, because BlackCab raised the issue. Also, the point about baptism was added because Wikipedia is making an issue of obedience and loyalty to the organization or Watchtower being stressed by Jehovah's Witnesses. The counterview in the What Does the Bible Teach book is that when a Jehovah's Witness is baptized, he is not dedicating his life to an organization, but to God personally. The Wikipedia article gives the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses are dedicated to an organization, so this is a point that is needed to give the true idea and to keep a NPOV. Thanks. Natural (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Wikipedia articles need not employ specific jargon of a particular group when discussing that group. JW literature often refers to loyalty to "the organization" and to "those taking the lead". It is entirely appropriate to refer to the "leaders" of the religion in place of stock phrases.

It flows better with taking the lead, and use the term leaders creates confusion, because it is an issue that comes up in times of persecution. Who are your leaders? has been asked in different countries during bans? The response from Jehovah's Witnesses invariably is, Jehovah and Jesus. So, using the term leaders, and Watchtower references for the statement to support the sentence, especially when the editors here apparently have an issue with submission and obedience and Jehovah's Witnesses, unless you have a specific reference other than Watchtower, or unless it will be explained elsewhere in the article the Jehovah's Witness position on leaders, it would be simpler to put it the way Jehovahs' Witness literature puts it, which flows better anyway.Natural (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The other thing is that Jesus prohibited calling anyone leader on earth. Jehovah's Witnesses closely follow that. So, it goes a little farther even than using one expression or another, or a certain type of jargon. It gets into Scriptural issues, Christ's direct teachings and Christianity itself.Natural (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The actual second baptism question is "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?", which does indeed strongly suggest loyalty to the organization rather than only "to God personally". (Of course, as a JW, you could readily confirm that using your own copy of the Watchtower Library CD-ROM.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was in the 1980s that that second question was modified to include emphasis on the organization. The second question was previously the more scriptural and less secular, "On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?" It is my understanding that this change was somewhat related to supposed legal implications of acknowledging submission to the Watchtower Society, though the implied verbal contract would be void without proof that the organization is actually 'spirit directed'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a sentence about baptism because at the point of baptism Witnesses are required to acknowledge they are henceforth associated with that organization. You have once again raised the issue of a neutral point of view, but once again I cannot see that the inclusion or exclusion of that small fact adds anything to a viewpoint. BlackCab (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I put the point that baptism is a personal dedication to Jehovah God and not to a man, work or organization.

That is the idea, that balances the paragraph and gives it a neutral view. Natural (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

This is the paragraph from the Bible Teach book

Going beneath the water symbolizes that you have died to your former life course. Being raised up out of the water indicates that you are now alive to do the will of God. Remember, too, that you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization. Your dedication and baptism are the beginning of a very close friendship with God—an intimate relationship with him.

The point being, loyalty and obedience is first to God. Natural (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The stated purpose of the change to the second baptism question was "so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization." (The Watchtower 15 April 1987, p. 12) This more specific statement is not invalidated by the more vague statement about 'dedication' in Bible Teach. (Of course, "with full comprehension" really just means 'what they happen to purportedly believe at the time'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Truth

We had all agreed that Scriptures could be used in certain places. The Wikipedia article gives the false impression that JW came up with the jargon, the truth. In fact it is a Bible expression. Jeffro had agreed that the point that mentioning that fact would be appropriate, with a footnote to the Scriptures in the letters of John that use those expressions. Comments? The statement was put in, but edited out by one of the editors. Thanks.Natural (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I did not categorically agree that those scriptures support the term as used by JWs. My actual response was, ""in the truth" is used by JWs in a far more idiomatic sense than simply 'what is true' as is used in the Bible; it is used by JWs to mean 'current JW beliefs', to the exclusion of other outdated beliefs. The article could state that the expression is derived from the Bible, however those verses do not use it in the same sense."--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I had put in the article that the expression was derived from the Bible. I will try again. Whether or not the Scriptures are put in is up to the panel. Natural (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Citing JW publications in biased manner

This is the sentence there is an issue with, please.

Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[294][295]

Jehovah's Witnesses do not equate themselves as a modern-day prophet and are not to be equate with Old Testament prophets. The two references used do not make that statement, and do not imply that statement. Wikipedia is misquoting and giving its own interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses clearly state, as has been posted on this board already several times, that their words are not inspired, their publications are not inspired. The only prophesying Jehovah's Witnesses are involved with is that of proclaiming what has already been written in the Bible. The one sentence is the issue in this paragraph. I would ask that it be removed, with the two references which are outdated, and which are misquoted, and which give a misleading impression. If the sentence stays, I'll have to post it to the WP:NPOV and other boards. Natural (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

This is a claim you have raised, and posted on numerous boards, repeatedly. There was no support for your view. BlackCab (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your POV is biased in this matter. I've posted it to the NPOV board again, specific to that sentence. If you wish to debate it there, it is already posted.Natural (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Additionally, I would have never known this, unless I just saw it on the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page, that it is Ray Franz who uses those 1959 and 1972 references about Jehovah's Witnesses. Ray Franz is biased. Wikipedia is merely repeating Ray Franz's bias.

What is being insisted on here is not only biased, but also unethical. It reiterates Ray Franz's argument without disclosing that fact.

Note From Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page -- where is states, as cited by Raymod Franz, but which is not mentioned on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page.

^ "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, as cited by Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, 2007.

^ The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1959, pp.39-41|"Whom has God actually used as his prophet? ... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths..."

Natural (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Can you please explain what you mean about Franz's discussion of prophecy, and whether that explains why you deleted the statement[2] without any edit summary. You raised the issue here, claiming the inclusion of the statement was biaed and unethical. BlackCab (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The actual Watchtower 1972 and 1959 references used by R. Franz do not support the view that equates Jehovah's Witnesses literature with the writings of the Old Testament prophets. R. Franz's work had a bias. Wikipedia repeated in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article Ray Franz's research and his interpretation of that research, without disclosing the fact that the research and idea was directly from R.Franz's writings. That is unethical. The statment about the Old Testament prophets is a matter of interpretation. In this case, Wikipedia is using R. Franz's research and interpretation and stating it as its own. That violates Wikipedia policy. The statement about the Old Testament prophets in question, then, would best be left out of this main Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The statement in question is here, and the matter has already discussed in length by contributing editors. Many of them have stated that going back directly to JW publications to express viewpoints wouldn't be proper on Wikipedia, which encourages editors to use outside, verifiable sources. Additionally, if an opinion is expressed by an outside source, than it has to be stated as an opinion and not a fact, and the origin of that opinion should be clearly stated in the article.

