Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Business Convenience

The line about Russell, that he created the Watchtower corporation as a "business convenience" gives the impression that his initial purpose in creating the Watchtower corporation was to establish a business. The context of the isolated words needs to be considered in addressing this small point.

This site gives the context of those words. http://www.tdgonline.net/indice/articoli/wt-azioni.htm

Le finalità degli enti legali usati erano chiaramente indicate:

"The Tower Tract Society. This is a business association merely; it was chartered as a corporation by the state of Pennsylvania, and authorized to hold or dispose of property in its own name as though it were an individual. It has no creed or confession. It is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth".

"The Society owns nothing, has nothing, pays no salaries, no rent, no other expenses. Its policy is to use in the work every dollar received, to the best advantage, and as speedily as possible".

The Watchtower corporation was from its start a "non-profit corporation" according to its charter.

Oltre a questo, circa il carattere non lucrativo della Watch Tower, tenete conto che la Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania è un ente senza fini di lucro, o non lucrativo ("non-profit", in inglese) fin dalla sua fondazione nel 1884 (cf Proclamatori, p. 229 [notate il timbro sulla destra in cui si legge: "A non-profit corporation", cioè "ente non lucrativo"]).

If the Wikipedia article is going to retain the phrase "business convenience," then it would be clarifying to mention that the Watchtower corporation was non-profit from its inception and neither Russell nor anyone else with the Watchtower Society received salary of financial gain from the corporation.

The implication in the current wording can lead one to believe that Russell was just using the Watchtower to start another for-profit business, which would be misleading. Natural (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

Although I was not the one that put that wording there I believe the intention of so using it is to make it clear that initially Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, et. al., were founded for legal purposes to conduct business which related to religious matters. This gave certain legal and financial advantages (tax regulations were different) and responsibilities. When Rutherford took over he eventually changed it from a business convenience to a 'theocracy' which speaks on behalf of God. Russell's view of the Society was nowhere near what Rutherford later interpreted it to be, and that is the intent of using that wording. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Without explaining in the article what "business convenience" is intended to mean, it can be easily misinterpreted. Is there any great disadvantage in removing or rephrasing? As a side point, looking over the Conspiracy, I wouldn't mind knowing if the "circular recently issued by O. von Zech, E. Bryan, J. B. Adamson and S. D. Rogers" were available online somewhere to get another perspective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a notable point. The WTS was founded as a business entity; today it is a religious society. I don't see that "business convenience" can be misinterpreted or that any negative connotation can be applied. Perhaps "not for profit business entity" can be used instead. The point is it was formed to receive funds and expend them on publications. BlackCab (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Naturalpsychology has raised this issue twice before, at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Watchtower was and is non-profit, not a business and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Confusing detail on business. On the latter occasion he claimed I was "trying to put the motive on Russell, that he was using the Watchtower for business interests, in other words, questioning, or casting into doubt his pure motives in establishing the Watchtower". It's a simple fact, as previously stated: the society was formed to fulfil a financial task. Russell stressed that point himself, and it's worth noting in view of the later transformation of the purpose of the body he incorporated. BlackCab (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the phrase is indeed an actual quote taken from Russell's Conspiracy Exposed, it is understandable that the unqualified ambiguous phrase "business convenience" in 'scare quotes' may reasonably be misinterpreted, irrespective of editor motives. Wording such as "non-profit corporation" would be suitable (with appropriate re-arrangement to avoid the redundancy of stating that a corporation was incorporated). Additionally, irrespective of whether the corporation is actually the religious organisation itself or is simply 'used by it' as posited by JWs, the corporation in question was and is officially a 'non-profit' entity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. The society has probably always been a non-profit corporation. That hasn't changed. What has changed was that it was formed to fulfil a business function. Today it exists as a religious society. Russell wrote in A Conspiracy Exposed: "This is a business association merely ... it has no creed or confession ... it is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth." The term "non-profit corporation" in the history section of this article means nothing if its original function (ie, a business entity, or business convenience) is not noted. Your use of the term "scare quotes" is a bit odd. I quoted the term because it was the explicit phrase Russell used about a society which is now well known as a religious organization. As suggested above, the term "business entity" (without the quotes) would be a reasonable substitute if it's thought casual readers might think it means ... well, anything other than it says. BlackCab (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. I haven't said not to state the purpose of the corporation. I've said not to do so ambiguously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My use of the term 'scare quotes' should be fairly clear, and relates to the quoting of a brief phrase that can be interpreted in various ways, without any explanation of the manner in which it was originally intended. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase, but it is clearly being misinterpreted as connoting something about 'convenience'. What is the problem with replacing the words with something less ambiguous??--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, elaboration about Russell's specific reasons for the corproation would be better placed at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Charles Taze Russell, and is not necessary here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In a section dealing specifically with the history of the religion, it is entirely valid to mention in four words the purpose of the formation of the organization that later dominated the lives of millions of Jehovah's Witnesses. In this case the four words will be "as a businee entity". BlackCab (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the WTS is today a "non-profit" entity financially speaking it is in fact so much more in the eyes of the JWs. The WTS is God's visible earthly organization, and sole source for Bible truth. The WTS is administered by the Governing Body who, to be quite blunt, speak for God. What they say goes, and to question it is equated to questioning God himself. The WTS of Russell's day was simply an entity to facilitate the printing, publishing and distribution of religious matter. It wasn't part of a "theocracy", it didn't speak for God, it was not the sole source for truth. What's more, some profit was made on the items published. It was very small profit, on the order of a few cents per piece, and only to aid in the further distribution of more material rather than to acquire wealth. Long story short, the WTS in Russell's day was a corporate financial entity, the WTS in our day is a religious entity directly administered by God himself.Pastorrussell (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The new change still seems a little redundant (and misspelled, but I'll get to that). Is an incorporated business ever anything other than a "business entity".

Given that there is no proof of God's existence, it certainly is not the case that the WTS is or was ever "a religious entity directly administered by God himself", and aside from that, the current JW belief is that the corporation is separate to the religious organisation, regardless of how blurred the line may be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then we are going to get into a discussion about what is important in the wording. Is it necessary for the reader to get the right idea? Do words matter? The JWs believe their Society is God's instrument. Their view is different from what it was in Russell's day. That's the whole point of even mentioning this distinction. Otherwise this entire thread is useless. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit off track. I'm still wondering why NaturalPsychologuy introduced a document in Italian. If that's what it was. BlackCab (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed Italian. As to why, who knows/cares?

Pastorrussell, you seem to be diverging into a discussion better suited to a web forum. And yes, this thread is fairly useless. A concession has been made for User:Naturalpsychology, so hopefully that will be the end of the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on this point is appreciated, again the point being it was a non-profit business entity. A business entity is entirely different from a non-profit business entity,where no one makes any money on the arragement. Jeffro made the valid point about it being non-profit business entity, without the "scare quotes". Thanks for that concession on this point. If the words non-profit aren't included, it gives a misleading impression. Natural (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology, is there a source available for the statement that it initially operated as a "non-profit" organisation? I'm aware that you quoted above from an Italian document, (which is presumably an interpretation of something originally in English) but is a scan of the 1884 charter, for example, available to verify its position on profit/non-profit? BlackCab (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The charter, as quoted in Conspiracy Exposed (1894),[1] states "The Society owns nothing, has nothing, pays no salaries, no rent or other expenses."--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are three non-Witness references explicitly stating that the Watch Tower Society was incorporated as a non-profit.