This is the statement in questions - Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[294][295]

The conclusion being, it would be best to edit out of the main Jehovah's Witness article this sentence [User:Naturalpsychology|Natural]] (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I have added the attribution to Franz, making clear it is his claim, and added the WT publications he cites. BlackCab (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If Ray Franz's accusation is to be included, it would be necessary to give the countering view from Jehovah's Witnesses or from secondary sources.Natural (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Taking the lead rather than leader

Blackcab edited out taking the lead and installed leader. He hadn't give a response to this, and I feel to use leader, then in the article, there will have to be installed, after the sentence that uses the term leader, an explanation of the Jehovah's Witnesss belief on that, if Blackcab is going to be insistent use that term. It is more than jargon, it is a direct command from Jesus Christ, not to use the term leader. It distorts the doctrine of Jesus and of Jehovah's Witnesses. So it needs explanation. It would be simply to use the term taking the lead. But if you want to say leader, then a sentence will be added to explain Jehovah's Witnesses position and teaching on that dotrinal point.Natural (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

This is what I had written previously and there was no response to it. If there are issues that are raised on the Talk page concerning edits, and if the editors don't respond, that is your opportunity to respond, not after it is edited on the main page. If there is an issue with it, respond and explain your reasons.

Previous --

It flows better with taking the lead, and use the term leaders creates confusion, because it is an issue that comes up in times of persecution. Who are your leaders? has been asked in different countries during bans? The response from Jehovah's Witnesses invariably is, Jehovah and Jesus. So, using the term leaders, and Watchtower references for the statement to support the sentence, especially when the editors here apparently have an issue with submission and obedience and Jehovah's Witnesses, unless you have a specific reference other than Watchtower, or unless it will be explained elsewhere in the article the Jehovah's Witness position on leaders, it would be simpler to put it the way Jehovahs' Witness literature puts it, which flows better anyway.Natural (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural Natural (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You really need to take more time about writing your comments and stick to the point. It is often incredibly hard to understand what the hell you are talking about and half the time I don't even bother to try. "Ones taking the lead" is WTS jargon for leaders. It is as stupid as a school describing its teachers as "those imparting instruction" or a transport company referring to its drivers as "those holding the steering wheel and directing a vehicle through traffic". The Watchtower can use as much long-winded justification as it likes, but clearly a person who takes the lead is a leader. Trying to dispute that is just double-talk, and a secular encyclopedia has no place for that. BlackCab (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where did Christ command not to use the term "leader"? Vyselink (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus said about the Pharisees, But (F)do not be called (G)Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for (H)One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11"(I)But the greatest among you shall be your servant. (New American Standard Bible; also NWT).Natural (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Whether Jesus ever actually said these words attributed to him at Matthew 23:8-10 is arguable, but if he did say them, he was addressing his disciples, after having described the motivations of the Pharisees. The Watchtower often emphasises loyalty and obedience to 'the organisation' and to the Governing Body. The scripture quoted from Matthew is clearly the reason they like to avoid the word 'leaders', however, semantics aside, that scripture has no real bearing on the real-world use of the term rather than the wordy jargon phrase 'those taking the lead'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Then how about this, after the sentence, could put,

Jehovah's Witnesses reject (or do not use) the term leader in their religious vernacular. footnote, Matthew 23:7-10.Natural (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Not at all noteworthy. BlackCab (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The truth, and expression derived from the Bible

We discussed this point. Jeffro gave specific wording to use. I made the edit, and then it seems like Jeffro undid the edit. What's up? We had discussed it and came to an agreement based on what Jeffro stated. The point is the expression the truth is not something JW came up with out of the hat, it is a Bible expression used many times. People need to know that JW jargon, is not something that is always pulled out of the air, like they are accussed sometimes, its based on the Bible. Wikipedia is making an issue or point that JW use this jargon, but the point that it is a Bible expression, regardless if you might think there is a nuance in the way it is used in the Bible compared to the way JW use it. Wikipedia gives the false impression. The line can be deleted, it is an unnecessary detail. Not sure why you want it in here. But if you do want it in, it should be noted that it is from the Bible. Natural (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Being "in the truth" is a distinctive JW phrase. Referring to fellow church members as "brother" and "sister" is a distinctive JW behavior. Identifying people who have left the religion and dared to express their opinion as an "apostate" is a distinctive JW practise. "Publisher", "pioneer", "auxiliary pioneer", "accounts servant" and "field service overseer" are terms peculiar to that religion. Whether some or any have a basis in some obscure bible text or not is barely worth mentioning. They are simply part of the vocabulary that helps to reinforce the Witnesses as an exclusive, isolationist sect. And I don't see it as something to beef about, unless your sudden obsession with questioning everything on every JW article is an indication that you are counting the time you are taking and adding it to your monthly "field service report", another handy JW phrase. BlackCab (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackcab, please learn to be more polite. Your bias in editing is very clear and you make no effort to hide it!

Brother and sister are biblical terms. The early Christians used those terms in referring to each other. Jesus Christ stated, do not be calling anyone father on the earth, for you are all brothers. Apostate is both Biblical and secular. Secular religious scholars use the term freely to describe those who have left their former religion, include such religions as Catholic and Buddhist, and who renounce their faith and become more or less enemies of their former faith. Your goal is made readily apparenet here in mentioning this point about Jehovah's Witnesses use of the term in the truth, which is what I suspected from the start, that you wish to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as an exclusive, isolationist sect.

PS- I don't count field service time on Wikipedia and never have and make it a policy not to lie. Revelation 21:8.

The term "in the truth" is mentioned in the Christian Greek Scriptures in a similar context, though not an exactly in the same way, several times, as referred to above. That is where Jehoavh's Witnesses get the expression. The other terms you mentioned, pioneer, auxillary pioneer, etc. are Jehovah's Witnesses terms, this is true, not Biblically based.

However, brothers, sisters, in the truth, little flock, overseer, elder, ministerial servant, city overseer, apostate, are all Bible based. Thank you. Natural (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The term 'apostate' is never used in the Bible in the sense used by JWs, and where the term appears in the Old Testament of the NWT, the rendering of 'apostate' is not supported by any other translation, or by Strong's Concordance, as indicated previously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What is an Apostate?

This statement has come up often that the word apostate is Jehovah's Witness jargon.

These are the comments based on the work of Bryan Wilson of Oxford University -

Apostasy has been a common phenomenon in the history of the various denominations of the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.

Apostasy may be considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his vows and his former religious allegiance. [all the more so] if that member then proceeds to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were previously his close associates. [Jehovah's Witnesses use the term for those who match this [all the more so] description.]Natural (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

In recent decades, given the emergence of so many new religious bodies which make strong demands on the loyalty of their members, instances of apostasy have become matters of considerable attention for the mass media. The apostate’s story, in which he is usually presented as a victim, is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if he offers to “reveal” aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to which he formerly belonged.

Apostates and New Religious Movements

Professor Bryan Ronald Wilson is the reader Emeritus in Sociology at the University of Oxford. For more than 40 years, Professor Wilson has conducted studies of Scientology, Christianity and many other beliefs. He is one of the most well-known British scholars of religion and provides here a thought provoking study on the subject of apostates and apostasy.