• Winds of Change by Manfred Ernst, Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994, page 40, "In 1884 Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated as a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania."
• The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worshipby Paul Bradshaw, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, page 261, "In l884, Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known, formed Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania, as a legal instrument to be used in carrying forward their Bible education work."
• Religion in the Twentieth Century by Vergilius Ture Anselm Ferm, Philosophical Library, 1948, page 383, "As the [unincorporated Watch Tower] Society expanded, it became necessary to incorporate it and build a more definite organization. In 1884, a charter was granted recognizing the Society as a religious, non-profit corporation."
  

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Business v religious organization

Did Russell intend the Watch Tower Society to be linked with a religious movement? Yes, it seems...
* Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses by George D. Chryssides, Scarecrow Press, 2008, page xxxiv, "Russell wanted to consolidate the movement he had started. ...In 1880, Bible House, a four-story building in Allegheny, was completed, with printing facilities and meeting accommodation, and it became the organization's headquarters. The next stage of institutionalization was legal incorporation. In 1884, Russell formed the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, which was incorporated in Pennsylvania... Russell was concerned that his supporters should feel part of a unified movement."
See also "#Practical history v eschatological details", on this same page for now. Incidentally, incorporation by definition forms a business entity; the nature (profit? nonprofit? etc.) of this specific entity is better discussed at the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (that is, Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As previously noted, it is relevant and pertinent that Russell founded the Watch Tower Society as a business convenience to publish books and Bibles. His successor later changed it to become the administrative centre of a religion. BlackCab (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A business purpose does not preclude a religious purpose, especially as incorporation is self-evidentially for "business" purposes.
Even if others continue to remove it from the article, the facts and references show that Russell repeatedly acted to establish a religious (not merely publishing) organization. At Russell's express direction, the Watch Tower corporation certainly did function as "the administrative centre of a religion" long before Russell's successor was even an adherent.
Russell himself wrote that the corporation's representatives should be given "leadership of the meetings" wherever they visited congregations:

• Watch Tower, September 1, 1894, Reprints page 1702, "[The Watch Tower Society has] arranged lately to have several brethren travel, some giving a part, and some all their time in visiting you for the purpose of building you up in the truth and in its spirit. We have sought to choose for this work brethren [meeting eight criteria.] ...If any of these Brethren come your way they will introduce themselves by showing a printed and signed certificate from the Watch Tower Tract Society (renewed yearly); whereupon we are sure they will be granted the leadership of the meetings."
  

Each of the Watch Tower corporation's representatives functioned in the explicit role of "a Missionary and Evangelist under the auspices of this Society":

• Watch Tower, September 15, 1894, Reprint page 1707, "We here give a copy of these certificates...
  Allegheny, Pa., U.S.A. ____, 189__.
  To Whom It May Concern:
  This is to Certify that during the year above written ____ of ____, is regularly ordained a minister of the "Church of the Living God" (1 Tim. 3:15; Phil. 4:3); that ____ is serving as a Missionary and Evangelist under the auspices of this Society; that ____ has full authority to teach and preach publicly and privately, orally, and by the printed page; and that ____ is authorized to administer to others of the household of faith, upon suitable occasions and after proper confession of faith, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper–according to all and singular the commands and teachings of this Church as laid down in the Holy Scriptures.
  Witness the signatures of the officers of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Allegheny City, Pa., U.S.A., and the corporate seal thereof."
  

Furthermore, the Watch Tower corporation worked directly with congregations to conduct meetings and establish new congregations, all of which were affiliated with the IBSA religion.

• Watch Tower, May 15, 1911, Reprints page 4821-4822, "[The Watch Tower] Society will be able to co-operate with hundreds of dear brethren...and the Society will thus be working through and in conjunction with the classes [that is, congregations]. ...In connection with all such meetings the Society is glad to co-operate. ...[T]he Society will be pleased to co-operate with any classes not prepared to bear the full expenses of these meetings, provided the report sent in seems to justify the expenditure. In making such a report the class, through its Secretary, should give us the particulars... The Society prefers to have reports monthly, on the printed blank which we supply... All correspondence (except such as is strictly personal and could be attended to only by Brother Russell) should be addressed International Bible Students Association"

My previous comment in this thread quoted the conclusion of scholar George D. Chryssides: "Russell wanted to consolidate the movement he had started. ...The next stage of institutionalization was legal incorporation. In 1884, Russell formed the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, which was incorporated in Pennsylvania... Russell was concerned that his supporters should feel part of a unified movement."

Rather than merely for publishing purposes, other scholars agree that the Watch Tower corporation was organized for religious purposes.

• Encyclopedia of Religion in the South by Samuel S. Hill, Charles H. Lippy, Charles Reagan Wilson, Mercer University Press, 2005, page 403, "Russell organized the Watch Tower Society to help carry on his preaching activities. ...he established a movement throughout much of the Western world."
• Introduction to New and Alternative Religions by Eugene V. Gallegher, W. Michael Ashcraft, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006, page 65, "In 1881 he [Charles Taze Russell] published the conviction that the "faithful and discreet slave" represented the collective ministry of those anointed by God's "holy spirit" to share in messianic authority, and in 1884 he formed Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society as their unifying organization."
• Introduction to Social Movements by John Wilson, Basic Books, 1973, page 295, "The Jehovah's Witnesses was legally incorporated in 1884 when Pastor Russell organized several groups of followers into the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society."
• Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 7 by Lindsay Jones, Macmillan Reference, 2005, page 4820, "In 1884 he [Charles Taze Russell] organized his readers, who met in small congregations of Bible students, into the Zion's Watch Tower and Tract Society, and began annual conventions in 1891."
• Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Volume 1 by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck, Infobase Publishing, 2009, page 536, "Russell formed his adherents into the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1884 in order to disseminate these [religious] views."

The article can clarify that the Watch Tower corporation was not commercial (that is, moneymaking), but it seems equally or more significant to clarify that it was not merely intended for publishing purposes. Although he may have written and stated that a Christian could please God while remaining a member of another church, Russell also acted decisively to form a cohesive religious movement, unify his coreligionists, and establish new IBSA-affiliated congregations. Under Russell's direction, the Watch Tower corporation was an 'administration center' for many religious purposes. The short discussion of Russell's efforts to establish a religious organization (at Background (1870–1916); see also #Practical history v eschatological details on this Talk page) has been partially restored, to remove the inaccurate impression that there was no religious organization in place until after Russell's death.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Networking Sites and Blogs section should be added to or below External Sites to make the article more useful to the public.

There are two sites that I would suggest be added on the bottom of the site under External Sites.

One would be a very popular Blog for JW's in English with more than 200,000 hits per month. http://stuffofinteresttojws.blogspot.com/

The other two would be Facebook Pages where MANY (15,000+) JW's socialize and share breaking up to the minutes news... THIS page REALLY should be in the article because it marks a "NEW" type of "socializatin" that is becoming more and more acceptable in spite of the elders resistance. [although many elders also enjoy it quietly] it is located at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jehovahs-Witnesses-News-Library-History-Videos-Talks-Illustrations/252294947042

There is also a general interest page pulling info from Wikipedia concerning JW's http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jehovahs-Witnesses/105465989487703

I really don't care who puts the information up....I would just like a consensus before doing so and various opinions.