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/

Natural (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Please stop ranting about 'apostates'. You have previously been shown to be wrong about the JW pejorative use of the word as a proper characterisation. The fact that JWs restrict their use of the term to the 'all the more so' category quite clearly indicates their intention in using that term to ostracise dissidents and minimise exposure to research about the religion. We understand their use of the term, and we understand it is inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, your repetitive quoting of Wilson is a misleading appeal to authority. Wilson specifically indicates the general sense of the term apostate, before he focuses on a subset of how apostasy often relates to new religious movements. Further, Wilson's discussion about apostasy in new religious movements does not at all constitute a broad secular view of the term 'apostate'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

1914 - Failed predictions section. Ny newspaper's statement of fulfilled prophecy

Jeffro, in one viewpoint 1914, which is highlighted in this article is a failed prediction, from the New York newspaper's viewpoint that was quoted and deleted from the maintext, 1914 was a fulfilled prophecy. You can provide either viewpoint to make the point, but both viewpoints are valid. It might be that an editor personally disagress with the evaluation, but it is a matter of one's own point of view. With some, they look at 1914 predictions as half empty, others look at it half full. Both viewpoints should be presented. Natural (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The sensationalist comment from the NY newspaper cannot be used as any kind of reference to claim that Russell's actual statements about 1914 were 'fulfilled'. To do so is blatantly dishonest. The August statement cannot at all be used as verification for predictions that were supposed to occur in October, and it wasn't the right thing that occurred anyway. The newspaper simply makes a co-incidental connection between events that occurred in that year and religious predictions that something would occur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Like BlackCab had directed on this point, if you want to say,

Jehovah's Witnesses point to...., JW state..., that's fine too, but there are too different viewpoints. I'm of the viewpoint that Knorr's statements in 1942 about the United Nations is significant, as well as the coming peace as a time when the good news would spread throughout the earth, as a prediction that was fufilled. You have a different viewpoint. It's a matter of viewpoint. But both can be presented if there is a reference. If you are editing a section on Jesus, it would be included that the Bible states Jesus is the Son of God, even though many people might not accept it and an opposing viewpoint could also be presented, as an example.Natural (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The article can say something like JW believes that xyz was fulfilled. However, it can't say JWs predicted that the UN would rise after the League of Nations fell, because they never predicted that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have agreed on this, but when it is put in the article, one editor or another who are opposed to JW remove it, as it is now. If please we can please a sentence on this point, without someone taking it out. Thanks.Natural (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

New World translation

Witnesses prefer New World Translation is correct, but it is only used when available in their language. I don't use NW because in my language because its not available(only christian Greek is available since 2009). It is not only in my case but many other languages too. Watch tower publications quote from New World Translation, but it also extensively use other translations. The sentence given in the intro makes the reader to misunderstand that the NW is totally different(or wrong) from other translations. But NW is considered as a very good translation by scholars except for the name Jehovah . Its notable that most of the major beliefs of JW are derived from other translations and NW was published only in 1950. Also in field service many witnesses encourage people to read from their own bible. I hence strongly recommend to change the statement like this; Witnesses base their beliefs on the Bible, and prefer the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures if available in their language. Its also notable that the statement is about the usage of bible by witnesses and not about watchtower society. Hence in many congregations bibles available locally is extensively used. Hence it is important and not redundant  Logical Thinker  07:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If I prefer chocolate icecream, and there is only vanilla icecream available, I might have the vanilla icecream, despite my preference. It does not change the fact that if there were chocolate icecream available then I would have that instead. It is obvious that a person wanting to read the Bible would use some other translation if their preferred version doesn't exist in their language. It seems unlikely that if the NWT were available in your language that you would still opt for the other translation. It is therefore redundant to say JWs prefer a version only if it's available in their language.

Watch Tower publications cite many scriptures, and only a very small fraction of those citations refer to translations other than the New World Translation; references to other translations are occasional, not extensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning. I am convinced-  Logical Thinker  23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to failed predictions

Recently blackCab removed my edit on the response to failed predictions. He said that the point I gave is not found in criticism main article. The response given for failed predictions is not clear as stated by witnesses.In the reasoning book the answer is directly given as below. Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) Thus, the prophets who were divinely inspired to write portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12) The apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12) The Bible shows that there would be a great increase in knowledge of the truth during “the time of the end.” (Dan. 12:4) Increased knowledge often requires adjustments in one’s thinking. Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing humbly to make such adjustments. This is the proper response and the response given their are confusing and are only sub points. Hence I recommend to include the following main statement, Quoting the scriptures Proverbs 4:18 and Daniel 12:4 Witnesses argue that, in the last days Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive manner. Increased knowledge often requires adjustments in one’s thinking adding that Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing humbly to make such adjustments. other responses may be trimmed and could be added as supporting ideas to this omitted main point.  Logical Thinker  08:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions the concept of 'progressive revelation'. There is no need for subjective religious rhetoric about 'humbly making adjustments'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But progressive revelation is the primary answer to failed predictions, hence its important to mention it in the response to failed predictions. The reasoning book is published for answers to such questions. Hence it is important to include it there. But if you find that the term 'humble' is a religious rhetoric it could be changed in to other words which not so rhetoric. I would make a try..  Logical Thinker  09:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already explains the doctrine of progressive revelation. The rebuttal in the "failed predictions' section discusses the WTS justification of necessary adjustments. Please remember that this is a summary only of the main artcicle, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, where such eleborations may be appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I do accept your opinion on not repeating the explanation on progressive revelation. But its important to at least mention the term as a reminder there because progressive revelation is the major counter argument against failed prediction. And if someone ask such questions most witnesses tend to use the concept of progressive revelation as the counter argument-  Logical Thinker  23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited source for the response, WT March 15, 1986 deals directly with claims that Witnesses are false prophets, but makes no reference to progressive revelation. You'll need to find a reference to progressive revelation as a rebuttal for the claim of false prophecies, or remove that statement. BlackCab (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sure, Reasoning from scriptures clearly states about it-  Logical Thinker  01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the misleading statement "Witness publications also claim that many of their interpretations of Bible prophecy have been fulfilled" along with WTS references that supposedly support that claim. WT publications commonly refer to current world conditions fulfilling biblical descriptions of the "last days", however that is not one of the predictions made by the Watch Tower Society, which is the subject of this section of the article. For a selection of such WTS predictions, see Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions. BlackCab (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I do accept that change. That statement is not necessary particularly because JW's do not make large predictions but would only wait and reinterpret the prophecy. And no more prophecy are yet to complete other than related to Armageddon. -  Logical Thinker  03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on Logical Thinker. There is a strong issues the opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to present on this site about failed predictions. The failed predictions are a matter of interpretation in some cases. Some interpret 1914 as a partly fulfilled prediction as has been referenced. Jehovah's Witnesses see predictions based on Bible prophecy that they have noted fulfilled. This should be noted in the article. It seems the BlackCab has attempted to claim ownership of the article and has the first right for editing, according to his viewpoint. Both viewpoints need to be expressed. Natural (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

For something as contentious as this, it might be better to start a thread with the proposed wording. Once consensus is reached, it can be added. The problem is that some editors are expressing a personal viewpoint without it having sufficient verifiable third-party support to be accepted in an encyclopedia. BlackCab (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Prediction to expectation

The meaning of prediction given in dictionary as "1. The act of predicting. 2. Something foretold or predicted; a prophecy.". The meaning of expectation given in dictionary as "1.The act of expecting. 2.Eager anticipation."

Based on this fact I believe the term "expectation" is more accurate than "prediction". Particularly because JW's had not predicted or made any prophecy about 1914,1925 or 1975. But they only raised expectations or anticipation or hope. Prediction is related to the act of making prophecy. But expectation is the correct word in our context. Only critics had accused that JW claims as a prophet or those who predicts. The publications Ray franz mentioned about JW's(as a prophet like Noah) is true only in the sense that JW's are the messengers of coming danger(like Noah) but not as a prophet. But its a known fact that all publications of JW's dispute the claim that it as a prophet. I think its better to replace the heading failed predictions with failed expectations .Prediction can be used when dealing with critics but expectation is correct when saying counter points by JW's-  Logical Thinker  05:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built around the personal opinions of its editors, but of reliable published sources. Those we are quoting refer almost exclusively to failed prophecies. That term has recently been turned into "failed predictions"; now you, without citing any sources, have decided it is "more accurate" to use the word "expectations". I'll take it back to predictions, even though the sources quoted all refer to other "P" word. BlackCab (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I went through the article "Why so many false alarms?", it uses the terms suggestion,expectation and prediction. But Witnesses use the term prediction in articles not in the sense as a prophecy. You may be right then. --  Logical Thinker  08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They do use the word predictions and expectations, but they have also responded explicitly to the criticism (the subject at hand) that they are false prophets and have issued false predictions. If they acknowledge it, so should Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Are Former JW's Viewed As Unbiased Editors?

It is really hard to ignore that plain and simple fact that several editors, who I will not name directly but we know who they are, state plainly in their bios that they are former Witnesses. Let's not feign ignorance on who these editors are or their views. They freely control this article and are viewed as unbiased because they quote 3-rd party articles, according to WIKI policy. However, all of their quotes support their anti-JW views, as clearly expressed in their bios. I have read through most of these discussion forums and found that they also seem to control the discussion in these forums. Look for yourselves. If anyone dares to make a pro-JW statement, then they are views as "biased-JW's." Well then the real question is raised; 'Who is not biased in relation to JWs? Not many, frankly. Therefore, one should really question if an accurate article in WIKI can even be maintained. That's why why view this article with great skepticism. Neutral bias on this article is quite simply impossible.

Now it's time for the anti-Witnesses to flambé this statement. Insert your anti-Witness rant here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.27 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New Talk Page sections go at the bottom of the page. Inappropiate link in section title removed.

Former JW editors can be regarded as unbiased just as much as can JW editors. You have demonstrated your own bias quite well. Focus on content, not editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a former Witness. When I began editing JW articles they were skewed strongly towards the Witnesses. They contained much opinion and read like promotional brochures. The Witnesses are, as most studies acknowledge, a religion that attracts much criticism from certain quarters and I opted to round out the JW articles by adding material to cover that. People, after all, are coming to these articles for information that might help them make an important decision in their life and they should therefore be presented with a full array of facts.

In every JW article -- with the obvious exception of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses -- the critical information is a minor part, and is always based on published reliable sources. The inclusion of critical material is something that clearly upsets some Witnesses, who want to see their religion portrayed in the best possible light. Despite their frequent accusations of bias, I try to ensure that all material, whether showing the good or bad side of the religion, is accurate and properly sourced, rather than simply private opinion. Much of the material trying to counter the few negative points is poorly sourced or simply opinion. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort and one person cannot control content or discussion. What remains on the page should reflect Wikipedia policies on verifiable accuracy. I believe most of it does. BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not at all shocked by the criticism given here. All those criticism mentioned here have correct counter arguments and many presented in JW publications. In future I would add such sourced counter arguments wherever possible in the criticism section. But it seems former JW's here are not willing to add such counter arguments. Another major problem is the use publications from low graded critics who highlight some criticism without actually analyzing the fact--  Logical Thinker  13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Which "low graded critics" do you have in mind? BlackCab (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view some of penton's critics can be regarded as so. But I am not going to remove any criticism, but would try to give sourced counter statements for each in future.--  Logical Thinker  01:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a case where it is going to happen on both sides. You will have a editor that will be staunchly pro and editors that are staunchly anti. The key is to being able to find a balance. Articles like this naturally generate a ton of partisans. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Penton's book was published by a respected publishing house, has been cited by other authors and appears to have been given a strongly positive reception. See [3] at Amazon. I'm not sure on what basis you decide that Penton, a professor of religious history, is a low-grade critic. Presumably you've read the book. It struck me as carefully researched. BlackCab (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

See Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement. Images should be directly related to the topic discussed as per wiki policy. The image on blood is redundant in the article. Blood is an important issue, that's why it had a been explained enough with special sub heading called Rejection of blood transfusions. But in addition to it, adding an image of a blood packet(cannot be related directly) and quoting that "JW's reject blood" is just like following the model of low graded news papers and is not an encyclopedic style.

About title image of watchtower building, I don't understand how it is related to the title Jehovah's witnesses. A new reader should understand what is watchtower first to grasp the image. A kingdom Hall image can better serve as title image because it can be easily grasped (at least as a church) and kingdom halls are more popular(more than 105,000 world wide). What will the editors do if the watchtower shifted its headquarters from Brooklyn? (already they are in the move and sold most buildings there). Hence I suggest to shift the image of Watchtower building to the organization structure section(it is directly related with organizational structure) and place any kingdom Hall image as title image.