1031424110923A (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it Wikipedia guidelines do not permit External Links to social network sites or to blogs that aren't written by a recognized authority, after all this is an Encyclopedia which is supposed to dispassionately present data and factual information (pro and con) rather than resources to discuss the topic or rant about it, pro or con. Keep in mind that this isn't a source for positive information about a topic, but a place for a balanced and neutral view of a topic from a strictly scholastic perspective. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The first two links may be of value to some people, but I must agree that links to social networking sites aren't permitted. I see no value in a link to a page that mirrors content from this article. Downstrike (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The blog doesn't look that credible to me, but if it is very prominent in JW culture then it might merit inclusion. Facebook pages should generally not be linked to from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to be helpful, yes, but not to be the one stop for all your JW external link needs. Facebook itself is a better mechanism for sharing less universally-useful links of this kind, because the act of sharing the link is a social and personal experience. Wikipedia is a generalized experience. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the blog is not of encyclopedic interest.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Russell is unbalanced, and focuses unduly on one aspect of Russell's teachings

Russell's chronology about 1914 wasn't his own, Nelson Barbour convinced Russell of it. In 1876, with the Three World's, Barbour was the primary writer, Russell was co-editor, or co-writer.

So the idea of Russell presenting "his" chronology is not accurate, as there were at least 5 ministers before him who presented the idea of 1914. Barbour convinced Russell of an idea that many other ministers espoused in the 1800s and possibly one in the 1700s.

Additionally, Russell's teachings and ministry did not focus on 1914, that is one aspect of his writings. Opposers of JW like to focus on 1914, because what they thought would happen didn't and it is a favorite area to pick at Witnesses. Russell had at least 6 main points of reference in his teachings and minstry, including:

the immortal soul, hellfire, evolution and creation, evidence that the bible was from God, bible chronology, the trinity

For the Wikipedia article to present something on Russell on the opening page of an article on JW, by focusing on 1914, isn't necessary, and a more rounded view in the paragraphs on Russell would give the reader a more accurate picture of Russell's life, ministry and teachings.Natural (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

Scott, the article notes that the Jehovah's Witnesses' central belief is the imminent destruction of the present world order at Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. In view of that fact, it is entirely appropriate and relevant that a brief summary of the history of the religion includes the fact that in 1889 Charles Russell wrote, in Volume 2 of his "Millennial Dawn" series of books, that he believed Armageddon was already under way and that it would be concluded by 1914, with "the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership". In such a brief treatment of the JW history, it is immaterial how or with whom Russell developed his teaching. BlackCab (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Natural, do you propose any specific changes to the 'Background (1870–1916)' section? It seems to be fairly balanced to me; Barbour is mentioned adequately, and at the point where it says that the Watchtower magazine was "highlighting [Russell's] interpretations of biblical chronology", it seems fairly clear that his interpretations were influenced by others. But there's always room for improvement. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The current article mentions "1914" at least nine times in the body alone (with more mentions peppering the abundant footnotes/refs).
Agree that this current main article on Jehovah's Witnesses spends too much time discussing abandoned eschatological beliefs.
Incidentally, it's been discussed elsewhere (eg here) that it's wrong to pretend that Russell was writing about "Armageddon" when he was actually writing of other events, such as 'the end of the Gentile times/times of the nations' and/or the "Second Coming of Christ" and/or "the great tribulation". Even the term "Jehovah's day" was/is not really a synonym of "Armageddon". Thus, if he did not use the explicit term "Armageddon" in a particular ref, editors should not interpret or imply that Russell did. Of course, details of what Russell wrote are much more appropriately discussed at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine or Charles Taze Russell or Bible Student movement (although this last article is remarkably short on doctrinal discussion).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Russell taught that 1914 was a pivotal date and this teaching is maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses maintain their belief in Armageddon. The article notes what Russell wrote in The Time is at Hand about his expectations about "the battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership." Witnesses use that expression and that scripture today to talk about the same thing. Don't pretend otherwise. BlackCab (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Earlier in this thread BlackCab claims: "in 1889 Charles Russell wrote, in Volume 2 of his "Millennial Dawn" series of books, that he believed Armageddon was already under way"; yet on page 365 of that same publication, Russell explicitly wrote, "the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty is impending [that is, yet-future]".
Both Russell and JWs were/are particularly interested in 1914. Nevertheless, it seems that this main article about the religion need not repeat the year NINE times, and should focus less on details of long-abandoned eschatology (and more on their organizational beginnings, though this parenthetical point is better discussed in another thread, such as here or here).
If editors want to discuss whether or not details of eschatological chronology need to be here in this article, this is the thread.
But the detail itself can be discussed elsewhere...
The eschatological beliefs of JWs can be discussed in the Talk page of Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The development of JW doctrine can be discussed in the Talk page of Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.
Russell and his beliefs can be discussed at the Talk page of Charles Taze Russell.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article includes a quote from The Time is at Hand to show that Russell believed the events referred to in revelation 16:14 -- which he called "the great day of God Almighty" and Jehovah's Witnesses today call Armageddon -- had "already commenced". That statement, in the early days of the Watch Tower movement, are pertinent in the light of subsequent "adjusted expectations" of a religion that today still (122 years later) maintains as a 'central, core belief the conviction that Armageddon could be just minutes away. BlackCab (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems remarkably odd to insist so strongly on such a minor and controversial point (from more than a century ago!) in a religion's main article, and it seems obviously preferable that such a tiny grain of specificity be discussed in the Talk of a relevant article... but anyway...
JWs and others (Russell included, apparently) believed that the term "the great day of God Almighty" refers to "the great tribulation", an eschatological period related to but not synonymous with Armageddon. If nothing else, this little theological detour has exposed that certain abandoned eschatological chronology from a century ago has been given undue weight in this main article on the religion.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Denial of free speech and thought

I don't know if you meant this to be you're own opinion or merely quoting the opinion of another but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses i know that what you have written under the heading of 'Denial of free speech and thought' to be misleading and completely untrue. You wrote;

“ The Watch Tower Society instructs followers not to question its doctrines and counsel,[274][275][276] and warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[277][278] and would "cause division". ”