In the organizational structure the image of evangelizing is given. For time being I changed it with kingdom hall because it is at least related with the matter discussed there. Moved the evangelizing image under evangelizing section. Kingdom Hall was before misplaced under ethics and morality. In addition the [[File:Reunião em Salão do Reino.jpg]] is directly related and can beautifully illustrate the matter explained in worship sub heading (No idols, meetings, study etc). Hence I added it. See the model of same article in ml wikipedia. --  Logical Thinker  14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the replacement of the WT HQ building image at the top of the page with a generic Kingdom Hall image. All Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and practices are established by the Brooklyn headquarters and all publications emanate from there. It is its seat of power. Just as Roman Catholicism can be symbolised by an image of the Vatican and Islam by Mecca, the JW religion can be illustrated with an image of its grand headquarters, a place most Witnesses would recognize and be proud of. An image of a Kingdom Hall would symbolize nothing. The Scientology article contains that religion's logo; I wouldn't be averse to using a WT logo if one was available, but it would need further discussion from other editors. BlackCab (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that former JW's and current JW's would recognize the WT HQ for what it is, as BlackCab says, and thats as the JW's seat of power. However, for non-JW's who have no knowledge of the religion, it doesn't immediately make itself known in the way that the Vatican or even Mecca does for non-Catholics and non-Muslims. I would not recommend a generic Kingdom Hall for the main image, but the WT HQ may be a bit too unknown. I would endorse a WT logo as a compromise between the two. I would not recommend removing the blood picture, but that is just my opinion, as LogicalThinker is correct that is doesn't have any immediate, direct correlation with the article. Vyselink (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the perspective of the critics and opposers, watchtower society needed to be highlighted more than deserved to describe JW's. But WT society is enough explained in the introduction. However in the perspective of a neutral editor, Watchtower society is the legal entity and organizational HQ, but in general when describing JW's the WT HQ never find importance. Its a clear tangent to regard WT HQ as the symbol of JW, but a kingdom Hall is not a tangent because it can used to describe JW's more directly by quoting a text like "A Kingdom Hall(Worship place or church) of JW's". I suggest BlackCab to think more neutrally and give a better look to article. An encyclopedia is to present ideas in a more understandable way. His comparison with the Vatican of catholic church is not compatible with our case, because Vatican is well known for its Pope, historical & traditional importance of catholic church for centuries. But JW's does not give any importance to brooklyn HQ. They started at Pittsburgh and are always ready to move anywhere. Its clearly stated at the beginning JW's are directed by a Governing body, hence its doesn't matter where they live. Further the Organizational structure section seriously lacks the HQ image. Also the title image of WT HQ is not aesthetically pleasing, a good KH image can please reader and make the reader to continue. A kingdom hall is also related to the central teaching of JW's, the God's kingdom. The Symbol used by watchtower society would fit in Watchtower Society main article. Because of all these factors I recommend a KH as a title image. In ml wiki a similar debate occurred and 3rd party editors finally suggested a KH. I also welcome more possible 3rd party suggestions in this case. If their point is to use WT symbol(viewed as an idol as per recent JW's articles and prohibited in using it at Kingdom Halls), I would then suggest better not to use any title image then --  Logical Thinker  01:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a topic recently occurred in Our Kingdom Ministry(2009) as shown below.

“ Is it appropriate for congregations or individuals to use the logos of legal corporations used by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

A logo is a name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy and definite recognition. The Watch Tower logo is representative of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and other corporations used by the organization. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses uses an open Bible in its letterhead. Other corporations used by Jehovah’s Witnesses have different logos.

Congregations or individuals should not use logos or names of the organization’s legal entities, or variations thereof, on their Kingdom Halls, signs, letterhead, personal objects, and so forth. Such use of the organization’s logos may cause confusion for public officials, publishers, and others about the legal affiliation of the congregation with the organization’s legal entities. Similarly, written correspondence could be misinterpreted as being approved or sent from the world headquarters or the branch office.

The Watch Tower logo, or a variation of it, should not be used in future Kingdom Hall projects even if the Kingdom Hall is owned by a Watch Tower entity. Congregations with existing Kingdom Halls that bear a logo are not required to make immediate changes to signs or designs, since such changes may involve major alterations and much time, effort, and expense. However, consideration should be given to making a change if it would be minor and would not require extensive work. Otherwise it can be made when the building or sign is scheduled for renovation.

”

--  Logical Thinker  04:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're saying here. The instruction in the OKM was from the WTS to congregations and individuals to avoid using the logo because they do not represent the WTS. For encylcopedic use, see WP:LOGO, which allows the use of trademarked logos within certain gudielines. The logo could not be used on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, by my reading. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is clear. The watchtower logo or trademark is used as a legal symbol for Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and other corporations used by JW's. It can be used as a logo on the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. But it cannot be used as a title image or religious Symbol of the article Jehovah's Witnesses. I also explained with reasons why a Kingdom Hall is more appealing and reasonable as the title image than using the Watchtower building.--  Logical Thinker  05:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If (as is the opinion of User:Logicalthinker33) the Watchtower headquarters should not be used to represent the JW religion, then some random Kingdom Hall—analogous to using some random church for the Catholic Church article—should be used even less so, as it would only falsely imply that the specific Kingdom Hall were somehow especially significant. There seems no good reason why an image of the religion's headquarters should not be used. Subjective opinions about a particular building being visually appealing isn't really the benchmark.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy debate over this issue. Opposition on HQ image as title is not only my opinion, a 3rd party had also endorsed it. It is obvious HQ image, KH and watchtower Symbol cannot be considered for Title Image. The only solution is the removal of the title image. I have shifted the HQ to the organizational Structure. It was better if the KH image was used as the title image with a caption "A Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses".-  Logical Thinker  08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One other editor suggested that HQ might be a bit too unknown, but did not indicate opposition to its use. A HQ building is certainly less unknown than some random Kingdom Hall, and certainly more helpful than no image at all. It looks pretty bad with no image, so I am restoring HQ.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the caption so it is both accurate and directly relevant to the article, eliminating any need for "a new reader should understand what is watchtower first to grasp the image."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A Watchtower logo is available in Wikimedia Commons, named File:P watchtower.svg, although the few WTS books I have that contain a logo have something that also includes an open Bible in a circle. The little icon that appears at the official WTS website uses just the basic one as found in Commons. BlackCab (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the logo will simply trigger some users to claim the corporation is distinct from the religion, which is true in a legalistic but not practical sense. In any case, the office in Brooklyn is the headquarters of the corporation and of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am almost ok with the caption change of title Image and I understand many other issues in removing it. But why the Kingdom Hall image has been removed. In the organization section its possible to incorporate it by giving a relevant caption related to the matter discussed in it(2nd para). It deals with congregational organization. --  Logical Thinker  10:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom Hall picture is not directly relevant to the Organization section. It is directly relevant to the Worship section, but there is already a suitable picture there, and there is insufficient material in that section to warrant both pictures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed the lapel badge image for the same reason for which I removed blood image. It is too redundant, to give more importance to 1975 issue than it deserved. Already it is discussed enough in the introduction, History and criticism section. The section is on history,1942–present: Knorr, Franz, Henschel and Adams not on Failed predictions in 1975. If used in main article could be considered as a POV. It could find place in criticism main article--  Logical Thinker  13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Every history of the Witnesses deals extensively with the failed expectations for 1975. It is a very notable part of their history and is not a criticism per se. Its inclusion does not express a point of view; it illustrates the emphasis placed on their very strong beliefs that God's kingdom would arrive in the mid-1970s. BlackCab (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that card removal can hurt you. But be cool and think well. The image is unnecessary in the main article, because

• The matter on 1975 is already well explained more than deserved in the beginning,history and criticism.
• The image is giving more importance to a particular subsection inside another subsection.
• If 1975 was a very important turning point in History, why did JW's increase from 2 million in 1975 to 7.3 million in 2010?
• The image is too redundant and not directly related to 1975 issue(It not states 1975 world would end ).
• 1914 is more important in JW's history, So if you are right I would be forced to add a image of 1914 world war.
• Every history of JW's also deals with persecution, So if that is the case I would be forced to add images of purple triangles.
• Also notable images of Kingdom Halls, Convention halls, blood, NW bible, Watchtower, Awake should be included in the main article.

But I don't want to do such things because I know it makes the article to loss its quality. The image of lapel card can be used in criticism main article or in development of JW's doctrine or even better in criticism of JW's but not here. --  Logical Thinker  03:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a rather stupid comment that its removal would hurt me. The illustration is directly relevant to the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is why it's there. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation is not satisfactory. I welcome 3rd part comments. If the decision was to keep the lapel card I would add KH image in organizational Structure section with the caption "A congregation of JW's" and "purple triangle" image in persecution section for similar reasons.--  Logical Thinker  04:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're sounding rather petulant. In fact the purple triangle image is entirely appropriate for the "persecution" section. A picture of a Kingdom Hall is not, however, relevant to the "Organization" section and should be removed. As another editor has pointed out to you, the "worship" section is the best place for such a picture, but there is already a better one there. You may also note that the picture you have added is of a building, not a "congregation". BlackCab (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A Kingdom Hall is important as using a church image in other christian religion. I defined KH in the organization itself. So that the image could be used there.--  Logical Thinker  06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forcing the issue, adding the wording for the sole purpose of justifying the use of an image. Only by a stretch of the imagination can a Kingdom Hall be considered to be a part of an organization, and even then it is so obliquely related it to the subject of that section it doesn't warrant the use of an illustration. BlackCab (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A kingdom hall can be considered as a lowest node of an organization tree which have a head node at head Quarters. Thus it is the basic element of the organization and it is the largest in number. Organizing is also going on inside KH. That's why it warranted one paragraph in the organization section. But the parent node i.e) the HQ image is already given in title image, now we include the image or illustration of the lowest node(KH) in the organization. Please think liberally, I adjusted my views according to other editors comments. That's why I accepted the decision to keep HQ as the title image and now to your opinion on lapel card. The KH is added with a similar reason of lapel card. It will be odd if we not include an image of KH(church) in the article about a christian denomination. The worship section, however deals with how Worship goes on inside a KH. It assumes KH is already defined in organization section.--  Logical Thinker  08:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This justification for inclusion of the Kingdom Hall image under Organization seems to be special pleading, and the wording about Kingdom Halls was injected into the article only (and admittedly) to 'justify' inclusion of the image. The previous quotation from Our Kingdom Ministry about Kingdom Halls not being part of the "organization" contradicts the new 'justification' given immediately above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Who will say Kingdom Hall is not a part of Organization? Without Kingdom Hall or congregation what is the need of a Head Quarters? Headquarters controls all the Kingdom Hall's or congregations around the world. The KingdomMinistry does not say KH or congregation is not a part of Organization, but it says though KH is an entity of WT society it should not use any legal symbols or trademark of WT society. The Worship section seems to be explaining the KH as if it is already defined. Its the intention of some editors here NOT to include a KingdomHall because of their personal hostility towards JW's. It's not the duty of editors to find ways for deletion of good integral images, but should assume good faith. I have reverted the edits--  Logical Thinker  12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is this: Images are supposed to complement the article. However, what you have done is arbitrarily decide that the Organization section 'must' have a picture of a Kingdom Hall, and then you have modified the text of the section purely to 'justify' the inclusion of the image. Your suggestion that the Worship section doesn't clarify the term 'Kingdom Hall' is not at all assisted by the text you have added in the Organization section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your initial reason for including an image of a second Kingdom Hall image in the article was that you were "forced" to do so because I opposed the removal of an image of a lapel badge illustrating the emphasis placed on expectations for the mid-1970s in WT literature.[4]. You wrote: "But I don't want to do such things because I know it makes the article to loss its quality." Now you insist its inclusion is "necessary" until a consensus is reached. Your comments about "hostile" editors, who are offering rational reasons for its deletion, betray your own motives. BlackCab (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Photo of Kingdom Hall relevant to Organization Section?

The editors here are prejudicial to my arguments to include a Kingdom Hall image in the organization Section. Every time when I give proper response to why a Kingdom Hall Image is appropriate and improves the Quality of the article, editors here are finding ways to delete the image. At first they argued that kingdom Hall image don't find right place to insert. Then they started another argument that Kingdom Hall is not the part of JW's organization. Is the photograph in the "Organization" section relevant to the article? Will it improve the quality of the article?  Logical Thinker  13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are demonstraing a lack of logical thinking. An illustration of a Kingdom Hall is already contained in the article. You are attempting to add a second illustration of a Kingdom Hall in a section of the article unrelated to places of worship, and have added the words "Kingdom Hall" to that section as a feeble justification for doing so. My arguments are based on common sense and logic; you are claiming they are based on prejudice and personal hostility, which falls well short of the Wikipedia guideline on assuming good faith. You have yet to explain why it is so important to have two photographs to illustrate the same thing, a building that is given only passing mention in the article. BlackCab (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The image at the worship section shows how the worship goes inside a Kingdom Hall. But it doesn't shows a general look or exterior of a Kingdom Hall building. There are over 0.1 million Kingdom Hall's all over the world. It's unique gathering place of JW's, and Kingdom Halls are so different from the buildings used by other Christian denominations. Further, the organization section explains about how JW's are organized from top(Governing body at head quarters) to bottom(congregation or Kingdom Hall). The image of Head Quarters is already described at title image. Now its the turn to describe the Kingdom Hall in the organization section. Further 3rd paragraph in organizing section describes in detail how the Jehovah's Witnesses are organized inside a Kingdom Hall or congregation. It's noteworthy that a badge of 1970 assembly is used to illustrate 1975 issue of JW's. But why then we can't place an image of a Kingdom Hall to describe a congregation? Its obvious that the quality of the article can be significantly increased by using such aesthetically pleasing images. Wikipedia encourages such images wherever its at least directly related and possible. Why should then we prevent use of such images?--  Logical Thinker  14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As per wiki policy editors should not be too rigid in their opinions. In my opinion the image is good and could make the article look standout. Positioning of images not plays a major role as long as the image is directly related to the entire article.-82.139.99.74 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Logicalthinker33, I have previously suggested that the 1975 lapel card image is unnecessary, and it is not directly relevant to this discussion. The relevant Wikipedia guideline states that "articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The specific image of the Kingdom Hall in question isn't especially notable or remarkable, and isn't particularly helpful or representative in the Organization section. The picture might be suitable in a section/article explaining that Kingdom Halls look different to typical churches.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The images of lapel card should be removed in my suggestion too. I already expressed it and only blackCab have the opinion to keep it. It seems odd to give an image of the interior of a Kingdom Hall without giving an exterior look. The Organizing in Kingdom hall is described in the 3rd para of organization section. And in worship section KH is described to demonstrate how worship goes on in the KH. relevant Wikipedia guideline also states "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." In case if Kingdom Hall Image is removed, the lapel card should also be removed for similar reasons. However I welcome more comments from 3rd party editors and willing to accept any good decisions.--  Logical Thinker  04:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of one image is not conditional on the other. As I have previously stated, the failed expectations for 1975 are a notable part of the organization's history and the image of the lapel badge is directly relevant to that. A picture of a building in an unnamed place is an inappropriate illustration in a section dealing with the organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the 1975 image is not essential to the article, though it is directly relevant to the section it's in. However, BlackCab is correct that retaining one image is not conditional on the other. The picture of the KH is only tenuously connected to the Organization section. As previously stated, it would be more relevant to the Worship section, however there is already a suitable picture there and there isn't enough text to warrant an extra picture. The current picture in the Worship section is more helpful than the fairly plain face of a brick building, so I would not support replacing the current picture with the other. It appears, or rather, it has been fairly directly stated, that the proponent of this picture is using it simply to compete with the other ('1975') picture in the article to which they object.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I welcome 3rd party comments from editors other than BlackCab and Jeffro. The history section is too large and redundant as I stated before, and hence highlighting a particular image of 1975 which is enough explained in introduction, history and criticism is not a good practice. However I compared lapel card with KH image to show that how some editors are sloppy to matters interested to them rather than to improve the article and keep neutrality. --  Logical Thinker  05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to find it hard to stick to the same story. Your motives for including the second Kingdom Hall image have changed again. Your claims of "sloppiness" and a supposed breach of neutrality by including the 1975 image are pretty weak. BlackCab (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Already Jeffro had the same opinion of me in the case of Lapel Card. Lapel card is inappropriate as I mentioned earlier. However in the case of Kingdom Hall, I am not too rigid but I encourage to make a judicious decision after waiting some days for more 3rd party comments--  Logical Thinker  14:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Millenarian" and "Restorationist"