We're actually encouraged to question any teachings we are not sure of and research from any reliable source that we feel necessary. I myself have done this on a number of occasion. It's through rational and logical thinking on our own terms that we reach our own conclusions and more often that not are completely in line with what the watchtower and tract society have already carefully researched and considered and made us feel free to question and countercheck what they have said. They always make a point of encouraging us to make time for personal bible study, as stated in the bible, in Hebrews 11;1; 'Faith is the assured expectation of the things hoped for...' in other words it built on trust which has to be earned, and also, just the fact that Jehovahs witnesses have published countless publications, explaining in full the beliefs of others in different religions aswell as in atheism and the theory of evolution and then explaining as to why they have rejected these as false but with respect. If you have read any of these publications you will see they are accurate and encourage the use of the mind and thinking faculties as was given us for this very reason by god. And the meaning of the independent thinking as encouraged by satan, wasn't so much the freedom of thought,but rather the questioning of gods sovereignty and right to rule, despite the fact he was the creator and we are his creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.8.234 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which publications not published by the Watchtower Society have you used to perform research about JW beliefs about which you had doubts? In any case, your own personal experiences constitute original research, and the article accurately indicates the religion's official stance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That question is irrelevant to Wikipedia, Jeffro (...as you said, it would be OR). The more relevant question is this: Can you provide specific Watchtower references that "[encourage you] to question any teachings [you] are not sure of and research from any reliable source that [you] feel necessary"? The current presentation of the "Denial of free speech and thought" section feels like a very one-sided interpretation of what the WTS teaches, with cherry-picked quotes to make the WTS sound as controlling as possible. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The section reflects the views of critics. If there are indeed, WT quotes (a) suggesting JWs look to other books to test and challenge the WTS views, or (b) inviting contrary views, they would be included. I don't believe there are any such statements in WT publications. As critics have noted, it is an autocratic religion that strongly discourages any debate of teachings and expels members who openly contest or question those teachings. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was rhetorical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that the section is one-sided regarding the selection of statements from Watchtower literature, I'm not aware that there are other statements from the Society that do encourage research from non-JW publications or that put 'independent thinking' (that is, independent of the WTS) in a more positive light. If you are aware of any, feel free to provide them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the Scottish person who wondered whether the statement re questioning doctrines and "independent thinking": The statements were explicitly made by the Watch Tower Society as warnings to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have added some external references to indicate that other authors have noted the pressure the WTS places on JWs to be fully obedient without questioning their religious leaders or delving into non-JW literature. Alan Rogerson, in his Millions Now Living Will Never Die, notes (p.121) about what happens when the WTS changes its doctrines: "Of course it is not wrong to change one's mind, but the Witnesses persist in being certain of everything they believe, even on the slenderest evidence (the Society is always right). When the Society changes its mind, as above, the Witnesses then stay just as certain, but now say the opposite thing" (emphasis all in original). The September 2007 Our Kingdom Ministry told Witnesses that all the study material they need is contained in WTS publications. Weekly Watchtower studies ask questions, but also provide the answers they require Witnesses to give, effectively teaching Witnesses by rote. Small wonder then, that obedient Witnesses will always come to the same conclusion as the Watch Tower Society; as numerous authors have noted, even if they don't understand the doctrine (or see a contradiction) they place faith int the organization that someone has seen it and worked it out for them. Still, those are the sources I've found. Feel free to add any that contradict them. And just for an exercise, offer a comment at this Sunday's Watchtower study in which you disagree with an interpretation offered by the WTS. See what happens! BlackCab (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

JW publications have long discouraged "independent thinking", but the matter of "unquestioning obedience" is far more open to interpretation. Editors may wish to review an earlier discussion on the matter of JWs and "questions": June 2009. The article formerly stated that a corporation makes demands; it seems more encyclopedic to ascribe religious demands to religions, publications, and/or persons.
1.). The section Jehovah's Witnesses#Sources of doctrine formerly stated:

• The Watch Tower Society discourages Witnesses from Bible research or study independent of its publications and meetings.
  

The corporation doesn't have "meetings"; furthermore, it seems better to show the religion or its publications as the source, rather than a corporation. Yet, the cited references don't make the point interpreted; perhaps other refs do, but they are not cited.
The article has been changed to read:

• Their leadership "does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight", and instructs adherents to have "complete confidence" in the leadership and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding".

Also, "The Society also teaches that..." has been reverted back to "Watch Tower publications say...".--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
2.) The section Jehovah's Witnesses#Denial of free speech and thought formerly stated:

• The Watch Tower Society instructs followers not to question its doctrines and counsel<three refs>"
  

The first ref cited a superfluous article and didn't cite any page number; that's been corrected and a quote provided.
"Armed for the Fight Against Wicked Spirits", The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, page 27, "Jehovah is using only one organization. ...If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot!"
The points made in the other two refs are different but somewhat related, and so the sentence has been rephrased to allow them to remain. The second ref (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, page 28) is weak, but I've left it. The third ref (The Watchtower, February 1, 1952) is about speculating rather than questioning. Thus (and for reasons discussed in 1.) immediately above), the statement has been edited to:

• Followers have been instructed to rely on "God's organization" for guidance,<former 1st ref> and not to speculate<former 2nd ref> or question doctrines.<former 3rd ref>

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a key, and frequent, criticism that WTS publications warn Witnesses against delving into non-WTS publications when "studying" the Bible. Your spin is unpersuasive. BlackCab (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel Tam's edits sound more like what the WTS has actually said, as opposed to synthesis of what it has said. The POV presented must be clear at all times; if critics say the WTS says something, we need to say that critics say that the WTS says it, rather than just saying that the WTS says it. That's a lot of 'say'ing, but I think you get the point. We cannot say the WTS says something that it has not directly said. It is not our place to interpret the hidden meaning or intent of the WTS; that is for the critics and related academia. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The references provided make clear the Watch Tower Society's view on Bible research using non-WTS source material and the right of Witnesses to form their own views based on what they read. The statement already has a number of sources, but more could be added, each of which contains the coded language clearly understood by indoctrinated Witnesses, warning against the horrors of "apostates", "false religious literature", "false teachings" and "poisonous writings" and the direction to "loyal Christians" to hold "appreciatively and loyally" to the WTS, which is presented as God's "channel".

• Question from readers, WT May 1, 1984: 'God’s Word warns Christians that “Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works.” ... So it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive. ...Furthermore, some of the religious literature that people may urge Jehovah’s Witnesses to read is written by, or contains the thoughts of, individuals who have apostatized. True Christians are commanded to shun such apostates.'
• "Jehovah's standards help us", WT June 15, 1983: 'Adhering to God’s standard also helps to prevent the spreading of false teachings and views. In the first century, Hymenaeus and Philetus turned apostate and tried to subvert the faith of others. God’s standard was: ‘Shun such empty speeches that violate what is holy.’ Christians holding to that standard would not have been interested in listening to apostates, nor in obtaining any poisonous writings ... Why finance their wickedness by buying their literature? As loyal Christians let us hold to God’s standards, feeding our minds on what is true and righteous, and holding appreciatively and loyally to the channel from which we first learned Bible truth."
• "Happy is he who reads aloud," WT April 1, 1973: 'By doing reading in this manner ... we can see the tremendous assistance we can receive in getting the meaning and understanding of God’s Word. ... We should always be alert to have the correct understanding of God’s Word. We want to avoid twisting the Scriptures, as this would lead us to wrong conclusions and might stumble others. We also want to “shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness.” Needless to say, this means being selective in our reading material. The Scriptures tell us that “to the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” Jehovah through his Son and the operation of the holy spirit has poured out upon his faithful servants on earth a superabundance of blessings and he has opened the minds and hearts of his “faithful and discreet slave” class to understand the true meaning of his Word. In turn, that faithful slave class passes on the precious truths to persons everywhere who will avail themselves of the treasures of truth.'
• "Firmly Uphold Godly Teaching", WT May 1, 2000: 'Apostates can present yet another threat to our spirituality. ... a few individuals have left our ranks, and some among them are bent on defaming Jehovah’s Witnesses by spreading lies and misinformation. ... Some apostates are increasingly using various forms of mass communication, including the Internet, to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Even some Witnesses have unwittingly exposed themselves to this harmful material. ... The apostle John directed Christians not to accept apostates into their homes... Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking. Exposing ourselves to apostate teachings through the various means of modern communication is just as harmful as receiving the apostate himself into our homes. Never should we allow curiosity to lure us into such a calamitous course! ... In the first century, Hymenaeus and Philetus turned apostate and tried to subvert the faith of others. God’s standard was: ‘Shun such empty speeches that violate what is holy.’ Christians holding to that standard would not have been interested in listening to apostates, nor in obtaining any poisonous writings ... As loyal Christians let us hold to God’s standards, feeding our minds on what is true and righteous, and holding appreciatively and loyally to the channel from which we first learned Bible truth. -BlackCab (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1984 Watchtower quoted above makes it clear that JWs are told^* not to examine religious literature from any other sources. But it also indicates that it is not merely 'apostate' literature that they are not allowed to read, but first indicates all (non-JW) religious literature, and only later mentions that some such literature may be from 'apostates' (pejorative usage).