I have put the template next to these words in the article. The words are only mentioned once in the entire article (excluding the "infobox"). I am doing this because:

a. There are no references supporting either of these words in the first place. It could be opinion, as these two words can cover a broad range of ideas.

b. I have never seen Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a millenarian or restorationist religion in their publications. I welcome anyone who has a reference to add it to the article, but please don't add very old JW publications as a reference as they are most likely out-of-date.

I welcome any discussion on this, but all information in Wikipedia articles needs to be properly sourced. Wikipedia guidelines also discourage the use of weasel words. Although you may not think that the words "millenarian" or "restorationist" are weasel words, the Wikipedia article on millenarianism frequently uses the word "sect" even though this is discouraged in this guidline. Beeshoney (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What the JWs themselves say is not particularly relevant, however, it is academic opinion which we place most emphasis on. M. James Penton in Apocalypse delayed refers to their millenarian eschatology here, and religioustolerance.org numbers it among the restorationist Christian movements here. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More than one reference would be nice, however. A lot of information is published on Jehovah's Witnesses, and so if these two words are true, information supporting them shouldn't be hard to find.

In my opinion, it is relevant that Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim to be a millenarian or restorationist religion. Firstly, it's difficult for a third party to claim that JW's are a millenarian and/or restorationist religion when the "Governing Body" of Jehovah's Witnesses - who make the decisions on doctrinal matters - themselves do not claim to be either of these. Secondly, many other religions who claim to be "millenarian" or "restorationist" have very different beliefs compared to Jehovah's Witnesses, and as I was saying before, these two words can cover a broad spectrum. Once again I direct attention to this guidline. Beeshoney (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The terms "millenarian" and "restorationist" have specific meanings, and those meanings accurately describe the relevant beliefs of JWs, regardless of whether they specifically use those particular words. Though JWs do not explicitly define themselves as "restorationist", their publications certainly do claim to posit them as a 'restoration of first century Christianity'. The fact that JWs are restorationist and millenarian has no bearing whatsoever on specific interpretations held by JWs in contrast to any other group beyond those fundamental definitions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the word "millenarian". The article on this uses far too many weasel words - mostly "sect". Also, the reference used to support this claim - which comes from the Oxford English Dictionary - says: ""Jehovah's Witness: a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect". However, when the OED defines the words "sect", it uses words such as: "to leave", "to dissect", "to break away". Jehovah's Witnesses have not "broken away" from any other religion, so using this word is inappropriate. I do wonder how much the writers of the OED actually know about Jehovah's Witnesses anyway. Beeshoney (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "sect" is already discussed and finally concluded to be a "Christian denomination" as Jeffro pointed out in an earlier discussion. Better if we could find another reference which gives the term "millenarian". It is also notable that JW's are given in infobox, as a branch of Bible students movement. If it is the case how did Bible students movement was renamed as JW's? In 2010 convention released DVD(Available at Youtube in 6 parts here) on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, it discusses with drama's(including characters of Russel, Rutherford etc) the entire history of JW's from 1830(including detailed illustration on doctrinal changes, organizational changes, expectations and enlightenment). It uses bible students movement synonymous to Jehovah's Witnesses and not as a branch split from bible students movement. --  Logical Thinker  14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that JWs retroactively claim that "Bible Students" is simply a former name of their religion. However, in reality, the Bible Student movement still exists entirely independent of Jehovah's Witnesses, though those other groups have not had the backing of the original corporation, the Watch Tower Society. Therefore it is not correct to state that the religion was simply renamed. The cause of this misnoma ultimately goes back to the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917. Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly the largest branch of the Bible Student movement, but they are a branch nonetheless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the History section too large?

In my honest opinion, I think most people that come to this article do not wish to read about previous "Presidents" of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is already an article on the History of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe that most people are more interested in the Organisation, Beliefs, Practises, etc. of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I do not propose removing the History section completely, but I do think it needs to be scaled down. Currently it takes up a significantly large (and I think too large) section of the article.

What do others think? Beeshoney (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had emphasized this issue many times. But it seems one or two non-JW editors have reserved first edit rights. I am not discouraging you, but assume good faith and make a try.--  Logical Thinker  19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Jeffro77 and BlackCab three days to make a comment before I decide to do anything, as I think it's necessary to hear what they have to say. However, nobody "controls" an article. Also, Wikipedia editors are discouraged from solely editing articles on one subject, but as you can see from Jeffro77's and BlackCab's edit histories, this is not the case.

Another concern I have is that nearly all main contributions to the article are made by a "select" group of editors (and these editors seem to undo a lot of contributions made by other editors). This trend can be seen here and here. I'm not too concerned about this, though, as none of these editors are Administrators. Beeshoney (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always interesting to read what an editor thinks "people come to this article to read". You believe most want to read about the organization, beliefs and practices. All those points are comprehensively treated, and all have their own spinoff articles to allow readers to examine those subjects in more depth. But you've raised a suggestion. What specific parts of the history section do you think should be deleted or trimmed? And why? BlackCab (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to trimming the History section, so long as elements relating directly to the development of core organizational or doctrinal matters are not removed. You can always be bold and edit the History section to your liking and then discuss, or you can present your specific concerns about article content to discuss first. It's not yet clear what you would like to remove.

Most of my edits relate to refactoring and reformatting existing material and removing clear bias both for and against the religion. If you would like to discuss a particular change to the article of mine that you regard to be inappropriate, be specific. Do not make broad accusations.

Where are 'Wikipedia editors discouraged from solely editing articles on one subject'??--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Logicalthinker33, you stated in another section that the History section contains "redundant" information. Please indicate the information to which you're referring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was discouraged from focusing on editing just one subject by an Administrator, and I do remember that he/she brought up a Wikipedia guideline. I'm looking for it.

About the History section, there's basically a lot of scrolling to do before you get to the current info about JW's.

I think the first paragraph about Russell is far too long. Also, does the Photo Drama of Creation really need covering here when it is mentioned in the History article?