^{*The introduction of the article is phrased as if it is other people reading about what JWs do, however people who are not members of the religion would be unlikely to consider all non-JW literature to be "false religious literature that is designed to deceive", with the single exception of JW publications. This and other statements in the article make it clear that the article is a direction to JWs not to accept non-WTS literature.}--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The source never says "all" or "any"; your interpretation is only "clear" to someone who shares your skeptical POV. The source says "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature", which the two of you seem happy to synthesize into "all non-WT religious literature is forbidden/discouraged". If critics claim that the WT is speaking in code, then we can mention that. But it is considered synthesis to make such an interpretation as you have and assert it as fact. I'm not singling you out, Jeffro; I feel this has been done here and there throughout the article, particularly in the criticism section. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article's opening question is "Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses decline to exchange their Bible study aids for the religious literature of people they meet?" It doesn't say they 'sometimes decline' or 'might decline' or 'are selective about' other religious materials. The article posits accepting other religious literature as something JWs do not do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Watchtower, 15 March, 2006, Keep Clear of False Worship!: "True Christians [JWs] keep clear of false worship, rejecting false religious teachings. This means that we avoid exposure to religious programs on radio and television as well as religious literature that promotes lies about God and his Word. (Psalm 119:37) We also wisely refrain from sharing in social functions and recreational activities sponsored by any organization associated with false religion. Additionally, we do not support false worship in any way. ... What if a person who wishes to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is currently a registered member of a false [any other] religion? ... It is especially important that the person take decisive action to avoid completely any kind of spiritual contamination from false worship."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a core JW teaching that all other religions are "false" and part of "Babylon the Great". If this fundamental point is contested, it will not be difficult to confirm. If this point is not contested, the sources already supplied confirm that JWs are told not to read any non-JW religious literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was up to me We would cut out all the WatchTower sources. Its truly bizarre that we have essentially WP:PRIMARY Sources that are 60-70 even 90 years old as sources. There are plenty of actual WP:SECONDARY scholarly sources we should be using. We dont allow Scientology articles to have Freedom magazine as a source, same here. There so many WP:SECONDARY Sources there is no need to create an article from. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree that it would be ideal to replace the old Watchtower sources with newer secondary sources. I doubt it is immediately viable for the entire article, but probably possible for most of it. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No it would have to be a long term goal, but doable none the less. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a key teaching of JWs that only they are the "true" religion and that all others are "false religion". Any and all religious literature produced by non-WTS sources is necessarily suspect, while WTS literature is said to be sufficient to "fill" their research needs. It should be an easy matter to preface the sentence in that section with that sourced statement. I'm a bit dubious about your proposal to remove WT quotes and statements on the basis they are primary sources. Most of those quotes simply verify the WTS position on doctrines and practices, and in some cases, rebut critics' claims. BlackCab (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those sources are more 60 or 70 years old. Theology shifts substantially in every movement epsecially over seventy years. Its says right there in WP:PRIMARY do not base article on PRIMARY Sources Which is exactly which this one is doing. Why are Secular Secondary sources Suspect? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A few statements are sourced to WTS publications pre-1950, but your claim that "most" are 60 or 70 years old is wide of the mark. WP:PSTS says sourcing is a matter of common sense. In an article dealing with a controversial religion, it seems a safer course to clearly state the official view, and source it directly, rather than rely on interpretations. BlackCab (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Really Amazing WP:SYNTH WP:CPgoing on here with WP:PRIMARY Sourcing going on here. PRobably going to look at this tomorrow or friday. This is really Unbelievable mess of WP:SYNTH to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG, I'm, like, really curious to know what POV you see. Presumably you will discuss before making major changes. BlackCab (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

R.A., did you get hacked? (or drunk?) That comment seemed unusually incoherent and exaggerated. I agree there is a slant to the interpretation of WTS sources in some instances, but I'd hardly call it "amazing" or "unbelievable". BlackCab, you say that "most of those quotes simply verify the WTS position on doctrines and practices". I agree that citing the WTS is appropriate for this purpose; when talking about JW doctrine, it's usually best to refer to its primary source. I only raise issue when I see things like the synthesis I mentioned above.

Regarding that particular example: just because JWs consider all other religions to be false, doesn't necessarily mean that they consider the literature from said religions to be 100% evil. Surely JWs must occasionally refer to other religious literature when it strongly agrees with their beliefs. A bit of Googling got me this WT article that refers to a snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia and a few other Catholic sources that support their view of the Holy Ghost (near end of article). It's not direct support of these sources, but it certainly isn't condemnation of their usage. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Watch Tower literature does sometimes refer to statements made in other religious publications. As Raymond Franz noted in In Search of Christian Freedom, however, it seems to claim the sole right to be able to read and quote such material, while warning rank and file members against reading such publications for themselves for fear they contain "poison". I would challenge anyone to come up with one WTS reference encouraging rank and file members to research biblical beliefs in any non-WTS publication. Their literature urges Witnesses to delve deeper into the organization's own material (it is, after all, a "provision" from God through his sole channel), while warning of the dangers of researching online or even accepting religious literature from homes where they call. BlackCab (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While they may avoid material from other religions, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a religion and as individuals) certainly do not avoid all non-WT material, but routinely perform research in scholarly secular works of history, sociology, Bible commentary, archaeology, language, and a wide range of reference publications.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That wording needs clarification. Witnesses are certainly allowed to use secular works for research. It is only publications from religious organisations and former members that they are warned may contain "poisonous writings" and should thus be avoided. BlackCab (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction aka hypocrisy

How can JW claim to be a Christian denomination when "The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, p. 229 par. 6 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania | “Christendom Has Failed God! After Her End, What?” states otherwise?

This is a cult, nothing more and nothing less. Worldentropy (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing Jehovah's Witnesses in general. This page is for discussing changes to the Jehovah's Witnesses Wikipedia article. But the short answer to your question is that JWs use the word "Christianity" in varying ways, and acknowledge that other denominations have some correct beliefs and practices, but believe that their religion is the only "true" Christianity. See also Restorationism (Christian primitivism). Your assessment that JWs are a "cult" falls in line with the definition at cult: "The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange", but is limited in its correctness to your own point of view, and is not correct as a broad generalization. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The usual dogmatic argument of JWs, and even the same attempt at ridicule from sentence one of anyone else outside the cult; oh, but the cult dares not speak against the teachings of the governing body, so no one else should or is allowed to. Lucky for us truth-undeserving agents of Satan, it's still a somewhat free world, at least in some Internet quarters. But I forget, only JW's have been bestowed with the gift of reading and writing by warrior jehova, with no such luck for us non-believers to know that this is not a forum to discuss JWs in general. So before I go on, Mr., sorry, or are you an elder, open your eyes (physically holding the lids open) and note that I was actually referring to a very specific word and concept within the article, that being Christianity, and hence the talk page here is very relevant, and thus not discussing JWs in a general context, which I could do all day, all night, forever.

More to the point, I'm absolutely armoured with those ideas/cults/religions ad infinitum, that cannot withstand a sound logical argument even at the most basic fundamental level, thus hiding behind a completely absurd notion that theirs is the the only true religion, the only truth, the only, well, ONLY !!. Unless, of course, the logic is theirs, references are theirs, last word is theirs and, in your case, the universe is theirs (well, at least belonging to those 144k chosen ones, the great crowd as you to call them). Yours, most interestingly my dear fellow, takes it a step further, in that you don't only claim to be the only true religion, you are the only truth!!, so how dare any other denomination, Christian or otherwise, lay a shadow of a claim to that all important honour?!. Alas, a very convenient and simple wild card to use in any sticky situation, arguing with anyone at all.

So now to your hilariously funny answer, which goes to prove pretty much most what's been submitted above, and I wouldn't even need bother get back to the absolute mountains of intellectual non-sense that you make it your business to spend donations on.

Let me understand this right from the onset. You stated JWs acknowledge other denominations have some correct beliefs, and stop here, and submit that this is blatantly false, sighting just one example of many, about your change of worshipped God (lol) from Jesus to jehova in 1954. Before 1954, someone could be disfellowshipped if they did not worship Jesus, and after 1954, you would be disfellowshipped if you did; intriguing, and the reason is that the Bible truth hasn't changed, and God didn't create this discrepancy, but feeble men did, in this case your leaders; Therefore, the very boringly obvious conclusion is that to be classified as a Jehovah's Witness, following truth was not important, following the incorrect teachings of men was. But then again, God is the God of truth (Ex 34:6), and you have copyright and exclusive royalty of jehovah, so there you go.

Then you go on to say but believe theirs to be the only true Christianity and I put it to you to state your reference(s) from your publications to back this up, when all you seem to refer to in your publications is the true religion not true Christianity.

Otherwise, could you explain why every other acknowledged Christian denomination actually vigorously deny you to be Christian, and you reciprocate by shunning Christianity and refer to it as Christendom? Answer this, and you would have contradicted the article referred to in my original submission, namely "The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, p. 229 par. 6 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania | “Christendom Has Failed God! After Her End, What?”. If this isn't argument that your cult has nothing to do with Christianity, could you please enlighten us Satan agents to the contrary, perhaps you'll make believers of us yet.

Next let's look at your definition of cult, and even though you site no references (surprised not; just another JWs trait, since those outside the truth are not deserving of it, the only references are their truth, and there you have the most powerful weapon of them all - mental (re)programming and conditioning), let's assume it is my submission; Save that, it is far from being my assessment. Any quick overview of a large number of independent assessments, will actually give any observer enough material to conclude that this assessment has actually been made pretty much since inception, so my submission is anything but original. Note, of course, that independent is a word JWs also have a problem with because those independents, whomever they are Satan's agents at best, let alone deserving of the truth :D Worldentropy (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attack is unnecessary. User:B Fizz has never given any indication that he is a JW. To answer your initial point, the term "Christian denomination" was added after extensive and often heated debate some months ago that led to a consensus based on reliable published sources. The claims that they are a cult are discussed at another Wikipedia article here. I'm unsure about his claim that the WTS has conceded some religions have correct beliefs and practices; Watch Tower publications always denigrate other religions as "false" an an insult to God. I'm no fan of the JWs and explain why on my user page, but this isn't the place to debate the rights and wrongs of the JWs. BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew I should have left my "short answer" off of that response. The main point I wanted to get across in my reply was that this page is not a forum for discussing Jehovah's Witnesses in general. In any event, in the future, Worldentropy, I would appreciate it if you would not jump to conclusions, and if you would respond in a more succinct way. Also, for future reference, I am, in fact, not a Jehovah's Witness (never have been, and with all due respect, likely never will be).

BlackCab, I suggest merely that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are not entirely unique; the WTS, especially in its early days, would be very stupid to ignore that other religions teach some doctrines that JWs consider to be true (Christ rose on the third day, man must repent to be saved, etc). However, the WTS would certainly never condone the entire bundle of beliefs and practices that comes with any one religion other than their own. Despite my argument, I admit I actually know very little about Jehovah's Witnesses, and mostly try to imagine what the logical thing to do would be for an organization that wishes to 1) portray itself as the only elected organization of God, and 2) still exist (ideally, grow) in the foreseeable future. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder

The recently-added reference to J. F. Rutherford as the "founder" of Jehovah's Witnesses has been removed as WP:FRINGE.
See below (#Founder refs).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It was poor form to lump all of those changes into one, but I generally agree with them so will not revert. I had forgotten that the template has a "founder" field. Russell is clearly the legal founder, and should be named as such on the template. In a literary sense, Rutherford is a founder as well; however, Wikipedia should prefer plain, legal language over literary devices. Rutherford did not, as far as I am aware, establish any legal entity to represent the religion; rather he used the WTS, established by CT Russell, which was a natural choice since he was Russell's elected successor. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder refs

Founder references (60)

1. "The first period was dominated by the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell (1852- 1916)."–Winds of change by Manfred Ernst, Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994
2. "Charles Taze Russell, the Pennsylvania founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."–The Cambridge history of Africa, Volume 8 by Andrew D. Roberts, Roland Anthony Oliver, Cambridge University Press, 1986, page 151
3. "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell"–A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209
4. "Konenkov's connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and his special interest in the founder of this community, Charles Taze Russell"–The Uncommon Vision of Sergei Konenkov by Sergeĭ Timofeevich Konenkov, et al, Rutgers University Press, 2001, page 68
5. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Their nineteenth-century founder, Charles Taze Russell, calculated..."–Is Latin America Turning Protestant? by David Stoll, University of California Press, 1991, page 106
6. "Charles Taze Russell is regarded by observers as the founder of the Jehovah's witnesses"–The Theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses by George Dallas McKinney, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, page 20
7. "Later, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, would embrace..."–From Atlantis to the Sphinx by Colin Wilson, Weiser, 2004, page 63
8. "Jehovah's Witnesses, which was founded by "Pastor" Russell and..."–African American Religious History by Milton C. Sernett, Duke University Press, 1999, page 466
9. "Jehovah's Witnesses are a remarkably active and dynamic sect, visible to most from street-corner or door-to-door encounters. They were founded by Charles Taze Russell"–The New York Times Almanac 2002 by John Wright, Psychology Press, 2001
10. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916). Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association)."–The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition by J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell, Peter Toon, Zondervan, 1989, page 332
11. "Jehovah's Witnesses. ...They were founded by Charles Taze Russell..."–The New York Times Guide, Macmillan, 2004, page 503
12. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852 in Pittsburgh..."–Religious sects by J. Juan Díaz Vilar, Catholic Book Pub Co, 1992, page 35
13. "Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses was Charles Taze Russell..."–Politics, Volume 2 by Dwight Macdonald, Greenwood, 1945, page 346
14. ""Pastor" Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was raised a Presbyterian"–Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Volume 1 by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck, Facts on File, 2001, page 355
15. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Taze ("Pastor") Russell (1852— 1916) , its founder, was reared in a Congregational family"–American Christianity: 1820-1960 by Hilrie Shelton Smith, Robert T. Handy, Scribner, 1963, page 332
16. "[Jehovah's] Witnesses acknowledge Jehovah God as their founder. The modern movement was organized in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell."–Academic American Encyclopedia, Volume 11, Aretê Pub. Co., 1980, page 394
17. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..."–Great Events From History II by Frank Northen Magill, Salem Press, 1992, page 629
18. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."–The New York times Encyclopedic Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1973, page 465
19. "The premillennialist views of Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses in the nineteenth Century..."–Fides et historia, Volumes 20-21, Conference on Faith and History, 1988, page 13
20. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."–Official Associated Press Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1970, page 425
21. "Jehovah's Witnesses furnish another interesting case. The founder of the movement, Charles Taze Russell, enjoyed"–Charisma and leadership in organizations by Alan Bryman, Sage Publications, 1992, page 75
22. "The nineteenth-century founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, supported..."–Living Religions by Mary Pat Fisher, Prentice-Hall, 2002, page 271
23. "Jehovah's Witnesses. This religious group is little more than 100 years old (1872). The founder was Charles T. Russell"–A Look at Today's Churches by Herbert J. A. Bouman, Concordia Pub. House, 1980, page 67
24. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."–The CBS News Almanac, Hammond, 1976, page 903
25. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, published a book in 1891"–Methods of Modifying Speech Behaviors by Donald E. Mowrer, Waveland, 1988, page 36
26. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement was Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)."–Gods and Men by Brian Walter Sherratt, David J. Hawkin, Blackie, 1972, page 63
27. "[T]he modern Jehovah's Witnesses sect was founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1872."–The American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 105, American Psychiatric Association, 1949, page 646
28. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, first announced..."–The End of the World: A History by Otto Friedrich, Fromm International Pub. Corp., 1986, page 352
29. "Russell's Pyramid commemorates Charles Taze Russell (founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) who died in October 1916."–A Guidebook to Historic Western Pennsylvania by Helene Smith, George Swetnam, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, page 43
30. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, duplicated Miller's penchant..."–Contemporary American Religion: Volume 1 by Wade Clark Roof, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, page 5
31. "Russell, Charles Taze [Called "Pastor" Russell.] b. at Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 16, 1852; d. in Texas, Oct. 31, 1916. American religious leader, founder of the sect known as Russellites or Jehovah's Witnesses. "–New Century Cyclopedia of Names, Volume 3 by Clarence L. Barnhart, Prentice-Hall, 1980, page 3432
32. "Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement. "–Religion in the Twenty-first Century by Mary Pat Fisher, Ninian Smart, Prentice Hall, 1999, page 83
33. "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell."–American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478
34. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE (1852;1916), founder of the "Jehovah's Witnesses." "–Who Was Who in Church History by Elgin Sylvester Moyer, Moody Press, 1968, pages 357
35. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was the founder-leader of the organization that came to be called the Jehovah's Witnesses."–Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, page 94
36. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born in 1852..."–Extraordinary Groups by Richard T. Schaefer, W. W. Zellner, Macmillan, 2007, page 250
37. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, was born on February 16, 1852..."–Pick a God, Any God by Doris Neumann, Doug Olson, Xulon Press, 2002, page 89
38. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the official corporate name of what is popularly termed the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born..."–Religious leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research, 1999, page 482
39. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..."–Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner, Baker Academic, 2004, page 364
40. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916) Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses"–Who's Who in Christian History by J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992, page 600
41. "Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses were founded...under the leadership of Charles Taze Russell"–Religion and the law in America by Scott A. Merriman, ABC-CLIO, 2007, page 81
42. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses"–Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions by Larry A. Nichols, George Mather, Alvin J. Schmidt
43. "Jehovah's Witnesses...According to founder Charles Taze Russell..."–The End of the World As We Know It by Daniel Wojcik, NYU Press, 1999, page 27
44. "Jehovah's Witnesses [came] into being in the 1870s. The founder, Charles Taze Russell..."–The complete idiot's guide to Christianity by Jeffrey B. Webb, Penguin, 2004
45. "Russell. Charles Taze. known as Pastor Russell 1852-1916 US religious leader, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses"–The Riverside Dictionary of Biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, page 695
46. "Jehovah's Witnesses...But they have been called by many other names since their movement began in the days prior to 1872 when their founder, Charles Russell, began meeting with a small group of Christians"–The Religion Book by Jim Willis, Visible Ink Press, 2004, page 290
47. "Maria Frances Ackley was the wife of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."–Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment by Gerald R. McDermott, Regent College Publishing, 2000, page 125
48. "Russell, Charles Taze — The founder of what is the present-day Jehovah's Witnesses..."–Handbook of Today's Religions by Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Incorporated, 1992, page 556
49. "Charles T. Russell, 1852-1916, an American religious leader, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses"–The World Book dictionary, Volume 1, World Book, 2003, page 1826
50. "Witnesses' belief-system...is rationalistic and devoid of mystery. The movement's founder, Charles Taze Russell, asserted that..."–Religion in the Contemporary World by Alan Aldridge, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, page 117
51. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses."–Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform by William Gerald McLoughlin, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 17
52. "Russell, Charles Taze 1 852-1916. Amer. founder of Jehovah's Witnesses."–Webster's II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005, page 1388
53. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852..."–America's Alternative Religions by Timothy Miller, SUNY Press, 1995, page 35
54. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, followed the path..."–Judging Jehovah's Witnesses by Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas, 2000, page 17
55. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, based his own..."–Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology by Lewis Spence, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, page 759
56. "Jehovah's Witnesses [predicted more] than any other American religious group. Charles Taze Russell, the founder, was like William Miller..."–From our Christian heritage by C. Douglas Weaver, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1997, page 241
57. "The Jehovah's Witnesses...has maintained a very different attitude toward history. Established initially in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell under the title International Bible Students Association, this organization has proclaimed..."–Religious Diversity and American Religious History by Walter H. Conser, Sumner B. Twiss, University of Georgia Press, 1997, page 136
58. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, made similar..."–Taking the Bible Seriously by J. Benton White, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, page 123
59. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, claimed..."–The end of the world? by Reginald Stackhouse, Paulist Press, 1997, page 58
60. "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Religious organization originated in the USA in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)."–Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia by Edith M. Horsley, Hutchinson, 1965, page 595
    

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed by Jeffro77 08:57, 9 February 2011.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors (such as Jeffro77 04:34, 12 February 2011 (again)) should refrain from removing the bona fide comments of other editors (try this).
When certain editors persisted and insisted that Jehovah's Witnesses' "founder" is a person other than that named by a preponderance of references, it seemed timely to show several dozen such explicit references. That serves both current editors and future editors who note this thread in the Talk archive of this article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:TALKO clearly states, "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." and "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should...normally stop if there is any objection."

Let me be clear: I object to the deletion of my comments:

• This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam at 19:27, 8 February 2011.; Jeffro's deletion.
• This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam at 22:55, 11 February 2011.; Jeffro's deletion.
• This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam at 05:49, 12 February 2011.;Jeffro77's deletion.

I have reinstated my comments here at Talk.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Practical history v eschatological details

This is the main article for Jehovah's Witnesses. Its section on Russell was formerly overloaded with details of how his eschatological chronology developed, but the section almost completely ignored Russell's efforts to establish Jehovah's Witnesses (then known as the International Bible Students Association) as a cohesive religious movement (that is, sect, denomination, religion–take your pick). I've removed some of that undue detail and instead added this:
Some thirty congregations had been founded, and during 1879 and 1880 Russell visited each to teach the pattern of meetings he recommended. Seeking to consolidate the religious movement, in the 1880s Russell combined printing facilities and a meeting house into an Allegheny headquarters he named Bible House; in 1881, he founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society and incorporated it with himself as president in 1884.
Russell had been elected "pastor" of the Pittsburgh congregation in 1882, and thereafter was often introduced as "Pastor Russell". About 500 congregations eventually elected him as their pastor, and in this religious capacity Russell corresponded with "a select group" of individuals regarding their local pastoral work. By about 1900 Russell had organized thousands of part- and full-time colporteurs (now pioneers), and was appointing foreign missionaries and establishing branch offices. By the 1910s, Russell's organization was maintaining nearly a hundred "pilgrims" (now circuit overseers). A program was established in 1913 whereby selected branch offices could issue Verbi Dei Minister certifications, and Russell eventually recommended that congregations appoint as elders and deacons only those 'reasonably able' to answer the "V.D.M." questions.
Russell moved headquarters to New York City in 1909, again combining printing and corporate offices with a house of worship he named "Brooklyn Tabernacle"; volunteers were housed in a nearby residence he named Bethel. Russell formally identified the religious movement as "Bible Students", and more specifically, as the "International Bible Students Association". The evangelism efforts of Russell's organization included the 1914 film The Photo-Drama of Creation, seen by about nine million. In addition to Watch Tower publications, Russell's weekly column was carried by more than 2000 newspapers in the United States and other English-speaking countries. He regularly traveled to speak at Bible Student events, debates, and other engagements; Russell died at age 64 during a speaking tour in late 1916.
I believe this is much more encyclopedically relevant.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The history section was previously trimmed after complaints about its length. The edit you made added far too much material that belongs in the history article. I have removed most. BlackCab (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the main article on Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems more important that the article inform readers about the beginnings of this religious organization, rather than details of eschatological chronology abandoned about a century ago. More importantly, despite an abundance of evidence that he did, the article formerly gave readers the impression that Russell failed to establish a religious organization. It seems important to counteract that wrong impression by including details of how Russell used the Watch Tower organization to employ colporteurs, appoint missionaries, open branch offices, certify local ministers and traveling representatives, and form new congregations. Along with the reasons he did so (not merely "to distribute tracts and Bibles" but rather "Seeking to consolidate the religious movement"), Russell's organization efforts have been reinstated.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated the "eschatological chronology" to which you're referring. In general, the article should briefly discuss the development of core doctrines, such as 1914. However, it would not be necessary, for example, for the article to address Russell's beliefs about white supremacy. No objection to adding other notable sourced details to the article if they are pertinent, though only brief and directly relevant details need be added to the Background section. Details such as the newspaper circulation of Russell's sermons is not relevant to JWs. Linking JW jargon terms such as 'pioneer' (a single line in the target article) is unnecessary to the scope of the Background section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'eschatological chronology' is that which was removed in this edit, namely:

• 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". By 1897, he believed that the end of "the Gentile Times" in October 1914 would culminate with the overthrow of all political and ecclesiastical rulership followed by the full establishment of God's kingdom on earth.

I agree that Russell's newspaper work need not be mentioned in this article.

By contrast, I believe appointed positions such as "colporteurs" (now pioneers) and "pilgrims" (now circuit overseers) should be mentioned and juxtaposed (Russell's IBSA term with modern JW term in parentheses), since the section in question should show the continuity between the 19th century beginnings of a 21st century religious organization. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a brief summary only of material that is in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article. In such a long article there's certainly no need for the depth of detail User:AuthorityTam keeps adding. BlackCab (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawless

For some time, the article included this statement:

• Members who formally leave the religion ("disassociating") are also shunned.
  

An editor twice changed that to:

• "Members who formally leave the religion ("disassociating") are described as "lawless"<ref> and also shunned. [The reference: "Do You Hate Lawlessness?", The Watchtower, February 15, 2011, page 31].
  

The article cited never makes the point interpreted. It has again been reverted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph on page 31 is at the conclusion of an article that deals with one subject: how JWs should view "lawlessness". It reads: "Do we share Jesus’ view of those who have become set in their lawless course? We need to give thought to these questions: ‘Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated himself from the Christian congregation? What if that one is a close relative who no longer lives at home?’ Such a situation can be a real test of our love of righteousness and of our loyalty to God." Paragraph 18 declares (with the usual cultic outlook) that it is an "act of love" to shun an individual who is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself. The question on paragraph 18 threfore reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" There are no other practisers of "lawlessness" mentioned in the paragraph, so the connection between disassociation (an unqualified expression that therefore embraces any reason for formal resignation) and "lawlessness" is unambiguous.BlackCab (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab's insisted point is not usable in the article because it results from his WP:ORIGINAL SYN, and (as an unnecessary side point) the refs do not support the editor's interpretation anyway. Nevertheless, I plan to wait until his frenzy subsides before I again edit the article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that adding the reference to "lawlessness" (drawn from a recent Watchtower) is a "frenzy" of editing, but there you go! You seem embarrassed by the use of the term, but it's there and unambiguous, and will remain. BlackCab (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because "lawless" does not appear in the same sentence as "disassociated", it does not mean that there is necessarily any synthesis involved. That text quoted from the paragraph in the source material is unambiguously stating that "someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated" is "a practicer of lawlessness". Unless it can be proven that the source does not actually say what is quoted above, it is being used appropriately to describe JWs' own teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I googled the article (pdf), and skimming through, found this on page 26: "Jesus said that he came to call sinners, or lawless ones, to repentance." This clearly equates lawlessness to sin, not particularly to disfellowship. It's obvious that the disfellowshipped are considered to be sinners, but the title "lawless" is not reserved particularly for them. We should either leave this detail out, or make clear precisely whom the Witnesses are calling "lawless". ...comments? ~BFizz 03:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the lede we are distinguishing between "disassociation" and "disfellowship". The article describes disfellowshipping as a result of "unrepentant lawelssness"; it would be more appropriate to associate the term "lawless" with disfellopshipping rather than disassociation. Quoting the article: ...he unrepentantly chose to practice lawlessness. Hence, he was disfellowshipped...' ...comments? ~BFizz 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree with your first point. The JW article quoted above made special mention of 'disfellowshipped'/'disassociated' people in an article specifically about "lawlessness". Regarding your second point, it would be appropriate to identify the claim of 'lawlessness' with both terms used for those shunned rather than only disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I think by skimming the article, you've missed the point. The Watchtower article argues that a sinner is also practising lawlessness (or "wickedness", paragraph 2). In view of the fact that the Wiki article notes that JWs are directed to shun those who formally resign (disassociate) from the religion (certainly not an action found in orthodox religions), it is certainly helpful to indicate the purported justification from the WTS for doing so. In this case, it is that those who opt to leave are "lawless" (or wicked). The wording of the sentence in the Wiki article does not indicate that only former members are branded as "lawless"; it does however offer the information that that's the way those who quit the religion are viewed. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The JW view is that all lawlessness is sin, but not that all sin is lawlessness. The distinction, to them, is that 'lawless' people make a practice of sinning. If their intent was that all sin is 'lawlessness', it would be redundant to say that disfellowshipped/disassociated people were 'lawless' because JWs believe that all people—including JWs—'sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is clear: sin is equated to lawlessness because sin is considered to be disobedience to the laws of God. The article seems to use the phrase "unrepentant lawlessness" to refer to those who should be shunned. I agree that it applies to both disfellow/disassoc and it seems undue to only mention it for one and not the other. Please review my small change to the text. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed 'consequently'. They are shunned because they are former members, not specifically as a consequence of being unrepentantly lawless. There are (other) 'worldly' people who JWs would also class as 'unrepentantly lawless' but who would not be shunned in the same manner as are former members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving from consideration of 'disfellowshipped' to 'disassociated', but referring to 'disfellowshipped' as a parenthetical when referring to 'disassociated' seemed kind of awkward. I've decided to separate the thought about 'lawlessness' from the shunning of disassociated individuals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics graph

The graph at Jehovah's Witnesses#Demographics is dated only to 2005. Is anyone able to update that? BlackCab (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)