I could go on, but I'll make my edits later and see what you think. And no, I won't delete whole sections about organisational / doctrinal changes. Beeshoney (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. What exactly does Jeffro77 mean by the comment "the article of mine"? Beeshoney (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'd suggest he means "If you would like to discuss a particular change of mine to the article that you regard to be inappropriate ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the sub headings given are inappropriate, better if we could simplify it by using headings such as Bible student movement, Renaming to Jehovah's Witnesses and modern day development. I would also surely suggest the removal of the image of 1970 circuit assembly Lapel card particularly because, it can be considered as giving more importance to 1975 issue than it deserved, a kind of indirect criticism. Doctrinal and organizational changes need trimming. However I am not for a debate neither I want to be involved in trimming, because I am already tired of talks with Black Cab(seem to be having first edit rights) and Jeffro (who had claimed "the article is of him" though I do not know in what sense).--  Logical Thinker  14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab is correct in regard to "a particular change to the article of mine". If I imagined the article to be mine (a ridiculous notion), I would say my article, not the article of mine. The fact that it needed clarification says more about the editors who misunderstood than it does about me.

Regarding Logicalthinker's suggestions for the History section, I was thinking something similar in regard to different stages of development rather than strictly by presidential eras, but with something such as Background for detail prior to the formal development of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because the Bible Student movement continued to exist (and still does), it was not simply a matter of renaming.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope editors could get some more idea on history by Watching this video on You-tube in 6 parts here.--  Logical Thinker  15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly neutral. If there is a transcript I'll read it, but I have no inclination to watch the video.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Jeffro77 - I do not mean to be offensive and do not wish to get into an argument. I have a fairly busy life outside of Wikipedia, so probably won't edit the History section today. Beeshoney (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll start trimming it. It's been there a long time and it's never a bad idea to take a fresh look at it. BlackCab (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise Beeshoney had already started. His/her trim is generally OK, though I'll reinstate a couple of brief points that need to be there as a primer to the organization history. The section is better broken into just two sections: the Russell/Rutherford years and beyond. BlackCab (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The trimming that has been done seems fairly selective. Information about no sectarian name and the power struggle has been removed, but apparently it is vitally important that the article boasts about Russell's newspaper syndication??? I don't have time to look at this closely right now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I could remove more, but I don't want to remove too much in case you two aren't happy with it. I thought I'd do just a little first. Beeshoney (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW the section titles are much better. Beeshoney (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I think that the Photo Drama of Creation is worth pointing out because it had a large audience, and it was one of the first colour & audio mention "films" at the time. Beeshoney (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources in intro

Sources were cited for "restorationist" and "millenarian" in the article intro until this edit [5] in July 2010 on the basis of WP:LEADCITE. Those terms do not appear elsewhere in the article, so it is reasonable to have sources cited here. BlackCab (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like another source for the word "millenarian". "Restorationist", hmmm, I guess that pretty well sums up the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Beeshoney (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have did it. --  Logical Thinker  18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, the definition of millenarian is fairly plain. Just because JWs may not use the particular word, the duck test would seem to apply. Read the basic definition in the lead of millenarian. Is there anything about that that you believe is not consistent with Witness beliefs?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed exhaustively at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 50 and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 49. You may be interested to read Counting the Days to Armageddon by Robert Crompton, a very thorough examination of the history of the evolution of the Witnesses' eschatology. Crompton consistently uses the terms "millenialism" to describe the WTS theology. There were suggestions to use that term instead of, or as well as, "millenarian" in the article, but the consensus was to go with the latter. BlackCab (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, the word can stay. However, this article (Millennialism), is much better than this article (Millenarian). The article on Millennialism is much more accurate at describing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this topic, and is a much better article in the first place. Therefore, I have changed to link from Millenarian to Millennialism.

Because the article on Millenarian is of such poor quality (few references, and it frequently uses the word "sect), I am considering putting it up for PROD, and if necessary, AfD. Any significant portions of the Millenarian article (of which I think there are none), could be merged into the Millennialism article. Beeshoney (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's not perfect at describing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it doesn't need to be, as the article gives a general view on the topic. Beeshoney (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In-line quotes

The following phrases in the 'social criticism' section are potentially confrontational:

• seldom allowed a dignified exit
• Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as part of the power structure rather than subject to it
• mental isolation with the intent of mind control

I think it would be more helpful for those phrases to be replaced with actual quotations from the source materials within the actual article text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes BlackCab. Regarding the statement:

• using elements of mind control by exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses, controlling information and creating "mental isolation".

Would it be possible to expand the actual quote rather than only the special terms? Quoting only the special terms may come across as 'scare quotes' rather than identifying an actual quote from the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll come back to it when I get a moment. Franz develops the argument over several pages (pg 408-417, for my own reference), elaborating on each of those aspects individually after discussing points made in a Steve Hassan book on mind control. BlackCab (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchtower was and is non-profit, not a business

Russell sold his business to establish the Watchtower. This is confusing - as a "business convenience" - and is not relevant. Watchtower was non-profit, not a business, whatever this might be quoting from.

Forsaking All for the Kingdom

Charles Taze Russell personally took that counsel to heart. He sold his prospering haberdashery business, gradually reduced other business interests, and then used all his earthly possessions to help people in a spiritual way. (Compare Matthew 6:19-21.) It was not something that he did for merely a few years. Right down till his death, he used all his resources—his mental ability, his physical health, his material possessions—to teach others the great message of Messiah’s Kingdom. At Russell’s funeral an associate, Joseph F. Rutherford, stated: “Charles Taze Russell was loyal to God, loyal to Christ Jesus, loyal to the cause of Messiah’s Kingdom.” JW- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Chapter 18 p. 284 “Seeking First the Kingdom”.Natural (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The use of the term is important. He used the term "business convenience" deliberately to explain why he set it up. In later years, under a different president, the society became a religious organization and its charter was amended accordingly. BlackCab (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Quote on Armageddon

This quote in all likelihood does not come directly from the Watchtower but is quoting from another reference. What reference, please, is it quoting from?

In 1889, Russell taught that "the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' ... is already commenced" and would culminate with the overthrow of all political rulership in 1914, at the end of "the Gentile Times".[19]

And was this the general thinking of Russell for a time period, or a single quote? what is the context, please of the quote? Please provide the surrounding paragraphs. Thanks. The reference and the context of the quote would be necessary to determine the purpose of the quote being here (a little confusing), and the context in which it is being quoted by a secondary author. This would help us to see if this quote is appropriate for this section. Natural (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural Natural (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's unclear why you're trying to claim that the quote is not from the cited source, The Time Is At Hand (aka Studies in the Scriptures vol 2, text available online). The statement is consistent with other statements Russell made about the "great battle". Zion's Watch Tower, Jan 15, 1892: "The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914." (formatting added) See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive 52#Accuracy of statment about C.T. Russell and Armageddon -1874--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrepentance a factor in blood transfusions disfellowshipped

JW Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 13 pp. 183-184 Recognized by Our Conduct

Quote - Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Natural (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural